__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 13: Revelation-Stock 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 13 Revelation to Stock New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Revelation Revelation I. MEANING OF REVELATION Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature. The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind -- mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man. The mode of communication, however, may be mediate. Revelation does not cease to be such if God's message is delivered to us by a prophet, who alone is the recipient of the immediate communication. Such in brief is the account of Revelation given in the Constitution "De Fide Catholica" of the Vatican Council. The Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907), by its condemnation of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have come down to us from heaven" (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and not "an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts" (prop., 22). It will be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from: + inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a sacred book; for this, while involving a special illumination of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these truths; + from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and, + from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these. During the past century the Church has been called on to reject as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted. + The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called, inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is undergoing constant change as human knowledge grows and man's mind develops; so that the dogmatic formul which are now true will gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index in 1857, and his erroneous propositions definitively condemned in the decrees of the Vatican Council. + the Modernist view (Loisy, Tyrrell). According to this school, there is no such thing as Revelation in the sense of a direct communication from God to man. The human soul reaching up towards the unknowable God is ever endeavouring to interpret its sentiments in intellectual formul . The formul it thus frames are our ecclesiastical dogmas. These can but symbolize the Unknowable; they can give us no real knowledge regarding it. Such an error is manifestly subversive of all belief, and was explicitly condemned by the Decree "Lamentabili" and the Encyclical "Pascendi" (8 Sept., 1907). + With the view just mentioned is closely connected the Pragmatist view of M. Leroy ("Dogme et Critique", Paris, 2nd ed. 1907). Like the Modernists, he sees in revealed dogmas simply the results of spiritual experience, but holds their value to lie not in the fact that they symbolize the Unknowable, but that they have practical value in pointing the way by which we may best enjoy experience of the Divine. This view was condemned in the same documents as the last mentioned. II. POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION The possibility of Revelation as above explained has been strenuously denied from various points of view during the last century. For this reason the Church held it necessary to issue special decrees on the subject in the Vatican Council. Its antagonists may be divided into two classes according to the different standpoints from which they direct their attack, viz: + Rationalists (under this class we include both Deist and Agnostic writers). Those who adopt this standpoint rely in the main on two fundamental objections: they either urge that the miraculous is impossible, and that Revelation involves miraculous interposition on the part of the Deity; or they appeal to the autonomy of reason, which it is maintained can only accept as truths the results of its own activities. + Immanentists. To this class may be assigned all those whose objections are based on Kantian and Hegelian doctrines as to the subjective character of all our knowledge. The views of these writers frequently involve a purely pantheistic doctrine. But even those who repudiate pantheism, in place of the personal God, Ruler, and Judge of the world, whom Christianity teaches, substitute the vague notion of the "Spirit" immanent in all men, and regard all religious creeds as the attempts of the human soul to find expression for its inward experience. Hence no religion, whether pagan or Christian, is wholly false; but none can claim to be a message from God free from any admixture of error. (Cf. Sabatier, "Esquisse", etc., Bk. I, cap. ii.) Here too the autonomy of reason is invoked as fatal to the doctrine of Revelation properly so called. In the face of these objections, it is evident that the question of the possibility of Revelation is at present one of the most vital portions of Christian apologetic. If the existence of a personal God be once established, the physical possibility at least of Revelation is undeniable. God, who has endowed man with means to communicate his thoughts to his fellows, cannot be destitute of the power to communicate His own thoughts to us. [Martineau, it is true, denies that we possess faculties either to receive or to authenticate a divine revelation concerning the past or the future (Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 311); but such an assertion is arbitrary and extravagant in the extreme.] However, numerous difficulties have been urged on grounds other than that of physical possibility. In estimating their value it seems desirable to distinguish three aspects of Revelation, viz: as it makes known to us; (1) truths of the natural law, (2) mysteries of the faith, (3) positive precepts, e.g. regarding Divine worship. (1) The revelation of truths of the natural law is certainly not inconsistent with God's wisdom. God so created man as to bestow on him endowments amply sufficient for him to attain his last end. Had it been otherwise, the creation would have been imperfect. If over and above this He decreed to make the attainment of beatitude yet easier for man by placing within his reach a far simpler and far more certain way of knowing the law on the observance of which his fate depended, this is an argument for the Divine generosity; it does not disprove the Divine wisdom. To assume, with certain Rationalists, that exceptional intervention can only be explained on the ground that God was unable to embrace His ultimate design in His original scheme is a mere petitio principii. Further, the doctrine of original sin supplies an additional reason for such a revelation of the natural law. That doctrine teaches us that man by the abuse of his free will has rendered his attainment of salvation difficult. Though his intellectual faculties are not radically vitiated, yet his grasp of truth is weakened; his recognition of the moral law is constantly clouded by doubts and questionings. Revelation gives to his mind the certainty he had lost, and so far repairs the evils consequent on the catastrophe which had befallen him. (2) Still more difficulty has been felt regarding mysteries. It is freely asserted that a mystery is something repugnant to reason, and therefore something intrinsically impossible. This objection rests on a mere misunderstanding of what is signified by a mystery. In theological terminology a conception involves a mystery when it is such that the natural faculties of the mind are unable to see how its elements can coalesce. This does not imply anything contrary to reason. A conception is only contrary to reason when the mind can recognize that its elements are mutually exclusive, and therefore involve a contradiction in terms. A more subtle objection is that urged by Dr. J. Caird, to the effect that every truth that can be partially communicated to the mind by analogies is ultimately capable of being fully grasped by the understanding. "Of all such representations, unless they are purely illusory, it must hold good that implicitly and in undeveloped form they contain rational thought and therefore thought which human intelligence may ultimately free from its sensuous veil. . . . Nothing that is absolutely inscrutable to reason can be made known to faith" (Philosophy of Religion, p. 71). The objection rests on a wholly exaggerated view regarding the powers of the human intellect. The cognitive faculty of any nature is proportionate to its grade in the scale of being. The intelligence of a finite intellect can only penetrate a finite object; it is incapable of comprehending the Infinite. The finite types through which the Infinite is made known to it can never under any circumstances lead to more than analogous knowledge. It is further frequently urged that the revelation of what the mind cannot understand would be an act of violence to the intellect; and that this faculty can only accept those truths whose intrinsic reasonableness it recognizes. This assertion, based on the alleged autonomy of reason, can only be met with denial. The function of the intellect is to recognize and admit any truth which is adequately presented to it, whether that truth be guaranteed by internal or by external criteria. The reason is not deprived of its legitimate activity because the criteria are external. It finds ample scope in weighing the arguments for the credibility of the fact asserted. The existence of mysteries in the Christian religion was expressly taught by the Vatican Council (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii). "If anyone shall say that no mysteries properly so called are contained in the Divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and proved from natural principles by human reason duly cultivated -- let him be anathema." (3) The older (Deist) School of Rationalists denied the possibility of a Divine revelation imposing any laws other than those which natural religion enjoins on man. These writers regarded natural religion as, so to speak, a political constitution determining the Divine government of the universe, and held that God could only act as its terms prescribed. This error likewise was proscribed at the same time (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii). "If any one shall say that it is impossible or that it is inexpedient that man should be instructed regarding God and the worship to be paid to Him by Divine revelation -- let him be anathema." It can hardly be questioned that the "autonomy of reasons" furnishes the main source of the difficulties at present felt against Revelation in the Christian sense. It seems desirable to indicate very briefly the various ways in which that principle is understood. It is explained by M. Blondel, an eminent member of the Immanentist School, as signifying that "nothing can enter into a man which does not proceed from him, and which does not correspond in some manner to an interior need of expansion; and that neither in the sphere of historic facts nor of traditional doctrine, nor of commands imposed by authority, can any truth rank as valid for a man or any precept as obligatory, unless it be in some way autonomous and autochthonous" (Lettre sur les exigences, etc., p. 601). Although M. Blondel has in his own case reconciled this principle with the acceptance of Catholic belief, yet it may readily be seen that it affords an easy ground for the denial not merely of the possibility of external Revelation, but of the whole historic basis of Christianity. The origin of this erroneous doctrine is to be found in the fact that within the sphere of the natural speculative reason, truths which are received purely on external authority, and which are in no way connected with principles already admitted, can scarcely be said to form part of our knowledge. Science asks for the inner reason of things and can make no use of truths save in so far as it can reach the principles from which they flow. The extension of this to religious truths is an error directly traceable to the assumption of the eighteenth-century philosophers that there are no religious truths save those which the human intellect can attain unaided. The principle is, however, sometimes applied with a less extensive signification. It may be understood to involve no more than that reason cannot be compelled to admit any religious doctrine or any moral obligation merely because they possess extrinsic guarantees of truth; they must in every case be able to justify their validity on intrinsic grounds. Thus Prof. J. Caird writes: "Neither moral nor religious ideas can be simply transferred to the human spirit in the form of fact, nor can they be verified by any evidence outside of or lower than themselves" (Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, p. 31). A somewhat different meaning again is implied in the canon of the Vatican Council in which the right of the intellect to claim absolute independence (autonomy) is denied. "If anyone shall say that human reason is independent in such wise that faith cannot be commanded it by God -- let him be anathema" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. i). This canon is directed against the position maintained as already noted by the older Rationalists and the Deists, that human reason is amply sufficient without exterior assistance to attain to absolute truth in all matters of religion (cf. Vacant, "Etudes Theologiques", I, 572; II, 387). III. NECESSITY OF REVELATION Can it be said that Revelation is necessary to man? There can be no question as to its necessity, if it be admitted that God destines man to attain a supernatural beatitude which surpasses the exigencies of his natural endowments. In that case God must needs reveal alike the existence of that supernatural end and the means by which we are to attain it. But is Revelation necessary even in order that man should observe the precepts of the natural law? If our race be viewed in its present condition as history displays it, the answer can only be that it is, morally speaking, impossible for men unassisted by Revelation, to attain by their natural powers such a knowledge of that law as is sufficient to the right ordering of life. In other words, Revelation is morally necessary. Absolute necessity we do not assert. Man, Catholic theology teaches, possesses the requisite faculties to discover the natural law. Luther indeed asserted that man's intellect had become hopelessly obscured by original sin, so that even natural truth was beyond his reach. And the Traditionalists of the nineteenth century (Bautain, Bonnetty, etc.) also fell into error, teaching that man was incapable of arriving at moral and religious truth apart from Revelation. The Church, on the contrary, recognizes the capacity of human reason and grants that here and there pagans may have existed, who had freed themselves from prevalent errors, and who had attained to such a knowledge of the natural law as would suffice to guide them to the attainment of beatitude. But she teaches nevertheless that this can only be the case as regards a few, and that for the bulk of mankind Revelation is necessary. That this is so may be shown both from the facts of history and from the nature of the case. As regards the testimony of history, it is notorious that even the most civilized of pagan races have fallen into the grossest errors regarding the natural law; and from these it may safely be asserted they would never have emerged. Certainly the schools of philosophy would not have enabled them to do so; for many of these denied even such fundamental principles of the natural law as the personality of God and the freedom of the will. Again, by the very nature of the case, the difficulties involved in the attainment of the requisite knowledge are insuperable. For men to be able to attain such a knowledge of the natural law as will enable them to order their lives rightly, the truths of that law must be so plain that the mass of men can discover them without long delay, and possess a knowledge of them which will be alike free from uncertainty and secure from serious error. No reasonable man will maintain that in the case of the greater part of mankind this is possible. Even the most vital truths are called in question and are met by serious objections. The separation of truth from error is a work involving time and labour. For this the majority of men have neither inclination nor opportunity. Apart from the security which Revelation gives they would reject an obligation both irksome and uncertain. It results that a revelation even of the natural law is for man in his present state a moral necessity. IV. CRITERIA OF REVELATION The fact that Revelation is not merely possible but morally necessary is in itself a strong argument for the existence of a revelation, and imposes on all men the strict obligation of examining the credentials of a religion which presents itself with prima facie marks of truth. On the other hand if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants. The criteria of Revelation are either external or internal: (1) External criteria consist in certain signs attached to the revelation as a divine testimony to its truth, e.g., miracles. (2) Internal criteria are those which are found in the nature of the doctrine itself in the manner in which it was presented to the world, and in the effects which it produces on the soul. These are distinguished into negative and positive criteria. (a) The immunity of the alleged revelation from any teaching, speculative or moral, which is manifestly erroneous or self-contradictory, the absence of all fraud on the part of those who deliver it to the world, provide negative internal criteria. (b) Positive internal criteria are of various kinds. One such is found in the beneficent effects of the doctrine and in its power to meet even the highest aspirations which man can frame. Another consists in the internal conviction felt by the soul as to the truth of the doctrine (Suarez, "De Fide", IV, sect. 5, n. 9.) In the last century there was in certain schools of thought a manifest tendency to deny the value of all external criteria. This was largely due to the Rationalist polemic against miracles. Not a few non-Catholic divines anxious to make terms with the enemy adopted this attitude. They allowed that miracles are useless as a foundation for faith, and that they form on the contrary one of the chief difficulties which lie in faith's path. Faith, they admitted, must be presupposed before the miracle can be accepted. Hence these writers held the sole criterion of faith to lie in inward experience -- in the testimony of the Spirit. Thus Schleiermacher says: "We renounce altogether any attempt to demonstrate the truth and the necessity of the Christian religion. On the contrary we assume that every Christian before he commences inquiries of this kind is already convinced that no other form of religion but the Christian can harmonize with his piety" (Glaubenslehre, n. 11). The Traditionalists by denying the power of human reason to test the grounds of faith were driven to fall back on the same criterion (cf. Lamennais, "Pensees Diverses", p. 488). This position is altogether untenable. The testimony afforded by inward experience is undoubtedly not to be neglected. Catholic doctors have always recognized its value. But its force is limited to the individual who is the subject of it. It cannot be employed as a criterion valid for all; for its absence is no proof that the doctrine is not true. Moreover, of all the criteria it is the one with regard to which there is most possibility of deception. When truth mingled with error is presented to the mind, it often happens that the whole teaching, false and true alike, is believed to have a Divine guarantee, because the soul has recognized and welcomed the truth of some one doctrine, e.g., the Atonement. Taken alone and apart from objective proof it conveys but a probability that the revelation is true. Hence the Vatican Council expressly condemns the error of those who teach it to be the only criterion (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. iii). The perfect agreement of a religious doctrine with the teachings of reason and natural law, its power to satisfy, and more than satisfy, the highest aspirations of man, its beneficent influence both as regards public and private life, provide us with a more trustworthy test. This is a criterion which has often been applied with great force on behalf of the claims of the Catholic Church to be the sole guardian of God's Revelation. These qualities indeed appertain in so transcendent a degree to the teaching of the Church, that the argument must needs carry conviction to an earnest and truth-seeking mind. Another criterion which at first sight bears some resemblance to this claims a mention here. It is based upon the theory of Immanence and has of recent years been strenuously advocated by certain of the less extreme members of the Modernist School. These writers urge that the vital needs of the soul imperatively demand, as their necessary complement, Divine co-operation, supernatural grace, and even the supreme magisterium of the Church. To these needs the Catholic religion alone corresponds. And this correspondence with our vital needs is, they hold, the one sure criterion of truth. The theory is altogether inconsistent with Catholic dogma. It supposes that the Christian Revelation and the gift of grace are not free gifts from God, but something of which the nature of man is absolutely exigent; and without which it would be incomplete. It is a return to the errors of Baius. (Denz. 1021, etc.) While the Church, as we have said, is far from undervaluing internal criteria, she has always regarded external criteria as the most easily recognizable and the most decisive. Hence the Vatican Council teaches: "In order that the obedience of our faith might be agreeable to reason, God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit, there should be joined external proofs of His Revelation, viz: Divine works (facta divina), especially miracles and prophecy, which inasmuch as they manifestly display the omnipotence and the omniscience of God are most certain signs of a Divine revelation and are suited to the understanding of all" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii). As an instance of a work evidently Divine and yet other than miracle or prophecy, the council instances the Catholic Church, which, "by reason of the marvellous manner of its propagation, its surprising sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works, its catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a mighty and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable testimony to its own divine legation" (l. c.). The truth of the teaching of the council regarding external criteria is plain to any unprejudiced mind. Granted the presence of the negative criteria, external guarantees establish the Divine origin of a revelation as nothing else can do. They are, so to say, a seal affixed by the hand of God Himself, and authenticating the work as His. (For a fuller treatment of their apologetic value, and for a discussion of objections, see MIRACLES; APOLOGETICS.) V. THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or "deposit of faith" from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit -- "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude, 2) -- for which the Church was to "contend" but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicaea, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition. The gift of Divine assistance (see I), sometimes confounded with Revelation by the less instructed of anti-Catholic writers, merely preserves the supreme pontiff from error in defining the faith; it does not enable him to add jot or tittle to it. All subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone, They may indeed be a legitimate object for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies: + that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the moral law, and, + that there are sufficient indications of their truth to justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without being guilty of superstition or of imprudence. It may however be further asked, whether the Christian Revelation does not receive increment through the development of doctrine. During the last half of the nineteenth century the question of doctrinal development was widely debated. Owing to Guenther's erroneous teaching that the doctrines of the faith assume a new sense as human science progresses, the Vatican Council declared once for all that the meaning of the Church's dogmas is immutable (De Fide Cath., cap. iv, can. iii). On the other hand it explicitly recognizes that there is a legitimate mode of development, and cites to that effect (op. cit., cap. iv) the words of Vincent of Lirins: "Let understanding science and wisdom [regarding the Church's doctrine] progress and make large increase in each and in all, in the individual and in the whole Church, as ages and centuries advance: but let it be solely in its own order, retaining, that is, the same dogma, the same sense, the same import" (Commonit. 28). Two of the most eminent theological writers of the period, Cardinal Franzelin and Cardinal Newman, have on very different lines dealt with the progress and nature of this development. Cardinal Franzelin in his "De Divina Traditione et Scriptura" (pt. XXII VI) has principally in view the Hegelian theories of Guenther. He consequently lays the chief stress on the identity at all points of the intellectual datum, and explains development almost exclusively as a process of logical deduction. Cardinal Newman wrote his "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" in the course of the two years (1843 45) immediately preceding his reception into the Catholic Church. He was called on to deal with different adversaries, viz., the Protestants who justified their separation from the main body of Christians on the ground that Rome had corrupted primitive teaching by a series of additions. In that work he examines in detail the difference between a corruption and a development. He shows how a true and fertile idea is endowed with a vital and assimilative energy of its own, in virtue of which, without undergoing the least substantive change, it attains to an ever completer expression, as the course of time brings it into contact with new aspects of truth or forces it into collision with new errors: the life of the idea is shown to be analogous to an organic development. He provides a series of tests distinguishing a true development from a corruption, chief among them being the preservation of type, and the continuity of principles; and then, applying the tests to the case of the additions of Roman teaching, shows that these have the marks not of corruptions but of true and legitimate developments. The theory, though less scholastic in its form than that of Franzelin, is in perfect conformity with orthodox belief. Newman no less than his Jesuit contemporary teaches that the whole doctrine, alike in its later as in its earlier forms, was contained in the original revelation given to the Church by Our Lord and His Apostles, and that its identity is guaranteed to us by the infallible magisterium of the Church. The claim of certain Modernist writers that their views on the evolution of dogma were connected with Newman's theory of development is the merest figment. OTTIGER, Theologia fundamentalis (Freiburg, 1897); VACANT, Etudes Th ologiques sur la Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); LEBACHELET, De l apolog tique traditionelle et l apolog tique moderne. (Paris, 1897); DE BROGLIE, Religion et Critique (Paris, 1906); BLONDEL, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pens e moderne en mati re apolog tique in Annales de la Philos: Chr tienne (Paris. 1896). On private revelations: SUAREZ, De Fide, disp. III, sect. 10; FRANZELIN, De Scriptura et Traditione, Th. xxii (Rome, 1870); POULAIN, Graces of Interior Prayer, pt. IV, tr. (London, 1910). On development of doctrine: BAINVEL, De magisterio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905); VACANT, op. cit., II, p. 281 seq.; PINARD, art. Dogme in Dict. Apolog tique de la Foi Catholique, ed. D AL S (Paris, 1910); O DWYER, Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi (London, 1908). Among those who from one point of view or another have controverted the Christian doctrine of Revelation the following may be mentioned: PAINE, Age of Reason (ed. 1910), 1 30; F. W. NEWMAN, Phases of Faith (4th ed., London, 1854); SABATIER, Esquisse d une philosophie de la religion, I, ii (Paris, 1902); PFLEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Berlin, 1896), 493 seq.; LOISY, Autour d un petit livre (Paris, 1903), 192 sqq.; WILSON, art. Revelation and Modern Thought in Cambridge Theol. Essays (London, 1905); TYRRELL, Through Scylla and Charybdis (London, 1907), ii; MARTINEAU, Seat of Authority in Religion, III, ii (London, 1890). G.H. JOYCE Private Revelations Private Revelations There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained in the article CONTEMPLATION. Some of them are at first thought surprising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e.g., of the life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate, although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidelity. This error is quite natural, being based on the assumption that, if the vision comes from God, all its details (the landscape, dress, words, actions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction of the historical past. This assumption is not justified, for accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly true. It may be objected that the Bible contains historical books, and that thus God may sometimes wish to reveal certain facts in religious history to us exactly. That doubtless is true, when there is question of facts which are necessary or useful as a basis for religion, in which case the revelation is accompanied by proofs that guarantee its accuracy. A vision need not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only. There are cases in which we can be certain that a revelation is Divine. (1) God can give this certainty to the person who receives the revelation (at least during it), by granting an insight and an evidence so compelling as to exclude all possibility of doubt. We can find an analogy in the natural order: our senses are subject to many illusions, and yet we frequently perceive clearly that we have not been deceived. (2) At times others can be equally certain of the revelation thus vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of the Old Testament gave indubitable signs of their mission; otherwise they would not have been believed. There were always false prophets, who deceived some of the people but, inasmuch as the faithful were counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from the true, it was possible so to distinguish. One incontrovertible proof is the working of a miracle, if it be wrought for this purpose and circumstances show this to be so. A prophecy realized is equally convincing, when it is precise and cannot be the result of chance or of a conjecture of the evil spirit. Besides these rather rare means of forming an opinion, there is another, but longer and more intricate method: to discuss the reasons for and against. Practically, this examination will often give only a probability more or less great. It may be also that the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad outlines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for example, contradictory opinions have been expressed: some believe unhesitatingly everything they contain, and are annoyed when anyone does not share their confidence; others give the revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori grounds); finally there are many who are sympathetic, but do not know what to reply when asked what degree of credibility is to be attributed to the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification "on account of the book". Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit with probability that many of them are true. For these two visionaries led lives that were regarded as very holy. Competent authorities have judged their ecstasies as divine. It is therefore prudent to admit that they received a special assistance from God, preserving them not absolutely, but in the main, from error. In judging of revelations or visions we may proceed in this manner: (1) get detailed information about the person who believes himself thus favored; (2) also about the fact of the revelation and the circumstances attending it. To prove that a revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the method of exclusion is sometimes employed. It consists in proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have interfered (at least on important points) with God's action, and that no one has retouched the revelation after its occurrence. This method differs from the preceding one only in the manner of arranging the information obtained, but it is not so convenient. To judge revelations or visions, we must be acquainted with the character of the person favoured with them from a triple point of view: natural, ascetical, and mystical. (For those who have been beatified or canonized, this inquiry has been already made by the Church.) Our inquiry into the visionary's character might be pursued as follows: 1. What are his natural qualities or defects, from a physical, intellectual, and especially moral standpoint? If the information is favourable (if the person is of sound judgment, calm imagination; if his acts are dictated by reason and not by enthusiasm, etc.), many causes of illusion are thereby excluded. However, a momentary aberration is still possible. 2. How has the person been educated? Can the knowledge of the visionary have been derived from books or from conversations with theologians? 3. What are the virtues exhibited before and after the revelation? Has he made progress in holiness and especially in humility? The tree can be judged by its fruits. 4. What extraordinary graces of union with God have been received? The greater they are the greater the probability in favour of the revelation, at least in the main. 5. Has the person had other revelations that have been judged Divine? Has he made any predictions that have been clearly realized? 6. Has he been subjected to heavy trials? It is almost impossible for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy crosses; for both are marks of God's friendship, and each is a preparation for the other. 7. Does he practice the following rules: fear deception; be open with your director; do not desire to have revelations? Our information concerning a revelation considered in itself or concerning the circumstances that accompanied it might be secured as follows: 1. Is there an authentic account, in which nothing has been added, suppressed, or corrected? 2. Does the revelation agree with the teaching of the Church or with the recognized facts of history or natural science? 3. Does it teach nothing contrary to good morals, and is it unaccompanied by any indecent action? The commandments of God are addressed to everyone without exception. More than once the demon has persuaded false visionaries that they were chosen souls, and that God loved them so much as to dispense them from the burdensome restrictions imposed on ordinary mortals. On the contrary, the effect of Divine visitations is to remove us more and more from the life of sense, and make us more rigorous towards ourselves. 4. Is the reaching helpful towards the obtaining of eternal salvation? In spiritism we find the spirits evoked treat only of trifles. They reply to idle questions, or descend to providing amusement for an assembly (e.g., by moving furniture about); deceased relatives or the great philosophers are interrogated and their replies are woefully commonplace. A revelation is also suspect if its aim is to decide a disputed question in theology, history, astronomy, etc. Eternal salvation is the only thing of importance in the eyes of God. "In all other matters", says St. John of the Cross, "He wishes men to have recourse to human means" (Montee, II, xxii). Finally, a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading. 5. After examining all the circumstances accompanying the vision (the attitudes, acts, words, etc.), do we find that the dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty? The spirits evoked by Spiritists often speak in a trivial manner. Spiritists try to explain this by pretending that the spirits are not demons, but the souls of the departed who have retained all their vices; absurd or unbecoming replies are given by deceased persons who are still liars, or libertines, frivolous or mystifiers, etc. But if that be so, communications with these degraded beings is evidently dangerous. In Protestant "revivals" assembled crowds bewail their sins, but in a strange, exaggerated way, as if frenzied or intoxicated. It must be admitted that they are inspired by a good principle: a very ardent sentiment of the love of God and of repentance. But to this is added another element that cannot be regarded as Divine: a neuropathic enthusiasm, which is contagious and sometimes develops so far as to produce convulsions or repugnant contortions. Sometimes a kind of unknown language is spoken, but it consists in reality of a succession of meaningless sounds. 6. What sentiments of peace, or, on the other hand, of disturbance, are experienced during or after the revelations? Here is the rule as formulated by St. Catherine of Siena and St. Ignatius: "With persons of good will [it is only of such that we are here treating] the action of the good spirit [God or His Angels] is characterized by the production of peace, joy, security, courage; except perhaps at the first moment." Note the restriction. The Bible often mentions this disturbance at the first moment of the revelation; the Blessed Virgin experienced it when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her. The action of the demon produces quite the contrary effect: "With persons of good will he produces, except perhaps at the first moment, disturbance, sorrow, discouragement, perturbation, gloom." In a word the action of Satan encounters a mysterious resistance of the soul. 7. It often happens that the revelation inspires an exterior work - for instance, the establishment of a new devotion, the foundation of a new religious congregation or association, the revision of the constitutions of a congregation, etc., the building of a church or the creation of a pilgrimage, the reformation of the lax spirit in a certain body, the preaching of a new spirituality, etc. In these cases the value of the proposed work must be carefully examined; is it good in itself, useful, filling a need, not injurious to other works, etc.? 8. Have the revelations been subjected to the tests of time and discussion? 9. If any work has been begun as a result of the revelation, has it produced great spiritual fruit? Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work? This is very well illustrated in the cases of the Scapular of Mount Carmel, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the miraculous medal. These are the signs that enable us to judge with probability if a revelation is Divine. In the case of certain persons very closely united to God, the slow study of these signs has been sometimes aided or replaced by a supernatural intuition; this is what is known as the infused gift of the discernment of spirits. As regards the rules of conduct, the two principal have been explained in the article on CONTEMPLATION, namely 1. if the revelation leads solely to the love of God and the saints, the director may provisionally regard it as Divine; 2. at the beginning the visionary should do his best to repulse the revelation quietly. He should not desire to receive it, otherwise he will be exposing himself to the risk of being deceived. Here are some further rules: + the director must be content to proceed slowly, not to express astonishment, to treat the person gently. If he were to be harsh or distrustful, he would intimidate the soul he is directing, and incline it to conceal important details from him; + he must be very careful to urge the soul to make progress in the way of sanctity. He will point out that the only value of the visions is in the spiritual fruit that they produce; + he will pray fervently, and have the subject he is directing pray, that the necessary light may be granted. God cannot fail to make known the true path to those who ask Him humbly. If on the contrary a person confided solely in his natural prudence, he would expose himself to punishment for his self-sufficiency; + the visionary should be perfectly calm and patient if his superiors do not allow him to carry out the enterprises that he deems inspired by Heaven or revealed. One who, when confronted with this opposition, becomes impatient or discouraged, shows that he has very little confidence in the power of God and is but little conformed to His will. If God wishes the project to succeed, He can make the obstacles suddenly disappear at the time appointed by Him. A very striking example of this divine delay is to be found in the life of St. Juliana, the Cistercian prioress of Mont-Cornillon, near Liege (1192-1258). It is to her that the institution of the feast of the Blessed Sacrament is due. All of her life was passed in awaiting the hour of God, which she was never to see, for it came only more than a century after the beginning of the revelations. As regards inspirations ordinarily, those who have not passed the period of tranquility or a complete union, must beware of the idea that they hear supernatural words; unless the evidence is irresistible, they should attribute them to the activity of their own imaginations. But they may at least experience inspirations or impulses more or less strong, which seem to point out to them how to act in difficult circumstances. This is a minor form of revelation. The same line of conduct should be followed as in the latter case. We must not accept them blindly and against the dictates of reason, but weigh the reasons for and against, consult a prudent director, and decide only after applying the rules for the discernment of spirits. The attitude of reserve that has just been laid down does not apply to the simple, sudden and illuminating views of faith, which enables one to understand in a higher manner not novelties, but the truths admitted by the Church. Such enlightenment cannot have any evil result. It is on the contrary a very precious grace, which should be very carefully welcomed and utilized. Consult the writings of ST. TERESA AND ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, passim; PHILIP OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, Summa theologica mysticae (Lyons, 1656), pt. II, tr. iii; DE VALLGORNERA, Mystica Theologia (Barcelona, 1662), Q. ii, disp. 5; LOPEZ DE EZQUERRA, Lucerna Mystica (Venice, 1692), tr. v; AMORT, De revelationibus (Augsburg, 1744); BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei canonizatione (Rome, 1767), l.III, c. liii; SCARAMELLI, Direttorio mistico (Venice, 1754), tr.iv; SCHRAM, Institutiones theologicae mysticae (Augsburg, 1777), pt. II, c. iv; ST. LIGUORI, Homo apostolicus (Venice, 1782), append.i, n. 19; RIBET, La mystique divine, II (Paris, 1879); POULAIN, Des graces d'oraison (5th ed., Paris, 1909), tr. The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910). AUG. POULAIN Revocation Revocation The act of recalling or annulling, the reversal of an act, the recalling of a grant, or the making void of some deed previously existing. This term is of wide application in canon law. Grants, laws, contracts, sentences, jurisdiction, appointments are at times revoked by the grantor, his successor or superior according to the prescriptions of law. Revocation without just cause is illicit, though often valid. Laws and customs are revoked when, owing to change of circumstances, they cease to be just and reasonable. Concordats (q.v.) are revocable when they redound to the serious injury of the Church. Minors and ecclesiastical institutions may have sentences in certain civil trials set aside (Restitutio in integrum). Contracts by which ecclesiastical property is alienated are sometimes rescindable. A judge may revoke his own interlocutory sentence but not a definitive judicial sentence. Many appointments are revocable at will; others require a judicial trial or other formalities. (See BENEFICE; FACULTIES, CANONICAL; INDULTS, PONTIFICAL; JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL.) ANDREW B. MEEHAN English Revolution of 1688 English Revolution of 1688 James II, having reached the climax of his power after the successful suppression of Monmouth's rebellion in 1685, then had the Tory reaction in his favour, complete control over Parliament and the town corporations, a regular army in England, a thoroughly Catholic army in process of formation in Ireland, and a large revenue granted by Parliament for life. His policy was to govern England as absolute monarch and to restore Catholics to their full civil and religious rights. Unfortunately, both prudence and statesmanship were lacking, with the result that in three years the king lost his throne. The history of the Revolution resolves itself into a catalogue of various ill-judged measures which alienated the support of the Established Church, the Tory party, and the nation as a whole. The execution of Monmouth (July, 1685) made the Revolution possible, for it led to the Whig party accepting William of Orange as the natural champion of Protestantism against the attempts of James. Thus the opposition gained a centre round which it consolidated with ever-increasing force. What the Catholics as a body desired was freedom of worship and the repeal of the penal laws; but a small section of them, desirous of political power, aimed chiefly at the repeal of the Test Act of 1673 and the Act of 1678 which excluded Catholics from both houses of Parliament. Unfortunately James fell under the influence of this section, which was directed by the unprincipled Earl of Sunderland, and he decided on a policy of repeal of the Test Act. Circumstances had caused this question to be closely bound up with that of the army. For James, who placed his chief reliance on his soldiers, had increased the standing army to 30,000, 13,000 of whom, partly officered by Catholics, were encamped on Hounslow Heath to the great indignation of London which regarded the camp as a menace to its liberties and a centre of disorder. Parliament demanded that the army should be reduced to normal dimensions and the Catholic officers dismissed; but James, realizing that the test would not be repealed, prorogued Parliament and proceeded to exercise the "dispensing and suspending power". By this he claimed that it was the prerogative of the crown to dispense with the execution of the penal laws in individual cases and to suspend the operation of any law altogether. To obtain the sanction of the Law Courts for this doctrine a test case, known as Hales's case, was brought to decide whether the king could allow a Catholic to hold office in the army without complying with the Test Act. After James had replaced some of the judges by more complaisant lawyers, he obtained a decision that "it was of the king's prerogative to dispense. with penal laws in particular instances". He acted on the decision by appointing Catholics to various positions, Lord Tyrconnel becoming Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Arundel Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Bellasyse Lord Treasurer in place of the Tory minister Lord Rochester, who was regarded as the chief mainstay of the Established Church. The Church of England, which was rendered uneasy by the dismissal of Rochester, was further alienated by the king's action in appointing a Court of High Commission, which suspended the Bishop of London for refusing to inhibit one of his clergy from preaching anti-Catholic sermons. The feeling was intensified by the liberty which Catholics enjoyed in London during 1686. Public chapels were opened, including one in the Royal Palace, the Jesuits founded a large school in the Savoy, and Catholic ecclesiastics appeared openly at Court. At this juncture James, desiring to counterbalance the loss of Anglican support, offered toleration to the dissenters, who at the beginning of his reign had been severely persecuted. The influence of William Penn induced the king to issue on 4 April, 1687, the Declaration of Indulgence, by which liberty of worship was granted to all, Catholic and Protestant alike. He also replaced Tory churchmen by Whig dissenters on the municipal corporations and the commission of the peace, and, having dissolved Parliament, hoped to secure a new House of Commons which would repeal both the penal laws and the Test. But he underestimated two difficulties, the hatred of the dissenters for "popery" and their distrust of royal absolutism. His action in promoting Catholics to the Privy Council, the judicial bench, and the offices of Lord lieutenant, sheriff, and magistrate, wounded these susceptibilities, while he further offended the Anglicans by attempting to restore to Catholics some of their ancient foundations in the universities. Catholics obtained some footing both at Christ Church and University College, Oxford, and in March 1688, James gave the presidency of Magdalen College to Bonaventure Giffard, the Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District. This restoration of Magdalen as a Catholic college created the greatest alarm, not only among the holders of benefices throughout the country, but also among the owners of ancient abbey lands. The presence of the papal nuncio, Mgr d'Adda, at Court and the public position granted to the four Catholic bishops, who had recently been appointed as vicars Apostolic, served to increase both the dislike of the dissenters to support a king whose acts, while of doubtful legality, were also subversive of Protestant interests, and likewise the difficulty of the Anglicans in practicing passive obedience in face of such provocation. Surrounded by these complications, James issued his second Declaration of Indulgence in April, 1688, and ordered that it should be read in all the churches. This strained Anglican obedience to the breaking point. The Archbishop of Canterbury and six of his suffragans presented a petition questioning the dispensing power. The seven bishops were sent to the Tower prosecuted, tried, and acquitted. This trial proved to be the immediate occasion of the Revolution, for, as Halifax said, "it hath brought all Protestants together and bound them up into a knot that cannot easily be untied". While the bishops were in the Tower, another epoch-marking event occurred -- the birth of an heir to the crown (10 June, 1688). Hitherto the hopes of the king's opponents had been fixed on the succession of his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange, the Protestant leader. The birth of Prince James now opened up the prospect of a Catholic dynasty just at a moment when the ancient anti-Catholic bigotry had been aroused by events both in England and France. For besides the ill-advised acts of James, the persecution of the Huguenots by Louis XIV, consequent on the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, revived old religious animosities. England was flooded with French Protestant refugees bearing everywhere the tale of a Catholic king's cruelty. Unfortunately for James his whole foreign policy had been one of subservience to France, and at this moment of crisis the power of France was a menace to all Europe. Even Catholic Austria and Spain supported the threatened Protestant states, and the pope himself, outraged by Louis XIV in a succession of wrongs, joined the universal resistance to France and was allied with William of Orange and other Protestant sovereigns against Louis and his single supporter, James. William had long watched the situation in England, and during 1687 had received communications from the opposition in which it was agreed that, whenever revolutionary action should become advisable, it should be carried out under William's guidance. As early as the autumn of 1687 the papal secretary of state was aware of the plot to dethrone James and make Mary queen, and a French agent dispatched the news to England through France. The Duke of Norfolk then in Rome also learned it, and sent intelligence to the king before 18 Dec., 1687 (letter of d'Estrees to Louvois, cited by Ranke, II, 424). But James, though early informed, was reluctant to believe that his son-in-law would head an insurrection against him. On the day the seven bishops were acquitted seven English statesmen sent a letter to William inviting him to rescue the religion and liberties of England. But William was threatened by a French army on the Belgian frontier, and could not take action. Louis XIV made a last effort to save James, and warned the Dutch States General that he would regard any attack on England as a declaration of war against France. This was keenly resented by James who regarded it as a slight upon English independence, and he repudiated the charge that he had made a secret treaty with France. Thereupon Louis left him to his fate, removed the French troops from Flanders to begin a campaign against the empire, and thus William was free to move. When it was too late James realized his danger. By hasty concessions granted one after another he tried to undo his work and win back the Tory churchmen to his cause. But he did not remove the Catholic officers or suggest the restriction of the dispensing power. In October Sunderland was dismissed from office, but William was already on the seas, and, though driven back by a storm, he re-embarked and landed at Torbay on 5 Nov., 1688. James at first prepared to resist. The army was sent to intercept William, but by the characteristic treachery of Churchill, disaffection was spread, and the king, not knowing in whom he could place confidence, attempted to escape. At Sheerness he was stopped and sent back to London, where he might have proved an embarrassing prisoner had not his escape been connived at. On 23 Dec., 1688, he left England to take refuge with Louis XIV; the latter received him generously and granted him both palace and pension. On his first departure the mob had risen in London against the Catholics, and attacked chapels and houses, plundering and carrying off the contents. Even the ambassadors' houses were not spared, and the Spanish and Sardinian embassy chapels were destroyed. Bishops Giffard and Leyburn were arrested and committed to the Tower. Father Petre had escaped, and the Nuncio disguised himself as a servant at the house of the envoy from Savoy, till he was enabled to obtain from William a passport. So far as the English Catholics were concerned, the result of the Revolution was that their restoration to freedom of worship and liberation from the penal laws was delayed for a century and more. So completely had James lost the confidence of the nation that William experienced no opposition and the Revolution ran its course in an almost regular way. A Convention Parliament met on 22 January, 1689, declared that James "having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant", and "that experience had shown it to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince". The crown was offered to William and Mary, who accepted the Declaration of Right, which laid down the principles of the constitution with regard to the dispensing power, the liberties of Parliament, and other matters. After their proclamation as king and queen, the Declaration was ratified by the Bill of Rights, and the work of the Revolution was complete. English Catholics have indeed had good cause to lament the failure of the king's well-meant, if unwise, attempts to restore their liberty, and to regret that he did not act on the wise advice of Pope Innocent XI and Cardinal Howard to proceed by slow degrees and obtain first the repeal of the penal laws before going on to restore their full civil rights. But on the other hand we can now realize that the Revolution had the advantage of finally closing the long struggle between king and Parliament that had lasted for nearly a century, and of establishing general principles of religious toleration in which Catholics were bound sooner or later to be included. LINGARD, Hist. of England, X (London, 1849), the standard Catholic account; LODGE in HUNT and POOLE, Political Hist. of England, Vlll (London, 1910); TEMPERLEY in Cambridge Modern Hist., V (London, 1908); TREVELYAN, England under the Stuarts (London, 1904); WYATT-DAVIES, Hist. of England for Catholic Schools (London, 1903); GREEN, Hist. of the English People (London, 1877-80); MACAULAY, Hist. of England (London, 1849); TASWELL-LANGMEAD, English Constitutional Hist. (London, 1875); BRIGHT, Hist. of England, 2nd period (London, 1880); GUIZOT Pourquoi la Revolution a-t-elle reussi? (1640~1688) (Paris, 1850); MAZURE, Hist. de la revol. de 1688 (3 vols., Paris, 1825). For earlier accounts consult DEFOE, Revol. of 1688 reprinted in ARBER, English Garner, XII (London, 1903); EACHARD, Hist. of the Revol. in 1688 (London, 1725); BURNET, Hist. of my Own Times (last edition, Oxford 1897-1900); DODD, Church Hist. (Wolverhampton vere Brussels, 1737 -42); SPEKE, Secret Hist. of the happy Revol., 1688 (London, 1715). EDWIN BURTON French Revolution French Revolution The last thirty years have given us a new version of the history of the French Revolution, the most diverse and hostile schools having contributed to it. The philosopher, Taine, drew attention to the affinity between the revolutionary and what he calls the classic spirit, that is, the spirit of abstraction which gave rise to Cartesianism and produced certain masterpieces of French literature. Moreover he admirably demonstrated the mechanism of the local revolutionary committees and showed how a daring Jacobin minority was able to enforce its will as that of "the people". Following up this line of research M. Augustin Cochin has quite recently studied the mechanism of the societes de pensee in which the revolutionary doctrine was developed and in which were formed men quite prepared to put this doctrine into execution. The influence of freemasonry in the French Revolution proclaimed by Louis Blanc and by freemasonry itself is proved by the researches of M. Cochin. Sorel has brought out the connection between the diplomacy of the Revolution and that of the old regime. His works prove that the Revolution did not mark a break in the continuity of the foreign policy of France. The radically inclined historical school, founded and led by M. Aulard, has published numerous useful documents as well as the review, "La Revolution Franc,aise". Two years since, a schism occured in this school, M. Mathiez undertaking opposition to M. Aulard the defence of Robespierre, in consequence of which he founded a new review "Les Annales Revolutionaires". The "Societe d'histoire contemporaine", founded under Catholic auspices, has published a series of texts bearing on revolutionary history. Lastly the works of Abbe Sicard have revealed in the clergy who remained faithful to Rome various tendencies, some legitimist, others more favourable to the new political forms, a new side of the history of the French clergy being thus developed. Such are the most recent additions to the history of the French Revolution. This article, however, will emphasize more especially the relations between the Revolution and the Church (see France). MEETING OF THE ESTATES The starting point of the French Revolution was the convocation of the States General by Louis XVI. They comprised three orders, nobility, clergy, and the third estate, the last named being permitted to have as many members as the two other orders together. The electoral regulation of 24 January, 1789, assured the parochial clergy a large majority in the meetings of the bailliages which were to elect clerical representatives to the States General. While chapters were to send to these meetings only a single delegate for ten canons, and each convent only one of its members, all the cures were permitted to vote. The number of the "order" of clergy at the States General exceeded 300, among whom were 44 prelates, 208 cures, 50 canons and commendatory abbots, and some monks. The clergy advocated almost as forcibly as did the Third Estate the establishment of a constitutional government based on the separation of the powers, the periodical convocation of the States General, their supremacy in financial matters, the responsibility of ministers, and the regular guarantee of individual liberty. Thus the true and great reforms tending to the establishment of liberty were advocated by the clergy on the eve of the Revolution. When the Estates assembled 5 May, 1789, the Third Estate demanded that the verification of powers should be made in common by the three orders, the object being that the Estates should form but one assembly in which the distinction between the "orders" should disappear and where every member was to have a vote. Scarcely a fourth of the clergy advocated this reform, but from the opening of the Estates it was evident that the desired individual voting which would give the members of the Third Estate, the advocates of reform, an effectual preponderance. As early as 23 May, 1789, the cures at the house of the Archbishop of Bordeaux were of the opinion that the power of the deputies should be verified in the general assembly of the Estates, and when on 17 June the members of the Third Estate proclaimed themselves the "National Assembly", the majority of the clergy decided (19 June) to join them. As the higher clergy and the nobility still held out, the king caused the hall where the meetings of the Third Estate were held to be closed (20 June), whereupon the deputies, with their president, Bailly, repaired to the Jeu de Paume and an oath was taken not to disband till they had provided France with a constitution. After Mirabeau's thundering speech (23 June) addressed to the Marquis de Dreux-Breze, master-of-ceremonies to Louis XVI, the king himself (27 June) invited the nobility to join the Third Estate. Louis XVI's dismissal of the reforming minister, Necker, and the concentration of the royal army about Paris, brought about the insurrection of 14 July, and the capture of the Bastille. M. Funck-Brentano has destroyed the legends which rapidly arose in connection with the celebrated fortress. There was no rising en masse of the people of Paris, and the number of the besiegers was but a thousand at most; only seven prisoners were found at the Bastille, four of whom were forgers, one a young man guilty of monstrous crimes and who for the sake of his family was kept at the Bastille that he might escape the death penalty, and two insane prisoners. But in the public opinion the Bastille symbolized royal absolutism and the capture of this fortress was regarded as the overthrow of the whole regime, and foreign nations attached great importance to the event. Louis XVI yielded before this agitation; Necker was recalled; Bailly became Mayor of Paris; Lafayette, commander of the national militia; the tri-colour was adopted, and Louis XVI consented to recognize the title of "National Constituent Assembly". Te Deums and processions celebrated the taking of the Bastille; in the pulpits the Abbe Fauchet preached the harinony of religion and liberty. As a result of the establishment of the "vote by order" the political privileges of the clergy may be considered to have ceased to exist. During the night of 4 August, 1789, at the instance of the Vicomte de Noailles, the Assembly voted with extraordinary enthusiasm the abolition of all privileges and feudal rights and the equality of all Frenchmen. A blow was thereby struck at the wealth of the clergy, but the churchmen were the first to give an example of sacrifice. Plurality of benefices and annates was abolished and the redemption of tithes was agreed upon, but two days later, the higher clergy becoming uneasy, demanded another discussion of the vote which had carried the redemption. The result was the abolition, pure and simple, of tithes without redemption. In the course of the discussion Buzot declared that the property of the clergy belonged to the nation. Louis XVI's conscience began to be alarmed. He temporized for five weeks, then merely published the decrees as general principles, reserving the right to approve or reject the measures which the Assembly would take to enforce them. DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN. CATHOLICISM CEASES TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE STATE Before giving France a constitution the Assembly judged it necessary to draw up a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", which should form a preamble to the Constitution. Camus's suggestion that to the declaration of the rights of man should be added a declaration of his duties, was rejected. The Declaration of Rights mentions in its preamble that it is made in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, but out of three of the articles proposed by the clergy, guaranteeing the respect due to religion and public worship, two were rejected after speeches by the Protestant, Rabaut Saint-Etienne, and Mirabeau, and the only article relating to religion was worded as follows: "No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." In fact it was the wish of the Assembly that Catholicism should cease to be the religion of the State and that liberty of worship should be established. It subsequently declared Protestants eligible to all offices (24 Dec., 1789), restored to their possessions and status as Frenchmen the heirs of Protestant refugees (10 July and 9 Dec., 1790), and took measures in favour of the Jews (28 January, 26 July, 16 Aug., 1790). But it soon became evident in the discussions relating to the Civil Constitution of the clergy that the Assembly desired that the Catholic Church, to which the majority of the French people belonged, should be subject to the State and really organized by the State. The rumours that Louis XVI sought to fly to Metz and place himself under the protection of the army of Bouille in order to organize a counter-revolutionary movement and his refusal to promulgate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, brought about an uprising in Paris. The mob set out to Versailles, and amid insults brought back the king and queen to Paris (6 Oct., 1789). Thenceforth the Assembly sat at Paris, first at the archiepiscopal residence, then at the Tuileries. At this moment the idea of taking possession of the goods of the clergy in order to meet financial exigencies began to appear in a number of journals and pamphlets. The plan of confiscating this property, which had been suggested as early as 8 August by the Marquis de Lacoste, was resumed (24 Sept.) by the economist, Dupont de Nemours, and on 10 October was supported in the name of the Committee of Finances in a report which caused scandal by Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, who under the old regime had been one of the two "general agents" charged with defending the financial interests of the French clergy. On 12 October Mirabeau requested the Assembly to decree (1) that the ownership of the church property belonged to the nation that it might provide for the support of the priests; (2) that the salary of each cure should not be less than 1200 livres. The plan was discussed from 13 October to 2 November. It was opposed the Abbe de Montesquieu, and the Abbe Maury, who contended that the clergy being a moral person could be an owner, disputed the estimates placed upon placed upon the wealth of the clergy, and suggested that their possessions should simply serve as a guarantee for a loan of 400,000,000 livres to the nation. The advocates of confiscation maintained that the clergy no longer existed as an order, that the property was like an escheated succession, and that the State had a right to claim it, that moreover the Royal Government had never expressly recognized the clergy as a proprietor, that in 1749 Louis XV had forbidden the clergy to receive anything without the authority of the State, and that he had confiscated the property of the Society of Jesus. Malouet took an intermediate stand and demanded that the State should confiscate only superfluous ecclesiastical possessions, but that the parochial clergy should be endowed with land. Finally, on 2 November, 1789, the Assembly decided that the possessions of the clergy be "placed at the disposal" of the nation. The results of this vote were not long in following. The first was Treilhard's motion (17 December), demanding in the name of the ecclesiastical committee of the Assembly, the closing of useless convents, and decreeing that the State should permit the religious to release themselves from their monastic vows. The discussion of this project began in February, 1790, after the Assembly by the creation of assemblies of departments, districts, and commons, had proceeded to the administrative reorganization of France. The discussion was again very violent. On 13 February, 1790, the Assembly, swayed by the more radical suggestions of Barnave and Thouret, decreed as a "constitutional article" that not only should the law no longer recognize monastic vows, but that religious orders and congregations were and should remain suppressed in France, and that no others should be established in the future. After having planned a partial suppression of monastic orders the Assembly voted for their total suppression. The proposal of Cazales (17 February) calling for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and the rightful efforts, made by the higher clergy to prevent Catholics from purchasing the confiscated goods of the Church provoked reprisals. On 17 March, 1790, the Assembly decided that the 400,000,000 livres worth of alienated ecclesiastical properties should be sold to municipalities which in turn should sell them to private buyers. On 14 April it decided that the maintenance of Catholic worship should be provided for without recourse to the revenues of former ecclesiastical property and that a sufficient sum, fixed at more than 133,000,000 livres for the first year, should be entered in the budget for the allowances to be made to the clergy; on 17 April the decree was passed dealing with the assignats, the papers issued by the Government paying interest at 5 per cent, and which were to be accepted as money in payment for the ecclesial property, thenceforth called national property; finally, on 9 July, it was decreed that all this property should be put up for sale. CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY On 6 February, 1790, the Assembly charged its ecclesiastical committee, appointed 20 Aug., 1789, and composed of fifteen members to prepare the reorganization of the clergy. Fifteen new members were added to the committee on 7 February. The "constituents" were disciples of the eighteenth century philosophes who subordinated religion to the State; moreover, to understand their standpoint it is well to bear in mind that many of them were jurists imbued with Gallican and Josephist ideas. Finally Taine has proved that in many respects their religious policy merely followed in the footsteps of the old regime, but while the old regime protected the Catholic Church and made it the church exclusive, recognized, the constituents planned to enslave it after having stripped it of its privileges. Furthermore they did not take into account that there are mixed matters that can only be regulated after an agreement with ecclesiastical authority. They were especially incensed against the clergy after the consistorial address in which Pius VI (22 March, 1790) reproved some of the measures already taken by the Constituent Assembly, and by the news received from the West and South where the just dissatisfaction of Catholic consciences had provoked disturbances; in particular the election of the Protestant Rabaut Saint-Etienne to the presidency of the National Assembly brought about commotions at Toulouse and Nimes. Under the influence of these disturbances the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was developed. On 29 May, 1790, it was laid before the Assembly. Bonal, Bishop of Clermont, and some members of the Right requested that the project should be submitted to a national council or to the pope. But the Assembly proceeded; it discussed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy from 1 June to 12 July, 1790, on which date it was passed. This Constitution comprised four titles. Title I, Ecclesiastical Offices: Diocesan boundaries were to agree with those of departments, 57 episcopal sees being thus suppressed. The title of archbishop was abolished; out of 83 remaining bishoprics 10 were called metropolitan bishoprics and given jurisdiction over the neighbouring dioceses. No section of French territory should recognize the authority of a bishop living abroad, or of his delegates, and this, adds the Constitution, "without prejudice to the unity of faith and the communion which shall be maintained with the head of the Universal Church". Canonries, prebends, and priories were abolished. There should no longer be any sacerdotal posts especially devoted to fulfilling the conditions of Mass foundations. All appeals to Rome were forbidden. Title II, Appointment to Benefice: Bishops should be appointed by the Electoral Assembly of the department; they should be invested and consecrated by the metropolitan and take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the King, the Law, and the Constitution; they should not seek any confirmation from the pope. Parish priests should be elected by the electoral assemblies of the districts. Thus all citizens, even Protestants, Jews, and nominal Catholics, might name titulars to ecclesiastical offices, and the first obligation of priests and bishops was to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution which denied to the Holy See any effective power over the Church. Title III, Salary of ministers of Religion: The Constitution fixed the salary of the Bishop of Paris at 51,000 livres (about $10,200), that of bishops of towns whose population exceeded 50,000 souls at 20,000 livres (about $4000), that of other bishops at 12,000 livres (about $2400), that of cures at a sum ranging from 6000 (about $1200) to 1200 livres (about $240). For the lower clergy this was a betterment of their material condition, especially as the real value of these sums was two and one-half times the present amount. Title IV, dealing with residence, made very severe conditions regarding the absences of bishops and priests. At the festival of the Federation (14 July, 1790) Talleyrand and three hundred priests officiating at the altar of the nation erected on the Champs-de-Mars wore the tri-colored girdle above their priestly vestments and besought the blessing of God on the Revolution. Deputations were present from the towns of France, and there was inaugurated a sort of cult, of the Fatherland, the remote origin of all the "Revolutionary cults". On 10 July, 1790, in a confidential Brief to Louis XVI, Pius VI expressed the alarm with which the project under discussion filled him. He commissioned two ecclesiastics who were ministers of Louis XVI, Champion de Cice and Lefranc de Pompignan, to urge the king not to sign the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On 28 July, in a letter to the pope, Louis XVI replied that he would be compelled, "with death in his soul", to promulgate the Constitution, that he would reserve the right to broach as soon as possible the matter of some concession, but that if he refused, his life and the lives of his family would be endangered. The pope replied (17 August) that he still held the same opinion of the Constitution, but that he would make no public declaration on the subject until he consulted with the Sacred College. On 24 August the king promulgated the Constitution, for which he was blamed by the pope in a confidential Brief on 22 September. M. Mathiez claims to have proved that the hesitancy of Pius VI was due to temporal rather than to spiritual considerations, to his serious fears about the affairs of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, where certain popular parties were clamoring for French troops, but the truth is that Pius VI, who had made known his opinion of the Constitution to two French prelates, was awaiting some manifestation on the part of the French episcopate. Indeed the bishops spoke before the pope had spoken publicly. At the end of October, 1790, they published an "Exposition des principes sur la constitution civile du clerge", compiled by Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix in which they rejected the Constitution and called upon the faithful to do the same. This publication marks the beginning of a violent conflict between the episcopate an the Constitution. On 27 November, 1790, after a speech by Mirabeau, a decree stipulated that all bishops and priests should within a week, under penalty of losing their offices, take the oath to the Constitution, that all who refused and who nevertheless continued to discharge their priestly functions should be prosecuted as disturbers of the public peace. The king, who was much disturbed by this decree, eventually sanctioned it (26 December, 1790) in order to avoid a rising. Hitherto a large section of the lesser clergy had shown a certain amount of sympathy for the Revolution, but when it was seen that the episcopal members of the Assembly refused to take the oath, thus sacrificing their sees, a number of the priests followed this disinterested example. It may be said that from the end of 1790 the higher clergy and the truly orthodox elements of the lower clergy were united against the revolutionary measures. Thenceforth there were two classes, the non-juring or refractory priests, who were faithful to Rome and refused the oath, and the jurors, sworn, or Constitutional priests, who had consented to take the oath. M. de la Gorce has recently sought to estimate the exact proportion of the priests who took the oath. Out of 125 bishops there were only four, Talleyrand of Autun, Brienne of Sens, Jarente of Orleans, and Lafond de Savine, of Viviers; three coadjutors or bishops in partibus, Gobel, Coadjutor Bishop of Bale; Martial de Brienne, Coadjutor of Sens; and Dubourg-Miraudet, Bishop of Babylon. In the important towns most of the priests refused to take the oath. Statistics for the small boroughs and the country are more difficult to obtain. The national archives preserve the complete dockets of 42 departments which were sent to the Constituent Assembly by the civil authorities. This shows that in these 42 departments, of 23,093 priests called upon to swear, 13,118 took the oath. There would be therefore out of 100 priests, 56 to 57 jurors against 43 to 44 non-jurors. M. de la Gorce gives serious reasons for contesting these statistics, which were compiled by zealous bureaucrats anxious to please the central administrators. He asserts on the other hand that the schism had little hold in fifteen departments and concludes that in 1791 the number of priests faithful to Rome was 52 to 55 out of 100; this is a small enough majority, but one which M. de la Gorce considers authentic. On 5 February, 1791, the Constituent Assembly forbade every non-juring priest to preach in public. In March the elections to provide for the vacant episcopal sees and parishes took place. Disorder grew in the Church of France; young and ambitious priests, better known for their political than for their religious zeal, were candidates, and in many places owing to the opposition of good Catholics those elected had much difficulty in taking possession of their churches. At this juncture, seeing the Constitutional Church thus setup in France against the legitimate Church, Pius VI wrote two letters, one to the bishops and one to Louis XVI, to inquire if there remained any means to prevent schism; and finally, on 13 April, 1791, he issued a solemn condemnation of the Civil Constitution in a solemn Brief to the clergy and the people. On 2 May, 1791, the annexation of the Comtat Venaissin and the city of Avignon by the French troops marked the rupture of diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See. From May, 1791, there was no longer an ambassador from France at Rome or a nuncio at Paris. The Brief of Pius VI encouraged the resistance of the Catholics. The Masses celebrated by non-juring priests attracted crowds of the faithful. Then mobs gathered and beat and outraged nuns and other pious women. On 7 May, 1791, the Assembly decided that the non-juring priests as pretres habitues might continue to say Mass in parochial churches or conduct their services in other churches on condition that they would respect the laws and not stir up revolt against the Civil Constitution. The Constitutional priests became more and more unpopular with good Catholics; Sciout's works go to show that the "departmental directories" had to spend their time in organizing regular police expeditions to protect the Constitutional priests against the opposition of good Catholics, or to prosecute the non-juring priests who heroically persisted in remaining at their posts. Finally on 9 June, 1791, the Assembly forbade the publication of all Bulls or Decrees of the Court of Rome, at least until they had been submitted to the legislative body and their publication authorized. Thus Revolutionary France not only broke with Rome, but wished to place a barrier between Rome and the Catholics of France The king's tormenting conscience was the chief reason for his attempted flight (20-21 June, 1791). Before fleeing he had addressed to the Assembly a declaration of his dissatisfaction with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and once more protested against the moral violence which had compelled him to accept such a document. Halted at Varennes, Louis XVI was brought back on 25 June, and was suspended from his functions till the completion of the Constitution, to which he took the oath 13 Sept., 1791. On 30 Sept., 1791, the Constituent Assembly dissolved, to make way for the Legislative Assembly, in which none of the members of the Constituent Assembly could sit. The Constituent Assembly had passed 2500 laws and reorganized the whole French administration. Its chief error from a social standpoint, which Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu calls a capital one, was to pass the Chapelier Decree (15 June, 1791), which forbade working people to band together and form associations "for their so-called common interest". Led astray by their spirit of individualism and their hatred for certain abuses of the old corporations, the Constituents did not understand that the world of labour should be organized. They were responsible for the economic anarchy which reigned during the nineteenth century, and the present syndicate movement as well as the efforts of the social Catholics in conformity with the Encyclical "Rerum novarum" marks a deep and decisive reaction against the work of the Constituent Assembly. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY When the Constituent Assembly disbanded (30 Sept., 1791), France all was aflame concerning the religious question. More than half the French people did not want the new Church, the factitious creation of the law; the old the Church was ruined, demolished, hunted down, and the general amnesty decreed by the Constituent Assembly before disbanding could do nothing towards restoring peace in the country where that Assembly's bungling work had unsettled the consciences of individuals. The parties in the Legislative Assembly were soon irreconcilable. The Feuillants, on the Right, saw no salvation save in the Constitution; the Girondins on the Left, and the Montagnards on the Extreme Left, made ready for the Republic. There were men who, like the poet Andre Chenier, dreamed of a complete Separation of Church and State. "The priests", he wrote in a letter to the "Moniteur" (22 October, 1791), "will not trouble the Estates when no one is concerned about them, and they will always trouble them while anyone is concerned about them as at present." But the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the departmental or district assemblies; they had fought against the non-juring priests and brought violent passions and a hostile spirit to the Legislative Assembly. A report from Gensonne and Gallois to the Legislative Assembly (9 October, 1791) on the condition of the provinces of the West denounced the non-juring priests as exciting the populace to rebellion and called for measures against them. It accused them of complicity with the emigres bishops. At Avignon the Revolutionary Lecuyer, having been slain in a church, some citizens reputed to be partisans of the pope were thrown into the ancient papal castle and strangled (16-17 Oct., 1791). Calvados was also the scene of serious disturbances. The Legislative Assembly, instead of repairing the tremendous errors of the Constituent Assembly, took up the question of the non-juring priests. On 29 November, on the proposal of Franc,ois de Neufchateau, it decided that if within eight days they did not take the civil oath they should be deprived of all salary, that they should be place under the surveillance of the authorities, that if troubles arose where they resided they should be sent away, that they should be imprisoned for a year if they persisted in remaining and for two years if they were convicted of having provoked disobedience to the king. Finally it forbade non-juring priests the legal exercise of worship. It also requested from the departmental directories lists of the jurors and non-jurors, that it might, as it said, "stamp out the rebellion which disguises itself under the pretended dissidence in the exercise of the Catholic religion". Thus its decree ended in a threat. But this decree was the object of a sharp conflict between Louis XVI and the Assembly. On 9 Dec., 1791, the king made his veto known officially. Parties began to form. On one side were the king and the Catholics faithful to Rome, on the other the Assembly and the priests who had taken the oath. The legislative power was on one side, the executive on the other. In March, 1792, the Assembly accused the ministers of Louis XVI; the king replaced them by a Girondin ministry headed by Dumouriez, with Roland, Servan, and Claviere among its members. They had a double policy: abroad, war with Austria, and at home, measures against the non-juring priests. Louis XVI, surrounded by dangers, was also accused of duplicity; his secret negotiations with foreign courts made it possible for his enemies to say that he had already conspired against France. A papal Brief of 19 March, 1792, renewed the condemnation of the Civil Constitution and visited with major excommunication all juring priests who after sixty days should not have retracted, and all Catholics who remained faithful to these priests. The Assembly replied by the Decree of 27 May, 1792, declaring that all non-juring priests might be deported by the directory of their department at the request of twenty citizens, and if they should return after expulsion they would be liable to ten years of imprisonment. Louis vetoed this decree. Thus arose a struggle not only between Louis XVI and the Assembly, but between the king and his ministry. On 3 June 1792, the Assembly decreed the formation of a camp near Paris of 20,600 volunteers to guard the king. At the ministerial council Roland read an insulting letter to Louis, in which he called upon him to sanction the decrees of November and May against the non-juring priests. He was dismissed, whereupon the populace of Paris arose and invaded the Tuileries (20 June, 1792). and for several hours the king and his family were the objects of all manner of outrages. After the public manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick in the name of the powers in coalition against France (25 July, 1792) and the Assembly's declaration of "Fatherland in danger" there came petitions for the deposition of the king, who was accused of being in communication with foreign rulers. On 10 August, Santerre, Westermann, and Fournier l'Americain at the head of the national guard attacked the Tuileries defended by 800 Swiss. Louis refused to defend himself, and with his family sought refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed a decree which suspended the king's powers, drew up a plan of education for the dauphin, and convoked a national convention. Louis XVI was imprisoned in the Temple by order of the insurrectionary Commune of Paris. Madness spread through France caused by the threatened danger from without; arrests of non-juring priests multiplied. In an effort to make them give way. The Assembly decided (15 August) that the oath should consist only of the promise to uphold with all one's might liberty, equality, and the execution of the law, or to die at one's post". But the non-juring priests remained firm and refused even this second oath. On 26 August the Assembly decreed that within fifteen days they should be expelled from the kingdom, that those who remained or returned to France should be deported to Guiana, or should be liable to ten years imprisonment. It then extended this threat to the priests, who, having no publicly recognized priestly duties, had hitherto been dispensed from the oath, declaring that they also might be expelled if they were convicted of having provoked disturbances. This was the signal for a real civil war. The peasants armed in La Vendee, Deux Sevres, Loire Inferieure, Maine and Loire, Ile and Vilaine. This news and that of the invasion of Champagne by the Prussian army caused hidden influences to arouse the Parisian populaces hence the September massacres. In the prisons of La Force, the Conciergerie, and the Abbaye Saint Germain, at least 1500 Women, priests and soldiers fell under the axe or the club. The celebrated tribune, Danton, cannot be entirely acquitted of complicity in these massacres. The Legislative Assembly terminated its career by two measures against the Church: it deprived priests of the right to register births etc., and authorize divorce. Laicizing the civil state was not in the minds of the Constituents, but was the result of the blocking of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Legislative Assembly was induced to enact it because the Catholics faithful to Rome would not have recourse to Constitutional priests for registering of births, baptisms, and deaths. THE CONVENTION; THE REPUBLIC; THE REIGN OF TERROR The opening of the National Convention (21 Sept., 1792) took place the day following Dumouriez's victory at Valmy over the Prussian troops. The constitutional bishop, Gregoire, proclaimed the republic at the first session; he was surrounded in the assembly by fifteen constitutional bishops and twenty-eight constitutional priests. But the time was at hand when the constitutional clergy in turn was to be under suspicion, the majority of the Convention being hostile to Christianity itself. As early as 16 November, 1792, Cambon demanded that the salaries of the priests be suppressed and that thenceforth no religion be subsidized by the State, but the motion was rejected for the time being. Henceforth the Convention enacted all manner of arbitrary political measures: it undertook the trial of Louis XVI, and on 2 January, 1799, "hurled a kings head at Europe". But from a religious standpoint it was more timid; it feared to disturb the people of Savoy and Belgium, which its armies were annexing to France. From 10 to 15 March, 1793, formidable insurrections broke out in La Vendee, Anjou, and a part of Brittany. At the same time Dumouriez, having been defeated at Neerwinden, sought to turn his army against the Convention, and he himself went over to the Austrians. The Convention took fright; it instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal on 9 March and on 6 April the Committee of Public Safety, formidable powers, was established. Increasingly severe measures were taken chiefly against the non-juring clergy. On 18 Feb., 1793, the Convention voted a prize one hundred livres to whomsoever should denounce a priest liable to deportation and who remained in France despite the law. On 1 March the emigres were sentenced to perpetual banishment and their property confiscated. On 18 March it was decreed that any emigre or deported priest arrested on French soil should be executed within twenty-four hours. On 23 April it was enacted that all ecclesiastics, priests or monks, who had not taken the oath prescribed by the Decree of 15 August, 1792, should be transported to Guiana; even the priests who had taken the oath should be treated likewise if six citizens should denounce them for lack of citizenship. But despite all these measures the non-juring priests remained faithful to Rome. The pope had maintained in France an official internuncio, the Abbe de Salamon, who kept himself in hiding and performed his duties at the risk of his life, gave information concerning current events, and transmitted orders. The proconsuls of the Convention, Freron and Barras at Marseilles and Toulon, Tallien at Bordeaux, Carrier at Nantes, perpetuated abominable massacres. In Paris the Revolutionary Tribunal, carrying out the proposals of the public accuser, Foquier-Tinville, inaugurated the Reign of Terror. The proscription of the Girondins by the Montagnards (2 June, 1793), marked a progress in demagogy. The assassination of the bloodthirsty in demagogue Marat, by Charlotte Corday 913 July 1793) gave rise to extravagant manifestations in honour of Marat. But the provinces did not follow this policy. News came of insurrections in Caen, Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon; and at the same time the Spaniards were in Roussillon, the Piedmontese in Savoy, the Austrians in Valenciennes, and the Vendeans defeated Kleber at Torfou (Sept., 1793). The crazed Convention decreed a rising en masse; the heroic resistance of Valenciennes and Mainz gave Carnot time to organize new armies. At the same time the Convention passed the Law of Suspects. (17 Sept., 1793), which authorized the imprisonment of almost anyone and as a consequence of which 30,000 were imprisoned. Informing became a trade in France. Queen Marie Antoinette was beheaded 16 October, 1793. Fourteen Carmelites who were executed 17 July, 1794, were declared Venerable by Leo XIII in 1902. From a religious point of view a new feature arose at this period -- the constitutional clergy, accused of sympathy with the Girondins, came to be suspected almost as much as the non-juring priests. Numerous conflicts arose between the constitutional priests and the civil authorities with regard to the decree of the Convention which did not permit the priests to ask those intending to marry if they were baptized, had been to confession, or were divorced. The constitutional bishops would not submit to the Convention when it required them to give apostate priests the nuptial blessing. Despite the example of the constitutional bishop, Thomas Lindet, a member of the Convention, who won the applause of the Assembly by ann his marriage, despite the scandal given by Gobel, Bishop of Paris, in appointing a married priest to a post in Paris the majority of constitutional bishops remained hostile to the marriage of priests. The conflict between them and the Convention became notorious when, on 19 July, 1793, a decree of the Convention decided that the bishops who directly or indirectly offered any obstacle to the marriage of priests should be deported and replaced. In October the Convention declared that the constitutional priests themselves should be deported if they were found wanting in citizenship. The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the dechristianization of France. On the one hand the rest of decadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest; on the other the Convention commissioned Leonard Bourdon (19 Sept., 1793) to compile a collection of the heroic actions of Republicans to replace the lives of the saints in the schools. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices, endeavoured to constrain priests to marry, and threatened with deportation for lack of citizenship priests who refused to abandon their posts. Persecution of all religious ideas began. At the request of the Paris Commune, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, and thirteen of his vicars resigned at the bar of the Convention (7 November) and their example was followed by several constitutional bishops. The Montagnards who considered worship necessary replaced the Catholic Sunday Mass by the civil mass of decadi. Having failed to reform and nationalize Catholicism they endeavoured to form a sort of civil cult, a development of the worship of the fatherland which had been inaugurated at the feast of the Federation. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes. Recent research has thrown new light on the history of these cults. M. Aulard was the first to recognize that the idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Going deeper M. Mathiez developed the theory that confronted by the blocking of the Civil Constitution, the Conventionals, who had witnessed in the successive feasts of the Federation the power of formulas on the minds of the masses, wanted to create a real culte de la patrie, a sanction of faith in the fatherland. On 23 November, 1793, Chaumette passed a law alienating all churches in the capital. This example was followed in the provinces, where all city churches and a number of those in the country were closed to Catholic worship. The Convention offered a prize for the abjuration of priests by passing a decree which assured a pension to Priests who abjured, and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November, 1793, when men, women, and children dressed in Priestly garments taken from the Church of St. Germain des Pres marched through the hall of the Convention. Laloi, who presided, congratulated them, saying they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error". Despite the part played by Chaumette and the Commune of Paris in the work of violent dechristianization, M. Mathiez has proved that it is not correct to lay on the Commune and the Exageres, they were called, the entire responsibility, and that a Moderate, an Indulgent, namely Thuriot, the friend of Danton, was one of the most violent instigators. It is thus clear why Robespierre who desired a reaction against these excesses, should attack both Exageres and Indulgents. Indeed a reactionary movement was soon evident. As early as 21 November, 1793, Robespierre complained of the "madmen who could only revive fanaticism". On 5 December he caused the Convention to adopt the text of a manifesto to the nations of Europe in which the members declared that they sought to protect the liberty of all creeds; on 7 December, he supported the motion of the committee of public safety which reported the bad effect in the provinces of the intolerant violence of the missionary representatives, and which forbade in the future all threats or violence contrary to liberty of worship. These decrees were the cause of warfare between Robespierre an enthusiasts such as Hebert and Clootz. At first Robespierre sent his enemies to the scaffold; Hebert and Clootz were beheaded in March, 1704, Chaumette and Bishop Gobel in April. But in this same month of April Robespierre sent to the scaffold the Moderates, Desmoulins and Danton, who wanted to stop the Terror, and became the master of France with his lieutenants Couthon and Saint-Just. M. Aulard regards Robespierre as having been hostile to the dechristianization for religious and political motives; he explains that Robespierre shared the admiration for Christ felt by Rousseau's Vicar Savoyard and that he feared the evil effect on the powers of Europe of the Convention's anti-religious policy. M. Mathiez on the other hand considers that Robespierre did not condemn the dechristianization in principle; that he knew the common hostility to the Committee of Public Safety of Moderates such as Thuriot and enthusiasts like Hebert; and that on the information of Basire and Chabot he suspected both parties of having furthered the fanatical measures of dechristianization only to discredit the Convention abroad and thus more easily to plot with the powers hostile to France. Robespierre's true intentions are still an historical problem. On 6 April, 1794, he commissioned Couthon to propose in the name of the Committee of Public Safety that a feast be instituted in honour of the Supreme Being, and on 7 May Robespierre himself outlined in a long speech the plan of the new religion. He explained that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention desired to have this speech translated into all languages and adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794, with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exageres wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. The victories of the Republican armies, especially that of Fleurus (July, 1794), reassured the patriots of the Convention; those of Cholet, Mans, and Savenay, marked the checking of the Vendean insurrection. Lyons and Toulon were recaptured, Alsace was delivered, and the victory of Fleurus (26 June, 1794) gave Belgium to France. While danger from abroad was decreasing, Robespierre made the mistake of putting to vote in June the terrible law of 22 Prairial, which still further shortened the summary procedure of the Revolutionary tribunal and allowed sentence to be passed almost without trial even on the members of the Convention. The Convention took fright and the next day struck out this last clause. Montagnards like Tallien, Billaud-Varenne, and Collot d'Herbois, threatened by Robespierre, joined with such Moderates as Boissy d'Anglas and Durand Maillane to bring about the coup d'etat of 9 Thermidor (27 July, 1794). Robespierre and his partisans were executed, and the Thermidorian reaction began. The Commune of paris was suppressed, the Jacobin Club closed, the Revolutionary tribunal disappeared after having sent to the scaffold the public accuser Fouquier-tinville and the Terrorist, Carrier, the author of the noyades (drownings) of Nantes. The death of Robespierre was the signal for a change of policy which proved of advantage to the Church; many imprisoned priests were released and many emigre priests returned. Not a single law hostile to Catholicism was repealed, but the application of them was greatly relaxed. The religious policy of the Convention became indecisive and changeable. On 21 December 1794, a speech of the constitutional bishop, Gregoire, claiming effective liberty of worship, aroused violent murmurings in the Convention, but was applauded by the people; and when in Feb., 1795, the generals and commissaries of the Convention in their negotiations with the Vendeans promised them the restoration of their religious liberties, the Convention returned to the idea supported by Gregoire, and at the suggestion of the Protestant, Boissy d'Anglas, it passed the Law of 3 Ventose (21 Feb., 1795), which marked the enfranchisement of the Catholic Church. This law enacted that the republic should pay salaries to the ministers of no religion, and that no churches should be reopened, but it declared that the exercise of religion should not be disturbed, and prescribed penalties for disturbers. Immediately the constitutional bishops issued an Encyclical for the Establishment of Catholic worship, but their credit was shaken. The confidence of the faithful was given instead to the non-juring priests who were returning by degrees. These priests were soon so numerous that in April, 1795, the Convention ordered them to depart within the month under pain of death. This was a fresh outbreak of anti-Catholicism. With the fluctuation which thenceforth characterized it the Convention soon made a counter-movement. On 20 May, 1795, the assembly hall was invaded by the mob and the deputy Feraud assassinated. These violences of the Extremists gave some influence to the Moderates, and 30 May, at the suggestion of the Catholic, Lanjuinais, the Convention decreed that (Law of 11 Prairial) the churches not confiscated should be place at the disposal of citizens for the exercise of their religion, but that every priest who wished to officiate in these churches should previously take an oath of submission to the laws; those who refused might legally hold services in private houses. This oath of submission to the laws was much less serious than the oaths formerly prescribed by the Revolutionary authorities, and the Abbe Sicard has shown how Emery, Superior General of St. Sulpice, Bausset, Bishop of Alais and other ecclesiastics were inclined to a policy of pacification and to think that such an oath might be taken. While it seemed to be favouring a more tolerant policy the Convention met with diplomatic successes, the reward of the military victories: the treaties of Paris with Tuscany, of the Hague with the Batavian Republic, of Basle with Spain, gave to France as boundaries the Alps, the Rhine, and the Meuse. But the policy of religious pacification was not lasting. Certain periods of the history of the Convention justify M. Champion's theory that certain religious measures taken by the Revolutionists were forced upon them by circumstances. The descent of the emigres on the Breton coasts, to be checked by Hoche at Quiberon, aroused fresh attacks on the priests. On 6 Sept., 1795 (Law of 20 Fructidor), the Convention exacted the oath of submission to the laws even of priests who officiated in private houses. The Royalist insurrection of 13 Vendemiaire, put down by Bonaparte, provoked a very severe decree against deported priests who should be found on French territory; they were to be sentenced to perpetual banishment. Thus at the time when the Convention was disbanding, churches were separated from the State. In theory worship was free; the Law of 29 Sept., 1795 (7 Vendemiaire), on the religious policy, though still far from satisfactory to the clergy, was nevertheless an improvement on the laws of the Terror, but anarchy and the spirit of persecution still disturbed the whole country. Nevertheless France owes to the Convention a number of lasting creations: the Ledger of the Public Debt, the Ecole Polytechnique, the Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, the Bureau of Longitudes, the Institute of France, and the adoption of the decimal system of weights and measures. The vast projects drawn up with regard to primary, secondary and higher education had almost no results. THE DIRECTORY In virtue of the so-called "Constitution of the year III", promulgated by the Convention 23 Sept., 1795, a Directory of five members (27 Oct., 1795) became the executive, and the Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients, the legislative power. At this time the public treasuries were empty, which was one reason why the people came by degrees to feel the necessity of a strong restorative power. The Directors Carnot, Barras, Letourneur, Rewbell, La Reveilliere-Lepeaux were averse to Christianity, and in the separation of Church and State saw only a means of annihilating the Church. They wished that even the Constitutional episcopate, though they could not deny its attachment to the new regime, should become extinct by degrees, and when the constitutional bishops died they sought to prevent the election of successors, and multiplied measures against the non-juring priests. The Decree of 16 April, 1796, which made death the penalty for, provoking any attempt to overthrow the Republican government was a threat held perpetually over the heads of the non-juring priests. That the Directors really wished to throw difficulties in the way of all kinds of religion, despite theoretical declarations affirming liberty of worship is proved by the Law of 11 April, 1796, which forbade the use of bells and all sorts of public convocation for the exercise of religion, under penalty of a year in prison, and, in case of a second offense of deportation. The Directory having ascertained that despite police interference some non-juring bishops were officiating publicly in Paris, and that before the end of 1796 more than thirty churches or oratories had been opened to non-juring priests in Paris, laid before the Five Hundred a plan which, after twenty days, allowed the expulsion from French soil, without admission to the oath prescribed by the Law of Vendemiaire, all priests who had not taken the Constitutional Oath prescribed in 1790, or the Oath of Liberty and Equality prescribed in 1792; those who after such time should be found in France would be put to death. But amid the discussions to which this project gave rise, the revolutionary Socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was discovered, which showed that danger lay on the Left; and on @5 Aug., 1796, the dreadful project which had only been passed with much difficulty by the Five Hundred was rejected by the Ancients. The Directory began to feel that its policy of religious persecution was no longer followed by the Councils. It learned also that Bonaparte, who in Italy led the armies of the Directory from victory to victory, displayed consideration for the pope. Furthermore, the electors themselves showed that they desired a change of policy. The elections of 20 may, 1797, caused the majority of Councils to pass from the Left to the Right. Pichegru became president of the Five Hundred, a Royalist, Barthelemy, became one of the Five Directors. Violent discussions which took place from 26 June to 18 July, in which Royer-Collard distinguished himself, brought to the vote the proposal of the deputy Dubruel for the abolition of all laws against non-juring priests passed since 1791. The Directors, alarmed by what they considered a reactionary movement, commissioned General Augereau to effect the coup d'etat of 18 Fructidor (4 Sept., 1797); the elections of 49 departments were quashed, two Directors, Carnot and Barthelemy, proscribed, 53 deputies deported, and laws against the emigre and non-juring priests restored to their vigour. Organized hunting for these priests took place throughout France; the Directory cast hundreds of them on the unhealthy shore of Sinnamary, Guiana, where they died. At the same time the Directory commissioned Berthier to make the attack on the Papal States and the pope, from which Bonaparte had refrained. The Roman Republic was proclaimed in 1798 and Pius VI was taken prisoner to Valence. An especially odious persecution was renewed in France against the ancient Christian customs; it was known as the decadaire persecution. Officials and municipalities were called upon to overwhelm with vexations the partisans of Sunday and to restore the observance of decadi. The rest of that day became compulsory not only for administrations and schools, but also for business and industry. Marriages could only be celebrated on decadi at the chief town of each canton. Another religious venture of this period was that of Theophilanthropists, who wished to create a spiritualist church without dogmas, miracles, priesthood or sacraments, a sort of vague religiosity, similar to the "ethical societies of the United States." Contrary to what has been asserted for one hundred years, M. Mathiez has proved that Theophilanthropism was not founded by the director La Reveilliere-Lepeaux. It was the private initiative of a former Girondin, the librarian Chemin Dupontes, which gave rise to this cult; Valentine Hauy, instructor of the blind and former Terrorist, and the physiocrat, Dupont de Nemours, collaborated with him. During its early existence, the new Church was persecuted by agents of Cochon, Minister of Police, who was the tool of Camot, and it was only for a short time, after the coup d'etat of 18 Fructidor, that the the Theophanthropists benefited by the protection of La Reveilliere. In proportion to the efforts of the Directory for the culte decadaire, the Theophilanthropists suffered and were persecuted; in Paris, they were sometimes treated even worse than the Catholics, Catholic priests being at times permitted to occupy the buildings connected with certain churches while the Theophilanthropists were driven out. On a curious memoir written after 18 Fructidor entitled "Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Revolution et des principes qui doivent fonder la Republic en France", the famous Madame de Stael, who was a Protestant, declared herself against Theophilanthropy; like many Protestants, she hoped that Protestantism would become the State religion of the Republic. Through its clumsy and odious religious policy the Directory exposed itself to serious difficulties. Disturbed by the anti-religious innovations, the Belgian provinces revolted; 6000 Belgian priests were proscribed. Brttany, Anjou. and Maine again revolted, winning over Normandy. Abroad the prestige of the French armies was upheld by were upheld by Bonaparte in Egypt, but they were hated on the Continent, and in 1799 were compelled to evacuate most of Italy. Bonaparte's return and the coup d'etat of 18 Brumaire (10 November 1799) were necessary to strengthen the glory of the French armies and to restore peace to the country and to consciences. TOURNEUX, Bibl. de l'hist. de Paris pendant la Revolution (Paris, 1896-1906); TUETEY, Repertoire des sources manuscrites de l'hist de Paris sous la Revolution, 7 vols. already published (Paris, 1896-1906); FORTESCUE, List of the three collections of books, pamphlets, and journals in the British Museum relating to the French Revolution (London, 1899). Reprint of the Moniteur Universel (1789-99); the two collections in course of publication of Documents inedits sur l'hist. economique de la Revolution franc,aise; and Documents sur l'hist. de Paris pendant la Revolution franc,aise; the works of BARRUEL (q.v.); BOURGIN, La france et Rome de 1788 `a 1797, regeste des depeches du cardinal secretaire d'etat, tiree du fond des "Vescovi" des archives secretes du Vatican (Paris, 1909), fasc. 102 of the Library of French Schools of Athens and Rome; among numerous memoirs on france on the eve of the Revolution may be mentioned: YOUNG, Travels in France, ed. BETHAM-EDWARDS (London, 1889); and on the Revolution itself: Memoires de l'internounce Salamon, ed. BRIDIER (Paris, 1890); GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, Diary and Letters (New York, 1882); Un sejour en France 1792 `a 1795, lettres d'un temoin de la Revolution franc,aise, tr. TAINE (Paris, 1883); the work of the famous BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed, SELBY (London, 1890), remains an important criticism of Revolutionary ideas. General Works -- THIERS, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise (tr. Paris, 1823-27); MIGNET, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1824); MICHELET, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1847-1853); LOUIS BLANK, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1847-1863; TOCQUEVILLE, L'ancien regime et la Revolution (Paris, 1856); TAINE, Les Origines de la France contemporaine: la Revolution (tr. Paris, 1878-84); SOREL, L'Europe et la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1885-1904); SYBEL, Gesch. der Revolutionszeit (Dusseldorf, 1853-57); CHUQUET, Les guerres de la Revolution (Paris, 1889-1902); AULARD, Hist. Politique de la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1901); IDEM, Etudes et lec,ons sur la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1893-1910); GAUTHEROT, Cours professes `a l'Institut Catholique de Paris sur la Revolution franc,aise, a periodical begun at the end of 1910 and promising to be very important; MADELIN, La Revolution (Paris, 1911), a summary commendable for the exactness of its information and its effort at justice in the most delicate questions; The Cambridge Modern History, planned by the late LORD ACTON, II the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1904); MacCARTHY, The French Revolution (London, 1890-97); Ross, The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era (Cambridge, 1907); LEGG, Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the French Revolution (Oxford, 1905); GIBBS, Men and Women of the French Revolution (London, 1905). Monographs and Special Works -- AULARD, Taine, historien de la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1907); COCHIN, La crise de l'hist revolutionaire: Taine et M. Aulard (Paris, 1909); BORD, La francmac,onnerie en France des origiines `a 1815, bk. I, Les ouvriers de l'idee revolutionaire (Paris, 1909); IDEM, La conspiration revolutionnaire de 1789, les complices, les victimes (Paris, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Legendes et archives de la Bastille (Paris, 1898); MALLET, Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution (London, 1902); FLING, Mirabeau and the French Revolution (London, 1906); LENOTRE, Memoires et souvenirs sur la Revolution et l'Empire (Paris, 1907-9); IDEM, Paris revolutionaire, vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (Paris, 1900-10); WARWICK, Robespierre and the French Revolution (Philadelphia, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Legendes et archives de la Bastille (Paris, 1898); BLIARD, Fraternite revolutionnaire, etudes et recits d'apres des documents inedits (Paris, 1909); MORTIMER TERNAUX, Hist. de la Terreur (Paris, 1862-1881); WALLON, Hist. du tribunal revolutionnaire (Paris, 1880-2); IDEM, La journeedu 31 Mai et le federalisme en 1793 (Paris, 1886); IDEM, Les representants en mission (Paris, 1888-90); DAUDET, Hist. de l'emigration pendant la Revolution (Paris, 1904-7); LALLEMAND, La Revolution et les pauvres (Paris, 1898); ALGER, Englishment in the French Revolution (London, 1889); DOWDEN, The French Revolution and English Literture (London, 1897); CESTRE, La Revolution franc,aise et les poetes anglais (Paris, 1906). Religious History. -- SICARD, L'ancien clerge de France II,III (Paris, 1902-3) IDEM, L'education morale et civique avant et pendant la Revolution (Paris, 1884); PIERRE DE LA GORCE, Hist. religieuse de la Revolution franc,aise I (Paris, 1909); MATHIEZ, rome et le clerge franc,aise sous la Constituante (Paris, 1911); IDEM, La theophilanthropie et le culte decadaire (Paris, 1904); IDEM, Contribution `a l'histoire religieuse de la Revolution Franc,aise (Paris, 1907); IDEM, La Revolution et l'Eglise (Paris, 1910); AULARD, La Revolution franc,aise et les congregations (Paris, 1911); IDEM, Le culte de la raison et le culte de l'Etre supreme (Paris, 1907); IDEM, Le culte de la separation de 'Eglise et de l'Etat en 1794 (Paris, 1903); PIERRE, La Deportation ecclesiastique sous le Directoire (Paris, 1906). GEORGES GOYAU Rex Gloriose Martyrum Rex Gloriose Martyrum Rex Gloriose Martyrum, the hymn at Lauds in the Common of Martyrs (Commune plurimorum Martyrum) in the Roman Breviary. lit comprises three strophes of four verses in Classical iambic dimeter, the verses rhyming in couplets, together with a fourth concluding strophe (or doxology) in unrhymed verses varying for the season. The first stanza will serve to illustrate the metric and rhymic scheme: Rex gloriose martyrum, Corona confitentium, Qui respuentes terrea Perducis ad coelestia. The hymn is of uncertain date and unknown authorship, Mone (Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, III, 143, no. 732) ascribing it to the sixth century and Daniel (Thesaurus Hymnologicus, IV, 139) to the ninth or tenth century. The Roman Breviary text is a revision, in the interest of Classical prosody, of an older form (given by Daniel, I, 248). The corrections are: terrea instead of terrena in the line "Qui respuentes terrena"; parcisque for parcendo in the line "Parcendo confessoribus"; inter Martyres for in Martyribus in the line "Tu vincis in Martyribus"; "Largitor indulgentiae" for the line "Donando indulgentiam". A non-prosodic correction is intende for appone in the line "Appone nostris vocibus". Daniel (IV, 139) gives the Roman Breviary text, but mistakenly includes the uncorrected line "Parcendo confessoribus". lie places after the hymn an elaboration of it in thirty-two lines, found written on leaves added to a Nuremberg book and intended to accommodate the hymn to Protestant doctrine. This elaborated form uses only lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the original. Two of the added strophes may be quoted here to illustrate the possible reason (but also a curious misconception of Catholic doctrine in the apparent assumption of the lines) for the modification of the original hymn: Velut infirma vascula Ictus inter lapideos Videntur sancti martyres, Sed fide durant fortiter. Non fidunt suis meritis, Sed sola tua gratia Agnoscunt se persistere In tantis cruciatibus. Of the thirteen translations of the original hymn into English. nine are by Catholics. To the list given in JULIAN, Dictionary of Hymnology, 958, should be added the versions of BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), 166, and DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908), 50. For many Manuscript references and readings, see BLUME, Analecta Hymnica, LI (Leipzig, 1909), 128-29; IDEM, Der Cursus s. Benedicti Nursini (Leipzig, 1909), 67. H.T. HENRY Rex Sempiterne Caelitum Rex Sempiterne Caelitum The Roman Breviary hymn for Matins of Sundays and weekdays during the Paschal Time (from Low Sunday to Ascension Thursday). Cardinal Thomasius ("Opera omnia", II, Rome, 1747, 370) gives its primitive form in eight strophes, and Vezzosi conjectures, with perfect justice, that this is the hymn mentioned both by Caesarius (died 542) and Aurelianus (died circa 550) of Arles, in their "Rules for Virgins", under the title "Rex aeterne domine". Pimont (op. cit. infra, III, 95) agrees with the conjecture, and present-day hymnologists confirm it without hesitation. The hymn is especially interesting for several reasons. In his "De arte metrica" (xxiv) the Ven. Bede selects it from amongst "Alii Ambrosiani non pauci" to illustrate the difference between the metre of Classical iambics and the accentual rhythms imitating them. Ordinarily brief in his comment, he nevertheless refers to it (P. L., XC, 174) as "that admirable hymn . . . fashioned exquisitely after the model of iambic metre" and quotes the first strophe: Rex aeterne Domine, Rerum Creator omnium, Qui eras ante saecula Semper cum patre filius. Pimont (op. cit., III, 97) points out that, in its original text, it is amongst all the hymns, the one assuredly which best evidences the substitution of accent for prosodical quantity, and that the (unknown) author gives no greater heed to the laws of elision than to quantity "qui eras", "mundi in primordio", "plasmasti hominem", "tuae imagini", etc. The second strophe illustrates this well: Qui mundi in primordio Adam plasmasti hominem, Qui tuae imagini Vultum dedisti similem. Following the law of binary movement (the alternation of arsis and thesis), the accent is made to shorten long syllables and to lengthen short ones, in such wise that the verses, while using the external form of iambic dimeters, are purely rhythmic. Under Urban VIII, the correctors of the hymns omitted the fourth stanza and, in their zeal to turn the rhythm into Classical iambic dimeter, altered every line except one. Hymnologists, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are usually severe in their judgment of the work of the correctors; but in this instance, Pimont, who thinks the hymn needed no alteration at their hands, nevertheless hastens to add that "never, perhaps, were they better inspired". And it is only just to say that, as found now in the Roman Breviary, the hymn is no less vigorous than elegant. PIMONT, Les hymnes du breviaire romain, III (Paris, 1884), 93-100, gives the old and the revised text, supplementary stanzas, and much comment. Complete old text with various Manuscript readings in Hymnarium Sarisburiense (London, 1851), 95, and in DANIEL, Thesaurus hymnol., I (Halle, 1841), 85 (together with Rom. Brev. text and notes). Text (8 strophes) With English version, notes, plainsong and other settings in Hymns, Ancient and Modern, Historical Edition (London, 1909), 205-7. Old text, with many Manuscript references and readings, and notes, in BLUME, Der Cursus s. Benedicti Nursini (Leipzig, 1909), 111-13 (cf, also the alphabetical index). For first lines of translations etc., JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology (London, 1907), s. vv. Rex aeterne Domine and Rex sempiterne coelitum. To his list should be added BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), 78, and DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908), 22. The translation in BUTE, The Roman Breviary (Edinburgh, 1879), is by Moultrie, an Anglican clergyman. H. T. HENRY. Anthony Rey Anthony Rey An educator and Mexican War chaplain, born at Lyons, 19 March, 1807; died near Ceralvo, Mexico, 19 Jan., 1847. He studied at the Jesuit college of Fribourg, entered the novitiate of that Society, 12 Nov., 1827, and subsequently taught at Fribourg and Sion in Valais, In 1840 he was sent to the United States, appointed professor of philosophy in Georgetown College, and in 1843 transferred to St. Joseph's Church in Philadelphia. He became assistant to the Jesuit provincial of Maryland, pastor of Trinity Church, Georgetown, and vice-president of the college (1845). Appointed chaplain in the U. S. Army in 1846, he ministered to the wounded and dying at the siege of Monterey amid the greatest dangers; after the capture of the city, he remained with the army at Monterey and preached to the rancheros of the neighbourhood. Against the advice of the U. S. officers, he set out for Matamoras, preaching to a congregation of Americans and Mexicans at Ceralvo. It is conjectured that he was killed by a band under the leader Canales, as his body was discovered, pierced with lances, a few days later. He left letters dating from November, 1846, which were printed in the "Woodstock Letters" (XVII, 149-50, 152-55, 157-59). DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, VI, 1689; APPLETONS' Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York, 1888), s. v. N. A. WEBER William Reynolds William Reynolds (RAINOLDS, RAYNOLDS, REGINALDUS) Reynolds, William, born. at Pinhorn near Exeter, about 1544; died at Antwerp, 24 August, 1594, the second son of Richard Rainolds, and elder brother of John Rainolds, one of the chief Anglican scholars engaged on the "Authorized Version" of the Bible. Educated at Winchester School, he became fellow of New College, Oxford (1560-1572). He was converted partly by the controversy between Jewel and Harding, and partly by the personal influence of Dr. Allen. In 1575 he made a public recantation in Rome, and two years later went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He removed with the other collegians from Douai to Reims in 1578 and was ordained priest at Chalons in April, 1580. He then remained at the college, lecturing on Scripture and Hebrew, and helping Gregory Martin in translating the Reims Testament. Some years before his death he had left the college to become chaplain to the Beguines at Antwerp. He translated several of the writings of Allen and Harding into Latin and wrote a "Refutation" of Whitaker's attack on the Reims version (Paris, 1583); "De justa reipublicae christianae in reges impios et haereticos authoritate" (Paris, 1590), under the name of Rossaeus; a treatise on the Blessed Sacrament (Antwerp, 1593); "Calvino-Turcismus" (Antwerp, 1597). KIRBY, Annals of Winchester College (London, 1892); FOSTER, Alumni Ozonienses (Oxford. 1891); Douay Diaries (London, 1878); WOOD, Athenae Ozonienses (London, 1813); PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD. Church History, II (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); GILLOW in Biog. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; RIGG in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Rainolds. EDWIN BURTON. Rhaetia Rhaetia (RHAETORUM). Prefecture Apostolic in Switzerland; includes in general the district occupied by the Catholics belonging to the Rhaeto-Romanic race in the canton of the Grisons (Graubuenden). The prefecture is bounded on the north by the Praettigau, on the south by Lombardy, on the east by the Tyrol, on the west by the cantons of Tessin (Ticino), Uri, and Glarus. During the sixteenth century the greater part of the inhabitants of the Grisons became Calvinists. In 1621 Paul V, at the entreaty of Bishop John Flugi of Coire (Chur) and Archduke Leopold of Austria, sent thither Capuchin missionaries from Brixen in the Tyrol; the first superior was P. Ignatius of Cosnigo, who resided in the mission (1621-45) and conducted it under the title of prefect Apostolic. The best known of the missionaries is St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who was martyred. After the death of P. Ignatius the mission was cared for by the Capuchin province of Brixen, represented in the mission by a sub-prefect. For a long time after the suppression of the religious orders by Napoleon, the mission was without an administrator; upon the restoration of the order, Capuchins from various provinces were sent into the mission. At present it is under the care of Capuchins of the Roman province. It has 22 parishes, in three of which the majority of inhabitants speak Italian; 52 churches and chapels; 40 schools for boys and girls; 7200 Catholics; 25 Capuchins. The prefect Apostolic lives at Sagens. BUeCHI, Die kath. Kirche in der Schweiz (Munich, 1902), 89; Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907), 103; MAYER, Gesch. des Bistums Chur (Stans, 1907), not yet completed. JOSEPH LINS. Rhaphanaea Rhaphanaea A titular see in Syria Secunda, suffragan of Apamea. Rhaphanaea is mentioned in ancient times only by Josephus (Bel. Jud., VII, 5, 1), who says that in that vicinity there was a river which flowed six days and ceased on the seventh, probably an intermittent spring now called Fououar ed-Deir, near Rafanieh, a village of the vilayet of Alep in the valley of the Oronte. The ancient name was preserved. At the time of Ptolemy (V, 14, 12), the Third Legion (Gallica) was stationed there. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 712, 8) and Georgius Cyprius, 870 (Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani", 44) mention it among the towns of Syria Secunda. The crusaders passed through it at the end of 1099; it was taken by Baldwin and was given to the Count of Tripoli ("Historiens des croisades", passim; Rey in "Bulletin de la Societe des antiquaires de France", Paris, 1885, 266). The only bishops of Rhaphanaea known are (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 921): Bassianus, present at the Council of Nicaea, 325; Gerontius at Philippopolis, 344; Basil at Constantinople, 381; Lampadius at Chalcedon, 451; Zoilus about 518; Nonnus, 536. The see is mentioned as late as the tenth century in the "Notitia episcopatuum" of Antioch (Vailhe "Echos d'Orient", X, 94). SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. geogr., s. v.; MUeLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 973. S. PETRIDES. Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger A composer and organist, born at Vaduz, in the Principality of Lichtenstein, Bavaria, 17 March, 1839; died at Munich, 25 Nov., 1901. When seven years old, he already served as organist in his parish church, and at the age of eight composed a mass for three voices. After enjoying for a short time the instruction of Choir-master Schmutzer in Feldkirch, he attended the conservatory at Munich from 1851 to 1854, and finished his musical education with a course under Franz Lachner. In 1859 he was appointed professor of the theory of music and organ at the conservatory, a position which he held until a few months before his death. Besides his duties as teacher he acted successively as organist at the court Church of St. Michael, conductor of the Munich Oratorio Society, and instructor of the solo artists at the royal opera. In 1867 he received the title of royal professor, and became inspector of the newly established royal school for music, now called the Royal Academy of Music. In 1877 he was promoted to the rank of royal court conductor, which position carried with it the direction of the music in the royal chapel. Honoured by his prince with the title of nobility and accorded the honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the Munich University, Rheinberger for more than forty years wielded as teacher of many of the most gifted young musicians of Europe and America, perhaps more influence than any of his contemporaries. As a composer he was remarkable for his power of invention, masterful technique, and a noble, solid style. Among his two hundred compositions are oratorios (notably "Christoforus" and "Monfort"); two operas; cantatas for soli, chorus, and orchestra ("The Star of Bethlehem", "Toggenburg", "Klarchen auf Eberstein" etc.); smaller works for chorus and orchestra; symphonies ("Wallenstein"), overtures, and chamber music for various combinations of instruments, Most important of all his instrumental works are his twenty sonatas for organ, the most notable productions in this form since Mendelssohn. Rheinberger wrote many works to liturgical texts, namely, twelve masses (one for double chorus, three for four voices a cappella, three for women's voices and organ, two for men's voices and one with orchestra), a requiem, Stabat Mater, and a large number of motets, and smaller pieces. Rheinbergen's masses rank high as works of art, but some of them are defective in the treatment of the text. Joseph Renner, Jr., has recently remedied most of these defects, and made the masses available for liturgical purposes. KRAYER, Joseph Rheinberger (Ratisbon, 1911); RENNER, Rheinberger's Messen in Kirchen-musikalisches Jahrbuch (Ratisbon, 1909). JOSEPH OTTEN Rhesaena Rhesaena A titular see in Osrhoene, suffragan of Edessa. Rhesaena (numerous variations of the name appear in ancient authors) was an important town at the northern extremity of Mesopotamia near the sources of the Chaboras (now Khabour), on the way from Carrhae to Nicephorium about eighty miles from Nisibis and forty from Dara; Near by Gordian III fought the Persians in 243. Its coins show that it was a Roman colony from the time of Septimus Severus. The "Notitia dignitatum" (ed. Boecking, I, 400) represents it as under the jurisdiction of the governor or Dux of Osrhoene. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 714, 3) also locates it in this province but under the name of Theodosiopolis; it had in fact obtained the favour of Theodosius the Great and taken his name. It was fortified by Justinian. In 1393 it was nearly destroyed by Tamerlane's troops. To-day under the name of Ras-el-'Ain, it is the capital of a caza in the vilayet of Diarbekir and has only 1500 inhabitants. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, II, 979) mentions nine bishops of Rhesaena: Antiochus, present at the Council of Nicaea (325); Eunomius, who (about 420) forced the Persians to raise the siege of the town; John, at the Council of Antioch (444); Olympius at Chalcedon (451); Andrew (about 490); Peter, exiled with Sevenian (518); Ascholius, his successor, a Monophysite; Daniel (550); Sebastianus (about 600), a correspondent of St. Gregory the Great. The see is again mentioned in the tenth century in a Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch (Vailhe, in "Echos d'Orient", X, 94). Le Quien (ibid., 1329 and 1513) mentions two Jacobite bishops: Scalita, author of a hymn and of homilies, and Theodosius (1035). About a dozen others are known. Revue de l'Orient chret. VI (1901), 203; D'HERBELOT, Bibl. orientale, I, 140; III, 112; RITTER. Erdkunde, XI, 375; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v., with bibliography of ancient authors; MUeLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 1008; CHAPOT, La frontiere de l'Euphrate de Pompee `a la conquete arabe (Paris, 1907). 302. S. PETRIDES Rhinocolura Rhinocolura A titular see in Augustamnica Prima, suffragan of Pelusium. Rhinocolura or Rhinocorura was a maritime town so situated on the boundary of Egypt and Palestine that ancient geographers attributed it sometimes to one country and sometimes to the other. Its history is unknown. Diodorus Siculus (I, 60, 5) relates that it must have been founded by Actisanes, King of Ethiopia, who established there convicts whose noses had been cut off; this novel legend was invented to give a Greek meaning to the name of the town. Strabo (XVI, 781) says that it was formerly the great emporium of the merchandise of India and Arabia, which was unloaded at Leuce Come, on the eastern shore of the Red Sea, whence it was transported via Petra to Rhinocolura, It is identified usually with the present fortified village El Anish, which has 400 inhabitants, excluding the garrison, situated half a mile from the sea, and has some ruins of the Roman period. It was taken by the French in 1799, who signed there in 1800 the treaty by which they evacuated Egypt. To-day it and its vicinity are occupied by Egypt, after having been for a long period claimed by Turkey. The village is near a stream which bears its name (Wadi el-Arish), and receives its waters from central Sinai; it does not flow in winter, but is torrential after heavy rain. It is the "nahal Misraim", or stream of Egypt, frequently mentioned in the Bible (Gen., xv, 18, etc.), as marking on the south-west the frontier of the Promised Land. Instead of the ordinary translation of the Hebrew name, the Septuagint in Is., xxvii, 12, render it by Hrinokoroura; see St. Jerome (In Isaiam, XXVII, 12 in P. L., XXIV, 313). Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 541) gives a list of thirteen bishops of Rhinocolura: the first does not belong to it. A Coptic manuscript also wrongly names a bishop said to have assisted in 325 at the Council of Nice. The first authentic titular known is St. Melas, who suffered exile under Valens and is mentioned on 16 January in the Roman Martyrology. He was succeeded by his brother Solon. Polybius was the disciple of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, whose life he wrote. Hermogenes assisted at the Council of Ephesus (431), was sent to Rome by St. Cyril, and received many letters from his suffragan St. Isidore. His successor Zeno defended Eutyches at the Second Council of Ephesus (451). Other bishops were: Alphius, the Massalian heretic; Ptolemy, about 460, Gregory, 610. Of the other bishops on the list one did not belong to Rhinocolura; the other three are Coptic heretics. RELAND, Palaestina, 285, 969 sq.; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MUeLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, 1, 683; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Egypte (torrent ou ruisseau d'); AMELINEAU, Geoqraphie de l'Egypte `a l'epoque copte, 404; RITTER, Erdkunde, XVI, 143; XVI, 39, 41. S. PETRIDES Rhithymna Rhithymna (RHETHYMNA) A titular see of Crete, suffragan of Gortyna, mentioned by Ptolemy, III, 15, Pliny, IV, 59, and Stephen of Byzantium. Nothing is known of its ancient history but some of its coins are extant. It still exists under the Greek name of Rhethymnon (Turkish, Resmo, It. and Fr. Retimo). It is a small port on the north side of the island thirty-seven miles south-west of Candia; it has about 10,000 inhabitants (half Greeks, half Mussulmans), and some Catholics who have a church and school. Rhithymna exports oil and soap. During the occupation of Crete by the Venetians it became a Latin see. According to Corner (Creta sacra, II, 138 sq.), this see is identical with Calamona. For a list of twenty-four bishops (1287 to 1592) see Eubel (Hier. cath. med. aevi, I, 161; II, 128; III, 161). Three other names are mentioned by Corner from 1611 to 1641. The Turks who had already ravaged the city in 1572, captured it again in 1646. At present the Greeks have a bishop there who bears the combined titles of Rhethymnon and Aulopotamos. The date of the foundation of the see is unknown. It is not mentioned in the Middle Ages in any of the Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum". SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v. S. PETRIDES. Rhizus Rhizus ( Rizous.) A titular see of Pontus Polemoniacus suffragan of Neocaesarea, mentioned by Ptolemy (V, 6) as a port on the Black Sea (Euxine); it is referred to also in other ancient geographical documents, but its history is unknown, Procopius ("De bello gothico", IV, 2), tells us that the town was of some importance and that it was fortified by Justinian. He calls it Rhizaion, and it is so styled in the "Notitiae Episcopatuum". It was originally a suffragan of Neocaesarea, then an "autocephalous" archdiocese, finally a metropolitan see; the dates of these changes are uncertain. With the decrease of the Christian element the suffragan has become a simple exarchate. To-day there are no more than 400 Greeks among the 2000 inhabitants of Rizeh, as the Turks call the town. It is the capital of the Sanjak of Lazistan in the Vilayet of Trebizond, and exports oranges and lemons. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 517), mentions three bishops; Nectarius, present at the Council of Nice, 787; John, at the Council of Constantinople, 879, and Joachim (metropolitan) in 1565. SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MUeLLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 868. S. PETRIDES. Giacomo Rho Giacomo Rho Missionary, born at Milan, 1593; died at Peking 27 April, 1638. He was the son of a noble and learned jurist, and at the age of twenty entered the Society of Jesus. While poor success attended his early studies, he was later very proficient in mathematics. After his ordination at Rome by Cardinal Bellarmine, he sailed in 1617 for the Far East with forty-four companions. After a brief stay at Goa he proceeded to Macao where, during the siege of that city by the Dutch, he taught the inhabitants the use of artillery and thus brought about its deliverance. This service opened China to him. He rapidly acquired the knowledge of the native language and was summoned in 1631 by the emperor to Peking for the reform of the Chinese calendar. With Father Schall he worked to the end of his life at this difficult task. When he died, amidst circumstances exceptionally favourable to the Catholic mission, numerous Chinese officials attended his funeral. He left works relative to the correction of the Chinese calendar, to astronomical and theological questions. DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jesus, VI (9 vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1709-11; HUC, Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet, II (tr. New York, 1884), 265-66. N. A. WEBER. Rhode Island Rhode Island The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one of the thirteen original colonies, is in extent of territory (land area, 1054 square miles), the smallest state in the American union. It includes the Island of Rhode Island, Block Island, and the lands adjacent to Narragansett Bay, bounded on the north and east by Massachusetts, on the south by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by Connecticut. The population, according to the United States Census of 1910, numbers 542,674. Providence, the capital, situated at head of Narragansett Bay, and having a population of 224,326, is the industrial centre of an extremely wealthy and densely populated district. Rhode Island has long since ranked as chiefly a manufacturing state, although the agricultural interest in certain sections are still considerable. The agriculture in Rhode Island has not kept pace with manufacturers is illustrated by instances of rural population. Two country towns have fewer inhabitants than in 1748; two others, but a few more than at that date; one town, less than in 1782; two, less than in 1790, and another, less than in 1830. Coal exists and has been mined, but it is of graphitic nature. Granite of high grade is extensively quarried. The value of stone quarried in 1902 was $734,623; the value of all other minerals produced, $39,998. The power supplied by the rivers gave early impetus to manufacturing are general, including cotton, woolen, and rubber goods, jewelry, silverware, machinery and tools. In 1905 there were 1617 manufacturing establishments with a total capitalization of $215,901,375; employing 97,318 workers with a payroll of $43,112,637, and an output of the value of $202,109,583. The total assets of banks and trust companies in June, 1909, were $252,612,122. The bonded State debt,1 Jan., 1910, was $4,800,000 with a sinking fund of $654,999. The direct foreign commerce is small, imports in 1908 being $1,499,116 and exports $21,281. The population of Rhode Island in 1708 was 7181. In 1774 it had increased to 59,707, subsequently decreasing until in 1782 it was 52,391. Thereafter until 1840 the average annual increase was 973; and from 1840 to 1860, 3289. During the latter period and for several years afterward came a heavy immigration from Ireland, followed by a large influx from Canada. For the last twenty-five years, the increase from European countries, especially Italy, has been great. According to the State census of 1095, the number of foreign-born in Rhode Island is as follows; born in Canada, 38,500; in Ireland, 32,629; In England, 24,431; In Italy, 18,014; In Sweden, 7201; In Scotland, 5649; in Portugal, 5293; In Russia, 4505; in Germany, 4463; in Poland, 4104. This classification does not distinguish the Jews, who are rapidly increasing, and who in 1905 numbered 14,570. HISTORY A. Political It is probable that Verrazano, sailing under the French flag, visited rhode Island waters in 1524. A dutch navigator, Adrian Block, in 1614 explored Narragansett Bay and gave to Block Island the name it bears. The sentence of banishment of Roger Williams from Plymouth Colony was passed in 1635, and in the following year he settled on the site of Providence, acquiring land by purchase from the Indians. One cause of Williams's banishment was his protest against the interference of civil authorities in religious matters. In November, 1637, William Coddington was notified to eave Massachusetts. With the help f of Williams, he settled on the site of Portsmouth, in the northerly part of the island of Rhode Island, which was then call Aquidneck. Disagreements arising at Portsmouth, Coddington, with a minority of his townsmen, in 1639 moved southward on the island and began the settlement of New port. Samuel Gorton, another refugee from Massachusetts, in 1638 came first to Portsmouth, and later to Providence, creating discord at both places by denying all power in the magistrates. Gorton finally, in 1643, purchased from the Indians a tract of land in what is now the town of Warwick, and settled there. The four towns, Providence, Warwick, Portsmouth, and Newport, lying in a broken line about thirty miles in length, for many years constituted the municipal divisions of the colony. In 1644 Roger Williams secured from the English Parliament the first charter, which was accepted by an assembly of delegates from the four towns; and a bill of rights, and a brief code of laws, declaring the government to be "held by the common consent of all the free inhabitants", were enacted thereunder. In 1663 was granted the charter of Charles II, the most liberal of all the colonial charters. It ordained that no person should be in any way molested on account of religion; and created the General Assembly, with power to enact all laws necessary for the government of the colony, such laws being not repugnant to but agreeable as near as might be to the laws of England, "considering the nature and constitution of the place and people there" The separate existence of the little colony was long precarious. Coddington in 1651 secured for himself a commission as governor of the islands of Rhode Island and Conanicut, but his authority was vigorously assailed, and his commission finally revoked. The Puritans in Massachusetts were no friends of the people of Rhode Island, and portions of the meagre territory were claimed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. Rhode Island, like the other colonies was threatened both in England and in America by those who favoured direct control by the English Government. Under the regime of Andros, Colonial Governor at Boston, the charter government was suspended for two years; and had the recommendations of the English commissioner, Lord Bellemont, been adopted, the charter government would have been abolished. In 1710 the colony first issued "bills of credit", paper money, which continued increasing in volume and with great depreciation in value, until after the close of the Revolution, causing and inciting bitter partisan and sectional strife, and at times leading to the verge of civil war. The advocates of this currency defended it on the ground of necessity, lack of specie, and the demand for some medium to pay the expenses os successive wars. In 1787 the State owed -L-150,047, English money, on interest-bearing notes, which in 1789 the Assembly voted to retire by paying them in paper money then passing at the ratio of twelve to one. By the early part of the eighteenth century the people were extensively engaged in ship-building, and it is said that in the wars in America between Great Britain and France, Rhode Island fitted out more ships for service than any other colony. The extraordinary measure of self-government granted to the colonists by the charter fostered in them a spirit of loyalty toward the mother country, substantially and energetically manifested on every occasion; but which, nevertheless, when the danger from the foreign foe was no longer imminent, was supplanted by a feeling of jealous apprehension of the encroachments on that the colonist s had now learned to regard as their natural rights. Rhode Island heartily joined the other colonies in making the Revolution her cause. In 1768 the Assembly ratified the Massachusetts remonstrance against the British principle of taxation, in spite of Lord Hillsborough's advice to treat it with "the contempt it deserves". The first overt act of the Revolution, the scuttling of the revenue sloop "Liberty", took place in Newport harbour, 19 July, 1769; followed three years later by the burning of the British ship of war "Gaspee" at Providence. A strong loyalist party in the colony for social and commercial reasons was anxious to avoid an open breach with the mother country, but the enthusiasm with which the news of Lexington was received showed that the majority of the people welcomed the impending struggle. on 4 May, 1776, the Rhode Island Assembly by formal act renounced its allegiance to Great Britain, and in the following July voted its approval of the Declaration of Independence. The colony bore its burden, too, of the actual conflict. From 1776 until 1779, the British occupied Newport as their headquarters, ruining the commerce of the town and wasting the neighbouring country. The evident strategic importance of the possession of Newport by the British, and the possibility of the place's becoming the centre of a protracted and disastrous war, created great alarm not only in the colony but throughout New England. Two attempts were made to dislodge the enemy, the second with the co-operation of the French fleet, but both failed. The levies of men and money were promptly met by the people of the colony in spite of the widespread privation and actual suffering. At last the British headquarters were shifted to the south, and the French allies Newport until the end of the war. The same consideration, the instinct for local self-government, which prompted Rhode Island to resist the mother country, made her slow to join with the other colonies in establishing a strong centralized government. "We have not seen our way clear to do it consistent with our idea of the principles upon which we are all embarked together", wrote the Assemble to the President of Congress. The proposed federal organization seemed scarcely less objectionable than the former British rule. Rhode Island took no part in the Convention of 1787, and long refused even to submit the question of the adoption of the Constitution to a state convention. Eight times the motion to submit was lost in the Assemble, and it was only when it became evident that the other states did not regard Rhode Island's condition single independence as an "eligible" one, and where quite ready to act in support of their opinion even to the extent of parcelling her territory among themselves, that the Constitution was submitted to a convention and adopted by a majority of two votes, 29 May, 1790. Admitted to the Union, Rhode Island did not follow the example of most of the other states in framing a constitution adapted to the new national life, but continued under the old charter. This fact underlies here political history for the next fifty years. The charter of Charles II, though suitable to its time, was bound to become oppressive. First, it fixed the representation of the several towns without providing for a readjustment to accord with the relative changes therein. Hence, the natural and social forces, necessarily operating in the course of two hundred years to enlarge some communities and to reduce others, failed to find a corresponding political expression. Again, the charter had conferred the franchise upon the "freemen" of the towns, leaving to the Assemble the task of defining the term. From early colonial days the qualification had fluctuated until in 1798 it was fixed at the ownership of real estate to the value of $134, or of $7 annual rental (the eldest sons of freeholders being also eligible). Agitation for a constitution began as soon as Rhode Island had entered the Union, and continued for many years with little result. It came to a head ultimately in 1841 in the Dorr Rebellion, the name given to that movement whereby a large part in the state, under the leadership of Thomas W. Dorr of Providence, proceeded to frame a constitution, independently of the existing government and to elect officers thereunder. The movement was readily put down by the authorities after some display of force, and Dorr was obliged to flee the state. Returning later, he was indicted for treason, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was pardoned and set at liberty within a year. His work was not a failure, however, for in 1842 a constitution was adopted incorporating his proposed reforms. A personal property qualification was instituted, practically equivalent to the real estate qualification; and neither was required, except in voting upon an proposition to impose a tax or to expend money, or for the election of the City Council of Providence. The personal property qualification was not available, to foreign-born citizens, and this discrimination persisted until 1888, when it was abolished by constitutional amendment. Each town and city was entitled to one member in the Senate; and the membership of the Lower House, limited to seventy-two, was apportioned among the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the proviso that now town or city should have more than one-sixth of the total membership. In 1909, an amendment was adopted increasing the membership of the Lower House to one hundred, apportioned as before among the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the proviso that no town or city should have more than one-fourth of the total membership. It is significant that under this amendment the City of Providence has twenty-five representatives whereas its population warrants forty-one. In the same year, the veto power was for the first time bestowed upon the governor. Notwithstanding these approaches toward a republican form of government, there is a strong demand for a thorough revision of the Constitution. According to an opinion of the Supreme Court a constitutional convention is out of the question, inasmuch as the Constitution itself contains no provision therefor (In re The Constitutional Convention, IIV R. I., 469), and the only hope of reform seems to be in the slow and difficult process of amendment. B. Religious The earliest settlers in this state were criticized by their enemies for lack of religion. Cotton Mather described them as a "colluvies" of everything but Roman Catholics and real Christians. In Providence Roger Williams was made pastor of the first church, the beginning of the present First Baptist Church. In 1739 there were thirty-three churches in the colony; twelve Baptist, ten Quaker, six Congregational or Presbyterian, and five Episcopalian. It is said that in 1680 there was not one Catholic in the colony, and for a long period their number must have been small. In 1828 there were probably less than 1000 Catholics in the state. In that year Bishop Fenwick of Boston assigned Rev. Robert Woodley to a "parish" which included all of Rhode Island and territory to the east in Massachusetts. A church was built in Pawtucket in 1829. Father Woodley in 1828 acquired in Newport a lot and building which was used for a church and school. In 1830 Rev. John Corry was assigned to Taunton and Providence, and built a church in Taunton in that year. The first Catholic church in Providence was built in 1837 on the site of the present cathedral. At that time Father Corry was placed in charge of Providence alone. From 1844 to 1846 the mission of Rev. James Fitton included Woonsocket, Pawtucket, Crompton and Newport, a series of districts extending the length of the state. In 1846, Newport was made a parish by itself. Woonsocket received a pastor at about the same time; Pawtucket in 1847; Warren in 1851; Pascoag in 1851; East Greenwich in 1853; Georgiaville in 1855. These parishes were not confined to the limits of the towns or villages named, but included the surrounding territory. In 1844 the Diocese of Hartford was created, including Rhode Island and Connecticut, with the episcopal residence at Providence. At this time there were only six priests in the two states. In 1872 the diocese of Hartford was divided and the Diocese of Providence created, including all Rhode Island, and in Massachusetts, the counties of Bristol, Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket, also the towns of Mattapoisset, Marion, and Wareham in the County of Plymouth. In 1904 the Diocese of Fall River was created, leaving the Diocese of Providence coextensive with the state. After 1840, and especially following the famine in Ireland, the Irish increased with great rapidity and long formed the bulk of the Catholic population. The growth of cotton manufactures after the Civil War drew great numbers of Canadian Catholics. In more recent years Italians have settled in Rhode Island in great numbers, and many Polish Catholics. Included in the Catholic population are approximately 65,000 Canadians and French, 40,000 Italians, 10,000 Portuguese,8000 Poles, and 1000 Armenians and Syrians. According to a special government report on the census of religious bodies of the United States, 76.5 per cent, of the population of the City of Providence are Catholics. There are 199 priests in the diocese, including about 47 Canadian and French priests, 8 Italian, and 5 Polish priests. Thirty parishes support parochial schools. Under Catholic auspices are two orphan asylums, one infant asylum, two hospitals, one home for the aged poor, one industrial school, one house for working boys, and two houses for working girls. The first Catholic governor of the State was James H. Higgins, a Democrat, who was elected for two terms, 1907, 1908. He was succeeded by Aram J. Pothier, A Catholic, and a Republican. The State census of 1905 gives the following statistics of religious denominations: + Catholic: 200,00 members (76 churches) + Protestant Episcopal: 15,441 members (68 churches) + Baptist: 14,761 members (75 churches) + Methodist Episcopal: 5,725 members (45 churches) + Congregationalist: 9,738 members (42 churches) + Lutheran: 2,217 members (12 churches) + Free Baptist: 3,306 members (30 churches) + Presbyterian: 993 members (4 churches) + Universalist: 1,166 members (9 churches) + Unitarian: 1,000 members (4 churches) + Seventh Day Baptist: 1,040 members (5 churches) + Friends: 915 members (7 churches) Value of property owned by certain denominations is stated as follows: Protestant Episcopal, $1,957,518; Congregational, $1,417,089; Baptist, $1,124,348; Methodist Episcopal, $624,900; Unitarian $280,000; Universalist, $259,000; Free Baptist, $242,000. Education Provision was made for a public school in New port in 1640. State supervision of public schools was not inaugurated until 1828. The number of pupils enrolled in public schools in 1907 was 74,065, and the number of teachers employed, 2198. The State maintains an agricultural college, a normal school, a school for the deaf, a home and school for dependent children not criminal or vicious, and makes provision for teaching the blind. Schools are supported mainly by the towns wherein they are located. The state appropriates annually $120,000 to be used only for teachers salaries, and to be divided among the towns and cities in proportion to school population, but no town may receive its allotment without appropriating at least an equal amount for the same purpose. Another appropriation is paid to towns maintaining graded high schools. This appropriation in 1910 was $26,500. The total amount expended on public schools in 1907, exclusive of permanent improvements, was $1,800,325, the number of school buildings was 528; and the valuation of school property, $6,550,172. The number of parochial school pupils in 1907 was 16,254; the total attendance of Catholic parochial schools and academies in 1910 was 17,440. These schools cost about $1,500,000, and their annual maintenance about $150,000. The average monthly expense per pupil in the public schools in 1907 was stated as $3.14. Allowing ten months for the school year, on the basis of that cost, the 16,254 parochial school pupils, if attending the public school, would have cost the State and towns $510,375. Providence is the seat of Brown University, a Baptist institution founded in 1764. The corporation consists of a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellow. A majority of the trustees must be Baptists and the rest of the trustees must be chosen from three other prescribed Protestant denominations. A majority of the fellows including the president, must be Baptists; "the rest indifferently of any or all denominations". It is provided that the places of professors, tutors and all officers, the president alone excepted, shall be free and open to all denominations of Protestants. The total enrollment of the university for the academic year 1909-10 was 967, including the graduate department and the Women's College. Legislation Affecting Religion In 1657 the Assembly denied the demand of the commissioners of the United Colonies that Quakers should be banished from Rhode Island, and later passed a law that military service should not be exacted from those whose religious belief forbade the bearing of arms. The Charter of 1663 guaranteed freedom of conscience, and the colonial laws prohibited compulsory support of any form of worship. In 1663, Charles II wrote to the Assembly declaring that all men of civil conversation, obedient to magistrates though of differing judgments, might be admitted as freemen, with liberty to choose and be chosen to office, civil and military. In this communication it was voted that all those who should take an oath of allegiance to Charles II and were of competent estate, should be admitted as freemen; but none should vote or hold office until admitted by vote of the assembly. In the volume of laws printed in 1719, appeared a provision that all men professing Christianity, obedient to magistrates, and of civil conversation, though of differing judgments in religious matters, Roman Catholics alone excepted should have liberty to choose and be chosen to offices both civil and military. The date of the original enactment of this exception is not known. It was repealed in 1783. The State Constitution of 1842 guarantees freedom of conscience, and provides that no man's civil capacity shall be increased or diminished on account of his religious belief. The Sunday law of Rhode Island, following the original English statute (Charles II, e. VII, sect. 1) differs from the law of most other states in that it forbids simply the exercise of one's ordinary calling upon the Lord's day; excepting of course works of charity and necessity. Hence a release given on Sunday has been held good (Allen v. Gardiner, VII, R.I. 22); and probably any contracts not in pursuance of one's ordinary calling would be sustained though made on Sunday. A characteristic exception exists in favour of Jews and Sabbatarians, who are permitted with certain restrictions, to pursue their ordinary calling on the first day of the week. Fishing and fowling, except on one's own property, and all games, sports, plays, and recreations on Sunday are forbidden. The penalty for the first violation of the statute is $5, and $10 for subsequent violations. Service of civil process on Sunday is void. Witnesses are sworn with the simple formality of raising the right hand; or they make affirmation upon peril of the penalty for perjury. Judges assemblymen, and all State officers, civil and military, must take an oath of office. The substance of the oath is to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of this State, and faithfully and impartially to discharge the duties of the office. The judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts also swear to administer justice without respect of persons, and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. Lawyers, auditors and almost every city and town official take an oath office. Blasphemy is punished by imprisonment not exceeding two months or fine not exceeding $200; profane cursing swearing by fine not exceeding $5. New State and municipal governments are generally inaugurated with prayer. Legal holidays include New Year's Day, Columbus Day, and Christmas. Good Friday is a Court holiday by rule of Court and a school holiday in Providence by vote of the school committee. There is no statute or reported decision regarding evidence of statements made under the seal of confession. Should a question arise concerning this, it would have to be decided on precedent and on grounds of public policy. The sole statutory privilege is that accorded to communications between husband and wife; although the common law privilege of offers of compromise and settlement and of communications between attorney and client are recognized. Physicians may be compelled to disclose statements made to them by patients regarding physical condition. Incorporation and Taxation In 1869 an act was passed enabling the bishop of the Diocese of Hartford, with the vicar-general, the pastor and two lay members of any Catholic congregation in this State, to incorporate, and to hold the Church property of such congregation, by filing with the secretary of State an agreement to incorporate. This act was amended upon the creation of the Diocese of Providence. The property of all the organized and self-sustaining Catholic parishes is held by corporations so formed. The system furnishes a convenient means of continuing the ownership of the property of the respective parishes. In 1900 the bishop of the Diocese of Providence and his successors were created a corporation sole with power to hold property for the religious and charitable purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. Since 1883 there has existed an act enabling Episcopalian parishes to incorporate. Special chatters are freely granted when desired. There is a general law allowing libraries, lyceums and societies for religious charitable, literary, scientific, artistic, musical or social purposes to incorporate by filing an agreement stating the names of the promoters and the object of the corporation, and by paying a nominal charge. Such corporations may hold property up to $100,000 in value. By general law, buildings for religious worship, and the land on which they stand, not exceeding one acre, so far as such land and buildings are occupied and used exclusively for religious or educational purposes, are exempt from taxation. The exemption does not apply to pastors' houses. The buildings and personal property of any corporation used for schools, academies, or seminaries of learning, and of any incorporated public charity, and the land, not exceeding one acre, on which such buildings stand, are exempt. School property is exempt only so far as it is used exclusively for educational purposes. Property used exclusively for burial purposes, hospitals, public libraries, and property used for the aid of the poor, are exempt. Any church property other than that specified is taxed, unless it is in a form exempted by national law. Clergymen are exempt from jury and military duty. Marriage and Divorce Marriage between grandparent and grandchild, or uncle and niece, and between persons more closely related by blood, is void; as is marriage with a step-parent, with the child or grandchild or one's husband or wife, with the husband or wife of one's child or grandchild, and with the parent or grandparent of one's wife or husband. The statute contains no express requirement regarding the age of the parties contracting marriage, but it is a defence to an indictment for bigamy that the prior marriage was contracted when the man was under fourteen years of age, and the woman under twelve. Marriages among Jews are valid in law if they are valid under the Jewish religion. Marriages may be performed by licensed clergymen and by the judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts. Before marriage, parties must obtain a licence by personal application from the town clerk, or city clerk, or registrar; and a non-resident woman must obtain such licence at least five days previous to the marriage. The licence must be presented to the clergyman or judge officiating, who must make return of the marriage. Two witnesses are required to the marriage ceremony. Failure to observe the licence regulations will not invalidate the marriage provided either of the contracting parties supposes they have been complied with; but the noncompliance is punished by fine or imprisonment. Causes for divorce include adultery, extreme cruelty, wilful desertion for five years, or for a shorter time in the discretion of the Court, continued drunkenness, excessive use of opium, morphine, or chloral, neglect of husband to provide necessaries for this wife, and an other gross misbehaviour and wickedness repugnant to the marriage covenant. If the parties have been separated for ten years, the Court may in its discretion decree a divorce. Under the law of Rhode Island marriage is regarded as a status, pertaining to the citizen, which the State may regulate or alter. Hence a Court having jurisdiction over one of the parties to a marriage as a bona fide domiciled citizen of the State, may dissolve the marriage although the other party is beyond the jurisdiction; and such dissolution will be recognized by other states b virtue of the comity provision of the Federal Constitution (Ditson vs. Ditson, IV R.I. 87). Liquor Laws, Corrections, etc. A Constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor was adopted in 1886, and repealed in 1889. At present Rhode Island is a local option state, the question of licence or no-licence being submitted annually to the voters of the several cities and towns. The licensing boards may in their discretion refuse any application. The number of licences in any town may not exceed the proportion of one licence to each 500 inhabitants. The owners of the greater part of the land within two hundred feet of any location may bar its licence. No licence can be granted for a location within two hundred feet, measured on the street, of any public or parochial school. Maximum and minimum licence fees are fixed by statute, and the exact sum is determined by the licensing boards. For retail licences the minimum fee is $300, and the maximum, $1000. In the City of Cranston are located the "State institutions", so-called, including the State prison, the county jail, the State workhouse, a reform school for girls, and another for boys. The probation system is extensively employed, and in the case of juvenile offenders especially, the State makes every effort to prevent their becoming hardened criminals. Probation officers have the power of bail over persons committed to them. In proper cases, probation officers may provide for the maintenance of girls and women apart from their families. Capital punishment does not exist in the State except in cases where a life convict commits murder. Wills disposing of personal property may be made by persons eighteen years of age or over; wills disposing of real estate, by persons twenty-one years of age or over. Probate clerks are required to notify corporations and voluntary associations of all gifts made to them by will. If a gift for charity is made by will to a corporation and the acceptance thereof would be ultra vires, the corporation may at once receive the gift, and may retain it on condition of securing the consent of the legislature within one year. It has been held that a legacy for Masses should be paid in full even if the estate were insufficient to pay general pecuniary legacies in full, on the ground that the gift for Masses is for services to be rendered and is not gratuitous, furthermore that a gift for Masses is legal and is not void as being a superstitious use (Sherman v. Baker, XX R.I., 446, 613). Cemeteries are regulated to the extent that town councils may prevent their location in thickly populated districts, and for the protection of health may pass ordinances regarding burials and the use of the grounds. Desecration of graves is punished. Towns may receive land for burial purposes, and town councils may hold funds for the perpetual care of burial lots. Cemeteries are generally owned by corporations specially chartered, by churches and families. Field, State of R.I. and Providence Plantations (Boston, 1902); Arnold, Hist. of R.I. (New York, 1860); Staples, Annals of Providence (Providence, 1843); Dowling, Hist. of the Catholic Church in New England (Boston, 1899); R.I. Colonial Records. ALBERT B. WEST Alexandre de Rhodes Alexandre De Rhodes A missionary and author, born at Avignon, 15 March, 1591; died at Ispahan, Persia, 5 Nov., 1660. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Rome, 24 April, 1612, with the intention of devoting his life to the conversion of the infidels. He was assigned to the missions of the East Indies, and inaugurated his missionary labours in 1624 with great success in Cochin China. In 1627 he proceeded to Tongking where, within the space of three years, he converted 6000 persons, including several bonzes. When in 1630 persecution forced him to leave the country, the newly-made converts continued the work of evangelization. Rhodes was later recalled to Rome where he obtained permission from his superiors to undertake missionary work in Persia. Amidst the numerous activities of a missionary career, he found time for literary productions: "Tunchinensis historiae libri duo" (Lyons, 1652); "La glorieuse mort d'Andre, Catechiste . . ." (Paris, 1653); "Catechismus", published in Latin and in Tongkingese at Rome in 1658. DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jesus, VI (9 vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1718-21; CARAYON, Voyages et Missions du P. Rhodes (Paris and Le Mans, 1854). N. A. WEBER. Rhodes Rhodes (RHODUS) A titular metropolitan of the Cyclades (q. v.). It is an island opposite to Lycia and Caria, from which it is separated by a narrow arm of the sea. It has an area of about 564 sq. miles, is well watered by many streams and the river Candura, and is very rich in fruits of all kinds. The climate is so genial that the sun shines ever there, as recorded in a proverb already known to Pliny (Hist. natur., II, 62). The island, inhabited first by the Carians and then by the Phoenicians (about 1300 b.c.) who settled several colonies there, was occupied about 800 b.c. by the Dorian Greeks. In 408 b.c. the inhabitants of the three chief towns, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus founded the city of Rhodes, from which the island took its name. This town, built on the side of a hill, had a very fine port. On the breakwater, which separated the interior from the exterior port, was the famous bronze statue, the Colossus of Rhodes, 105 feet high, which cost 300 talents. Constructed (280) from the machines of war which Demetrius Poliorcetes had to abandon after his defeat before the town, it was thrown down by an earthquake in 203 B.C.; its ruins were sold in the seventh century by Caliph Moaviah to a Jew from Emesus, who loaded them on 900 camels. After the death of Alexander the Great and the expulsion of the Macedonian garrison (323 b.c.) the island, owing to its navy manned by the best mariners in the world, became the rival of Carthage and Alexandria. Allied with the Romans, and more or less under their protectorate, Rhodes became a centre of art and science; its school of rhetoric was frequented by many Romans, including Cato, Cicero, Caesar, and Pompey. Ravaged by Cassius in 43 b.c. it remained nominally independent till a.d. 44, when it was incorporated with the Roman Empire by Claudius, becoming under Diocletian the capital of the Isles or of the Cyclades, which it long remained. The First Book of Machabees (xv, 23) records that Rome sent the Rhodians a decree in favour of the Jews. St. Paul stopped there on his way from Miletus to Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 1); he may even have made converts there. In three other passages of Holy Writ (Gen., x, 4; I Par., i, 7; Ezech., xxvii, 15) the Septuagint renders by Rhodians what the Hebrew and the Vulgate rightly call Dodanim and Dedan. If we except some ancient inscriptions supposed to be Christian, there is no trace of Christianity until the third century, when Bishop Euphranon is said to have opposed the Encratites. Euphrosynus assisted at the Council of Nicaea (325). As the religious metropolitan of the Cyclades, Rhodes had eleven suffragan sees towards the middle of the seventh century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . . . Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum", 542); at the beginning of the tenth century, it had only ten (op. cit., 558); at the close of the fifteenth, only one, Lerne (op. cit., 635), which has since disappeared. Rhodes is still a Greek metropolitan depending on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On 15 August, 1310, under the leadership of Grand Master Foulques de Villaret, the Knights of St. John captured the island in spite of the Greek emperor, Andronicus II, and for more than two centuries, thanks to their fleet, were a solid bulwark between Christendom and Islam. In 1480 Rhodes, under the orders of Pierre d'Aubusson, underwent a memorable siege by the lieutenants of Mahomet II; on 24 October, 1522, Villiers de l'Isle Adam had to make an honorable capitulation to Solyman II and deliver the island definitively to the Turks. From 1328 to 1546 Rhodes was a Latin metropolitan, having for suffragans the sees of Melos, Nicaria, Carpathos, Chios, Tinos, and Mycone; the list of its bishops is to be found in Le Quien (Oriens christ., III, 1049) and Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, I, 205; II, 148; III, 188). The most distinguished bishop is Andreas Colossensis (the archdiocese was called Rhodes or Colossi) who, in 1416 at Constance and 1439 at Florence, defended the rights of the Roman Church against the Greeks, and especially against Marcus Eugenicus. After the death of Marco Cattaneo, the last residential archbishop, Rhodes became a mere titular bishopric, while Naxos inherited its metropolitan rights. On 3 March, 1797 it became again a titular archbishopric but the title was thenceforth attached to the See of Malta. Its suffragans are Carpathos, Leros, Melos, Samos, and Tenedos. By a decree of the Congregation of the Propaganda, 14 August, 1897, a prefecture Apostolic, entrusted to the Franciscans, was established in the Island of Rhodes; it has in addition jurisdiction over a score of neighbouring islands, of which the principal are Carpathos, Leros, and Calymnos. There are in all 320 Catholics, while the island, the capital of the vilayet of the archipelago, contains 30,000 inhabitants. The Franciscans have three priests; the Brothers of the Christian Schools have established there a scholasticate for the Orient as well as a school; the Franciscan Sisters of Gemona have a girls' school. The most striking feature of the city, in addition to a series of medieval towers and fortifications, is the Street of the Knights, which still preserves their blason (Order of St. John) and the date of the erection of each house or palace; several of the mosques are former churches. MEURSIUS, Creta, Cyprus, Rhodus (Amsterdam, 1675): CORONELLI, Isola di Rodi geographica, storica (Venice, 1702); LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 923 30; PAULSEN, Commentatio exhibens Rhodi descriptionem macedonica oetate (Goettingsn, 1818); MENGE, Ueber die Vorgesch. der Insel Rhodus (Cologne, 1827): ROTTIERS, Description des monuments de Rhodes (Brussels, 1828); ROSS, Reisen auf den griech. Inseln, III, 70-113; IDEM, Reisen nach Kos, Halikarnassos, Rhodos (Stuttgart, 1840); BERG, Die Insel Rhodos (Brunswick, 1860); SCHNEIDERWIRTH, Gesch. der Insel Rhodos (Heiligenstadt. 1868); GUERIN, L'ile de Rhodes (Paris, 1880); BILLIOTI AND COTTERET, L'ile de Rhodes (Paris, 1891); BECKER, De Rhodiorum primordiis (Leipzig, 1882); TORR, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885); IDEM, Rhodes in Modern Times (Cambridge, 1887); SCHUMACHER, De Republica Rhodiorum commentatio (Heidelberg, 1886); VON GELDER, Gesch. der alten Rhodier (La Haye, 1900); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; FILLION in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; Missiones catholicae (Rome, 1907). S. VAILHE Rhodesia Rhodesia A British possession in South Africa, bounded on the north and north-west by the Congo Free State and German East Africa; on the east by German East Africa, Nyassaland, and Portuguese East Africa; on the south by the Transvaal and Bechuanaland; on the west by Bechuanaland and Portuguese West Africa. Cecil John Rhodes, to whom the colony owes its name, desired to promote the expansion of the British Empire in South Africa. The Dutch South African Republic and Germany were contemplating annexations in the neighbourhood of the Zambesi River. To thwart these enemies of unity without delay and without the aid of the British Parliament was the task to which Mr. Rhodes and his colleagues set themselves. Early in 1888 Lobengula, King of Matabeleland, entered into a treaty with Great Britain and on 30 October of the same year he granted to Rhodes's agents "the complete and exclusive charge over all metals and minerals" in his dominions. On 28 October, 1889, the British South Africa Company was formed under a royal charter. The company, on Lobengula's advice, first decided to open up Mashonaland, which lies north and west of Matabeleland and south of the Zambesi. In September, 1890, an expeditionary column occupied that country and, in the next four years, much was done to develop its resources. In 1893 the company, who questioned the right of the Matabele to make annual raids among their neighbours the Mashonas, came to blows with King Lobengula. Five weeks of active operations and the death of the king, probably by self-administered poison, brought the whole of Southern Rhodesia under the absolute control of the company. After the war, the settlement and opening up of the country was carried on under the direction of Mr. Rhodes who, on the ruins of Lobengula's royal kraal at Bulawayo, built Government House, and in the vicinity, laid out the streets and avenues of what was intended soon to become a great city. At one time Bulawayo had a population of some 7000 white inhabitants and seemed to be fulfilling the dreams of its founder when its progress and that of the whole country was cut short by the cattle pest, the native rebellion of 1896, and by years of stagnation and inactivity consequent upon the Boer War. Its white population (1911) is 5200. Besides Southern Rhodesia the chartered company own the extensive teritories of North-western and North-eastern Rhodesia which lie north of the Zambesi and which, with the more populous southern province, cover an area of some 450,000 square miles and form a country larger than France, Germany, and the Low Countries combined. The black population is less than 1,500,000, while the whites hardly exceed 16,000. All the native tribes of Rhodesia belong to the great Bantu family of the negro race. Before the arrival of the pioneer columns the dominant race south of the Zambesi were the Matabele, an off-shoot of the Zulus, who conquered the country north of the Limpopo River in the middle of the last century. They formed a military caste which lived by war and periodical raids upon their weaker neighbours. The destruction of this military despotism was a necessary step to the evangelizing of the country. Before the arrival of the Matabele warriors the principal inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia were the Makaranga whose ancestors had formed the once powerful empire of Monomotapa. North-western Rhodesia or Barotseland is ruled partly by an administrator residing at Livingstone, near the Victoria Falls of the Zambesi and partly by its native King Lewanika, the chief of the Barotse, who has been heavily subsidised by the company. The predominant people in North-eastern Rhodesia are the Awemba and the Angoni whose raiding propensities and cooeperation with the Arab slave drivers caused much trouble and expense until their definitive annexation by the company in 1894. The earliest attempt to evangelize Matabeleland was made in 1879 when three Jesuit Fathers, travelling by ox-wagon, accomplished the journey of some twelve hundred miles between Grahamstown and Bulawayo. They were hospitably received by King Lobengula who had been assured by some resident traders that the missionaries had come for his people's good. He granted them a free passage through his dominions and allowed them to train his subjects in habits of industry but not to preach the Gospel of Christ which, as he well knew, would lead to drastic changes, not only in the domestic life of his people, but in his whole system of government. For some fourteen years the missionaries held their ground awaiting events and it was only through the conquest of the country by the company that free missionary work was rendered possible. It was during this period that Baron von Hubner, who was not without personal experience of South Africa, declared that he would never contribute a penny to the Zambesi Mission, since he thought it contrary to his duty to foster an enterprise doomed to failure and disaster. Events seemed to justify his prognostications, for the mission, owing to fever and the hardships of travel, seemed to be losing more workers than it made converts. In 1893, however, the power of Lobengula was broken and mission stations began to grow up in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, the capital, and of Bulawayo. In Matabeleland there are two mission stations, one at Bulawayo and the second at Empandeni, some sixty miles away. This last station owns a property of about one hundred square miles most of which formed the original grant of Lobengula and the title to which was confirmed by the company. The principal station among the Mashonas or Makaranga is Chishawasha, fourteen miles from Salisbury (founded in 1892). There are other stations of more recent date at Salisbury, Driefontein, Hama's Kraal, and Mzondo, near Victoria, all under the charge of the Jesuit Fathers. The Missionaries of Marianhill, recently separated from the Trappists, have two missions in Mashonaland at Macheke and St. Trias Hill. The Makaranga who are thus being evangelized from seven mission stations are the descendants of the predominant tribe who received the faith from the Ven. Father Gonc,alo de Silveira in 1561. Among the Batongas, who owe a somewhat doubtful allegiance to King Lewanika in North-western Rhodesia, there are two Jesuit mission stations on the Chikuni and Nguerere Rivers. These missions are under the jurisdiction of the Jesuit Prefect Apostolic of the Zambesi, resident in Bulawayo. There are 35 priests, 30 lay brothers, and 83 nuns in charge of the missions. The Catholic native population is about 3000. For the missions of North-eastern Rhodesia see NYASSA, VICARIATE, APOSTOLIC OF. The land of the mission stations in Rhodesia is usually a grant from the Government made on condition of doing missionary work and is therefore inalienable without a special order in Council. Native schools, in some cases, are in receipt of a small grant from the Government. The Jesuit Fathers have one school for white boys (120) at Bulawayo, while the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic have three: at Bulawayo (210), Salisbury (130) and Gwelo (40). These schools are undenominational and receive grants from the Government. Hence Catholics who were first in the field, have a very considerable share in the education of the country. New Government schools have been built recently in Salisbury, Bulawayo, and Gwelo and other places in order to meet the growing demand for education and they have, so far, succeeded in filling their school-rooms without taking many pupils from the schools managed by Catholics. The chief source of information about the Zambesi Mission is the Zambesi Mission Record, issued quarterly (Roehampton, England); HENSMAN, A History of Rhodesia (London, 1900); HONE, Southern Rhodesia (London, 1909); HALL, Prehistoric Rhodesia (London, 1909); MICHELL, Life of C. J. Rhodes (2 vols., London, 1910). JAMES KENDAL. Rhodiopolis Rhodiopolis A titular see of Lycia, suffragan of Myra, called Rhodia by Ptolemy (V, 3) and Stephanus Byzantius; Rhodiapolis on its coins and inscriptions; Rhodiopolis by Pliny (V, 28), who locates it in the mountains to the north of Corydalla. Its history is unknown. Its ruins may be seen on a hill in the heart of a forest at Eski Hissar, vilayet of Koniah. They consist of the remains of an aqueduct, a small theatre, a temple of Escalapius, sarcophagi, and churches. Only one bishop is known, Nicholas, present in 518 at a Council of Constantinople. The "Notitiae episcopatuum" continue to mention the see as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 991; SPRATT AND FORBES, Travels in Lycia, I, 166, 181; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v. S. PETRIDES Rhodo Rhodo A Christian writer who flourished in the time of Commodus (180-92); he was a native of Asia who came to Rome where he was a pupil of Tatian's. He wrote several books, two of which are mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, xiii), viz., a treatise on "The Six Days of Creation" and a work against the Marcionites in which he dwelled upon the various opinions which divided them. Eusebius, upon whom we depend exclusively for our knowledge of Rhodo, quotes some passages from the latter work, in one of which an account is given of the Marcionite Apelles. St. Jerome (De vir. ill.) amplifies Eusebius's account somewhat by making Rhodo the author of a work against the Cataphrygians -- probably he had in mind an anonymous work quoted by Eusebius a little later (op. cit., V, xvi). HARNACK, Altchrist Lit., p . 599; BARDENHEWER, Patrology (tr. SHAHAN, St. Louis, 1908), 117. F.J. BACCHUS Rhosus Rhosus A titular see in Cilicia Secunda, suffragan to Anazarba. Rhosus or Rhossus was a seaport situated on the Gulf of Issus, now Alexandretta, southwest of Alexandria (Iskenderoun or Alexandretta). It is mentioned by Strabo (XIV, 5; XVI, 2), Ptolemy (V, 14), Pliny (V, xviii, 2), who place it in Syria, and by Stephanus Byzantius; later by Hierocles (Synecd. 705, 7), and George of Cyprus (Descriptio orbis romani, 827), who locate it in Cilicia Secunda. Towards 200, Serapion of Antioch composed a treatise on the Gospel of Peter for the faithful of Rhosus who had become heterodox on account of that book (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xii, 2). Theodoret (Philoth. Hist., X, XI), who places it in Cilicia, relates the history of the hermit Theodosius of Antioch, founder of a monastery in the mountain near Rhosus, who was forced by the inroads of barbarians to retire to Antioch, where he died and was succeeded by his disciple Romanus, a native of Rhosus; these two religious are honoured by the Greek Church on 5 and 9 February. Six bishops of Rhosus are known (Le Quien, "Or. Christ.", II, 905): Antipatros, at the Council of Antioch, 363; Porphyrius, a correspondent of St. John Chrysostom; Julian, at the Council of Chalcedon, 451; a little later a bishop (name unknown), who separated from his metropolitan to approve of the reconciliation effected between John of Antioch and St. Cyril; Antoninus, at the Council of Mopsuestra, 550; Theodore, about 600. The see is mentioned among the suffragans of Anazarba in "Notitiae episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch, of the sixth century (Vailhe in "Echos d'Orient", X, 145) and one dating from about 840 (Parthey, "Hieroclis synecd. et notit. gr. episcopat.", not. Ia, 827). In another of the tenth century Rhosus is included among the exempt sees (Vailhe, ibid 93 seq.). In the twelfth century the town and neighbouring fortress fell into the hands of the Armenians; in 1268 this castle was captured from the Templars by Sultan Bibars (Alishan, "Sissouan", Venice, 1899, 515). Rhosus is near the village of Arsous in the vilayet of Adana. S. PETRIDES. Rhymed Bibles Rhymed Bibles The rhymed versions of the Bible are almost entirely collections of the psalms. The oldest English rhymed psalter is a pre-Reformation translation of the Vulgate psalms, generally assigned to the reign of Henry II and still preserved in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has another Catholic rhyming psalter of much the same style, assigned epigraphically to the time of Edward II. Thomas Brampton did the Seven Penitential Psalms, from the Vulgate into rhyming verse in 1414; the Manuscript is in the Cottonian collection, British Museum. These and other pre-Reformation rhyming psalters tell a story of popular use of the vernacular Scripture in England which they ignore who say that the singing of psalms in English began with the Reformation. Sir Thomas Wyat (died 1521) is said to have done the whole psalter. We have only "Certayne Psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, commonly called the VII Penitential Psalmes, Drawen into English metre". Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (died 1547), translated Pss. lv, lxxiii, lxxxviii into English verse. Miles Coverdale (died 1567) translated several psalms in "Goastly psalmes and spirituall songs drawen out of the Holy Scripture". The old Version of the Anglican Church, printed at the end of the Prayer Book (1562) contains thirty-seven rhyming psalms translated by Thomas Sternhold, fifty-eight by John Hopkins, twenty-eight by Thomas Norton, and the remainder by Robert Wisdom (Ps. cxxv), William Whittingham (Ps. cxix of 700 lines) and others. Sternhold's psalms had been previously published (1549). Robert Crowley (1549) did the entire psalter into verse. The Seven Penitential Psalms were translated by very many; William Hunnis (1583) entitles his translation, with quaint Elizabethan conceit, "Seven Sobs of a Sorrowful Soul for Sinne". During the reign of Edward VI, Sir Thomas Smith translated ninety-two of the psalms into English verse, while imprisoned in the Tower. A chaplain to Queen Mary, calling himself the "symple and unlearned Syr William Forrest, preeiste", did a poetical version of fifty psalms (1551). Matthew Parker (1557), later Archbishop of Canterbury, completed a metrical psalter. The Scotch had their Psalmes buickes from 1564. One of the most renowned of Scotch versifiers of the Psalms was Robert Pont (1575). Zachary Boyd, another Scotchman, published the Psalms in verse early in the seventeenth century. Of English rhyming versifications of the Psalms, the most charming are those of Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586) together with his sister, Countess of Pembroke. This complete psalter was not published till 1823. The rich variety of the versification is worthy of note; almost all the usual varieties of lyric metres of that lyric age are called into requisition and handled with elegance. The stately and elegant style of Lord Bacon is distinctive of his poetical paraphrases of several psalms. Richard Verstegan, a Catholic, published a rhyming version of the Seven Penitential Psalms (1601). George Sandys (1636) published a volume containing a metrical version of other parts of the Bible together with "a Paraphrase upon the Psalmes of David, set to new Tunes for Private Devotion, and a Thorow Base for Voice and Instruments"; his work is touching in its simplicity and unction. The Psalm Books of the various Protestant churches are mostly rhyming versions and are numerous: New England Psalm Book (Boston, 1773); Psalm Book of the Reformed Dutch Church in North America (New York, 1792); The Bay Psalm Book (Cambridge, 1640). Noteworthy also, among the popular and more recent rhymed psalters are: Brady and Tate (poet laureate), "A new Version of the Psalms of David" (Boston, 1762); James Merrick, "The Psalms in English Verse" (Reading, England, 1765); I. Watts, "The Psalms of David" (27th ed., Boston, 1771); J. T. Barrett, "A Course of Psalms" (Lambeth, 1825); Abraham Coles, "A New Rendering of the Hebrew Psalms into English Verse" (New York, 1885); David S. Wrangham, "Lyra Regis" (Leeds, 1885); Arthur Trevor Jebb "A Book of Psalms" (London, 1898). Such are the chief rhyming English psalters. Other parts of Holy Writ done into rhyming English verse are: Christopher Tye's "The Acts of the Apostles translated into English Metre" (1553); Zachary Boyd's "St. Matthew" (early seventeenth cent.); Thomas Prince's "Canticles, parts of Isaias and Revelations" in New England Psalm Book (1758); Henry Ainswort, "Solomon's Song of Songs" (1642); John Mason Good's "Song of Songs" (London, 1803); C. C. Price's "Acts of the Apostles" (New York, 1845). The French have had rhyming psalters since the "Sainctes Chansonettes en Rime Franc,aise" of Clement Marot (1540). Some Italian rhymed versions of the Bible are: Abbate Francesco Rezzano, "II Libro di Giobbe" (Nice, 1781); Stefano Egidio Petroni, "Proverbi di Salomone" (London, 1815); Abbate Pietro Rossi, "Lamentazioni di Geremia, i Sette Salmi Penitenziali e il Cantico di Mose" (Nizza, 1781); Evasio Leone, "II Cantico de' Cantici" (Venice, 1793); Francesco Campana, "Libro di Giuditta" (Nizza, 1782). Bibliotheca Sussexiana, II (London. 1839); WARTON, History of English Poetry (1774-81); HOLLAND, The Psalmists of Britain (London, 1843). WALTER DRUM. Rhythmical Office Rhythmical Office I. DESCRIPTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND DIVISION By rhythmical office is meant a liturgical horary prayer, the canonical hours of the priest, or an office of the Breviary, in which not only the hymns are regulated by a certain rhythm, but where, with the exception of the psalms and lessons, practically all the other parts show metre, rhythm, or rhyme; such parts for instance as the antiphons to each psalm, to the Magnificat, Invitatorium, and Benedictus, likewise the responses and versicles to the prayers, and after each of the nine lessons; quite often also the benedictions before the lessons, and the antiphons to the minor Horoe (Prime, Terce, Sext, and None). The old technical term for such an office was Historia, with or without an additional " rhytmata" or rimata, an expression that frequently caused misunderstanding on the part of later writers. The reason for the name lay in the fact that originally the antiphons or the responses, and sometimes the two together, served to amplify or comment upon the history of a saint, of which there was a brief sketch in the readings of the second nocturn. Gradually this name was transferred to offices in which no word was said about a "history", and thus we find the expression "Historia ss. Trinitatis". The structure of the ordinary office of the Breviary in which antiphons, psalms, hymns, lessons, and responses followed one another in fixed order, was the natural form for the rhythmical office. It was not a question of inventing something new, as with the hymns, sequences, or other kinds of poetry, but of creating a text in poetic form in the place of a text in prose form, where the scheme existed, definitely arranged in all its parts. A development therefore which could eventually serve as a basis for the division of the rhythmical offices into distinct classes is of itself limited to a narrow field, namely the external form of the parts of the office as they appear in poetic garb. Here we find in historical order the following characters: + (1) a metrical, of hexameters intermixed with prose or rhymed prose; + (2) a rhythmical, in the broadest sense, which will be explained below; + (3) a form embellished by strict rhythm and rhyme. Consequently one may distinguish three classes of rhythmical offices: + (1) metrical offices, in hexameters or distichs; + (2) offices in rhymed prose, i. e., offices with very free and irregular rhythm, or with dissimilar assonant long lines; + (3) rhymed offices with regular rhythm and harmonious artistic structure. The second class represents a state of transition, wherefore the groups may be called those of the first epoch, the groups of the transition period, and those of the third epoch, in the same way as with the sequences, although with the latter the characteristic difference is much more pronounced. If one desires a general name for all three groups, the expression "Rhymed Office", as suggested by " Historia rimata"" would be quite appropriate for the pars major et potior, which includes the best and most artistic offices; this designation: " gereimtes Officium" (Reimofficium) has been adopted in Germany through the "Analecta Hymnica". The term does not give absolute satisfaction, because the first and oldest offices are without rhyme, and cannot very well be called rhymed offices. In the Middle Ages the word "rhythmical" was used as the general term for any kind of poetry to be distinguished from prose, no matter whether there was regular rhythm in those poems or not. And for that reason it is practical to comprise in the name "rhythmical offices" all those which are other than pure prose, a designation corresponding to the "Historia rhytmata". Apart from the predilection of the Middle Ages for the poetic form, the Vitoe metricoe of the saints were the point of departure and motive for the rhythmical offices. Those Vitoe were frequently composed in hexameters or distichs. From them various couples of hexameters or a distich were taken to be used as antiphon or response respectively. In case the hexameters of the Vitoe metricoe did not prove suitable enough, the lacking parts of the office were supplemented by simple prose or by means of verses in rhymed prose, i. e., by text lines of different length in which there was very little of rhythm, but simply assonance. Such offices are often a motley mixture of hexameters, rhythmical stanzas, stanzas in pure prose, and again in rhymed prose. An example of an old metrical office, intermixed with Prose Responses, is that of St. Lambert (Anal. Hymn., XXVII, no. 79), where all the antiphons are borrowed from that saint's Vitoe metricoe, presumably the work of Hucbald of St. Amand; the office itself was composed by Bishop Stephen of Liege about the end of the ninth century: Antiphona I: Orbita solaris praesentia gaudia confert Praesulis eximii Lantberti gesta revolvens. Antiphona II: Hic fuit ad tempus Hildrici regis in aula, Dilectus cunctis et vocis famine dulcis. A mixing of hexameters, of rhythmical stanzas, and of stanzas formed by unequal lines in rhymed prose is shown in the old Office of Rictrudis, composed by Hucbald about 907 (Anal. Hymn., XIII, no. 87). By the side of regular hexameters, as in the Invitatorium: Rictrudis sponso sit laus et gloria, Christo, Pro cuius merito iubilemus ei vigilando. we find rhythmical stanzas, like the first antiphon to Lauds: Beata Dei famula Rictrudis, adhuc posita In terris, mente devota Christo haerebat in aehra; or stanzas in very free rhythm, as e. g., the second response to the first nocturn: Haec femina laudabilis Meritisque honorabilis Rictrudis egregia Divina providentia Pervenit in Galliam, Praeclaris orta natalibus, Honestis alta et instituta moribus. From the metrical offices, from the pure as well as from those mixed with rhymed prose, the transition was soon made to such as consisted of rhymed prose merely. An example of this kind is in the Offices of Ulrich, composed by Abbot Berno of Reichenau (d. 1048); the antiphon to the Magnificat of the first Vespers begins thus: Venerandi patris Wodalrici sollemnia Magnae jucunditatis repraesentant gaudia, Quae merito cleri suscipiuntur voto Ac populi celebrantur tripudio. Laetetur tellus tali compta praesule, Exsultet polus tanto ditatus compare; Solus daemon ingemat, qui ad eius sepulcrum Suum assidue perdit dominium . . . etc. Much more perfectly developed on the other hand, is the rhythm in the Office which Leo IX composed in honour of Gregory the Great (Anal. Hymn., V, no. 64). This office, the work of a pope, appeared in the eleventh century in the Roman breviaries, and soon enjoyed widespread circulation; all its verses are iambic dimeters, but the rhythm does not as yet coincide with the natural accent of the word, and many a verse has a syllable in excess or a syllable wanting. For example, the first antiphon of the first nocturn: Gregorius ortus Romae E senatorum sanguine Fulsit mundo velut gemma Auro superaddita, Dum praeclarior praeclaris Hic accessit atavis. This author does not yet make use of pure rhyme, but only of assonance, the precursor of rhyme. Hence we have before us an example of transition from offices of the first epoch to those of the second. With these latter the highest development of the rhythmical office is reached. It is marvellous how in many offices of this artistic period, in spite of all symmetry in rhythm and rhyme, the greatest variety exists in the structure of the stanzas, how a smooth and refined language matches the rich contents full of deep ideas, and how the individual parts are joined together in a complete and most striking picture of the saint or of the mystery to be celebrated. A prominent example is the Office of the Trinity by Archbishop Pecham of Canterbury. The first Vespers begins with the antiphons: 1. Sedenti super solium Congratulans trishagium Seraphici clamoris Cum patre laudat filium Indifferens principium Reciproci amoris. 2. Sequamur per suspirium, Quod geritur et gaudium In sanctis caeli choris; Levemus cordis studium In trinum lucis radium Splendoris et amoris. It is interesting to compare with the preceding the antiphons to the first nocturn, which have quite a different structure; the third of them exhibits the profound thought: Leventur cordis ostia: Memoria Giguenti Nato intelligentia, Voluntas Procedenti. again the first response to the third nocturn: Candor lucis, perpurum speculum Patris splendor, perlustrans saeculum, Nubis levis intrans umbraculum In AEgypti venit ergastulum. Virgo circumdedit virum Mel mandentem et butyrum. upon which follows as second response the beautiful picture of the Trinity in the following form: A Veterani facie manavit ardens fiuvius: Antiquus est ingenitus, et facies est Filius, Ardoris fluxus Spiritus, duorum amor medius. Sic olim multifarie Prophetis luxit Trinitas, Quam post pandit ecclesiae In carne fulgens veritas. II. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE It cannot be definitely stated which of the three old abbeys: Pruem, Landevennec, or Saint-Amand can claim priority in composing a rhythmical office. There is no doubt however that Saint-Amand and the monasteries in Hainault, Flanders, and Brabant, was the real starting-point of this style of poetry, as long ago as the ninth century. The pioneer in music, the Monk Hucbald of Saint-Amand, composed at least two, probably four, rhythmical offices; and the larger number of the older offices were used liturgically in those monasteries and cities which had some connexion with Saint-Amand. From there this new branch of hymnody very soon found its way to France, and in the tenth and eleventh, and particularly in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, showed fine, if not the finest results, both in quality and quantity. Worthy of especial mention as poets of this order are: the Abbots Odo (927-42) and Odilo (994-1049) of Cluny, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (1017-28), the Benedictine Monk Odorannus of Sens (died 1045), Pope Leo IX (died 1054); Bishop Stephen of Tournay (1192-1203); Archdeacon Rainald of St. Maurice in Angers (died about 1074); Bishop Richard de Gerberoy of Amiens (1204-10); Prior Arnaud du Pre of Toulouse (died 1306), and the General of the Dominican Order, Martialis Auribelli, who in 1456 wrote a rhymed office for the purpose of glorifying St. Vincent Ferrer. The most eminent poet and composer of offices belongs to Germany by birth, but more so to France by reason of his activity; he is Julian von Speyer, director of the orchestra at the Frankish royal court, afterwards Franciscan friar and choir master in the Paris convent, where about 1240 he composed words and music for the two well-known offices in honour of St. Francis of Assisi and of St. Anthony of Padua (Anal. Hymn., V, nos. 61 and 42). These two productions, the musical value of which has in many ways been overestimated, served as a prototype for a goodly number of successive offices in honour of saints of the Franciscan Order as well as of others. In Germany the rhymed offices were just as popular as in France. As early as in the ninth century an office, in honour of St. Chrysantus and Daria, had its origin probably in Pruem, perhaps through Friar Wandalbert (Anal. Hymn,, XXV, no. 73); perhaps not much later through Abbot Gurdestin of Landevennec a similar poem in honour of St. Winwaloeus (Anal. Hymn., XVIII, no. 100). As hailing from Germany two other composers of rhythmical offices in the earlier period have become known: Abbot Berno of Reichenau (died 1048) and Abbot Udalschalc of Maischach at Augsburg (died 1150). The other German poets whose names can be given belong to a period as late as the fifteenth century, as e. g. Provost Lippold of Steinberg and Bishop Johann Hofmann of Meissen. England took an early part in this style of poetry, but unfortunately most of the offices which originated there have been lost. Brilliant among the English poets is Archbishop Pecham whose office of the Trinity has been discussed above. Next to him are worthy of especial mention Cardinal Adam Easton (died 1397) and the Carmelite John Horneby of Lincoln, who about 1370 composed a rhymed office in honour of the Holy Name of Jesus, and of the Visitation of Our Lady. Italy seems to have a relatively small representation; Rome itself, i. e. the Roman Breviary, as we know, did not favour innovations, and consequently was reluctant to adopt rhythmical offices. The famous Archbishop Alfons of Salerno (1058-85) is presumably the oldest Italian poet of this kind. Besides him we can name only Abbot Reinaldus de Colle di Mezzo (twelfth century), and the General of the Dominicans, Raymundus de Vineis from Capua (fourteenth century). In Sicily and in Spain the rhymed offices were popular and quite numerous, but with the exception of the Franciscan Fra Gil de Zamora, who about the middle of the fifteenth century composed an office in honour of the Blessed Virgin (Anal. Hymn., XVII, no. 8) it has been impossible to cite by name from those two countries any other poet who took part in composing rhythmical offices. Towards the close of the thirteenth century, Scandinavia also comes to the fore with rhymed offices, in a most dignified manner. Special attention should be called to Bishop Brynolphus of Skara (1278-1317), Archbishop Birgerus Gregorii of Upsala (died 1383), Bishop Nicolaus of Linkoeping (1374-91), and Johannes Benechini of Oeland (about 1440). The number of offices where the composer's name is known is insignificantly small. No less than seven hundred anonymous rhythmical offices have been brought to light during the last twenty years through the "Analecta Hymnica". It is true not all of them are works of art; particularly during the fifteenth century many offices with tasteless rhyming and shallow contents reflect the general decadence of hymnody. Many, however, belong to the best products of religious lyric poetry. For six centuries in all countries of the West, men of different ranks and stations in life, among them the highest dignitaries of the Church, took part in this style of poetry, which enjoyed absolute popularity in all dioceses. Hence one may surmise the significance of the rhythmical offices with reference to the history of civilization, their importance in history and development of liturgy, and above all their influence on other poetry and literature. BLUME AND DREVES, Analecta Hymnica medii oevi, V, XIII, XVII, XVIII-XXVI, XXVIII, XL Va, LII, appendix (Leipzig, 1889-1909); BAeUMER, Reimofficien, 356-64, in Gesch. des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BLUME, Zur Poesie des kirchlichen Stundengebetes, 132-45, in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1898); FELDER, Liturgische Reimofficien auf die hll. Franziskus und Antonius (Fribourg, 1901). CLEMENS BLUME. Pedro de Ribadeneira Pedro de Ribadeneira (or RIBADENEYRA and among Spaniards often RIVADENEIRA) Pedro De Ribadeneira was born at Toledo, of a noble Castilian family, 1 Nov., 1526 (Astrain, I, 206); died 22 Sept., 1611. His father Alvaro Ortiz de Cisneros, was the son of Pedro Gonzales Cedillo and grandson of Hernando Ortiz de Cisneros whom Ferdinand IV had honoured with the governorship of Toledo and important missions. His mother, of the illustrious house of Villalobos, was still more distinguished for her virtue than for her birth. Already the mother of three daughters, she promised to consecrate her fourth child to the Blessed Virgin if it should be a son. Thus vowed to Mary before his birth, Ribadeneira received in baptism the name of Pedro which had been borne by his paternal grandfather and that of Ribadeneira in memory of his maternal grandmother, of one of the first families of Galicia. In the capacity of page he followed Cardinal Alexander Farnese to Italy, and at Rome entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fourteen, on 18 Sept., 1540, eight days before the approval of the order by Paul III. After having attended the Universities of Paris, Louvain, and Padua, where, besides the moral crises which assailed him, he often had to encounter great hardships and habitually confined himself to very meagre fare [he wrote to St. Ignatius (Epp. mixtae, V, 649): "Quanto al nostro magnare ordinariamente e, a disnare un poco de menestra et un poco de carne, et con questo e finito"]. He was ordered in November, 1549, to go to Palermo, to profess rhetoric at the new college which the Society had just opened in that city. He filled this chair for two years and a half, devoting his leisure time to visiting and consoling the sick in the hospitals. Meanwhile St. Ignatius was negotiating the creation of the German College which was to give Germany a chosen clergy as remarkable for virtue and orthodoxy as for learning: his efforts were soon successful, and during the autumn of 1552 he called on the talent and eloquence of the young professor of rhetoric at Palermo. Ribadeneira amply fulfilled the expectations of his master and delivered the inaugural address amid the applause of an august assembly of prelates and Roman nobles. He was ordained priest 8 December, 1553 (Epp. mixtae, III, 179); during the twenty-one years which followed he constantly filled the most important posts in the government of his order. From 1556 to 1560 he devoted his activity to securing the official recognition of the Society of Jesus in the Low Countries. At the same time he was charged by his general with the duty of promulgating and causing to be accepted in the Belgian houses the Constitutions, which St. Ignatius had just completed at the cost of much labour. But these diplomatic and administrative missions did not exhaust Ribadeneira's zeal. He still applied himself ardently to preaching. In December, 1555 he preached at Louvain with wonderful success, and likewise in January, 1556, at Brussels. On 25 November of the same year he left Belgium and reached Rome 3 February, 1557, setting out again, 17 October for Flanders. His sojourn in the Low Countries was interrupted for five months (November, 1558 to March, 1559); this period he spent in London, having been summoned thither on account of the sickness of Mary Tudor, Queen of England, which ended in her death. In the summer of 1559 he was once more with his general, Lainez, whose right hand he truly was. On 3 November, 1560, he made his solemn profession, and from then until the death of St. Francis Borgia (1572) he continued to reside in Italy, filling in turn the posts of provincial of Tuscany, of commissary-general of the Society in Sicily, visitor of Lombardy, and assistant for Spain and Portugal. The accession of Father Everard Mercurian as general of the order brought a great change to Ribadeneira. His health being much impaired, he was ordered to Spain, preferably to Toledo, his native town, to recuperate. This was a dreadful blow to the poor invalid, a remedy worse than the disease. He obeyed, but had been scarcely a year in his native land when he began to importune his general by letter to permit him to return to Italy. These solicitations continued for several years. At the same time his superiors saw that he was as sick in mind as in body, and that his religious spirit was somewhat shaken. Not only was he lax in his religious observances, but he did not hesitate to criticize the persons and affairs of the Society, so much so that he was strongly suspected of being the author of the memoirs then circulated through Spain against the Jesuits (Astrain, III, 106-10). This, however, was a mistake, and his innocence was recognized in 1578. He it was who took upon himself the task of refuting the calumnies which mischief-makers, apparently Jesuits, went about disseminating against the Constitutions of the Society, nor did he show less ardour and filial piety in making known the life of St. Ignatius Loyola and promoting his canonization. Outside of the Society of Jesus, Ribadeneira is chiefly known for his literary works. From the day of his arrival in Spain to repair his failing health until the day of his death his career was that of a brilliant writer. His compatriots regard him as a master of Castilian and rank him among the classic authors of their tongue. All lines were familiar to him, but he preferred history and ascetical literature. His chief claim to glory is his Life of St. Ignatius Loyola, in which he speaks as an eye-witness, admirably supported by documents. Perhaps the work abounds too much in anecdotal details which tend to obscure the grand aspect of the saint's character and genius (Analecta Bolland., XXIII, 513). It appeared for the first time in Latin at Naples in 1572 (ibid., XXI, 230). The first Spanish edition, revised and considerably augmented by the author, dates from 1583. Other editions followed, all of them revised by the author; that of 1594 seems to contain the final text. It was soon translated into most of the European languages. Among his other works must be mentioned his "Historia eclesiastica del Cisma del reino de Inglaterra" and the "Flos sanctorum", which has been very popular in many countries. Some unpublished works of his deserve publication, notably his History of the persecution of the Society of Jesus and his History of the Spanish Assistancy. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compania de Jesus en le Asistencia de Espana (Madrid, 1902-09); PEAT, Histoire du Pere Ribadeneyra, disciple de S. Ignace (Paris, 1862); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la C. de J., VI, 1724-58; DE LA FUENTE, Obras escojidas del Padre Pedro de Rivadeneira, con una noticia de su vida y juicio critico de sus escritos in Biblioteca de autores Espanoles, LX (1868); Monumenta historica S.J.; Ignatiana, ser. I, Epistoloe, II; ser. IV, I; POLANCO, Chronicon Soc. Jesu, VI; Epistoloe mixtoe, V. FRANCIS VAN ORTROY. Andres Perez de Ribas Andres Perez De Ribas A pioneer missionary, historian of north-western Mexico; born at Cordova, Spain, 1576; died in Mexico, 26 March, 1655. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1602, coming at once to America, and finishing his novitiate in Mexico in 1604. In the same year he was sent to undertake the Christianization of the Ahome and Suaqui of northern Sinaloa, of whom the former were friendly and anxious for teachers, while the latter had just been brought to submission after a hard campaign. He succeeded so well that within a year he had both tribes gathered into regular towns, each with a well-built church, while all of the Ahome and a large part of the Suaqui had been baptized. The two tribes together numbered about 10,000 souls. In 1613, being then superior of the Sinaloa district, he was instrumental in procuring the submission of a hostile mountain tribe. In 1617, in company with other Jesuit missionaries whom he had brought from Mexico City, he began the conversion of the powerful and largely hostile Yaqui tribe (q.v.) of Sonora, estimated at 30,000 souls, with such success that within a few years most of them had been gathered into orderly town communities. In 1620 he was recalled to Mexico to assist in the college, being ultimately appointed provincial, which post he held for several years. After a visit to Rome in 1643 to take part in the election of a general of the order, he devoted himself chiefly to study and writing until his death. He left numerous works, religious and historical, most of which are still in manuscript, but his reputation as an historian rests secure upon his history of the Jesuit missions of Mexico published at Madrid in 1645, one year after its completion, under the title: "Historia de los Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe entre gentes las mas barbaras . . . conseguidos por los soldados de la milicia de Ia Compania de Jesus en las misiones de la Provincia de Nueva-Espana". Of this work Bancroft says: "It is a complete history of Jesuit work in Nueva Vizcaya, practically the only history the country had from 1590 to 1644, written not only by a contemporary author but by a prominent actor in the events narrated, who had access to all the voluminous correspondence of his order, comparatively few of which documents have been preserved. In short, Ribas wrote under the most favourable circumstances and made good use of his opportunities." ALEGRE, Historia de la Compania de Jesus (Mexico, 1841); BANCROFT, Hist. North Mexican States and Texas, I (San Francisco, 1886); BERISTAIN Y SOUZA, Biblioteca Hispano-Americana Setentrional, III (Amecemeca, 1883). JAMES MOONEY Diocese of Preto Ribeirao Ribeirao Preto (DE RIBERAO PRETO) A suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Sao Paulo, Brazil, established 7 June, 1908, with a Catholic population of 500,000 souls. The first and present bishop, Rt. Rev. Alberto Jose Gonc,alves, was born 20 July, 1859, elevated 5 December, 1908, and consecrated 29 April, 1909. The district of Ribeirao Preto is at present the most important one of the State of Sao Paulo, both on account of the richness of its soil and the great number of agricultural, industrial, and commercial establishments therein. Its principal product is coffee, the shipments of which are so considerable as to necessitate the constant running of an extraordinary number of trains. The seat of the diocese is the city of Ribeirao Preto, situated on the shores of Ribeirao Preto and Ribeirao Retiro, 264 miles from the capital of the state. The municipality, created by law of 1 April, 1889, is divided into four wards, viz.: Villa Tibeiro, Barracao, Morro do Cipo, and Republica. It is, like most of the interior towns of Sao Paulo, of modern construction. The city is lighted by electric light and has excellent sewer and water-supply systems. The streets are well laid, straight, and intersecting at right angles, with many parks and squares. The cathedral now nearing completion will be one of the finest buildings of its kind in Brazil. It is well provided with schools and colleges, prominent among which are those maintained by the Church. JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE. Jusepe de Ribera Jusepe de Ribera Jusepe De Ribera, called also SPAGNOLETTO, L'ESPAGNOLET (the little Spaniard), painter born at Jativa, 12 Jan., 1588; died at Naples, 1656. Fantastic accounts have been given of his early history; his father was said to be a noble, captain of the fortress of Naples, etc. All this is pure romance. A pupil of Ribalta, the author of many beautiful pictures in the churches of Valencia, the young man desired to know Italy. He was a very determined character. At eighteen, alone and without resources, he begged in the streets of Rome in order to live, and performed the services of a lackey. A picture by Caravaggio aroused his admiration, and he set out for Naples in search of the artist, but the latter had just died (1609). Ribera was then only twenty. For fifteen years the artist is entirely lost sight of; it is thought that he travelled in upper Italy. He is again found at Naples in 1626, at which time he was married, living like a nobleman, keeping his carriage and a train of followers, received by viceroys, the accomplished host of all travelling artists, and very proud of his title of Roman Academician. Velasquez paid him a visit on each of his journeys (1630, 1649). A sorrow clouded the end of his life; his daughter was seduced by Don Juan of Austria. Her father seems to have died of grief, but the story of his suicide is a fiction. Ribera's name is synonymous with a terrifying art of wild-beast fighters and executioners. Not that he did not paint charming figures. No artist of his time, not excepting Rubens or Guido Reni, was more sensitive to a certain ideal of Correggio-like grace. But Ribera did not love either ugliness or beauty for themselves, seeking them in turn only to arouse emotion. His fixed idea, which recurs in every form in his art, is the pursuit and cultivation of sensation. In fact the whole of Ribera's work must be understood as that of a man who made the pathetic the condition of art and the reason of the beautiful. It is the negation of the art of the Renaissance, the reaction of asceticism and the Catholic Reformation on the voluptuous paganism of the sixteenth century. Hence the preference for the popular types, the weather-beaten and wrinkled beggar, and especially the old man. This "aging" of art about 1600 is a sign of the century. Heroic youth and pure beauty were dead for a long time. The anchorites and wasted cenobites, the parchment-like St. Jeromes, these singular methods of depicting the mystical life seem Ribera's personal creation; to show the ruins of the human body, the drama of a long existence written in furrows and wrinkles, all engraved by a pencil which digs and scrutinizes, using the sunlight as a kind of acid which bites and makes dark shadows, was one of the artist's most cherished formulas. No one demonstrates so well the profound change which took place in men's minds after the Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thenceforth concern for character and accent forestalled every other consideration. Leanness, weariness, and abasement became the pictorial signs of the spiritual life. A sombre energy breathes in these figures of Apostles, prophets, saints, and philosophers. Search for character became that of ugliness and monstrosity. Nothing is so personal to Ribera as this love of deformity. Paintings like the portrait of "Cambazo", the blind sculptor, the "Bearded Woman" (Prado, 1630), and the "Club Foot" of the Louvre (1651) inaugurate curiosities which had happily been foreign to the spirit of the Renaissance. They show a gloomy pleasure in humiliating human nature. Art, which formerly used to glorify life, now violently emphasized its vices and defects. The artist seized upon the most ghastly aspects even of antiquity. Cato of Utica howling and distending his wound, Ixion on his wheel, Sisyphus beneath his rock. This artistic terrorism won for Ribera his sinister reputation, and it must be admitted that it had depraved and perverted qualities. The sight of blood and torture as the source of pleasure is more pagan than the joy of life and the laughing sensuality of the Renaissance. At times Ribera's art seems a dangerous return to the delights of the amphitheatre. His "Apollo and Marsyas" (Naples) his "Duel" or "Match of Women" (Prado) recall the programme of some spectacle manager of the decadence. In nothing is Ribera more "Latin" than in this sanguinary tradition of the games of the circus. However, it would be unjust wholly to condemn this singular taste in accordance with our modern ideas. At least we cannot deny extraordinary merit to the scenes of martyrdom painted by Ribera. This great master has never been surpassed as a practical artist. For plastic realism, clearness of drawing and evidence of composition the "Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew" (there are in Europe a dozen copies, of which the most beautiful is at the Prado) is one of the masterpieces of Spanish genius. It is impossible to imagine a more novel and striking idea. No one has spoken a language more simple and direct. In this class of subjects Rubens usually avoids atrocity by an oratorical turn, by the splendour of his discourse, the lyric brilliancy of the colouring. Ribera's point of view is scarcely less powerful with much less artifice. It is less transformed and developed. The action is collected in fewer persons. The gestures are less redundant, with a more spontaneous quality. The tone is more sober and at the same time stronger. Everything seems more severe and of a more concentrated violence. The art also, while perhaps not the most elevated of all, is at least one of the most original and convincing. Few artiste have given us, if not serene enjoyment, more serious thoughts. The "St. Lawrence" of the Vatican is scarcely less beautiful than the "St. Bartholomew". Moreover it must not be thought that these ideas of violence exhaust Ribera's art. They are supplemented by sweet ideas, and in his work horrible pictures alternate with tender ones. There is a type of young woman or rather young girl, still almost a child, of delicate beauty with candid oval features and rather thin arms, with streaming hair and an air of ignorance, a type of paradoxical grace which is found in his "Rapture of St. Magdalen" (Madrid, Academy of S. Fernando), or the "St. Agnes" of the Dresden Museum. This virginal figure is truly the "eternal feminine" of a country which more than any other dreamed of love and sought to deify its object summarizing in it the most irreconcilable desires and virtues. No painter has endowed the subject of the Immaculate Conception with such grandeur as Ribera in his picture for the Ursulines of Salamanca (1636). Even a certain familiar turn of imagination, a certain intimate and domestic piety, a sweetness, an amicable and popular cordiality which would seem unknown to this savage spirit were not foreign to him. In more than one instance he reminds us of Murillo. He painted several "Holy Families", "Housekeeping in the Carpenter Shop" (Gallery of the Duke of Norfolk). All that is inspired by tender reverie about cradles and chaste alcoves, all the distracting delights in which modern religion rejoices and which sometimes result in affectation, are found in more than germ in the art of this painter, who is regarded by many as cruel and uniformly inhuman. Thus throughout his work scenes of carnage are succeeded by scenes of love, atrocious visions by visions of beauty. They complete each other or rather the impression they convey is heightened by contrast. And under both forms the artist incessantly sought one object, namely to obtain the maximum of emotion; his art expresses the most intense nervous life. This is the genius of antithesis. It forms the very basis of Ribera's art, the condition of his ideas, and even dictates the customary processes of his chiaroscuro. For Ribera's chiaroscuro, scarcely less personal than that of Rembrandt, is, no less than the latter's, inseparable from a certain manner of feeling. Less supple than the latter less enveloping, less penetrating, less permeable by the light, twilight, and penumbra, it proceeds more roughly by clearer oppositions and sharp intersections of light and darkness. Contrary to Rembrandt, Ribera does not decompose or discolour, his palette does not dissolve under the influence of shadows, and nothing is so peculiar to him as certain superexcited notes of furious red. Nevertheless, compared to Caravaggio, his chiaroscuro is much more than a mere means of relief. The canvas assumes a vulcanized, carbonized appearance. Large wan shapes stand out from the asphalt of the background, and the shadows about them deepen and accumulate a kind of obscure tragic capacity. There is always the same twofold rhythm, the same pathetic formula of a dramatized universe regarded as a duel between sorrow and joy, day and night. This striking formula, infinitely less subtile than that of Rembrandt, nevertheless had an immense success. For all the schools of the south Caravaggio's chiaroscuro perfected by Ribera had the force of law, such as it is found throughout the Neapolitan school, in Stanzioni, Salvator Rosa, Luca Giordano. In modern times Bonnat and Ribot painted as though they knew no master but Ribera. Rest came to this violent nature towards the end of his life; from the idea of contrast he rose to that of harmony. His last works, the "Club Foot" and the "Adoration of the Shepherds" (1650), both in the Louvre, are painted in a silvery tone which seems to foreshadow the light of Velasquez. His hand had not lost its vigour, its care for truth; he always displayed the same implacable and, as it were, inflexible realism. The objects of still life in the "Adoration of the Shepherds" have not been equalled by any specialist, but these works are marked by a new serenity. This impassioned genius leaves us under a tranquil impression; we catch a ray-- should it rather be called a reflection?-- the Olympian genius of the author of "The Maids of Honour". Ribera was long the only Spanish painter who enjoyed a European fame; this he owed to the fact that he had lived at Naples and has often been classed with the European school. Because of this he is now denied the glory which was formerly his. He is regarded more or less as a deserter, at any rate as the least national of Spanish painters. But in the seventeenth century Naples was still Spanish, and by living there a man did not cease to be a Spanish subject. By removing the centre of the school to Naples, Ribera did Spain a great service. Spanish art, hitherto little known, almost lost at Valencia and Seville, thanks to Ribera was put into wider circulation. Through the authority of a master recognized even at Rome the school felt emboldened and encouraged. It is true that his art, although more Spanish than any other, is also somewhat less specialized; it is cosmopolitan. Like Seneca and Lucian, who came from Cordova, and St. Augustine, who came from Carthage, Ribera has expressed in a universal language the ideal of the country where life has most savour. DOMINICI, Vite de' pittori . . . napoletani (Naples, 1742-1743; 2nd ed., Naples, 1844); PALOMINO, El Museo Pictorico, I (Madrid, 1715); II (Madrid, 1724); Noticias, Elogios y Vidas de Los Pintores, at the end of vol. II, Separate edition (London, 1742), in German (Dresden, 1781); BERMUDEZ, Diccionario historico de los mas ilustres profesores de las bellas artes en Espana (Madrid, 1800); STIRLING. Annals of the artists of Spain (London, 1848); VIARDOT, Notices sur les principaux peintres de l'Espagne (Paris, 1839); BLANC, Ecole Espagnole (1869); MEYER, Ribera (Strasburg, 1908); LAFOND, Ribera et Zurbaran (Paris, 1910). LOUIS GILLET. Ricardus Anglicus Ricardus Anglicus Ricardus Anglicus, Archdeacon of Bologna, was an English priest who was rector of the law school at the University of Bologna in 1226, and who, by new methods of explaining legal proceedings, became recognized as the pioneer of scientific judicial procedure in the twelfth century. His long-lost work "Ordo Judiciarius" was discovered in Manuscript by Wunderlich in Douai and published by Witt in 1851. A more correct Manuscript was subsequently discovered at Brussels by Sir Travers Twiss, who, on evidence which seems insufficient, followed Panciroli in identifying him with the celebrated Bishop Richard Poor (died 1237). Probably he graduated in Paris, as a Papal Bull of 1218 refers to "Ricardus Anglicus doctor Parisiensis", but there is no evidence to connect him with Oxford. He also wrote glosses on the papal decretals, and distinctions on the Decree of Gratian. He must be distinguished from his contemporary, Ricardus Anglicanus, a physician. RASHDALL, Mediaeval Universities, II, 750 (London, 1895); TWISS, Law Magazine and Review, May, 1894; SARTI AND FATTORINI, De claris Archigymnasii Bononiensis Professoribus; BLAKISTON in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Poor, Richard. EDWIN BURTON. Nicholas Riccardi Nicholas Riccardi A theologian, writer and preacher; born at Genoa, 1585; died at Rome, 30 May, 1639. Physically he was unprepossessing, even slightly deformed. His physical deficiencies, however, were abundantly compensated for by mentality of the highest order. His natural taste for study was encouraged by his parents who sent him to Spain to pursue his studies in the Pincian Academy. While a student at this institution he entered the Dominican order and was invested with its habit in the Convent of St. Paul, where he studied philosophy and theology. So brilliant was his record that after completing his studies he was made a professor of Thomistic theology at Pincia. While discharging his academic duties, he acquired a reputation as a preacher second only to his fame as a theologian. As a preacher Philip III of Spain named him "The Marvel", a sobriquet by which he was known in Spain and at Rome till the end of his life. On his removal to Rome in 1621, he acquired the confidence of Urban VIII. He was made regent of studies and professor of theology at the College of the Minerva. In 1629 Urban VIII appointed him Master of the Sacred Palace to succeed Niccolo Ridolphi, recently elected Master General of the Dominicans. Shortly after this the same pontiff appointed him pontifical preacher. These two offices he discharged with distinction. His extant works number twenty. Besides several volumes of sermons for Advent, Lent, and special occasions, his writings treat of Scripture, theology, and history. One of his best known works is the "History of the Council of Trent" (Rome, 1627). His commentaries treat of all the books of Scripture, and are notable for their originality, clearness, and profound learning. Two other commentaries treat of the Lord's Prayer and the Canticle of Canticles. QUETIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 503, 504. JOHN B. O'CONNOR. Lorenzo Ricci Lorenzo Ricci General of the Society of Jesus b. at Florence, 2 Aug., 1703; d. at the Castle of Sant' Angelo, Rome, 24 Nov., 1775. He belonged to one of the most ancient, and illustrious families of Tuscany. He had two brothers, one of whom subsequently became canon of the. cathedral and the other was raised by Francis I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, to the dignity of first syndic of the Grand duchy. Sent when very young to Prato to pursue, his studies under the direction of the Society of Jesus in the celebrated Cicognini college, he entered the society when he was scarcely fifteen, 16 Dec., 1718, at the novitiate of S. Andrea at Rome. Having made the usual course of philosophical and theological studies and twice defended with rare success public theses in these subjects, he was successively charged with teaching belles lettres and philosophy it Siena, and philosophy and theology at the Roman College, from which he was promoted to the foremost office of his order. Meanwhile he was admitted to the profession of the four vows, 15 Aug., 1736. About 1751 his edifying and regular life, his discretion, gentleness, and simplicity caused him to be appointed to the important office of spiritual father, the duties of which he discharged to the satisfaction of all. In 1755 Father Luigi Centurione, who appreciated his eminent qualities, chose him as secretary of the society. Finally in the Nineteenth Congregation he was elected general by unanimous vote, (21 May, 1758). It was at the most stormy and distressed period of its existence that the senate of the society placed its government and its destinies in the, hand of a man deeply virtuous and endowed with rare merit, but, who was inexperienced in the art of governing and who had always lived apart from the world and diplomatic intrigues. The historiographer Julius Cordara, who lived near Ricci and seems to have known him intimately, deplored this choice: "Eundem tot, inter iactationes ac fluctus cum aliquid praeter morem audendum et malis inusitatis inusitata remedia adhibenda videbantur, propter ipsam nature placiditatem et nulla unquam causa incalescentem animum, minus aptum arbitrabar" (On account of his placid nature and too even temper, I regarded him as little suited for a time when disturbance and storm seem to require extraordinary application of unusual remedies to unusual evils). (Denkwurdigkeiten der Jesuiten, p.19.) On the other hand it must be admitted that the new general did not have much leeway. In his first interview with Clement XIII, who had assumed the tiara 6 July, 1758, and always showed himself deeply attached to the Jesuits, the pope counselled him: "Silentium, patientiam et preces; cetera sibi curae fore" (Cordara, op. cit., 22), The saintly superior followed this line of conduct to the letter and incessantly inculcated it in his subordinates. The seven encyclical letters which he addressed to them in the fifteen years of his generalship all breathe the sweetest and tenderest piety and zeal for their religious perfection. "Preces vestras", he says in the last, that of 21 Feb., 1773, "animate omni pietatis exercitio accurate fervideque obeundo, mutua inter vosmetipsos caritate, obedientia et observantia erga eos qui vobis Dei loco sunt, tolerantia laborurn, aerumnarum, paupertatis, contumeliarum, secessu et solitudine, prudentia et evangelica in agendo simplicitate, boni exempli operibus, piisque colloquiis" (Let your prayers be inspired by every practice of piety, with mutual charity among yourselves, obedience and respect for those who hold the place of God in your regard, en durance of labour, of hardships, of poverty, of insult in retreat and solitude, with prudence and evangelical simplicity of conduct, the example of good works, and pious conversation). (Epistolae praepositorum generalium S.J., 11, Ghent 1847, 306). This pious and profoundly upright man was nevertheless not wanting on occasion in courage and firmness. When it was suggested to save the French provinces of his order by giving them a superior entirely independent of the general of Rome he refused thus to transgress the. constitutions committed to his care and uttered to the pope the ever famous saying: "Sint ut sunt aut non sint" (Leave them as they are or not at all). (Cordara, op. cit., 35) Unfortunately he placed all his confidence in hi,, assistant for Italy, Father Timoni, of Greek origin, "vir quippe praefidens sibi, iudiciique sui plus nimio tenax" (Idem, op. cit., 20), who, like many other expected the society to be saved by a miracle of Providence. When, to the mass of pamphlets aimed against the Jesuits, the Portuguese episcopate brought the reinforcement of pastoral letters, a number of bishops wrote to the pope letters which were very eulogistic of the Society of Jesus and its Institute, and Clement XIII hastened to send a copy to Father Ricci. It was a brilliant apologia for the order Cordara and many of his brethren considered it, expedient to publish this correspondence in full with the sole title: "ludicium Ecclesiae, universae, de statu praesenti Societatis Iesu" (op. cit., 26). Timoni, who fancied that no one would dare any thing against the Jesuits of Portugal, was of a contrary opinion, and the general was won over to his way of thinking. Disaster followed disaster, and Ricci experienced the most serious material difficulties in assisting the members who were expelled from every country. At his instance, and perhaps even with his collaboration, Clement XIII, solicitous for the fate of the Society, published 7 January, 1765, the Bull "Apostolicam pascendi", which was a cogent defence of the Institute and its members (Masson, "Le cardinal de, Bernis depuis son ministere" 80). But even the pontiff's intervention could not stay the devastating torrent. After the suppression of the Jesuits in Naples and the Duchy of Parma, the ambassadors of France, Spain, and Portugal went (Jan., 1769) to request officially of the pope the total suppression of the society. This was the death-blow of Clement XIII, who died some days later (2 Feb., 1769) of an apoplectic attack. His successor, the conventual Ganganelli, little resembled him. Whatever may have been his sympathies for the order prior to his elevation to the sovereign pontificate, and his indebtedness to Ricci, who had used his powerful influence to secure for him the cardinal's hat, it is indisputable that once he became pope he assumed at least in appearance a hostile attitude. "Se palam Jesuitis infensum praebere atque ita quidem, ut ne generalem quidem praepositum in conspectum admitteret" (Cordara, 43). There is no necessity of repeating even briefly the history of the pontificate of Clement XIV (18 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774), which was absorbed by his measures to bring about the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Despite the exactions and outrageous injustices which the Jesuit houses had to undergo even at Rome, the general did not give up hope of a speedy deliverance, as is testified by the letter he wrote to Cordara the day after the feast of St. Ignatius, 1773 (Cordara, loc. cit., 53). Although the Brief of abolition had been signed by the pope ten days previously, Father Ricci was suddenly notified on the evening of 16 August. The next day he was assigned the English College as residence, until 23 Sept., 1773, when he was removed to the Castle of Sant' Angelo, where he was held in strict captivity for the remaining two years of his life. The surveillance was so severe that he did not learn of the death of his secretary Cornolli, imprisoned with him and in his vicinity, until six months after the event=2E To satisfy the hatred of his enemies his trial and that of his companions was hastened, but the judge ended by recognizing "nunquam objectos sibi reos his innocentiores; Riccium etiam ut hominem vere sanctum dilaudabat" (Cordara, op. cit., 62); and Cardinal de Bernis dared to write (5 July): "There are not, perhaps, sufficient proofs for judges, but there are enough for upright and reasonable men" (Masson, op. cit., 324). Justice required that the ex-general be at once set at liberty, but nothing was done, apparently through fear lest the scattered Jesuits should gather about their old head, to reconstruct their society at the centre of Catholicism. At the end of August, 1775, Ricci sent an appeal to the new pope, Pius VI, to obtain his release. But while his claims were being considered by the circle of the Sovereign Pontiff, death came to summon the venerable old man to the tribunal of the supreme Judge. Five days previously, when about to receive Holy Viaticum, he made this double protest: (1) "I declare and protest that the suppressed Society of Jesus has not given any cause for its suppression; this I declare and protest with all that moral certainty that a superior well informed of his order can have. (2) I declare and protest that I have not given any cause, even the slightest, for my imprisonment; this I declare and protest with that supreme certainty and evidence that each one has of his own actions. I make this second protest only because it is necessary for the reputation of the suppressed Society of Jesus, of which I was the general." (Murr, "Journal zur Kunstgeschichte", IX, 281.) To do honour to his memory the pope caused the celebration of elaborate funeral services in the church of St. John of the Florentines near the Castle of Sant' Angelo. As is customary with prelates, the body was placed on a bed of state. It was carried in the evening to the Church of the Gesu where it was buried in the vault reserved for the burial of his predecessors in the government of the order. CORDARA, Denkwuerdigkeiten in DOeLLINGER, Beitraege zur politischen, kirchlichen und Culturgesch., III (1882), 1-74. These memoirs carry much weight, inasmuch as Cordara speaks with severity of his former brothers in arms, and of the Society of Jesus. CARAYON, Documents inedits concernant la Compagnie de Jesus, XVII, Le Pere Ricci et la suppression de la Compagnie de Jesus en 1773, CLXXIV (Poitiers, 1869); Epistoloe proepositorum generalium Societatis Jesu, If (Ghent, 1847); SMITH, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus in The Month (1902-03); MURR, Journal zur Kunstgesch. u. zur allgemeinen Litteratur, IX (Nuremberg, 1780), 254-309; MASSON, Le Cardinal de Bernis depuis son ministere 1758-1794 (Paris, 1903), a good collection of documents, but the author does not know the history of the Jesuits; RAVIGNAN, Clement XIII et Clement XI V, supplementary volume, historical and critical documents (Paris, 1854); BOERO, Osservazioni sopra l'istoria del pontificato di Clemente XIV scritta dal P. A. Theiner (2nd ed., Monza, 1854), useful for documents. FRANCIS VAN ORTROY Matteo Ricci Matteo Ricci Founder of the Catholic missions of China, b. at Macerata in the Papal States, 6 Oct. 1552; d. at Peking, 11 May, 1610. Ricci made his classical studies in his native town, studied law at Rome for two years, and on 15 Aug., 1571, entered the Society of Jesus at the Roman College, where he made his novitiate, and philosophical and theological studies. While there he also devoted his attention to mathematics, cosmology, and astronomy under the direction of the celebrated Father Christopher Clavius. In 1577 he asked to be sent on the missions in Farthest Asia, and his request being granted he embarked at Lisbon, 24 March, 1578. Arriving at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese Indies, on 13 Sept. of this year, he was employed there and at Cochin in teaching and the ministry until the end of Lent, 1582, when Father Alessandro Valignani (who had been his novice-master at Rome but who since August, 1573, was in charge of all the Jesuit missions in the East Indies) summoned him to Macao to prepare to enter China. Father Ricci arrived at Macao on 7 August, 1582. Beginning of the Mission In the sixteenth century nothing remained of the Christian communities founded in China by the Nestorian missionaries in the seventh century and by the Catholic monks in the thirteenth and fourteenth (see CHINA). Moreover it is doubtful whether the native Chinese population was ever seriously affected by this ancient evangelisation. For those desiring to resume the work everything therefore remained to be done, and the obstacles were greater than formerly. After the death of St. Francis Xavier (27 November, 1552) many fruitless attempts had been made. The first missionary to whom Chinese barriers were temporarily lowered was the Jesuit, Melchior Nunez Barreto, who twice went as far as Canton, where he spent a month each time (1555). A Dominican, Father Gaspar da Cruz, was also admitted to Canton for a month, but he also had to refrain from "forming a Christian Christianity". Still others, Jesuits, Augustinians, and Fransciscans in 1568, 1575, 1579, and 1582 touched on Chinese soil, only to be forced, sometimes with ill treatment, to withdraw. To Father Valignani is due the credit of having seen what prevented all these undertakings from having lasting results. The attempts had hitherto been made haphazard, with men insufficiently prepared and incapable of profiting by favourable circumstances had they encountered them. Father Valignani substituted the methodical attack with previous careful selection of missionaries who, the field once open, would implant Christianity there. To this end he first summoned to Macao Father Michele de Ruggieri, who had also come to India from Italy in 1578. Only twenty years had elapsed since the Portuguese had succeeded in establishing their colony at the portals of China, and the Chinese, attracted by opportunities for gain, were flocking thither. Ruggieri reached Macao in July, 1579, and, following the given orders applied himself wholly to the study of the Mandarin language, that is, Chinese, as it is spoken throughout the empire by the officials and the educated. His progress, though very slow, permitted him to labour with more fruit than his predecessors in two sojourns at Canton (1580-81) allowed him by an unwonted complacency of the mandarins. Finally, after many untoward events, he was authorized (10 Sept., 1583) to take up his residence with Father Ricci at Chao-k'ing, the administrative capital of Canton. Method of the Missionaries The exercise of great prudence alone enabled the missionaries to remain in the region which they had had such difficulty in entering. Omitting all mention at first of their intention to preach the Gospel, they declared to the mandarins who questioned them concerning their object "that they were religious who had left their country in the distant West because of the renown of the good government of China, where they desired to remain till their death, serving god, the Lord of Heaven". Had they immediately declared their intention to preach a new religion, they would never have been received; this would have clashed with Chinese pride, which would not admit that China had anything to learn from foreigners, and it would have especially alarmed their politics, which beheld a national danger in every innovation. However, the missionaries never hid their Faith nor the fact that they were Christian priests. As soon as they were established at Chao-k'ing they placed in a conspicuous part of their house a picture of the Blessed Virgin with the Infant Jesus in her arms. Visitors seldom failed to inquire the meaning of this, to them, novel representation, and the missionaries profited thereby to give them a first idea of Christianity. The missionaries assumed the initiative in speaking of their religion as soon as they had sufficiently overcome Chinese antipathy and distrust to see their instructions desired, or at least to be certain of making them understood without shocking their listeners. They achieved this result by appealing to the curiosity of the Chinese, by making them feel, without saying so, that the foreigners had something new and interesting to teach; to this end they made use of the European things they had brought with them. Such were large and small clocks, mathematical and astronomical instruments, prisms revealing the various colours, musical instruments, oil paintings and prints, cosmographical, geographical, and architectural works with diagrams, maps, and views of towns and buildings, large volumes, magnificently printed and splendidly bound, etc. The Chinese, who had hitherto fancied that outside of their country only barbarism existed, were astounded. Rumours of the wonders displayed by the religious from the West soon spread on all sides, and thenceforth their house was always filled, especially with mandarins and the educated. It followed, says Father Ricci, that "all came by degrees to have with regard to our countries, our people, and especially of our educated men, an idea vastly different from that which they had hitherto entertained". This impression was intensified by the explanations of the missionaries concerning their little museum in reply to the numerous questions of their visitors. One of the articles which most aroused their curiosity was a map of the world. The Chinese had already had maps, called by their geographers "descriptions of the world", but almost the entire space was filled by the fifteen provinces of China, around which were painted a bit of sea and a few islands on which were inscribed the names of countries of which they had heard -- all together was not as large as a small Chinese province. Naturally the learned men of Chao-k'ing immediately protested when Father Ricci pointed out the various parts of the world on the European map and when they saw how small a part China played. But after the missionaries had explained its construction and the care taken by the geographers of the West to assign to each country its actual position and boundaries, the wisest of them surrendered to the evidence, and beginning with the Governor of Chao-k'ing, all urged the missionary to make a copy of his map with the names and inscriptions in Chinese. Ricci drew a larger map of the world on which he wrote more detailed inscriptions, suited to the needs of the Chinese; when the work was completed the governor had it printed, giving all the copies as presents to his friends in the province and at a distance. Father Ricci does not hesitate to say: "This was the most useful work that could be done at that time to dispose China to give credence to the things of our holy Faith. . . . Their conception of the greatness of their country and of the insignificance of all other lands made them so proud that the w hole world seemed to them savage and barbarous compared with themselves; it was scarcely to be expected that they, while entertaining this idea, would heed foreign masters." But now numbers were eager to learn of European affairs from the missionaries, who profited by these dispositions to introduce religion more frequently with their explanations. For example, their beautiful Bibles and the paintings and prints depicting religious subjects, monuments, churches, etc., gave them an opportunity of speaking of "the good customs in the countries of the Christians, of the falseness of idolatry, of the conformity of the law of God with natural reason and similar teachings found in the writings of the ancient sages of China". This last instance shows that Father Ricci already knew how to draw from his Chinese studies testimony favourable to the religion which he was to preach. It was soon evident to the missionaries that their remarks regarding religion were no less interesting to many of their visitors than their Western curiosities and learning, and, to satisfy those who wished to learn more, they distributed leaflets containing a Chinese translation of the Ten Commandments, an abbreviation of the moral code much appreciated by the Chinese, composed a small catechism in which the chief points of Christian doctrine were explained in a dialogue between a pagan and a European priest. This work, printed about 1584, was also well received, the highest mandarins of the province considering themselves honoured to receive it as a present. The missionaries distributed hundreds and thousands of copies and thus "the good odour of our Faith began to be spread throughout China". Having begun their direct apostolate in this manner, they furthered it not a little by their edifying regular life, their disinterestedness, their charity, and their patience under persecutions which often destroyed the fruits of their labours. Development of the Missions Father Ricci played the chief part in these early attempts to make Christianity known to the Chinese. In 1607 Father Ruggieri died in Europe, where he had been sent in 1588 by Father Valignani to interest the Holy See more particularly in the missions. Left alone with a young priest, a pupil rather than an assistant, Ricci was expelled from Chao-k'ing in 1589 by a viceroy of Canton who had found the house of the missionaries suited to his own needs; but the mission had taken root too deeply to be exterminated by the ruin of its first home. Thenceforth in whatever town Ricci sought a new field of apostolate he was preceded by his reputation and he found powerful friends to protect him. He first went to Shao-chow, also in the province of Canton, where he dispensed with the services of interpreters and adopted the costume of the educated Chinese. In 1595 he made an attempt on Nan-king, the famous capital in the south of China, and, though unsuccessful, it furnished him with an opportunity of forming a Christian Church at Nan-ch'ang, capital of Kiang-si, which was so famous for the number and learning of its educated men. In 1598 he made a bold but equally fruitless attempt to establish himself at Peking. Forced to return to Nan-king on 6 Feb., 1599, he found Providential compensation there; the situation had changed completely since the preceding year, and the highest mandarins were desirous of seeing the holy doctor from the West take up his abode in their city. Although his zeal was rewarded with much success in this wider field, he constantly longed to repair his repulse at Peking. He felt that the mission was not secure in the provinces until it was established and authorized in the capital. On 18 May, 1600, Ricci again set out for Peking and, when all human hope of success was lost, he entered on 24 January, 1601, summoned by Emperor Wan-li. Last Labours Ricci's last nine years were spent at Peking, strengthening his work with the same wisdom and tenacity of purpose which had conducted it so far. The imperial goodwill was gained by gifts of European curiosities, especially the map of the world, from which the Asiatic ruler learned for the first time the true situation of his empire and the existence of so many other different kingdoms and peoples; he required Father Ricci to make a copy of it for him in his palace. At Peking, as at Nan-king and elsewhere, the interest of the most intelligent Chinese was aroused chiefly by the revelations which the European teacher made to them in the domain of the sciences, even those in which they considered themselves most proficient. Mathematics and astronomy, for example, had from time immemorial formed a part of the institutions of the Chinese Government, but, when they listened to Father Ricci, even the men who knew most had to acknowledge how small and how mingled with errors was their knowledge. But this recognition of their ignorance and their esteem for European learning, of which they had just got a glimpse, impelled very few Chinese to make serious efforts to acquire this knowledge, their attachment to tradition or the routine of national teaching being too deep-rooted. However, the Chinese governors, who even at the present day have made no attempt at reform in this matter, did not wish to deprive the country of all the advantages of European discoveries. To procure them recourse had to be had to the missionaries, and thus the Chinese mission from Ricci's time until the end of the eighteenth century found its chief protection in the services performed with the assistance of European learning. Father Ricci made use of profane science only to prepare the ground and open the way to the apostolate properly so called. With this object in view he employed other means, which made a deep impression on the majority of the educated class, and especially on those who held public offices. He composed under various forms adapted to the Chinese taste little moral treatises, e.g., that called by the Chinese "The Twenty-five Words", because in twenty-five short chapters it treated "of the mortification of the passions and the nobility of virtue". Still greater admiration was aroused by the "Paradoxes", a collection of practical sentences, useful to a moral life, familiar to Christians but new to the Chinese, which Ricci developed with accounts of examples, comparisons, and extracts from the Scriptures and from Christian philosophers and doctors. Not unreasonably proud of their rich moral literature, the Chinese were greatly surprised to see a stranger succeed so well; they could not refrain from praising his exalted doctrine, and the respect which they soon acquired for the Christian writings did much to dissipate their distrust of strangers and to render them kindly disposed towards the Christian religion. But the book through which Ricci exercised the widest and most fortunate influence was his "T'ien-chu-she-i" (The True Doctrine of God). This was the little catechism of Chao-k'ing which had been delivered from day to day, corrected and improved as occasion offered, until it finally contained all the matter suggested by long years of experience in the apostolate. The truths which must be admitted as the necessary preliminary to faith -- the existence and unity of God, the creation, the immortality of the soul, reward or punishment in a future life -- are here demonstrated by the best arguments from reason, while the errors most widespread in China, especially the worship of idols and the belief in the transmigration of souls, are successfully refuted. To the testimony furnished by Christian philosophy and theology Ricci added numerous proofs from the ancient Chinese books which did much to win credit for his work. A masterpiece of apologetics and controversy, the "T'ien-chu-she-i", rightfully became the manual of the missionaries and did most effacacious missionary work. Before its author's death it had been reprinted at least four times, and twice by the pagans. It led countless numbers to Christianity, and aroused esteem for our religion in those readers whom it did not convert. The perusal of it induced Emperor K'ang-hi to issue his edict of 1692 granting liberty to preach the Gospel. The Emperor Kien-long, although he persecuted the Christians, ordered the "T'ien-chu-she-i" to be placed in his library with his collection of the most notable productions of the Chinese language. Even to the present time missionaries have experienced its beneficent influence, which was not confined to China, being felt also in Japan, Tong-king, and other countries tributary to Chinese literature. Besides the works intended especially for the infidels and the catechumens whose initiation was in progress, Father Ricci wrote others for the new Christians. As founder of the mission he had to invent formulae capable of expressing clearly and unequivocally our dogmas and rites in a language which had hitherto never been put to such use (except for the Nestorian use, with which Ricci was not acquainted). It was a delicate and difficult task, but it formed only a part of the heavy burden which the direction of the mission was for Father Ricci, particularly during his last years. While advancing gradually on the capital Ricci did not abandon the territory already conquered; he trained in his methods the fellow-workers who joined him and commissioned them to continue his work in the cities he left. Thus in 1601, the mission included, besides Peking, the three residences of Nan-king, Nan-ch'ang, Shao-chow, to which was added in 1608 that of Shang-hai. In each of these there were two or three missionaries with "brothers", Chinese Christians from Macao who had been received into the Society of Jesus, and who served the mission as catechists. Although as yet the number of Christians was not very great (2000 baptized in 1608), Father Ricci in his "Memoirs" has said well that considering the obstacles to the entrance of Christianity into China the result was "a very great miracle of Divine Omnipotence". To preserve and increase the success already obtained, it was necessary that the means which had already proved efficacious should continue to be employed; everywhere and always the missionaries, without neglecting the essential duties of the Christian apostolate, had to adapt their methods to the special conditions of the country, and avoid unnecessary attacks on traditional customs and habits. The application of this undeniably sound policy was often difficult. In answer to the doubts of his fellow-workers Father Ricci outlined rules, which received the approval of Father Valignano; these insured the unity and fruitful efficacy of the apostolic work throughout the mission. Question of the Divine Names and the Chinese Rites The most difficult problem in the evangelization of China had to do with the rites or ceremonies, in use from time immemorial, to do honour to ancestors or deceased relatives and the particular tokens of respect which the educated felt bound to pay to their master, Confucius. Ricci's solution of this problem caused a long and heated controversy in which the Holy See finally decided against him. The discussion also dealt with the use of the Chinese terms T'ien (heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) to designate God; here also the custom established by Father Ricci had to be corrected. The following is a short history of this famous controversy which was singularly complicated and embittered by passion. With regard to the designations for God, Ricci always preferred, and employed from the first, the term T'ien chu (Lord of Heaven) for the God of Christians; as had been seen, he used it in the title of his catechism. But in studying the most ancient Chinese books he considered it established that they said of T'ien (Heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) what we say of the true God, that is, they described under these two names a sovereign lord of spirits and men who knows all that takes place in the world, the source of all power and all lawful authority, the supreme regulator and defender of the moral law, rewarding those who observe and punishing those who violate it. Hence he concluded that, in the most revered monuments of China, T'ien and Shang'ti designate nothing else than the true God whom he himself preached. Ricci maintained this opinion in several passages of his T'ien-chu-she-i; it will be readily understood of what assistance it was to destroy Chinese prejudices against the Christian religion. It is true that, in drawing this conclusion, Ricci had to contradict the common interpretation of modern scholars who follow Chu-Hi in referring T'ien and Shang-ti to apply to the material heaven; but he showed that this material interpretation does not do justice to the texts and it is at least reasonable to see in them something better. In fact he informs us that the educated Confucianists, who did not adore idols, were grateful to him for interpreting the words of their master with such goodwill. Indeed, Ricci's opinion has been adopted and confirmed by illustrious modern Sinologists, amongst whom it suffices to mention James Legge ("The Notions of the Chinese concerning God and Spirits", 1852; "A Letter to Prof. Max Muller chiefly on the Translation of the Chinese terms Ti and Chang-ti", 1880). Therefore it was not without serious grounds that the founder of the Chinese mission and his successors believed themselves justified in employing the terms T'ien and Shang-ti as well as T'ien-chu to designate the true God. However, there were objections to this practice even among the Jesuits, the earliest rising shortly after the death of Father Ricci and being formulated by the Japanese Jesuits. In the ensuing discussion carried on in various writings for and against, which did not circulate beyond the circle of the missionaries only one of those working in China declared himself against the use of the name Shang-ti. This was Father Nicholas Longobardi, Ricci's successor as superior general of the mission, who, however, did not depart in anything from the lines laid down by its founder. After allowing the question to be discussed for some years, the superior ordered the missionaries to abide simply by the custom of Father Ricci; later this custom together with the rites was submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1704 and 1715 Clement XI, without pronouncing as to the meaning of T'ien and Shang-ti in the ancient Chinese books, forbade, as being open to misconstruction, the use of these names to indicate the true God, and permitted only the T'ien-chu. Regarding the rites and ceremonies in honour of ancestors and Confucius, Father Ricci was also of the opinion that a broad toleration was permissible without injury to the purity of the Christian religion. Moreover, the question was of the utmost importance for the progress of the apostolate. To honour their ancestors and deceased parents by traditional prostrations and sacrifices was in the eyes of the Chinese the gravest duty of filial piety, and one who neglected it was treated by all his relatives as an unworthy member of his family and nation. Similar ceremonies in honour of Confucius were an indispensable obligation for scholars, so that they could not receive any literary degree nor claim any public office without having fulfilled it. This law still remains inviolable; Kiang-hi, the emperor who showed most goodwill towards the Christians, always refused to set it aside in their favour. In modern times the Chinese Government showed no more favour to the ministers of France, who, in the name of the treaties guaranteeing the liberty of Catholicism in China, claimed for the Christians who had passed the examinations, the titles and advantages of the corresponding degrees without the necessity of going through the ceremonies; the Court of Peking invariably replied that this was a question of national tradition on which it was impossible to compromise. After having carefully studied what the Chinese classical books said regarding these rites, and after having observed for a long time the practice of them and questioned numerous scholars of every rank with whom he was associated during this eighteen years of apostolate, Ricci was convinced that these rites had no religious significance, either in their institution or in their practice by the enlightened classes. The Chinese, he said, recognized no divinity in Confucius any more than in their deceased ancestors; they prayed to neither; the made no requests nor expected any extraordinary intervention from them. In fact they only did for them what they did for the living to whom they wished to show great respect. "The honour they pay to their parents consists in serving them dead as they did living. They do not for this reason think that the dead come to eat their offerings [the flesh, fruit, etc.] or need them. They declare that they act in this manner because they know no other way of showing their love and gratitude to their ancestors. . . . Likewise what they do [especially the educated], they do to thank Confucius for the excellent doctrine which he left them in his books, and through which they obtained their degrees and mandarinships. Thus in all this there is nothing suggestive of idolatry, and perhaps it may even be said that there is no superstition." The "perhaps" added to the last part of this conclusion shows the conscientiousness with which the founder acted in this matter. That the vulgar and indeed even most of the Chinese pagans mingled superstition with their national rites Ricci never denied; neither did he overlook the fact that the Chinese, like infidels in general, mixed superstition with their most legitimate actions. In such cases superstition is only an accident which does not corrupt the substance of the just action itself, and Ricci thought this applied also to the rites. Consequently he allowed the new Christians to continue the practice of them avoiding everything suggestive of superstition, and he gave them rules to assist them to discriminate. He believed, however, that this tolerance, though licit, should be limited by the necessity of the case; whenever the Chinese Christian community should enjoy sufficient liberty, its customs, notably its manner of honouring the dead, must be brought into conformity with the customs of the rest of the Christian world. These principles of Father Ricci, controlled by his fellow-workers during his lifetime, and after his death, served for fifty years as the guide of all the missionaries. In 1631 the first mission of the Dominicans was founded at Fu-kien by two Spanish religious; in 1633 two Franciscans, also Spanish, came to establish a mission of their order. The new missionaries were soon alarmed by the attacks on the purity of religion which they thought they discerned in the communities founded by their predecessors. Without taking sufficient time perhaps to become acquainted with Chinese matters and to learn exactly what was done in the Jesuit missions they sent a denunciation to the bishops of the Philippines. The bishops referred it to Pope Urban VIII (1635), and soon the public was informed. As early as 1638 a controversy began in the Philippines between the Jesuits in defence of their brethren on the one side and the Dominicans and Franciscans on the other. In 1643 one of the chief accusers, the Dominican, Jean-Baptiste Moralez, went to Rome to submit to the Holy See a series of "questions" or "doubts" which he said were controverted between the Jesuit missionaries and their rivals. Ten of these questions concerned the participation of Christians in the rites in honour of Confucius and the dead. Moralez's petition tended to show that the cases on which he requested the decision of the Holy See represented the practice authorized by the Society of Jesus; as soon as the Jesuits learned of this they declared that these cases were imaginary and that they had never allowed the Christians to take part in the rites as set forth by Moralez. In declaring the ceremonies illicit in its Decree of 12 Sept., 1645 (approved by Innocent X), the congregation of the Propaganda gave the only possible reply to the questions referred to it. In 1651 Father Martin Martini (author of the "Novus Atlas Sienensis") was sent from China to Rome by his brethren to give a true account of the Jesuits practices and permissions with regard to the Chinese rites. This delegate reached the Eternal City in 1654, and in 1655 submitted four questions to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. This supreme tribunal, in its Decree of 23 March, 1656, approved by Pope Alexander VII, sanctioned the practice of Ricci and his associates as set forth by Father Martini, declaring that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius and ancestors appeared to constitute "a purely civil and political cult". Did this decree annul that of 1645? Concerning this question, laid before the Holy Office by the Dominican, Father John de Polanco, the reply was (20 Nov., 1669) that both decrees should remain "in their full force" and should be observed "according to the questions, circumstances, and everything contained in the proposed doubts". Meanwhile an understanding was reached by the hitherto divided missionaries. This reconciliation was hastened by the persecution of 1665 which assembled for nearly five years in the same house at Canton nineteen Jesuits, three Dominicans, and one Franciscan (then the sole member of his order in China). Profiting by their enforced leisure to agree on a uniform Apostolic method, the missionaries discussed all the points on which the discipline of the Church should be adapted to the exigencies of the Chinese situation. After forty days of conferences, which terminated on 26 Jan., 1668, all (with the possible exception of the Franciscan Antonio de Santa Maria, who was very zealous but extremely uncompromising) subscribed to forty-two articles, the result of the deliberations, of which the forty-first was as follows: "As to the ceremonies by which the Chinese honour their master Confucius and the dead, the replies of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition approved by our Holy Father Alexander VII, in 1656, must be followed absolutely because they are based on a very probable opinion, to which it is impossible to offset any evidence to the contrary, and, this probability assumed, the door of salvation must not be closed to the innumerable Chinese who would stray from the Christian religion if they were forbidden to what they may do licitly and in good faith and which they cannot forego without serious injury." After the subscription, however, a new courteous discussion of this article in writing took place between Father Domingo Fernandez Navarrete, superior of the Dominicans, and the most learned of the Jesuits at Canton. Navarrette finally appeared satisfied and on 29 Sept., 1669, submitted his written acceptance of the article to the superior of the Jesuits. However, on 19 Dec. of this year he secretly left Canton for Macao whence he went to Europe. There, and especially at Rome where he was in 1673, he sought from now on only to overthrow what had been attempted in the conferences of Canton. He published the "Tratados historicos, politicos, ethicos, y religiosos de la monarchia de China" (I, Madrid, 1673; of vol. II, printed in 1679 and incomplete, only two copies are known). This work is filled with impassioned accusations against the Jesuit missionaries regarding their methods of apostolate and especially their toleration of the rites. Nevertheless, Naverrette did not succeed in inducing the Holy See to resume the question, this being reserved for Charles Maigrot, a member of the new Societe des Missions Etrangeres. Maigrot went to China in 1683. He was Vicar Apostolic of Fu-kien, before being as yet a bishop, when, on 26 March, 1693, he addressed to the missionaries of his vicariate a mandate proscribing the names T'ien and Shang-ti; forbidding that Christians be allowed to participate in or assist at "sacrifices or solemn oblations" in honour of Confucius or the dead; prescribing modifications of the inscriptions on the ancestral tablets; censuring and forbidding certain, according to him, too favourable references to the ancient Chinese philosophers; and, last but not least, declaring that the exposition made by Father Martini was not true and that consequently the approval which the latter had received from Rome was not to be relied on. By order of Innocent XII, the Holy Office resumed in 1697 the study of the question on the documents furnished by the procurators of Mgr Maigrot and on those showing the opposite side brought by the representatives of the Jesuit missionaries. It is worthy of note that at this period a number of the missionaries outside the Society of Jesus, especially all the Augustinians, nearly all the Franciscans, and some Dominicans, were converted to the practice of Ricci and the Jesuit missionaries. The difficulty of grasping the truth amid such different representations of facts and contradictory interpretations of texts prevented the Congregation from reaching a decision until towards the end of 1704 under the pontificate of Clement XI. Long before then the pope had chosen and sent to the Far East a legate to secure the execution of the Apostolic decrees and to regulate all other questions on the welfare of the missions. The prelate chosen was Charles-Thomas-Maillard de Tournon (b. at Turin) whom Clement XI had consecrated with his own hands on 27 Dec., 1701, and on whom he conferred the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Leaving Europe on 9 Feb., 1703, Mgr de Tournon stayed for a time in India (see MALABAR RITES) reaching Macao on 2 April, 1705, and Peking on 4 December of the same year. Emperor K'ang-hi accorded him a warm welcome and treated him with much honour until he learned, perhaps through the imprudence of the legate himself, that one of the objects of his embassy, if not the chief, was to abolish the rites amongst the Christians. Mgr de Tournon was already aware that the decision against the rites had been given since 20 Nov., 1704, but not yet published in Europe, as the pope wished that it should be published first in China. Forced to leave Peking, the legate had returned to Nan-king when he learned that the emperor had ordered all missionaries, under penalty of expulsion, to come to him for a piao or diploma granting permission to preach the Gospel. This diploma was to be granted only to those who promised not to oppose the national rites. On the receipt of this news the legate felt that he could no longer postpone the announcement of the Roman decisions. By a mandate of 15 January, 1707, he required all missionaries under pain of excommunication to reply to Chinese authority, if it questioned them, that "several things" in Chinese doctrine and customs did not agree with Divine law and that these were chiefly "the sacrifices to Confucius and ancestors" and "the use of ancestral tablets", moreover that Shang-ti and "T'ien" were not "the true God of the Christians". When the emperor learned of this Decree he ordered Mgr de Tournon to be brought to Macao and forbade him to leave there before the return of the envoys whom he himself sent to the pope to explain his objections to the interdiction of the rites. While still subject to this restraint, the legate died in 1710. Meanwhile Mgr Maigrot and several other missionaries having refused to ask for the piao had been expelled from China. But the majority (i.e. all the Jesuits, most of the Franciscans, and other missionary religious, having at their head the Bishop of Peking, a Franciscan, and the Bishop of Ascalon, Vicar Apostolic of Kiang-si, an Augustinian) considered that, to prevent the total ruin of the mission, they might postpone obedience to the legate until the pope should have signified his will. Clement XI replied by publishing (March, 1709) the answers of the Holy Office, which he had already approved on 20 November, 1704, and then by causing the same Congregation to issue (25 Sept., 1710) a new Decree which approved the acts of the legate and ordered the observance of the mandate of Nan-king, but interpreted in the sense of the Roman replies of 1704, omitting all the questions and most of the preambles, and concluded with a form of oath which the pope enjoined on all the missionaries and which obliged them under the severest penalties to observe and have observed fully and without reserve the decisions inserted in the pontifical act. This Constitution, which reached China in 1716, found no rebels among the missionaries, but even those who sought most zealously failed to induce the majority of their flock to observe its provisions. At the same time the hate of the pagans was reawakened, enkindled by the old charge that Christianity was the enemy of the national rites, and the neophytes began to be the objects of persecutions to which K'ang-hi, hitherto so well-disposed, now gave almost entire liberty. Clement XI sought to remedy this critical situation by sending to China a second legate, John-Ambrose Mezzabarba, whom he named Patriarch of Alexandria. This prelate sailed from Lisbon on 25 March, 1720, reaching Macao on 26 September, and Canton on 12 October. Admitted, not without difficulty, to Peking and to an audience with the emperor, the legate could only prevent his immediate dismissal and the expulsion of all the missionaries by making known some alleviations of the Constitution "Ex illa die", which he was authorized to offer, and allowing K'ang-hi to hope that the pope would grant still others. Then he hastened to return to Macao, whence he addressed (4 November, 1721) a pastoral letter to the missionaries of China, communicating to them the authentic text of his eight "permissions" relating to the rites. He declared that he would permit nothing forbidden by the Constitution; in practice, however, his concessions relaxed the rigour of the pontifical interdictions, although they did not produce harmony or unity of action among the apostolic workers. To bring about this highly desirable result the pope ordered a new investigation, the chief object of which was the legitimacy and opportuneness of Mezzabarba's "permissions"; begun by the Holy Office under Clement XII a conclusion was reached only under Benedict XIV. On 11 July, 1742, this pope, by the Bull "Ex quo singulari", confirmed and reimposed in a most emphatic manner the Constitution "Ex illa die", and condemned and annulled the "permissions" of Mezzabarba as authorizing the superstitions which that Constitution sought to destroy. This action terminated the controversy among Catholics. The Holy See did not touch on the purely theoretical questions, as for instance what the Chinese rites were and signified according to their institution and in ancient times. In this Father Ricci may have been right; but he was mistaken in thinking that as practised in modern times they are not superstitious or can be made free from all superstition. The popes declared, after scrupulous investigations, that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius or ancestors and deceased relatives are tainted with superstition to such a degree that they cannot be purified. But the error of Ricci, as of his fellow-workers and successors, was but an error in judgment. The Holy See expressly forbade it to be said that they approved of idolatry; it would indeed be an odious calumny to accuse such a man as Ricci, and so many other holy and zealous missionaries, of having approved and permitted their neophytes practices which they knew to be superstitions and contrary to the purity of religion. Despite this error, Matto Ricci remains a splendid type of missionary and founder, unsurpassed for his zealous intrepidity, the intelligence of the methods applied to each situation, and the unwearying tenacity with which he pursued the projects he undertook. To him belongs the glory not only of opening up a vast empire to the Gospel, but of simultaneously making the first breach in that distrust of strangers which excluded China from the general progress of the world. The establishment of the Catholic mission in the heart of this country also had its economic consequences: it laid the foundation of a better understanding between the Far East and the West, which grew with the progress of the mission. It is superfluous to detail the results from the standpoint of the material interests of the whole world. Lastly, science owes to Father Ricci the first exact scientific knowledge received in Europe concerning China, its true geographical situation, its ancient civilization, its vast and curious literature, its social organization so different from what existed elsewhere. The method instituted by Ricci necessitated a fundamental study of this new world, and if the missionaries who have since followed him have rendered scarcely less service to science than to religion, a great part of the credit is due to Ricci. [MATTEO RICCI], "Dell' entrata della Campagnia di Giesu e christianita nella Cina" (MS. Of Father Ricci, extant in the archives of the Society of Jesus; cited in the foregoing article as the "Memmoirs of Father Ricci", a somewhat free tr. Of his work is given in TRIGAULT, "De christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu". "Ex P. Matthaei Ricci commentariis libri", V (Augsbrg, 1615); DE URSIS, "P. Matheus Ricci, S.J. Relacao escripta pelo seu companhiero" (Rome, 1910); BARTOLI, "Dell' Historia della Compagnia di Gesu. La Cina", I-II (Rome, 1663). Bartoli is the most accurate biographer of Ricci; d'ORLEANS, "La vie du Pere Matthieu Ricci" (Paris, 1693); NATALI, "Il secondo Confucio" (Rome, 1900); VENTURI, "L'apostolato del P. M. Ricci d. C. d. G. in Cina secondo I suoi scritti inediti" (Rome, 1910); BRUCKER, "Le Pere Matthieu Ricci" in "Etudes", CXXIV (Paris, 1910), 5-27; 185-208; 751-79; DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, "Bibl. Des ecrivains de la C. de J", VI, 1792-95). Chinese Rites.-BRUCKER in VACANT, "Dict. De Theol. cath., s.v. "Chinois (Rites"" and works indicated; CORDIER, "Bibl. Sinica", II, 2nd. Ed., 869-925; IDEM, "Hist. Des relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales", III (Paris, 1902) xxv. JOSEPH BRUCKER Giovanni Battista Riccioli Giovanni Battista Riccioli Italian astronomer, b. at Ferrara 17 April, 1598; d. at Bologna 25 June, 1671. He entered the Society of Jesus 6 Oct., 1614. After teaching philosophy and theology for a number of years, chiefly at Parma and Bologna, he devoted himself, at the request of his superiors, entirely to the study of astronomy, which at that time, owing to the discoveries of Kepler and the new theories of Copernicus, was a subject of much discussion. Realizing the many defects of the traditional astronomy inherited from the ancients, he conceived the bold idea of undertaking a reconstruction of the science with a view to bringing it into harmony with contemporary progress. This led to his "Almagestum novum, astronomiam veterem novamque complectens" (2 vols., Bologna, 1651), considered by many the most important literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century. The author in common with many scholars of the time, notably in Italy, rejected the Copernican theory, and in this work, admittedly of great erudition, gives an elaborate refutation in justification of the Roman Decrees of 1616 and 1633. He praises, however, the genius of Copernicus and readily admits the value of his system as a simple hypothesis. His sincerity in this connexion has been called into question by some, e.g. Wolf, but a study of the work shows beyond doubt that he wrote from conviction and with the desire of making known the truth. Riccioli's project also included a comparison of the unit of length of various nations and a more exact determination of the dimensions of the earth. His topographical measurements occupied him at intervals between 1644 and 1656, but defects of method have rendered his results of but little value. His most important contribution to astronomy was perhaps his detailed telescopic study of the moon, made in collaboration with P. Grimaldi. The latter's excellent lunar map was inserted in the "Almagestum novum", and the lunar nomenclature they adopted is still in use. He also made observations on Saturn's rings, though it was reserved for Huyghens to determine the true ring-structure. He was an ardent defender of the new Gregorian calendar. Though of delicate health, Riccioli was an indefatigable worker and, in spite of his opposition to the Copernican theory, rendered valuable services to astronomy and also to geography and chronology. His chief works are: "Geographiae et hydrographiae reformatae libri XII" (Bologna, 1661); "Astronomia reformata" (2 vols., Bologna, 1665); "Chronologia reformata" (1669); "Tabula latitudinum et longitudinum" (Vienna, 1689). SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895), 1795; DELAMBRE, Hist. de l'Astronomie Moderne, II (Paris, 1821), 274; WOLF, Gesch. d. Astronomie (Munich, 1877), 434; WALSH, Catholic Churchmen in Science (2nd series, Philadelphia, 1909); LINSMEIER, Natur. u. Offenbarung, XLVII, 65 sqq. H. M. BROCK Edmund Ignatius Rice Edmund Ignatius Rice Founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (better known as "Irish Christian Brothers"), b. at Callan, Co. Kilkenny, 1762; d. at Waterford, 1844. He was educated in a Catholic school which, despite the provision of the iniquitous penal laws, the authorities suffered to exist in the City of Kilkenny. In 1779 he entered the business house of his uncle, a large export and import trader in the City of Waterford, and, after the latter's death, became sole proprietor. As a citizen he was distinguished for his probity, charity, and piety; he was an active member of a society established in the city for the relief of the poor. About 1794 he meditated entering a continental convent, but his brother, an Augustinian who had but just returned from Rome, discountenanced the idea. Rice, thereupon, devoted himself to the extension of his business. Some years later, however, he again desired to become a religious. As he was discussing the matter with a friend of his, a sister of Bishop Power of Waterford, a band of ragged boys passed by. Pointing to them Miss Power exclaimed: "What! would you bury yourself in a cell on the continent rather than devote your wealth and your life to the spiritual and material interest of these poor youths?" The words were an inspiration. Rice related the incident to Dr. Lanigan, bishop of his native Diocese of Ossory, and to others, all of whom advised him to undertake the mission to which God was evidently calling him. Rice settled his worldly affairs, his last year's business (1800) being the most lucrative one he had known, and commenced the work of the Christian schools. Assisted by two young men, whom he paid for their services, he opened his fist school in Waterford in 1802. In June of this year Bishop Hussey of Waterford laid the foundation stone of a schoolhouse on a site which he named Mount Sion. The building was soon ready for occupation, but Rice's assistants had fled and could not be induced to return even when offered higher salaries. In this extremity two young men from Callan offered themselves as fellow-labourers. Other workers soon gathered round him, and by 1806 Christian schools were established in Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir, and Dungarvan. The communities adopted a modified form of the Rule of the Presentation order of nuns, and, in 1808, pronounced their vows before Bishop Power. Houses were established in Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and elsewhere. Though the brothers, as a rule, made their novitiate in Mount Sion and regarded Rice as their father and model, he was not their superior; they were subject to the bishops of their respective dioceses. In 1817, on the advice of Bishop Murray, coadjutor to the Archbishop of Dublin, and of Father Kenny, S.J., a special friend, Rice applied to the Holy See for approbation and a constitution for his society. In 1820 Pius VII formally confirmed the new congregation of "Fratres Monachi" by the Brief "Ad pastoralis dignitatis fastigium". This was the first confirmation by the Church of a congregation of religious men in Ireland. Brother Rice was unanimously elected superior general by the members. All the houses were united except the house in Cork, where Bishop Murphy refused his consent. Later, however, in 1826, the Brothers in Cork attained the object of their desire, but one of their number, preferring the old condition of things, offered his services to the bishop, who placed him in charge of a school on the south side of the city. This secession of Br. Austin Reardon was the origin of the teaching congregation of the Presentation Brothers. The confirmation of the new Institute attracted considerable attention, even outside of Ireland, and many presented themselves for the novitiate. The founder removed the seat of government to Dublin. At this time the agitation for Catholic Emancipation was at its height and the people were roused to indignation by the reports of the proselytizing practices carried on in the Government schools. Brother Rice conceived the idea of establishing a "Catholic Model School". The "Liberator" entered warmly into his scheme, and procured a grant of -L-1500 from the Catholic Association in aid of the proposed building. On St. Columba's day, 1828, Daniel O'Connell laid the foundation stone, in North Richmond Street, Dublin, of the famous school, since known as the "O'Connell Schools". In his speech on the occasion he referred to Brother Rice as "My old friend, Mr. Rice, the Patriarch of the Monks of the west". The founder resigned his office in 1838 and spent his remaining years in Mount Sion. Before his death he saw eleven communities of his institute in Ireland, eleven in England, and one in Sydney, Australia, while applications for foundations had been received from the Archbishop of Baltimore and from bishops in Canada, Newfoundland, and other places. PATRICK J. HENNESSY Richard (Franciscan Preacher) Richard A Friar minor and preacher, appearing in history between 1428 and 1431, whose origin and nationality are unknown. He is sometimes called the disciple of St. Bernardine of Sienna and of St. Vincent Ferrer, but probably only because, like the former, he promoted the veneration of the Holy Name of Jesus and, like the latter, announced the end of the world as near. In 1428 Richard came from the Holy Land to France, preached at Troyes, next year in Paris during ten days (16-26 April) every morning from about five o'clock to ten or eleven. He had such a sway over his numerous auditors that after his sermons the men burned their dice, and the women their vanities. Having been threatened by the Faculty of Theology on account of his doctrine -- perhaps, also, because he was believed to favour Charles VII, King of France, whilst Paris was then in the hands of the English -- he left Paris suddenly and betook himself to Orleans and Troyes. In the latter town he first met Bl. Joan of Arc. Having contributed much to the submission of Troyes to Charles VII, Richard now followed the French army and became confessor and chaplain to Bl. Joan. Some differences, however, arose between the two on account of Catherine de la Rochelle, who was protected by the friar, but scorned by Joan. Richard's name figures also in the proceedings against Bl. Joan of Arc in 1431; in the same year he preached the Lent in Orleans and shortly after was interdicted from preaching by the inquisitor of Poitiers. No trace of him is found after this. DE KERVAL, Jeanne d'Arc et les Franciscains (Vanves, 1893); DEBOUT, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1905-07), I, 694-97 and passim; WALLON, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1883), 125, 200, 261. LIVARIUS OLIGER Richard I, King of England Richard I, King Of England Richard I, born at Oxford, 6 Sept, 1157; died at Chaluz, France, 6 April, 1199; was known to the minstrels of a later age, rather than to his contemporaries, as "Coeur-de-Lion". He was only the second son of Henry II, but it was part of his father's policy, holding, as he did, continental dominions of great extent and little mutual cohesion, to assign them to his children during his own lifetime and even to have his sons brought up among the people they were destined to govern. To Richard were allotted the territories in the South of France belonging to his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine, and before he was sixteen he was inducted as Duke of that province. It was a weak point in the old King's management of his sons, that, while dazzling them with brilliant prospects, he invested them with very little of the substance of power. In 1173 the young Henry, who, following a German usage, had already been crowned king in the lifetime of his father, broke out into open revolt, being instigated thereto by his father-in-law, Louis VII, King of France. Under the influence of their mother Eleanor, who bitterly resented her husband's infidelities, Geoffrey and Richard in 1173 also threw in their lot with the rebel and took up arms against their father. Allies gathered round them and the situation grew so threatening, that Henry II thought it well to propitiate heaven by doing penance at the tomb of the martyred Archbishop St. Thomas (11 July, 1174). By a remarkable coincidence, on the very next day, a victory in Northumberland over William, King of Scotland, disposed of Henry's most formidable opponent. Returning with a large force to France, the King swept all before him, and though Richard for a while held out alone he was compelled by 21 Sept. to sue for forgiveness at his father's feet. The King dealt leniently with his rebellious children, but this first outbreak was only the harbinger of an almost uninterrupted series of disloyal intrigues, fomented by Louis VII and by his son and successor, Philip Augustus, in which Richard, who lived almost entirely in Guienne and Poitou, was engaged down to the time of his father's death. He acquired for himself a great and deserved reputation for knightly prowess, and he was often concerned in chivalrous exploits, showing much energy in particular in protecting the pilgrims who passed through his own and adjacent territories on their way to the shrine of St. James of Compostella. His elder brother Henry grew jealous of him and insisted that Richard should do him homage. On the latter's resistance war broke out between the brothers. Bertrand de Born, Count of Hautefort, who was Richard's rival in minstrelsy as well as in feats of arms, lent such powerful support to the younger Henry, that the old King had to intervene on Richard's side. The death of the younger Henry, 11 June, 1183, once more restored peace and made Richard heir to the throne. But other quarrels followed between Richard and his father, and it was in the heat of the most desperate of these, in which the astuteness of Philip Augustus had contrived to implicate Henry's favourite son John, that the old King died broken-hearted, 6 July, 1189. Despite the constant hostilities of the last few years, Richard secured the succession without difficulty. He came quickly to England and was crowned at Westminster on 3 Sept. But his object in visiting his native land was less to provide for the government of the kingdom than to collect resources for the projected Crusade which now appealed to the strongest, if not the best, instincts of his adventurous nature, and by the success of which he hoped to startle the world. Already, towards the end of 1187, when the news had reached him of Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem, Richard had taken the cross. Philip Augustus and Henry II had subsequently followed his example, but the quarrels which had supervened had so far prevented the realization of this pious design. Now that he was more free the young King seems to have been conscientiously in earnest in putting the recovery of the Holy Land before everything else. Though the expedients by which he set to work to gather every penny of ready money upon which he could lay hands were alike unscrupulous and impolitic, there is something which commands respect in the energy which he threw into the task. He sold sheriffdoms, justiceships, church lands, and appointments of all kinds, both lay and secular, practically to the highest bidder. He was not ungenerous in providing for his brothers John and Geoffrey, and he showed a certain prudence in exacting a promise from them to remain out of England for three years, in order to leave a free hand to the new Chancellor William of Longehamp, who was to govern England in his absence. Unfortunately he took with him many of the men, e. g. Archbishop Baldwin, Hubert Walter, and Ranulf Glanvill, whose statesmanship and experience would have been most useful in governing England and left behind many restless spirits like John himself and Longehamp, whose energy might have been serviceable against the infidel. Already on 11 Dec., 1189, Richard was ready to cross to Calais. He met Philip Augustus, who was also to start on the Crusade, and the two Kings swore to defend each other's dominions as they would their own. The story of the Third Crusade has already been told in some detail (see CRUSADES). It was September, 1190, before Richard reached Marseilles; he pushed on to Messina and waited for the spring. There miserable quarrels occurred with Philip, whose sister he now refused to marry, and this trouble was complicated by an interference in the affairs of Sicily, which the Emperor Henry VI watched with a jealous eye, and which later on was to cost Richard dear. Setting sail in March, he was driven to Cyprus, where he quarrelled with Isaac Comnenus, seized the island, and married Berengaria of Navarre. He at last reached Acre in June and after prodigies of valour captured it. Philip then returned to France but Richard made two desperate efforts to reach Jerusalem, the first of which might have succeeded had he known the panic and weakness of the foe. Saladin was a worthy opponent, but terrible acts of cruelty as well as of chivalry took place, notably when Richard slew his Saracen prisoners in a fit of passion. In July, 1192, further effort seemed hopeless, and the King of England's presence was badly needed at home to secure his own dominions from the treacherous intrigues of John. Hastening back Richard was wrecked in the Adriatic, and falling eventually into the hands of Leopold of Austria, he was sold to the Emperor Henry VI, who kept him prisoner for over a year and extorted a portentous ransom which England was racked to pay. Recent investigation has shown that the motives of Henry's conduct were less vindictive than political. Richard was induced to surrender England to the Emperor (as John a few years later was to make over England to the Holy See), and then Henry conferred the kingdom upon his captive as a fief at the Diet of Mainz, in Feb., 1194 (see Bloch, "Forschungen", Appendix IV). Despite the intrigues of King Philip and John, Richard had loyal friends in England. Hubert Walter had now reached home and worked energetically with the Justices to raise the ransom, while Eleanor the Queen Mother obtained from the Holy See an excommunication against his captors. England responded nobly to the appeal for money and Richard reached home in March, 1194. He showed little gratitude to his native land, and after spending less than two months there quitted it for his foreign dominions never to return. Still, in Hubert Walter, who was now both Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar, he left it a capable governor. Hubert tried to wring unconstitutional supplies and service from the impoverished barons and clergy, but failed in at least one such demand before the resolute opposition of St. Hugh of Lincoln. Richard's diplomatic struggles and his campaigns against the wily King of France were very costly but fairly successful. He would probably have triumphed in the end, but a bolt from a cross-bow while he was besieging the castle of Chaluz inflicted a mortal injury. He died, after receiving the last sacraments with signs of sincere repentance. In spite of his greed, his lack of principle, and, on occasions, his ferocious savagery, Richard had many good instincts. He thoroughly respected a man of fearless integrity like St. Hugh of Lincoln, and Bishop Stubbs says of him with justice that he was perhaps the most sincerely religious prince of his family. "He heard Mass daily, and on three occasions did penance in a very remarkable way, simply on the impulse of his own distressed conscience. He never showed the brutal profanity of John." Lingard and all other standard Histories of England deal fully with the reign and personal character of Richard. DAVIS, A History of England in Six Volumes, II (2nd ed., London, 1909), and ADAMS, The Political History of England. II (London, 1905), may be specially recommended. The Prefaces contributed by Bishop Stubbs to his editions of various Chronicles in the R. S. are also very valuable, notably those to Roger of Hoveden (London, 1868-71); Ralph de Diceto (1875); and Benedict of Peterborough (1867). Besides these should be mentioned in the same series the two extremely important volumes of Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I (London, 1864-65), also edited by Stubbs; the Magna Vita S. Hugonis, edited by Dimock, 1864; and Randulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, 1875. See also NORGATE, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1889); LUCRAIRE AND LAVISSE, Histoire de France (Paris, 1902); KNELLER, Des Richard Loewenherz deutsche Gefangenshaft (Freiburg, 1893); BLOCH, Forschungen zur Politik Kaisers Heinrich VI in den Jahren 1191-1194 (Berlin, 1892); KINDT, Gruende der Gefangenschaft Richard I von England (Halle, 1892); and especially ROeHRICHT, Gesch. d. Konigreich Jerusalem (Innsbruck, 1890). HERBERT THURSTON. Charles-Louis Richard Charles-Louis Richard Theologian and publicist; b. at Blainville-sur-l'Eau, in Lorraine, April, 1711; d. at Mons, Belgium, 16 Aug., 1794. His family, though of noble descent, was poor, and he received his education in the schools of his native town. At the age of sixteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic and, after his religious profession, was sent to study theology in Paris, where he received the Doctorate at the Sorbonne. He next applied himself to preaching and the defense of religion against d'Alembert, Voltaire, and their confederates. The outbreak of the Revolution forced him to seek refuge at Mons, in Belgium. During the second invasion of that country by the French, in 1794, old age prevented him from fleeing, and, though he eluded his pursuers for some time, he was at last detected, tried by court martial, and shot, as the author of "Parallele des Juifs qui ont crucifie Jesus-Christ, avec les Franc,ais qui ont execute leur roi" (Mons, 1794). Among his works may be mentioned "Bibliotheque sacree, ou dictionnaire universelle des sciences ecclesiastiques" (5 vols., Paris, 1760) and "Supplement" (Paris, 1765), the last and enlarged edition being that of Paris, 1821-27, 29 vols., and "Analyses des conciles generaux et particuliers" (5 vols., Paris, 1772-77). MOULAERT, Ch. L. Richard aus dem Predigerorden (Ratisbon, 1870); Nomenclator, III (3rd ed.), 433-35. H.J. SCHROEDER Richard de Bury Richard de Bury Bishop and bibliophile, b. near Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk, England, 24 Jan., 1286; d. at Auckland, Durham, England, 24 April, 1345. He was the son of Sir Richard Aungerville, but was named after his birthplace. He studied at Oxford and became a Benedictine. Having been appointed tutor to Prince Edward, son of Edward II and Isabella of France, he was exposed to some danger during the stormy scenes that led to the deposition of the king. On the accession of his pupil to the throne (1327), de Bury eventually rose to be Bishop of Durham (1333), High Chancellor (1334), and Treasurer of England (1336). He was sent on two embassies to John XXII of Avignon, and on one of his visits, probably in 1330, he made the acquaintance of the poet Petrarch. He continued to enjoy the favor of the king, and in his later years took a prominent part in the diplomatic negotiations with Scotland and France. He died at his manor of Auckland, and was buried in the cathedral of Durham. He founded Durham College at Oxford, and according to tradition bequeathed to its library most of the books which he had spent his life in collecting. There they remained until the dissolution of the College by Henry VIII. They were then scattered, some going to Balliol College, others to the university (Duke Humphrey's) library, and still others passing into the possession of Dr. George Owen, the purchaser of the site whereon the dissolved college had stood. These books were of course all in manuscript, for the art of printing had not yet been discovered. Bale mentions three of de Bury's works, namely: "Philobiblon"; "Epistolae Familiarium"; and "Orationes ad Principes". It is by the "Philobiblon" that he is principally remembered. It was first printed at Cologne in 1473, then at Spires in 1483, in Paris in 1500, and at Oxford in 1598-99. Subsequent editions were made in Germany in 1610, 1614, 1674, and 1703, and in Paris in 1856. It was translated into English in 1832 by J. B. Inglis, and of this translation a reprint was made at Albany, New York, in 1861. The standard Latin text--the result of a collation of 28 manuscripts and of the printed editions--was established by Ernest C. Thomas and edited by him, with English translation, in 1888. A reprint of Thomas's translation appeared in the "Past and Present" Library in 1905. Bishop Richard had a threefold object in writing the "Philobiblon": he wished to inculcate on the clergy the pursuit of learning and the cherishing of books as its receptacles; to vindicate to his contemporaries and to posterity his own action in devoting so much time, attention, and money to the acquisition of books; and to give directions for the management of the library which he proposed to establish at Durham College, Oxford. The work is important for its side-lights on the state of learning and manners and on the habits of the clergy in fourteenth-century England. He is the true type of the book-lover. He had a library in each of his residences. Conspicuous in his legacy are Greek and Hebrew grammars. He did not despise the novelties of the moderns, but he preferred the well-tested labors of the ancients, and, while he did not neglect the poets, he had but little use for law-books. He kept copyists, scribes, binders, correctors, and illuminators, and he was particularly careful to restore defaced or battered texts. His directions for the lending and care of the books intended for his college at Oxford are minute, and evince considerable practical forethought. His humility and simple faith are shown in the concluding chapter, in which he acknowledges his sins and asks the future students of his college to pray for the repose of his soul. BALE, Scriptorum Illustrium majoris Britanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam vocant, Catalogus (Basle, 1557); WARTON, History of English Poetry, I, 146; HALLAM, Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Serenteenth Centuries; THOMAS, The Philobiblon newly translated, published under the title of The Love of Books in the Past and Present Library (1905); SURTEES SOCIETY, edition of Scriptores Tres; WHARTON, Anglia Sacra; Cambridge Modern History, I, xvii; The Cambridge History of English Literature, II, 410; BLADES, The Enemies of Books; CLARK, The Care of Books. P.J. LENNOX Francois-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne Franc,ois-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne Archbishop of Paris, born at Nantes, 1 March, 1819; died in Paris, 28 January, 1908. Educated at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice he became in 1849 secretary to Bishop Jacquemet at Nantes, then, from 1850 to 1869, vicar-general. In 1871 he became Bishop of Belley where he began the process for the beatification of the Cure d'Ars. On 7 May, 1875, he became coadjutor of Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop of Paris, whom he succeeded 8 July, 1886, becoming cardinal with the title of Santa Maria in Via, 24 May, 1889. He devoted much energy to the completion of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Montmartre, which he consecrated. Politically, Cardinal Richard was attached by ties of esteem and sympathy to the Monarchist Catholics. In 1892, when Leo XIII recommended the rallying of Catholics to the Republic (see FRANCE, The Third Republic and the Church in France), the cardinal created the "Union of Christian France" (Union de la France Chretienne), to unite all Catholics on the sole basis of the defence of religion. The Monarchists opposed this "rallying" (Ralliement) with the policy which this union represented, and at last, at the pope's desire, the union was dissolved. On many occasions Cardinal Richard spoke in defence of the religious congregations, and Leo XIII addressed to him a letter (27 December, 1900) on the religious who were menaced by the then projected Law of Associations. In the domain of hagiography he earned distinction by his "Vie de la bienheureuse Franc,oise d'Amboise" (1865) and "Saints de l'eglise de Bretagne" (1872). L'episcopat franc,ais, 1802-1905, s. v. Belley, Paris; LECANUET, L'Eglise de France sous la troisieme republique, II (Paris, 1910). GEORGES GOYAU St. Richard de Wyche St. Richard de Wyche Bishop and confessor, b. about 1197 at Droitwich, Worcestershire, from which his surname is derived; d. 3 April, 1253, at Dover. He was the second son of Richard and Alice de Wyche. His father died while he was still young and the family property fell into a state of great delapidation. His elder brother offered to resign the inheritance to him, but Richard refused the offer, although he undertook the management of the estate and soon restored it to a good condition. He went to Oxford, where he and two companions lived in such poverty that they had only one tunic and hooded gown between them, in which they attended lectures by turns. He then went to Paris and on his return proceeded Master of Arts. At Bologna he studied canon law, in which he acquired a great reputation and was elected Chancellor of the University of Oxford. His learning and sanctity were so famed that Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, both offered him the post of chancellor of their respective dioceses. Richard accepted the archbishop's offer and thenceforward became St. Edmund's intimate friend and follower. He approved the archbishop's action in opposing the king on the question of the vacant sees, accompanied him in his exile to Pontigny, was present at Soissy when he died, and made him a model in life. Richard supplied Matthew Paris with material for his biography, and, after attending the translation of his relics to Pontigny in 1249, wrote an account of the incident in a letter published by Matthew Paris (Historia major, V, VI). Retiring to the house of the Dominicans at Orleans, Richard studied theology, was ordained priest, and, after founding a chapel in honour of St. Edmund, returned to England where he became Vicar of Deal and Rector of Charring. Soon afterwards he was induced by Boniface of Savoy, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, to resume his former office of chancellor. In 1244 Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester, died; the election of Robert Passelewe, Archdeacon of Chichester, to the vacant see, was quashed by Boniface at a synod of his suffragans, held 3 June, 1244, and on his recommendation the chapter elected Richard, their choice being immediately confirmed by the archbishop. Henry III was indignant, as Robert Passelewe was a favourite, and he refused to surrender to Richard the temporalities of his see. The Saint took his case to Innocent IV, who consecrated him in person at Lyons, 5 March, 1245, and sent him back to England. But Henry was immovable. Thus homeless in his own diocese, Richard was dependent on the charity of his clergy, one of whom, Simon of Tarring, shared with him the little he possessed. At length, in 1246, Henry was induced by the threats of the pope to deliver up the temporalities. As bishop, Richard lived in great austerity, giving away most of his revenues as alms. He compiled a number of statutes which regulate in great detail the lives of the clergy, the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, church privileges, and other matters. Every priest in the diocese was bound to obtain a copy of these statutes and bring it to the diocesan synod (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, 688-93); in this way the standard of life among the clergy was raised considerably. For the better maintenance of his cathedral Richard instituted a yearly collection to be made in every parish of the diocese on Easter or Whit Sunday. The mendicant orders, particularly the Dominicans, received special encouragement from him. In 1250 Richard was named as one of the collectors of the subsidy for the crusades (Bliss, "Calendar of Papal Letters", I, 263) and two years later the king appointed him to preach the crusade in London. He made strenuous efforts to rouse enthusiasm for the cause in the Dioceses of Chichester and Canterbury, and while journeying to Dover, where he was to consecrate a new church dedicated to St. Edmund, he was taken ill. Upon reaching Dover, he went to a hospital called "Maison Dieu", performed the consecration ceremony on 2 April, but died the next morning. His body was taken back to Chichester and buried in the cathedral. He was solemnly canonized by Urban IV in the Franciscan church at Viterbo, 1262, and on 20 Feb. a papal licence for the translation of his relics to a new shrine was given; but the unsettled state of the country prevented this until 16 June, 1276, when the translation was performed by Archbishop Kilwardby in the presence of Edward I. This shrine, which stood in the feretory behind the high altar, was rifled and destroyed at the Reformation. The much-restored altar tomb in the south transept now commonly assigned to St. Richard has no evidence to support its claim, and no relics are known to exist. The feast is celebrated on 3 April. The most accurate version of St. Richard's will, which has been frequently printed, is that given by Blaauw in "Sussex Archaeological Collections", I, 164-92, with a translation and valuable notes. His life was written by his confessor Ralph Bocking shortly after his canonization and another short life, compiled in the fifteenth century, was printed by Capgrave. Both these are included in the notice of St. Richard in the Bollandist "Acta Sanctorum". HARDY, Descriptive catalogue of MSS. relating to the history of Great Britain and Ireland, III (London, 1871), 136-9; Acta SS., April, I (Venice, 1768), 277-318; CAPGRAVE, Nova legenda Angliae (London, 1516), 269; PARIS, Historia major, ed. MADDEN in R. S., II, III (London, 1866); Annales monastici, ed. LUARD in R. S. (London, 1864); Flores historiarum, ed. IDEM in R. S., II (London, 1890); Rishanger's Chronicle, ed. RILEY in R. S. (London, 1865); TRIVET, ed. HOG, Annales sex regum Angliae (London, 1845); Calendar of Papal Letters, ed. BLISS, I (London, 1893); Vita di S. Ricardo vescovo di Cicestria (Milan, 1706); STEPHENS, Memorials of the See of Chichester (London, 1876), 83-98, contains the best modern life; WALLACE, St. Edmund of Canterbury (London, 1893), 196-205; GASQUET, Henry III and the Church (London, 1905), 222, 343; CHALLONER, Britannia sancta (London, 1745), 206-13; STANTON, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 141-3. G. ROGER HUDLESTON Bl. Richard Fetherston Bl. Richard Fetherston Priest and martyr; died at Smithfield, 30 July, 1540. He was chaplain to Catharine of Aragon and schoolmaster to her daughter, Princess Mary, afterwards queen. He is called sacrae theologiae Doctor by Pits (De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus, 729). He was one of the theologians appointed to defend Queen Catharine's cause in the divorce proceedings before the legates Wolsey and Campeggio, and is said to have written a treatise "Contra divortium Henrici et Catharinae, Liber unus". No copy of this work is known to exist. He took part in the session of Convocation which began in April, 1529, and was one of the few members who refused to sign the Act declaring Henry's marriage with Catharine to be illegal ab initio, through the pope's inability to grant a dispensation in such a case. In 1534 he was called upon to take the Oath of Supremacy and, on refusing to do so, was committed to the Tower, 13 December, 1534. He seems to have remained in prison till 30 July, 1540, when he was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Smithfield, together with the Catholic theologians, Thomas Abel and Edward Powell, who like himself had been councillors to Queen Catharine in the divorce proceedings, and three heretics, Barnes, Garret, and Jerome, condemned for teaching Zwinglianism. All six were drawn through the streets upon three hurdles, a Catholic and a heretic on each hurdle. The Protestants were burned, and the three Catholics executed in the usual manner, their limbs being fixed over the gates of the city and their heads being placed upon poles on London Bridge. Richard was beatified by Leo XIII, 29 December, 1886. PITS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), 729; SANDER, tr. LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877), 65, 67, 150; BURNET, History of the Reformation, ed. POCOCK (Oxford, 1865), I, 260, 472, 566-67; IV, 555, 563; TANNER, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London, 1748), 278; Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1846), I, 209; Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII, ed. GAIRDNER (London, 1882, 1883, 1885, VI, 311, 1199; VII, 530; VIII, 666, 1001. G. ROGER HUDLESTON Richard of Cirencester Richard of Cirencester Chronicler, d. about 1400. He was the compiler of a chronicle from 447 to 1066, entitled "Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum Angliae". The work, which is in four books, is of little historical value, but contains several charters granted to Westminster Abbey. Nothing is known of Richard's life except that he was a monk of Westminster, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1391, was still at Westminster in 1397, and that he lay sick in the infirmary in 1400. Two other works are attributed to him: "De Officiis", and "Super Symbolum Majus et Minus", but neither is now extant. In the eighteenth century his name was used by Charles Bertram as the pretended author of his forgery "Richardus Copenensis de situ Britanniae", which deceived Stukeley and many subsequent antiquarians and historians, including Lingard, and which was only finally exposed by Woodward in 1866-67. This spurious chronicle, however, still appears under Richard's name in Giles, "Six English Chronicles" (London, 1872). Ricardi Cicestrensis Speculum Historiale, ed. MAYOR, Rolls Series (London, 1863-69); STUKELEY An Account of Richard of Cirencester and his works (London, 1757); HARDY Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1871); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog, s. v.; BOLLANDISTS. Catalogus cod. hagiog. Lat. B. N. (Paris, 1893). EDWIN BURTON Richard of Cornwall Richard of Cornwall (RICHARD RUFUS, RUYS, ROSSO, ROWSE). The dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was still living in 1259. He was an Oxford Franciscan, possibly a Master of Arts of that university, who had studied for a time in Paris (1238), and then returned to Oxford. He was chosen with Haymo of Faversham to go to Rome to oppose the minister-general Elias. In 1250 he was lecturing at Oxford on the "Sentences", till he was driven away by the riots, when he returned to Paris and continued lecturing there, gaining the title Philosophus Admirabilis; but according to Roger Bacon his teaching was very mischievous, and produced evil results for the next forty years. He was again at Oxford in 1255 as regent-master of the friars. Several works, all still in MS., are attributed to him. These are: "Commentaries on the Master of the Sentences", a work formerly at Assisi; "Commentary on Bonaventure's third book of Sentences" (Assisi); and a similar commentary on the fourth book (Assisi); Pits ("De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus") denies his identity with Richard Rufus on the ground that Rufus was born at Cirencester in Gloucestershire, and not in Cornwall. Monumenta Franciscana, ed. BREWER AND HOWLETT in R. S. (London, 1858-82); WADDING, Annales Minorum, IV (Lyons and Rome, 1650); 2nd ed. (Rome, 1731-45); and supplement by SBARALEA (1806); PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo-Minoritica (London, 1726); LITTLE, The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892); DENIFLE, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris 1889); see also tr. of THOMAS OF ECCLESTON by FR. CUTHBERT, The Friars and how they came to England (London, 1903), and The Chronicle of Thomas of Eccleston (London, 1909). EDWIN BURTON Richard of Middletown Richard of Middletown (A MEDIA VILLA). Flourished at the end of the thirteenth century, but the dates of his birth and death and most incidents of his life are unknown. Middleton Stoney in Oxfordshire and Middleton Cheyney in Northamptonshire have both been suggested as his native place, and he has also been claimed as a Scotsman. He probably studied first at Oxford, but in 1283 he was at the University of Paris and graduated Bachelor of Divinity in that year. He entered the Franciscan order. In 1278 he had been appointed by the general of his order to examine the doctrines of Peter Olivus, and the same work was again engaging his attention in 1283. In 1286 he was sent with two other Franciscans to Naples to undertake the education of two of the sons of Charles II, Ludwig, afterwards a Franciscan, and Robert. After the defeat of Charles by Peter of Arragon the two princes were carried as hostages to Barcelona and Richard accompanied them, sharing their captivity till their release in 1295. The rest of his life lies in obscurity. A new point of interest at the present day lies in the fact that, medieval scholastic though he was, he knew and studied the phenomena of hypnotism, and left the results of his investigations in his "Quodlibeta" (Paris, 1519, fol. 90 8) where he treats of what would now be termed auto-suggestion and adduces some instances of tele pathy. His works include "Super sententias Petri Lombardi", written between 1281 and 1285, and first printed at Venice, 1489; "Quaestiones Quodlibetales" in MS. at Oxford and elsewhere; "Quodlibeta tria" printed with the Sentences at Venice, 1509; "De gradibus formarum" in MS. at Munich; and "Quae stiones disputatae" in MS. at Assisi. Other works which have been attributed. to him are: "Super epistolas Pauli"; "Super evangelia"; "Super distinctiones decreti"; "De ordine judiciorum"; "De clavium sacerdotalium potestate"; "Contra Patrem Joannem Olivum"; a poem, "De conceptione immaculata Virginis Mariae"; three MS. sermons now in the Bibliotheque Nationale (MS. 14947, nos. 47, 69, 98), and a sermon on the Ascension, the MS. of which is at Erlangen. Works erroneously ascribed to him are a treatise on the rule of St. Francis; the "Quadragesimale" which was written by Francis of Asti; the completion of the "Summa" of Alexander of Hales, and an "Expositio super Ave Maria", probably by Richard of Saxony. His death is assigned by some to 1307 or 1308, by Pits to 1300, by Parkinson to some earlier date on the ground that he was one of the "Four Masters", the expositors of the Rule of St. Francis. WADDING, Annales Minorum (2nd ed., Rome, 1731-45), and supplement by SBARALEA (1806); PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo Minoritica (London, 1726); DE MARTIGNE, La Scolastique et les traditions Franciscaines: Richard de Middletown in Revue. scien., eccles., II (1885); PORTALIE, L'hypnotisme au moyen age: Aricenne Avicenne et Richard Middletown in etudes relig. hist. Litt., LV (1892); CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1905); KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. Middleton. EDWIN BURTON Richard of St. Victor Richard of St. Victor Theologian, native of Scotland, but the date and place of his birth are unknown; d. 1173 and was commemorated on 10 March in the necrology of the abbey. He was professed at the monastery of St. Victor under the first Abbot Gilduin (d. 1155) and was a disciple of the great mystic Hugo whose principles and methods he adopted and elaborated. His career was strictly monastic, and his relations with the outer world were few and slight. He was sub-prior of the monastery in 1159, and subsequently became prior. During his tenure of the latter office, serious trouble arose in the community of St. Victor from the misconduct of the English Abbot Ervisius, whose irregular life brought upon him a personal admonition from Alexander III, and was subsequently referred by the pope to a commission of inquiry under the royal authority; after some delay and resistance on the part of the abbot his resignation was obtained and he retired from the monastery. A letter of exhortation was addressed by the pope to "Richard, the prior" and the community in 1170. Richard does not appear to have taken any active part in these proceedings, but the disturbed condition of his surroundings may well have accentuated his desire for the interior solace of mystical contemplation. Ervisius's resignation took place in 1172. In 1165, St. Victor had been visited by St. Thomas of Canterbury, after his flight from Northampton; and Richard was doubtless one of the auditors of the discourse delivered by the archbishop on that occasion. A letter to Alexander III, dealing with the affairs of the archbishop, and signed by Richard is extant and published by Migne. Like his master, Hugo, Richard may probably have had some acquaintance and intercourse with St. Bernard, who is thought to have been the Bernard to whom the treatise "De tribus appropriatis personis in Trinitate" is addressed. His reputation as a theologian extended far beyond the precincts of his monastery, and copies of his writings were eagerly sought by other religious houses. Exclusively a theologian, unlike Hugo, he appears to have had no interest in philosophy, and took no part in the acute philosophieal controversies of his time; but, like all the School of St. Victor, he was willing to avail himself of the didactic and constructive methods in theology which had been introduced by Abelard. Nevertheless, he regarded merely secular learning with much suspicion, holding it to be worthless as an end in itself, and only an occasion of worldly pride and self-seeking when divorced from the knowledge of Divine things. Such learning he calls, in the antithetical style which characterizes all his writing, "Sapientia insipida et doctrina indocta"; and the professor of such learning is "Captator famae, neglector conscientiae". Such worldly-minded persons should stimulate the student of sacred things to greater efforts in his own higher sphere--"When we consider how much the philosophers of this world have laboured, we should be ashamed to be inferior to them"; "We should seek always to comprehend by reason what we hold by faith." His works fall into the three classes of dogmatic, mystical, and exegetical. In the first, the most important is the treatise in six books on the Trinity, with the supplement on the attributes of the Three Persons, and the treatise on the Incarnate Word. But greater interest now belongs to his mystical theology, which is mainly contained in the two books on mystical contemplation, entitled respectively "Benjamin Minor" and "Benjamin Major", and the allegorical treatise on the Tabernacle. He carries on the mystical doctrine of Hugo, in a somewhat more detailed scheme, in which the successive stages of contemplation are described. These are six im number, divided equally among the three powers of the soul--the imagination, the reason, and the intelligence, and ascending from the contemplation of the visible things of creation to the rapture in which the soul is carried "beyond itself" into the Divine Presence, by the three final stages of "Dilatio, sublevatio, alienatio". This schematic arrangement of contemplative soul-states is substantially adopted by Gerson in his more systematic treatise on mystical theology, who, however, makes the important reservation that the distinction between reason and intelligence is to be understood as functional and not real. Much use is made in the mystical treatises of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture for which the Victorine school had a special affection. Thus the titles "Benjamin Major" and "Minor" refer to Ps. lxvii, "Benjamin in mentis excessu". Rachel represents the reason, Lia represents charity; the tabernacle is the type of the state of perfection, in which the soul is the dwelling-place of God. In like manner, the mystical or devotional point of view predominates in the exegetical treatises; though the critical and doctrinal exposition of the text also receives attention. The four books entitled "Tractatus exceptionum", and attributed to Richard, deal with matters of secular learning. Eight titles of works attributed to him by Trithemius (De Script. Eccl.) refer probably to MS. fragments of his known works. A "Liber Penitentialis" is mentioned by Montfauc,on as attributed to a "Ricardus Secundus a Sancto Victore", and may probably be identical with the treatise "De potestate solvendi et ligandi" above mentioned. Nothing is otherwise known of a second Richard of St. Victor. Fifteen other MSS. are said to exist of works attributed to Richard which have appeared in none of the published editions, and are probably spurious. Eight editions of his works have been published: Venice, 1506 (incomplete) and 1592; Paris, 1518 and 1550; Lyons, 1534; Cologne, 1621; Rouen, 1650, by the Canons of St. Victor; and by Migne. HUGONIN, Notice sur R. de St. Victor in P.L., CXCVI; ENGELHARDT, R. von St. Victor u. J. Ruysbroek (Erlangen, 1838); VAUGHAN, Hours uith the Mystics V (London, 1893); INGE, Christian Mysticism (London, 1898); DE WULF, Histoire de la philosophie medievale (Louvain, 1905); BUONAMICI, R. di San Vittore saggi di studio sulla filosofia mistica del secolo XII (Alatri, 1898); VON HUGEL, The Mystical Element in Religion (London, 1909); UNDERHILL, Mysticism (London, 1911). A.B. SHARPE Ven. William Richardson Ven. William Richardson ( Alias Anderson.) Last martyr under Queen Elizabeth; b. according to Challoner at Vales in Yorkshire (i.e. presumably Wales, near Sheffield), but, according to the Valladolid diary, a Lancashire man; executed at Tyburn, 17 Feb., 1603. He arrived at Reims 16 July, 1592 and on 21 Aug. following was sent to Valladolid, where he arrived 23 Dec. Thence, 1 Oct., 1594, he was sent to Seville where he was ordained. According to one account he was arrested at Clement's Inn on 12 Feb., but another says he had been kept a close prisoner in Newgate for a week before he was condemned at the Old Bailey on the 15 Feb., under stat. 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest and coming into the realm. He was betrayed by one of his trusted friends to the Lord Chief Justice, who expedited his trial and execution with unseemly haste, and seems to have acted more as a public prosecutor than as a judge. At his execution he showed great courage and constancy, dying most cheerfully, to the edification of all beholders. One of his last utterances was a prayer for the queen. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Blessed Richard Thirkeld Bl. Richard Thirkeld Martyr; b. at Coniscliffe, Durham, England; d. at York, 29 May, 1583. From Queen's College, Oxford, where he was in 1564-5, he went to Reims, where he was ordained priest, 18 April, 1579, and left 23 May for the mission, where he ministered in or about York, and acted as confessor to Ven. Margaret Clitheroe. On the eve of the Annunciation, 1583, he was arrested while visiting one of the Catholic prisoners in the Ousebridge Kidcote, York, and at once confessed his priesthood, both to the pursuivants, who arrested him, and to the mayor before whom he was brought, and for the night was lodged in the house of the high sheriff. The next day his trial took place, at which he managed to appear in cassock and biretta. The charge was one of having reconciled the queen's subjects to the Church of Rome. He was found guilty on 27 May and condemned 28 May. He spent the night in instructing his fellow-prisoners, and the morning of his condemnation in upholding the faith and constancy of those who were brought to the bar. No details of his execution are extant: six of his letters still remain, and are summarized by Dom Bede Camm. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Blessed Richard Whiting Blessed Richard Whiting Last Abbot of Glastonbury and martyr, parentage and date of birth unknown, executed 15 Nov., 1539; was probably educated in the claustral school at Glastonbury, whence he proceeded to Cambridge, graduating as M.A. in 1483 and D.D. in 1505. If, as is probable, he was already a monk when he went to Cambridge he must have received the habit from John Selwood, Abbot of Glastonbury from 1456 to 1493. He was ordained deacon in 1500 and priest in 1501, and held for some years the office of chamberlain of his monastery. In February, 1525, Richard Bere, Abbot of Glastonbury, died, and the community, after deciding to elect his successor per formam compromissi, which places the selection in the hands of some one person of note, agreed to request Cardinal Wolsey to make the choice of an abbot for them. After obtaining the king's permission to act and giving a fortnight's inquiry to the circumstances of the case Wolsey on 3 March, 1525, nominated Richard Whiting to the vacant post. The first ten years of Whiting's rule were prosperous and peaceful, and he appears in the State papers as a careful overseer of his abbey alike in spirituals and temporals. Then, in August, 1535, came the first "visitation" of Glastonbury by Dr. Layton, who, however, found all in good order. In spite of this, however, the abbot's jurisdiction over the town of Glastonbury was suspended and minute "injunctions" were given to him about the management of the abbey property; but then and more than once during the next few years he was assured that there was no intention of suppressing the abbey. By January, 1539, Glastonbury was the only monastery left in Somerset, and on 19 September in that year the royal commissioners, Lavton, Pollard and Moyle, arrived there without warning. Whiting happened to be at his manor of Sharpham. Thither the commissioners followed and examined him according to certain articles received from Cromwell, which apparently dealt with the question of the succession to the throne. The abbot, was then taken back to Glastonbury and thence sent up to London to the Tower that Cromwell might examine him for himself, but the precise charge on which he was arrested, and subsequently executed, remains uncertain though his case is usually referred to as one of treason. On 2 October, the commissioners wrote to Cromwell that they had now come to the knowledge of "divers and sundry treasons committed by the Abbot of Glastonbury", and enclosed a "book" of evidences thereof with the accusers' names, which however is no longer forthcoming. In Cromwell's MS., "Remembrances", for the same month, are the entries: "Item, Certayn persons to be sent to the Towre for the further examenacyon of the Abbot, of Glaston . . . . Item. The Abbot, of Glaston to (be) tryed at Glaston and also executvd there with his complvcys. . . Item. Councillors to give evidence against the Abbot of Glaston, Rich. Pollard, Lewis Forstew (Forstell), Thos. Moyle." Marillac, the French Ambassador, on 25 October wrote: "The Abbot of Glastonbury. . . has lately, been put in the Tower, because, in taking the Abbey treasures, valued at 200,000 crowns, they found a written book of arguments in behalf of queen Katherine." If the charge was high treason, which appears most probable, then, as a member of the House of Peers, Whiting should have been attainted by an Act of Parliament passed for the purpose, but his execution was an accomplished fact, before Parliament even met. In fact it seems clear that his doom was deliberately wrapped in obscurity by Cromwell and Henry, for Marillac, writing to Francis I on 30 November, after mentioning the execution of the Abbots of Reading and Glastonbury, adds: "could learn no particulars of what they were charged with, except that it was the relics of the late lord marquis"; which makes things more perplexing than ever. Whatever the charge, however, Whiting was sent back to Somerset in the care of Pollard and reached Wells on 14 November. Here some sort of trial apparently took place, and next day, Saturday, 15 November, he was taken to Glastonbury with two of his monks, Dom John Thorne and Dom Roger James, where all three were fastened upon hurdles and dragged by horses to the top of Toe Hill which overlooks the town. Here they were hanged, drawn and quartered, Abbot Whiting's head being fastened over the gate of the now deserted abbey and his limbs exposed at Wells, Bath, Ilchester and Bridgewater. Richard Whiting was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in his decree of 13 May, 1895. His watch and seal are still preserved in the museum at Glastonbury. G. ROGER HUDDLESTON Cardinal Richelieu Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de Richelieu Cardinal; French statesman, b. in Paris, 5 September, 1585; d. there 4 December 1642. At first he intended to follow a military career, but when, in 1605, his brother Alfred resigned the Bishopric of Luc,on and retired to the Grande Chartreuse, Richelieu obtained the see from Henry IV and withdrew to the country to take up his theological studies under the direction of Bishop Cospean of Aire. He was consecrated bishop on 17 April, 1607; he was not yet twenty-two years old, although the Brief of Paul V dated 19 December, 1606, announcing his appointment contains the statement: "in vigesimo tertio aetatis anno tantum constitutus". Mgr. Lacroix, the historian of Richelieu's youth, believes that in a journey made to Rome at the end of 1606, Richelieu deceived the pope as to his age, but the incident is still obscure. In his diocese, Richelieu showed great zeal for the conversion of Protestants and appointed the Oratorians and the Capuchins to give missions in all the parishes. Richelieu represented the clergy of Poitou in the States General of 1614, where his political career began. There he was the mouth-piece of the Church, and in a celebrated discourse demanded that bishops and prelates be summoned to the royal councils, that the distribution of ecclesiastical benefices to the laity be forbidden, that the Church be exempt from taxation, that Protestants who usurped churches or had their coreligionists interred in them be punished, and that the Decrees of the Council of Trent be promulgated throughout France. He ended by assuring the young king Louis XIII that the desire of the clergy was to have the royal power so assured that it might be "comme un ferme rocher qui brise tout ce qui le heurte" (as a firm rock which crushes all that opposes it). Richelieu was named secretary of state on 30 November, 1616, but after the assassination of Concini, favourite of Maria de' Medici, he was forced to leave the ministry and follow the queen mother to Blois. To escape the political intrigues which pursued him he retired in June, 1617, to the priory of Coussay and, during this time of leisure caused by his disgrace, published in October, 1617 (date confirmed by Mgr. Lacroix), his "Les principaux points de la foi de l'eglise catholique, defendus contre l'eecrit adresse au Roi par les quartre ministres de Charenton"; it was upon reading this book half a century later that Jacques de Coras, a Protestant pastor of Tonneins, was converted to Catholicism. Richelieu continued to be represented to the king as an enemy to his power; the Capuchin, Leclerc du Tremblay, never succeeded in completely clearing him in Louis XIII's opinion. To disarm suspicion Richelieu asked the king to name a place of exile, and at his order went in 1618 to Avignon, where he passed nearly a year and where he composed a catechism which became famous under the name of "Instruction du chretien". This book, destined to be read in every parish each Sunday at the sermon, was a real blessing at a time when ignorance of religion was the principal evil. When Maria de' Medici escaped from Blois in 1619, Richelieu was chosen by the minister Luynes to negotiate for peace between Louis XIII and his mother. By Brief of 3 November, 1622, he was created cardinal by Gregory XV. On 19 April, 1624, he re-entered the Council of Ministers, and on 12 August, 1624, was made its president. Richelieu's policy can be reduced to two principal ideas: the domestic unification of France and opposition to the House of Austria. At home he had to contend with constant conspiracies in which Maria de' Medici, Queen Anne of Austria, Gaston d'Orleans (the king's brother), and the highest nobles of the court were involved. The executions of Marillac (1632), Montmorency (1632), Cinq-Mars and of de Thou (1642) intimidated the enemies of the cardinal. He had also to contend with the Protestants who were forming a state within the state (see HUGUENOTS). The capitulation of La Rochelle and the peace of Alais (28 June, 1629) annihilated Protestantism as a political party. Richelieu's foreign policy (for which see LECLERC DU TREMBLAY) was characterized by his fearlessness in making alliances with the foreign Protestants. At various times the Protestants of the Grisons, Sweden, the Protestant Princes of Germany, and Bernard of Saxe-Weimar were his allies. The favourable treaties signed by Mazarin were the result of Richelieu's policy of Protestant alliances, a policy which was severely censured by a number of Catholics. At the end of 1625, when Richelieu was preparing to give back Valteline to the Protestant Grisons, the partisans of Spain called him "Cardinal of the Huguenots", and two pamphlets, attributed to the Jesuits Eudemon Joannes and Jean Keller, appeared against him; these he had burned. Hostilities, however, increased until finally the king's confessor opposed the foreign policy of the cardinal. This was a very important episode, and on it the recent researches of Father de Rochemonteix in the archives of the Society of Jesus have cast new light. Father Caussin, author of "La Cour Sainte", the Jesuit whom Richelieu, on 25 March, 1636, had made the king's confessor, tried to use against the cardinal the influence of Mlle. de La Fayette, a lady for whom the king had entertained a certain regard and who had become a nun. On 8 December, 1637, in a solemn interview Caussin recalled to the king his duties towards his wife, Anne of Austria, to whom he was too indifferent; asked him to allow his mother, Maria de' Medici, to return to France; and pointed out the dangers to Catholicism which might arise through Richelieu's alliance with the Turks and the Protestant princes of Germany. After this interview Caussin gave Communion to the king and addressed him a very beautiful sermon, entreating him to obey his directions. Richelieu was anxious that the king's confessor should occupy himself solely with "giving absolutions", consequently, on 10 December, 1637, Caussin was dismissed and exiled to Rennes, and his successor, Father Jacques Sirmond, celebrated for his historical knowledge, was forced to promise that, if he saw "anything censurable in the conduct of the State", he would report it to the cardinal and not attempt to influence the king's conscience. However, Father Caussin's fears concerning Richelieu's foreign policy were not shared by all of his confreres. Father Lallemand, for instance, affirmed that it was rash to blame the king's political alliance with the Protestant princes -- an alliance which had been made only after an unsuccessful attempt to form one with Bavaria and the Catholic princes of Germany. That Richelieu was possessed of religious sentiments cannot be contested. It was he who in February, 1638, prompted the declaration by which Louis XIII consecrated the Kingdom of France to the Virgin Mary; in the ministry he surrounded himself with priests and religious; as general he employed Cardinal de la Valette; as admiral, Sourdis, Archbishop of Bordeaux; as diplomat, Berulle; as chief auxiliary he had Leclerc du Tremblay. He himself designated Mazarin his successor. He had a high idea of the sacerdotal dignity, was continually protesting against he encroachments of the parlements on the jurisdiction of the Church, and advised the king to choose as bishops only those who should "have passed after their studies a considerable time in the seminaries, the places established for the study of the ecclesiastical functions". He wished to compel the bishops to reside in their dioceses, to establish seminaries there, and to visit their parishes. He aided the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul to induce the bishops to institute the "exercises des ordinants", retreats, during which the young clerics were to prepare themselves for the priesthood. Richelieu foresaw the perils to which nascent Jansenism would expose the Church. Saint-Cyran's doctrines on the constitution of the Church, his views on the organization of the "great Christian Republic", his liaison with Jansenius (who in 1635 had composed a violent pamphlet against France under the names of Mars gallicus), and the manner in which he opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orleans, drew upon him the cardinal's suspicion. In having him arrested 14 May, 1638, Richelieu declared that "had Luther and Calvin been confined before they had begun to dogmatize, the states would have been spared many troubles". Two months later Richelieu forced the solitaries of Port Royal-des- Champs to disperse; some were sent to Paris, others to Ferte-Milon. Saint-Cyran remained in the dungeon of Vincennes until the cardinal's death. With the co-operation of the Benedictine Gregoire Tarisse, Richelieu devoted himself seriously to the reform of the Benedictines. Named coadjutor to the Abbot of Cluny in 1627, and Abbot of Cluny in 1629, he called to this monastery the Reformed Benedictines of Saint-Vannes. He proposed forming the congregations of Saint-Vannes and Saint-Maur into one body, of which he was to have been superior. Only half of this project was accomplished, however, when in 1636 he succeeded in uniting the Order of Cluny with the Congregation of Saint-Maur. From 1622 Richelieu was proviseur of the Sorbonne, and was in virtue of this office head of the Association of Doctors of the Sorbonne. He had the Sorbonne entirely rebuilt between 1626 and 1629, and between 1635 and 1642 built the church of the Sorbonne, in which he is now buried. On the question of the relations between the temporal and the spiritual powers, Richelieu really professed the doctrine called Duvalism after the theologian Duval, who admitted at the same time the supreme power of the pope and the supreme power of the king and the divine right of both. In the dissensions between Rome and the Gallicans he most frequently acted as mediator. When in 1626 a book by the Jesuit Sanctarel appeared in Paris, affirming the right of the popes to depose kings for wrong-doing, heresy, or incapacity, it was burned in the Place de Greve; Father Coton and the three superiors of the Jesuits houses summoned before the Parlement were forced to repudiate the work. The enemies ofthe Jesuits wished immediately to create a new disturbance on the occasion of the publication of the "Somme theologique des verites apostoliques capitales de la religion chretienne", by Father Garasse, but Richelieu opposed the continued agitation. It was, however, renewed at the end of 1626, owing to a thesis of the Dominican Tetefort, which maintained that the Decretals formed part of the Scripture. Richelieu again strove to allay feeling, and in a discourse (while still affirming that the king held his kingdom from God alone) declared that "the king cannot make an article of faith unless this article has been so declared by the Church in her oecumenical councils". Subsequently, Richelieu gave satisfaction to the pope when on 7 December,1 629, he obtained a retraction from the Gallican Edmond Richer, syndic of the theological faculty, who submitted his book "La puissance ecclesiastique et politique" to the judgment of the pope. Nine years alter, however, Richelieu's struggles against the resistance offered by the French clergy to taxes led him to assume an attitude more deliberately Gallican. Contrary to the theories which he had maintained in his discourse of 1614 he considered, now that he was a minister, that the needs of the State constituted a case of force majeure, which should oblige the clergy to submit to all the fiscal exigencies of the civil power. As early as 1625 the assembly of the clergy, tired of the incessant demands of the Government for money, had decreed that no deputy could vote supplies without having first received full powers on the subject; Richelieu, contesting this principle, declared that the needs of the State were actual, while those of the Church were chimerical and arbitrary. In 1638 the struggle between the State and the clergy on the subject of taxes became critical, and Richelieu, to uphold his claims, enlisted the aid of the brothers Pierre and Jacques Dupuy, who about the middle of 1638 published "Les libertes de l'eglise gallicane". This book established the independence of the Gallican Church in opposition to Rome only to reduce it into servile submission to the temporal power. The clergy and the nuncio complained; eighteen bishops assembled at the house of Cardinal de la Rouchefoucald, and denounced to their colleagues this "work of the devil". Richelieu then exaggerated his fiscal exigencies in regard to the clergy; an edict of 16 April, 1639, stipulated that ecclesiastics and communities were incapable of possessing landed property in France, that the king could compel them to surrender their possessions and unite them to his domains, but that he would allow them to retain what they had in consideration of certain indemnities which should be calculated in going back to the year 1520. In Oct., 1639, after the murder of an equerry of Marshal d'Estrees, the French Ambassador, Estrees declared the rights of the people violated. Richelieu refused to receive the nuncio (October, 1639); a decree of the royal council, 22 December, restrained the powers of the pontifical Briefs, and even the canonist Marca proposed to break the Concordat and to hold a national council at which Richelieu was to have been made patriarch. Precisely at this date Richelieu had a whole series of grievances against Rome: Urban VIII had refused successively to name him Legate of the Holy See in France, Legate of Avignon, and coadjutor to the Bishop of Trier; he had refused the purple to Father Joseph, and had been opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orleans. But Richelieu, however furious he was, did not wish to carry things to extremes. After a certain number of polemics on the subject of the taxes to be levied on the clergy, the ecclesiastical assembly of Mantes in 1641 accorded to the Government (which was satisfied therewith) five and a half millions, and Richelieu, to restore quiet, accepted the dedication of Marca's book "La concorde du sacerdoce et de l'empire", in which certain exceptions were taken to Dupuy's book. At the same time the sending of Mazarin as envoy to France by Urban VIII, and the presentation to him of the cardinal's hat put an end to the differences between Richelieu and the Holy See. Upon the whole, Richelieu's policy was to preserve a just mean between the parliamentary Gallicans and the Ultramontanes. "In such matters", he wrote in his political testament, "one must believe neither the people of the palace, who ordinarily measure the power of the king by the shape of his crown, which, being round, has no end, nor those who, in the excesses of an indiscreet zeal, proclaim themselves openly as partisans of Rome". One may believe that Pierre de Marca's book was inspired by him and reproduces his ideas. According to this book the liberties of the Gallican Church have two foundations: (1) the recognition of the primacy and the sovereign authority ofthe Church of Rome, a primacy consisting in the right to make general laws, to judge without appeal, and to be judged neither by bishops nor by councils; (2) the sovereign right of the kings which knows no superior in temporal affairs. It is to be noted that Marca does not give the superiority of a council over the pope as a foundation of the Gallican liberties. (For Richelieu's work in Canada see article CANADA.) In 1636 Richelieu founded the Academie Franc,aise. He had great literary pretensions, and had several mediocre plays of his own composition produced in a theatre belonging to him. With a stubbornness inexplicable to-day Voltaire foolishly denied that Richelieu's "Testament politique" was authentic; the researches of M. Hanotaux have proved its authenticity, and given the proper value to admirable chapters such as the chapter entitled, "Le conseil du Prince", into which Richelieu, says M. Hanotaux, "has put all his soul and his genius". [For Richelieu's "Memoires" see HARLAY, FAMILY OF: (2) Achille de Harlay.] Besides the works indicated in the articles LECLERC DU TREMBLAY and MARIA DE' MEDICI the following may be consulted: Maximes d'etat et fragments politiques du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HANTAUX (Paris, 1880); Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'etat du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. AVERNEL (8 vols., Paris, 1853-77); Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HORRIC DE BEAUCAIRE, I (Paris, 1908); LAIR, LAVOLLEE, BRUEL, GABRIEL DE MUN, and LECESTRE, Rapports et notices sur l'edition des Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu preparee pour la societe de l'histoire de France (3 fasc., Paris, 1905-07); HANOTAUX, Hist. du cardinal de Richelieu (2 tomes in 3 vols., Paris, 1893-1903), extends to 1624; CAILLET, L'Administration en France sous le ministere du cardinal de Richelieu (2 vols., Paris, 1863); D'AVENEL, Richelieu et la monarchie absolue (4 vols., Paris, 1880-7); IDEM, La noblesse francaise sous Richelieu (Paris, 1901); IDEM, Pretres, soldats et juges sous Richelieu (Paris, 1907); LACROIX, Richelieu a Lucon, sa jeunese, son episcopat (Paris, 1890); GELEY, Fancan et la politique de Richelieu de 1617 a 1627 (Paris, 1884); DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Nicholaus Caussin, confesseur de Louis XIII, et le cardinal de Richelieu (Paris, 1911); PERRAUD, Le cardinal de Richelieu eveque, theologien et protecteur des lettres (Autun, 1882); VALENTIN, Cardinalis Richelieu scriptor ecclesiasticus (Toulouse, 1900); LODGE, Richelieu (London, 1896); PERKINS, Richelieu and the Growth of French Power (New York, 1900). GEORGES GOYAU Diocese of Richmond Diocese of Richmond (RICHMONDENSIS.) Suffragan of Baltimore, established 11 July, 1820, comprises the State of Virginia, except the Counties of Accomac and Northampton (Diocese of Wilmington); and Bland, Buchanan, Carroll, Craig (partly), Dickinson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Pulaski, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe (Diocese of Wheeling); and in the State of West Virginia, the Counties of Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, and Pendleton. It embraces 31,518 square miles in Virginia and 3290 square miles in West Virginia. Originally it included also the territory of the present Diocese of Wheeling, created 23 July, 1850. Colonial Period In the summer of 1526 a Spanish Catholic settlement was made in Virginia on the very spot (according to Ecija, the pilot-in-chief of Florida) where, in 1607, eighty-one years later, the English founded the settlement of Jamestown. Lucas Vasques de Ayllon, one of the judges of the island of San Domingo, received from the King of Spain, 12 June, 1523, a patent empowering him to explore the coast for 800 leagues, establish a settlement within three years and Christianize the natives. In June, 1526, Ayllon sailed from Puerto de la Plata, San Domingo, with three vessels, 600 persons of both sexes, horses and supplies. The Dominicans Antonio de Montesinos and Antonio de Cervantes, with Brother Peter de Estrada, accompanied the expedition. Entering the Capes at the Chesapeake, and ascending a river (the James), he landed at Guandape, which he named St. Michael. Buildings were constructed and the Holy Sacrifice offered in a chapel, the second place of Catholic worship on American soil. Ayllon died of fever, 18 Oct., 1526. The rebellion of the settlers and hostility of the Indians caused Francisco Gomez, the next in command, to abandon the settlement in the spring of 1527, when he set sail for San Domingo in two vessels, one of which foundered. Of the party only 150 reached their destination. A second expedition sent by Menendez, the Governor of Florida and nominal Governor of Virginia, settled on the Rappahannock River at a point called Axacan, 10 Sept., 1570. It consisted of Fathers Segura, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits, and Luis de Quiros, six Jesuit brothers, and a few friendly Indians. A log building served as chapel and home. Through the treachery of Don Luis de Velasco, an Indian pilot of Spanish name, Father Quiros and Brothers Solis and Mendez were slain by the Indians, 14 Feb., 1571. Four days later were martyred Father Segura, Brothers Linares, Redondo, Gabriel, Gomez, and Sancho Zevalles. Menendez, several months later, sailed for Axacan, where he had eight of the murderers hanged; they being converted before death by Father John Rogel, a Jesuit missionary. Attempts to found Catholic settlements in Virginia were made by Lord Baltimore in 1629, and Captain George Brent in 1687. In the spring of 1634 Father John Altham, a Jesuit companion of Father Andrew White, the Maryland missionary, laboured amongst some of the Virginia tribes on the south side of the Potomac. Stringent laws were soon enacted in Virginia against Catholics. In 1687 Fathers Edmonds and Raymond were arrested at Norfolk for exercising their priestly functions. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century the few Catholic settlers at Aquia Creek, near the Potomac, were attended by Father John Carroll and other Jesuit missionaries from Maryland. American Period Rev. Jean Dubois, afterwards third Bishop of New York, accompanied by a few French priests and with letters of introduction from Lafayette to several prominent Virginia families, came to Norfolk in August, 1791, where he laboured a few months, and probably left the priests who came with him. Proceeding to Richmond towards the end of the year, he offered in the House of Delegates, by invitation of the General Assembly, the first Mass ever said in the Capital City. His successors at Richmond, with interruptions, were the Revs. T.C. Mongrand, Xavier Michel, John McElroy, John Baxter, John Mahoney, James Walsh, Thomas Hore, and Fathers Horner and Schreiber. Tradition tells us that at an early date, probably at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Alexandria had a log chapel with an unknown resident priest. Rev. John Thayer of Boston was stationed there in 1794. Rev. Francis Neale, who in 1796 constructed at Alexandria a brick church, erected fourteen years later a more suitable church where Fathers Kohlmann, Enoch, and Benedict Joseph Fenwick, afterwards second Bishop of Boston, frequently officiated. About 1796 Rev. James Bushe began the erection of a church at Norfolk. His successors were the Very Rev. Leonard Neale, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore (see Baltimore, Archdiocese of), Revs. Michael Lacy, Christopher Delaney, Joseph Stokes, Samuel Cooper, J. VanHorsigh, and A.L. Hitzelberger. Bishops of Richmond (1) Right Rev. Patrick Kelly, D.D., consecrated first Bishop of Richmond, 24 Aug., 1820, came to reside at Norfolk, where the Catholics were much more numerous than at Richmond, 19 Jan., 1821. The erection of Virginia into a diocese had been premature and was accordingly opposed by the Archbishop of Baltimore. Because of factions and various other difficulties, Bishop Kelly soon petitioned Rome to be relieved of his charge. He left Virginia in July, 1822, having been transferred to the See of Waterford and Lismore, where he died, 8 Oct., 1829. Archbishop Marechal of Baltimore was appointed administrator of the diocese. Rev. Timothy O'Brien, who came as pastor to Richmond in 1832, did more for Catholicism during his eighteen years' labour than any other missionary, excepting the Bishops of the See. In 1834 he built St. Peter's Church, afterwards the cathedral, and founded St. Joseph's Female Academy and Orphan Asylum, bringing as teachers three Sisters of Charity. (2) The Right Rev. Richard Vincent Whelan, D.D., consecrated 21 March, 1841, established the same year, on the outskirts of Richmond, St. Vincent's Seminary and College, discontinued in 1846. Leaving Rev. Timothy O'Brien at St. Peter's, Richmond, the Bishop took up his residence at the seminary, and acted as president. In 1842 Bishop Whelan dedicated St. Joseph's Church, Petersburg, and St. Patrick's Church, Norfolk, and the following year that of St.Francis at Lynchburg. In 1846 he built a church at Wheeling and, two years later, founded at Norfolk St. Vincent's Female Orphan Asylum. Wheeling was made a separate see, 23 July, 1850, and to it was transferred Bishop Whelan. (3) Right Rev. John McGill, D.D., consecrated 10 Nov., 1850, was present in Rome in 1854 when the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed. By pen and voice he opposed Knownothingism. In 1855 Bishop McGill convened the First Diocesan Synod. During the yellow fever plague of the same year, Rev. Matthew O'Keefe of Norfolk and Rev. Francis Devlin of Portsmouth won renown; the latter dying a martyr to priestly duty. In 1856 St. Vincent's Hospital, Norfolk, was founded. Alexandria, formerly in the Baltimore archdiocese as part of the District of Columbia, but ceded back to Virginia, was annexed to the Richmond diocese, 15 Aug., 1858. In 1860 the bishop transferred St. Mary's German Church, Richmond, to the Benedictines. During the Civil War Bishop McGill wrote two learned works, "The True Church Indicated to the Inquirer", and "Our Faith, the Victory", republished as "The Creed of Catholics". The bishop established at Richmond the Sisters of the Visitation, and at Alexandria the Sisters of the Holy Cross. He also took part in the Vatican Council. Bishop McGill died at Richmond, 14 January, 1872. (4) Right Rev. James Gibbons, D.D. (afterwards archbishop and cardinal), consecrated titular Bishop of Adramyttum to organize North Carolina into a vicariate, 16 Aug., 1868, was appointed Bishop of Richmond, 30 July, 1872. He established at Richmond the Little Sisters of the Poor, and St. Peter's Boys' Academy. Erecting new parishes, churches, and schools, making constant diocesan visitations, frequently preaching to large congregations of both Catholics and non-Catholics, Bishop Gibbons, during his short rule of five years, accomplished in the diocese a vast amount of religious good. Made coadjutor Bishop of Baltimore, 29 May, 1877, he succeeded Archbishop Bayley in that see, 3 Oct., 1877. (5) Right Rev. John Joseph Keane, D.D. (afterwards archbishop), consecrated, 25 Aug., 1878. Gifted with ever-ready and magnetic eloquence, Bishop Keane drew great numbers of people to hear his inspiring discourses. He held the Second Diocesan Synod in 1886, and introduced into the diocese the Josephites and the Xaverian Brothers. Bishop Keane was appointed first Rector of the Catholic University, Washington, 12 Aug., 1888, created titular Archbishop of Damascus, 9 Jan., 1897, and transferred to the See of Dubuque, 24 July, 1900. (6) Right Rev. Augustine Van De Vyver, D.D., consecrated, 29 Oct., 1889, began an able and vigorous rule. On 3 June, 1903, he publicly received the Most Rev. Diomede Falconio, Apostolic Delegate, who the following day laid the cornerstone of the new Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the most artistic edifices in the country, designed by Joseph McGuire, architect, of New York. A handsome bishop's house and a pastoral residence adjoin the cathedral. The latter was solemnly conscrated by Mgr. Falconio on 29 Nov., 1906. The event was the most imposing Catholic ceremony in the history of the diocese. Besides Cardinal Gibbons, and the Apostolic Delegate, there were present 18 archbishops and bishops. Bishop Van De Vyver convened a quasi-synod, 12 Nov., 1907, which approved the decrees of the Second Synod and enacted new and needed legislation. In 1907 the Knights of Columbus held at the Jamestown Exposition their national convention and jubilee celebration, participated in by the Apostolic Delegate, and several archbishops and bishops; while the following year the St. Vincent de Paul Society held a similar celebration in Richmond. In June, 1909, St. Peter's (Richmond) handsome new residence and the adjoining home of the McGill Union and the Knights of Columbus were completed, at a total cost of about $50,000. In the following autumn St. Peter's Church (the old cathedral) celebrated the diamond jubilee of its existence. With it, either as bishops or as priests, are indelibly linked the names of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishops Keane and Janssens, and Bishops Van De Vyver, Whelan, McGill, Becker, Kelley and O'Connell of San Francisco. Most Rev. John J. Kain, deceased archbishop of St. Louis, had also been a priest of the diocese. Bishop Van De Vyver introduced into the diocese the Fathers of the Holy Ghost; additional Benedictine and Josephite Fathers and Xaverian Brothers; the Christian Brothers; additional Sisters of Charity; the Benedictine and Franciscan Sisters; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, of the Blessed Sacrament and of the Perpetual Adoration. Under his regime have been founded 12 new parishes, 32 churches, 3 colleges, 4 industrial schools, 2 orphan asylums, 1 infant asylum (coloured), and many parochial schools. Notable Benefactors Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Fortune Ryan, of New York, the former donating, the latter furnishing, the imposing Sacred Heart Cathedral (nearly $500,000), together with other notable benefactions. Mrs.Ryan has built churches, schools, and religious houses in various parts of the state. Other generous benefactors were Right Rev. Bernard McQuaid, D.D., Joseph Gallego, John P. Matthews, William S. Caldwell, Mark Downey, and John Pope. Statistics (1911) Secular priests, 50; Benedictines, 10; Josephites, 6; Holy Ghost Fathers, 2; Brothers, Xaverian, 35; Christian, 12; Sisters of Charity, 60; of St. Benedict, 50; Visitation Nuns, 23; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, Kentucky, 20; of the Holy Cross, 20; Little Sisters of the Poor, 18; Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, 18; of St. Francis, 12; of Perpetual Adoration, 10; parishes with resident priests, 35; msisions with churches, 48; colleges, 3 (1 coloured), academies, 9; parochial schools, 26; industrial schools, 4 (2 coloured); orphan asylums, 4; infant asylums, 1 (coloured); young people attending Catholic institutions, 7500; home for aged, 1 (inmates, 200); Catholic Hospital, 1 (yearly patients, 3000). Catholic Societies Priests' Clerical Fund Association; Eucharistic League; Holy Name; St. Vincent dePaul; League of Good Shepherd; boys' and girls' sodalities; tabernacle, altar, and sanctuary societies; women's benevolent and beneficial; fraternal and social, such as Knights of Columbus, Hibernians, and flourishing local societies. Of parishes there are one each of Germans, Italians, and Bohemians, and 4 for the coloured people. Catholic population, 41,000. The causes of growth are principally natural increase and conversions, there being little Catholic immigration into the diocese. Magri, The Catholic Church in the City and Diocese of Richmond (Richmond, Virginia, 1906); Parks, Catholic Missions in Virginia (Richmond, 1850); Keiley, Memoranda (Norfolk, Virginia, 1874); Proceedings of the Catholic Benevolent Union (Norfolk, 1875); The Metropolitan catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1841-61); Catholic Almanac and Directory (New York, 1865-95); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1895-9); Official Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1900-11); Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Colonial and Federal (London, 1907); Shea, The History of the Catholic Church in the United States (Akron, Ohio, 1890); foreign references cited by Shea (I, bk II, i,106, 107, 149, 150); Navarette, Real Cedula que contiene el asiento capitulado con Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon; Coleccion de Viages y Descubrimientos (Madrid, 1829), ii, 153, 156; Fernandez, Historia Ecclesiastica de Nuestros Tiempos (Toledo, 1611); Quiros, Letter of 12 Sept., 1570; Rogel, Letter of 9 Dec., 1520; Barcia, Ensayo Cronologico, 142-6; Tanner, Societas Militaris, 447-51. F. JOSEPH MAGRI Ricoldo Da Monte di Croce Ricaldo da Monte di Croce (PENNINI.) Born at Florence about 1243; d. there 31 October, 1320. After studying in various great European schools, he became a Dominican, 1267; was a professor in several convents of Tuscany (1272-99), made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (1288), and then travelled for many years as a missionary in western Asia, having his chief headquarters at Bagdad. He returned to Florence before 1302, and was chosen to high offices in his order. His "Itinerarium" (written about 1288-91; published in the original Latin at Leipzig; 1864; in Italian at Florence, 1793; in French at Paris, 1877) was intended as a guide-book for missionaries, and is an interesting description of the Oriental countries visited by him. The "Epistolae de Perditione Acconis" are five letters in the form of lamentations over the fall of Ptolemais (written about 1292, published at Paris, 1884). Ricoldo's best known work is the "Contra Legem Sarracenorum", written at Bagdad, which has been very popular as a polemical source against Mohammedanism, and has been often edited (first published at Seville, 1500). The "Christianae Fidei Confessio facta Sarracenis" (printed at Basle, 1543) is attributed to Ricoldo, and was probably written about the same time as the above mentioned works. Other works are: "Contra errores Judaeorum" (MS. at Florence); "Libellus contra nationes orientales" (MSS. at Florence and Paris); "Contra Sarracenos et Alcoranum" (MS. at Paris); "De variis religionibus" (MS. at Turin). Very probably the last three works were written after his return to Europe. Ricoldo is also known to have written two theological works--a defence of the doctrines of St. Thomas (in collaboration with John of Pistoia, about 1285) and a commentary on the "Libri sententiarum" (before 1288). Ricoldo began a translation of the Koran about 1290, but it is not known whether this work was completed. MANDONNET in Revue Biblique (1893), 44-61, 182-202, 584-607; ECHARD-QUETIF, Script. Ord. Proed., I, 506; TOURON, Hist. des Hommes illus. de l'ordre de St. Dom., I, 759-63; MURRAY, Discoveries and Travels in Asia, I, 197. J.A. MCHUGH Riemenschneider Tillmann Riemenschneider One of the most important of Frankish sculptors, b. at Osterode am Harz in or after 1460; d. at Wuerzburg, 1531. In 1483 he was admitted into the Guild of St. Luke at Wuerzburg, where he worked until his death. In the tombstone of the Ritter von Grumbach he still adheres to the Gothic style, but in his works for the Marienkapelle at Wuerzburg he adopts the Renaissance style, while retaining reminiscences of earlier art. For the south entrance he carved, besides an annunciation and a representation of Christ as a gardener, the afterwards renowned statues of Adam and Eve, the heads of which are of special importance. There also he showed his gift of depicting character in the more than life-size statues of Christ, the Baptist, and the Twelve Apostles for the buttresses. Elsewhere indeed we seek in vain for the merits of rounded sculpture. He had a special talent for the noble representation of female saints (cf. for example, Sts. Dorothea and Margareta in the same chapel, and the Madonna in the Muensterkirche). A small Madonna (now in the municipal museum at Frankfort) is perfect both in expression and drapery. Besides other works for the above-mentioned churches and a relief with the "Vierzehn Nothelfer" for the hospital (St. Burkhard), he carved for the cathedral of Wuerzburg a tabernacle reaching to the ceiling, two episcopal tombs, and a colossal cross--all recognized as excellent works by those familiar with the peculiar style of the master. Riemenschneider's masterpiece is the tomb of Emperor Henry II in the Cathedral of Bamberg; the recumbent forms of the emperor and his spouse are ideal, while the sides of the tomb are adorned with fine scenes from their lives. The figures instinct with life, the drapery, and the expression of sentiment, are all of equal beauty. Among his representations of the "Lament over Christ", those of Heidingsfeld and Maidbrunn, in spite of some defects, are notable works; resembling the former, but still more pleasing, is a third in the university collection. The defects in many of his works are probably to be referred for the most part to his numerous apprentices. There are a great number of other works by him in various places, e.g. a beautiful group of the Crucifixion in the Darmstadt Museum, another at Volkach am Main representing Our Lady surrounded by a rosary with scenes from her life in relief and being crowned by angels playing music--the picture is suspended from the roof. There is a second Meister Tillmann Riemenschneider, who carved the Virgin's altar in Creglingen. This bears so close a resemblance to the works of the younger "Master Dill", that recently many believed it should be referred to him; in that case, however, he would have executed one of his best works as a very young man. BODE, Gesch. der deutschen Plastik (Berlin, 1885); WEBER, Leben u. Wirken T. Riemenschneiders (2nd ed., Wuerzburg, 1888); TONNERS, Leben u. Werke T. Riemenschneiders (Strasburg, 1900); ADELMANN in Walhalla, VI (1910). G. GIETMANN Cola di Rienzi Cola di Rienzi (i.e., NICOLA, son of Lorenzo) A popular tribune and extraordinary historical figure. His father was an innkeeper at Rome in the vicinity of the Trastevere; though it was believed that he was really the son of the Emperor Henry VII. His childhood and youth were passed at Anagni, with some relatives to whom he was sent on the death of his mother. Though he was thus brought up in the country he succeeded in acquiring a knowledge of letters and of Latin, and devoted himself to a study of the history of ancient Rome in the Latin authors, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, and the poets. When his father died he returned to Rome and practised as a notary. The sight of the remains of the former greatness of Rome only increased his admiration for the city and the men described in his favourite authors. Contemplating the condition in which Rome then was in the absence of the popes, torn by the factions of the nobles who plundered on all sides and shed innocent blood, he conceived a desire of restoring the justice and splendour of former days. His plans became more definite and settled when his brother was slain in a brawl between the Orsini and the Colonna. Thenceforth he thought only of the means of breaking the power of the barons. To accomplish this he had first to win the favour of the populace by upholding the cause of the oppressed. In consequence of this and on account of the eloquence with which he spoke in Latin, he was sent to Avignon in 1343 to Clement VI, by the captain of the people, to ask him to return to Rome and grant the great jubilee every five years. Cola explained to the pope the miserable condition of Rome. Clement was much impressed, and appointed him to the office of notary (secretary) of the Camera Capitolina, in which position he could gain a better knowledge of the misfortunes of the city. Cola then by his public discourses and private conversations prepared the people; a conspiracy was formed, and on 19 May, 1347, he summoned the populace to assemble the following day in the Campidoglio. There Cola explained his plans and read a new democratic constitution which, among other things, ordained the establishment of a civic militia. The people conferred absolute power on him; but Cola at first contented himself with the title of tribune of the people; later, however, he assumed the bombastic titles of Candidatus Spiritus Sancti, Imperator Orbis, Zelator Italiae, Amator Orbis et Tribunus Augustus (candidate of the Holy Spirit, emperor of the world, lover of Italy, of the world, august tribune). He was wise enough to select a colleague, the pope's vicar, Raymond, Bishop of Orvieto. The success of the new regime was wonderful. The most powerful barons had to leave the city; the others swore fealty to the popular government. An era of peace and justice seemed to have come. The pope, on learning what had happened, regretted that he had not been consulted, but gave Cola the title and office of Rector, to be exercised in conjunction with the Bishop of Orvieto. His name was heard everywhere, princes had recourse to him in their disputes, the sultan fortified his ports. Cola then thought of reestablishing the liberty and independence of Italy and of Rome, by restoring the Roman Empire with an Italian emperor. In August, 1347, two hundred deputies of the Italian cities assembled at his request. Italy was declared free, and all those who had arrogated a lordship to themselves were declared fallen from power; the right of the people to elect the emperor was asserted. Louis the Bavarian and Charles of Bohemia were called upon to justify their usurpation of the imperial title. Cola flattered himself secretly with the hope of becoming emperor; but his high opinion of himself proved his ruin. He was a dreamer rather than a man of action; he lacked many qualities for the exercise of good government, especially foresight and the elements of political prudence. He had formed a most puerile concept of the empire. He surrounded himself with Asiatic luxury, to pay for which he had to impose new taxes; thereupon the enthusiasm of the people, weary of serving a theatrical emperor, vanished. The barons perceived this, and forgetting for the moment their mutual discord, joined together against their common enemy. In vain the bell summoned the people to arms in the Campidoglio. No one stirred. Cola had driven out the barons, but he had not thought of reducing them to inaction; on the contrary he had rendered them more hostile by his many foolish and humiliating acts. Lacking all military knowledge he could offer no serious resistance to their attacks. The discontent of the people increased; the Bishop of Orvieto, the other Rector of Rome, who had already protested against what had occurred at the convention of the Italian deputies, abandoned the city; the pope repudiated Cola in a Bull. Thus deserted, and not believing himself safe, he took refuge in the Castle of S.Angelo, and three days later (18 Dec., 1347) the barons returned in triumph to restore things to their former condition. Cola fortunately succeeded in escaping. He sought refuge with the Spiritual Franciscans living in the hermitages of Monte Maiella. But the plague of 1348, the presence of bands of adventurers and the jubilee of 1350 had increased the mysticism of the people and still more of the Spirituals. One of the latter, Fra Angelo, told Rienzi that it was now the proper moment to think of the common weal, to co-operate in the restoration of the empire and in the purification of the Church: all of which had been predicted by Joachim of Flora, the celebrated Calabrian abbot, and that he ought to give his assistance. Cola betook himself thence to Charles IV at Prague (1350), who imprisoned him, either as a madman or as a heretic. After two years Cola was sent at the request of the pope to Avignon, where through the intercession of Petrarch, his admirer, though now disillusioned, he was treated better. When Innocent VI sent Cardinal Albornoz into Italy (at the beginning of 1353) he allowed Cola di Rienzi to accompany him. The Romans, who had fallen back into their former state of anarchy, invited him to return, and Albornoz consented to appoint him senator (sindaco) of Rome. On 1 Aug., 1354, Rienzi entered Rome in triumph. But the new government did not last long. His luxury and revelry, followed by the inevitable taxation, above all the unjust killing of several persons (among whom was Fra Moriale, a brigand, in the service of Cola), provoked the people to fury. On 8 Oct., 1354, the cry of "Death to Rienzi the traitor!" rose in the city. Cola attempted to flee, but was recognized and slain, and his corpse dragged through the streets of the city. Cola represented, one might say, the death agony of the Guelph (papal-national-democratic) idea and the rise of the classical (imperial and aesthetic) idea of the Renaissance. Vita Nicolai Laurentii in MURATORI, Antiquitates; Vita Nicolai Laurentii, ed. DEL Re (Florence, 1854); GABRIELLI, Epistolario de Cola Rienzo (Rome, 1890); PAPENCORDT, Cola de Rienzo und seine Zeit (Hamburg, 1841); RODOCANACHI, Cola di Rienzo (Paris, 1888). U. BENIGNI Rieti Rieti (REATINA). Diocese in Central Italy, immediately subject to the Holy See. The city is situated in the valley of the River Velino, which, on account of the calcareous deposits that accumulate in it, grows shallower and imperils the city, so that even in ancient days it was necessary to construct canals and outlets, like that of Marius Curius Dentatus (272 B.C.) which, repaired and enlarged by Clement VIII, has produced the magnificent waterfall of the Velino, near Terni. The city, which was founded by the Pelasgians, was the chief town of the Sabines, and became later a Roman municipium and prefecture. After the Longobard invasion it was the seat of a "gastaldo", dependent on the Duchy of Spoleto. It was presented to the Holy See by Otto I in 962; in 1143, after a long siege, it was destroyed by King Roger of Naples. It was besieged again in 1210 by Otto of Brunswick when forcing his way into the Kingdom of Naples. In the thirteenth century the popes took refuge there on several occasions, and in 1288 it witnessed the coronation of Charles II of Naples; later an Apostolic delegate resided at Rieti. In 1860, by the disloyalty of a delegate, it was occupied by the Italian troops without resistance. Rieti was the birthplace of Blessed Colomba (1501); in the sixth century it contained an Abbey of St. Stephen; the body of St. Baldovino, Cistercian, founder of the monastery of Sts. Matthew and Pastor (twelfth century) is venerated in the cathedral. Near Rieti is Greccio, where St. Francis set up the first Christmas crib. The cathedral is in Lombard style, with a crypt dating from the fourth or fifth century. It should be remarked that in medieval documents there is frequent confusion between Reatinus (Rieti), Aretinus (Arezzo), and Teatinus (Chieti). The first known Bishop of Rieti is Ursus (499); St. Gregory mentions Probus and Albinus (sixth century). The names of many bishops in the Longobard period are known. Later we meet with Dodonus (1137), who repaired the damage done by King Roger; Benedict, who in 1184 officiated at the marriage of Queen Constance of Naples and Henry VI; Rainaldo, a Franciscan (1249), restorer of discipline, which work was continued by Tommaso (1252); Pietro Guerra (1278), who had Andrea Pisano erect the episcopal palace with materials taken from the ancient amphitheatre of Vespasian; Lodovico Teodonari (1380), murdered while engaged in Divine service, on account of his severity, which deed was cruelly punished by Boniface IX; Angelo Capranica (1450), later a cardinal; Cardinal Pompeo Colonna (1508), who for rebellion against Julius II and Clement VII was twice deprived of his cardinalitial dignity; Scipione Colonna (1520), his nephew, took part in the revolt against Clement VII in 1528, and was killed in an encounter with Amico of Ascoli, Abbot of Farfa; Marianus Victorius (1572, for a few days), a distinguished writer and petrologist; Giorgio Bolognetti (1639), restored the episcopal palace and was distinguished for his charity; Gabrielle Ferretti (1827), later a cardinal, a man of great charity. At present the diocese contains 60 parishes, 142,100 inhabitants, 250 secular priests, 7 religious houses with 63 priests, 15 houses of nuns; 2 educational establishments for boys, and 4 for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, V; DE SANCTIS, Notizie stor iche di Rieti (Rieti, 1887); MARONI, Commentarii de Ecclesia Reatina (Rome, 1753). U. BENIGNI Abbey of Rievaulx Abbey of Rievaulx (RIEVALL.) Thurston, Archbishop of York, was very anxious to have a monastery of the newly founded and fervent order of Cistercians in his diocese; and so, at his invitation, St. Bernard of Clairvaux sent a colony of his monks, under the leadership of Abbot William, to make the desired foundation. After some delay Walter Espec became their founder and chief benefactor, presenting them with a suitable estate, situated in a wild and lonely spot, in the valley of the rivulet Rie (from whence the abbey derived its name), and surrounded by precipitous hills, in Blakemore, near Helmesley. The community took possession of the ground in 1131, and began the foundation, the first of their order in Yorkshire. The church and abbey, as is the case with all monasteries of the order, were dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. At first their land being crude and uncultivated, they suffered much until, after a number of years, their first benefactor again came to their assistance and, later on, joined their community. Their land, also, through their incessant labours, eventually became productive, so that, with more adequate means of subsistence, they were able to devote their energies to the completion of church and monastic buildings, though these were finished only after a great lapse of time, on account of their isolation and the fact that the monastery was never wealthy. The constructions were carried on section by section, permanent edifices succeeding those that were temporary after long intervals. The final buildings, however, as attested by the magnificent, though melancholy, ruins yet remaining, were completed on a grand scale. Within a very few years after its foundation the community numbered three hundred members, and was by far the most celebrated monastery in England; many others sprang from it, the most important of them being Melrose, the first Cistecian monastery built in Scotland. Rievaulx early became a billiant centre of learning and holiness; chief amongst its lights shone St. Aelred, its third abbot (1147-67), who from his sweetness of character and depth of learning was called Bernardo prope par. He had been, before his entrance into the cloister, a most dear friend and companion of St. David, King of Scotland. History gives us but scant details of the later life at Rievaulx. At the time of its suppression and confiscation by Henry VIII the abbot, Rowland Blyton, with twenty-three religious composed its community. The estates of this ancient abbey are now in the possession of the Duncombe family. MANRIQUE, Annales Cistercienses (Lyons, 1642); MARTENE AND DURAND, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, IV (Paris, 1717); HENRIQUEZ, Phoenix reviviscens (Brussels, 1626); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, V (London, 1817-30); Cartularium abbatiae de Rievalle in Surtees' Soc. Publ. (London, 1889); St. Aelred, Abbot of Rievaulx (London, 1845); OXFORD, Ruins of Fountains Abbey (London, 1910); HODGES, Fountains Abbey (New York, 1904). EDMOND M. OBRECHT Caspar Riffel Caspar Riffel Historian, b. at Budesheim, Bingen, Germany, 19 Jan., 1807, d. at Mainz, 15 Dec., 1856. He studied under Klee at Mainz and Bonn and under Moehler at Tuebingen. After his ordination to the priesthood, 18 Dee., 1830, he was named assistant priest at Bingen. In 1835 he was appointed to a parish at Giessen, and to the chair of moral theology in the local theological faculty. His transfer to the professorship in Church history followed in 1837. The publication of the first volume of his Church history in 1841 aroused a storm of indignation among Protestants, to whom his accurate though not flattering account of the Reformation was distasteful. The Hessian Government hastened to pension the fearless teacher (19 Nov., 1842). This measure caused intense indignation among the diocesan Catholic clergy, who denounced the Protestant atmosphere of the university. Riffel retired to Mainz, where Bishop von Ketteler appointed him in 1851 professor of Church history in his newly organized ecclesiastical seminary. Death put a premature end to the teaching of this Catholic educator, who contributed largely to the restoration of a truly ecclesiastical spirit among the German clergy. He wrote: "Geschichtliche Darstellung des Verhaeltnisses zwischen Kirche und Staat", Mainz, 1836; "Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage des Jahres", Mainz, 1839-40, 3rd ed., 1854; "Christliche Kirchengeschichte der neuesten Zeit", Mainz, 1841-46; "Die Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens", 3rd ed., Mainz, 1855. GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse: le Catholicisme, II (Paris, 1905), 313. N.A. WEBER St. John Rigby St. John Rigby English martyr; b. about 1570 at Harrocks Hall, Eccleston, Lancashire; executed at St. Thomas Waterings, 21 June, 1600. He was the fifth or sixth son of Nicholas Rigby, by Mary, daughter of Oliver Breres of Preston. In the service of Sir Edmund Huddleston, at a time when his daughter, Mrs. Fortescue, being then ill, was cited to the Old Bailey for recusancy, Rigby appeared on her behalf; compelled to confess himself a Catholic, he was sent to Newgate. The next day, 14 February, 1599 or 1600, he signed a confession, that, since he had been reconciled by the martyr, John Jones the Franciscan, in the Clink some two or three years previously, he had declined to go to church. He was then chained and remitted to Newgate, till, on 19 February, he was transferred to the White Lion. On the first Wednesday in March (which was the 4th and not, as the martyr himself supposes, the 3rd) he was brought to the bar, and in the afternoon given a private opportunity to conform. The next day he was sentenced for having been reconciled; but was reprieved till the next sessions. On 19 June he was again brought to the bar, and as he again refused to conform, he was told that his sentence must be carried out. On his way to execution, the hurdle was stopped by a Captain Whitlock, who wished him to conform and asked him if he were married, to which the martyr replied, "I am a bachelor; and more than that I am a maid", and the captain thereupon desired his prayers. The priest, who reconciled him, had suffered on the same spot 12 July, 1598. [ Note: Both John Rigby and the Franciscan priest, John Jones, were canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1970 among the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feastday is kept on 25 October.] CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II (London, 1878), n. 117; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., V, 420; Chatham Society's Publications, LXXXI (1870), 74. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Nicholas Rigby Nicholas Rigby Born 1800 at Walton near Preston, Lancashire; died at Ugthorpe, 7 September, 1886. At twelve years he went to Ushaw College, where he was for a time professor of elocution. Ordained priest in September, 1826, he was sent to St. Mary's, Wycliffe, for six months, and was then given the united missions of Egton Bridge and Ugthorpe. After seven years the two missions were again separated, and he took up his residence at Ugthorpe. There he built a church (opened in 1855), started a new cemetery, and founded a middle-class college. About 1884 he resigned the mission work to his curate, the Rev. E.J. Hickey. His obituary notice, in the "Catholic Times" of 17 September, 1886, gives a sketch of his life. He wrote: "The Real Doctrine of the Church on Scripture", to which is added an account of the conversion of the Duke of Brunswick (Anton Ulrich, 1710), and of "Father Ignatius" Spencer (1830), (York, 1834), dedicated to the Rev. Benedict Rayment. Other works, chiefly treatises on primary truths, or sermons of a controversial character, are described in Gillow, "Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath." PATRICK RYAN Right Right Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an mjustice:, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds an obligation on the part of others, so that right and obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to give them to me; without this obligation, right would be illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or omit something. The clause, "to possess, claim, and use, anything as one's own", defines more closely the object of right. Justice assigns to each person his own (suum cuique). When anyone asserts that a thing is his own, is his private property, or belongs to him, he means that this object stands in a special relation to him, that it is in the first place destined for his use, and that he can dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others. By a thing is here meant not merely a material object, but everything that can be useful to man, including actions, omissions, etc. The connexion of a certain thing with a certain person, in virtue of which the person may declare the thing his own, can originate only on the basis of concrete facts. It is an evident demand of human reason in general that one may give or leave one's own to anyone; but what constitutes one's own is determined by facts. Many things are physically connected with the human per-son by conception or birth--his limbs, bodily and mental qualities, health, etc. From the order imposed by the Creator of Nature, we recognize that, from the first moment of his being, his faculties and members are granted a person primarily for his own use, and so that they may enable him to support himself and develop and fulfil the tasks appointed by the Creator for this life. These things (i.e., his qualities, etc.) are his own from the first moment of his existence, and whoever injures them or deprives him of them violates his right. However, many other things are connected with the human person, not physically, but only morally. In other words, in virtue of a certain fact, everyone recognizes that certain things are specially destined for thc use of one person, and must be recognized as such by all. Persons who build a house for themselves, make an implement, catch game in the unreserved forest, or fish in the open sea, become the owners of these things in virtue of occupation of their labour; they can claim these things as their own, and no one can forcibly appropriate or injure these things without a violation of their rights. Whoever has lawfully purchased a thing, or been presented with it by another, may regard such thing as his own, since by the purchase or presentation he succeeds to the place of the other person and possesses his rights. As a right gives rise to a certain connection between person and person with respect to a thing, we may distinguish in right four elements: the holder, the object, the title, and the terminus of the right. The holder of the right is the person who possesses the right, the terminus is the person who has the obligation corresponding to the right, the object is the thing to which the right refers, and the title is the fact on the ground of which a person may regard and claim the thing as his own. Strictly speaking, this fact alone is not the title of thc right, which originates, indeed, in the fact, but taken in connection with thc: principle that one must assign to each his own property; however, since this principle may be presupposed as self-evident, it is customary to regard the simple fact as the title of the right. The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the members of human society to one another, and aims at securing that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good. It must be authorized to make laws, to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is called legal justice, because the law has to determine in individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a complete and independent society, wherefore it also must be justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the members of the State have not only obligations towards the general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to distribute public burdens (e.g. taxation) according to the powers and capability of the members, and is also under the obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours) according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members. On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the members of human society in their intercourse with one another freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions. For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and independence of every member of society in the use of his own. If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one is bound to make use of his right", since the community---or, more correctly, its leaders--must make use of public rights, whenever and wherever the good of the community requires it. Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services. Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont. Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful possession of his own. Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding to right) is enforceable at least in general--that is, whoever has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it. This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily from the object of right. As already said, this object is to secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and for society the means necessary for its development, and the attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his obligations or not. In a large community there are always many who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently, the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public authority, since, if each might employ force against his fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity, where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has the individual the right of meeting violence with violence. While right or the obligation corresponding to it is enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc. V. CATHREIN St. Rimbert St. Rimbert Archbishop of Bremen-Hamburg, died at Bremen 11 June, 888. It is uncertain whether he was a Fleming or a Norman. He was educated at the monastery of Turholt near Bruegge in Flanders. There St. Ansgar, first Archbishop of Hamburg, became acquainted with him, and later made him his constant companion When Ansgar died on 2 February, 865, Rimbert was chosen his successor. Pope Nicholas I sent him the pallium in December, 865. As Ansgar's missionary system was based on a connection with the Benedictine Order, Rimbert became, shortly after his consecration, a monk at Corvey, and subsequently made missionary journeys to West Friesland, Denmark, and Sweden, but concerning these unfortunately we have no detailed information. In 884 he succeeded in putting to flight the Norman marauders on the coast of Friesland; in remembrance of this incident he was later held in special veneration in Friesland. Among his episcopal achievements the foundation of a monastery in Buecken near Bremen and his care for the poor and sick are especially emphasized. Historians are indebted to him for a biography of St. Ansgar, which is distinguished by valuable historical information and a faithful character sketch. On the other hand, the biography of Rimbert himself, written by a monk of Corvey, is, while very edifying, poor in actual information; hence we know so little of his life. KLEMENS LOeFFLER Council of Rimini Council of Rimini The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated thc doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term "homousios", consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in fact, capable of an orthodox interpretation. The Emperor Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general council. Failing to convene one either at Nicaea or at Nicomedia, he was persuaded by Patrophilus, Bishop of Scythopolis, and Narcissus, Bishop of Neronias, to hold two synods, one for the East at Seleucia, in Isauria, the other for the West at Rimini, a proceeding justified by diversity of language and by expense. Before the convocation of the councils, Ursacius and Valens had Marcus, Bishop of Arethusa, designated to draft a formula (the Fourth of Sirmium) to be submitted to the two synods. It declared that the Son was born of the Father before all ages (agreeing so far with the Third Formula); but it added that when God is spoken of, the word ousia, "essence ', should be avoided, not being found in Scripture and being a cause of scandal to the faithful; by this step they intended to exclude the similarity of essence. The Council of Rimini was opened early in July, 359, with over four hundred bishops. About eighty Semi-Arians, including Ursacius, Germinius, and Auxentius, withdrew from the orthodox bishops, the most eminent of whom was Restitutus of Carthage; Liberius, Eusebius, Dionysius, and others were still in exile. The two parties sent separate deputations to the emperor, the orthodox asserting clearly their firm attachment to the faith of Nicaea, while the Arian minority adhered to the imperial formula. But the inexperienced representatives of the orthodox majority allowed themselves to be deceived, and not only entered into communion with the heretical delegates, but even subscribed, at, Nice in Thrace, a formula to the effect merely that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures (the words "in all things" being omitted). On their return to Rimini, they were met with the unanimous protests of their colleagues. But the threats of the consul Taurus, the remonstrances of the Semi-Arians against hindering peace between East and West for a word not contained in Scripture, their privations and their homesickness--all combined to weaken the constancy of the orthodox bishops. And the last twenty were induced to subscribe when Ursacius had an addition made to the formula of Nice, declaring that the Son is not a creature like other creatures. Pope Liberius, having regained his liberty, rejected this formula, which was thereupon repudiated by many who had signed it. In view of the hasty manner of its adoption and the 1ack of approbation by the Holy See, it could have no authority. In any case, the council was a sudden defeat of orthodoxy, and St. Jerome could say: "The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian". U. BENIGNI Rimini Rimini DIOCESE OF RIMINI (ARIMINUM). Suffragan of Ravenna. Rimini is situated near the coast between the rivers Marecchia (the ancient Ariminus) and Ausa (Aprusa). Coast navigation and fishing are the principal industries. The thirteenth-century cathedral (San Francesco) was originally Gothic, but was transformed by order of Sigismondo Malatesta (1446-55) according to the designs of Leone Baptista Alberti and never completed; the cupola is lacking, also the upper part of the fac,ade; in the cathedral are the tombs of Sigismondo and his wife Isotta. The plastic decorations of the main nave and some of the chapels, a glorification to Sigismondo and Isotta, are by Agostino di Duccio, and breathe the pagan spirit of the Renaissance. On the southern side are the tombs of illustrious humanists, among them that of the philosopher Gemistus Pletho, whose remains were brought back by Sigismondo from his wars in the Balkans. There is a remarkable fresco of Piero della Francesca. In San Giuliano is the great picture of Paul Veronese representing the martyrdom of that saint, also pictures of Bittino da Faenza (1357) dealing with some episodes of the saint's life. Among the profane edifices are the Arch of Augustus (27 B. C.), the remains of an amphitheatre, and the five-arched bridge of Augustus over the Marecchia. The town hall has a small but valuable gallery (Perin del Vaga, Ghirlandajo, Bellini, Benedetto Coda, Tintoretto, Agostino di Duccio); the Gambalunga Library (1677) has valuable manuscripts. There is an archaeological museum and a bronze statue of Paul V; the castle of Sigismondo Malatesta is now used as a prison. Ariminum was built by the Umbri. In the sixth century B. C. it was taken by the Gauls; after their last defeat (283) it returned to the Umbri and became in 263 a Latin colony, very helpful to the Romans during the late Gallic wars. Rimini was reached by the Via Flamminia, and here began the Via AEmilia that led to Piacenza. Augustus did much for the city and Galla Placida built the church of San Stefano. When the Goths conquered Rimini in 493, Odoacer, besieged in Ravenna, had to capitulate. During the Gothic wars Rimini was taken and retaken many times. In its vicinity Narses overthrew (553) the Alamanni. Under Byzantine dominion it belonged to the Pentapolis. In 728 it was taken with many other cities by the Lombard King Liutprand but returned to the Byzantines about 735. King Pepin gave it to the Holy See, but during the wars of the popes and the Italian cities against the emperors, Rimini sided with the latter. In the thirteenth century it suffered from the discords of the Gambacari and Ansidei families. In 1295 Malatesta I da Verucchio was named "Signore" of the city, and, despite interruptions, his family held authority until 1528. Among his successors were: Malatesta II (1312-17); Pandolfo I, his brother (d. 1326), named by Louis the Bavarian imperial vicar in Romagna; Ferrantino, son of Malatesta II (1335), opposed by his cousin Ramberto and by Cardinal Bertando del Poggetto (1331), legate of John XXII; Malatesta III, Guastafamiglia (1363), lord also of Pesaro; Malatesta IV l'Ungaro (1373); Galeotto, uncle of the former (1385), lord also of Fano (from 1340), Pesaro, and Cesena (1378); his son Carlo (1429), the noblest scion of the family, laboured for the cessation of the Western Schism, and was the counsellor, protector, and ambassador of Gregory XII, and patron of scholars; Galeotto Roberto (1432); his brother Sigismondo Pandolf (1468) had the military and intellectual qualities of Carlo Malatesta but not his character. He was tyrannous and perfidious, in constant rebellion against the popes, a good soldier, poet, philosopher, and lover of the fine arts, but a monster of domestic and public vices; in 1463 he submitted to Pius II, who left him Rimini; Robert, his son (1482), under Paul II nearly lost his state and under Sixtus IV became the commanding officer of the pontifical army against Alfonso of Naples, by whom he was defeated in the battle of Campo Morto (1482); Pandolfo V, his son (1500), lost Rimini to Cesare Borgia (1500-3), after whose overthrow it fell to Venice (1503-9), but was retaken by Julius II and incorporated with the territory of the Holy See. After the death of Leo X Pandolfo returned for several months, and with his son Sigismondo held tyrannous rule. Adrian VI gave Rimini to the Duke of Urbino, the pope's vicar. In 1527 Sigismondo managed to regain the city, but the following year the Malatesta dominion passed away forever. Rimini was thenceforth a papal city, subject to the legate at Forl`i. In 1845 a band of adventurers commanded by Ribbotti entered the city and proclaimed a constitution which was soon abolished. In 1860 Rimini and the Romagna were incorporated with the Kingdom of Italy. Rimini was probably evangelized from Ravenna. Among its traditional martyrs are: St. Innocentia and companions; Sts. Juventinus, Facundinus, and companions; Sts. Theodorus and Marinus. The see was probably established before the peace of Constantine. Among the bishops were: Stennius, at Rome in 313; Cyriacus, one of his successors, sided with the Arians; under St. Gaudentius the famous Council of Rimini was held (359); he was later put to death by the Arians for having excommunicated the priest Marcianus; Stephanus attended at Constantinople (551); the election of Castor (591) caused much trouble to St. Gregory I, who had to send to Rimini a "visitor"; Agnellus (743) was governor of the city subject to the Archbishop of Ravenna; Delto acted frequently as legate for John VIII; Blessed Arduino (d. in 1009); Uberto II is mentioned with praise by St. Peter Damian; Opizo was one of the consecrators of the Antipope Clement III (Guiberto, 1075); Ranieri II degli Uberti (1143) consecrated the ancient cathedral of St. Colomba; Alberigo (1153) made peace between Rimini and Cesena; Bonaventura Trissino founded the hospital of Santo Spirito; under Benno (1230) some pious ladies founded a hospital for the lepers, and themselves cared for the afflicted. At the end of the thirteenth century the Armenians received at Rimini a church and a hospital. From 1407 Gregory XII resided at Rimini. Giovanni Rosa united the eleven hospitals of Rimini into one. Under Giulio Parisani (1549) the seminary was opened (1568). Giambattista Castelli (1569) promoted the Tridentine reforms and was nuncio at Paris. Andrea Minucci was severely tried during the French Revolution; under him the Malatesta church (San Francesco) became the cathedral. The diocese has 124 parishes, 125,400 inhabitants, 336 priests, 10 houses of religious with 56 priests, 24 houses of religious women, who care for the hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable institutions, or communal and private schools. There are also 1 school for boys and 3 for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, II; NARDI, Cronotassi dei pastori della Chiesa di Rimini (Rimini, 1813); TONINI, Storia civile e sacra di Rimini (6 vols., Rimini, 1848-88); IDEM, Compendio della storia di Rimini (1896); YRIARTE, Rimini: Etudes sur les lettres et les arts `a la cour des Malatesta (Paris, 1882). U. BENIGNI Rimouski Rimouski DIOCESE OF RIMOUSKI (SANCTI GERMANI DE RIMOUSKI) Suffragan of Quebec, comprises the counties of Bonaventure, Gaspe (except Magdalen Islands), Rimouski and the greater part of Temiscouata, and forms the eastern extremity of the province of Quebec. At the extreme point of the Gaspe peninsula (formerly called Honguedo), Jacques Cartier landed on his first voyage of discovery (1534) and planted a cross with the royal arms of France. The Souriquois or Micmacs occupied the shores of Baie des Chaleurs, and their successive missionaries, Recollets, Capuchins, Jesuits, amongst them Father Labrosse, and Spiritians (or priests of the seminary of the Holy Ghost), including the celebrated Pierre Maillard, ministered to that region of the Rimouski diocese. The first Mass was celebrated near the city of Rimouski, at a place since called Pointe-au-Pere, by the Jesuit Henri Nouvel, in 1663, on his way to the Papinachois and Montagnais of Tadoussac, on the north shore. The first settler at Rimouski was Germain Lepage (1696), whose patronymic was chosen as titular of the future parish and diocese. The seigniory had been conceded to his son Rene in 1688. The latest statistics give 120 churches and chapels, with 148 priests. Two wooden churches were built at Rimouski, in 1712 and 1787 respectively; the first stone church, 1824, was replaced by the present cathedral in 1854. Before the creation of the see, Rimouski was successively visited by Bishops Hubert (1791), Denaut (1798), Plessis (1806-14-22), Panet (1810-26), Signay (1833-38-43), Turgeon (1849), and Baillargeon (1855-60-65). The see was created and its first titular nominated on 15 January, 1867, and acquired civil incorporation ipso facto the same day, according to the law of the country. The first bishop, Jean-Pierre-Franc,ois Laforce-Langevin, was b. at Quebec, 22 Sept., 1821, and ordained on 12 Sept., 1844. as director of the Quebec seminary he was one of the joint founders of Laval University (1852). He successively filled the offices of pastor to the parishes of Ste Claire and Beauport, and of principal of Laval Normal School. He was consecrated 1 may, 1867, resigned 1891, and died 1892. He completed the organization of a classical college previously founded by the Abbes C. Tanguay and G. Potvin and adopted it as the seminary of the diocese. He introduced the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame (Montreal) and sanctioned the foundation (1879) of the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary, a flourishing institute largely due to the zeal of Vicar-General Langevin, his brother. Bishop Langevin established the cathedral chapter in 1878. The second bishop, still in office, Andre-Albert Blais, b. at St-Vallier, P.Q., 1842, studied at the college of Ste Anna de la Pocatiere, graduated in Rome Doctor of Canon Law, and taught the same branch at Laval University. He was consecrated bishop 18 May, 1890, and took possession of the see in 1891. Bishop Blais created many new parishes in the diocese, and founded a normal school under the management of the Ursulines. The clergy, exclusively French-Canadian, study classics and philosophy at the diocesan seminary, and theology principally at Laval University, in some cases at the Propaganda, Rome. (For parochial system, incorporation of religious institutions, etc. see CANADA, and QUEBEC, PROVINCE OF.) There are no cities besides Rimouski, but all the larger rural parishes have fine churches and convent-schools; the only domestic mission is that of the Micmacs at Ristigouche, under the care of the Capuchins. Besides a Priests' Aid Society, there are several benevolent and mutual aid societies for the laity. The religious orders of men are the Capuchins, Eudists, and Brothers of the Cross of Jesus; those of women are the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, of the Good Shepherd (teaching), of the Holy Rosary, of the Holy Family, and the Daughters of Jesus. Retreats for the clergy are given each year; conferences to discuss theological cases take place every three months. Nearly all the secular clergy (110 our of 137) belong to the Eucharistic league. Out of a total Catholic population of 118,740, only 3695 are not French Canadians. The Indians number 610. The Protestant element amounts to 8798. There is no friction between these different elements and no difficult racial problem to solve, the parishes containing an English-speaking element as well as the Micmacs being instructed in their native tongues. GUAY, Chroniques de Rimouski (Quebec, 1873); Le Canada ecclesiastique (Montreal, 1911). LIONEL LINDSAY Rings Rings In General Although the surviving ancient rings, proved by their devices, provenance, etc., to be of Christian origin, are fairly numerous (See Fortnum in "Arch. Journ.", XXVI, 141, and XXVIII, 275), we cannot in most cases identify them with any liturgical use. Christians no doubt, just like other people, wore rings in accordance with their station in life, for rings are mentioned without reprobation in the New Testament (Luke, xv, 22, and James, ii, 2). Moreover, St. Clement of Alexandria (Paed., III, c. xi) says that a man might lawfully wear a ring on his little finger, and that it should bear some religious emblem--a dove, or a fish, or an anchor - though, on the other hand, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Apostolic Constitutions (I, iii) protest against the ostentation of Christians in decking themselves with rings and gems. In any case the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas (c. xxi), about the beginning of the third century, inform us of how the martyr Saturus took a ring from the finger of Pudens, a soldier who was looking on, and gave it back to him as a keepsake, covered with his own blood. Knowing, as we do, that in the pagan days of Rome every flamen Dialis (i.e., a priest specially consecrated to the worship of Jupiter) had, like the senators, the privilege of wearing a gold ring, it would not be surprising to find evidence in the fourth century that rings were worn by Christian bishops. But the various passages that have been appealed to, to prove this, are either not authentic or else are inconclusive. St. Augustine indeed speaks of his sealing a letter with a ring (Ep. ccxvii, in P.L., XXXIII, 227), but on the other hand his contemporary Possidius expressly states that Augustine himself wore no ring (P.L., XXXII, 53), whence we are led to conclude that the possession of a signet does not prove the use of a ring as part of the episcopal insignia. However, in a Decree of Pope Boniface IV (A.D. 610) we hear of monks raised to the episcopal dignity as anulo pontificali subarrhatis, while at the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, we are told that if a bishop has been deposed from his office, and is afterwards reinstated, he is to receive back stole, ring, and crosier (orarium, anulum et baculum). St. Isidore of Seville at about the same period couples the ring with the crosier and declares that the former is conferred as "an emblem of the pontifical dignity or of the sealing of secrets" (P.L., LXXXIII, 783). From this time forth it may be assumed that the ring was strictly speaking an episcopal ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and that it was commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop to his Church. In the eighth and ninth centuries in MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary and in a few early Pontificals (e.g., that attributed to Archbishop Egbert of York) we meet with various formulae for the delivery of the ring. The Gregorian form, which survives in substance to the present day, runs in these terms: "Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of faith, whereby thou, being thyself adorned with spotless faith, mayst keep unsullied the troth which thou hast pledged to the spouse of God, His holy Church." These two ideas--namely of the seal, indicative of discretion, and of conjugal fidelity--dominate the symbolism attaching to the ring in nearly all its liturgical uses. The latter idea was pressed so far in the case of bishops that we find ecclesiastical decrees enacting that "a bishop deserting the Church to which he was consecrated and transferring himself to another is to be held guilty of adultery and is to be visited with the same penalties as a man who, forsaking his own wife, goes to live with another woman" (Du Saussay, "Panoplia episcopalis", 250). It was perhaps this idea of espousals which helped to establish the rule, of which we hear already in the ninth century, that the episcopal ring was to be placed on the fourth finger (i.e., that next the little finger) of the right hand. As the pontifical ring had to be worn on occasion over the glove, it is a common thing to find medieval specimens large in size and proportionately heavy m execution. The inconvenience of the looseness thus resulting was often met by placing another smaller ring just above it as a keeper (see Lacy, "Exeter Pontifical", 3). As the pictures of the medieval and Renaissance periods show, it was formerly quite usual for bishops to wear other rings along with the episcopal ring; indeed the existing "Caeremoniale episcoporum" (Bk. II, viii, nn. 10-11) assumes that this is still likely to be the case. Custom prescribes that a layman or a cleric of inferior grade on being presented to a bishop should kiss his hand, that is to say his episcopal ring, but it is a popular misapprehension to suppose that any indulgence is attached to the act. Episcopal rings, both at an earlier and later period, were sometimes used as receptacles for relics. St. Hugh of Lincoln had such a ring which must have been of considerable capacity. (On investiture by ring and staff see Investitures, Conflict of.) Besides bishops, many other ecclesiastics are privileged to wear rings. The pope of course is the first of bishops, but he does not habitually wear the signet ring distinctive of the papacy and known as "the Ring of the Fisherman" (see below in this article), but usually a simple cameo, while his more magnificent pontifical rings are reserved for solemn ecclesiastical functions. Cardinals also wear rings independently of their grade in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ring belonging to the cardinalitial dignity is conferred by the pope himself in the consistory in which the new cardinal is named to a particular "title". It is of small value and is set with a sapphire, while it bears on the inner side of the bezel the arms of the pope conferring it. In practice the cardinal is not required to wear habitually the ring thus presented, and he commonly prefers to use one of his own. The privilege of wearing a ring has belonged to cardinal-priests since the time of Innocent III or earlier (see Saegmueller, "Thatigkeit und Stellung der Cardinale", 163). Abbots in the earlier Middle Ages were permitted to wear rings only by special privilege. A letter of Peter of Blois in the twelfth century (P.L., CCVII, 283) shows that at that date the wearing of a ring by an abbot was apt to be looked upon as a piece of ostentation, out in the later Pontificals the blessing and delivery of a ring formed part of the ordinary ritual for the consecration of an abbot, and this is still the case at the present day. On the other hand: there is no such ceremony indicated in the blessing of an abbess, though certain abbesses have received, or assumed, the privilege of wearing a ring of office. The ring is also regularly worn by certain other minor prelates, for example prothonotaries, but the privilege cannot be said to belong to canons as such (B. de Montault, "Le costume, etc.", I, 170) without special indult. In any case such rings cannot ordinarily be worn by these minor prelates during the celebration of Mass. The same restriction, it need hardly be said, applies to the ring which is conferred as part of the insignia of the doctorate either of theology or of canon law. The plain rings worn by certain orders of nuns and conferred upon them in the course of their solemn profession, according to the ritual provided in the Roman Pontifical appear to find some justification in ancient tradition. St. Ambrose (P.L., XVII, 701, 735) speaks as though it were a received custom for virgins consecrated to God to wear a ring in memory of their betrothal to their heavenly Spouse. This delivery of a ring to professed nuns is also mentioned by several medieval Pontificals, from the twelfth century onwards. Wedding rings, or more strictly, rings given in the betrothal ceremony, seem to have been tolerated among Christians under the Roman Empire from a quite early period. The use of such rings was of course of older date than Christianity, and there is not much to suggest that the giving of the ring was at first incorporated in any ritual or invested with any precise religious significance. But it is highly probable that, if the acceptance and the wearing of a betrothal ring was tolerated among Christians, such rings would have been adorned with Christian emblems. Certain extant specimens, more particularly a gold ring found near Arles, belonging apparently to the fourth or fifth century, and bearing the inscription, Tecla vivat Deo cum marito seo [suo], may almost certainly be assumed to be Christian espousal rings. In the coronation ceremony, also, it has long been the custom to deliver both to the sovereign and to the queen consort a ring previously blessed. Perhaps the earliest example of the use of such a ring is in the case of Judith, the step-mother of Alfred the Great. It is however in this instance a little difficult to determine whether the ring was bestowed upon the queen in virtue of her dignity as queen consort or of her nuptials to Ethelwulf. Rings have also occasionally been used for other religious purposes. At an early date the small keys which contained filings from the chains of St. Peter seem to have been welded to a band of metal and worn upon the finger as reliquaries. In more modern times rings have been constructed with ten small knobs or protuberances, and used for saying the rosary. Babington in Dict. Christ. Antiq.; Leclercq in Dict. daearch. chret., I (Paris, 1907), s. v. Anneaux; Deloche, Etude historique et archeologique sur les anneaux (Paris, 1900); Du Saussay, Panoplia episcopalis (Paris, 1646), 175-294; Dalton, Catalogue of early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum (London, 1901); Barbier de Montault, Le costume et les usages ecclesiastiques selon la tradition romaine (Paris, 1897-1901). HERBERT THURSTON The Ring of Fisherman The Ring of the Fisherman The earliest mention of the Fisherman's ring worn by the popes is in a letter of Clement IV written in 1265 to his nephew, Peter Grossi. The writer states that popes were then accustomed to seal their private letters with "the seal of the Fisherman", whereas public documents, he adds, were distinguished by the leaden "bulls" attached (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). From the fifteenth century, however, the Fisherman's ring has been used to seal the class of papal official documents known as Briefs. The Fisherman's ring is placed, by the cardinal camerlengo on the finger of a newly elected pope. It is made of gold, with a representation of St. Peter in a boat, fishing, and the name of the reigning pope around it. BABINGTON in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v., 3. MAURICE M. HASSETT Giovanni Battista Rinuccini Giovanni Battista Rinuccini Born at Rome, 1592; d. at Fermo, 1653, was the son of a Florentine patrician, his mother being a sister of Cardinal Ottavo. Educated at Rome and at the Universities of Bologna, Perugia and Pisa, in due course he was ordained priest, having at the age of twenty-two obtained his doctor's degree from the University of Pisa. Returning to Rome he won distinction as an advocate in the ecclesiastical courts, and in 1625 became Archbishop of Fermo. For the twenty years following, his life was the uneventful one of a hard-working chief pastor, and then, in 1645, he was sent as papal nuncio to Ireland. Maddened by oppression, the Irish Catholics had taken up arms, had set up a legislative assembly with an executive government, and had bound themselves by oath not to cease fighting until they had secured undisturbed possession of their lands and religious liberty. But the difficulties were great. The Anglo-Irish and old Irish disagreed, their generals were incompetent or quarrelled with each other, supplies were hard to get, and the Marquis of Ormond managed to sow dissension among the members of the Supreme Council at Kilkenny. In these circumstances the Catholics sought for foreign aid from Spain and the pope; and the latter sent them Rinuccini with a good supply of arms, ammunition, and money. He arrived in Ireland, in the end of 1645, after having narrowly escaped capture at sea by an English vessel. Acting on his instructions from the pope, he encouraged the Irish Catholics not to strive for national independence, but rather to aid the king against the revolted Puritans, provided there was a repeal of the penal laws in existence. Finding, however, that Ormond, acting for the king, would grant no toleration to the Catholics, Rinuccini wished to fight both the Royalists and the Puritans. The Anglo-Irish, satisfied with even the barest toleration, desired negotiations with Ormond and peace at any price, while the Old Irish were for continuing the war until the Plantation of Ulster was undone, and complete toleration secured. Failing to effect a union between such discordant elements, Rinuccini lost courage; and when Ormond surrendered Dublin to the Puritans, and the Catholics became utterly helpless from dissension, he left Ireland, in 1649, and retired to his diocese, where he died. Rinuccini, The Embassy to Ireland (tr. Hutton, Dublin, 1873); Gilbert, History of Irish Affairs (1641-52, 1880); Meehan, Confederation of Kilkenny (Dublin, 1846); D'Alton, History of Ireland (London, 1910). E.A. D'ALTON Alexis-Francois Rio Alexis-Franc,ois Rio French writer on art, b. on the Island of Arz, Department of Morbihan, 20 May, 1797; d. 17 June, 1874. He was educated at the college of Vannes, where he received his first appointment as instructor, which occupation however proved to be distasteful. He proceeded to Paris, but was temporarily disappointed in his hope of obtaining there a chair of history. His enthusiastic championship of the liberty of the Greeks attracted the attention of the Government, which appointed him censor of the public press. His refusal of this appointment won him great popularity and the lifelong friendship of Montalembert. In 1828 he published his first work, "Essai sur l'histoire de l'esprit humain dans l'antiquite", which brought him the favour of the minister de La Ferronays and a secretariate in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This position allowed him (as Montalembert later wrote to him) to become for Christian, what Winckelmann had been for ancient, art. He spent the greater portion of the period 1830-60 in travels through Italy, Germany, and England. In Munich he became acquainted with the spokesmen of contemporary Catholicism -- Boisseree, Baader, Doellinger, Goerres, and Rumohr -- and also with Schelling. Schelling gave him an insight into the aesthetic ideal; Rumohr directed him to Italy, where the realization of this ideal in art could be seen. In 1835 the first volume of his "Art chretien" appeared under the misleading title, "De la poesie chretienne--Forme de l'art". This work, which was received with enthusiasm in Germany and Italy, was a complete failure in France. Discouraged, he renounced art study and wrote a history of the persecutions of the English Catholics, a work which was never printed. As the result of his intercourse with the Pre-Raphaelites of England, where he lived for three years and married, and especially of Montalembert's encouragement, he visited again, in company with his wife, all the important galleries of Europe, although he had meanwhile become lame and had to drag himself through the museums on crutches. Prominent men like Gladstone, Manzoni, and Thiers became interested in his studies, which he published in four volumes under the title "L'art chretien" (1861-7). This work is not a history of all Christian art, but of Italian painting from Cimabue to the death of Raphael. Without any strict method or criticism, he expresses preference for the art of the fifteenth century, not without many an inexact and even unjust judgment on the art of later ages; but, in spite, or rather on account of this partiality, he has contributed greatly towards restoring to honour the forgotten and despised art of the Middle Ages. Rio describes the more notable incidents of his life in the two works, "Histoire d'un college breton sous l'Empire, la petite chouannerie" (1842) and "Epilogue `a l'art chretien" (2 vols., Paris, 1872). He also published the following works: "Shakespeare" (1864), in which he claims the great dramatist as a Catholic; "Michel-Ange et Raphael" (1867); "L'ideal antique et l'ideal chretien" (1873). Lefebure, Portraits de croyants (2nd ed., Paris, 1905), 157-284. B. KLEINSCHMIDT Riobamba Riobamba Diocese of (Bolivarensis), suffragan of Quito, Ecuador, erected by Pius IX, 5 January, 1863. The city, which has a population of 18,000, is situated 9039 feet above sea-level, 85 miles E.N.E. of Guayaquil. Its streets are wide and its adobe houses generally but one story high on account of the frequent earthquakes. Formerly the city was situated about 18 miles further west near the village of Cajabamba and contained 40,000 inhabitants. but it was completely destroyed on 4 February, 1797, by an earthquake. Old Riobamba was the capital of the Kingdom of Puruha before the conquest of the Incas; it was destroyed by Ruminiahui during his retreat in 1533 after his defeat by Benalcazar. The cathedral and the Redemptorist church in the new city are very beautiful. Velasco the historian and the poets Larrea and Orozco were natives of Riobamba. It was here too that the first national Ecuadorian convention was held in 1830. The diocese, comprising the civil Provinces of Chimborazo and Bolivar (having an area of 4250 square miles), has 63 priests, 48 churches and chapels, and about 200,000 inhabitants. The present bishop, Mgr Andres Machado, S.J., was born at Cuenca, Ecuador, 16 October, 1850, and appointed, 12 November, 1907, in succession to Mgr Arsenio Andrade (b. at Uyumbicho, in the Archdiocese of Quito, 8 September, 1825, appointed on 13 November, 1884, d. 1907). Mera, Geog. de la republica del Ecuador. A.A. MacERLEAN Rio Negro Rio Negro Prefecture Apostolic in Brazil, bounded on the south by a line running westwards from the confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio Branco along the watershed of the Rio Negro to Colombia, separating the new prefecture from those of Teffe and Upper Solimoes, and the See of Amazones (from which it was separated by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, 19 Oct., 1910), on the west by Colombia, on the north by Colombia and Venezuela, on the east by the territory of Rio Branco. The white population is small, and confined to the few villages along the banks of the Rio Negro. As early as 1658 a Jesuit Father, Francisco Gonsales, established a mission among the natives of the Upper Rio Negro, and traces of the work of the Jesuit missionaries still exist in the scattered villages. Two years later a Carmelite, Father Theodosius, evangelized the Tucumaos. The Franciscans labored among the Indians from 1870 and had seven stations on the Rio Uaupes (Tariana Indians), four on the Rio Tikie (Toccana Indians), and one on the Rio Papuri (Macu Indians), but on the fall of the empire most of the missions were abandoned, though some of them were re-established later. A.A. MACERLEAN Juan Martinez de Ripalda Juan Martinez de Ripalda Theologian, b. at Pamplona, Navarre, 1594; d. at Madrid, 26 April, 1648. He entered the Society of Jesus at Pamplona in 1609. In the triennial reports of 1642 he says of himself that he was not physically strong, that he had studied religion, arts, and theology, that he had taught grammar one year, arts four, theology nineteen, and had been professed. According to Southwell, he taught philosophy at Monforte, theology at Salamanca, and was called from there to the Imperial College of Madrid, where, by royal decree, he taught moral theology. Later he was named censor to the Inquisition and confessor of de Olivares, the favorite of Philip IV, whom he followed when he was exiled from Madrid. Southwell describes his character by saying that he was a good religious, noted for his innocence. Mentally he qualifies him as subtle in argument, sound in opinion, keen-edged and clear in expression, and well-versed in St. Augustine and St. Thomas. According to Drews, no Jesuit ever occupied this chair in the University of Salamanca with more honor than he, and Hurter places him, with Lugo, first among the contemporary theologians of Spain, and perhaps of all Europe. Among the numerous theological opinions which characterize him the following are worth citing: (1) He thinks that the creation of an intrinsically supernatural substance is possible, in other words, that a creature is possible to which supernatural grace, with the accompanying gifts and intuitive vision, is due. (2) He holds that, by a positive decree of God, supernatural grace is conferred, in the existing providence for every good act whatsoever; so that every good act is supernatural, or at least that every natural good act is accompanied by another which is supernatural. (3) He maintains that, prescinding from the extrinsic Divine law, and taking into account only the nature of things, the supernatural faith which is called lata would be sufficient for justification, that faith, namely, which comes by the contemplation of created things, though assent is not produced with- out grace. (4) He affirms that in the promissory revelations the formal object of faith is God's faithfulness to His promises, the constancy of His will, and the efficacy of omnipotence. (5) He asserts that all the propositions of Baius were condemned for doctrine according to the sense in which he (Baius) held them. (6) He maintains that the Divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is of itself a sanctifying form. The following are his works: "De ente supernaturali disputationes in universam theologiam", .three vols., I (Bordeaux, 1634), II (Lyons, 1645), III, written "Adversus Bajanos" (Cologne, 1648); rare editions like that of Lyons, 1663, have been published of the two first volumes. It is a classic work in which he included questions which are not included in ordinary theological treatises. His third volume was attacked in an anonymous work, "P. Joannis Martinez . . . Vulpes capta per theologos . . . Academiae Lovaniensis", which Reusch says was the work of Sinnich. "Expositio brevis litterae Magistri Sententiarum" (Salamanca, 1635), praised by the Calvinist Voet. "Tractatus theologici et scholastici de virtutibus, fide, spe et charitate" (Lyons, 1652), a posthumous work and very rare. Two new editions of all his works have been issued: Vives (8 vols., Paris, 1871-3), Palme (4 vols., Paris, Rome, Propaganda Fide, 1870-1). "Discurso sobre la eleccion de sucessor del pontificado en vida del pontifice" (Seville). Uriarte says this work was published in Aragon, perhaps in Huesca, with the anagram of Martin Jiron de Palazeda, written by order of the Count de Olivares. The following are in manuscript: "De visione Dei" (2 vols.); "De praedestinatione"; "De angelis et auxiliis"; "De voluntate Dei" preserved in the University of Salamanca; "Discurso acerca de la ley de desafio y parecer sobre el desafio de Medina Sidonia a Juan de Braganza", preserved in the Biblioteca Nacional. SOUTHWELL, Biblioteca scriptorum S. J. (Rome, 1670), 478; ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova, I (Madrid, 1783), 736; HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 381; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, V., col. 640, Biografia eclesiastica completa, XXII (Madrid, 1864), 179. ANTONIO PEREZ GOYENA Ripatransone Ripatransone (RIPANENSIS). Diocese in Ascoli Piceno, Central Italy. The city is situated on five hills, not far from the site of ancient Cupra Marittima. The modern name comes from Ripa trans Asonem, "the other bank of the Asone". A castle was erected there in the early Middle Ages, and enlarged later by the bishops of Fermo, who had several conflicts with the people. In 1571 St. Pius V made it an episcopal see, naming as its first bishop Cardinal Lucio Sasso and including in its jurisdiction small portions of the surrounding Dioceses of Fermo, Ascoli, and Teramo. Noteworthy bishops were: Cardinal Filippo Sega (1575); Gaspare Sillingardi (1582), afterwards Bishop of Modena, employed by Alfonso II of Ferrara on various missions to Rome and to Spain, effected a revival of religious life in Ripatransone; Gian Carlo Gentili (1845), historian of Sanseverino and Ripatransone; Alessandro Spoglia (1860-67) not recognized by the Government. The cathedral is the work of Gaspare Guerra and has a beautiful marble altar with a triptych by Crivelli; the church of the Madonna del Carmine possesses pictures of the Raphael School. The diocese, at first directly subject to the Holy See, has been suffragan of Fermo since 1680. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, III (Venice, 1857); Annuaire pontifical catholique (Paris, 1911), s.v. U. BENIGNI Marquess of Ripon Marquess of Ripon George Frederick Samuel Robinson, K.G., P.C., G.C.S.I., F.R.S., Earl de Grey, Earl of Ripon, Viscount Goderich, Baron Grantham, and baronet Born at the prime minister's residence, 10 Downing Street, London, 24 Oct., 1827; died 9 July, 1909. He was the second son of Frederick John Robinson, Viscount Goderich, afterwards first Earl of Ripon, and Lady Sarah Albinia Louisa, daughter of Robert, fourth Earl of Buckinghamshire; and he was born during his father's brief tenure of the office of prime minister. Before entering public life he married (8 April, 1851) his cousin Henrietta Ann Theodosia, elder daughter of Captain Henry Vyner, and by her had two children, Frederick Oliver, who succeeded to his honours, and Mary Sarah, who died in infancy. Inheriting the principles which were common to the great Whig families, Lord Ripon remained through his long public life one of the most generally respected supporters of Liberalism, and even those who most severely criticised his administrative ability -- and in his time he held very many of the great offices of state -- recognized the integrity and disinterestedness of his aims. He entered the House of Commons as member for Hull in 1852, and after representing Huddersfield (1853-57), and the West Riding of Yorkshire (1857-59), he succeeded his father as Earl of Ripon and Viscount Goderich on 28 Jan., 1859, taking his seat in the House of Lords. In the following November he succeeded his uncle as Earl de Grey and Baron Grantham. In the same year he first took office, and was a member of every Liberal administration for the next half-century. The offices he held were: under secretary of State for war (1859-61); under secretary of State for India (1861-1863); secretary of State for war; (1863-66), all under Lord Palmerston; secretary of State for India (1866) under Earl Russell. In Mr. Gladstone's first administration he was lord president of the council (1868-73) and during this period acted as chairman of the joint commission for drawing up the Treaty of Washington which settled the Alabama claims (1876). For this great public service he was created Marquess of Ripon. He also was grand master of the freemasons from 1871 to 1874, when he resigned this office to enter the Catholic Church. He was received at the London Oratory, 4 Sept., 1874. When Gladstone returned to power in 1880 he appointed Lord Ripon Governor-General and Viceroy of India, the office with which his name will ever be connected, he having made himself beloved by the Indian subjects of the Crown as no one of his predecessors had been. He held this office until 1884. In the short administration of 1886 he was first lord of the admiralty, and in that of 1892-1895 he was secretary of State for the Colonies. When the Liberals again returned to power he took office as lord privy seal. This office he resigned in 1908. Ever a fervent Catholic, Lord Ripon took a great share in educational and charitable works. He was president of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul from 1899 until his death; vice-president of the Catholic Union, and a great supporter of St. Joseph's Catholic Missionary Society. The Tablet (17 July, 1909); Annual Register (London, 1909). EDWIN BURTON Richard Risby Richard Risby Born in the parish of St. Lawrence, Reading, 1489; executed at Tyburn, London, 20 April, 1534. He entered Winchester College in 1500, and was subsequently a fellow of New College, Oxford, taking his degree in 1510. He resigned in 1513 to enter the Franciscan Order, and eventually became warden of the Observant friary at Canterbury. He was condemned to death by the Act of Attainder, 25 Henry VIII, c. 12, together with Elizabeth Barton, Edward Bocking, Hugh Rich, warden of the Observant friary at Richmond, John Dering, B.D. (Oxon.), Benedictine of Christ Church, Canterbury, Henry Gold, M.A. (Oxon.), parson of St. Mary; Aldermanbury, London, and vicar of Hayes, Middlesex and Richard Master, rector of Aldington, Kent, who was pardoned; but by some strange oversight Master's name is included and Risby's omitted in the catalogue of praetermissi. Father Thomas Bourchier, who took the Franciscan habit at Greenwich about 1557, says that Fathers Risby and Rich were twice offered their lives, if they would accept the king's supremacy. GAIRDNER, Letters and Papers of the reign of Henry VIII, VI, Vll (London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Dublin, 1882-3), passim; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1906), 44; KIRBY, Winchester Scholars (London and Winchester, 1888), 98; BOASE, Register of the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1885), 71. J.B. WAINEWRIGHT William Rishanger William Rishanger Chronicler, b. at Rishangles, Suffolk, about 1250; d. after 1312. He became a Benedictine at St. Alban's Abbey, Hertfordshire in 1271, and there revived the custom of composing chronicles which had languished since the time of Matthew Paris. His chief work is the history of the Barons' Wars, "Narratio de bellis apud Lewes et Evesham", covering the period from 1258 to 1267 and including a reference which shows that he was still engaged on it on 3 May, 1312. Apart from its historical matter which is derived from Matthew Paris and his continuators, it is interesting for the evidence it affords of the extreme veneration in which Simon de Montfort was held at that time. He also wrote a short chronicle about Edward I, "Quaedam recapitulatio brevis de gestis domini Edwardi". It is possible, though not very probable, that he wrote the earlier part of a chronicle, "Willelmi Rishanger, monachi S. Albani, Chronica". Four other works attributed to him by Bale are not authentic. RILEY, Willelmi Rishanger chronica et annales in R. S. (London 1863-76); RILEY in Mon. Germ. Hist., XXVIII (Berlin, 1865); HALLIWELL, Chronicle of William de Rishanger of the Barons' Wars in Camden Society Publications, XV (London, 1840); BEMONT, Simon de Montfort (Paris, 1884); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London, 1862-71), I, 871; III, 171-2, 191-3; TOUT in Dict. Nat. Bioq., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Edward Rishton Edward Rishton Born in Lancashire, 1550; died at Sainte-Menehould, Lorraine, 29 June, 1585. He was probably a younger son of John Rishton of Dunkenhalgh and Dorothy Southworth. He studied at Oxford from 1568 to 1572, when he proceeded B.A. probably from Brasenose College. During the next year he was converted and went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He was the first Englishman to matriculate at Douai, and is said to have taken his M.A. degree there. While a student he drew up and published a chart of ecclesiastical history, and was one of the two sent to Reims in November, 1576, to see if the college could be removed there. After his ordination at Cambrai (6 April, 1576) he was sent to Rome. In 1580 he returned to England, visiting Reims on the way, but was soon arrested. He was tried and condemned to death with Blessed Edmund Campion and others on 20 November, 1581, but was not executed, being left in prison, first in King's Bench, then in the Tower. On 21 January he was exiled with several others, being sent under escort as far as Abbeville, whence he made his way to Reims, arriving on 3 March. Shortly afterwards, at the suggestion of Father Persons, he completed Sander's imperfect "Origin and Growth of the Anglican Schism". With the intention of taking his doctorate in divinity he proceeded to the University of Pont-`a-Mousson in Lorraine, but the plague broke out, and though he went to Saint-Menehould to escape the infection, he died of it and was buried there. Dodd in error ascribes his death to 1586, in which mistake he has been followed hy the writer in the "Dictionary of National Biography" and others. After his death the book on the schism was published by Father Persons, and subsequent editions included two tracts attributed to Rishton, the one a diary of an anonymous priest in the Tower (1580-5), which was probably the work of Father John Hart, S.J.; the other a list of martyrs with later additions by Persons. Recent publication of the "Tower Bills" makes it certain that Rishton did not write the diary, and his only other known works are a tract on the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (Douai, 1575) and "Profession of his faith made manifest and confirmed by twenty-one reasons". PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD, Church History (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42), II, 74, a very inaccurate account; A WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. BLISS (London, 1813 - 20); KINSELLA AND DEANE, The Rise and Progress of the English Reformation (Dublin, 1827), a translation of Sander; LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877, the best translation of Sander, the editor accepts the diary in the Tower as being by Rishton; KNOX, First and Second Douay Diaries (London, 1878); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S.J., VI (London 1880); FOSTER, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. SIMPSON, Edmund Campion, revised ed. (London, 1896-1907); COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; PERSONS, Memoirs in Catholic Record Society, II, IV (London, 1906); Tower Bills, ed. POLLEN in Catholic Record Society, III (London, 1906). EDWIN BURTON St. Rita of Cascia St. Rita of Cascia Born at Rocca Porena in the Diocese of Spoleto, 1386; died at the Augustinian convent of Cascia, 1456. Feast, 22 May. Represented as holding roses, or roses and figs, and sometimes with a wound in her forehead. According to the "Life" (Acta SS., May, V, 224) written at the time of her beatification by the Augustinian, Jacob Carelicci, from two older biographies, she was the daughter of parents advanced in years and distinguished for charity which merited them the surname of "Peacemakers of Jesus Christ". Rita's great desire was to become a nun, but, in obedience to the will of her parents, she, at the age of twelve, married a man extremely cruel and ill-tempered. For eighteen years she was a model wife and mother. When her husband was murdered she tried in vain to dissuade her twin sons from attempting to take revenge; she appealed to Heaven to prevent such a crime on their part, and they were taken away by death, reconciled to God. She applied for admission to the Augustinian convent at Cascia, but, being a widow, was refused. By continued entreaties, and, as is related, by Divine intervention, she gained admission, received the habit of the order and in due time her profession. As a religious she was an example for all, excelled in mortifications, and was widely known for the efficacy of her prayers. Urban VIII, in 1637, permitted her Mass and Office. On account of the many miracles reported to have been wrought at her intercession she received in Spain the title of La Santa de los impossibiles. She was solemnly canonized 24 May, 1900. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Rites Rites I. NAME AND DEFINITION Ritus in classical Latin in means primarily, the form and manner of any religious observance, so Livy, 1, 7: "Sacra diis aliis albano ritu, graeco Herculi ut ab Evandro instituta erant (Romulus) facit"; then, in general, any custom or usage. In English the word "rite" ordinarily means, the ceremonies, prayers, and functions of any religious body, whether pagan, Jewish, Moslem, or Christian. But here we must distinguish two uses of the word. We speak of any one such religious function as a rite -- the rite of the blessing of palms, the coronation rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often considered equivalent to liturgy, which, however, in the older and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions "rite" is preferable. A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body. In the case of Protestants these three elements must be modified to suit their theological opinions. II. DIFFERENCE OF RITE The Catholic Church has never maintained a principle of uniformity in rite. Just as there are different local laws in various parts of the Church, whereas certain fundamental laws are obeyed by all, so Catholics in different places have, their own local or national rites; they say prayers and perform ceremonies that have evolved to suit people of the various countries, and are only different expressions of the same fundamental truths. The essential elements of the functions are obviously the same everywhere, and are observed by all Catholic rites in obedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles, thus in every rite is administered with water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity; the Holy Eucharist is celebrated with bread and wine over which the words of institution are said; penance involves the confession of sins. In the amplification of these essential elements in the accompanying prayers and practical or ceremonies, various customs have produced the changes which make the different rites. If any rite did not contain one of the essential notes of the service it would be invalid in that point, if its prayers or ceremonies expressed false doctrine it would he heretical. Such rites would not be tolerated in the Catholic Church. But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance. To lose these would be a misfortune second only to the loss of the Roman Rite. Leo XIII in his Encyclical, "Praeclara" (20 June, 1894), expressed the traditional attitude of the papacy when he wrote of his reverence for the venerable able rites of the Eastern Churches and assured the schismatics, whom be invited to reunion, that there was no jealousy of these things at Rome; that for all Eastern customs "we shall provide without narrowness." At the time of the Schism, Photius and Cerularius hurled against Latin rites and customs every conceivable absurd accusation. The Latin fast on Saturday, Lenten fare, law of celibacy, confirmation by a bishop, and especially the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist were their accusations against the West. Latin theologians replied that both were right and suitable, each for the people who used them, that there was no need for uniformity in rite if there was unity in faith, that one good custom did not prove another to be bad, thus defending their customs without attacking those of the East. But the Byzantine patriarch was breaking the unity of the Church, denying the primacy, and plunging the East into schism. In 1054, when Cerularius's schism had begun, a Latin bishop, Dominic of Gradus and Aquileia, wrote concerning it to Peter III of Antioch. He discussed the question Cerularius had raised, the use of azymes at Mass, and carefully explained that, in using this bread, Latins did not intend to disparage the Eastern custom of consecrating leavened bread, for there is a symbolic reason for either practice. "Because we know that the sacred mixture of fermented bread is used and lawfully observed by the most holy and orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Churches, we faithfully approve of both customs and confirm both by a spiritual explanation" (Will, "Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saec. XI composite extant", Leipzig, 1861, 207). These words represent very well the attitude of the papacy towards other rites at all times. Three points, however, may seem opposed to this and therefore require some explanation: the supplanting of the old Gallican Rite by that of Rome almost throughout the West, the modification of Uniat rites, the suppression of the later medieval rites. The existence of the Gallican Rite was a unique anomaly. The natural principle that rite follows patriarchate has been sanctioned by universal tradition with this one exception. Since the first organization of patriarchates there has been an ideal of uniformity throughout each. The close bond that joined bishops and metropolitans to their patriarch involved the use of his liturgy, just as the priests of a diocese follow the rite of their bishop. Before the arbitrary imposition of the Byzantine Rite on all Orthodox Churches no Eastern patriarch would have tolerated a foreign liturgy in his domain. All Egypt used the Alexandrine Rite, all Syria that of Antioch-Jerusalem, all Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkan lands, that of Constantinople. But in the vast Western lands that make up the Roman patriarchate, north of the Alps and in Spain, various local rites developed, all bearing a strong resemblance to each other, yet different from that of Rome itself. These form the Gallican family of liturgies. Abbot Cabrol, Dom Cagin, and other writers of their school think that the Gallican Rite was really the original Roman Rite before Rome modified it Paleographie musicale V, Solesmes, 1889; Cabrol, Les origines liturgiques Paris 1906). Most writers, however, maintain with Mgr Duchesne ("Origines du culte Chretien", Paris, 1898, 8489), that the Gallican Rite is Eastern, Antiochene in origin. Certainly it has numerous Antiochene peculiarities (see GALLICAN RITE), and when it emerged as a complete rite in the sixth and seventh centuries (in Germanus of Paris, etc.), it was different from that in use at Rome at the time. Non-Roman liturgies were used at Milan, Aquileia, even at Gobble at the gates of the Roman province (Innocent I's letter to Decentius of Eugubium; Ep. xxv, in P. L., XX, 551-61). Innocent (401-17) naturally protested against the use of a foreign rite in Umbria; occasionally other popes showed some desire for uniformity in their patriarchate, but the great majority regarded the old state of things with perfect indifference. When other bishops asked them how ceremonies were performed at Rome they sent descriptions (so Pope Vigilius to Profuturus of Braga in 538; Jaffe, "Regesta Rom. Pont.", n. 907), but were otherwise content to allow different uses. St. Gregory I (590-604) showed no anxiety to make the new English Church conform to Rome, but told St. Augustine to take whatever rites he thought most suitable from Rome or Gaul (Ep. xi, 64, in P. L., LXXVII, 1186-7). Thus for centuries the popes alone among patriarchs did not enforce their own rite even throughout their patriarchate. The gradual romanization and subsequent disappearance of Gallican rites were (beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries), the work not of the popes but of local bishops and kings who naturally wished to conform to the use of the Apostolic See. The Gallican Rites varied everywhere (Charles the Great gives this as his reason for adopting the Roman Use; see Hauck, "Kirchengesch. Deutschlands", 11, 107 sq.), and the inevitable desire for at least local uniformity arose. The bishops' frequent visits to Rome brought them in contact with the more dignified ritual observed by their chief at the tomb of the Apostles, and they were naturally influenced by it in their return home. The local bishops in synods ordered conformity to Rome. The romanizing movement in the West came from below. In the Frankish kingdom Charles the Great, as part of his scheme of unifying, sent to Adrian I for copies of the Roman books, commanding their use throughout his domain. In the history of the substitution of the Roman Rite for the Gallican the popes appear as spectators, except perhaps in Spain and much later in Milan. The final result was the application in the West of the old principle, for since the pope was undoubtedly Patriarch of the West it was inevitable, that sooner or later the West should conform to his rite. The places, however, that really cared for their old local rites (Milan, Toledo) retain them even now. It is true that the changes made in some Uniat rites by the Roman correctors have not always corresponded to the best liturgical tradition. There are as Mgr Duchesne says, "corrections inspired by zeal that was not always according to knowledge " (Origines du culte, 2nd ed., 69), but they are much fewer than is generally supposed and have never been made with the idea of romanizing. Despite the general prejudice that Uniat rites are mere mutilated hybrids, the strongest impression from the study of them is how little has been changed. Where there is no suspicion of false doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the only change made was the restoration of the name of the pope where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost has been so fruitful a source of dispute between Rome and Constantinople the Filioque clause was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the Roman authorities insist on its addition. So Rome is content that Eastern Catholics should keep their traditional form unchanged, though they believe the Catholic doctrine. The Filioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniats who wish it themselves, as the Ruthenians. Other rites were altered in places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected of heresy. All other Uniats came from Nestorian, Monophysite, or Monothelete sects, whose rites had been used for centuries by heretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to the Catholic Church their services were keenly studied at Rome for possible heresy. In most cases corrections were absolutely necessary. The Nestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain the words of institution, which had to be added to the Liturgy of the converted Chaldees. The Monophysite Jacobites, Copts, and Armenians have in the Trisagion the fateful clause: "who wast crucified for us", which has been the watchword of Monophysitism ever since Peter the Dyer of Antioch added it (470-88). If only because of its associations this could not remain in a Catholic Liturgy. In some instances, however, the correctors were over scrupulous. In the Gregorian Armenian Liturgy the words said by the deacon at the expulsion of the catechumens, long before the Consecration: "The body of the Lord and the blood of the Saviour are set forth (or "are before us") (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 430) were in the Uniat Rite changed to: "are about to be before us". The Uniats also omit the words sung by the Gregorian choir before the Anaphora: "Christ has been manifested amongst us (has appeared in the midst of us)" (ibid., 434), and further change the cherubic hymn because of its anticipation of the Consecration. These misplacements are really harmless when understood, yet any reviser would be shocked by such strong cases. In many other ways also the Armenian Rite shows evidence of Roman influence. It has unleavened bread, our confession and Judica psalm at the beginning of Mass, a Lavabo before the Canon, the last Gospel, etc. But so little is this the effect of union with Rome that the schismatical Armenians have all these points too. They date from the time of the Crusades, when the Armenians, vehemently opposed to the Orthodox, made many advances towards Catholics. So also the strong romanizing of the Maronite Liturgy was entirely the work of the Maronites themselves, when, surrounded by enemies in the East, they too turned towards the great Western Church, sought her communion, and eagerly copied her practices. One can hardly expect the pope to prevent other Churches from imitating Roman customs. Yet in the case of Uniats he does even this. A Byzantine Uniat priest who uses unleavened bread in his Liturgy incurs excommunication. The only case in which an ancient Eastern rite has been wilfully romanized is that of the Uniat Malabar Christians, where it was not Roman authority but the misguided zeal of Alexius de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and his Portuguese advisers at the Synod of Diamper (1599) which spoiled the old Malabar Rite. The Western medieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites), really independent of Rome. They are merely the Roman Rite with local additions and modifications, most of which are to its disadvantage. They are late, exuberant, and inferior variants, whose ornate additions and long interpolated tropes, sequences, and farcing destroy the dignified simplicity of the old liturgy. In 1570 the revisers appointed by the Council of Trent restored with scrupulous care and, even in the light of later studies, brilliant success the pure Roman Missal, which Pius V ordered should alone be used wherever the Roman Rite is followed. It was a return to an older and purer form. The medieval rites have no doubt a certain archaeological interest; but where the Roman Rite is used it is best to use it in its pure form. This too only means a return to the principle that rite should follow patriarchate. The reform was made very prudently, Pius V allowing any rite that could prove an existence of two centuries to remain (Bull "Quo primum", 19 July, 1570, printed first in the Missal), thus saving any local use that had a certain antiquity. Some dioceses (e.g. Lyons) and religious orders (Dominicans, Carthusians, Carmelites), therefore keep their special uses, and the independent Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, whose loss would have been a real misfortune (see LITURGY, MASS, LITURGY OF THE) still remain. Rome then by no means imposed uniformity of rite. Catholics are united in faith and discipline, but in their manner of performing the sacred functions there is room for variety based on essential unity, as there was in the first centuries. There are cases (e.g. the Georgian Church) where union with Rome has saved the ancient use, while the schismatics have been forced to abandon it by the centralizing policy of their authorities (in this case Russia). The ruthless destruction of ancient rites in favour of uniformity has been the work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople. Since the thirteenth century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the one centre of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and ancient Liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the Orthodox to use its own late derived rite. The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark has ceased to exist; that of St. James has been revived for one or two days in the year at Zakynthos and Jerusalem only (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). The Orthodox all the world over must follow the Rite of Constantinople. In this unjustifiable centralization we have a defiance of the old principle, since Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cyprus, in no way belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. Those who accuse the papacy of sacrificing everything for the sake of uniformity mistake the real offender, the oecumenical patriarch. III. THE OLD RITES (CATHOLIC AND SCHISMATICAL) A complete table of the old rites with an account of their mutual relations will be found in the article LITURGY. Here it need only be added that there is a Uniat body using each of the Eastern rites. There is no ancient rite that is not represented within the Catholic Church. That rite, liturgical language, and religious body connote three totally different ideas has been explained at length in the article GREEK RITES. The rite a bishop or priest follows is no test at all of his religion. Within certain broad limits a member of any Eastern sect might use any rite, for the two categories of rite and religion cross each other continually. They represent quite different classifications: for instance, liturgically all Armenians belong to one class, theologically a Uniat Armenian belongs to the same class as Latins, Chaldees, Maronites, etc., and has nothing to do with his Gregorian (Monophysite) fellow-countrymen (see EASTERN CHURCHES). Among Catholics the rite forms a group; each rite is used by a branch of the Church that is thereby a special, though not separate, entity. So within the Catholic unity we speak of local Churches whose characteristic in each case is the rite they use. Rite is the only basis of this classification. Not all Armenian Catholics or Byzantine Uniats obey the same patriarch or local authority; yet they are "Churches" individual provinces of the same great Church, because each is bound together by their own rites. In the West there is the vast Latin Church, in the East the Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, and Malabar Uniat Churches. It is of course possible to subdivide and to speak of the national Churches (of Italy, France, Spain, etc.) under one of these main bodies (see LATIN CHURCH). In modern times rite takes the place of the old classification in patriarchates and provinces. IV. PROTESTANT RITES The Reformation in the sixteenth century produced a new and numerous series of rites, which are in no sense continuations of the old development of liturgy. They do not all represent descendants of the earliest rites, nor can they be classified in the table of genus and species that includes all the old liturgies of Christendom. The old rites are unconscious and natural developments of earlier ones and go back to the original fluid rite of the first centuries (see LITURGY). The Protestant rites are deliberate compositions made by the various Reformers to suit their theological positions, as new services were necessary for their prayer meetings. No old liturgy could be used by people with their ideas. The old rites contain the plainest statements about the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prayers to saints, and for the dead, which are denied by Protestants. The Reformation occurred in the West, where the Roman Rite in its various local forms had been used for centuries. No Reformed sect could use the Roman Mass; the medieval derived rites were still more ornate, explicit, in the Reformers' sense superstitious. So all the Protestant sects abandoned the old Mass and the other ritual functions, composing new services which have no continuity, no direct relation to any historic liturgy. However, it is hardly possible to compose an entirely new Christian service without borrowing anything. Moreover, in many cases the Reformers wished to make the breach with the past as little obvious as could be. So many of their new services contain fragments of old rites; they borrowed such elements as seemed to them harmless, composed and re-arranged and evolved in some cases services that contain parts of the old ones in a new order. On the whole it is surprising that they changed as much as they did. It would have been possible to arrange an imitation of the Roman Mass that would have been much more like it than anything they produced. They soon collected fragments of all kinds of rites, Eastern, Roman, Mozarabic, etc., which with their new prayers they arranged into services that are hopeless liturgical tangles. This is specially true of the Anglican Prayer-books. In some cases, for instance, the placing of the Gloria after the Communion in Edward VI's second Prayer-book, there seems to be no object except a love of change. The first Lutheran services kept most of the old order. The Calvinist arrangements had from the first no connexion with any earlier rite. The use of the vulgar tongue was a great principle with the Reformers. Luther and Zwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old language disappeared in all Protestant services. Luther in 1523 published a tract, "Of the order of the service in the parish" ("Von ordenung gottis diensts [sic] ynn der gemeine" in Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur prakt. Theologie", 1, 24-6), in which he insists on preaching, rejects all "unevangelical" parts of the Mass, such as the Offertory and idea of sacrifice, invocation of saints, and ceremonies, and denounces private Masses (Winkelmessen), Masses for the dead, and the idea of the priest as a mediator. Later in the same year he issued a "Formula missae et communionis pro ecclesia Vittebergensi" (ibid., 26-34), in which he omits the preparatory prayers, Offertory, all the Canon to qui pridie, from Unde et memores to the Pater, the embolism of the Lord's Prayer, fraction, Ite missa est. The Preface is shortened, the Sanctus is to be sung after the words of institution which are to be said aloud, and meanwhile the elevation may be made because of the weak who would be offended by its sudden omission (ibid., IV, 30). At the end he adds a new ceremony, a blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Latin remained in this service. Karlstadt began to hold vernacular services at Wittenberg since 1521. In 1524 Kaspar Kantz published a German service on the lines of Luther's "Formula missae" (Lohe, "Sammlung liturgischer Formulaere III, Noerdlingen, 1842, 37 sq.); so also Thomas Muenzer the Anabaptist, in 1523 at Alstedt (Smend, "Die evang. deutschen Messen", 1896, 99 sq.). A number of compromises began at this time among the Protestants, services partly Latin and partly vernacular (Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", 1, 404-9). Vernacular hymns took the place of the old Proper (Introit, etc.). At last in 1526 Luther issued an entirely new German service, "Deudsche Messe und ordnung Gottis diensts" (Clemen, op. cit., 3443), to be used on Sundays, whereas the "Formula missae", in Latin, might be kept for week-days. In the "Deudsche Messe" "a spiritual song or German psalm" replaces the Introit, then follows Kyrie eleison in Greek three times only. There is no Gloria. Then come the Collects, Epistle, a German hymn, Gospel, Creed, Sermon, Paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer, words of institution with the account of the Last Supper from I Cor, xi, 20-9, Elevation (always kept by Luther himself in spite of Karlstadt and most of his colleagues), Communion, during which the Sanctus or a hymn is sung, Collects, the blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Except the Kyrie, all is in German; azyme bread is still used but declared indifferent; Communion is given under both kinds, though Luther preferred the unmixed chalice. This service remained for a long time the basis of the Lutheran Communion function, but the local branches of the sect from the beginning used great freedom in modifying it. The Pietistic movement in the eighteenth century, with its scorn for forms and still more the present Rationalism, have left very little of Luther's scheme. A vast number of Agendae, Kirchenordnungen, and Prayer-books issued by various Lutheran consistories from the sixteenth century to our own time contain as many forms of celebrating the Lord's Supper. Pastors use their own discretion to a great extent, and it is impossible to foresee what service will be held in any Lutheran church. An arrangement of hymns, Bible readings (generally the Nicene Creed), a sermon, then the words of institution and Communion, prayers (often extempore), more hymns, and the blessing from Num., vi, make up the general outline of the service. Zwingli was more radical than Luther. In 1523 he kept a form of the Latin Mass with the omission of all he did not like in it ("De canone missae epichiresis" in Clemen, op. cit., 43-7), chiefly because the town council of Zurich feared too sudden a change, but in 1525 he overcame their scruples and issued his "Action oder bruch (=Brauch) des nachtmals" (ibid., 47-50). This is a complete breach with the Mass an entirely new service. On Maundy Thursday the men and women are to receive communion, on Good Friday those of "middle age", on Easter Sunday only the oldest (die alleraltesten). These are the only occasions on which the service is to be held. The arrangement is: a prayer said by the pastor facing the people, reading of 1 Cor, xi, 20-9, Gloria in Excelsis, "The Lord be with you" and its answer, reading of John, vi, 47-63, Apostles' Creed, an address to the people, Lord's Prayer, extempore prayer, words of institution, Communion (under both kinds in wooden vessels), Ps. cxiii, a short prayer of thanksgiving; the pastor says: "Go in peace". On other Sundays there is to be no Communion at all, but a service consisting of prayer, Our Father, sermon, general confession, absolution, prayer, blessing. Equally radical was the Calvinist sect. In 1535 through Farel's influence the Mass was abolished in Geneva. Three times a year only was there to be a commemorative Supper in the baldest form; on other Sundays the sermon was to suffice. In 1542 Calvin issued "La forme des prieres ecclesiastiques" " (Clemen, op. cit., 51-8), a supplement to which describes "La maniere de celebrer la cene" (ibid., 51-68). This rite, to be celebrated four times yearly, consists of the reading of 1 Cor, xi, an excommunication of various kinds of sinners, and long exhortation. "This being done, the ministers distribute the bread and the cup to the people, taking care that they approach reverently and in good order" (ibid., 60). Meanwhile a psalm is sung or a lesson read from the Bible, a thanksgiving follows (ibid., 55), and a final blessing. Except for their occurrence in the reading of I Cor, xi, the words of institution are not said; there is no kind of Communion form. It is hardly possible to speak of rite at all in the Calvinist body. The other ritual functions kept by Protestants (baptism, confirmation as an introduction to Communion marriage, funerals, appointment of ministers) went through much the same development. The first Reformers expunged and modified the old rites, then gradually more and more was changed until little remained of a rite in our sense. Psalms, hymns, prayers, addresses to the people in various combinations make up these functions. The Calvinists have always been more radical than the Lutherans. The development and multiple forms of these services may be seen in Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", II, and Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie", I (texts only). The Anglican body stands somewhat apart from the others, inasmuch as it has a standard book, almost unaltered since 1662. The first innovation was the introduction of an English litany under Henry VIII in 1544. Cranmer was preparing further changes when Henry VIII died (see Procter and Frere, "A New History of the Book of Common Prayer" London, 1908, 29-35). Under Edward VI (1547-53) many changes were made at once: blessings, holy water, the creeping to the Cross were abolished, Mass was said in English (ibid., 39-41), and in 1549 the first Prayer-book, arranged by Cranmer, was issued. Much of the old order of the Mass remained, but the Canon disappeared to make way for a new prayer from Lutheran sources. The "Koelnische Kirchenordnung" composed by Melanchthon and Butzer supplied part of the prayers. The changes are Lutheran rather than Calvinist. In 1552 the second Prayerbook took the place of the first. This is the present Anglican Book of Common Prayer and represents a much stronger Protestant tendency. The commandments take the place of the Introit and Kyrie (kept in the first book), the Gloria is moved to the end, the Consecration-prayer is changed so as to deny the Sacrifice and Real Presence, the form at the Communion becomes: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving" (similarly for the chalice). In 1558 Elizabeth's Government issued a new edition of the second Prayer-book of Edward VI with slight modifications of its extreme Protestantism. Both the Edwardine forms for communion are combined. In 1662 a number of revisions were made. In particular the ordination forms received additions defining the order to be conferred. A few slight modifications (as to the lessons read, days no longer to be kept) have been made since. The Anglican Communion service follows this order: The Lord's Prayer, Collect for purity, Ten Commandments, Collect for the king and the one for the day, Epistle, Gospel, Creed, sermon, certain sentences from the Bible (meanwhile a collection is made), prayer for the Church militant, address to the people about Communion, general confession and absolution, the comfortable words (Matt., xi, 28; John, iii, 16; 1 Tim., i, 15; 1 John, ii, 1), Preface, prayer ("We do not presume"), Consecration-prayer, Communion at once, Lord's Prayer, Thanksgiving-prayer, "Glory be to God on high", blessing. Very little of the arrangement of the old Mass remains in this service, for all the ideas Protestants reject are carefully excluded. The Book of Common Prayer contains all the official services of the Anglican Church, baptism, the catechism, confirmation, marriage, funeral, ordination, articles of religion, etc. It has also forms of morning and evening prayer, composed partly from the Catholic Office with many modifications and very considerably reduced. The Episcopal Church in Scotland has a Prayer-book, formed in 1637 and revised in 1764, which is more nearly akin to the first Prayer-book of Edward VI and is decidedly more High Church in tone. In 1789 the Protestant Episcopal Church of America accepted a book based on the English one of 1662, but taking some features from the Scotch services. The Anglican service-books are now the least removed from Catholic liturgies of those used by any Protestant body. But this is saying very little. The Non-jurors in the eighteenth century produced a number of curious liturgies which in many ways go back to Catholic principles, but have the fault common to all Protestant services of being conscious and artificial arrangements of elements selected from the old rites, instead of natural developments (Overton, "The Non-jurors", London, 1902, ch. vi). The Irvingites have a not very-successful service-book of this type. Many Methodists use the Anglican book; the other later sects have for the most part nothing but loose arrangements of hymns, readings, extempore prayers, and a sermon that can hardly be called rites in any sense. V. LITURGICAL LANGUAGE The language of any Church or rite, as distinct from the vulgar tongue, is that used in the official services and may or may not be the common language. For instance the Rumanian Church uses liturgically the ordinary language of the country, while Latin is used by the Latin Church for her Liturgy without regard to the mother tongue of the clergy or congregation. There are many cases of an intermediate state between these extremes, in which the liturgical language is an older form of the vulgar tongue, sometimes easily, sometimes hardly at all, understood by people who have not studied it specially. Language is not rite. Theoretically any rite may exist in any language. Thus the Armenian, Coptic, and East Syrian Rites are celebrated always in one language, the Byzantine Rite is used in a great number of tongues, and in other rites one language sometimes enormously preponderates but is not used exclusively. This is determined by church discipline. The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in Latin. The reason why a liturgical language began to be used and is still retained must be distinguished in liturgical science from certain theological or mystic considerations by which its use may be explained or justified. Each liturgical language was first chosen because it was the natural language of the people. But languages change and the Faith spreads into countries where other tongues are spoken. Then either the authorities are of a more practical mind and simply translate the prayers into the new language, or the conservative instinct, always strong in religion, retains for the liturgy an older language no longer used in common life. The Jews showed this instinct, when, though Hebrew was a dead language after the Captivity, they continued to use it in the Temple and the synagogues in the time of Christ, and still retain it in their services. The Moslem, also conservative, reads the Koran in classical Arabic, whether he be Turk, Persian, or Afghan. The translation of the church service is complicated by the difficulty of determining when the language in which it is written, as Latin in the West and Hellenistic Greek in the East, has ceased to be the vulgar tongue. Though the Byzantine services were translated into the common language of the Slavonic people that they might be understood, this form of the language (Church-Slavonic) is no longer spoken, but is gradually becoming as unintelligible as the original Greek. Protestants make a great point of using languages "understanded of the people", yet the language of Luther's Bible and the Anglican Prayerbook is already archaic. History When Christianity appeared Hellenistic Greek was the common language spoken around the Mediterranean. St. Paul writes to people in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy in Greek. When the parent rites were finally written down in the fourth and fifth centuries Eastern liturgical language had slightly changed. The Greek of these liturgies (Apost. Const. VIII, St. James, St. Mark, the Byzantine Liturgy) was that of the Fathers of the time, strongly coloured by the Septuagint and the New Testament. These liturgies remained in this form and have never been recast in any modern Greek dialect. Like the text of the Bible, that of a liturgy once fixed becomes sacred. The formulae used Sunday after Sunday are hallowed by too sacred associations to be changed as long as more or less the same language is used. The common tongue drifts and develops, but the liturgical forms are stereotyped. In the East and West, however, there existed different principles in this matter. Whereas in the West there was no literary language but Latin till far into the Middle Ages, in the East there were such languages, totally unlike Greek, that had a position, a literature, a dignity of their own hardly inferior to that of Greek itself. In the West every educated man spoke and wrote Latin almost to the Renaissance. To translate the Liturgy into a Celtic or Teutonic language would have seemed as absurd as to write a prayerbook now in some vulgar slang. The East was never hellenized as the West was latinized. Great nations, primarily Egypt and Syria, kept their own languages and literatures as part of their national inheritance. The people, owing no allegiance to the Greek language, had no reason to say their prayers in it, and the Liturgy was translated into Coptic in Egypt, into Syriac in Syria and Palestine. So the principle of a uniform liturgical language was broken in the East and people were accustomed to hear the church service in different languages in different places. This uniformity once broken never became an ideal to Eastern Christians and the way was opened for an indefinite multiplication of liturgical tongues. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Rites of Antioch and Alexandria were used in Greek in the great towns where people spoke Greek, in Coptic or Syriac among peasants in the country. The Rite of Asia Minor and Constantinople was always in Greek, because here there was no rival tongue. But when the Faith was preached in Armenia (from Caesarea) the Armenians in taking over the Caesarean Rite translated it of course into their own language. And the great Nestorian Church in East Syria, evolving her own literature in Syriac, naturally used that language for her church services too. This diversity of tongues was by no means parallel to diversity of sect or religion. People who agreed entirely in faith, who were separated by no schism, nevertheless said their prayers in different languages. Melchites in Syria clung entirely to the Orthodox faith of Constantinople and used the Byzantine Rite, yet used it translated into Syriac. The process of translating the Liturgy continued later.. After the Schism of the eleventh century, the Orthodox Church, unlike Rome, insisted on uniformity of rite among her members. All the Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite, yet have no idea of one language. When the Slavs were converted the Byzantine Rite was put into Old Slavonic for them; when Arabic became the only language spoken in Egypt And Syria, it became the language of the Liturgy in those countries. For a long time all the people north of Constantinople used Old Slavonic in church, although the dialects they spoke gradually drifted away from it. Only the Georgians, who are Slavs in no sense at all, used their own language. In the seventeenth century as part of the growth of Rumanian national feeling came a great insistence on the fact that they were not Slavs either. They Wished to be counted among Western, Latin races, so they translated their liturgical books into their own Romance language. These represent the old classical liturgical languages in the East. The Monophysite Churches have kept the old tongues even when no longer spoken; thus they use Coptic in Egypt, Syriac in Syria, Armenian in Armenia. The Nestorians and their daughter-Church in India (Malabar) also use Syriac. The Orthodox have four or five chief liturgical languages: Greek, Arabic, Church-Slavonic, and Rumanian. Georgian has almost died out. Later Russian missions have very much increased the number. They have translated the same Byzantine Rite into German, Esthonian, and Lettish for the Baltic provinces Finnish and Tartar for converts in Finland and Siberia, Eskimo, a North American Indian dialect, Chinese, and Japanese. Hence no general principle of liturgical language can be established for Eastern Churches, though the Nestorians and Monophysites have evolved something like the Roman principle and kept their old languages in the liturgy, in spite of change in common talk. The Orthodox services are not, however, everywhere understood by the people, for since these older versions were made language has gone on developing. In the case of converts of a totally different race, such as Chinese or Red Indians, there is an obvious line to cross at once and there is no difficulty about translating what would otherwise be totally unintelligible to them. At home the spoken language gradually drifts away from the form stereotyped in the Liturgy, and it is difficult to determine when the Liturgy ceases to be understood. In more modern times with the growth of new sects the conservative instinct of the old Churches has grown. The Greek, Arabic, and Church-Slavonic texts are jealously kept unchanged though in all cases they have become archaic and difficult to follow by uneducated people. Lately the question of liturgical language has become one of the chief difficulties in Macedonia. Especially since the Bulgarian Schism the Phanar at Constantinople insists on Greek in church as a sign of Hellenism, while the people clamour for Old-Slavonic or Rumanian. In the West the whole situation is different. Greek was first used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE), which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival language for many centuries. As the Western barbarians became civilized they accepted a Latin culture in everything, having no literatures of their own. Latin was the language of all educated people, so it was used in church, as it was for books or even letter-writing. The Romance people drifted from Latin to Italian, Spanish, French, etc., so gradually that no one can say when Latin became a dead language. The vulgar tongue was used by peasants and ignorant people only; but all books were written, lectures given, and solemn speeches made in Latin. Even Dante (d. 1321) thought it necessary to write an apology for Italian (De vulgari eloquentia). So for centuries the Latin language was that, not of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman patriarchate. When people at last realized that it was dead, it was too late to change it. Around it had gathered the associations of Western Christendom; the music of the Roman Rite was composed and sung only to a Latin text; and it is even now the official tongue of he Roman Court. The ideal of uniformity in rite extended to language also, so when the rebels of the, sixteenth century threw over the old language, sacred from its long use, as they threw over the old rite and Id laws, the Catholic Church, conservative in all these things, would not give way to them. As a bond of union among the many nations who make up he Latin patriarchate, she retains the old Latin tongue with one or two small exceptions. Along he Eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea the Roman Rite has been used in Slavonic (with the Glagolitic letters) since the eleventh century, and the Roman Mass is said in Greek on rare occasions at Rome. It is a question how far one may speak of a special liturgical Latin language. The writers of our Collects, hymns, Prefaces, etc., wrote simply in the language of their time. The style of the various elements of the Mass and Divine Office varies greatly according to the time at which they were written. We have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century. Liturgical Latin then is simply late Christian Latin of various periods. On the other hand the Liturgy had an influence on the style of Christian Latin writers second only to that of the Bible. First we notice Hebraisms (per omnia soecula soeculorum), many Greek constructions (per Dominum nostrum, meaning" for the sake of", dia) and words (Eucharistia, litania, episcopus), expressions borrowed from Biblical metaphors (pastor, liber proedestinationis, crucifigere carnem, lux, vita, Agnus Dei), and words in a new Christian sense (humilitas, compunctio, caritas). St. Jerome in his Vulgate more than any one else helped to form liturgical style. His constructions and phrases occur repeatedly in the non-Biblical parts of the Mass and Office. The style of the fifth and sixth centuries (St. Leo I, Celestine I, Gregory I) forms perhaps the main stock of our services. The mediaeval Schoolmen (St. Thomas Aquinas) and their technical terminology have influenced much of the later parts, and the Latin of the Renaissance is an important element that in many cases overlays the ruder forms of earlier times. Of this Renaissance Latin many of the Breviary lessons are typical examples; a comparison of the earlier forms of the hymns with the improved forms drawn up by order of Urban VIII (1623-44) will convince any one how disastrous its influence was. The tendency to write inflated phrases has not yet stopped: almost any modern Collect compared with the old ones in the "Gelasian Sacramentary" will show how much we have lost of style in our liturgical prayers. Use of Latin The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or universal. The authority of the Church could change the liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that the Catholic Church uses eight or nine different liturgical languages. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431). Uniformity of rite or liturgical language has never been a Catholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any such idea the language would have been Hebrew or Greek. The objections of Protestants to a Latin Liturgy can be answered easily enough. An argument often made from I Cor., xiv, 4-18, is of no value. The whole passage treats of quite another thing, prophesying in tongues that no one understands, not even the speaker (see 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit"). The other argument, from practical convenience, from the loss to the people who do not understand what is being said, has some value. The Church has never set up a mysterious unintelligible language as an ideal. There is no principle of sacerdotal mysteries from which the layman is shut out. In spite of the use of Latin the people have means of understanding the service. That they might do so still better if everything were in the vulgar tongue may be admitted, but in making this change the loss would probably be greater than the gain. By changing the language of the Liturgy we should lose the principle of uniformity in the Roman patriarchate. According to the ancient principle that rite follows patriarchate, the Western rite should be that of the Western patriarch, the Roman Bishop, who uses the local rite of the city of Rome. There is a further advantage in using it in his language, so the use of Latin in the West came about naturally and is retained through conservative instinct. It is not so in the East. There is a great practical advantage to travellers, whether priests or laymen, in finding their rite exactly the same everywhere. An English priest in Poland or Portugal could not say his Mass unless he and the server had a common language. The use of Latin all over the Roman patriarchate is a very obvious and splendid witness of unity. Every Catholic traveller in a country of which he does not know the language has felt the comfort of finding that in church at least everything is familiar and knows that in a Catholic church of his own rite he is at home anywhere. Moreover, the change of liturgical language would be a break with the past. It is a witness of antiquity of which a Catholic may well be proud that in Mass to-day we are still used to the very words that Anselm, Gregory, Leo sang in their cathedrals. A change of language would also abolish Latin chant. Plainsong, as venerable a relic of antiquity as any part of the ritual, is composed for the Latin text only, supposes always the Latin syllables and the Latin accent, and becomes a caricature when it is forced into another language with different rules of accent. These considerations of antiquity and universal use always made proportionately (since there are the Eastern Uniat rites) but valid for the Roman patriarchate may well outweigh the practical convenience of using the chaos of modern languages in the liturgy. There is also an aesthetic advantage in Latin. The splendid dignity of the short phrases with their rhythmical accent and terse style redolent of the great Latin Fathers, the strange beauty of the old Latin hymns, the sonorous majesty of the Vulgate, all these things that make the Roman Rite so dignified, so characteristic of the old Imperial City where the Prince of the Apostles set up his throne, would be lost altogether in modern English or French translations. The impossibility of understanding Latin is not so great. It is not a secret, unknown tongue, and till quite lately every educated person understood it. It is still taught in every school. The Church does not clothe her prayers in a secret language, but rather takes it for granted that people understand Latin. If Catholics learned enough Latin to follow the very easy style of the Church language all difficulty would be solved. For those who cannot take even this trouble there is the obvious solution of a translation. The Missal in English is one of the easiest books to procure; the ignorant may follow in that the prayers that lack of education prevents their understanding without it. The liturgical languages used by Catholics are: 1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia). 2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively). 3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites. 4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite. 5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite. 6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite). 7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia. 8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite). 9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite). VI. LITURGICAL SCIENCE A. Rubrics The most obvious and necessary study for ecclesiastical persons is that of the laws that regulate the performance of liturgical functions. From this point of view liturgical study is a branch of canon law. The rules for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, administration of sacraments, etc., are part of the positive law of the Church, just as much as the laws about benefices, church property, or fasting, and oblige those whom they concern under pain of sin. As it is therefore the duty of persons in Holy orders to know them, they are studied in all colleges and seminaries as part of the training of future priests, and candidates are examined in them before ordination. Because of its special nature and complication liturgical science in this sense is generally treated apart from the rest of canon law and is joined to similar practical matters (such as preaching, visiting the sick, etc.) to make up the science of pastoral theology. The sources from which it is learned are primarily the rubrics of the liturgical books (the Missal, Breviary, and Ritual). There are also treatises which explain and arrange these rubrics, adding to them from later decrees of the S. Congregation of Rites. Of these Martinucci has not yet been displaced as the most complete and authoritative, Baldeschi has long been a favourite and has been translated into English, De Herdt is a good standard book, quite sound and clear as far as it goes but incomplete, Le Vavasseur is perhaps the most practical for general purposes. B. History The development of the various rites, their spread and mutual influence, the origin of each ceremony, etc., form a part of church history whose importance is becoming more and more realized. For practical purposes all a priest need know are the present rules that affect the services he has to perform, as in general the present laws of the Church are all we have to obey. But just as the student of history needs to know the decrees of former synods, even if abrogated since, as he studies the history of earlier times and remote provinces of the Church, because it is from these that he must build up his conception of her continuous life, so the liturgical student will not be content with knowing only what affects him now, but is prompted to examine the past to inquire into the origin of our present rite and study other rites too as expressions of the life of the Church in other lands. The history of the liturgies that deeply affect the life of Christians in many ways, that are the foundation of many other objects of study (architecture, art, music, etc.) is no inconsiderable element of church history. In a sense this study is comparatively new and not yet sufficiently organized though to some extent it has always accompanied the practical study of liturgy. The great mediaeval liturgists were not content with describing the rites of their own time. They suggested historical reasons for the various ceremonies and contrasted other practices with those of their own Churches. Benedict XIV's treatise on the Mass discusses the origin of each element of the Latin liturgy. This and other books of seventeenth and eighteenth-century liturgiologists are still standard works. So also in lectures and works on liturgy in our first sense it has always been the custom to add historical notes on the origin of the ceremonies and prayers. But the interest in the history of liturgy for its own sake and the systematic study of early documents is a comparatively new thing. In this science England led the way and still takes the foremost place. It followed the Oxford Movement as part of the revived interest in the early Church among Anglicans. W. Palmer (Origines liturgicae) and J. M. Neale in his various works are among those who gave the first impulse to this movement. The Catholic Daniel Rock ("Hierurgia" and "The Church of our Fathers") further advanced it. It has now a large school of followers. F.C. Brightman's edition of "Eastern Liturgies" is the standard one used everywhere. The monumental editions of the "Gelasian Sacramentary" by H.A. Wilson and the "Leonine Sacramentary " by C. L. Feltoe, the various essays and discussions by E. Bishop, C. Atchley, and many others keep up the English standard. In France Dom Gueranger (L'annee liturgique) and his school of Benedictines opened a new epoch. Mgr Duchesne supplied a long-felt want with his "Origines du suite chretien", Dom Cabral and Dom Leclereq ("Mon. eccl. lit.", etc., especially the monumental "Dict. d'arch. chret. et de liturgie") have advanced to the first place among modern authorities on historical liturgy. From Germany we have the works of H. Daniel (Codex lit. eccl. universae), Probst, Thalhofer, Gihr, and a school of living students (Drews, Rietschel, Baumstark, Buchwald, Rauschen). In Italy good work is being done by Semeria, Bonaccorsi, and others. Nevertheless the study of liturgy hardly yet takes the place it deserves in the education of church students. Besides the practical instruction that forms a part of pastoral theology, lectures on liturgical history would form a valuable element of the course of church history. As part of such a course other rites would be considered and compared. There is a fund of deeper understanding of the Roman Rite to be drawn from its comparison with others, Gallican or Eastern. Such instruction in liturgiology should include some notion of ecclesiology in general, the history and comparison of church planning and architecture, of vestments and church music. The root of all these things in different countries is the liturgies they serve and adorn. Dogmatic Value The dogmatic and apologetic value of liturgical science is a very important consideration to the theologian. It must, of course, be used reasonably. No Church intends to commit herself officially to every statement and implication contained in her official books, any more than she is committed to everything said by her Fathers. For instance, the Collect for St. Juliana Falconieri (19 June) in the Roman Rite refers to the story of her miraculous communion before her death, told at length in the sixth lesson of her Office, but the truth of that story is not part of the Catholic Faith. Liturgies give us arguments from tradition even more valuable than those from the Fathers, for these statements have been made by thousands of priests day after day for centuries. A consensus of liturgies is, therefore, both in space and time a greater witness of agreement than a consensus of Fathers, for as a general principle it is obvious that people in their prayers say only what they believe. This is the meaning of the well known axiom: Lex orandi lex credendi. The prayers for the dead, the passages in which God is asked to accept this Sacrifice, the statements of the Real Presence in the oldest liturgies are unimpeachable witnesses of the Faith of the early Church as to these points. The Bull of Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception ("Ineffabilis Deus", 8 Dec., 1854) contains a classical example of this argument from liturgy. Indeed there are few articles of faith that cannot be established or at least confirmed from liturgies. The Byzantine Office for St. Peter and St. Paul (29. June) contains plain statements about Roman primacy. The study of liturgy from this point of view is part of dogmatic theology. Of late years especially dogmatic theologians have given much attention to it. Christian Pesch, S.J., in his "Praelectiones theologiae dogmaticae" (9 vols., Freiburg i. Br.) quotes the liturgical texts for the theses as part of the argument from tradition. There are then these three aspects under which liturgiology should be considered by a Catholic theologian, as an element of canon law, church history, and dogmatic theology. The history of its study would take long to tell. There have been liturgiologists through all the centuries of Christian theology. Briefly the state of this science at various periods is this: Liturgiologists in the Ante-Nicene period, such as Justin Martyr, composed or wrote down descriptions of ceremonies performed, but made no examination of the sources of rites. In the fourth and fifth centuries the scientific study of the subject began. St. Ambrose's "Liber de Mysteriis" (P. L., XVI, 405-26) the anonymous (pseudo-Ambrose) "De Sacramentis" (P. L., XVI, 435-82), various treatises by St. Jerome (e. g., "Contra Vigilantium" in P. L., XXIII, 354-367) and St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Jerusalem's "Catechetical Instructions" (P. L., XXXIII, 331-1154) and the famous "Peregrinatio Silvae" (in the "Corpus script. eccl. Latin. of Vienna: "Itinera hierosolymitana", 35-101) represent in various degrees the beginning of an examination of liturgical texts. From the sixth to the eighth centuries we have valuable texts (the Sacramentaries and Ordines) and a liturgical treatise of St, Isidore of Seville ("De eccl. officiis" in P. L., LXXXIII). The Carlovingian revival of the eighth and ninth centuries began the long line of medieval liturgiologists. Alcuin (P. L., C-CI), Amalarius of Metz (P. L., XCIX, CV), Agobard (P. L., CIV), Florus of Lyons (P. L., CXlX, 15-72), Rabanus Maurus (P. L., CVII-CXII), and Walafrid Strabo (P. L., CXIV, 916--66) form at this time a galaxy of liturgical scholars of the first importance. In the eleventh century Berno of Constance ("Micrologus" in P. L., CLI, 974-1022), in the twelfth Rupert of Deutz ("De divinis officiis" in P. L., CLXX, 9-334), Honorius of Autun ("Gemma animae" and "De Sacramentis" in P. L., CLXXII), John Beleth ("Rationale div. offic." in P. L., CCII, 9-166), and Beroldus of Milan (ed. Magistretti, Milan, 1894) carry on the tradition. In the thirteenth century see DURANDUS) is the most famous of all the William Durandus of Mende ("Rationale div. medieval liturgiologists. There is then a break till the sixteenth century. The discussions of the Reformation period called people's attention again to liturgies, either as defenses of the old Faith or as sources for the compilation of reformed services. From this time editions of the old rites were made for students, with commentaries. J. Clichtove ("Elucidatorium eccl.", Paris, 1516) and J. Cochlaeus ("Speculum ant. devotionis", Mainz, 1549) were the first editors of this kind. Claude de Sainctes, Bishop of Evreux, published a similar collection ("Liturgiae sive missae ss. Patrum", Antwerp, 1562). Pamelius's " Liturgies. latin." (Cologne, 157 1) is a valuable edition of Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic texts. Melchior Hittorp published a collection of old commentaries on the liturgy ("De Cath. eccl. div. offic. " Cologne, 1568) which was re-edited in Bigne's "Bibl. vet. Patrum.", X (Paris, 1610). The seventeenth century opened a great period. B. Gavanti ("Thesaurus sacr. rituum", re-edited by Merati, Rome, 1736-8) and H. Menard, O.S.B. ("Sacramentarium Gregorianum" in P. L., LXXVIII) began a new line of liturgiologists. J. Goar, O.P. ("Euchologion", Paris, 1647), and Leo Allatius in his various dissertations did great things for the study of Eastern rites. The Oratorian J. Morin ("Comm. hist. de disciplina in admin. Sac. Poen." Paris 1651, and "Comm. de sacris eccl. ordinationibus", Paris, 1655). Cardinal John Bons ("Rerum lit. libri duo", Rome, 1671), Card. Tommasi ("Codices sacramentorum", Rome, 1680; "Antiqui libri missarum ", Rome, 1691), J. Mabillon, O.S.B. ("Musaeum Italicum" Paris 1687-9), E. Martene, O.S.B. (" De ant. eccl. ritibus; Antwerp, 1736-8), represent the highest point of liturgical study. Dom Claude de Vert wrote a series of treatises on liturgical matters. In the eighteenth century the most important names are: Benedict XIV ("De SS. Sacrificio Missae", republished at Mainz, 1879), E. Renaudot ("Lit. orient. collectio ", Paris, 1716), the four Assemani, Maronites ("Kalendaria eccl. universae", Rome, 1755; "Codex lit. eccl. universae", Rome, 1749-66, etc.) Muratori ("Liturgia romana vetus", Venice, 1748). So we come to the revival of the nineteenth century, Dom Gueranger and the modern authors already mentioned. ADRIAN FORTESCUE BENEDICTINE RITE The only important rite peculiar to the Benedictine Order is the Benedictine Breviary (Breviarium Monasticum). St. Benedict devotes thirteen chapters (viii-xx), of his rule to regulating the canonical hours for his monks, and the Benedictine Breviary is the outcome of this regulation. It is used not only by the so-called Black Benedictines, but also by the Cistercians, Olivetans, and all those orders that have the Rule of St. Benedict as their basis. The Benedictines are not at liberty to substitute the Roman for the Monastic Breviary; by using the Roman Breviary they would not satisfy their obligation of saying the Divine Office. Each congregation of Benedictines has its own ecclesiastical calendar. MICHAEL OTT CARMELITE RITE The rite in use among the Carmelites since about the middle of the twelfth century is known by the name of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, the Carmelite Rule, which was written about the year 1210, ordering the hermits of Mount Carmel to follow the approved custom of the Church, which in this instance meant the Patriarchal Church of Jerusalem: "Hi qui litteras noverunt et legere psalmos, per singulas horas eos dicant qui ex institutione sanctorum patrum et ecelesiae approbata consuetudine ad horas singulas sunt deputati." This Rite of the Holy Sepulchre belonged to the Gallican family of the Roman Rite; it appears to have descended directly from the Parisian Rite, but to have undergone some modifications pointing to other sources. For, in the Sanctorale we find influences of Angers, in the proses traces of meridional sources, while the lessons and prayers on Holy Saturday are purely Roman. The fact is that most of the clerics who accompanied the Crusaders were of French nationality; some even belonged to the Chapter of Paris, as is proved by documentary evidence. Local influence, too, played an important part. The Temple itself, the Holy Sepulchre, the vicinity of the Mount of Olives, of Bethany, of Bethlehem, gave rise to magnificent ceremonies, connecting the principal events of the ecclesiastical year with the very localities where the various episodes of the work of Redemption has taken place. The rite is known to us by means of some manuscripts one (Barberini 659 of A. D. 1160) in the Vatican library, another at Barletta, described by Kohler (Revue de I'Orient Latin, VIII, 1900-01, pp. 383-500) and by him ascribed to about 1240. The hermits on Mount Carmel were bound by rule only to assemble once a day for the celebration of Mass, the Divine Office being recited privately. Lay brothers who were able to read might recite the Office, while others repeated the Lord's Prayer a certain number of times, according to the length and solemnity of the various offices. It may be presumed that on settling in Europe (from about A. D. 1240) the Carmelites conformed to the habit of the other mendicant orders with respect to the choral recitation or chant of the Office, and there is documentary evidence that on Mount Carmel itself the choral recitation was in force at least in 1254. The General Chapter of 1259 passed a number of regulations on liturgical matters, but, owing to the loss of the acts, their nature is unfortunately not known. Subsequent chapters very frequently dealt with the rite chiefly adding new feasts, changing old established customs, or revising rubrics. An Ordinal, belonging to the second half of the thirteenth century, is preserved at Trinity College, Dublin, while portions of an Epistolarium of about 1270 are at the Maglia, becchiana at Florence (D6, 1787). The entire Ordinal was rearranged and revised in 1312 by Master Sibert de Beka, and rendered obligatory by the General Chapter, but it experienced some difficulty in superseding the old one. Manuscripts of it are preserved at Lambeth (London), Florence, and else where. It remained in force until 1532, when a (committee was appointed for its revision; their work was approved in 1539, but published only in 1544 after the then General Nicholas Audet had introduced some further changes. The, reform of the Roman liturgical books under St. Pius V called for a corresponding reform of the Carmelite Rite, which was taken in hand in 1580, the Breviary appearing in 1584 and the Missal in 1587. At the same time the Holy See withdrew the right hitherto exercised by the chapters and the generals of altering the liturgy of the order, and placed all such matters in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The publication of the Reformed Breviary of 1584 caused the newly established Discaleed Carmelites to abandon the ancient rite once for all and to adopt the Roman Rite instead. Besides the various manuscripts of the Ordinal already mentioned, we have examined a large number of manuscript missals and breviaries preserved in public and private libraries in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and other countries. We have seen most of the early prints of the Missal enumerated by Weale, as well as some not mentioned by him, and the breviaries of 1480, 1490, 1504, 1516 (Horae), 1542, 1568, 1575, and 1579. Roughly speaking, the ancient Carmelite Rite may be said to stand about half way between the Carthusian and the Dominican rites. It shows signs of great antiquity -- e.g. in the absence of liturgical colours, in the sparing use of altar candles (one at low Mass, none on the altar itself at high Mass but only acolytes' torches, even these being extinguished during part of the Mass, four torches and one candle in choir for Tenebrae); incense, likewise, is used rarely and with noteworthy restrictions; the Blessing at the end of the Mass is only permitted where the custom of the country requires it; passing before the tabernacle, the brethren are directed to make a profound inclination, not a genuflexion. Many other features might be quoted to show that the whole rite points to a period of transition. Already according to the earliest Ordinal Communion is given under one species, the days of general Communion being seven, later on ten or twelve a year with leave for more frequent Communion under certain conditions. Extreme Unction was administered on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, both hands (the palms, with no distinction between priests and others) and the feet superius. The Ordinal of 1312 on the contrary orders the hands to be anointed exterius, but also without distinction for the priests; it moreover adds another anointing on the breast (super pectus: per ardorem libidinis). In the Mass there are some peculiarities. the altar remains covered until the priest and ministers are ready to begin, when the acolytes then roll back the cover; likewise before the end of the Mass they cover the altar again. On great feasts the Introit is said three times, i.e. it is repeated both before and after the Gloria Patri; besides the Epistle and Gospel there is a lesson or prophecy to be recited by an acolyte. At the Lavabo the priest leaves the altar for the piscina where he says that psalm, or else Veni Creator Spiritus or Deus misereatur. Likewise after the first ablution he goes to the piscina to wash his fingers. During the Canon of the Mass the deacon moves a fan to keep the flies away, a custom still in use in Sicily and elsewhere. At the word fregit in the form of consecration, the priest, according to the Ordinal of 1312 and later rubrics, makes a movement as if breaking the host. Great care is taken that the smoke of the thurible and of the torches do not interfere with the clear vision of the host when lifted up for the adoration of the faithful; the chalice, however, is only slightly elevated. The celebrating priest does not genuflect but bows reverently. After the Pater Noster the choir sings the psalm Deus venerunt genies for the restoration of the Holy Land. The prayers for communion are identical with those of the Sarum Rite and other similar uses, viz. domine sancte pater, Domine Jesu Christe (as in the Roman Rite), and Salve salus mundi. The Domine non sum dignus was introduced only in 1568. The Mass ended with Dominus vobiscum, Ite missa est (or its equivalent) and Placeat. The chapter of 1324 ordered the Salve regina to be said at the end of each canonical hour as well as at the end of the Mass. The Last Gospel, which in both ordinals serves for the priest's thanksgiving, appears in the Missal of 1490 as an integral part of the Mass. On Sundays and feasts there was, besides the festival Mass after Terce or Sext, an early Mass (matutina) without solemnities, corresponding to the commemorations of the Office. From Easter till Advent the Sunday Mass was therefore celebrated early in the morning, the high Mass being that of the Resurrection of our Lord; similarly on these Sundays the ninth lesson with its responsory was taken from one of the Easter days; these customs had been introduced soon after the conquest of the Holy Land. A solemn commemoration of the Resurrection was held on the last Sunday before Advent; in all other respects the Carmelite Liturgy reflects more especially the devotion of the order towards the Blessed Virgin. The Divine Office also presents some noteworthy features. The first Vespers of certain feasts and the Vespers during Lent have a responsory usually taken from Matins. Compline has various hymns according to the season, and also special antiphons for the Canticle. The lessons at Matins follow a somewhat different plan from those of the Roman Office. The singing of the genealogies of Christ after Matins on Christmas and the Epiphany gave rise to beautiful ceremonies. After Tenebrae in Holy Week (sung at midnight) we notice the chant of the Tropi; all the Holy Week services present interesting archaic features. Other points to be mentioned are the antiphons Pro fidei meritis etc. on the Sundays from Trinity to Advent and the verses after the psalms on Trinity, the feasts of St. Paul, and St. Laurence. The hymns are those of the Roman Office; the proses appear to be a uniform collection which remained practically unchanged from the thirteenth century to 1544, when all but four or five were abolished. The Ordinal prescribes only four processions in the course of the year, viz. on Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the Ascension, and the Assumption. The calendar of saints, in the two oldest recensions of the Ordinal, exhibits some feasts proper to the Holy Land, namely some of the early bishops of Jerusalem, the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Lazarus. The only special features were the feast of St. Anne, probably due to the fact that the Carmelites occupied for a short time a convent dedicated to her in Jerusalem (vacated by Benedictine nuns at the capture of that city in 1187), and the octave of the Nativity of Our Lady, which also was proper to the order. In the works mentioned below we have given the list of feasts added in the course of three centuries, and shall here speak only of a few. The Chapter of 1306 introduced those of St. Louis, Barbara, Corpus Christi, and the Conception of Our Lady (in Conceptione seu potius veneratione sanctificationis B. V.); the Corpus Christi procession, however, dates only from the end of the fifteenth century. In 1312 the second part of the Confiteor, which till then had been very short, was introduced. Daily commemorations of St. Anne and Sts. Albert and Angelus date respectively from the beginning and the end of the fifteenth century, but were transferred in 1503 from the canonical Office to the Little Office of Our Lady. The feast of the "Three Maries" dates from 1342, those of the Visitation, of Our Lady ad nives, and the Presentation from 1391. Feasts of the order were first introduced towards the end of the fourteenth century -- viz. the Commemoration (Scapular Feast) of 16 July appears first about 1386; St. Eliseus, prophet and St. Cyril of Constantinople in 1399; St. Albert in 1411; St. Angelus in 1456. Owing to the printing of the first Breviary of the order at Brussels in 1480, a number of territorial feasts were introduced into the order, such as St. Joseph, the Ten Thousand Martyrs, the Division of the Apostles. The raptus of St. Elias (17 June) is first to be found in the second half of the fifteenth century in England and Germany; the feast of the Prophet (20 July) dates at the earliest from 1551. Some general chapters, especially those of 1478 and 1564, added whole lists of saints, partly of real or supposed saints of the order, partly of martyrs whose bodies were preserved in various churches belonging to the Carmelites, particularly that of San Martino ai Monti in Rome. The revision of 1584 reduced the Sanctorale to the smallest possible dimensions, but many feasts then suppressed were afterwards reintroduced. A word must be added about the singing. The Ordinal of 1312 allows fauxbourdon, at least on solemn occasions; organs and organists are mentioned with ever-increasing frequency from the first years of the fifteenth century, the earliest notice being that of Mathias Johannis de Lucca, who in 1410 was elected organist at Florence; the organ itself was a gift of Johannes Dominici Bonnani, surnamed Clerichinus, who died at an advanced age on 24 Oct., 1416. BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN CISTERCIAN RITE This rite is to be found in the liturgical books of the order. The collection, composed of fifteen books, was made by the General Chapter of Citeaux, most probably in 1134; they are now included in the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and calendar, or Martyrology. When Pius V ordered the entire Church to conform to the Roman Missal and Breviary, he exempted the Cistercians from this law, because their rite had been more than 400 years in existence. Under Claude Vaussin, General of the Cistercians (in the middle of the seventeenth century), several reforms were made in the liturgical books of the order, and were approved by Alexander Vll, Clement IX, and Clement XIII. These approbations were confirmed by Pius IX on 7 Feb., 1871, for the Cistercians of the Common as well as for those of the Strict Observance. The Breviary is quite different from the Roman, as it follows exactly the prescriptions of the Rule of St. Benedict, with a very few minor additions. St. Benedict wished the entire Psalter recited each week; twelve psalms are to be said at Matins when there are but two Nocturns; when there is a third Nocturn, it is to be composed of three divisions of a canticle, there being in this latter case always twelve lessons. Three psalms or divisions of psalms are appointed for Prime, the Little Hours, and Compline (in this latter hour the "Nunc dimittis" is never said), and always four psalms for Vespers. Many minor divisions and directions are given in St. Benedict's Rule. In the old missal before the reform of Claude Vaussin, there were wide divergences between the Cistercian and Roman rites. The psalm "Judica" was not said, but in its stead was recited the "Veni Creator"; the "Indulgentiam" was followed by the "Pater" and "Ave", and the "Oramus te Domine" was omitted in kissing the altar. After the "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", the "Agnus Dei" was said thrice, and was followed immediately by "Haec sacrosancta commixtio corporis", said by the priest while placing the small fragment of the Sacred Host in the chalice; then the "Domine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei Vivi" was said, but the "Corpus Tuum" and "Quod ore sumpsimus" were omitted. The priest said the "Placeat" as now, and then "Meritis et precibus istorum et onmium sanctorum. Suorum misereatur nostri Omnipotens Dominus. Amen", while kissing the altar; with the sign of the Cross the Mass was ended. Outside of some minor exceptions in the wording and conclusions of various prayers, the other parts of the Mass were the same as in the Roman Rite. Also in some Masses of the year the ordo was different; for instance, on Palm Sunday the Passion was only said at the high Mass, at the other Masses a special gospel only being said. However, since the time of Claude Vaussin the differences from the Roman Mass are insignificant. In the calendar there are relatively few feasts of saints or other modern feasts, as none were introduced except those especially prescribed by Rome for the Cistercian Order; this was done in order to adhere as closely as possible to the spirit of St. Benedict in prescribing the weekly recitation of the Psalter. The divisions of the feasts are: major or minor feast of sermon; major or minor feast of two Masses; feast of twelve lessons and Mass; feast of three lessons and Mass; feast of commemoration and Mass; then merely a commemoration; and finally the feria. The differences in the ritual are very small. As regards the last sacraments, Extreme Unction is given before the Holy Viaticum, and in Extreme Unction the word "Peccasti" is used instead of the "Deliquisti" in the Roman Ritual. In the Sacrament of Penance a shorter form of absolution may be used in ordinary confessions. EDMOND M. OBRECHT DOMINICAN RITE A name denoting the distinctive ceremonies embodied in the privileged liturgical books of the Order of Preachers. (a) Origin and development The question of a special unified rite for the order received no official attention in the time of St. Dominic, each province sharing in the general liturgical diversities prevalent throughout the Church at the time of the order's confirmation (1216). Hence, each province and often each convent had certain peculiarities in the text and in the ceremonies of the Holy Sacrifice and the recitation of the Office. The successors of St. Dominic were quick to recognize the impracticability of such conditions and soon busied themselves in an effort to eliminate the embarrassing distinctions. They maintained that the safety of a basic principle of community life unity of prayer and worship-was endangered by this conformity with different diocesan conditions. This belief was impressed upon them more forcibly by the confusion that these liturgical diversities occasioned at the general chapters of the order where brothers from every province were assembled. The first indication of an effort to regulate liturgical conditions was manifested by Jordan of Saxony, the successor of St. Dominic. In the Constitutions (1228) ascribed to him are found several rubrics for the recitation of the Office. These insist more on the attention with which the Office should be said than on the qualifications of the liturgical books. However, it is said that Jordan took some steps in the latter direction and compiled one Office for universal use. Though this is doubtful, it is certain that his efforts were of little practical value, for the Chapters of Bologna (1240) and Paris (1241) allowed each convent to conform with the local rites. The first systematic attempt at reform was made under the direction of John the Teuton, the fourth master general of the order. At his suggestion the Chapter of Bologna (1244) asked the delegates to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245) their special rubrics for the recitation of the Office, their Missals, Graduals, and Antiphonaries, "pro concordando officio". To bring some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed consisting of four members, one each from the Provinces of France, England, Lombardy, and Germany, to carry out the revision at Angers. They brought the result of their labours to the Chapter of Paris (1246), which approved the compilation and ordered its exclusive use by the whole Order. This same chapter approved the "Lectionary" which had been entrusted to Humbert of Romains for revision. The work of the commission was again approved by the Chapters of Montepulciano (1247) and Paris (1248). But dissatisfaction with the work of the commission was felt on all sides, especially with their interpretation of the rubrics. They had been hurried in their work, and had left too much latitude for local customs. The question was reopened and the Chapter of London (1250) asked the commission to reassemble at Metz and revise their work in the light of the criticisms that had been made; the result of this revision was approved at the Chapters of Metz (1251) and Bologna (1252) and its use made obligatory for the whole order. It was also ordained that one copy of the liturgical books should be placed at Paris and one at Bologna, from which the books for the other convents should be faithfully copied. However, it was recognized that these books were not entirely perfect, and that there was room for further revision. Though this work was done under the direction of John the Teuton, the brunt of the revision fell to the lot of Humbert of Romains, then provincial of the Paris Province. Humbert was elected Master General of the Chapter of Buda (1254) and was asked to direct his attention to the question of the order's liturgical books. He subjected each of them to a most thorough revision, and after two years submitted his work to the Chapter of Paris (1256). This and several subsequent chapters endorsed the work, effected legislation guarding against corruption, constitutionally recognized the authorship of Humbert, and thus once and for all settled a common rite for the Order of Preachers throughout the world. (b) Preservation Clement IV, through the general, John of Vercelli, issued a Bull in 1267 in which he lauded the ability and zeal of Humbert and forbade the making of any changes without the proper authorization. Subsequent papal regulation went much further towards preserving the integrity of the rite. Innocent XI and Clement XII prohibited the printing of the books without the permission of the master general and also ordained that no member of the order should presume to use in his fulfilment of the choral obligation any book not bearing the seal of the general and a reprint of the pontifical Decrees. Another force preservative of the special Dominican Rite was the Decree of Pius V (1570), imposing a common rite on the universal Church but excepting those rites which had been approved for two hundred years. This exception gave to the Order of Friars Preachers the privilege of maintaining its old rite, a privilege which the chapters of the order sanctioned and which the members of the order gratefully accepted. It must not be thought that the rite has come down through the ages absolutely without change. Some slight corruptions crept in despite the rigid legislation to the contrary. Then new feasts have been added with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs and many new editions of the liturgical books have been printed. Changes in the text, when they have been made, have always been effected with the idea of eliminating arbitrary mutilations and restoring the books to a perfect conformity with the old exemplars at Paris and Bologna. Such were the reforms of the Chapters of Salamanca (1551), Rome (1777), and Ghent (1871). Several times movements have been started with the idea of conforming with the Roman Rite; but these have always been defeated, and the order still stands in possession of the rite conceded to it by Pope Clement in 1267. (c) Sources of the rite To determine the sources of the Dominican Rite is to come face to face with the haze and uncertainty that seems to shroud most liturgical history. The thirteenth century knew no unified Roman Rite. While the basis of the usages of north-western Europe was a Gallicanized-Gregorian Sacramentary sent by Adrian IV to Charlemagne, each little locality had its own peculiar distinctions. At the time of the unification of the Dominican Rite most of the convents of the order were embraced within the territory in which the old Gallican Rite had once obtained and in which the Gallico-Roman Rite then prevailed. Jordan of Saxony, the pioneer in liturgical reform within the a order, greatly admired the Rite of the Church Paris and frequently assisted at the recitations of the Office at Notre-Dame. Humbert of Romains, who played so important a part in the work of unification, was the provincial of the French Province. These facts justify the opinion that the basis of the Dominican Rite was the typical Gallican Rite of the thirteenth century. But documentary evidence that the rite was adapted from any one locality is lacking. The chronicles of the order state merely that the rite is neither the pure Roman nor the pure Gallican, but based on the Roman usage of the thirteenth century, with additions from the Rites of Paris and other places in which the order existed. Just from where these additions were obtained and exactly what they were cannot be determined, except in a general way, from an examination of each distinctive feature. Two points must be emphasized here: (1) the Dominican Rite is not an arbitrary elaboration of the Roman Rite made against the spirit of the Church or to give the order an air of exclusiveness, nor can it be said to be more gallicanized then any use of the Gallico-Roman Rite of that period. It was an honest and sincere attempt to harmonize and simplify the widely divergent usages of the early half of the thirteenth century. (2) The Dominican Rite, formulated by Humbert, saw no radical development after its confirmation by Clement IV. When Pius V made his reform, the Dominican Rite had been fixed and stable for over three hundred years, while a constant liturgical change had been taking place in other communities. Furthermore the comparative simplicity of the Dominican Rite, as manifested in the different liturgical books, gives evidence of its antiquity. (d) Liturgical books The rite compiled by Humbert contained fourteen books: (1) the Ordinary, which was a sort of an index to the Divine Office, the Psalms, Lessons, Antiphons, and Chapters being indicated by their first words. (2) The Martyrology, an amplified calendar of martyrs and other saints. (3) The Collectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. (4) The Processional, containing the hymns (text and music) for the processions. (5) The Psalterium, containing merely the Psalter. (6) The Lectionary, which contained the Sunday homilies, the lessons from Sacred Scripture and the lives of the saints. (7) The Antiphonary, giving the text and music for the parts of the Office sung outside of the Mass. (8) The Gradual, which contained the words and the music for the parts of the Mass sung by the choir. (9) The Conventual Missal, for the celebration of solemn Mass. (10) The Epistolary, containing the Epistles for the Mass and the Office. (11) The Book of Gospels. (12) The Pulpitary, which contained the musical notation for the Gloria Patri, the Invitatory, Litanies, Tracts, and the Alleluia. (13) The Missal for a private Mass. (14) The Breviary, a compilation from all the books used in the choral recitation of the Office, very much reduced in size for the convenience of travellers. By a process of elimination and synthesis undergone so by the books of the Roman Rite many of the books of Humbert have become superfluous while several others have been formed. These add nothing to the original text, but merely provide for the Addition of feasts and the more convenient recitation of the office. The collection of the liturgical books now contains: (1) Martyrology; (2) Collectarium; (3) Processional; (4) Antiphonary; (5) Gradual; (6) Missal for the conventual Mass; (7) Missal for the private Mass; (8) Breviary; (9) Vesperal; (10) Horae Diurnae; (11) Ceremonial. The contents of these books follow closely the books of the same name issued by Humbert and which have just been described. The new ones are: (1) the Horae Diurnae (2) the Vesperal (with notes), adaptations from the Breviary and the Antiphonary respectively (3) the Collectarium, which is a compilation from all the rubrics scattered throughout the other books. With the exception of the Breviary, these books are similar in arrangment to the correspondingly named books of the Roman Rite. The Dominican Breviary is divided into two parts: Part I, Advent to Trinity; Part II, Trinity to Advent. (e) Distinctive marks of the Dominican Rite Only the most striking differences between the Dominican Rite and the Roman need be mentioned here. The most important is in the manner of celebrating a low Mass. The celebrant in the Dominican Rite wears the amice over his head until the beginning of Mass, and prepares the chalice as soon as he reaches the altar. The Psalm "Judica me Deus" is not said and the Confiteor, much shorter than the Roman, contains the name of St. Dominic. The Gloria and the Credo are begun at the centre of the altar and finished at the Missal. At the Offertory there is a simultaneous oblation of the Host and the chalice and only one prayer, the "Suscipe Sancta Trinitas". The Canon of the Mass is the same as the Canon of the Roman Rite, but after it are several noticeable differences. The Dominican celebrant says the "Agnus Dei" immediately after the "Pax Domini" and then recites three prayers "Haec sacrosancta commixtio" "Domine Jesu Christe", and "Corpus et sanguis" Then follows the Communion, the priest receiving the Host from his left hand. No prayers are said at the consumption of the Precious Blood, the first prayer after the "Corpus et Sanguis" being the Communion. These are the most noticeable differences in the celebration of a low Mass. In a solemn Mass the chalice is prepared just after the celebrant has read the Gospel, seated at the Epistle side of the sanctuary. The chalice is brought from the altar to the place where the celebrant is seated by the sub-deacon, who pours the wine and water into it and replaces it on the altar. The Dominican Breviary differs but slightly from the Roman. The Offices celebrated are of seven classes:--of the season (de tempore), of saints (de sanctis), of vigils, of octaves, votive Offices, Office of the Blessed Virgin, and Office of the Dead. In point of dignity the feasts are classified as "totum duplex", "duplex" "simplex" "of three lessons", and "of a memory". The ordinary "totum duplex" feast is equivalent to the Roman greater double. A "totum duplex" with an ordinary octave (a simple or a solemn octave) is equal to the second-class double of the Roman Rite, and a "totum duplex" with a most solemn octave is like the Roman first-class double. A "duplex" feast is equivalent to the lesser double and the "simplex" to the semi-double. There is no difference in the ordering of the canonical hours, except that all during Paschal time the Dominican Matins provide for only three psalms and three lessons instead of the customary nine psalms and nine lessons. The Office of the Blessed Virgin must be said on all days on which feasts of the rank of duplex or "totum duplex" are not celebrated. The Gradual psalms must be said on all Saturdays on which is said the votive Office of the Blessed Virgin. The Office of the Dead must be said once a week except during the week following Easter and the week following Pentecost. Other minor points of difference are the manner of making the commemorations, the text of the hymns, the Antiphons, the lessons of the common Offices and the insertions of special feasts of the order. There is no great distinction between the musical notation of the Dominican Gradual, Vesperal, and Antiphonary and the corresponding books of the new Vatican edition. The Dominican chant has been faithfully copied from the MSS. of the thirteenth century, which were in turn derived indirectly from the Gregorian Sacramentary. One is not surprised therefore at the remarkable similarity between the chant of the two rites. For a more detailed study of the Dominican Rite reference may be had to the order's liturgical books. IGNATIUS SMITH. FRANCISCAN RITE The Franciscans, unlike the Dominicans, Carmelites, and other orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but, conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi, have always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However, the Friars Minor and the Capuchins wear the amice, instead of the biretta, over the head, and are accustomed to say Mass with their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy certain privileges in regard to the time and place of celebrating Mass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many proper Masses not found in the Roman Missal. These are mostly feasts of Franciscan saints and blessed, which are not celebrated throughout the Church, or other feasts having a peculiar connexion with the order, e.g. the Feast of the Mysteries of the Way of the Cross (Friday before Septuagesima), and that of the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin (First Sunday after the octave of the Assumption). The same is true in regard to the Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum, and Martyrologium Romano-Seraphicum. The Franciscans exercised great influence in the origin and evolution of the Breviary, and on the revision of the Rubrics of the Mass. They have also their own calendar, or ordo. This calendar may be used not only in the churches of the First Order, but also in the churches and chapels of the Second Order, and Third Order Regular (if aggregated to the First Order) and Secular, as well as those religious institutes which have had some connexion with the parent body. It may also be used by secular priests or clerics who axe members of the Third Order. The order has also its own ritual and ceremonial for its receptions, professions, etc. FERDINAND HECKMANN FRIARS MINOR CAPUCHIN RITE The Friars Minor Capuchin use the Roman Rite, except that in the Confiteor the name of their founder, St. Francis is added after the names of the Apostles, and in the suffrages they make commemorations of St. Francis and all saints of their order. The use of incense in the conventual mass on certain solemnities, even though the Mass is said and not sung, is another liturgical custom (recently sanctioned by the Holy See) peculiar to their order. Generally speaking, the Capuchins do not have sung Masses except in parochial churches, and except in these churches they may not have organs without the minister general's permission. By a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1890, the minister general, when celebrating Mass at the time of the canonical visitation and on solemnities, has the privileges of a domestic prelate of His Holiness. In regard to the Divine Office, the Capuchins do not sing it according to note but recite it in monotone. In the larger communities they generally recite Matins and Lauds at midnight, except on the three last days of Holy Week, when Tenebrae is chanted on the preceding evening, and during the octaves of Corpus Christi and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when matins are recited also on the preceding evening with the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Every day after Compline they add, extra-liturgically, commemorations of the Immaculate Conception, St. Francis, and St. Anthony of Padua. On the feast of St. Francis after second Vespers they observe the service called the "Transitus" of St. Francis, and on all Saturdays, except feasts of first and second class and certain privileged feriae and octaves, all Masses said in their churches are votive in honour of the Immaculate Conception, excepting only the conventual mass. They follow the universal calendar, with the addition of feasts proper to their order. These additional feasts include all canonized saints of the whole Franciscan Order, all beati of the Capuchin Reform and the more notable beati of the whole order; and every year the 5th of October is observed as a commemoration of the departed members of the order in the same way as the 2nd of November is observed in the universal Church. Owing to the great number of feasts thus observed, the Capuchins have the privilege of transferring the greater feasts, when necessary, to days marked semi-double. According to the ancient Constitutions of the Order, the Capuchins were not allowed to use vestments of rich texture, not even of silk, but by Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 December, 1888, they must now conform to the general laws of the Church in this matter. They are, however, still obliged to maintain severe simplicity in their churches, especially when nonparochial. FATHER CUTHBERT PREMONSTRATENSIAN RITE The Norbertine rite differs from the Roman in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Divine Office, and in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance. (1) Sacrifice of the Mass The Missal is proper to the order and is not arranged like the Roman Missal. The canon is identical, with the exception of a slight variation as to the time of making the sign of the cross with the paten at the "Libera nos". The music for the Prefaces etc. differs, though not considerably, from that of the Roman Missal. Two alleluias are said after the "Ite missa est" for a week after Easter; for the whole of the remaining Paschal time one alleluia is said. The rite for the celebration of feasts gives the following grades: three classes of triples, two of doubles, celebre, nine lessons, three lessons. No feasts are celebrated during privileged octaves. There are so many feasts lower than double that usually no privilege is needed for votive Masses. The rubrics regulating the various feasts of the year are given in the "Ordinarius Sen. liber caeremomarum canonici ordinis Praemonstratensis". Rubrics for the special liturgical functions are found in the Missal, the Breviary, the Diurnal, the Processional, the Gradual, and the Antiphonary. (2) Divine Office The Breviary differs from the Roman Breviary in its calendar, the manner of reciting it, arrangement of matter. Some saints on the Roman calendar are omitted. The feasts peculiar to the Norbertines are: St. Godfried, C., 16 Jan.; St. Evermodus, B. C., 17 Feb.; Bl. Frederick, Abbot, 3 Mar.; St. Ludolph, B. M., 29 Mar.; Bl. Herman Joseph, C., 7 Apr.; St. Isfrid, B. C.,' 15 June; Sts. Adrian and James, MM., 9 July; Bl. Hrosnata, 19 July, 19; Bl. Gertrude, V., 13 Aug.; Bl. Bronislava, V., 30 Aug.; St. Gilbert, Abbot, 24 Oct.; St. Siardus, Abbot, 17 Nov. The feast of St. Norbert, founder of the order, which falls on 6 June in the Roman calendar, is permanently transferred to 11 July, so that its solemn rite may not be interfered with by the feasts of Pentecost and Corpus Christi. Other feasts are the Triumph of St. Norbert over the sacramentarian heresy of Tanchelin, on the third Sunday after Pentecost, and the Translation of St. Norbert commemorating the translation of his body from Magdeburg to Prague, on the fourth Sunday after Easter. Besides the daily recitation of the canonical hours the Norbertines are obliged to say the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, except on triple feasts and during octaves of the first class. In choir this is said immediately after the Divine Office. (3) Administration of the Sacrament of Penance The form of absolution is not altogether in harmony with that of the Roman Ritual. The following is the Norbertine formula: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius, mihi licet indignissimo concessa, absolvo te in primis, a vinculo excommunicationis ... in quantum possum et indiges", etc. The liturgical books of the Norbertines were reprinted by order of the general chapter held at Premontre, in 1738, and presided over by Claude H. Lucas, abbot-general. A new edition of the Missal and the Breviary was issued after the General Chapter of Prague, in 1890. In 1902 a committee was appointed to revise the Gradual, Antiphonary, etc. This committee received much encouragement in its work by the Motu Proprio of Pius X on church music. The General Chapter of Tepl, Austria, in 1908, decided to edit the musical books of the order as prepared, in accordance with ancient MSS. by this committee G. RYBROOK SERVITE RITE The Order of Servites (see SERVANTS OF MARY) cannot be said to possess a separate or exclusive rite similar to the Dominicans and others, but follows the Roman Ritual, as provided in its constitutions, with very slight variations. Devotion towards the Mother of Sorrows being the principal distinctive characteristic of the order, there are special prayers and indulgences attaching to the solemn celebration of the five major Marian feasts, namely, the Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption, Presentation, and Nativity of our Blessed Lady. The feast of the Seven Dolours of the Blessed Virgin Mary, celebrated always on the Third Sunday of September, has a privileged octave and is enriched with a plenary indulgence ad instar Portiunculoe; that is, as often as a visit is made to a church of the order. In common with all friars the Servite priests wear an amice on the head instead of a biretta while proceeding to and from the altar. The Mass is begun with the first part of the Angelical Salutation, and in the Confiteor the words Septem beatis patribus nostris are inserted. At the conclusion of Mass the Salve Regina and the oration Omnipotens sempiterne Deus are recited. In the recitation of the Divine Office each canonical hour is begun with the Ave Maria down to the words ventris tui, Jesus. The custom of reciting daily, immediately before Vespers, a special prayer called Vigilia, composed of the three psalms and three antiphons of the first nocturn of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, followed by three lessons and responses, comes down from the thirteenth century, when they were offered in thanksgiving for a special favour bestowed upon the order by Pope Alexander IV (13 May, 1259). The Salve Regina is daily chanted in choir whether or not it is the antiphon proper to the season. LITURGICAL SCIENCE.--RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (Frankfurt, 1847); MARTENE Le antiquis ecclesioe ritibus (Antwerp and Milan, 1736-8); ASSEMANI, Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Rome, 1749-66); DANIEL, Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Leipzig, 1847); DENZIGER, Ritus Orientalium (Wurzburg, 1863); NILLES, Kalendarium manuals (Innsbruck, 1896); HAMMOND, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878); BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); CABROL, Introduction aux etudes liturgiques (Paris, 1907); RIETSCHEL, Lehrbuch der Liturgik (Berlin, 1900); CLEMEN, Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie, 1: Liturgik (Giessen, 1910); The Prayer-books of Edward VI and Elizabeth are reprinted in the Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature (London); PROCTOR AND FRERE, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1908); MAUDE, A History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1899). CARMELITE RITE.--ZIMMERMAN, Le ceremonial de Maitre Sibert de Beka in Chroniques du Carmel Jambes-lez-Namur, 1903-5); IDEM, Ordinaire de l'Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel (Paris, 1910), being the thirteenth volume of Bibliotheque liturgique; WESSELS, Ritus Ordinis in Analecta Ordinis Carmelitarum (Rome, 1909); WEALE, Bibliographia liturgica (London, 1886). The oldest Ordinal, now in Dublin but of English origin, written after 1262 and before the publication of the Constitution of Boniface VIII, "Gloriosus Deus," C. Gloriosus, de Reliquiis, in Sexto, has not yet been printed. CISTERCIAN RITE.-- Missale Cisterciense, MS. of the latter part of the fourteenth century; Mis. Cist. (Strasburg, 1486); Mis. Cist. (Paris, 1516, 1545, 1584); Regula Ssmi Patris Benedicti; Breviarium Cist. cum Bulla Pii Papoe IX die 7 Feb., 1871; BONA, Op. omnia (Antwerp, 1677); GUIGNART, Mon. primitifs de la regle cist. (Dijon, 1878); Rubriques du breviaire cist., by a religious of La Grande Trappe (1882); TRILHE, Memoire sur le projet de ceremonial cist. (Toulouse, 1900); IDEM, Man. Coeremoniarum juxta usum S.O. Cist. (Westmalle, 1908). DOMINICAN RITE.--MORTIER, Hist. des mattres generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, I (Paris, 1903), 174, 309-312, 579 sq.; CASSITTO, Liturgia Dominicana (Naples, 1804); MASETTI, Mon. et Antiq. vet. discipl. Ord. Praed. (Rome, 1864); DANZAS, Etudes sur too temps prim. de l'ordre do S. Dominique (Paris, 1884); Acta Capitulorum Ord. Proed., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1898-1904); Litt. Encyc. Magist. Gener. O. P., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1900); TURON, Hist. des hommes ill. do I'Ordre de St. Dominique, 1, 341; Bullarium O. P., passim. FRANCISCAN RITE.-- Coerem. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1908); Rit. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1910); Promptuarium Seraph. Quaracchi, 1910). CAPUCHIN RITE.-- Ceremoniale Ord. Cap.; Analecta Ord. Cap.; Constit. ord. (Rome). P.J. GRIFFIN Rites in the United States Rites in the United States Since immigration from the eastern portion of Europe and from Asia and Africa set in with such volume, the peoples who (both in union with and outside the unity of the Church) follow the various Eastern rites arrived in the United States in large numbers, bringing with them their priests and their forms of worship. As they grew in number and financial strength, they erected churches in the various cities and towns throughout the country. Rome used to be considered the city where the various rites of the Church throughout the world could be seen grouped together, but in the United States they may be observed to a greater advantage than even in Rome. In Rome the various rites are kept alive for the purpose of educating the various national clergy who study there, and for demonstrating the unity of the Church, but there is no body of laymen who follow those rites; in the United States, on the contrary, it is the number and pressure of the laity which have caused the establishment and support of the churches of the various rites. There is consequently no better field for studying the various rites of the Church than in the chief cities of the United States, and such study has the advantage to the exact observer of affording an opportunity of comparing the dissident churches of those rites with those which belong to Catholic unity. The chief rites which have established themselves in America are these: (1) Armenian, (2) Greek or Byzantine, and (3) Syro-Maronite. There are also a handful of adherents of the Coptic, Syrian, and Chaldean rites, which will also be noticed, and there are occasionally priests of the various Latin rites. I. THE ARMENIAN RITE This rite alone, of all the rites in the Church, is confined to one people, one language, and one alphabet. It is, if anything, more exclusive than Judaism of old. Other rites are more widely extended in every way: the Roman Rite is spread throughout Latin, Teutonic, and Slavic peoples, and it even has two languages, the Latin and the Ancient Slavonic, and two alphabets, the Roman and the Glagolitic, in which its ritual is written; the Greek or Byzantine Rite extends among Greek, Slavic, Latin, and Syrian peoples, and its services are celebrated in Greek, Slavonic, Rumanian, and Arabic with service-books in the Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, and Arabic alphabets. But the Armenian Rite, whether Catholic or Gregorian, is confined exclusively to persons of the Armenian race, and employs the ancient Armenian language and alphabet. The history and origin of the race have been given in the article ARMENIA, but a word may be said of the language (Hayk, as it is called), and its use in the liturgy. The majority of the Armenians were converted to Christianity by St. Gregory the Illuminator, a man of noble family, who was made Bishop of Armenia in 302. So thoroughly was his work effected that Armenia alone of the ancient nations converted to Christianity has preserved no pagan literature antedating the Christian literature of the people; pagan works, if they ever existed, seem to have perished in the ardour of the Armenians for Christian thought and expression. The memory of St. Gregory is so revered that the Armenians who are opposed to union with the Holy See take pride in calling themselves "Gregorians," implying that they keep the faith taught by St. Gregory. Hence it is usual to call the dissidents "Gregorians," in order to distinguish them from the Uniat Catholics. At first the language of the Christian liturgy in Armenia was Syriac, but later they discarded it for their own tongue, and translated all the services into Armenian, which was at first written in Syriac or Persian letters. About 400 St. Mesrob invented the present Armenian alphabet (except two final letters which were added in the year 1200) and their language, both ancient and modern, has been written in that alphabet ever since. Mesrob also translated the New Testament into Armenian and revised the entire liturgy. The Armenians in their church life have led almost as checkered an existence as they have in their national life. At first they were in full communion with the Universal Church. They were bitterly opposed to Nestorianism, and, when in 451 the council of Chalcedon condemned the doctrine of Eutyches, they seceded, holding the opinion that such a definition was sanctioning Nestorianism, and have since remained separated from and hostile to the Greek Church of Constantinople. In 1054 the Greeks seceded in turn from unity with the Roman Church, and nearly three centuries later the Armenians became reconciled with Rome, but the union lasted only a brief period. Breaking away from unity again, the majority formed a national church which agreed neither with the Greek nor the Roman Church; a minority, recruited by converts to union with the Holy See in the seventeenth century remained united Armenian Catholics. The Mass and the whole liturgy of the Armenian Church is said in Ancient Armenian, which differs considerably from the modern tongue. The language is an offshoot of the Iranian branch of the Indo-Germanic family of languages, and probably found its earliest written expression in the cuneiform inscriptions; it is unlike the Semitic languages immediately surrounding it. Among its peculiarities are twelve regular declensions and eight irregular declensions of nouns and five conjugations of the verbs, while there are many difficulties in the way of postpositions and the like. It abounds in consonants and guttural sounds; the words of the Lord's Prayer in Armenian will suffice as an example: "Hair mier, vor herghins ies, surp iegitzi anun ko, ieghastze arkautiun ko, iegitzin garnk ko, vorbes hierghins iev hergri, zhatz mier hanabazort dur miez aissor, iev tog miez ezbardis mier, vorbes iev mek togumk merotz bardabanatz, iev mi danir zmez i porsutiun, ail perghea i chare." The language is written from left to right, like Greek, Latin or English, but in an alphabet of thirty-eight peculiar letters which are dissimilar in form to anything in the Greek or Latin alphabet, and are arranged in a most perplexing order. For instance, the Armenian alphabet starts off with a, p, k, t, z, etc., and ends up with the letter f. It may also be noted that the Armenian has changed the consonantal values of most of the ordinary sounds in Christian names; thus George becomes Kevork; Sergius, Sarkis; Jacob, Hagop; Joseph, Hovsep; Gregory, Krikori; Peter, Bedros; and so on. The usual clan addition of the word "son" (ian) to most Armenian family names, something like the use of mac in the Gaelic languages, renders usual Armenian names easy of identification (e.g., Azarian, Hagopian, Rubian, Zohrabian, etc.). The book containing the regulations for the administration of the sacraments, analogous to the Greek Euchologion or the Roman Ritual, is called the "Mashdotz," after the name of its compiler St. Mesrob, who was surnamed Mashdotz. He arranged and compiled the five great liturgical books used in the Armenian Church: (1) the Breviary (Zhamakirk) or Book of Hours; (2) The Directory (Tzutzak) or Calendar, containing the fixed festivals of the year; (3) The Liturgy (Pataragakirk) or Missal, arranged and enriched also by John Mantaguni; (4) The Book of Hymns (Dagaran), arranged for the principal great feasts of the year; (5) The Ritual or "Mashdotz," mentioned above. A peculiarity about the Armenian Church is that the majority of great feasts falling upon weekdays are celebrated on the Sunday immediately following. The great festivals of the Christian year are divided by the Armenians into five classes: (1) Easter; (2) feasts which fall on Sunday such as Palm Sunday, Pentecost, etc.; (3) feasts which are observed on the days on which they occur: the Nativity, Epiphany, Circumcision, Presentation, and Annunciation; (4) feasts which are transferred to the following Sunday: Transfiguration, Immaculate Conception, Nativity B.V.M., Assumption, Holy Cross, feasts of the Apostles, etc.; (5) other feasts, which are not observed at all unless they can be transferred to Sunday. The Gregorian Armenians observe the Nativity, Epiphany, and Baptism of Our Lord on the same day (6 January), but the Catholic Armenians observe Christmas on 25 December and the Epiphany on 6 January, and they observe many of the other feasts of Our Lord on the days on which they actually fall. The principal fasts are: (1) Lent; (2) the Fast of Nineveh for two weeks, one month before the commencement of Lent -- in reality a remnant of the ancient Lenten fast, now commemorated only in name by our Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima Sundays; (3) the week following Pentecost. The days of abstinence are the Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year with certain exceptions (e. g., during the week after the Nativity, Easter, and the Assumption). In the Armenian Church Saturday is observed as the Sabbath, commemorating the Old Law and the creation of man, and Sunday, as the Lord's Day of Resurrection and rejoicing, commemorating the New Law and the redemption of man. Most of the saints' days are dedicated to Armenian saints not commemorated in other lands but the Armenian Catholics in Galicia and Transylvania use the Gregorian (not the Julian) Calendar and have many Roman saints' days and feasts added to their ancient ecclesiastical year. In the actual arrangement of the church building for worship the Armenian Rite differs both from the Greek and the Latin. While the Armenian Church was in communion with Rome, it seems to have united many Roman practices in its ritual with those that were in accord with the Greek or Byzantine forms. The church building may be divided into the sanctuary and church proper (choir and nave.) The sanctuary is a platform raised above the general level of the church and reached by four or more steps. The altar is always erected in the middle of it and it is again a few steps higher than the level of & sanctuary. It is perhaps possible that the Armenians originally used an altar-screen or iconostasis, like that of the Greek churches, but it has long since disappeared. Still they do not use the open altar like the Latin Church. Two curtains are hung before the sanctuary: a large double curtain hangs before its entrance, extending completely across the space like the Roman chancel rail, and is so drawn as to conceal the altar, the priest, and the deacons at certain parts of the Mass; the second and smaller curtain is used merely to separate the priest from the deacons and to cover the altar after service. Each curtain opens on both sides, and ordinarily is drawn back from the middle. The second curtain is not much used. The use of these curtains is ascribed to the year 340, when they were required by a canon formulated by Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem. Upon the altar are usually the Missal, the Book of Gospels, a cross upon which the image of Our Lord is painted or engraved in low relief, and two or more candles, which are lighted as in the Roman use. The Blessed Sacrament is usually reserved in a tabernacle on the altar, and a small lamp kept burning there at all times. In the choir, usually enclosed within a low iron railing, the singers and priests stand in lines while singing or reciting the Office. In the East, the worshipper, upon entering the nave of the church, usually takes off his shoes, just as the Mohammedans do, for the Armenian founds this practice upon Ex., iii, 5; this custom is not followed in the United States, nor do the Armenians there sit cross-legged upon the floor in their churches, as they do in Asia. The administration of the sacraments is marked by some ceremonies unlike those of the Roman or Greek Churches, and by some which are a composite of the two. In the Sacrament of Baptism the priest meets the child carried in the arms of the nurse at the church door, and, while reciting Psalms li and cxxx, takes two threads (one white and the other red) and twists them into a cord, which he afterwards blesses. Usually the godfather goes to confession before the baptism, in order that he may fulfil his duties in the state of grace. The exorcisms and renunciations then take place, and the recital of the Nicene Creed and the answers to the responses follow. The baptismal water is blessed, the anointing with oil performed, the prayers for the catechumen to be baptized are said, and then the child is stripped. The priest takes the child and holds it in the font so that the body is in the water, but the head is out, and the baptism takes place in this manner: "N., the servant of God coming into the state of a catechumen and thence to that of baptism, is now baptized by me, in the name of the Father [here he pours a handful of water on the head of the child], and of the Son [here he pours water as before], and of the Holy Ghost [here he pours a third handful]." After this the priest dips the child thrice under the water, saying on each occasion: "Thou art redeemed by the blood of Christ from the bondage of sin, by receiving the liberty of sonship of the Heavenly Father, and becoming a co-heir with Christ and a temple of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Then the child is washed and clothed again, generally with a new and beautiful robe, and the priest when washing the child says: "Ye that were baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, Alleluia. And ye that have been illumined by God the Father, may the Holy Ghost rejoice in you. Alleluia." Then the passage of the Gospel of St. Matthew relating the baptism of Christ in the Jordan is read, and the rite thus completed. The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred by the priest immediately after baptism, although the Catholic Armenians sometimes reserve it for the bishop. The holy chrism is applied by the priest to the forehead, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, palms, heart, spine, and feet, each time with a reference to the seal of the Spirit. Finally, the priest lays his hand upon and makes the sign of the cross on the child's forehead saying: "Peace to thee, saved through God." When the confirmation is thus finished, the priest binds the child's forehead with the red and white string which he twisted at the beginning of the baptism and fastens it at the end with a small cross. He gives two candles, one red and one green, to the godfather and has the child brought up to the altar where Communion is given to it by a small drop of the Sacred Blood, or, if it be not at the time of Mass, by taking the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle and signing the mouth of the child with it in the form of the cross, saying in either case: "The plenitude of the Holy Ghost"; if the candidate be an adult, full Communion is administered, and there the confirmation is ended. The formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance is: "May the merciful God have mercy upon you and grant you the pardon of all your sins, both confessed and forgotten; and I by virtue of my order of priesthood and in force of the power granted by the Divine Command: Whosesoever sins you remit on earth they are remitted unto them in heaven; through that same word I absolve you from all participation in sin, by thought, word and deed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And I again restore you to the sacraments of the Holy Church; whatsoever good you shall do, shall be counted to you for merit and for glory in the life to come. May the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, which He shed upon the cross and which delivered human nature from hell, deliver you from your sins. Amen." As a rule Armenians are exhorted to make their confession and communion on at least five days in the year: the so-called Daghavork or feasts of Tabernacles, i.e., the Epiphany, Easter, Transfiguration, Assumption, and Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The first two festivals are obligatory and, if an Armenian neglects his duty, he incurs excommunication. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction (or "Unction with Oil," as it is called) is supposed to be administered by seven priests in the ancient form, but practically it is performed by a single priest on most occasions. The eyes, ears, nose, lips, hands, feet, and heart of the sick man are anointed, with this form: "I anoint thine eyes with holy oil, so that whatever sin thou mayst have committed through thy sight, thou mayst be saved therefrom by the anointing of this oil, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ", and with a similar reference to the other members anointed. The Divine Liturgy or Mass is of course the chief rite among the Armenians, whether Catholic or Gregorian, and it is celebrated with a form and ceremonial which partakes in a measure both of the Roman and Byzantine rites. As we have said, the curtains are used instead of the altar-rail or iconostasis of those rites, and the vestments are also peculiar. The Armenians, like the Latins, use unleavened bread, in the form of a wafer or small thin round cake, for consecration; but like the Greeks they prepare many wafers, and those not used for consecration in the Mass are given afterwards to the people as the antidoron. The wine used must be solely the fermented juice of the best grapes obtainable. In the Gregorian churches Communion is given to the people under both species, the Host being dipped in the chalice before delivering it to the communicant, but in the Catholic churches Communion is now given only in one species, that of the Body, although there is no express prohibition against the older form. On Christmas Eve and Easter Eve the Armenians celebrate Mass in the evening; the Mass then begins with the curtains drawn whilst the introductory psalms and prophecies are sung, but, at the moment the great feast is announced in the Introit, the curtains are withdrawn and the altar appears with full illumination. During Lent the altar remains entirely hidden by the great curtains, and during all the Sundays in Lent, except Palm Sunday, Mass is celebrated behind the drawn curtains. A relic of this practice still remains in the Roman Rite, as shown by the veiling of the images and pictures from Passion Sunday till Easter Eve. The Armenian vestments for Mass are peculiar and splendid. The priest wears a crown, exactly in the form of a Greek bishop's mitre, which is called the Saghavard or helmet. This is also worn by the deacons attending on a bishop at pontifical Mass. The Armenian bishops wear a mitre almost identical in shape with the Latin mitre, and said to have been introduced at the time of the union with Rome in the twelfth century, when they relinquished the Greek form of mitre for the priests to wear in the Mass. The celebrant is first vested with the shapik or alb, which is usually narrower than the Latin form, and usually of linen (sometimes of silk). He then puts on each of his arms the bazpans or cuffs, which replace the Latin maniple; then the ourar or stole, which is in one piece; then the goti or girdle, then the varkas or amict, which is a large embroidered stiff collar with a shoulder covering to it; and finally the shoochar, or chasuble, which is almost exactly like a Roman cope. If the celebrant be a bishop, he also wears the gonker or Greek epigonation. The bishops carry a staff shaped like the Latin, while the vartabeds (deans, or doctors of divinity; analogous to the Roman mitred abbots) carry a staff in the Greek form (a staff with two intertwined serpents). No organs are used in the Armenian church, but the elaborate vocal music of the Eastern style, sung by choir and people, is accompanied by two metallic instruments, the keshotz and zinzqha (the first a fan with small bells; the second similar to cymbals), both of which are used during various parts of the Mass. The deacon wears merely an alb, and a stole in the same manner as in the Roman Rite. The subdeacons and lower clergy wear simply the alb. The Armenian Mass may be divided into three parts: Preparation, Anaphora or Canon, and Conclusion. The first and preparatory portion extends as far as the Preface, when the catechumens are directed by the deacon to leave. The Canon commences with the conclusion of the Preface and ends with the Communion. As soon as the priest is robed in his vestments he goes to the altar, washes his hands reciting Psalm xxvi, and then going to the foot of the altar begins the Mass. After saying the Intercessory Prayer, the Confiteor and the Absolution, which is given with a crucifix in hand, he recites Psalm xlii (Introibo ad altare), and at every two verses ascends a step of the altar. After he has intoned the prayer "In the tabernacle of holiness," the curtains are drawn, and the choir sings the appropriate hymn of the day. Meanwhile the celebrant behind the curtain prepares the bread on the paten and fills the chalice, ready for the oblation. When this is done the curtains are withdrawn and the altar incensed. Then the Introit of the day is sung, then the prayers corresponding to those of the first, second, and third antiphons of the Byzantine Rite, while the proper psalms are sung by the choir. Then the deacon intones "Proschume" (let us attend), and elevates the book of the gospels, which is incensed as he brings it to the altar, making the Little Entrance. The choir then sings the Trisagion (Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us) thrice. The Gregorians interpolate after "Holy and Immortal" some words descriptive of the feast day, such as "who was made manifest for us," or "who didst rise from the dead," but this addition has been condemned at Rome as being a relic of the Patripassian heresy. During the Trisagion the Keshotz is jingled in accompaniment. Then the Greek Ektene or Litany is sung, and at its conclusion the reader reads the Prophecy; then the Antiphon before the Epistle is sung, and the epistle of the day read. At the end of each the choir responds Alleluia. Then the deacon announces "Orthi" (stand up) and, taking the Gospels, reads or intones the gospel of the day. Immediately afterwards, the Armenian form of the Nicene Creed is said or sung. It differs from the creed as said in the Roman and Greek Churches in that it has, "consubstantial with the Father by whom all things were made in Heaven and in Earth, visible and invisible; who for us men and our salvation came down from Heaven, was incarnate and was made man and perfectly begotten through the Holy Ghost of the most Holy Virgin Mary; he assumed from her body, soul, and mind, and all that in man is, truly and not figuratively;" and "we believe also in the Holy Ghost, not created, all perfect, who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son), who spake in the Law, in the Prophets and the Holy Gospel, who descended into the Jordan, who preached Him who was sent, and who dwelt in the Saints," and after concluding in the ordinary form adds the sentence pronounced by the First Council of Nicaea: "Those who say there was a time when the Son was not, or when the Holy Ghost was not; or that they were created out of nothing; or that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are of another substance or that they are mutable; the Catholic and Apostolic church condemns." Then the Confession of St. Gregory is intoned aloud, and the Little Ektene sung. The kiss of peace is here given to the clergy. The deacon at its close dismisses the catechumens, and the choir sings the Hymn of the Great Entrance, when the bread and wine are solemnly brought to the altar. "The Body of our Lord and the Blood of our Redeemer are to be before us. The Heavenly Powers invisible sing and proclaim with uninterrupted voice, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts." Here the curtains are drawn, and the priest takes off his crown (or the bishop his mitre). The priest incenses the holy gifts and again washes his bands, repeating Psalm xxvi as before. After the Salutation is sung, the catechumens are dismissed, and the Anaphora or Canon begins. The Preface is said secretly, only the concluding part being intoned to which the choir responds with the Sanctus. The prayer before consecration follows, with a comparison of the Old and the New Law, not found in either Greek or Roman Rite: "Holy, Holy, Holy; Thou art in truth most Holy; who is there who can dare to describe by words thy bounties which flow down upon us without measure? For Thou didst protect and console our forefathers, when they had fallen in sin, by means of the prophets, the Law, the priesthood, and the offering of bullocks, showing forth that which was to come. And when at length He came, Thou didst tear in pieces the register of our sins, and didst bestow on us Thine Only Begotten Son, the debtor and the debt, the victim and the anointed, the Lamb and Bread of Heaven, the Priest and the Oblation for He is the distributor and is always distributed amongst us, without being exhausted. Being made man truly and not apparently, and by union without confusion, He was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and journeyed through all the passions of human life, sin only excepted, and of His own free will walked to the cross, whereby He gave life to the world and wrought salvation for us." Then follow the actual words of consecration, which are intoned aloud. Then follow the Offering and the Epiklesis, which differs slightly, in the Gregorian and Catholic form; the Gregorian is: "whereby Thou wilt make the bread when blessed truly the body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;" and the Catholic form: "whereby Thou hast made the bread when blessed truly the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." As there is actually no blessing or consecration after the Epiklesis, the Catholic form represents the correct belief. Then come the prayers for the living and the dead, and an intoning by the Deacons of the Commemoration of the Saints, in which nearly all the Armenian saints are mentioned. Then the deacon intones aloud the Ascription of Praise of Bishop Chosroes the Great in thanksgiving for the Sacrament of the Altar. After this comes a long Ektene or Litany, and then the Our Father is sung by the choir. The celebrant then elevates the consecrated Host, saying "Holy things for Holy Persons," and when the choir responds, he continues: "Let us taste in holiness the holy and honourable Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who came down from heaven and is now distributed among us." Then the choir sings antiphons in honour of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood, and the small curtain is drawn. The priest kisses the sacred Victim, saying "I confess and I believe that Thou art Christ, the Son of God, who has borne the sins of the world." The Host is divided into three parts, one of which is placed in the chalice. The choir sing the communion hymns as appointed; the priest and the clergy receive the Communion first, and then the choir and people. The little curtain is withdrawn when the Communion is given, and the great curtains are drawn back when the people come up for Communion. After Communion, the priest puts on his crown (or the bishop his mitre), and the great curtains are again drawn. Thanksgiving prayers are said behind them, after which the great curtains are withdrawn once more, and the priest holding the book of gospels says the great prayer of peace, and blesses the people. Then the deacon proclaims "Orthi" (stand up) and the celebrant reads the Last Gospel, which is nearly always invariable, being the Gospel of St. John, i, 1 sqq.: "In the beginning was the Word, etc."; the only exception is from Easter to the eve of Pentecost, when they use the Gospel of St. John, xxi, 15-20: "So when they had dined, etc." Then the prayer for peace and the "Kyrie Eleison" (thrice) are said, the final benediction is given, and the priest retires from the altar. Whilst Psalm xxxiv is recited or sung by the people, the blessed bread is distributed. The Catholic Armenians confine this latter rite to high festivals only. The chief editions of the Gregorian Armenian Missals are those printed at Constantinople (1823, 1844), Jerusalem (1841, 1873, and 1884), and Etschmiadzin (1873); the chief Catholic Armenian editions are those of Venice (1808, 1874, 1895), Trieste (1808), and Vienna (1858, 1884). Armenian Catholics Armenians had come to the United States in small numbers prior to 1895. In that and the following year the Turkish massacres took place throughout Armenia and Asia Minor, and large numbers of Armenians emigrated to America. Among them were many Armenian Catholics, although these were not sufficiently numerous to organize any religious communities like their Gregorian brethren. In 1898 Msgr. Stephan Azarian (Stephen X), then Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians, who resided in Constantinople, entered into negotiations with Cardinal Ledochowski, Prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda, and through him obtained the consent of Archbishop Corrigan of New York and Archbishop Williams of Boston for priests of the Armenian Rite to labour in their respective provinces for the Armenian Catholics who had come to this country. He sent as the first Armenian missionary the Very Reverend Archpriest Mardiros Mighirian, who had been educated at the Propaganda and the Armenian College, and arrived in the United States on Ascension Day, 11 May, 1899. He at first went to Boston where he assembled a small congregation of Armenian Catholics, and later proceeded to New York to look after the spiritual welfare of the Catholic Armenians in Manhattan and Brooklyn. He also established a mission station in Worcester, Massachusetts. In New York and Brooklyn the Catholics of the Armenian Rite are divided into those who speak Armenian and those who, coming from places outside of the historic Armenia, speak the Arabic language. At present this missionary is stationed at St. Stephen's church in East Twenty-eighth Street, since large numbers of Armenians live in that vicinity, but has another congregation under his charge in Brooklyn. All these Catholic Armenians are too poor to build any church or chapel of their own, and use the basement portion of the Latin churches. Towards the end of 1906 another Armenian priest, Rev. Manuel Basieganian, commenced mission work in Paterson, New Jersey, and now attends mission stations throughout New England, New Jersey, and Eastern Pennsylvania. In 1908 Rev. Hovsep (Joseph) Keossajian settled in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and established a chapel in St. Mary's Church. He also ministers to the spiritual wants of the Armenian Catholics at Boston, Cambridge, East Watertown, Newton, Lynn, Chelsea, and Lowell. In 1909 Rev. Moses Mazarian took charge of the Armenian mission at Cleveland, Ohio, and in the cities throughout the west. None of these have been able to build independent Armenian churches, but usually hold their services in the Roman Catholic churches. Besides the places already mentioned there are slender Armenian Catholic congregations at Haverhill, Worcester, Fitchburg, Milford, Fall River, Holyoke, and Whiting, in Massachusetts; Nashua and Manchester, New Hampshire; Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls in Rhode Island; New Britain and Bridgeport, in Connecticut; Jersey City, West Hoboken, and Newark, in New Jersey; and Philadelphia and Chicago. The number of Catholic Armenians in the United States is very small, being estimated at about 2000 to 2500 all told. So many of them reside among the other Armenians and frequent their churches, that there may be more who do not profess themselves Catholics, and purely Armenian chapels would doubtless bring to light many whom the mission priests on their rounds do not reach. Gregorian Armenians Inasmuch as Armenia was converted to the faith of St. Gregory the Illuminator, the Armenians who are not in union with the Holy See pride themselves upon the fact that they more truly hold the faith preached by St. Gregory and they are accordingly called Gregorians, since the word "Orthodox" would be likely to confuse them with the Greeks. By reason of the many schools founded in Armenia and in Constantinople by American Protestant missionaries, their attention was turned to America, and, when the massacres of 1895-96 took place, large numbers came to the United States. Many of them belonged to the Protestant Armenian Church, and identified themselves with the Congregationalists or Presbyterians; but the greater number of them belonged to the national Gregorian Church. In 1889 Rev. Hovsep Sarajian, a priest from Constantinople, was sent to the Armenians in Massachusetts, and a church which was built in Worcester in 1891, is still the headquarters of the Armenian Church in the United States. The emigration increasing greatly after the massacres, Father Sarajian was reinforced by several other Armenian priests; in 1898 he was made bishop, and in 1903 was invested with archiepiscopal authority, having Canada and the United States under his jurisdiction. Seven great pastorates were organized to serve as the nuclei of future dioceses: at Worcester, Boston, and Lawrence (Massachusetts), New York, Providence (Rhode Island), Fresno (California), and Chicago (Illinois). To these was added West Hoboken in 1906. There are numerous congregations and mission stations in various cities. Churches have been built in Worcester, Fresno, and West Hoboken; in Boston and Providence halls are rented, and in other places arrangements are often made with Episcopal churches where their services are held. The Gregorian Armenian clergy comprises the archbishop, seven resident and three missionary priests, while the number of Gregorian Armenians is given at 20,000 in the United States. There are several Armenian societies and two Armenian newspapers, and also Armenian reading-rooms in several places. II. BYZANTINE OR GREEK RITE This rite, reckoning both the Catholic and Schismatic Churches, comes next in expansion through the Christian world to the Roman Rite. It also ranks next to the Roman Rite in America, there being now (1911) about 156 Greek Catholic churches, and about 149 Greek Orthodox churches in the United States. The Eastern Orthodox Churches of Russia, Turkey, Rumania, Servia, and Bulgaria, and other places where they are found, make up a total of about 120,000,000, while the Uniat Churches of the same rite, the Greek Catholics in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Asia, and elsewhere, amount to upwards of 7,500,000. The Byzantine Rite has already been fully described [see CONSTANTINOPLE, THE RITE OF; GREEK RITES; ORTHODOX CHURCH; ALTAR (IN THE GREEK CHURCH); ARCHIMANDRITE; EPIKLESIS; EUCHOLOGION; ICONOSTASIS], as well as the organization and development of the various churches using the Greek or Byzantine Rite (see EASTERN CHURCHES; GREEK CHURCH; RUSSIA). Unlike the Armenian Rite, it has not been confined to any particular people or language, but has spread over the entire Christian Orient among the Slavic, Rumanian and Greek populations. As regards Jurisdiction and authority, it has not been united and homogeneous like the Roman Rite, nor has it, like the Latin Church, been uniform in language, calendar, or particular customs, although the same general teaching, ritual, and observances have been followed. The principal languages in which the liturgy of the Greek Rite is celebrated are: (1) Greek; (2) Slavonic; (3) Arabic, and (4) Rumanian. It is also celebrated in Georgian by a small and diminishing number of worshippers, and sometimes experimentally in a number of modern tongues for missionary purposes; but as this latter use has never been approved, the four languages named above may be considered the official ones of the Byzantine Rite. A portion of the population of all the nations which use this rite, follow it in union with the Holy See, and these have by their union placed the Byzantine Rite in the position which it occupied before the schism of 1054. Thus, the Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians, who are schismatic, use the Old Slavonic in their church books and services; so likewise do the Catholic Ruthenians, Bulgarians, and Servians. Likewise the Rumanians of Rumania and Transylvania, who are schismatic, use the Rumanian language in the Greek Rite; but the Rumanians of Transylvania, who are Catholic, do the same. The Orthodox Greeks of Greece and Turkey use the original Greek of their rite; but the Italo-Greeks of Italy and Sicily and the Greeks of Constantinople, who are Catholic, use it also. The Syro-Arabians of Syria and Egypt, who are schismatic, use the Arabic in the Greek Rite; but the Catholic Melchites likewise use it. The numerous emigrants from these countries to America have brought with them their Byzantine Rite with all its local peculiarities and its language. In some respects the environment of all people professing the Greek Rite in union with the Holy See but in close touch with their countrymen of the Roman Rite has tended to change in unimportant particulars several of the ceremonies and sometimes particular phrases of the rite (see ITALO-GREEKS; MELCHITES; RUTHENIAN RITE), but not to a greater extent than the various Schismatic Churches have changed the language and ceremonies in their several national Churches. Where this has occurred in the Greek Churches united with the Holy See, it has been fiercely denounced as latinizing; but, where it has occurred in Russia, Bulgaria, or Syria, it is merely regarded by the same denouncers as a mere expression of nationalism. There is in the aggregate a larger number of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite in America than of the Orthodox. The chief nationalities there which are Catholic are the Ruthenians, Rumanians, Melchites, and Italo-Greek; the principal Orthodox ones are the Russians, Greeks, Syro-Arabians, Servians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians. The history and establishment of each of these has been already given (see GREEK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA; GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA). As emigration from those lands increases daily, and the representatives of those rites are increasing in numbers and prosperity, a still wider expansion of the Greek Rite in the United States may be expected. Already the Russian Orthodox Church has a strong hierarchy, an ecclesiastical seminary, and monasteries, supported chiefly by the Holy Synod and the Orthodox Missionary Society of Russia, and much proselytizing is carried on among the Greek Catholics. The latter are not in such a favourable position; they have no home governmental support, but have had to build and equip their own institutions out of their own slender means. The Holy See has provided a bishop for them, but the Russians have stirred up dissensions and made his position as difficult as possible among his own people. The Hellenic Greek Orthodox Church expects soon to have its own Greek bishop, and the Serbians and Rumanians also expect a bishop to be appointed by their home authorities. III. MARONITE RITE The Maronite is one of the Syrian rites and has been closely assimilated in the Church to the Roman Rite (see MARONITES). Unlike the Syro-Chaldean or the Syro-Catholic rites, for they all use the Syriac language in the Mass and liturgy, it has not kept the old forms intact, but has modelled itself more and more upon the Roman Rite. Among all the Eastern rites which are now in communion with the Holy See, it alone has no Schismatic rite of corresponding form and language, but is wholly united and Catholic, thereby differing also from the other Syrian rites. The liturgical language is the ancient Syriac or Aramaic, and the Maronites, as well as all other rites who use Syriac, take especial pride in the fact that they celebrate the Mass in the very language which Christ spoke while He was on earth, as evidenced by some fragments of His very words still preserved in the Greek text of the Gospels (e.g., in Matt., xxvii, 46 and Mark, v, 41). The Syriac is a Semitic language closely related to the Hebrew, and is sometimes called Aramaic from the Hebrew word Aram (Northern Syria). As the use of Ancient Hebrew died out after the Babylonian captivity, the Syriac or Aramaic took its place, very much as Italian has supplanted Latin throughout the Italian peninsula. This was substantially the situation at the time of Christ's teaching and the foundation of the early Church. Syriac is now a dead language, and in the Maronite service and liturgy bears the same relation to the vernacular Arabic as the Latin in the Roman Rite does to the modern languages of the people. It is written with a peculiar alphabet, reads from right to left like the Hebrew or Arabic languages, but its letters are unlike the current alphabets of either of these languages. To simplify the Maronite Missals, Breviary, and other service books, the vernacular Arabic is often employed for the rubrics and for many of the best-known prayers; it is written, not in Arabic characters, but in Syriac, and this mingled language and alphabet is called Karshuni. The Epistle, Gospel, Creed and Pater Noster are nearly always given in Karshuni, instead of the original Arabic. The form of the Liturgy or Mass is that of St. James, so called because of the tradition that it originated with St. James the Less, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem. It is the type form of the Syriac Rite, but the Maronite Use has accommodated it more and more to the Roman. This form of the Liturgy of St. James constitutes the Ordinary of the Mass, which is always said in the same manner, merely changing the epistles and gospels according to the Christian year. But the Syrians, whether of the Maronite, Syrian, Catholic, or Syro-Chaldaic rite, have the peculiarity (not found in other liturgies) of inserting different anaphoras or canons of the Mass, composed at various times by different Syrian saints; these change according to the feast celebrated, somewhat analogously to the Preface in the Roman Rite. The principal anaphoras or canons of the Mass used by the Maronites are: (1) the Anaphora according to the Order of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, the Mother of all the Churches; (2) the Anaphora of St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles; (3) the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles; (4) the Anaphora of St. James the Apostle, brother of the Lord, (5) the Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist; (6) the Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist; (7) the Anaphora of St. Xystus, the Pope of Rome; (8) the Anaphora of St. John surnamed Maro, from whom they derive their name; (9) the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom; (10) the Anaphora of St. Basil; (11) the Anaphora of St. Cyril; (12) the Anaphora of St. Dionysius; (13) the Anaphora of John of Harran, and (14) the Anaphora of Marutha of Tagrith. Besides these they have also a form of liturgy of the Presanctified for Good Friday, after the Roman custom. Frequent use of incense is a noticeable feature of the Maronite Mass, and not even in low Mass is the incense omitted. In their form of church building the Maronites have nothing special like the Greeks with their iconostasis and square altar, or the Armenians with their curtains, but build their churches very much as Latins do. While the sacred vestments are hardly distinguishable from those of the Roman Church, in some respects they approach the Greek form. The alb, the girdle, and the maniple or cuffs on each hand, a peculiar form of amict, the stole (sometimes in Greek and sometimes in Roman form), and the ordinary Roman chasuble make up the vestments worn by the priest at Mass. Bishops use a cross, mitre, and staff of the Roman form. The sacred vessels used on the altar are the chalice, paten or disk, and a small star or asterisk to cover the consecrated Host. They, like us, use a small cross or crucifix, with a long silken banneret attached, for giving the blessings. The Maronites use unleavened bread and have a round host, as in the Roman Rite. The Maronite Mass commences with the ablution and vesting at the foot of the altar. Then, standing at the middle of the sanctuary, the priest recites Psalm xlii, "Introibo ad altare," moving his head in the form of a cross. He then ascends the altar, takes the censer and incenses both the uncovered chalice and paten, then takes up the Host and has it incensed, puts it on the paten and has the corporals and veils incensed. He next pours wine in the chalice, adding a little water, and then incenses it and covers both host and chalice with the proper veils. Then, going again to the foot of the altar, he says aloud the first prayer in Arabic, which is followed by an antiphon. The strange Eastern music, with its harsh sounds and quick changes, is a marked feature of the Maronite Rite. The altar, the elements, the clergy, servers, and people are incensed, and the Kyrie Eleison (Kurrilison) and the "Holy God, Holy strong one, etc." are sung by choir and people. Then comes the Pater Noster in Arabic, with the response: "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, world without end. Amen." The celebrant and deacon intone the Synapte for peace, which is followed by a short form of the Gloria in excelsis: "Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace and good hope to the sons of men, etc." The Phrumiur is then said; this is an introductory prayer, and always comes before the Sedro, which is a prayer of praise said aloud by the priest standing before the altar while the censer is swung. It is constructed by the insertion of verses into a more or less constant framework, commemorative of the feast or season, and seems to be a survival of the old psalm verses with the Gloria. For instance, a sedro of Our Lady will commemorate her in many ways, something like our litany, but more poetically and at length; one of Our Lord will celebrate Him in His nativity, baptism, etc. Then come the commemorations of the Prophets, the Apostles, the martyrs, of all the saints, and lastly the commemoration of the departed: "Be ye not sad, all ye who sleep in the dust, and in the decay of your bodies. The living Body which you have eaten and the saving Blood which you have drunk, can again vivify all of you, and clothe your bodies with glory. O Christ, Who hast come and given peace by Thy Blood to the heights and the depths, give rest to the souls of Thy servants in the promised life everlasting!" The priest then prays for the living, and makes special intercession by name of those living or dead for whom the Mass is offered. He blesses and offers the sacred elements, in a form somewhat analogous to the Offertory in the Roman Rite. Another phrumiun and the great Sedro of St. Ephraem or St. James is said, in which the whole sacrifice of the Mass is foreshadowed. The psalm preparatory to the Epistle in Arabic is recited, and the epistle of the day then read. The Alleluia and gradual psalm is recited, the Book of Gospels incensed, and the Gospel, also in Arabic, intoned or read. The versicles of thanksgiving for the Gospel are intoned, at several parts of which the priest and deacon and precentor chant in unison. The Nicene Creed, said in unison by priest and deacon, follows, and immediately after the celebrant washes his hands saying Psalm xxvi. This ends the Ordinary of the Mass. The Anaphora, or Canon of the Mass, is then begun, and varies according to season, place, and celebrant. In the Anaphora of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, which is a typical one, the Mass proceeds with the prayers for peace very much as they stand at the end of the Roman Mass; then follow prayers of confession, adoration, and glory, which conclude by giving the kiss of peace to the deacon and the other clergy. The Preface follows: "Let us lift up our thoughts, our conscience and our hearts! Response. They are lifted up to Thee, O Lord! Priest. Let us give thanks to the Lord in fear, and adore Him with trembling. R. It is meet and just. P. To Thee, O God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, O glorious and holy King of Israel, for ever! R. Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and forever, world without end. P. Before the glorious and divine mysteries of our Redeemer, with the pleasant things which are imposed, let us implore the mercy of the Lord! R. It is meet and just" (and the Preface continues secretly). Then the Sanctus is sung, and the Consecration immediately follows. The words of Consecration are intoned aloud, the choir answering "Amen." After the succeeding prayer of commemoration of the Resurrection and hope of the Second Coming and a prayer for mercy, the Epiklesis is said: "How tremendous is this hour and how awful this moment, my beloved, in which the Holy and Life-giving Spirit comes down from on high and descends upon this Eucharist which is placed in this sanctuary for our reconciliation. With silence and fear stand and pray! Salvation to us and the peace of God the Father of all of us. Let us cry out and say thrice: Have mercy on us, O Lord, and send down the Holy and Life-giving Spirit upon us! Hear me, O Lord! And let Thy living and it descend upon me and upon this sacrifice! And so complete this mystery, that it be the Body of Christ our God for our redemption!" The prayers for the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch, and all the metropolitans and bishops and orthodox professors and believers of the Catholic Faith immediately follow. This in turn is followed by a long prayer by the deacon for tranquillity, peace, and the commemoration of all the saints and doctors of the early Church and of Syria, including St. John Maro, with the petition for the dead at the end. Then comes the solemn offering of the Body and the Blood for the sins of priest and people, concluding with the words: "Thy Body and Thy Holy Blood are the way which leads to the Kingdom!" The adoration and the fraction follow; then the celebrant elevates the chalice together with the Host, and says: "O desirable sacrifice which is offered for us! O victim of reconciliation, which the Father obtained in Thy own person! O Lamb, Who wast the same person as the High Priest who sacrificed!" Then he genuflects and makes the sign of the Cross over the chalice: "Behold the Blood which was shed upon Golgotha for my redemption; because of it receive my supplication." The "Sanctus fortis" is again sung, and the celebrant lifts the Sacred Body on high and says: "Holy things for holy persons, in purity and holiness!" The fraction of the Host follows after several prayers, and the priest mingles a particle with the Blood, receives the Body and the Blood himself, and gives communion to the clergy and then to the people. When it is finished he makes the sign of the Cross with the paten and blesses the people. Then follow a synapte (litany) of thanksgiving, and a second signing of the people with both paten and chalice, after which the priest consumes all the remaining species saying afterwards the prayers at the purification and ablution. The prayer of blessing and protection is said, and the people and choir sing: "Alleluia! Alleluia! I have fed upon Thy Body and by Thy living Blood I am reconciled, and I have sought refuge in Thy Cross! Through these may I please Thee, O Good Lord, and grant Thou mercy to the sinners who call upon Thee!" Then they sing the final hymn of praise, which in this anaphora contains the words: "By the prayers of Simon Peter, Rome was made the royal city, and she shall not be shaken!" Then the people all say or sing the Lord's Prayer; when it is finished, the final benediction is given, and the priest, coming again to the foot of the altar, takes off his sacred vestments and proceeds to make his thanksgiving. The principal editions of the Maronite missals and service books for the deacons and those assisting at the altar are The Book of Sacrifice according to the Rite of the Maronite Church of Antioch (Kozhayya, 1816, 1838, and 1885; Beirut, 1888), and The Book of the Ministry according to the Rite of the Maronite Church of Antioch (Kozhayya, 1855). Maronites in America The Maronites are chiefly from the various districts of Mount Lebanon and from the city of Beirut, and were at first hardly distinguishable from the other Syrians and Arabic-speaking persons who came to America. At first they were merely pedlars and small traders, chiefly in religious and devotional articles, but they soon got into other lines of business and at present possess many well-established business enterprises. Not only are they established in the United States, but they have also spread to Mexico and Canada, and have several fairly large colonies in Brazil, Argentine, and Uruguay. Their numbers in the United States are variously estimated from 100,000 to 120,000, including the native born. Many of them have become prosperous merchants and are now American citizens. Several Maronite families of title (Emir) have emigrated and made their homes in the United States; among them are the Emirs Al-Kazen, Al-Khouri, Abi-Saab, and others. There is also the well-known Arabic novelist of the present day, Madame Karam Hanna (Afifa Karam) of Shreveport, Louisiana, formerly of Amshid, Mount Lebanon, who not only writes entertaining fiction, but touches on educational topics and even women's rights. Nahum Mokarzel, a graduate of the Jesuit College of Beirut, is a clever writer both in Arabic and English. The Maronites are established in New York, the New England States, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Alabama. The first Maronite priest to visit the United States was Rev. Joseph Mokarzel, who arrived in 1879 but did not remain. Very Rev. Louis Kazen of Port Said, Egypt, came later, but, as there were very few of his countrymen, he likewise returned. On 6 August, 1890, the Rev. Butrosv Korkemas came to establish a permanent mission, and after considerable difficulty rented a tiny chapel in a store on Washington Street, New York City. He was accompanied by his nephew, Rev. Joseph Yasbek, then in deacon's orders, who was later ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Corrigan, and founded the Maronite mission in Boston; he is now Chor-Bishop of the Maronites and practically the head of that rite in America. A church was later established in Philadelphia, then one in Troy and one in Brooklyn, after which the Maronites branched out to other cities. At present (1911) there are fifteen Maronite churches in the United States: in New York, Brooklyn, Troy, Buffalo, Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, Philadelphia, Scranton, St. Paul, St. Louis, Birmingham, Chicago, Wheeling, and Cleveland. Meanwhile new congregations are being formed in smaller cities, and are regularly visited by missionary priests. The Maronite clergy is composed of two chor-bishops (deans vested with certain episcopal powers) and twenty-three other priests, of whom five are Antonine monks. In Mexico there are three Maronite chapels and four priests. In Canada there is a Maronite chapel at New Glasgow and one resident priest. There are only two Arabic-English schools, in New York and St. Louis, since many of the Maronite children go to the ordinary Catholic or to the public schools. There are no general societies or clubs with religious objects, although there is a Syrian branch of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. About fifteen years ago Nahum A. Mokarzel founded and now publishes in New York City the daily newspaper, "Al Hoda" (The Guidance), which is now the best known Arabic newspaper in the world and the only illustrated one. His brother also publishes an Arabic monthly magazine, "Al Alam ul Jadid" (The New World), which contains modern Arabic literature and translations of American and English writers. There are also two Maronite papers published in Mexico. The Maronites also have in New York a publishing house on a small scale, in which novels, pamphlets, and scientific and religious works are printed in Arabic, and the usual Arabic literature sold. IV. OTHER ORIENTAL RITES The rites already described are the principal rites to be met with in the United States; but there are besides them a few representatives of the remaining Eastern rites, although these are perhaps not sufficiently numerous to maintain their own churches or to constitute separate ecclesiastical entities. Among these smaller bodies are: (1) the Chaldean Catholics and the schismatic Christians of the same rite, known as Nestorians; (2) the Syrian Catholics or Syro-Catholics and their correlative dissenters, the Jacobites, and (3) finally the Copts, Catholic or Orthodox. All of these have a handful of representatives in America, and, as immigration increases, it is a question how great their numbers will become. (1) Chaldean or Syro-Chaldean Catholic Rite Those who profess this rite are Eastern Syrians, coming from what was anciently Mesopotamia, but is now the borderland of Persia. They ascribe the origin of the rite to two of the early disciples, Addeus and Maris, who first preached the Gospel in their lands. It is really a remnant of the early Persian Church, and it has always used the Syriac language in its liturgy. The principal features of the rite and the celebration of the Mass have already been described (see ADDEUS AND MARIS, LITURGY OF). The peculiar Syriac which it uses is known as the eastern dialect, as distinguished from that used in the Maronite and Syro-Catholic rites which is the western dialect. The method of writing this church Syriac among the Chaldeans is somewhat different from that used in writing it among the western Syrians. The Chaldeans and Nestorians use in their church books the antique letters of the older versions of the Syriac Scriptures which are called "astrangelo," and their pronunciation is somewhat different. The Chaldean Church in ancient times was most flourishing, and its history under Persian rule was a bright one. Unfortunately in the sixth century it embraced the Nestorian heresy, for Nestorius on being removed from the See of Constantinople went to Persia and taught his views (see NESTORIUS AND NESTORIANISM; PERSIA). The Chaldean Church took up his heresy and became Nestorian. This Nestorian Church not only extended throughout Mesopotamia and Persia, but penetrated also into India (Malabar) and even into China. The inroads of Mohammedanism and its isolation from the centre of unity and from intercommunication with other Catholic bodies caused it to diminish through the centuries. In the sixteenth century the Church in Malabar, India, came into union with the Holy See, and this induced the Nestorians to do likewise. The conversion of part of the Nestorians and the reunion of their ancient Church with the Holy See began in the seventeenth century, and has continued to the present day. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (who really has his see at Mossul) is the chief prelate of the Chaldean Catholics, and has under him two archbishops (of Diarbekir and Kerkuk) and nine bishops (of Amadia, Gezireh, Mardin, Mossul, Sakou, Salmas, Seert, Sena, and Urmiah). The Malabar Christians have no regular Chaldean hierarchy, but are governed by vicars Apostolic. The number of Chaldean Catholics is estimated at about 70,000, while the corresponding schismatic Nestorian Church has about 140,000 (see ASIA; CHALDEAN CHRISTIANS). There are about 100 to 150 Chaldean Catholics in the United States; about fifty live in Yonkers, New York, while the remainder are scattered in New York City and vicinity. The community in Yonkers is cared for by Rev. Abdul Masih (a married priest from the Diocese of Diarbekir), who came to this country from Damascus some six years ago. He says Mass in a chapel attached to St. Mary's Catholic Church, and some Nestorians also attend. At present (1911) there are two other Chaldean priests in this country: Rev. Joseph Ghariba, from the Diocese of Aleppo, who is a travelling missionary for his people, and Rev. Gabriel Oussani, who is professor of church history, patrology, and Oriental languages in St. Joseph's Seminary at Dunwoodie near Yonkers, and from whom some of these particulars have been obtained. There are also said to be about 150 Nestorians in the United States, the majority of these live and work in Yonkers, New York. They have no priest of their own, and, where they do not attend the Catholic Rite, are drifting into modern Protestantism. Several of them have become members of the Episcopal Church, and they are looked after by Dr. Abraham Yohannan, an Armenian from Persia, now a minister in the Episcopal Church and lecturer on modern Persian at Columbia University. They have no church or chapel of their own. (2) Syro-Catholic Rite This rite is professed by those Syriac Christians who were subjects of the ancient Patriarchate of Antioch; these are spread throughout the plains of Syria and Western Mesopotamia, whereas the Maronites live principally on Mount Lebanon and the sea coast of Syria (see ASIA; EASTERN CHURCHES). The Syriac Mass and liturgy is, like the Maronite (which is but a variation of it), the Liturgy of St. James, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem. For this reason, but principally for the reason that Jacob Baradaeus and the greater part of the Syriac Church (see BARADAEUS, JACOB) embraced the Monophysite heresy of Eutyches (see MONOPHYSITES AND MONOPHYSITISM), the schismatic branch of this rite are called Jacobites, although they call themselves Suriani or Syrians. Thus we have in the three Syrian rites the historic remembrance of the three greatest heresies of the early Church after it had become well-developed. Nestorians and Chaldeans represent Nestorianism and the return to Catholicism; Jacobites and Syro-Catholics represent Monophysitism, and the return to Catholicism; the Maronites represent a vanished Monothelitism now wholly Catholic (see MONOTHELITISM AND MONOTHELITES). The Syro-Catholics like the Maronites vary the Ordinary of their Mass by a large number of anaphoras or canons of the Mass, containing changeable forms of the consecration service. The Syro-Catholics confine themselves to the anaphoras of St. John the Evangelist, St. James, St Peter, St. John Chrysostom, St. Xystus the Pope of Rome, St. Matthew, and St. Basil; but the schismatic Jacobites not only use these, but have a large number of others, some of them not yet in print, amounting perhaps to thirty or more (see SYRIA; SYRIAN RITE, EAST). The epistles, gospels, and many well-known prayers of the Mass are said in Arabic instead of the ancient Syriac. The form of their church vestments is derived substantially from the Greek or Byzantine Rite. Their church hierarchy in union with the Holy See consists of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch with three archbishops (of Bagdad, Damascus, and Homs) and five bishops (of Aleppo, Beirut, Gezireh, Mardin-Diarbekir, and Mossul). The number of Catholics is about 25,000 families, and of the Jacobites about 80,000 to 85,000 persons. There are about 60 persons of the Syro-Catholic Rite in the eastern part of the United States, of whom forty live in Brooklyn, New York. They are mostly from the Diocese of Aleppo, and their emigration thither began only about five years ago. They have organized a church, although there is but one priest of their rite in the United States, Rev. Paul Kassar from Aleppo, an alumnus of the Propaganda at Rome. He is a mission priest engaged in looking after his countrymen and resides in Brooklyn, but he is only here upon an extended leave of absence from the diocese. There are also some thirty or forty Syro-Jacobites in the United States; they are mostly from Mardin, Aleppo, and Northern Syria, and have no priest or chapel of their own. (3) Coptic Rite There is only a handful of Copts in this country -- in New York City perhaps a dozen individuals. Oriental theatrical pieces, in which an Eastern setting is required, has attracted some of them thither, principally from Egypt. They have no priest, either Catholic or Orthodox, and no place of worship. As to their Church and its organization, see EASTERN CHURCHES; EGYPT: V. Coptic Church. I. ISSAVERDENZ, The Armenian Liturgy (Venice, 1873); IDEM, The Armenian Ritual (Venice, 1873); IDEM, The Sacred Rites and Ceremonies of the Armenian Church (Venice, 1888); PRINCE MAXIMILLAN, Missa Armenica (Ratisbon and New York, 1908); FORTESCUE, The Armenian Church (London, 1873); ASDVADZADOURIANTS, Armenian Liturgy, Armenian and English (London, 1887); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896); NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale, II (Innsbruck, 1897); U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, Religious Bodies, pt. II (Washington, 1910). III. DANDINI, Reisebemerkungen ueber die Maroniten (Jena, 1903); ISTAFAN-AL-DAWAIHI, A History of the Maronites (Beirut, 1890); NAU, Opuscules Maronites (Paris, 1899-1900); KOHLER, Die kathol. Kirchen des Morgenlandes (Darmstadt, 1896); PRINCE MAXIMILLAN, Missa Maronitica (Ratisbon and New York, 1907); AZAR, Les Maronites (Cambrai, 1852); ETHERRIDGE, The Syrian Churcha (London, 1879); SILBERNAGL, Verfassung u. gegenwaertiger Bestand saemtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904). ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Ritschlianism Ritschlianism Ritschlianism is a peculiar conception of the nature and scope of Christianity, widely held in modern Protestantism, especially in Germany. Its founder was the Protestant theologian, Albrecht Ritschl (born at Berlin, 25 March, 1822; died at Goettingen, 20 March, 1889). Having completed his studies in the gymnasium at Stettin, where his father resided as general superintendent of Pomerania, Ritschl attended the University of Bonn, and was for a time captivated by the "Biblical supernaturalism" of his teacher, K.J. Nitzsch. Mental dissatisfaction caused him to leave Bonn in 1841, and he continued his studies under Julius Mueller and Tholuck in the University of Halle, Disabused here also as to the teachings of his professors, he sought and found peace in the reconciliation doctrine of the Tuebingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, through whose writings he was won over to the philosophy of Hegel. On 21 May, 1843, he graduated Doctor of Philosophy at Halle with the dissertation, "Expositio doctrinae Augustini de creatione mundi, peccato, gratia" (Halle, 1843). After a long residence in his parents' house at Stettin, he proceeded to Tuebingen, and there entered into personal intercourse with the celebrated head of the (later) Tuebingen School, Ferdinand Christian Baur. He here wrote, entirely in the spirit of this theologian, "Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lukas" (Tuebingen, 1846), wherein he attempts to prove that the apocryphal gospel of the Gnostic Marcion forms the real foundation of the Gospel of St. Luke. Having qualified as Privatdocent at Bonn on 20 June, 1846, he was appointed professor extraordinary of Evangelical theology on 22 December, 1852, and ordinary professor on 10 July, 1859. Meanwhile he had experienced a radical change in the earlier views which he had formed under Baur's influence; this change removed him farther and farther from the Tuebingen School. In 1851 he had withdrawn his hypothesis concerning the origin of the Gospel of St. Luke as untenable, and in 1856 he had a public breach with Baur. Henceforth Ritschl was resolved to tread his own path. In the second edition of his "Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche" (Bonn, 1857; 1st ed., 1850), he rejected outright Baur's sharp distinction between St. Paul and the original Apostles -- between Paulinism and Petrinism -- by maintaining the thesis that the New Testament contains the religion of Jesus Christ in a manner entirely uniform and disturbed by no internal contradictions. At Goettingen, whither he was called at Easter, 1864, his peculiar ideas first found full realization in his "Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versoehnung" (3 vols., Bonn, 1870-4; 4th ed., 1895-1903). His practical conception of Christianity was described first in his lecture on "Christliche Vollkommenheit" (Goettingen, 1874; 3rd ed., 1902) and then in his "Unterricht in der christlichen Religion" (Bonn, 1875; 6th ed., 1903), which was intended as a manual for the gymnasium, but proved very unsatisfactory for practical purposes. In his small, but important, work, "Theologie und Metaphysik" (Bonn, 1881; 3rd ed., Goettingen, 1902), he denies the influence of philosophy in the formation of theology. In addition to numerous smaller writings, which were re-edited after his death under the title "Gesammelte Aufsaetze" (2 vols., Goettingen, 1893-6), he compiled a "Geschichte des Pietismus" (3 vols., Bonn, 1880-6), based upon a wide study of the sources. Pietism itself, as it appeared in Calvinistic and Lutheran circles during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries he condemns as an abortion of modern Protestantism caused by the false Catholic ideal of piety. His last and incomplete, "Fides implicita, oder eine Tintersuchung ueber Koehlerglauben, Wissen und Glauben, Glauben und Kirche" Bonn, 1890), appeared shortly after his death. After 1888 he suffered from heart disease, of which he died in the following year. Although Ritschl was violently attacked during his lifetime not only by the orthodox party, but also by the Erlangen school named after Hofmann, he attached to himself a large circle of enthusiastic followers with Liberal leanings, who are included under the name of Ritschlianists. The literary organs of Ritschlianism in Germany are the "Theologische Literaturzeitung", the "Zeitschrift fuer Theologie und Kirche", and the "Christliche Welt". To understand and rightly appraise the rather abstruse train of thought in the doctrine of justification, which constitutes the focus of Ritschl's theological system, we must go back to the epistemology on which the whole edifice rests. Influenced by the philosophy of Kant rather than of Lotze, Ritschl denies human reason the power to arrive at a scientific knowledge of God. Consequently religion cannot have an intellectual, but merely a practical-moral foundation. Religious knowledge is essentially distinct from scientific knowledge. It is not acquired by a theoretical insight into truth, but, as the product of religious faith, is bound up with the practical interests of the soul. Religion is practice, not theory. Knowledge and faith are not only distinct domains; they are independent of and separated from each other. While knowledge rests on judgments of existence (Seinsurteile), faith proceeds on independent "judgments of value" (Werturteile), which affirm nothing concerning the essence or nature of Divine things, but refer simply to the usefulness and fruitfulness of religious ideas. Anticipating to some extent the principles of Pragmatism put forward in a later generation by W. James, Schiller, etc., Ritschl declared that knowledge alone valuable which in practice brings us forward. Not what the thing is "in itself", but what it is "for us", is decisive. So far Ritschl is not original, since Schleiermacher had already banished metaphysics from Christian philosophy, and had explained the nature of religion subjectively as springing from the feeling of our absolute dependence on God. Ritschl's teaching is distinguished from that of the Berlin scholar especially by the fact that he seeks to establish a better Biblical and historical foundation for his ideas. In the latter respect he is the promoter of the so-called historical-critical method, of the application of which many Ritschlianists of the present day are thorough masters. Like Schleiermacher, Ritschl connects mankind's subjective need of redemption with Jesus Christ, the "originator of the perfect spiritual and moral religion". Since we can determine the historical reality of Christ only though the faith of the Christian community, the religious significance of Jesus is really independent of His biography and investigation into His life. A convinced Ritschlianist seems to be ready to persevere in his Christianity, even though radical criticism were to succeed in setting aside the historical existence of Christ. He could be a Christian without Christ, as there could be a Tibetan Buddhist without an historical Buddha (cf. "Christliche Welt", 1901, n. 35). Ritschl himself never wished to separate Christianity from the Person of Christ. Since, as Ritschl especially emphasizes in reply to Baur, the original consciousness of the early Christian community reveals itself with perfect consistency in the writings of the New Testament, theology must in its investigation of the authentic contents of the Christian religion begin with the Bible as source, for the more thorough understanding of which the ancient Christian professions of faith furnish an indirect, and the symbolical books of Protestants (Luther) a direct, guidance. The Reformation rightly elevated the Pauline justification by faith to the central place in Christian doctrine, and in the West carried it to a successful conclusion. As the necessary doctrine of salvation through Christ, this doctrine of justification is thus alone obligatory for theology and Church, while the other convictions and institutions of the earliest Christian community are of a subsidiary nature. For this reason, therefore, Luther himself recognized the Bible as the Word of God only in so far as it "makes for Christ". Since the Christian faith exists only through personal experience or subjective acquaintance with justification and reconciliation, the objects of faith are not presented to the mind from without through a Divine revelation as an authoritative rule of faith, but become vividly present for the Christian only through subjective experience. The revelation of God is given only to the believer who religiously lays hold of it by experience, and recognizes it as such. Justifying faith especially is no mere passive attitude of man towards God, but an active trust in Him and His grace, evincing itself chiefly in humility, patience, and prayer. It is by no means a dogmatical belief in the truth of Revelation, but it possesses essentially a thoroughly practico-moral character. Ritschlianism can thus speak without any inconsistency of an "undogmatic Christianity" (Kaftan). The harmonizing of the free-religious moral activity of the Christian with dependence on God is proclaimed by Ritschl the "master-question of theology". This fundamental problem he solves as follows: The returning sinner is at first passively determined by God, whereupon justification achieves its practical success in reconciliation and regeneration, which in their turn lead to Christian activity. Justification and reconciliation are so related that the former is also the forgiveness of sin and as such removes man's consciousness of guilt (i.e., mistrust of God), while the latter, as the cessation of active resistance to God, introduces a new direction of the will calculated to develop Christian activity in the true fulfilment of one's vocation. These two -- justification and reconciliation -- form the basis of our sonship as children of God. This justification identical with forgiveness of sin is however, no real annihilation of sin, but a forensic declaration of righteousness, inasmuch as God regards the believing sinner, in spite of his sins, as just and pleasing in consideration of the work of Christ. A special characteristic of Ritschlianism lies in the assertion that justifying faith is possible only within the Christian community. The Church of Christ (by which, however, is to be understood no external institution with legal organization) is on the one hand the aggregate of all the justified believers, but on the other hand has, as the enduring fruit of the work of Christ, a duration and existence prior to all its members just as the whole is prior to its parts. Like the children in the family and the citizens in the state, the believers must also be born in an already existing Christian community. In this alone is God preached as the Spirit of Love, just as Jesus Himself preached, and in this alone, through the preaching of Christ and His work, is that justifying faith rendered possible, in virtue of which the individual experiences regeneration and attains to adoption as a son of God (cf. Conrad, "Begriff und Bedeutung der Gemeinde in Ritschl's Theologie" in "Theol. Studien und Krit.", 1911, 230 sqq.). It is plain that, according to this view, Christian baptism loses all its importance as the real door to the Church. What is Ritschl's opinion of Jesus Christ? Does he consider Him a mere man? If we set aside the pious flourishes with which he clothes the form of the Saviour, we come speedily to the conviction that he does not recognize the true Divinity of Jesus Christ. As the efficacious bearer and transmitter of the Divine Spirit of Love to mankind Jesus is "superordinate" to all men, and has in the eternal decree of God a merely ideal pre-existence. He is therefore, as for the earliest community so also for us, our "God and Saviour" only in the metaphorical sense. All other theological questions -- such as the Trinity, the metaphysical Divine sonship of Christ, original sin, eschatology -- possess an entirely secondary importance. This self-limitation is specially injurious to the doctrine concerning God: all the Divine attributes, except such as are practico-moral, are set aside as unknowable. The essence of God is love, to which all His other attributes may be traced. Thus, His omnipotence is another phase of love inasmuch as the world is nothing else than the means for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Even the Divine justice ends in love, especially in God's fidelity to the chosen people in the Old Testament and to the Christian community in the New. Every other explanation of the relation between the just God and sinful mankind -- such as the juridical doctrine of satisfaction taught by St. Anselm of Canterbury -- is called by Ritschl "sub-Christian". Only the sin against the Holy Ghost, which renders man incapable of salvation, calls forth the anger of God and hurls him into everlasting damnation. Other evils decreed by God are not punishments for sin, but punishments intended for our instruction and improvement. Sin being conceivable only as personal guilt, the idea of original sin is morally inconceivable. Although Ritschlianism has undergone manifold alterations and developments in one direction or another at the hands of its learned representatives (Harnack, Kaftan, Bender, Sell, and so on), it has remained unchanged in its essential features. The Liberal and modern-positive theology of Germany is distinctly coloured with Ritschlianism, and the efforts of orthodox Protestantism to combat it have met with poor success. More than a decade ago Adolf Zahn ("Abriss einer Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert", 3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1893) passed the sharp judgment on Ritschlianism, that it was "a rationalist scepticism and Pelagian moralism, vainly decked out in the truths of the Reformers, the threadbare garment of Lutheranism, for purposes of deceit; the clearest sign of the complete exhaustion and impoverishment of Protestantism, which at the end of the nineteenth century again knows no more than the common folk have ever known: 'Do right and fear no man'." The Catholic critic will probably see in the scorn for metaphysics and the elimination of the intellectual factor the chief errors of Ritschlian theology. The separation of faith and knowledge, of theology and metaphysics, has indeed a long and gloomy history behind it. The philosophy of the Renaissance, with its doctrine of the "double truth" erected the first separating wall between faith and knowledge; this division was increased by Spinoza, when he assigned to faith the role of concerning itself with pia dogmata, but entrusted to philosophy alone the investigation of truth. Finally appeared Kant, who cut the last threads which still held together theology and metaphysics. By denying the demonstrability of the existence of God through reason, he consistently effected the complete segregation of faith and knowledge into two "separate households". In this he was followed by Schleiermacher and Ritschl. Since recent Modernism, with its Agnosticism and Immanentism, adopts the same attitude, it is, whether avowedly or not, the death-knell not only of Christianity, but of every objective religion. Consequently, the regulations of Pius X against Modernism represent a contest in which the vital interests of the Catholic religion are at stake. As the foremost champion of the powers and rights of reason in its relations with faith, Catholicism is the defender of the law of causality which leads to the knowledge of metaphysical and Divine truths, the guardian of a constant, eternal, and unalterable truth, and the outspoken foe of every form of Scepticism, Criticism, Relativism, and Pragmatism -- always in the interests of Christianity itself, since, without a rational foundation and substructure, Revelation and faith would hang unsupported in the air. In this statement the Catholic opposition to Ritschlianism in one of the most fundamental points of difference is sufficiently characterized. O. RITSCHL, Albert Ritschl's Leben (Leipzig, 1892-6). Concerning the system Consult: FRICKE, Metaphysik u. Dogmatik in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhaeltnis unter besonderer Beziehung auf die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1882); THICOTTER, Darstellung u. Beurteilung der Theologie A. Ritschl's (Leipzig, 1887); FLUeGEL, A. Ritschl's philosoph. Ansichten (Langensalza, 1886); LIPSIUS, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1888); HAeRING, Zu Ritschl's Versoehnungslehre (Zurich, 1888); HERRMANN, Der evangel. Glaube u. die Theologie A. Ritschl's (Marburg, 1890); PFLEIDERER, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Brunswick, 1891); BERTRAND, Une nouvelle conception de la Redemption. La doctrine de la justification et de la reconciliation dans le systeme theologique de Ritschl (Paris, 1891); GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse (Paris, 1897), 94 sqq.; GARVIE, The Ritschlian Theology (Edinburgh, 1899); KATTENBUSCH, Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl (Halle, 1903); SCHOEN, Les origines histor. de la theol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1893); FABRE, Les principes philosophiques de la theol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1894); VON KUGELCHEN, Grundriss der Ritschl'schen Dogmatik (Goettingen, 1903); SWING, The Theology of A. Ritschl (New York, l901); FABRICIUS, Die Entwickelung in R.'s Theol. von 1874-1889 (Leipzig, 1909); HERRMANN, tr. MATHESON AND STEWART, Faith and Morals: I. Faith as Ritschl Defined it; II. The Moral Law, as Understood in Romanism and Protestantism (London, 1910). Cf. also SANDAY, Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford, 1910), 81 sqq. For refutation consult: STRANGE, Der dogmatische Ertrag der Ritschl'schen Theologie nach Kaftan (Leipzig, 1906); SCHAeDER, Theozentrische Theologie, I (Leipzig, 1909); EDGHILL, Faith and Fact, A Study of Ritschlianism (London, 1910) (a fundamental work). See also: O. RITSCHL in Realencykl. fuer prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1906), s. v. Ritschl, Albrecht Benjamin; American Journal of Theol. (Chicago, 1906), 423 sqq.; KIEFL, Der geschichtl. Christus u. die moderne Philosophie (Mainz, 1911), 51 sqq. JOSEPH POHLE Joseph Ignatius Ritter Joseph Ignatius Ritter Historian, b. at Schweinitz, Silesia, 12 April, 1787; d. at Breslau, 5 Jan., 1857. He pursued his philosophical and theological studies at the University of Breslau, was ordained priest in 1811, and for several years was engaged in pastoral work. An annotated translation of St. John Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood not only obtained for him the doctorate in theology, but also attracted the attention of the Prussian ministry, which in 1823 named him ordinary professor of church history and patrology at the University of Bonn. Here he made the acquaintance of Hermes, and became favorably disposed towards his system. He was in 1830 named professor and canon at Breslau. As administrator of this diocese (1840-43), he atoned for his earlier Hermesian tendencies by his fearless Catholic policy, notably in the question of mixed marriages. Later he published tracts defending the Church against the attacks of Ronge, the founder of the so-called German Catholics. Also worthy of commendation is his beneficence, exercised particularly towards deserving students. His principal writings which bear on church history and canon law are: "Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte" Elberfeld and Bonn, 1826-33; sixth edition by Ennen, Bonn, 1862; "Irenicon oder Briefe zur Foerderung des Friedens zwischen Kirche u. Staat", Leipzig, 1840; "Der Capitularvicar", Muenster, 1842; "Geschichte der Dioecese Breslau", Breslau, 1845. With J. W. J. Braun he brought out a new edition of Pellicia's work, "De Christianae ecclesiae politia", Cologne, 1829-38. BELLAMY, La Theologie Cath. au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1904), 36. N.A. WEBER Ritual Ritual The Ritual (Rituale Romanum) is one of the official books of the Roman Rite. It contains all the services performed by a priest that are not in the Missal and Breviary and has also, for convenience, some that are in those books. It is the latest and still the least uniform book of our rite. When first ritual functions were written in books, the Sacramentary in the West, the Euchologion in the East contained all the priest's (and bishop's) part of whatever functions they performed, not only the holy Liturgy in the strict sense, but all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of every kind as well. The contents of our Ritual and Pontifical were in the Sacramentaries. In the Eastern Churches this state of things still to a great extent remains. In the West a further development led to the distinction of books, not according to the persons who use them, but according to the services for which they are used. The Missal, containing the whole Mass, succeeded the Sacramentary. Some early Missals added other rites, for the convenience of the priest or bishop; but on the whole this later arrangement involved the need of other books to supply the non-Eucharistic functions of the Sacramentary. These books, when they appeared, were the predecessors of our Pontifical and Ritual. The bishop's functions (ordination, confirmation, etc.) filled the Pontifical, the priest's offices (baptism, penance, matrimony, extreme unction, etc.) were contained in a great variety of little handbooks, finally replaced by the Ritual. The Pontifical emerged first. The book under this name occurs already in the eighth century (Pontifical of Egbert). From the ninth there is a multitude of Pontificals. For the priest's functions there was no uniform book till 1614. Some of these are contained in the Pontificals; often the chief ones were added to Missals and Books of Hours. Then special books were arranged, but there was no kind of uniformity in arrangement or name. Through the Middle Ages a vast number of handbooks for priests having the care of souls was written. Every local rite, almost every diocese, had such books; indeed many were compilations for the convenience of one priest or church. Such books were called by many names-- Manuale, Liber agendarum, Agenda, Sacramentale, sometimes Rituale. Specimens of such medieval predecessors of the Ritual are the Manuale Curatorum of Roeskilde in Denmark (first printed 1513, ed. J. Freisen, Paderborn, 1898), and the Liber Agendarum of Schleswig (printed 1416, Paderborn, 1898). The Roeskilde book contains the blessing of salt and water, baptism, marriage, blessing of a house, visitation of the sick with viaticum and extreme unction, prayers for the dead, funeral service, funeral of infants, prayers for pilgrims, blessing of fire on Holy Saturday, and other blessings. The Schleswig book has besides much of the Holy Week services, and that for All Souls, Candlemas, and Ash Wednesday. In both many rites differ from the Roman forms. In the sixteenth century, while the other liturgical books were being revised and issued as a uniform standard, there was naturally a desire to substitute an official book that should take the place of these varied collections. But the matter did not receive the attention of the Holy See itself for some time. First, various books were issued at Rome with the idea of securing uniformity, but without official sanction. Albert Castellani in 1537 published a Sacerdotale of this kind; in 1579 at Venice another version appeared, arranged by Grancesco Samarino, Canon of the Lateran; it was re-edited in 1583 by Angelo Rocca. In 1586 Giulio Antonio Santorio, Cardinal of St. Severina, printed a handbook of rites for the use of priests, which, as Paul V says, "he had composed after long study and with much industry and labor" (Apostolicae Sedis). This book is the foundation of our Roman Ritual. In 1614 Paul V published the first edition of the official Ritual by the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of 17 June. In this he points out that Clement VIII had already issued a uniform text of the Pontifical and the Caerimoniale Episcoporum, which determines the functions of many other ecclesiastics besides bishops. (That is still the case. The Caerimoniale Episcoporum forms the indispensable complement of other liturgical books for priests too.) "It remained", the pope continues, "that the sacred and authentic rites of the Church, to be observed in the administration of sacraments and other ecclesiastical functions by those who have the care of souls, should also be included in one book and published by authority of the Apostolic See; so that they should carry out their office according to a public and fixed standard, instead of following so great a multitude of Rituals". But, unlike the other books of the Roman Rite, the Ritual has never been imposed as the only standard. Paul V did not abolish all other collections of the same kind, nor command every one to use only his book. He says: "Wherefore we exhort in the Lord" that it should be adopted. The result of this is that the old local Rituals have never been altogether abolished. After the appearance of the Roman edition these others were gradually more and more conformed to it. They continued to be used, but had many of their prayers and ceremonies modified to agree with the Roman book. This applies especially to the rites of baptism, Holy Communion, the form of absolution, extreme unction. The ceremonies also contained in the Missal (holy water, the processions of Candlemas and Palm Sunday, etc.), and the prayers also in the Breviary (the Office for the Dead) are necessarily identical with those of Paul V's Ritual; these have the absolute authority of the Missal and Breviary. On the other hand, many countries have local customs for marriage, the visitation of the sick, etc., numerous special blessings, processions and sacramentals not found in the Roman book, still printed in various diocesan Rituals. It is then by no means the case that every priest of the roman Rite uses the Roman Ritual. Very many dioceses or provinces still have their own local handbooks under the name of Rituale or another (Ordo administrandi sacramenta, etc.), though all of these conform to the Roman text in the chief elements. Most contain practically all the Roman book, and have besides local additions. The further history of the Rituale Romanum is this: Benedict XIV in 1752 revised it, together with the Pontifical and Caerimoniale Episcoporum. His new editions of these three books were published by the Brief "Quam ardenti" (25 March, 1752), which quotes Paul V's Constitution at length and is printed, as far as it concerns this book, in the beginning of the Ritual. He added to Paul V's text two forms for giving the papal blessing (V, 6; VIII, 31). Meanwhile a great number of additional blessings were added in an appendix. This appendix is now nearly as long as the original book. Under the title Benedictionale Romanum it is often issued separately. Leo XIII approved an editio typica published by Pustet at Ratisbon in 1884. This is now out of date. The Ritual contains several chants (for processions, burials, Office of the Dead, etc.). These should be conformable to the Motu Proprio of Pius X of 22 Nov., 1903, and the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 8 Jan., 1904. All the Catholic liturgical publishers now issue editions of this kind, approved by the Congregation. The Rituale Romanum is divided into ten "titles" (tituli); all, except the first, subdivided into chapters. In each (except I and X) the first chapter gives the general rules for the sacrament or function, the others give the exact ceremonies and prayers for various cases of administration. Titulus I (caput unicum) is "of the things to be observed in general in the administration of sacraments"; II, About baptism, chap. vi gives the rite when a bishop baptizes, vii the blessing of the font, not on Holy Saturday or Whitsun Eve; III, Penance and absolutions from excommunication; IV, Administration of Holy Communion (not during Mass); V, Extreme Unction, the seven penitential psalms, litany, visitation and care of the dying, the Apostolic blessing, commendation of a departing soul; VI, Of funerals, Office of the Dead, absolutions at the grave on later days, funerals of infants; VII, Matrimony and churching of women; VII, Blessings of holy water, candles, houses (on Holy Saturday), and many others; then blessings reserved to bishops and priests who have special faculties, such as those of vestments, ciboriums, statues, foundation stones, a new church (not, of course, the consecration, which is in the Pontifical), cemeteries, etc.; IX, Processions, for Candlemas, Palm Sunday, Rogation Days, Corpus Christi, etc.; X, Exorcism and forms for filling up parochial books (of baptism, confirmation, marriage, status animarum, the dead). The blessings of tit. VIII are the old ones of the Ritual. The appendix that follows tit. X contains additional forms for blessing baptism water, for confirmation as administered by a missionary priest, decrees about Holy Communion and the "Forty Hours" devotion, the litanies of Loreto and the Holy Name. Then follow a long series of blessings, not reserved; reserved to bishops and priests they delegate, reserved to certain religious orders; then more blessings (novissim) and a second appendix containing yet another collection. These appendixes grow continually. As soon as the Sacred Congregation of Rites approves a new blessing it is added to the next edition of the Ritual. The Milanese Rite has its own ritual (Rituale Ambrosianum, published by Giacomo Agnelli at the Archiepiscopal Press, Milan). In the Byzantine Rite the contents of our ritual are contained in the Euchologion. The Armenians have a ritual (Mashdotz) like ours. Other schismatical Churches have not yet arranged the various parts of this book in one collection. But nearly all the Eastern Catholics now have Rituals formed on the Roman model (see LITURGICAL BOOKS, IV). BARUFFALDI, Ad rituale romanum commentaria (Venice, 1731); CATALANI, Rituale romanum . . . perpetuis commentariis exornatum (Rome, 1757); ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776); THALHOFER, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, II (Freiburg, 1893), 509-36. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Ritualists Ritualists The word "Ritualists" is the term now most commonly employed to denote that advanced section of the High Church party in the Anglican Establishment, which since about 1860 has adhered to and developed further the principles of the earlier Tractarian Movement. Although this designation is one that is not adopted but rather resented by the persons to whom it is applied, it cannot exactly be called a nickname. "Ritualism" in the middle of the nineteenth century not uncommonly meant the study or practice of ritual, i. e. ecclesiastical ceremonial; while those who favoured ritualism were apt to be called "ritualists". For example, the Rev. J. Jebb, in a publication of 1856 entitled "The Principle of Ritualism Defended", defines ritualism equivalently as "a sober and chastened regard for the outward accessories of worship", and insists further that "we need something more than a lawyer's mind to examine fairly ecclesiastical questions. The Church requires that divines and ritualists should be called into counsel". It was only some time later, about 1865 or 1866, that the word came to be used as the name of a party and was printed with a capital letter. Unlike many other party names which have grown up in the course of controversy, the word "Ritualists" does very fairly indicate the original, if not the most fundamental, characteristic which has divided those so designated from their fellow-High-Churchmen. The movement headed by Newman and his friends had been primarily doctrinal. Pusey always stated that the leaders had rather discouraged as too conspicuous anything in the way of ceremonies, fearing that they might awaken prejudice and divert attention from more important issues. Nevertheless the sympathies awakened for the traditions of a Catholic past, and especially the revival of faith in the Real Presence and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, could not fail in the long run to produce an effect upon the externals of worship. Many of the followers were more venturous than the leaders approved. Moreover, the conversion of Newman and other prominent Tractarians, while somewhat breaking up the party and arresting the progress of events at Oxford, had only transferred the movement to the parish churches throughout the country, where each incumbent was in a measure free to follow his own light and to act for himself. The Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, became notorious for a number of innovations in ritual, notably in such details as the use of altar lights, cross, and coverings which brought him into conflict with his bishop (in 1850) and led in the end to his resigning his benefice. In 1859 still greater sensation was caused by the "Romish" ceremonial of the Rev. Bryan King at St: George's in the East. The roughs of the district, with some violent Evangelicals, for months together continued to interrupt the services with brawling and rioting. The English Church Union, however, founded at about this period to defend the interests of the High Church movement, lent effective aid, and public opinion turned against the authors of these disturbances. During the years that followed ceremonial innovations, imitating more and more pronouncedly the worship of the Catholic Church, spread throughout the country. A regular campaign was carried on, organized on the one side by the English Church Union and on the other by the Church Association, which latter was called into existence in 1865 and earned amongst its opponents the nickname of the "Persecution Company Limited". The lovers of ornate ceremonial were for the most part sincerely convinced that they were loyal to the true principles of Anglicanism, and that they were rightly insisting on the observance of the letter of the law embodied in the so-called "Ornaments Rubric", which stands at the head of the Morning Service in the Book of Common Prayer. It could not of course be denied that the practices which the Tractarians were introducing had long been given up in the Church of England. But though these had fallen completely into abeyance, the party contended that the letter of the Prayer Book made it a duty to revive them. It may be said indeed that it is round the Ornaments Rubric that the whole ritualistic controversy has turned down to the present day. For this reason a somewhat full account of it is indispensable. The first Prayer Book of Edward VI, which came into use on 9 June, 1549, has the following rubric at the beginning of the Mass: "Upon the day and at the time appointed for the administration of the Holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say a white Alb plain, with a Vestment or Cope." This first Prayer Book of Edward VI remained in use for three years when it was supplanted by the second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1 Nov., 1552). In this, under the influences of Continental reformers, the rubric just quoted was expunged and the following substituted: "And here is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither Albae, Vestment or Cope". After the accession of Elizabeth a revised Prayer Book was issued in 1559, which contained the rubric in the following form: "And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Communion and at all other times in his ministration shall use such ornaments in the Church as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of the book." In spite of a brief suppression under the Long Parliament and during the Commonwealth, the same rubric was restored in substantially identical terms in the Prayer Book of 1662 which remains in force to-day. Now it must not of course be forgotten that the word "ornaments" is used in a technical sense which has been defined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to include "all the several articles used in the performance of the rites and services of the Church". Vestments, books, cloths, chalices, and patens must be regarded as church ornaments. In modern times even organs and bells are held to fall under this denomination. Further there can be no doubt that if the reference to the second year of Edward VI be strictly interpreted, much Catholic ceremonial was then still retained embracing such adjuncts as lights, incense, vestments, crosses, etc. There is considerable controversy regarding the precise meaning of the rubric, but, however we regard it, it certainly gives much more latitude to the lovers of ritual than was recognized by the practice of the English Church in 1850. Although of recent years the innovators have gone far beyond those usages which could by any possibility be covered by a large interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, it seems clear that in the beginning the new school of clergy founded themselves upon this and were not exactly accused of doing what was illegal. Their position, a position recognized in 1851 by the bishops themselves, was rather that of wishing "to restore an unusual strictness of ritual observance". Their tendencies no doubt were felt to be "popish", but they were primarily censured by the Protestant party as "ultra-rubricians". The first appeal to legal tribunals in the Westerton v. Liddell case (Mr. Liddell was the successor of Mr. Bennett) terminated, after appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, substantially in favour of the Ritualists. It was decided that the Ornaments Rubric did establish the legality of a credence table, coloured frontals and altar coverings, candlesticks and a cross above the holy table. This gave confidence to the party in other directions and between the years 1857 and 1866 there was a considerable extension of ritual usages such as the Eucharistic vestments, altar lights, flowers, and incense, while the claim was generally made that they were all perfectly lawful. With the year 1866 began a period of almost incessant controversy. Six specific practices, known as the "Six Points", were about this time recognized as constituting the main features in the claims of the less extreme Ritualists. They were: + (1) the eastward position (i. e. that by which the minister in consecrating turns his back to the people); + (2) the use of incense; + (3) the use of altar lights; + (4) the mixed chalice; + (5) the use of vestments; + (6) the use of wafer bread. A committee of the Lower House of Convocation in 1866 expressed a strong opinion that most of these things should not be introduced into parish churches without reference to the bishop. A royal commission followed (1867-70), but came to no very clear or unanimous decision except as regards the inexpediency of tolerating any vesture which departs from what had long been the established usage of the English Church. Meanwhile the Dean of Arches, and, after appeal, the Privy Council delivered judgment in the Mackonochie case and between them decided against the legality of the elevation, use of incense, altar lights, ceremonially mixed chalice and against any position of the minister which would hide the manual acts from the communicants. Even more important was the judgement of the same Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Purchas Case (Ap. 1871), which besides confirming these previous decisions, even as against the opinion of the Dean of Arches, declared in more unequivocal terms the illegality of wafer-bread and of all Eucharistic vestments. The reaction among the High Church party against this sweeping condemnation was considerable, and it is probably true that much of the strong feeling which has existed ever since against the Judicial Committee as a court of appeal is traceable to this cause, Many of the Ritualists not only refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a secular court in church matters but they declare themselves justified in withholding obedience from their bishops as long as the bishops are engaged in enforcing its decrees. The passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act in 1874 which, as Disraeli stated in Parliament was meant "to put down the Ritualists", seems only to have led to increased litigation, and the Risdale judgment in 1877 by which the Committee of the Privy Council, after elaborate argument by counsel on either side, reconsidered the question of Eucharistic vestments and the eastward position, reaffirming the condemnation of the former but pronouncing the latter to be lawful, providing that it did not render the manual acts invisible to the congregation gave encouragement to the Ritualists by showing that earlier decisions were not irreversible. In any case there were no signs of any greater disposition to submit to authority. The committal of four clergymen to prison in the years 1878-81 for disobedience to the order of the courts whose jurisdiction they challenged, only increased the general irritation and unrest. In 1888 came another sensation. Proceedings were taken before the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting with episcopal assessors against Dr. King, Bishop of Lincoln, for various ritualistic practices. In his judgment subsequently confirmed by the Privy Council Archbishop Benson sanctioned under carefully defined conditions the eastward position, mixed chalice, altar lights, the ablutions, and the singing of the Agnus Dei, but forbade the signing of the cross in the air when giving the absolution and the benediction. Naturally the effect of these alternate relaxations and restrictions was not favourable to the cause of sober uniformity. The movement went on. The bishops had probably grown a little weary in repressing an energy which was much more full of conviction than their own, and in the years which followed, especially in the Diocese of London, under Bishop Temple, a large measure of licence seems to have been granted or at any rate taken. The rapid spread of "romanizing" practices, though in their extreme form they were confined to a comparatively small number of churches, began to attract general attention, while causing profound uneasiness to Evangelicals and Nonconformists. In 1898 Sir William Harcourt started a vigorous campaign against ritualistic lawlessness by a series of letters in the "Times", and almost concurrently Mr. John Kensit and his followers appealed to another phase of public opinion by their organized interruptions of the services in the churches they disapproved of. It was felt once again that something must be done and this time the remedy took the form of the so-called "Lambeth Hearings", when the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, after listening to legal and expert argument, delivered a joint "opinion upon certain burning questions, to wit + (a) the use of incense and processional lights, and + (b) the practice of reservation. On 31 July, 1899, they jointly pronounced the use of incense to be inadmissible, and on 1 May, 1900, in two independent "opinions", they concurred in forbidding any form of reservation of the consecrated elements. Very little was effected by this or by a series of Church Discipline Bills which were introduced into Parliament, but which died stillborn. Consequently in 1904 a royal commission was appointed "to inquire into the alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the Law relating to the conduct of Divine Service in the Church of England and to the ornaments and fittings of churches." The commission, after collecting an immense mass of evidence from ecclesiastics and laymen of every shade of opinion, not forgetting the agents employed by the Church Association to keep watch on the services in ritualistic churches, issued a voluminous report in 1906. Although the commission has accomplished little more than the propounding of certain suggestions regarding the reconstitution of the ecclesiastical courts, suggestions which have not yet been acted upon, the "Report" is a document of the highest importance for the evidence which it contains of the developments of Ritualism. The commissioners single out certain practices which they condemn as being graver in character and of a kind that demand immediate suppression. No doubt the numerical proportion of the churches in which the clergy go to these lengths is small, but the number seems to be increasing. The practices censured as of special gravity and significance, are the following: "The interpolation of prayers and ceremonies belonging to the Canon of the Mass. The use of the words 'Behold the Lamb of God' accompanied by the exhibition of a consecrated wafer or bread. Reservation of the sacrament under conditions which lead to its adoration. Mass of the presanctified. Corpus Christi processions with the sacrament. Benediction with the sacrament. Celebration of the Holy Eucharist with the intent that there should be no communicant except the celebrant. Hymns, prayers and devotions involving invocation or a confession to the Blessed Virgin or the saints. The observance of the festivals of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Sacred Heart. The veneration of images and roods." These practices are described as having an exceptional character because they are at once + (1) in flagrant contradiction with the teaching of the Articles and Prayer Book; + (2) they are illegal, and + (3) their illegality does not depend upon any judgment of the Privy Council. Similar objection is taken to any observance of All Souls' Day or of the festival of Corpus Christi which implies the "Romish" doctrine concerning purgatory or transubstantiation. But while it is quite true that the number of churches in which these extremes are practised is small, it is important to remember that private oratories,, communities, and sisterhoods, which last commonly follow forms of devotion and ritual which cannot externally be distinguished from those prevailing in the Catholic Church were not in any way touched by these investigations of the commissioners. It is in such strongholds that the ritualistic spirit is nurtured and propagated, and there is as yet no sign that the feeling which animated this revival of the religious life is less earnest than of yore. Again everything seems to point to the conclusion that if extreme practices have not spread more widely this is due less to any distaste for such practices in themselves than to a shrinking from the unpleasantness engendered by open conflict with ecclesiastical authority. Where comparative impunity has been secured, as for example by the ambiguity of the Ornaments Rubric, a notable and increasing proportion of the clergy have advanced to the very limits of what was likely to be tolerated in the way of ritualistic development. It has been stated by Archbishop Davidson that before 1850 the use of vestments in a public church was known hardly anywhere. In 1901 carefully compiled statistics showed that Eucharistic vestments of some kind (other than the stole authorized by long tradition) were used in no less than 1526 churches of the provinces of York and Canterbury, that is about twelve per cent of the whole; and the number has increased since. A slighter but not altogether contemptible indication of the drift of opinion when unchecked by authority is to be found in the familiar "Roman collar". Less than fifty years ago, at the time of the "Roman aggression" it was regarded in England as the distinctive feature of the dress of a Catholic priest, an article which by its very name manifested its proper usage. Not long afterwards it was gradually adopted by certain High Church clergymen of an extreme type. At the present day it is the rule rather than the exception among English ecclesiastics of all shades of opinion, not excepting even the Nonconformists. With regard to the present position and principles of the Ritualists we shall probably do well with Monsignor R. H. Benson (Non-Catholic Denominations, pp. 29-58) to recognize a distinction between two separate schools of thought, the moderate and the extreme. On the one hand all the members of this party seem to agree in recognizing the need of some more immediate court of appeal to settle disputed questions of dogma and ritual than can be afforded by the "Primitive Church" which the early Tractarians were content to invoke in their difficulties. On the other hand while both sections of the Ritualists are in search of a "Living Voice" to guide them, or at any rate of some substitute for that Living Voice, they have come to supply the need in two quite different ways. To the moderate Ritualists it has seemed sufficient to look back to the Book of Common Prayer. This, it is urged, was drawn up in full view of the situation created by "Roman abuses", and though it was not intended to be a complete and final guide in every detail of doctrine and discipline, the fact that it was originally issued to men already trained in Catholic principles, justifies us in supplying deficiencies by setting a Catholic interpretation upon all doubtful points and omissions. The Ritualist of this school, who of course firmly believes in the continuity of his Church with the Church of England before the Reformation, thinks it his duty to "behave and teach as a Marian priest, conforming under Elizabeth, would have behaved and taught when the Prayer Book was first put into his hands: he must supply the lacunoe and carry out the imperfect directions in as 'Catholic' a manner as possible" (Benson, op. cit., p. 32). Thus interpreted, the Prayer Book supplies a standard by which the rulings of bishops and judicial committees may be measured, and, if necessary, set aside; for the bishops themselves are no less bound by the Prayer Book than are the rest of the clergy, and no command of a bishop need be obeyed if it transgress the directions of this higher written authority. The objections to which this solution of the difficulty is open must be sufficiently obvious. Clearly the text of this written authority itself needs interpretation and it must seem to the unprejudiced mind that upon contested points the interpretation of the bishops and other officials of the Establishment is not only better authorized than that of the individual Ritualist, but that in almost every case the interpretation of the latter in view of the Articles, canons, homilies, and other official utterances is strained and unnatural. Moreover there is the undeniable fact of desuetude. To appeal to such an ordinance as the "Ornaments Rubric" as evidently binding, after it has been in practice neglected by all orders of the Church for nearly three hundred years, is contrary to all ecclesiastical as well as civil presumptions in matters of external observance. The extreme party among the Ritualists, though they undoubtedly go beyond their more moderate brethren in their sympathy with Catholic practices and also in a very definitely formulated wish for "Reunion" (see UNION OF CHRISTENDOM), do not greatly differ from them in matters of doctrine. Many adopt such devotions as the rosary and benediction, some imitate Catholic practice so far as to recite the Canon of the Mass in Latin, a few profess even to hold the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and to receive (of course with exception of the necessity of external communion with Rome) all doctrines defined and taught by him. But the more fundamental difference which divides the Ritualists into two classes is probably to be found in their varying conceptions of the authority to which they profess allegiance. Giving up the appeal to the Prayer Book as a final rule, the extreme party find a substitute for the Living Voice in the consensus of the Churches which now make up Catholic Christendom -- that is practically speaking in the agreement of Canterbury, Rome, and Moscow -- if Moscow may be taken as the representative of a number of eastern communions which do not in doctrinal matters differ greatly from one another. Where these bodies are agreed either explicitly or by silence, there, according to the theory of this advanced school, is the revealed faith of Christendom; where these bodies differ among themselves, there we have matters of private opinion which do not necessarily command the assent of the individual. It is difficult perhaps for anyone who has not been brought up in a High Church atmosphere to understand how such a principle can be applied, and how Ritualists can profess to distinguish between beliefs which are de fide and those which are merely speculative. To the outsider it would seem that the Chinch of Canterbury has quite clearly rejected such doctrines as the Real Presence, the invocation of saints, and the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. But the Ritualist has all his life been taught to interpret the Thirty-Nine Articles in a "Catholic" sense. When the Articles say that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, he is satisfied to believe that some misconception of transubstantiation was condemned, not the doctrine as defined a little later by the Council of Trent. When the Articles speak of "the sacrifices of Masses -- for the quick and the dead" as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits", he understands that this repudiation was only directed against certain popular "Romish errors" about the multiplication of the effects of such Masses, not against the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice in itself. Again the statement that "the Romish doctrine concerning . . . Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented", for him amounts to no more than a rejection of certain abuses of extreme romanizers who went perilously near to idolatry. In this way the Church of England is exonerated from the apparent repudiation of these Catholic beliefs, and the presumption stands that she accepts all Catholic doctrine which she does not explicitly reject. Hence as Rome and Moscow and Canterbury (in the manner just explained) profess the three beliefs above specified, such beliefs are to be regarded as part of the revealed faith of Christendom. On the other hand such points as papal infallibility, indulgences, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, which are admittedly rejected by one or more of the three great branches of the Catholic Church, have not the authority of the Living Voice behind them. They may be true, but it cannot be shown that they form part of the Revelation, the acceptance of which is obligatory upon all good Christians. With this fundamental view are connected many other of the strange anomalies in the modern Ritualist position. To begin with, those who so think, feel bound to no particular reverence for the Church of their baptism or for the bishops that represent her. By her negative attitude to so many points of Catholic doctrine she has paltered with the truth, She has by God's Providence retained the bare essentials of Catholicity and preserved the canonical succession of her bishops. Hence English Catholics are bound to be in communion with her and to receive the sacraments from her ministers, but they are free to criticize and up to a certain point to disobey. On the other hand the Ritualist believes that each Anglican bishop possesses jurisdiction, and that this jurisdiction particularly in the matter of confessions, is conferred upon every clergyman in virtue of his ordination. Further the same jurisdiction inherent in the canonically appointed bishop of the diocese requires that English Catholics should be in communion with him, and renders it gravely sinful for them to hear Mass in the churches of the "Italian Mission" -- so the Ritualist is prone to designate the Churches professing obedience to Rome. This participation in alien services is a schismatical act in England, while on the other hand on the Continent, an "English Catholic" is bound to respect the jurisdiction of the local ordinary by hearing Mass according to the Roman Rite, and it becomes an equally schismatical act to attend the services of any English Church. The weak points in this theory of the extreme Ritualist party do not need insisting upon. Apart from the difficulty of reconciling this view of the supposed "Catholic" teaching of the Established Church with the hard facts of history and with the wording of the Articles, apart also from the circumstance that nothing was ever heard of any such theory until about twenty-five years ago, there is a logical contradiction about the whole assumption which it seems impossible to evade. The most fundamental doctrine of all in this system (for all the other beliefs depend upon it) is precisely the principle that the Living Voice is constituted by the consensus of the Churches, but this is itself a doctrine which Rome and Moscow explicitly reject and which the Church of England at best professes only negatively and imperfectly. Therefore by the very test which the Ritualists themselves invoke, this principle falls to the round or at any rate becomes a matter of opinion which binds no man in conscience. The real strength of Ritualism and the secret of the steady advance, which even in its extreme forms it still continues to make, lies in its sacramental doctrine and in the true devotion and self-sacrifice which in so many cases follow as a consequence from this more spiritual teaching. The revival of the celibate and ascetic ideal, more particularly in the communities of men and women living under religious vows and consecrated to prayer and works of charity, tends strongly in the same direction. It is the Ritualist clergy who more than any other body in the English Church have thrown themselves heart and soul into the effort to spiritualize the lives of the poor in the slums and to introduce a higher standard into the missionary work among the heathen. Whatever there may be of affectation and artificiality in the logical position of the Ritualists, the entire sincerity, the real self-denial, and the apostolic spirit of a large proportion of both the clergy and laity belonging to this party form the greatest asset of which Anglicanism now disposes. (For those aspects of Ritualism which touch upon Anglican Orders and Reunion, see ANGLICAN ORDERS and UNION OF CHRISTENDOM.) For a concise Catholic view of Ritualism at the present day, more particularly in its relations to the other parties in the Church of England, see BENSON, Non-Catholic Denominations (London, 1910). An excellent historical sketch of the movement may be found in THUREAU-DANGIN, La renaissance catholique en Angleterre au XIX ^e siecle (Paris, 1901-8), especially in the third volume. The most important Anglican account is probably WARRE-CORNISH, History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1910), especially Part II; a good summary is also provided by HOLLAND in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York, 1910), s. v. Ritualism. The best materials for the history of the movement may be found in the Blue Books issued by the various royal commissions more especially the Report and the four accompanying volumes of minutes of evidence printed for the royal commission on ecclesiastical discipline in 1906. The letters and other documents published in such complete biographies as those of Pusey, Bishop S. Wilberforce, Archbishop Tait, Bishop Wilkinson, Archbishop Benson, Lord Shaftesbury, Charles Lowder, and others, are also very useful. See also SPENCER JONES, England and the Holy See London, 1902); MALLOCK, Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption (London, 1908); MACCOLL, The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric (London, 1906); MOYES, Aspects of Anglicanism (London, 1906); DOLLING, Ten Years in a Portsmouth Slum (London, 1898); MACCOLL, Lawlessness, Sacerdotalism and Ritualism (London, 1875); ROSCOE, The Bishop of Lincoln's Case (London, 1891); SANDAY, The Catholic Movement and the Archbishop's Decision (London, 1899); TOMILSON, Historical Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment (London, 1891), and in general The Reunion Magazine and the now extinct Church Review. HERBERT THURSTON. Luke Rivington Luke Rivington Born in London, May, 1838; died in London, 30 May, 1899; fourth son of Francis Rivington, a well-known London publisher. He was educated at Highgate Grammar School and Magdalen College, Oxford. After his ordination as an Anglican clergyman in 1862, he became curate of St. Clement's, Oxford, leaving there in 1867 for All Saint's, Margaret Street, London, where he attracted attention as a preacher. Failing in his efforts to found a religious community at Stoke, Staffordshire, he joined the Cowley Fathers and became superior of their house in Bombay. Becoming unsettled in his religious convictions he visited Rome, where in 1888 he was received into the Church. His ordination to the priesthood took place on 21 Sept., 1889. He returned to England and settled in Bayswater, not undertaking any parochial work, but devoting himself to preaching, hearing confessions, and writing controversial works. The chief of these were "Authority; or a plain reason for joint the Church of Rome" (1888); "Dust" a letter to the Rev. C. Gore on his book "Roman Catholic Claims" (1888); "Dependence; or the insecurity of the Anglican Position" (1889) "The Primitive Church and the See of Peter" (1894); "Anglican Fallacies; or Lord Halifax on Reunion" (1895); "Rome and England or Ecclesiastical Continuity" (1897); "The Roman Primacy A.D. 430-51" (1899) which was practically a new edition of "The Primitive Church and the See of Peter". He also wrote several pamphlets and brought out a new edition of Bishop Milner's "End of Religious Controversy". This was for the Catholic Truth Society of which he was long a member of the committee, and a prominent figure at the annual conferences so successfully organized by the society. His pamphlets include "Primitive and Roman" (1894) a reply to the notice of his book "The Primitive Church" in the "Church Quarterly Review"; "The Conversion of Cardinal Newman" (1896) and "Tekel" (1897) in which he criticized the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII after the condemnation of Anglican Orders. In 1897 the pope conferred on him an honorary doctorate in divinity. During his latter years he lived near St. James church, Spanish Place, devoting himself to his literary work and the instruction of inquirers in the Catholic Faith. The Tablet (3 and 10 June, 1899); Catholic Book Notes (15 June, 1899); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Cath.; Annual Register (London, 1899). EDWIN BURTON Jose Mercado Rizal Jose Mercado Rizal Filipino hero, physician, poet, novelist, and sculptor; b. at Calamba, Province of La Laguna, Luzon, 19 June, 1861; d. at Manila, 30 December, 1896. On his father's side he was descended from Lam-co, who came from China to settle in the Philippines in the latter part of the seventeenth century. His mother was of Filipino-Chinese-Spanish origin. Rizal studied at the Jesuit College of the Ateneo, Manila, where he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with highest honours before he had completed his sixteenth year. He continued his studies in Manila for four years and then proceeded to Spain, where he devoted himself to philosophy, literature, and medicine, with ophthalmology as a specialty. In Madrid he became a Freemason, and thus became associated with men like Zorilla, Sagasta, Castelar, and Balaguer, prominent in Spanish politics. Here and in France he began to imbibe the political ideas, which later cost him his life. In Germany he was enrolled as a law student in the University of Heidelburg and became acquainted with Virchow and Blumentritt. In Berlin was published his novel "Noli me tangere" (1886) characterized, perhaps too extravagantly, by W.D. Howells as "a great novel" written by one "born with a gift so far beyond that of any or all of the authors of our roaring literary successes." Several editions of the work were published in Manila and Spain. There is a French translation ("Bibliotheque sociologique", num 25, Paris, 1899), and two abbreviated English translations of little value: "An Eagle's Flight" (New York, 1900) and "Friars and Filipinos" (New York, 1902). The book satirizes the friars in the Philippines as well as the Filipinos. Rizal's animosity to the friars was largely of domestic origin. The friars were the landlords of a large hacienda occupied by his father; there was a vexatious litigation, and a few years later, by Weyler's order, soldiers destroyed the buildings on the land, and various members of the family were exiled to other parts of the Islands. Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1887. After a stay of about six months he set out again for Europe, passing through Japan and the United States. In London he prepared his annotated edition of Morga's "Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas" which he completed in Paris (1890). In Belgium he published (Ghent, 1891; Manila, 1900) "El Filibusterismo", a sequel to "Noli me tangere". Its animus may be judged from its dedication to three Filipino priests who were executed for complicity in the Cavite outbreak of 1872. In 1891 he arrived in Hong Kong, where he practised medicine. The following year he came to Manila, but five days before his arrival a case was filed against him for "anti-religious and anti-patriotic propaganda". On 7 July the governor-general ordered Rizal's deportation to Mindanao. The reasons given were the finding in his baggage of leaflets, "satirizing the friars and tending to de-catholicize and so de-nationalize the people"; and the "publication of 'El Filibusterismo' dedicated to the memory of three traitors_condemned and executed by competent authority_and whom he hails as martyrs". Rizal spent four years in peaceful exile in Dapitan, Mindanao, when he volunteered his services to the governor to go to Cuba as a surgeon in the Spanish Army. The offer was accepted. When he arrived in Spain, he was arrested and brought back to Manila, where he was charged with founding unlawful associations and promoting rebellion, and sentenced to be shot. Rizal had given up the practice of his religion long years before. But now he gladly welcomed the ministrations of the Jesuit Fathers, his former professors, and he wrote a retraction of his errors and of Masonry in particular. On the morning of his execution he assisted at two Masses with great fervour, received Holy Communion and was married to an Irish half-caste girl from Hong-King with whom he had cohabited in Dapitan. Almost the last words he spoke were to the Jesuit who accompanied him: "My great pride, Father, has brought me here." 30 December, the day of his execution, has been made a national holiday by the American Government and $50,000 appropriated for a monument to his memory; a new province, adjacent to Manila, is called Rizal; the two centavo postage stamp and two peso bill_the denominations in most common use_bear his picture. Whether he was unjustly executed or not, is disputed; his plea in his own defense is undoubtedly a strong one (cf. Retata). The year of his death was a year of great uprising in the Islands and feeling ran high. Whatever may be said about his sentence, its fulfillment was a political mistake. Rizal, it is said, did not favour separation from Spain, nor the expulsion of the friars. Nor did he wish to accomplish his ends_reforms in the Government_by revolutionary methods, but by the education of his countrymen and their formation to habits of industry. Besides the works mentioned above, Rizal wrote a number of poems and essays in Spanish of literacy merit, some translations and short papers in German, French, English, and in his native dialect, Tagalog. A complete list of his writings is given in Retana, "Vida y escritos del Dr. Rizal" (Madrid, 1907). CRAIG, The Story of Jose Rizal (Manila, 1909); El Dr. Rizal y la obra in La Juventad (Barcelona, Jan., Feb., 1897); PI, La muerte cristiana del Dr. Rizal (Manila, 1910); CRAIG, Los errores de Retana (Manila, 1910.) PHILIP M. FINEGAN Andrea Della Robbia Andrea della Robbia Nephew, pupil, assistant, and sharer of Luca's secrets, b. at Florence, 1431; d. 1528. It is often difficult to distinguish between his works and Luca's. His, undoubtedly, are the medallions of infants for the Foundling Hospital, Florence, and the noble Annunciation over the inner entrance; the Meeting of S. Francis and S. Dominic in the loggia of S. Paolo; the charming Madonna of the Architects, the Virgin adoring the Divine Child in the Crib and other pieces in the Bargello; the fine St. Francis at Assisi; the Madonna della Quercia at Viterbo; the high altar (marble) of S. Maria delle Grazie at Arezzo; the rich and variegated decorations of the vaulted ceiling, porch of Pistoia Cathedral, and many other works. Andrea had several sons, of whom Giovanni Girolamo, Luca the Younger, and Ambrogio are the best known. Giovanni executed the famous reliefs for the Ospendale del Ceppo, Pistoia; and Girolamo worked much in France, where he died. The Della Robbia school gradually lost power and inspiration, the later works being often overcrowded with figures and full of conflicting colour. See bibl. Of ROBBIA, LUCA DI SIMONE DELLA. M.L. HANDLEY Lucia di Simone Robbia Lucia di Simone Robbia Sculptor, b. at Florence, 1400; d. 1481. He is believed to have studied design with a goldsmith, and then to have worked in marble and bronze under Ghiberti. He was early invited to execute sculptures for the Cathedral of S. Maria del Fiore and the Campanile. The latter_representing Philosophy, Arithmetic, Grammar, Orpheus, and Tubalcain (1437)? are still somewhat Gothic in character. For the organ-gallery of the cathedral he made the famous panels of the Cantorie, groups of boys singing and playing upon musical instruments (1431-8), now in the Museo del Duomo. For the north sacristy he made a bronze door; figures of angels bearing candles and a fine glazed earthenware relief of Christ rising from the tomb over the entrance are also his execution. Above the entrance to the southern sacristy he made the Ascension almost entirely in his new ware. The medium was not unknown, but by dint of experimenting he brought his material to great perfection. He colours are brilliant, fresh, and beautiful in quality, the blue especially being quite inimitable. The stanniferous glaze, or enamel, contained various minerals and was Luca's own secret; in the firing, it became exceedingly hard, durable, and bright. Luca's design is generally an architectural setting with a very few figures, or half figures, and rich borders of fruits and flowers. He excels in simplicity and loveliness of composition. His madonnas have great charm, dignity, and grace. In the earlier productions colour is used only for the background, for the stems and leaves of lilies, and the eyes; an occasional touch of gold is added in coronal or lettering. Later, Luca used colour more freely. The Della Robbia earthenwares are so fresh and beautiful and so decorative that even in Luca's time there were immediately in great request. They are seen at their best in Florence. A few of the principal ones are: the crucifix at S. Miniato and the ceiling of the chapel in which it is found; the medallions of the vault (centre, the Holy Ghost; corners, the Virtues) in the chapel of Cardinal Jacopo of Portugal, also at S. Miniato; the decorations of the Pazzi chapel at Sta. Croce; the armorial bearings of the Arti at Or San Michele; the Madonna of the Apple, and a number of equally fine reliefs. Of his works outside Florence may be mentioned: the Madonna at Urbino; the tabernacle at Impruneta, the vault angels of S. Giobbe, Venice (sometimes said to be by the school only); medallions of Justice and Temperance, Museum of Cluny, Paris; arms of Rene d'Anjou, London, South Kensington Museum, and other works in Naples, Sicily, and elsewhere. The admirable and much disputed group of the Visitation at S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas, Pistoia, is attributed both to Luca and Andrea. BARBET DE JOUY, Les Della Robbia (Paris, 1855); MUeNTZ, Hist. de;'Art pendant la Renaissance (Paris, 1895); REYMOND, Les Della Robbia (Florence, 1897); CRUTWELL, Luca and Andrea Della Robbia (London, 1902). M.L. HANDLEY St. Robert St. Robert Founder of the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne, b. at Aurilac, Auvergne, about 1000; d. in Auvergne, 1067. On his father's side he belonged to the family of the Counts of Aurilac, who had given birth to St. Geraud. He studied at Brioude near the basilica of St-Julien, in a school open to the nobility of Auvergne by the canons of that city. Having entered their community, and being ordained priest, Robert distinguished himself by his piety, charity, apostolic zeal, eloquent discourses, and the gift of miracles. For about forty years he remained at Cluny in order to live under the rule of his compatriot saint, Abbe Odilo. Brought back by force to Brioude, he started anew for Rome in order to consult the pope on his project. Benedict IX encouraged him to retire with two companions to the wooded plateau south-east of Auvergne. Here he built a hermitage under the name of Chaise-Dieu (Casa Dei). The renown of his virtues having brought him numerous disciples, he was obliged to build a monastery, which he placed under the rule of Saint Benedict (1050). Leo IX erected the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu, which became one of the most flourishing in Christendom. At the death of Robert it numbered 300 monks and had sent multitudes all though the centre of France. Robert also founded a community of women at Lavadieu near Brioude. Through the elevation of Pierre Roger, monk of Chaise-Dieu, to the sovereign pontificate, under the name of Clement VI, the abbey reached the height of its glory. The body of Saint Robert, preserved therein, was burned by the Huguenots during the religious wars. His work was destroyed by the French Revolution, but there remain for the admiration of tourists, the vast church, cloister, tomb of Clement VI, and Clementine Tower. The feast-day of St. Robert is 24 April. A. FOURNET Robert of Arbrissel Robert of Arbrissel Itinerant preacher, founder of Fontevrault, b. c. 1047 at Arbrissel (now Arbressec) near Rhetiers, Brittany; d. at Orsan, probably 1117. Robert studied in Paris during the pontificate of Gregory VII, perhaps under Anselm of Laon and later displayed considerable theological knowledge. The date and place of his ordination are unknown. In 1089 he was recalled to his native Diocese of Rennes by Bishop Sylvester de la Guerche, who desired to reform his flock. As archpriest, Robert devoted himself to the suppression of simony, lay investiture, clerical concubinage, irregular marriages, and to the healing of feuds. This reforming zeal aroused such enmity that upon Sylvester's death in 1093, Robert was compelled to leave the diocese. He went to Angers and there commenced ascetic practices which he continued throughout his life. In 1095 he became a hermit in the forest of Craon (s.w. of Laval), living a life of severest penance in the company of Bernard, afterwards founder of the Congregation of Tiron, Vitalis, founder of Savigny, and others of considerable note. His piety, eloquence, and strong personality attracted many followers, for whom in 1096 he founded the monastery of Canons Regular of La Roe, becoming himself the first abbot. In the same year Urban II summoned him to Angers and appointed him a "preacher (seminiverbus, cf. Acts 17, 18) second only to himself with orders to travel everywhere in the performance of this duty" (Vita Baldrici). There is no evidence that Robert assisted Urban to preach the Crusade, for his theme was the abandonment of the world and especially poverty. Living in the utmost destitution, he addressed himself to the poor and would have his followers known only as the "poor of Christ", while the ideal he put forward was "In nakedness to follow Christ naked upon the Cross". His eloquence, heightened by his strikingly ascetic appearance, drew crowds everywhere. Those who desired to embrace the monastic state under his leadership he sent to La Roe, but the Canons objected to the number and diversity of the postulants, and between 1097 and 1100 Robert formally resigned his abbacy, and founded Fontevrault (q.v.). His disciples were of every age and condition, including even lepers and converted prostitutes. Robert continued his missionary journeys over the whole of Western France till the end of his life, but little is known of this period. At the Council of Poitiers, Nov., 1100, he supported the papal legates in excommunicating Philip of France on account of his lawless union with Bertrade de Montfort; in 1110 he attended the Council of Nantes. Knowledge of his approaching death caused him to take steps to ensure the permanence of his foundation at Fontevrault. He imposed a vow of stability on his monks and summoned a Chapter (September, 1116) to settle the form of government. From Hautebruyere a priory founded by the penitent Bertrade, he went to Orsan, another priory of Fontevrault, where he died. The "Vita Andreae" gives a detailed account of his last year of life. Robert was never canonized. The accusation made against him by Geoffrey of Vendome of extreme indiscretion in his choice of exceptional ascetic practices (see P.L., CLVII, 182) was the source of much controversy during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Other evidence of eccentric actions on Robert's part and scandals among his mixed followers may have helped to give rise to these rumors. The Fontevrists did everything in their power to discredit the attacks on their founder. The accusatory letters of Marbodius of Rennes and Geoffrey of Vendome were without sufficient cause declared to be forgeries and the MS. Letter of Peter of Saumur was made away with, probably at the instigation of Jeanne Baptiste de Bourbon, Abbess of Fontevrault. This natural daughter of Henry IV applied to Innocent X for the beatification of Robert, her request being supported by Louis XIV and Henrietta of England. Both this attempt and one made about the middle of the nineteenth century failed, but Robert is usually given the title of "Blessed". The original recension of the Rule of Fontevrault no longer exists; the only surviving writing of Robert is his letter of exhortation to Ermengarde of Brittany (ed. Petigny in "Bib. de l'ecole des Chartes", 1854, V, iii). Acta SS., Feb., III, 593 sqq., contains two ancient lives by BALDRIC of Dol and the monk ANDREW; PETIGNY, Robert d'Arbissel et Geoffroi de Vendome in Bib. de l' ecole des Chartes; WALTER, Ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs, I (Leipzig, 1903), a modern scientific book; IDEM, Excurs, II (1906); BOEHMER in Theologische Literaturzeitung, XXIX, col. 330, 396, a hostile review. RAYMUND WEBSTER Robert of Courcon Robert of Courc,on (DE CURSONE, DE CURSIM, CURSUS, ETC.). Cardinal, born at Kedleston, England; died at Damietta, 1218. After having studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, he became in 1211 Chancellor of the University of Paris; in 1212 he was made Cardinal of St. Stephen on the Cedilla Hill; in 1213 he was appointed legate a latere to preach the crusade, and in 1215 was placed at the head of a commission to inquire into the errors prevalent at the University of Paris. He took an active part in the campaign against heresy in France, and accompanied the army of the Crusaders into Egypt as legate of Honorius III. He died during the siege of Damietta. He is the author of several works, including a "Summa: devoted to questions of canon law and ethics and dealing at length with the question of usury. His interference in the affairs of the University of Paris, in the midst of the confusion arising from the introduction of the Arabian translations of Aristotle, resulted in the proscription (1215) of the metaphysical as well as the physical treatises of the Stagyrita, together with the summaries thereof (Summae de esidem). At the same time, his rescript (Denifle, "Chartul. Univ. Paris", I, 78) renews the condemnation of the Pantheists, David of Dinant, and Amaury of Bene, but permits the use, as texts, of Aristotle's "Ethics" and logical treatises. The rescript also contains several enactments relating to academic discipline. DENIFLE, Chartul. Univ. Paris, I (Paris, 1889), 72, 78; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 252. WILLIAM TURNER Robert of Geneva Robert of Geneva Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d. at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III. Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of Therouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal 30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is dais to have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was consequently called "the executioner of Cesena". Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism. France, Scotland, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal, Savoy, and some minor German states, Denmark, and Norway acknowledged his authority. Unable to maintain himself in Italy, he took up his residence at Avignon, where he became dependent on the French Court. He created excellent cardinals, but donated the larger part of the Pontifical States to Louis II of Anjou, resorted to simony and extortion to meet the financial needs of his court, and seems never to have sincerely desired the termination of the Schism. BALUZE, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, I (Paris, 1693, 486 sqq.; SALEMBIER, The Great Schism of the West, (tr. New York, 1907), passim. N.A. TURNER Robert of Jumieges Robert of Jumieges Archbishop of Canterbury (1051-2). Robert Champart was a Norman monk of St. Ouen at Rouen and was prior of that house in 1037 he was elected Abbot of Jumieges. As abbot he began to build the fine Norman abbey-church, and at this time he was able to be of service to St. Edward the Confessor, then an exile. When Edward returned to England as king in 1043 Robert accompanied him and was made Bishop of London in 1044. In this capacity he became the head of the Norman party in opposition to the Saxon party under Godwin, and exerted supreme influence over the king. In 1051 Robert was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and went to Rome for his pall, but the appointment was very unpopular among the English clergy who resented the intrusion of a foreigner into the metropolitan see. For a time he was successful in opposing Godwin even to the extent of instigating his exile, but when Godwin returned in 1052 Robert fled to Rome and was outlawed by the Wirenagemot. The pope reinstated him in his see, but he could not regain possession of it, and William of Normandy made his continued exclusion one of his pretexts for invading England. The last years of his life were spent at Jumieges, but the precise date of his death has not been ascertained, though Robert de Torigni states it as 26 May, 1055. The valuable liturgical MS. Of the "Missal of Robert of Jumieges", now at Rouen, was given by him, when Bishop of London to the abbey at Jumieges. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. THORPE, r.s., (London, 1861); Vita Eadwardi in LUARD, Lives of Edward the Confessor, R. S. (London, 1858); HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1865-75); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Nobles, and Kings (Cambridge, 1899); Obituary of the Abbey of Jumieges in Receuil de Historiens, XXIII (Rouen, 1872), 419. EDWIN BURTON Robert of Luzarches Robert of Luzarches (LUS). Born at Luzarches near Pontoise towards the end of the twelfth century; is said to have been summoned to Paris by Philip Augustus who employed him in beautifying the city, and to have had a share in the work on Notre Dame. The real fame of this master is, however, connected with the cathedral of Notre Dame in Amiens. The old cathedral was destroyed by fire in 1218 and Bishop Evrard de Fouilloy had it rebuilt in Gothic style. An inscription made in 1288 in the "labyrinth" of the floor (now removed) testified that the building had begun in 1220, and names "Robert, called of Luzarches", as the architect, and as his successors, Thomas de Cormont and the latter's son. The work was completed in later centuries. Viollet-le-Duc sees a fact of great significance in the employment of the layman, Robert; but it is not accurate that in Romanesque times the architects were always bishops, priests, or monks; or, on the other hand, that since the Gothic period the Church relinquished the direction of church-building so entirely as is now believed. Robert was not long employed on the cathedral. Under the successor of Bishop Evrard, who apparently died in 1222, Cormont appears as the architect. Before 1240 Bishop Bernard put a choir window in the provisionally completed cathedral. An intended alteration of the original plan was not used in the finished building, so that the whole remains a splendid moment to Robert. In his day it was already called the "Gothic Parthenon". Gracefully built and better lighted than several of the large churches of France, there is yet, especially about the fac,ade, a majestic severity. It is more spacious than Notre Dame in Paris and considerably larger than the cathedral of Reims. The former is effective through its quiet simplicity, which amounts to austerity; the latter is less rich in the modelling of choir, windows, and triforium. But Robert's creation became a standard far and near, through France and beyond, on account of the successful manner in which weight and strength are counterbalanced and of the consistently Gothic style. The design presents a middle aisle and two side aisles, though the choir has five aisles and the transept has the width of seven aisles. The choir is flanked by seven chapels; that in the centre (the Lady chapel) projecting beyond the others in French style. The majestic and harmonious interior is surpassed in beauty by few cathedrals. The nave is about 470 ft. in length, 164 ft. in breadth (213 ft. in the transept), and 141 ft. in height. A poet writes aptly, "Fabrica nil demi patitur nec susinet addi" (It is not possible to add anything to or to take anything from it). G. GIETMANN Robert of Melun Robert of Melun (DE MELDUNO; MELIDENSIS; MEIDUNUS). An English philosopher and theologian, b. in England abut 1100; d. at Hereford, 1167. He gets his surname from Melun, near Paris, where after having studied under Hugh of St. Victor and probably Abelard, he taught philosophy and theology. Among his pupils were John of Salisbury and Thomas `a Beckett. Through the influence of the latter he was made Bishop of Hereford in 1163. Judging from the tributes paid him by John of Salisbury in the "Metalogicus" (P.L. CXCIX), Robert must have enjoyed great renown as a teacher. On the question of Universals, which agitated the schools in those days, he opposed the nominalism of Roscelin and seemed to favour a doctrine of moderate realism. His principal work, "Summa Theologiae" or "Summa Sententiarum" is still in MS,. Except portions which have been published by Du Boulay in his "Historia Univ. Paris", ii, 585 sqq. He also wrote "Queaestiones de Epistolis Pauli", both of which are kept in the Bibliotheque Nationale. Those who have examined the "Summa" pronounce it to be of great value in tracing the history of scholastic doctrines. Materials for the History of Thomas Beckett in Rer. Britt, SS. contains valuable data; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 210; HAUREAU, Hist. de la phil. Scol. (Paris, 1872), 490 sqq. G. GIETMANN St. Robert of Molesme St. Robert of Molesme Born about the year 1029, at Champagne, France, of noble parents who bore the names of Thierry and Ermengarde; d. at Molesme, 17 April, 1111. When fifteen years of age, he commenced his novitiate in the Abbey of Montier-la-Celle, or St. Pierre-la-Celle, situated near Troyes, of which he became later prior. In 1068 he succeeded Hunaut II as Abbot of St. Michael de Tonnerre, in the Diocese of Langres. About this time a band of seven anchorites who lived in the forest of Collan, in the same diocese, sought to have Robert for their chief, but the monks, despite their constant resistance to his authority, insisted on keeping their abbot who enjoyed so great a reputation, and was the ornament of their house. Their intrigues determined Robert to resign his charge in 1071, and seek refuge in the monastery of Montier-la-Celle. The same year he was placed over the priory of St. Ayoul de Provins, which depended on Montier-la-Celle. Meantime two of the hermits of Collan went to Rome and besought Gregory VII to give them the prior of Provins for their superior. The pope granted their request, and in 1074 Robert initiated the hermits of Collan in the monastic life. As the location at Collan was found unsuitable, Robert founded a monastery at Molesme in the valley of Langres at the close of 1075. To Molesme as a guest came the distinguished canon and doctor (ecolatre) of Reims, Bruno, who, in 1082, placed himself under the direction of Robert, before founding the celebrated order of the Chartreux. At this time the primitive discipline was still in its full vigour, and the religious lived by the labour of their hands. Soon, however, the monastery became wealthy through a number of donations, and with wealth, despite the vigilance of the abbot, came laxity of discipline. Robert endeavoured to restore the primitive strictness, but the monks showed so much resistance that he abdicated, and left the care of his community to his prior, Alberic, who retired in 1093. In the following year he returned with Robert to Molesme. On 29 Nov., 1095, Urban II confirmed the institute of Molesme. In 1098 Robert, still unable to reform his rebellious monks, obtained from Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons and Legate of the Holy See, authority to found a new order on new lines. Twenty-one religious left Molesme and set out joyfully for a desert called Citeaux in the Diocese of Chalons, and the Abbey of Citeaux (q.v.) was founded 21 March, 1098. Left to themselves, the monks of Molesme appealed to the pope, and Robert was restored to Molesme, which thereafter became an ardent centre of monastic life. Robert died 17 April, 1111, and was buried with great pomp in the church of the abbey. Pope Honorius III by Letters Apostolic in 1222 authorized his veneration in the church of Molesme, and soon after the veneration of St. Robert was extended to the whole Church by a pontifical Decree. The feast was fixed at first on 17 April, but later it was transferred to 29 April. The Abbey of Molesme existed up to the French Revolution. The remains of the holy founder are preserved in the parish church. Vita S. Roberti, Abbatis Molismensis, auctore monacho molismensi sub Adone, abb. saec. XII; Exordium Cisterciensis Cenobii; CUIGNARD, Les monuments primitifs de la Regle Cistercienne (Dijon, 1878); WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Bk. I, De rebus gestis Anglorum, P.L., CLXXIX; LAURENT, Cart. de Molesme, Bk. I (Paris, 1907). F.M. GILDAS St. Robert of Newminster St. Robert of Newminster Born in the district of Craven, Yorkshire, probably at the village of Gargrave; died 7 June, 1159. He studied at the University of Paris, where he is said to have composed a commentary on the Psalms; became parish priest at Gargrave, and later a Benedictine at Whitby, from where, with the abbot's permission, he joined the founders of the Cistercian monastery of Fountains. About 1138 he headed the first colony sent out from Fountains and established the Abbey of Newminster near the castle of Ralph de Merlay, at Morpeth in Northumberland. During his abbacy three colonies of monks were sent out; monasteries were founded: Pipewell (1143), Roche (1147) and Sawley (1148). Capgrave's life tells that an accusation of misconduct was brought against him by his own monks and that he went abroad (1147-48), to defend himself before St. Bernard, but doubt has been cast upon the truth of his story, which may have arisen from a desire of this story, which may have arisen from a desire to associate the English saint personally with the greatest of the Cistercians. His tomb in the church of Newminster became an object of pilgrimage; his feast is kept on 7 June. RAYMUND WEBSTER Robert Pullus Robert Pullus (PULLEN, PULLAN, PULLY.) Cardinal, English philosopher and theologian, of the twelfth century, b. in England about 1080; d. 1147-50. He seems to have studied in Paris in the first decades of the twelfth century. In 1153 he began to teach at Oxford, being among the first of the celebrated teachers in the schools which were afterwards organized into the University of Oxford. After the death of Henry II he returned to Paris; thence he went to Rome, where he was appointed cardinal and Chancellor of the Apostolic See. His influence was always on the side of orthodoxy and against the encroachments of the rationalistic tendency represented by Abelard. This we know from the biography of St. Bernard written by William of St. Thierry, and from his letters. Robert wrote a compendium of theology, entitled "Sententiarum Theologicarum Libri Octo", which, for a time, held its place in the school of Western Europe as the official text book in theology. It was, however, supplanted by the "Libri Sententiarum" of Peter the Lombard, compared with whom Robert seems to have been more inclined to strict interpretation of ecclesiastical tradition than to yield to the growing demands of the dialectical method in theology and philosophy. The Lombard, however, finally gained recognition and decided the fate of scholastic theology in the thirteenth century. Robert's "Summa" was first published by the Benedictine Dom Mathoud (Paris, 1655). It is reprinted in Migne (P.L., CLXXXVI, 639 sqq.). HAUREAU, Hist. de la phil. scol., I (Paris, 1872), 483 sqq. WILLIAM TURNER St. John Roberts St. John Roberts First Prior of St. Gregory's, Douai (now Downside Abbey), b. 1575-6; martyred 10 December, 1610. He was the son of John and Anna Roberts of Trawsfynydd, Merionethshire, N. Wales. He matriculated at St. John's College, Oxford, in February, 1595-6, but left after two years without taking a degree and entered as a law student at one of the Inns of Court. In 1598 he travelled on the continent and in Paris, through the influence of a Catholic fellow- countryman, was converted. By the advice of John Cecil, an English priest who afterwards became a Government spy, he decided to enter the English College at Valladolid, where he was admitted 18 October, 1598. The following year, however, he left the college for the Abbey of St. Benedict, Valladolid; whence, after some months, he was sent to make his novitiate in the great Abbey of St. Martin at Compostella where he made his profession towards the end of 1600. His studies completed he was ordained, and set out for England 26 December, 1602. Although observed by a Government spy, Roberts and his companions succeeded in entering the country in April, 1603; but, his arrival being known, he was arrested and banished on 13 May following. He reached Douai on 24 May and soon managed to return to England where he laboured zealously among the plague-stricken people in London. In 1604, while embarking for Spain with four postulants, he was again arrested, but not being recognized as a priest was soon released and banished, but returned again at once. On 5 November, 1605, while Justice Grange was searching the house of Mrs. Percy, first wife of Thomas Percy, who was involved in the Gunpowder Plot, he found Roberts there and arrested him. Though acquitted of any complicity in the plot itself, Roberts was imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Westminster for seven months and then exiled anew in July, 1606. This time he was absent for some fourteen months, nearly all of which he spent at Douai where he founded a house for the English Benedictine monks who had entered various Spanish monasteries. This was the beginning of the monastery of St. Gregory at Douai which still exists as Downside Abbey, near Bath, England. In October, 1607, Roberts returned to England, was again arrested in December and placed in the Gatehouse, from which he contrived to escape after some months. He now lived for about a year in London and was again taken some time before May, 1609, in which month he was taken to Newgate and would have been executed but for the intercession of de la Broderie, the French ambassador, whose petition reduced the sentence to banishment. Roberts again visited Spain and Douai, but returned to England within a year, knowing that his death was certain if he were again captured. This event took place on 2 December, 1610; the pursuivants arriving just as he was concluding Mass, took him to Newgate in his vestments. On 5 December he was tried and found guilty under the Act forbidding priests to minister in England, and on 10 December was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. The body of Roberts was recovered and taken to St. Gregory's, Douai, but disappeared during the French Revolution. Two fingers are still preserved at Downside and Erdington Abbeys respectively and a few minor relics exist. At Erdington also is a unique contemporary engraving of the martyrdom which has been reproduced in the "Downside Review" (XXIV, 286). The introduction of the cause of beatification was approved by Leo XIII in his Decree of 4 December, 1886. [ Note: In 1970, John Roberts was canonized by Pope Paul VI as one of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feastday is kept on 25 October.] The earlier accounts given by CHALLONER, DOD (DODD), PLOWDEN, and FOLEY are misleading, as they confound John Roberts the Benedictine with an earlier priest of the same name. This has been shown conclusively by CAMM, whose work is the best on the subject. YEPES, Coronica general de la Orden de San Benito, IV (Valladolid, 1613), folios 58-63; POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891), 143-70; CAMM, A Benedictine Martyr in England, Being the Life . . . of Dom John Roberts, O.S.B. (London, 1897); IDEM, The Martyrdom of V. John Roberts in Downside Review, XXIV, 286; BISHOP, The Beginning of Douai Convent and The First Prior of St. Gregory's in Downside Review, XVI, 21; XXV, 52; FULLERTON, Life of Luisa de Carvajal (London, 1873). G. ROGER HUDLESTON James Burton Robertson James Burton Robertson Historian, b. in London 15 Nov., 1800; d. at Dublin 14 Feb., 1877, son of Thomas Robertson, a landed proprietor in Grenada, West Indies, where he spent his boyhood. In 1809 his mother brought him to England, and placed him at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall (1810), where he remained nine years. In 1819 he began his legal studies, and in 1825 was called to the bar, but did not practise. For a time he studied philosophy and theology in France under the influence of his friends Lamennais and Gerbet. In 1835 he published his translation of Frederick Schlegel's "Philosophy of History", which passed through many editions. From 1837 to 1854 he lived in Germany of Belgium. During this time he translated Moehler. This work considerably influenced some of the Oxford Tractarians. In 1855 Dr. Newman nominated Robertson as professor of geography and modern history in the Catholic University of Ireland. In this capacity he published two series of lectures (1859 and 1864), as well as "Lectures on Edmund Burke" (1869), and a translation of Dr. Hergenroether's "Anti Janus" (1870) to which he prefixed a history of Gallicanism. He also wrote a poem, "The Prophet Enoch" (1859), and contributed several articles to the "Dublin Review". His services to literature obtained for him a pension from the Government in 1869, and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Pius IX (1875). He is buried in Glasnevin cemetary. Tablet (24 Feb., 1877); GILLOW in Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; The Edmundian, II, no. 8 (1895). EDWIN BURTON Ven. Christopher Robinson Ven. Christopher Robinson Born at Woodside, near Westward, Cumberland, date unknown; executed at Carlisle, 19 Aug., 1598. He was admitted to the English College at Reims in 1589, and was ordained priest and sent on the mission in 1592. Two years later he was a witness of the condemnation and execution of the venerable martyr John Boste (q.v.) at Durham, and wrote a very graphic account of this, which has been printed from a seventeenth-century transcript in the first volume of the "Catholic Record Society's Publications" (London, 1905), pp. 85-92. His labours seem to have been mainly in Cumberland and Westmoreland; but nothing is known about them. Eventually he was arrested and imprisoned at Carlisle, where Bishop Robinson, who may have been a relative, did his best to persuade him to save his life by conforming, under 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest and coming into the realm, suffered the last penalty with such cheerful constancy that his death was the occasion of many conversions. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT William Callyhan Robinson William Callyhan Robinson Jurist and educator, b. 26 July, 1834, at Norwich, Conn.; d. 6 Nov., 1911, at Washington, D.C. After preparatory studies at Norwich Academy, Williston Seminary, and Wesleyan University, he entered Dartmouth College from which he was graduated in 1854. He then entered the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was graduated in 1857, and ordained to the Episcopalian Ministry, in which he served first at Pittston, Pa. (1857-8), and then at Scranton, Pa. (1859-62). He was received into the Catholic Church in 1863, was admitted to the Bar in 1864, and was lecturer and professor in law at Yale University (1869-95). For two years (1869-71) he was judge of the City Court and later (1874-6) judge of the Court of Common Pleas at New Haven, Conn. In 1874 also he served as member of the Legislature. From Dartmouth College he received (1879) the degree LL.D., and from Yale University the degree M.A. (1881). He married 2 July, 1857, Anna Elizabeth Haviland and, 31 March, 1891, Ultima Marie Smith. His thorough knowledge of law made him eminent as a teacher and enabled him to render important service to the Church. In 1895 he was appointed professor in the Catholic University of America, where he organized the School of Social Sciences and remained as Dean of the School of Law until his death. Besides articles contributed to various periodicals, he wrote: "Life of E. B. Kelly" (1855); "Notes of Elementary Law" (1876); "Elementary Law" (Boston, 1876); "Clavis Rerum" (1883); "Law of Patents" (3 vols., Boston, 1890); "Forensic Oratory" (Boston, 1893); "Elements of American Jurisprudence" (Boston, 1900). Catholic University Bulletin (Dec., 1911); Catholic Educational Review (Dec., 1911). E.A. PACE Juan Tomas de Rocaberti Juan Tomas de Rocaberti Theologian, b. of a noble family at Perelada, in Catalina, c. 1624; d. at Madrid 13 June, 1699. Educated at Gerona he entered the Dominican convent there, receiving the habit in 1640. His success in theological studies at the convent of Valencia secured for him the chair of theology in the university. In 1666he was chosen provincial of Aragon, and in 1670 the General Chapter elected him general of the order. He became endeared to all who came in contact with him. No one, perhaps, held him in greater esteem than Clement X. The celebrated Dominican Contenson dedicated to him his "Theologia mentis el cordis". He obtained the canonization of Sts. Louis Bertrand and Rose of Lima, the solemn beatification of Pius V, and the annual celebration in the order of the feast of Bl. Albert the Great and others. In 1676 he was appointed by Charles II first Archbishop of Valencia and then governor of that province. In 1695 he was made inquisitor-general of Spain. Rocaberti is best known as an active apologist of the papacy against Gallicans and Protestants. His first work in the sense was "De Romani poniticis auctoritate" (3 vols., Valentia, 1691-94). His most important work is the "Bibliotheca Maxima Pontificia" (21 vols., Rome, 1697-00). In this monumental work the author collected and published in alphabetical order, and in their entirety, all the important works dealing with the primacy of the Holy See from an orthodox point of view, beginning with Abraham Bzovius and ending with Zacharias Boverius. An excellent summary is given in Hurter's "Nomenclator". QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. ord. Prad., II (Paris, 1721), 630,827; TOURON, Hist. des hom. Ill. De l'ordre Dom., V (Paris, 1748), 714-26; HURTER, Nomenclator, II: Annee Dominicaine, XIII, 785. H.J. SCHROEDER Rocamadour Rocamadour Communal chief town of the canton of Gramat, district of Gourdon, Department of Lot, in the Diocese of Cahors and the ancient province of Quercy. This village by the wonderful beauty of its situation merits the attention of artists and excites the curiosity of archaeologists; but its reputation is due especially to its celebrated sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin which for centuries has attracted pilgrims from every country, among them kings, bishops, and nobles. A curious legend purported to explain the origin of this pilgrimage has given rise to controversies between critical and traditional schools, especially in recent times. According to the latter, Rocamadour is indebted for its name to the founder of the ancient sanctuary, St. Amadour, who was none other than Zacheus of the Gospel, husband of St. Veronica, who wiped the Saviour's face on the way to Calvary. Driven forth from Palestine by persecution, Amadour and Veronica embarked in a frail skiff and, guided by an angel, landed on the coast of Aquitaine, where thy met Bishop St. Martial, another disciple of Christ who was preaching the Gospel in the south-west of Gaul. After journeying to Rome, where he witnessed the martydoms of Sts. Peter and Paul, Amadour, having returned to France, on the death of his spouse, withdrew to a wild spot in Quercy where he built a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin, near which he died a little later. This marvellous account, like most other similar legends, unfortunately does not make its first appearance till long after the age in which the chief actors are deemed to have lived. The name of Amadour occurs in no document previous to the compilation of his Acts, which on careful examination and on an application of the rules of the cursus to the text cannot be judged older than the twelfth century. It is now well established that St. martial, Amadour's contemporary in the legend, lived in the third not the first century, and Rome has never included him among the members of the Apostolic College. The mention, therefore, of St. martial in the Acts of St. Amadour would alone suffice, even if other proof were wanting, to prove them a forgery. The untrustworthiness of the legend has led some recent authors to suggest that Amadour was an unknown hermit or possible St. Amator, Bishop of Auxerre, but this is mere hypothesis, without any historical basis. Although the origin of the sanctuary of Rocamadour, lost in antiquity, is thus first set down along with fabulous traditions which cannot bear the light of sound criticism, yet it is undoubted that this spot, hallowed by the prayers of innumerable multitudes of pilgrims, is worthy of our veneration. After the religious manifestations of the Middle Ages, Rocamadour, as a result of war and revolution, had become almost deserted. Recently, owing to the zeal and activity of the bishops of Cahors, it seems to have revived and pilgrims are beginning to crown there again. DE GISSEY, Hist. et miracles de N. D. de Roc-Amadour au pays de Quercy (Tulle, 1666); CAILLAU, Hist. crit. Et relig. De N .D. de Rod-Amadour (Paris, 1834); IDEM, Le Jour de Marie ou le guide du pelerin de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1836); SERVOIS, Notice et extraits du recueil des miracles de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1856); LIEUTAUD, La Vida de S. Amadour, texte provenc,al du XIV's. (Cahors, 1876); BOURRIERES, Saint Amadour et Sainte Veronique, disciples de Notre Seigneur et apotres de Gauels (Paris, 1895); ENARD, Lettre pastorale sur l'hist de Roc-Amadour. . . (Cahors, 1899); RUPIN, Roc-Amadour etude hist. et archeol. (Paris, 1904), an excellent work containing the definitive history of Roc-Amadour; ALBE, Les miracles de N. D. de Rod-Amadour au XIIx s., texte et traduction des manusrits de la Bibiotheque nationale (Paris, 1907), corroborating the work of Rupin. LEON CLUGNET Angelo Rocca Angelo Rocca Founder of the Angelica Library at Rome, b. at Rocca, now Arecevia, near Ancone, 1545; d. at Rome, 8 April, 1620. He was received at the age of seven into the Augustinian monastery at Camerino (hence also called Camers, Camerinus), studied at Perugia, Rome, Venice, and in 1577 graduated as doctor in theology from Padua. He became secretary to the superior-general of the Augustinians in 1579, was placed at the head of the Vatican printing-office in 1585, and entrusted with the superintendence of the projected editions of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. In 1595 he was appointed sacristan in the papal chapel, and in 1605 became titular Bishop of Tagaste in Numidia. The public library of the Augustinians at Rome, formally established 23 October, 1614, perpetuated his name. It is mainly to his efforts that we owe the edition of the Vulgate published during the pontificate of Clement VIII. He also edited the works of Egidio Colonna (Venice, 1581), of Augustinus Triumphus (Rome, 1582), and wrote: "Bibliothecae theologicae et scripturalis epitome" (Rome, 1594); "De Sacrosancto Christi corpore romanis pontificibus iter conficientibus praeferendo commentarius" (Rome, 1599); "De canonizatione sanctorum commentarius" (Rome, 1601), "De campanis" (Rome, 1612). An incomplete collection of his works was published in 1719 and 1745 at Rome: "Thesaurus pontificiarum sacrarumque antiquitatum necnon rituum praxium et caeremoniarium". OSSINGER, Bibl. August (Ingolstadt, 1768), 754-64; CHALMERS, Gen. Biol. Dict., s. v. N.A. WEBER St. Roch St. Roch Born at Montpellier towards 1295; died 1327. His father was governor of that city. At his birth St. Roch is said to have been found miraculously marked on the breast with a red cross. Deprived of his parents when about twenty years old, he distributed his fortune among the poor, handed over to his uncle the government of Montpellier, and in the disguise of a mendicant pilgrim, set out for Italy, but stopped at Aquapendente, which was stricken by the plague, and devoted himself to the plague-stricken, curing them with the sign of the cross. He next visited Cesena and other neighbouring cities and then Rome. Everywhere the terrible scourge disappeared before his miraculous power. He visited Mantua, Modena, Parma, and other cities with the same results. At Piacenza, he himself was stricken with the plague. He withdrew to a hut in the neighbouring forest, where his wants were supplied by a gentleman named Gothard, who by a miracle learned the place of his retreat. After his recovery Roch returned to France. Arriving at Montpellier and refusing to disclose his identity, he was taken for a spy in the disguise of a pilgrim, and cast into prison by order of the governor, -- his own uncle, some writers say, -- where five years later he died. The miraculous cross on his breast as well as a document found in his possession now served for his identification. He was accordingly given a public funeral, and numerous miracles attested his sanctity. In 1414, during the Council of Constance, the plague having broken out in that city, the Fathers of the Council ordered public prayers and processions in honour of the saint, and immediately the plague ceased. His relics, according to Wadding, were carried furtively to Venice in 1485, where they are still venerated. It is commonly held that he belonged to the Third Order of St. Francis; but it cannot be proved. Wadding leaves it an open question. Urban VIII approved the ecclesiastical office to be recited on his feast (16 August). Paul III instituted a confraternity, under the invocation of the saint, to have charge of the church and hospital erected during the pontificate of Alexander VI. The confraternity increased so rapidly that Paul IV raised it to an archconfraternity, with powers to aggregate similar confraternities of St. Roch. It was given a cardinal-protector, and a prelate of high rank was to be its immediate superior (see Reg. et Const. Societatis S. Rochi). Various favours have been bestowed on it by Pius IV (C. Regimini, 7 March, 1561), by Gregory XIII (C. dated 5 January, 1577), by Gregory XIV (C. Paternar. pont., 7 March, 1591), and by other pontiffs. It still flourishes. WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1731), VII, 70; IX, 251; Acta SS. (Venice, 1752), 16 August; Gallia Christiana, VI ad an. 1328; ANDRE, Hist. de S. Roch (Carpentras, 1854); CHAVANNE, S. Roch Hist. complete, etc. (Lyons, 1876); COFFINIERES, S. Roch, etudes histor. sur Montpellier au XIVe siecle (Montpellier, 1855); BEVIGNANI, Vita del Taumaturgo S. Rocco (Rome, 1878); Vita del glorioso S. Rocco, figlio di Giovanni principe di Agatopoli, ora detta Montpellieri, con la storica relazione del suo corpo (Venice, 1751); BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 16 August; LEON, Lives of the Saints of the Three Orders of S. Francis (Taunton, England, 1886); PIAZZA, Opere pie di Roma (Rome, 1679). GREGORY CLEARY Rochambeau Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de Vimeur, Count de Rochambeau Marshal, b. at Vendome, France, 1 July, 1725; d. at Thore, 10 May, 1807. At the age of sixteen he entered the army and in 1745 became an aid to Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, subsequently commanding a regiment. He served with distinction in several important battles, notably those of Minorca, Crevelt, and Minden, and was wounded at the battle of Lafeldt. When the French monarch resolved to despatch a military force to aid the American colonies in the Revolutionary War, Rochambeau was created a lieutenant-general and placed in command of a body of troops which numbered some 6000 men. It was the smallness of this force that made Rochambeau at first averse to taking part in the American War, but his sympathy with the colonial cause compelled him eventually to accept the command, and he arrived at Newport, Rhode Island July, 1780, and joined the American army under Washington, on the Hudson a few miles above the city of New York. Rochambeau performed the double duties of a diplomat and general in an alien army with rare distinction amidst somewhat trying circumstances, not the least of which being a somewhat unaccountable coolness between Washington and himself, which, fortunately, was of but passing import (see the correspondence and diary of Count Axel Fersen). After the first meeting with the American general he marched with his force to the Virginia peninsula and rendered heroic assistance at Yorktown in the capture of the English forces under Lord Cornwallis, which concluded the hostilities. When Cornwallis surrendered, 19 Oct., 1781, Rochambeau was presented with one of the captured cannon. After the surrender he embarked for France amid ardent protestations of gratitude and admiration from the officers and men of the American army. In 1783 he received the decoration of Saint-Esprit and obtained the baton of a marshal of France in 1791. Early in 1792 he was placed in command of the army of the North, and conducted a force against the Austrians, but resigned the same year and narrowly escaped the guillotine when the Jacobin revolutionary power had obtained supreme control in Paris. When the fury of the revolution had spent itself, Rochambeau was reinstated in the regard of his countrymen. He was granted a pension by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804, and was decorated with the Cross of Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour. The last years of the distinguished military leader's life were passed in the dictation of his memoirs, which appeared in two volumes in Paris in 1809, and which throw many personal and brilliant sidelights on the events of two of the most historically impressive revolutions, and the exceptional men therein concerned. WRIGHT, Memoirs of Marshal Count de Rochambeau Relative to the War or Independence (1838); SOULE, Histoire des troubles de l'Amerique anglaise(Paris, 1787); standard histories of the United States may also be consulted. JARVIS KEILEY Rochester Ancient See of Rochester (ROFFA; ROFFENSIS). The oldest and smallest of all the suffragan sees of Canterbury, was founded by St. Augustine, Apostle of England, who in 604 consecrated St. Justus as its first bishop. It consisted roughly of the western part of Kent, separated from the rest of the county by the Medway, though the diocesan boundaries did not follow the river very closely. The cathedral, founded by King Ethelbert and dedicated to St. Andrew from whose monastery at Rome St. Augustine and St. Justus had come, was served by a college of secular priests and endowed with land near the city called Priestfield. It suffered much from the Mercians (676) and the Danes, but the city retained its importance, and after the Norman Conquest a new cathedral was begun by the Norman bishop Gundulf. This energetic prelate replaced the secular chaplains by Benedictine monks, translated the relics of St. Paulinus to a silver shrine which became a place of pilgrimage, obtained several royal grants of land, and proved an untiring benefactor to his cathedral city. Gundulf had built the nave and western front before his death; the western transept was added between 1179 and 1200, and the eastern transept during the reign of Henry III. The cathedral is small, being only 306 feet long, but its nave is the oldest in England and it has a fine Norman crypt. Besides the shrine of St. Paulinus, the cathedral contained the relics of St. Ithamar, the first Saxon to be consecrated to the episcopate, and St. William of Perth, who was held in popular veneration. In 1130 the cathedral was consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury assisted by thirteen bishops in the presence of Henry I, but the occasion was marred by a great fire which nearly destroyed the whole city and damaged the new cathedral. After the burial of St. William of Perth in 1201 the offerings at his tomb were so great, that by their means the choir was rebuilt and the central tower was added (1343), thus completing the cathedral. From the foundation of the see the arthbishops of Canterbury had enjoyed the privilege of nominating the bishop, but Archbishop Theobald transferred the right to the Benedictine monks of the cathedral who exercised it for the first time in 1148. The following is the list of bishops with the date of their accession; but the succession from Tatnoth (844) to Siward (1058) is obscure, and may be modified by fresh research: St. Justus, 604 Romanus, 624 Vacancy, 625 St. Paulinus, 633 St. Ithamar, 644 Damianus, 655 Vacancy, 664 Putta, 666-9 Cwichelm, 676 Gebmund, 678 Tobias, 693-706 Ealdwulf, 727 Dunno, 741 Eardwulf, 747 Deora, 765-72 Waermund I, 781-5 Beornmod, 803-5 Tatnoth, 844 Beadunoth (possibly identical with Waermund II) Waermund II, 845-62 Cuthwulf, 860- 8 Swithwulf (date unknown) Ceolmund, 897-904 Cynefrith (date unknown) Burbric, 933 or 934 Beorhtsige (doubtful name) Daniel, 951-5 Aelfstan, c. 964 Godwine I, 995 Godwine II (date unknown) Siweard, 1058 Arnost, 1076 Gundulf, 1077 Radulphus d'Escures, 1108 Ernulf, 1115 John of Canterbury, 1125 John of Sees, 1137 Ascelin, 1142 Walter, 1148 Gualeran, 1182 Gilbert de Glanvill, 1185 Benedict de Sansetun, 1215 Henry Sandford, 1226 Richard de Wendover, 1235 (consecrated, 1238) Lawrence de St. Martin, 1251 Walter de Merton, 1274 John de Bradfield, 1277 Thomas Inglethorp, 1283 Thomas de Wouldham, 1292 Vacancy, 1317 Hamo de Hythe, 1319 John de Sheppey, 1352 William of Whittlesea, 1362 Thomas Trilleck, 1384 Thomas Brunton, 1373 William de Bottisham, 1389 John de Bottisham, 1400 Richard Young, 1404 John Kemp, 1419 (afterwards Cardinal) John Langdon, 1421 Thomas Brown, 1435 William Wells, 1437 John Lowe, 1444 Thomas Rotheram (or Scott), 1468 John Alcock, 1472 John Russell, 1476 Edmund Audley, 1480 Thomas Savage, 1492 Richard Fitz James, 1496 Bl. John Fisher, 1504 (Cardinal) Schismatical bishops: John Hilsey, 1535 Richard Heath, 1539 Henry Holbeach, 1543 Nicholas Ridley, 1547 John Poynet, 1550 John Scory, 1551 Vacancy, 1552 The canonical line was restored by the appointment in 1554 of Maurice Griffith, the last Catholic bishop of Rochester, who died in 1558. The diocese was so small, consisting merely of part of Kent, that it needed only one archdeacon (Rochester) to supervise the 97 parishes. It was also the poorest diocese in England. The cathedral was dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle. The arms of the see were argent, on a saltire gules an Escalop shell, or. SHRUBSOLE AND DENNE, History and Antiquities of Rochester (London, 1772); Wharton, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691) pt. i, includes annals by DE HADENHAM (604-1307) and DE DENE (1314-50); PEARMAN, Rochester: Diocesan History (London, 1897); PALMER, Rochester: The Cathedral and See (London, 1897); HOPE, Architectural History of Cathedral in Kent Arch*logical Society, XXIII, XXIV (1898- 1900); ERNULPHUS, Textus Roffensis, ed. HEARNE (London, 1720), reprinted in P. L. CLXIII; PEGGE, Account of Textus Roffensis (London, 1784) in NICHOLS, Bib. Topog. Brit., (London, 1790); J. Thorpe, Registrum Roffense (London, 1769); J. THORPE, JR., Custumale Roffense (London, 1988); WINKLE, Cathedral Churches of England and Wales (London, 1860); FAIRBANKS, Cathedrals of England and Wales (London, 1907); GODWIN, De pr*sulibus Angli* (London, 1743); GAMS, Series Episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873); SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (Cambridge, 1899). EDWIN BURTON Rochester Diocese of Rochester This diocese, on its establishment by separation from the See of Buffalo, 24 January, 1868, comprised the counties of Monroe, Livingston, Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Cayuga, Yates, and Tompkins in the state of New York. In 1896, after the death of Bishop Ryan of Buffalo, the boundary line of the two dioceses was somewhat changed, the counties of Steuben, Schuyler, Chemung, and Tioga being detached from the See of Buffalo and added to that of Rochester. Bishops (1) Rev. Bernard J. McQuaid, who became a pioneer and leader in Catholic education and the founder of a model seminary, was consecrated bishop of Rochester in St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York City, on 12 July, 1868. Four days later he took possession of his small and poor diocese, containing only sixty churches administered by thirty-eight priests, seven of whom were Redemptorist Fathers. When he died, 18 Jan., 1909, after forty years spent in a laborious episcopate, his diocese was richly furnished with churches, schools, seminaries, charitable institutions, answering the manifold needs of the Catholic population, then estimated at 121,000. (2) Rev. Thomas F. Hickey was consecrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Rochester, 24 May, 1905, having been appointed coadjutor to Bishop McQuaid. Churches The steady growth of the Catholic population in the Diocese of Rochester, due mainly to immigration of Irish, German, French, Polish, Italian, Lithuanian and Ruthenian Catholics, taxed the resources at the disposal of Bishop McQuaid, who was anxious throughout his entire episcopate to supply the people with churches and priests of their own nationality and language, whenever they were willing and able to support them. The parishes were not allowed to become unwieldy, but were increased in number to meet the needs and conveniences of the faithful. The problem of spiritual ministration to Catholics dwelling at watering- places in the diocese in the summer found a good solution in the erection of neat summer chapels. Catholic Education The common schools in the Diocese of Rochester at the time of its creation professed to be non-sectarian. Bishop McQuaid felt that they were very dangerous to the Catholic child which really finds its church in the school. He sought a remedy in a vigorous agitation for the rights of Catholic parents, contributing to the support of the public school system by their taxes, to receive public money for the maintenance of schools, in which their children could be educated with that "amount and description of religious instruction" which conscience tells them is good, expedient, necessary. The failure of the State to remedy the injustice was met with the firm command of the bishop which was put into execution as soon as possible throughout the diocese: "Build schoolhouses then for the religious education of your children as the best protest against a system of education from which religion has been excluded by law." At Rochester in 1868, there were 2056 children in the parochial schools of the five German churches, and 441 children in the schools attached to the Churches of St. Patrick and St. Mary. Both of these had a select or pay school and a free, parish, or poor school, admitting invidious distinctions very distasteful to the new bishop. Outside of Rochester schools were attached to a few churches of the diocese, but with a very small attendance. These were the humble beginnings of the admirable parochial school system, which embraces today practically all the Catholic children of the school age in the diocese. Not all the Catholic schools were brought to their present high degree of efficiency at once; it took many years and persistent effort to accomplish this work. The brothers gradually yielded their places to the sisters, who now teach all the children in the Catholic schools, both boys and girls. Bishop McQuaid spared no pains in developing good teachers in his own order of the Sisters of St. Joseph, for whom a normal training school was established. Occasional "teachers' institutes" organized for the benefit of these sisterhoods in Rochester prepared the way for the annual conference held by the parochial teachers in the episcopal city since 1904, at which the various orders meet to discuss educational problems and to perfect in every possible way the parochial school system. As early as 1855 the Ladies of the Sacred Heart transferred their convent in Buffalo to Rochester as a more central point for their academy. About the same time the Sisters of St. Joseph in Canandaigua opened St. Mary's academy for young ladies, now Nazareth Academy attached to the new motherhouse of the order in Rochester. Advanced courses were also introduced in 1903 into the Cathedral school under the direction of Bishop Hickey, who, in 1906, converted the old Cathedral Hall into a high school, classical and commercial, open to both girls and boys. Ecclesiastical (a) Preparatory.--Believing that it was hard for a boy to become a worthy priest without first leading the normal life of the family in the world, Bishop McQuaid planned his preparatory ecclesiastical seminary as a free day-school and not a boarding-school, the students living at home under the care of their parents, or in a boarding house approved by the superiors. Within two years after the erection of the diocese, this plan was realized. On his return from the Vatican Council in 1870, St. Andrew's Preparatory Seminary was opened in a small building to the rear of the episcopal residence. It has already given nearly 175 priests to the diocese of Rochester. The rule has been made to adopt no one in this diocese who has ot spent at least two years in St. Andrew's Seminary. Through the generosity of Mgr. H. De Regge and some others, Bishop McQuaid was enabled to erect a new building in 1880 and to enlarge it in 1889; and in 1904 the younger priests of the diocese furnished him with funds to erect a fire-proof structure with fitting accommodations for the work of the school. (b) Theological.--For many years the ecclesiastical students of the Diocese of Rochester were sent mainly to the provincial seminary at Troy or to Rome and Innsbruck in Europe for their theological education. In 1879 Bishop McQuaid put aside a small legacy bequeathed him as a nucleus of a fund for the erection of suitable buildings for a diocesan seminary. Although the fund grew slowly, the bishop would not lay the first stone until nearly all the money needed for the work was in hand, nor would he open the seminary for students until the buildings were completed and paid for, and at least four professorships endowed. In April, 1887, he was able to purchase a site on the bank of the Genesee River gorge, only three miles from the cathedral. Four years later he began the erection of the buildings. In two years they were completed, and in September, 1893, the seminary was opened with 39 students. Applications for admission soon came from various parts of the United States and Canada. Four years after its establishment, it became evident that more room was necessary. A fund for an additional building was begun and in 1900, the Hall of Philosophy and Science was erected with accommodations for class-rooms, library, and living rooms. In the following year Bishop McQuaid received a recognition for these labours from Leo XIII in a Brief granting to himself and his successors the power of conferring degrees in Philosophy and Theology. The Hall of Theology was begun in 1907 and solemnly dedicated 20 August, 1908. The priests of the diocese founded the ninth endowed professorship in honour of their bishop's jubilee. An infirmary for sick students was in process of construction when Bishop McQuaid died. Charities Though Catholic education was the primary concern of Bishop McQuaid in his diocese, ample provision for its charities was not lacking. (1) As early as 1845 the R.C.A. Society of Rochester, already in existence some years, was incorporated, having for its object the support of the orphan girls in St. Patrick's Female Orphan Asylum at Rochester and the support of the orphan boys sent to the Boys' Asylum, either at Lancaster, New York, or at Lime Stone Hill near Buffalo. In 1864 St. Mary's Boys' Orphan Asylum was also established in Rochester under the care of the Sisters of St. Joseph, to whom also the Girls' Orphan Asylum was confided in 1870 on the resignation of the Sisters of Charity hitherto in charge. When the Auburn Orphan Asylum, incorporated in 1853, was transferred to Rochester in 1910, all this work was then centralized in the episcopal city. Here also special provision had been made for the German Catholic orphans since 1866, when St. Joseph's Orphan Asylum was erected and placed under the care of the Sisters of Notre-Dame. (2) In 1873 a short-lived attempt was made to supplement the work of St. Mary's Orphan Asylum by giving the boys of suitable age an opportunity of acquiring a practical knowledge of farming or of a useful trade. A similar institution for girls flourished under Mother Hieronymo for some twenty years under the name of The Home of Industry which then was changed into a home for the aged. The location did not prove desirable for such an institution, and $65,000 having been raised by a bazaar, Bishop McQuaid was enabled to erect St. Anne's Home for the Aged, admitting men as well as women. (3) The spiritual needs of another class of the destitute, the Catholic inmates of public eleemosynary and penal institution in the diocese, appealed strongly to Bishop McQuaid, who at once became their champion in the endeavour to have their religious rights respected according to the guarantee of the Constitution of the State of New York. His agitation in this noble cause was crowned with success, and the State supports today chaplains at the State Industrial School, Industry, at the State Reformatory, Elmira, at the Craig Colony (state hospital for epileptics), Sonyea, at the Soldiers' and Sailors' Home, Bath, while the county maintains a chaplain in Rochester for its public institutions of this kind. (4) The Catholic sick have one of the largest and best equipped hospitals in Rochester at their disposal in St. Mary's Hospital, established by the Sisters of Charity under Mother Hieronymo in 1857. The Sisters of Mercy have charge of St. James Hospital in Hornell, and of late years the Sisters of St. Joseph have also opened a hospital in Elmira. Statistics Priests, 163 (6 Redemptorists); churches with resident priests, 94; missions with churches, 36; chapels, 18; parishes with parochial schools, 54 with 20,189 pupils; academies for young ladies, 2 with 470 pupils (Nazareth, 352; Sacred Heart, 118); theological seminary for secular clergy, 1 with 234 students (73 for the Diocese of Rochester); preparatory seminary, 1 with 80 students; orphan asylums, 3 with 438 orphans (St. Patrick's, Girls', 119; St. Mary's Boys', 204; St. Joseph's, 115); Home for the Aged, 1 with 145 inmates (men, 25); hospitals, 3 with 3115 inmates during year (St. Mary's, Rochester, 2216; St. Joseph's, Elmira, 463; St. James, Hornell, 436); Catholics, 142,263. Conc. Balt. Plen. acta et decreta; Acta S. Sedis, III; Leonis XIII Acta xvi, xxi; Catholic Directory, (1866-1911); McQuaid: Diaries (fragmentary); IDEM, Pastorals in Annual Coll. for Eccl. students (1871-1911); IDEM, Pastoral (Jubilee) (1875); IDEM, Pastoral (Visitation) (1878); IDEM, Our American Seminaries in Am. Eccl. Rev. (May, 1897), reprint in SMITH, The Training of a Priest, pp. xxi-xxxix; IDEM, The Training of a Seminary Professor in SMITH, op. cit., pp. 237-35; IDEM, Christian Free Schools (1892), a reprint of lectures; IDEM, Religion in Schools in North Am. Rev (April, 1881); IDEM, Religious Teaching in Schools in Forum (Dec., 1889); Reports of Conferences held by parochial teachers (1904-10). FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN Rochet Rochet An over-tunic usually made of fine white linen (cambric; fine cotton material is also allowed), and reaching to the knees. While bearing a general resemblance to the surplice, it is distinguished from that vestment by the shape of the sleeves; in the surplice these are at least fairly wide, while in the rochet they are always tight-fitting. The rochet is decorated with lace or embroidered borders--broader at the hem and narrower on the sleeves. To make the vestment entirely of tulle or lace is inconvenient, as is the inordinate use of plaits; in both cases, the vestment becomes too effeminate. The rochet is not a vestment pertaining to all clerics, like the surplice; it is distinctive of prelates, and may be worn by other ecclesiastics only when (as, e.g., in the case of cathedral chapters) the usus rochetti has been granted them by a special papal indult. That the rochet possesses no liturgical character is clear both from the Decree of Urban VII prefixed to the Roman Missal, and from an express decision of the Congregation of Rites (10 Jan., 1852), which declares that, in the administration of the sacraments, the rochet may not be used as a vestis sacra; in the administration of the sacraments, as well as at the conferring of the tonsure and the minor orders, use should be made of the surplice (cf. the decision of 31 May, 1817; 17 Sept., 1722; 16 April, 1831). However, as the rochet may be used by the properly privileged persons as choir-dress, it may be included among the liturgical vestments in the broad sense, like the biretta or the cappa magna. Prelates who do not belong to a religious order, should wear the rochet over the soutane during Mass in so far as this is convenient. The origin of the rochet may be traced from the clerical (non- liturgical) alba or camisia, that is, the clerical linen tunic of everyday life. It was thus not originally distinctive of the higher ecclesiastics alone. This camisia appears first in Rome as a privileged vestment; that this was the case in the Christian capital as early as the ninth century is established by the St. Gall catalogue of vestments. Outside of Rome the rochet remained to a great extent a vestment common to all clerics until the fourteenth century (and even longer); according to various German synodal statutes of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Trier, Passau, Cambrai, etc.), it was worn even by sacristans. The Fourth Lateran Council prescribed its use for bishops who did not belong to a religious order, both in the church and on all public appearances. The name rochet (from the medieval roccus) was scarcely in use before the thirteenth century. It is first met outside of Rome, where, until the fifteenth century, the vestment was called camisia, alba romana, or succa (subta). These names gradually yielded to rochet in Rome also. Originally, the rochet reached, like the liturgical alb, to the feet, and, even in the fifteenth century still reached to the shins. It was not reduced to its present length until the seventeenth century. BRAUN, Die liturg. Gewandung im Occident u. Orient (Freiburg, 1907), 125 sqq.; BOCK, Gesch. der liturg Gewaender, II (Bonn, 1866), 329 sqq.; ROHAULT DE BLEURY, La Messe, VII (Paris, 1888). JOSEPH BRAUN Desire Raoul Rochette Desire Raoul Rochette Usually known as Raoul-Rochette, a French archaeologist, b. at St. Amand (Cher), 9 March, 1789; d. in Paris, 3 June, 1854. His father was a physician. He made his classical studies the lyceum of Bourges, and then took up post-graduate work in the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris. In 1810, he obtained a chair of grammar in the lyceum Louis-le-Grand, and in the same year, married the daughter of the celebrated sculptor Houdon. Three years later, he was awarded a prize by the Institute for his "Memoire sur les Colonies Grecques". In 1815, he became lecturer at the Ecole Normale and succeeded Guizot in the chair of modern history at the Sorbonne. It has been often said that he owed his rapid advancement only to favoritism, because of his devotion to the ruling power; this is not entirely true. He was a real scholar whose deep knowledge of archaeology was admired even by his political enemies. He was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1816, and two years later, made a keeper of medals and antiques. His appointment to the position of censor (1820) aroused the hostility of his students, who prevented him from delivering his lectures and caused the course to be suspended. In 1824 he was transferred to the chair of archaeology. He entered the Academy of Fine Arts in 1838, and was made it perpetual secretary in 1839. Besides his memoirs for the Institute and numerous contributions to the "Journal de Savants, he wrote many books, the chief of which are: "Histoire critique de;'etablissement des colonies grecques" (Paris, 1815); "Antiquites grecques du Bosphore Cimmerien" (Paris, 1822); "Lettres sur le Suisse" (Paris, 1826); "Memoires inedits d'antiquite figuree grecque, etrusque et Romaine" (Paris, 1828); "Pompei" (Paris, 1828); "Cours d'archeologie" (Paris, 1828); "Peintures antiques inedites" (Paris, 1836). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Daniel Rock Daniel Rock Antiquarian and ecclesiologist, b. at Liverpool, 31 August, 1799; d. at Kensington, London, 28 November, 1871. He was educated at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, where he studied from April, 1813, to Dec., 1818. There he came under the influence of the Rev. Louis Havard from whom he acquired his first interest in liturgy, and was the intimate companion of the future historian, Mark A. Tierney. He was then chosen as one of the first students sent to reopen the English College at Rome, where he remained till he took the degree of D.D. in 1825. He had been ordained priest, 13 March, 1824. On his return to London he becomes assistant priest at St. Mary's, Moorfields, till 1827, when he was appointed domestic chaplain to John, Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom he had contracted a friendship based on similarity of tastes while at Rome. He accordingly resided at Alton Towers, Staffordshire, till 1840, with the exception of two years during which Lord Shrewsbury's generosity enabled him to stay at Rome collecting materials for his great work, "Hierurgia or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", which was published in 1833. He had previously published two short works: "Transubstantiation vindicated from the strictures of the Rev. Maurice Jones" (1830), and "The Liturgy of the Mass and Common Vespers for Sundays" (1832). In 1840 he became chaplain to Sir Robert Throckmorton of Buckland in Berkshire, and while there wrote his greatest book, "The Church of Our Fathers", in which he studies the Sarum Rite and other medieval liturgical observances. This work, which has profoundly influenced liturgical study in England and which caused his recognition as the leading authority on the subject, was published in 1849 (vols. I and II) and 1853-4 (vol. III). After 1840 Dr. Rock was a prominent member of the "Adelphi", an association of London priests who were working together for the restoration of the hierarchy. When this object was achieved, he was elected one of the first canons of Southwark (1852). Shortly after, he ceased parochial work, and having resided successfully at Newick, Surrey (1854-64), he went to live near the South Kensington Museum in which he took the keenest interest and to which he proved of much service. His "Introduction to the Catalogue of Textile Fabrics" in that Museum has been separately reprinted (1876) and is of great authority. He also contributed frequent articles to the Archaeological Journal, the Dublin Review, and other periodicals. For many years before his death he held the honourable position of President of the Old Brotherhood of the English Secular Clergy. There is an oil painting of him at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; SUTTON in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. incorrectly dating his departure for Rome 1813 instead of 1818; KELLY, Life of Daniel Rock, D.D., prefixed to the modern Anglican ed. The Church of Our Fathers, ed. HART AND FRERE (London, 1903), with portrait. The Edmundian, II (1895), no. 8. EDWIN BURTON Diocese of Rockford Diocese of Rockford (ROCKFORDIENSIS). Created 23 September, 1908, comprises Jo Daviess, Stephenson, Winnebago, Boone, McHenry, Carrol, Ogle, DeKalb, Kane, Whiteside, Lee, and Kendall Counties in the north-western part of the State of Illinois. The diocese has an area of 6867 sq. miles, and a Catholic population of 50,000, mostly Irish and Germans or their descendants. The total population of the twelve counties that form the diocese, according to the last census, in 414,872. The entire territory of the Diocese of Rockford was a part of the Archdiocese of Chicago until 23 September, 1908. The city of Rockford has a population of 48,000; it is a manufacturing centre. The Right Reverend Peter James Muldoon, formerly Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, was appointed the first Bishop of Rockford, and took possession of his see, 15 December, 1908. There are in the diocese (1911), 99 secular priests, 18 missions with attendance of 3850, 5 hospitals, 1 maternity home, 1 home for aged, and Mt. St. Mary's Academy for Girls (St. Charles) with an attendance of 84. Offic. Catholic Directory J.J. FLANAGAN Rockhampton Rockhampton Diocese in Queensland, Australia. In 1862 Father Duhig visited the infant settlement on the banks of the Fitzroy River and celebrated the first Mass there. Father Scully came from Brisbane to attend to the spiritual needs of the little congregation and in 1863 Dean Murlay was appointed first resident pastor of Rockhampton, his parish extending as far north as Cooktown and south to Maryborough. He built the first Catholic church in Rockhampton, a wooden edifice still standing, and for many years was the only priest to look after the Catholics scattered over the vast territory. A foundation of the Sisters of Mercy from All-Hallows Convent, Brisbane, was established in 1873, and Sister Mary de Sales Gorry, the first Queensland-born nun, was appointed Superioress. Rockhampton remained part of the Diocese of Brisbane until 1882. In 1876 the Holy See erected the northern portion of the colony into a pro-vicariate, and in 1882 made Rockhampton a see with a territory of some 350,000 square miles. Right Rev. Dr. Cani, a native of the papal states, who had had a distinguished scholastic career at Rome, and former pro-vicar Apostolic of North Queensland, was appointed first bishop of the new diocese. Bishop Cani, who was then administering the diocese of Brisbane, was consecrated by Archbishop Vaughan in St. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, 21 May, 1882, and was installed in his temporary cathedral at Rockhampton on 11 June following. In the new diocese there were about 10,000 Catholics, 6 or 7 priests, 8 Catholic schools, and 1 orphanage. Bishop Cani added to the small number of priests, purchased sites for new churches, and acquired 3000 acres of fertile land near Rockhampton for a central orphanage which he had built and placed under the care of the Sisters of Mercy. His great work was the erection of St. Joseph's Cathedral, a magnificent stone edifice which he did not live to see dedicated. After a strenuous episcopate of sixteen years Dr. Cani died, 3 March, 1898. His great virtues were recognized even by those outside the Church. Humility and simplicity of life, love of the poor and orphans were his special characteristics. He was succeeded in Rockhampton by Right Rev. Dr. Higgins, a native of Co. Meath, Ireland, and now Bishop of Ballarat. Dr. Higgins studied in Maynooth, was subsequently president of the Diocesan seminary at Navan, and in 1888 was chosen auxiliary bishop to the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney with the title of titular bishop of Antifelle. He had zealously laboured in the Archdiocese of Sydney for over ten years, when appointed to Rockhampton. He traversed his new diocese from end to end, gauged its wants, attracted priests to his aid, placed students for the mission in various ecclesiastical colleges, introduced new religious teaching orders, built and dedicated churches, convents, and schools in several centres, bringing the blessings of religion and Christian education to the children of the backblocks. On 15 October, 1899, the beautiful new cathedral was dedicated by the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney assisted by several other distinguished Australian prelates in the presence of a great concourse of people. The remains of Dr. Cani were transferred thither. Dr. Higgins visited Rome and Ireland in 1904, and returned with renewed energy to carry on his great work. On the death of Dr. Moore, Bishop of Ballarat, Victoria, he was translated to that important See, where he has ever since laboured with characteristic zeal and devotedness. The present Bishop of Rockhampton is Right Rev. Dr. James Duhig, born at Broadford, Co. Limerick, Ireland, 1870. Dr. Duhig emigrated from Ireland with his family at the age of thirteen, studied with the Christian Brothers at Brisbane and at the Irish College, Rome, was ordained priest, 19 Sept., 1896, and, returning to Queensland in the following year, was appointed to a curacy in the parish of Ipswich. In 1905 he was appointed administrator of St. Stephen's Cathedral, Brisbane, and received the briefs of his appointment to the See of Rockhampton. At present (1911) there are in the Diocese of Rockhampton: about 28,000 Catholics; 19 missions or districts; 30 priests (4 of whom belong to the Marist congregation, who have 1 house in the diocese); 12 Christian Brothers; 150 nuns; and 26 Catholic schools, attended by about 5000 children. J. DUHIG Rococo Style Rococo Style This style received its name in the nineteenth century from French emigres, who used the word to designate in whimsical fashion the old shellwork style (style rocaille), then regarded as Old Frankish, as opposed to the succeeding more simple styles. Essentially, it is in the same kind of art and decoration as flourished in France during the regency following Louis XIV's death, and remained in fashion for about forty years (1715-50). It might be termed the climax or degeneration of the Baroque, which, coupled with French grace, began towards the end of the reign of Louis XIV to convert grotesques into curves, lines, and bands (Jean Berain, 1638-1711). As its effect was less pronounced on architectural construction than elsewhere, it is not so much a real style as a new kind of decoration, which culminates in the resolution of architectural forms of the interiors (pilasters and architraves) by arbitrary ornamentation after the fashion of an unregulated, enervated Baroque, while also influencing the arrangement of space, the construction of the fac,ades, the portals, the forms of the doors and windows. The Rococo style was readily received in Germany, where it was still further perverted into the arbitrary, unsymmetrical, and unnatural, and remained in favour until 1770 (or even longer); it found no welcome in England. In Italy a tendency towards the Rococo style is evidenced by the Borrominik Guarini, and others. The French themselves speak only of the Style Regence and Louis XV, which, however, is by no means confined to this one tendency. To a race grown effeminate to the Baroque forms seemed too coarse and heavy, the lines too straight and stiff, and whole impression to weighty and forced. The small and the light, sweeps and flourishes, caught the public taste; in the interiors the architectonic had to yield to the picturesque, the curious, an the whimsical. There develops a style for elegant parlours, dainty sitting-rooms and boudoirs, drawing-rooms and libraries, in which walls, ceiling, furniture, and works of metal and porcelain present one ensemble of sportive, fantastic, and sculptured forms. The horizontal lines are almost completely superseded by curves and interruptions, the vertical varied at least by knots; everywhere shell-like curves appear to a cusp; the natural construction of the walls is concealed behind thick stucco-framework; on the ceiling perhaps a glimpse of Olympus enchants the view--all executed in a beautiful white or in bright colour tones. All the simple laws and rules being set aside in favour of free and enchanting imaginativeness, the fancy received all the greater incentive to activity, and the senses were the more keenly requisitioned. Everything vigorous is banned, every suggestion of earnestness; nothing disturbs the shallow repose of distinguished banality; the sportively graceful and light appears side by side with the elegant and the ingenious. The sculptor Bouchardon represented Cupid engaged in carving his darts of love from the club of Hercules; this serves as an excellent symbol of the Rococo style--the demigod is transformed into the soft child, the bone-shattering club becomes the heart-scathing arrows, just as marble is so freely replaced by stucco. Effeminacy, softness, and caprice attitudinize before us. In this connection, the French sculptors, Robert le Lorrain, Michel Clodion, and Pigalle may be mentioned in passing. For small plastic figures of gypsum, clay, biscuit, porcelain (Sevres, Meissen), the gay Rococo is not unsuitable; in wood, iron, and royal metal, it has created some valuable works. However, confessionals, pulpits, altars, and even fac,ades lead ever more into the territory of the architectonic, which does not easily combine with the curves of Rococo, the light and the petty, with forms whose whence and wherefore baffle inquiry. Even as mere decoration on the walls of the interiors the new forms could maintain their ground only for a few decades. In France the sway of the Rococo practically ceases with Oppenord (d. 1742) and Meissonier (d. 1750). Inaugurated in some rooms in the Palace of Versailles, it unfolds its magnificence in several Parisian buildings (especially the Hotel Soubise). In Germany French and German artists (Cuvillies, Neumann, Knobelesdorff, etc.) effected the dignified equipment of the Amalienburg near Munich, and the castles of Wurzburg, Potsdam, Charlottenburg, Bruehl, Bruchsal, Schoenbrunn, etc. In France the style remained somewhat more reserved, since the ornaments were mostly of wood, or, after the fashion of wood-carving, less robust and naturalistic and less exuberant in the mixture of natural with artificial forms of all kinds (e.g. plant motives, stalactitic representations, grotesques, masks, implements of various professions, badges, paintings, precious stones). As elements of the beautiful France retained, to a greater extent than Germany, the unity of the whole scheme of decoration and the symmetry of its parts. This style needs not only decorators, goldsmiths, and other technicians, but also painters. The French painters of this period reflect most truly the moral depression dating from the time of Louis XIV, even the most deliberated among them confining themselves to social portraits of high society and depicting " gallant festivals", with their informal frivolous, theatrically or modishly garbed society. The "beautiful sensuality" is effected by masterly technique, especially in the colouring, and to a great extent by quite immoral licenses or mythological nudities as in loose or indelicate romances. As for Watteau (1682-1721), the very titles of his works--e.g. Conversation, Breakfast in the Open Air, Rural Pleasures, Italian or French Comedians, Embarkment for the Island of Cythera--indicate the spirit and tendency of his art. Add thereto the figures in fashionable costume slim in head, throat, and feet, in unaffected pose, represented amid enchanting, rural scenery, painted in the finest colours, and we have a picture of the high society of the period which beheld Louis XV and the Pompadour. Franc,ois Boucher (1703-770) is the most celebrated painter of ripe Rococo. For the church Rococo may be, generally speaking, compared with worldly church music. It lacks of simplicity, earnestness, and repose is evident, while its obtrusive artificiality, unnaturalness, and triviality have a distracting effect. Its softness and prettiness likewise do not become the house of God. However, shorn of its most grievous outgrowths, it may have been less distracting during its proper epoch, since it then harmonized with the spirit of the age. A development of Baroque, it will be found a congruous decoration for baroque churches. In general it makes a vast difference whether the style is used with moderation in the finer and more ingenious form of the French masters, or is carried to extremes with the consistency of the German. The French artists seem ever to have regarded the beauty of the whole composition as the chief object, while the German laid most stress on the bold vigour of the lines; thus, the lack of symmetry was never so exaggerated in the works of the former. In the church Rococo may at times have the charm of prettiness and may please by its ingenious technic, provided the objects be small and subordinate a credence table with cruets and plate, a vase, a choir desk, lamps, key and lock, railings or balustrade, do not too boldly challenge the eye, and fulfil (sic) all the requirements of mere beauty of form. Rococo is indeed really empty, solely a pleasing play of the fancy. In the sacristy (for presses etc.) and ante chambers it is m ore suitable than in the church itself--at least so far as its employment in conspicuous places is concerned. The Rococo style accords very ill with the solemn office of the monstrance, the tabernacle, and the altar, and even of the pulpit. The naturalism of certain Belgian pulpits, in spite or perhaps on account of their artistic character, has the same effect as have outspoken Rococo creations. The purpose of the confessional and the baptistery would also seem to demand more earnest forms. In the case of the larger objects, the sculpture of Rococo forms either seems pretty, or, if this prettiness be avoided, resembles Baroque. The phantasies of this style agree ill with the lofty and broad walls of the church. However, everything must be decided according to the object and circumstances; the stalls in the cathedral of Mainz elicit not only our approval but also our admiration, while the celebrated privilege d altar of Vierzehnheiligen repels us both by its forms and its plastic decoration. Thee are certain Rococo chalices (like that at the monastery of Einsiedeln which are, as one might say, decked out in choice festive array; there are others, which are more or less misshapen owing to their bulging curves or figures. Chandeliers and lamps may also be disfigured by obtrusive shellwork or want of all symmetry, or may amid great decorativeness be kept within reasonable limits. The material and technic are also of consequence in Rococo. Woven materials, wood-carvings, and works in plaster of Paris are evidently less obtrusive than works in other materials, when they employ the sportive Rococo. Iron (especially in railings) and bronze lose their coldness and hardness, when animated by the Rococo style; in the case of the latter, gilding may be used with advantage. Gilding and painting belong to the regular means through which this style, under certain circumstances, enchants the eye and fancy. All things considered, we may say of the Rococo style--as has not unreasonably been said of the Baroque and of the Renaissance--that it is very apt to introduce a worldly spirit into the church, even if we overlook the figural accessories, which are frequently in no way conducive to sentiments of devotion, and are incompatible with the sobriety and greatness of the architecture and with the seriousness of sacred functions. Ornaments Louis XV et du style Rocaille, reproduits d'apres les originaux (Paris, 1890); Recueil des oeuvres de G. M. Oppenord (Paris, 1888); Recueil des oeuvres de J. A. Meissonier (Paris, 1888); Gurlitt, Das Barock- u. Roko ko-Architektur; Jessen, Das Ornament des Rokoko (Leipzig, 1894). G. GIETMANN Rodez Rodez (RUTHENAE) The Diocese of Rodez was united to the Diocese of Cahors by the Concordat of 1802, and again became an episcopal see by the Concordat of 1817 and Bull of 1822, having jurisdiction over: (1) the ancient Diocese of Rodez with the exception of the deanery of Saint Antonin, incorporated with the Diocese of Montauban; (2) the ancient Diocese of Vabres; (3) a few scattered communes of the Diocese of Cahors. The Diocese of Rodez corresponds exactly to the Department of Aveyron (formerly Rouergue). It was suffragan of Bourges until 1676, then of Albi, and has again been suffragan of Aibi since 1822. Modern tradition attributes to St. Martial the foundation of the church of Rodez and the sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin at Ceignac, for according to Cardinal Bourret, the church of Rodez honoured St. Martial as early as the sixth century (see Limoges). There were bishops of Rodez before 675, as Sidonius Apollinaris mentions that the Goths left it at that date without bishops. Amantius, who ruled about the end of the fifth century, is the first bishop mentioned. Among others are: S. Quintianua who assisted at the Councils of Agde (508) and Orleans (511), afterwards Bishop of Clermont; 8. Dalmatius (524-80); S. Gausbert (tenth century), probably a Bishop of Cahors; Jean de Cardaillac (1371-9); Patriarch of Alexandria, who fought against English rule; Blessed Francis d'Estaing (1501-29), ambassador of Louis XII to Juluis II; Louis Avelly (1664-6) who wrote the life of St. Vincent of Paul; Joseph Bourret (1871-96), made Cardinal in 1893. The Benedictine Abbey of Vabres, founded in 862 by Raymond I, Count of Toulouse, was raised to episcopal rank in 1317, and its diocesan territory was taken from the southeastern portion of the Diocese of Rodez. Some scholars hold that within the limits of the modern Diocese of Rodez there existed in Merovingian times the See of Arisitum which, according to Mgr Duchesne, was in the neighbourhood of Alais. During the Middle Ages the Bishop of Rodez held temporal dominion over that portion of the town known as the Cite while in the eleventh century the Bourg became the County of Rodez. The cathedral of Rodez (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) is a beautiful Gothic building, famous for its belfry (1510-26) and unique rood-beam. It was spared during the Revolution for dedication to Marat. The town of Milhau adopted Calvinism in 1534, and in 1573 and 1620 was the scene of two large assemblies of Protestant deputies. In 1629 Milhau and Saint-Afrique, another Protestant stronghold, were taken and dismantled by Louis XIII. In 1628 a pest at Villefranche carried off 8000 inhabitants within six months; Father Ambroise, a Franciscan, and the chief of police Jean de Pomayrol saved the lives of many little children by causing them to bo suckled by goats. The Cistercian Abbeys of Silbanes, Beaulieu, Loc-Dieu, Bonneval, and Bonnecombe were model-farms during the Middle Ages. Attacked by brigands in the Rouergue country on his way to Santiago di Compostella, Adalard, Viscount of Flanders, erected in 1031 a monastery known as the Domerie d'Aubrac, a special order of priests, knights, lay brothers, ladies, and lay sisters for the care and protection of travellers. At Milhau, Rodez, Nazac, and Bozouls, hospitals, styled "Commanderies", of this order of Aubrac adopted the rule of St. Augustine in 1162. The Diocese of Rodez is famous also through the Abbey of Conques and the cult of Sainte Foy. Some Christians, flying from the Saracens about 730, sought a refuge in the "Val Rocheux" of the Dourdou and built an oratory there. In 790 the hermit Dadon made this his abode and aided by Louis the Pious, then King of Aquitaine, founded an abbey, which Louis named Conques. In 838 Pepin, King of Aquitaine, gave the monastery of Figeac to Conques. Between 877 and 883 the monks carried off the body of the youthful martyr Ste-Foy from the monastery of Sainte Foy to Conques, where it became the object of a great pilgrimage. Abbot Odolric built the abbey church between 1030 and 1060; on the stonework over the doorway is carved the most artistic representation in France of the Last Judgment. Abbot Begon (1099-1118) enriched Conques with a superb reliquary of beaten gold and cloisonne's enamels of a kind extremely rare in France. Pascal II gave him permission for the name of Ste-Foy to be inserted in the Canon of the Mass after the names of the Roman virgins. At this time Conques, with Agen and Schelestadt in Alsace, was the centre of the cult of Ste. Foy which soon spread to England, Spain, and America where many towns bear the name of Santa Fe^. The statute of Ste-Foy seated, which dated from the tenth century, was originally a small wooden one covered with gold leaf. In time, gems, enamels, and precious stones were added in such quantities that it is a living treatise on the history of the goldsmiths art in France between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries. It was known during the Middle Ages as "Majeste de Sainte Foy". The shrine enclosing the relics of the Saint, which in 1590 was hidden in the masonry connecting the pillars of the choir, was found in 1875, repaired, transferred to the cathedral of Rodez for a novena, and brought back to Conques, a distance of 25 miles, on the shoulders of the clergy. Among Saints specially honoured in the Diocese of Rodez and Vabres are: S. Antoninus of Pamiers, Apostle of the Rouergue (date uncertain); S. Gratus and S. Ansutus, martyrs (fourth century); S. Naamatius, deacon and confessor (end of fifth century); Ste. Tarsicia, grand-daughter of Clothaire I and of Ste-Radegunda, who retired to the Rouergue to lead an ascetic life (sixth century); S. Africanus, wrongly styled Bishop of Comminges, who died in the Rouergue (sixth century); S. Hilarianus, martyred by the Saracens in the time of Charlemagne (eighth and ninth century); S. George, a monk in the Diocese of Vabres, afterwards Bishop of Lodeve (877); 8. Guasbert, founder and first abbot of the monastery of Montsalvy in the modern Diocese of St. Flour (eleventh century). Among natives of the diocese are: Cardinal Bernard of Milhau, Abbot of St. Victor's at Marseilles in 1063, and legate of Gregory VII; Theodatus de Gozon (d. 1353) and John of La Valetta (1494-1568), grand masters of the order of St. John of Jerusalem; the former is famous for his victory over the dragon of Rhodes, the latter for his heroic defence of Malta; Frassinous (1765-1841), preacher and minister of worship under the Restoration; Bonald (1754-1840) and Laromiguiere (1736-1837), philosophers; Affre (1793-1848), born at St. Rome de Tarn and slain at the Barricades as Archbishop of Paris. The chief shrines of the diocese are: Notre Dame de Ceignac, an ancient shrine rebuilt and enlarged in 1455, which over 15,000 pilgrims visit annually; Notre Dame du Saint Voile at Coupiac, another ancient shrine; Notre Dame des Treize Pierres at Villefranche, a pilgrimage dating from 1509. Before the application of the Associations' Law in 1901, there were in the Diocese of Rodez, Capuchins, Jesuits, Trappists, Peres Blancs, Premonstratensians, Fathers of Picpus, Sulpicians, Clerics of St. Victor, and many congregations of teaching brothers. This diocese furnishes more missionaries than any other in France. Of the numerous congregations for women which had their origin there, the principal are: affiliations of the Sisters of St. Francis of Sales, known as the Union, teaching orders founded in 1672, 1698, 1739, 1790, with mother-houses at St-Geniez, d'Olt, Bozouls, Lavernhe, Auzits; the Sisters of St. Joseph, founded in 1682 for teaching and district nursing, with mother-house at Marcillac, and other sisters of the same name, united in 1822, 1824, 1856, with mother-houses at Milhau, Villecomtal, Salles-la-Source; the Sisters of the Holy Family, a teaching and nursing order, founded in 1816 by Emilie de Rodat, with mother-house at Villefranche and many convents throughout the diocese; the Minim Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary founded in 1844 by Mile. Chauchard, with mother-house at Crujouls, for the care of the sick and children of the working classes; wo branches of Dominican Sisters, teaching orders, founded in 1843 and 1849 with mother-houses at Gramond and Bor-et-Bar; the Sisters of the Union of Ste-Foy, teaching and nursing nuns, founded in 1682 with mother-house at Rodez. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations of the diocese had charge of 75 nurseries; 1 institute for the deaf and dumb; 3 orphanages for boys; 13 orphanages for girls; 2 houses of rescue; 2 houses of mercy; 1 economic bakery; 83 houses of religious women devoted to the care of the sick in their own homes; 3 hospitals. At the end of 1909 the diocese had a population of 377,299, 51 parishes, 617 auxiliary parishes, 287 curacies, and 1200 priests. Gallia Christiana, Nova (1715), I, 195-234; Instrumenta, 49-55, 203; DUCHESNE, Pastes Episcopaux, II, 39-41; SICARD, Ruthena Christiana, ed. MAISONABE in Memoires de la societe des lettres, sciences et arts de V Avyron, XIV (Rodez, 1893), 331-447; BOURRET, Documents sur les origines chretiennes de Rouergue. Saint Martial (Rodez, 1902); SERVIERES, Les Saints du Rouergue (Rodez, 1872); IDEM, Histoire de l'Eglise du Rouergue (Rodez, 1875); BOUILLET AND SERVIERES, Sainte Foy merge et martyre (Rodez, 1900); GRIMALDI, Les Benefices du. Diocese de Rodez avant la Revolution de 1789 (Rodez, 1906); DE MARLAVAGNE, Histoire de la cathedrals de Rodez (Rodez, 1876); BOCSQUET, Tableau chronologique et biograph. des cardinaux, archeveques et eveques originaires du Rouergue (Rodez, 1850); CALMET, L'abbaye de Vabres et son erection en eveche in Ann. de St. Louis des Franc,ais (1898). GEORGES GOYAU Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira A Brazilian natural scientist and explorer, b. at Bahia in 1756; d. at Lisbon in 1815. He was sent to Portugal for his training, and there studied at the University of Coimbra. After taking his degrees, he taught natural history subjects for a time at his Alma Mater, until in 1778 he was called to Lisbon to work in the Museo da Ajuda. He devoted his time for the next five years to cataloguing the various specimens contained in the museum, and to the writing of learned monographs and reports. As a result of his efforts he was elected a Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences at Lisbon. The Portuguese Government empowered him to engineer a journey of exploration for scientific purposes in the interior of his native land. He entered upon this expedition in 1783 and spent nine years in it. First examining the Island of Marajo, since important for the production of rubber, he crossed to the mainland, and followed the course of the Amazon and its tributaries, studying the natives, their languages and customs, and the fauna and flora of a vast region. On account of the energy and skill with which he conducted his investigations he became known as the Brazilian Humboldt. From 1793 until his death he was in Lisbon, acting as Director of the Gabinete de Historia Natural and of the Jardim Botanico. Most of the records of his Brazilian explorations seem to have passed from view. J.D.M. FORD Alonso Rodriguez Alonso Rodriguez Born at Valladolid, Spain, 1526; died at Seville 21 February, 1616. When twenty years of age he entered the Society of Jesus, and after completing his studies taught moral theology for twelve years at the College of Monterey, and subsequently filled the posts of master of novices for twelve more years, of rector for seventeen years, and of spiritual father at Cordova for eleven years. As master of novices he had under his charge Francis Suarez, the celebrated theologian. Alonso's characteristics in these offices were care, diligence, and charity. He was a religious of great piety and candour, hating all pride and ostentation. It was said of him by those who were personally acquainted with him, that his character and virtues were accurately depicted in "The Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection", published at Seville, 1609. This work is based on the material which he colected for his spiritual exhortations tohis brethren, and published at the request of his superiors. Although the book thus written was primarily intended for the use of his religious brethren, yet he destined it also for the profit and edification of other religious and of laymen in the world. Of set purpose it avoids the loftier flights of mysticism and all abstruse speculation. It is a book of practical instructions on all the virtues which go to make up the perfect Christian life, whether lived in the cloister or in the world. It became popular at once, and it is much used to-day by all classes of Christians as it was when it first became known. More than twenty-five edtions of the original Spanish have been issued, besides extracts and abridgements. Moe than sixty editions have appeared in French in seven different translations, twenty in Italian, at least ten in German, and eight in Latin. An English translation from the French by Fr. Antony Hoskins, S.J., was printed at St. Omer in 1612. The best known English translation, often reprinted, is that which first appeared in London, 1697, from the French of Abbe Regnier des Marais. P.O. Shea issued in New York an edition adapted to general use in 1878. The book has been translated into nearly all the European languages and into many of those of the East. No other work of the author was published. Gilmary Shea left a translation of the work which has never been published. CORDARA, Historiae Societatis Jesu: Pars Sexta, I (Rome, 1750); DE GUILHERMY, Menologe de la C. de J., Assistance d'Espagne, I (Paris, 1902), 321; a short life is prefixed to the English translation of The Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection (Dublin, 1861); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895). T. SLATER Joao Rodriguez Joao Rodriguez (GIRAM, GIRAO, GIRON, ROIZ). Missionary and author, b. at Alcochete in the Diocese of Lisbon in 1558; d. in Japan in 1633. He entered the Society of Jesus on 16 December, 1576, and in 1583 began his missionary labours in Japan. His work was facilitated by his winning the esteem of the Emperor Taicosama. He studied the Japanese language ardently, and is particularly known for his efforts to make it accessible to the Western nations. His Japanese grammar ranks among the important linguistic productions of the Jesuit missionaries. Published at Nagasaki in 1604 under the title "Arte da lingoa de Japam", it appeared in 1624 in an abridged form at Macao: "Arte breve da lingoa japoa"; from the manuscript of this abridgement preserved in the National Library in Paris, the Asiatic Society prepared a French edition of the work: "Elements de la grammaire japonaise par le P. Rodriguez" (Paris, 1825). Rodriguez compiled also a Japanese-Portuguese dictionary (Nagasaki, 1603), later adapted to the French by Pages (Paris, 1862). REMUSAT, in Nouv. Melanges asiat., I (Paris, 1829), 354-57; GANSEN, in Buchberger=1Cs Handlexikon, s. v. N.A. WEBER Bartholomew Roe Bartholomew Roe (VENERABLE ALBAN). English Benedictine martyr, b. in Suffolk, 1583; executed at Tyburn, 21 Jan., 1641. Educated in Suffolk and at Cambridge; he became converted through a visit to a Catholic prisoner at St. Albans which unsettled his religious views. He was admitted as a convictor into the English College at Douai, entered the English Benedictine monastery at Dieulward where he was professed in 1612, and, after ordination, went to the mission in 1615. From 1618 to 1623 he was imprisoned in the New Prison, Maiden Lane, whence he was banished and went to the English Benedictine house at Douai but returned to England after four months. He was again arrested in 1625, and was imprisoned for two months at St. Albans, then in the Fleet whence he was frequently liberated on parole, and finally in Newgate. He was condemned a few days before his execution under the statute 27 Eliz. e. 2, for being a priest. With him suffered Thomas Greene, aged eighty, who on the mission had taken the name of Reynolds. He was probably descended from the Greenes of Great Milton, Oxfordshire, and the Reynoldses of Old Stratford, Warwickshire, and was ordained deacon at Reims in 1590, and priest at Seville. He had lived under sentence of death for fourteen years, and was executed without fresh trial. They were drawn on the same hurdle, where they heard each other's confessions, and were hanged simultaneously on the same gibbet amidst great demonstrations of popular sympathy. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., III, 36; V, 437; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II, nos. 166, 167; POLLEN, Acts of the English Martyrs (London, 1891), 339-43. JOHN B. WAINWRIGHT Roermond Roermond (RUBAEMUNDENSIS). Diocese in Holland; suffragan of Utrecht. It includes the Province of Limburg, and in 1909 had 332,201 inhabitants, among whom were 325,000 Catholics. The diocese has a cathedral chapter with 9 canons, 14 deaneries, 173 parishes, 197 churches with resident priests, an ecclesiastical seminary at Roermond, a preparatory seminary for boys at Rolduc, about 70 Catholic primary schools, 2 Catholic preparatory gymnasia, 1 training college for male teachers, 24 schools for philosophical, theological, and classical studies, 35 higher schools for girls, about 60 charitable institutions, 45 houses of religious (men) with about 2400 members, and 130 convents with 3900 sisters. Among the orders and congregations of men in the diocese are: Jesuits, the Society of the Divine Word of Steyl, Brothers of the Immaculate Conception, Redemptorists, Marists, Reformed Cistercians, Dominicans, Benedictines, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Brothers of Mercy, Poor Brothers of St. Francis, Conventuals, Calced Carmelites, Missionaries of Africa, Priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Brothers of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Brothers of St. Francis, Brothers of St. Joseph, the Society of Mary, the Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Congregation of the Divine Spirit, and the Congregation of Missions. Among the female orders and congregations are: Benedictines, Brigittines, Ursulines, Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo, Sisters of Tilburg, Sisters of the Child Jesus, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Divine Providence, Sisters of Mercy etc. The Diocese of Roermond was established in 1559, during the reign of Philip II, when after long and difficult negotiations with the papacy the dioceses of the Netherlands were reorganized. By these negotiations all jurisdiction of foreign bishops, e.g. that of the Archbishop of Cologne, came to an end. In this way the Diocese of Roermond, the boundaries of which were settled in 1561, became a suffragan of Mechlin. The reorganization of the dioceses, however, met with violent opposition, partly from bishops to whose territories the new dioceses had formerly belonged, partly from a number of abbots whose abbeys were incorporated in the new bishoprics. Much difficulty was also caused by the rapid growth of Calvinism in the Netherlands. In Roermond the first bishop, Lindanus, who was consecrated in 1563, could not enter upon his duties until 1569; notwithstanding his zeal and charitableness he was obliged to retire on account of the revolutionary movement; he died Bishop of Ghent. The episcopal see remained vacant until 1591; at later periods also, on account of the political turmoils, the see was repeatedly vacant. In 1801 the diocese was suppressed; the last bishop, Johann Baptist Baron van Velde de Melroy, died in 1824. When in 1839 the Duchy of Limburg became once more a part of the Netherlands, Gregory XVI separated (2 June, 1840) that part of Limburg which had been incorporated in the Diocese of Louvain in 1802, and added to this territory several new parishes which had formerly belonged to the Diocese of Aachen, and formed thus the Vicariate Apostolic of Roermond, over which the parish priest of Roermond, Johann August Paredis, was placed as vicar Apostolic and titular Bishop of Hirene. In 1841 a seminary for priests was established in the former Carthusian monastery of Roermond, where the celebrated Dionysius the Carthusian had been a monk. Upon the re-establishment of the Dutch hierarchy in 1853 the Vicariate-Apostolic of Roermond was raised to a bishopric and made a suffragan of Utrecht. The first bishop of the new diocese was Paredis. In 1858 a cathedral chapter was formed; in 1867 a synod was held, the first since 1654; in 1876 the administration of the church property was transferred, by civil law, to the bishop. During the Kulturkampf in Germany a number of ecclesiastical dignitaries driven out of Prussia found a hospitable welcome and opportunities for further usefulness in the Diocese of Roermond; among these churchmen were Melchers of Cologne, Brinkmann of Munster, and Martin of Paderborn. Bishop Paredis was succeeded by Franziskus Boreman (1886-1900), on whose death the present bishop, Joseph Hubertus Drehmann, was appointed. Gallia Christiana, V, 371 sqq.: Neerlandia catholica seu provinciae Utrajectensis historia et conditio (Utrecht, 1888), 263-335; ALBERS, Geschiedenis van het herstel der hierarchie in de Nederlanden (Nymwegen, 1893-4); MEERDINCK, Roermond in de Middeleeuwen; Onze Pius Almanak. Jaarboek voor de Katholiken van Nederland (Alkmaar, 1910), 338 sqq. JOSEPH LINS Rogation Days Rogation Days Days of prayer, and formerly also of fasting, instituted by the Church to appease God's anger at man's transgressions, to ask protection in calamities, and to obtain a good and bountiful harvest, known in England as "Gang Days" and "Cross Week", and in Germany as Bittage, Bittwoche, Kreuzwoche. The Rogation Days were highly esteemed in England and King Alfred's laws considered a theft committed on these days equal to one committed on Sunday or a higher Church Holy Day. Their celebration continued even to the thirteenth year of Elizabeth, 1571, when one of the ministers of the Established Church inveighed against the Rogation processions, or Gang Days, of Cross Week. The ceremonial may be found in the Council of Clovesho (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, I, 64; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, 564). The Rogation Days are the 25th of April, called Major, and the three days before the feast of the Ascension, called Minor. The Major Rogation, which has no connexion with the feast of St. Mark (fixed for this date much later) seems to be of very early date and to have been introduced to counteract the ancient Robigalia, on which the heathens held processions and supplications to their gods. St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) regulated the already existing custom. The Minor Rogations were introduced by St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, and were afterwards ordered by the Fifth Council of Orleans, which was held in 511, and then approved by Leo III (795-816). This is asserted by St. Gregory of Tours in "Hist. Franc.", II, 34, by St. Avitus of Vienne in his "Hom. de Rogat." (P.L., LVIII, 563), by Ado of Vienne (P. L., CXXIII, 102), and by the Roman Martyrology. Sassi, in "Archiepiscopi Mediolanenses", ascribes their introduction at an earlier date to St. Lazarus. This is also held by the Bollandist Henschen in "Acta SS.", II, Feb., 522. The liturgical celebration now consists in the procession and the Rogation Mass. For 25 April the Roman Missal gives the rubric: "If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the procession is not transferred. In the rare case of 25 April being Easter Sunday [1886, 1943], the procession is held not on Sunday but on the Tuesday following". The order to be observed in the procession of the Major and Minor Rogation is given in the Roman Ritual, title X, ch. iv. After the antiphon "Exurge Domine", the Litany of the Saints is chanted and each verse and response is said twice. After the verse "Sancta Maria" the procession begins to move. If necessary, the litany may be repeated, or some of the Penitential or Gradual Psalms added. For the Minor Rogations the "Ceremoniale Episcoporum", book II, ch. xxxii, notes: "Eadem serventur sed aliquid remissius". If the procession is held, the Rogation Mass is obligatory, and no notice is taken of whatever feast may occur, unless only one Mass is said, for then a commemoration is made of the feast. An exception is made in favour of the patron or titular of the church, of whom the Mass is said with a commemoration of the Rogation. The colour used in the procession and Mass is violet. The Roman Breviary gives the instruction: "All persons bound to recite the Office, and who are not present at the procession, are bound to recite the Litany, nor can it be anticipated". ROCK, The Church of Our Fathers, III (London, 1904), 181; DUCHESNE, Chr. Worship (tr. London, 1904), 288; BINTERIM, Denkwurdigkeiten; AMBERGER, Pastoraltheologie, II, 834; VAN DER STEPPEN, Sacra Liturgia, IV, 405; NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale (Innsbruck, 1897). FRANCIS MERSHMAN Roger, Bishop of Worcester Roger, Bishop of Worcester Died at Tours, 9 August, 1179. A younger son of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, he was educated with the future king, Henry II, afterwards ordained priest, and consecrated Bishop of Worcester by St. Thomas of Canterbury, 23 Aug., 1163. He adhered loyally to St. Thomas, and though one of the bishops sent to the pope to carry the king's appeal against the archbishop, he took no active part in the embassy, nor did he join the appeal made by the bishops against the archbishop in 1166, thus arousing the enmity of the king. When St. Thomas desired Roger to join him in his exile, Roger went without leave (1167), Henry having refused him permission. He boldly reproached the king when they met at Falaise in 1170, and a reconciliation followed. After the martyrdom of St. Thomas, England was threatened with an interdict, but Roger interceded with the pope and was thereafter highly esteemed in England and at Rome. Alexander III, who frequently employed him as delegate in ecclesiastical causes, spoke of him and Bartholomew, Bishop of Exeter, as "the two great lights of the English Church". Materials for the History of Archbishop Becket in R. S. (London, 1875-85); GERVASE OF CANTERBUBY, Hist. Works in R. S. (London, 1879-80); DE DICETO, Opera Hist. in R. S. (London, 1876); P. L., CXCIX 365, gives one of his letters to Alexander III; GILES, Life and Letters of Becket (London, 1846); HOPE, Life of St. Thomas d Becket (London, 1868); MORRIS, Life of St. Thomas Becket (London, 1885); NORGATE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Roger Bacon Roger Bacon Philosopher, surnamed Doctor Mirabilis, b. at Ilchester, Somersetshire, about 1214; d. at Oxford, perhaps 11 June, 1294. His wealthy parents sided with Henry III against the rebellious barons, but lost nearly all their property. It has been presumed that Robert Bacon, O.P., was Roger's brother; more probably he was his uncle. Roger made his higher studies at Oxford and Paris, and was later professor at Oxford (Franciscan school). He was greatly influenced by his Oxonian masters and friends Richard Fitzacre and Edmund Rich, but especially by Robert Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, both professors at the Franciscan school, and at Paris by the Franciscan Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt (see Schlund in "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 1911, pp. 436 sqq.) They created in him a predilection for positive sciences, languages, and physics; and to the last-mentioned he owed his entrance about 1240 (1251? 1257?) into the Franciscans, either at Oxford or Paris. He continued his learned work; illness, however, compelled him to give it up for two years. When he was able to recommence his studies, his superiors imposed other duties on him, and forbade him to publish any work out of the order without special permission from the higher superiors "under pain of losing the book and of fasting several days with only bread and water." This prohibition has induced modern writers to pass severe judgment upon Roger's superiors being jealous of Roger's abilities; even serious scholars say they can hardly understand how Bacon conceived the idea of joining the Franciscan Order. Such critics forget that when Bacon entered the order the Franciscans numbered many men of ability in no way inferior to the most famous scholars of other religious orders (see Felder, "Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden bis um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts", Freiburg, 1904). The prohibition enjoined on Bacon was a general one, which extended to the whole order; its promulgation was not even directed against him, but rather against Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, as Salimbene says expressly (see "Chronica Fr. Salimbene Parmensis" in "Mon. Germ. Hist." SS.", XXII, 462, ed. Holder-Egger). Gerard had published in 1254 without permission his heretical work, "Introductorius in Evangelium aeternum"; thereupon the General Chapter of Narbonne in 1260 promulgated the above-mentioned decree, identical with the "constitutio gravis in contrarium" Bacon speaks of, as the text shows (see the constitution published by Ehrle, S.J., "Die aeltesten Redactionen der Generalconstitutionen des Franziskanerordens" in "Archiv fuer Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters", VI, 110; St. Bonaventure, "Opera Omnia", Quaracchi, VIII, 456). We need not wonder then that Roger's immediate superiors put the prohibition into execution, especially as Bacon was not always very correct in doctrine; and although on the one hand it is wrong to consider him as a necromancer and astrologer, an enemy of scholastic philosophy, an author full of heresies and suspected views, still we cannot deny that some of his expressions are imprudent and inaccurate. The judgments he passes on other scholars of his day are sometimes too hard, so it is not surprising that his friends were few. The above-mentioned prohibition was rescinded in Roger's favour unexpectedly in 1266. Some years before, while still at Oxford, he had made the acquaintance of Cardinal Guy le Gros de Foulques, whom Urban IV had sent to England to settle the disputes between Henry III and the barons; others believe that the cardinal met Roger at Paris, in 1257 or 1258 (see "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 442). After a conference about some current abuses, especially about ecclesiastical studies, the cardinal asked Roger to present his idea in writing. Roger delayed in doing this; when the Cardinal became Clement IV and reiterated his desire, Bacon excused himself because the prohibition of his superiors stood in the way. Then the pope in a letter from Viterbo (22 June, 1266) commanded him to send his work immediately, notwithstanding the prohibition of superiors or any general constitution whatsoever, but to keep the commission a secret (see letter published by Martene-Durand, "Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", II, Paris, 1717, 358, Clement IV, epp. n. 317 a; Wadding, "Annales", ad an. 1266, n. 14, II, 294; IV, 265; Sbaralea, "Bullarium Franciscanum", III, 89 n. 8f, 22 June, 1266). We may suppose that the pope, as Bacon says, from the first had wished the matter kept secret; otherwise we can hardly understand why Bacon did not get permission of his superiors; for the prohibition of Narbonne was not absolute; it only forbade him to publish works outside the order "unless they were examined thoroughly by the minister general or by the provincial together with his definitors in the provincial chapter". The removal of the prohibitive constitution did not at once remove all the obstacles; the secrecy of the matter rather produced new embarrassments, as Bacon frankly declares. The first impediment was the contrary will of his superiors: "as your Holiness", he writes to the pope, "did not write to them to excuse me, and I could not make known to them Your secret, because You had commanded me to keep the matter a secret, they did not let me alone but charged me with other labours; but it was impossible for me to obey because of Your commandment". Another difficulty was the lack of money necessary to obtain parchment and to pay copyists. As the superiors knew nothing of his commission, Bacon had to devise means to obtain money. Accordingly, he ingenuously reminded the pope of this oversight, "As a monk", he says, "I for myself have no money and cannot have; therefore I cannot borrow, not having wherewith to return; my parents who before were rich, now in the troubles of war have run into poverty; others, who were able refused to spend money; so deeply embarrassed, I urged my friends and poor people to expend all they had, to sell and to pawn their goods, and I could not help promising them to write to You and induce Your Holiness to fully reimburse the sum spent by them (60 pounds)" ("Opus Tertium", III, p. 16). Finally, Bacon was able to execute the pope's desire; in the beginning of 1267 he sent by his pupil John of Paris (London?) the "Opus Majus", where he puts together in general lines all his leading ideas and proposals; the same friend was instructed to present to the pope a burning-mirror and several drawings of Bacon appertaining to physics, and to give all explanations required by His Holiness. The same year (1267) he finished his "Opus Minus", a recapitulation of the main thoughts of the "Opus Majus", to facilitate the pope's reading or to submit to him an epitome of the first work if it should be lost. With the same object, and because in the first two works some ideas were but hastily treated, he was induced to compose a third work, the "Opus Tertium"; in this, sent to the pope before his death (1268), he treats in a still more extensive manner the whole material he had spoken of in his preceding works. Unfortunately his friend Clement IV died too soon, without having been able to put into practice the counsels given by Bacon. About the rest of Roger's life we are not well informed. The "Chronica XXIV Generalium Ordinis Minorum" says that "the Minister General Jerome of Ascoli [afterwards Pope Nicholas IV] on the advice of many brethren condemned and rejected the doctrine of the English brother Roger Bacon, Doctor of Divinity, which contains many suspect innovations, by reason of which Roger was imprisoned" (see the "Chronica" printed in "Analecta Franciscana", III, 360). The assertion of modern writers, that Bacon was imprisoned fourteen or fifteen years, although he had proved his orthodoxy by the work "De nullitate magiae", has no foundation in ancient sources. Some authors connect the fact of imprisonment related in the "Chronica" with the proscription of 219 theses by Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, which took place 7 March, 1277 (Denifle, "Chartularium Universitatis Pariensis", I, 543, 560). Indeed it was not very difficult to find some "suspect innovation" in Bacon's writings, especially with regard to the physical sciences. As F. Mandonnet, O.P., proves, one of his incriminated books or pamphlets was his "Speculum Astronomiae", written in 1277, hitherto falsely ascribed to Blessed Albert the Great [Opera Omnia, ed. Vives, Paris, X, 629 sq.; cf. Mandonnet, "Roger Bacon et le Speculum Astronomiae (1277) in "Revue Neo-Scolastique", XVII, Louvain, 1910, 313-35]. Such and other questions are not yet ripe for judgment; but it is to be hoped that the newly awakened interest in Baconian studies and investigations will clear up more and more what is still obscure in Roger's life. The writings attributed to Bacon by some authors amount to about eighty; many (e.g. "Epistola de magnete", composed by Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt) are spurious, while many are only treatises republished separately under new titles. Other writings or parts of writings certainly composed by him were put in circulation under the name of other scholars, and his claim to their authorship can be established only from internal reasons of style and doctrine. Other treatises still lie in the dust of the great European libraries, especially of England, France, and Italy. Much remains to be done before we can expect an edition of the "Opera Omnia" of Roger Bacon. For the present the following statements may suffice. Before Bacon entered the order he had written many essays and treatises on the subjects he taught in the school, for his pupils only, or for friends who had requested him to do so, as he confesses in his letter of dedication of the "Opus Majus" sent to the pope: "Multa in alio statu conscripseram propter juvenum rudimenta" (the letter was discovered in the Vatican Library by Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B., and first published by him in the "English Historical Review", 1897, under the title "An unpublished fragment of a work by Roger Bacon", 494 sq.; for the words above cited, see p. 500). To this period seem to belong some commentaries on the writings of Aristotle and perhaps the little treatise "De mirabili potestate artis et naturae et de nullitate magiae" (Paris, 1542; Oxford, 1604; London, 1859). The same work was printed under the title "Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturae" (Hamburg, 1608, 1618). After joining the order, or more exactly from about the years 1256-57, he did not compose works of any great importance or extent, but only occasional essays requested by friends, as he says in the above-mentioned letter, "now about this science, now about another one", and only more transitorio (see "Eng. Hist. Rev.", 1897, 500). In the earlier part of his life he probably composed also "De termino pascali" (see letter of Clement IV in "Bull. Franc.", III, 89); for it is cited in another work, "Computus naturalium", assigned to 1263 by Charles ("Roger Bacon. Sa vie, etc.", Paris, 1861, p. 78; cf. pp. 334 sqq.). The most important of all his writings are the "Opus Majus", the "Opus Minus", and the "Tertium". The "Opus Majus" deals in seven parts with (1) the obstacles to real wisdom and truth, viz. errors and their sources; (2) the relation between theology and philosophy, taken in its widest sense as comprising all sciences not strictly philosophical: here he proves that all sciences are founded on the sacred sciences, especially on Holy Scripture; (3) the necessity of studying zealously the Biblical languages, as without them it is impossible to bring out the treasure hidden in Holy Writ; (4) mathematics and their relation and application to the sacred sciences, particularly Holy Scripture; here he seizes an opportunity to speak of Biblical geography and of astronomy (if these parts really belong to the "Opus Majus"); (5) optics or perspective; (6) the experimental sciences; (7) moral philosophy or ethics. The "Opus Majus" was first edited by Samuel Jebb, London, 1733, afterwards at Venice, 1750, by the Franciscan Fathers. As both editions were incomplete, it was edited recently by J. H. Bridges, Oxford, 1900 (The 'Opus Majus' of Roger Bacon, edited with introduction and analytical table," in 2 vols.); the first three parts of it were republished the same year by this author in a supplementary volume, containing a more correct and revised text. It is to be regretted that this edition is not so critical and accurate as it might have been. As already noted, Bacon's letter of dedication to the pope was found and published first by Dom Gasquet; indeed the dedication and introduction is wanting in the hitherto extant editions of the "Opus Majus", whereas the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium" are accompanied with a preface by Bacon (see "Acta Ord. Min.", Quaracchi, 1898, where the letter is reprinted). Of the "Opus Minus", the relation of which to the "Opus Majus" has been mentioned, much has been lost. Originally it had nine parts, one of which must have been a treatise on alchemy, both speculative and practical; there was another entitled "The seven sins in the study of theology". All fragments hitherto found have been published by J. S. Brewer, "Fr. R. Bacon opp. quaedam hactenus inedita", vol. I (the only one) containing: (1) "Opus Tertium"; (2) "Opus Minus"; (3) "Compendium Philos." The appendix adds "De secretis artis et naturae operibus et de nullitate magiae", London, 1859 (Rerum Britann. med. aev. Script.). The aim of the "Opus Tertium" is clearly pointed out by Bacon himself: "As these reasons [profoundness of truth and its difficulty] have induced me to compose the Second Writing as a complement facilitating the understanding of the First Work, so on account of them I have written this Third Work to give understanding and completeness to both works; for many things are here added for the sake of wisdom which are not found in the other writings ("Opus Tertium", I, ed. Brewer, 6). Consequently this work must be considered, in the author's own opinion, as the most perfect of all the compositions sent to the pope; therefore it is a real misfortune that half of it is lost. The parts we possess contain many autobiographical items. All parts known in 1859 were published by Brewer (see above). One fragment dealing with natural sciences and moral philosophy has been edited for the first time by Duhem ("Un fragment inedit de l'Opus Tertium de Roger Bacon precede d'une etude sur ce fragment", Quaracchi, 1909); another (Quarta pars communium naturalis philos.) by Hoever (Commer's "Jahrb. fuer Philos. u. speculative Theol.", XXV, 1911, pp. 277-320). Bacon often speaks of his "Scriptum principale". Was this a work quite different from the others we know? In many texts the expression only means the "Opus Majus", as becomes evident by its antithesis to the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". But there are some other sentences where the expression seems to denote a work quite different from the three just mentioned, viz. one which Bacon had the intention of writing and for which these works as well as his proeambula were only the preparation. If we may conclude from some of his expressions we can reconstruct the plan of this grand encyclopaedia: it was conceived as comprising four volumes, the first of which was to deal with grammar (of the several languages he speaks of) and logic; the second with mathematics (arithmetic and geometry), astronomy, and music; the third with natural sciences, perspective, astrology, the laws of gravity, alchemy, agriculture, medicine, and the experimental sciences; the fourth with metaphysics and moral philosophy (see Delorme in "Dict. de Theol.", s. v. Bacon, Roger; Brewer, pp. 1 sq.; Charles, 370 sq., and particularly Bridges, I, xliii sq.). It is even possible that some treatises, the connection of which with the three works ("Opus Majus", "Opus Minus", "Opus Tertium") or others is not evident, were parts of the "Scriptum principale"; see Bridges, II, 405 sq., to which is added "Tractatus Fr. Rogeri Bacon de multiplicatione specierum", which seems to have belonged originally to a work of greater extent. Here may be mentioned some writings hitherto unknown, now for the first time published by Robert Steele: "Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi. Fasc. I: Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri ordinis fratrum minorum. De viciis contractis in studio theologiae, omnia quae supersunt nunc primum edidit R. St.", London, 1905; Fasc. II: Liber primus communium naturalium Fratris Rogeri, partes I et II", Oxford, 1909. Another writing of Bacon, "Compendium studii philosophiae", was composed during the pontificate of Gregory X who succeeded Clement IV (1271-76), as Bacon speaks of this last-named pope as the "predecessor istius Papae" (chap. iii). It has been published, as far as it is extant, by Brewer in the above-mentioned work. He repeats there the ideas already touched upon in his former works, as for instance the causes of human ignorance, necessity of learning foreign languages, especially Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek; as a specimen are given the elements of Greek grammar. About the same time (1277) Bacon wrote the fatal "Speculum Astronomiae" mentioned above. And two years before his death he composed his "compendium studii theologiae" (in our days published for the first time in "British Society of Franciscan Studies", III, Aberdeen, 1911), where he set forth as in a last scientific confession of faith the ideas and principles which had animated him during his long life; he had nothing to revoke, nothing to change. Other works and pamphlets cannot be attributed with certainty to any definite period of his life. To this category belong the "Epistola de laude Scripturarum", published in part by Henry Wharton in the appendix (auctarium) of "Jacobi Usserii Armachani Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis et sacris vernaculis" (London, 1689), 420 sq. In addition there is both a Greek and a Hebrew grammar, the last of which is known only in some fragments: "The Greek grammar of Roger Bacon and a fragment of his Hebrew Grammar, edited from the MSS., with an introduction and notes", Cambridge, 1902. Some specimens of the Greek Grammar, as preserved in a MS. of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, had been published two years before by J. L. Heiberg in "Byzantinische Zeitschrift", IX, 1900, 479-91. The above-mentioned edition of the two grammars cannot be considered very critical (see the severe criticism by Heiberg, ibid., XII, 1903, 343-47). Here we may add Bacon's "Speculum Alchemiae", Nuremberg, 1614 (Libellus do alchimia cui titulus : Spec. Alchem.); it was translated into French by Jacques Girard de Tournus, under the title "Miroir d'alquimie", Lyons, 1557. Some treatises dealing with chemistry were printed in 1620 together in one volume containing: (1) "Breve Breviarium de dono Dei"; (2) "Verbum abbreviatum de Leone viridi"; (3) "Secretum secretorum naturae de laude lapidis philosophorum"; (4) "Tractatus trium verborum"; (5) "Alchimia major". But it is possible that some of these and several other treatises attributed to Bacon are parts of works already mentioned, as are essays "De situ orbis", "De regionibus mundi", "De situ Palaestinae", "De locis sacris", "Descriptiones locorum mundi", "Summa grammaticalis" (see Golubovich, "Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente Francescano", Quaracchi, 1906, I, 268 sq.). If we now examine Bacon's scientific systems and leading principles, his aims and his hobby, so to say, we find that the burden not only of the writings sent to the pope, but also of all his writings was: ecclesiastical study must be reformed. All his ideas and principles must be considered in the light of this thesis. He openly exposes the "sins" of his time in the study of theology, which are seven, as he had proved, in the "Opus Majus". Though this part has been lost, we can reconstruct his arrangement with the aid of the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". The first sin is the preponderance of (speculative) philosophy. Theology is a Divine science, hence it must be based on Divine principles and treat questions touching Divinity, and not exhaust itself in philosophical cavils and distinctions. The second sin is ignorance of the sciences most suitable and necessary to theologians; they study only Latin grammar, logic, natural philosophy (very superficially!) and a part of metaphysics: four sciences very unimportant, scientiae viles. Other sciences more necessary, foreign (Oriental) languages, mathematics, alchemy, chemistry, physics, experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, they neglect. A third sin is the defective knowledge of even the four sciences which they cultivate: their ideas are full of errors and misconceptions, because they have no means to get at the real understanding of the authors from whom they draw all their knowledge, since their writings abound in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic expressions. Even the greatest and most highly-esteemed theologians show in their works to what an extent the evil has spread. Another sin is the preference for the "Liber Sententiarum" and the disregard of other theological matters, especially Holy Scriptures; he complains: "The one who explains the 'Book of the Sentences' is honoured by all, whereas the lector of Holy Scripture is neglected; for to the expounder of the Sentences there is granted a commodious hour for lecturing at his own will, and if he belongs to an order, a companion and a special room; whilst the lector of Holy Scripture is denied all this and must beg the hour for his lecture to be given at the pleasure of the expounder of the Sentences. Elsewhere the lector of the Sentences holds disputations and is called master, whereas the lector of the [Biblical] test is not allowed to dispute" ("Opus Minus", ed. Brewer, 328 sq.). Such a method, he continues, is inexplicable and very injurious to the Sacred Text which contains the word of God, and the exposition of which would offer many occasions to speak about matters now treated in the several "Summae Sententiarum". Still more disastrous is the fifth sin: the text of Holy Writ is horribly corrupted, especially in the "exemplar Parisiense", that is to say the Biblical text used at the University of Paris and spread by its students over the whole world. Confusion has been increased by many scholars or religious orders, who in their endeavours to correct the Sacred Text, in default of a sound method, have in reality only augmented the divergences; as every one presumes to change anything "he does not understand, a thing he would not dare to do with the books of the classical poets", the world is full of "correctors or rather corruptors". The worst of all sins is the consequence of the foregoing: the falsity or doubtfulness of the literal sense (sensus litteralis) and consequently of the spiritual meaning (sensus spiritualis); for when the literal sense is wrong, the spiritual sense cannot be right, since it is necessarily based upon the literal sense. The reasons of this false exposition are the corruption of the sacred text and ignorance of the Biblical languages. For how can they get the real meaning of Holy Writ without this knowledge, as the Latin versions are full of Greek and Hebrew idioms? The seventh sin is the radically false method of preaching: instead of breaking to the faithful the Bread of Life by expounding the commandments of God and inculcating their duties, the preachers content themselves with divisions of the arbor Porphyriana, with the jingle of words and quibbles. They are even ignorant of the rules of eloquence, and often prelates who during their course of study were not instructed in preaching, when obliged to speak in church, beg the copy-books of the younger men, which are full of bombast and ridiculous divisions, serving only to "stimulate the hearers to all curiosity of mind, but do not elevate the affection towards good" ("Opus Tertium", Brewer, 309 sq.). Exceptions are very few, as for instance Friar Bertholdus Alemannus (Ratisbon) who alone has more effect than all the friars of both orders combined (Friars Minor and Preachers). Eloquence ought to be accompanied by science, and science by eloquence; for "science without eloquence is like a sharp sword in the hands of a paralytic, whilst eloquence without science is a sharp sword in the hands of a furious man" ("Sapientia sine eloquentia est quasi gladius acutus in manu paralytici, sicut eloquentia expers sapientiae est quasi gladius acutus in manu furiosi"; "Opus Tertium, I, Brewer, 4). But far from being an idle fault-finder who only demolished without being able to build up, Bacon makes proposals extremely fit and efficacious, the only failure of which was that they were never put into general practice, by reason of the premature death of the pope. Bacon himself and his pupils, such as John of Paris, whom he praises highly, William of Mara, Gerard Huy, and others are a striking argument that his proposals were no Utopian fancies: they showed in their own persons what in their idea a theologian should be. First of all, if one wishes to get wisdom, he must take care not to fall into the four errors which usually prevent even learned men from attaining the summit of wisdom, viz. "the example of weak and unreliable authority, continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one's own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom" ("Fragilis et indignae autoritatis exemplum, consuetudinis diuturnitas, vulgi sensus imperiti, et propriae ignorantiae occultatio cum ostentatione sapientiae apparentis"; "Opus Majus", I, Bridges, 1, 2). Thus having eliminated "the four general causes of all human ignorance", one must be convinced that all science has its source in revelation both oral and written. Holy Scripture especially is an inexhaustible fountain of truth from which all human philosophers, even the heathen, drew their knowledge, immediately or mediately; therefore no science, whether profane or sacred, can be true if contrary to Holy Writ (see "English Hist. Rev.", 1897, 508 sq.; "Opus Tertium", XXIV, Brewer, 87 sq.). This conviction having taken root, we must consider the means of attaining wisdom. Among those which lead to the summit are to be mentioned in the first place the languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. Latin does not suffice, as there are many useful works written in other languages and not yet translated, or badly translated, into Latin. Even in the best versions of scientific works, as for instance of Greek and Arabic philosophers, or of the Scriptures, as also in the Liturgy, there are still some foreign expressions retained purposely or by necessity, it being impossible to express in Latin all nuances of foreign texts. It would be very interesting to review all the other reasons adduced by Bacon proving the advantage or even necessity of foreign languages for ecclesiastical, social, and political purposes, or to follow his investigations into the physiological conditions of language or into what might have been the original one spoken by man. He distinguishes three degrees of linguistic knowledge; theologians are not obliged to reach the second degree, which would enable them to translate a foreign text into their own language, or the third one which is still more difficult of attainment and which would enable them to speak this language as their own. Nevertheless the difficulties of reaching even the highest degree are not as insurmountable as is commonly supposed; it depends only on the method followed by the master, and as there are very few scholars who follow a sound method, it is not to be wondered at that perfect knowledge of foreign languages is so rarely found among theologians (see "Opus Tertium", XX, Brewer, 64 sq.; "Compendium Studii phil.", VI, Brewer, 433 sq.). On this point, and in general of Roger's attitude towards Biblical studies, see the present author's article "De Fr. Roger Bacon ejusque sententia de rebus biblicis" in "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum", III, Quaracchi, 1910, 3-22; 185-213. Besides the languages there are other means, e.g., mathematics, optics, the experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, the study of which is absolutely necessary for every priest, as Bacon shows at length. He takes special pains in applying these sciences to Holy Scripture and the dogmas of faith. These are pages so wonderful and evincing by their train of thought and the drawings inserted here and there such a knowledge of the subject matter, that we can easily understand modern scholars saying that Bacon was born out of due time, or, with regard to the asserted imprisonment, that he belonged to that class of men who were crushed by the wheel of their time as they endeavoured to set it going more quickly. It is in these treatises (and other works of the same kind) that Bacon speaks of the reflection of light, mirages, and burning- mirrors, of the diameters of the celestial bodies and their distances from one another, of their conjunction and eclipses; that he explains the laws of ebb and flow, proves the Julian calendar to be wrong; he explains the composition and effects of gunpowder, discusses and affirms the possibility of steam- vessels and aerostats, of microscopes and telescopes, and some other inventions made many centuries later. Subsequent ages have done him more justice in recognizing his merits in the field of natural science. John Dee, for instance, who addressed (1582) a memorial on the reformation of the calendar to Queen Elizabeth, speaking of those who had advocated this change, says: "None hath done it more earnestly, neither with better reason and skill, than hath a subject of this British Sceptre Royal done, named as some think David Dee of Radik, but otherwise and most commonly (upon his name altered at the alteration of state into friarly profession) called Roger Bacon: who at large wrote thereof divers treatises and discourses to Pope Clement the Fifth [sic ] about the year of our Lord, 1267. To whom he wrote and sent also great volumes exquisitely compiled of all sciences and singularities, philosophical and mathematical, as they might be available to the state of Christ his Catholic Church". Dee then remarks that Paul of Middleburg, in "Paulina de recta Paschae celebratione", had made great use of Bacon's work: "His great volume is more than half thereof written (though not acknowledged) by such order and method generally and particularly as our Roger Bacon laid out for the handling of the matter" (cited by Bridges, "Opus Majus", I, p. xxxiv). Longer time was needed before Bacon's merits in the field of theological and philosophical sciences were acknowledged. Nowadays it is impossible to speak or write about the methods and course of lectures in ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Ages, or on the efforts of revision and correction of the Latin Bible made before the Council of Trent, or on the study of Oriental languages urged by some scholars before the Council of Vienne, without referring to the efforts made by Bacon. In our own day, more thoroughly than at the Council of Trent, measures are taken in accordance with Bacon's demand that the further corruption of the Latin text of Holy Scripture should be prevented by the pope's authority, and that the most scientific method should be applied to the restoration of St. Jerome's version of the Vulgate. Much may be accomplished even now by applying Bacon's principles, viz.: (1) unity of action under authority; (2) a thorough consultation of the most ancient manuscripts; (3) the study of Hebrew and Greek to help where the best Latin manuscripts left room for doubt; (4) a thorough knowledge of Latin grammar and construction; (5) great care in distinguishing between St. Jerome's readings and those of the more ancient version (see "Opus Tertium", XXV, Brewer, 93 sq.; Gasquet, "English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century" in "The Dublin Review", CXX, 1898, 15). But there are still some prejudices among learned men, especially with regard to Bacon's orthodoxy and his attitude towards Scholastic philosophy. It is true that he speaks in terms not very flattering of the Scholastics, and even of their leaders. His style is not the ordinary Scholastic style proceeding by inductions and syllogisms in the strictest form; he speaks and writes fluently, clearly expressing his thoughts as a modern scholar treating the same subject might write. But no one who studies his works can deny that Bacon was thoroughly trained in Scholastic philosophy. Like the other Scholastics, he esteems Aristotle highly, while blaming the defective Latin versions of his works and some of his views on natural philosophy. Bacon is familiar with the subjects under discussion, and it may be of interest to note that in many cases he agrees with Duns Scotus against other Scholastics, particularly regarding matter and form and the intellectus agens which he proves not to be distinct substantially from the intellectus possibilis ("Opus Majus", II, V; "Opus Tertium", XXIII). It would be difficult to find any other scholar who shows such a profound knowledge of the Arabic philosophers as Bacon does. Here appears the aim of his philosophical works, to make Christian philosophy acquainted with the Arabic philosophers. He is an enemy only of the extravagances of Scholasticism, the subtleties and fruitless quarrels, to the neglect of matters much more useful or necessary and the exaltation of philosophy over theology. Far from being hostile to true philosophy, he bestows a lavish praise on it. None could delineate more clearly and convincingly than he, what ought to be the relation between theology and philosophy, what profit they yield and what services they render to each other, how true philosophy is the best apology of Christian faith (see especially "Opus Majus", II and VII; "Compend. studii philos."). Bacon is sometimes not very correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that are dangerous or open to suspicion (e.g. his conviction that a real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.). But there is no real error in matters of faith, and Bacon repeatedly asks the reader not to confound his physics with divination, his chemistry with alchemy, his astronomy with astrology; and certainly he submitted with all willingness his writings to the judgment of the Church. It is moving to note the reverence he displayed for the pope. Likewise he shows always the highest veneration towards the Fathers of the Church; and whilst his criticism often becomes violent when he blames the most eminent of his contemporaries, he never speaks or writes any word of disregard of the Fathers or ancient Doctors of the Church, even when not approving their opinion; he esteemed them highly and had acquired such a knowledge of their writings that he was no way surpassed by any of his great rivals. Bacon was a faithful scholar of open character who frankly uttered what he thought, who was not afraid to blame whatsoever and whomsoever he believed to deserve censure, a scholar who was in advance of his age by centuries. His iron will surmounted all difficulties and enabled him to acquire a knowledge so far surpassing the average science of his age, that he must be reckoned among the most eminent scholars of all times. Of the vast Baconian bibliography we can mention only the most important books and articles in so far as we have made use of them. Besides those already cited we must mention: BALAEUS, Script. illustr. maiorus Brytann. Catalogus (Basle, 1577); Anecdota Oxon. Index Britannicae SS. quos . . . collegit Joan. Balaeus, ed. POOLE AND BATESON (OXFORD, 1902----); WOOD, Hist. et antiq. Univers. Oxon., I (Oxford, 1674); IDEM, Athenae Oxon. (London, 1721), new ed. by BLISS (4 vols., London, 1813-20); WHARTON, Anglia sacra (London, 1691); HODY, De Bibliorum text. original., versionibus graec. et latina Vulgata, III (Oxford, 1705); LELANDUS, Comment. de Scriptor. Brittanicis, ed. HALL (Oxford, 1709); OUDIN, Comment. de Script. Ecclesiae antiq., I (Frankfort, 1722), II-III (Leipzig, 1722); WADDING-FONSECA, Annales Ord. Min., IV-V; WADDING, Scriptores O. M. (Rome, 1650, 1806, 1906); TANNER, Bibl. Britann.-Hibern. (London, 1748); SBARALEA, Supplement. ad SS. O. M. (Rome, 1806); BERGER, De l'hist. de la Vulgate en France (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Quam notitiam linguae hebr. habuerunt christiani med. aevi (Paris, 1893); cf. the criticism of this book by SOURY in Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes, LIV (1893), 733-38; DENIFLE, Die Handschr. der Bibel-Corrector. des 13. Jahrh. in Archiv f. Lit.- u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, IV, 263 sqq.; 471 sqq.; DOeRING, Die beiden Bacon in Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos., XVII, (1904), 3 sqq.; FERET, Les emprisonnements de R. Bacon in Revue des quest. histor., L (1891), 119-42; IDEM, La faculte de theol. de Paris (4 vols., Paris, 1894-96); FLUeGEL, R. Bacons Stellung in d. Gesch. d. Philologie in Philos. Studien, XIX (1902), 164 sqq.; HEITZ, Essai histor. sur les rapports entre la philos. et la foi, de Berenger de Tours `a St. Thomas (Paris, 1909), 117 sqq.; HIRSCH, Early English Hebraists: R. Bacon and his Predecessors in The Jewish Quarterly Review (Oct., 1890), reprinted in IDEM, A Book of Essays (London, 1905), 1-72; Hist. de la France, XX (Paris, 1842), 227 sqq.; HOFFMANS, La synthese doctrinale de R. B. in Archiv f.Gesch. d. Philos. (Berne, 1907); IDEM, L'intuition mystique de la science in Revue Neo-Scholastuque (1909), 370 sqq. (cf. 1906, 371 sqq.; 1908, 474 sqq.; 1909, 33 sqq.); JARRETT, A Thirteenth-Century Revision Committee of the Bible in Irish Theological Quarterly, IV (Maynooth, 1910), 56 sqq.; JOURDAIN, Discussion de quelques points de la biogr. de R. B. in Comptes rendus Acad. Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, I (1873), 309 sqq.; KREMBS, R. B.'s Optik in Natur u. Offenbarung (1900); LANGEN, R. Bacon in Histor. Zeitschr., LI (1883), 434-50; MARTIN, La Vulgate latine au XIIIe siecle d'apres R. B. (Paris, 1888); Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., XXVIII, 569 sqq.; NARBEY, Le moine R. B. et le mouvement scientifque au XIIIe siecle in Revue des quest. histor., XXXV (1894), 115 sqq.; PARROT, R. B., sa personne, son genie, etc. (Paris, 1894); PESCH, De inspiratione S. Scripturae (Freiburg, 1906), 163 sq.; PICAVET, Les editions de R. B. in Journal des Savants (1905), 362-69; IDEM, Deux directions de la theol. et de l'exegese au XIIIe siecle. Thomas et Bacon in Revue de l'hist. des religions (1905), 172, or printed separately (Paris, 1905); POHL, Das Verhaeltnis der Philos. zur Theol. bei R. B. (Neustrelitz, 1893); SAISSET, R. B., sa vie et son oeuvre in Revue des deux mondes, XXXIV, (1861), 361-91; IDEM, Precurseurs et disciples de Descartes (Paris, 1862); SALEMBIER, Une page inedite de l'hist. de la Vulgate (Amiens, 1890); SCHNEIDER, R. B., eine Monographie als Beitrag zur Gesch der Philos. des 13. Jahr. aus den Quellen (Augsburg, 1873); SIEBERT, R. B., sein Leben u. seine Philos. (Marburg, 1861); STARHAHN, Das opus maius des R. B. nach seinem Inhalt u. seiner Bebeutung f. d. Wissenschaft betrachtet in Kirchl. Monatsschr., XII (1893), 276-86; STRUNZ, Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1910), 93-99; UBALD, Franciscan England in the Past in Franciscan Annals, XXXIII (1908), 369-71; XXXIV, (1909), 11-14; VALDARNINI, Esperienza e ragionamento in R. B. (Rome, 1896); VERCELLONE, Dissertazioni accademiche di vario argumento (Rome, 1864); VOGL, Die Physik R. B.'s (Erlangen, 1906); WERNER, Kosmologie u. allgem. Naturlehre R. B.'s Psychol., Erkenntniss- u. Wissenschaftslehre des R. B. in Sitzungsber. der k. k. Akad. d. W., XCIII (Vienna), 467-576; XCIV, 489-612; WITHEFORD, Bacon as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture inExpositor (1897), 349-60; WULF, (DE), Hist. de la philos. medievale (2nd ed., Louvain, 1905), 419-27. THEOPHILUS WITZEL Ven. Roger Cadwallador Ven. Roger Cadwallador English martyr, b. at Stretton Sugwas, near Hereford, in 1568; executed at Leominster, 27 Aug., 1610. He was ordained subdeacon at Reims, 21 Sept., 1591, and deacon the following February, and in Aug., 1592, was sent to the English College at Valladolid, where he was ordained priest. Returning to England in 1594, he laboured in Herefordshire with good success especially among the poor for about sixteen years. Search was made for him in June, 1605, but it was not till Easter, 1610, that he was arrested at the house of Mrs. Winefride Scroope, widow, within eight miles of Hereford. He was then brought before the Bishop, Dr. Robert Bennet, who committed him to Hereford gaol where he was loaded with irons night and day. On being transferred to Leominster gaol he was obliged to walk all the way in shackles, though a boy was permitted to go by his side and bear up by a string the weight of some iron links which were wired to the shackles. On his arrival, he was treated with the greatest inhumanity by his gaoler. He was condemned, merely for being a priest, some months before he suffered. A very full account of his sufferings in prison and of his martyrdom is given by Challoner. He hung very long, suffering great pain, owing to the unskilfulness of the hangman, and was eventually cut down and butchered alive. Pits praises his great knowledge of Greek, from which he translated Theodoret's "Philotheus, or the lives of the Father of the Syrian deserts"; but it does not appear when or where this translation was published. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Roger of Hoveden Roger of Hoveden Chronicler, was probably a native of Hoveden, or, as it is now called, Howden, in Yorkshire. From the fact that his chronicle ends rather abruptly in 1201 it is inferred that he must have died or been stricken with some mortal disease in that year. He was certainly a man of importance in his day. He was a king's clerk (clericus regis) in the time of Henry II, and seems to have been attached to the court as early as 1173, while he was also despatched on confidential missions, as for example to the chiefs of Galloway in 1174. In 1189 he served as an itinerant justice in the north, but he probably retired from public life after the death of Henry II, and it has been suggested that he became parish priest of his native village, Howden, devoting the rest of his life to the compilation of his chronicle. Like most other historical writings of that date the earlier portion of his work is little more than a transcript of some one narrative to which he had more convenient access or which he considered specially worthy of confidence. His authority from 732 down to 1154 was an abstract, still extant in manuscript, "Historia Saxonum vel Anglorum post obituary Bedae". From 1154 to 1192 he uses his authorities much more freely, basing his narrative upon the well-known "Gesta Henrici", commonly attributed to Benedict of Peterborough. But from 1192 to 1201 his work is all his own, and of the highest value. Hoveden had a great appreciation of the importance of documentary evidence, and we should be very ill informed regarding the political history of the last quarter of the twelfth century if it were not for the state papers, etc., which Hoveden inserts and of which, no doubt, his earlier connection with the chancery and its officials enabled him to obtain copies. As a chronicler, he was impartial and accurate. His profoundly religious character made him somewhat credulous, but there is no reason, as even his editor, Bishop Stubbs, admits, to regard him on that account as an untrustworthy authority. The one reliable edition of Hoveden is that prepared by STUBBS for the Rolls Series in four vols., 1868-71. A full account of Hoveden and his works is, given in the preface to these vols. HERBERT THURSTON Roger of Wendover Roger of Wendover Benedictine monk, date of birth unknown; d. 1236, the first of the great chroniclers of St. Albans Abbey. He seems to have been a native of Wendover in Buckinghamshire and must have enjoyed some little consideration among his brethren as he was appointed prior of the cell of Belvoir, but from this office he was deposed and retired to St. Albans, where he probably wrote his chronicle, known as the "Flores Historiarum", extending from the Creation to 1235. From the year 1202 it is an original and valuable authority, but the whole material has been worked over and in a sense re-edited with editions by Matthew Paris (q.v.) in his "Chronica Majora". Wendover is less prejudiced than Paris, but he is also less picturesque, and whereas Paris in his generalizations and inferences as to the causes of events anticipates the scope of the modern historian, Wendover is content to discharge the functions of a simple chronicler. The "Flores Historiarum" was edited for the English Historical Society in 1841 by H. O. Coxe in five volumes, beginning with the year 447, when Wendover for the first time turns directly to the history of Britain. But in 1886-1889 the more valuable part of the work (from 1154 to 1235) was re-edited by H. G. Hewlett as part of the Rolls Series in three volumes. HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. WENDOVER; LUARD, prefaces to the earlier volumes of MATTHEW PARIS, Chronica Majora in the Rolls Series; HARDY, Catalogue of Materials of Brit. Hist., III (London, 1871), and the prefaces to the editions of Flores Historiarum. HERBERT THURSTON Peter Roh Peter Roh Born at Conthey (Gunthis) in the canton of Valais (French Switzerland), 14 August, 1811; d. at Bonn, 17 May, 1872. Up to his thirteenth year he spoke only French, so that he had to learn German from a German priest in the vicinity before he was able to begin his gymnasial studies in the boarding-school kept by the Jesuits at Brig in Switzerland. Later he became a day-pupil at the gymnasium kept by the Jesuits at Sittin. While here he resolved to enter the Society of Jesus (1829); strange to say the external means of bringing him to this decision was the reading of Pascal's pamphlet "Monita Secreta". He taught the lower gymnasial classes at the lyceum at Fribourg. During these years of study Roh showed two characteristic qualities: the talent of imparting knowledge in a clear and convincing manner, and an unusual gift for oratory. These abilities determined his future work to be that of a teacher and a preacher. He was first (1842-5) professor of dogmatics at Fribourg, then at the academy at Lucerne which had just been given to the Jesuits. At the same time he preached and aided as opportunity occurred in missions. These labors were interrupted by the breaking out of the war of the Swiss Sonderbund, during which he was military chaplain; but after its unfortunate end he was obliged to flee into Piedmont, from there to Linz and Gries, finally finding a safe refuge at Rappoltsweiler in Alsace as tutor in the family of his countryman and friend Siegwart-Mueller, also expatriated. Here he stayed until 1849. A professorship of dogmatics at Louvain only lasted a year. When the missions for the common people were opened in Germany in 1850 his real labors began; as he said himself, "Praise God, I now come into my element." Both friend and foe acknowledge that the success of these missions was largely due to Roh, and his powerful and homely eloquence received the highest praise. He was an extemporaneous speaker; the writing of sermons and addresses was, as he himself confessed, "simply impossible" to him; yet, thoroughly trained in philosophy and theology, he could also write when necessary, as several articles from him in the "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach" prove. His pamphlet "Das alte Lied: der Zweck heiligt die Mittel, im Texte verbessert und auf neue Melodie gesetzt" has preserved a certain reputation until the present day, as Father Roh declared he would give a thousand gulden to the person who could show to the faculty of law of Bonn or Heidelberg a book written by a Jesuit which taught the principle that the end justifies the means. The prize is still unclaimed. Some of his sermons have also been preserved; they were printed against his will from stenographic notes. Father Roh's greatest strength lay in his power of speech and "he was the most powerful and effective preacher of the German tongue that the Jesuits have had in this century". KNABENBAUER, Erinnerungen an P. Peter Roh S. J., reprint of the biography in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1872). N. SCHEID Rohault de Fleury Rohault de Fleury A family of French architects and archaeologists of the nineteenth century, of which the most distinguished member was Charles Rohault de Fleury, b. in Paris 23 July, 1801; d. there 11 August, 1875. After a scientific course pursued at the Ecole Polytechnique at Paris, he studied sculpture, but abandoned this study for architecture in 1825. He designed several public and private buildings which adorn one of the most artistic sections of the present Paris and was the author of the first edition of the "Manuel des lois du batiment" published by the Central Society of Architects (Paris, 1862). The last years of his life he devoted to religious archaeology and published the important results of his studies in the following magnificently illustrated works: "Les instruments de la Passion", Paris, 1870 (see CROSS, IV, 531); "L'evangile, etudes iconographiques et archeologiques", Tours, 1874; "La Sainte Vierge", Paris, 1878; "Un Tabernacle chretien du Ve siecle", Arras, 1880; "La Messe, etudes archeologiques sur ses monuments", Paris, 1883-98. Some of these works were published after his death by his son George (1835-1905) who was himself a prominent archaeological writer. The latter's works treat of Italian art-monuments: "Monuments de Pise au moyen age", Paris, 1866; "La Toscane au moyen age, lettres sur l'architecture civile et militaire en 1400", Paris 1874; "Le Latran au moyen age", Paris 1877. Oeuvres de Charles Rohault de Fleury, architecte (Paris, 1884). N.A. WEBER Rene Francois Rohrbacher Rene Franc,ois Rohrbacher Ecclesiastical historian, b. at Langatte (Langd) in the present Diocese of Metz, 27 September, 1789; d. in Paris, 17 January, 1856. He studied for several months at Sarrebourg and Phalsebourg (Pfalzburg) and at the age of seventeen had completed his Classical studies. He taught for three years at the college of Phalsebourg; entered in 1810 the ecclesiastical seminary at Nancy, and was ordained priest in 1812. Appointed assistant priest at Insming, he was transferred after six months to Luneville. A mission which he preached in 1821 at Flavigny led to the organization of a diocesan mission band. Several years later he became a member of the Congregation of St. Peter founded by Felicite and Jean de La Mennais, and from 1827 to 1835 directed the philosophical and theological studies of young ecclesiastics who wished to become the assistants of the two brothers in their religious undertakings. When Felicite de La Mennais refused to submit to the condemnation pronounced against him by Rome, Rohrbacher separated from him and became professor of Church history at the ecclesiastical seminary of Nancy. Later he retired to Paris where he spent the last years of his life. His principal work is his monumental "Histoire Universelle de l'Eglise Catholique" (Nancy, 1842-49; 2nd ed., Paris, 1849-53). Several other editions were subsequently published and continuations added by Chantrel and Guillaume. Written from an apologetic point of view, the work contributed enormously to the extirpation of Gallicanism in the Church of France. Though at times uncritical and devoid of literary grace, it is of considerable usefulness to the student of history. It was translated into German and partially recast by Huelskamp, Rump, and numerous other writers. (For the other works of Rohrbacher, see Hurter, "Nomenclator Lit.", III [Innsbruck, 1895], 1069-71.) ROHRBACHER, Hist. Univ. de l'Eglise Cath., ed. by GUILLAUME XII, (Paris, 1885), 122-33; MCCAFFREY, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the XIX Century, II (Dublin, 1909), I, 60, II, 448, 475. N.A. WEBER Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla Spanish dramatic poet, b. at Toledo, 4 Oct., 1607; d. 1680. Authentic information regarding the events of his life is rather fragmentary, but he probably studied at the Universities of Toledo and Salamanca, and for a time followed a military career. When only twenty-five he was well known as a poet, for he is highly spoken of in Montalban's "Para todos" (1632), a fact which shows that he enjoyed popularity, when Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, and Calderon were in the height of their fame. The announcement published in 1638 of the assassination of Francisco de Rojas did not refer to the poet, for the first and second parts of his comedies, published by himself at Madrid, bear the dates of 1640 and 1645 respectively. A third part was promised but it never appeared. He was given the mantle of the Order of Santiago in 1644. The writings of Rojas consist of plays and autos sacramentales written alone and in collaboration with Calderon, Coello, Velez, Montalban, and others. No complete edition of his plays is available, but Mesonero gives a very good selection with biographical notes. Among the best of them are "Del Rey abajo ninguno", "Entre bobos anda el juego", "Donde hay agravio no hay celos", and "Casarse por vengarse", the last of which is claimed to have been the basis of Le Sage's novel, "Gil Blas de Santillane". TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (Boston, 1866); MESONERO, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, LIV (Madrid, 1866). VENTURA FUENTES John Gage Rokewode John Gage Rokewode Born 13 Sept., 1786; died at Claughton Hall, Lancashire, 14 Oct., 1842. He was the fourth son of Sir Thomas Gage of Hengrave, and took the name Rokewode in 1838 when he succeeded to the Rokewode estates. He was educated at Stonyhurst, and having studied law under Charles Butler he was called to the bar, but never practiced, preferring to devote himself to antiquarian pursuits. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1818, and was director from 1829 till 1842. He also became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1822 he published "The History and Antiquities of Hengrave in Suffolk" and in 1838 " The History and Antiquities of Suffolk ". His edition of Jocelin de Brakelond's chronicle published by the Camden Society in 1840 furnished Carlyle with much of his materials for "Past and Present" (1843). Many papers by him appeared in "Archaeologia", many of these being republished as separate pamphlets, including the description of the Benedictionals of St. AEthelwold and of Robert of Jumieges; he also printed the genealogy of the Rokewode family with charters relating thereto in "Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica", II. He contributed to the "Orthodox Journal" and the "Catholic Gentleman's Magazine". Many of his MSS. were sold after his death with his valuable library. The Society of Antiquaries possess a bust of him by R.C. Lucas. He died suddenly while out shooting. Orthodox Journal, XV, 276; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Caths. EDWIN BURTON Rolduc Rolduc (RODA DUCIS, also Roda, Closterroda or Hertogenrade). Located in S. E. Limburg, Netherlands. It became an Augustinian abbey in 1104 under Ven. Ailbertus, a priest, son of Ammoricus, a nobleman of Antoing, Flanders. Ailbertus is said to have been guided by a vision towards this chosen spot, which was in the domain of Count Adelbert of Saffenberch, who, before Bishop Othert of Liege, turned over the property destined for abbey and church in 1108. Ailbertus was the first abbot (1104-11). Later he went to France where he founded the Abbey of Clairfontaine. Desiring once more to see Rolduc, he died on the way, at Sechtem, near Bonn, 19 Sep., 1122 (Acta SS.). Thirty-eight abbots succeeded Ailbertus, the last one being Peter Joseph Chaineux (1779-1800). The abbey acquired many possessions in the Netherlands, and became the last resting-place of the Dukes of Limburg. It possesses the famous "Catalogue Librorum", made A.D. 1230, containing one hundred and forty theological and eighty-six philosophical and classical works. The beautiful crypt, built by Ailbertus, was blessed 13 Dec., 1106, and in 1108 the church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and St Gabriel. In 1122 Pope Calixtus II confirmed by a Bull, preserved in the archives of Rolduc, the donation of the property. The church, completed in 1209, was then solemnly dedicated by Philip, Bishop of Ratzeburg. Dr. R. Corten completed the restoration of the churoh in 1893, and transferred the relics of Ven. Ailbertus into a richly sculptured sarcophagus in the crypt, 1897. The church possesses a particle of the Holy Cross, five inches long, reputed to be authentic and miraculous (Archives of Rolduc, by Abbot Mathias Amezaga); also the body of St. Daphne, virgin and martyr, brought over from the Catacombs of Praetextatus in 1847. Rolduc became the seminary of Liege in 1831, under Right Rev. Cornelius Van Bommel, and the little seminary of Roermond, and academy in 1841. The present institution has an attendance of 420 pupils. HEYENDAL, Annales Rodenses usque ad annum 1700; Diarium rerum memorabilium abbatiae Rodensis in the archives of Aix-la-Chapelle; Acta SS.; HABETS, Geschiedenis van het Bisdom Roermond, III (1875-92); ERNST, Histoire du Limbourg, (Liege, 1837-52); DARIS, Notice Historique sur les eglises du diocese de Liege, XV (Liege, 1894); NEUJEAN, Notice historique sur l'abbaye de Rolduc (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1868); HELYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, religieux et militaires, II (Paris, 1714-19); CUYPERS, Revue de l'art chretien (1892); LENNARTZ, Die Augustiner Abtei Klosterrath; KERSTEN, Journal Historique et Litteraire, XIV (Liege); CORTEN, Rolduc in Woord en Beeld (Utrecht, 1902). THEOPHILE STENMANS Hermann Rolfus Hermann Rolfus Catholic educationist, b. at Freiburg, 24 May, 1821; d. at Buhl, near Offenburg, 27 October, 1896. After attending the gymnasium at Freiburg, he studied theology and philology at the university there from 1840 to 1843, and was ordained priest on 31 August, 1844. After he had served for brief periods at various places, he was appointed curate at Thiengen in 1851, curate-in-charge at Reiselfingen in 1855, parish priest at the last named place in 1861, parish priest at Reuthe near Freiburg in 1867 at Sasbach in 1875, and at Buhl in 1892. In 1867 the theological faculty at Freiburg gave him the degree of Doctor of Theology. Rolfus did much for practical Catholic pedagogics, especially in southern Germany, by the work which he edited in conjunction with Adolf Pfister, "Real-Encyclopaedie des Erziehungsund Unterrichtswesens nach katholischen Principien" (4 vols., Mainz, 1863-1866; 2nd. ed. 1872-74). A fifth volume ("Ergaenzungsband", 1884) was issued by Rolfus alone; a new edition is in course of preparation. Another influential publication was the "Suddeutsches katholisches Schulwochenblatt", which he edited, also jointly with Pfister, from 1861 to 1867. Of his other literary works, the following may be mentioned: "Der Grund des katholischen Glaubens" (Mainz, 1862); "Leitfaden der allgemeinen Weltgeschichte" (Freiburg, 1870; 4th ed., 1896); "Die Galubens- und Sittenlehre der katholischen Kirche" (Einsiedeln, 1875; frequently re-edited), jointly with F. J. Braendle; "Kirchengeschichtliches in chronologischer Reihenfolge von der Zeit des letzten Vaticanischen Concils bis auf unsere Tage" (2 vols., Mainz, 1877-82; 3rd vol. by Sickinger, 1882); "Geschichte des Reiches Gottes auf Erden" (Freiburg, 1878-80; 3rd. ed., 1894-95); "Katholischer Hauskatechismus" (Emsiedeln, 1891-92). In addition to the works mentioned, he also wrote a large number of pedagogic, political, apologetic, and polemical brochures, ascetic treatises, and works for the young. KELLER, Festschrift zum funfzigjahrigen Priesterjubilaum, des hochw. Herrn. Pfarrers u. Geistl. Rats Dr. Hermann Rolfus (Freiburg, im Br., 1894), with prortrait; KNECHT in Badische Biographien, V (Heidelberg, 1906), 670 sq. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Richard Rolle de Hampole Richard Rolle de Hampole Solitary and writer, b. at Thornton, Yorkshire, about 1300; d. at Hampole, 29 Sept., 1349. The date 1290, sometimes assigned for his birth-year, is too early, as in a work written after 1326 he alludes to himself as "juvenculus" and "puer", words applicable to a man of under thirty, but not to one over that age. He showed such promise as a school-boy, while living with his father William Rolle, that Thomas de Neville, Archdeacon of Durham, undertook to defray the cost of his education at Oxford. At the age of nineteen he left the university to devote himself to a life of perfection, not desiring to enter any religious order, but with the intention of becoming a hermit. At first he dwelt in a wood near his home, but fearing his family would put him under restraint, he fled from Thornton and wandered about till he was recognized by John de Dalton, who had been his fellow student at Oxford, and who now provided him with a cell and the necessaries for a hermit's life. At Dalton he made great progress in the spiritual life as described by himself in his treatise "De incendio amoris". He spent from three to four years in the purgative and illuminative way and then attained contemplation, passing through three phases which he describes as calor, canor, dulcor. They appeared successively, but once attained they remained with him continually, though he did not feel them all alike or all at the same time. Sometimes the calor prevailed; sometimes the canor, but the dulcor accompanied both. The condition was such, he says, "that I did not think anything like it or anything so holy could be received in this life". After this he wandered from place to place, at one time visiting the anchoress, Dame Margaret Kyrkby, at Anderby, and obtaining from God her cure. Finally he settled at Hampole near the Cistercian nunnery, and there he spent the rest of his life. After his death his tomb was celebrated for miracles, and preparations for his canonization, including the composition of a mass and office in his honour, were made; but the cause was never prosecuted. His writings were extremely popular throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and very many MSS. copies of his works are still extant in English libraries. His writings show he was much influenced by the teaching of St. Edmund of Canterbury in the "Speculum Ecclesiae". The Lollards, realizing the power of his influence, tampered with his writings, interpolating passages favouring their errors. To defeat this trickery, the nuns at Hampole kept genuine copies of his works at their house. His chief works are "De emendatione vitae" and "De incendio amoris", both written in Latin, of which English versions by Ricahrd Misyn (1434- 5) have been published by the Early English Text Society, 1896; "Contemplacyons of the drede and love of God" and "Remedy against Temptacyons", both printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1506; and "The Pricke of Conscience", a poem printed for the Philological Society in 1863. This was his most popular work and MSS. of it are very common. They have been collated by Andreae (Berlin, 1888) and Bulbring (Transactions of Philological Society, 1889-1890). Ten prose treatises found in the Thornton MS. in Lincoln Cathedral Library were published by the Early English Text Society, 1866. "The Form of Perfect Living", "Meditations on the Passion", and many shorter pieces were edited by Horstman (London, 1896). Rolle translated many parts of Scripture into English but only his version of the Psalms has been printed. His English paraphrase of the Psalms and canticles was published in 1884 (Clarendon Press, Oxford). This work of translation is noteworthy in face of the persistent though discredited Protestant tradition ascribing all the credit of translating the Scriptures into English to Wyclif. Latin versions of Rolle's works are very numerous. They were collected into one edition (Paris, 1618) and again reprinted in the "Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima" (Lyons, 1677). Modernized English versions of the Meditations on the Passion have been published by Mgr. Benson in "A Book of the Love of Jesus" (London, 1905) and by the present writer (C. T. S. London, 1906). Breviarium Eccl. Eboracensis. The lessons in the Officium de S. Ricardo, II, are the chief authority for the events of his life. PERRY, Introduction to Rolle's English Prose Treatises (London, 1866); VON ULLMAN, Studien zu Richard Rolle de Hampole in englische Studien (Heilbronn, 1877), VII; VON KRIBEL, Hampole-Studien, ibidem, VIII; ADLER, Ueber die Richard Rolle de Hampole zugeschriebene Paraphrase der sieben Busspsalmen (1885); MIDDENDORFF, Studien uber Richard Rolle (Magdeburg, 1888); HORSTMAN, Richard Rolle of Hampole and his followers (London, 1896); HARVEY, Introduction to the Fire of Love, E.E.T.S. (London, 1896); BENSON, Short Life of Richard Rolle in A Book of the Love of Jesus (London, 1905); INGE, Studies of English Mystics (London, 1906); HODGSON, The Form of Perfect Living (London, 1910). EDWIN BURTON Charles Rollin Charles Rollin Born in Paris, 1661; died there, 1741. The son of a cutler, intended to follow his father's trade, he was remarkable for the piety with which he served Mass and which secured for him a collegiate scholarship. He studied theology and received the tonsure, but not Holy Orders. He was assistant professor, and then professor of rhetoric at the College de Plessis; of Latin eloquence at the College Royal (1688), and at the age of thirty-three was appointed rector of the university. In 1696 he became principal of the College Beauvais, from which post he was dismissed in 1722 because of his opposition to the Bull "Unigenitus". He was a member of the Academy of Inscriptions from 1701. His works were written during his retirement. He was nearly sixty when he began the "Traite des Etudes", sixty-seven when he undertook his "Histoire Ancienne", seventy-seven when he became engaged on his "Histoire Romaine", which death prevented him from finishing. The "Traite des Etudes" (in 12DEG, 1726-31) explains the method of teaching and studying belles-lettres; it contains ideas which seem hackneyed, but which then were fairly new, e.g. the necessity of studying national history and of making use of school-books written in the vernacular. The "Histoire Ancienne" (1730-38) consists of twelve volumes in 12DEG. The "Histoire Romaine", of which he was able to finish only five volumes out of the nine composing the work, displays facility, interest, enthusiasm, but lack of a critical spirit. Rollin was a talented writer, though according to his own statement he was sixty years old when he decided to write in French. He was upright and serene, a pious and sincere Christian, whom it is deplorable to find concerned in the ridiculous scenes at the cemetery of St. Medard near the tomb of the deacon Paris. Without the annoyances due to his Jansenism, his pure conscience, sweet gaiety, vigorous health, and the esteem he enjoyed should have made him one of the most fortunate men of his times. TROGNON, Eloge (Paris, 1818); GUENEAU DE MUSSY, Traite des Etudes de Rollin (Paris, 1805); SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du lundi, VI (Paris, 1851-62). GEORGES BERTRIN Rolls Series Rolls Series A collection of historical materials of which the general scope is indicated by its official title, "The Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages". The publication of the series was undertaken by the British Government in accordance with a scheme submitted in 1857 by the Master of the Rolls (the official Custodian of the Records of the Court of Chancery and of the other Courts), then Sir John Romilly. A previous undertaking of the same kind, the "Monumenta Histories Britannica", had come to grief after the publication of the first volume (1036 folio pages, London, 1848) owing partly to the death of the principal editor, Henry Petrie, partly to its cumbrous form and other causes. Strong representations were, however, made by a very earnest worker in the field of historical research, Rev. Joseph Stevenson (q.v.), and the scheme of 1857 was the direct outcome of this appeal. In the new Series "preference was to be given in the first instance to such materials as were most scarce and valuable", each chronicle was to be edited as if the editor were engaged upon an editio princeps, a brief account was to be provided in a suitable preface of the life and times of the author as well as a description of the manuscripts employed, and the volumes were to be issued in a convenient octavo form. In accordance with this scheme 255 volumes, representing 99 separate works, have now been published. With the exception of the series of legal records known as the "Year Books" of Edward I and Edward III, the further issue of these materials has for some time past been suspended. Almost all the great medieval English chronicles have in turn been included, for it was found that most of the existing editions published by the scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were unsatisfactory. It would be impossible here to give a catalogue of the materials edited in the course of this great undertaking. It must be sufficient to mention the magnificent edition of the "Chronica Majora" of Matthew Paris by Luard; the Hoveden, Benedict of Peterborough, Ralph de Diceto, Walter of Coventry, and others, all edited by Bishop Stubbs; the works of Giraldus Cambrensis by Brewer, and the "Materials for the History of St. Thomas Becket" by Canon Robertson. But the scope of the Series is by no means limited to the ordinary English Chroniclers. Legal records and tractates, such as the "Year Books", the "Black Book of the Admiralty", and Bracton's great work "De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliaeoe; materials of a more or less legendary character relating to Ireland and Scotland, such as Whitley Stokes's edition of "the Tripartite Life of St. Patrick", or the Icelandic Sagas edited by Vigfusson and Dasent; rhymed chronicles like those of Robert of Gloucester and Robert of Brunne in English, and that of Pierre de Langtoft in French; even quasi-philosophical works like those of Friar Roger Bacon and Alexander Neckam, together with folklore materials like the three volumes of "Leechdoms, Worteunning and Starcraft" of Anglo-Saxon times, have all been included in the Series. It need hardly be said that hagiographical documents, dealing for example with the lives of St. Dunstan, St. Edward the Confessor, St. Hugh of Lincoln, St. Thomas, as well as St. Wilfrid and other northern saints, occupy a prominent place in the collection. The vast bulk of the texts thus edited are in Latin, and these are printed without translation. Those in old French, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Gaelic, Welsh, old Norse, etc. always have a translation annexed. The progress of the Rolls Series may best be traced in the Annual Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, but a general account is also given in Gross, The Sources and Literature of English History (New York, 1900); Potthast, Bibliotheca Historieca (Berlin, 1896). HERBERT THURSTON Thomas Rolph Thomas Rolph Surgeon, b. 1800; d. at Portsmouth, 17 Feb., 1858. He was a younger son of Dr. Thomas Rolph and Frances his wife, and brother of John Rolph, the Canadian insurgent. Having qualified as a surgeon, he began to practice in Crutchedfriars, where he came into conflict with the Anglican rector of St. Olave, Hart Street, on the subject of tithes, a dispute which led him to petition the House of Commons on the subject and to publish two pamphlets: "Address to the Citizens of London" and "Letter addressed to the Rev. H.B. Owen, D.D." (1827). He also took a prominent part in Catholic affairs. In 1832 he went to the West Indies, the United States, and Canada, where his brother John had become chairman of committee in the Upper Canada House of Assembly. For a time Thomas Rolph settled in Canada, acting as Government emigration agent, but he returned to England in 1839 and published a series of works on emigration: "Comparative advantages between the United States and Canada for British Settlers" (1842); "Emigrants' Manual" (1843); "Emigration and Colonization" (1844). In his earlier life he had published two pamphlets on the proceedings of the Religious Tract society, and one against phrenology. He was also a constant contributor to the "Truthteller", a Catholic magazine published by William Eusebius Andrews. He spent his last years at Portsmouth where he died of apoplexy. Allibone, Critical Dict. of Eng. Lit. (Philadelphia, 1869-71); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Roman Catechism Roman Catechism This catechism differs from other summaries of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the people in two points: it is primarily intended for priests having care of souls (ad parochos), and it enjoys an authority equalled by no other catechism. The need of a popular authoritative manual arose from a lack of systematic knowledge among pre-Reformation clergy and the concomitant neglect of religious instruction among the faithful. The Reformers had not been slow in taking advantage of the situation; their popular tracts and catechisms were flooding every country and leading thousands of souls away from the Church. The Fathers of Trent, therefore, "wishing to apply a salutary remedy to this great and pernicious evil, and thinking that the definition of the principal Catholic doctrines was not enough for the purpose, resolved also to publish a formulary and method for teaching the rudiments of the faith, to be used by all legitimate pastors and teachers" (Cat. praef., vii). This resolution was taken in the eighteenth session (26 February, 1562) on the suggestion of St. Charles Borromeo; who was then giving full scope to his zeal for the reformation of the clergy. Pius IV entrusted the composition of the Catechism to four distinguished theologians: Archbishops Leonardo Marino of Lanciano and Muzio Calini of Zara, Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena, and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. Three cardinals were appointed to supervise the work. St. Charles Borromeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. Cardinal William Sirletus then gave it the final touches, and the famous Humanists, Julius Pogianus and Paulus Manutius, translated it into classical Latin. It was then published in Latin and Italian as "Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566" (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, "De Ref.", c. vii). The Council intended the projected Catechism to be the Church's official manual of popular instruction. The seventh canon, "De Reformatione", of Sess. XXIV, runs: "That the faithful may approach the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion, the Holy Synod charges all the bishops about to administer them to explain their operation and use in a way adapted to the understanding of the people; to see, moreover, that their parish priests observe the same rule piously and prudently, making use for their explanations, where necessary and convenient, of the vernacular tongue; and conforming to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in its instructions (catechesis) for the several Sacraments: the bishops shall have these instructions carefully translated into the vulgar tongue and explained by all parish priests to their flocks . . .". In the mind of the Church the Catechism, though primarily written for the parish priests, was also intended to give a fixed and stable scheme of instruction to the faithful, especially with regard to the means of grace, so much neglected at the time. To attain this object the work closely follows the dogmatic definitions of the council. It is divided in four parts: I. The Apostles' Creed; II. The Sacraments; III. The Decalogue; IV. Prayer, especially The Lord's Prayer. It deals with the papal primacy and with Limbo (q.v.), points which were not discussed or defined at Trent; on the other hand, it is silent on the doctrine of Indulgences (q. v.), which is set forth in the "Decretum de indulgentiis", Sess. XXV. The bishops urged in every way the use of the new Catechism; they enjoined its frequent reading, so that all its contents would be committed to memory; they exhorted the priests to discuss parts of it at their meetings, and insisted upon its being used for instructing the people. To some editions of the Roman Catechism is prefixed a "Praxis Catechismi", i.e. a division of its contents into sermons for every Sunday of the year adapted to the Gospel of the day. There is no better sermonary. The people like to hear the voice of the Church speaking with no uncertain sound; the many Biblical texts and illustrations go straight to their hearts, and, best of all, they remember these simple sermons better than they do the oratory of famous pulpit orators. The Catechism has not of course the authority of conciliary definitions or other primary symbols of faith; for, although decreed by the Council, it was only published a year after the Fathers had dispersed, and it consequently lacks a formal conciliary approbation. During the heated controversies de auxiliis gratiae between the Thomists and Molinists, the Jesuits refused to accept the authority of the Catechism as decisive. Yet it possesses high authority as an exposition of Catholic doctrine. It was composed by order of a council, issued and approved by the pope; its use has been prescribed by numerous synods throughout the whole Church; Leo XIlI, in a letter to the French bishops (8 Sept., 1899), recommended the study of the Roman Catechism to all seminarians, and the reigning pontiff, Pius X, has signified his desire that preachers should expound it to the faithful. The earliest editions of the Roman Catechism are: "Romae apud Paulum Manutium", 1566; "Venetiis, apud Dominicum de Farrisoe, 1567; "Coloniae", 1567 (by Henricus Aquensis); "Parisuis, in aedibus. Jac. Kerver", 1568; "Venetiis, apud Aldum", 1575; Ingolstadt, 1577 (Sartorius). In 1596 appeared at Antwerp "Cat. Romanus . . . quaestionibus distinctus, brevibusque exhortatiunculis studio Andreae Fabricii, Leodiensis". (This editor, A. Le Fevre, died in 1581. He probably made this division of the Roman Catechism into questions and answers in 1570). George Eder, in 1569, arranged the Catechism for the use of schools. He distributed the main doctrines into sections and subsections, and added perspicuous tables of contents. This useful work bears the title: "Methodus Catechismi Catholici". The first known English translation is by Jeremy Donovan, a professor at Maynooth, published by Richard Coyne, Capel Street, Dublin, and by Keating & Brown, London, and printed for the translator by W. Folds & Son, Great Shand Street, 1829. An American edition appeared in the same year. Donovan's translation was reprinted at Rome by the Propaganda Press, in two volumes (1839); it is dedicated to Cardinal Fransoni, and signed: "Jeremias Donovan, sacerdos hibernus, cubicularius Gregorii XVI, P. M." There is another English translation by R.A. Buckley (London, 1852), which is more elegant than Donovan's and claims to be more correct but is spoiled by the doctrinal notes of the Anglican translator. The first German translation, by Paul Hoffaeus, is dated Dillingen, 1568. J. WILHELM Roman Catholic Roman Catholic A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic". "The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed" (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766). Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the "Europae Speculum" of Edwin Sandys: "Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present"; while a passage from Day's "Festivals" of 1615, contrasts "Roman Catholiques" with "good, true Catholiques indeed". Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580 certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the "Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church". This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Percival Wiburn, who in his "Checke or Reproofe of M. Howlet" uses the term "Roman Catholic" repeatedly. For example he speaks of "you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration" (p. 140) and of the "parlous dilemma or streight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into" (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church. Thus Philpot represents himself as answering his Catholic examiner: "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" (Philpot, "Works", Parker Soc., p. 132). It would be easy to quote many similar passages. The term "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. Indeed the writer Crowley, just mentioned, does not hesitate throughout a long tract to use the term "Protestant Catholics" the name which he applies to his antagonists. Thus he says "We Protestant Catholiques are not departed from the true Catholique religion" (p. 33) and he refers more than once to "Our Protestant Catholique Church," (p. 74) On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified name Catholic. Father Southwell's "Humble Supplication to her Majesty" (1591), though criticized by some as over-adulatory in tone, always uses the simple word. What is more surprising, the same may be said of various addresses to the Crown drafted under the inspiration of the "Appellant" clergy, who were suspected by their opponents of subservience to the government and of minimizing in matters of dogma. This feature is very conspicuous, to take a single example, in "the Protestation of allegiance" drawn up by thirteen missioners, 31 Jan., 1603, in which they renounce all thought of "restoring the Catholic religion by the sword", profess their willingness "to persuade all Catholics to do the same" and conclude by declaring themselves ready on the one hand "to spend their blood in the defence of her Majesty" but on the other "rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church" (Tierney-Dodd, III, p. cxc). We find similar language used in Ireland in the negotiations carried on by Tyrone in behalf of his Catholic countrymen. Certain apparent exceptions to this uniformity of practice can be readily explained. To begin with we do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name "Roman Catholic" and speak of the "Catholic Roman faith" or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called "a Notable Discourse" where we read for example that the heretics of old "preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church" (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or in French "l'Eglise catholique romaine". It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at best the Roman species of a wider genus. Again, when we find Father Persons (e.g. in his "Three Conversions," III, 408) using the term "Roman Catholic", the context shows that he is only adopting the name for the moment as conveniently embodying the contention of his adversaries. Once more in a very striking passage in the examination of one James Clayton in 1591 (see Cal. State Papers, Dom. Eliz., add., vol. XXXII, p. 322) we read that the deponent "was persuaded to conforme himself to the Romaine Catholique faith." But there is nothing to show that these were the actual words of the recusant himself, or that, if they were, they were not simply dictated by a desire to conciliate his examiners. The "Oxford Dictionary" is probably right in assigning the recognition of "Roman Catholic" as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connection with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as "Roman Catholic". Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion, e.g. those connected with the proposed d'Alencon marriage in Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusants, and their religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland" in 1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland". The same Practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see or example the Consultation entitled "Objections answered touching Maryland", drafted by Father R Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, "Foundation of Maryland, etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc., (in Baldwin, "Maryland Cat. of Wills", 19 vols., vol. i. Naturally the wish to conciliate hostile opinion only grew greater as Catholic Emancipation became a question of practical politics, and by that time it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the "Roman Catholic Meeting" (Ward, "Dawn of Cath,. Revival in England", II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as "Roman Catholics". Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his "Historical Memoirs" (see e.g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185, 199, 225, etc.,) frequently uses the term "roman-catholic" [sic] and seems to find this expression as natural as the unqualified form. With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converts, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however, would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter." It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the object of adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman" (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as "the Orthodox Church", not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of "the Reformation" because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-the manger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London "Saturday Review" (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. The historical facts summarized in this article are given in an extended form in a paper contributed by the present writer to The Month (Sept. 1911). See also "The Tablet" (14 Sept., 1901), 402, and Snead-Cox, Life of Cardinal Vaughan, cited above. HERBERT THURSTON Roman Catholic Relief Bill Roman Catholic Relief Bill IN ENGLAND With the accession of Queen Elizabeth (1558) commenced the series of legislative enactments, commonly known as the Penal Laws, under which the profession and practice of the Catholic religion were subjected to severe penalties and disabilities. By laws passed in the reign of Elizabeth herself, any English subject receiving Holy Orders of the Church of Rome and coming to England was guilty of high treason, and any one who aided or sheltered him was guilty of capital felony. It was likewise made treason to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, and to procure others to be reconciled. Papists were totally disabled from giving their children any education in their own religion. Should they educate them at home under a schoolmaster who did not attend the parish church, and was not licenced by the bishop of the diocese, the parents were liable to forfeit ten pounds a month, and the schoolmaster himself forty shillings a day. Should the children be sent to Catholic seminaries beyond the seas, their parents were liable to forfeit one hundred pounds, and the children themselves were disabled from inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying any species of property. Saying Mass was punished by a forfeiture of 200 marks; hearing it by one of 100 marks. The statutes of recusancy punished nonconformity with the Established Church by a fine of twenty pounds per lunar month during which the parish church was not attended, there being thirteen of such months in the year. Such non-attendances constituted recusancy in the proper sense of the term, and originally affected all, whether Catholics, or others, who did not conform. In 1593 by 35 Eliz. c. 2, the consequences of such non-conformity were limited to Popish recusants. A Papist, convicted of absenting himself from church, became a Popish recusant convict, and besides the monthly fine of twenty pounds, was disabled from holding any office or employment, from keeping arms in his house, from maintaining actions or suits at law or in equity, from being an executor or a guardian, from presenting to an advowson, from practising the law or physic, and from holding office civil or military. He was likewise subject to the penalties attaching to excommunication, was not permitted to travel five miles from his house without licence, under pain of forfeiting all his goods, and might not come to Court under a penalty of one hundred pounds. Other provisions extended similar penalties to married women. Popish recusants convict were, within three months of conviction, either to submit and renounce their papistry, or, if required by four justices, to abjure the realm. If they did not depart, or returned without licence, they were guilty of a capital felony. At the outset of Elizabeth's reign, an oath of supremacy containing a denial of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction, which therefore could not be taken by Catholics, was imposed on all officials, civil and ecclesiastical. The "Oath of allegiance and obedience" enacted under James I, in 1605, in consequence of the excitement of the Gunpowder Plot, confirmed the same. By the Corporation Act of 1661, no one could legally be elected to any municipal office unless he had within the year received the Sacrament according to the rite of the Church of England, and likewise, taken the Oath of Supremacy. The first provision excluded all non-conformists; the second Catholics only. The Test Act (1672) imposed on all officers, civil and military, a "Declaration against Transubstantiation", whereby Catholics were debarred from such employment. In 1677 it was enacted that all members of either House of Parliament should, before taking their seats, make a "Declaration against Popery", denouncing Transubstantiation, the Mass and the invocation of saints, as idolatrous. With the Resolution of 1688 came a new crop of penal laws, less atrocious in character than those of previous times, but on that very account more likely to be enforced, and so to become effective, the sanguinary penalties of the sixteenth century, having in great measure defeated their own end, and being now generally left on the statute book in terrorem. In 1689 (1 William and Mary, i, c. 9) a shorter form of the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy was substituted, the clause aimed against Catholics being carefully retained. It was likewise ordered that all Papists and reputed Papists should be "amoved" ten miles from the cities of London and Westminster. In 1700 (11 and 12 William III, c. 4.) a reward of one hundred pounds was promised to anyone who should give information leading to the conviction of a Popish priest or bishop, who was made punishable by imprisonment for life. Moreover, any Papist who within six months of attaining the age of eighteen failed to take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy and subscribe to the Declaration against Popery, was disabled in respect to himself (but not of his heirs or posterity) from acquiring or holding land, and until he submitted, his next of kin who was a Protestant might enjoy his lands, without being obliged to account for the profits. The recusant was also incapable of purchasing, and all trusts on his behalf were void. In 1714 (George I, c. 13) a new element was introduced, namely Constructive Recusancy. The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy might be tendered to any suspected person by any two Justices of the Peace, and persons refusing it were to be adjudged Popish recusants convict and to forfeit, and be proceeded against accordingly. Thus the refusal of the Oath was placed on the same footing as a legal conviction, and the person so convicted was rendered liable to all penalties under those statutes. At the same time an obligation was imposed on Catholics requiring them to register their names and estates, and to enroll their deeds and wills. These penal laws remained on the statute book unmitigated till late in the eighteenth century, and although there was less and less disposition to put them in force, there was ever the danger, which upon occasion grew more acute. In 1767 a priest named Malony was tried at Croydon for his priesthood, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment, which, at the end of two or three years, was commuted, "by the mercy of the Government" to banishment. In 1768 the Reverend James Webb was tried in the Court of King's Bench for saying Mass but was acquitted, the Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruling that there was no evidence sufficient to convict. In 1769 and on other occasions, seemingly as late as 1771, Dr. James Talbot, coadjutor to Bishop Challoner, was tried for his life at the Old Bailey, on the charge of his priesthood and of saying Mass, but was acquitted on similar grounds. Such instances were not solitary. In 1870, Mr. Charles Butler found that one firm of lawyers had defended more than twenty priests under prosecutions of this nature. In 1778 a Catholic committee was formed to promote the cause of relief for their co-religionists, and though several times elected afresh, continued to exist until 1791, with a short interval after the Gordon Riots. It was always uniformly aristocratic in composition, and until 1787 included no representation of the hierarchy and then but three co-opted members. In the same year, 1778, was passed the first Act for Catholic Relief (18 George III c. 60). By this, an oath was imposed, which besides a declaration of loyalty to the reigning sovereign, contained an abjuration of the Pretender, and of certain doctrines attributed to Catholics, as that excommunicated princes may lawfully be murdered, that no faith should be kept with heretics, and that the pope has temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction in this realm. Those taking this oath were exempted from some of the most galling provisions of the Act of William III passed in 1700. The section as to taking and prosecuting priests were repealed, as also the penalty of perpetual imprisonment for keeping a school. Catholics were also enabled to inherit and purchase land, nor was a Protestant heir any longer empowered to enter and enjoy the estate of his Catholic kinsman. The passing of this act was the occasion of the Gordon Riots(1780) in which the violence of the mob was especially directed against Lord Mansfield who had balked various prosecutions under the statutes now repealed. In 1791 there followed another Act (31 George III, c. 32) far more extensive and far-reaching. By it there was again an oath to be taken, in character much like that of 1778, but including an engagement to support the Protestant Succession under the Act of Settlement (12 and 13 William III). No Catholic taking the oath was henceforward to be prosecuted for being a Papist, or for being educated in the Popish religion, or for hearing Mass or saying it, or for being a priest or deacon or for entering into, or belonging to, any ecclesiastical order or community in the Church of Rome, or for assisting at, or performing any Catholic rites or ceremonies. Catholics were no longer to be summoned to take the Oath of Supremacy, or to be removed from London; the legislation of George I, requiring them to register their estates and wills, was absolutely repealed; while the professions of counsellor and barrister at law, attorney, solicitor, and notary were opened to them. It was however provided that all their assemblies for religious worship should be certified at Quarter Sessions; that no person should officiate at such assembly until his name had been recorded by the Clerk of the Peace: that no such place of assembly should be locked or barred during the meeting; and that the building in which it was held, should not have a steeple or bell. The Relief Act of 1791 undoubtedly marked a great step in the removal of Catholic grievances, but the English statesmen felt, along with the Catholic body, that much more was required. Pitt and his rival, Fox, were alike pledged to a full measure of Catholic Emancipation, but they were both thwarted by the obstinacy of King George III, who insisted that to agree to any such measure would be a violation of his coronation oath. There were also at this period considerable dissensions within the Catholic ranks. These concerned first the question of Veto on the appointment of bishops in Ireland, which it was proposed to confer on the English Government, and belongs chiefly to the history of Emancipation in that country. There was another cause of dissension, more properly English, which was connected with the adjuration of the supposed Catholic doctrines contained in the oath imposed upon those who wished to participate in the benefits conferred by the Act of 1791, as previously by that of 1778. The lay members of the Catholic committee who had framed this disclaimer were accused by the vicars Apostolic, who then administered the Church in England, of tampering with matters of ecclesiastical discipline; and although the bishops had their way in the matter of the oath, the feud survived, and was proclaimed to the world by the formation in 1792 of the Cisalpine Club (q. v.), the members whereof were pledged "to resist any ecclesiastical interference which may militate against the freedom of English Catholics". Such internal dissension, no doubt, did much to retard the course of Emancipation. Its final triumph was due more than aught else to the pressure which the Catholic body in Ireland was able to put upon the Government, for it was acknowledged by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel themselves, who carried the Bill, that their action was due to the necessity of pacifying Ireland which had found so powerful a leader in Daniel O'Connell (q. v.), and of thus averting the danger of a civil war. It would take too much space to go into details regarding the provisions of the Act of Emancipation. Its general effect was to open public life to Catholics taking the prescribed oath, to enable them to sit in Parliament, to vote at elections (as previously they could not in England or Scotland, though they could in Ireland) to fill all offices of State with a few exceptions, viz.: A Catholic cannot succeed to the throne, and a sovereign becoming a Catholic or marrying one, thereby forfeits the crown, and a Catholic cannot hold the office of Regent. It is uncertain whether the English Chancellorship and the Irish Viceroyalty are barred to Catholics or not. Like the previous Relief Acts, that of 1829 still retained the "Roman Catholic Oath", to be imposed upon those who desire to enjoy its benefits. it likewise added something in the way of penal legislation by a clause prohibiting religious orders of men to receive new members, and subjecting those who should disobey to banishment as misdemeanants. This prohibition is still upon the statute book, and within the present century an attempt has been made to give it effect. Finally, in 1871 (34 and 35 Victoria, c. 48) the invidious Roman Catholic Oath was abolished, as also the still more objectionable declaration against Transubstantiation. IN IRELAND When Elizabeth became Queen of England, her Irish deputy was ordered "to set up the worship of God in Ireland as it is in England". The Irish Parliament soon enacted that all candidates for office should take the Oath of Supremacy; and by the Act of Uniformity the Protestant liturgy was prescribed in all churches. For a time, however, these Acts were but mildly enforced. But when the pope excommunicated the queen, and the Spanish king made war on her, and both in attempting to dethrone here found that the Irish Catholics were ready to be instruments and allies, the latter, regarded as rebels and traitors by the English sovereign and her ministers, were persecuted and hunted down. Their chiefs were outlawed, their churches laid in ruins, their clergy driven to exile or death. The expectations of a harassed people and an outlawed creed -- that better times had come with the advent of the Stuarts -- were falsified by the repeated proclamations against priests, by the Plantation of Ulster, and, later, by the attempted confiscations of Strafford. Charles II had special reasons for being grateful to large masses of Irish, who fought his battles at home and supported him abroad; yet at the Restoration he left them to their fate, and confirmed the gigantic scheme of confiscation which had been carried out by Cromwell. He was not indeed much attached to any religion, and disliked religious persecution; and more than once during his reign he tried to interpose between the Catholics and the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy. But the militant and aggressive Protestantism of the English Parliament would have no Catholic in any office, civil or military, and none in the corporations; and Charles was too politic to strain unduly the allegiance of these intolerant legislators. Had James II been equally politic he would have gradually allayed Protestant prejudice; and perhaps there would have been no long-drawn-out penal code, and no wearisome struggle for emancipation. But he insisted on Catholic predominance and soon picked a quarrel with his Protestant subjects which resulted in the loss of his crown. The war which followed in Ireland was terminated by the Treaty of Limerick, and had its terms been kept, the position of the Catholics would have been at least tolerable. Granted such privileges as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles II, with an Oath of Allegiance substituted for the Oath of Supremacy, and with a promise of a further relaxation of the penal enactments in force, they could practice their religion without hindrance, sit in Parliament and vote for its members, engage in trade and in the learned professions, and fill all civil and military offices; and they were protected in the possession of the lands they held. William III, whose name has been made a rallying-cry for bigotry, was in favour of these, and even more generous terms. But the forces of intolerance on both sides of the Channel were too strong. A small minority of Protestants in Ireland, pampered by privileges and possessing confiscated lands, thought that their only chance of security was to trample upon the Catholic majority surrounding them. Sustained and encouraged by England, in defiance of the solemn obligations of public faith, they tore the Treaty of Limerick into tatters, refused to ratify its concessions, and elaborated a penal code which every fair-minded Englishman now blushes to recall. For more than a quarter of a century the work of outlawry and proscription was continued by an exclusively Protestant Parliament at Dublin; and when the work was completed the position of the vast majority of Irishmen was that of slaves. An Irish Judge declared in 1760 that the law did not recognize the existence of an Irish Catholic, and, assuredly the penal code had placed him effectually beyond its pale. It branded Catholics with proscription and inferiority, struck at every form of Catholic activity, and checked every symptom of Catholic enterprise. It excluded them from Parliament, from the corporations, from the learned professions, from civil and military offices, from being executors, or administrators, or guardians of property, from holding land under lease, or from owning a horse worth 5. They were deprived of arms and of the franchise, denied education at home and punished if they sought it abroad, forbidden to observe Catholic Holy Days, to make pilgrimages, or to continue to use the old monasteries as the burial places of their dead. For the clergy there was no mercy, nothing but prison, exile, or death. After the Catholics had vainly protested against the Bill "To Prevent the Further Growth of Popery" of 1704, their protests ceased. The more energetic of them went abroad; those at home were torpid and inert, the peasantry steeped in poverty and ignorance, the clergy and gentry sunk in servitude and all of them afraid even to complain of their condition lest the anger of their tyrants might be provoked. At last the tide turned. The Irish Parliament became less bigoted, and after 1750 or thereabouts no more penal laws were passed. Indeed the work of crushing and debasing the Catholics had been so well done that they were paupers and slaves, and to crush them still further would give the Protestants no additional security. Some Catholics had made money in trade and lent it to needy Protestant landlords and these and their friends in Parliament would naturally favour toleration; the fact that the Catholics had so long been peaceable, and had given no support to the Pretenders showed that they no longer clung to the Stuarts; and this greatly strengthened their position both in England and Ireland. The growth of a strong sentiment of nationality among Irish Protestants also helped their cause. Claiming powers which it did not possess, the British Parliament asserted and exercised the right to legislate for Ireland, treated the Irish Parliament with disdain, and in the interests of English manufacturers imposed ruinous commercial restrictions on Irish trade, Dissatisfied with their English friends, the Irish Protestants turned to their own Catholic countrymen, and the more Catholics and Protestants came together, the better for the cause of religious toleration. This turn of affairs inspired the Catholics with hope and courage, and three of them, Dr. Curry, a Dublin physician, Mr. Wyse of Waterford, and Mr. Charles O'Connor, formed, in 1759, a Catholic Association, which was to meet at Dublin, correspond with representative Catholics in the country, and watch over Catholic interests. But such was the spiritless condition of the Catholics that the gentry and clergy held aloof, and the new association was chiefly manned by Dublin merchants. Under its auspices a loyal address was presented to the viceroy, and another to George III on his accession to the throne, and the Catholics rejoiced that both addresses were graciously received. These friendlier dispositions, however, were slow to develop into legislative enactments, and not until 1771 did the first instalment of emancipation come. By the Act of that year Catholics were allowed to reclaim and hold under lease for sixty-one years fifty acres of bog but it should not be within a mile of any city or market town. Three years later an oath of allegiance was substituted for that of supremacy. A further concession was granted in 1778 when Catholics were allowed to hold leases of land for 999 years, and might inherit land in the same way as Protestants, the preamble of the Act declaring that the law was passed to reward Catholics for their long-continued peaceable behaviour, and for the purpose of allowing them to enjoy "the blessings of our free constitution". Distrust of them, however, continued, and though they subscribed money to equip the volunteers, they would not be admitted within the ranks. Nor was the Irish Parliament of 1782 willing to do more than to repeal the law compelling bishops to quit the kingdom, and the law binding those who had assisted at Mass to give the celebrant's name. Further, Catholics were no longer prohibited from owning a horse worth 5, and Catholic schools might be opened with the consent of the Protestant bishop of the diocese. These small concessions were not supplemented by others for ten years. Dissensions and jealousies were largely responsible for this slow progress. Between the Catholic landed sentry and the Catholic merchants there was little in common except their religion. The timidity and submission to authority of the former, and the bolder and freer spirit of the latter were difficult to blend, and in 1763 the Catholic Association fell to pieces. After ten years of inactivity a Catholic committee was formed partly out of the debris of the defunct association. Its chairman was the Earl of Kenmare, and again it was sought to have all Catholics act together. But Kenmare was not the man to reconcile divergent views and methods, to form a homogeneous party out of discordant elements, and then with such a party to adopt a vigorous policy. His manner was cold his tone one of patronage and superiority; he disliked agitation as savouring of vulgarity and sedition, and preferred to seek redress by submissive petitions, slavish protestations of loyalty, and secret intrigue; and when an overwhelming majority of the Catholic Committee favoured manlier measures, he and sixty-eight others who sympathized with him seceded from its ranks. This was in 1791. The committee then chose for its leader John Keogh, a Dublin merchant of great ability, strong manly, fearless, prudent but firm, a man who favoured bolder measures and a decisive tone. Instead of begging for small concessions he demanded the repeal of the whole penal code, a demand considered so extravagant that it had few friends in Parliament. When that assembly was made independent it had not been reformed; and Grattan had foolishly allowed the volunteers to lay aside their swords before the battle of reform had been won. Unrepresentative and corrupt, Parliament continued to be dominated by pensioners and placemen, and under the influence of Fitzgibbon and Foster, two Irishmen and two bigots, it refused to advance further on the path of concession. Even Charlemont and flood would not join emancipation with parliamentary reform, and while willing to safeguard Catholic liberty and property would give Catholics no political power. But this attitude of intolerance and exclusion could not be indefinitely maintained. The French Revolution was in progress, and a young and powerful republic had arisen preaching the rights of man, the iniquity of class distinctions and religious persecution, and proclaiming its readiness to aid all nations who were oppressed and desired to be free. These attractive doctrines rapidly seized on men's minds, and Ireland did not escape the contagion. The Ulster Presbyterians celebrated with enthusiasm the fall of the Bastille, and in 1791 founded the Society of United Irishmen, having as the two chief planks in its programme Parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation. The Catholics and Dissenters, so long divided by religious antagonism, were coming together, and if they made a united demand for equal rights for all Irishmen, without distinction of creed, the ascendency of the Episcopalian Protestants, who were but a tenth of the population, must necessarily disappear. Yet the selfish and corrupt junta who ruled the Parliament, and ruled Ireland, would not yield an inch of ground, and only under the strongest pressure from England was an act passed in 1792 admitting Catholics to the Bar, legalizing marriages between Catholics and Protestants, and allowing Catholic schools to be set up without the necessity of obtaining the permission of a Protestant bishop. Such grudging concessions irritated rather than appeased in the existing temper of the Catholic body. To consider their position and take measures for the future the Catholic Committee had delegates appointed by the different parishes in Ireland, and in December, 1792, a Catholic convention commenced its sittings in Dublin. By the Protestant bigots it was derisively called the Back Lane Parliament, and every effort was made to discredit its proceedings and identify it with sedition. Fitzgibbon excited the fears of the Protestant landlords by declaring that the repeal of the penal code would involve the repeal of the Act of Settlement, and invalidate the titles by which they held their lands. The Catholic convention, however, went on unheeding, and turning with contempt from the Dublin Parliament sent delegates with a petition to London. The relations between Catholics and Dissenters were then so friendly that Keogh became a United Irishman, and a Protestant barrister named Theobald Wolfe Tone, the ablest of the United Irishmen, became secretary to the Catholic Committee. And when the Catholic delegates on their way to London passed through Belfast, their carriage was drawn through the streets by Presbyterians amid thunders of applause. Had the Prime Minister, Pitt, advised the king to receive the Catholics coldly, he would certainly have earned the goodwill of a small clique in Ireland, to whom their own interests were everything and the interests of England little. But he would have intensified disaffection among nine-tenths of the Irish people and this at a time when the French had beheaded their king, hurled back the Prussian attack at Valmy, conquered Belgium, and, maddened with enthusiasm for liberty and with hatred of monarchy, were about to declare war on England. The king graciously received the Catholics, and Pitt and Dundas, the Home Secretary, warned the Irish junta that the time for concessions had come, and that if rebellion broke out in Ireland, Protestant ascendency would not be supported by British arms. And then these Protestants, whom Fitzgibbon and the viceroy painted as ready to die rather than yield quietly, gave way; and in 1793 a bill was passed giving the Catholics the parliamentary and municipal franchise, and admitting them to the university and to office. They were still excluded from Parliament and from the higher offices, and from being king's counsel, but in all other respects they were placed on a level with Protestants. In the Commons Foster spoke and voted against the Bill. In the Lords, though not opposing it, Fitzgibbon spoiled the effect of the concession by a bitter speech, and by having an Act passed declaring the Catholic convention illegal, and prohibiting all such conventions, Catholic or otherwise, in the future. Relief from so many disabilities left the Catholics almost free. Few of them were affected by exclusion from the higher offices, fewer still by exclusion from the inner Bar; and Liberal Protestants would always be found ready to voice Catholic interests in Parliament if they owed their seats to Catholic votes. Besides, in the better temper of the times, it was certain that these last relics of the penal code would soon disappear. Meantime what was needed was a sympathetic and impartial administration of the law. But with Fitzgibbon the guiding spirit of Irish government this was impossible. The grandson of a Catholic peasant, he hated Catholics and seized upon every occasion to cover them and their religion with insults. Autocratic and overbearing, he commanded rather than persuaded, and since he became attorney-general in 1783, his influence in Irish government was immense. His action on the regency question in 1789 procured him the special favour of the king and of Pitt, and he became a peer and Lord Chancellor. It was one of the anomalies of the Irish constitution that a change of measures did not involve a change of men, and hence the viceroy and the chief secretary, who had opposed all concessions to Catholics, were retained in office, and Fitzgibbon was still left as if to prevent further concessions and to nullify what had been done. For a brief period, however, it seemed as if men as well as measures were to be changed. At the end of 1794 a section of the English Whigs joined Pitt's administration. The Duke of Portland became Home Secretary, with Irish affairs in his department, and Earl Fitzwilliam became Lord Lieutenant. He came to Ireland early in 1795. His sympathy with the Catholics was well known; he was the friend of Grattan and the Ponsonbys the champions of Emancipation, and in coming to Ireland he believed he had the full sanction of Pitt to popularize Irish Government and finally settle the Catholic question. At once he dismissed Cooke, the Under Secretary, a determined foe of concession and reform and also John Beresford who, with his relatives filled so many offices that he was called the "King" of Ireland. Fitzgibbon and Foster he seldom consulted. Further, when Grattan at the opening of Parliament introduced an Emancipation Bill, Fitzwilliam determined to support it. Of all that he did or intended to do he informed the English Ministry, and got no word of protest in reply, and then when the hopes of the Catholics ran high, Pitt turned back and Fitzwilliam was recalled. Why he was thus repudiated, after being allowed to go so far, has never been satisfactorily explained. It may be because Pitt changed his mind, and meditating a union wished to leave the Catholic question open. It may be because of the dismissal of Beresford who had powerful friends. It may be that Fitzwiiliam, misunderstanding Pitt, went further than he wished him to go; and it seems evident that he managed the question badly and irritated interests he ought to have appeased. Lastly, it is certain that Fitzgibbon poisoned the king's mind by pointing out that to admit Catholics to Parliament would be to violate his coronation oath. However the change be explained, it was certainly complete. The new viceroy was instructed to conciliate the Catholic clergy by establishing a seminary for the education of Irish priests, and he established Maynooth College. But all further concessions to Catholics and every attempt to reform Parliament he was firmly to oppose. He was to encourage the enemies of the people and frown upon their friends, and he was to rekindle the dying fires of sectarian hate. And all this he did. Beresford and Cooke were restored to office, Foster favoured more than ever, Fitzgibbon made Earl of Clare, Grattan and Ponsonby regarded with suspicion, and the corrupt majority in Parliament petted and caressed. The religious factions of the "Defenders" and the "Peep o' Day Boys" in Ulster became embittered with a change of names. The Defenders became United Irishmen, and these, despairing of Parliament, became republicans and revolutionists, and after Fitzwilliam's recall were largely recruited by Catholics. Their opponents became identified with the Orange society recently formed in Ulster, with William of Orange as its patron saint, and intolerance of Catholicism as the chief article in its creed. These rival societies spread to the other provinces, and while every outrage done by Catholics was punished by Government, those done by Orangemen were condoned. In rapid succession Parliament passed an Arms Act, an Insurrection Act, an Indemnity Act, and a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and these placed the Catholics beyond the protection of law. An undisciplined soldiery recruited from the Orangemen were let loose among them; destruction of Catholic property, free quarters, flogging, picketing, half-hanging, outrages on women followed, until at last Catholic patience was exhausted. Grattan and his friends, vainly protesting, withdrew from Parliament, and Clare and Foster had then a free hand. They were joined by Viscount Castlereagh, and under their management the rebellion of 1798 broke out with all its attendant horrors. When it was suppressed Pitt's policy of a legislative union gradually unfolded itself, and Foster and Clare, who had so long acted together, had reached the parting of the ways. The latter, with Castlereagh, was ready to go on and support the proposed union; but Foster drew back, and in the union debates his voice and influence were the most potent on the opposition side. His defection was considered a serious blow by Pitt, who vainly offered him offices and honours. Others followed the lead of Foster, incorruptible amidst corruption; Grattan and his friends returned to Parliament; and the opposition became so formidable that Castlereagh was defeated in 1799, and had to postpone the question of a union to the following year. During this interval, with the aid of Cornwallis who succeeded Camden as viceroy in 1798, he left nothing undone to ensure success, and threats and terrors, bribery and corruption were freely employed. Cornwallis was strongly in favour of emancipation as part of the union arrangement, and Castlereagh was not averse; and Pitt would probably have agreed with them had not Clare visited him in England and poisoned his mind. That bitter anti-Catholic boasted of his success; and when Pitt in 1799 brought forward his union resolutions in the British Parliament, he would only promise that at some future time something might be done for the Catholics, dependent, however on their good conduct, and on the temper of the times. But something more than this was required. The anti-Unionists were making overtures to the Catholics, knowing that the county members elected by Catholic votes could be decisively influenced by Catholic voters. In these circumstances Castlereagh was authorized to assure the leading Irish Catholics that Pitt and his colleagues only waited for a favourable opportunity to bring forward emancipation, but that this should remain a secret lest Protestant prejudice be excited and Protestant support lost. These assurances obtained Catholic support for the union. Not all of the Catholics, however, favoured it, and many of them opposed it to the last. Many more would have been on the same side had they not been repelled by the bigotry of Foster, who stubbornly refused to advocate emancipation, and in doing so failed to make the fight against the union a national struggle. As for the uneducated Catholics, they did not understand political questions, and viewed the union contest with indifference. The gentry had no sympathy with a Parliament from which they were excluded, nor the clergy for one which encouraged the atrocities of the recent rebellion. Gratitude for the establishment of Maynooth College inclined some of the bishops to support the Government; and Pitt's assurances that concessions would come in the United Parliament inclined them still more. From the first, indeed, Dr. Moylan, Bishop of Cork, was a Unionist, as was Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin. In 1798 the latter favoured a union provided there was no clause against future emancipation, and, early in the following year, he induced nine of his brother bishops to concede to the Government a veto on episcopal appointments in return for a provision for the clergy. The bent of his mind was to support authority, even when authority and tyranny were identified, and through the terrible weeks of the rebellion his friendly relations with Dublin Castle were unbroken. He was foremost in every negotiation between the Government and the Catholics, and he and some of his colleagues went so far in advocating the union, that Grattan angrily described them as a "band of prostituted men engaged in the service of Government". This language is unduly severe, for they were clearly not actuated by mercenary motives; but they certainly advanced the cause of the union. Remembering this, and the assurances given by Castlereagh, they looked for an early measure of emancipation, and when in 1801 the United Parliament first opened its doors, their hopes ran high. The omission of all reference to emancipation in the King's Speech disappointed them; but when Pitt resigned and was succeeded by Addington, an aggressive anti-Catholic, they saw that they had been shamefully betrayed. In Parliament Pitt explained that he and his colleagues wished to supplement the Act of Union by concessions to the Catholics, and that, having encountered insurmountable obstacles they resigned, feeling that they could no longer hold office consistently with their duty and their honour. Cornwallis, on his own behalf and on behalf of the retiring ministers, assured the Irish Catholic leaders, and in language which was free from every shade of ambiguity, that the blame rested with George III, whose stubborn bigotry nothing could overcome. He promised that Pitt would do everything to establish the Catholic cause in public favour, and would never again take office unless emancipation were conceded; and he advised the Catholics to be patient and loyal, knowing that with Pitt working on their behalf the triumph of their cause was near. Cornwallis noted with satisfaction that this advice was well received by Dr. Troy and his friends. But those who knew Pitt better had no faith in his sincerity, and their estimate of him was proved to be correct, when he again became Prime Minister in 1804, no longer the friend of the Catholics but their opponent. The fact was that he had played them false throughout. He knew that the king was violently opposed to them; that he had assented to the Union in the hope that it would "shut the door to any further measures with respect to the Roman Catholics" that he believed that to assent to such measures would be a violation of his coronation oath. Had Pitt been sincere he would have endeavoured to change the king's views, and failing to persuade he would have resigned office, and opposed his successor. And if he had acted thus the king must have yielded, for no government to which the great minister was opposed could have lived. Pitt's real reason for resigning in 1801 was, that the nation wanted peace, and he was too proud to make terms with Napoleon. He supported Addington's measures; nor did he lift a finger on behalf of the Catholics; and when the Treaty of Amiens was broken and the great struggle with France was being renewed, he brushed Addington aside with disdain. In 1801 the king had one of his fits of insanity, and when he recovered complained that Pitt's agitation of the Catholic question was the chief cause of his illness; in consequence of which, when Pitt returned to power, in 1804, he bound himself never again to agitate the question during the lifetime of the king. In the meantime, one bitter enemy of the Catholics disappeared, in 1802, with the death of Lord Clare. Hating Ireland and Catholicism to the last, he strove in the British House of Lords to arouse anti-Irish prejudice by representing Ireland as filled with disaffection and hatred of England; he defended all the Government atrocities of 1798, and advocated for Ireland perpetual martial law. Once he had declared that he would have the Irish as tame as cats; and a Dublin mob retorted by groaning and hooting before his house as he lay dying, by creating disorder at his funeral, and at the graveside they poured a shower of dead cats upon his coffin. Pitt himself died in 1806, after having opposed the Catholic claims in the preceding year. A brief period of hope supervened when the "Ministry of all the Talents" took office; but hope was soon dissipated by the death of Fox, and by the dismissal of Grenville and his colleagues. They had brought into Parliament a bill assimilating the English law to the Irish by allowing Catholics in England to get commissions in the army. But the king not only insisted on having the measure dropped, but also that ministers should pledge themselves against all such concessions in the future; and when they indignantly refused he dismissed them. The Duke of Portland then became premier, with Mr. Perceval leader in the Commons; and the ministry going to the country in 1807 on a No Popery cry, were returned with an enormous majority. Grattan was then in Parliament. He had entered it in 1805 with reluctance, partly at the request of Lord Fitzwilliam, chiefly in the hope of being able to serve the Catholics. He supported the petition presented by Fox; he presented Catholic petitions himself in 1808 and 1810; and he supported Parnell's motion for a commutation of tithes; but each time he was defeated, and it was plain that the Catholic cause was not advancing. The Catholic Committee, broken up by the rebellion, had been revived in 1805. But its members were few, its meetings irregularly held, its spirit one of diffidence and fear, its activity confined to preparing petitions to Parliament. Nor were its leaders the stamp of men to conduct a popular movement to success. Keogh was old, and age and the memory of the events he had passed through chilled his enthusiasm for active work. Lord Fingall was suave and conciliatory, and not without courage, but was unable to grapple with great difficulties and powerful opponents. Lords Gormanston and Trimbleston were out of touch with the people; Lord French, Mr. Hussey, and Mr. Clinch were men of little ability; Mr. Scully was a clever lawyer who had written a book on the penal laws; and Dr. Dromgoole was a lawyer with a taste for theology and Church history, a Catholic bigot ill-suited to soften Protestant prejudice or win Protestant support. As for Dr. Troy, he was still the courtly ecclesiastic, and neither Pitt's treachery nor the contempt with which the Catholics were treated could weaken his attachment to Dublin Castle. He still favoured the Veto, but an event which occurred in 1808 showed that he was no longer supported by his brethren of the episcopacy. An English bishop, Dr. Milner, who had sometimes acted as English agent for the Irish bishops, thought it right to declare to Grattan in their name that they were willing to concede the Veto; and Lord Fingall took a similar liberty with the Catholic Committee. The former, as having exceeded his powers, was promptly repudiated by the Irish bishops, the latter by the Catholic Committee, and this repudiation of the Veto was hailed with enthusiasm throughout Ireland. By this time it was clear that the old method of presenting loyal petitions was out of date, that the time had come for more vigourous action, for a united nation to demand its rights. For this a leader was required, and he was found in the person of Daniel O'Connell. Called to the Bar in 1800 he had already acquired a lucrative practice, and had given valuable assistance in the work of the Catholic Committee. Having seen the horrors of the French Revolution and those of 1798, he abhorred revolution and rebellion, and believed that Catholic grievances might be redressed by peaceful agitation, unstained either by violence or crime. And nature itself seemed to have destined him for an agitator. Capable of extreme endurance, mental and physical, he had great courage, great resource, great perseverance, a readiness in debate, an eloquence of speech, and a power of invective rarely combined in a single man. He spoke with a voice of singular volume and sweetness, and under the influence of his words his audience were sad or gay, vengeful or forgiving, determined or depressed; and when he cowed the Orange lawyer, or ridiculed the chief secretary or viceroy, the exultation of the Catholics knew no bounds. From 1810 his position was that of leader, and the fight for emancipation was the fight made by O'Connell. It was an uphill fight. Anxious to attract the Catholic masses, and at the same time not to infringe on the Convention Act, he had drawn up the constitution of the Catholic Committee in 1809 with great care; but it went down before a viceregal proclamation, and the same fate befell its successor, the Catholic Board. The fact was that the viceroys of the time were advised by the Orangemen, and governed by coercion acts. O'Connell's difficulties were increased by the continued agitation of the Veto. In opposing it he was aided by the bishops and the clergy; but Dr. Troy and Lord Fingall, aided by the English Catholics, procured a rescript from Rome in their favour. It was sent by Quarantotti, Prefect of the Propaganda, in 1814, while Pius VII was a prisoner of Napoleon. When the pope returned to Rome he disavowed it, though not at once; and the agitation of the question for years weakened all Catholic efforts for emancipation. In 1813, Grattan, supported by Canning and Castlereagh, passed through its second reading a Catholic Relief Bill, which however was lost in Committee. Nothing daunted, he continued his efforts. To allay the groundless fears of unreasoning bigotry he conceded the Veto, and yet each year the motion he brought forward was rejected. When he died in 1820 another great Irishman, Plunket, took the matter in hand, and in 1821 succeeded in passing a Bill through the House of Commons. Even the concession of the Veto could not buy off the hostility of the House of Lords, who threw out the bill; and it seemed as if emancipation would never come. The visit of George IV to Ireland in 1821 brought a brief period of hope. The king had once been the declared friend of the Catholics, and if he had opposed them since he became regent, in 1810, it might be because he disliked opposing his father's views while his father lived. The Catholics by public resolution in 1812 blamed the witchery of his mistress, and the regent was known to be very wroth with what came to be called "The Witchery Resolution". But the Catholics in a forgiving mood felt sure that their resolution was forgotten; that the king was returning to his first and more enlightened opinions; and that his visit meant friendship and concession. Thus disposed, they welcomed him with enthusiasm. The king before leaving Ireland expressed his gratitude to his subjects, and counselled the different classes to cultivate moderation and forbearance. But he had no rebuke for Orange insolence and no message of hope for the Catholics, and to the end of his reign continued to oppose their claims. Depression settled down heavily on the whole Catholic body. Agitation ceased, outrages commenced coercion followed and continued; and in 1823, while the Catholics were apathetic and dispirited and the Orangemen more than usually aggressive, O'Connell founded the Catholic Association. His chief assistant was a young barrister named Sheil. They were old friends, but had quarrelled about the Veto, and now composed their quarrels and became friends again. To evade the Convention Act the new association, specially formed to obtain emancipation "by legal and constitutional means", was merely a club, its members paying a subscription, its meetings open to the Press. At first its progress was slow and not infrequently it was difficult to get a sufficient number together to form a quorum. But it gradually made headway. Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare, joined it at an early stage, as did Dr. Murray Coadjutor Archbishop of Dublin, and many hundreds of the clergy. Subsidiary clubs arose throughout the country, the members paying a penny a month, the "Catholic Rent". They met under the presidency of the priests, and discussed all public questions, transmitted the rent to the central association, and received in return advice and assistance. The Government became so alarmed at the strength of an organization which had 30,000 collectors and hundreds of thousands of members, that it was suppressed in 1825. At the same time a Catholic Relief Bill passed the House of Commons, but was thrown out in the Lords, and all that Ireland got from Parliament was the act suppressing the Association, or the Algerine Act, as it was often called. It was easily evaded. Its provisions did not affect any religious society, nor any formed for purposes of charity, science, agriculture, or commerce; and for these purposes the Catholic Association, changing its name into the New Catholic Association and remodelling its constitution, continued its work. It was to build churches, obtain cemeteries, defend Catholic interests, take a census of the different religions, and for these the "New Catholic Rent" was subscribed, and meetings were held in Dublin, where Catholic grievances were discussed. Aggregate meetings nominally independent of the association, but really organized by it, were also held in different parishes, and larger assemblies took the form of county and provincial meetings. Attended by the local gentry, by the priests, by friendly Protestants sometimes by O'Connell and Shell, the boldness and eloquence of speech used gave courage to the Catholics and struck terror into their foes. Nor was this all. The Relief Act of 1793 had conferred the franchise on the forty-shilling freeholders, and landlords, to increase their own political influence, had largely created such freeholds. These freeholders living in constant poverty, frequently in arrears of rent, always dependent on the forbearance of their landlords, had hitherto been driven to the polls like cattle to vote for their landlords nominee. A new spirit appeared at the General Election of 1826. Relying on these freeholders, the Catholic Association nominated Mr. Stewart against Lord Beresford for Waterford. The threats employed by a powerful family were met on the other side by appeals to religion, to conscience, to the sacredness of the voter's oath; the priests craved of the voters to strike a blow for country and creed; and O'Connell reminded them that a Beresford had caused the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, that another flogged Catholics to death in 1798, and that wherever the enemies of Ireland were gathered together a Beresford was in their midst. The contest was soon decided by the return of the Catholic nominee; and Monaghan, Louth, and Westmeath followed the lead of Waterford. The next year Canning became premier. His consistent advocacy of the Catholic claims brought him the enmity of the king and exclusion from office for many years. When he joined Lord Liverpool's government in 1823, he insisted that emancipation should be an open question in the Cabinet, and on the Catholic Relief Bill of 1825 the strange spectacle was seen of Peel, the home secretary, voting on one side while Canning, the foreign secretary, was on the opposite side. As premier the latter was powerless in consequence of the hostility of the king, but had he lived he might probably have forced the king's hand. He died, however, in August, 1827, and by his death the Catholics lost one of their stoutest champions. His successor, Goderich, held office only for a few months, and then, early in 1828 the Duke of Wellington became premier, with Peel as his leader in the House of Commons. These two were declared enemies of reform and emancipation, and instead of being willing to concede they would have wished to put down the Catholic Association by force. But such an undertaking was one from which even the strongest Government might have recoiled. The forty-shilling freeholders, effectually protected by the "New Rent" which was specially levied for their benefit, laughed at the threats of the landlords; the Catholic forces organized into parish and county Liberal Clubs, and in correspondence with the Catholic Association at Dublin as head club, sought out and published every local grievance; Catholic churchwardens in each parish collected subscriptions and sent the money to Dublin, getting in return advice in all their difficulties and legal assistance whenever it was necessary. So disciplined were the Catholic masses that 800,000 of them petitioned Parliament for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which were repealed in 1828; and the same year in 1500 parishes throughout Ireland meetings were held on the same day to petition for emancipation, and a million and a half Catholic signatures were obtained. Foreign writers came to Ireland to see for themselves and published in foreign papers and reviews what they saw, and in France, Germany, and Italy England was held up to public odium because of her treatment of Ireland. Across the Atlantic the Irish element was already strong, and all over America meetings were held to demand justice for Ireland. At these meetings money was subscribed liberally and sent to Ireland to swell the coffers of the Catholic Association, and language of menace and defiance was used towards England. Yet Wellington and Peel were still unyielding, and in the session of 1828 the latter opposed Sir Francis Burdett's motion in favour of emancipation, and Wellington helped to defeat it in the Lords. The Catholic Association answered these unfriendly acts by a resolution to oppose all Government candidates; and when Mr. Vesey Fitz Gerald, on being promoted to the Cabinet, sought re-election for Clare, a Catholic Association candidate was nominated against him. As no Catholic could sit in Parliament if elected, it was at first resolved to nominate Major Macnamara, a popular Protestant landlord of Clare; but after some hesitation he declined the contest. Then was remembered what John Keogh had once said: "John Bull thinks that to grant emancipation would rekindle the fires of Smithfield. But he is jealous of a subject's constitutional privileges, and if a Catholic M.P. be debarred from taking his seat on account of objectionable oaths he will have such oaths modified so that the constituency shall not be put outside the constitution." In all this there was wisdom, and O'Connell himself determined to stand for Parliament and issued his address to the electors of Clare. The historic contest opened in July. Dr. Doyle sent O'Connell a letter of recommendation praying that the God of truth and justice might prosper him; Father Tom Maguire, a noted polemic, came all the way from Leitrim to lend his aid; Jack Lawless came from Ulster; O'Gorman, Mahon, and Steele from Clare itself worked with a will; the eloquent Sheil came from Dublin; above all the priests of Clare strained every nerve; and with the aid of all these O'Connell had a noted triumph. The gentry and the larger freeholders were all with Fitz Gerald; the forty-shilling freeholders were with O'Connell, and influenced by the priests bade defiance to their landlords; and the enthusiasm displayed was not more remarkable than the discipline and self-restraint. During the six days of the polling, 30,000 from all parts of Clare bivouacked in the streets of Ennis, and yet there was no disorder, no riot, no violence, no drunkenness, nothing to call for the interference of soldiers or police. Even the blindest could see that a crisis had come. The Orangemen became restive and aggressive. In compliment to the reigning family they formed clubs, modelled on the Liberal clubs of the Catholics, and in language of menace proclaimed their determination to resist the Catholic claims even by force. The Catholics were equally defiant, and all the efforts of O'Connell on the one side and of the Lord Lieutenant, the Marquess of Anglesey, on the other, were scarcely sufficient to prevent Catholics and Orangemen from coming to blows. Anglesey privately warned the prime minister that even the soldiers were not to be relied on, and were cheering for O'Connell; and Dr. Curtis, an old friend of the Duke of Wellington, implored of him to yield. His reply was that if the Catholics ceased to agitate, and if a period of quiet supervened, something might be done; and when Anglesey advised the Catholics to continue their agitation he was instantly removed from office. Excitement grew, party passions were further inflamed, men's minds were constantly agitated by hopes and fears; and as the gloomy days of winter passed and a new year was ushered in, the conviction was general that peace could not be maintained, and that there must be concession or civil war. At last Wellington and Peel surrendered. The former worked upon the fears of the king and compelled him to yield; the latter managed the House of Commons with consummate ability, and in March a Catholic Relief Bill was introduced, and in the following month passed into law. Under its provisions Catholics were admitted to Parliament and to the corporations; but they were still excluded from some of the higher offices, civil and military, such as those of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Commander-in-chief of the Army, and Lord Chancellor both in England and Ireland; priests were forbidden to wear vestments outside their churches, and bishops to assume the titles of their dioceses; Jesuits were to leave the kingdom, and other religious orders were to be rendered incapable of receiving charitable bequests. Further, the franchise being raised to ten pounds, the forty-shilling freeholders were disfranchised; and the Act not being retrospective O'Connell on coming to take his seat was tendered the old oath, which he refused and then had to seek re-election for Clare. These concessions to bigotry -- they were said to be made especially to placate the king -- helped to spoil the healing effect of the measure. The provisions regarding priests and bishops were indeed of little value, and were either evaded or despised; but the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders was a grievous wrong; and the denial of his seat to O'Connell was a personal insult, and was felt to be an insult to all Ireland. IN ENGLAND: BUTLER, Historical Account of the Laws Respecting the Roman Catholics, and of the Laws passed for their Relief, etc. (London, 1795); IDEM, Historical memoirs of the English, Irish and Scottish Catholics from the Reformation to the resent time, 4 volumes (1812-1821); AMHERST, History of Catholic Emancipation (London, 1885); LILLY AND WALTER, A Manual of the Law especially affecting Catholics (London, 1893); BLOeTZER, Die Katholiken emanzipation in Grossbritannien u. Irland (Freiburg, 1905); DAIN, Catholic Emancipation in Cambridge Modern History, X; c. 19. IN IRELAND: Journals of the Irish House of Commons; Irish Parliamentary Debates (1781-97); Annual Register (1800-29); LECKY, History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1897); MITCHEL, History of Ireland (Glasgow, 1869); D'ALTON, History of Ireland (London, 1910); PLOWDEN, History of Ireland, 1800-1810 (Dublin, 1811); Castlereagh Correspondence (London. 1848); Cornwallis Correspondence (London, 1859); INGRAM, History of the Legislative Union (London. 1887);MACNEILL, How the Union was carried (London, 1887); Grattan's Memoirs (London 1839); Grattan's Speeches (London, 1822); STANHOPE, Life of Pitt (London, 1861); Plunket's Speeches (Dublin); WYSE, History of the Catholic Association (London, 1829); WALPOLE, History of England (London, 1879); Greville's Memoirs (London, 1904); FITZPATRICK, Correspondence of O'Connell (London, 1888); O'Connell's Speeches, ed. O'CONNELL (Dublin); SHEIL, Speeches (Dublin); MACDONAGH, Life of O'Connell (London, 1903); DUNLOP, Daniel O'Connell (London and New York, 1900); SHAW LEFEVRE, Peel and 'Connell (London, 1887); LECKY, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland (London, 1903); Colchester's Diary (London, 1861); PELLEW, Life of Lord Sidmouth (London, 1847); Canning's Correspondence, ed. STAPLETON (London, 1887); Creevey Papers (London, 1903); Peel's Memoirs (London, 1856). JOHN GERARD & E.A. D'ALTON Roman Colleges Roman Colleges This article treats of the various colleges in Rome which have been founded under ecclesiastical auspices and are under ecclesiastical direction, with the exception of those that are treated separately under their respective titles throughout the Catholic Encyclopedia. The word "college" is used here to designate institutions established and maintained in Rome for the education of ecclesiastics; it is equivalent to "seminary". While the word seminario is applied occasionally, e.g. the Seminario Romano (S. Apollinare), the majority of these institutions, and especially those which have a national character, are known as "colleges". The training of priests in general is described in the article SEMINARY; here it suffices to note that the Roman colleges, in addition to the obvious advantages for study which Rome offers, also serve in a certain measure to keep up in the various countries of the world that spirit of loyal attachment to the Holy See which is the basis of unity. With this end in view the popes have encouraged the founding of colleges in which young men of the same nationality might reside and at the same time profit by the opportunities which the city affords. So too it is significant that within the last half century several colleges have developed as offshoots of the Propaganda (Urban College) in which the students from various countries were received until each nationality became numerous enough to form the nucleus of a distinct institution. The colleges thus established are halls of residence in which the students follow the usual seminary exercises of piety, study in private, and review the subjects treated in class. In some colleges there are special courses of instruction (languages, music, archaeology etc.). but the regular courses in philosophy and theology are given in a few large central institutions, such as the Propaganda, the Gregorian University, the Roman Seminary, and the Minerva, i.e. the school of the Dominicans. The Roman colleges are thus grouped in several clusters, each of which included a centre for purposes of instruction and a number of affiliated institutions. Each college has at its head a rector designated by the episcopate of the country to which the college belongs and appointed by the pope. He is assisted by a vice-rector and a spiritual director. Discipline is maintained by means of the camerata system in which the students are divided into groups each in charge of a prefect who is responsible for the observance of rule. Each camerata occupies its own section of the college building, has its own quarters for recreation, and goes its own way about the city on the daily walk prescribed by the regulations. Meals and chapel exercises are in common for all students of the college. While indoors, the student wears the cassock with a broad cincture; outside the college, the low-crowned three-cornered clerical hat and a cloak or soprana are added. The scholastic year begins in the first week of November and ends about the middle of July. In most of the courses the lecture system is followed and at stated times formal disputations are held in accordance with scholastic methods. The course of studies, whether leading to a degree or not, is prescribed and it extends, generally speaking, through six years, two of which are devoted to philosophy and four to theology. To philosophy in the stricter sense are added courses in mathematics, languages, and natural sciences. Theology includes, besides dogmatic and moral theology, courses in liturgy, archaeology, Church history, canon law and Scripture. An oral examination is held in the middle of the year and a written examination (concursus) at the close. The usual degrees (baccalaureate, licentiate, and doctorate) are conferred in philosophy, theology, and canon law; since 1909 degrees in Sacred Scripture are conferred upon students who fulfill the requirements of the Biblical Institute. Each college spends the summer vacation at its villegiatura or country house located outside the city and generally in or near one of the numerous towns on the slopes of the neighbouring hills. Student life in the "villa" is quite similar to the routine of the academic year in regard to discipline and religious exercises; but a larger allowance is made for recreation and for occasional trips through the surrounding country. And while each student has more time for reading along lines of his own choice, he is required to give some portion of each day to the subjects explained in the classroom during the year. What has been said outlines fairly will the work of the Roman colleges. In matters of detail some variations will be found, and these are due chiefly to natural characteristics or to the special purpose for which the college was established. ALMO COLLEGIO CAPRANICENSE (CAPRANICA) This is the oldest Roman college, founded in 1417 by Cardinal Domenico Capranica in his own palace for 31 young clerics, who received an education suitable for the formation of good priests. Capranica himself drew up their rules and presented the college with his own library, the more valuable portion of which was later transferred to the Vatican. The cardinal's brother, Angelo, erected opposite his own palace a suitable house for the students. When the Constable de Bourbon laid siege to Rome in 1527 the Capranica students were among the few defenders of the Porta di S. Spirito, and all of them with their rector fell at the breach. The rector according to the university custom of those days was elected by the students and was always one of themselves. Alexander VII decided that the rector should be appointed by the protectors of the college. After the Revolution the college was re-established in 1807; the number of free students was reduced to 13, but paying students were admitted. Those entering must have completed their seventeenth year; they attend the lectures at the Gregorian University. The college counts among its graduates many cardinals and bishops; not a few of the students have passed into the diplomatic service. The country seat is a villa at Monte Mario. SEMINARIO ROMANO Hardly had the Council of Trent in its 23rd session decreed the establishment of diocesan seminaries, when Pius IV decided to set a good example, and on 1 Feb 1565, the seminary was solemnly opened with 60 students. The rules were drawn up by P. Lainez, General of the Society of Jesus, and to this order Pius IV entrusted the management of the college. Up to 1773 the students attended the lectures in the Collage Romano; the residence was changed several times before 1608, when they settled in the Palazzo Borromeo in the Via del Seminario (now the Gregorian University). A country seat was erected for the students in a portion of the baths of Caravalla. Each year, at Pentecost, a student delivered a discourse on the Holy Ghost in the papal chapel. In 1773 the seminary was installed in the Collegio Romano of the Jesuits. After the changes in 1798 the number of the students, generally about 100, was reduced to 9. Pius VII restored the seminary which continued to occupy the Collegio Romano until 1824, when Leo XII gave back this building to the Jesuits and transferred the seminary to S. Apollinare, formerly occupied by the Collegio Germanico; the seminary, however, retained its own schools comprising a classical course, and a faculty of philosophy and theology, to which in 1856 a course of canon law was added. The direction of the seminary and, as a rule, the chairs were reserved to the secular clergy. After the departure of the Jesuits in 1848 the seminary again removed to the Collegio Romano. In the seminary there are 30 free places for students belonging to Rome; the remaining students, who may be from other dioceses, pay a small pension. The Collegio Cerasoli with four burses for students of the Diocese of Bergamo endowed by Cardinal Cerasoli, is connected with the seminary. The students take part in the ceremonies in the church of the Seminario Pio. Their cassock is violet. The seminary possesses an excellent library. At the present time, by order of Pius X, a new building for the seminary is in process of construction near the Lateran Basilica. The schools of the seminary are attended by students from other colleges and religious communities. Gregory XV, Clement IX, Innocent XIII, and Clement XII were educated in this seminary. SEMINARIO PIO Also situated in the Palazzo di S. Apollinare, this was founded in 1853 by Pius IX for the dioceses of the Pontifical States. Each diocese is entitled to send a student who has completed his humanities; Sinigaglia may send two; the number of pupils is limited to 62. All must spend nine years in the study of philosophy, theology, canon law, and literature; they are supported by the revenues of the seminary and are distinguished by their violet sash. The seminary has a villa outside the Porta Portese. The students bind themselves by oath to return to their dioceses on the completion of their studies. SEMINARIO VATICANO Founded in 1636 by Urban VIII for the convenience of the clerics serving in the Vatican Basilica (St. Peter's). Its government was entrusted to the Vatican Chapter which appointed the rector. Shortly afterward a course of grammar and somewhat later, courses of philosophy and theology were added. Paying students were also admitted. In 1730 the seminary was transferred from the Piazza Rusticucci to its present location behind the apse of St. Peter's. From 1797 till 1805 it remained closed; on its reopening only 6 free students could be received, but the number rose to 30 or 40. After the events of 1870 the seminary dwindled. Leo XIII endeavoured to restore it, re-establishing the former courses and granting it a country residence in the Sabine hills. In 1897 it was authorized to confer degrees. In 1905 Pius X suppressed the faculties of philosophy and theology, the students of the former subject going to S. Apollinare, and of the latter to the Gregorian. They wear a purple cassock with the pontifical coat-of-arms on the end of their sash. SEMINARIO DEI SS. PIETRO E PAOLO Established in 1867 by Pietro Avanzani, a secular priest, to prepare young secular priests for the foreign missions. Pius IX approved it in 1874 and had a college erected, but this was later pulled down and since then the seminary has changed its location several times; at present it is in the Armenian College. The students follow the courses at the Propaganda; at home they have lectures on foreign languages, including Chinese. They number 12. The college has a country residence at Montopoli in the Sabine hills. On finishing their studies the students go to the Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Shen-si or to Lower California. SEMINARIO LOMBARDO DEI SS. AMBROGIO E CARLO This college, founded in 1854 chiefly through the generosity of Cardinal Borromeo and Duke Scotti of Milan, was located in the palace of the confraternity of S. Carlo al Corso. Owing to the insufficiency of its revenues it remained closed from 1869 to 1878. Leo XIII allowed the other bishops of Upper Italy as well as of Modena, Parma, and Placenta to send their subjects who, numbering over 60, pay for their maintenance and follow the lectures at the Gregorian University; not a few of these students are already priests when the enter the seminary. They may be known by their black sashes with red borders. Since 1888 the seminary has had its own residence in the Prati di Castello. COLLEGIO GERMANICO-UNGARICO After the Collegio Capranica, the oldest college in Rome. The initiative towards its foundation was taken by Cardinal Giovanni Morone and St. Ignatius of Loyola, and by the energetic labour of the saint the plan was carried into effect. Julius III approved of the idea and promised his aid, but for a long time the college to struggle against financial difficulties. The first students were received in November 1552. The administration was confided to a committee of six cardinal protectors, who decided that the collegians should wear a red cassock, in consequence of which they have since been popularly known as the gamberi cotti (boiled lobsters). During the first year the higher courses were given in the college itself; but in the autumn of 1553 St. Ignatius succeeded in establishing the schools of philosophy and theology in the Collegio Romano of his Society. He also drew up the first rules for the college, which served as models for similar institutions. During the pontificate of Paul IV the financial conditions became such that the students had to be distributed among the various colleges of the Society in Italy. To place the institution on a firmer basis it was decided to admit paying boarders regardless their nationality, and without the obligation of embracing the ecclesiastical state; German clerics to the number of 20 or more were received free and formed a separate body. In a short time 200 boarding students, all belonging to the flower of European nobility, were received. This state of affairs lasted till 1573. Under Pius V, who had placed 20 of his nephews in the college, there was some idea of suppressing the camerata of the poveri tedeschi. Gregory XIII, however, may be considered the real founder of the college. He transferred the secular department to the Seminario Romano, and endowed the college with the Abbey of S. Saba all' Aventino and all its possessions, both on the Via Portuense and on the Lake of Bracciano; moreover he incorporated with it the Abbeys of Fonte Avellana in the Marches, S. Cristina, and Lodiveccio in Lombardy. The new rector P. Lauretano, drew up another set of regulations. The college had already changed its location five times. In 1574 Gregory XIII assigned it the Palace of S. Apollinare and in 1575 gave it charge of the services in the adjoining church. The splendour and majesty of the functions as well as the music executed by the students under the Spaniard Ludovico da Vittoria and other celebrated masters (Stabile, Orgas, Carissimi, Pittoni, and others) constantly drew large crowds to the church. Too much attention indeed was given to music under P. Lauretano, so that regulations had to be made at various times to prevent the studies from suffering. The courses were still given in the Collegio Roman; but when Bellarmine terminated his lectures on controversy, a chair for this important branch of learning was established in the Collegio Germanico and somewhat later a chair of canon law. As a special mark of his favour, Gregory XIII ordered that each year on the Feast of All Saints a student of the college should deliver a panegyric in presence of the pope. Meanwhile in 1578 the Collegio Ungherese had been founded through the efforts of another Jesuit, P. Szanto who obtained for it the church and convent of S. Stefano Rotondo on the Caelian Hill, and of S. Stefanino behind the Basilica of St. Peter, the former belonging to the Hungarian Pauline monks, and the latter to the Hungarian pilgrims' hospice. In 1580 the union of the two colleges was decreed, a step which at first gave rise to difficulties. The students generally numbered about 100, sometimes, however, there were but 54, at other times as many as 150. During the seventeenth century several changes occurred, in particular the new form of oath exacted from all the students of foreign colleges. Mention must be made of the work of P. Galeno, the business manager who succeeded in consolidating the finances of the college so as to raise the revenue to 25,000 scudi per annum. A country residence was acquired at Parioli. In the eighteenth century the college became gradually more aristocratic. Benedict XIV performed the ceremony of laying the corner stone of the new church of S. Apollinare in 1742, on the completion of which a new Palace of S. Apollinare was erected. At the suppression of the Society (1773) the direction was entrusted to secular priests; lectures were delivered in the college itself, and the professors were Dominicans. Discipline and studies declined rapidly. Moreover, Joseph II sequestrated the property situated in Lombardy and forbade his subjects to attend the college. The buildings, however, were increased by the addition of the palace opposite to S. Agostino. On the proclamation of the Roman Republic the property of the foreign national colleges was declared escheated to the Government and was sold for an absurdly small sum. On that occasion the library and the precious archives of sacred music were scattered. Pius VII restored whatever remained unsold and ordered the rest to be repurchased as far as possible. In the first years the revenues were employed to pay off the debts contracted in this repurchase. In 1824 the palace of S. Apollinare as well as the villa at Parioli was reunited to the Seminario Romano. The first students were received in 1818 and lived in the professed house of the Jesuits at the Gesu, and there the college remained till 1851. From that time the administration was entrusted to the general of the Jesuits, who appointed the rector and other fathers in charge of the college. In 1845 the estate of S. Pastore near Zagarolo was acquired. In 1851 the residence was transferred to the Palazzo Borromeo in the Via del Seminario where it remained till 1886. In 1873 when the Collegio Romano was taken away from the Jesuits, the Collegio Germanico found a home in the Gregorian University. In 1886 owing to the necessity of having more extensive quarters, the Collegio Germanico was transferred to the Hotel Costanzi in the Via S. Nicola da Tolentino. The college receives German students from the old German Empire and from Hungary; places are free, but there are some students who pay (cf. Steinhuber, "Geschichte des Collegium Germanicum-Hungaricum in Rom", Freiburg, 1896; Hettinger, "Aus Welt und Kirche," I, Freiburg, 1897). COLLEGIO TEUTONICO DI S. MARIA DELL' ANIMA In 1399 Theodoric of Niem founded a hospice for German pilgrims. A confraternity in aid of the suffering souls in purgatory was soon after formed, and in 1499 the first stone of the beautiful church was laid, near the Church of S. Maria della Pace. In 1859 this pia opera was reorganized; a college of chaplains to officiate in the church was established; the chaplains were to remain only two or at the most three years, and at the same time were to continue their studies. They devote themselves chiefly to canon law with a view to employing their knowledge in the service of their respective dioceses; and they receive living and tuition gratis. Other priests also are admitted who come to Rome at their own expense for the purpose of study. At present there are 8 chaplains and about 10 other priests residing there. The college continues to assist poor Germans who come to Rome, either to visit the holy places or in search of occupation. COLLEGIO TEUTONICO DEL CAMPO SANTO Established in 1876 to receive priests belonging to the German Empire or German provinces of Austria, who remain there for two or, at the most, three years pursuing their studies and officiating in the Church of S. Maria della Pieta near St. Peter's. The revenues of the Campo Santo and the chaplaincies that have been founded devote themselves to the study of Christian archeology or Church history; they publish a quarterly review, the "Roemische Quartalschrift fur christliche archaeologie und Kirkengeschichte". The site of the Campo Santo dei Tedeschi goes back to the days of Charlemagne and was then called the Schola Francorum. In the course of time the German residents in Rome were buried in the church of the Schola, then called S. Salvatore in Turri. In 1454 a confraternity was established, and in addition the guilds of German bakers and cobblers had their quarters there. In 1876 owing to the altered conditions of modern times the institute was put to its present purpose (cf. de Waal, "Der Campo Santo der Deutschen zu Rom", Freiburg, 1897.) COLLEGIO PONTIFICO GRECO (THE GREEK PONTIFICAL COLLEGE) This is also a foundation of Gregory XIII, who established it to receive young Greeks belonging to any nation in which the Greek Rite was used, and consequently for Greek refugees in Italy as well as the Ruthenians and Malchites of Egypt and Syria. These young men had to study the sacred sciences, in order to spread later sacred and profane learning among their fellow-countrymen and facilitate the reunion of the schismatical Churches. The construction of the College and Church of S. Atanasio, joined by a bridge over the Via dei Greci, was begun at once. The same year (1577) the first students arrived, and until the completion of the college were housed elsewhere. Gregory XIII endowed the college. The direction was entrusted to five cardinal protectors; the rector was selected at first either from the secular clergy or from the regulars. Under Sixtus V, but for the energetic resistance of Cardinal di S. Severina, this promising college would have been suppressed. Gregory XIV on the suggestion of the learned Pietro Arendius, a former student of the college, entrusted the direction to the Jesuits (1591), who introduced a new method of government and a new disciplinary spirit. Within a short time the number of collegians rose to 56; some paying students were admitted as boarders. Studies were pursued in the college itself; some of the professors were Jesuits, some secular priests, and some laymen. In 1602 when Cardinal Guistiniani became cardinal protector, so many changes were introduced that the Jesuits withdrew from the care of the college which was entrusted first to the Somaschians and then to the Dominicans; but in 1622, at the request of the students, the Jesuits returned. Urban VIII ordered all the alumni to bind themselves by oath to remain in the Greek Rite, and this applied to Latins who entered the college surreptitiously; the regulation, however, was frequently disregarded in the eighteenth century. After 1773 secular priests took charge. The college was closed during the Revolution and not reopened till 1849; in the meantime the Greeks were admitted to the College of the Propaganda. The direction was entrusted first to secular priests, then to the Resurrectionists (1886), and finally to the Jesuits (1889). In 1897 Leo XIII reorganized the college. Owing to the generosity of the Emperor of Austria and the Ruthenian episcopacy a college was provided especially for the Ruthenians, while the Rumanians were sent to the College of the Propaganda. The direction of the College of S. Atanasio was entrusted to the Benedictines, who adopted the Greek Rite. The students perform the sacred functions of their rite with the greatest possible splendor in the Church of S. Atanasio. Formerly the Latin Rite also was celebrated in the church, but Leo XIII reserved it entirely for the Greek Rite. The students are all maintained gratuitously out of the revenues of the college. They number about 30 to 35 and follow courses in the Propaganda, besides having lectures at home in Greek language and literature. They wear a blue cassock with a red sash, and an Oriental cloak with large sleeves (cf. De Meester, "Le College Pontifical Grec de Rome", Rome, 1910). PONTIFICIO-RUTENO COLLEGIO (THE RUTHENIAN PONTIFICAL COLLEGE) This was founded, as said above, in 1897, and the Church of SS. Sergio e Bacco was assigned to it. At first it was in charge of the Jesuits but some years later it was entrusted to the Ruthenian Basilian monks. There are about 20 students, who are supported partly by the Ruthenian bishops and partly by paying a small fee. They follow the lectures at the Propaganda, and wear a blue cassock and soprana (cloak) with a yellow sash. COLLEGIO INGLESE (VENERABILE COLLEGIUM ANGLORUM) See THE ENGLISH COLLEGE in Rome. COLLEGIO BEDA United to the English College and intended for converted Anglican clergymen wishing to prepare for the priesthood. It was founded in 1852 by Pius IX; and increased under Leo XIII. Cardinal Howard bequeathed to the two colleges his valuable library. The country seat of the two colleges is at Monte Porzio. COLLEGIO SCOZZESE (THE SCOTS COLLEGE) Established in 1600 by Clement VIII for the education of Scottish priests for the preservation of Catholicism in their Fatherland; it was assigned the revenues of the old Scots hospice, which were increased by the munificence of the pope and other benefactors. In 1634 the college was transferred to its present situation and in 1649 the Countess of Huntley constructed a church dedicated to Saint Andrew and Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland. From 1615 till 1173 it was under the direction of the Jesuits. The students, numbering about 20, are supported partly by the revenues of the college and partly by the Scottish bishops and by their own money. They attend the Gregorian University and have a villa at Marino. They wear a purple cassock, with a crimson sash and black soprana. COLLEGIO IRLANESE See IRISH COLLEGE, IN ROME. COLLEGIO URBANO DI PROPAGANDA (THE URBAN COLLEGE) The foundation of this college is due to the zeal of P. Ghislieri, a Theatine, and to the generosity of Mgr. G. Batta Vives, a Spaniard, consultor of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, then established by Gregory XV. Urban VIII approved of the plan of erecting a college for the evangelization of the East and enlarged the palace given by Mgr. Vives; and under Alexander VII the Church of the Three Magi was added. Vives established in addition six free scholarships; foundations were made by other pontiffs and prelates, especially by Innocent XII, Clement XII, and the brother of Urban VIII, Cardinal Antonio Barberini. The college depends on the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, which appoints the rector, who at first was a Theatine but for centuries has always been a secular prelate, who is the parish priest of all who live in the Palace of the Propaganda; there are also a vice-rector, a bursar, and an assistant. Alexander VII imposed on all the students an oath binding them to remain under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda, not to enter a religious order without special permission, and to return after ordination to the priesthood to their dioceses or provinces to engage in the sacred ministry, and to send each year if in Europe, or every second year otherwise, a report of their apostolic work. Students are recommended by the bishops subject to the Propaganda, and the governing body select the students according to the number of vacancies, the places always being free. In 1798 the college was closed; some of the students were received by the Lazarists at Montecitorio. This lasted till 1809 when all that remained of the college was suppressed. In 1814 some of the Propaganda students were again received by the Lazarists, and in 1817 the college was reopened. From 1836 till 1848 it was under the direction of the Jesuits. The number of students is about 120. From the foundation of the college there have been courses of classics, philosophy, and theology, in which academic degrees are granted. The classical course lasts four years; the course of philosophy, including physics, and chemistry, and the history of philosophy, two years; the course of theology, four years. On the feast of the Epiphany the schools hold a solemn academy in various languages. The college possesses a valuable library. In addition to the many ecclesiastical dignitaries among the past students there were four martyrs: the Belgian Jacques Foelech (1643); Pietro Cesy (1680, in Ethiopia); the Armenian Melchior Tasbas (1716, at Constantinople); Nicholas Boscovich (1731). COLLEGIO DEI MARONITI (THE MARONITE COLLEGE) This was founded by Gregory XIII, and had its first site near the Church of S. Maria della Ficoccia near the Piazza di Trevi. It was richly endowed by Sixtus V and Cardinal Antonio Caraffa, and also by other popes, and was entrusted to the Jesuits; the pupils attended the Gregorian University. During the Revolution of 1798 the College was suppressed, and the Maronites who wished to study at Rome went to the Collegio Urbano. In 1893 Mgr. Khayat, the Maronite Patriarch, obtained the restoration of the college from Leo XIII. The Holy See gave part of the funds, the remainder was collected in France, and in 1894 the new college was inaugurated. In 1904 it acquired its own residence, and is now under the charge of Maronite secular priests. The students numbered 8 at the beginning, there are now 19; the greatest number that can be received is 24. COLLEGIO BELGA (THE BELGIAN COLLEGE) Established in 1844 through the initiative of Mgr. Aerts, aided by the nuncio in Belgium, then Mgr. Pecci, and by the Belgian bishops. At first it was located in the home of Mgr. Aerts, rector of the Belgian national Church of S. Guiliano. In 1845 the ancient monastery of Gioacchino ed Anna at the Quattro Fontane was purchased. The Belgian episcopate supports the students and proposes the president. The students, 20 and more in number, attend the Gregorian; their dress is distinguished by two red stripes at the ends of the sash. COLLEGIO DEGLI STATI UNITI DELL' AMERICA DEL NORD See THE AMERICAN COLLEGE, IN ROME. COLLEGIO POLACCO (THE POLISH COLLEGE) In 1583, St. Philip Neri, and in about 1600, King John Casimir had begun the foundation of a college for Poles, but their institute was short-lived. In 1866 a college was finally opened due to the efforts of the Congregation of the Resurrection, which raised the first funds to which Princess Odelscalchi, Pius IX, and others contributed later. In 1878 the college was transferred to its present location, the former Maronite College, and the adjoining church was dedicated to St. John Cantius. The students, some of whom pay a small pension, number 30 and are distinguished by their green sashes; they attend the lectures in the Gregorian. The college is under the care of the Resurrectionists and possesses a villa at Albano. COLLEGIO ILLIRICO (THE ILLYRIAN COLLEGE) This was established in 1863 by Pius IX to prepare priests for Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Slavonia, and was located in the Illyrian hospice near the Church of S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni; but after a few years no more students were received. In 1900, Leo XIII reorganized the Illyrian hospice and decided to form a college of priests of the above-mentioned provinces, who would attend to the services in the church and at the same time pursue ecclesiastical studies. SEMINARIO FRANCESE (THE FRENCH SEMINARY) The French bishops at the Council of La Rochelle (1853) petitioned Pius IX to approve of their plan of founding a French Seminary in Rome for the special purpose of training a body of priests strongly attached to the Holy See and prepared to counteract the influence of Gallican ideas. The seminary was opened the same year with 12 students under the direction of P. Lamurien of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, which order still directs it, while the students attend the lectures at the Gregorian. The students are in part priests who wish to perfect their knowledge, and partly seminarists preparing for the priesthood. The seminary is located in the Via del Seminario; its first site was the old Irish college near the Trajan Forum. In 1856 Pius IX assigned to the seminary the Church of S. Chiara with the adjoining Poor Clare convent, founded in 1560 by St. Charles Borromeo on the ruins of the baths of Agrippa. The church was rebuilt on the plan of Notre-Dame-des-Victoires in Paris; in 1883 the monastery was entirely remodeled to suit its present purpose. Leo XIII declared it a pontifical seminary in 1902. The students pay a pension, though in some cases it is paid from the funds of their diocese; students not belonging to France are also admitted. The seminarists generally number between 100 and 120 (c.f. Escheat, "Le seminaire franc,ais de Rome", Rome, 1903. COLLEGIO DEI CAPPELLANI DI S. LUIGI DEI FRANCESI This is another French institution. The church dating from 1496 served as a parish for the French residents at Rome. In 1840 on the proposal of Cardinal Bonnechose the parish was suppressed and the revenue applied to create chaplaincies for young students, French priests, who wished to specialize at Rome in canon law, archeology, or ecclesiastical history. Until 1906 the chaplains published the "Annales de St. Louis des Francais", devoted specially to history. After the decease of Mgr Cadene, they undertook the continuation of the "Analecta Ecclesiastica" containing the Acts of the Holy See, as well as moral and canonical dissertations. COLLEGIO BOEMO (THE BOHEMIAN COLLEGE) Established in 1884 partly with the revenues of the ancient Bohemian hospice founded by Emperor Charles IV, and with contributions of Leo XIII and the Bohemian bishops. The site was transferred several times, but in 1888 the old monastery of S. Francesca Romana in the Via Sistina was purchased. The rector is always one of the professors in the Propaganda, which the students attend. They number from 24 to 28 and are distinguished by their black sashes with two yellow stripes at the extremities. They have a villa at Trevi in Umbria. COLLEGIO ARMENO (THE ARMENIAN COLLEGE) Gregory XIII in 1584 had decreed the erection of a college for the Armenians (Bull "Romana Ecclesia"), but the plan fell through. When the Collegio Urbano of the Propaganda was founded later there were always some places for students of this nation. Finally, in 1885, Gregory's proposal was carried into effect, thanks to the generosity of some wealthy Armenians and of Leo XIII. The college was granted the Church of S. Nicola da Tolentino in the street of that name. The president is an Armenian prelate; the students numbering from 20 to 25 attend the lectures at the Propaganda, and wear red sashes and large-sleeved Oriental cloaks. COLLEGIO SPAGNUOLO (THE SPANISH COLLEGE) Founded in 1892 through the initiative of Leo XIII and the generosity of the episcopacy, the royal family, and other benefactors in Spain. Installed at first in the national hospice of S. Maria in Monserrato, it was transferred later to the Palazzo Altemps near S. Apollinare. The students numbering 70 are for the most part supported by their bishops; they attend the Gregorian, and are distinguished by a pelerine and a sky-blue sash. The direction is entrusted to the pious Spanish Congregation of the Operarii Diocesani. COLLEGIO CANADESE (THE CANADIAN COLLEGE) Cardinal Howard took the first steps towards the erection of this institute. The Canadian Congregation of St. Sulpice undertook to defray the expenses. The building was soon erected (1887) in the Via delle Quattro Fontane, and in 1888 the first pupils were enrolled. Some of the students are priests and follow the lectures in the Propaganda, and those who have already completed their studies in Canada are privileged to receive a degree after two years in Rome. The Sulpicians are in charge of the college. PONTIFICO COLLEGIO PORTOGHESE (THE PORTUGUESE PONTIFICAL COLLEGE) Founded in 1901 by Leo XIII; its direction is entrusted to Italian secular priests, and the students attend the lectures at S. Apollinare. COLLEGIO APOSTOLICO LEONIANO Owes its origin to P. Valentini, a Lazarist, who, aided by a pious lady, received in a private house the students who could not otherwise gain admittance to the other colleges. This college and the revenue left by the lady were taken over later by the Holy See and a large building was erected in the Prati di Castello. The direction was committed to the Jesuits. The students, mainly of the southern provinces that have no special college at Rome, attend the lectures at the Gregorian University. APPENDIX: "IN PRAECIPUIS" The Apostolic Constitution "In praecipuis", 29 June, 1913, promulgates the new regulations concerning the training of the Roman and Italian clergy. In brief, there are to be two seminaries: a smaller, for "gymnasial" students, in the present Vatican Seminary; and a greater, for philosophers and theologians, in the new Lateran building. To the latter are transferred the Seminario SS. Ambrogio e Carlo, now to be part of the Roman Seminary; and the Seminario Pio, which retains the laws as to its scope and character. The faculties of philosophy and theology of the Roman Seminary are to be in the Lateran Seminary; the law department goes to the Collegio Leoniano, but remains a school of the Seminary. The Collegio Leoniano shall receive only priests duly authorized to pursue higher studies. The Academia Theologica of the Sapienza remains at S. Apollinare. All Italian clerical students must abide in the Lateran or the Vatican Seminaries, excepting those preparing for the heathen missions or who are eligible for the Collegio Capranica. L'organisation et administration centrale de l'eglise (Paris, 1900), 600 sqq. DANIEL; BAUMGARTEN; DE WAAL, Rome, Le chef supreme; MORONI, Dizionario, XIII (Venice, 1842), LXIV (ibid., 1853). U. BENIGNI The Roman Congregations The Roman Congregations Certain departments have been organized by the Holy See at various times to assist it in the transaction of those affairs which canonical discipline and the individual interests of the faithful bring to Rome. Of these the most important are, without doubt, the Roman Congregations (Sacrae Cardinalium Congregationes), as is evident from the mere consideration of the dignity of their membership, consisting, as it does, of cardinals who are officially the chief collaborators of the sovereign pontiff in the administration of the affairs of the Universal Church. Nevertheless it should be noted that cardinals have not always participated in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs in the same way. A research on the various usages that have obtained in this connexion would lead us too far from our present subject, but is taken up under CARDINAL; CONSISTORY, PAPAL. The Roman Congregations originated in the necessity, felt from the beginning, of studying the questions submitted for pontifical decision, in order to sift the legal questions arising and to establish matters of fact duly. This work, at first entrusted to the papal chaplains, was afterwards divided between the p nitentiarii and the auditores, according as questions of the internal or the external forum (i. e., jurisdiction) were to be considered. Thereafter, cardinals in greater or less number were associated with them. Often, however, they were not merely entrusted with the preparation of the case, but were given authority to decide it. As, on the other hand, the increased numbers of cases to be passed upon occupied a great number of persons, while the proper administration of justice required that those persons should be of the most experienced, it appeared to be advisable, if not necessary, to divide this business into various and distinct groups. This division would evidently facilitate the selection of wise and experienced men in all branches of ecclesiastical affairs. Hence also a natural division into executive cases, assigned to the offices (officia), judicial cases, reserved to the tribunals, and administrative cases, committed to the Roman Congregations. Sixtus V was the first to distribute this administrative business among different congregations of cardinals; and in his Constitution "Immensa" (22 Jan., 1588) he generalized the idea, already conceived and partly reduced to practice by some of his predecessors, of committing one or another case or a group of cases to the examination, or to the decision, of several cardinals. By a judicious division of administrative matters, he established that permanent organization of these departments of the Curia, which since then have rendered such great services to the Church. The congregations at first established by Sixtus V were officially designated as: 1. for Holy Inquisition; 2. for the Signature of Grace; 3. for the erection of churches and consistorial provisions; 4. for the abundance of supplies and prosperity of the Church's temporal dominions; 5. for sacred rites and ceremonies; 6. for equipping the fleet and maintaining it for the defence of the Church's dominions; 7. for an index of forbidden books; 8. for the execution and interpretation of the Council of Trent; 9. for relieving the ills of the States of the Church; 10. for the University of the Roman study (or school); 11. for regulations of religious orders; 12. for regulations of bishops and other prelates; 13. for taking care of roads, bridges, and waters; 14. for the Vatican printing-press; 15. for regulations of the affairs of the Church's temporal dominions. From this it will be seen that, while the chief end of the Congregations of Cardinals was to assist the sovereign pontiff in the administration of the affairs of the Church, some of these congregations were created to assist in the administration of the temporal States of the Holy See. The number of these varied according to circumstances and the requirements of the moment; In the time of Cardinal De Luca there were about nineteen of them, as he himself tells us in his admirable work "Relatio Romanae Curiae forensis", without counting other congregations of a lower order, consisting of prelates, as were, for example, the "Congregatio baronum et montium" and the "Congregatio computorum". Other congregations were added by different popes, until the present organization was established by Pius X in his Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of 29 June, 1908, according to which there are thirteen congregations, counting that of the Propaganda as only one. As, however, the last-named congregation is divided into two parts: Congregation of the Propaganda for Affairs of the Latin Rite, and Congregation of the Propaganda for Affairs of the Oriental Rites, it may well be considered as two congregations; so that the total number of the congregations is fourteen. Sixtus V granted ordinary jurisdiction to each of the congregations which he instituted within the limits of the cases assigned to it, reserving to himself and to his successors the presidency of some of the more important congregations, such as the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition and that of the Signature of Grace. As time went on, the congregations of cardinals, which at first dealt exclusively with administrative matters, came to pass upon the legal points of the cases submitted to them, until the congregations overshadowed the ecclesiastical tribunals and even the Roman Rota in fact almost took their places. In time the transaction of business was impeded by the cumulation of jurisdictions, different congregations exercising jurisdiction rendering decisions, and enacting laws in the same matters; Pius X resolved to define the competency of each congregation more precisely and to provide otherwise for the better exercise of its functions. It would not be possible to relate here all the changes effected in this connexion. The reader seeking detailed information may consult the commentaries that have already appeared on the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" (see General Bibliography at the end of this article). Mention will be made here of only the chief among those innovations which, besides the principal one of the demarcation of competency, are to be found in the following provisions. All decisions of the sacred congregations require pontifical approval, unless special powers have been given previously by the pope. The officials of the congregations are divided into two classes: minor officers who are to be chosen by competitive examination and named by a letter of the cardinal prefect, and major officers, freely selected by the pope, and named by a note of the cardinal secretary of State. There is to be henceforth no cumulation of offices in the hands of one individual, not only to satisfy the requirements of distributive justice, but also because the tenure of several offices by the same person often results in detriment to the service. Wherefore, it is forbidden for an officer of one of the congregations to serve in any way as an agent, or as a procurator or advocate, in his own department or in any other ecclesiastical tribunal. The competency of the congresso in each congregation is determined. The congresso consists of the major officers under the presidency of the cardinal who presides over the congregation. It deals with the matters of less importance among those that are before the congregation, while those of greater moment must be referred to the full congregations of cardinals. It is also the business of the congresso to prepare for their discussion those matters that are to be considered by the full congregation. On the other hand, the congresso is charged with the execution of the orders of the full congregation that have received the approval of the pope. As examples of matters of greater importance which must be considered by the full congregation, the special rules (normae peculiares) mention the solution of doubts or of questions that may arise in regard to the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the examination of important administrative controversies, and kindred matters. The normae peculiares and the normae communes, together with the Constitution "Sapienti consilio", constitute the entire code of the new organization of the Roman ecclesiastical departments. I. CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE As the Roman Inquisition (Romana Inquisitio) this congregation is of very ancient origin, dating from Innocent III (1194-1216), although some authorities attribute its establishment to Lucius III (1181-85). In the beginning of the thirteenth century Innocent III established at Rome an inquisitorial tribunal against the Albigenses and other innovators of the south of France. From its first title of Romana Inquisitio was derived the usage of calling this body Congregation of the Holy Roman Universal Inquisition. Sixtus V, in the Bull "Immensa", calls it Congregatio pro S. inquisitione and also Congregatio sanct inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis. Benedict XIV calls it Romanae Universalis Inquisitionis Congregatio (Const. "Sollicita"). Later it had the official title Suprema Congregatio sanctae romanae et universalis inquisitionis. Pius X in his recent Constitution calls it, simply, Congregatio S. Officii. The qualification of Suprema was omitted, possibly to avoid the appearance of an inequality of dignity among the congregations, they being all of the same rank and dignity, since they are composed of cardinals. According to Leitner, the name Inquisition was suppressed in order to shield this congregation from the hatred inspired by that name. It retains, therefore, the title of Holy Office, so well suited to the most holy office to which it is assigned, namely, that of removing the faithful from the danger of deviation from the Faith through the influence of false doctrine. In 1251 Innocent IV gave the Dominicans charge of this tribunal. In view of the progress of the Reformation, Paul III, by the Bull "Licet ab initio", of 21 July, 1542, declared the Roman Inquisition to be the supreme tribunal for the whole world; and he assigned to it six cardinals. Simier (La curie romaine, cf. S. n. I) is of opinion that Paul III appointed the six cardinals of S. Clemente, S. Sisto, S. Balbina, S. Cecilia, S. Marcello, and S. Silvestro general inquisitors, with universal powers, not, however, to act collegialiter, as a tribunal, but individually and independently of one another. The Constitution "Licet ab initio" lends itself to that interpretation. But the Holy Office did not begin its existence as a congregation until 1558, in the reign of Paul IV. As time went on, the number of cardinals assigned to the Holy Office was increased, and the tribunal took a form like that of the other congregations. Formerly a cardinal used to be selected to preside over the Holy Office with the title of prefect; the first to be appointed to this charge was Cardinal Michele Ghislieri, afterwards Pius V. The prefecture of the congregation, however, has long been reserved by the pope to himself. Like all the other congregations, the Holy Office has officials of the second order. The first of these is the assessor, one of the highest officers of the Curia; next comes the commissary, always a Dominican. Sometimes, as an exception, these two officials are invested with the episcopal character. Among the other officers who complete the personnel of the Holy Office are a vice-commissary, a first associate (socius), and a second associate, all Dominicans, also a sommista, a fiscal advocate, an advocatus reorum and some notaries. It may appear strange that so many positions in this congregation are filled by Dominicans. The reason is to be found in the great solicitude of Pius V for the Holy Office, which solicitude led him to reserve all these functions for his fellow-Dominicans, especially those of the Province of Lombardy, to which he himself had belonged, and in whose members he reposed great confidence. It is to be observed that, whereas the assessor now takes precedence of the commissary, the contrary order obtained in former times, even in the days of Cardinal De Luca (Relatio curiae forensis disc., 14, n. 6), for the commissary had the faculties of a true judge in ordinary, while the assessor was merely an assessor or consultor, as in other tribunals. According to Simier (La curie romaine, ch. i, n. I) this change occurred towards the middle of the seventeenth century. Besides the officers already mentioned, the Holy Office, like most other congregations, has a number of consultors, chosen from among the most esteemed and learned prelates and religious. Some are ex officio consultors by virtue of a right anciently granted; these are called natural consultors (consultori nati). They are the Master General of the Order of Preachers, the Master of the Sacred Palace (of the same order by a privilege granted by Pius V), and a religious of the Order of Friars Minor added by Sixtus V, himself a Friar Minor. This congregation also has certain officers peculiar to itself, required by the nature of its attributes. They are the qualifiers (qualificatores), explained by the function of these officials, theologians whose duty it is to propose to the cardinals the particular note or censure by which objectionable propositions are to be condemned, since all such propositions do not affect the Faith in the same degree, and therefore are condemned by the Holy Office not in a general, but in a specific way, being termed heretical, erroneous, temerarious, false, injurious, calumnious, scandalous, or qualified by the ancient special phrase piarum aurium offensiv, "offensive to pious ears". Since the promulgation of the recent Constitution by the reigning pope, giving a new organization to the Curia, while all that has been referred to in regard to the internal status of this congregation has remained, a new division, to deal with indulgences, has been added to the Holy Office. For this division a congresso has also been established. Although no mention is made in the basic constitution of a congress (congresso) for the main part of this congregation, the Holy Office itself, the fact that it is said in the "Normae peculiares" that the Holy Office shall retain its former methods of procedure insures to it a kind of congress analogous to that of the other congregations and consisting of the assessor, the commissary, the first associate, and a few other officers. Its duties are to examine the various cases, and to decide which of them must be submitted to the congregation of the consultors and which others may be disposed of without further proceedings, as is the case in matters of minor importance or of well-established precedent. The Decree often makes it clear that the case has been determined in this way, as when use is made of the formula: "D. N... Papa.. per facultates R. P. D. Assessori S. Off. impertitas..." The congresso of the new division consists of the cardinal, secretary, the assessor, the commissary, and the surrogate for indulgences. The Congregation of the Holy Office defends Catholic teaching in matters of faith and morals: "Haec S. Congregatio . . .doctrinam fidei et morum tutatur." Whence it follows, and is explicitly affirmed in the "Sapienti consilio", that the Holy Office deals with all matters which, directly or indirectly, concern faith and morals; it judges heresy, and the offences that lead to suspicion of heresy; it applies the canonical punishments incurred by heretics, schismatics, and the like. In this the Holy Office differs from all the other congregations, which are without judicial power, or, at least, may exercise it only at the request of the parties interested, while the Holy Office has both judicial and administrative power, since the legislator rightly believed that the congregation exclusively empowered to pass upon a doctrine, and qualify and condemn it as heretical, should also be the judge in heretical and kindred cases. From the fact that the purpose of this congregation is to defend the Faith, it follows that dispensation from the impediments of disparity of worship and of mixed religion (which by their nature imperil faith, and which, by Divine law itself is granted only upon guarantees given by the non-Catholic party) pertains to the Holy Office. The same is true of the Pauline privilege. And as the judicial causes connected with this privilege and with impediments of disparity of worship and mixed religion have a remote connexion with the Faith, it was declared that these causes belonged to the jurisdiction of the Holy Office (see decision of the Cong. of the Consistory, January, 1910). With regard, however, to the substantial form of the celebration of mixed marriages, the pope withdrew all authority from this congregation, wishing article 11 of the Decree "Ne temere" to remain in force. The Holy Office formerly had a more ample jurisdiction, acquired by spontaneous development as time went on. Thus it dispensed from abstinence, from fasting, and from the observance of feasts (all of which now pertains to the Congregation of the Council); it dispensed from vows made in religious institutions, a function now exercised by the Congregation of Religious, and it dealt with the nomination of bishops, according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X (17 December, 1903), which business now belongs to the Congregation of the Consistory. In former times the Holy Office even dealt with causes of canonization, a matter which is now assigned to the Congregation of Rites. Grimaldi (op. cit. infra in general bibliography) gives as an example of such cases the Decree of the Holy Office in confirmation of the cult of the Blessed Colomba of Rieti, who died in the odour of sanctity at Perugia in 1507; and he adds: "Ce genre de causes est devenu ensuite l'apanage de la congregation des Rites; mais si la vraie saintete echappe actuellement `a la juridiction de l'inquisition, ce tribunal a conserve le privilege de juger la fausse saintete. Dans cet ordre d'idees nous trouvons les proces, qui se font en cour de Rome pour examiner les propheties et revelations" (Causes of this kind afterwards became the province of the Congregation of Rites. But if true sanctity is no longer the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, that tribunal has kept the privilege of judging questions of spurious sanctity. Of this order are the processes carried on in the Roman Curia to examine prophesies and revelations). All persons are subject to the Holy Office except cardinals, who may be judged only by the pope. Mention should be made of the strict secrecy which characterizes the proceedings of this congregationa most prudent measure indeed, for the protection of the good name of individuals in a congregation which must deal with most grievous offences against the Faith. Grimaldi (op. cit.) rightly says, speaking of the secrecy of the Holy Office: "Le saint-office ayant `a s'occuper des delits commis non seulement contre la foi, mais encore d'autres qui ne relevent que de tres loin de l'intelligence, il s'ensuit qu'etre cite `a ce tribunal n'est pas une recommendation, et en sortir meme par la porte d'un acquitement, ne sera jamais un titre de gloire. Aussi doit-on benir ce mystere qui protege celui qui comparait devant ce tribunal, et dont le proces se deroule sans qu'aucune phase n'en ait transpire dans le public" (As the Holy Office has to deal not only with offences against the Faith, but also with others which are very remotely connected with the intelligence, it follows that to be cited before this tribunal is no recommendation, and to leave it, even by the door of acquittal, will never be a title to glory. We should bless that mystery which protects him who appears before the tribunal and whose trial proceeds without any phase of it becoming public). For the discussion of matters before the Holy Office there are three kinds of reunions, or, as they are called, congregations. The first is the so-called congregation of the consultors at which the consultors and the greater officials of the congregation are present under the presidency of the assessor. This meeting is held on Monday of each week in the Palace of the Holy Office behind the colonnade of St. Peter's. The most important matters are discussed at this meeting, and the views of the consultors are given for the enlightenment of the cardinals of the Holy Office, who, on the following Wednesday, consider the same matters and pass judgment upon them at the congregation of cardinals which used to be held at the residence of the general of the Dominicans near Santa Maria sopra Minerva, but since 1870 has been held at the Palace of the Holy Office. The third congregation is held in the presence of the pope, who approves or modifies the decisions rendered by the cardinals on the previous day. This third congregation, formerly held every Thursday, is now held only on occasion of the most exceptional cases. Instead of the congregation, the assessor refers the decisions of the cardinals to the Holy Father on Wednesday evenings, after which the pope gives the final decision. It was formerly customary, both at the congregation of cardinals and at that of Thursdays in the presence of the pope (coram Sanctissimo), for the consultors to wait in the antechamber in case they might be called upon by the cardinals or the Holy Father for explanations. This custom has been abolished. As regards the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See, always remain provincial conciliar decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine sua potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope, decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. They call for a true assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope as infallible teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff, that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority inherent in the Holy See, since the pope is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of specific approbation of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions are given by Choupin ("Valeur des decisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siege", Paris, 1907, ch. ix, sect. 9). The disciplinary Decrees of the Holy Office have the same force as those of the other congregations, that is, they are binding upon all the faithful if they be formally universal; and they are binding only upon the parties interested if they be merely personal, e. g., judicial sentences, which are law for the parties in the case. If, however, they be personal and at the same time equivalently universal, canonists are not fully agreed as to their force. For a discussion of this point see Choupin, op. cit., ch. iv, sect. 33, and the authors cited by him. II. CONGREGATION OF THE CONSISTORY This congregation was established by Sixtus V under the title of Congregation for the Erection of Churches and for Consistorial Provisions (pro erectione ecclesiarum et provisionibus consistorialibus). Its original organization was somewhat different from that of the modern congregations of cardinals. It was a mixed congregation composed of cardinals and of prelates, similar to the original Congregation of Propaganda (De Luca, op. cit., dis. 23). It had also a secretary who, as a rule, was not a prelate but an advocate (peritus togatus). As time went on it took the form of the other congregations, which consisted entirely of cardinals, to whom, in this congregation, two subaltern officers were added, one who filled the office of secretary and another who acted as surrogate (sostituto). These two prelates filled the same offices for the College of Cardinals. Originally, the cardinal dean was the prefect of this congregation, but later, the prefecture was reserved by the pope to himself. The recent Constitution of Pius X has in part changed the organization of this congregation. The prefecture is still retained by the sovereign pontiff, and the congregation is formed exclusively of cardinals, selected by the pope; the secretary, however, is no longer a prelate but a cardinal priest, who is appointed by the Holy Father himself and who, as will be seen, has become one of the most important officers of the Curia. To the cardinal in control of the congregation is attached a prelate who has the title of assessor, and who, at the present time also, is the secretary of the Sacred College. There is, likewise, a surrogate. These are major officials, and therefore, together with the cardinal secretary, form the congresso. This congregation has numerous inferior officers. At present, its personnel is completed by several consultors, as had been the case in former times, before that office was suppressed. These consultors, with the exception of two, are selected by the pope; the exceptions are the assessor of the Holy Office, and the secretary of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, who are ex-officio consultors of the Congregation of the Consistory. The work of the congregation formerly was to prepare the matters to be proposed and examined in the Consistory, and to bestow such honours on ecclesiastics who sought them as it might seem fit to grant. The new constitution, however, has greatly extended the scope of the Congregation of the Consistory, to the degree that, although in that Constitution the latter is named second among the congregations, it might be considered the first in importance, on account of the great number of matters which have been assigned to it, and its great influence in the affairs of the Church from both the disciplinary and the administrative point of view. The Holy Office, however, retains its priority, whether by reason of ancient custom or because it deals with matters concerning the Faith. The great volume of the business which now falls to the Congregation of the Consistory and the great importance of the matters with which it has to deal have necessitated a division of the congregation into two very distinct parts, corresponding to two distinct classes of business. One section of the congregation has been formed for the purpose of preparing the business to be brought before the Consistory; to establish in places, not subject to Propaganda, new dioceses and collegiate as well as cathedral chapters; to elect bishops, Apostolic administrators, suffragans or assistants of other bishops; to prepare the processes in such cases and to examine the candidates in doctrine. As regards these processes, it may be observed that when the appointment is to be made in a place where the Holy See has a diplomatic representative, the preparation of the necessary documents is left to the office of the cardinal secretary of State, which is in a position more easily to obtain the necessary information and to collect the necessary documents. These documents and information are transmitted to the Congregation of the Consistory, which prepares the report, or official sheet, on the matter to be distributed among the cardinals. The other section of this congregation transacts all the business that relates to the government of dioceses not under Propaganda: within its scope is the supervision of bishops in regard to the fulfilment of their duties, the review of reports on the state of their Churches presented by bishops, announcements of apostolic visitations, the review of those previously made, and, with the approval of the sovereign pontiff, the prescription of necessary or opportune remedies; finally, the supervision of all that concerns the government, discipline, temporal administration, and studies in seminaries. It is clear that the legislator intended to give to the Congregation of the Consistory complete authority in all that relates to a diocese as a juridical institution, including its establishment and its conservation; whence the power of electing bishops, of supervising them in the performance of their duties, and of controlling the seminaries so intimately connected with the future of the dioceses. For the same reason it would appear that the Congregation of the Consistory has authority in all that pertains to the creation of diocesan societies or committees, rural banks, and kindred establishments within a diocese. On the other hand, a very high function was given to this congregation in the new organization of the Curia, namely, the power of settling any doubts in relation to the competency of the other congregations, exception being made for the Holy Office, which is empowered to determine for itself all such doubts. Nevertheless, the Holy Office did not disdain to submit to the judgment of the Congregation of the Consistory a question that arose in regard to the competency of the former, after the promulgation of the Constitution "Sapienti consilio", It is the duty of the Congregation of the Consistory to send to bishops the invitations to assist at solemn canonizations or other solemn pontifical ceremonies, according to ancient custom. Its proceedings are characterized by the same strict secrecy that marks the deliberations of the Holy Office. As to the division of business between the congresso and the full congregation of cardinals, the same arrangement obtains as in the other congregations, which is to leave to the congresso the matters of minor importance while matters of greater interest are considered in the full congregation. Among such matters are the nomination of bishops or of Apostolic administrators (except, in regard to the latter, in cases of urgency, in which the congresso acts alone), the creation of new dioceses, or the unification of existing ones, the erection of chapters, the drafting of general rules for the direction of seminaries, and other similar matters the enumeration of which would take us beyond the necessary limits of this article. III. CONGREGATION OF THE SACRAMENTS This congregation, which owes its existence to the recent Constitution "Sapienti consilio", exercises a great influence upon ecclesiastical discipline through the authority given to it in its establishment, to regulate all sacramental discipline. Its numerous and important duties were formerly divided among the other congregations and offices. As regards matrimony, for example, causes of matrimony ratified and not consummated were referred to the Congregation of the Council, dispensations for the external forum were granted by the Dataria or, in certain cases, the P nitentiaria; many matters relating to the Sacrament of the Eucharist belonged to the Congregation of Rites. Many other examples could be cited; now, however, all such matters pertain to the Congregation of the Sacraments, excepting the rights of the Holy Office, as said above, and the power of the Congregation of Rites to determine all that concerns the ceremonies to be observed in the administration of the sacraments. With so wide and important a field of activities, this congregation required a special organization. Accordingly, besides its cardinals, one of whom is its prefect, it has a secretary, who deals with all the matters referred to it, and who was later given three sub-secretaries -- a feature in which it differs from all other congregations. Each one of these sub-secretaries is the director of one of the following sections of the congregation. A. The first section deals with all matrimonial dispensations, except those that imply disparity of religion, which pertain to the Holy Office. With regard to these dispensations it is important to note the distinction introduced by the Special Rules between impediments in the major degree and impediments in minor degree, and correspondingly between major and minor dispensations. Minor dispensations concern impediments of relationship or affinity of the third and the fourth degrees in the collateral line, whether of equal degrees, or of unequal degrees -- i. e., of the fourth degree with the third or of the third degree with the second. Minor dispensations are also given from impediments of affinity in the first degree, or in the second degree, whether simple or mixed -- i. e., of the first with the second degree -- when this impediment arises from illicit relations, or from spiritual kinship of whatever nature, or from impediments of public decorum, whether arising out of espousals or out of ratified marriage already dissolved by pontifical dispensation. Dispensations from these minor impediments are now granted ex rationalibus causis a S. Sede probatis, which means that none of the reasons formerly required, called canonical, are now necessary for obtaining the dispensations in question. Moreover, these dispensations are supposed to be given motu proprio and with certain knowledge, from which it follows that they are not vitiated by obreption or by subreption. The other impediments, and therefore the other dispensations are considered as of the major order, and the Special Rules show that the dispensations of this order more frequently granted are those relating to the impediment of consanguinity in the second collateral degree, or the mixed second or third degree with the first; those relating to affinity of the first or of the second equal collateral degree, or of the second or third with the first; finally, those relating to crime arising from adultery with a promise of future marriage. B. The second section of the Congregation of the Sacraments also deals exclusively with matrimony, and exercises its functions in all matters concerning that sacrament, except dispensations from impediments. Of its competency, therefore, are the concessions of sanatio in radice, the legitimation of illegitimate children, dispensations from marriage ratified and not consummated, the solution of doubts concerning matrimonial law, and the hearing of causes concerning the validity of marriages. In regard to the latter, however, it is to be noted that, the new Constitution on the Curia having established a complete separation between those departments which exercise judicial power and those which are administrative, and, on the other hand, the very nature of matrimonial causes making it impossible to determine them administratively, this power granted to the Congregation of the Sacraments should be interpreted reasonably, in such a way as not to be at variance with the spirit of the new Constitution. It seems, therefore, that this faculty should be held to signify only that, in special cases, in which the sovereign pontiff, for special reasons, might consider it desirable to withdraw a matrimonial cause from the Rota, and submit it to the judgment of a congregation, the Congregation of the Sacraments should be considered the competent congregation under such circumstances. It must be admitted, further, that if a matrimonial cause be brought before this congregation, the congregation may, if it please, hastily review any matrimonial cause brought before it and reject it, if found futile, ab ipso limine. If, however, the cause be found admissible, the congregation should refer it to the Rota (unless there be a special commission of the pope to the contrary), seeing that the very nature of causes concerning the matrimonial bond, in which not private interests are at issue but the public welfare, demands that those causes be determined judicially, and not administratively. None of this, however, applies to dispensation from a ratified, but not consummated, marriage, because the nature of such a case requires that it be determined administratively, since it relates to the concession of a grace. This does not do away with the necessity of establishing beyond doubt the non-consummation, or the existence of the requisite conditions for the dispensation, since these conditions constitute the proof that the sovereign pontiff has power, in the concrete case under consideration, to grant the dispensation validly and licitly, and therefore come within the domain of administrative power. On the other hand the congregation is always free to refer to the Rota the establishment of the fact of non-consummation. C. The third section of this congregation deals with all matters concerning the other six sacraments than matrimony. It has authority in all matters touching the validity of ordinations, in all matters of discipline that concern these six sacraments and also the dispensations in such matters. In the Special Rules, as examples to illustrate the competency of this congregation, specification is made of some of the dispensations or graces reserved to it; these may be mentioned here for the guidance of those who may wish to apply to the Holy See. This section grants permission to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in churches or chapels which are not so authorized by common Law; to celebrate Mass in private chapels, exercising over them due supervision; to celebrate Mass before dawn, after midday, or in the open air; to celebrate Mass on Holy Thursday, or the three Masses of Christmas, at night, in private chapels; to wear a skull-cap or a wig either while celebrating Mass or in the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament; to blind and partially blind priests to celebrate the Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin; to celebrate Mass aboard ship; to consecrate a bishop on a day other than those established by the Pontifical, or to confer Holy orders extra tempora, that is, on other days than those appointed by law; finally, to dispense the faithful -- even members of religious orders -- from the Eucharistic fast in cases of necessity. The competency of this congregation is limited in relation both to persons and to places; its authority does not extend to places subject to Propaganda, or to members of religious orders, who for dispensations, relating even to the sacraments, must go to the Congregation of Religious (an exception being made in regard to the Eucharistic fast, as stated above). As to the sacrament of matrimony, however, the competency of the Congregation of the Sacraments is universal in relation to place; objectively, however, all that concerns the impediments of mixed religion or of disparity of worship and the Pauline privilege pertains exclusively to the Holy Office. IV. CONGREGATION OF THE COUNCIL When the Council of Trent had brought its gigantic work to an end, the Fathers were greatly concerned for the practical application of their disciplinary decrees. The council therefore made a strong appeal to the sovereign pontiff to make provision for this important end, as is shown by the last (the twenty-fifth) session of the council, entitled De recipiendis et observandis decretis. Pius IV, in his zeal for the execution of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, besides other measures taken by him to this end (see the Constitution "Benedictus Deus" of 26 January, 1563), by a Motu Proprio of 2 August, 1564, commissioned eight cardinals to supervise the execution of the Tridentine Decrees and gave them ample faculties to that end, providing however, that cases of doubt or of difficulty, as he had already decreed in the Constitution "Benedictus Deus", should be referred to him. In this Motu Proprio, Pius IV referred to the congregation of cardinals thus created as "Congregatio super exsecutione et observatione S. Concilii Tridentini". As time went on, and in view of the interpretation of frequent doubts, the congregation received from the successors of Pius IV the power also to interpret the Decrees of the Council of Trent, so that Sixtus V, in his Constitution "Immensa", already calls it "Congregatio pro exsecutione et interpretatione Concilii Tridentini", a title given to it before his time. Gregory XIV afterwards conferred upon it authority to reply to questions in the name of the pope. The number of cardinals composing the Congregation of the Council was never restricted to eight, for to that number, which had been assigned by Pius IV, four more were soon added. The number was generally greater than the original eight, and always variable, depending upon circumstances and upon the wishes of the Holy Father. One of its cardinals has the office of prefect, it also has a secretary, and that office has always been filled by eminent men, some of them famous -- to take a few examples, Fagnano, Petra, and Prospero Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV. A sub-secretary and other minor officials complete the personnel of the Congregation of the Council. In its origin, and indeed until the new Constitution on the Curia, this congregation was without consultors, although a special congregation created by Pius IX for the revision of provincial councils had consultors from 1849, and these consultors in course of time were employed in the transaction of the business of the Congregation of the Council. The recent Constitution, which suppressed the special congregation for the synods, endowed the Congregation of the Council with consultors, to be selected by the pope, some of whom must be conversant with matters of administration. The competency of this congregation, extending to the interpretation and to the execution of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which relate to almost all the branches of canon law, was very great. When the Rota ceased to exercise judicial functions, matrimonial causes were referred to the Congregation of the Council. There were also added to this congregation a Commission of prelates, established by Benedict XIV, for the examination of the reports of bishops on the state of their dioceses (which was commonly called "the Little Council"), and the special congregation, mentioned above, created by Pius IX, for the revision of provincial councils. At present, the interpretation of the Decrees of the Council of Trent is no longer of the exclusive competency of the Congregation of the Council, but is shared by each congregation within the limits of its particular jurisdiction. On the other hand, the tribunals of the Curia may, upon occasion, interpret those Decrees judicially, in their application to concrete cases. The present competency of the Congregation of the Council, although differing a good deal from what it formerly was, is nevertheless extensive. In general this congregation has the supervision of discipline of the secular clergy and of the Christian people. From which it may be seen that, while this congregation has lost jurisdiction in many matters that formerly pertained to it -- the sacraments, the religious orders, matrimonial causes, and other matters -- it has almost absorbed the business of the former Congregation of Bishops and Regulars -- in so far as relates to bishops. It has charge of the observance of ecclesiastical precepts; consequently, fasting, abstinence, tithes, and the observance of feast days are within its jurisdiction, and to it recourse must be had for dispensations in those matters. Parish priests and canons, pious sodalities, pious unions, beneficent societies, stipends for Masses, rural banks, diocesan tributes, ecclesiastical benefices, and kindred interests are also under its jurisdiction. In brief, it exercises jurisdiction over diocesan activities In regard to both clergy and laity, as the Congregation of the Consistory exercises authority over the diocese in relation to its constitution, its conservation, and its development. In this congregation, as in others, matters of greater importance are considered by the full congregation of the cardinals; among these matters are the interpretation of laws in doubtful cases, the granting of unusual dispensations, the revision of provincial councils, and the like. Matters of less moment are determined by the congresso, To give an idea of the methods of procedure, it may be said, for example, that in the revision of a provincial council, all the records of the council are referred to a consultor who is required to give a written opinion upon them. This report is printed, and is distributed to at least five other consultors, if not to all of the consultors, together with the records of the council. After the private preparation which each is bound to make, the chosen consultors, or the entire college of consultors, meet and, in as many sessions as the case may require, discuss all the Acts of the council. The written opinion above referred to, with a report of the discussion of the consultors and of the proposed corrections and modifications, is then submitted to the full congregation of the cardinals, who, in turn, examine all the records of the matter, order the corrections to be made, and approve the council. V. CONGREGATION OF RELIGIOUS Sixtus V first erected by a Brief of 17 May, 1586, and afterwards, by the Constitution "Immensa", confirmed, a congregation "super consultationibus regularium" distinct from the congregation "super consultationibus episcoporum et aliorum praelatorum" mentioned in the same Constitution. In 1601 these two congregations were already combined in the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, to which, in course of time, were united three other congregations whose functions were closely related. These three were: the Congregation on the State of Religious (super statu regularium), created by Innocent X on 15 August, 1652, for the reformation of regulars in Italy, and suppressed by lnnocent XII on 4 August, 1698; the Congregation on Regular Discipline (super disciplina regulari), instituted by Innocent XII on 18 July, 1695, for the reformation of regulars not only in Italy but throughout the whole world; the Congregation on the State of the Regular Orders (super statu regularium ordinum), created by Pius IX on 17 June, 1847. The last-named and the one on regular discipline were suppressed by Pius X, by the Motu Proprio of 26 May, 1906, which united these congregations with that of Bishops and Regulars. The new Constitution of Pius X abolishes the Congregation of Regulars and Bishops and transfers that part of its business which concerns bishops to the Congregation of the Council, and that part of it which concerns regulars to a congregation (oongregatio negotiis religiosorum sodalium praeposita) created by the new Constitution, and which by common usage sanctioned by the legend on the official seal of the congregation, has received the name of Congregation of Religious. This body has the usual organization of the Roman Congregations. It is formed of several cardinals, who are chosen by the pope, and one of whom is the prefect of the congregation; these cardinals are assisted by a secretary and a sub-secretary, who are the major officials of the congregation, and by several minor officials. In regard to the latter it is to be noted that, as the amount of its business necessitates a division of the congregation into three parts (as in the case of the Congregation of the Sacraments), the highest dignitaries among the minor officials are the three assistants who are placed over the three sections. One of these sections has to deal with matters relating to religious orders; another, with the business of religious congregations or associations of men, of whatever nature those associations may be; the third, with business relating to congregations of women. This congregation also has a college of consultors. The Constitution of Pius X clearly defines the competency of this congregation, which is to pass judgment upon all matters relating to religious persons of either sex, whether bound by solemn or by simple vows, or to those persons who, although they be not religious in the canonical sense of the word, live as religious -- such as the oblates of certain communities of men or of women, who, without being bound by vows, live a common life under an approved rule. The third orders, consisting of seculars, are also under this congregation. It decides in litigations between members of religious orders, or between religious and bishops, and it is the competent tribunal in eases which have to be dealt with in the way of discipline (in via disciplinari) where a religious appears either as plaintiff or as defendant. Hence it is to be inferred, and indeed is expressly stated in the Constitution, that causes which have to be dealt with in the judicial way must be referred to the Rota, the rights of the Holy Office being always safeguarded. Finally, all common law dispensations to regulars pertain to this congregation, excepting dispensation from the Eucharistic fast, which, as said above, pertains to the Congregation of the Sacraments. The Congregation of Religious is alone competent to approve new religions institutes and their constitutions, as well as to modify institutes already approved, and these being matters of grave importance, the full congregation deals with them. VI. CONGREGATION OF PROPAGANDA This is the abbreviated title of the congregation officially known as Sacra Congregatio de propaganda fide, or christiano nomini propagando, the chief functions of which concern the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in what are commonly known as "missionary countries". It had its origin in a commission of cardinals established under Gregory XIII (1572-85), which became a congregation properly so called under Gregory XV (1621-23). Before the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" (29 June, 1908) came into force, the Congregation of Propaganda had jurisdiction over several countries in which normal Catholic hierarchies of the Latin Rite were established, but the Constitution adopted, in general, the plan of leaving to Propaganda only those countries or districts (excepting for the Oriental rites mentioned below) where ecclesiastical authority is vested in vicars or prefects Apostolic. Thus, Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Holland, and the Duchy of Luxemburg were removed from the jurisdiction of Propaganda, although, as an exception to the general rule, Australia, where a normal hierarchy exists, was allowed to remain under that jurisdiction. Besides its territorial jurisdiction, however, the congregation is invested with a personal jurisdiction over the spiritual affairs of all Catholics, in any part of the world, who belong to any of the Oriental rites. (A full account of the history, scope, methods, and work of this congregation will be found in the separate article PROPAGANDA, SACRED CONGREGATION OF.) VII. CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX There has always been felt in the Church, especially since the invention of printing, the necessity of preventing the faithful from reading books that might ruin either faith or morals. As early as 1501 a Constitution of Alexander VI, addressed to the four ecclesiastical provinces of Germany, contains very wise prescriptions, later confirmed and extended to the whole world by Leo X in the Fifth Council of the Lateran (1515). In keeping with these laws, catalogues of the books prohibited were published by private enterprise, and sometimes with ecclesiastical authority, not, however, the supreme authority of the Church. Among these mention should be made of the three of Louvain, 1546 (approved by the emperor and published by the university), 1550, and 1558; that of Spain; that of Paris, published by the Sorbonne in 1542; that of Cologne, published by the university in 1549; that of Venice, published by Casa, the Apostolic nuncio, in 1549, and another, published in 1554 by the Inquisition; that of Florence, 1552, also published by the Inquisition; that of Milan, published in 1554 by the archbishop. The custom of forming these indexes having been established (the catalogues being sometimes arranged alphabetically) there soon asserted itself the necessity for a general index under the supreme authority of the Church, and Paul IV commissioned the Holy Office to prepare such an index, which was accordingly published in 1557, and again, more accurately, in 1559. Later appeared the Tridentine Index, so called because its publication was ordered by the great council. It was approved and published by Pius IV in 1564. This index was often reprinted, always with new additions, and it is now followed, having been modified and corrected by Leo XIII who, in 1900, published it with his Constitution "Officiorum ac munerum", in which he abolished the old laws and established new ones for the condemnation and for the preliminary censure of books. In 1571 Pius V created the Congregation for the Reform of the Index and for the Correction of Books (de reformando indice et corrigendis libris). In the following year Gregory XIV gave a better form to this congregation, which Sixtus V confirmed by his Constitution "Immensa", It retains its primitive organization to the present day, the Constitution of Pius X having introduced no notable alterations. Like all the other congregations it consists of a number of cardinals, one of whom is its prefect; the master of the Sacred Palace (a Dominican) is ex officio its assistant. Pius V, by a Motu Proprio of 1570, had already amply authorized that functionary to correct published books. Another Dominican is the secretary of the Congregation of the Index, which has a college of consultors whose office is to deliver written opinions on the books submitted to their judgment by the congregation. The Congregation of the Index censures and condemns books which it considers dangerous to faith or morals. Its jurisdiction is universal, extending to all Catholics. It can therefore grant permission for the reading of a book that has been condemned, or for the publication of corrected editions of books that have been proscribed. Its functions are naturally related to those of the Holy Office, of which it may with some reason be considered an appendix or auxiliary congregation. The Constitution of Pius X provides that, notwithstanding the strict secrecy to which the officers of both congregations are held, they may communicate to each other, upon occasion, those proceedings which relate to the prohibition of books, though they may communicate nothing else. One change made by Pius X in the functions of this congregation considerably widens the scope of its activities: the traditional rule was that the Index did not condemn any book which had not been denounced to it; now, on the contrary, the congregation is charged with the work of seeking out pernicious publications, and, after mature examination, condemning and proscribing them. The procedure of the congregation was accurately determined by an instruction of Clement VIII and by a Constitution (9 July, 1753) of Benedict XIV. The consultor or consultors selected for the examination of a book to be judged, having made their written report, if it appears that the book should be condemned, a preparatory congregation is held, which consists of the Master of the Sacred Palace, the Secretary of the Index, and six consultors, versed in the matter of which the book treats and selected by the cardinal prefect. At this meeting, the passages of the publication of which complaint is made are diligently examined, and the question whether or not they contain errors is discussed. The secretary prepares an accurate report of the views of the preparatory congregation, and then refers it to the full congregation of the cardinals, at which the cause is carefully examined and final judgment is rendered. Benedict XIV required great consideration to be shown to any distinguished Catholic writer who enjoyed a good name. Not only did this pope prescribe that the work of such a writer should not be condemned without some formula calculated to mitigate the severity of the condemnation, such as donec corrigatur or donec expurqetur ("until it be corrected," "until it be expurgated"), but, he provided that the matter should first be referred to the author himself, and his attention called to the objectionable passages. If the author then refused to deal with the congregation, or rejected the corrections that were required, the decree of condemnation was to be published. If, however, the author prepared a new edition, the decree of condemnation was not to be published, unless a great number of the copies containing the errors had been circulated, in which case, of course, the public welfare would require the publication of the decree; but the pope provided that it should be made clear that only the first edition was comprised in the condemnation. VIII. CONGREGATION OF RITES This congregation was established by Sixtus V in his Constitution "Immensa", to which frequent reference has already been made. The organization of the Congregation of Rites does not differ from that of other Roman congregations, there being a certain number of cardinals, assisted by a secretary and a surrogate (sostituto), and also by an adequate number of minor officials. Besides these, the Congregation of Rites, in view of special functions to which reference will be made further on, has a great number of prelates, officials, and consultors. The order of precedence among the consultors is determined by length of service in their office. The prelate-officials sit in the following order: first, after the secretary of the congregation, is the sacristan to His Holiness, after whom comes one of the Apostolic prothonotaries permanently attached to this office, next is the dean of the Rota, with the two oldest auditors, after these the master of the Sacred Palace, the promotor of the Faith, and the assessor, or sub-promotor. Although there are no ex-officio consultors, that is, no consultors who by reason of theft office in the Curia are entitled to sit among the consultors of this congregation, there are, nevertheless, certain religious orders -- the Friars Minor, the Servites, the Barnabites, the Jesuits -- which have obtained from different popes the privilege of being represented by one member each in this college of consultors. The Congregation of Rites has a double function. It is charged with the direction of the Liturgy of the Latin Church, and therefore, with the supervision of the performance of the rites prescribed by the Church for the celebration of the sacred mysteries and other ecclesiastical functions and offices, and also, with the granting of all privileges, personal or local, temporary or perpetual, which relate to the rites or ceremonies of the Church. It is manifest that the duties of this congregation are of the highest importance: they are concerned with the solemnity of the worship offered to God, the maintenance of the Faith, and the development of devotion and of Christian sentiment among the faithful. The same congregation has another Charge of no less importance: the decision of causes of beatification and canonization of servants of God, and of the veneration of their relics. In the process of beatification and canonization the most important official is the promotor of the Faith, whose chief duty it is to diligently examine the local investigations carried out by the authority of the bishops, or, at Rome, of the pope, and to bring out in them all that may in any way cast doubt upon the heroic virtue of the servant of God whose cause is under consideration. It is on account of this duty, which implies a systematic opposition to the proofs of sanctity, that the official in question has come to be popularly called "the devil's advocate". It is easy to see, however, that this office conduces to the splendour of the Church and to the honour of the Faith; for to declare a servant of God to be a saint is to propose him as a model to the faithful, and one cannot fail to see how necessary it is that this be done only in the case of one truly heroic, of whose virtue in the heroic degree the pontiff has acquired the greatest moral certainty that human means can establish. It is true that the assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot fail the head of the Church of Jesus Christ in a matter of this kind; but the sovereign pontiff is not on that account exempt from the obligation of acting in the premises with all the circumspection that human prudence requires. And in this effort to attain human certainty the pope is greatly assisted by the promotor of the Faith, who, after a preliminary study of the cause, has to propose objections in regard to the validity of the proceedings and the credibility of the testimony as well as all the objections possibly to be found in the life of the servant of God whose cause is being examined, and in the miracles alleged to have been performed by God at the intercession of that servant. These objections are presented in the three congregations, or meetings, held to consider the question of virtue, and in the other three which are held to consider the question of the miracles. The promotor of the Faith is always selected from among the Consistorial advocates, and always has the assistance of a sub-advocate who takes his place, upon occasion, and who in every instance acts in the name of the promotor. The latter official formerly had the power to appoint, and to remove, his assistant. Besides these two chief officials, the congregation has a special notary for that part of its functions which concerns canonization. The congregations, or meetings held to consider the question of virtue, like those at which the question of miracles is considered, are generally three in number. The first of them is called the ante-preparatory, and is attended by the prelate-officials and the consultors, under the presidency of the cardinal relator of the cause, who does not vote, but who, upon the votes of the others who are present, determines whether the case deserves to go beyond this hearing. The second meeting, called the preparatory, is attended by all the cardinals of the congregation, by the prelate-officials, and by the consultors. At this meeting the cardinals do not vote, but, after hearing the votes of the others present, determine whether the cause may be carried to a discussion before the pope, which is done only when there is moral certainty of a successful issue. This meeting is the most interesting of all; in it the cause not infrequently falls to the ground. Assuming, however, that the cardinals do not throw out the case definitively, it very often happens that another preparatory meeting called nova preparatoria is required, to elucidate some point relating to the virtue of the servant of God or to the miracles in question. Sometimes there is even a third meeting for the same purpose. The regular third meeting is called the general congregation. It is held under the presidency of the sovereign pontiff himself and is attended by all the cardinals who form the Congregation of Rites, the prelate-officials, and the consultors, all of whom vote -- the consultors and the prelate-officials first, and then, when the consultors have withdrawn, the cardinals. The pope decides definitively; as a rule, however, he does not pronounce his judgment at once, but takes time to deliberate and to implore Divine light upon the question. Besides the above meetings, others, called ordinary and special ordinary, are held for the purpose of examining the proceedings and the proof of the fame of sanctity which is necessary for the introduction of a cause of beatification. (See also BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION.) Returning to the first duty of this congregation, which is the supervision and direction of the Liturgy, it may be said that the inspection, correction, and condemnation of liturgical books of whatever kind pertain to the Congregation of Rites (saving always the prerogatives of the Holy Office in matters of faith), as well as the approbation of new liturgical Offices and calendars, and especially the authoritative solution of all doubts which may arise on liturgical matters. Recourse must be had, therefore, to this congregation for all faculties, indulgences, and dispensations relating to liturgical functions. Thus, for example it is for the Congregation of Rites to grant the faculty to bless sacred vestments, the authorization to expose upon the altar the image of one who has been beatified, or to dedicate an altar to such a servant of God, the right to wear special insignia during choral offices, etc. In the performance of these functions, the Congregation of Rites is assisted by three commissions, established within its own body. The first of these is the Liturgical Commission, created for the revision of Decrees concerning rites. This work was begun and finished by Leo XIII, the congregation publishing an authentic edition of its Decrees (1898-1900). Although the work for which it was created has been done, this commission remains, and is now consulted on more important questions which may arise concerning the sacred rites. The second commission, also instituted by Leo XIII, in 1902, is the Historico-Liturgical Commission, which has the function of judging historical questions concerning the sacred rites. The third is the Commission on Sacred Music, created by Pius X, in 1904, the functions of which are connected with the Motu Proprio on sacred music of 1903 and with other acts of Pius X on the same subject. (See the letter of 8 December, 1903, to Cardinal Respighi, the Decree of 8 January, 1904, the Motu Proprio of the 25 April, 1904, on the Vatican edition of the liturgical books, and the other two Decrees of 11 and 14 August, 1905.) IX. CONGREGATION OF CEREMONIES It is not quite certain who created this congregation. Many attribute its establishment to Sixtus V, others to his immediate predecessor, Gregory XIII. Haine says that the latter opinion is proved to be correct by the records of the congregation itself. Supposing this to be the case, the error of certain authors is apparent, when they consider this congregation to be little more than a branch of the Congregation of Rites or to have derived its existence from the latter. It is, on the contrary, more ancient than the last-named congregation, and deals directly with the highest division of the Liturgy, considering the personages whom it concerns. For this congregation is charged with the direction of all the papal ceremonies, as well as of the ceremonial of cardinals, whether in the pontifical court (aula) or chapel (cappella pontificia), or elsewhere. It is reasonable that a special congregation should have under its care ceremonies so august and solemn, since it is of the highest importance that when the supreme head of the Church participates in ecclesiastical functions attended by the most illustrious dignitaries of the Church, all should be in keeping with that decorum which befits their exalted character. As in all courts there is a grand master of ceremonies, charged with the direction of the sovereign's acts on occasions of State, so it was necessary that at the pontifical Court there should be an authority to preside over such functions. This requirement is supplied by the Congregation of Ceremonies, which, besides the direction of liturgical functions, is charged with the direction of the pontifical court ceremonial for the reception of sovereigns or of ambassadors. It also communicates instructions to the legates of the Holy See for the maintenance of due decorum in transacting the affairs of their missions. This congregation also instructs the members of the Noble Guard and the ablegate who are sent to convey to new cardinals, living in Catholic states outside of Rome, the news of their promotion, together with the cardinal's hat and the red biretta. It instructs newly-promoted cardinals, too, on the etiquette to be followed conformably with their new dignity. Finally, it solves the questions of precedence which arise among cardinals or among ambassadors to the Holy See. X. CONGREGATION OF EXTRAORDINARY ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS In former times, when questions of exceptional interest to the Church presented themselves, and circumstances required that they should in prudence be treated with secrecy, the popes were wont to establish special congregations of cardinals for the consideration of those matters. These congregations were called congregations of State. Pius VI, following this custom, on the occasion of the revolutionary conditions of France in 1793, established a congregation of this kind, which he called the Congregation for the Ecclesiastical Affairs of France (Congregatio super negotiis ecclesiasticis regni Galliarum), a title which Pius VII, in 1805, changed to Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs (Congregatio de negotiis ecclesiasticis extraordinariis). This congregation remained in existence until 1809, when the exile of Pius VII brought it to an end. In 1814, when Pius VII returned to Rome, the needs of the Church being still exceptional, the pope re-established this congregation under the title of Extraordinary Congregation for the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Catholic World (Congregatio extraordinaria praeposita negotiis ecclesiasticis orbis catholici). In 1827, however, the congregation reassumed its former name of Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, which it retains to the present time. At the head of this congregation is the secretary of State, who presides over it not as prefect, but in virtue of his office; and although it has a secretary and a sub-secretary, the congregation nevertheless has no secretary's office of its own, the first section of the office of the secretary of State serving the purpose. The scope of the powers of this congregation is not fixed. It was created for extraordinary affairs, and deals only with such matters as the sovereign pontiff, through his secretary of State, may submit to its study and judgment. XI. CONGREGATION OF STUDIES Sixtus V, by his Constitution "Immensa", established a special congregation for the Roman University (Congregatio pro universitate studii romani). This establishment of learning was founded by Boniface VIII in 1303; it was later known by the name of Sapienza, and in time became extinct. In 1824, Leo XII created a new congregation to preside over the studies not only of Rome, but of all the Pontifical States. After the events of 1870, this congregation remained intact, and acquired new importance. Consisting, like all the others, of an adequate number of cardinals, the Congregation of Studies has a secretary of its own, under whom are several officials, and a college of consultors. Pursuant to the provisions of the new Constitution of Pius X, the jurisdiction of this congregation is no longer limited to the Pontifical States, much less to Rome. On the contrary, the Congregation of Studies exercises its influence throughout the Catholic world; for it directs the studies of all the greater universities or faculties under the authority of the Church, not excepting those under religious orders or congregations. It grants the faculty of conferring academic degrees, which it may also confer itself, in which case they have the same value as those conferred by an ecclesiastical university. It authorizes the establishment of new universities as well as changes in the conditions of universities already established, the authorization in either case being given by means of a pontifical Brief. As in other congregations, all graver matters must be referred to the full congregation of cardinals, which therefore determines the establishment of new universities, the more important changes in universities already existing, and the graver questions which may present themselves for solution in such institutions, the general conduct of which it also directs. Matters of minor importance are determined by its congresso. XII. CONGREGATION OF LORETO From the time of Sixtus IV, the care of the famous sanctuary of Loreto has been reserved exclusively to the Holy See, the arrangement having been confirmed by many successive pontiffs and especially by Julius II and Paul V. Innocent XII, in 1698, established a congregation of cardinals to preside over the affairs of the Sanctuary of Loreto; and this congregation was not abolished by the recent Constitution of Pius X, which, on the contrary, provides that the Congregation of Loreto shall remain distinct from the others, although united to the Congregation of the Council. Until the time of Gregory XVI, the Congregation of Loreto which consists of a suitable number of cardinals, had the cardinal secretary of State for its prefect; now, however, this office is filled by the prefect of the Congregation of the Council; while the secretary of the latter congregation is also secretary of the Congregation of Loreto, an office formerly belonging to the sub-datary. The competency of this congregation, until the reign of Pius VII, was extensive, since it included jurisdiction not only over the Holy House of Loreto and its property, but also over civil and criminal matters connected with that sanctuary. This jurisdiction was restricted by Pius VII, but was again extended by Leo XII. The new Constitution of Pius X does not define the powers of the Congregation of Loreto; they are certainly much diminished, however, by the events of the last fifty years in Italy and now relate chiefly to the restorations of the basilica and supervision of the numerous pilgrimages to the shrine. The Congregation of the Council transacts the business of the Congregation of Loreto according to the rules of procedure in all other matters of its competency. XIII CONGREGATION OF THE FABRIC OF ST. PETER'S When the ancient Basilica of St. Peter was crumbling through age, Julius II conceived the grand project of building a new temple in the place of the old one, after the plans of Bramante; and on the Saturday next after Easter, 1506, he laid its foundation stone. He realized the enormous expense that must be entailed by the realization of his project, which was to be accomplished by the charity of the faithful, convinced of the glory that would accrue to Jesus Christ and to His Church through the completion of so majestic a work. If in the Old Testament, God had wished a most sumptuous temple to stand in Jerusalem, it was right that in the New Testament another, most majestic, temple should rise to the glory of His Christ, the Man God. And, to encourage the faithful to contribute to so holy a work, the popes were bountiful in the concession of privileges and of indulgences in favour of the generous contributors to the great work. Clement VII, in 1523, established a college of sixty members which was charged with providing for the building of the basilica. This college having been suppressed, Clement VIII replaced it with a special congregation which he named the Congregation of the Fabric of St. Peter's. From the time of Sixtus V, the cardinal archpriest of the basilica itself was the prefect of this congregation. Benedict XIV introduced considerable changes: he left to the congregation the constitution given it by Clement VIII, with its cardinal prefect, its numerous prelates and officials, such as the auditor and the treasurer of the Apostolic Camera, and others, but to this congregation he added a special one consisting of the cardinal prefect and three other cardinals, which was to have precedence in everything and to exercise and have the exclusive economical control of the basilica. The general congregation was to occupy itself thereafter only with contentious causes, since the Congregation of the Fabric still had jurisdiction in such cases, and in fact was the only competent tribunal for causes connected with the building. Pius IX, having abolished special tribunals, including that of the Fabric, saw that the general congregation was left without any province. He thereupon abolished the two congregations of Benedict XIV and established a single one, consisting not of three, but of more than three, cardinals, to which he confided the economical administration and the conservation of the basilica, adding to this charge that of the administration of many pious legacies and of Mass stipends, with authority to modify them according to circumstances. This congregation, therefore, was empowered to grant reductions of the obligations of Masses and permission to defer the celebration of these Masses for a longer time than that allowed by the rule; to allow the executors of pious legacies to make adjustments for past omissions, to delegate this power more or less extensively to bishops, and so forth. Pius X, by his new Constitution, has restricted the competency of this congregation to the administration of the property, and to the maintenance of the basilica, a task by no means light, seeing that immense sums are expended upon it. Grimaldi (Les congregations romaines, xxii) asserts that the expense amounts to 190,000 lire (nearly $38,000) each year, which is not surprising, when it is considered that the lay employees of the basilica and those of the second class, called San Pietrini, alone amount to nearly 300 in number. Under the authority of this congregation is also the Studio del mosaico established by Sixtus V, and famous throughout the world for the perfection of its work and for the exquisite beauty of its art. I. A QUEMADA, Tract. de fisco inquisitionis (Toledo, 1564); LOCATI, Opus judiciale inquisitorum (Rome, 1572); VANDERANI, Enchiridion inquisitionis (Venice, 1575); EYMERICUS, Directorium inquisitorum (Rome, 1578); BERNARDUS DE COMO, Lucerna inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis (Rome, 1584); MENDEZ DE VASCONCELLOS, De sententiis inquisitionis (Rome, 1596); DE PARAMO, De origine et progressu sanctae inquisitionis et de delegata inquisitorum potestate (Madrid, 1598); IDEM, Pro defensione jurisdictionis sanctae inquisitionis (Madrid, 1598); FARINACCI, Decisiones criminales de judiciis et tortura (Vicenza, 1607); GARCIA, Processus s. inquisitionis (Madrid, 1607); PENA, Inquirendorum haereticorum lucerna (Milan, 1610); MASINI, Sacro arsenale, ovvero prattica dell' Officio della S. Inquisitione (Genoa, 1625); CARENA, Tract. de officio S. Inquisitionis et modo procedendi in causis fidei (Cremona, 1641); ALBERGHINI, Manuale qualificatorum S. Inquisitionis, in quo omnia, qua ad illud tribunal ac haeresium censuram pertinent, brevi methodo adducuntur (Palermo, 1642); SALLELLES, De materiis tribunalium s. inquisitionis seu de regulis multiplicibus pro formando quovis eorum ministro, pr sertim consultore; pr missis XII prolegomenis de origine et progressu dictorum tribunalium (Rome, 1651); PENA-CARENA, Instructio seu praxis inquisitorum (Cremona, 1655); RODRIGUEZ, Allegationes fiscales, seu de confiscatione bonorum in officio sanctae inquisitionis (Lyons, 1663); BORDONI, Sacrum tribunal judicum in causis sanctae fidei (Lyons, 1665); SAUSSAY, Aphorismi inquisitorum (Lyons, 1669); DEL BENE, De officio S. Inquisitionis (Rome, 1672); MACEDO, Schema S. Congregationis S. Officii romani cum elogiis cardinalium (Padua, 1676); DE LUCA, Il Cardinale pratico (Rome, 1680), xxv; ALBIZI, De inconstantia in fide (Amsterdam, 1683); NERI, De judice s. inquisitionis (Florence, 1685); MENGHINI, Regole del tribunale di S. Offizio (Ferrara, 1687); ALBIZI, De inconstantia in judiciis (Rome, 1698); MASINI, Sacro arsenale, ovvero pratica dell' offizio della s. inquisitione (Rome, 1730); DANIELI, Recentior praxis curia romanae, IV (Rome, 1759), tit. 28; DE LUCA, Relatio curia roman (Venice, 1759), dissert. 14; CAMACHO GUERRIERO DE ABOYM, De privilegiis familiarum officialiumque s. inquisitionis (Lisbon, 1859); SIMOR, De sacris congregationibus romanis et illarum auctoritate in Archiv. f. k. KR., XI (Mainz, 1864), 410-23; SIMOR, De s. Congreg. romanis s. officii et concilii in Archiv. f. k. KR., XV (1866), 133-40; CADENE, De secreto s. officii in Anal. eccl. (Rome), V, 498; CAUZONS, Hist. de l'inquisition en France: I. Les origines de l'inquisition (Paris, 1909); ANTONIUS CORDUBENSIS, Opus de indulgentiis (Alcala, 1554); THEODORUS A SP. SANCTO, Tract. dogm. moralis de indulgentiis (Rome, 1743); FALISE, S. Congregationis indulgentiarum resolutiones authentica, pt. I (Louvain, 1862); PRINZIVALLI, Resolutiones seu decreta authentica S. Congregationis indulgentiis sacrisque reliquiis pr posita ab anno 1860 ad ann. 1861 accurate collecta (Rome, 1862); Decreta authentica S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum edita jussu et auctoritate Leonis XIII (Ratisbon, 1883); SCHNEIDER (ed.), Rescripta authentica S. Congr. Indulgentiarum, nec non summaria indulgentiarum (Ratisbon, 1885); MELATA, Manuale de indulgentiis (Rome, 1892); MOCCHEGIANI, Collectio indulgentiarum theologice, canonice ac historice digesta (Quaruacchi, 1897); LEPICIER, Le indulgenze, loro origine, natura e svolgimento. Opera tradotta dall' originale inglese del sac. Luigi Cappelli (Siena, 1897); GOTTLOB, Kreuzablass und Almosenablass (1905). II. MARCELLI, De sacris c rem, sive ritib. eccl. S. R. E. (Rome, 1560); PALEOTTI, De Sacri consistorii consultationibus (Rome, 1592); GABRIELLI, Tract. de sacri consistorii consultationibus (Venice, 1594); COHELLIUS, Notitia cardinalatus . . . Congr. VII pro erectione ecclesiarum et provision. consistorial. (Rome, 1653); LUNADORO, Relazione della corte di Roma (Venice, 1664), cap. vi, Della congreg. concist.; PLETTENBERG, Notitia congregationum et tribunalium curia romana (Hildesheim 1593); DE MATTA, De consistorialibus causis (Naples, 1694); PLATUS, Tract. de cardinals dignitate et officio (Rome, 1746), cap. xxviii; App. un. de Consistorio et de S. R. E. cardin. Congreg. ac de aliis Pap magistrat.; DANIELI, Recentior praxis curi roman (Venice, 1759); DE LUCA, Rel. cur. rom. (Cologne, 1683), il cardinale pratico, cap. xxx della Congreg. Concist. IV. Thesaurus resolutionum S. Congr. Concilii (ab anno 1718); COHELLIUS, op. Cit., Congr. VI super executione et interpretatione Sacri Concilii Tridentini; LUNADORO, op. cit., x, Della congregatione del concilio a della congregazione particolare sullo stato delle chiese, del secretario e di altri ministri di dette congregazioni; FAGNANUS, Comm. in quinque libros Decretalium, in cap. Quoniam de constitutionibus (Venice, 1674); DE LUCA, Il Cardinale pratico; cap. della congr. del Concilio di Trento; DANIELI, op. cit., s. v.; MUeHLBAUER, Thesaurus resolutionum S. Congr. Concilii usque ad annum 1871 (Munich, 1872-); ZAMBONI, Collectio declarationum, S. Congr. Card. Conc. Trid. interpretum (Rome, 1816); GAMBERINI, Resolutiones select S. Congr. Concilii, qu consentanee ad Trid. PP. decreta aliasque juris canonici sanctiones prodierunt in causis propositis per summaria precum, ann, 1823-1825 (1842); STREMLER, Traites des peines eccl. de l'appel et des Congreg. rom. (Paris, 1860); RICHTER-SCHULTE, Canones et decreta Concilii Tridentini (Leipzig, 1853); PALLOTTINI, Coll. omnium conclusionum et resolutionum qu in causis propositis apud S. Congreg. Cardinalium prodierunt ab anno 1564 ad annum 1860 (Rome, 1868-); LINGEN-REUSS, Caus select in S. Congr. Card. Conc. Trid. interpr. proposit per summaria precum ab anno 1823 usque ad annum 1869 (Ratisbon, 1871); PARAYRE, La s. congregation du concile (1897); SAeGMUeLLER, Die Geschichte der Congr. Conc, Trid. vor d. Motuproprio "Alias nos" v. 2 aug., 1564, in Arch. f. k. KR., LXXX (1900); IDEM, Die visitatio liminum SS. Apostolorum bis Bonifaz VIII in Theol. Quartalschr., LXXXII (1900), 69 sqq. V. COHELLIUS, op. cit., Congr. VIII pro consultationibus episcoporum et aliorum prelatorum; Congr. IX pro consultationibus regularium; LUNADORO, op. cit., cap. xi, Della congregazione dei vescovi e dei regolari, del segretario e di altri ministri di detta congregazione; cap. xiii, Della congregazione della disciplina regolare; DE LUCA, Rel. rom. curi for., disc. 16; IDEM, Il cardinale pratico, cap. xxvii, Della congregazione sopra i negozi dei vescovi e dei regolari dell' uno e dell' altro sesso; DANIELLI, op. cit., s. v.; BIZZARRI, Collectanea in usum secretari S. Congr. episcoporum et regularium (Rome, 1885); BASTIEN, Directoire canonique `a l'usage des congregations `a v ux simples (Maredsous, 1904); BATTANDIER, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des instituts `a v ux simples (2nd ed., Paris, 1905); ARNDT, Rechtsbestimmungen fuer Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908). VII. COHELLIUS, op. cit.; Congr. X pro indice librorum prohibitorum; GRETSER, De jure et more prohibendi expurgandi et abolendi libros haereticos et noxios (Ingoldstadt, 1653); RAYNAUDUS, Erotemata de malis ac bonis libris deque justa aut injusta eorum confixione (Lyons, 1653); LUNADORO, op. cit., cap. ix, Della congregazione dell' indice e del segretario della medesima; DE LUCA, Rel. rom. Curiae for., disc. 19; FRANCUS, Disquisitio academica de papistarum indicibus librorum prohibendorum et expurgandorum (Leipzig, 1684); ORTLOB, Diss, phil. de Ephesinorum libris curiosis combustis (Leipzig, 1708); BOEHMER, Dissert. jurid. de jure circa libros improbatae lectionis (Magdeburg, 1726); SCHOeTTGEN, De indicibus librorum prohibit. et expurg. eorumque n vis (Dresden, 1733); RUELE, Saggio dell' istoria dell' indice romano (Rome, 1739); CATALANI, De secretario S. Congregationis Indicis (Rome, 1751); SCHENEIDT, Jus et obligatio prohibendi libros (Wuerzburg, 1768); FRITSCH, Dissertationes de censura librorum et propositionum in negotiis religionis (Breslau, 1775); ZACCARIA, Storia polemica della proibisione dei libri (Rome, 1777); PEIGNOT, Dictionnaire critique, litteraire et bibliographique des principaux livres condamnes au feu, supprimes ou censures (Paris, 1806); MENDHAM, The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome exhibited in an Account of Her Damnatory Catalogues or Indices (London, 1826); ERNESTI, Ueber das recht bes. der Hierarchie auf Censur und Buecherverbote (1829); HEYMANS, De ecclesiastica librorum aliorumque scriptorum in Belgio prohibitione (Brussels, 1849); FESSLER, Das kirchliche Buecherverbot (Vienna, 1858); Die roemische Indexcongregation und ihr Wirken (Munich, 1863); BALLES, La s. congregation de l'index mieux connue et vengee (1866); SACHSE, Die Anfaenge der Buechercensur in Deutschland (1870); ZIGLIARA, Il dimittatur e la spiegazione datane dalla s. congr. dell' indice ed il cardinal Zigliara (Rome, 1882); REUSCH, Der Index d. verbotenen Buecher (Bonn, 1883); POULAIN, L'index; son origine, son but et sa valeur (Dieppe, 1884); PETIT, L'index; son histoire, ses lois, sa force obligatoire (Paris, 1888); PERIES, Du droit de l'Eglise de prohiber les livres dangereux in Journal du droit canon. (1892); ARNDT, De libris prohibitis commentarii (Ratisbon, 1895); DILGSKRON, De revisione et approbatione librorum typis describendorum in Anal. eccl. (1891-97); HOLLWECK, Das kirchliche Buecherverbot (Mainz, 1897); PLANCHARD, L'Index in Rev. theol, franc. (March-june, 1897); DESJARDINS, La nouvelle constitution apostolique sur l'index in Etudes (March-May, 1897); PENNACCHI, In conts. ap. "Officiorum ac munerum" de prohibitione et censura librorum a Leone d. pr. PP. XIII latam brevis commentatio (Rome, 1898); PERIES, L'index, comment. de la constitution apostolique "Officiorum" (Paris, 1898); MOUREAU, La nouvelle legislation de l'index (Lille, 1898); BOUDINHON, La nouvelle legislation de l'index (Paris, 1899); HILGERS, Zur kirch. Gesetsgebung ueber verbot. Buecher in Stimmen aus Maria Laach, I (1899), 258 sqq.; SCHNEIDER, Die neuen Buechergesetze der katholischen Kirche (Mainz, 1899); ARNDT, Die Vorschriften ueber das Verbot und die Censur der Buecher (Trier, 1900); HILGENREINER, D. kirchl. Vorzensur u. d. Particularrecht (Vienna, 1901); SCHNEIDER, D. neue Index in Arch. f. k. KR., LXXXI (1901), 291, 302; HILGENREINER, Der Index der vorbotenen Buecher in Th. prat. Qrtschr., pt. II (1901); SLEUTJES De prohibitione et censura librorum (Gulpen, 1903); HILGERS, Der Index der verbotenen Buecher in seiner neuen Fassung dargelegt und rechtlich-historisch gewuerdigt (Freiburg i. Br., 1904); GENNARI, La costituzione "Officiorum" brevemente commentata (Rome, 1905); CIOLLI, Comm. breve della costituzione leonina riguardo ai libri proibiti (Rome, 1906); VERMEERSCH, De prohibitione et censura librorum dissertatio canonico-moralis (Rome, 1906); HILGERS, Die Buecherverbote in Pabstbriefen (Freiburg, 1907); ARENDT, De quibusdam dubiis qu occurrunt in doctrinali interpretatione leoninae constitutionis de prohibitione librorum brevis disceptatio (Rome, 1907); HURLEY, Comment. on the Present Index Legislation (Dublin, 1908). VIII. COHELLIUS, op. cit., Congr. V pro sacris ritibus et c remoniis; LUNADORO, op. Cit., cap. xiv, Della congregazione de' sagri riti, del promotore della fede e di altri personaggi di detta congregazione; DE LUCA, Rel. rom. curiae for., disc, 18; DANIELI, op. cit., s. v.; BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione (Rome, 1747-49); Acta canonizationis SS. Fidelis a Sigmaringa, Camilli de Lellis, Petri Regalati, Iosephi a Leonissa, et Catharinae de Riciis una cum apostolicis litt. SS. D. N. Benedicti XIV et vaticana basilicae ornatus descriptione (Rome, 1749); BENEDICT XIV, Appendices ad quatuor libros de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione (Rome, 1749); SS. D. N. Benedicti XIV P. O. M. acta et decreta in causis beatificationum et canonizationum aliisque ad sacrorum rituum materiam pertinentibus ad annum pontificatus sui decimum (Rome, 1751); DE AZEVEDO, SS. D. N. Benedicti PP. XIV doctrina de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione in synopsim redacta (Naples, 1854); Decreta authentica Congr. Sacrorum Rituum ex actis ejusdem collecta, ejusque auctoritate promulgata (Rome, 1898-). IX. LUNADORO, op. cit., cap. xiv, Della congregazione dei ceremoniale e dei maestri delle ceremonie. XI. COHELLIUS, op. cit., Congregatio XIX pro universitate studii romani; CATERINI, Collectio legum et ordinationum de recta studiorum ratione iussu Emi. ac Rmi. Domini Cardinalis Aloysii Lambruschini SS. D. N. Gregorii XVI P. M. a Secretis Status, Sacra Congregationis studiis moderandis pr fecti (Rome, 1841); CAPALTI, Collectio legum et ordinationum de recta studiorum ratione ab anno 1842 usque ad annum 1852 jussu Card. Raphaelis Fornari pr fecti . . . continuata (Rome, 1852). XIII. VESPIGNANI, Compendium privilegiorum rev, fabric S. Petri (Rome, 1674); CANCELLIERI, De secretariis basilica Vaticana veteris et nov (Rome, 1786); DE NICOLAIS, De Vaticana basilica S. Petri ac de ejusdem privilegiis (Rome, 1817). AUBERY, Histoire generale des cardinaux (Paris, 1642); COHELLIUS, Notitia cardinalatus in qua nedum de S. R. E. cardinalium origine dignitate pr eminentia et privilegiis sed de pr cipuis romana aulae officialibus pertractatur (Rome, 1653); LUNADORO, Relatione della corte di Roma (Venice, 1664); DE LUCA, Il cardinale pratico (Rome, 1680); PLETTENBERG, Notitia congregationum et tribunalium curia romanae (Hildesheim, 1693); DE LUCA, Relatio curia romana forensis eiusque tribunalium et congregationum (Venice, 1759); PLATUS, Tract, de cardinalis dignitate et officio (Rome, 1746), cap. xxviii, app.; BANGEN, Die roemische Kurie, ihre gegenwaert. Zusammensetzung und ihr Geschaeftsgang (MUeNSTER, 1854); HAINE, Synopsis S. R. E. Cardinalium Congregationum (Louvain, 1857); IDEM, De la cour romaine sous le pontificat de Pie IX (Louvain, 1859); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VI (Ratisbon, 1864); SIMOR, De sacr. congr. et illarum auctoritate in Arch. f. k. KR., XI (1864), 410 sqq.; GRIMALDI, Les conqregations romaines (Siena, 1890), this work is on the Index; SAeGMUeLLER, Die Taetigkeit und Stellung der Kardinaele bis P. Bonifaz VIII (Freiburg, 1896); LEGA, Pr lect. in textum jur. can. de judiciis ecclesiasticis, II (Rome, 1896), 6 sqq.; IDEM, De origine et natura sacr. roman. congregationum in Anal. eccl., IV (1896), 45 sqq.; IDEM, De modo procedendi congregationibus romanis communi in Anal. eccl., IV, 277 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, II (Rome, 1906), 619 sqq.; HILLING, Die roemische Kurie (Paderborn, 1906); HOFMANN, Die Neuregelung der roem. Kurie durch Pius X in Zeitschr. f. k. Theol., XXXIII, 198 sqq.; PARAYRE, La nouvelle organisation du gouvernement central de l'Eglise (Lyons, 1908); FOURNERET, La reforme de la curie rom. in Le canoniste cont., 33, 16, 65; CHOUPIN in Etudes (1908), 308, 604; OJETTI, De romana curia (Rome, 1910); SIMIER, La curie romaine (Paris, 1909); CAPPELLO, De curia romana juxta reform. a Pio X sapient. inductam (Rome, 1911). BENEDETTO OJETTI Roman Curia Roman Curia Strictly speaking, the ensemble of departments or ministries which assist the sovereign pontiff in the government of the Universal Church. These are the Roman Congregations, the tribunals, and the offices of Curia (Ufficii di Curia). The Congregations, being the highest and most extensive departments of the Pontifical Government, are treated elsewhere under ROMAN CONGREGATIONS. This article deals in particular with the tribunals and the offices of Curia (Ufficii di Curia), in addition to which something will be said of the commissions of cardinals and the pontifical family. I. TRIBUNALS According to the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of Pius X, the tribunals of the Curia are three: the Sacred Penitentiaria, the Sacred Roman Rota, and the Apostolic Signatura. A. The Sacred Penitentiaria The origin of this tribunal cannot be assigned with any reasonable certainty. Some authors, like Cardinal De Luca (Relatio curisae rom. forensis, diss. xii), think that the office of penitentiary dates from the primitive Church; Lega (Prael. de judiciis eccl., II, 263, not.) refers it to the time of Pope Cornelius (204), who is said to have appointed penitentiaries pro lapsis. Penitentiaries are certainly more ancient in the East than in the West. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordained the establishment of a penitentiary in each cathedral. The Roman Church, if not the first, was at least one of the first in the West to establish penitentiaries. According to some authorities, from the seventh century, that is from the pontificate of Benedict II, the penitentiary of the Roman Church was a cardinal priest; this was certainly the case before Gregory X (d. 1276). Gregory IX calls Cardinal Nicola de Romania "poenitentiarius felicis recordationis Honorii pap. praedecessoris". Prior to 1205 Giraldus Cambrensis mentions Giovanni di S. Paolo, of the title of St. Priscilla, as one who heard confessions in the place of the pope; he was probably a cardinal of that title. The office of penitentiary assumed greater importance when the reservation of cases to the pope or the bishops began. At the end of the sixth century (592) St. Gregory the Great reserved to himself the excommunication with which he threatened Archbishop John of Larissa for unjustly deposing Adrian, Bishop of Thebes. The first universally recognized case of a general papal reservation of an offence is that of Innocent II, who, at the Council of Clermont (1130), reserved to himself in every case absolution from the crime of striking a cleric. This reservation was confirmed by him in the following year at the Council of Reims, where he also reserved to himself the absolution of incendiaries and their accomplices. Thenceforth reservations increased in number, and an office became necessary to answer those who, guilty of some offence, asked of the sovereign pontiff absolution from the censure incurred, and reserved to the Holy See, or, being unable to repair to Rome, asked to be absolved from some sin reserved to the pope by a priest of their own land, who would of course require a special delegation. In the time of Cardinal Berenger Fredol, penitentiary from 1309 to 1323, the office of the Penitentiaria was in existence, with various subordinates and employees, under the direction of a cardinal penitentiary, whom Clement V called paenitentiarius major [c. ii. de elect, etc. (I. 3) in Clem.]. Under Alexander IV and Urban IV, Cardinal Hugo of St-Cher (or of San Caro) was called poenitentiarius summus, or sedis apostolicae paenilentiarius generalis. For the earlier history of this tribunal see the excellent work of P. Chouet, "La sacree penitencerie apostolique" (Lyons, 1908), in which may be found the details of its original constitution. The present article deals only with the recent constitution of this tribunal. The Sacred Penitentiary consists in the first place of the cardinal chief penitentiary (paenitentiarius major) appointed by a Brief of the sovereign pontiff. Pius V, followed by Benedict XIV, decreed that this functionary should be chosen from among the cardinal priests, and must be a master in theology or doctor of canon law (magister in theologia seu decretorum doctor). He must transact the business of his office personally, or if prevented from so doing, he must provide a substitute in another cardinal qualified as above stated, and who takes the title of pro-chief penitentiary. During his term of office he acts in his own name, and not in that of the cardinal by whom he is delegated. To the cardinal chief penitentiary is assigned a regent of the Penitentiaria. This officer, like the others of whom we shall speak, is selected by the cardinal penitentiary and presented to the pope; and if approved by him is appointed by a letter of the cardinal himself. After the regent comes the theologian, whom it has long been usual to select from the Society of Jesus; then come the datary, the canonist, the corrector, the sealer (sigillatore), and some copyists, besides a secretary, a surrogate (sostituto), and an archivist. The signatura (Segnatura) of the Penitentiaria (its congress) is the meeting at which the most important cases are considered. It is formed of the cardinal penitentiary, the theologian, the datary, the corrector, the sealer (sigillatore), and the canonist, the secretary also taking part in it, but without a vote. The other members of the meeting are only consulted, the decision of the case being left entirely to the cardinal penitentiary, who, if in doubt as to the extent of his faculties, refers the matter to the Holy Father. The minor penitentiaries of certain Roman churches and of the Holy House of Loreto must be mentioned as in some way related to the Sacred Penitentiaria. At Rome, they are attached to the three Basilicas of St. John Lateran, St. Peter, and St. Mary Major. At St. John Lateran the office is filled by the Friars Minor. At St. Peter's it was formerly filled by Jesuits, but, at the suppression of the Society by Clement XIV, their place was taken by Minor Conventuals, who still retain it; these are thirteen in number, but there are also at St. Peter's fourteen other "adjunct" penitentiaries -- Carmelites, Friars Minor, Augustinians, Servites. At St. Mary Major the penitentiaries are Dominicans. At Loreto the Jesuits served as penitentiaries until their suppression, when they were succeeded by the Minor Conventuals, who still hold the office. The minor penitentiaries may not be removed by their superiors, either from Rome or from Loreto, without the permission of the Holy See. They are authorized to hear the confessions of all the faithful, not excepting religious, who may come to the minor penitentiaries without the permission of their religious superiors. The faculties of these penitentiaries are very ample; and care is taken, as a rule, that there may be priests of different languages among them, to hear the confessions of pilgrims or other foreigners who do not speak Italian. The cardinal penitentiary assists the pope at the hour of death, reciting the customary prayers for the dying, etc. It is he, also, who at the beginning of a jubilee, offers to the pope the golden hammer, to give the first three knocks at the Holy Door (Porta Santa) of St. Peter's, which door is opened only during the Holy Year, or year of the jubilee. After the pope, the cardinal penitentiary himself knocks twice with the hammer. It is also the office of the cardinal penitentiary, at the end of the jubilee year, when the Holy Door is to be closed, to present to the pope the trowel and the mortar, to begin the walling up of the door. In Holy Week, the cardinal penitentiary, surrounded by those officers who constitute the signatura, or congress of the Penitentiaria, sits four times -- Palm Sunday, Wednesday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday -- in the penitential cathedra, or chair, set in each of the three above-mentioned Roman basilicas, and awaits for some time those who may wish to confess to him, striking lightly upon the head with his traditional rod (also used by the minor penitentiaries) those who may kneel before him with that intention, beginning with the officers of the Sacred Penitentiaria. On the part of the faithful this ceremony is public confession of having sinned against God, and a request for forgiveness by ecclesiastical authority of sins committed. The Sacred Penitentiaria was always provided with great powers, formerly of internal jurisdiction only, but as time went on, of external jurisdiction also. Under the latter head its work so increased that the administration of this tribunal was greatly hampered. Several popes disapproved of this, especially Pius IV, who planned a reform both of its constitution and of its field of action, or competency. Death prevented him from carrying this into effect: it was realized by St. Pius V, who, in 1569, by his Constitution "In omnibus", reformed the organization of the Penitentiaria, while he modified its competency by his other Constitution "Ut bonus paterfamilias", both dated 18 May of that year. The competency of the Penitentiaria was confined to matters of internal jurisdiction. Little by little, the successors of Pius V increased the faculties of this tribunal; and, as many of these new concessions were made by word of mouth (vivae vocis oraculo), there arose new doubts to be solved; wherefore, to remove uncertainties Innocent XII, in 1682, formulated a new list of faculties for the Penitentiaria; but, the sovereign pontiff having delayed the solution of some doubts, and difficulties having arisen in regard to the interpretation of his Constitution, the desired end was not attained while, on the other hand, new faculties were granted to the Sacred Penitentiaria by succeeding popes. Consequently, Benedict XIV as constrained to define better the faculties of this tribunal, which that learned pontiff did by his famous Constitution, "Pastor bonus", of April, 1744, wherein he enumerated the faculties of the Sacred Penitentiaria more or less as they had been granted by Pius V, although broader in some respects. It is more remarkable that he granted some powers of external jurisdiction; hence until now the Penitentiaria has had, as an exceptional faculty, the power of dispensing destitute or needy persons from public matrimonial impediments. The Constitution "Sapienti consilio" of Pius X has confined the competency of the Penitentiaria to its former scope, limiting it to internal jurisdiction. The power to dispense from matrimonial impediments in relation to external jurisdiction, for all classes of people, having been granted to the Congregation of the Sacraments, the tribunal of the Penitentiaria received jurisdiction in all internal matters, in relation to which it is empowered to grant graces of all kinds -- absolutions, dispensations, commutations, ratifications in matter of impediments, condonations. This tribunal also deals with questions of conscience submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. It should be observed here that the chief penitentiary's powers of internal jurisdiction, even before the recent Constitution, held during the vacancy of the Holy See, while his power of external jurisdiction, with a few exceptions, was suspended. As to the procedure of the Penitentiaria, it follows the rules set down in the Constitution "In apostolicae" of Benedict XIV, in all that is not at variance with the new Constitution of Pius X. It transacts its business under the greatest secrecy, and gratuitously (omnino secreto et gratis). It is chiefly a tribunal of mercy, as Benedict XIV asserts in his Constitution "Pastor bonus"; wherefore it is appropriate that its seal should bear, as is the case, an image of the Virgin Mother with the Child in her arms. Recourse is had to the Penitentiaria by means of a letter (written by the party interested or by that party's confessor) exposing the case, without, however, naming the person concerned. The letter is addressed to the cardinal penitentiary, and may be written in any language. The name and address of the person to whom the answer is to be sent must be clearly given. The following may serve as an example of applications to be made to the Penitentiaria: "Your Eminence: Tizio and Caia [which must be fictitious names] wishing to be united in the bonds of holy matrimony ask Your Eminence for dispensation from the following impediments: (1) an impediment of the first degree in the direct line, that now is, and most probably will remain, concealed, originating in illicit relations between Tizio and the mother of Caia, after the latter's birth; (2) an impediment of crime, which is also concealed, originating in adultery between the petitioners while the first wife of Tizio still lived, with a mutual promise of marriage in case of the first wife's death. The reasons for this petition are . . . [here the facts are given]. The answer may be addressed as follows. . . ." Fictitious names may be given, with the request that the answer be sent to the General Delivery, or, if preferred, to the confessor of the interested party. The letter containing the petition should be addressed: "To His Eminence the Cardinal Chief Penitentiary, Palace of the Holy Office, Rome". We give this example of petitions to the Sacred Penitentiary as the faithful are in frequent need of recourse to that tribunal. The grace that is sought and the reasons why it should be granted vary, of course, in different cases. B. The Sacred Roman Rota See SACRA ROMANA ROTA. C. The Apostolic Signatura In former times, there was only one Signatura, i.e. there were a few assistants who were commissioned by the sovereign pontiff to investigate the petitions addressed to the Holy See, and to report concerning them. These functionaries were called Referendarii apostolici. Vitale, in his "Comm. de iure signaturae justitiae", says that there is record of the referendaries as such in 1243. Innocent IV mentions them. As time went on, recourse to the Holy See becoming more and more frequent, whether to obtain graces or to submit cases to the decision of the pope, the number of the referendaries increased considerably. Alexander VI deemed it expedient to define their office better, which he did by creating a double Signatura -- the Signatura of Grace, and the Signatura of Justice -- to which the referendaries were severally assigned. As the office of referendary was a very honourable one, it came to be conferred frequently as a merely honorary title, so that the number of the referendaries was unduly increased; and Sixtus V was constrained, in 1586, to limit the referendaries of the Signatura of Justice to 100, and those of the Signatura of Grace to 70. Alexander VII combined the referendaries of both Signaturas into a college, with a dean. These were called "voting referendaries",' and actually exercised their office. The others remained as "supernumerary referendaries" (extra numerum). In 1834 Gregory XVI gave a new organization to the Signatura of Justice. On the other hand, the Signatura of Grace gradually disappeared: no mention is made of it after 1847 in the catalogues of the tribunals and officials of the Curia. The Signatura of Grace, also called Signatura of the Holy Father (Signatura Sanctissimi), was held in the presence of the sovereign pontiff, and there were present at it some cardinals and many prelates, chief among the latter being the voters of this Signatura. At the invitation of the Holy Father, the voters voted upon the matters under consideration, but that vote was merely consultative. The Holy Father reserved to himself the decision in each case, announcing it then and there, or later, if he chose, through his "domestic auditor", as De Luca calls him, or "auditor of the Holy Father" (auditor sanctissimi), as he was called later. The Signatura of Justice was a genuine tribunal, presided over in the name of the pope by a cardinal prefect. The voters of this Signatura were present at it, and their vote was not consultative, but definitive. As a rule, the cardinal prefect voted only when his vote was necessary for a decision. Pius X, in the Constitution by which he reorganized the Curia, abolished the two ancient Signaturas, and created a new one that has nothing in common with the other two. The Signatura now consists of six cardinals, appointed by the pope, one of whom is its prefect. It has a secretary, a notary, who must be a priest, some consultors, and a few subordinate officers. The present Signatura is a genuine tribunal which ordinarily has jurisdiction in four kinds of cases, namely: + accusations of suspicions against an auditor of the Rota; + accusations of violation of secrecy by an auditor of the Rota; + appeals against a sentence of the Rota; + petitions for the nullification of a decision of the Rota that has already become res judicata. As a temporary commission, the pope gave to the Signatura the mandate and the power to review the sentences passed by the Roman Congregations before the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio". This commission was given to the Signatura through an answer by the Consistorial Congregation on the subject of a doubt relating to a case of this kind. Of course the Holy Father may on special occasions give other commissions of this nature to the Apostolic Signatura. II. OFFICES OF CURIA These are five in number: The Apostolic Chancery; Apostolic Dataria; Apostolic Camera; Secretariate of State; Secretariate of Briefs. A. The Apostolic Chancery (Cancelleria Apostolica) This office takes its name from civil law and from the imperial chanceries, and is certainly of very ancient origin in its essence. The primacy of the Roman See made it necessary that the sovereign pontiff should have in his service officers to write and to transmit his answers to the numerous petitions for favours and to the numerous consultations addressed to him. This office, in course of time, underwent many transformations, to the most important of which only we shall refer. After Martin V had instituted a large number of offices in the Chancery, Sixtus V placed many of them in the class of vacabili, as they were then called. The origin of this institution was as follows: The pope was often compelled, in defence of Christendom, to wage war, to fit out expeditions, or at least to give financial assistance to the princes who waged such wars at his exhortation. But the pontifical treasury, on the other hand, was often without the means to defray even the expenses of the Pontifical States, and it became imperative to raise funds. Accordingly, the popes resorted to the expedient of selling several lucrative offices of the Curia, and, as a rule, to the highest bidder. It should be observed, however, that what was sold was not the office itself, but the receipts of the office, e.g., the taxes for the favours granted through the office in question. Some offices were sold with the right of succession by the heirs of the purchaser. This, however, could be done only in the case of an office of minor importance, in the exercise of which no special ability was required. Those offices which entailed grave responsibilities, and which could be filled only by pious and learned men, were sold on the condition that they should revert to the Curia at the death of the purchaser. An aleatory contract, therefore, was made, the uncertainty being, on the one side, the amount of the income of the office and, on the other, the length of life of the purchaser. The prices of the offices, especially of the more desirable ones, were considerable: Lorenzo Corsini, afterwards Clement XII, bought the office of regent of the Chancery for 30,000 Roman scudi -- a large fortune for those times. The hazard was not necessarily confined to the life of the purchaser; he was free to establish it upon the life of another person, provided the latter (called the intestatary) were expressly designated. The purchaser was also allowed to change the life hazard from one person to another, providing this were done forty days before the death of the last preceding intestatary. The offices of the Chancery which were transformed into vacabili by Sixtus V were those of the regent, of the twenty-five solicitors, of the twelve notaries, auditors of the causes of the Holy Palace, and others. Sixtus V assigned the proceeds of these sales to the vice-chancellor (see below) as part of the latter's emoluments; but this too liberal prescription in favour of the cardinal who presided over the Chancery was revoked by Innocent XI, who assigned the revenue in question to the Apostolic Camera. Alexander VIII restored these revenues to the vice-chancellor, who, at that time, was the pope's nephew, Pietro Ottoboni. Under Napoleon I the Government redeemed many of the vacabili, and but few remained. Pius VII, after his return to Rome, undertook a reform of the Chancery, and wisely reduced the number of the offices. But, as he himself granted to the vacabili the privilege that, by a legal fiction, time should be regarded as not having transpired (quod tempus et tempera non currant), and many proprietors of vacabili having obtained grants of what was called sopravivevza by which deceased intestataries were considered to be living, it came to pass that certain offices remained vacabili in name, but not in fact. Finally, Leo XIII (1901) suppressed all the vacabili offices, ordering his pro-datary to redeem them, when necessary, the datary's office being substituted for the proprietors. Since the Constitution of Pius X, the Chancery has been reduced to a forwarding office (Ufficio di Spedizione) with a small personnel; there are, besides the cardinal who presides over the Chancery, the regent, with the college of Apostolic prothonotaries, a notary, secretary and archivist, a protocolist, and four amanuenses. The presiding cardinal, prior to the recent Constitution, was called vice-chancellor. The authors who wrote on the Chancery gave many ingenious reasons why that dignitary should not have received the more obvious title of chancellor. Cardinal De Luca regarded these explanations as senseless (simplicitates et fabllae), and proposed an explanation of his own, without, however, insisting on its correctness. According to him, it was probable that the title of vice-chancellor arose in the same way as the title of pro-datary, the custom having been to call the head of the datary office (dataria) the datary (datario), if he were not a cardinal, and the pro-datary (pro datario), if he were a cardinal. The reason for this must be sought in the fact that the office of datary was really not that of a cardinal, but rather of minor dignity; wherefore it did not seem well to give the title of datary to a cardinal. The same custom still obtains in the case of a nuncio who is elevated to the cardinalate: he retains his position for a time, but with the title of pro-nuncio. This theory of De Luca's, if not altogether certain, is at least probable. The new Constitution, however, establishes that the head of the Chancery shall hereafter be called chancellor, a very reasonable provision, seeing that this office has been filled for centuries by cardinals. For the rest, the office in question was always regarded as one of the most honourable and most important of the Curia, as may be seen from Moroni's account of the funeral of Cardinal Alexander Farnese, vice-chancellor, and arch-priest of the Vatican Basilica. The authority of the vice-chancellor was increased when, under Alexander VIII in 1690, there was added to his office, in perpetuity, that of compiler (sommista). At present the chancellor retains little of his former influence and attributes. He acts as notary in the consistories and directs the office of the chancery. The greatest splendour of the chancellor was under Leo X, from whose successor, Clement VII, this functionary received as residence the Palazzo Riario, long known as the Cancelleria Apostolica, where he resides at the present day. His former residence was in the Palazzo Borgia, from which he moved to the Palazzo Sforza Cesarini, the latter palace being, on this account, known for a long time as the Cancelleria Vecchia. The removal of the vice-chancellor's residence and office to the majestic Palazzo Riario, in the Campo di Fiori, was due to the confiscation of the property of Cardinal Raffaele Riario for his share, with Cardinals Petrucci, Sacchi, Soderini, and Castellesi, in a conspiracy against the life of Leo X. Contiguous to the Cancelleria, in fact forming a part of it, is the Church of San Lorenzo in Damaso. When Clement VII assigned this palace as the perpetual residence of the vice-chancellor, he provided that the vice-chancellor should always have the title of that church; and, as it happens that the chancellors are not always of the same order in the Sacred College, being sometimes cardinal-deacons, sometimes cardinal-priests, and sometimes cardinal-bishops, this church does not follow the rule of the other cardinalitial churches, which have a fixed grade, being titular -- that is churches over which cardinals of the order of priests are placed -- or deaconries -- churches over which are placed cardinal-deacons. San Lorenzo, on the contrary, is a titular when the chancellor ia of the order of priests, and a deaconry when he is a cardinal-deacon. When, on the other hand, he is a sub-urbicarian bishop, the chancellor retains this church in commendam. The Regency, which is the next office in the order of precedence in the Chancery after the chancellorship, was created in 1377, when Gregory XI returned from France to his see. Cardinal Pierre de Monteruc, who was the chancellor at that time, refused to follow the pope from Avignon to Rome; and, as it was necessary that someone should direct the office of the Chancery, the pope, leaving the title of vice-chancellor to Monteruc, appointed the Archbishop of Ban, Bartolommeo Prignano, regent of this important office. At the death of Gregory XI, in 1378, Prignano was elected pope, and he appointed a successor to himself in the office of regent of the Chancery, which was thereafter maintained, even when the vice-chancellor re-established his residence at Rome. There is not space here to refer in detail to the other offices of the Chancery, and the subject is the less important, since the greater number of those offices have now disappeared for good. At present the Chancery is charged only with the expedition of Bulls for consistorial benefices, the establishment of new dioceses and new chapters, and other more important affairs of the Church. (For the various forms of Apostolic Letters, see BULLS AND BRIEFS.) One fact concerning the expedition of Bulls should be mentioned. Formerly, there were four different ways of issuing these documents, namely, by way of the Curia (per viam curios), by way of the Chancery (per cancellarium), secretly (per viam secretam), and by way of the Apostolic Camera (per viam cameras). The reason for this is that, while some Bulls were taxed, there was no taxation on others, and it was necessary to determine upon what Bulls the proprietors of the vacabili offices had a right to receive taxes. Bulls, therefore, which concerned the government of the Catholic world, being exempt from all taxation, were said to be issued by way of the Curia. Those Bulls of which the expedition was by way of the Chancery were the common Bulls, which, after being reviewed by the abbreviators of the greater presidency (see ABBREVIATORS), were signed by them and by the proprietors of the vacabili, the latter of whom received the established taxes. The Bulls said to be issued secretly were those in favour of some privileged persons -- as the palatine prelates, the auditors of the Rota, and the relatives of cardinals. They were signed by the vice-chancellor, and they, too, were exempt from taxation. Finally, the Bulls of which the expedition was said to be by way of the Camera were those that concerned the Apostolic Camera. Since the style and the rules of the Chancery could not be adapted to these Bulls, they were issued by the sommista, whose office was created by Alexander VI and later, as was said above, united by Alexander VIII with that of the vice-chancellor. At the present time, all the vacabili having been abolished, these various forms of expedition have been suppressed, the new Constitution providing that all Bulls be issued by way of the Chancery, on order of the Congregation of the Consistory for all matters of the competency of that body, and by order of the pope for all others. This is in keeping with the new organization of the Chancery as a merely issuing office. The Constitution "Sapienti consilio" provided that the ancient formulae of Bulls should be changed, and the duty of preparing new ones was given to a commission of cardinals composed of the chancellor, the datary, and the secretary of the Consistorial Congregation. This commission has already reformed the Bulls for the Consistorial benefices, and Pius X, by his Motu Proprio of 8 December, 1910, approved the new formula; and ordered them to be used exclusively after 1 January, 1911. The college of the abbreviators of the greater presidency having been suppressed, and the abbreviators of the lesser presidency having become extinct in fact, the Apostolic prothonotaries in actual office have been appointed to sign the Bulls. A very reasonable change has also been made in regard to the dating of Bulls. Formerly Bulls were dated according to the year of the Incarnation, which begins on 25 March. This medieval style of dating remained peculiar to papal Bulls, and in time gave rise to much confusion. Pius X ordered these documents to be dated in future according to common custom, by the year which begins on 1 January. Mention should here be made of what are known as the Rules of the Chancery. This name was given to certain Apostolic Constitutions which the popes were in the habit of promulgating at the beginning of their pontificate, in regard to judicial causes and those concerning benefices. In many cases the pope merely confirmed the provisions of his predecessor; in others he made additions or suppressions. The result has been an ancient collection of standing rules which remained unmodified even in the recent reorganization of the Curia. These Rules are usually divided into three classes: rules of direction or expedition, which concern the expedition of Bulls; beneficial or reservatory rules, relating to benefices and reservations; lastly, judicial rules, concerning certain prescriptions to be observed in judicial matters, especially with relation to appeals. The Rules of the Chancery have the force of law, and are binding wherever exceptions have not been made to them by a concordat. In ancient times, these rules ceased to be in force at the death of the sovereign pontiff, and were revived only upon the express confirmation of the succeeding pope. Urban VIII, however, declared that, without an express confirmation, the Rules of the Chancery should be in force on the day after the creation of the new pope. It would be outside of the scope of this article to enter into a minute examination of these rules, all the more because the commission of cardinals charged with the reformation of the formulae of Bulls has also charge of revising the Rules of the Chancery. B. The Apostolic Dataria According to some authorities, among them Amydenus (De officio et jurisdictione datarii necnon de stylo Datariae), this office is of very ancient origin. It is not so, however, as appears from the fact that the business which eventually fell to it was originally transacted elsewhere. The Dataria was entrusted, chiefly, with the concession of matrimonial dispensations of external jurisdiction, and with the collation of benefices reserved to the Holy See. To this double faculty was added that of granting many other indults and graces, but these additions were made later. Until the time of Pius IV matrimonial dispensations were granted through the Penitentiaria; and as to the collation of reserved benefices, that authority could not have been granted in very remote times, since the establishment of those reservations is comparatively recent: although some vestige of reservations is found even prior to the twelfth century, the custom was not frequent before Innocent II, and it was only from the time of Clement IV that the reservation of benefices was adopted as a general rule [c. ii, "De pract. et dignit." (III, 4) in 6DEG]. It may be said that, while this office certainly existed in the fourteenth century, as an independent bureau, it is impossible to determine the precise time of its creation. The Dataria consists, first, of a cardinal who is its chief and who, until the recent Constitution, was called the pro-datary, but now has the official title of datary. There was formerly as much discussion about the title of pro-datary as about that of vice-chancellor (see above). Some are of opinion that it is derived from the fact that this office dated the rescripts or graces of the sovereign pontiff, while others hold it to be derived from the right to grant and give (dare) the graces and indults for which petition is made to the pope. It is certain that, on account of these functions the datary enjoyed great prestige in former times, when he was called the eye of the pope (oculus papae). After the cardinal comes the subdatary, a prelate of the Curia who assists the datary, and takes the latter's place, upon occasion, in almost all of his functions. In the old organization of the Dataria there came after the subdatary a number of subordinate officials who, as De Luca says, bore titles that were enigmatical and sibyllic, as, for example, the prefect of the per obitum, the prefect of the concessum, the cashier of the componenda, an officer of the missis, and the like. Leo XIII had already introduced reforms into the organization of the Dataria, to make it harmonize with modern requirements, and Pius X, reducing the competency of the office, gave it an entirely new organization in his Constitution "Sapienti consilio", according to which the Dataria consists of the cardinal datary, the sub-datary, the prefect and his surrogate (sostituto), a few officers, a cashier, who has also the office of distributor, a reviser, and two writers of Bulls. The new Constitution retains the theological examiners for the competitions for parishes. Among the Datary offices that have been abolished mention should be made of that of the Apostolic dispatchers, which, in the new organization of the Curia, has no longer a reason for being. Formerly these officials were necessary, because private persons could not refer directly to the Dataria, which dealt only with persons known to, and approved by, itself. Now, however, anyone may deal directly with the Dataria, as with any of the other pontifical departments. The Dataria, which, as noted above, was commissioned to grant many papal indults and graces, has now only to investigate the fitness of candidates for Consistorial benefices, which are reserved to the Holy See, to write and to dispatch the Apostolic Letters for the collation of those benefices, to dispense from the conditions required in regard to them, and to provide for the pensions, or for the execution of the charges imposed by the pope when conferring those benefices. It would be both lengthy and difficult to retrace the former modes of procedure of this office, all the more as it was mainly regulated by tradition, while this tradition was jealously guarded by the officers of the Datary, who were generally laymen, and who had in that way established a species of monopoly as detrimental to the Holy See as profitable to themselves; thus it happened that these offices often passed from father to son, while the ecclesiastical superiors of the officials were to a great extent blindly dependent upon them. Leo XIII began the reform of this condition of things so unfavourable to good administration, and Pius X has totally abolished it. C. The Apostolic Camera In the Constitution "Sapienti consilio" Pius X provided that during vacancies of the Holy See its property should be administered by this office. The cardinal-camerlengo (see CAMERLENGO) presides over the Camera, and is governed in the exercise of his office by the rules established in the Constitution, "Vacante sede apostolica", of 25 December, 1906. (For history and general treatment see APOSTOLIC CAMERA.) D. The Secretariate of State After the promulgation of the Constitution of Innocent XII, in 1692, the cardinal nephews were succeeded by the secretaries of State. Of the cardinal nephews many authors have written with greater severity than is justified by the facts, although the dignitaries in question may on more than one occasion have given cause of complaint. In times when the life of the pope was in jeopardy from conspiracies formed in his own court (such, for instance, as that against Leo X mentioned above, under A. The Apostolic Chancery), it was a necessity for the sovereign pontiff to have as his chief assistant one in whom he might repose implicit confidence, and such he could nowhere more surely find than in his own family. The cardinal nephew was called "Secretarius Papae et superintendens status ecclesiasticae". The cardinal secretary of State, who fills the place of the nephew, has been, and is, in the present day, the confidential assistant of the pope. Hence the office is vacated upon the death of the reigning pontiff. Before the promulgation of the recent Constitution of Pius X, this office of Curia comprised, besides the cardinal secretary himself, a surrogate, also called secretary of the cipher, and some clerks and subaltern officials. Now, however, there have been amalgamated with it certain other offices which were formerly independent. The Secretariate of State, therefore, is at present divided into three sections, the first of which deals with certain extraordinary ecclesiastical affairs, the second with ordinary affairs, including grants of honours, titles, and decorations by the Holy See otherwise than through the majordomo, the third with the expediting of pontifical Briefs. For the work of the first section, see what is said on the subject of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, under ROMAN CONGREGATIONS. The second section deals with the relations of the Holy See with secular princes, whether through Apostolic nuncios or legates or through the ambassadors accredited to the Vatican. This section of the office of the secretary of State has charge of the distribution of offices of the Curia, and of the election of the various officers. Through this section titles of nobility -- as prince, marquis, count palatine, etc. -- are granted and the decorations of the Holy See, which, besides the golden cross pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, instituted by Leo XIII, include such distinctions as the Supreme Order of Christ (or Order of the Militia of Jesus Christ, as it is called by Pius X in his brief of 7 February, 1905), the Order of Pius IX, established by that pontiff in 1847, the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, created by Gregory XVI in 1831; the Order of Saint Sylvester; the Order of the Golden Militia, or of the Golden Spur, restored by Pius X, and the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, of which Pius X has reserved to himself the supreme mastership. As has already been said, the third section of the Secretariate of State is exclusively concerned with the expediting of Briefs. E. The Secretariate of Briefs to Princes and of Latin Letters The Secretariate of Briefs to Princes consists of the secretary and two office assistants. The secretary is a prelate whose duty it is to write the pontifical Briefs addressed to emperors, kings, civil princes, or other exalted personages. He also prepares the allocutions which the pope pronounces at Consistories, and the Encyclicals or Apostolic Letters addressed to the bishops and to the faithful. All this he does according to the instructions of the pope. He must be a proficient Latinist, since Latin is the language in which these documents are written. The secretary for Latin letters is also a prelate or private chamberlain (cameriere segreto), his duties being to write the letters of less solemnity which the sovereign pontiff addresses to different personages. He has an office assistant. III. COMMISSIONS OF CARDINALS AND THE PONTIFICAL FAMILY Certain commissions of cardinals which still exist are the Commissions for Biblical Studies, for Historical Studies, for the Administration of the Funds of the Holy See or of the Peterspence, for the Conservation of the Faith in Rome, and for the Codification of the Canon Law. In the wider sense of the term, the Curia includes not only the departments already mentioned, but also what is officially known as the Pontifical Family. The chief members of this body are the two palatine cardinals -- cardinal datary and the cardinal secretary of State. Formerly the cardinal datary always lived with the pope; the secretary of State, even now, lives in the Vatican Palace and is the pontiff's confidential officer. After these follow the palatine prelates: majordomo, the maestro di camera, the master of the Sacred Palace, and the carnerieri segreti partecipanti (the private almoner, the secretary of Briefs to Princes, the surrogate for ordinary affairs of the Secretariate of State and secretary of the Cipher, the sub-datary, the secretary for Latin Letters, the copyist, the embassy secretary, and the master of the robes), to whom are added, as palatine prelates, the sacristan and the secretary of Ceremonies. Nearly all these prelates live in the Vatican. It would be impossible to refer, here, to each one of them in particular. The history of their offices is the same for each, connected with that of the Apostolic Palace, and with the lives of the popes. (See MAESTRO DI CAMERA DEL PAPA; MAJORDOMO.) The majordomo and maestro di camera are followed in order in the Pontifical Family by the domestic prelates of His Holiness. These are divided into colleges, the first of which is the College of the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops, Assistants to the Pontifical Throne; the second is the College of Apostolic Prothonotaries, active and supernumerary. After these come the Colleges, respectively, of the Prelate Auditors of the Rota, of the Prelate Clerics of the Apostolic Camera, and of the Domestic Prelates, simply so called. Bishops assistants to the Throne (assistentes solio pontificio) are named by a Brief of the Secretariate of State, and in virtue of their office are members of the Pontifical Chapel (Cappella Pontificia); they wear the cappa magna and wait on the pope, assisting him with the book, and holding the candle (bugia). Moreover, they may wear silk robes -- an exclusive privilege of the Pontifical Family, although many bishops, in ignorance of this rule, act at variance with it. For the College of Apostolic Prothonotaries see PROTHONOTARY APOSTOLIC. For the College of Prelate Auditors of the Rota see ROTA, SACRA ROMANA. Of the clerics of the Apostolic Camera, enough has already been said in the present article. The domestic prelates are appointed as a rule by a Motu Proprio of the pope, occasionally at the petition of their bishops, and they enjoy several privileges, among which are the use of the violet dress, which is that of a bishop (without the cross), the ring, the violet biretta, and the cappa magna. These domestic prelates are appointed for life, and retain their dignity at the death of the pope. After them in the Pontifical Family come the camerieri segreti di spada e cappa partecipanti, all of whom are laymen, the staff and the higher officers of the Pontifical Noble Guard, the supernumerary camerieri segreti or private chamberlains (ecclesiastics), the active and the supernumerary camerieri di spada e cappa (laymen), the camerieri d'onore in abito paonazzo (ecclesiastics), the camerieri d'onore extra Urbem (ecclesiastics), the camerieri d'onore di spada e cappa, active and supernumerary (laymen), the staff and the higher officers of the Swiss Guard and of the Palatine Guard of Honour, the master of pontifical ceremonies, the private chaplains, the honorary private chaplains, the honorary private chaplains extra Urbem, the chierici segreti, the College of Ordinary Pontifical Chaplains. It would be impossible to refer, here, to each of these ranks in particular. It may be said, however, of the supernumerary camerieri segreti that, like the active and the partecipanti camerieri segreli, their office ceases at the death of the pope; while it lasts they have the right to use the violet dress, of a cut slightly differing, however, from that of the prelates; on account of which difference, they are called monsignori di mantellone, while the prelates are called monsignori, di mantelletta. GOMEZ, Tract, de potestate paenitentiariarae (Venice, 1557); LEONI, Praxis ad litteras et bullas majoris Paenitentiarii et offlcii S. Paenitentiaria in quatuor partes distributa, in quibus declarantur singularum formularum clausulae et traditur modus praefatas litteras exequendi (Rome, 1644); CORRADUS, Praxis dispensationum aposiolicarum ex solidissimo Romans curies stylo inconcusse servato excerpta, praxim quoque officii S. Paenitentiaria; Urbis iuxta illius ordinationem novi status complectens (Venice, 1669); SYRUS, Dilucidatio facultatum minorum paenitentiariorum basilicarum Urbis et -praxis executionum ad litteras et rescripta S. paenitentiarice (Rome, 1699); PETRA. Tractatus de paenitentiaria apostolica (Rome, 1717); GIBBINGS, The Tax of the Apostolic Penitentiary (Dublin, 1872); DUPIN DE ST-ANDRE, Taxe de la Penitencerie apostolique d'apres I'edition publiee `a Paris en 1620 (Paris, 1879); DENIFLE, Die aelteste Taxrolle d. apostol, Poenitentiarie v. Jahre 1838 in Arch. f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch. d. MA., IV, 201 sqq. (1888); EUBEL, Der Registerband d. Kardinal-Grosspoenitentiars Bentevenga in A. f. k KR., LXIV, 3 sqq. (Mainz, 1890); LEA (ed.), A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1892); BATIFFOL, Les pretres penitentiers remains au Ye siecle, Compte-rendu du Congres internal, des catholiques `a Bruxelles, II (1894), 277 sqq.; LECACHEUX, Un formulaire de la penitencerie apostolique au temps du cardinal Albornoz (1357-8). in Melanges Arch. Hist. Ecole Franc., Rome. XVIII (1898), 37 sqq.; LANG, Beitrage zur Geschichte der apostol. Poenitenciers in Mitt. d. Instil, f. Oesterr. Geschichtsf., VII, Supplementary Number, 1904; HASKINS, The Sources for the History of the Papal Penitentiary in American Journal of Theol., LIX (1905), 422 sqq.; TARANI A SPALANNIS, Manuale theorico-practicum pro minoribus paenitentiariis (Rome, 1906); GOeLLER, Die paepstliche Poenitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgesialtung durch Pius V (Rome, 1907); CHOUET, La sacree penitencerie Apostolique (Lyons, 1904). GOMES, Compendium utriusqucae signatures (Paris, 1547); STAPHILAEUS, De litteris gratiae, de signatura gratis et liiteris apostolicis in forma brevis (Paris, 1558); MANDOSIUS, Praxis signatures gratiae (Rome, 1559); MARCHESANI, Commissionum ac rescriptorum utriusque signature S. D. N. Papas praxis (Rome, 1615); DE MATIENZO, Tract, de referendariorum, advocatorum, iudicum officio. requisitis, dignitate et eminentia (Frankfort, 1618); DE FATINELLIS, De referendariorum votantium signature iusiitiae collegia (Rome, 1696); VITALE, Comm. de iure signature iustitiae (Rome, 1756). CASSIODORUS, Super XIV reg. Cancelleriae (Paris, 1545); BARCHIN, Pratica, Cancellariae apostolicae cum stylo et formis in curia romana usitatis (Lyons, 1549); MANDOSIUS, Comm. in regulas Cancellariae lulii III (Venice, 1554); MILLUS, Annoiationes in regulas Gomesii Cancellerae apostolicae (Lyons, 1557); MANDOSIUS, In regulas Cancelleriae apostolicae commentar. (Rome, 1558); MOLINA, Comm. in regulas Cancelleriae apostolicae (Lyons, 1560); GOMES, In Cancelleriae apost. regulas iudiciales (Venice, 1575); REBUFFUS, Acid-it, in reg. Canceller-ifs (Paris, 1579); BLADIUS, Constitut. Pii IV, V et Gregor. XIII cum regulis Cancellerice (1583); GONZALEZ, Ad regulam VIII Cancell. de reservatione mensium (Geneva, 1605); BUTHILLERI, Tract, ad regul. Cancellariae de infirmis resignationibus (Paris, 1612); PELBUS, In regulas Cancellariae (Paris, 1615); A CHOCKIER, Comm. in reg. Cancellariae apostolicae sive in glossemata Alphonsi Soto nuncupati Glossatoris (Cologne, 1619); DE QUESADA, Regulae Cancellariae apostolicae Gregorii XV cum notis et indicibus (Rome, 1621); LOUETIUS, Notae ad comm. Caroli Molinaei in regulas Cancellariae ape apostolicae (Paris, 1656); SPERENGERUS, Roma nova cum regulis Cancellariae apostolicae et de privilegiis clericorum (Frankfort, 1667); CIAMPINI, De abbreviatoribus de parco maiori sive assistent. S. R. E. Vicecancellario in litierarum apostolicarum expeditionibus . . . dissertatio histories (Rome, 1669); LE PELLETIER, Instructions pour les expeditions de la cour de Rome (Paris, 1680); CASTEL PERARD, Paraphrase du commeniaire de M. Ch. Du Sfoulin sur les regles de la Chancellerie romaine (Paris, 1685); CIAMPINI, De S. R. E. Vicecancellaria (Rome, 1697); ANON, Compendiaria notitia abbreviatoris de curia (Rome, 1696); OCZENASSEK, Prael. iur. can. seu comm. in regulas Cancellariae Clementis XI (Vienna, 1712); Bovio, La piet`a trionfante sulle distrutte grandezze del gentilismo . . . e degli ufficii delta Cancelleria Apostolica e dei Cancellieri della S. R. Chiesa (Rome, 1729); RIGANTI, Commentaria in regulas, constitutiones et ordinationes Cancetlariae apostolicae, opus posthumum (Geneva, 1571); HEDDERICH, Disputatio ad regulam Cancellariae; de non tollendo ius quaesitum in Germania, diss. XVII (Bonn, 1783); ERLER, Der Liber Cancelleriae' apostolicae v. J. 1380 (Leipzig, 1880); V. OTTENTHAL, Die paepstlichen Kanzleiregein von Johann XXII bis Nikolaus V (1888); TANGL, Die paepstlichen Kanzleiordungen von 1200-1500 (Innsbruck, 1894); KEHR, Scrinium und Palatium. Zur Geschichte des 'paepstlichen Kanzleiwessens im 11 Jahrh. in Mitt. des Instil, fur oesterr. Geschichtsf., suppl. VI; GOeLLER, Mitteilungen und Unlersuchungen ueber das paepstliche Register-und Kanzleiwessen im 14. Jahrh., besonders unter Johann XXII und Benedict XII in Quellen und Forschungen des Preuss. histor. Instituts in Rom., VI, 272 sqq.; CHIARI. Memoria giuridico-storica sulla Dataria Cancellaria, rev. Camera apostolica, Compenso di Spagna, vacabili e vacabilisti (Rome, 1900); ANON., Die Vacabilia d. paepstl. Kanzlei u. d. Datarie in Arch. f. k. KR., LXXXII (1902), 163-165; VON HOFMANN, Zur Geschichte der paepstl. Kanzlei vornehmlich in der 3. Haelfte des 15. Jahrh. (Berlin, 1904); SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG, Practica Cancellaria! apostolicae seculi xv exeuntis (Muenster, 1904); BAUMGARTEN, Aus Kanzlei u. Kammer (Freiburg, 1905); GOeLLER, Die Kommentatoren der paepstlichen Kanzleiregeln von Ende des 15. bis sum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts in Arch. f, k. KR., LXXXV (1905), 441 sqq.; LXXXVI (1906). 20 sqq., 259 sqq.; IDEM, Von d. apostol. Kanzlei (Cologne, 1908). AMYDENUS, De officio et jurisdictione Datarii nec non de stylo Dataria; MACANAR, Pedimento sobre abuses de la Dataria (Madrid, 1841); ANON., Die Vacabilia d. paepstl. Kanzlei u. d. Datarie in Arch. f. k. KB, 82, 163 (1902). SESTINI, 11 Maestro di Camera. (Florence, 1623); CATALANUS, De Magistro s. Palatii Apostolici (Rome, 1751); MARINI, Memorie istoriche degli archivi delta S. Sede (Rome, 1825); RASPONI, De Basilica et Patriarchio lateranensi (Rome, 1656); GALLETTI, Del Primicero delta S. Sede Apostolica e di altri ufficiali rnaggiori del Sagro Palagio lateranense (Rome, 1776); GALLBTTI, Del vestarario della S. Romana Chiesa (Rome, 1758); CONTI, Originae fasti e privilege degli avvocaii concistoriali (Rome, 1898); RENAZI. Notizie storiche degli antichi Vicedomini del Patriarchio lateranense e dei moderni Prefetti del Sagro Palazzo Apostolico ovvero maggiordomi poritefici (Rome, 1787); CANCELLIERI, Notizie sopra l'anello pescatorio (Rome, 1823); MAUBACH, 0. Kardinale u. ihre Poltt. urn d. Mitte d. fill. Jahrh. (Bonn, 1902); SAeGMUeLLER, Geschichte d. Kardinalates (Rome, 1893); SACCHETTI, Privilegia protonotariorum apostolicorum (Cologne, 1689); ANDREUCCI, Tr. de protonotariis apostolicis (Rome, 1742); RIGANTI, De protonotariis apostolicis (Rome, 1751); BUONACCORSI, Antichita del protono-apostolico partecipante (Faenza, 1751); BRUNET, Le parfait notaire apostolique et procureur des officialites et formules ecclesiastiques (Lyons, 1775); MICKE, De protonotariis apostolicis dissertatio (Breslau, 1866); RENAUD, Des protonotaires apostoliques in Rev. des Sciences eccles. (1867); TROMBETTA, De juribus et privilegiis praelatorum Romance Curiae (Sorrento, 1906). BENEDETTO OJETTI St. Romanos St. Romanos Surnamed ho melodos and ho theorrhetor, poet of the sixth century. The only authority for the life and date of this greatest of Greek hymn-writers is the account in the Menaion for October; his feast is 1 October. According to this account he was by birth a Syrian, served as deacon in the church at Berytus, and came to Constantinople in the reign of Anastasios. It was in the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos (eis ta Kyrou) that he received the charisma of sacred poetry. "After a religious retreat at Blachernae he returned to his church, and one night in his sleep saw a vision of the Most Holy Theotokos, who gave him a volume of paper, saying, 'Take the paper and eat it'." The saint, in his dream, opened his mouth and swallowed the paper. It was Christmas Day, and immediately he awakened and marvelled and glorified God. Then, mounting the ambo, he began the strains of his he parthenos semeron ton hyperousion tiktei. He wrote also about one thousand kontakia for other feasts before he died. Beyond this passage, there are only two mentions of Romanos's name, one in the eighth-century poet St. Germanos, and once in Suidas (s. v. anaklomenon), who calls him "Romanos the melode". None of the Byzantine writers on hymnology allude to him: his fame was practically extinguished by the newer school of hymn-writers which flourished in the eighth and ninth centuries. Krumbacher has made it fairly certain, by a number of critical arguments, that the emperor named in the Menaion as reigning when Romanos came to the capital is Anastasius I (A.D. 491-518), not Anastasius II (A.D. 713-16); Pitra and Stevenson are of the same opinion. Probably, then, he lived through the reign of Justinian (A.D. 527-65), who was himself a hymn-writer; this would make him contemporary with two other Byzantine melodes, Anastasios and Kyriakos. "In poetic talent, fire of inspiration, depth of feeling, and elevation of language, he far surpasses all the other melodes. The literary history of the future will perhaps acclaim Romanos for the greatest ecclesiastical poet of all ages", says Krumbacher, and all the other critics of Byzantine poetry subscribe to this enthusiastic praise. Some have called him the Christian Pindar. Down till the twelfth century his Christmas hymn was performed by a double choir (from S. Sophia and the Holy Apostles) at the imperial banquet on that feast day. Of most of the others only a few strophes survive. The long hymns (kontakia) consist of twenty-five strophes (troparia), usually of twenty-one verses each, with a refrain. Besides the Christmas hymn we may cite the following titles to exemplify St. Romanos's choice of subjects: "Canticum Paschale", "de Crucis Triumpho", "de Iuda Proditore", "de Petri Negatione", "de Virgine iuxta crucem". Dramatic and pathetic dialogue plays a great part in the structure. The simple sincerity of tone sometimes puts the reader in mind of the Latin medieval hymns, or the earliest Italian religious verse. Romanos, like the other melodes, obeys a purely accentual or rhythmic law; the quantitative scansions are obsolete for those to whom he sings (see BYZANTINE LITERATURE, IV). Editions: Twenty-nine hymns in Pitra, "Analecta Sacra", I, 1876; three more in Pitra, "Sanctus Romanus veterum melodorum princeps" (1888); Krumbacher long ago promised a complete critical edition according to the Patmian codices, but has not yet achieved it. [ Note: St. Romanos is also described in the article, "Saints Romanus" [(8)], Romanos and Romanus being the Greek and Latin forms respectively of the same name.] PITRA, Hymnographie de l'Eglise grecque (Rome, 1867); BOUVY, Poetes et Melodes (Nimes, 1886); KRUMBACHER, Gesch. d. byz. Literatur, Munich, 312-18; IDEM, Studien zu Romanos (Munich, 1899); IDEM, Umarbeitungen bei Romanos (Munich, 1899); JACOBI, Zur Geschichte des grieschischen Kirchenliedes in Briegers Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte (1882), V, 177-250. J.S. PHILLIMORE Consitutio Romanos Pontifices Constitutio Romanos Pontifices The restoration by Pius IX, 29 Sept. 1850, by letters Apostolic "Universalis ecclesiae" of the hierarchy in England, and the consequent transition to the new order of things, necessarily gave rise to misunderstandings and discussion in various matters of jurisdiction and discipline, particularly between the episcopate and religious orders. Bishops, as was incumbent upon them, strenuously maintained the rights of the hierarchy, while religious superiors were loath to surrender prerogatives previously exercised. The chief points of controversy related to the exemption of regulars from the jurisdiction of bishops; the right of bishops to divide parishes or missions conducted by regulars, and to place secular priests in charge of these newly-created missions; the obligation of regulars engaged in parish work to attend conferences of the clergy and diocesan synods; the force of their appeal from synodal statutes; their liberty to found new houses, colleges and schools, or to convert existing institutions to other purposes; the right of bishops to visit canonically institutions in charge of regulars; and certain financial matters. Individual bishops sought to cope with the situation until finally a proposition of Cardinal Manning, made in an annual meeting of the English hierarchy in 1877, to submit these difficulties to Rome for definite settlement, met with unanimous approval. In July, 1878, the bishops of Scotland formally associated themselves with their English brethren in the controversy. Negotiations were opened with Propaganda, but Cardinal Manning later suggested to Pope Leo XIII the appointment of a special commission to examine the claims of the contestants and to prepare a constitution. Repeated delays ensued, so that it was not until 20 Sept., 1880, that a special commission of nine cardinals chosen to consider the question had its first sitting. Four other sessions followed, and in Jan., 1881, a report was made to the pope. Finally the constitution "Romanos Pontifices", of Leo XIII was issued 8 May of the same year, defining the relations in England and Scotland between bishops and religious. This constitution has been extended to the United States (25 Sept., 1885), to Canada (14 March, 1911), to South America (1 Jan., 1900), to the Philippine Islands (1 Jan., 1910), and quite generally to missionary countries. The provisions of the "Romanos Pontifices" may be grouped into three heads: + the exemption of religious from episcopal jurisdiction; + relations to bishops of religious engaged in parochial duties; + and matters pertaining to temporal goods. The constitution makes clear the following: though regulars according to canon law are subject immediately to the Holy See, bishops are given jurisdiction over small communities. The constitution "Romanos Pontifices" makes a further concession exempting regulars as such, living in parochial residences in small numbers or even alone, almost entirely from the jurisdiction of the ordinary. "We hesitate not to declare", it states, "that regulars dwelling in their own monasteries, are exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary, except in cases expressly mentioned in law, and generally speaking in matters pertaining to the cure of souls and the administration of the sacraments." In parochial ministrations, then, regulars are subject in all things to episcopal supervision, visitation, jurisdiction, and correction. If engaged in parochial work, religious are obliged to assist at conferences of the clergy as well as at diocesan synods. "We declare," says the constitution, "that all rectors of missions are bound by their office to attend the conferences of the clergy; and moreover we ordain and command that vicars also and other religious enjoying ordinary missionary faculties, living in residences and small missions, do the same." The Council of Trent prescribes that all having the cure of souls be present at diocesan synods. The constitution says in regard to this question: Let the Council of Trent be observed. Another point of controversy related to appeals from synodal decrees. Regulars are not denied this right. Their appeal from the ordinary's interpretation of synodal statutes in matters pertaining to common law has a devolutive effect only; in matters pertaining to regulars as such, owing to their exemption, an appeal begets a suspensive effect. The bishop's right to divide parishes, even though under the management of regulars, is maintained, providing the formalities prescribed in law be observed. The opinion of the rector of the mission to be divided must be sought; while a bishop is not free to divide a mission in charge of religious without consulting their superior. An appeal, devolutive in character, to the Holy See, should the case require it, is granted from the bishop's decision to divide a parish or mission. The ordinary is free to follow his own judgment in appointing rectors of new missions, even when formed from parishes in charge of regulars. The claim of regulars to preference in these appointments is thus denied. It is unlawful for religious to establish new monasteries, churches, colleges, or schools without the previous consent of the ordinary and of the Apostolic See. Similar permission is required to convert existing institutions to other purposes, except where such change, affecting merely the domestic arrangements or discipline of regulars themselves, is not contrary to the conditions of the foundation. The bishop may exercise the right of canonical visitation in regard to churches and parochial or elementary schools, though they be in charge of regulars. This right does not extend to cemeteries or institutions for the use of religious only; nor to colleges in which religious, according to their rule, devote themselves to the education of youth. The temporal affairs of a parish or mission are determined by a decree of Propaganda, published 19 April, 1969. All goods given to parishes or missions must be accounted for according to diocesan statutes; not, however, donations made to regulars for themselves. It is the duty of the ordinary to see that parochial goods are devoted to the purposes designated by the donors. Inventories (Propaganda, 10 May, 1867) will distinguish parochial belongings from those of regulars. These regulations of former decrees are embodied in "Romanos Pontifices." The constitution may be found in Conc. Plen. Balt. III, pp. 212 sq.; Acta Apos. Sedis, II, pp. 254 sq., where it is officially republished. For the English controversy see SNEAD-COX, Life of Cardinal Vaughan (London, 1910), xiv; TAUNTON, The Law of the Church,, s.v. Regulars. ANDREW B. MEEHAN The Roman Rite The Roman Rite ( Ritus romanus). The Roman Rite is the manner of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, administering Sacraments, reciting the Divine Office, and performing other ecclesiastical functions (blessings, all kinds of Sacramentals, etc.) as used in the city and Diocese of Rome. The Roman Rite is the most wide-spread in Christendom. That it has advantages possessed by no other -- the most archaic antiquity, unequalled dignity, beauty, and the practical convenience of being comparatively short in its services -- will not be denied by any one who knows it and the other ancient liturgies. But it was not the consideration of these advantages that led to its extensive use; it was the exalted position of the see that used it. The Roman Rite was adopted throughout the West because the local bishops, sometimes kings or emperors, felt that they could not do better than use the rite of the chief bishop of all, at Rome. And this imitation of Roman liturgical practice brought about in the West the application of the principle (long admitted in the East) that rite should follow patriarchate. Apart from his universal primacy, the pope had always been unquestioned Patriarch of the West. It was then the right and normal thing that the West should use his liturgy. The irregular and anomalous incident of liturgical history is not that the Roman Rite has been used, practically exclusively, in the West since about the tenth or eleventh century, but that before that there were other rites in the pope's patriarchate. Not the disappearance but the existence and long toleration of the Gallican and Spanish rites is the difficulty (see RITES). Like all others, the Roman Rite bears clear marks of its local origin. Wherever it may be used, it is still Roman in the local sense, obviously composed for use in Rome. Our Missal marks the Roman stations, contains the Roman saints in the Canon (See CANON OF THE MASS), honours with special solemnity the Roman martyrs and popes. Our feasts are constantly anniversaries of local Roman events, of the dedication of Roman churches (All Saints, St. Michael, S. Maria ad Nives, etc.). The Collect for Sts. Peter and Paul (29 June) supposes that it is said at Rome (the Church which "received the beginnings of her Faith" from these saints is that of Rome), and so on continually. This is quite right and fitting; it agrees with all liturgical history. No rite has ever been composed consciously for general use. In the East there are still stronger examples of the same thing. The Orthodox all over the world use a rite full of local allusions to the city of Constantinople. The Roman Rite evolved out of the (presumed) universal, but quite fluid, rite of the first three centuries during the (liturgically) almost unknown time from the fourth to the sixth. In the sixth we have it fully developed in the Leonine, later in the Gelasian, Sacramentaries. How and exactly when the specifically Roman qualities were formed during that time will, no doubt, always be a matter of conjecture (see LITURGY; MASS, LITURGY OF THE). At first its use was very restrained. It was followed only in the Roman province. North Italy was Gallican, the South, Byzantine, but Africa was always closely akin to Rome liturgically. From the eighth century gradually the Roman usage began its career of conquest in the West. By the twelfth century at latest it was used wherever Latin obtained, having displaced all others except at Milan and in retreating parts of Spain. That has been its position ever since. As the rite of the Latin Church it is used exclusively in the Latin Patriarchate, with three small exceptions at Milan, Toledo, and in the still Byzantine churches of Southern Italy, Sicily, and Corsica. During the Middle Ages it developed into a vast number of derived rites, differing from the pure form only in unimportant details and in exuberant additions. Most of these were abolished by the decree of Pius V in 1570 (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE). Meanwhile, the Roman Rite had itself been affected by, and had received additions from, the Gallican and Spanish uses it displaced. The Roman Rite is now used by every one who is subject to the pope's patriarchal jurisdiction (with the three exceptions noted above); that is, it is used in Western Europe, including Poland, in all countries colonized from Western Europe: America, Australia, etc., by Western (Latin) missionaries all over the world, including the Eastern lands where other Catholic rites also obtain. No one may change his rite without a legal authorization, which is not easily obtained. So the Western priest in Syria, Egypt, and so on uses his own Roman Rite, just as at home. On the same principle Catholics of Eastern rites in Western Europe, America, etc., keep their rites; so that rites now cross each other wherever such people live together. The language of the Roman Rite is Latin everywhere except that in some churches along the Western Adriatic coast it is said in Slavonic and on rare occasions in Greek at Rome (see RITES). In derived forms the Roman Rite is used in some few dioceses (Lyons) and by several religious orders (Benedictines, Carthusians, Carmelites, Dominicans). In these their fundamentally Roman character is expressed by a compound name. They are the "Ritus Romano-Lugdunensis", "Romano-monasticus", and so on. For further details and bibliography see BREVIARY; CANON OF THE MASS; LITURGY; MASS, LITURGY OF THE; RITES. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Epistle To the Romans Epistle to the Romans This subject will be treated under the following heads: I. The Roman Church and St. Paul; II. Character, Contents, and Arrangement of the Epistle; III. Authenticity; IV. Integrity; V. Date and Circumstances of Composition; VI. Historical Importance; VII, Theological Contents: Faith and Works (Paul and James). I. THE ROMAN CHURCH AND ST. PAUL Among the Epistles of the New Testament which bear the name of the Apostle Paul, that written to the Roman Church occupies the first place in the manuscripts which have come down to us, although in very early times the order was probably otherwise. The Epistle is intended to serve as an introduction to a community with which the author, though he has not founded it, desires to form connexions (i, 10- 15; xv, 22-24, 28-29). For years his thoughts have been directed towards Rome (xv, 23). The Church there had not been recently established; but its faith had already become known everywhere (i, 8) and it is represented as a firmly established and comparatively old institution, which Paul regards with reverence, almost with awe. Concerning its foundation, unfortunately, the Epistle to the Romans gives us no information. To interpret this silence as decisive against its foundation by Peter is inadmissible. It cannot indeed be ascertained with complete certainty when Peter first came to Rome; there may have been Christians in the capital before any Apostle set foot there, but it is simply inconceivable that this Church should have attained to such firm faith and such a high standard of religious life without one of the prominent authorities of nascent Christianity having laid its foundation and directed its growth. This Church did not owe its Faith solely to some unknown members of the primitive Christian community who chanced to come to Rome. Its Christianity was, as the Epistle tells us, free from the Law; this conviction Paul certainly shared with the majority of the community, and his wish is simply to deepen this conviction. This condition is entirely incomprehensible if the Roman Church traced its origin only to some Jewish Christian of the community in Jerusalem, for we know how far the fight for freedom was from being ended about a.d. 50. Nor can the foundation of the Roman Church be traced to the Gentile Christian Churches, who named Paul their Apostle; their own establishment was too recent, and Paul would have worded his Epistle otherwise, if the community addressed were even mediately indebted to his apostolate. The complete silence as to St. Peter is most easily explained by supposing that he was then absent from Rome; Paul may well have been aware of this fact, for the community was not entirely foreign to him. An epistle like the present would hardly have been sent while the Prince of the Apostles was in Rome and the reference to the ruler (xii, 8) would then be difficult to explain. Paul probably supposes that during the months between the composition and the arrival of the Epistle, the community would be more or less thrown on its own resources. This does not however indicate a want of organization in the Roman community; such organization existed in every Church founded by Paul, and its existence in Rome can be demonstrated from this very Epistle. The inquiry into the condition of the community is important for the understanding of the Epistle. Complete unanimity concerning the elements forming the community has not yet been attained. Baur and others (especially, at the present day, Theodore Zahn) regard the Roman community as chiefly Jewish Christian, pointing to vi, 15-17; vii, 1-6; viii, 15. But the great majority of exegetes incline to the opposite view, basing their contention, not only on individual texts, but also on the general character of the Epistle. At the very beginning Paul introduces himself as the Apostle of the Gentiles. Assuredly, i, 5, cannot be applied to all mankind, for Paul certainly wished to express something more than that the Romans belonged to the human race; in corroboration of this view we may point to i, 13, where the writer declares that he had long meditated coming to Rome that he might have some fruit there as among the other "Gentiles". He then continues: "To the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise, I am a debtor; so (as much as is in me) I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are at Rome" (I, 14 sq.); he names himself the Apostle of the Gentiles (xi, 13), and cites his call to the apostolate of the Gentiles as the justification for his Epistle and his language (xv, 16-18). These considerations eliminate all doubt as to the extraction of the Roman Christians. The address and application in xi, 13 sqq., likewise presuppose a great majority of Gentile Christians, while vi, 1 sqq., shows an effort to familiarize the Gentile Christians with the dealings of God towards the Jews. The whole character of the composition forces one to the conclusion that the Apostle supposes a Gentile majority in the Christian community, and that in Rome as elsewhere the statement about the fewness of the elect (from among the Jews) finds application (xi, 5-7; cf. xv, 4). However, the Roman community was not without a Jewish Christian element, probably an important section. Such passages as iv, 1 (Abraham, our father according to the flesh; viii, i (I speak to them that know the law); vii, 4; viii, 2, 15, etc., can scarcely be explained otherwise than by supposing the existence of a Jewish Christian section of the community. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Paul was out and out a Jew, and that his whole training accustomed him to adopt the standpoint of the Law-the more so as the revelation of the Old Testament is in the last instance the basis of the New Testament, and Paul regards Christianity as the heir of God's promises, as the true "Israel of God" (Gal., vi, 16). St. Paul often adopts this same standpoint in the Epistle to the Galatians-an Epistle undoubtedly addressed to Christians who are on the point of submitting to circumcision. Even if the Epistle to the Romans repeatedly addresses (e. g., ii, 17 sqq.) Jews, we may deduce nothing from this fact concerning the composition of the community, since Paul is dealing, not with the Jewish Christians, but with the Jews still subject to the Law and not yet freed by the grace of Christ. The Apostle wishes to show the role and efficacy of the Law-what it cannot and should not-and what it was meant to effect. II. CHARACTER, CONTENTS, AND ARRANGMENT OF THE EPISTLE A. Character The chief portion of this Epistle to the Romans (i-xi) is evidently a theological discussion. It would however be inaccurate to regard it not as a real letter, but as a literary epistle. It must be considered as a personal communication to a special community, and, like that sent to the Corinthians or the cognate Epistle to the Galatians, must be judged according to the concrete position and the concrete conditions of that community. What the Apostle says, he says with a view to his readers in the Roman community and his own relations to them. Language and style reveal the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians and the Galatians. Its emphatic agreement with the latter in subject-matter is also unmistakable. The difference in the parties addressed and between the circumstances, however, impresses on either Epistle its distinctive stamp. The Epistle to the Galatians is a polemical work, and is composed in a polemical spirit with the object of averting an imminent evil; the Epistle to the Romans is written in a time of quiet peace, and directed to a Church with which the author desires to enter into closer relations. We thus miss in the latter those details and references to earlier experiences and occurrences, with which the former Epistle is so instinct. Not that Romans is a purely abstract theological treatise; even here Paul, with his whole fiery and vigorous personality, throws himself into his subject, sets before himself his opponent, and argues with him. This characteristic of the Apostle is clearly seen. Hence arise unevenness and harshness in language and expression noticeable in the other Epistles. This does not prevent the Epistle as a whole from revealing an elaborately thought out plan, which often extends to the smallest details in magnificent arrangement and expression. We might recall the exordium, to which, in thought and to some extent in language, the great concluding doxology corresponds, while the two sections of the first part deal quite appropriately with the impressive words on the certainty of salvation and on God's exercise of providence and wisdom (viii, 31-39; xi, 33-36). The immediate external occasion for the composition of the Epistle is given by the author himself; he wishes to announce his arrival to the community and to prepare them for the event. The real object of this comprehensive work, and the necessity for a theological Epistle are not thought out. The supposition that St. Paul desired to give the Romans a proof of his intellectual gifts (i, 11; xv, 29) is excluded by its pettiness. We must therefore conclude that the reason for the Epistle is to be sought in the conditions of the Roman community. The earliest interpreters (Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Theodoret) and a great number of later exegetes see the occasion for the Epistle in the conflict concerning Judaistic ideas, some supposing an antagonism between the Gentile and Jewish Christians (Hug, Delitzsch) and others the existence of some typically Jewish errors or at least of an outspoken anti-Paulinism This view does not accord with the character of the Epistle: of errors and division in the Church the author makes no mention, nor was there any difference of opinion concerning the fundamental conception of Christianity between Paul and the Roman Church. The polemics in the Epistle are directed, not against the Jewish Christians, but against unbelieving Judaism. It is true that there are certain contrasts in the community: we hear of the strong and the weak; of those who have acquired the complete understanding and use of Christian freedom, and who emphasize and exercise it perhaps regardlessly; we hear of others who have not yet attained to the full possession of freedom. These contrasts are as little based on the standpoint of the Law and a false dogmatic outlook as the "weak" of I Corinthians. Paul would otherwise not have treated them with the mild consideration which he employs and demands of the strong (xiv, 5-10; xiv, 15-xv, 7). In judging there was always a danger, and mistakes had occurred (xiv, 13: "Let us not therefore judge one another any more"). According to the nature of the mistake divisions might easily gain a footing; from what direction these were to be expected, is not declared by the Apostle, but the cases of Corinth and Galatia indicate it sufficiently. And even though Paul had no reason to anticipate the gross Jewish errors, it sufficed for him that divisions destroyed the unanimity of the community, rendered his labours more difficult, made co-operation with Rome impossible, and seriously impaired the community itself. He therefore desires to send beforehand this earnest exhortation (xvi, 17 sq.), and does all he can to dispel the misconception that he despised and fought against Israel and the Law. That there was good ground for these fears, he learned from experience in Jerusalem during his last visit (Acts, xxi, 20-1). From this twofold consideration the object of Romans may be determined. The exhortations to charity and unity (xii sqq.) have the same purpose as those addressed to the weak and the strong. In both cases there is the vigorous reference to the single foundation of the faith, the unmerited call to grace, with which man can correspond only by humble and steadfast faith working in charity, and also the most express, though not obtrusive exhortation to complete unity in charity and faith. For Paul these considerations are the best means of securing the confidence of the whole community and its assistance in his future activities. The thoughts which he here expresses are those which ever guide him, and we can easily understand how they must have forced themselves upon his attention when he resolved to seek a new, great field of activity in the West. They correspond to his desire to secure the co-operation of the Roman community, and especially with the state and needs of the Church. They were the best intellectual gifty that the Apostle could offer; thereby he set the Church on the right path, created internal solidity, and shed light on the darkness of the doubts which certainly must have overcast the souls of the contemplative Christians in face of the attitude of incredulity which characterized the Chosen People. B. Contents and Arrangement Introduction and Reason for writing the Epistle arising from the obligations of his calling and plans (i, 1-15): (1) The Theoretic Part (i, 16-xi, 36). Main Proposition: The Gospel, in whose service Paul stands, is the power of God and works justification in every man who believes (i, 16-17). This proposition is discussed and proved (i, 18-viii, 39), and then defended in the light of the history of the Chosen People (ix, 1-xi, 36). (a) The justice of God is acquired only through faith in Christ (i, 18-viii, 39). (i) The proof of the necessity of justifying grace through faith (i, 18-iv, 25): without faith there is no justice, proved from the case of the pagans (i, 18-32) and the Jews (ii, 1-iii, 20); (b) justice is acquired through faith in and redemption by Christ (the Gospel, iii, 21-31). Holy Writ supplies the proof: Abraham's faith (iv, 1-25). (ii) The greatness and blessing of justification through faith (v, 1-viii, 39), reconciliation with God through Christ, and certain hope of eternal salvation (v, 1-11). This is illustrated by contrasting the sin of Adam and its consequences for all mankind, which were not removed by the Law, with the superabundant fruits of redemption merited by Christ (v, 12-21). Conclusion: Redemption by Christ (communicated to the individual through baptism) requires death to sin and life with Christ (vi, 1-23). To accomplish this the Law is ineffectual, for by the death of Christ it has lost its binding power (vii, 1-6), and, although holy and good in itself, it possesses only educative and not sanctifying power, and is thus impotent in man's dire combat against sinful nature (vii, 7-25). In contrast to this impotence, communion with Christ imparts freedom from sin and from death (viii, 1-11), establishes the Divine kinship, and raises mankind above all earthly trouble to the certain hope of an indescribable happiness (viii, 12-39). (b) Defence of the first part from the history of the people of Israel (ix, 1-xi, 36). The consoling certainty of salvation may appear threatened by the rejection or obduracy of Israel. How could God forget His promises and reject the people so favoured? The Apostle must thus explain the providence of God. He begins with a touching survey of God's deeds of love and power towards the Chosen People (ikx, 1-5), proceeding then to prove that God's promise has not failed. For (i) God acts within His right when He grants grace according to His free pleasure, since God's promises did not apply to Israel according to the flesh, as early history shows (Isaac and Ismael, Jacob and Esau) (ix, 1-13); God's word to Moses and His conduct towards Pharao call into requisition this right (ix, 14-17)); God's position (as Creator and Lord) is the basis of this right (ix, 19-24); God's express prophecy announced through the Prophets, the exercise of this right towards Jews and pagans (ix, 24-29); (ii) God's attitude was in a certain sense demanded by the foolish reliance of Israel on its origin and justification in the Law (ix, 30-x,4) and by its refusal of and disobedience to the message of faith announced everywhere among the Jews (x, 5-21); (iii) In this is revealed the wisdom and goodness of God, for: Israel's rejection is not complete; a chosen number have attained to the faith (xi, 1-10); (iv) Israel's unbelief is the salvation of the pagan world, and likewise a solemn exhortation to fidelity in the faith (xi, 11- 22); (v) Israel's rejection is not irrevocable. The people will find mercy and salvation (xi, 23-32). Thence the praise of the wisdom and the inscrutable providence of God (xi, 33-36). (2) The Practical Part (xii, 1-xv, 13).-(a) The general exhortation to the faithful service of God and the avoidance of the spirit of the world (xii, 1-2). (b) Admonition to unity and charity (modest, active charity), peacefulness, and love of enemies (xii, 3-21). (c) Obligations towards superiors: fundamental establishment and practical proof (xiii, 1-7). Conclusion: A second inculcation of the commandment of love (xiii, 8-10) and an incitement to zeal in view of the proximity of salvation (xiii, 11-14). (d) Toleration and forbearance between the strong and the weak (treated with special application to the Roman community) on account of the importance and practical significance of the question; it falls under (b): (i) fundamental criticism of the standpoint of both classes (xiv, 1-12); (ii) practical inferences for both (xiv, 13- xv, 6); (iii) establishment through the example of Christ and the intentions of God (xv, 7-13). Conclusion: Defence of the Epistle: (1) in view of Paul's calling; (2) in view of his intended relations with the community (xv, 22-23); (3) recommendations, greetings (warning), doxology (xvi, 1-27). III. AUTHENTICITY Is the Epistle to the Romans a work of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul? Undoubtedly it has the same authorship as the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians; consequently, if the authenticity of these be proved, that of Romans is likewise established. We shall however treat the question quite independently. The external evidence of the authorship of Romans is uncommonly strong. Even though no direct testimony as to the authorship is forthcoming before Marcion and Irenaeus, still the oldest writings betray an acquaintance with the Epistle. One might with some degree of probability include the First Epistle of St. Peter in the series of testimonies: concerning the relation between Romans and the Epistle of St. James we shall speak below. Precise information is furnished by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Justin: Marcion admitted Romans into his canon, and the earliest Gnostics were acquainted with it. The internal evidence is equally convincing. Modern critics (van Manen and others) have indeed asserted that no attempt was ever made to prove its authenticity; they have even gone further, and declared the Epistle an invention of the second century. Evanson (1792) first attempted to maintain this view; he was followed by Br. Bauer (1852, 1877), and later by Loman, Steck, van Manen (1891, 1903), and others. A less negative standpoint was adopted by Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, Voelter, etc., who regarded Romans as the result of repeated revisions of genuine Pauline fragments, e. g., that one genuine Epistle, interpolated five times and combined finally with an Epistle to the Ephesians, gave rise to Romans (Voelter). These critics find their ground for denying the authenticity of the Epistle in the following considerations: Romans is a theological treatise rather than an epistle; the beginning and conclusion do not correspond; the addresses cannot be determined with certainty; despite a certain unity of thought and style, there are perceptible traces of compilation and discordance, difficult transitions, periods, connexions of ideas, which reveal the work of the reviser; the second part (ix-xii) abandons the subject of the first (justification by faith), and introduces an entirely foreign idea; there is much that cannot be the composition of St. Paul (the texts dealing with the rejection of Israel lead one to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem; the Christians of Rome appear as Pauline Christians; the conception of freedom from the law, of sin and justification, of life in Christ, etc., are signs of a later development); finally there are, according to Van Manen, traces of second-century Gnosticism in the Epistle. We have here a classical example of the arbitrariness of this type of critics. They first declare all the writings of the first and of the early second century forgeries, and, having thus destroyed all the sources, construct a purely subjective picture of the period, and revise the sources accordingly. That the Epistle to the Romans was written at least before the last decades of the first century is established; even by external evidence taken alone; consequently all theories advocating a later origin are thereby exploded. The treatment of a scientific (theological) problem in an epistle can constitute a difficulty only for such as are unacquainted with the literature of the age. Doubts as to the untiy of the Epistle vanish of themselves on a closer examination. The introduction is most closely connected with the theme (i, 4, 5, 8, 12, etc.); the same is true of the conclusion. An analysis of the Epistle reveals incontestably the coherence of the first and second parts; from chapter ix an answer is given to a question which has obtruded itself in the earlier portion. In this fact Chr. Baur sees the important point of the whole Epistle. Besides, the interrelation between the parts finds express mention (ix, 30-32; x, 3-6; xi, 6; xi, 20-23; etc.). The author's attitude towards Israel will be treated below (VI). The rejection of the Chosen People could have become abundantly clear to the author after the uniform experiences of a wide missionary activity extending over more than ten years. The unevennesses and difficulty of the language show at most that the text has not been perfectly preserved. Much becomes clear when we remember the personality of St. Paul and his custom of dictating his Epistles. Were the Epistle a forgery, the expressions concerning the person and views of the author would be inexplicable and completely enigmatic. Who in the second century would have made St. Paul declare that he had not founded the Roman community, that previously he had had no connexion with it, since at a very early date the same Apostle becomes with St. Peter its co-founder? How could a man of the second century have conceived the idea of attributing to St. Paul the intention of paying merely a passing visit to Rome, when (as would have been palpable to every reader of Acts, xxviii, 30-31) the Apostle had worked there for two successive years? The Acts could not have supplied the suggestion, since it merely says: "I must see Rome also" (xix, 21). Of Paul's plan of proceeding thence to Spain, the author of Acts says nothing; in recording the nocturnal apparition of the Lord to St. Paul, mention is made only of his giving testimony at Rome (Acts, xxiii, 11). The arrival at Rome is recorded with the words: "And so we went to [the wished for] Rome" (Acts, xxviii, 14). Acts closes with a reference to Paul's residence and activity in Rome, without even hinting at anything further. Again, it would have occurred to a forger to mention Peter also in a forged Epistle to the Romans, even though it were only in a greeting or a reference to the foundation of the Church. Other arguments could be drawn from the concluding chapters. Whoever studies Romans closely will be convinced that here the true Paul speaks, and will acknowledge that "the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans can be contested only by those who venture to banish the personality of Paul from the pages of history" (Juelicher). IV. INTEGRITY Apart from individual uncertain texts, which occur also in the other Epistles and call for the attention of the textual investigator, the last two chapters have given rise to some doubts among critics. Not only did Marcion omit xvi, 25-27, but, as Origen-Rufinus express it, "cuncta dissecuit" from xiv, 23. Concerning the interpretation of these words there is indeed no agreement, for while the majority of exegetes see in them the complete rejection of the two concluding chapters, others translate "dissecuit" as "disintegrated", which is more in accordance with the Latin expression. Under Chr. Baur's leadership, the Tuebingen School has rejected both chapters; others have inclined to the theory of the disintegration work of Marcion. Against chapter xv no reasonable doubt can be maintained. Verses 1-13 follow as a natural conclusion from ch. xiv. The general extent of the consideration recommended in ch. xiv is in the highest degree Pauline. Furthermore xv, 7-13 are so clearly connected with the theme of the Epistle that they are on this ground also quite beyond suspicion. Though Christ is called the "minister of the circumcision" in xv, 8, this is in entire agreement with all that the Gospels say of Him and His mission, and with what St. Paul himself always declares elsewhere. Thus also, according to the Epistle, salvation is offered first to Israel conformably to Divine Providence (i, 16); and the writer of ix, 3-5, could also write xv, 8. The personal remarks and information (xv, 14-33) are in entire agreement with the opening of the Epistle, both in thought and tone. His travelling plans and his personal uneasiness concerning his reception in Jerusalem are, as already indicated, sure proofs of the genuineness of the verses. The objection to ch. xv has thus found little acceptance; of it "not a sentence may be referred to a forger" (Juelicher). Stronger objections are urged against ch. xvi. In the first place the concluding doxology is not universally recognized as genuine. The MSS. indeed afford some grounds for doubt, although only a negligibly small number of witnesses have with Marcion ignored the whole doxology. The old MSS., in other respects regarded as authoritative, insert it at the end of xiv; some have it after both xiv and xvi. In view of this uncertainty and of some expressions not found elsewhere in the writings of St. Paul (e. g. the only wise God, the scriptures of the prophets), the doxology has been declared a later addition (H. J. Holtzmann, Juelicher, and others), a very unlikely view in the face of the almost unexceptional testimony, especially since the thought is most closely connected with the opening of Romans, without however bvetraying any dependence in its language. The fullness of the expression corresponds completely with the solemnity of the whole Epistle. The high-spirited temperament of the author powerfully shows itself on repeated occasions. The object with which the Apostle writes the Epistle, and the circumstances under which it is written, offer a perfect explanation of both attitude and tone. The addresses, the impending journey to Jerusalem, with its problematic outcome (St. Paul speaks later of his anxiety in connexion therewith-Acts, xx, 22), the acceptance of his propaganda at Rome, on which, according to his own admission, his Apostolic future so much depended-all these were factors which must have combined once more at the conclusion of such an Epistle to issue in these impressively solemn thoughts. In view of this consideration, the removal of the doxology would resemble the extraction of the most precious stone in a jewel-case. The critical references to xvi, 1- 24, of to-day are concerned less with their Pauline origin than with the inclusion in Romans. The doubt entertained regarding them is of a twofold character. In the first place it has been considered difficult to explain how the Apostle had so many personal friends in Rome (which he had not yet visited), as is indicated by the series of greetings in this chapter; one must suppose a real tide of emigration from the Eastern Pauline communities to Rome, and that within the few years which the Apostle had devoted to his missions to the Gentiles. Certain names occasion especial doubt: Epenetus, the "first fruits of Asia", one would not expect to see in Rome; Aquila and Prisca, who according to I Corinthians have assembled about them a household community in Ephesus, are represented as having a little later a similar community in Rome. Further, it is surprising that the Apostle in an Epistle to Rome, should emphasize the services of these friends. But the chief objection is that this last chapter gives the Epistle a new character; it must have been written, not as an introduction, but as a warning to the community. One does not write in so stern and authoritative a tone as that displayed in xvi, 17-20, to an unknown community; and the words "I would" (xvi, 19) are not in keeping with the restraint evinced by St. Paul elsewhere in the Epistle. In consequence of these considerations numerous critics have, with David Schulz (1829), separated all or the greater portion of chapter xvi from the Epistle to the Romans (without however denying the Pauline authorship), and declared it an Epistle to the Ephesians-whether a complete epistle or only a portion of such is not determined. Verses 17-20 are not ascribed by some critics to the Epistle to the Ephesians; other critics are more liberal, and refer ch. ix-xi or xii-xiv to the imaginary Epistle. We agree with the result of criticism in holding as certain that xvi belongs to St. Paul. Not only the language, but also the names render its Pauline origin certain. For the greater part the names are not of those who played any role in the history of primitive Christianity or in legend, so that there was no reason for bringing them into connexion with St. Paul. Certainly the idea could not have occurred to anyone in the second century, not merely to name the unknown Andronicus and Junias as Apostles, but to assign them a prominent position among the Apostles, and to place them on an eminence above St. Paul as having been in Christ before him. These considerations are supplemented by external evidence. Finally, the situation exhibited by historical research is precisely that of the Epistle to the Romans, as is almost unanimously admitted. The "division hypothesis" encounters a great difficulty in the MSS. Deissmann endeavoured to explain the fusion of the two Epistles (Roman and Ephesian) on the supposition of collections of epistles existing among the ancients (duplicate-books of the sender and collections of originals of the receivers). Even if a possible explanation be thus obtained, its application to the present case is hedged in with improbabilities; the assumption of an Epistle consisting merely of greetings is open to grave suspicion, and, if one supposes this chapter to be the remnant of a lost epistle, this hypothesis merely creates fresh problems. While St. Paul's wide circle of friends in Rome at first awakens surprise, it raises no insuperable difficulty. We should not attempt to base our decision on the names alone; the Roman names prove nothing in favor of Rome, and the Greek still less against Rome. Names like Narcissus, Junias, Rufus, especially Aristobulus and Herodian remind one of Rome rather than Asia Minor, although some persons with these names may have settled in the latter place. But what of the "emigration to Rome"? The very critics who find therein a difficulty must be well aware of the great stream of Orientals which flowed to the capital even under Emperor Augustus (Juelicher). Why should not the Christians have followed this movement? For the second century the historical fact is certain; how many Eastern names do we not find in Rome (Polycarp, Justin, Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others)? Again for years Paul had turned his mind towards Rome (xv, 23; i, 13). Would not his friends have known of this and would he not have discussed it with Aquila and Prisca who were from Rome? Besides, it is highly probable that the emigration was not entirely the result of chance, but took place in accordance with the views and perhaps to some extent at the suggestion of the Apostle; for nothing is more likely than that his friends hurried before him to prepare the way. Three years later indeed he is met by "the brethren" on his arrival in Rome (Acts, xxviii, 15). The long delay was not the fault of St. Paul and had not, by any means, been foreseen by him. The emphasizing of the services of his friends is easy to understand in an Epistle to the Romans; if only a portion of the restless charity and self-sacrificing zeal of the Apostle for the Gentiles becomes known in Rome, his active helpers may feel assured of a kind reception in the great community of Gentile Christians. The exhortation in xvi, 17-20, is indeed delivered in a solemn and almost severe tone, but in the case of St. Paul we are accustomed to sudden and sharp transitions of this kind. One feels that the writer has become suddenly affected with a deep anxiety, which in a moment gets the upper hand. And why should not St. Paul remember the well-known submissiveness of the Roman Church? Still less open to objection is the "I would" (xvi, 19), since the Greek often means in the writings of St. Paul merely "I wish". The position of verse 4 between the greetings is unusual, but would not be more intelligible in an Epistle to the Ephesians than in the Epistle to the Romans. V. DATE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPOSITION The contents of the Epistle show that the author has acquired a ripe experience in the apostolate. Paul believes his task in the East to be practically finished; he has preached the Faith as far as Illyricum, probably to the boundaries of the province (xv, 18- 24); he is about to bring back to Palestine the alms contributed in Galatia, Achaia, and Macedonia (xv, 25-28; cf. I Cor., xvi, 1- 4; II Cor., viii, 1-9, 15; Acts, xx, 3-4; xxiv, 17). The time of composition is thus exactly determined; the Epistle was written at the end of the third missionary journey, which brought the Apostle back from Ephesus finally to Corinth. The mention of the Christian Phebe of Cenchrae (xvi, 1) and the greeting on the part of his host Caius (xvi, 23) very likely the one whom Paul had baptized (I Cor., i, 14)-conduct us to Corinth, where the Epistle was written shortly before Paul's departure for Macedonia. Its composition at the port of Cenchrae would be possible only on the supposition that the Apostle had made a long stay there; the Epistle is too elaborate and evinces too much intellectual labour for one to suppose that it was written at an intermediate station. The year of composition can only be decided approximately. According to Acts, xxiv, 27, St. Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea lasted two full years until the removal of the procurator Felix. The year of this change lies between 58 and 61. At the earliest 58, because Felix was already many years in office at the beginning of Paul's imprisonment (Acts, xxiv, 10); Felix scarcely came to Judea before 52, and less than four or five years cannot well be called "many". At the latest 61, although this date is very improbable, as Festus, the successor of Felix, died in 62 after an eventful administration. Accordingly the arrival of St. Paul in Jerusalem and the composition of the Epistle to the Romans, which occurred in the preceding few months, must be referred to the years 56-59, or better 57-58. The chronology of St. Paul's missionary activity does not exclude the suggestion of the years 56-57, since the Apostle began his third missionary journey perhaps as early as 52-53 (Gallio, proconsul of Achaia-Acts, xviii, 12- 17-was, according to an inscription in Delphi, probably in office about 52). VI. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE The Epistle gives us important information concerning the Roman Church and St. Paul's early relations with it. We may recall the dangers and strained relations and the various groupings of the community referred to in xvi, 5, 14, 15, and perhaps in xvi, 10, 11. That Paul's gaze was turned towards Rome for years, and that Rome was to be merely a stopping place on his way to Spain, we learn only from this Epistle. Did he ever reach Spain? All tradition affords only one useful piece of information on this point: "he went to the extremest west" (Clement of Rome, vi, 7); the Muratorian Fragment, 38 sq., is not sufficiently clear. An interesting conception of the apostolate is contained in the words: "But now having no more place in these countries" (xv, 23). Paul thus limited his task to laying the foundation of the Gospel in large centres, leaving to others the development of the communities. The meaning of the words "unto Illyricum" (xv, 19) will always remain uncertain. Probably the Apostle had at this period not yet crossed the borders of the province. Whether the remark in Titus, iii, 12, concerning a proposed rersidence during the winter in Nicopolis (the Illyrian town is meant), is to be connected with a missionary journey, must remain unsettled. The Epistle is instructive for its revelation of the personal feelings of the Apostle of the Gentiles towards his fellow-Jews. Some have tried to represent these feelings as hard to explain and contradictory. But a true conception of the great Apostle renders every word intelligible. On the one hand he maintains in this Epistle the position of faith and grace as distinct from the Law, and, addressing a people who appealed to their natural lineage and their observance of the Law to establish a supposed right (to salvation), he insists unswervingly on the Divine election to grace. But Paul emphasizes not less firmly that, according to God's word, Israel is first called to salvation (i, 16; ii, 10), explicitly proclaiming the preference shown to it (ii, 1-2; ix, 4-5-the Divine promises, Divine sonship, the Covenant and the Law, and, greatest privilege of all, the origin of the Messias, the true God, in Israel according to the flesh-xv, 8). Paul willingly recognizes the zeal of the people for the things of God, although their zeal is misdirected (ix, 31 sq.; x, 2). Such being his feelings towards the Chosen People, it is not surprising that Paul's heart is filled with bitter grief at the blindness of the Jews, that he besieges God with prayer, that he is guided throughout his life of self-sacrificing apostolic labours by the hope that thereby his brethren may be won for the Faith (ix, 1-2; x, 1; xi, 13-14), that he would be prepared-were it possible-to forego in his own case the happiness of union with Christ, if by such a renunciation he could secure for his brethren a place in the heart of the Saviour. These utterances can offer a stumbling-block only to those who do not understand St. Paul, who cannot fathom the depths of his apostolic charity. If we study closely the character of the Apostle, realize the fervour of his feelings, the warmth of his love and devotion to Christ's work and Person, we shall recognize how spontaneously these feelings flow from such a heart, how natural they are to such a noble, unselfish nature. The mere recognition and confidence Paul won fromn the Gentiles in the course of his apostolate, the more bitter must have been the thought that Israel refused to understand its God, stood aloof peevish and hostile, and in its hatred and blindness even persecuted the Messias in His Church and opposed as far as possible the work of His Apostles. These were the hardest things for love to bear, they explain the abrupt, determined break with and the ruthless warfare against the destructive spirit of unbelief, when Paul sees that he can protect the Church of Christ in no other way. Hence he has no toleration for insistence on the practice of the Law within the Christian fold, since such insistence is in the last analysis the spirit of Judaism, which is incompatible with the spirit of Christ and the Divine election to grace, for such assistance would by practice of the law supplement or set a seal on Faith. But from the same apostolic love springs also the truly practical spirit of consideration which Paul preaches and exercises (I Cor., ix, 20-22), and which he demands from others everywhere, so long as the Gospel is not thereby jeopardized. One can easily understand how such a man can at one moment become inflamed with bitter resentment and holy anger, showing no indulgence when his life's work is threatened, and can later in a peaceful hour forget all, recognizing in the offender only a misguided brother, whose fault arises, not from malice, but from ignorance. In a soul which loves deeply and keenly one might expect the co-existence of such contrasts; they spring from a single root, a powerful, zealous, all-compelling charity-that certainty of St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles. VII. THEOLOGICAL CONTENTS: FAITH AND WORKS The theological importance of the Epistle to the Romans has in its treatment of the great fundamental problem of justification; other important questions (e. g., original sin-v, 12-21) are treated in connextion with and from the standpoint of justification. In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul had already defended his teaching against the attacks of the extreme Jewish Christians; in contrast with the Epistle to the Galatians, this to the Romans was not evoked by the excitement of a polemical warfare. The discussion of the question in it is deeper and wider. The fundamental doctrine which Paul proclaims to all desirous of salvation is as follows: In the case of all men the call to the Messianic salvation is absolutely dependent on the free election of God; no merit or ability of the individual, neither inclusion among the descendants of Abraham nor the practice of the Law, gives a title to this grace. God zealously watches over the recognition of this truth; hence the emphasizing of faith (i, 16 sq.; ii, 32, 24-30; iv, 2 sqq., 13-25; v, 1, etc.); hence the stress laid upon the redemptory act of Christ, which benefits us, the enemies of God (ii, 24 sq.; iv, 24 sq.; v, 6-10, 15-21; vii, 25; viii, 29 sqq.); we owe our whole salvation and the inalienable certainty of salvation to the propitiatory and sanctifying power of the Blood of Christ (viii, 35-39). From this standpoint the second part (ix-xi) describes the action of Divine providence, which is more than once revealed under the Old Dispensation, and which alone corresponds with the grandeur and sovereign authority of God. Hence the irresponsive attitude of Israel becomes intelligible; the Jews blocked their own path by considereing themselves entitled to claim the Messianic Kingdom on the grounds of their personal justice. In view of this repugnant spirit, God was compelled to leave Israel to its own resources, until it should stretch out its hand after the merciful love of its Creator; then would the hour of salvation also strike for the People of the Covenant (ix, 30 sqq.; x, 3-21; xi, 32). Securing of Salvation.-To the question how man obtains salvation, St. Paul has but one answer: not by natural powers, not by works of the Law, but by faith and indeed by faith without the works of the Law (iii, 28). At the very beginning of the Epistle Paul refers to the complete failure of natural powers (i, 18-32), and repeatedly returns to this idea but he lays the greatest emphasis on the inadequacy of the Law. From the Jews this statement met with serious opposition. What does the Apostle mean then when he preaches the necessity of faith? Faith is for St. Paul often nothing else than the Gospel, i. e., the whole economy of salvation in Christ (Gal., i, 23; iii, 23, 25, etc.); often it is the teaching of faith, the proclamation of the faith, and the life of faith (Rom., i, 5; xii, 6; xvi, 26; Gal., iii, 2; Acts, vi, 7; Rom., i, 8; II Cor., i, 23; xi, 15; xiii, 5; Acts, xiii, 8; xiv, 21; xvi, 5). That according to all these conceptions salvation comes only by faith without the works of the Law, needs no demonstration. But to what faith was Abraham indebted for his justification? (iv, 3, 9, 13-22; Gal., iii, 6). Abraham had to believe the word of God, that is hold it for certain. In the case of the Christian the same faith is demanded: "to believe that we shall live also together with Christ: knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more" (vi, 8-9); "If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (x, 9). This faith is undeniably belief on the authority of God (dogmatic faith). The same conception of faith underlies all the exhortations to submit ourselves in faith to God; submission presupposes the conviction of faith (i, 5; vi, 16-19; x, 16; xv, 18). The faith described in the Epistle to the Romans, as elsewhere in St. Paul's writings and in the New Testament in general, is furthermore a trusting faith, e. g., in the case of Abraham, whose trust is specially extolled (iv, 17- 21; cf. iii, 3, unbelief and the fidelity of God). So far is this confidence in God's fidelity from excluding dogmatic faith that it is based undeniably on it alone and unconditionally requires it. Without the unswerving acceptance of certain truths (e. g., the Messiahship, the Divinity of Christ, the redemptory character of Christ's death, the Resurrection, etc.), there is for St. Paul, as he never fails to make clear in his Epistles, no Christianity. Therefore, justifying faith comprises dogmatic faith as well as hope. Again, it would never have occurred to St. Paul to conceive baptism as other than necessary for salvation: Romans itself offers the surest guarantee that baptism and faith, viewed of course from different standpoints, are alike necessary for justification (vi, 3 sqq.; Gal., iii, 26 sq.). The turning away from sin is also necessary for justification. Paul cannot proclaim sufficiently the incompatibility of sin and the Divine sonship. If the Christian must avoid sin, those who seek salvation must also turn aside from it. While St. Paul never speaks in his Epistle of penance and contrition, these constitute so self-evident a condition that they do not call for any special mention. Besides, chapters i-iii are only a grand exposition of the truth that sin separates us from God. For the nature of justification it is immaterial whether Paul is displaying before the eyes of the Christian the consequences of sin, or is making sentiments of contrition and a change to a Christian mode of life a necessary preliminary condition for the obtaining of grace. What sentiments he requires, he describes in the words: "For in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision; but faith, which worketh by charity" (Gal., v, 6). It is merely a repetition of the sentence when the Apostle, after proclaiming freedom in Christ, seeks to remove the misconception that the condition of Christian freedom might endure anything and become synonymous with liberty to sin (Gal., v, 13-21; cf. Rom., xii, 1 sq.; xiii, 12 sqq.; viii, 12 sqq.; xi, 20 sqq.). We thus see what Paul would have us understand by justifying faith. If he does not always describe it from every standpoint as in the present instance, but designates it as dogmatic or trusting faith, the reason is easily understood. He has no intention of describing all the stages along the road to justification; he is so far from desiring to give a strict definition of its nature, that he wishes merely to indicate the fundamental condition on the part of man. This condition is, from the standpoint of the supernatural character of justification, not so much the feeling of contrition or the performance of penitential works as the trusting acceptance of the promise of God. When a person has once taken this first step, all the rest, if he be consistent, follows of itself. To regard justifying faith as the work or outcome of natural man and to attribute grace to this work, is to misunderstand the Apostle. The free submission which lies in faith prepares the soul for the reception of grace. Provided that the teaching of St. Paul be studied in the context in which it is found in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, it cannot be misunderstood. If, however, Paul in both Epistles forestalls an unjustified practical consequence that might be drawn therefrom, this is a proof of his deep knowledge of mankind, but in no way a limitation of his doctrine. The faith which justifies without the works of the Law and the Christian freedom from the Law continue unimpaired. The possibility of error would be afforded if one were to withdraw the words of the Apostle from their context; even shibboleths for libertinism might be extracted in that case from his teaching. This leads us to the well-known sentence in the Epistle of St. James concerning faith without works (ii, 20, 24). Was this written in premeditated opposition to St. Paul? Paul and James Two questions must be distinguished in our inquiry: (1) Is there an historical connexion between the statements in the Epistles? (2) How are the antitheses to be explained? Are they premeditated or not? (1) The possibility of a direct reference in the Epistle of St. James to St. Paul (this hypothesis alone is tenable) depends on the question of the priority of the Epistle. For scholars (e. g., Neander, Beyschlag, Th. Zahn, Belser, Canerlynck, etc.) who hold that the Epistle of St. James was written before a.d. 50, the question is settled. But the grounds for the assigning of this date to the Epistle are not entirely convincing, since the Epistle fits in better with the conditions of the succeeding decades. An extreme attitude is adopted by many modern critics (e. g., Chr. Baur, Hilgenfeld, H. J. Hultzmann, von Soden, Juelicher), who assign the Epistle to the second century-a scarcely intelligible position in view of the historical conditions. If the Epistle of St. James were composed shortly after the year 60, it might, in view of the lively intercourse among the Christians, have been influenced by the misunderstood views of the teachings of St. Paul, and James may have combated the misused formula of St. Paul. The almost verbal connexion in the passages might thus be accounted for. (2) Does there exist any real opposition between Paul and James? This question is answered in the affirmative in many quarters to-day. Paul, it is asserted, taught justification through faith without works, while James simply denied St. Paul's teaching (Rom., iii, 28), and seeks a different explanation for the chief passage quoted by St. Paul (Gen., xv, 6) concerning the faith of Abraham (Juelicher and others). But does James really treat of justification in the same sense as St. Paul? Their formulation of the question is different from the outset. James speaks of true justice before God, which, he declares, consists not alone in a firm faith, but in a faith supported and enlivened by works (especially of charity). Without works faith is useless and dead (ii, 17, 20). James addresses himself to readers who are already within the fold, but who may not lead a moral life and may appeal in justification of their conduct to the word of faith. To those who adopt this attitude, James can only answer: "But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed" (i, 25). Throughout his Epistle James aims at attaining the translation of faith to life and works; in speaking of a faith that worketh by charity (Gal., v, 6), Paul really teaches exactly the same as James. But what of the argument of James and his appeal to Abraham? "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God" (ii, 21-23). Paul, like James, appealed to the same Abraham-both rightly from their individual standpoints. With entire right could Paul declare that Abraham owed his justice, not to circumcision, but to his faith; with complete right could James appeal to Abraham's act of obedience and assert that faith accompanied it and by it faith was completed. And if James applies to this act the phrase: "It was reputed to him to justice", he is quite entitled to do so, since Abraham's obedience is rewarded with a new and glorious promise of God (Gen., xxii, 16 sqq.). It is clear from the whole passage that James does not use the word "justify", in the sense in which Paul speaks of the first justification, but in the sense of an increasing justification (cf. Rom., ii, 13; Apoc., xxii, 11), as corresponds to the object or the Epistle. Of any contradiction between the Epistle to the Romans and that of St. James, therefore, there can be no question. Finally, there is a difference in the use of the term faith. In the passage in question, James uses the term in a narrow sense. As shown by the reference to the faith of the demons (ii, 19), nothing more is here meant by faith than a firm conviction and undoubting acceptance, which is shared even by the damned, and has therefore in itself no moral value. Such a faith would never have been termed by St. Paul a justifying faith. That throughout the whole course of the Epistle of St. James St. Paul's doctrine of justification is never called into question, and that St. Paul on his side shows nowhere the least opposition to St. James, calls for no further proof. The fundamental conceptions and the whole treatment in the two Epistles exclude all views to the contrary. Consult the Introduction by Jacquier, Cornely, Belser, Kaulen, Th. Zahn, Holtzmann, JUelicher, Lightfoot, The Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the Romans in Jour. of Philolog., II (1869), reprinted in Biblical Essays (London, 1893-4), 285-374. Commentaries: Origen - Rufinus; Ephraem; Chrysostum; Ambrosiaster; Pelagius; Augustine; Theophylactus; OE CUMENIUS; Thomas Aquinas; Erasmus; Cajetan; Tolet; Estius; a Lapide; Calmet; Reithmayr; Adalb. Maier (1847); Bisping (2nd ed., Muenster, 1860); Mac Evilly (3rd ed., Dublin, 1875); Schaefer (Muenster, 1891); Cornely (Paris, 1896). Protestant Commentaries: Luther, Vorlesungen ueber den Roemerbrief 1515-1516, ed. by Ficker (Leipzig, 1908); Melanchthon; Beza; Calvin; Zwingli; Grotius; Bengel; Wettstein; Tholuck (5th ed., 1856); Olshausen (2ND ED., 1840); Fritsche (3 vols., 1836-43); Meyler Weiss (9th ed., Goettingen, 1899, tr. Edinburgh, 187304); Lipsius, Holtzmann, Handkommentar (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1892); JUelicher (J. Weiss), Die Schriften des N. T., II (2nd ed., Goettingen, 1908); Leitzmann, Handbuch zum N. T., III (Tuebingen, 1906); Zahn (Leipzig, 1901); Godet (2nd ed., 1883-90, tr. Edinburgh, 1881); Gifford, Speaker's Commentary (1881), separate (1886); Sanday- Headlam, The International Crit. Commentary (5th ed., Edinburgh, 1905). For further literature see Cornely; Sanday; Weiss. Theological Questions.- Simar, Die Theol. des hl. Paulus (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1883); Prat, La theol. de s. P., I (Paris, 1908); Holtzmann, Lehrbuch d. neutest. Theol., II (Freiburg, 1908); new ed. being published); Weiss, Lehrbuch d. bibl. Theol. d. N. T. (7th ed., Stuttgart, 1903); Feine, Theol. des N. T. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1911); Bartmann, St. P. u. St. J. ueber die Rechtfertigung in Bibl. Studien, XI (Freiburg, 1904), i. A. Merk Saints Romanus Sts. Romanus (1) A Roman martyr Romanus is mentioned in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 155) with three other ecclesiastics as companions in the martyrdom of St. Lawrence (10 August, 258). There is no reason to doubt that this mention rests upon a genuine ancient tradition. Like St. Lawrence Romanus was buried in the Catacomb of the Cyriaca on the Via Tiburtina. The grave of St. Romanus is explicitly mentioned in the Itineraries of the seventh century (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 178-9). In the purely legendary Acts of St. Lawrence, the ostiary Romanus is transformed into a soldier, and an account in accordance with this statement was inserted in the historical martyrologies and in the present Roman Martyrology, which latter places his feast on 9 August (cf. Duchfourcq, "Les Gesta Martyrum romains", I, 201). (2) In 303 or 304, at the beginning of the Diocletian persecution, a deacon called Romanus of Caesarea in Palestine suffered martyrdom at Antioch. Upon the proclamation of Diocletian's edict he strengthened the Christians of Antioch and openly exhorted the weaker brethren, who were willing to offer heathen sacrifices, not to waver in the Faith. He was taken prisoner, was condemned to death by fire, and was bound to the stake; however, as the Emperor Galerius was then in Antioch, Romanus was brought before him. At the emperor's command the tongue of the courageous confessor was cut out. Tortured in various ways in prison he was finally strangled. Eusebius speaks of his martyrdom in "De martyribus Palestin.", c. ii. Prudentius ("Peristephanon", X in "P.L.", LX, 444 sqq.) relates other details and gives Romanus a companion in martyrdom, a Christian by name Barulas. On this account several historians, among them Baronius, consider that there were two martyrs named Romanus at Antioch, though more likely there was but the one whom Eusebius mentions. Prudentius has introduced legendary features into his account, and his connection of the martyrdom of Barulas with that of Romanus is probably arbitrary. The feast of St. Romanus is observed on 18 November [cf. Allard, "Histoire des persecutions", IV, 173 sq.; Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques" (Paris, 1908), 183-5]. (3) The "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" mentions martyrs of this name at several dates, chiefly in large companies of Christians who suffered martyrdom. No further particulars are known of any of them. (4) A holy priest named Romanus laboured in the district of Blaye, in the present French department of the Gironde, at the end of the fourth century. Gregory of Tours gives an account of him ("De gloria confessorum", c. xlv), and relates that St. Martin of Tours made ready the grave of the dead Romanus. An old life of St. Romanus was published in the "Analecta Bollandiana", V (1866), 178 sqq. The feast of the saint is observed on 24 November. (5) St. Romanus, Abbot of Condat, now St. Claude in the French Jura, b. about 400; d. in 463 or 464. When thirty-five years old he went into the lonely region of Condat to live as a hermit, where after a while his younger brother Lupicinus followed him. A large number of scholars, among whom was St. Eugendus, placed themselves under the direction of the two holy brothers who founded several monasteries: Condat (now Saint-Claude), Lauconne (later Saint-Lupicin, as Lupicinus was buried there), La Balme (later Saint-Romain-de-Roche), where St. Romanus was buried, and Romainmotier (Romanum monasterium) in the canton of Vaud in Switzerland. Romanus was ordained priest by St. Hilary of Arles in 444, and with Lupicinus he directed these monasteries until his death. His feast is observed on 28 February. Two lives of him are in existence: one by Gregory of Tours in the "Liber vitae patrum" (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script. Merov., I, 663), and an anonymous "Vita Sanctorum Romani, Lupicini, Eugendi" [ibid., III, 131 sqq.; cf. Benoit, "Histoire de St-Claude", I (Paris, 1890); Besson, "Recherches sur les origines des eveches de Geneve, Lausanne, et Sion" (Fribourg, 1906), 210 sqq.]. (6) St. Romanus, monk in a monastery near Subiaco, Italy, at the beginning of the sixth century. He aided St. Benedict when the latter withdrew into a solitary place and regularly brought Benedict bread to support life (St. Gregory the Great, "Dialogi", II, i). Romanus later (fom 523) represented St. Benedict at Subiaco, and is said to have afterwards gone to Gaul and to have founded a small monastery at Dryes-Fontrouge, where he died about 550 and was venerated as a saint. His feast is observed on 22 May. A St. Romanus, who is venerated as Bishop of Auxerre on 8 October, is probably identical with this Abbot Romanus whose relics were subsequently translated to Auxerre [cf. "Acta SS.", May, V, 153 sqq.; October, III, 396 sqq.; Adlhoch in "Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benedictiner- und Cisterzienerorden" (1907), 267 sqq., 501 sqq.; (1908), 103 sqq., 327 sqq., 587 sqq.; Leclerc, "Vie de St Romain, educateur de St Benoit" (Paris, 1893)]. (7) St. Romanus, Bishop of Rouen, date of birth unknown; d. about 640. His feast is observed on 23 October. The legend of this saint has little historical value (Acta SS., October, X, 91 sqq.), and there is but little authentic information concerning him [cf. "Analecta Bollandiana" (1904), 337 sq.]. (8) St. Romanus, "the Singer", the most important representative of rhythmic poetry in the Greek Church. According to the Greek "Menaia" he was born in Syria, was ordained deacon at Berytus, then went to Constantinople, where he became one of the clergy at the Blachernen church. The era in which he lived is not certainly ascertained; most probably, however, his residence in Constantinople was from about 515 to 556. His feast is observed on 1 October. Several of his poems were edited by Pitra, "Analecta sacra", I (Paris, 1876), 1-241 [cf. Maas, "Die Chronologie der Hymnen des Romanus" in "Byzantin. Zeitschrift" (1906), 1-44; Bardenhewer, "Patrologie" (3rd ed.), 486]. [ Note: St. Romanus the Singer, described above (8), is identical with St. Romanos the Melodist (q.v.), Romanus and Romanos being the Latin and Greek forms respectively of the same name.] J.P. KIRSCH Pope Romanus Pope Romanus Of this pope very little is known with certainty, not even the date of his birth nor the exact dates of his consecration as pope and of his death. He was born at Gallese near Civita Castellana, and was the son of Constantine. He became cardinal of St. Peter ad Vincula and pope about August, 897. He died four months later. He granted the pallium to Vitalis, Patriarch of Grado, and a privilege for his church; and to the Spanish Bishops of Elna and Gerona, he confirmed the possessions of their sees. His coins bear the name of the Emperor Lambert, and his own monogram with "Scs. Petrus". The contemporary historian Frodoard has three verses about him which argue him a man of virtue. It is possible he was deposed by one of the factions which then distracted Rome, for we read that "he was made a monk", a phrase which, in the language of the times, often denoted deposition. JAFFE, Regesta Pont. Rom., I (Leipzig, 1888), 441; DUCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis, II (Paris, 1892), 230; MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV (London, 1910), 86 sq. HORACE K. MANN Rome Rome The significance of Rome lies primarily in the fact that it is the city of the pope. The Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. Rome is consequently the centre of unity in belief, the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the seat of the supreme authority which can bind by its enactments the faithful throughout the world. The Diocese of Rome is known as the "See of Peter", the "Apostolic See", the "Holy Roman Church" the "Holy See" -- titles which indicate its unique position in Christendom and suggest the origin of its preeminence. Rome, more than any other city, bears witness both to the past splendour of the pagan world and to the triumph of Christianity. It is here that the history of the Church can be traced from the earliest days, from the humble beginnings in the Catacombs to the majestic ritual of St. Peter's. At every turn one comes upon places hallowed by the deaths of the martyrs, the lives of innumerable saints, the memories of wise and holy pontiffs. From Rome the bearers of the Gospel message went out to the peoples of Europe and eventually to the uttermost ends of the earth. To Rome, again, in every age countless pilgrims have thronged from all the nations, and especially from English-speaking countries. With religion the missionaries carried the best elements of ancient culture and civilization which Rome had preserved amid all the vicissitudes of barbaric invasion. To these treasures of antiquity have been added the productions of a nobler art inspired by higher ideals, that have filled Rome with masterpieces in architecture, painting, and sculpture. These appeal indeed to every mind endowed with artistic perception; but their full meaning only the Catholic believer can appreciate, because he alone, in his deepest thought and feeling, is at one with the spirit that pulsates here in the heart of the Christian world. Many details concerning Rome have been set forth in other articles of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. For the prerogatives of the papacy the reader is referred to POPE; for the ecclesiastical government of the city and diocese, to CARDINAL VICAR; for liturgical matters, to ROMAN RITE; for education, to ROMAN COLLEGES; for literary development, to ROMAN ACADEMIES; for history, to the biographical articles on the various popes, and the articles CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, CHARLEMAGNE, etc. There is a special article on each of the religious orders, saints, and artists mentioned in this article, while the details of the papal administration, both spiritual and temporal, will be found treated under APOSTOLIC CAMERA; PONTIFICAL AUDIENCES; APOSTOLIC EXAMINERS; HOLY SEE; PAPAL RESCRIPTS; ROMAN CONGREGATIONS; ROMAN CURIA; SACRA ROMANA ROTA; STATES OF THE CHURCH, etc. Of the great Christian monuments of the Eternal City, special articles are devoted to BASILICA OF ST. PETER; TOMB OF ST. PETER; LATERAN BASILICA; VATICAN; CHAIR OF PETER. The present article will be divided: Topography and Existing Conditions; General History of the City; Churches and other Monuments. I. TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of Rome rises on the banks of the Tiber at a distance of from 16 to 19 miles from the mouth of that river, which makes a deep furrow in the plain which extends between the Alban hills, to the south; the hills of Palestrina and Tivoli, and the Sabine hills, to the east: and the Umbrian hills and Monte Tolfa, to the north. The city stands in latitude 41DEG54' N. and longitude 12DEG30' E. of Greenwich. It occupies, on the left bank, not only the plain, but also the adjacent heights, namely, portions of the Parioli hills, of the Pincian, the Quirinal, the Viminal, the Esquiline (which are only the extremities of a mountain-mass of tufa extending to the Alban hills), the Capitoline, the Caelian, the Palatine, and the Aventine -- hills which are now isolated. On the right bank is the valley lying beneath Monte Mario the Vatican, and the Janiculan, the last-named of which has now become covered with houses and gardens. The Tiber, traversing the city, forms two sharp bends and an island (S. Bartolomeo), and within the city its banks are protected by the strong and lofty walls which were begun in 1875. The river is crossed by fourteen bridges, one of them being only provisional, while ten have been built since 1870. There is also a railroad drawbridge near St. Paul's. Navigation on the river is practicable only for vessels of light draught, which anchor at Ripa Grande, taking cargoes of oil and other commodities. For the cure of souls, the city is divided into 54 parishes (including 7 in the suburbs), administered partly by secular clergy, partly by regular. The boundaries of the parishes have been radically changed by Pius X, to meet new needs arising out of topographical changes. Each parish has, besides its parish priest, one or two assistant priests, a chief sacristan, and an indeterminate number of chaplains. The parish priests every year elect a chamberlain of the clergy, whose position is purely honorary; every month they assemble for a conference to discuss cases in moral theology and also the practical exigencies of the ministry. In each parish there is a parochial committee for Catholic works; each has its various confraternities, many of which have their own church and oratory. In the vast extent of country outside of Rome, along the main highways, there are chapels for the accommodation of the few settled inhabitants, and the labourers and shepherds who from October to July are engaged in the work of the open country. In former times most of these chapels had priests of their own, who also kept schools; nowadays, through the exertions of the Society for the Religious Aid of the Agro Romano (i. e. the country districts around Rome), priests are taken thither from Rome every Sunday to say Mass, catechize, and preach on the Gospel. The houses of male religious number about 160; of female religious, 205, for the most part devoted to teaching, ministering to the sick in public and private hospitals, managing various houses of retreat etc. Besides the three patriarchal chapters (see below, under "Churches"), there are at Rome eleven collegiate chapters. In the patriarchal basilicas there are confessors for all the principal languages. Some nations have their national churches (Germans, Anima and Campo Santo; French, S. Luigi and S. Claudio; Croats, S. Girolamo dei Schiavoni; Belgians, S. Giuliano; Portuguese, S. Antonio; Spaniards, S. Maria in Monserrato; to all which may be added the churches of the Oriental rites). Moreover, in the churches and chapels of many religious houses, particularly the generalates, as well as in the various national colleges, it is possible for foreigners to fulfil their religious obligations. For English-speaking persons the convents of the Irish Dominicans (S. Clemente) and of the Irish Franciscans (S. Isidoro), the English, Irish, and American Colleges, the new Church of S. Patrizio in the Via Ludovisi, that of S. Giorgio of the English Sisters in the Via S. Sebastianello, and particularly S. Silvestro in Capite (Pallottini) should be mentioned. In these churches, too, there are, regularly, sermons in English on feast-day afternoons, during Lent and Advent, and on other occasions. Sometimes there are sermons in English in other churches also, notice being given beforehand by bills posted outside the churches and by advertisements in the papers. First Communions are mostly made in the parish churches; many parents place their daughters in seclusion during the period of immediate preparation, in some educational institution. There are also two institutions for the preparation of boys for their First Communion, one of them without charge (Ponte Rotto). Christian doctrine is taught both in the day and night schools which are dependent either on the Holy See, or on religious congregations or Catholic associations. For those who attend the public elementary schools, parochial catechism is provided on Sunday and feast-day afternoons. For intermediate and university students suitable schools of religious instruction have been formed, connected with the language schools and the scholastic ripetizioni, so as to attract the young men. The confraternities, altogether 92 in number, are either professional (for members of certain professions or trades), or national, or for some charitable object (e. g., for charity to prisoners; S. Lucia del Gonfalone and others like it, for giving dowries to poor young women of good character; the Confraternit`a della Morte, for burying those who die in the country districts, and various confraternities for escorting funerals, of which the principal one is that of the Sacconi; that of S. Giovanni Decollato, to assist persons condemned to death), or again they have some purely devotional aim, like the Confraternities of the Blessed Sacrament, of the Christian Doctrine, of the various mysteries of religion, and of certain saints. For ecclesiastical instruction there are in the city, besides the various Italian and foreign colleges, three great ecclesiastical universities: the Gregorian, under the Jesuits; the Schools of the Roman Seminary, at S. Apollinare; the Collegio Angelico of the Dominicans, formerly known as the Minerva. Several religious orders also have schools of their own -- the Benedictines at S. Anselmo, the Franciscans at S. Antonio, the Redemptorists at S. Alfonso, the Calced Carmelites at the College of S. Alberto, the. Capuchina the Minor Conventuals, the Augustinians, and others. (See ROMAN COLLEGES.) For classical studies there are, besides the schools of S. Apollinare, the Collegio Massimo, under the Jesuits, comprising also elementary and technical schools; the Collegio Nazareno (Piarists), the gymnasium and intermediate school of which take rank with those of the Government; the Instituto Angelo Mai (Barnabite). The Brothers of the Christian Schools have a flourishing technical institute (de Merode) with a boarding-house (convitto). There are eight colleges for youths under the direction of ecclesiastics or religious. The Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Catholic Interests also maintain forty-six elementary schools for the people mostly under the care of religious congregations. For the education of girls there are twenty-six institutions directed by Sisters, some of which also receive day-pupils. The orphanages are nine in number, and some of them are connected with technical and industrial schools. The Salesians, too, have a similar institution, and there are two agricultural institutions. Hospices are provided for converts from the Christian sects and for Hebrew neophytes. Thirty other houses of refuge, for infants, orphans, old people, etc., are directed by religious men or women. As the capital of Italy, Rome is the residence of the reigning house, the ministers, the tribunals, and the other civil and military officials of both the national Government and the provincial. For public instruction there are the university, two technical institutes, a commercial high school, five gymnasium-lyceums, eight technical schools, a female institute for the preparation of secondary teachers, a national boarding school, and other lay institutions, besides a military college. There are also several private schools for languages etc. -- the Vaticana, the Nazionale (formed out of the libraries of the Roman College, of the Aracoeli Convent and other monastic libraries partially ruined), the Corsiniana (now the School of the Accademia dei Lincei), the Casanatense (see CASANATTA), the Angelica (formerly belonging to the Augustinians), the Vallicellana (Oratorians, founded by Cardinal Baronius), the Militare Centrale, the Chigiana, and others. (For the academies see ACADEMIES, ROMAN.) Foreign nations maintain institutions for artistic, historical, or archaeological study (America, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Prussia, Holland, Belgium, France). There are three astronomical and meteorological observatories: the Vatican, the Capitol (Campidoglio), and the Roman College (Jesuit), the last-named, situated on the Janiculan, has been suppressed. The museums and galleries worthy of mention are the Vatican (see VATICAN), those of Christian and of profane antiquities at the Lateran (famous for the "Dancing Satyr"; the "Sophocles", one of the finest of portrait statues in existence found at Terracina; the "Neptune", the pagan and Christian sarcophagi with decorations in relief, and the statue of Hippolytus). In the gallery at the Lateran there are paintings by Crivelli, Gozzoli, Lippi, Spagna, Francia, Palmezzano, Sassoferrato, and Seitz. The Capitoline Museum contains Roman prehistoric tombs and household furniture, reliefs from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius, a head of Amalasunta, a half-length figure of the Emperor Commodus, the epitaph of the infant prodigy Quintus Sulpicius Maximus, the Esquiline and the Capitoline Venuses, "Diana of the Ephesians", the Capitoline Wolf (Etruscan work of the fifth century b.c.), Marforius, the Dying Gladiator, busts of the emperors and other famous men of antiquity, and Vespasian's "Lex regia"; the Gallery contains works by Spagna, Tintoretto, Caracci, Caravaggio, Guercino (St. Petronilla, the original of the mosaic in St. Peter's), Guido Reni, Titian, Van Dyke, Domenichino, Paolo Veronese, and other masters. There are important numismatic collections and collections of gold jewelry. The Villa Giulia has a collection of Etruscan terracotta; the Museo Romano, objects recently excavated; the Museo Kircheriano has been enlarged into an ethnographical museum. The Borghese Gallery is in the villa of the same name. The National Gallery, in the Exposition Building (Palazzo dell' Esposizione), is formed out of the Corsini, Sciarra, and Torlonia collections, together with modern acquisitions. There are also various private collections in different parts of the city. The institutions of public charity are all consolidated in the Congregazione di Carit`a, under the Communal Administration. There are twenty-seven public hospitals, the most important of which are: the Polyclinic, which is destined to absorb all the others; S. Spirito, to which is annexed the lunatic asylum and the foundling hospital; S. Salvatore, a hospital for women, in the Lateran; S. Giacomo; S. Antonio; the Consolazione; two military hospitals. There are also an institute for the blind, two clinics for diseases of the eye, twenty-five asylums for abandoned children, three lying-in hospitals, and numerous private clinics for paying patients. The great public promenades are the Pincian, adjoining the Villa Borghese and now known as the Umberto Primo, where a zoological garden has recently been installed, and the Janiculum. Several private parks or gardens, as the Villa Pamphili, are also accessible to the public every day. The population of Rome in 1901 was 462,783. Of these 5000 were Protestants, 7000 Jews, 8200 of other religions and no religion. In the census now (1910) being made an increase of more than 100,000 is expected. Rome is now the most salubrious of all the large cities of Italy, its mortality for 1907 being 18.8 per thousand, against 19.9 at Milan and 19.6 at Turin. The Press is represented by five agencies: there are 17 daily papers, two of them Catholic ("Osservatore Romano" and "Corriere d'Italia"); 8 periodicals are issued once or oftener in the week (5 catholic, 4 in English -- "Rome", "Roman Herald", "Roman Messenger", "Roman World"); 88 are issued more than once a month (7 Catholic); there are 101 monthlies (19 Catholic); 55 periodicals appear less frequently than once a month. II. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CITY Arms and implements of the Palaeolithic Age, found in the near vicinity of Rome, testify to the presence of man here in those remote times. The most recent excavations have established that as early as the eighth century b.c. or, according to some, several centuries earlier, there was a group of human habitations on the Palatine Hill, a tufaceous ledge rising in the midst of marshy ground near the Tiber. (That river, it may be observed here, was known to the primitive peoples by the name of Rumo, "the River".) Thus is the traditional account of the origin of Rome substantially verified. At the same time, or very little later, a colony of Sabines was formed on the Quirinal, and on the Esquiline an Etruscan colony. Between the Palatine and the Quirinal rose the Capitoline, once covered by two sacred groves, afterwards occupied by the temple of Jupiter and the Rock. Within a small space, therefore, were established the advance guards of three distinct peoples of different characters; the Latins, shepherds; the Sabines, tillers of the soil; the Etruscans, already far advanced in civilization, and therefore in commerce and the industries. How these three villages became a city, with, first, the Latin influence preponderating, then the Sabine, then the Etruscan (the two Tarquins), is all enveloped in the obscurity of the history of the seven kings (753-509 b.c.). The same uncertainty prevails as to the conquests made at the expense of the surrounding peoples. it is unquestionable that all those conquests had to be made afresh after the expulsion of the kings. But the social organization of the new city during this period stands out clearly: There were three original tribes: the Ramnians (Latins), the Titians (Sabines), and the Luceres (Etruscans). Each tribe was divided into ten curioe, each curia into ten gentes; each gens into ten (or thirty) families. Those who belonged to these, the most ancient, tribes were Patricians, and the chiefs of the three hundred gentes formed the Senate. In the course of time and the wars with surrounding peoples, new inhabitants occupied the remaining hills; thus, under Tullus Hostilius, the Caelian was assigned to the population of the razed Alba Longa (Albano); the Sabines, conquered by Ancus Martius, had the Aventine. Later on, the Viminal was occupied. The new inhabitants formed the Plebeians (Plebs), and their civil rights were less than those of the older citizens. The internal history of Rome down to the Imperial Period is nothing but a struggle of plebeians against patricians for the acquisition of greater civil rights, and these struggles resulted in the civil, political, and juridical organization of Rome. The king was high-priest, judge, leader in war and head of the Government; the Senate and the Comitia of the People were convoked by him at his pleasure, and debated the measures proposed by him. Moreover, the kingly dignity was hereditary. Among the important public works in this earliest period were the drains, or sewers (cloacoe), for draining the marshes around the Palatine, the work of the Etruscan Tarquinius Priscus; the city wall was built by Servius Tullius, who also organized the Plebeians, dividing them into thirty tribes; the Sublician Bridge was constructed to unite the Rome of that time with the Janiculan. During the splendid reign of Tarquinius Superbus, Rome was the mistress of Latium as far as Circeii and Signia. But, returning victorious from Ardea, the king found the gates of the city closed against him. Rome took to itself a republican form of government, with two consuls, who held office for only one year; only in times of difficulty was a dictator elected, to wield unlimited power. In the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus some historians have seen a revolt of the Latin element against Etruscan domination. Besides wars and treaties with the Latins and other peoples, the principal events, down to the burning of Rome by the Gauls, were the institution of the tribunes of the people (tribuni plebis), the establishment of the laws of the Twelve Tables, and the destruction of Veii. In 390 the Romans were defeated by the Gauls near the River Allia; a few days later the city was taken and set on fire, and after the Gauls had departed it was rebuilt without plan or rule. Cumillus, the dictator, reorganized the army and, after long resistance to the change, at last consented that one of the consuls should be a plebeian. Southern Etruria became subject to Rome, with the capture of Nepi and Sutri in 386. The Appian Way and Aqueduct were constructed at this period. Very soon it was possible to think of conquering the whole peninsula. The principal stages of this conquest are formed by the three wars against the Samnites (victory of Suesaula 343); the victory of Bovianum, 304; those over the Etruscans and Umbrians, in 310 and 308; lastly the victory of Sentinum, in 295, over the combined Samnites, Etruscans, and Gauls. The Tarentine (282-272) and the First and Second Punic Wars (264-201) determined the conquest of the rest of Italy, with the adjacent islands, as well as the first invasion of Spain. Soon after this, the Kingdom of Macedonia (Cynoscephalae, 197; Pydna, 168) and Greece (capture of Corinth, 146) were subdued, while the war against Antiochus of Syria (192-89) and against the Galatians (189) brought Roman supremacy into Asia, In 146 Carthage was destroyed, and Africa reduced to subjection; between 149 and 133 the conquest of Spain was completed. Everywhere Roman colonies sprang up. With conquest, the luxurious vices of the conquered peoples also came to Rome, and thus the contrast between patricians and plebeians was accentuated. To champion the cause of the plebeians there arose the brothers Tiberius and Calus Gracchus. The Servile Wars (132-171) and the Jugurthine War (111-105) revealed the utter corruption of Roman society. Marius and Sulla, both of whom had won glory in foreign wars, rallied to them the two opposing parties, Democratic and Aristocratic, respectively. Sulla firmly established his dictatorship with the victory of the Colline Gate (83), reorganized the administration, and enacted some good laws to arrest the moral decay of the city. But the times were ripe for the oligarchy, which was to lead in the natural course of events to the monarchy. In the year 60, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus formed the first Triumvirate. While Caesar conquered Gaul (58-50), and Crassus waged an unsuccessful war against the Parthians (54-53), Pompey succeeded in gaining supreme control of the capital. The war between Pompey to whom the nobles adhered, and Caesar, who had the democracy with him, was inevitable. The battle of Pharsalia (48) decided the issue; in 45 Caesar was already thinking of establishing monarchical government; his assassination (44) could do no more than delay the movement towards monarchy. Another triumvirate was soon formed by Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian; Antony and Octavian disagreed, and at Actium (32) the issue was decided in Octavian's favour. Roman power had meanwhile been consolidated and extended in Spain, in Gaul, and even as far as Pannonia, in Pontus, in Palestine, and in Egypt. Henceforward Roman history is no longer the history of the City of Rome, although it was only under Caracalla (a.d. 211) that Roman citizenship was accorded to all free subjects of the empire. In the midst of these political vicissitudes the city was growing and being beautified with temples and other buildings, public and private. On the Campus Martius and beyond the Tiber, at the foot of the Janiculan, new and populous quarters sprang up with theatres (those of Pompey and of Marcellus) and circuses (the Maximus and the Flaminius, 221 b.c.). The centre of political life was the Forum, which had been the market before the centre of buying and selling was transferred, in 388, to the Campus Martius (Forum Holitorium), leaving the old Forum Romanum to the business of the State. Here were the temples of Concord (366), Saturn (497), the Di Consentes, Castor and Pollux (484), the Basilica AEmilia (179), the Basilica Julia (45), the Curia Hostilia (S. Adriano), the Rostra, etc. Scarcely had the empire been consolidated when Augustus turned his attention to the embellishment of Rome, and succeeding emperors followed his example: brick-built Rome became marble Rome. After the sixth decade b.c. many Hebrews had settled at Rome, in the Trastevere quarter and that of the Porta Capena, and soon they became a financial power. They were incessantly making proselytes, especially among the women of the upper classes. The names of thirteen synagogues are known as existing (though not all at the same time) at Rome during the Imperial Period. Thus was the way prepared for the Gospel, whereby Rome, already mistress of the world, was to be given a new sublimer and more lasting, title to that dominion -- the dominion over the souls of all mankind. Even on the Day of Pentecost, "Roman strangers" (advenoe Romani, Acts, ii, 10) were present at Jerusalem, and they surely must have carried the good news to their fellow-citizens at Rome. Ancient tradition assigns to the year 42 the first coming of St. Peter to Rome, though, according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City. Under Claudius (c. a.d. 50), the name of Christ had become such an occasion of discord among the Hebrews of Rome that the emperor drove them all out of the city, though they were not long in returning. About ten years later Paul also arrived, a prisoner, and exercised a vigorous apostolate during his sojourn. The Christians were numerous at that time, even at the imperial Court. The burning of the city -- by order of Nero, who wished to effect a thorough renovation -- was the pretext for the first official persecution of the Christian name. Moreover, it was very natural that persecution, which had been occasional, should in course of time have become general and systematic; hence it is unnecessary to transfer the date of the Apostles' martyrdom from the year 67, assigned by tradition, to the year 64 (see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT). Domitian's reign took its victims both from among the opponents of absolutism and from the Christians; among them some who were of very exalted rank -- Titus Flavius Clemens, Acilius Glabrio (Cemetery of Priscilla), and Flavia Domitilla, a relative of the emperor. It must have been then, too, that St. John, according to a very ancient legend (Tertullian), was brought to Rome. The reign of Trajan and Adrian was the culminating point of the arts at Rome. The Roman martyrdoms attributed to this period are, with the exception of St. Ignatius's, somewhat doubtful. At the same time the heads of various Gnostic sects settled at Rome, notably Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion; but it does not appear that they had any great following. Under Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Commodus, several Roman martyrs are known -- Pope St. Telesphorus, Sts. Lucius, Ptolemaeus, Justin and companions, and the Senator Apollonius. Under Commodus, thanks to Martia, his morganatic wife, the condition of the Christians improved. At the same time the schools of Rhodon, St. Justin, and others flourished. But three new heresies from the East brought serious trouble to the internal peace of the Church: that of Theodotus, the shoemaker of Byzantium; that of Noetus brought in by one Epigonus; and Montanism. In the struggle against these heresies, particularly the last-named, the priest Hippolytus, a disciple of St. Irenaeus, bore a distinguished part but he, in his turn, incurred the censures of Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus and became the leader of a schismatical party. But the controversies between Hippolytus and Callistus were not confined to theological questions, but also bore upon discipline, the pope thinking proper to introduce certain restrictions. Another sect transplanted to Rome at this period was that of the Elcesaites. The persecution of Septimius Severus does not appear to have been very acute at Rome, where, before this time, many persons of rank -- even of the imperial household -- had been Christians. The long period of tranquillity, hardly interrupted by Maximinus (235-38), fostered the growth of Roman church organization; so much so that, under Cornelius, after the first fury of the Decian persecution, the city numbered about 50,000 Christians. The last-named persecution produced many Roman martyrs -- Pope St. Fabian among the first -- and many apostates, and the problem of reconciling the latter resulted in the schism of Novatian. The persecution of Valerian, too, fell first upon the Church of Rome. Under Aurelian (271-76), the menace of an invasion of the Germans who had already advanced as far as Pesaro compelled the emperor to restore and extend the walls of Rome. The persecution of Diocletian also had its victims in the city, although there are no trustworthy records of them; it did not last long, however, in the West. Maxentius went so far as to restore to the Christians their cemeteries and other landed property, and, if we are to believe Eusebius, ended by showing them favour, as a means of winning popularity. At this period several pretentious buildings were erected -- baths, a circus, a basilica, etc. In the fourth and fifth centuries the city began to be embellished with Christian buildings, and the moribund art of antiquity thus received a new accession of vitality. Of the heresies of this period, Arianism alone disturbed the religious peace for a brief space; even Pelagianiam failed to take root. The conflict between triumphant Christianity and dying Paganism was more bitter. Symmachus, Praetextatus, and Nicomachus were the most zealous and most powerful defenders of the ancient religion. At Milan, St. Ambrose kept watch. By the end of the fourth century the deserted temples were becoming filled with cobwebs; pontiffs and vestals were demanding baptism. The statues of the gods served as public ornaments; precious objects were seldom plundered, and until the year 526 not one temple was converted to the uses of Christian worship. In, 402 the necessity once more arose of fortifying Rome. The capital of the world, which had never beheld a hostile army since the days of Hannibal, in 408 withstood the double siege of Alaric. But the Senate, mainly at the instigation of a pagan minority, treated with Alaric, deposed Honorius, and enthroned a new emperor Attalus. Two years later, Alaric returned, succeeded in taking the city, and sacked it. It is false, however, that the destruction of Rome began then. Under Alaric, as in the Gothic war of the sixth century, only so much was destroyed as military exigencies rendered inevitable. The intervention of St. Leo the Great saved the Eternal City from the fury of Attila, but could not prevent the Vandals, in 456, from sacking it without mercy for fifteen days: statues, gold, silver, bronze, brass -- whether the property of the State, or of the Church, or of private persons -- were taken and shipped to Carthage. Rome still called itself the capital of the empire, but since the second century it had seen the emperors only at rare and fleeting moments; even the kings of Italy preferred Ravenna as a residence. Theodoric, nevertheless, made provision for the outward magnificence of the city, preserving its monuments so far as was possible. Pope St. Agapetus and the learned Cassiodorus entertained the idea of creating at Rome a school of advanced Scripture studies, on the model of that which flourished at Edessa, but the Gothic invasion made shipwreck of this design. In that Titanic war Rome stood five sieges. In 536 Belisarius took it without striking a blow. Next year Vitiges besieged it, cutting the aqueducts, plundering the outlying villas, and even penetrating into the catacombs; the city would have been taken had not the garrison of Hadrian's tomb defended themselves with fragments of the statues of heroes and gods which they found in that monument. Soon after the departure of Pope Vigilius from Rome (November, 545), King Totila invested it and captured a fleet bearing supplies sent by Vigilius, who by that time had passed over to Sicily. In December, 546, the city was captured, through the treachery of the Isaurian soldiery, and once more sacked. Totila, obliged to set out for the south, forced the whole population of Rome to leave the city, so that it was left uninhabited; but they returned with Belisarius in 547. Two years later, another Isaurian treachery made Totila once more master of the city, which then for the last time saw the games of the circus. After the battle of Taginae (552), Rome opened its gates to Narces and became Byzantine. The ancient Senate and the Roman nobility were extinct. There was a breathing-space of sixteen years, and then the Lombards drew near to Rome, pillaging and destroying the neighbouring regions. St. Gregory the Great has described the lamentable condition of the city; the same saint did his best to remedy matters. The seventh century was disastrously marked by a violent assault on the Lateran made by Mauricius, the chartularius of the Exarch of Ravenna (640), by the exile of Pope St. Martin (653), and by the visit of the Emperor Constans I (663). The imprisonment of St. Sergius, which had been ordered by Justinian II, was prevented by the native troops of the Exarchate. In the eighth century the Lombards, with Liutprand, were seized with the old idea of occupying all Italy, and Rome in particular. The popes, from Gregory II on, saved the city and Italy from Lombard domination by the power of their threats, until they were finally rescued by the aid of Pepin, when Rome and the peninsula came under Frankish domination. Provision was made for the material well-being of the city by repairs on the walls and the aqueducts, and by the establishment of agricultural colonies (domus cultoe) for the cultivation of the wide domains surrounding the city. But in Rome itself there were various factions -- favouring either the Franks or the Lombards, or, later on, Frankish or Nationalist -- and these factions often caused tumults, as, in particular, on the death of Paul I (767) and at the beginning of Leo III's pontificate (795). With the coronation of Charlemagne (799) Rome became finally detached from the Empire of the East. Though the pope was master of Rome, the power of the Sword was wielded by the imperial missi, and this arrangement came to be more clearly defined by the Constitution of Lothair (824). Thus the government was divided. In the ninth century the pope had to defend Rome and Central Italy against the Saracens. Gregoriopolis, the Leonine City, placed outside the walls for the defence of the Basilica of St. Peter, and sacked in 846, and Joannipolis, for the defence of St. Paul's were built by Gregory IV, Leo IV, and John VIII. The latter two and John X also gained splendid victories over these barbarians. The decline of the Carlovingian dynasty was not without its effect upon the papacy and upon Rome, which became a mere lordship of the great feudal families, especially those of Theodora and Marozia. When Hugh of Provence wished to marry Marozia, so as to become master of Rome, his son Alberic rebelled against him and was elected their chief by the Romans, with the title of Patrician (Patricius) and Consul. The temporal power of the pope might then have come to an end, had not John, Alberic's son, reunited the two powers. But John's life and his conduct of the government necessitated the intervention of the Emperor Otto I (963), who instituted the office of proefectus urbis, to represent the imperial authority. (This office became hereditary in the Vico family.) Order did not reign for long: Crescentius, leader of the anti-papal party, deposed and murdered popes. It was only for a few brief intervals that Otto II (980) and Otto III (996-998-1002) were able to re-establish the imperial and pontifical authority. At the beginning of the eleventh century three popes of the family of the counts of Tusculum immediately succeeded each other, and the last of the three, Benedict IX, led a life so scandalous as made it necessary for Henry III to intervene (1046). The schism of Honorius II and the struggle between Gregory VII and Henry IV exasperated party passions at Rome, and conspicuous in the struggle was another Crescentius, a member of the Imperialist Party. Robert Guiscard, called to the rescue by Gregory VII, sacked the city and burned a great part of it, with immense destruction of monuments and documents. The struggle was revived under Henry V, and Rome was repeatedly besieged by the imperial troops. Then followed the schism of Pier Leone (Anacletus II), which had hardly been ended, in 1143, when Girolamo di Pierleone, counselled by Arnold of Brescia, made Rome into a republic, modelled after the Lombard communes, under the rule of fifty-six senators. In vain did Lucius II attack the Capitol, attempting to drive out the usurpers. The commune was in opposition no less to the imperial than to the papal authority. At first the popes thought to lean on the emperors, and thus Adrian IV induced Barbarossa to burn Arnold alive (1155). Still, just as in the preceding century, every coronation of an emperor was accompanied by quarrels and fights between the Romans and the imperial soldiery. In 1188 a modus vivendi was established between the commune and Clement III, the people recognizing the pope's sovereignty and conceding to him the right of coinage, the senators and military captains being obliged to swear fealty to him. But the friction did not cease. Innocent III (1203) was obliged to flee from Rome, but, on the other hand, the friendly disposition of the mercantile middle class facilitated his return and secured to him some influence in the affairs of the communes, in which he obtained the appointment of a chief of the Senate, known as "the senator" (1207). The Senate, therefore, was reduced to the status of the Communal Council of Rome; the senator was the syndic, or mayor, and remained so until 1870. In the conflicts between the popes, on the one hand, and, on the other Frederick II and his heirs, the Senate was mostly Imperialist, cherishing some sort of desire for the ancient independence; at times, however, it was divided against itself (as in 1262, for Richard, brother of the King of England, against Manfred, King of Naples). In 1263 Charles of Anjou, returning from the conquest of Naples, caused himself to be elected senator for life;. but Urban IV obliged him to be content with a term of ten years. Nicholas III forbade that any foreign prince should be elected senator, and in 1278 he himself held the office. The election was always to be subject to the pope's approval. However, these laws soon fell into desuetude. The absence of the popes from Rome had the most disastrous results for the city: anarchy prevailed; the powerful families of Colonna, Savelli, Orsini, Anguillara, and others lorded it with no one to gainsay them; the pope's vicars were either stupid or weak; the monuments crumbled of themselves or were destroyed; sheep and cows were penned in the Lateran Basilica; no new buildings arose, except the innumerable towers, or keeps, of which Brancaleone degli Andalo, the senator (1252-56) caused more than a hundred to be pulled down; the revival of art, so promising in the thirteenth century was abruptly cut off. The mad enterprise of Cola di Rieuzo only added to the general confusion. The population was reduced to about 17,000. The Schism of the West, with the wars of King Ladislaus (1408 and 1460, siege and sack of Rome), kept the city from benefiting by the popes' return as quickly as it should. Noteworthy, however, is the understanding between Boniface IX and the Senate as to their respective rights (1393). This pope and Innocent VII also made provision for the restoration of the city. With Martin V the renascence of Rome began. Eugene IV again was driven out by the Romans, and Nicholas V had to punish the conspiracy of Stefano Porcari; but the patronage of letters by the popes and the new spirit of humanism obliterated the memory of these longings for independence. Rome became the city of the arts and of letters, of luxury and of dissoluteness. The population, too, changed in character and dialect, which had before more nearly approached the Neapolitan, but now showed the influence of immigration from Tuscany, Umbria, and the Marches. The sack of 1527 was a judgment, and a salutary warning to begin that reformation of manners to which the Brothers of the Oratory of Divine Love (the nucleus of the Theatine Order) and, later, the Jesuits and St. Philip Neri devoted themselves. In the war between Paul IV and Philip II (1556), the Colonna for the last time displayed their insubordination to the Pontifical Government. Until 1799 Rome was at peace under the popes, who vied with the cardinals in embellishing the city with churches, fountains, obelisks, palaces, statues, and paintings. Unfortunately, this work of restoration was accompanied by the destruction of ancient and, still more, medieval monuments. An attempt was also made to improve the ground plan of Rome by straightening and widening the streets (Sixths IV, Sixtus V -- the Corso, the Ripetta, the Babuino, Giulia, Paola, Sistina, and other streets). The artists who have successively left their imprint on the City are Bramante, Michelangelo, Vignola, Giacomo della Porta, Fontana, Maderna, Bernini, Borromini, and, in the eighteenth century, Fuga. The most important popular risings of this period were those against Urban VIII, on account of the mischief done by the Barberini and against Cardinal Cascia, after the death of Benedict XIII. The pontificate of Pius VI, illustrious for its works of public utility, ended with the proclamation of the Republic of Rome (10 February, 1798) and the pope's exile. Pius VII was able to return, but after 1806 there was a French Government at Rome side by side with the papal, and in 1809 the city was incorporated in the empire. General Miollis, indeed, deserved well of Rome for the public works he caused to be executed (the Pincian), and the archaeological excavations, which were vigorously and systematically continued in the succeeding pontificates, especially that of Pius IX. Of the works of art carried away to Paris only a part were restored after the Congress of Vienna. But the Revolutionary germ still remained planted at Rome, even though it gave no signs of activity either in 1820 or in 1830 and 1831. A few political murders were the only indication of the fire that smouldered beneath the ashes. The election of Pius IX, hailed as the Liberal pontiff, electrified all Rome. The pope saw his power slipping away; the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi and the riots before the Quirinal (25 November, 1848) counselled his flight to Gaeta. The Triumvirate was formed and, on 6 February, 1849, convoked the Constituent Assembly, which declared the papal power abolished. The mob abandoned itself to the massacre of defenceless priests, and the wrecking of churches and palaces. Oudinot's French troops restored the papal power (6 August, 1849), the pope retaining a few French regiments. Secret plotting went on, though at Rome none dared attempt anything (the Fausti trial). Only in 1867, when Garibaldi, the victor at Monterotondo, defeated at Mentana, invaded the Papal States, was the revolt prepared that was to have burst while Enrico Cairoi was trying to enter the city; but the coup de main failed; the stores of arms and ammunition were discovered; the only serious occurrence was the explosion of a mine, which destroyed the Serristori Barracks in the Borgo. Not until 20 September, 1870, was Rome taken from the popes and made the actual capital of the Kingdom of Italy. III. CHURCHES AND OTHER MONUMENTS The "Annuario Ecclesiastico" enumerates 358 public churches and oratories in Rome and its suburbs. Besides, there are the chapels of the seminaries, colleges, monasteries, and other institutions. Since 1870 many churches have been destroyed, but many new ones have arisen in the new quarters. The principal patriarchal basilicas are St. Peter's (the Vatican Basilica), St. John Lateran (the Basilica of Constantine), and St. Mary Major (the Liberian Basilica). The Liberian Basilica dates from the fourth century, when it was called the Basilica Sicinini; in the fifth century, under Sixtus III, it was adorned with interesting mosaics of Biblical subjects; Eugene III added the portico, when the mosaics of the apse and the fac,ade were restored and, to some extent, altered. On the two sides are two chapels with cupolas: that of Sixtus V, containing the altar of the Blessed Sacrament and the tombs of Sixtus V and St. Pius V; the other, that of Paul V, with the Madonna of St. Luke, which existed as early as the sixth century. Benedict XIV caused it to be restored by Fuga (1743), who designed the fac,ade which now almost shuts out the view of the mosaics. Beneath the high altar, the baldacchino of which is supported by four porphyry columns, are the relics of St. Matthew and of the Holy Crib (hence the name, S. Maria ad proesepe). Here are buried St. Jerome, Nicholas IV, Clement VIII, IX, and X, and Paul V. (See also SAINT PAUL-OUTSIDE-THE-WALLS.) Among the lesser basilicas is S. Croce in Gerusalemme (Basilica Sessoriana), founded, it is said, by St. Helena in the place called the Sessorium, restored by Lucius II (1144) and by Benedict XIV (1743). Here, in the tribune, is the fresco of Pinturicchio representing the Finding of the Cross, and here are preserved the relics of the Cross of Jesus Christ, the Title, one of the Thorns, the finger of St. Thomas, etc. The church is served by Cistercians, whose convent, however, has been converted into barracks. St. Lawrence-Outside-the-Walls, another minor basilica, which stands in the Cemetery of S. Ciriaco, where the saint was buried, was built under Constantine and, next to St. Peter's, was the most frequented sanctuary in Rome at the end of the fourth century (see Prudentius's description). Pelagius II (578), Honorius III, and Pius IX made thorough repairs in this basilica, the last-named adding frescoes by Fracassini, representing the martyrdom of St. Lawrence. The frescoes of the atrium date from the thirteenth century. The high altar stands beneath a raised ambo, behind which is the simple tomb of Pius IX. The mosaics of the triumphal arch date from the time of Pelagius II. Near this basilica is the Cemetery of Rome, constructed in 1837, and surpassed by few in Italy for the sumptuousness of its monuments. Both the church and the cemetery are served by Capuchina. St. Sebastian-Outside-the-Walls, near the cemetery ad catacumbas (see CATACOMBS), built in the fourth or fifth century and altered in 1612, contains Giorgini's statue of the saint. The churches so far named are the "Seven Churches" usually visited by pilgrims and residents to gain the large indulgences attached to them. S. Agnese fuori le Mura, near the catacombs of the same name, was built, by Constantine, decorated by Pope Symmachus with mosaics, in which that pope's portrait appears, and restored by Honorius II (portrait), by Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere (1479), and by Pius IX. It is served by Canons Regular of St. John Lateran. In one of the adjacent buildings Pius IX, in 1856, fell with the flooring of a room, but without suffering any injury. Not far off is S. Costanza, the mausoleum of Constantine's daughter, which was made into a church in 1256. S. Giorgio in Velabro, Cardinal Newman's diaconal title, takes its name from the ancient Velabrum, where it stands, and dates from the fourth century; it has a fine tabernacle, but the church is much damaged by damp. S. Lorenzo in Damaso, built by Pope Damasus (370), was, in the time of Bramante, enclosed in the palace of the Cancelleria; it contains modern frescoes and the tombs of Annibale Caro and Pellegrino Rossi. S. Maria ad Martyres (the Pantheon) is a grandiose circular building with a portico. It was built in 25 b.c. by Marcus Agrippa and has often been restored; in 662 Constantine II caused the bronze which covered its dome to be taken away; it contains the tombs of Raphael, Cardinal Consalvi and Kings Victor Emmanuel II and Humbert I. S. Maria in Cosmedin, which stands on the foundations of a temple of Hercules and a granary, dates from the sixth century at latest; it was a diaconate and the seat of the Greek colony, and was restored by Adrian I, Nicholas I, and Cardinal Albani (1718), and at last was remodelled in its original form. It has a noteworthy ambo and tabernacle (c. 130), and its campanile, with seven intercolumnars, is the most graceful in Rome. This was the title of Reginald Cardinal Pole. S. Maria in Trastevere, the title of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, dates from St. Callistus or, more probably, from St. Julius I, and was restored by Eugene III by Nicholas V, and by Pius IX, to the last-named of whom are due the mosaics of the fac,ade, the antique columns, and the rich baroque ceiling. The mosaics of the tribune are of the twelfth century, the others are by Cavallini (1291). It contains the tombs of Stanislaus Hosius and other cardinals. The four basilicas enumerated above have collegiate chapters. S. Agostino was built (1479-83) by Cardinal d'Estoutevile, with Giacomo di Pietrasanta for architect. On the high altar, by Bernini, is the Madonna of St. Luke, brought from Constantinople. Its chapel of St. Augustine contains a picture by Guercino; in its chapel of the Blessed Sacrament is the tomb of St. Monica; its altar of St. Peter has a relief by Cotignola, and below one of the pilasters is Raphael's Isaiss. In the basement of this church is the Madonna del Parto, the work of Jacopo Tatto, one of the most highly venerated images in Rome. The adjoining convent, once the residence of the general of the Augustinians, is now the Ministry of Marine; but the Angelica Library, founded (1605) by Cardinal Angelo Rocca, an Augustinian, is still there. S. Alfonso, built in 1855 for the Redemptorists, who have their generalate there, has fine pictures by von Rhoden. Its high altar possesses a Byzantine image of unknown origin, called the Madonna del Perpetuo Soccorso. S. Ambrogio della Massima, in the paternal mansion of St. Ambrose, belongs to the Cassinese Benedictines. S. Andrea della Valle (Theatines), notable for the severe majesty of its lines, was built by Carlo Maderna in 1591; it contains the chapel of the Strozzi, the tombs of Pius II, of Nicolo della Guardia, and, opposite, of Pius III, and the frescoes of Domenichino, his most perfect work, as well as other very modern frescoes. In this church, on every feast of the Epiphany, solemn Mass is celebrated in every rite subject to Rome, and there are sermons in the various European languages -- a festival instituted by Ven. Vincent Gallotta. S. Andrea de Quirinale belongs to the Jesuits, who have their novitiate here, in which the cell of St. Stanislaus Kostka is still to be seen. S. Andrea delle Fratte, belonging to the Minims, was, in the Middle Ages, the national church of the Scots; it received its present form (a cupola and a fanciful Campanile) from the architects Guerra and Borromini in the seventeenth century and has two angels by Bernini. Before the Lady altar of this church took place the conversion of Venerable Marie Alphonse Ratisbonne. S. Angelo in Pescheria, built in the eighth century and restored in 1584, is occupied by the Clerics Regular Minor, who were transferred to it from S. Lorenzo in Lucina. S. Anselmo, on the Aventine, is a Romanesque building (1900), annexed to the international college of the Benedictines, and is the residence of the abbot primate of their order. Santi Apostoli, adjoining the generalate of the Minor Conventuals, dates from the fifth century; it was restored by Martin V, with frescoes by Melozzo da Forli, remodelled in 1702 by Francesco Fontana, and contains the tombs of Cardinals Riario and Bessarion. The convent is occupied by the headquarters of a military division. S. Bartolomeo all' Isola, Friars Minor, stands on the site of the ancient temple of AEsculapius and was built by Otto III, in 1001, in honour of St. Adalbert. The relics of St. Bartholomew were brought thither from Beneventum, those of St. Paulinus of Nola being given in exchange. The church has been several times restored. S. Bernardo alle Terme, Cistercians, is a round church built in 1598, its foundations being laid in the calidarium of the baths (Italian terme) of Diocletian. S. Bonaventura, on the Palatine, Friars Minor, contains the tomb of St. Leonard of Port Maurice. S. Camillo, a very modern church, is the residence of the Camilline Attendants of the Sick, and has a hospital connected with it. S. Carlo (Carlino) of the Spanish Trinitarians belongs to the Borromini. S. Carlo ai Catinari, Barnabites, formerly dedicated to St. Biagius, was put into its present shape by Rosati in 1612, with frescoes and framed pictures by Domenichino, Pietro da Cortona, Guido Reni, and Andrea Sacchi. Its convent is occupied by a section of the Ministry of War. S. Carlo al Corso, the church of the Lombards, was built by the Lunghi for the canonization of St. Charles Borromeo, on the site of a little church dedicated to S. Niccolo del Tufo. The decorations of the cupola are by Pietro da Cortona; there is a picture by Maratta and a statue of Judith by Le Brun. The Rosminians have officiated in this church for some years past. S. Claudio dei Borgognoni is served by the Congregation of the Most Holy Sacrament; it has Exposition all the year around. S. Clemente, the church of the Irish Dominicans (1643), and titular church of William Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston, existed as early as the fourth century, dedicated to St. Clement, pope and martyr. It is characterized by the two ambos which project about half way down the nave and an atrium which is also the courtyard of the convent which stands in front of the basilica. The ambos date from John VIII (872); the altar and tabernacle, from Paschal II. The church was destroyed in the conflagration kindled by Robert Guiscard (1084); its rebuilding was begun immediately, but the plan was adopted of raising somewhat the pavement of the old church, which was filled in with debris; the new church was also less spacious. At this period the mosaics of the apse were executed. In the chapel of st. Catherine are some frescoes attributed to Masaccio (1428); in the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, the tombs of Cardinals Brusati and Roverella; in that of St. Cyril, who is buried in the basilica, modern frescoes. In 1858 the excavation of the old basilica was begun, through the efforts of the Dominican prior, Mulhooly. The frescoes, seventh to eleventh century, are important; in them may be distinguished the first indications of a new birth of Christian art, and particularly interesting are those relating to Sts. Cyril and Methodius. The original basilica was raised upon the remains of a still earlier building, in which, moreover, there was a speloeum, or grotto, of Mithras; it is probable that this building was St. Clement's paternal home. Santissima Concenzione, Capuchins, near the Piazza Barberini, was built by the Capuchin Cardinal Barberini, twin brother of Urban VIII (1624). Bl. Crispin of Viterbo is buried here. The church is noted for a St. Michael by Guido Reni, a St. Francis by Domenichino, a St. Felix of Cantalico by Turchi, and other pictures by Sacchi and Pietro da Cortona. Beneath the church is the ossarium of the friars. Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Franciscan Tertiaries, is made up of two ancient buildings, the temples of Romulus, son of Maxentius, and of the Sacra Urbs, which were given to the Church by Theodoric and converted into a basilica by Felix IV (528), to whom are due the mosaics of the apse and the arch, retouched in the ninth and sixteenth centuries. Urban VIII caused its pavement to be raised ten feet. In the crypt are the tomb of Felix II and some objects belonging to the old church. St. Crisogono, Trinitarians, dates at least as far back as the fifth century, and was restored by Cardinal Scipione Borghese (1623). It has a fine tabernacle and, in the apse, mosaics by Cavillini (1290). Excavations have recently been made under this church, which is associated with English history as having been the titular church of Cardinal Langton. S. Cuore al Castro Pretorio, Salesians, a fine church built in 1887 by Vespegniani, is due to the zeal of Don Bosco. Connected with it is a boarding-school of arts and industries. S. Francesca Romana (S. Maria Nova), Olivetans, was erected by Leo IV in place of S. Maria Antiqua, which was in danger of being injured by the ruins of the Palatine, on a portion of the ruined temple of Venus and Rome, where once stood a chapel commemorating the fall of Simon Magus. It was restored by Honorius III and under Paul V. In the apse are mosaics of 1161; in the confession, the tomb of St. Frances of Rome (1440). There is a group by Meli, also the tombs of Gregory XI (1574), Cardinal Vulcani, and Francesco Rido. S. Francesco a Ripa, the provincialate of the Friars Minor (1229), has pictures by the Cavaliere d'Arpino and by Sabiati (Annunciation), and the tomb of Lodovico Albertoni, one of Bernini's best works. S. Francesco di Paola belongs to the Minims, the convent being now occupied by a technical institute. The Gesu, connected with the professed house and general's residence of the Jesuits, is the work of Vignola (1568-73), completed by Giacomo della Porta, through the munificence of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. It became the model of the style known as "Jesuit". Its altar of St. Ignatius, who is buried there, has a silver statue of the saint which is ordinarily covered by a picture painted by the Jesuit Pozzo; the globe and four columns are of lapis lazuli Opposite is the altar of St. Francis Xavier, where an arm of that saint is preserved, and a picture by Maratta. The ceiling is painted by Gaulli with the Triumph of the Name of Jesus. The Madonna della Strada is venerated in one of the chapels. In this church are the tombs of Cardinal Bellarmine and Ven. Giuseppe Maria Pignatelli. Gesu e Maria, Calced Augustinians, with its magnificent high altar, is in the Corso. S. Gioacchino, Redemptorists, was erected for the sacerdotal jubilee of Leo XIII, its side chapels being subscribed for by the various nations. S. Giovanni Calibita, on the Island of S. Bartolomeo, belongs to the Fatebenefratelli, who have a hospital. SS. Giovanni e Paolo, on the Caelian, Passionists, was built by Pammachius in the house of these two saints, who were officials in the palace of Constantia, daughter of Constantine, and were slain by order of Julian. In 1154 the church was enlarged and adorned with frescoes, some of which are preserved in the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. The chapel of St. Paul of the Cross is modern. Under the church are still to be seen thirteen interstices of the house of the saints with other saints. This was the titular church of Edward Cardinal Howard, afterwards Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati (died 1892). S. Gregorio al Celio, Camadolese, was built by Gregory II in the paternal home of St. Gregory the Great, and was modernized by Soria (1633) and Ferravi (1734). It contains an altar of the saint, with his stone bed and his marble chair, and there is an ancient image of the Madonna. In the monks' garden there are also three chapels; those of St. Silvia, mother of St. Gregory, with her statue by Cordieri and frescoes by Guido Reni, of St. Andrew, decorated by Reni and Domenichino, and of St. Barbara, with a statue of St. Gregory by Cordieri. The title of this church was borne successively by Henry Edward Cardinal Manning and Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishops of Westminster. S. Ignazio, Jesuits, was built in 1626 by Cardinal Ludovisi, under the direction of the Jesuit Grassi. The frescoes of the vault, representing the apotheosis of St. Ignatius, were painted by the Jesuit lay brother Pozzo, whose are also some of the pictures on the altars. Sts. Aloysius Gonzaga and John Berchmans, buried here, have splendid altars; in the adjoining Roman College (now the Ginnasio-Liceo and National Library) there are still other chapels with souvenirs of these two saints. On the highest point of the fac,ade Father Secchi caused to be erected a pole with a ball which, by a mechanical contrivance, drops precisely at noon every day. S. Isidoro belongs to the Irish Franciscans. In the adjoining convent the famous Luke Wadding wrote his history of the Franciscan Order. S. Marcello, Servites, is believed to be built over the stable in which Pope St. Marcellus was compelled to serve. It was restored in 1519 by order of Giuliano de' Medici (Clement VII), completed in 1708 by Carlo Fontana, and contains paintings by Pierin del Vaga and Federico Zuccaro. It was the titular church of Thomas Cardinal Weld (see WELD, FAMILY OF). S. Maria in Ara Coeli, on the Capitol, once the general's residence of the Franciscans (beginning from 1250), is (1911) the titular church of Cardinal Falconio. It stands on the site of the ancient citadel of Rome and the temple of Juno Moneta, and is approached by a flight of 124 steps. The fac,ade is still of brick, and the church contains antique columns and capitals; in the Buffalini chapel are frescoes (Life of St. Bernardino) by Pinturicchio, and on the high altar is a Madonna attributed to st. Luke, where was formerly the Madonna of Foligno. To the left a small building, known as the Cappella Santa di Sant' Elena (Holy Chapel of St. Helena), marks the spot where, according to a legend winch can be traced to the ninth century, the Emperor Augustus saw the Blessed Virgin upon an altar of heaven (Lat. ara coeli). To this legend something was contributed by Virgil's fourth eclogue, in which he speaks of the "nova progenies" descending from heaven, and which was interpreted in Christian antiquity as a prophecy of the coming of Christ (thus Constantine in the sermon "Ad sanctorum coetum"). In the sacristy is venerated the "Santo Bambino", a little figure of olive wood from the Mount of Olives (sixteenth century) for which the Romans have a great devotion. The sepulchral monuments of this church are numerous and important, including those of Cardinal Louis d'Albert, with figures of St. Michael and St. Francis; Michelangelo Marchese di Saluzzo, by Dosio; Pietro de' Vincenti, by Sansovino; Honorius IV and others of the Savelli family in the Savelli chapel, which dates from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; Cardinal Matthew of Acquasparta; Catherine, Queen of Bosnia (1478). The Crib, built every year in the second chapel on the left, is famous; at Christmas and Epiphany children recite dialogues and little discourses near it. S. Maria in Traspontina, in the Borgo, Calced Carmelites, was erected by Sixtus IV on the site of a chapel that had been built there, in 1099, to drive away the demons which haunted the ashes of Nero. The architect was Meo del Caprina; Bramante and Bernini modified the building. It is one of the most beautiful monuments of the Renaissance, its cupola being the first of its kind built in Rome. It contains paintings by Pinturicchio -- the Adoration of the Shepherds, all the paintings of the Lady Chapel and the chapel of St. Augustine, the frescoes of the vault, etc. Raphael designed the mosaics of the Chigi chapel, and there are paintings by Caracci, Caravaggio and Sebastiano del Piombo (the Birth of the Blessed Virgin). The sepulchral monuments are costly including those of Giovanni della Rovere, Cardinal Costa, Cardinal Podocatharo, Cardinal Girolamo Basso, by Sansovino, and Cardinal Sforza, by the same sculptor, Agostino Chigi, in the Chigi chapel after suggestions, and decorated, by Raphael, and Cardinal Pallavicino. The painted windows, the most beautiful in Rome, are by Guillaume de Marcilot (1509). S. Maria del Priorato, Knights of Malta, on the Aventine, was built in 939, when Alberic II gave his palace to St. Odo of Cluny. The present form of the church, however, is due to Piranesi (1765). Some of the tombs of the grand masters of the Order of Malta -- Caraffa, Caracciolo, and others -- are interesting. The adjoining residence commands a splendid panorama. S. Maria del Rosario, on Monte Mario, belongs to the Dominicans. S. Maria della Scala, Discalced Carmelites, built by Francesco da Volterra, is so called from an image of the Madonna found under the stairs of a neighbouring house, and contains paintings by Saraceni and Gerhard Honthorst. In the adjoining convent, a great part of which is occupied by the Guardie di Pubblica Sicurezza, the friars have a pharmacy where they make the "Acqua della Scala". S. Maria della Vittoria, Carmelites, was erected by Paul V in memory of the victory of the Imperialists over the Protestants at Prague (1623), and contains pictures by Domenichino, Guercino, and Serra (1884), also a famous group by Bernini, of St. Teresa transfixed by an angel, and Turkish standards captured at the siege of Vienna (1683). S. Maria in Aquiro, the ancient diaconate titulus Equitii, was restored in 1590. It was formerly an asylum for the destitute; Clement VIII gave it to the Somaschi Brothers, who still have an orphanage there under the supervision of the municipality. S. Maria in Campitelli was built in 1665 to receive the image of S. Maria in Portica (now S. Galla) in thanksgiving for Rome's deliverance from the plague (1658). It contains a picture of St. Anne, by Luca Giordano, and the tomb of Cardinal Pacca. It is served by the Clerics Regular of the Mother of God. S. Maria in Vallicella (the Chiesa Nuova, or "New Church"), Oratorians of St. Philip Neri, is associated with the spiritual renewal of the City by the labours of St. Philip, who founded it. The frescoes of the vaulting and of the cupola are by Pietro da Cortona, the three pictures of the high altar by Rubens, and others by Scipione Gaetano, Cavaliere d'Arpino Maratta, Guido Reni (St. Philip), Ronocelli, and Baroccio. The chapel of the saint is rich in votive offerings; in the adjoining house, until now almost entirely occupied by the Assize Court, is his cell, with relics and souvenirs of him. The library (Vallicelliana) now belongs to the State. S. Maria in Via, Servites is a fine church of the late Renaissance (1549). S. Maria Maddalena, Servants of the Sick (formerly their generalate), is now occupied by the elementary communal schools. Here the cell of St. Camillus of Lellis is preserved, with the crucifix which encouraged him to found his order. S. Maria Sopra Minerva, the only authentic Gothic church in Rome, belongs to the Dominicans, who had their general staff and their higher schools in the adjoining convent, now the Ministry of Instruction, as well as the Casanatense Library, now in the hands of the State. This was the titular church of the Cardinal of Norfolk (see HOWARD, THOMAS PHILIP), Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, and Cardinal Taschereau, Archbishop of Quebec (see MCCLOSKEY JOHN; TASCHEREAU, ELZEAR ALEXANDRE); its title is now (1911) held by Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. The church stands on the ruins of a temple of Minerva, one of those built by Pompey. In the eighth century there was a Greek monastery here. In 1280 Fra Sisto and Fra Ristoro, Dominicans, began the new church by order of Nicholas III, and with the aid of the Caetani, Savelli, and Orsini. It was completed in 1453. The pillars of the nave are clustered columns; the side chapels are in Renaissance or baroque style. Beneath the high altar rests the body of St. Catherine of Siena. The chapel of the Annunziata has a confraternity, founded by Cardinal Torquemada, which every year distributes dowries to 400 poor young women, and there is a picture by Antoniazzo Romano dealing with the subject. The Caraffa family chapel of St. Thomas contains frescoes by Filippo Lippi (1487-93); that of St. Dominic, pictures by Maratta; of the Rosary, by Venusti. There are also paintings by Baronio and others. The statue of the Risen Christ is by Michelangelo. Here also are the tombs of Giovanni Alberini (1490), Urlan VII, by Buonvicino, the Aldobrandini family by Giacomo della Porta, Paul IV, by Sigorio and Casignola, Gulielmus Durandus, by Giovanni di Cosma (1296), Cardinal Domenico Capranica (1458), Clement VII and Leo X, by Baccio Bandienelli, Blessed Angelico, of Fiesole, with an epitaph by Nicholas V, and Cardinal Schoenberg (1537). S. Martino ai Monti, Carmelites, probably dates from the time of Constantine, when the priest Equitius built an oratory on his own land. Symmachus rebuilt it, dedicating it to St. Silvester and St. Martin of Tours, and then again to St. Martin, Pope. In 1559 it was given to the Carmelites, who in 1650 remodelled it. It is notable for its landscapes by Poussin. Under the more modern church is the old church of St. Silvester, with remains of mosaics, frescoes, etc. Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (formerly S. Giacomo degli Spagnuoli), in the Piazza Navona, belongs to the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, who have an apostolic school there. S. Onofrio on the Janiculum, Hieronymites, was built in 1439 by the de Cupis family and Nicolo da Forca Palena. The frescoes of the portico are by Domenichino, three scenes from the life of St. Jerome; within are frescoes by Baldassarre Peruzzi, and the tombs of Cardinal Mezzofanti and the poet Tasso, who died in the convent, where his cell contains a small museum of objects that belonged to him. S. Pancrazio fuori le Mura was built by Pope Symmachus (c. 504) near the Coemeterium Calepodii; in 1849 it was wrecked by the Garibaldians; the government caused it to be freshly decorated. Near S. Pancrazio degli Scolopii is the generalate of the Piarists (Scolopii). S. Paolo alle Tre Fontane belongs to the Trappists, who have put the surrounding land under cultivation. The abbey contains three churches. The oldest, SS. Vincenzo e Anastasio, founded by Honorius I, came into the hands of Greek monks; Innocent II restored and assigned it, with the abbey, to the Cistercians. There is a fine cloister adjacent to this church, the earliest example of its kind. S. Maria Scala Coeli, ninth century, was rebuilt in 1590 by Giacomo della Porta, and contains a mosaic by Francesco Zucca. S. Paolo alle Tre Fontana was built by the same Giacomo della Porta (1599) on the three springs which appeared, as the legend says, on the three places successively touched by the head of St. Paul, who was beheaded here. The springs, however, existed before St. Paul's martyrdom as the Aquae Salviae, and in 1869 some ancient mosaic pavements were dug up here. S. Pietro in Montorio, Friars Minor, was in earlier days known as S. Maria in Castro Aureo, and had connected with it a monastery which passed into the hands of various orders until, in 1472, it was given to the Franciscans for the training of subjects for the foreign missions. Ferdinand the Catholic had the church and convent rebuilt, and they were dedicated to St. Peter, following a belief which had gained acceptance owing to a somewhat unfortunate conjecture hazarded by Maffeo Vegio, and which is even yet keenly debated. The rose-window of the fac,ade is very fine and there are frescoes and other paintings by Sebastiano del Piombo (the Flagellation), Vasari, Daniele da Volterra, Baluren. (the Entombment), and others; Raphael's Transfiguration is on the high altar, and there is a beautiful balustrade. Here, too, are the tombs of Cardinals Fabiano and Antonio del Monte (Ammannati), and of Giuliano, Archbishop, of Ragusa (Dosio). In the courtyard of the convent, on the spot where St. Peter is supposed by some to have been crucified, stands Bramante's tempietto the most graceful work of that genius. A splendid view of Rome may be had from the piazza in front of the church. It was the titular church of Paul Cardinal Cullen Archbishop of Dublin. S. Pietro in Vincoli, Canons Regular of St. John Lateran, existed as the titulus Apostolorum as early as 431. Sixtus III made alterations in the church with funds given him by the Empress Eudoxia, who also presented the Jerusalem chain of St. Peter together with his Roman chain. These relics had been venerated here long before Sixtus III, but the title, a vinculis S. Petri, occurs for the first time only in 530. Filings from the chains were given as relics -- like those taken to Spoleto by Bishop Achilles in 419. The chains themselves are kept in a precious reliquary attributed to Pollaiulo. The church was restored by Sixtus IV and Julius II. Its twenty monolithic columns are antique, and it contains pictures by Guercino and Domenichino (The Deliverance of St. Peter) a mosaic (St. Sebastian) of about the year 680, and the tombs of Julius II, with the celebrated statue of Moses, and of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, with a portrait in relief. In the adjoining monastery the scuola di applicazione of the Engineers is established. S. Prassede, Vallombrosans, was built by Paschal II (822) at some distance from the older S. Prassede which, then in ruins, was restored by Nicholas V and St. Charles Borromeo. Its twenty-two antique columns are still standing, and there are interesting mosaics of the ninth century (the chapel of St. Zeno and the apse) and the thirteenth century (the crypt). In the crypt are antique sarcophagi with the relics of Sts. Praxedes, Pudentiana, and others, and Paschal caused the bones of 2300 (?) martyrs, brought by him from the catacombs, to be laid in an enclosed cemetery. There are pictures by Giulio Romano, Federico Zuccaro, and the Cavaliere d'Arpino. Santi Quaranta in Trastevere belongs to the Spanish Franciscans. Santi Quattro Coronati, Capuchins, was the Titulus AEmilianoe as early as the fourth century, and is dedicated to four soldiers (cornicularii) who were martyred on the Via Labicana, with whom were afterwards associated five martyrs, stonecutters of Pannonia. Honorius built a vast basilica, which, however, Paschal II reduced to the proportions of what had been the nave. There are remains of the older basilica in the two atria and, in the church, frescoes by Giovanni Manozzi and a ciborium by Capponi (1493). Annexed to this church is the chapel of the Corporation of Stonecutters, with pictures of the thirteenth century. The Augustinian Sisters have a refuge for young women adjoining the church. S. Sabina all' Aventino, Dominicans, built under Clement I by the Illyrian priest Petrus (424), is remarkable for a half-door decorated with wood-carving of the fifth century, while its columns of Parian marble were taken from the temple of Diana on the Aventine. In the apse and above the door are mosaics, and the picture by Sassoferrato (the Madonna of the Rosary) is famous. In the adjoining convent, formerly the Savelli palace, are shown the cells of St. Dominic and St. Pius V. S. Salvatore della Scala Santa, Passionists, contains, according to the legend, the stairs of Pilate's praetorium, which were bathed with the Blood of Christ, but of which there is no mention earlier than 845. By these stairs, which were restored by Nicholas III and by Cosmas II, pilgrims ascend on their knees (ginocchioni) to the Cappella Sancta Sanctorum, in which the most famous relics of the pontifical palace of the Lateran are preserved (see SCALA SANCTA). There is a ninth-century mosaic picture and a very ancient picture of the Saviour, on cedarwood, believed to have been made not by human hands. S. Silvestro in Capite, Pallottini (see PIOUS SOCIETY OF MISSIONS), built by Paul I (761) in his paternal home, was given to some Greek monks and subsequently passed into the possession of various orders. It was restored by Domenico de Rossi in 1681, and has a high altar by Rinaldo. This is, in a sense, the national church of the English Catholics. Its monastery has now become the Postal Department. S. Stefano degli Abissini, Trinitarians, with an interesting doorway, was erected by St. Leo the Great, and was one of the churches surrounding the Basilica of St. Peter's. S. Stefano del Cacco, Sylvestrines, was erected by Honorius I (630) on the ruins of the temple of Isis, of which it contains twelve columns. S. Teresa, with the generalate of the Discalced Carmelites, in the Lombard style, is one of the recently erected churches (1900). Santissima Trinit`a in the Via Condotti, Dominicans of the Philippines Province, was erected in the sixteenth century, and has fine pictures on its altars. Santissima Trinit`a in the Via della Missione belongs to the Lazarists, who have a house of retreat for the clergy there. S. Venanzio, Minor Conventuals, is at the foot of the Capitol. Santi Vincenzo ed Atanasio, in the Piazza di Trevi, ministers of the sick, was built by Cardinal Mazarin (1650). Here are kept the urns containing the viscera of deceased popes. Other notable churches are the following: S. Agata dei Goti, or in Suburra, built in 460 for the Arians (Goths and other Germans), by Ricimerus, who caused a mosaic to be made there (destroyed in 1633), and who was buried there. In 591 St. Gregory the Great dedicated it to Catholic worship, and it is connected with the Irish College. In it is the tomb of John Lascaris, the famous Greek humanist (1535). S. Agnese al Circo Agonale stands on a part of the site of Domitian's stadium, where St. Agnes was exposed to shame (the vaults of the church), and where she was put to death. The older church is not mentioned in any records earlier than the ninth century; the present one, in baroque style, is the work of Carlo Rinaldi (1652); its turrets are by Borromini. On the high altar is a tabernacle of 1123; there is an antique statue transformed into a St. Sebastian by Paolo Campi and a monument of Innocent X. S. Alessio sull' Aventino was originally dedicated to the Roman martyr Boniface. S. Anastasia, at the foot of the Palatine, built in the fourth century and modernized in 1721, contains the tomb of Cardinal Angelo Mai. Here is preserved a chalice which was probably used by St. Jerome. S. Appollinare, the church of the Roman Seminary, formerly of the German College, was restored by Benedict XIV and contains a picture of the school of Perugino. S. Balbina, on the Aventine, consecrated by St. Gregory the Great, has a house of correction for boys adjoining it. It was the titular church of Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of Canterbury (see KEMP, JOHN). S. Benedetto in Piscinula (Trastevere) stands on the site of the mansion of the Anicii, St. Benedict's family, and contains a picture of the saint. S. Caterina dei Funari, on the ruins of the Circus Flaminius, was begun in 1549. Its fac,ade is by Giacomo della Porta, and it contains pictures by Caracci, Federico Zuccari, and others. Connected with it is a refuge for penitent women founded by St. Ignatius. S. Cecilia, a very ancient church, stands on the site of that saint's house. Paschal I, admonished by a vision, restored it and transferred the body of the saint thither from the Catacombs (821). Cardinal Rampolla had its ancient character partly restored. In the apse are some mosaics dating from Paschal. The tabernacle of the high altar is by Arnolfo di Cambio (1283); there are some ancient frescoes and some by Pietro Cavallini; in the confession is a recumbent statue of the saint by Maderno, showing her as she was found when the sarcophagus was opened in 1599; also the tomb of the English cardinal, Adam of Hertford (died 1398). It was the titular church of Cardinal Wolsey. S. Cesareo, on the Appian Way, erroneously identified with S. Cesareo in Palatio (which has recently been discovered on the Palatine), is older than the days of St. Gregory the Great, and has an interesting ambo of the thirteenth century and mosaics of about the year 1600. S. Cosimato in Trastevere, built in the ninth century and completely transformed under Sixtus IV, is notable for paintings by Pinturicchio and a tabernacle taken from S. Maria del Popolo. In the adjoining monastery, originally Benedictine and then Clarissan (1234), is a fine cloister with coupled columns (twelfth century). This monastery is now used as a home for old women. Santi Domenicho e Sisto, Dominican Sisters, thirteenth century, was restored in 1640, with a fine fac,ade. S. Eligio dei Ferrari contains a fine picture by Sermoneta; S. Eusebio, frescoes by Mengs. S. Eustacchio is an ancient diaconate and possesses the relics of the saint. S. Giacomo in Augusta, in the Corso, is connected with the hospital for incurables (1338). S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini is the work of Sansovino (1521) and contains a picture by Salvator Rosa. S. Girolamo dei Shiavoni was built by Sixtus IV for the Dalmatians, Croatians, and Albanians who had fled from the Turks; Sixtus V restored it; it contains fine frescoes by Gagliardi (1852). S. Giuseppe a Capo le Case with its paintings by Andrea Sacchi (St. Teresa) and Domenichino (St. Joseph), has a convent of the Carmelite Sisters which is now used as a museum of the industrial arts. S. Giuseppe dei Falegnami is built upon the ancient Tullian Dungeon, where, according to tradition, St. Peter was imprisoned. S. Lorenzo in Lucina preserves the gridiron on which St. Lawrence suffered martyrdom. It is believed that here was the house of the matron, Lucina, so often mentioned in the Acts of Roman martyrs; this house was transformed by Sixtus III into a basilica which was repeatedly restored. It has a fine campanile, a picture by Guido Reni (The Crucifixion), and the tomb of Poussin. S. Lorenzo in Miranda was built over the temple of Faustina (141) in the Forum. In S. Lorenzo in Fonte, it is believed, was the saint's prison. S. Marco, enclosed within the Palazzo di Venezia, is attributed to the pope of that name (336). The Rogation procession (25 April), instituted by St. Leo. the Great, used to set out from this church. It was restored in the ninth century, in the fifteenth century, and by Cardinal Quirini in 1727. In the tribune are mosaics of the time of Gregory IV; there are also pictures by Palma il Giovane and Melozzo da Forli; two ciboria, in the sacristy, one of the twelfth century, the other by Mino da Fiesole; the tombs of Pesaro, by Canova, and of Cardinal Gregorio Barbarigo. S. Maria degli Angeli was built by Michelangelo at the command of Pius IV, within the baths of Diocletian. The church was given to the Carthusians. Here are to be seen many of the original designs for the mosaics now in St. Peter's; also Houdon's famous statue of St. Bruno, and the tombs of Pius IV and Cardinal Serbelloni. The adjoining monastery now contains the Museo Nazionale delle Terme. S. Maria della Pace, the titular church of Michael Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh, commemorates the peace concluded in 1482 between the pope, Florence, Milan, and Naples. It was built for Sixtus IV by Pietro da Cortona, who added a beautiful semicircular portico in front. In the Chigi chapel are the famous Sibyls of Raphael; there are also frescoes by Peruzzi. The adjoining monastery (Canons Regular of the Lateran) contains a courtyard by Bramante and the chapel of the St. Paul's Association of the Clergy of Rome. S. Maria in Campo Marzio belongs to the Benedictine Sisters. S. Maria di Loreto, an octagonal church with a cupola, is the work of Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane (1507), and has a statue of St. Susanna by Duquesnoy. The Churches of S. Maria de' Miracoli and S. Maria di Monte Santo were built in 1662 by Cardinal Gastaldo, and form the termination of three streets -- the Ripetta, the Corso Umberto and the Babuino -- which lead from the Piazza del Popolo. S. Maria dell' Orto (1489) is the fruit-vendors' church. S. Maria in Trivio, in the Piazza di Trevi, has a beautiful fac,ade of the fifteenth century. S. Maria in Lata, a very ancient diaconate, stood near the Arch of Diocletian, but was destroyed rn 1485; its present subterranean form is due to Pietro da Cortona. Here, according to the legend, St. Paul and St. Mark were imprisoned, and here are the remains of the Soepta Julia and of the ancient basilica, with some frescoes. Santi Martina e Luca, in the Forum, occupies the site of the Secretarium Senatus; it existed before the seventh century and contained the body of St. Martina the Roman martyr; in 1640 the new church was built above the old by Pietro da Cortona (who made a statue of St. Martina), and was dedicated to St. Luke, being the church of the Academy of St. Luke. Santi Nereo e Achilleo, on the Appian Way, a very ancient church, contains mosaics of the time of Leo III and an ambo of the thirteenth century. S. Nicola in Carcere stands on the ruins of the three temples of Pietas, Juno Sospita, and Spes. Santissimo Nome di Maria, in Trajan's Forum, was built to commemorate the deliverance of Vienna from the Turks (1683). One Church of SS. Pietro e Marcellino stands in the Via Merulana; the other is outside the walls, on the Labicana, near the mausoleum of St. Helena. S. Prisca, on the Aventine, occupies the site of the temple of Diana Aventina. The legend has it that Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as entertaining St. Peter, lived here. S. Pudenziana, again, is associated with memories of St. Peter: it was the mansion of the senator, Pudens, whose daughters, Pudentiana and Praxedes, gave it to St. Pius I, and from that time it became a church. Since the time of Siricius (384) it has had the form of a basilica, and its apse has been adorned with the most beautiful mosaics in Rome. It was restored in 1598, and a cupola was added with frescoes by Roncalli. At the altar of St. Peter is venerated the wooden table which St. Peter used for the celebration of the Eucharist. There is a marble group of Christ giving the keys to St. Peter, by Giacomo della Porta. The title of S. Pudenziana was borne by Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman, first Archbishop of Westminster. S. Saba, on the Aventine, existed in the time of St. Gregory, whose mother retired to a spot near by. To her were dedicated some ancient frescoes recently brought to light. That it was even then the abode of monks is indicated by the name cella and by an ancient burial-place of an earlier date (c. 649). Here a community of Greek monks was installed until the ninth century. After that it passed to the Benedictines, and then to the German College, which still possesses it. S. Salvatore in Lauro, the church of the Sodality of the Piceni, earlier than the thirteenth century, was restored in 1450 and in 1591. It has a fine cloister and the tombs of Maddalena Orsini and of Eugene IV (transferred hither from St. Peter's), the work of Isaia da Pisa. S. Sisto Vecchio, earlier than the sixth century, has a fine campanile and frescoes of the fifteenth century. Here was the first house of the Dominicans in Rome. The title was borne by Cardinal Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury (see LANGHAM, SIMON). S. Spirito in Sassia is so called because in this quarter (the Borgo) an Anglo-Saxon colony led by King Ina, was established, with a church called S. Maria in Saxia. In 1201 Innocent III built a hospital and foundling institute which was entrusted to the Hospitallers of the Holy Ghost. Sixtus IV removed the hospital, and Paul III had the present church built by Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane (1544); but the campanile dates from Callistus III. The residence of the superior (Palazzo del Commendatore dello Spedale) is adjacent to the church, but about half of it has been pulled down for the construction of the Victor Emmanuel Bridge. S. Stefano Rotondo, built by Pope Simplicius on the foundations of an ancient building consisting of three, concentric circles divided by two rings of twenty columns in all, is decorated with frescoes by Pomarancio and Tempesta. It was the titular church of Cardinal Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews (see BEATON, DAVID), and now belongs to the German College. S. Susanna, dedicated to the Roman martyr of that name, dates back to the fourth century. In its restoration by Maderno (1600) the mosaics of 796 perished, and it was decorated with frescoes by Croce. It was the titular church of Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney. S. Teodoro, at the foot of the Palatine, also stands on a circular structurer an ancient diaconate. It has a mosaic of the time of Adrian I. Santissima Trinit`a dei Monti is said to have been built through the munificence of Charles VIII of France. Its great flight of stairs, leading from the Piazza di Spagna, was built by order of Louis XIV. It contains fine pictures of the school of Perugino, also by Raphael, Pierin del Vaga, Veit, Daniele da Volterra (Taking down from the Cross). The church belongs to the Ladies of the Sacred Heart who have an institution (1827) in the chapel of which is venerated the Ter Admirabilis (Thrice Admirable) Madonna. Of the churches outside the City special mention should be made of the sanctuary of the Madonna del Divino Amore (of the Divine Love) on the Via Ardeatina, near an old castle of the Orsini, which is visited by a great concourse of people ou Whit-Monday. National Churches S. Antonio (Portuguese); S. Luigi (French-1496); S. Maria dell' Anima (German), with a hospice for pilgrims founded in 1399; the present church was built in 1500; pictures by Saraceni, Seitz, and Giulio Romano (high altar); tombs of Adrian VI and Duke Charles Frederick of Cleves by Lucas Holstenius (see ROMAN COLLEGES); S. Maria della Piet`a, with the German Burial Ground, dating from the time of Charlemagne; S. Maria di Monserrato (Spanish). Also the churches of various cities -- Florence, Naples, Siena, Venice, Bergamo, Bologna, the Marches -- of Italy. -- Churches of the Oriental rites. -- Besides the churches of the various colleges (see ROMAN COLLEGES), the following should be mentioned: the Armenian Church of St. Mary of Egypt, occupying the site of the ancient temple of Fortuna Virilis; the Graeco-Melchite Basilian Church of S. Maria in Domnica (mosaics of the eighth century); S. Lorenzo ai Monti, for Graeco-Ruthenian Uniats. Moreover there are eight Protestant churches intended for propaganda work, each having one or two halls, known as --sale cristiane, connected with it while five others are principally for the benefit of foreigners, and the Germans have decided to build one more. The Orthodox Russians, too, have a church, where the Bishop of Kronstadt officiates. The Hebrews have a large new synagogue and an oratory, besides a school of religious learning and various benevolent organizations. Non-religious Buildings The Palace of the Cancelleria, by Bramante; the Curia of Innocent X now occupied by the Italian Parliament; the Quirinal Palace, the king's residence, built by Gregory XIII and enlarged by Paul V and Pius VI, where the popes formerly resided, and the conclaves were held; the Palazzo di Giustizia, built by Calderari entirely of travertine; the Bank of Italy (Koch) and the Palazzo Buoncompagni, the residence of the queen-mother; the Palazzo Braschi (offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), Palazzi Capitolini (Michelangelo), Palazzo del Consulta (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Villa Medici (French Academy), Palazzo Venezia (Austrian Embassy), built by Paul II, Palazzo Corsini (Accademia dei Lincei), Palazzo Farnese (Michelangelo), now the property of France and occupied by the French Embassy. Among the private palaces are the Altieri (Clement X), Barberini (Bernini), Borghese (Paul V), Caetani (Ammannati), Pamfili, Esedra, Giraud (Bramante -- now belonging to the Torlonia family), Massimo, Odescalchi, Farnesina (Sangallo), and Ruspoli. The chief private villas are the Doria Pamfili and the Massimo (frescoes by Overbeck). Of all the public monuments we need mention only that recently inaugurated to the memory of Victor Emmanuel II at the back of the Capitoline Hill, consisting of a gilded equestrian statue, with a semicircular colonnade behind it. The principal fountains are: the Acqua Paola, on the Janiculum (Paul V); the Piazza S. Pietro fountain, the Tartarughe (Raphael), the Fontana del Tritone (Bernini), and, most magnificent of all, the Trevi (Clement XII, Nicol`a Salvi). Principal ancient Edifices and Monuments The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, begun by Vespasian. Much of its material, particularly on the south side, has been pilfered, this destructive practice having been effectively stopped only in the eighteenth century. The Arch of Constantine was erected in 312 to commemorate the victory over Maxentius, the decorations being, in part, taken from the Arch of Trajan. That of Marcus Aurelius, on the Flaminian Way (Corso), was removed by Alexander VII; its decorations are preserved in the Capitol. That of Septimius Severus (203) is richly decorated with statues and bas-reliefs; that of Titus, commemorating his victory over the Jews, has the celebrated bas-relief representing objects taken from the Temple of Jerusalem; that of Drusus (Trajan?) is near the Porta S. Sebasstiano. The Arch of Dolabella (a.d. 10) is surmounted by three conduits taken from a branch of the Aqua Claudia. The Arch of Gallienus dates from a.d. 262. The secular basilicas are the AEmilian, or Fulvian (167 b.c.), the Julian (54 b.c.), the Basilica of Constantine (a.d. 306-10), and the Ulpian, on the Forum of Trajan, with which a library was once connected. For Christian catacombs see CATACOMBS, ROMAN. The most important catacombs of the Hebrews are those of Vigna Randanini, on the Appian Way. The Circuses are: that of Domitien, now the Piazza Navona; the Flaminian (the Palazzo Mattei); the Circus Maximus, the oldest of all, erected in the Murcian Valley, between the Palatine and the Aventine, where, even in the days of Romulus, races and other public amusements used to be held (as on the occasion of the Rape of the Sabines); that of Nero, near St. Peter's, where the Apostle was martyred; that of Maxentius outside the city, near the Via Appia. Trajan's Column on the forum of the same name, with a spiral design of the emperor's warlike exploits, is 100 Roman feet (about 97 English feet) in height, erected by the senate and people a.d. 113. That of Marcus Aurelius, with reliefs showing the wars with the Marcomanni, Quadi, Sarmati, etc. (172-75), is interesting for its representation of the miraculous rainfall which, as early as Tertullian's time, was attributed to the prayers of the Christian soldiers. This column bears a bronze statue of St. Paul, as Trajan's is crowned with a statue of St. Peter (Sixtus V, 1589). That of Phocas was erected in 608 by the exarch Smaragdus. The Roman Forum was originally the swampy valley between the Palatine, Capitoline, and Esquiline, which became a market and a meeting-place for the transaction of public business. Soon it was surrounded with shops and public buildings -- basilicas, the Curia Hostilia, the Rostra, or platform for public speakers, and various temples. Other forums were those of Augustus, of Peace, of Nero, the Julian, and Trajan's, in the same neighbourhood. The Mausoleum of Augustus, between the Corso and the Via Ripetta, is now a concert hall. The Mausoleum of Hadrian (Castle of S. Angelo) was used as a fortress by Goths and Romans as early as the sixth century; in the tenth and following centuries it often served as a prison, voluntary or compulsory, for the popes; Boniface IX, Alexander VI, and Urban VIII were the popes who did most to restore and transform it. The Tomb of Caecilia Metella, on the Via Appia, still fairly well preserved, was a stronghold of the Caetani in the Middle Ages, and from them passed to the Savelli and the Colonna. The Pyramid of Caius Caestius (time of Augustus) is more than 120 feet in height. The tomb of Eurysaces, outside the Porta Maggiore, has interesting bas-reliefs showing the various operations of baking bread. That of the Scipios, near the Gate of St. Sebastian, was discovered in 1780, with the sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus, consul in 298 which is now in the Vatican Museum. The Appian Way was lined with numbers of sepulchral monuments; among these mention may be made here of the columbaria, or grottoes where a family or an association was wont to deposit in niches the cinerary urns of its members. The most important of these are in the Vigna Codini and near S. Giovanni in Oleo. With Septimius Severus a new architectural period was inaugurated, which was continued by Heliogabalus and Alexander Severus. The house of Augustus, that of Tiberius, the hippodrome, the library, the house of Livia, the poedagogium, or quarters of the imperial pages (where the celebrated drawing of a certain Alexamenos adoring a crucified ass was discovered) -- all these are still clearly distinguishable. There were also a temple of the Great Mother (205 b.c.), one of Jupiter Victor (295 b.c.-commemorating the victory of Sentinum), and one of Apollo, surrounded by a great portico in the enclosure of which now stands the Church of S. Sebastiano in Palladio. In the substructures of the palace of Caligula was discovered some years ago the ancient basilica of S. Maria Antiqua, probably dating from the fourth century, in which frescoes of the eighth and ninth centuries (including a portrait of Pope St. Zacharias, then living) were found. It is evident at certain points, where the paintings have been broken, that two other layers of painting lie beneath. Other temples are those of Concordia, three columns of which are still standing in the Roman Forum, built in 388 b.c. for the peace between the Patricians and the Plebeians, and in which the Senate often assembled; of the Deus Rediculus, outside the city, near the Appian Way, on the spot where Hannibal, alarmed by a vision, resolved to retire without besieging Rome; of Castor and Pollux, built in 484 b.c. to cornmemorate the victory of Lake Regillus, over the Latins, and restored in 117 (three columns remaining); of Faustina and Antoninus (S. Lorenzo in Miranda); of Fortuna Virilis (second century B. C.; now the Church of St. Mary of Egypt); of Julius Caesar, erected by Augustus in the Forum, on the spot where Caesar's body was burned; of Jupiter Capitolinus, now the German Embassy; of Mars Ultor (the Avenger) erected in the Forum of Augustus to fulfil his vow made at the battle of Philippi, where he avenged the assassination of Caesar; of Minerva Medica, which is, indeed, rather a nymphaeum, or reservoir for distributing the water supply; of Neptune, with its stone piazza, now the Exchange; of Peace, built by Vespasian after his victory over the Jews; of Romulus (the son of Maxentius) which now, like Sacrae Urbis temple (of the Holy City), forms part of Santi Cosmo e Damiano; of Saturn, in the Forum. The two temples of Venus and Rome have their apses touching each other, and were surrounded by a common peristyle, a plan designed by the Emperor Hadrian himself; to the temple of Vesta, below the Palatine, is annexed the house of the Vestals; the small round temple of the Mater Matuba, in the Forum Boarium, has been commonly called Vesta's. Characteristic of Rome are the lofty brick towers generally square with few windows, winch may still be seen here and there throughout the city. They were built, for the most part, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and are monuments of the discord between the most powerful families of Rome. The most important of them are: the Torre Anguillara in Trastevere, adjoining the palace of the Anguillara family, reconstructed and used as a medieval museum; the two Capocci towers, in the Via Giovanni Lanza; that of the Conti, once the largest and strongest, built by Riccardo, brother of Innocent III; that of the Scimmia, or of the Frangipani, near S. Antonio dei Portoghesi surmounted by a statue of the Madonna; the Torre Millina, in the Via dell' Anima; the Torre Sanguigna. The Torre delle Milizie has been erroneously called "Nero's Tower", that emperor being supposed to have watched from it the burning of Rome; it was built, however, under Innocent III, by his sons Piero and Alessio, partisans of the senator Pandolfo, who opposed the pope's brother Riccardo. Guida Commerciale di Roma e Provincia (annual); Monografia della citt`a di Roma (publ. of the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Rome, 1881). History. -- MOMMSEN, tr. DICKSON, The History of Rome (London, 1886); DYER, A History of the City of Rome (London, 1865); GREGOROVIUS, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages (London, 1894-1902); GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Paepste im Mittelalter (Freiburg im Br., 1901); REUMONT, Gesch. Roms im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1905); ADINOLFI, Roma nell' et`a di mezzo (Rome, 1881); TOMMASSETTI, La Campagna di Roma 1879-1910; EHRLE, Roma prime di Sisto V (Rome, 1908); POMPILI-OLIVIERI, Il Senato Romano (1143-1870) (Rome, 1886); CALVI, Bibliografia di Roma nel Medio Evo (476-1499) (Rome, 1906); Appendix (more complete) (1908). Monuments, Antiquities, etc. -- CHANDLERY, Pilgrim Walks in Rome (St. Louis and London, 1905); CRAWFORD, Ave, Roma Immortalis (London, 1905); DE WAAL, Roma Sacra (Munich, 1905); STETTINER, Roma nei suoi monumenti (Rome, 1911); ANGELI, Roma, in Italia Artistica, XXXVII, XL (Bergamo, 1908); PETERSEN, Das alte Rom (Leipzig, s. d.); STEINMANN, Rom in der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1902); LANCIANI, Pagan and Christian Rome (Boston, 1893); IDEM, Ancient Rome (New York, 1889); IDEM, Forum e Palatino; BOISSIER, Promenades archeologiques (Paris, 1881); RICHTER, Topographie der Stadt Rom (Nordlinger, 1889); NIBBY, Roma e suoi dintorni (Rome, 1829); HELBIG, Guide to the Public Collections of Classical Antiquities in Rome (Leipzig, 1895-96); ARMELLINI, Le chiese di Roma (Rome, 1891); ANGELI, Le chiese di Roma (milan, 1906). Archaeological Reviews. -- Bulletino d'Arch. Crist. (1863-): Nuovo Bulletino d'Arch. crist. (1895-); Bulletino della Comissione arch. comunale di Roma (1873-); Archivo della Societ`a Romano di Storia Patria (Rome, 1877-); Notizie degli scavi di antichit`a (Rome, 1876-); Ann. Ecclesiastico (Rome, 1911). U. BENIGNI. University of Rome University of Rome The University of Rome must be distinguished from the "Studium Generale apud Curiam", established by Innocent IV in 1244-5 at Lyons for the convenience of the members of the pontifical Court and of the persons who flocked from all over the world to tho Holy See. The Studium comprised the faculties of theology and of canon and civil law. Clerics and priests could not only attend the lectures in the latter branch, but were allowed to teach it, despite the prohibition of Honorius III. The Studium accompanied the popes on all their journeys and was thus transferred to Avignon. In accordance with the Decree of the Council of Vienne, the Studium Curiae was the first, owing to the generosity of John XXII, to establish chairs of Arabic, Hebrew and Chaldaic; there was, moreover, a professor of Armenian. At Avignon professorships of medicine were also instituted. During the Schism both the popes at Avignon and those at Rome had a Studium Generale; but in the former theology alone was taught. In the fifteenth century the Studium Generale was abolished in favour of the University of Rome. Previously King Charles of Anjou, out of gratitude for his election as senator of Rome, had decided, 14 October, 1265, to erect a Studium Generale "tam utriusque juris quam artium" (of civil and canon law and of arts), but his plan was not carried into execution. The real founder of the University of Rome was Boniface VIII (Bull "In supremae" of 20 April, 1303), who established it in order that Rome, the recipient of so many Divine favours, might become the fruitful mother of science. The chief source of revenue of the university was the tribute which Tivoli and Rispampano paid the City of Rome. It is worthy of note that a school of law already existed in Rome in the thirteenth century. The transference of the papal Court to Avignon did not at first injure the Studium Generale. John XXII took a deep interest in it, but limited the granting of degrees to the two faculties of law. The Vicar of Rome was to preside at the examinations; to obtain a degree the Candidate had to study six years (five for canon law) and profess the same for two years. There exist documents from the year 1369 showing that degrees were then granted. But later, in the days of anarchy that overtook the city, the Studium gradually decayed. In 1363 the statutes were reformed; among other changes, provision was made for obtaining foreign professors, who would be independent of the various factions in the city. In 1370, however, or a little later, the Studium was entirely closed. Towards the end of the century the Roman Commune tried to restore the university by offering very large salaries to the professors. Innocent VII in 1406 gave it new statutes and arranged with Manuel Chrysoloras to accept the chair of Greek literature. But the death of Innocent and the subsequent political and ecclesiastical troubles frustrated this plan. The real restorer of the university was Eugene IV (10 October 1431). He drew up regulations for the liberty and immunity of the professors and students, and increased the revenues by adding to them the duties imposed oa wines imported from abroad. For the purpose of government, four reformatores, Roman citizens, were appointed to assist the rector. The position of chancellor was given to the cardinal-camerlengo. The university was located near the Church of Sant' Eustachio, where it had first been established. The first college for poor students was the Collegium Capranica (1458 see ROMAN COLLEGES); but the later plan of establishing another was not realized. The Studium of law soon flourished; but the theological faculty, on account of the competition of the Studium Curiae, was not so successful. Under Nicholas V the classical studies developed rapidly owing to the labours of Lorenzo Valla, Poggio Bracciolini, Bruni, Francesco Filelfo, Pomponio Leto, and the Greeks, Lascaris, Chalcocondylas, and Musuros. But the process against the Academia Romana under Paul II reacted on the university. Sixtus IV intended to suppress it and reduced the salaries of the professors. Bettor days returned with Alexander VI, who began the present building of the Sapienza, which was remodelled in the seventeenth century. It seems, however, that it was Leo X who suppressed the Studium Curiae in favour of the University of Rome. In 1514 the latter had 88 professors: 4 of theology, 11 of canon law, 20 of civil law, 15 of medicine, the remainder teaching philosophy, mathematics, rhetoric, grammar, and botany. Lectures were given even on feast days. The number of students was very small, being frequently less than the number of professors. The blame is to be laid on the latter, whose other official and professional duties interfered with their lectures. Leo X established in the Campidoglio a chair of Roman history, the lectures to be open to the public; the first to fill the position was Evangelista Maddaleni Capodiferro. Leo also granted a new constitution to the university, obliged the professors to hold a "circle" with the students after their lectures, forbade them to exercise any other profession, and imposed a penalty for lectures omitted. He appointed three cardinals protectors of the university. As a result of the occurrences of 1527, the university remained closed during the entire pontificate of Clement VII. Paul III immediately after his accession reopened it, obtaining distinguished professors, such as Lainez, S.J., for theology, Faber, S.J., for Scripture, Copernicus for astronomy, and Accorambono for medicine. It is from this date that the university assumed the name of the Sapienza (a name used previously elsewhere, as at Perugia). In 1539 the professors numbered 24; 2 of theology, 8 of canon and civil law, 5 of medicine (one teaching anatomy and one botany), 5 of philosophy, 3 of Latin, and 1 of Greek literature. Julius III entrusted the administration to a congregation of cardinals. Pius V enlarged the botanical garden of medical herbs previously established near the Vatican by Nicholas V, and allowed the bodies of condemned infidels to be used for the purposes of anatomical study. He also established chairs of Hebrew and mathematics. A mineralogical museum (the "Metalloteca" which was after abandoned) was founded in the Vatican. Under Gregory XIII adjunct chairs with salary attached were established for the young doctors of Rome, who might later become ordinary professors. In that and the following centuries the professors of theology were generally the procurators general of the various religious orders. Sixtus V granted 22,000 scudi to extinguish the debt encumbering the university. He gave to the college of consistorial advocates the exclusive right of electing the rector who, until then, had been elected by the professors and the students, and he instituted a congregation of cardinals, "Pro Universitate Studii Romani". At the end of the sixteenth century the university began to decline, especially in the faculties of theology, philosophy, and literature. This was due in part to the formidable concurrence of the Jesuits in their Collegio Romano, where the flower of the intellect of the Society was engaged in teaching. Moreover, Plato was the favoured master in the Sapienza, while Aristotle was more generally followed elsewhere. Among the distinguished professors in this century besides those already mentioned were Tommaso de Vio, O.P., later the celebrated Cardinal Gaetano; Domenico Jacovazzi; Felice Peretti (Sixtus V); Marco Antonio Muret, professor of law and elegant Latinist; Bartolomeo Eustacchio, the famous anatomist. In the seventeenth century the decline was rapid. Many of the professors had the privilege of lecturing only when they pleased; most of them were foreigners. The medical school alone continued to prosper owing to the labours of Cesalpino and Lancisi. The Academia dei Lincei promoted the study of the natural sciences and was honoured by Benedettino Castelli, the disciple and friend of Galilei, and Andrea Argoli; later Vito Giordani the mathematician attracted many students. Only two jurisconsults of note are found during this century, Farinacci and Gravina. Giuseppe Carpani brought the students together at his home to familiarize them with the practice of law. The most important event of the century occurred in 1660, under Alexander VII (1655-67), when the university buildings begun by Alexander VI (1492-1503) were completed. Alexander VII established moreover the university library (the Alexandrine Library) by obtaining from the Clerks Regular Minors of Urbania, whom he compensated by giving them permanently the chair of ethics, the printed books from the library of the Dukes of Urbino. In addition he founded six new chairs, among which was that of controversial church history, first filled by the Portuguese Francesco Macedo. Innocent XI erected a fine anatomical hall. The most celebrated and relatively speaking most frequented schools were those of the Oriental languages. Under Innocent XII a move was made to suppress the university and assign the buildings to the Piarists for the free education of young boys. Fortunately the plan was not only not executed but resulted in a radical reform and the introduction (1700) of a new regime which benefited in particular the faculty of law. Clement XI purchased (1703) with his private funds some fields on the Janiculum, where he established a botanical garden, which soon became the most celebrated in Europe through the labours of the brothers Trionfetti. Benedict XIV, who had been a professor and rector of the university (1706-19), promulgated in 1744 new regulations concerning especially the vacations, the order of examinations, and the selection of professors, which was to be by competitive examination, whereas from the time of Innocent XII they were ordinarily appointed by the pope. Another Edict (1748) dealt with the rights and duties of the professors and established chairs of chemistry, botany, and experimental physics. The following chairs were then in existence: 6 of jurisprudence; 6 of medicine; 15 of arts (including theology). In 1778 the sciences were divided into five classes: theology, 5 chairs; jurisprudence, 6; medicine, 9; philosophy and arts, 5; languages (Latin, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac). But a rector of that time deplored the inertia of the professors and the laziness of the students. Pius VII (1804) founded the mineralogical and natural history museum, and in 1806 a chair of veterinary science. From 1809 till 1813 the French system was in force. Leo XIII in 1824 established the Congregation of Studies, and gave it control of the universities in the pontifical state. Many professors at Rome as at Bologna had to resign their chairs on account of their political opinions, which resulted in the university failing to keep pace with the universities in other states, for instance, the chairs of public and commercial law were not founded till 1848; and that of political economy still later. Among the distinguished professors of the eighteenth century were the jurists, Fagnano, Renazzi (also the historian of the university), Petrocchi; the professors of medicine, Baglivi Tozzi, Pascoli; the mathematician, Quartaroni; the Syrian scholar, Assemani; and Menzini and Fontanini the litterateurs; in the nineteenth century the Abbate Tortolini and Chelini, mathematicians. In 1870 there were 6 professors of theology, 8 of law, 2 of notarial art, 13 of medicine, 4 of pharmacy, 11 of surgery, 3 of veterinary science, 15 of philosophy and mathematics, 8 of Italian and classical philology, and 4 of Oriental languages. Under the new Government all the professors who refused to take the oath of allegiance were dismissed, among those refusing being the entire theological staff. These alone then formed the pontifical university, which came to an end in 1876. The university is now under the control of the Italian Government and is called the Royal University. Its present state is as follows: philosophy and letters, chairs ordinary, 23, extraordinary, 3; tutors, 13; physics and mathematics, chairs ordinary, 23, extraordinary, 7; tutors, 16; law, chairs ordinary, 16; tutors, 8; medicine, chairs ordinary, 20, extraordinary, 2; tutors, 15; philosophy and letters, professors, 33; docents, 33; physics and mathematics, professors, 34 (with 4 assistants); docents, 41; law professors, 17; docents, 36; medicine, professors, 35; docents, 98. Annexed to the university are schools of philosophy, literature, and natural science, archaeology, medieval and modern art, Oriental languages, pharmacy, and applied engineering. There are also institutes of pedagogy, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anatomy, anthropology, geology, physiology, the astronomical observatory of the Campidoglio, many medical institutes and clinics, and finally the Alexandrine library. The number of students in 1909-10 was 3686. Owing to the growth of the university after 1870, the building of the Sapienza was insufficient, consequently the schools of physical and natural sciences had to be located elsewhere. See the Annuario della Reale Universit`a degli studi di Roma (1870-71 to 1909-10) RENAZZI, Storia dell' Universit`a degli Studi di Roma (Rome, 1803-6); CARAFA, De Gymnasio Romano eiusque professoribus ab Urbe condita (Rome, 1751); DENIFLE, Die Universitaeten des Mittelalters, I (Berlin, 1885); Relazione e notizie intorno alla Regia Universit`a di Roma (Rome, 1873). U. BENIGNI. Juan Romero Juan Romero Missionary and Indian linguist, b. in the village of Machena, Andalusia, Spain, 1559; d. at Santiago, Chile, 31 March, 1630. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1580, was assigned to the South American mission in 1588, and arrived in Peru in January, 1590, to take up his work among the Indians. From 1593 to 1598 he was superior of the missions of Tucuman, the missionary centre for the wild tribes of what is now northern Argentina. After a term as procurator in Rome, he returned to South America in 1610 and was successively superior of the Jesuit college at Buenos Aires, rector of the colleges of Santiago del Estero, Argentina, and Santiago, Chile, and first vice-provincial of Chile. In his long service of nearly forty years as active or directing missionary Father Romero acquired a more or less fluent knowledge of several Indian languages, particularly of the Guarani (q.v.) of Paraguay, on which he was an authority. He was also the author of numerous letters and shorter papers and of an important manuscript work, "De Praedestinatione." SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la C. de J., pt. I (Brussels and Paris, 1896), bibliogr. vii; sketch in LOZANO, Historia de la Compania de Jesus de la Provincia del Paraguay (2 vols., Madrid, 1754-5). JAMES MOONEY St. Romuald St. Romuald Born at Ravenna, probably about 950; died at Val-di-Castro, 19 June, 1027. St. Peter Damian, his first biographer, and almost all the Camaldolese writers assert that St. Romuald's age at his death was one hundred and twenty, and that therefore he was born about 907. This is disputed by most modern writers. Such a date not only results in a series of improbabilities with regard to events in the saint's life, but is also irreconcilable with known dates, and probably was determined from some mistaken inference by St. Peter Damian. In his youth Romuald indulged in the usual thoughtless and even vicious life of the tenth-century noble, yet felt greatly drawn to the eremetical life. At the age of twenty, struck with horror because his father had killed an enemy in a duel, he fled to the Abbey of San Apollinare-in-Classe and after some hesitation entered religion. San Apollinare had recently been reformed by St. Maieul of Cluny, but still was not strict enough in its observance to satisfy Romuald. His injudicious correction of the less zealous aroused such enmity against him that he applied for, and was readily granted, permission to retire to Venice, where he placed himself under the direction of a hermit named Marinus and lived a life of extraordinary severity. About 978, Pietro Orseolo I, Doge of Venice, who had obtained his office by acquiescence in the murder of his predecessor, began to suffer remorse for his crime. On the advice of Guarinus, Abbot of San Miguel-de-Cuxa, in Catalonia, and of Marinus and Romuald, he abandoned his office and relations, and fled to Cuxa, where he took the habit of St. Benedict, while Romuald and Marinus erected a hermitage close to the monastery. For five years the saint lived a life of great austerity, gathering round him a band of disciples. Then, hearing that his father, Sergius, who had become a monk, was tormented with doubts as to his vocation, he returned in haste to Italy, subjected Sergius to severe discipline, and so resolved his doubts. For the next thirty years St. Romuald seems to have wandered about Italy, founding many monasteries and hermitages. For some time he made Pereum his favourite resting place. In 1005 he went to Val-di- Castro for about two years, and left it, prophesying that he would return to die there alone and unaided. Again he wandered about Italy; then attempted to go to Hungary, but was prevented by persistent illness. In 1012 he appeared at Vallombrosa, whence he moved into the Diocese of Arezzo. Here, according to the legend, a certain Maldolus, who had seen a vision of monks in white garments ascending into Heaven, gave him some land, afterwards known as the Campus Maldoli, or Camaldoli. St. Romuald built on this land five cells for hermits, which, with the monastery at Fontebuono, built two years later, became the famous mother-house of the Camaldolese Order (q.v.). In 1013 he retired to Monte-Sitria. In 1021 he went to Bifolco. Five years later he returned to Val-di-Castro where he died, as he had prophesied, alone in his cell. Many miracles were wrought at his tomb, over which an altar was allowed to be erected in 1032. In 1466 his body was found still incorrupt; it was translated to Fabriano in 1481. In 1595 Clement VII fixed his feast on 7 Feb., the day of the translation of his relics, and extended its celebration to the whole Church. He is represented in art pointing to a ladder on which are monks ascending to Heaven. [ Note: By the Apostolic Constitution Calendarium Romanum, promulgated in 1969, the feast of St. Romuald was assigned, as an "Optional Memorial," to 19 June, the day of his death.] Acta SS., Feb., II (Venice, 1735), 101-46; CASTANIZA, Historia de S. Romvaldo (Madrid, 1597); COLLINA, Vita di S. Romualdo (Bologna, 1748); GRANDO, Dissertationes Camaldulenses (Lucca, 1707), II, 1-144; III, 1-160; MABILLON, Acta SS. O.S.B., saec. VI, par. I (Venice, 1733), 246-78; MITTARELLI AND COSTADONI, Annales Camaldulenses, I (Venice, 1755); St. Peter Damian in P.L., CXLIV (Paris, 1867), 953-1008; TRICHAUD, Vie de Saint Romuald (Amiens, 1879); WAITZ in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., IV (Hanover, 1841), 846-7. LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE Romulus Augustulus Romulus Augustulus Deposed in the year 476, the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire. His reign was purely nominal. After the murder Valentinian III (455) the Theodosian dynasty was extinct in Western Europe and the Suevian Ricimer, a grandson of Wallia, a king of the West Goths, governed the Western Empire for sixteen years as its real ruler. Like Stilicho and Aetius he raised five shadowy emperors to the throne and then deposed them, partly in agreement with the Eastern Empire. After his death in 472 his nephew Gundobad succeeded. At Ravenna Gundobad appointed the soldier Glycerius as emperor, but Leo, the Eastern Roman Emperor, chose Julius Nepos, a relative of Empress Verina, who had succeeded his uncle Marcellinus as Governor of Dalmatia. Nepos advanced with the fleet to Ravenna and forced Glycerius to become Bishop of Salona. Leo's successor, Zeno the Isaurian, withdrew the fleet which Nepos had had, and thus the latter was forced to depend upon his own resources, while the turmoil in Rome and Gaul constantly increased. Nepos appointed Orestes "magister militum" and made him a patrician. Orestes had been minister of Attila, after whose death he had come to Rome. Nepos commissioned Orestes to advance into Gaul to restore order with the troops still available. Orestes however prevailed upon the mercenaries to march against Ravenna instead of going to Gaul. Nepos fled to Dalmatia while Orestes entered Ravenna on 28 August, 475. Orestes allowed two months to pass without appointing a new emperor, and the troops growing impatient proclaimed his son. On account of the boy's youth (he was only thirteen years old) he was called Augustulus, the little emperor. The administration was carried on cautiously and shrewdly by Orestes. He obtained the recognition of his son by the emperor of the Eastern Empire, made treaties for the protection of Italy with the German princes in Africa, Gaul, and Spain, and thus gained a few years of peace for the country. However, the German warriors in his army, who had driven out the Emperor Nepos in the belief that they would receive grants of land, now demanded a third of the territory of Italy, according to the custom existing in the Roman army. When Orestes refused the troops mutinied under the leadership of the Skyrian Odoacer. Orestes advanced against them, but was obliged to fall back on Pavia, which city was stormed by Odoacer; Orestes was taken prisoner and beheaded at Piacenza in 476. Odoacer was proclaimed king by his troops and marched against Ravenna where Romulus waited in fear. Odoacer spared his life, gave him a year's income, and sent him with his relatives to Cape Misenum opposite Baia. Odoacer now reigned as first King of Italy, while three deposed emperors dragged out inglorious and powerless lives: Romulus Augustulus in private life on his estate in Campania, Glycerius as Bishop of Salona, and Julius Nepos as commander in Dalmatia. The Roman Empire of the West had ceased, and the conception of imperial power was henceforth exclusively connected with the person of the Eastern emperor. NITZSCH, Deutsche Gesch., I, VON RANKE, Weltgeschichte, IV, PFEILSCHIFTER, Theodorich der Grosse in Weltgesch. in Karakterbildern (Mainz, 1910). KARL HOEBER St. Ronan St. Ronan There are twelve Irish saints bearing the name of Ronan commemorated in the "Martyrology of Donegal"; of these the most celebrated are: St. Ronan of Ulster, brother of St. Carnech, and grandson of Loarn, d. 11 January, 535; St. Ronan, son of Berach, a disciple of the great St. Fechin of Fore. He became first Abbot of Drumshallon, and d. 18 November, 665. St. Ronan Fionn is honoured as patron of Lan Ronan (Kelminiog) in Iveagh. His feast is celebrated on 22 May, both in Ireland and Scotland. St. Ronan of Iona is explicitly referred to by St. Bede as one of the protagonists of the Roman custom of celebrating Easter as against the Irish tradition, and he had a warm controversy on the subject with his countryman St. Finan, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 660. This controversy was ended at the Synod of Whitby, in 664, when St. Ronan's views were upheld. St. Ronan of Lismore was a distinguished successor of St. Carthage, and several Munster churches were built in his honour. His feast is celebrated on 9 February 763. Another saint of this name is best known by the ruined church of Kilronan, Co. Roscommon, where Turlogh O'Carolan and Bishop O'Rourke are buried. W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Pierre de Ronsard Pierre de Ronsard French poet, b. 2 (or 11) Sept., 1524, at the Chateau de la Poissonniere, near Vendome; d. 27 Dec., 1585, at the priory of Saint-Cosme-en l'Isle, near Tours. He was first educated at home by a private tutor, and at the age of nine was sent to the College of Navarre, in Paris. Having left the college before graduating he was appointed page to the Duke of Orleans, son of Francis I, and soon afterwards to James V, King of Scotland. After a sojourn of three years in Scotland and England, during which he became thoroughly proficient in the English language, he traveled in Germany, Piedmont, and other countries. In 1541, being afflicted with an incurable deafness, he retired from public life and for seven years devoted his entire time to study. He studied Greek under the famous scholar Dorat, at the College de Coqueret. His ambition was to find new p a t h s for French poetry, and he was soon recognized as the "Prince of Poets ", a title he merited by his "Odes" (1550), "Amours de Cassandre", etc. He was a great favorite with Charles IX; Elizabeth, Queen of England, sent him a diamond; Mary Stuart found relief in her imprisonment in reading his poems; the City of Toulouse presented him with a solid silver Minerva; and the literary men of that time acknowledged him as their leader. His last ten years were saddened by ill-health. He retired to Croix-Val-en-Vendomois, in the forest of Gastine, and then to the priory of Saint-Cosme-en l'Isle, where-he died. The works of Ronsard are numerous and their chronology is very intricate. In twenty-four years (1560-84) six editions of his works were published, and the number of occasional pieces is almost incalculable. The following are the most important: "Les Amours de Cassandre" (2 books of sonnets, Paris, 1550), "Odes" (5 books, Paris, 1551-1552), "Le bocage royal" (Paris, 1554), "Les Hymnes" (2 books, Paris, 1556), "Poemes" (2 books, Paris, 1560-73), "Discours sur les miseres du temps" (1560), "La Franciade" (Paris, 1572). His influence and his reforms were far-reaching. He enriched the French vocabulary with a multitude of words borrowed not only from Greek and Latin, but from the old romance dialects as well as from the technical languages of trades, sports, and sciences. His many rules concerning verse-making were as influential as numerous. He invented a large variety of metres, adopted the regular intertwining of masculine and feminine rhymes, proscribed the hiatus, and introduced harmony in French verse. He was perhaps the greatest French lyrical poet prior to the nineteenth century. His themes are as varied as their forms, simple and sublime, ironical and tender, solemn and familiar. BINET, La vie de Pierre de Ronsard (Paris, 1586), re-edited, with notes and commentaries by LAUMONIER (Paris,1910); BRUNETIERE, Hist. de la litt. class., I (Paris, 1908); LAUMONIER, L'aeuvre de Ronsard (Paris, 1910), which work contains a full and complete bibliography. LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Rood Rood (Anglo-Saxon Rod, or Rode, "cross"), a term, often used to signify the True Cross itself, which, with the prefix Holy, occurs as the dedication of some churches -- e.g. Holyrood Abbey, in Scotland. But more generally it means a large crucifix, with statues of Our Lady and St. John, usually placed over the entrance to the choir in medieval churches. These roods were frequently very large, so as to be seen from all parts of the church, and were placed either on a gallery, or screen, or on a beam spanning the chancel arch. Roods are also occasionally found sculptured outside churches, as at Sherborne and Romsey, and on churchyard and wayside crosses. As to the antiquity of the rood in the church, there is no certain evidence. The silver crucifix set up in the middle of St. Peter's at Rome by Leo III, in 795, is sometimes claimed as an early example, but there is nothing to prove that this was a rood in the medieval sense. By the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, the great rood or crucifix had become a common feature in almost every church of Western Christendom, and the addition of the figures of Sts. Mary and John, in allusion to John, xix, 25, came in about the fifteenth. Numerous examples still remain, both in England and elsewhere. They were usually of wood, richly carved, painted or gilded, with foliated or crocketed sides, and with the arms of the cross terminating either in fleurs-de-lys or in emblazoned medallions of the symbols of the four evangelists. Rood-lights were kept burning before the rood in medieval times, consisting either of a wick and oil in a cresset, or rood- bowl, or of a taper on a pricket in the centre of a mortar of brass, lattern, or copper. During the whole of Lent, except at the procession of Palm Sunday, the Rood was covered with a veil (rood-cloth), which in England was either violet or black, and often was marked with a white cross. When the rood was exceptionally large or heavy, its weight was sometimes taken partly by wrought-iron rood-chains depending from the chancel arch, which were generally of elaborate design; the staples to which they were fixed may still be seen in some churches from which the rood itself has been removed -- e.g. at Cullompton, England. The rood, however, striking and prominent as it was intended to be, was often eclipsed by the rood-screen over which it was placed. The precise origin of the screen and its connection with the rood is somewhat obscure, and apparently varied in different churches. The custom of screening off the altar is very ancient, and emphasizing, as it did, the air of mystery surrounding the place of sacrifice, was possibly a survival of Judaism; but the placing of a screen, more or less solid, between the chancel and nave -- i.e. between clergy and people -- must have originated from practical rather than from symbolic reasons, and was probably an attempt to secure privacy and comfort for those engaged in the work of the choir, more especially at times when there was no congregation present. This was certainly the case with the heavy closed screens, usually of stone, in the large conventual and collegiate churches, where the long night offices would have been impossible in winter without some such protection. Over such screens was a loft or gallery (rood-loft), which, according to some authorities, was used for the reading of the Epistle or Gospel, certain lections, the pastorals of bishops, the Acts of councils, and other like purposes. The episcopal benediction was also sometimes pronounced, and penitents absolved, from the loft, and in some churches of France the paschal candle stood there. The Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the loft in Lyons cathedral and, according to De Moleon, similarly also at Rouen in the eighteenth century. The loft likewise frequently provided convenient accommodation for the organs and singers. In large monastic churches it was called the pulpitum and was separate from the rood-screen supporting the rood, the latter being placed westward of the pulpitum; but in secular cathedrals and parish churches there does not seem to have been usually a separate rood-screen, the rood, in such cases, being either on or over the pulpitum itself. In France the rood-loft was called the jube, which seems to imply that it was used liturgically for the reading of lessons and the like. A gallery or loft corresponding to the medieval jube was not unknown in the early Church, but there is no satisfactory evidence to show that it was surmounted by a rood. Thiers, taking Sens cathedral as his example, suggests that the loft began merely as a sort of bridge connecting the two ambos on either side of the chancel arch, and that it was gradually made more spacious as it proved useful for other purposes. This could only have been so, however, in the smaller churches where there was no pulpitum, unless perhaps it was itself the origin of the pulpitum. In smaller parish churches it seems probable that the loft was originally only a convenience for reaching the rood-lights, and that its obvious suitability for other uses caused its enlargement and elaboration. Nothing, however, can be stated with absolute certainty. Many of these medieval screens, both with and without lofts, remain to the present day, in spite of the iconoclasm of the Reformation period. Notable screens that may be mentioned as typical examples are at Cawston, Ranworth, Southwold, Dunster, and Staverton in England; at Troyes, Albi, St-Fiacre-le-Faouet, and St-Etienne-du-Mont, Paris, in France; at Louvain and Dixmude in Beligium; at Lubeck in Germany. Some are constructed of stone, and some of the later ones of metal-work, but they are mostly of wood and usually consist of close panelling below -- often decorated with painted figures of saints -- and open screenwork above, supporting tracery and richly carved cornices and crestings. In England they were generally lavishly coloured and gilded. In some instances they extend across the aisles of the church as well. In England, also, the rood frequently stood not on or near the screen and loft, but on a separate transverse beam called the rood-beam, which was similarly carved and gilded. There were sometimes other beams also, besides that supporting the rood, like those at St. David's, between the choir and sanctuary, and Lincoln beyond the high altar, on which stood lights and reliquaries. Corbels, or stone brackets in English churches -- e.g., Worcester cathedral - often indicate the position of the rood-beam before its removal in the sixteenth century. Leading up to the rood-loft were the rood-stairs, many of which still remain even where the loft itself has been destroyed. In England these stairs were generally enclosed in the wall separating chancel from nave, but in other countries they often constituted an architectural feature with elaborate tracery, as at Rouen (since destroyed), Strasburg, St-Etienne-du-Mont, and La Madeleine at Troyes. In churches where there were both pulpitum and rood- screen the latter usually had two doors, and between them was placed, on the western side, the rood-altar, which, in monastic churches, often served as the parish altar, the parishioners being accommodated in the nave. This was the case in almost all the monastic cathedrals and greater abbeys of England, and the altar, being immediately under the great rood, was dedicated to the Holy Cross, except at Durham, where it was called the Jesus altar, and at St. Albans, where the dedication was to St. Cuthbert. The latter still remains in situ as the parish altar. In Munster cathedral and at Lubeck, in the hospital church, there were three altars, with the two doors of the screen between them. In smaller churches, with no separate pulpitum, but only a rood-screen with a central doorway, there was usually an altar on either side of the door, but it is doubtful whether these can strictly be termed rood-altars. It seems probable that in some cases the rood-altar was on the loft itself, instead of beneath -- e.g., at Litchfield, Lyons, and St- Maurice, Vienne. In some old lofts drains have been found which may possibly be the remains of the piscinas for such altars. The daily parish Mass said at the altar on or under the rood-screen, was called the rood Mass, though occasionally this term is used to signify merely the Mass of one or other of the feasts of the Holy Cross. A few other terms used in connection with the rood may here be briefly explained. The rood-arch was the arch separating chancel from nave, under which the rood and rood-screen were usually situated. A rood-door was either the central door of a rood- screen or one of the two doors on either side of the rood-altar. Rood-gallery was another term for rood-loft. The rood-gap was the space under the chancel arch, partially occupied by the rood. The rood-saints were the figures of Sts. Mary and John on either side of the rood; rood-steps, the steps leading up from the nave into the chancel, under or immediately before the rood-screen. Rood-steeple, or rood-tower, was a name sometimes given to the central tower of a church at the intersection of nave and chancel with the transepts, as at Durham, Notre-Dame, Paris, and Lincoln. At the last-named place the name has since been corrupted into "Broad Tower." G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Johann Philipp Roothaan Johann Philipp Roothaan Twenty-first General of the Society of Jesus, b. at Amsterdam, 23 November, 1785; d. at Rome, 8 May, 1853. Originally Protestant, the Roothaan family emigrated from Frankfort to Amsterdam, where it became Catholic. Johann Philipp, the youngest of three brothers, was on account of his special talent destined for study, and, before he was sixteen, graduated from the gymnasium of his native town. Thence passing to the athenaeum illustre (high school), he continued for four years his classical studies under the celebrated Professor Jakob van Lennep with the greatest success. Confronted with the necessity of choosing his vocation, he determined to join the Society of Jesus, which still survived in White Russia and had been officially recognized hy Pius VII. In 1804 he set out for the novitiate in Dunaburg; the descriptions of his month's journey thither are very interesting. On the conclusion of his novitiate, he was, on account of his great knowledge of the classics, appointed teacher at the Jesuit gymnasium at Dunaburg (1806-9), and completely satisfied the expectations of his superiors. He had already mastered Polish; as a native of Holland, he naturally spoke also French, while the two classical languages and Hebrew were among his favorite studies. He subsequently began the higher study of philosophy and theology at Polotsk, and in 1812 was ordained priest. The following four years were spent as professor of rhetoric at Pusza -- this was the stormy era of the Franco-Russian War. The joyous incident of the restoration of the Society of Jesus by Pius VII also belongs to this period (1814). The other four years which preceded the banishment of the Jesuits from Russia (1820) were passed by Roothaan partly as teacher and partly in pastoral duties in Orsa. During this interval he took the final solemn vows, and could thus enter courageously on his journey into exile. This journey lasted three months, and ended in Brieg (Canton of Wallis, Switzerland). Here he again taught rhetoric for three years, besides taking zealous part in popular missions. He thrice accompanied, on his tour of visitation, the provincial of the vice-province of Switzerland, to which also belonged the Jesuit houses in Germany, Belgium, and Holland, and learned the conditions from personal examination. He was able, after a seventeen years' absence, to revisit his kindred at Amsterdam. Roothaan's subsequent appointment to the rectorship of the newly-founded college at Turin brought him to his real life's task. On the death of A. Fortis, General of the Society of Jesus, Roothaan was named his successor. His labors as General were most fruitful in every domain for the newly-restored order. His first care was for the preservation and strengthening of the internal spirit of the Society. To this object he devoted nine of his eleven general letters. Of still greater fundamental importance than these valuable encyclicals were his labors on the new edition of the Exercises of St. Ignatius according to the original text; this edition he provided with an introduction and explanatory notes. The enlightened and renewed use of this precious work is his chief service, which alone must have rendered his name immortal in the Society. He also displayed great zeal in raising the standard of studies; having himself enjoyed such a splendid classical -education, he was able to appreciate the value of the classics for a mental training. After careful investigation and counsel, he published in 1832 the Revised Order of Studies, excellently adapted to the conditions of the time. Having thus provided for their spiritual and intellectual armor, he was also able to open up the richest fields for the activity of his brethren in the Society, namely the home and foreign missions. During his administration, the order increased twofold in the number of its members (5000) and in its apostolic activity, although it had meanwhile to suffer banishment and persecution in many places, especially in the year of revolution, 1848. The General himself had to quit Rome for two years. On his return his health was broken, his strength began to fail, and fits of weakness announced his approaching end. The characteristics of Roothaan are well expressed in the words which he himself declared the principle of his administration: "fortiter et suaviter". The same idea is expressed in the words of his biographer: "Impetuous by nature, he governed all passions by the exercise of Christian self-denial, so that a most measured moderation in all things forms his distinctive characteristic." THYM, Levenschets Van P. Joannes Philippus Roothaan, General der Societeit van Jesus (Amsterdam, 1885), German tr. MARTIN (Ravensburg, 1898); TERWECOREN, Esquisse historique sur le T.R.P. Roothaan (Brussels, 1857). N. SCHEID William Roper William Roper Biographer of St. Thomas More, born 1496; died 4 January, 1578. Both his father and mother belonged to distinguished legal families. He was educated at one of the English universities, and received his father's office of clerk of the pleas in the Court of King's Bench. He held this post till shortly before his death. When he was about twenty-three he seems to have been taken into Sir Thomas More's household, and he married Margaret, Sir Thomas's eldest daughter, in 1521. Erasmus who saw much of the More family describes him as a young man "who is wealthy, of excellent and modest character and not unacquainted with literature". He became fascinated, however, by the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith, and professed his heresy so openly as to be summoned before Wolsey. Sir Thomas frequently reasoned with his son-in-law: "Meg", he said to his daughter, "I have borne a long time with thy husband; I have reasoned and argued with him in these points of religion, and still given to him my poor fatherly counsel, but I perceive none of all this able to call him home; and therefore, Meg, I will no longer dispute with him, but will clean give him over and get me to God and pray for him". To these prayers Roper attributed his return to the Faith; henceforth he was an ardent Catholic. He sat in four of Mary's parliaments, twice as member for Rochester and twice as member for Canterbury. His Catholicism got him into difficulties with the Government under Elizabeth and he was summoned before the Council in 1568; in the following year he was bound over to be of good behaviour and to appear before the Council when summoned. He does not seem to have been troubled further. His reminiscences of Sir Thomas More were written in the time of Queen Mary nearly twenty years after the events with which they deal, but his relations with his father-in-law had been so close and the impressions he received in that delightful household so vivid, that these rather disjointed notes form a most attractive biography. Roper's "Life" was not printed till 1626, but it was used by the earlier biographers of More, and is the chief authority for his personal history. F.F. URQUHART Rorate Coeli Rorate Coeli (Vulgate, text), the opening words of Isaiah 45:8. The text is used frequently both at Mass and in the Divine Office during Advent, as it gives exquisite poetical expression to the longings of Patriarchs and Prophets, and symbolically of the Church, for the coming of the Messias. Throughout Advent it occurs daily as the versicle and response at Vespers. For this purpose the verse is divided into the versicle, "Rorate coeli desuper et nubes pluant justum" (Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just), and the response: "Aperiatur terra et germinet salvatorem" (Let the earth be opened and send forth a Saviour"). The text is also used: (a) as the Introit for the Fourth Sunday in Advent, for Wednesday in Ember Week, for the feast of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin, and for votive Masses of the Blessed Virgin during Advent; (b) as a versicle in the first responsory of Tuesday in the first week of Advent; (c) as the first antiphon at Lauds for the Tuesday preceding Christmas and the second antiphon at Matins of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin; (d) in the second responsory for Friday of the third week of Advent and in the fifth responsory in Matins of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin. In the "Book of Hymns" (Edinburgh, 1910), p. 4, W. Rooke-Ley translates the text in connection with the O Antiphons (q.v.): Mystic dew from heaven Unto earth is given: Break, O earth, a Saviour yield -- Fairest flower of the field". The exquisite Introit plain-song may be found in in the various editions of the Vatican Graduale and the Solesmes "Liber Usualis", 1908, p. 125. Under the heading, "Prayer of the Churches of France during Advent", Dom Gueranger (Liturgical Year, Advent tr., Dublin, 1870, pp. 155-6) gives it as an antiphon to each of a series of prayers ("Ne irascaris ", "Peccavimus", "Vide Domine", "Consolamini") expressive of penitence, expectation, comfort, and furnishes the Latin text and an English rendering of the Prayer. The Latin text and a different English rendering are also given in the Baltimore "Manual of Prayers" (pp. 603-4). A plain-song setting of the "Prayer", or series of prayers, is given in the Solesmes "Manual of Gregorian Chant" (Rome-Tournai, 1903, 313-5) in plain-song notation, and in a slightly simpler form in modern notation in the "Roman Hymnal" (New York, 1884, pp. 140-3), as also in "Les principaux chants liturgiques" (Paris, 1875, pp. 111-2) and 'IRecueil d'anciens et de nouveaux cantiques notes" (Paris, l886, pp. 218-9). H.T. HENRY Salvatore Rosa Salvatore Rosa (Also spelled SALVATOR; otherwise known as RENNELLA, or ARENELLA, from the place of his birth). Neapolitan artist, born at Renella, a little village near Naples, 1615; died at Rome 15 March, 1673. He was the son of poor parents; his father, Vita Antonio, was trained as an architect; his mother, Giulia Greca Rosa, belonged to one of the Greek families of Sicily. The boy was intended first of all for the Church, and by the assistance of a relative of his mother's was sent to a college in Naples to be trained, but his excitable and impulsive nature started all kinds of difficulties, and he had to leave before his education was completed. His mother had come of a family of painters, and a Sicilian uncle had early in his life given him some lessons in drawing, while his sister's husband was an artist who had been trained by Spagnoletto, therefore there were divers reasons why the young lad should take up painting. He threw his whole heart into his work, but succeeded so poorly that presently he left home, joined a band of robbers who infested the southern part of Italy, and wandered about with them, meanwhile making all kinds of sketches, which were eventually very useful in his larger pictures. His father died when Salvatore was seventeen; the income for the family ceased, and young Rosa as its head, was regarded as its sole support. He again took to painting and worked exceedingly hard, exposing his pictures for sale in the street, and in that way by a fortunate accident, came under the attention of Lanfranco, and through him got to know Falcone. Both of these artists were of the greatest possible assistance to him. His progress, however, was exceedingly slow, and the members of his family took almost everything that he earned for their own support; meantime he was laid up almost periodically with a malignant fever, the seeds of which had been sown in his journeys with the robbers. In 1634, he came to Rome, but fell very ill, and had to return again to Naples more dead than alive. After a little while, however, he went back to Rome, and there gained a loan in Cardinal Brancaccio, who gave him various commissions both in the Eternal City and in Viterbo. In some of these works he was assisted by a fellow pupil named Mercuri. From this point he began to make progress, but presently discovered that he had a genius for composing witty poems, sparkling and epigrammatic, having gained for him a sudden reputation in Rome; this he turned to good account; then suddenly dropping his poetic work as quickly as he had taken it up, turned again to his favourite profession of painting. He worked very hard, and was a painter of considerable power, and of marked personality. His pictures as a rule are distinguished by gloom and mystery, rich colouring, magnificent shadows, and broad, free, easy work, nervous and emotional. There is a general air of melancholy over almost all his works, and they appear to have been turned out at top speed, but there is an impressiveness about his pictures which can never be mistaken. For a while they were regarded far too highly at a time when the Academic School was the only one in repute; they then passed under a cloud when the Primitives came into their own, but now their genius is again asserting itself, and the landscapes of Rosa with their marvellous draughtsmanship and extraordinary, melancholy magnificence are being appreciated by persons able to understand the merits of a poetic interpretation. The last few years of the artist's life were passed between Naples and Rome, with one temporary visit to Florence, where he remained three or four years. It was in Rome that he died; but the best part of his life was passed in his native town, where he was held in high repute, and regarded as one of its glories. His works are to be found in almost all the galleries of Europe, notably in the Pitti, the National Gallery of London, the Hermitage, the galleries of Dulwich and Edinburgh, and in almost every important palace in Rome. He was a skilful etcher, leaving behind him some thirty-five or forty well-etched plates, and was a very powerful draughtsman in black and sanguine. Many of his pictures are signed by his conjoined initials arranged in at least a dozen different ways, and always skilfully combined. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON St. Rosalia St. Rosalia Hermitess, greatly venerated at Palermo and in the whole of Sicily of which she in patroness. Her feast is celebrated on 4 September. A special feast of the translation of her relics is kept in Sicily 15 June. There is no account of her before Valerius Rossi (about 1590), though churches were dedicated in her honour in 1237. Her Vita (Acta SS., 11 Sept., 278) which, according to the Bollandist J. Stilting, is compiled from local traditions, paintings, and inscriptions, says: She was the daughter of Sinibald, Lord of Quisquina and of Rosa, descended from the family of Charlemagne; in youthful days she left home and hid herself in a cave near Bivona and later in another of Monte Pellegrino near Palermo, in which she died and was buried. In 1624 her remains were discovered and brought to the Cathedral of Palermo. Urban VIII put her name into the Roman Martyrology. Whether before her retirement she belonged to a religious community, is not known. The Basilians, in their Martyrology, claim her as a member. She is often represented as a Basilian nun with a Greek cross in her hand. Many of her pictures may be found in the Acta SS. FRANCIS MERSHMAN The Rosary The Rosary I. IN THE WESTERN CHURCH "The Rosary", says the Roman Breviary, "is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of these fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption." The same lesson for the Feast of the Holy Rosary informs us that when the Albigensian heresy was devastating the country of Toulouse, St. Dominic earnestly besought the help of Our Lady and was instructed by her, so tradition asserts, to preach the Rosary among the people as an antidote to heresy and sin. From that time forward this manner of prayer was "most wonderfully published abroad and developed [promulgari augerique coepit] by St. Dominic whom different Supreme Pontiffs have in various past ages of their apostolic letters declared to be the institutor and author of the same devotion." That many popes have so spoken is undoubtedly true, and amongst the rest we have a series of encyclicals, beginning in 1883, issued by Pope Leo XIII, which, while commending this devotion to the faithful in the most earnest terms, assumes the institution of the Rosary by St. Dominic to be a fact historically established. Of the remarkable fruits of this devotion and of the extraordinary favours which have been granted to the world, as is piously believed, through this means, something will be said under the headings Feast of the rosary and Confraternities of the rosary. We will confine ourselves here to the controverted question of its history, a matter which both in the middle of the eighteenth century and again in recent years has attracted much attention. Let us begin with certain facts which will not be contested. It is tolerably obvious that whenever any prayer has to be repeated a large number of times recourse is likely to be had to some mechanical apparatus less troublesome than counting upon the fingers. In almost all countries, then, we meet with something in the nature of prayer-counters or rosary beads. Even in ancient Nineveh a sculpture has been found thus described by Lavard in his "Monuments" (I, plate 7): "Two winged females standing before the sacred tree in the attitude of prayer; they lift the extended right hand and hold in the left a garland or rosary." However this may be, it is certain that among the Mohammedans the Tasbih or bead-string, consisting of 33, 66, or 99 beads, and used for counting devotionally the names of Allah, has been in use for many centuries. Marco Polo, visiting the King of Malabar in the thirteenth century, found to his surprise that that monarch employed a rosary of 104 (? 108) precious stones to count his prayers. St. Francis Xavier and his companions were equally astonished to see that rosaries were universally familiar to the Buddhists of Japan. Among the monks of the Greek Church we hear of the kombologion, or komboschoinion, a cord with a hundred knots used to count genuflexions and signs of the cross. Similarly, beside the mummy of a Christian ascetic, Thaias, of the fourth century, recently disinterred at Antinoee in Egypt, was found a sort of cribbage-board with holes, which has generally been thought to be an apparatus for counting prayers, of which Palladius and other ancient authorities have left us an account. A certain Paul the Hermit, in the fourth century, had imposed upon himself the task of repeating three hundred prayers, according to a set form, every day. To do this, he gathered up three hundred pebbles and threw one away as each prayer was finished (Palladius, Hist. Laus., xx; Butler, II, 63). It is probable that other ascetics who also numbered their prayers by hundreds adopted some similar expedient. (Cf. "Vita S. Godrici", cviii.) Indeed when we find a papal privilege addressed to the monks of St. Apollinaris in Classe requiring them, in gratitude for the pope's benefactions, to say Kyrie eleison three hundred times twice a day (see the privilege of Hadrian I, A.D. 782, in Jaffe-Loewenfeld, n. 2437), one would infer that some counting apparatus must almost necessarily have been used for the purpose. But there were other prayers to be counted more nearly connected with the Rosary than Kyrie eleisons. At an early date among the monastic orders the practice had established itself not only of offering Masses, but of saying vocal prayers as a suffrage for their deceased brethren. For this purpose the private recitation of the 150 psalms, or of 50 psalms, the third part, was constantly enjoined. Already in A. D. 800 we learn from the compact between St. Gall and Reichenau ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Confrat.", Piper, 140) that for each deceased brother all the priests should say one Mass and also fifty psalms. A charter in Kemble (Cod. Dipl., I, 290) prescribes that each monk is to sing two fifties (twa fiftig) for the souls of certain benefactors, while each priest is to sing two Masses and each deacon to read two Passions. But as time went on, and the conversi, or lay brothers, most of them quite illiterate, became distinct from the choir monks, it was felt that they also should be required to substitute some simple form of prayer in place of the psalms to which their more educated brethren were bound by rule. Thus we read in the "Ancient Customs of Cluny", collected by Udalrio in 1096, that when the death of any brother at a distance was announced, every priest was to offer Mass, and every non-priest was either to say fifty psalms or to repeat fifty times the Paternoster ("quicunque sacerdos est cantet missam pro eo, et qui non est sacerdos quinquaginta psalmos aut toties orationem dominicam", P. L., CXLIX, 776). Similarly among the Knights Templar, whose rule dates from about 1128, the knights who could not attend choir were required to say the Lord's Prayer 57 times in all and on the death of any of the brethren they had to say the Pater Noster a hundred times a day for a week. To count these accurately there is every reason to believe that already in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a practice had come in of using pebbles, berries, or discs of bone threaded on a string. It is in any case certain that the Countess Godiva of Coventry (c. 1075) left by will to the statue of Our Lady in a certain monastery "the circlet of precious stones which she had threaded on a cord in order that by fingering them one after another she might count her prayers exactly" (Malmesbury, "Gesta Pont.", Rolls Series 311). Another example seems to occur in the case of St. Rosalia (A. D. 1160), in whose tomb similar strings of beads were discovered. Even more important is the fact that such strings of beads were known throughout the Middle Ages -- and in some Continental tongues are known to this day -- as "Paternosters". The evidence for this is overwhelming and comes from every part of Europe. Already in the thirteenth century the manufacturers of these articles, who were know as "paternosterers", almost everywhere formed a recognized craft guild of considerable importance. The "Livre des metiers" of Stephen Boyleau, for example, supplies full information regarding the four guilds of patenotriers in Paris in the year 1268, while Paternoster Row in London still preserves the memory of the street in which their English craft-fellows congregated. Now the obvious inference is that an appliance which was persistently called a "Paternoster", or in Latin fila de paternoster, numeralia de paternoster, and so on, had, at least originally, been designed for counting Our Fathers. This inference, drawn out and illustrated with much learning by Father T. Esser, O.P., in 1897, becomes a practical certainty when we remember that it was only in the middle of the twelfth century that the Hail Mary came at all generally into use as a formula of devotion. It is morally impossible that Lady Godiva's circlet of jewels could have been intended to count Ave Marias. Hence there can be no doubt that the strings of prayerbeads were called "paternosters" because for a long time they were principally employed to number repetitions of the Lord's Prayer. When, however, the Hail Mary came into use, it appears that from the first the consciousness that it was in its own nature a salutation rather than a prayer induced a fashion of repeating it many times in succession, accompanied by genuflexions or some other external act of reverence. Just as happens nowadays in the firing of salutes, or in the applause given to a public performer, or in the rounds of cheers evoked among school-boys by an arrival or departure, so also then the honour paid by such salutations was measured by numbers and continuance. Further, since the recitation of the Psalms divided into fifties was, as innumerable documents attest, the favourite form of devotion for religious and learned persons, so those who were simple or much occupied loved, by the repetition of fifty, a hundred, or a hundred and fifty were salutations of Our Lady, to feel that they were imitating the practice of God's more exalted servants. In any case it is certain that in the course of the twelfth century and before the birth of St. Dominic, the practice of reciting 50 or 150 Ave Marias had become generally familiar. The most conclusive evidence of this is furnished by the "Mary-legends", or stories of Our Lady, which obtained wide circulation at this epoch. The story of Eulalia, in particular, according to which a client of the Blessed Virgin who had been wont to say a hundred and fifty Aves was bidden by her to say only fifty, but more slowly, has been shown by Mussafia (Marien-legenden, Pts I, ii) to be unquestionably of early date. Not less conclusive is the account given of St. Albert (d. 1140) by his contemporary biographer, who tells us: "A hundred times a day he bent his knees, and fifty times he prostrated himself raising his body again by his fingers and toes, while he repeated at every genuflexion: 'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb'." This was the whole of the Hail Mary as then said, and the fact of all the words being set down rather implies that the formula had not yet become universally familiar. Not less remarkable is the account of a similar devotional exercise occurring in the Corpus Christi manuscripts of the Ancren Riwle. This text, declared by Koelbing to have been written in the middle of the twelfth century (Englische Studien, 1885, P. 116), can in any case be hardly later than 1200. The passage in question gives directions how fifty Aves are to be said divided into sets of ten, with prostrations and other marks of reverence. (See The Month, July, 1903.) When we find such an exercise recommended to a little group of anchorites in a corner of England, twenty years before any Dominican foundation was made in this country, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that the custom of reciting fifty or a hundred and fifty Aves had grown familiar, independently of, and earlier than, the preaching of St. Dominic. On the other hand, the practice of meditating on certain definite mysteries, which has been rightly described as the very essence of the Rosary devotion, seems to have only arisen long after the date of St. Dominic's death. It is difficult to prove a negative, but Father T. Esser, O.P., has shown (in the periodical "Der Katholik", of Mainz, Oct., Nov., Dec., 1897) that the introduction of this meditation during the recitation of the Aves was rightly attributed to a certain Carthusian, Dominic the Prussian. It is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves. (See Schmitz, "Rosenkranzgebet", p. 74; Esser in "Der Katholik for 1904-6.) To sum up, we have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author? These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints' lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely. Impressed by this conspiracy of silence, the Bollandists, on trying to trace to its source the origin of the current tradition, found that all the clues converged upon one point, the preaching of the Dominican Alan de Rupe about the years 1470-75. He it undoubtedly was who first suggested the idea that the devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quetif and Echard, "Scriptores O.P.", 1, 849). His preaching, however, was attended with much success. The Rosary Confraternities, organized by him and his colleagues at Douai, Cologne, and elsewhere had great vogue, and led to the printing of many books, all more or less impregnated with the ideas of Alan. Indulgences were granted for the good work that was thus being done and the documents conceding these indulgences accepted and repeated, as was natural in that uncritical age, the historical data which had been inspired by Alan's writings and which were submitted according to the usual practice by the promoters of the confraternities themselves. It was in this way that the tradition of Dominican authorship grew up. The first Bulls speak of this authorship with some reserve: "Prout in historiis legitur" says Leo X in the earliest of all. "Pastoris aeterni" 1520; but many of the later popes were less guarded. Two considerations strongly support the view of the Rosary tradition just expounded. The first is the gradual surrender of almost every notable piece that has at one time or another been relied upon to vindicate the supposed claims of St. Dominic. Touron and Alban Butler appealed to the Memoirs of a certain Luminosi de Aposa who professed to have heard St. Dominic preach at Bologna, but these Memoirs have long ago been proved to a forgery. Danzas, Von Loee and others attached much importance to a fresco at Muret; but the fresco is not now in existence, and there is good reason for believing that the rosary once seen in that fresco was painted in at a later date ("The Month" Feb. 1901, p. 179). Mamachi, Esser, Walsh, and Von Loee and others quote some alleged contemporary verses about Dominic in connection with a crown of roses; the original manuscript has disappeared, and it is certain that the writers named have printed Dominicus where Benoist, the only person who has seen the manuscript, read Dominus. The famous will of Anthony Sers, which professed to leave a bequest to the Confraternity of the Rosary at Palencia in 1221, was put forward as a conclusive piece of testimony by Mamachi; but it is now admitted by Dominican authorities to be a forgery ("The Irish Rosary, Jan., 1901, p. 92). Similarly, a supposed reference to the subject by Thomas `a Kempis in the "Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes" is a pure blunder ("The Month", Feb., 1901, p. 187). With this may be noted the change in tone observable of late in authoritative works of reference. In the "Kirchliches Handlexikon" of Munich and in the last edition of Herder's "Konversationslexikon" no attempt is made to defend the tradition which connects St. Dominic personally with the origin of the Rosary. Another consideration which cannot be developed is the multitude of conflicting legends concerning the origin of this devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" which prevailed down to the end of the fifteenth century, as well as the early diversity of practice in the manner of its recitation. These facts agree ill with the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religious orders. No doubt can exist that the immense diffusion of the Rosary and its confraternities in modern times and the vast influence it has exercised for good are mainly due to the labours and the prayers of the sons of St. Dominic, but the historical evidence serves plainly to show that their interest in the subject was only awakened in the last years of the fifteenth century. That the Rosary is pre-eminently the prayer of the people adapted alike for the use of simple and learned is proved not only by the long series of papal utterances by which it has been commended to the faithful but by the daily experience of all who are familiar with it. The objection so often made against its "vain repetitions" is felt by none but those who have failed to realize how entirely the spirit of the exercise lies in the meditation upon the fundamental mysteries of our faith. To the initiated the words of the angelical salutation form only a sort of half-conscious accompaniment, a bourdon which we may liken to the "Holy, Holy, Holy" of the heavenly choirs and surely not in itself meaningless. Neither can it be necessary to urge that the freest criticism of the historical origin of the devotion, which involves no point of doctrine, is compatible with a full appreciation of the devotional treasures which this pious exercise brings within the reach of all. As regards the origin of the name, the word rosarius means a garland or bouquet of roses, and it was not unfrequently used in a figurative sense -- e.g. as the title of a book, to denote an anthology or collection of extracts. An early legend which after travelling all over Europe penetrated even to Abyssinia connected this name with a story of Our Lady, who was seen to take rosebuds from the lips of a young monk when he was reciting Hail Marys and to weave them into a garland which she placed upon her head. A German metrical version of this story is still extant dating from the thirteenth century. The name "Our Lady's Psalter" can also be traced back to the same period. Corona or chaplet suggests the same idea as rosarium. The old English name found in Chaucer and elsewhere was a "pair of beads", in which the word bead originally meant prayers. II. IN THE GREEK CHURCH, CATHOLIC AND SCHISMATIC The custom of reciting prayers upon a string with knots or beads thereon at regular intervals has come down from the early days of Christianity, and is still practised in the Eastern as well as in the Western Church. It seems to have originated among the early monks and hermits who used a piece of heavy cord with knots tied at intervals upon which they recited their shorter prayers. This form of rosary is still used among the monks in the various Greek Churches, although archimandrites and bishops use a very ornamental form of rosary with costly beads. The rosary is conferred upon the Greek monk as a part of his investiture with the mandyas or full monastic habit, as the second step in the monastic life, and is called his "spiritual sword". This Oriental form of rosary is known in the Hellenic Greek Church as kombologion (chaplet), or komboschoinion (string of knots or beads), in the Russian Church as vervitza (string), chotki (chaplet), or liestovka (ladder), and in the Rumanian Church as matanie (reverence). The first use of the rosary in any general way was among the monks of the Orient. Our everyday name of "beads" for it is simply the Old Saxon word bede (a prayer) which has been transferred to the instrument used in reciting the prayer, while the word rosary is an equally modern term. The intercourse of the Western peoples of the Latin Rite with those of the Eastern Rite at the beginning of the Crusades caused the practice of saying prayers upon knots or beads to become widely diffused among the monastic houses of the Latin Church, although the practice had been observed in some instances before that date. On the other hand, the recitation of the Rosary, as practised in the West, has not become general in the Eastern Churches; there it has still retained its original form as a monastic exercise of devotion, and is but little known or used among the laity, while even the secular clergy seldom use it in their devotions. Bishops, however, retain the rosary, as indicating that they have risen from the monastic state, even though they are in the world governing their dioceses. The rosary used in the present Greek Orthodox Church -- whether in Russia or in the East -- is quite different in form from that used in the Latin Church. The use of the prayer-knots or prayer-beads originated from the fact that monks, according to the rule of St. Basil, the only monastic rule known to the Greek Rite, were enjoined by their founder to pray without ceasing" (I Thess., v, 17; Luke, 1), and as most of the early monks were laymen, engaged often in various forms of work and in many cases without sufficient education to read the prescribed lessons, psalms, and prayers of the daily office, the rosary was used by them as a means of continually reciting their prayers. At the beginning and at the end of each prayer said by the monk upon each knot or bead he makes the "great reverence" (he megale metanoia), bending down to the ground, so that the recitation of the rosary is often known as a metania. The rosary used among the Greeks of Greece, Turkey, and the East usually consists of one hundred beads without any distinction of great or little ones, while the Old Slavic, or Russian, rosary, generally consists of 103 beads, separated in irregular sections by four large beads, so that the first large bead is followed by 17 small ones, the second large bead by 33 small ones, the third by 40 small ones, and the fourth by 12 small ones, with an additional one added at the end. The two ends of a Russian rosary are often bound together for a short distance, so that the lines of beads run parallel (hence the name ladder used for the rosary), and they finish with a three-cornered ornament often adorned with a tassel or other finial, corresponding to the cross or medal used in a Latin rosary. The use of the Greek rosary is prescribed in Rule 87 of the "Nomocanon", which reads: "The rosary should have one hundred [the Russian rule says 103] beads; and upon each bead the prescribed prayer should be recited." The usual form of this prayer prescribed for the rosary runs as follows: "O Lord Jesus Christ, Son and Word of the living God, through the intercessions of thy immaculate Mother [tes panachrantou sou Metros] and of all thy Saints, have mercy and save us. If, however, the rosary be said as a penitential exercise, the prayer then is: O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. The Russian rosary is divided by the four large beads so as to represent the different parts of the canonical Office which the recitation of the rosary replaces, while the four large beads themselves represent the four Evangelists. In the monasteries of Mount Athos, where the severest rule is observed, from eighty to a hundred rosaries are said daily by each monk. In Russian monasteries the rosary is usually said five times a day, while in the recitation of it the "great reverences" are reduced to ten, the remainder being simply sixty "little reverences" (bowing of the head no further than the waist) and sixty recitations of the penitential form of the prescribed prayer. Among the Greek Uniats rosary is but little used by the laity. The Basilian monks make use of it in the Eastern style just described and in many cases use it in the Roman fashion in some monasteries. The more active life prescribed for them in following the example of Latin monks leaves less time for the recitation of the rosary according to the Eastern form, whilst the reading and recitation of the Office during the canonical Hours fulfils the original monastic obligation and so does not require the rosary. Latterly the Melchites and the Italo-Greeks have in many places adopted among their laity a form of to the one used among the laity of the Roman Rite, but its use is far from general. The Ruthenian and Rumanian Greek Catholics do not use it among the laity, but reserve it chiefly for the monastic clergy, although lately in some parts of Galicia its lay use has been occasionally introduced and is regarded as a latinizing practice. It may be said that among the Greeks in general the use of the rosary is regarded as a religious exercise peculiar to the monastic life; and wherever among Greek Uniats its lay use has been introduced, it is an imitation of the Roman practice. On this account it has never been popularized among the laity of the peoples, who remain strongly attached to their venerable Eastern Rite. HERBERT THURSTON ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Breviary Hymns of the Rosary Breviary Hymns of the Rosary The proper office granted by Leo XIII (5 August, 1888) to the feast contains four hymns which, because of the pontiff's great devotion to the Rosary and his skilful work in classical Latin verse, were thought by some critics to be the compositions of the Holy Father himself. They have been traced, however, to the Dominican Office published in 1834 (see Chevalier, "Repertorium Hymnologicum", under the four titles of the hymns) and were afterwards granted to the Dioceses of Segovia and Venice (1841 and 1848). Their author was a pious client of Mary, Eustace Sirena. Exclusive of the common doxology (Jesu tibi sit gloria, etc.) each hymn contains five four-lined stanzas of classical dimeter iambics. In the hymn for First Vespers (Coelestis aulae nuntium) the Five Joyful Mysteries are celebrated, a single stanza being given to a mystery. In the same manner the hymn for Matins (In monte olivis consito) deals with the Five Sorrowful Mysteries and that for Lauds (Jam morte victor obruta) with the Five Glorious Mysteries. The hymn for Second Vespers (Te gestientem gaudiis) maintains the symmetrical form by devoting three stanzas to a recapitulation of the three sets of myteries (Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious), prefacing them with a stanza which sums up all three and devoting a fifth to a poetical invitation to weave a crown of flowers from the "rosary" for the Mother of fair love. The compression of a single mystery" into a single stanza may be illustrated by the first stanza of the first hymn, devoted to the First Joyful Mystery: Coelestis aulae nuntius, Arcana pandens Numinis, Plenam salutat gratia Dei Parentem Virginem. "The envoy of the Heavenly Court, Sent to unfold God's secret plan, The Virgin hails as full of grace, And Mother of the God made Man" (Bagshawe). The first (or prefatory) stanza of the fourth hymn sums up the three sets of mysteries: Te gestientem gaudiis, Te sauciam doloribus, Te jugi amictam gloria, O Virgo Mater, pangimus. The still greater compression of five mysteries within a single stanza may be illustrated by the second stanza of this hymn: Ave, redundans gaudio Dum concipis, dum visitas, Et edis, offers, invenis, Mater beata, Filium. "Hail, filled with joy in head and mind, Conceiving, visiting, or when Thou didst bring forth, offer, and find Thy Child amidst the learned men." Archbishop Bagshawe translates the hymns in his "Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences" (London, s. d., pp. 114-18). As in the illustration quoted from one of these, the stanza contains (in all the hymns) only two rhymes, the author's aim being "as much as possible to keep to the sense of the original, neither adding to this, nor taking from it" (preface). The other illustration of a fully-rhymed stanza is taken from another version of the four hymns (Henry in the "Rosary Magazine", Oct 1891). Translations into French verse are given by Albin, "La Poesie du Breviaire with slight comment, pp. 345-56. H.T. HENRY Confraternity of the Holy Rosary Confraternity of the Holy Rosary In accordance with the conclusion of the article ROSARY no sufficient evidence is forthcoming to establish the existence of any Rosary Confraternity before the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Dominican guilds or fraternities there were, but we cannot assume without proof that they were connected with the Rosary. We know, however, that through the preaching of Alan de Rupe such associations began to be erected shortly before 1475; that established at Cologne in 1474 by Father James Sprenger is especially famous. People from all parts of the world desired to be enrolled in it. A casual English example occurs in the Plumpton Correspondence (Camden Society, p. 50), where a priest in London writes in 1486 to his patron in Yorkshire: "I send a paper of the Rosary of our Ladye of Coleyn and I have registered your name with both my Ladis names, as the paper expresses, and ye be acopled as brether and sisters." Even at that time the entry of the name of each associate on the register was an indispensable condition of membership, and so it remains to this day. It was undoubtedly to this and similar confraternities, which by degrees began to be erected in many other places under Dominican supervision, that the great vogue of the Rosary as well as the acceptance of a more uniform system in its recitation of the Rosary was mainly due. The recitation of the Rosary is alone prescribed for the members -- at present they undertake to recite the fifteen mysteries at least once in each week -- but even this does not in any way bind under sin. The organization of these confraternities is entirely in the hands of the Dominican and no new confraternity can be anywhere given without the sanction of the general. It is to the members of the Rosary confraternities that the principal indulgences have been granted, and there can be no need to lay stress upon the special advantages which the confraternity offers by the union of prayer and devotional exercises as well as the participation of merits in this which is probably the largest organization of the kind within the Catholic church. Moreover, in the "patent of erection", which is issued for each new confraternity by the General of the Dominicans, a clause is added granting to all members enrolled therein "a participation in all the good works which by the grace of God are performed throughout the world by the brethren and sisters of the said [Dominican] Order." An important Apostolic Constitution on the Rosary Confraternity, which may be regarded as a sort of new charter, was issued by Leo XIII on 2 October, 1898. The Perpetual Rosary is an organization for securing the continuous recitation of the Rosary by day and night among a number of associates who perform their allotted share at stated times. This is a development of the Rosary Confraternity, and dates from the seventeenth century. The "Living Rosary" was began in 1826, an is independent of the confraternity; it consists in a number of circles of fifteen members who each agree to recite a single decade every day and who thus complete the whole Rosary between them. HERBERT THURSTON Feast of the Holy Rosary Feast of the Holy Rosary Apart from the signal defeat of the Albigensian heretics at the battle of Muret in 1213 which legend has attributed to the recitation of the Rosary by St. Dominic, it is believed that Heaven has on many occasions rewarded the faith of those who had recourse to this devotion in times of special danger. More particularly, the naval victory of Lepanto gained by Don John of Austria over the Turkish fleet on the first Sunday of October in 1571 responded wonderfully to the processions made at Rome on that same day by the members of the Rosary confraternity. St. Pius V thereupon ordered that a commemoration of the Rosary should be made upon that day, and at the request of the Dominican Order Gregory XIII in 1573 allowed this feast to be kept in all churches which possessed an altar dedicated to the Holy Rosary. In 1671 the observance of this festival was extended by Clement X to the whole of Spain, and somewhat later Clement XI after the important victory over the Turks gained by Prince Eugene on 6 August, 1716 (the feast of our Lady of the Snows), at Peterwardein in Hungary, commanded the feast of the Rosary to be celebrated by the universal Church. A set of "proper" lessons in the second nocturn were conceded by Benedict XIII. Leo XIII has since raised the feast to the rank of a double of the second class and has added to the Litany of Loreto the invocation "Queen of the Most Holy Rosary". On this feast, in every church in which the Roman confraternity has been duly erected, a plenary indulgence toties quoties is granted upon certain conditions to all who visit therein the Rosary chapel or statue of Our Lady. This has been called the "Portiuncula" of the Rosary. HERBERT THURSTON Alberico de Rosate Alberico de Rosate (Or ROSCIATE). Jurist, date of birth unknown; died in 1354. He was bom in the village of Rosate (Rosciate) in the district of Bergamo, and was of humble parentage. He studied law at Padua where he gained the degree of Doctor, without, however, becoming a teacher. He passed his life at Bergamo where he was a lawyer and took part in various public affairs. He was employed in particular by Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, and after Galeazzo's death by Lucchino Visconti and Lucchino's brother John, Bishop of Novara. In 1340 he was commissioned by the bishop to go as his envoy in important matters to Pope Benedict XII at Avignon. In his later years Rosate devoted himself especially to scientific literary labours. The last certain report concerning his life belongs to the year 1350, when he went with his sons to Rome to attend the jubilee. His writings won him a high reputation, especially among practical jurists. Special mention should be made of his commentaries on the "Digests" and the "Codex", which were often printed later, as at Lyons (1517, 1545-48); the "Opus Statutorum" (Como 1477; Milan, 1511); and the "Dictionarium", a collection of maxims of law as well as a dictionary, which was often reprinted. J.P. KIRSCH Roscelin Roscelin Roscelin, a monk of Compiegne, was teaching as early as 1087. He had contact with Lanfranc, St. Anselm, and Ivo of Chartres. Brought before a council at Soissons (1093), where he was accused of Tritheism, he denied the doctrines attributed to him, but this was done through fear of excommunication, for later he returned to his early theories. He was successively in England, at Rome, and finally returned to France. Of his writings there exists only a letter addressed to Abelard. Haureau brings forward his name in connection with a text: "Sententia de universalibus secundum magistrum R." ("Notices et extr. de quelques manuscr. lat.", V, Paris, 1892, 224) but this is a conjecture. On the other hand we have as evidences of his doctrine texts of St. Anselm, Abelard, John of Salisbury, and an anonymous epigram. His share in the history of ideas and especially the value of his Nominalism have been exaggerated, his celebrity being far more due to his theological Tritheism. This article will study him from both points of view. I. ROSCELIN'S NOMINALISM, OR "SENTENTIA VOCUM" According to Otto of Freisingen Roscelin "primus nostris temporibus sententiam vocum instituit" ("Gesta Frederici imp". in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XX, 376), but the chronicler of the "Historia Francia" (cf. Bouquet, "Rec. des hist. des Gaules et de la France", XII, Paris, 1781, 3, b, c) mentions before him a "magister Johannes", whose personality is much discussed and who has not yet been definitively identified. What constitutes the sententia vocum"? To judge of it we have besides the texts mentioned above which bear directly on Roscelin an exposition of the treatise "De generibus et speciebus (thirteenth cent.), wrongly attributed to Abelard by Victor Cousin. The "sententia vocum" was one of the anti-Realist solutions of the problem of universals accepted by the early Middle Ages. Resuming Porphyry s alternative (mox de generibus et speciebus illud quidem sive subsistent sive in nudis intellectibus posita sint) the first medieval philosophers regarded genera and species (substance, corporetiy, animality, humanity) either as things or as having no existence (see NOMINALISM), and applying to this alternative a terminology of Boethius, they derived thence either res (things) or voces (words). To the Nominalists universals were voces, which means: (1) above all that universals are not "res", that is that only the individual exists: nam cum habeat eorum sententia nihil esse praeter individuum . . ." (De gener. et spec., 524). Nominalism was essentially anti-Realist. (2) that universals are merely words, "flatus vocis", e.g., the word "homo", divisible into syllables, consonants, and vowels. "Fuit autem, nemini magistri nostri Roscellini tam insana sententia ut nullam rem partibus constare vellet, sed sicut solis vocibus species, ita et partes ascridebat (Abelard, "Liber divisionum, ed. Cousin, 471). "Alius ergo consistit in vocibus, licet haec opinio cum Roscelino suo fere omnino evanuerit (John of Salisbury, Metalog., II, 17). The universal is reduced to an emission of sound (flatus vocis), in conformity with Boethius s definition: Nihil enim aliud est prolatio (vocis) quam aeris plectro linguae percussio . Roscelin's universal corresponds to what is now called the "universale in voce" in opposition to "universale in re" and "universale in intellectu". But this theory of Roscelin's had no connection with the abstract concept of genus and species. He did not touch on this question. It is certain that he did not deny the existence or possibility of these concepts, and he was therefore not a nominalist in the fashion of Taine or in the sense in which Nominalism is at present understood. That is why, in reference to the modern sense of the word, we have called it a pseudo-Nominalism. John of Salisbury, speaking of "nominalis secta" (Metalog., II, 10) gives it quite another meaning. So Roscelin's rudimentary, even childish, solution does not compromise the value of universal concepts and may called a stage in the development of moderate Realism. Roscelin was also taken to task by St. Anselm and Abelard for the less clear idea which he gave of the whole and of composite substance. According to St. Anselm he maintained that colour does not exist independently of the horse which serves as its support and that the wisdom of the soul is not outside of the soul which is wise (De fide trinit., 2). He denies to the whole, such as house, man, real existence of its parts. The word alone had parts, "ita divinam paginam pervertit, ut eo loco quo Dominus partem piscis assi comedisse partem hujus vocis, quae est piscis assi, non partem rei intelligere cogatur (Cousin, P. Abaelardi opera, II. 151). Roscelin was not without his supporters; among them was his contemporary Raimbert of Lille, and what the monk Heriman relates of his doctrine agrees with the statements of the master of Compiegne. Universal substances, says Heriman, are but a breath, which means eos de sapientium numero merito esse exsufflandos". He merely comments on the saying of Anselm characterized by the same jesting tone: a spiritualium quaestionum disputatione sunt exsufflandi" (P. L., 256a), and says that to understand the windy loquacity of Raimbert of Lille one has but to breathe into his hand (manuque ori admota exsufflans "Mon. Germ. Hist.", XIV, 275). II. TRITHEISM OF ROSCELIN Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings, like three angels; if usage permitted, he added, it might truly be said that there are three Gods. Otherwise, he continued, God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son. To retain the appearance of dogma he admitted that the three Divine Persons had but one will and power [Audio . . . quod Roscelinus clericus dicit in tres personas esse tres res ab invicem separatas, sicut sunt tres angeli, ita tamen ut una sit voluntas et potestas aut Patrem et Spiritum sanctum esse incarnatum; et tres deos vere posse dici si usus admitteret (letter of St. Anselm to Foulques)]. This characteristic Tritheism, which St. Anselm and Abelard agreed in refuting even after its author's conversion, seems an indisputable application of Roscelin's anti-Realism. He argues that if the three Divine Persons form but one God all three have become incarnate, which is inadmissible. There are therefore three Divine substances, three Gods, as there are three angels, because each substance constitutes an individual, which is the fundamental assertion of anti-Realism. The ideas of the theologian are closely linked with those of the philosopher. M. DE WULF Roscommon Roscommon Capital of County Roscommon, Ireland; owes origin and name to a monastery founded by St. Coman in the first half of the eighth century on a "ros" or wooded point amidst marshes. Ware and his copiers make Coman author of a monastic rule observed throughout three-fourths of Connaught; but this statement is wrongly deduced from annalistic records of the collection of dues by St. Coman's successors, under the title of "Lex Comani", from the Teora Connachta, tribes occupying a portion of the province. The records indicate, indeed, that with support from the King of Connaught St. Coman's foundation had some pre-eminence, if not jurisdiction. He himself may have been, as Colgan believed, a bishop; some of his earliest successors certainly were. Whilst the tribal system prevailed the bishops at Rosecommon, as pastors over the patrimonial territory of the provincial king, would hold in the Church a position analogous to his in the state, and through this analogy would be the "high" or "noble bishops of the Connaughtmen". Roscommon became a seat of learning as well as of authority, and had scholars and scribes celebrated in the national annals. From the middle of the tenth century, if not earlier, it was closely united with Clonmacnoise and shared with that great school the fame of Cormac O'Cillene and Tighernach O'Braoin, the annalist. It shared also in the prosperity of the Connaught kings, after they had risen to the monarchy of Ireland. Toirdhealbhach O'Conchubhair's son, Maol-Iosa, was Abbot of Roscommon, and he himself was a liberal benefactor; he bestowed on the monastery a piece of the true cross brought him from Rome in 1123, and had it enshrined in the famous Bachal Buidhe, lately named the Cross of Cong, a masterpiece of design and workmanship, now one of the greatest treasures in the collection of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. When the Irish monasteries exchanged their primitive rules for those of the great orders of the Church, the monks at Roscommon became Augustinian canons, but remained till the latter part of the fifteenth century an Irish community under native superiors despite the Norman castle built within their fields in 1268 and the policy of ousting the Irish from their monasteries. During the great Western Schism, Thomas Macheugan (Mac Aodhagain) whom the antipope Clement VII made prior of this house, came from Avignon as Clement's agent, and convening the prelates, clergy, and laity of Connaught at Roscommon, secured the adhesion of all except the Bishop of Elphin, who did not attend, and the Bishop of Killala, who sent his archdeacon to uphold the right of Urban VI. When the O'Conors made terms with Queen Elizabeth, the abbey and its possessions were attached to the constableship of Roscommon Castle, and subsequently granted to Sir Nicholas Malbie; even the site is searcely traceable. The Dominican friary that was situated at Roscommon was founded in the year 1253 by Fedhlimidh O'Conchubhair, King of Connaught, and consecrated to the Blessed Virgin in 1257; in 1265 the founder ended his stormy life within its walls, and was buried there. His monument, still extant represents him recumbent in long robes of peace and wearing a royal crown. In subsequent centuries this church was the chosen burial-place of several of his and other princely families. After the confiscation this friary, like the house of Augustinian Canons, was first attached to the constableship of Roscommon and then granted to Malbie; but the friars lingered around the spot. Under Cromwell several of them, amongst whom O'Heyne mentions Donald O'Neaghten, Edmund O'Bern, Raymund MacEochaidh, and Bernard O'Kelly, were put to death. Afterwards they obtained a small house and land and assembled a community numbering sixteen in 1791, but it died out in 1844. Of the original buildings only ruins of the church remain. The Franciscans also had a convent at Roscommon for a brief period; founded in 1269, it was burned down in 1270, and on account of the founder's death never rebuilt. ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1786); LANIGAN, Eccles. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1829); WARE, De Scriptoribus Hiberniae, (Dublin, 1639); USSHER, Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates in Works (Dublin, 1847); O'HEYNE, Irish Dominicans ed. COLEMAN (Dundalk, 1902); De BURGO, Hibernia Domincana (Cologne, 1762); WELD, Statistical Survey of Co. Roscommon (Dublin, 1832). CHARLES MCNEILL Rosea Rosea A titular see. The official catalogue of the Roman Curia mentioned formerly a titular see of Rosea in Syria. The title is borne at present by Mgr Felix Jourdan de la Passardiere, of the Oratory of France, who lives in Paris. The name Rosea being only a corruption of Rhosus was replaced by the latter in 1884 (see Rhosus). S. PETRIDES Roseau Roseau (ROSENSIS). Diocese; suffragan of Port of Spain, Trinidad, B.W.I. The different islands of the Carribean Sea, which constitute the Diocese of Roseau, belonged to the Vicariate Apostolic of Port of Spain up to 1850, when Pius IX by Brief of 30 April, 1850, erected the Diocese of Roseau, with the episcopal see at Roseau, the capital of Dominica. The Very Reverend Father Michael Monaghan was elected first bishop of the new diocese and consecrated 16 February, 1851. He died in St. Thomas, 14 August, 1855, and was succeeded in 1856 by Rev. Father Michael Vesque, who died 10 August, 1859. The third bishop was Rene Marie Charles Poirier, C.J.M., who governed the diocese from 1859 to 1878. Next came Bishop Michael Naughten from 1880 till 4 July, 1900. The present occupant is Philip Schelfhaut, C.SS.R., b. at St. Nicholas, Belgium, 27 September, 1850, ordained priest 18 October, 1878, and consecrated bishop, 16 March, 1902. The diocese comprises the Islands of Dominica, B.W.I., with 30,000 Catholics, 12 parishes 18 priests, 16 churches, and 4 chapels; Montserrat, B.W.I., with 600 Catholics, 1 parish, 1 priest, 1 church; Antigua, B.W.I., with 400 Catholics, 1 parish, 1 priest, 1 church; St. Kitts, B.W.I., with 1500 Catholics, 1 parish, 2 priests, 1 church, 2 chapels; St Croix, D.W.I., with 4100 Catholics, 2 parishes, 4 priests, 2 churches, 1 chapel; St. Thomas, D.W.I. with 3000 Catholics, 1 parish, 3 priests, 1 church, I chapel. The total Protestant population of the diocese is about 100,000. In the smaller British Islands of Nevis, Anguilla, Barbuda, Sombrero, and in the Virgin Islands, Tostola, Anegada, and Virgin Gorda, as also in the Danish Island of St. John, the Catholic Church has so few adherents that no priest has ever been resident there. With the exception of two parishes, which are served by secular priests, the whole diocese is under the care of the Redemptorist Fathers of the Belgian province, and the Fathers of Mary Immaculate (Chavagne en Paillers, France). There are also 14 Redemptorist Brothers on the mission. In Roseau, the Religious of the Faithful Virgin devote themselves to the education of the girls of both the lower and higher classes, while the Ladies of the Union of the Sacred Hearts conduct a high school for girls in St. Thomas. In Dominica nearly all the schools are in the hands of the local Government; however, religious instruction is given by the priests during school hours. In the other Islands, with the exception of Antigua, parochial schools are attached to the mission. Ecclesiastical Bulletin of Roseau (Roseau, 1908-9), MSS. J. MORIS William Starke Rosecrans William Starke Rosecrans Born at Kingston Ohio, U. S. A., 6 Sept., 1819; died near Redondo California, 11 March, 1898. The family came originally from Holland and settled in Pennsylvania moving thence to Ohio. His mother was a daughter of Samuel Hopkins, a soldier of the Revolution and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He graduated at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, in July 1842, and after a brief service in the engineer corps returned to the Academy as a professor, remaining there until 1847. It was during this period that he became a Catholic. In 1854 he resigned from the army, but at the breaking out of the Civil War he was made a colonel of volunteers and, in June, 1861, a brigadier-general of regulars. During the succeeding years he held various important commands in West Virginia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, until 19 and 20 Sept., 1863, when he was defeated by Gen. Bragg, at the battle of Chickamauga. Then after a short period of service in the department of Missouri he was relieved of all command. Up to this he had been uniformly successful as a good fighter and military strategist. At the close of the war he resigned from the army and, in 1868, served as U. S. Minister to Mexico, where from 1869 to 1881 he devoted himself to railroad and industrial enterprises. He was elected to Congress as a Democrat, in 1880, and again in 1882. From 1885 to 1893 he was registrar of the U. S. Treasury. In 1889 Congress restored him to the rank and pay of a brigadier general of the regular army on the retired list. His brother, Sylvester Harden Rosecrans, first Bishop of Columbus, was also a convert. Born at Homer, Ohio 5 Feb., 1827, he was sent to Kenyon College, the leading Episcopalian institution of the state. While there in 1845 he received a letter from his brother William, then a professor at West Point, announcing his conversion to the Catholic Faith. It so impressed him that he also sought instruction and became a Catholic. He then went to St. John's College, Fordham, New York, graduating there in 1846. Electing to study for the priesthood he was sent by the Bishop of Cincinnati as a student to the College of Propaganda, Rome, where he was ordained priest in 1852. Returning to Cincinnati he officiated at St. Thomas's church, and was a professor in the diocesan seminary. In 1859 a college was opened in connection with the seminary and he was made its president. In 1862 he was consecrated titular Bishop of Pompeiopolis and Auxiliary of Cincinnati. When the Diocese of Columbus was created, 3 March, 1868, he was transferred to that see as its first bishop and died there 21 October, 1878 (see DIOCESE OF COLUMBUS). During his residence in Cincinnati he was a frequent editorial contributor to the "Catholic Telegraph". CULLUM, Biog. Register of the Officers and Graduates, U. S. Military Academy (Boston, 1891); HOUCK, A Hist. of Catholicity in Northern Ohio (Cleveland, 1902); Am. Cath. Hist. Researches (Philadelphia, July, 1896); The Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati), files; HOWE, Historical Collections of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1900); BICKHORN, Rosecrans' Campaign with the Fourteenth Armory Corps (Cincinnati, 1863); CLARKE, Lives of the Deceased Bishops of Cath. Ch. U. S., III (New York, 1888); The Catholic Directory, files. THOMAS F. MEEHAN St. Roseline St. Roseline (Rossolina.) Born at Chateau of Arcs in eastern Provence, 1263; d. 17 January, 1329. Having overcome her father's opposition Roseline became a Carthusian nun at Bertaud in the Alps of Dauphine. Her "consecration" took place in 1288, and about 1330 she succeeded her aunt, Blessed Jeanne or Diane de Villeneuve, as Prioress of Celle-Robaud in the Diocese of Frejus near her home. In 1320 her brother Helion, Grand Master (1319-46) of the Knights of St. John, restored the monastery, and in 1323 and 1328 John XXII, formerly Bishop of Frejus, increased its revenue, granting indulgences for the anniversary of the dedication of the church. Roseline obtained leave to resign her office before her death. Many visions together with extraordinary austerities and great power over demons are ascribed to her. Her feast is given in the Acta SS. on 11 June, the day of the first translation of her remains in 1334 by her brother Elzear, Bishop of Digne; but by the Carthusian Order it is celebrated in 16 October. There has always been a local cultus and this was confirmed for the Diocese of Frejus by a Decree of 1851, for the Carthusian Order in 1857. The saint is usually represented with a reliquary containing two eyes, recalling the fact that her eyes were removed and preserved apart. This relic was still extant at Arcs in 1882. There is no ancient life of the saint, but that given in the Acta SS., 2 June, 489 sq., was constructed by Papebroch from ancient documents. RAYMOND WEBSTER Rosenau Rosenau (Hungarian ROZSNYO; Latin ROSNAVIENSIS). Diocese in Hungary, suffragan of Eger, established by Maria Theresa, in 1775-76. In 1636 Cardinal Peter Pazmany proposed to establish a distinct see for this part of Hungary, where the Catholic Faith was almost dead. Pazmany's death intervened, and nothing was done until Maria Theresa took up the plan. In 1776 John Galgoczy was appointed first Bishop of Rosenau, but died before taking charge. His successor, Count Anthony Revay (1776-80), caused the church to be restored and the high altar to be renovated. Of his successors may be mentioned: John Scitovszky (1827-38), later Bishop of Funfkirchen and Archbishop of Gran; Ethelbert Bartakovics (1845-50), later archbishop of Eger. Since 1905 the see is governed by Louis Balas. The diocese is divided into 3 archdeaconries and has 2 abbeys and 3 provostships. The chapter consists of 6 active members and 6 titular canons. The parishes number 99, and there are 154 secular, 28 regular, priests; 3 monasteries; 34 nunneries; 190,000 Catholics; 10,165 Greek Uniats; 97,071 Lutherans; 44,609 Calvinists; 11,220 Jews. The seminary was established in 1814. A katolikus Magyarorszag (Catholic Hungary) (Budapest, 1902), in Hungarian; Schematismus (1910). A. ALDASY St. Rose of Lima St. Rose of Lima Virgin, patroness of America, born at Lima, Peru 20 April, 1586; died there 30 August, 1617. At her confirmation in 1597, she took the name of Rose, because, when an infant, her face had been seen transformed by a mystical rose. As a child she was remarkable for a great reverence, and pronounced love, for all things relating to God. This so took possession of her that thenceforth her life was given up to prayer and mortification. She had an intense devotion to the Infant Jesus and His Blessed Mother, before whose altar she spent hours. She was scrupulously obedient and of untiring industry, making rapid progress by earnest attention to her parents' instruction, to her studies, and to her domestic work, especially with her needle. After reading of St. Catherine she determined to take that saint as her model. She began by fasting three times a week, adding secret severe penances, and when her vanity was assailed, cutting off her beautiful hair, wearing coarse clothing, and roughening her hands with toil. All this time she had to struggle against the objections of her friends, the ridicule of her family, and the censure of her parents. Many hours were spent before the Blessed Sacrament, which she received daily. Finally she determined to take a vow of virginity, and inspired by supernatural love, adopted extraordinary means to fulfill it. At the outset she had to combat the opposition of her parents, who wished her to marry. For ten years the struggle continued before she won, by patience and prayer, their consent to continue her mission. At the same time great temptations assailed her purity, faith, and constance, causing her excruciating agony of mind and desolation of spirit, urging her to more frequent mortifications; but daily, also, Our Lord manifested Himself, fortifying her with the knowledge of His presence and consoling her mind with evidence of His Divine love. Fasting daily was soon followed by perpetual abstinence from meat, and that, in turn, by use of only the coarsest food and just sufficient to support life. Her days were filled with acts of charity and industry, her exquisite lace and embroidery helping to support her home, while her nights were devoted to prayer and penance. When her work permitted, she retired to a little grotto which she had built, with her brother's aid, in their small garden, and there passed her nights in solitude and prayer. Overcoming the opposition of her parents, and with the consent of her confessor, she was allowed later to become practically a recluse in this cell, save for her visits to the Blessed Sacrament. In her twentieth year she received the habit of St. Dominic. Thereafter she redoubled the severity and variety of her penances to a heroic degree, wearing constantly a metal spiked crown, concealed by roses, and an iron chain about her waist. Days passed without food, save a draught of gall mixed with bitter herbs. When she could no longer stand, she sought repose on a bed constructed by herself, of broken glass, stone, potsherds, and thorns. She admitted that the thought of lying down on it made her tremble with dread. Fourteen years this martyrdom of her body continued without relaxation, but not without consolation. Our Lord revealed Himself to her frequently, flooding her soul with such inexpressible peace and joy as to leave her in ecstasy four hours. At these times she offered to Him all her mortifications and penances in expiation for offences against His Divine Majesty, for the idolatry of her country, for the conversion of sinners, and for the souls in Purgatory. Many miracles followed her death. She was beatified by Clement IX, in 1667, and canonized in 1671 by Clement X, the first American to be so honoured. Her feast is celebrated 30 August. She is represented wearing a crown of roses. Hansen, Vita Mirabilis (1664), Spanish tr. by PARRA. EDW. L. AYME St. Rose of Viterbo St. Rose of Viterbo Virgin, born at Viterbo, 1235; died 6 March, 1252. The chronology of her life must always remain uncertain, as the Acts of her canonization, the chief historical sources, record no dates. Those given above are accepted by the best authorities. Born of poor and pious parents, Rose was remarkable for holiness and for her miraculous powers from her earliest years. When but three years old, she raised to life her maternal aunt. At the age of seven, she had already lived the life of a recluse, devoting herself to penances. Her health succumbed, but she was miraculously cured by the Blessed Virgin, who ordered her to enroll herself in the Third Order of St. Francis, and to preach penance to Viterbo, at that time (1247) held by Frederick II of Germany and a prey to political strife and heresy. Her mission seems to have extended for about two years, and such was her success that the prefect of the city decided to banish her. The imperial power was seriously threatened. Accordingly, Rose and her parents were expelled from Viterbo in January, 1250, and took refuge in Sorriano. On 5 December, 1250, Rose foretold the speedy death of the emperor, a prophecy realized on 13 December. Soon afterwards she went to Vitorchiano, whose inhabitants had been perverted by a famous sorceress. Rose secured the conversion of all, even of the sorceress, by standing unscathed for three hours in the flames of a burning pyre, a miracle as striking as it is well attested. With the restoration of the papal power in Viterbo (1251) Rose returned. She wished to enter the monastery of St. Mary of the Roses, but was refused because of her poverty. She humbly submitted, foretelling her admission to the monastery after her death. The remainder of her life was spent in the cell in her father's house, where she died. The process of her canonization was opened in that year by Innocent IV, but was not definitively undertaken until 1457. Her feast is celebrated on 4 September, when her body, still incorrupt, is carried in procession through Viterbo. Bullar. Franc., 1, 640; Acta Proc. Canonizationis, ann. 1456 in Acta SS., IV Sept.; WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1731), II, 423; III, 280; ANDREUCCI, Notizie criticoistoriche di S. Rosa, Verg. Viterbese (Rome, 1750); BRIGANTI, S. Rosa ed il suo secolo (Venice, 1889); LEON, Lives of the Saints of the Three Orders of S. Francis (Taunton, England, 1886). The best modern life is that by DE KERVAL, Ste Rose, sa vie et son temps (Vanves, 1896); PIZZI, Storia della Citt`a di Viterbo (Rome, 1887). GREGORY CLEARY Rosicrucians Rosicrucians The original appelation of the alleged members of the occult-cabalistic-theosophic "Rosicrucian Brotherhood", described in the pamphlet "Fama Fraternitatis R.C." (Rosae crucis), which was circulated in MS. As early as 1610 and first appeared in print in 1614 at Cassel. To the first two additions were prefixed the tract "Allgemeine und Generalreforation der ganzen weiten Welt", a translation of Fr. Boccalini's "Dei Ragguagli di Parnasso", 1612. Beginning with the fourth edition in 1615, the third Rosicrucian rudiment, "Confessio der Fraternitat", was added to the "Fama". According to these, the Rosicrucian brotherhood was founded in 1408 by a German nobleman, Christian Rosenkreuz (1378-1484), a former monk, who while travelling through Damascus, Jerusalem and Fez had been initiated into Arabian learning (magic), and who considered an antipapal Christianity, tinged with theosophy, his ideal of a religion. Concerned above all else that their names should appear in the Book of Life, the brothers were to consider the making of gold as unimportant-although for the true philosophers (Occultists) this was an easy matter and a parergon. They must apply themselves zealously and in the deepest secrecy to the study of Nature in her hidden forces, and to making their discoveries and inventions known to the order and profitable to the needs of humanity. And to further the object of the said order they must assemble annually at the "Edifice of the Holy Spirit", the secret head-quarters of the order, cure the sick gratuitously, and whilst each one procured himself a successor they must provide for the continuance of their order. Free from illness and pain, these "Invisibles", as they were called in the vernacular, were supposed to be yearning for the time when the church should be "purified". For two hundred years, while the world never had the least suspicion of their existence, the brotherhood transmitted by these means the wisdom of "Father" Rosenkreuz, one hundred and twenty years after the latter's burial, until about 1604 they finally became known. The "Fama", which effected this, invited "all of the scholars and rulers of Europe" openly to favour the cause, and eventually to sue for entrance into the fraternity, to which, nevertheless, only chosen souls would be admitted. The morbid propensity of the age for esoterism, magic, and confederacies caused the "Fama" to raise a feverish excitement in men's minds, expressed in a flood of writings for and against the brotherhood, and in passionate efforts to win admission to the order, or at least to discover who were its members. All of these endeavours, even by scholars of real repute like Descartes and Leibniz, were without results. From the manifestly fabulous and impossible "History" of the brotherhood, it was apparent that it depended upon a "mystification". This mystification was directly explained by an investigation by the author, who appears unquestionable to have been the Lutheran theologian of Wuertemberg, John Valentin Andrea (1586-1654). According to his own admission, Andrea composed in 1602 or 1603 the Rosicrucian book, "Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosenkreuz 1459", which appeared in 1616. This book, called by Andrea himself a youthful literary trifle in which he intended to ridicule the mania of the times for occult marvels (Life, p. 10), bears the closest intrinsic relation to the "Fama", which, in the light of this, is undoubtedly a later work of Andreae's or at least of one of the circle of friends inspired by him. Alchemistic occultism is mocked at in these works and in the "General-Reformation", the follies of the then untimely reformers of the world are openly ridiculed. The fantastic form of the tracts is borrowed from contemporary romances of knighthood and travel. The "Rosy Cross" was chosen for the symbol of the order because, first, the rose and cross were ancient symbols of occultism and, secondly, occur in the family arms of Andrea. It recalls Luther's motto: "Des Christen Hertz auf Rosen geht, wenn's mitten unter'm Kreuze steht" (Hossback, 121). As a result of his satirically meant but seriously accepted works, which soon gave rise to occult humbuggery (opposed by him) in new Rosicrucian raiment, Andrea openly renounced Rosicrucianism and frequently referred to it as a ridiculous comedy and folly. In spite of this, the Rosicrucian fraud, which served in many ways as a model for the anti-Masonic Taxil-Schwindel, has continued effective until the present day. In the seventeenth century Michael Maier and Robert Fludd were its champions. Psuedo-Rosicrucian societies arose, falsely claiming descent from the genuine fraternity of the "Fama". After 1750 occult Rosicrucianism was propagated by Freemasonry, where it led to endless extravagant manifestations (St. Germain, Cagliostro, Schropfer, Wollner etc.). In the system of high degrees in "Scottish" Freemasonry, especially in the Rosendruez degree, the Rosicrucian symbols are still retained with a Masonic interpretation. Finally, since about 1866 there have existed in England and Scotland (London, Newcastle, York, Glasgow) and in the United States (Boston, Philadelphia) "colleges" of a Masonic Rosicrucian society, whose members claim to be direct descendants of the brotherhood founded in 1408. Only Master Masons are eligible for membership. According to the definition of the president of the London branch (Supreme Magus), Brother Dr. Wm. Wynn Westcott, M.B., P.Z., it is "the aim of the Society to afford mutual aid and encouragement in working out the great problems of life and in searching out the secrets of nature; to facilitate the study of philosophy founded upon the Kabbalah and the doctrines of Hermes Trismegistus, which was inculcated by the original Fratres Roseae Crucis of Germany, A.D. 1450; and to investigate the meaning and symbolism of all that now remains of the wisdom, art, and literature of the ancient world". The view which has been lately revived, especially by Katsch and Pike, that Rosicrucianism definitely or even perceptibly cooperated in the foundation of modern Freemasonry in 1717, is contradicted by well-known historical facts. ARNOLD, "Unparteiische Kirchen u. Ketzerhistorie", II (Frankfort, 1699), 640 sq.; HERDER, "Samtl. Werke" (Berlin, 1888), XV, 82 sq.; XVI, 596 sq.; BUHLE, "ursprung u. d. vornehmsten Schicksale der Rosenkreuzer u Freimaurer" (Gottingen, 1804); NIKOLAI, Einige Bemerkungen uber den Ursprung u. d. Gesach. D. Rosendreuzer u. Freimaurer" (Berlin, 1806); HOSSBACH, JU. W. "Andrea u. sein zeitalter" (Berlin, 1819); GUHRAUER, "Zeitschr. F. hist. Theol. (1852), 298 sq.; SIERKE, "Schwarmer u. Schwinder zu Ende d. 18 Jahrh. " (Leipzig, 1874); KOPP, "Die Alchemie", II (Heidelberg, 1886); WAITE, "The real History of the Rosicrucians" (London, 1887), needs revision; KATSCH, "Die Entstehung u. d. wahre Endzweck d. Freimaurerei" (Berlin, 1897); HEFELE [RAICH] in "Kirchenlex.", s.v. "Rosendreuzer"; HERMELINK in "Realencyk." F. prot. Theol., s.v. "Rosenkreuzer"; "Allg. Handbuch d. Freimaurerei", II (3rd ed., 1900), 259-63; BEGMANN, "Monatshefte d. Comenius-Gesellschaft" (Berlin), V (1896), 212 sq.,; VI (1897), 204 sq.; VIII (1899), 145 sq.; "Zirkelkorrespondenz" (Berlin, 1896), 212; "Vorgessch. U. Anfange d. Freimaurerei in England", I (1909), II (1910), 16, 384; GOULD, Hist of Freemasonry", II (London, 1884), 60 sq.; "Concise Hist. Of Freemasonry" (London, 1903), 61-93; "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum", transactions (London), I (1888), 28, 54; V (1892), 67; VI (1893), 202 sq.,; VII (1894), 36 sq., 83; VIII (1895), 46; "The Theosophist" (Madras, 1886), VII, 451 sq., VIII, IX, X; "Rosicrucian Society of England: rules and Ordinances" (London, 1881); revised 1882); Transacations, etc" (1879-91); "The Rosicrucian: A Quarterly Record" (1868-79); KLOSS, "Bibliog. D. Freimaurerei, etc." (Frandfort, 1844), 174-201, gives 274 works on the subject; GARDNER, "Bibliotheca Rosicruciana": I, catalogue (London, privately printed, 1903), gives a list of 604 works on the subject. HERMANN GRUBER August Roskovanyi August Roskovanyi Bishop of Neutra in Hungary, doctor of philosophy and theology, b. at Szenna in the County of Ung, Hungary, 7 December, 1807; d. 24 February, 1892. He took his gymnasial course in the college of the Piarists at Kis-Szeben from 1817-22, studied philosophy at Eger, 1822-24, theology in the seminary for priests at Pesth, and completed his training at the Augustineum at Vienna. After his ordination to the priesthood in 1831 he was for a short time engaged in pastoral duties, then went to the seminary at Eger as prefect of studies, became vice-rector of the seminary, and in 1841 rector. In 1836 he was made a cathedral canon of Eger, in 1839 received the Abbey of Saar, in 1847 became auxiliary bishop, in 1850 capitular vicar, in 1851 Bishop of Waitzen, and in 1859 Bishop of Neutra. Roskovanyi was also made a Roman count, prelate, and assistant at the papal throne. His charity is shown by the foundations he established, valued at several hundred thousand gulden. He was distinguished as an ecclesiastical writer. Among his works, all of which are in Latin, should be mentioned: "De primatu Romani Pontificis ejusque juribus" (Augsburg, 1839; 2nd ed., Agram, 1841); "De matrimoniis mixtis" (5 vols., Fuenfkirchen, 1842; Pesth, 1854, 1870 1); "De matrimoniis in ecclesia catholica" (2 vols., Augsburg, 1837-40); "Monumenta catholica pro independentia potestatis ecclesiasticae ab imperio civili" (14 vols. Funfkirchen, 1847; Pesth, 1856, 1865, 1870-71); "Coelibatus et breviarium, duo gravissima clericorum officia", etc. (7 vols., Pesth, 1867, 1875); "Romanus Pontifex tamquam primas ecclesiae", etc. (16 vols., Neutra and Comaromii, 1867, 1878); "Beata Virgo Maria in suo conceptu immaculata" (12 vols., Budapest, 1873-4; Neutra 1877). VAGNER, Adatok a nyitrai varosi plebaniak tortenetehez (Neutra, 1902), written in Hungarian; also in Hungarian, SZINNYEI, Magyar Irok, XI, giving a complete list of Roskovanyi's works and a full bibliography. A. ALDASY Rosmini and Rosminianism Rosmini and Rosminianism Antonio Rosmini Serbati, philosopher, and founder of the Institute of Charity, born 24 March, 1797, at Rovereto, Austrian Tyrol; died 1 July, 1855, at Stresa, Italy; was educated at home until his twentieth year, and, after a three years' course at the University of Padua, returned to Rovereto to prepare for Holy orders. He was ordained priest at Chioggia, 21 April, 1821, and in 1822 received at Padua the Doctorate in Theology and Canon Law. In 1823 he went to Rome with Mgr. Pyrker, Patriarch of Venice, met Consalvi and other prominent men, and was encouraged by Pius VII to undertake the reform of philosophy. The next three years (1823-26) he spent in philosophical pursuits at Rovereto, devoting himself especially to the study of St. Thomas. He had already adopted as principles of conduct: + never to assume external works of charity on his own initiative, but, until summoned by some positive outward manifestation of God's will, to busy himself with his own sanctification, a thing always pleasing in the Divine sight (principle of passivity); + at any clear sign from God, to assume with alacrity any external work of charity, without, so far as concerned his higher will personal preferences or repugnances (principle of indifference). On these maxims he based the rules of the Institute of Charity which, at the instance of Maddalena, Marchioness of Canossa, and of John Loewenbruck, a zealous priest from German Lorraine, he founded in 1828 at Monte Calvario near Domodossola. In 1828 he again went to Rome, where he was encouraged by Leo XII and later by Pius VIII to pursue his philosophical studies and consolidate his institute. During this visit he published his "Maxims of Christian Perfection" and his "Nuovo saggio sull' origine delle idee" (1829; tr. "Origin of Ideas", London, 1883-84). In the autumn of 1830 he inaugurated the observance of the rule at Calvario, and from 1834 to 1835 had charge of a parish at Rovereto. About this time the pope made over to Rosmini several missions tendered him in England by the vicars Apostolic, as also the Abbey of S. Michele della Chiusa in Piedmont. Later foundations followed at Stresa and Domodossola. The Constitutions of the institute were presented to Gregory XVI and, after some discussion regarding the form of the vow of religious poverty, were formally approved 20 December, 1838. On 25 March, 1839, the vows of the institute were taken by twenty Fathers in Italy and by six in England (Spetisbury and Prior Park). The Letters Apostolic ("In sublimi", 20 Sept., 1839) formally recorded the approval of the institute and its rule, and appointed Rosmini provost general for life. The institute then spread rapidly in England and Italy, and requests for foundations came from various countries. The publication of Rosmini's "Trattato della coscienza morale" (Milan, 1839) led to a sharp controversy. Against Rosmini were writers like Melia, Passaglia, Rozaven, Antonio Ballerini, all members of the Society of Jesus, in which Rozaven held the office of assistant to the general. On the defensive, along with Rosmini, were L. Eastaldi, Pestalozza, Pagamini. For fifteen years the wordy war was protracted, with a truce from 1843 to 1846, due to an injunction of Gregory XVI enjoining perpetual silence on both sides. Pius IX, who succeeded Gregory in 1846, showed himself favourable to the institute, and various new foundations in England attested its vitality. In 1848 Rosmini published (Milan) his "Costituzione secondo la giustizia sociale" and "Cinque piaghe della chiesa"; the latter against Josephism, especially in the matter of Austrian episcopal appointments in Northern Italy. In August of the same year, he was sent to Rome by King Charles Albert of Piedmont to enlist the pope on the side of Italy as against Austria. Pius IX appointed him one of the consultors to deliberate on the definability of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and at the outbreak of the revolution asked Rosmini to share his exile at Gaeta. Antonelli's influence, however, prevailed and Rosmini left Gaeta, 19 June, 1849. His works, "Costitunone" and "Cinque piaghe", were condemned in August, a sentence which he unhesitatingly accepted. A further attack was made on him in the "Postille" and the "Lettere di un prete Bolognese" (1848). Pius IX (1850) referred the "Postille" to the Congregation of the Index, which rejected it as false. In view of other charges the pope ordered an examination of all Rosmini's works. The decision, rendered 3 July, 1854, was that all the works be dismissed (esse dimittenda), that the investigation implied nothing disparaging to the author, to the institute founded by him, or to his exceptional services to the Church, and that to prevent any renewal and dissemination of charges and strife, silence was for the third time imposed on both parties. Within a year after this decision Rosmini died. His body reposes in the Church of the Santissimo Crocifisso built by him at Stresa. (See ROSMINIANS.) THE ROSMINIAN SYSTEM According to Rosmini, philosophy is "the science of the ultimate reasons or grounds of human knowledge". The philosopher at the outset must answer the questions: What is knowledge? What is thought? Can we be certain of what we know? Rosmini's answer is given in his ideology and logic. Intellect, he holds, is essentially different from sense; thought is objective, sensation is subjective. The term of the intellectual act is seen in such a way that the seer, at the moment, is conscious neither of himself nor of any relation with himself as seeing. The primal and essential act of human intelligence, thus terminating in its object, is intuition -- an attitude rather than an activity, in which the mind pronounces no judgment on what is known, but merely receives the communication of the intelligible object. All our concepts, when analyzed, reveal being (somethingness) as their essential constituent; or, conversely, human concepts are nothing but determinations more or less complex of the simple and elementary notion of being. This fundamental idea is indeterminate and general, conveying to the intellect no knowledge of particular things, but simply manifesting itself as the essence of being. Our abstraction does not produce it, but merely discovers it already present in thought. Being, as it appears within man's experience, has two modes, each governed by its own conditions and laws, each with well-defined attributes, diverse, but not contradictory. Manifesting itself to the mind as the intelligible object, not exerting any stimulus upon the intellect, but simply illuminating it, this is being in its ideal mode. As it acts or is acted upon in feeling, modifying the human subject in sensation, constituting the sentient principle in action and passion, this is being in its real mode. The former is essentially objective, simple, and one -- universal, necessary, immutable, eternal; the latter is subjective and, in our world, contingent, particular, temporal, manifold, and almost infinitely varied in aspect. Ideal being is not God, but we may call it, says Rosmini, an appurtenance of God, and even Divine, for its characteristics are not those of created finite things, and its ultimate source must be in God. If thought had in it no element transcending the contingent and finite, all knowledge of the absolute and infinite would be inexplicable, and truth, uncertain and variable, would exist only in name. To explain our knowledge of particular real entities, Rosmini says that our knowledge of realities reduces itself to a judgment whereby we predicate existence of what is felt by us. Real entities act upon man's senses, and he immediately recognizes them as particular activities of that essence of being already manifested under another mode in intuition. Because of its simplicity, the human ego, or subject-principle, is constrained to bring together and collate its feeling and its knowledge of being, and thus it perceives being energizing in the production of feeling. This act of the human subject whereby it cognizes real entities, Rosmini calls reason. By sense we are introduced to realities, but we could not know them as beings unless we already possessed the idea of being. This is given to our mind prior to all perception or individual cognition; it is not acquired by any act of thought, but is implanted in us by the Creator from the beginning of our existence: it is innate, and constitutes for us the light of reason. Furthermore, it is the very form of the human intelligence, a form not multiple, but one -- not subjective, but objective -- i. e., not a quality or attitude or component of the human subject, but distinct from it and superior to it, existing in an absolute mode and called the form of the mind because, in manifesting itself to man, it draws forth and creates, so to speak, the act of his intelligence. Logic, says Rosmini, is "the science of the art of reasoning". The scope of reasoning is certainty, i. e., a firm persuasion conformable to truth. The truth of a thing is, in last analysis, its being, and since being is the form of the human intellect, it follows that a criterion of truth and certainty lies at the base of all thought and reasoning. The principles which govern reflection and argument are founded on the primitive intuition of being. "Being is the object of thought"; this is the principle of cognition, and it is antecedent to the principle of contradiction. Error is found, not in the idea of being, which is without any determination, nor in the principles of reasoning, which simply express the essential object of the mind in the form of a proposition without adding anything foreign, but in reflection, and hence in the will, which usually initiates reflection. Logic shows us how to use reflection so as to attain truth and avoid error. The Sciences of Perception are psychology and cosmology. The subject of psychology is the ego in its primal condition, i. e., stripped of its acquired relations and developments. The soul is felt by and through itself; it is essentially a principle of feeling. "The human soul is an intellective and sensitive subject or principle, having by nature the intuition of being and a feeling whose term is extended, besides certain activities consequent upon intelligence and sensitivity." This "extended term" is twofold: space, which, simple and immovable, underlies all sense phenomena as the idea of being underlies the phenomena of thought; and body, a limited extended force which the sentient principle passively receives and thereby acquires individuation. It is a favourite doctrine of Rosmini that the extended can exist only in synthesis with a simple, immaterial principle. Considered apart from this principle, the material corporeal term lacks the unity and coherence necessary for existence and permanence. Our own body, the "subjective body", is felt directly as the proper term of the human sentient principle and is the seat of corporeal feelings. Other (external) bodies, since they modify not the soul, but the bodily term in connexion with the soul, are felt by an extra-subjective perception. We feel our own bodies as we feel external bodies, through vision, touch etc.; but we also feel them immediately with a fundamental feeling, always identical and substantial, in which no distinct limits, figure, or relation of parts can be assigned. Shape, hardness, colour etc., belong to the extra-subjective world. But the body is not merely felt by the soul; it is also intellectually perceived by the soul in a primordial and immanent judgment, whereby being is applied to it (the body) in the way above described. In this perception is found the true nexus intimately uniting soul and body. The body is the felt-understood term of the human principle which in this intellective synthesis performs its first act as a rational soul and exerts a real physical influence on its bodily term. Hence Rosmini's definition of life as "the incessant production of all those extra-subjective phenomena which precede, accompany, and follow parallel with the corporeal and material feeling (subjective)". Every time that by generation an animated organism is produced, perfectly constituted according to the human type, the vivifying, sentient principle rises to the vision of the intelligible object, ideal being. This happens in virtue of a primordial law, established by God in the creative act. There is, however, no chronological passing from sentience to intelligence, as if one could assign an instant in which the human soul was purely sentient and another following in which it had become rational. All is consummated in a single point of time. The soul's immortality is deduced from its nature as an intellective principle having for its object-term the eternal and necessary idea of being. This is independent of space and time, and the act of intuition continues even after the bodily term has been dissolved by death, and the soul's immanent perception of its body has been for a period destroyed. Cosmology, which considers the ordered universe, the nature of contingent real being and its cause, is not a complete science in itself; it must be treated in connexion with the sciences of reasoning in which reflection, testing the observations of intuition and perception, discovers new truths and arrives at the existence of beings beyond the reach of intuition and perception. The Sciences of Reasoning are ontological and deontological. The former comprise ontology and natural theology. Ontology treats of being in all its extent as known to man, viz., ideal being, the necessary object of the intellect; real being, i.e., subjective force and feeling; moral being, the relation between real and ideal -- a special act of recognition and adherence on the part of the subject harmonizing it with the object. Light, life, love; intellect, sense, will -- these are the forms under which the essence of being manifests itself in man's world; they are also the foundation of the categories. Natural theology treats of the Absolute Being, God. The existence of God is known, not through perception or direct intuition, but through reasoning. Ideal being is being under only one of its forms and therefore incomplete; in the real world we meet only partial realizations of being. Comparing in reflection the products of our perception with the essence of being manifested in intuition, we see that they do not exhaust the possibilities of that essence; yet this must find its full realization in some way far transcending our experience; it cannot, in that fulness, be finite and imperfect as are the things of this world. This knowledge of the Absolute Being Rosmini calls negative-ideal; it tells us not so much what God is as what God is not. Definite proofs of God's existence are furnished by being in its essence and in each of its forms. The essence of being is eternal, necessary, infinite; but these attributes it would not possess if it did not subsist identical under the other two forms of reality and morality, complete and perfect. Where it exists under all these forms, it is being in every way infinite and absolute, i. e., God. Again, the ideal form that creates intelligence is an eternal object and hence demands an eternal subject with infinite wisdom -- God. The real form of being is contingent, and it therefore postulates a First Cause in whose essence subsistence is included. Finally, the binding force of the moral law is eternal, necessary, absolute, and its ultimate sanction must be found in an Absolute Being in whom the essence of holiness subsists. Thus man naturally does not perceive God; his knowledge of God is but of a negative kind. In the supernatural order of grace, the real communication of God to man, a new light super-added to that of reason brings man into conjunction with God's own reality, which reveals itself to him in an incipient and obscure manner, yet acts upon the soul with positive efficacy. Thus the Christian becomes a new creature, consors divinoe naturoe. The deontological sciences treat of the perfections of beings and the ways in which these perfections may be acquired, produced, or lost. Amongst them, ethics, the science of virtue, is prominent (see "Compendio di Etica", Rome, 1907). Each moral act contains three elements: the law, the subject's free will, and the relation (agreement or disagreement) between law and will. Man is not a law unto himself; the moral imperative must come from a higher source, from the necessary and universal object of the understanding Being, manifested to the mind, has an order of its own, and the various entities we know though it occupy different places in the scale of excellence. We cognize them by an act of intellect; we recognize them by a practical act of our will, adhering to the good we see in them with an intensity determined by the moral exigence of the object. The idea of an entity, therefore, as the medium which reveals its excellence, clothes itself with the authority of law; and as all ideas are but determinations of the idea of being, the first of laws and the first principle of obligation is: "Follow the light of reason", or "Recognize being". Besides the testimony of consciousness and the consent of mankind, the proofs for free-will, i. e., the power of choice between objective good (duty) and subjective good (pleasure, self-interest), are closely bound up with Rosmini's theory of man and the soul. Man is stimulated by sensation and his subjective modifications; at the same time he is illumined by the light of being eternal and absolute whence he can draw strength to overcome the allurements of sense and unite himself to the absolute good. In reference to the third element Rosmini used a distinction which led to sharp controversy. By peccatum (sin) he means the sinful condition of the will in its antagonism to objective good; by culpa (sin as fault), the same condition considered relatively to its cause, free will. Ordinarily, peccatum is also culpa, and every sin is traceable to a free agent. But, in abnormal circumstances, there may be peccatum where there is not, at the moment, culpa. The acts of an acquired sinful habit, when performed without advertence or deliberation, are contrary to law, though at the moment the will is not responsible. They are culpoe and imputable, but to complete the imputability one must link them with the first free wicked acts whence the habit resulted. Original sin is a true sin yet not a culpa, not imputable to the person in whom it is found as to its free cause. The responsible cause is to be sought in the free will of Adam, whose sin was both peccatum and culpa. Rosmini wrote voluminously in defence of the traditional Catholic doctrine of original sin. Conscience he defines as "a speculative judgment on the morality of the practical judgment"; and since morality, he points out, belongs to an order of reflection anterior to the conscience, there may exist in man moral or immoral conditions apart from conscience -- a doctrine which he also applied to original sin and to certain states of virtue and vice. Regarding probabilism, he distinguishes, in the question of the doubtful law, what is intrinsically evil from what is evil only on account of some extrinsic cause, for example, prohibition by positive law, and lays down the rule: "If there is a doubt respecting the existence of the positive law, and the doubt cannot be resolved, the law is not binding; but if there is a doubt in a matter pertaining to the natural law and relating to an evil inherent in action, the risk of the evil must be avoided." This theory provoked controversy, but Rosmini maintained that it accorded substantially with the teaching of St. Alphonsus Ligouri. The science of rational right arises from the protection which the moral law affords to the useful good. The classification of the goods and rights which we possess in our relations with our fellow-men, is based on freedom and property. Freedom is the power, which each one has, to use all his faculties and resources so long as he does not encroach on the rights of others. Property is the union of goods with the human personality by a triple bond, physical, intellectual, and moral. The moral bond guards the other two, for the moral law forbids one man to wrest from another what he has united to himself by affection and intelligence. The subject of right may be either the individual man or man in society. Concerning the three societies necessary for the full development of the human race, Rosmini speculates at length in his "Filosofia del diritto" (Milan, 1841-43). Rosmini applied his philosophical principles to education in "Della educazione cristiana" (Milan, 1856) and especially, "Del principio supremo della metodica" (Turin, 1857; tr. by Grey, "The Ruling Principle of Method Applied to Education", Boston, 1893). His basic idea is that education must follow the natural order of development. The mind of the child must be led from the general to the particular. The natural and necessary order of all human thoughts is expressed in the law: "A thought is that which becomes the matter, or provides the matter of another thought." The whole sum of thoughts which can occur to the human mind is classified in divers orders of which Rosmini enumerates five. To the first order belong thoughts whose matter is not taken from antecedent thoughts; each of the successive orders is characterized by its matter being taken from the order immediately preceding it. The ruling principle of method is: Present to the mind of the child (and this applies to man in general), first, the objects which belong to the first order of cognitions, then those which belong to the second order, and so on, taking care never to lead the child to a cognition of the second order without having ascertained that his mind has grasped those of the first order relative to it, and the same with regard to the cognitions of the third, fourth, and other higher orders. In applying this principle to the different orders, Rosmini explains the cognitions proper to each, the corresponding activities, the instruction which they require, the moral and religious education which the child should receive. Both in his general theory of adapting education to the needs of the growing mind and in the importance he attached to instinct, feeling, and play, Rosmini anticipated much that is now regarded as fundamental in education. "The child", he says, "at every age must act." To regulate the different kinds of activity, and to make each kind reasonable, is really to educate. It is in the kindergarten system of Froebel, the contemporary of Rosmini, that these principles are most fully worked out. The most important of Rosmini's posthumous works, the "Teosofia" (ontology and natural theology), was published in five volumes (Turin, 1859-64; Intra, 1864-74). In 1876 some Catholic newspapers and periodicals in Italy, interpreting the "Dimittantur" decree of 1854, declared that Rosmini's works were open both to criticism and to censure. The Rosminian school on the contrary maintained that, while the decree gave no positive approval, it at least guaranteed that the books examined contained nothing worthy of censure and could therefore be safely read, and their conclusions accepted by Catholics. This view seemed to be confirmed by the Master of the Sacred Palace, who, in a letter to the "Osservatore Romano" (16 June, 1876), reminded the editor of the silence enjoined on both parties and stated that no theological censure could be inflicted. A month later, the "Osservatore Cattolico" of Milan, as ordered by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Index, acknowledged its interpretation to be erroneous. After the death of Pius IX, the controversy was renewed. An answer of the Index was given (21 June, 1880) that " dimittantur signifies only this -- a work dismissed is not prohibited" -- and another (5 Dec., 1881) that a work dismissed is not to be held as free from every error against faith and morals and may be criticized both philosophically and theologically without incurring the note of temerity. Both answers were taken by the adversaries of Rosmini's doctrines to justify new censures, while the Rosminian writers contended that these answers in no degree rendered untenable the position they had always occupied. On 14 Dec., 1887, a decree of the Inquisition condemned forty propositions taken from the works of Rosmini. The decree, published 7 March, 1888, lays special stress on the posthumous works which, it says, developed and explained doctrines contained in germ in the earlier books; but the propositions condemned have no theological nota attached. About one-half of the propositions refer to Rosmini's ontology and natural theology; the remainder, to his teachings on the soul, the Trinity, the Eucharist, the supernatural order and the beatific vision (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 1891 sq.). Some of the propositions were clearly taught in the works examined in 1854; others repeated what Rosmini had said over and over again in the principal books published during his lifetime. The superior general of the Institute of Charity enjoined obedience and submission on the members. Leo XIII in a letter to the Archbishop of Milan (1 June, 1889) plainly stated that he approved and confirmed the decree. Cardinal Mazella discussed the propositions exhaustively in "Rosminianarum propositionum trutina theologica" (Rome, 1892). This brought out a reply from an erudite layman, Prof. Giuseppe Morando, under the title "Esame critico delle 40 proposizioni Rosminiane" (Milan, 1905). Besides the works already mentioned, Rosmini wrote a large number of treatises the more important of which are: "Il Rinnovamento della Filosofia in Italia" (Milan, 1836); "Psicologia", (Novara, 1843; Turin, 1887; tr., London, 1884-88); "Logica", (Turin, 1853; Intra, 1868); "La Filosofia della Morale" (Milan, 1831);" L'Antropologia in servizio della Scienza Morale" (Milan, 1838); "Antropologia sopranaturale" (Casale, 1884); "Teodicea" (Milan, 1845); "Filosofia della Politica" (Milan, 1858); "La societa e il suo fine" (Milan, 1839); "V. Gioberti e il Panteismo" (Milan, 1847); "Introduzione alla Filosofia" (Casale, 1850); "Introd. al Vangelo secondo S. Giovanni" (Turin, 1882). Rosmini: ANON., La Vita di Antonio Rosmini (Turin, 1897), the standard life, written by a priest of the Institute of Charity; ANON., Piccola Vita di Antonio Rosmini (Casale, 1897); Della Missione a Roma di Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, negli Anni 1848-49 (Turin, 1881); Epistolario completo di Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (Casale, Turin, 1887-94); PAOLI, Memorie della vita di Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (Turin, 1880-84); Antonio Rosmini e la sua prosapia (Rovereto, 1880); Life of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, ed. LOCKHART (London, 1886); The Life of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, tr. from the Italian of PAGANI (London, 1907). DAVIDSON, Rosmini's Philosophical System (London, 1882) contains a copious bibliography of the works of Rosmini and his school. Rosminian School: BURONI, Dell' Essere e del Conoscere, studii su Parmenide Platone e Rosmini (Turin, 1878); FERRE, Degli Universali secondo la Teoria Rosminiana (Casale, 1880-86); PESTALOZZA, Le Dottrine di A. Rosmini difese (Milan, 1851; Lodi, 1853); PETRI, A. Rosmini e i Neo-Scolastici (Rome, 1878); BILLIA, Quaranta Proposizioni attribuite ad A. Rosmini (Milan, 1889); Per Ant. Rosmini nel primo centenario della nascita (Milan, 1897); MORANDO, Il Rosminianismo e l'Enciclica Pascendi, and Apparenti Contraddizioni di S. Tommaso, reprinted from the Rivista Rosminiana (1908); MANZONI, Il Dialogo sull' Invenzione (Milan, 1879); CALZA AND PEREZ, Esposizione della Filosofia di A. Rosmini (Intra, 1878); CASARA, La Luce dell' occhio corporeo e quella dell' Intelletto (Parabiago, 1879). Periodicals: La Sapienza (Turin, 1879-86) (ed. PAPA); La Rivista Rosminiana (Voghera, 1905) (ed. MORANDO). Opposing Schools: Postille (s. d.); Alcune Affermazioni del Sig. A. Rosmini prete roveretano con un saggio di riflessioni scritte da Eusebio Cristiano (s. d.); Principi della scuola Rosminiana esposti in Lettere Famigliari da un Prete Bolognese (Milan, 1850); GIOBERTI, Degli Errori Filosofici di A. Rosmini (Capologo, 1846); CORNOLDI, Il Rosminianismo sintesi dell' Ontologismo e del Panteismo (Rome, 1881); LIBERATORE, Degli Universali (Rome, 1881-83), tr. DERING,. On Universals (Leamington, 1889); MAZZELLA, Rosminianarum propositionum trutina theologica (Rome, 1892); ZIGLIARA, Il Dimittatur e la spiegazione datane dalla S. Congregazione dell' Indice. Independent: SHELDON, The Teachings of A. Rosmini, in Papers of the American Society of Church History 1897, VIII; DYROFF, Rosmini, in the series Kultur und Katholizismus (Munich 1906); ORESTANO, Rosmini, in the series Biblioteca Pedagogica (Rome, 1908); PALHORIES, Rosmini, in the series Les Grands Philosophes (Paris, 1908). GEORGE CORMACK D. HICKEY Rosminians Rosminians The Institute of Charity, or, officially, Societas a charitate nuncupata, is a religious congregation founded by Antonio Rosmini, first organized in 1828, formally approved by the Holy See in 1838, and taking its name from "charity" as the fullness of Christian virtue. In English-speaking lands its members are commonly called Fathers of Charity, but in Italy, Rosminians. Foundation of the Institute The founder of this society was, strictly speaking, Rosmini alone. Nevertheless there existed in the age into which he was born many very potent directive elements which gave a bent to his thoughts and supplied an opportunity for their embodiment in some organization. His life was in the immediate wake of the French Revolution, and doubtless it was by the many tendencies and movements, some of them remote enough, which culminated in that upheaval, that he was gradually and unconsciously led to consider the intellectual and moral inheritance of Christendom as a whole, not in blind protest and reaction merely, but with impartial contemplation of new ideas as well as of old. The one side of truth was to be corrected by its counterpart, and secondary things which had usurped a primacy were to resume their just order. Rosmini not only saw the Church's enemies roused to new vigour of attack, but also a growing danger among many who still remained within the Church of a practical denial or at least a belittling of the supernatural in man. There was ill-regulated activity and impatience of ancient tradition, and by reaction from this in other quarters there was an equally ill-timed and fatal passiveness. The world was too wrong, it seemed, ever to be set right; and nothing it could say was worthy of being even heeded. This was a spirit that shut itself up in the past and anathematized all fresh thought. The Church was to renounce either tradition or development, in either case abandoning her Divine Guide. On such a basis there could easily be set up a spirit which looked on the whole Church as a party, and furthered her cause with partisan eagerness, or else substituted for the great end of the Church's good the petty end of the good of some society or persons within her. It tended to replace Catholicism by clericalism. But Rosmini judged these domestic ills no less than the relentless attacks from without to be traceable to one deeply-seated cause, namely, that men were relaxing their grip on the fundamental and general truths. What was becoming blurred was God's own part in the world: first His creative part; then the Divine nature of that moral good which in some sort stands before the human mind as truth itself; and again the Divine action of grace, causing truth and good to be felt in the depths of the soul as having not only infinite rightness and bindingness but also supreme driving-power. The crying need then was for a clearer recognition of God's place in nature, in the soul, and in the Church, and hence for the re-establishment of Christian first principles as a slow, indeed, but the only radical, cure of the evils of the day. Antonio Rosmini, an Italian from Rovereto, was ordained in 1821. He was already organizing his life on principles of order, an order which puts God's prompting first and man's instant and swift action second. His two life-principles, written down at this time for his own guidance, and forming the true harmony of humility with confidence and passiveness with activity, were: first, to apply himself to the amendment of his faults and the purifying of his soul without seeking other occupations or undertakings on his neighbour's behalf, since of himself he was powerless to do anyone real service; and, second, not to refuse offices of charity when Divine Providence offered them, but in fulfilling them to maintain perfect indifference and do the offered work as zealously as he would any other. The formulating of this rule and the putting of it into practice by living retired in prayer and study constituted the first step towards founding the Institute of Charity; the second was this: the Venerable Marchioness di Canossa, foundress of a society of Daughters of Charity for poor friendless girls, had long desired a like institution for boys, and no sooner was Rosmini a priest than she began to urge him to establish one. On 10 December, 1825, he wrote to her that in accordance with his rules of life he could not altogether refuse her request if God were to provide means, but that even then he could form such a society only on the basis of the two aforesaid principles. The rough sketch of the Priests of Charity written on this date is really only the first brief form of what was approved by Rome more than twelve years later. But he took no practical measures. He still waited for God's signs. Led to Milan in February, 1826, for a charitable work and better convenience for study, he received there a powerful stimulus in June, 1827, by meeting the Abbe Loewenbruck. This zealous and impetuous priest introduced himself abruptly enough with the words: "I am thinking of a society directed to a reform of the clergy, and you must help me to carry this into effect." Rosmini answered by confessing his own aspirations and laying down the principles on which alone he would build. They conferred further, sought and received more light, and at last agreed to spend the next year's Lent together in fasting and prayer in an almost ruinous house on Monte Calvario above Domodossola, a town near the Italian end of the Simplon Pass. Here on 20 February, 1828, Rosmini began his great work, but alone, as Loewenbruck did not present himself again to cooperate in the labour. Lent was passed by Rosmini in practising austerities and writing the constitutions of the institute. Still, this was no more than a plan. For forming a religious society a number of like-minded men are needed. Rosmini sought none, encouraged none. Two or three who knew his thoughts joined him; their very principles made them at once into a community practising many of the religious virtues. These principles urged him to betake himself forthwith to the Holy See and lay his society before it. He arrived at Rome in November, 1828, but would not do anything there to further his cause. Pius VIII, who was elected pope in the following March, called him to an audience a few weeks after. "If you think", said the Pope, "of beginning with something small, and leaving all the rest to God, we gladly approve; not so if you thought of starting on a large scale." Rosmini answered that he had always proposed a very humble beginning. His was no extraordinary vocation, he said, like that of St. Ignatius, but quite ordinary. In the autumn of 1830 he gave the institute something of its regular form; and all the community began to pass through their stages of religious training. Such was the state of affairs when on 2 February, 1831, Rosmini's friend and protector at Rome, Cardinal Cappellari, was chosen pope and took the name of Gregory XVI. The new pope became from the outset the foster-father of the institute, and Rosmini shunned all initiative more than ever. An unsolicited papal Brief came forth in March, calling the new society by its name and rejoicing in its progress under the approval of the bishops. Special spiritual graces were granted by a later Brief, and in 1835 the pope made known his wish that, since solemn episcopal approval had been given the society in the Dioceses of Novara and Trent, Rosmini should no longer delay, but submit the constitutions of the society to the formal examination of the Holy See. It was not, however, till March, 1837, that these were at length submitted, with a short letter in which Rosmini petitioned the pope to approve and confirm them and to grant to the institute the privileges of regulars, adding only that these seemed necessary to the well-being of a society which was intended for the service of the universal Church. The matter was entrusted to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which declared, on 16 June, its general commendation of the society, but also its judgment that it was as yet too young to be approved as a regular order, and its hesitation on one or two points in the constitutions, notably on the form of poverty. They therefore deferred the approbation. Rosmini satisfied Cardinal Castracane, the promoter of the cause, on these heads; but before proposing a new examination the promoter is accustomed to hear some other consultor; and to this end Zecchinelli, a Jesuit, was admitted by Castracane to write his opinion. It was unfavourable, principally concerning the matter of poverty; and his party further procured the appointment of a new consultor, a Servite, whose hostile vote was launched almost on the eve of the session in which a decision was to be taken. This action drove Castracane to appeal to the pope that the meeting might be postponed, and the pope intervened at once with such effect that the last vote was set aside and other consultors deputed instead. On 20 December, 1838, the congregation met and gave its final sentence that the society and its rule deserved the formal approbation of the Holy See, and that the institute should have the status of a religious congregation, with the usual privileges. The pope immediately ratified this decision. On the following 25 March the vows were first made, by twenty in Italy and five in England. Five of these then went to Rome and on 22 August, in the Catacombs of St. Sebastian made the fourth vow of special obedience to the pope. Apostolic letters embodying Rosmini's own summary of the constitutions were issued on 20 September, naming Rosmini as the first provost-general of the institute for life. Spirit and Organization The end which the Institute of Charity sets before its members is perfect charity. Love of God is plenitudo legis, because it extends of its very nature to all intelligent creatures who are in God's image. No special manner of life is added in this rule as an obligatory proximate end; hence for a vocation to it nothing is required but a true and constant desire to love justice most. It is a universal vocation. It embraces all vocations, not indeed by taking all charitable works whatsoever as its province; rather it does not take one, but it refuses none. The field then is vast, but only with a negative vastness. Hoec est voluntas Dei, sanctificatio vestra. But by focusing the will on that one point the best way is opened to everything else. Thus the first or elective state of the Rosminian is just the unum necessarium, the contemplative life; not inactivity, not sluggishness, but prayer and labour and study and the learning of some mechanical or liberal art, that so he may be ready for any call and not become a burden to others. It is a time for accumulating experience and strength, and those who avail themselves of it apply themselves to their duties, awaiting the time when they will go forth to answer the call of zeal. If no such call comes, it matters little, for in the elective state all their end is achieved. If the call does come, the elective is laid aside for the assumed state, this being accepted not of choice at all, but only because of God's will clearly manifested. By what methods does the institute discern this will? Apart from extraordinary inward motions of the Holy Ghost, the common way is that of outward events, which give sure tokens of God's will to those who use the light of faith. The principal events, as the institute views it, which make known God's call to charitable work are: (1) a petition made by a neighbour in need; (2) a request by someone else on his behalf; (3) his needs themselves when they come before us. Among simultaneous requests there is a choice. The pope's come first, a bishop's next; ceteris paribus, earlier petitions are accepted rather than later. But in general whenever a neighbour, in the universal Christian meaning of that word, seeks the help of the institute, it has to be given, unless one of the following conditions be wanting: that the desired work be no hindrance to the fulfilment of duties already undertaken, that the whole labour which such addition involves be not beyond the brethren's strength, and that the institute have at its disposal members sufficient in both number and endowment for its rightful discharge. Again, charity which is one in essence, is threefold in exercise, and according as good things regard the bodily and sentient life or the intellectual or the moral, the charity which bestows them is divided in the institute into temporal, intellectual, and spiritual. The temporal is the lowest and gives the lowest kind of good. Inconceivably far above it stands that which seeks to increase the life of the understanding by the knowledge of truth; and above both there is the spiritual charity which tends to make men good and happy by loving the known truth. Hence we see that the topmost point of the institute's activity is the cure of souls. Its whole theory leads to the religious and the pastoral life wedded together, as the crowning achievement of charity. The blending of the two types in the rule consists in this, that the brethren have to choose and prefer a private state in the Church. They are of the ecclesia discens. The restless disposition which indirectly seeks honours or powers would be treason to their whole spirit. Passive in privacy till public work summons them, they must then be all courage, confidence, perseverance, and work. There are three classes of persons who more or less strictly belong to the Institute of Charity. The first is of those who, led by a desire to keep the Evangelical law perfectly, take on themselves the discipline of the society and bind themselves by vows. The second is of Christians who desire perfection, but are so bound by earlier engagements that they cannot make these vows, yet desire as far as possible to co-operate with the society, and these are "adopted children". The third is of "ascribed members", good Christians who do not aspire to the life of the counsels, yet according to their condition desire also to co-operate. But since only the religious are of the substance of the society, it is of their formation and regulation alone that we will here add a few words. The institute neither solicits nor insinuates vocations, but leaves the initiative to Divine Providence, being from its fundamental principles just as perfect when small and hidden as if it was large and famous. Of the care used in examining and instructing the postulant and in implanting firm roots of piety and charity in the novices and in trying his vocation in many ways we need not here give detailed notice. After two years of noviceship his first profession is made, obedience being understood to comprehend the acceptance of any grade that superiors may assign. He thus becomes an "approved scholastic", who is not, however, definitively incorporated with the institute until he has fitted himself by study or other preparation for taking the coadjutor's vows. Coadjutors, spiritual or temporal, add the further promise of not seeking any dignity either within the society or outside and of not accepting and not refusing the spontaneous offer of it except under obedience. They are divided moreover into internal coadjutors if living in houses of the institute, and external if elsewhere, the latter state being from the universality of charity quite in harmony with the rule. From among the internal spiritual coadjutors presbyters are chosen, and these take a fourth vow of special obedience to the sovereign pontiff. Thus the body of the society consists of presbyters and coadjutors, but it is the presbyters who give life and movement to the rest and to whom the more universal works of charity are committed. Vows in the institute are life-long, and ordinarily, though not necessarily, simple. Its form of poverty permits the retention of bare ownership in the eye of the civil law, but each member must be ready to surrender even that at the call of obedience, and none may keep or administer or use one farthing at his own will. Strenuous opposition was offered in Rome to this form of religious poverty, which was declared by one party to be merely affective, no effective. Rosmini answered by indicating the conditions just named and also the nature of property itself; that it is a complexus of rights, that rights are relations, and are divisible; that they may be relative to the State or to the Church; and that a religious keeps property relatively to the State only, and not absolutely. It is absolute ownership, not relative, that offends Evangelical poverty. The founder's sagacity in leaving property under the legal dominion of individuals has been abundantly illustrated since his time; the spiritual gains of the occasions thus given for continually renewed acts of sacrifice are no less obvious. The true facts of the rule are that board, lodging, and clothing are to be those of poor men, and that all, even superiors, do much of their own servile work. Chastity next, considered as a vow, is understood in the sense of the subdeacon's obligation. The virtue of obedience is regarded as a director of charity and, therefore, as quite universal; as a vow, however, though its field is still unrestricted, it comes more seldom into play. The institute is governed by a provost-general elected for life by certain presbyters according to a minutely prescribed form. He has full powers except for a few exceptional cases. It is he who admits to the various grades in the society and who appoints all the superiors. The institute is divided into provinces, and each province, at least in theory, into dioceses, and each diocese into parishes; and there may be rectories besides for more particular works of charity. Having in view only the fullness of Christian law, it has followed as nearly as possible the organization of the Christian Church. Being ordered to charity, the institute chooses a way of living that will not sunder the brethren too far from other men. No habit and no special bodily mortification is prescribed them, but in lieu of further austerities they embrace the lasting hardness of their chosen lot. Not the hedge of a multitude of regulations, but a strong conviction of lofty principles is to make men such as the institute desires. The institute as such holds no property and takes no kind of civil action. From the State it does not seek exemptions, but only common right. If guarantees of association were refused it, it could still live privately and contemplatively, and attain its whole end. Its members remain citizens, with a citizen's interest and duties. Towards the Church it has this chief relation, that it lives for her, not for itself, insists on not confounding the interests of one religious society with those of Christendom, and is so constructed as to be altogether ancillary to the Christian episcopate. Any exclusive esprit de corps is banned throughout the rule and is quite contrary to its spirit; for "the one groundwork of the institute," said its founder, "is the Providence of God the Father, and to lay another would be to destroy it." Instead of seeking its own aggrandizement, its tendency is to render the union of all Catholics more intimate and sensible, to make them feel their own greatness, and that they are stronger than the world and are follow-workers with Providence in putting all things under Christ. History and Activities The institute is too young to have much history yet. As was to be expected from its principles, it has progressed but slowly. Its chief houses in Italy are Monte Calvario, which has long been both a novitiate and house of theological study; the college founded in 1839 for young boys at Stresa, and the large college for older ones at Domodossola built in 1873 and taking the place of a school handed over to the institute by Count Mellerio in 1837. Rosmini founded a house at Trent in 1830 at the bishop's invitation; but Austrian dislike of Italian influences brought it to an end in 1835. The same spirit drove the institute from Rovereto in 1835 and from Verona in 1849. The charge of the Sanctuary of S. Michele della Chiusa, an ancient abbey on a steep mountain-peak near Turin, was accepted in 1835 at the King of Sardinia's desire, and remains of deceased members of his house were transferred thither. This sanctuary is still kept, but the king's plan of a house of retreat was left unexecuted by his Government. A good number of elementary schools are conducted by the institute in various parts of northern Italy, and in 1906 it accepted the charge of the Church of S. Charles in the Corso at Rome. Noteworthy also are Rosmini's plans of an English college of missionaries for different parts of the British Empire, with a special training for work in India; his college of elementary masters in the institute, still flourishing, and his project of a medical college towards which Prince d'Aremberg offered a large sum. An orphanage, founded with this money at Sainghin, near Lille, was closed in 1903 through the hostility of the French Government. The founding of the English province is inseparably linked with the name of Luigi Gentili. This cultured and ardent young Roman threw himself wholeheartedly into religious life in 1831, and from the first felt greatly drawn towards England. Ambrose de Lisle was already inviting him to work in Leicestershire, and Bishop Baines, Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, had offered him a post at Prior Park. To this college he was sent by Rosmini in 1835 with two companions to teach both lay and church students. He became rector there the next year, but the entrance of two of the bishop's clergy, Furlong and Hutton, into the institute brought the engagement to an abrupt close in 1839. Invited next to the Midland district, the fathers taught for a while at old Oscott, and in 1841 was opened the mission of Loughborough, which has since remained in the institute's hands. Many converts were made and some missions founded in the neighbourhood, and in 1843 the first public mission ever preached in England was given by Gentili and Furlong. In the same year at Ratcliffe, near Leicester, were laid the foundations of a novitiate designed by Pugin, but in 1846 the present college for boys of the middle class was opened there. The mission of Newport, Monmouthshire, was undertaken in 1847, that of Rugby in 1850 and Cardiff (of which only two churches are now retained by the institute) in 1854. The fathers were all this time giving zealous aid towards dissipating that excessive fear of outward devotion which English Catholics had inherited from times of persecution. Rosmini's warm interest in England had led him to send thither some of the most capable and apostolic men he had, Pagani (this J. B. Pagani, author of "The Science of the Saints" and "Anima Divota", is to be distinguished from the Italian provincial of the same name, author of a "Life of Rosmini", and other Rosminian works), Gentili, Rinolfi, Ceroni, Cavalli, Gastaldi, Bertetti, Caccia, Signini; and the mission of Gentili and Furlong, and also of Rinolfi and Lockhart, in many parts of the British Isles produced a deep and lasting effect. Gentili died of fever in Dublin, in 1848, while preaching a mission in a fever-stricken district. Of Lockhart it should be added that in 1854 he began the mission of Kingsland in North London, and here he worked for twenty years. The Church of St. Etheldreda, formerly chapel of the London palace of the bishops of Ely, and a fine specimen of thirteenth-century Gothic, was restored by the institute to Catholic worship in 1876, and Lockhart became its first rector. Other houses under the charge of the English province are the reformatory called St. William's School at Market Weighton, Yorkshire, and two Irish industrial schools, one at Upton near Cork, and, one towards which Count Moore gave land and money, at Clonmel. The latest mission established by the institute is that of Bexhill-on-Sea. The Rugby house, which had from 1850 the English novitiate, became in 1886 a juniorate, or preparatory school for novices. The present novitiate stands in wooded grounds at Wadhurst, Sussex, and a house for Irish novices has been opened at Omeath on the shores of Carlingford Lough in the Archdiocese of Armagh. In America Fr. Joseph Costa, after working singlehanded in various parts of Illinois, gathered the first community of the institute about him at Galesburg in that state. Here they have St. Joseph's Church, which existed before; and in addition they have built Corpus Christi Church (1887) and College (1896) as well as St. Joseph's Academy, directed by Sisters of Providence, and in 1906 St. Mary's schools. The provost-generals, since Rosmini's death have been Pagani, who succeeded in 1855, Bertetti (1860), Cappa (1874), Lanzoni (1877), and Bernardino Balsari in 1901. Other names deserving mention are Vincenzo de Vit, known principally for two works of vast labour and research, the "Lexicon totius Latinitatis", a new and greatly enlarged edition of Forcellini, and the "Onomasticon", a dictionary of proper names; Giuseppe Calza, noteworthy as a philosopher; Paolo Perez, formerly professor at Padua, and master of a singularly delicate Italian style; Gastaldi, afterwards Archbishop of Turin; Cardozo-Ayres, Bishop of Pernambuco, who died at Rome during the Vatican Council, and whose incorrupt body has lately been transported with great veneration to his see; and two English priests, Richard Richardson, organizer of the holy war against intemperance, and enroller in it of 70,000 names; and Joseph Hirst, member of the Royal Archaeological Institute. (See ROSMINI AND ROSMINIANISM, GENTILI, LOCKHART, SISTERS OF PROVIDENCE.) ROSMINI, Maxims of Christian Perfection (London, 1888); IDEM, Letters (London, 1901); LOCKART, Life of Rosmini (London, 1886); PAGANI, Life of Rosmini (London, 1907); Missions in Ireland (Dublin, 1855); Vita di Rosmini da un sacerdote dell' Instituto (Turin, 1897). W. H. POLLARD. Ross Ross (ROSSENSIS). Diocese in Ireland. This see was founded by St. Fachtna, and the place-name was variously known as Roscairbre and Rosailithir (Ross of the pilgrims). St. Fachtna founded the School of Ross as well as the see; and his death occurred about 590, on 14 August, on which day his feast is celebrated. The succession of bishops was uninterrupted till after the Reformation period. King John in 1207 granted the cantred of Rosailithir to David Roche, regardless of the claims of the native chief, the O'Driscoll, but the episcopal manors were left undisturbed. In 1306, the value of the bishop's mensa was 26 marks, while the cathedral was valued at 3 marks; and the tribal revenue of the see was but 45 pounds sterling. The number of parishes was 29, divided into 3 divisions; and there was a Cistercian abbey, Carrigilihy (de fonte vivo); also a Benedictine Priory at St. Mary's, Ross. The Franciscans acquired a foundation at Sherkin Island from the O'Driscolls in 1460. Owing to various causes the see was not in a flourishing condition in the fourteenth century, and the Wars of the Roses contributed to the unfortunate state of affairs which prevailed in the second half of the fifteenth century. Blessed Thady MacCarthy was appointed Bishop in 1482, but was forcibly deprived of his see in 1488. However he was translated to the united Sees of Cork and Cloyne in 1490; was again a victim of political intrigues, and died a glorious confessor at Ivrea in 1492, being beatified in l895. In 1517 the revenue of the diocese was but 60 marks. At that date the chapter was complete with 12 canons and 4 vicars, and there were 27 parishes, including three around Berehaven. Thomas O'Herlihy assisted at the Council of Trent, and ruled from 1562 till his death on 11 March, 1580. It was not until 1581 that Queen Elizabeth ventured to appoint a Protestant prelate under whom, in 1584, the Sees of Cork and Cloyne were annexed to Ross. However, in the Catholic arrangement Ross continued independent, and Owen MacEgan died a confessor in January, 1602-3. In 1625 the bishop (de Torres) was a Spaniard, who ruled his diocese through a vicar-general. In 1647 the nave and tower of the cathedral were levelled by the Puritans; and the bishop (MacEgan) was basely hanged by Lord Broghill, on 10 April, 1650. At length, in 1693, Bishop Sleyne of Cork was given Ross in commendam, and the see continued under his successors till 1748, when it was united to Cloyne under Bishop O'Brien. From 1748 Ross was administered by the Bishops of Cloyne, but it regained its autonomy under Bishop Crotty, and in 1857 Bishop O'Hea was consecrated to Ross. During the episcopate of Dr. O'Hea (the Catholic population was then 65,000) the episcopal see was transferred to Skibbereen, and the diocese was materially improved under his fostering care. His successor, William Fitzgerald (1877-97) also labored zealously. The present bishop, the Most Rev. Denis Kelly, was born near Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, in 1852, and was educated at Ennis and Paris. He was appointed president of the Killaloe Diocesan College in 1890, and was consecrated 9 May, 1897. Bishop Kelly has acted on several Royal commissions, and has recently (1911) been named one of the two commissioners for the projected Home Rule finance. In 1901 the Catholic population was 46,694, and there were eleven parishes--two of which were mensal--served by 28 priests. The latest returns give the number of churches as 22, and there are three Convents of Mercy, respectively, at Skibbereen, Clonakilty, and Rosscarbery. There is no chapter, but there are two vicars forane. Calendar of Papal Registers (9 Vols., London, 1893-1911); BRADY, Records of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross (Dublin, 1864); IDEM, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1876); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); SMITH, Cork (new ed., Cork, 1893); Irish Catholic Directory (1911). W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD School of Ross School of Ross The School of Ross--now called Ross-Carbery, but formerly Ross-Ailithir from the large number of monks and students who flocked to its halls from all over Europe--was founded by St. Fachtna, who is generally regarded as the same who founded the Diocese of Kilfenora, for the feast in both cases is kept on 14 August; and in both the saint's descent is traced to the princely race of Corca Laighde. Fachtna was born at a place called Tulachteann, and died at the early age of forty-six, in what year we cannot say, but probably late in the sixth century, and is buried in his own cathedral church at Ross. Like many other great Irish saints, he received his first lessons in piety from St. Ita of Killeedy, the Brigid of Munster, from whose care he passed, according to some writers, to St. Finnbar's seminary at Loch Eirce, near Cork. He founded the monastery Molana, on the little island of Dririnis in the Blackwater, not far from the town of Youghal. Returning to his native territory, he set about a more important foundation on a rocky promontory situated in the midst of woods and green fields between two lovely bays. This was the monastic School of Ross, called in the "Life of St. Mochoemoc", magnum studium scholarium, for it quickly became famous for its study of Sacred Scripture, and the attention given to all the branches of a liberal education. One of the assistant teachers was St. Brendan the Navigator, whom Fachtna had known and loved as a companion when under the care of St. Ita. An old document quoted by Usher represents Brendan as being at Ross in 540. While engaged in teaching here, St. Fachtna was stricken with total blindness. On appealing to God in his distress, he was directed by an angel to make application to Nessa, the sister of St. Ita, who was about to become the mother of St. Mochoemoc. Fachtna did as he was directed and his sight was miraculously restored. Fachtna, it is generally thought by the best authorities, received episcopal orders, and became the first Bishop of Ross. He is sometimes called Facundus, in allusion to his eloquence, to which, as well as to his sanctity, unmistakable testimony is borne by St. Cuimin of Connor. Cuimin describes him as "the generous and steadfast, who loved to address assembled crowds and never spoke aught that was base and displeasing to God". His immediate successor in the School of Ross was St. Conall, and we read also of a St. Finchad, a former schoolmate at Loch Eirce. Both were probably tribesmen of his own, for we are told that he was succeeded by twenty-seven bishops of his own tribe, whose names unfortunately have not been preserved. Under several ninth-century dates we find in the Four Masters reference to the abbots of the School of Ross; and under date 840 we are told that the institution was ravaged by the Danes. Once only in the two centuries that followed is there mention of a bishop, Neachtan MacNeachtain whose death is set down under date 1085. In all other references to Ross the word airchinnect is used, as if showing that the government of the school had fallen into the hands of laymen, who no doubt employed ecclesiastics to perform the spiritual duties and functions. Nevertheless the School must have continued to flourish, for we read under date 866--according to the "Chronicon Scotorum", 868--of the death of Feargus who is described as a celebrated scribe and anchorite of Ross-Ailithir. But more remarkable evidence still of the extent and variety of the literary work done at Ross is furnished by the geographical poem in the Irish language still extant, composed by MacCosse or Ferlegind, a lecturer at this school, and used no doubt as a text-book in the different classes. When we. take into account the period at which MacCosse lived, his geographical treatise may fairly be thought one of the most accurate and interesting of its kind that has ever yet been written. Of the later history of the School we have but few details, but mention of the native spoiler is not missing in them. In 1127, according to the "Chronicon Scotorum", one Toirdhealbach O Conor sailed to Ross-Ailithir and laid waste the land of Desmond. He was followed by the Anglo-Normans under FitzStephen, who towards the close of the century completed the devastation. All record of this ancient seat of learning is then lost. COLGAN, Acta SS.; O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, 14 August; OLDEN in Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy (Jan.1884); HEALY Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (5th ed.). JOHN HEALY Rossano Rossano (ROSSANENSIS). Archdiocese in Calabria, province of Cosenza, Southern Italy. The city is situated on an eminence not far from the Gulf of Taranto. It was the ancient Roscianum, a Roman colony, and was ravaged by Totile. The Saracens failed to conquer it. In 982 Otto II captured it temporarily from the Byzantines, who had made it the capital of their possessions in Southern Italy. It preserved its Greek character long after its conquest by the Normans. In the cathedral there is an ancient image of the "Madonna acheropita" (i.e. the "Madonna not made by hands"). Rossano was the birthplace of John VII, the antipope John VII (Philagathus), St. Nilus,--founder of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, and St. Bartholomew, another abbot of that monastery. The first known bishop of this see is Valerianus, Bishop of the "Ecclesia Rosana" in the Roman Council of 680. Cappelletti, however, names a certain Saturninus as first bishop. In the tenth century, or perhaps earlier, the Greek Rite was introduced at Rossano, and continued until the sixteenth century, although two attempts were made to introduce the Latin Rite--once in 1092, and again by Bishop Matteo de' Saraceni in 1460. Priests of the Latin Rite, however, were often appointed bishops. The Greek Rite was maintained especially by the seven Basilian monasteries in the diocese, the most famous of which was S. Maria in Patiro. In 1571 the Greek Rite was abandoned in the cathedral, and half a century afterwards throughout the city. It is still observed in a few villages inhabited by Albanians. Noteworthy bishops were: Vincenzo Pimpinella (1525), nuncio in Germany; Giovanni Battista Castagna (1553), afterwards Urban VII; Lucio Sanseverino, founder of the seminary; Pier Antonio Spinelli (1628) and Jacopo Carafa (1646), both of whom restored and embellished the cathedral. The archdiocese is without suffragans. It includes the ancient Diocese of Turio (Thurii), a city which arose after the destruction of Sybaris; five of its bishops are known, the first being Giovanni (501) and the last Guglielmo (1170). Rossano has 39 parishes, 70,000 Catholics, 140 secular priests, 4 houses of nuns, and 3 schools for girls. For the famous "purple Codex Rossanensis", discovered in 1879 in the cathedral sacristy, see Batiffol (below). This Greek parchment manuscript of St. Matthew (to xvi, 14) and St. Mark is the oldest pictorial Gospel known, and is accorded by scholars various dates from the end of the fifth to the eighth or ninth century; it is probably of Alexandrine origin (ed. Gebhardt and Harnack, 1880; A. Munoz, Rome, 1907). CAPPELLETTI, Le Chieze d'Italia, XXI; DE ROSIS, Cenno storico della citta di Rossano (Naples, 1839); RENDE, Cronistoria dei Monastero di S. Maria in Patiro (Naples, 1747); BATIFFOL L'abbaye de Rossano (Paris, 1891); GAY, Les dioceses de Calabre a l'epoque byzantine (Macon, 1900). For the Codex Rossanensis, as above, see KRAUS. Gesch. christl. Kunst (Freiburg, 1896-7); KONDAKOFF, Hist. de l'art byzantin, I (Paris, 1886), 114 sqq. U. BENIGNI Cosimo Rosselli Cosimo Rosselli (LORENZO DI FILIPPO). Italian fresco painter, b. at Florence, 1439; d. there in 1507. The master-works of this skilful artist are the four panels in the Sistine Chapel which he painted for Sixtus IV as a part of the decoration in that building. Vasari tells us that they pleased the pope more than the similar panels by Ghirlandajo, Signorelli, Perugino, and Botticelli by reason of the glory of blue and gold which distinguished them, but is not existent now. The panels are skilfully composed, marked by clever draughtsmanship, and harmonious in their colour scheme, but vastly inferior to the other panels in the same chapel. One is, therefore, more easily able to understand Vasari's comment upon them, because there must have been some reason to account for Rosselli being given so many panels. His reputation rests more securely on his close friendship with Benozzo Gozzoli and on the fact that amongst his pupils were Fra Bartolommeo and Piero di Cosimo. Amongst his other works are three frescoes at Berlin, a very important one from Fiesole in the National Gallery, a fine example in Paris, and several at Florence, including one in the Academy, and others in various churches. BRYAN, Dict. of Painters and Engravers, V (London, 1904), s.v. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Bernardo de Rossi Bernardo de Rossi (DE RUBEIS, GIOVANNI FRANCESCO BERNARDO MARIA). Theologian and historian; b. at Cividale del Friuli, 8 Jan., 1687; d. at Venice, 2 Feb., 1775. He made his religious profession with the Dominicans at Conegliano, 1704, after which he studied at Florence and Venice. He taught at Venice for fifteen years, and was twice general vicar of his province. In 1722 he was theologian to a Venetian embassy to Louis XV and remained in Paris five months. He resigned his chair in 1730 and devoted the remainder of his life to literary activity. His sanctity and learning won for him a wide reputation, and his correspondence with the great men of his time fills nine volumes. His works, written in elegant Latin, show a vast erudition and a mind at once critical and profound. Amongst his dogmatic writings must be mentioned the masterly work "De Peccato Originali" (Venice, 1757). He is famous especially for his new edition of the works of St. Thomas with a commentary (Venice, 1745-60, 24 vols.). He was also the author of thirty-two excellent dissertations on the life and writings of the Angelic Doctor, which have been placed in the first volume of the Leonine Edition of St. Thomas's works. De Rossi also ranks high as a writer on historical, patristic, and liturgical subjects. Besides his numerous works which are published, he left thirty volumes in manuscript. HURTER, Nomenclator, s. v. J.A. MCHUGH Pellegrino Rossi Pellegrino Rossi Publicist, diplomat, economist, and statesman, b. at Carrara, Italy, 13 July, 1787; assassinated at Rome, 15 November, 1848. He studied at the Universities of Pavia and Bologna, in which latter city he practiced law with great success. In 1874 he obtained the chair of criminal law ad civil procedure. Rossi being an advocate of Italian unity and independence, and a member of the Carbonari, Joachim Murat, King of Naples, who then aspired to the sovereignty of the entire peninsula, appointed him commissioner general of the provinces lying between the Po and the Tronto; but on Murat's defeat at Tolentino, Rossi was forced to fly to France, whence, after Waterloo, he betook himself to Geneva. At Geneva he began a private course of Roman law which gained him a chair in the university of that city, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Catholic. Having married a Protestant Genevese lady, he was elected to the Cantonal Council of Geneva, where he played a prominent role in the compilation of the laws on mortgages, civil marriage, and court procedure. In 1832 he presented to the Swiss Federal Diet a plan of a constitution (called the Patto Rossi) based on that of 1803, which was approved by the Diet, but rejected by the communes. Notwithstanding his political activity he continued his deep study of law. Between 1819 and 1821, with the collaboration of Sismondi and Bello, he published the "Annales de legislation et d'economie politique", which in a short time gained him a world-wide reputation. With Guizot he established the doctrinaire school, the juridical principles of which did not differ fundamentally from those of the eighteenth century. In 1829 he published his "Traite de droit penal", an authoritative work of the time. The hostility caused by his projected constitution led him, in 1833, to seek the chair of political economy in the College de France, and although the Academie des Sciences Morales had presented another candidate, Rossi was successful. In the beginning he met with some opposition, which, however, he overcame, chiefly through the influence of Guizot, minister of Louis Philippe, who knew that Rossi shared his political and juridical views. In 1834 he taught constitutional law in the university; nor did he fail to gain further honours and distinctions, being elected a member of the Academie des Sciences Morales (1836) and mad a peer of France (1839) and an officer of the Legion of Honour (1841). In 1845 he withdrew from the professorial chair to embrace a diplomatic career. He was sent to Rome to negotiate the suppression of the Jesuits, at first only as an envoy extraordinary, later as an ambassador, with the title of Count. On the fall of Louis Philippe he withdrew into private life, watching the development of the Revolution in the first years of the pontificate of Pius IX. He believed that the age demanded a regime of liberty, but that it should be granted gradually. The pope, who knew his opinions on this subject, appointed him minister of justice in the Fabbri ministry, on the fall of which Rossi was invited to draw up a programme. His intention was to re-establish the papal authority, together with a form of constitutional government, but above all to restore public order. Such a programme was as displeasing to the Conservative Party, who distrusted the prevailing views, as to the advanced Republicans, who hated Rossi as the representative of the constitutional monarchy. Like Pius IX, he favoured the Italian league, but wished to preserve the independence of each state. This programme, and the energy which Rossi exhibited against the disturbers of public order, caused him to be sentenced to death by the secret societies. On 15 November, 1848, Rossi was on his way to the Legislative Assembly (in the Palazzo della Cancelleria) to explain his programme; hardly had he seated himself in his carriage, when an assassin stabbed him in the neck with a dagger. He expired almost immediately. Pius IX, on hearing the tidings, exclaimed: "Count Rossi has died a martyr of duty." The assassination was for the secret societies the signal to spread the flames of the revolution which drove Pius IX into exile and established the Roman Republic. The most important of Rossi's writings is his "Cours d'economie politique", a classic work, based on the theories of Smith, Say, Malthus, and Ricardo. Like these authors, he favoured freedom of trade, labour, and manufacture; and in general, not clearly foreseeing the difficulties of economic life, he wished to solve them by the free plan of individual force and intelligence rather than by legislation. But he recognized the great economic utility of associations. A characteristic note of his scientific speculations is his fondness for considering social phenomena from a mathematical point of view, so that he was called the geometrician of economy. This made him attach great importance to statistics. In politics he is the father of the principle of non-intervention, and published an essay on the subject. A most distinguished representative of the middle-class Liberal doctrinaires of a policy too advanced for the supporters of the Holy Alliance, and too backward for the generation that was being prepared by Cavour. Garnier, Notice sur la vie et les travaux de M. Rossi)Paris, 1849); Reybau, Economistes modernes (Paris, 1862); Processi dell' assassinio del conte P. Rossi (Rome, 1854) in Hist. pol. Blatter, XXVI, 109 sqq.; Civilta Catt., 2nd series, VIII; D'Ideville, Le comte Pellegrino Rossi (Paris, 1887). U. BENIGNI Gioacchino Antonio Rossini Gioacchino Antonio Rossini Born 29 February, 1792, at Pesaro in the Romagna; died 13 November, 1868, at Passy, near Paris. He was twice married: in 1822 to Isabella Colbrand; in 1847 to Olympe Pelissier, who survived him, but he had no children. Rossini was not only the chief operatic composer of his time, but also a great innovator. Lesueur, in 1824, the greatest composer of the French school, said that "his ardent genius had opened a new road and marked a new epoch in musical art". In the opera seria for long recitatives he substituted more singing; in the opera buffa he inaugurated a new comedy style. He introduced many new instruments into the Italian orchestras. To him belongs the preghiera for a whole body of voices, as first introduced in "Mose". He had a good baritone voice, and was an excellent pianist. In 1804 he had lessons in singing and pianoforte playing at Bologna. Two years later he acted as musical director to a traveling company, but soon returned to Bologna to study composition at the Lyceum. His first successes were at Venice and Milan. In 1813 he wrote "Tancredi", the first of his operas which, with "L'Italiana in Algeri", became celebrated throughout Europe. In 1816 and 1817 he composed for the Teatro Valle at Rome his happiest, if not his greatest work, "The Barber of Seville" and "Cenerentola". Meanwhile he had begun his career at the San Carlo in Naples, and wrote for this important opera-house in 1818 "Mose", in 1819 "La Donna del Lago". In 1823 came "Semiramide", written for Venice, his last work in Italy; it was his thirty-fourth opera. In 1824 he spent the season in London, and at the first concert he himself sang the solo. The same year he undertook in Paris the direction, first of the Italian Opera, and then of the Academie. He wrote for Paris in 1829 "William Tell", his last and finest opera. Then followed the comparatively inactive period of his life, in which he ceased to write for the stage, but still produced in 1832 his well known "Stabat", in 1847 his "Stanzas" to Pius IX, in 1864 a "Messe Solennelle". In 1836 he went to live with his father at Bologna; but from 1855 till his death he was again in France. Edwards, The Life Of Rossini (London, 1869); Silvestri, Della Vita e delle opere di G. Rossini (Milan, 1874); Azevedo, Rossini, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1864); Oettinger, Joachim Rossini (Lepizig, 1852). A. WALTER Sebastian von Rostock Sebastian von Rostock Bishop of Breslau, b. at Grottkau, Silesia, 24 Aug. 1607; d. at Breslau, 9 June, 1671. He studied classics at Neisse and from 1627 to 1633, philosophy and theology at Olmutz. After his ordination to the priesthood in 1633 he was assigned to pastoral duty at Neisse, and was distinguished for his courage and oratorical talent. When the Swedes captured the city in 1642, Rostock was taken prisoner and deported to Stettin. After his release he was ennobled by the emperor, but remained pastor of Neisse until his transfer in 1649 to the cathedral of Breslau. Henceforth he played a prominent part in the administration of the diocese, and in 1653 was appointed vicar-general. It was largely through his efforts that the right of reformation (jus reformandi), granted the emperor by the peace of Westphalia, was effectively exercised in the territory of Breslau, so that 656 Catholic churches which had been seized by the Protestants were restored to their former owners. Considerable difficulty was experienced in providing suitable priests for these numerous churches, and in infusing new religious life into an almost completely-ruined diocese. But Rostock consecrated his life to the task, in spite of the additional difficulty from the almost uninterrupted absence from their diocese of the three bishops under whom he served. In 1664 he was himself elected bishop, and shortly after the civil administration of the district was also placed in his hands. He continued with greater independence in work of Catholic reorganization, endeavoured to suppress the power of the Protestants over affairs of the Catholic Church and to neutralize the anti-Catholic influence of Protestant teachers. He succumbed to an attack of apoplexy, superinduced by an imperial decree which suspended a decision that had been previously granted and which was favourable to Catholic interests. Jungnitz, Sebastian von Rostock (Breslau, 1891). N.A. WEBER University of Rostock University of Rostock Located in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, founded in the year 1419 through the united efforts of Dukes John IV and Albert V, and on 13 February of the same year granted a Bull of foundation by Pope Martin V. At first the university included only the three secular faculties; in 1432 a theological faculty was added with the approval of Eugenius IV. The Bishop of Schwerin was appointed chancellor of the university; his present successors are the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg. The majority of the professors came from Erfurt, among them the first rector, Petrus Stenbeke. The city of Rostock endowed the university most generously with lands, as did the Bishop of Schwerin, who presented his house at Rostock as a residence. At a later date it received contributions from Hamburg and Lubeck. In 1427 it obtained from Martin V a unique privilege, allowing the rector in conjunction with several doctors to bestow a degree if the chancellor refused without a valid reason to grant it. When Rostock was placed under the bann of the empire and the Church on account of outbreaks among the citizens, the university moved to Greifswald (Easter, 1437). In 1443 it returned to Rostock, but when the dukes wished to raise one of the churches of the city to a cathedral-church in order to give the professors the canonries as benefices, the town opposed the procedure and there developed what is known as the cathedral feud. The university migrated temporarily in the summer of 1487 to Wismar and then to Lubeck. It fell into complete decay after the beginning of the Reformation in (1523) when the university revenues were lost and matriculations ceased. When an effort was made later to reorganize the university a dispute arose between the city of Rostock and the dukes of Mecklenburg as to the administration and supervision of the school. In 1563 the agreement called the "Formula concordiae", was made between the contending parties, which granted nearly equal rights to both. The university now enjoyed an era of prosperity. In 1758 Duke Frederick desired the appointment of a rigidly orthodox professor, but the theological faculty opposed him; whereupon the duke obtained an imperial patent for the founding of a university at Butzow which was opened in 1760. The two universities proving too expensive for the country, the school at Butzow was closed and united with Rostock in 1789. In 1829 the town council renounced its right of co-patronage. During the second half of the nineteenth century the University began steadily to develop and gain, so that in 1911 it had about 800 students. Krabbe, Die Universitdat Rostock im XV. und XVI. Jarhundrert (Rockstock, 1854); Hofmeister, Die Matrikel der Universitdat Rostock (1899). KARL HOEBER Sacra Romana Rota Sacra Romana Rota In the Constitution "Sapienti Consilio" (29 June, 1908), II, 2, Pins X re-established the Sacra Romana Rota, one of the three tribunals instituted by that Constitution. To it are assigned all contentious cases that must come before the Holy See and require a judicial investigation with proof, except the so-called major cases. The Rota therefore tries in the first instance the cases, including criminal cases, which the pope, either motu proprio or at the request of the contesting parties, calls up for his own judgment and commits to the Rota; it decides these cases even in the second and third instance. Moreover, it is the court of appeal for cases already tried judicially in the episcopal tribunals of first instance. Finally, it decides in the last instance cases tried by any inferior tribunal of second or further instance, as the cause has not then become res judicata. In addition to major cases, episcopal decisions which are given without judicial procedure are excluded from its authority, being under the jurisdiction of other congregations. The Rota is composed of the auditors, ranking as prelates, appointed by the pope; they must be priests who have obtained a doctorate in theology and canon law. When they reach the age of seventy their office ceases ipso facto, but they retain the title of "emeritus auditor". These form a college of which the oldest among them is dean. Each auditor chooses an assistant, who must be a doctor of canon law, and whose selection must be approved by the pope. Other officers are a promotor of justice, corresponding to the pubblico ministero in modern Italian civil courts, and, for cases relating to matrimony, religious profession and sacred ordination, a defender of the bond (defensor vinculi), who may have a substitute. These officers are appointed by the pope on the recommendation of the College of Auditors. There are also notaries (at present three in number) selected by the College of Auditors after a concursus, to draw up acts, etc. The auditors give their decision either through three of their number or in pleno; but sometimes the pope may in a particular case ordain otherwise. A case may also be submitted to the Rota not for a decision but for an opinion. The auditor who prepares the report is called the ponente or relator. An appeal may be made from one judicial commission to another. The contestants may plead personally or, as more ordinarily happens, may employ a procurator or advocate, whose selection must be confirmed. The complaint and the defence must be in writing or printed, and copies distributed among the judges, the assistants, the promotor, and others concerned. The written defence may be elucidated orally in presence of the judges. The auditors decide by a majority of votes. The sentence must contain not only the conclusion arrived at, but the reasons therefor. HISTORY The many and various ecclesiastical cases which were referred to the Holy See from every quarter of the Christian world were, till near the end of the twelfth century, discussed and decided by the pope, as a rule, in the Consistory, which from the presence of many bishops became like a council. From the end of the twelfth century, however, owing to the increasing number of these cases and to the more detailed and complicated procedure, the popes appointed for each case either a cardinal or one of their chaplains, and sometimes a bishop, to arrange for the suit, hear the evidence of the litigants (hence the term auditor), and then make a report to thc pope, who would give his decision personally or in a Consistory. Sometimes, too, the auditor was empowered to decide, but his judgment had to be confirmed by the pope. In the latter half of the thirteenth century we find the auditors as a class distinct from the chaplains, with the title of "Sacri palatii causarurn generales auditores". This innovation was made by Innocent IV, who entrusted to them cases relating to benefices (which had increased owing to the many expectative reservations granted by this pope) and other minor ones, while he employed the cardinals in the other cases. Gradually the various cases were almost always entrusted to them for decision, subject to the approval of the sovereign pontiff. The auditors consequently did not as yet constitute a tribunal with definitive jurisdiction, but only a college from which the pope selected at pleasure judges for the cases he chose to entrust to them. Nicholas III and Martin IV temporarily appointed auditors general for civil suits in the papal dominions; Nicholas IV (1288) appointed them permanently for the various provinces of the pontifical states. Clement V (1307) instituted an auditor general with two others in the second instance for ecclesiastical beneficiary suits, and in 1309 an auditor general for contentious ecclesiastical cases, the litigant having the choice of going before the pope himself or the auditor general. Thus arose an autonomous tribunal, but one in concurrence with the pope. From the year 1323 we have the first document of a transaction adjudicated collegialiter, and in a definitive way by that, tribunal; John XXII, by the Bull "Ratio Juris" (1331), laid down certain rules for it; but its sphere of competency was not marked out, so through all the fourteenth century the causes were referred in a special way to the pope. Sixtus IV fixed the number of auditors at twelve. Other popes, like Martin V ("Romani pontificis", 1422; "Statuta et ordinationes", 1414), Innocent VIII ("Finem litibus", 1487), Pius IV ("In throno justitiae", 1561), Paul V ("Universi agri", 1611), determined their competency more definitely. Civil appeals in the papal dominions were also entrusted to the tribunals of the auditors of the sacred palace, probably after the end of the Western Schism; but criminal eases were always excluded. With the institution of the Roman congregations the jurisdiction of the Rota in ecclesiastical matters was greatly curtailed, and it became, generally speaking, a civil tribunal, enjoying a world-wide reputation. CHARACTER The civil character of the Rota was confirmed by the legislation of Gregory XVI, and mixed suits and purely ecclesiastical suits concerning economical matters, if the subject matter did not amount to over 500 scudi, were assigned to it. Leo XIII entrusted to the auditors part of the process of beatification and canonization, as well as the canonical suits of those employed in the Apostolic Palace. Formerly the auditors had many privileges. France, Austria, Spain, Venice, and Milan each had the right of proposing one of their subjects as an auditor. Austria still has the privilege, at present the auditors being two in number. From 1774 there has been a tribunal of the Rota at Madrid, the president of which is the Nuncio. The origin of the name Rota is uncertain and has been a matter of discussion; it occurs first in 1336. U. BENIGNI Heinrich Roth Heinrich Roth Missionary in India and Sanskrit scholar, b. of illustrious parentage at Augsburg, 18 December, 1620; d. at Agra, 20 June, 1668. He became a Jesuit in 1639; was assigned to the Ethiopian mission (Piccolomini, "Instruction pro P. Hen. Roth, Ingolstadio, ad missionem Aethiopicam profecturo", in Huonder, "Deutsche jesuitenmissionare im 17. und 18. Jahr.", Freiburg, 1899, 213), and arrived at Goa by the land route, via Ispahan. He laboured first on the Island of Salsette off Goa, where from time to time he acted as Portuguese interpreter. He was sent on an embassy to one of the native princes, and finally reached the empire of the Great Mogul, where, as rector of the residence at Agra, he was involved in the persecution under Shah Jahan. Here the French explorer, Francis Bernier, learned to know and appreciate him as one eminently versed in expert knowledge of the philosophy of religions in India ("Travels in Hindustan", new ed., Calcutta, 1904, p. 109 sqq.). In 1662 Roth revisited Europe by the land route via Kabul to obtain new recruits for the mission, and returned to Agra in 1664. Roth shares with the Jesuit, Hanxleden, the fame of being among Europeans the pioneer Sanskrit scholar, and of having compiled the first Sanskrit grammar (Wiener, Zeitschr. fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XV, 1901, pp. 303-320). "During his stay in Agra, he succeeded in persuading some Brahmins to teach him Sanskrit and, after six years of diligent study, he obtained complete mastery of this difficult tongue. He was the author of the interesting description of the Sanskrit alphabet, published by Athanasius Kircher in his "China illustrata" (Max Mueller, "Lectures on the Science of Language", London, 1866, p. 277. Roth's works, most of which were published by his learned friend, Athanasius Kircher, S.J., are: "Relatio rerum notabilium Regni Mogor in Asia", which contains the first information concerning Kabul which had reached Europe (Straubing, 1665, Aschaffenburg, 1668); "Iter ex Agra Mogorum in Europam ex relatione PP. Joh. Gruberi et H. Roth" in Kircher, "China illustrata" (Amsterdam, 1667), pp. 91 sqq.; "Itinerarium St. Thomae Apost. ex Judaea in Indiam", and "Dogmata varia fabulossissima Brachmanorum", ib., 156-162; "Exactissimum opus totius grammaticae Brachmanicae cujus et rudimenta is [Roth] primus Europae communicavit" in "Romani Collegii S.J. musaeum" (Amsterdam, 1678), p. 65; a letter (Rome, 1664) in "Welt-Bott", I (Augsburg, 1726), 35 manuscript-letters and relations in Royal Library, Brussels, Nos. 6828-29, fol. 415. HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in Northern India, 1580-1803 (Calcutta, 1906), 30 sqq.; BALFOUR, Encycl. of India (London, 1885), s. v.; BENFEY, Gesch. der Sprachwissenschaft (Munich, 1869), 335; V. SCHLEGEL, Sprache u. Weisheit der Indier (Heidelberg, 1808), p. xi. ANTHONY HUONDER David Rothe David Rothe Bishop of Ossory (Ireland), b. at Kilkenny in 1573, of a distinguished family; d. 20 April, 1650. Having studied at the Irish College, Douai, and at the University of Salamanca, where he graduated doctor in civil and canon law, he was ordained in 1600, and proceeded to Rome. From 1601 to 1609 he was professor of theology and secretary to Archbishop Lombard, and on 15 June, 1609, was appointed Vice-Primate of Armagh. He arrived in Ireland in 1610, having been made prothonotary Apostolic, and held a synod for the Ulster Province at Drogheda, in February, 1614, and a second synod in 1618. Though appointed Bishop of Ossory on 10 October, 1618, he had, owing to the severity of the penal laws, to seek consecration in Paris, where he was consecrated early in 1620; he returned to Ireland in the winter of 1621. As early as 1616, Dr. Rothe had published the first part of his famous "Analecta" and the completed work was issued at Cologne (1617-19); a new edition was brought out by Cardinal Moran in 1884. In 1620 he published "Brigida Thaumaturga", at Paris, followed by "Hiberniae sive Antiquioris Scotiae" in 1621 at Antwerp, and "Hibernia Resurgens" at Paris, in the same year. Other works of his except some few fragments have long since disappeared. In 1624 Bishop Rothe presided over a synod at Kilkenny, and he labored zealously for religion and country during a trying period. He joined the Confederates in 1642, and welcomed the papal nuncio, Rinuccini, to Kilkenny, on 14 November, 1645. Unfortunately, three years later, he refused to acknowledge the validity of the censures issued by Rinuccini, believing that the Supreme Council were acting in the best interests of the country. Although seriously ill in 1649, he continued to minister to the plague-stricken citizens of Kilkenny. He was compelled by the Cromwellians to leave his episcopal city 28 March, 1650, but, being robbed on the way, he was permitted to return. His remains were interred in St. Mary's Church, but there is a cenotaph to his memory in St. Canice's Cathedral. LYNCH, De praesulibus Hiberniae (1672); WARE, De praesulibus Hiberniae (Dublin, 1665); MEEHAN, Franciscan Monasteries (Dublin, 1872); MORAN, Spicilegium 0ssoriense (Dublin, 1874-84); CARRIGAN, History of Ossory (Dublin 1905); Report on Franciscan MSS. in Hist. MSS. Com. (Dublin, 1906). W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Rottenburg Rottenburg (ROTTENBURGENSIS). Diocese; suffragan of the ecclesiastical Province of the Upper Rhine. It embraces the Kingdom of Wurtemberg, three parishes in the Grand Duchy of Baden, and one parish in the Prussian territory of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The diocese is divided into 29 deaneries, and in 1911 contained 698 parishes, 19 Pfarrkuratien (incorporated churches with an independent care of souls), 164 chaplaincies, and 155 other pastoral charges; 1084 active and 75 pensioned secular clergy; and 728,000 Catholics. The cathedral chapter, which enjoys the right of electing the bishops, consists of a cathedral dean and vicar-general, six capitulars, and six cathedral prebendaries. The bishop, cathedral dean, and the six capitulars constitute also the ordinariate; the legal adviser of the ordinariate is the syndicus, a lay official who is likewise director of the chancellery of the ordinariate, consisting of six members. The rights of the State circa sacra are entrusted to a royal Catholic church council, which is composed of a director, two clerical, and several lay members. The diocesan institutions are: the priests' seminary at Rottenburg, with a regent, viceregent, and a Repetent, or private tutor; the theological college "Wilhelmsstift" at Tuebingen with a director and 7 Repetenten, supported by the State, and placed under the supervision of the bishop and church council; the gymnasial boarding-schools at Ehingen and Rottweil, also maintained by the State: the diocesan boys' seminaries at Rottenburg and Mergentheim. Theological students are trained partly in the "Wilhelmsstift" and partly in the theological faculty of University of Tuebingen, which has four ordinary and three extraordinary clerical professors. The "Theologische Quartalschrift", the oldest theological periodical in Germany, is published by the professors of the theological faculty. Priests also act as instructors in the private boarding schools at Ehingen, Ellwangen, and Rottweil, which are under the patronage of the bishop, as well as in the twenty-four State intermediate schools (Gymnasien, Realschulen, Lateinschulen etc.). Despite every effort on the part of the Catholics, the male religious orders have not yet been readmitted into the Kingdom of Wurtemberg. In 1910 the following orders and congregations of women had establishments in the diocese: the Congregation of the Third Order of St. Francis, who have a mother-house at Bonlanden, a boarding school, and two branches (116 sisters); the Sisters of St. Francis from Heiligenbronn, with a mother-house and two branches (188 sisters), who conduct an institute for the rescue, education, and boarding of poor neglected girls, an institute for boys, and a children's home; the School Sisters of Our Blessed Lady, with a mother-house at Ravensburg and one branch (79 sisters); the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, from Reute, who have 103 nursing establishments, schools for manual work, and schools for children (783 sisters); the School Sisters of the Order of St. Francis, who have a mother-house at Siessen and 30 branches (373 sisters), and conduct several high schools for girls, and numerous public schools and schools for manual work; the Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, who have a mother-house at Untermarchtal and 127 branches (1245 sisters), and, besides nursing the sick, conduct schools for children, and schools for manual training, homes for working women, boarding schools, and rescue institutions; the Sisters of the Holy Cross, from Strasburg, Alsace, who have one establishment with 13 sisters. There are also in the diocese 11 ecclesiastical boarding schools for poor children and one royal orphanage under religious direction. Of the numerous Catholic churches notable from the artistic standpoint may be mentioned: the Cathedral of St. Martin at Rottenburg, a three-naved Gothic basilica, which was completely renovated after the fire of 1644 (a new cathedral is being planned by the present bishop); the late roman Church of St. John at Gmund (thirteenth century); the Gothic parish church of Gmund (1351-1410); the church of the former Benedictine Monastery of Ellwangen, the largest Romanesque church in the country (1124); the parish church of Weingarten; the "Sankt Petersdom Wuerttembergs", erected in the Baroque style by the Benedictines (1738-53); the Gothic Church of Our Lady, Stuttgart (1879). Of the churches which were formerly Catholic, but which now are Protestant, the most important is the Gothic cathedral at Ulm (1377-1494), which has the highest church tower in the world (over 528 feet). Much frequented places of pilgrimage are Weingarten, Weggental, near Rottenburg; Reute, with the grave of Blessed Elizabeth Bona; the Schoenberg, near Ellwangen, the Dreifaltigkeitsberg, near Spaichingen. Concerning the erection and beginnings of the diocese, see PROVINCE OF THE UPPER RHINE; concerning its further history and the relations between the Catholic Church and the State, see WUeRTEMBERG. It will be sufficient here to give a list of the bishops: Johann Baptist von Keller (1828-45), the first bishop; Joseph von Lipp (1848-69); Karl Joseph von Hefele (1869-93); Wilhelm von Reiser (1893-98); Franz Xaver von Linsenmann, d. 21 Sept., 1898, before his consecration; Paul Wilhelm von Keppler (elected 11 Nov., 1898; consecrated 18 Jan., 1899). Die kathol, Kirchengesetze fur das Bistum Rottenburg, ed. LANG (Rottenburg, 1836); GOLTHER, Der Staat u. die kathol. Kirche im Konigreich Wurttemberg (Stuttgart, 1874); cf. therewith RUMELIN, Reden und Aufsatze, new series (Freiburg, 1881), 205-77; RUCKGABER, Die Diozese Rottenburg u. ihre Anklager (Tuebingen 1869); Die kathol. Kirche unserer Zeit, II (Munich, 1900), 97-102; NEHER, Die kathol. u. evangel. Geistlichen Wurttembergs, 1813-1901 (Ravensburg, 1904); Personalkatalog des Bistums Rottenb. (Rottenburg, 1910); Diozesanarchiv von Schwaben (Stuttgart, 1882); concerning the churches see KEPPLER, Wurttembergs kirchl. Kunstaltertumer (Rottenburg, 1888); Das Konigreich Wurttemberg, ed. by the NATIONAL OFFICE OF STATISTICS, 4 vols., 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1904-7); Kunst und Altertumsdenkmale im Konigreich Wurttemberg (Esslingen, up to 1909), 60 parts. JOSEPH LINS Rotuli Rotuli Rotuli, i.e. rolls -- in which a long narrow strip of papyrus or parchment, written on one side, was wound like a blind about its staff -- formed the earliest kind of "volume" (volumen from volvere, to roll up) of which we have knowledge. Many such rolls have been recovered in their primitive form from the excavations at Herculancum and elsewhere. In the fourth and fifth centuries, however, these rolls began to give place to books bound as we know them now, i.e. a number of written leaves were laid flat one on top of the other and attached together by their corresponding edges. This was a gain in convenience, but for certain purposes rolls were still. retained. To this latter class belonged certain legal records (from which is still. derived the title of the judicial functionary known as the "Master of the Rolls"), also the manuscripts used for the chanting of the Exultet, and especially the documents employed in sending round the names of the deceased belonging to monasteries and other associations which were banded together to pray mutually for each other's dead. These "mortuary rolls" (in French "rouleaux des morts") were called in Latin "rotuli". They consisted of strips of parchment, sometimes of prodigious length, at the head of which was entered the notification of the death of a particular person deceased or sometimes of a group of such persons. The roll was then carried by a special messenger ("gerulus", "rotularius", "rollifer", "tomiger", "breviator", were some of the various titles given him) from monastery to monastery, and at each an entry was made upon the roll attesting the fact that the notice had been received and that the requisite suffrages would be said. By degrees a custom grew up in many places of making these entries in verse with complimentary amplifications often occupying many lines. It will be readily understood that these records, some of which are still in existence, preserving as they do specimens of ornate verse composition by a representative scholar of each monastery or institution, and engrossed on the roll by some skillful penman in each community, afford valuable materials both for the study of palaeography and also for a comparative judgment of the standard of scholarship prevalent in these different centres of learning. The use of these mortuary rolls flourished most in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. Some are of prodigious size. That of the Abbess Matilda of Caen, the daughter of William the Conqueror, was seventy two feet long and eight or ten inches wide, but this no doubt was altogether exceptional. DELISLE:, Rouleaux des morts du IX au XV siecle (Paris, 1866); IDEM in Bibl. de l'ecole des Chartes, series II, vol. III; Sur l'usage de prier pour les morts; THURSTON, A Mediaeval Mortuary-card in The Month (London, Dec., 1896); NICHOLS in Mem. Archaeolog. Institute (Norwich, 1847); MOLINIER, Obituaires francais au moyen-age (Paris, 1886); EBNER, Gebetsverbruderungen (Freiburg, 1891); WATTENBACH, Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (3rd ed., Leipzig), 150-74. HERBERT THURSTON Archdiocese of Rouen Archdiocese of Rouen (ROTHOMAGENSIS) Revived by the Concordat of 1802 with the Sees of Bayeux, Evreux, and Seez as suffragans: it also includes the Department of the Seine Inferieure. The Archdiocese of Rouen was curtailed in 1802 by giving the Archdeanery of Pontoise to the Diocese of Versailles; the Deaneries of Pont Audemer and Bourgtheroulde, and a part of the Deanery of Perier, to the Diocese of Evreux; several parishes of the Deanery of Aumale were annexed to the Diocese of Beauvais. The Archbishop of Rouen bears the title of Primate of Normandy. Rouen, chief city of the Secunda Provincia Lugdunensis under Constantine, and later of Neustria, has been since 912 the capital of Normandy and residence of the dukes. The episcopal catalogues of the ninth and tenth centuries and the "Liber Eburneus" of the cathedral of Rouen, which extends to 1068, indicate St. Mellon as first Bishop of Rouen; the "Liber Niger" of St. Ouen which comes down to 1079 and the episcopal lists dating from the twelfth century mention the episcopate of a certain Nicasius (Nicaise) as antedating that of St. Mellon. The legend of this Nicaise, based on Hilduin, makes him and his two companions, Quirinus and Scubiculus, disciples of St. Denis who came from Rome to Normandy but suffered martyrdom at their arrival on the banks of the river Epte. It was under the episcopate of William (Bonne Ame) the Good (1079-1110) that the name of Nicaise was placed at the head of the episcopal lists of Rouen. A number of saints were the successors of St. Mellon; according to the chronology of the Abbe Sauvage they were: St. Avitianus (about 314); St. Severus; St. Victricius, born about 330, a soldier in the beginning of his career and as such a confessor of the Faith under Julian the Apostate; made Bishop of Rouen about 380 and died, according to his biographer, Abbe Vacandard, before 409; famous for his friendship with St. Paulinus of Nola and St. Martin, also for going in 396 to England where he worked zealously for the conversion of the English people; his treatise "De Laude Sanctorum" is a strong plea in favour of the devotion to relics; Innocent I commissioned him in 404 to make known in Gaul the "Liber Regularum", which contains urgent instructions for ecclesiastical celibacy, for the respect due to the hierarchy, and Roman supremacy; St. Innocent; St. Evodius (about 430); St. Goldardus (490-525), brother of St. Medardus, one of the assistants at the baptism and coronation of Clovis; St. Flavius; St. Pretextatus (550-586), exiled in 577 by order of King Chilperic, was reinstated in the diocese in 584, and stabbed before the altar in 586 by order of Fredegonde; St. Romanus (631-641) former chancellor of Clotaire II; legend relates how he delivered the environs of Rouen from a monster called Gargouille, having had him captured by a liberated prisoner in commemoration of St. Romain in the Middle Ages the Archbishops of Rouen were granted the right to set a prisoner free on the day that the reliquary of the saint was carried in procession; St. Ouen (Audoennus) (641-684), previous to his appointment as bishop, was chancellor of Dagobert, and wrote a life of St. Eloy (Eligius); his episcopate was distinguished by the foundation of the monasteries of Fontenelle, Jumieges, and Fecamp, by the unceasing efforts he made to exterminate all traces of paganism in his dioceses, and by the arbitration effected through his influence between Austrasia and Neustria; his fame as a miracle-worker was great in the Middle Ages; St. Ansbert (684-92 or 93) chancellor of Clotaire III, and afterwards confined for political reasons by Pepin of Heristal in the Abbey of Hautmont; recently there was found in the library of Carlsruhe a curious little poem of the seventh century written by him on St. Ouen; this poem came originally from the Abbey of Reichenau; St. Hugh (722-30) was a monk of Jumieges before being made bishop; he subsequently combined the Sees of Rouen, Paris and Bayeux, also the abbeys of Jumieges and Fontenelle; St. Remi (755-772), brother of King Pepin, was also archbishop of Rouen. Guntbaldus who had played a certain part in the restoration of Louis the Pious, having become Bishop of Rouen, was commissioned in 846 by Sergius II to settle a dispute between Ebbo and Hincmar, and died in 849. The name of a certain St. Leo who suffered martyrdom at Bayonne sometimes appears incorrectly on the lists of archbishops of Rouen at the end of the ninth century and should be struck off. Among the more famous archbishops of Rouen were: Archbishop Franco (911-19), who baptized the Northman chief Rollo; St. Maurille (1055-67), who reformed his clergy and fought the heresy of Berengarius; John of Bayeux (1069-79), whose book on ecclesiastical services regulated religious devotions in Normandy; William I (Bonne Ame) (1071-1119), first a Benedictine and allowed St. Anselm to leave the Abbey of Bec to occupy the See of Canterbury; Hugh of Amiens (1130-74), author of numerous theological works; under his episcopate Rouen was honoured in May, 1131, by a visit from Innocent II, the only pope who ever entered Normandy; Gautier de Coutances called the Magnificent (1184-1207) the favourite companion of Richard the Lion Hearted; Eudes II Rigaud (1247-1274), one of the most eminent statesmen of the day; he accompanied St. Louis on his Tunis crusade and left a diary of his pastoral visitations which has the most important bearing on the ecclesiastical history of the province; Gilles Aycelin (1311-18), Chancellor of France; Pierre Roger (1330-39) became Pope Clement VI; Peter de la Foret (1352-56) was at first Bishop of Paris and became a cardinal in 1356 as Chancellor of France he was one of the most faithful adherents of the dauphin, afterwards Charles V. During the Hundred Years War the English occupied Rouen from 1417-1449; the Duke of Bedford at his own request was formally made a member of the Chapter of Rouen in 1430. The English rule, so severe for the people, increased the privileges of the clergy but dealt rigorously with such ecclesiastics as were thought rebellious; especially with Archbishop Louis de Harcourt who was deprived in 1421 of his possessions for refusing to pay homage to Henry V. The following should be added to the list of archbishops: John of la Rochetaillee (1423-29), cardinal in 1426; Louis of Luxembourg (1436-42), cardinal in 1439, was the sworn agent in France of Henry VI, King of England; William of Estouteville (1453-83), cardinal in 1437 and commissioned by Nicholas V in 1453 to mediate between France and England, and to obtain from Charles VII certain modifications of the Pragmatic Sanction; Robert of Croismare (1483-93) and Cardinal Georges d'Amboise (1493-1510), both of whom played an important part in the Renaissance movement; the two Cardinals Charles of Bourbon (1550-90 and 1590-94), the first of whom was at one time a candidate for the throne of France; Franc,ois, Cardinal de Joyeuse (1604-15) who negotiated peace in the name of Henry IV between Paul V and the Republic of Venice; the two Franc,ois de Harlay (1615-51) and (1651-71); John Nicholas Colbert (1691-1707), son of the minister; Nicholas de Saulx Tavannes (1733-59), cardinal in 1756; Dominic de la Rochefoucauld (1759-1800), cardinal in 1778, president of the clergy at the States General, emigrated after 10 August, 1792, and died in exile at Muenster; Etienne Hubert de Cambaceres (1802-18) brother of the archchancellor of Napoleon, cardinal in 1803; Prince de Croy (1823-44), chief almoner of France under the Restoration, and cardinal in 1825; Henry de Bonnechose (1858-83), cardinal in 1863; Leon Thomas (1884-94), cardinal in 1893; William Sourrieu (1894-99), cardinal in 1897. It is not known exactly whether Rouen became a metropolitan at the time of St. Victricius or under Bishop Grimo, who in 744 received the pallium from Pope Zachary; in the Middle Ages it exercised metropolitan rights over Evreux, Avranches, Seez, Bayeux, Lisieux, and Coutances. It seems that in the seventh century Lillebonne (Juliobona) was for a short time the see of a bishop suffragan of Rouen. The Archbishop of Rouen assumed at an early date the title of Primate of Normandy and Neustria, to indicate the entire independence of his metropolitan see which was directly subject to the Holy See. In vain did Gebuin, Archbishop of Lyons, obtain from Gregory VII two Bulls in 1070 which recognized his primacy over Rouen; they remained unexecuted as well as a similar Bull of Celestine II given in 1144. On 12 November, 1455, Cardinal Dominic Capranica, papal delegate, recognized the independence of the Church of Rouen by giving a definite decision, confirmed in 1457 and 1458 by two Bulls of Callistus III. The Archdeacon of Rouen was known as the "grand archidiacre de la chretiente". The Chapter, in virtue of a Bull from Gregory XI in 1371, was completely exempt from the archbishop's jurisdiction both spiritual and temporal. Nicholas Oresme (died 1382) was head master of the College of Navarre and Bishop of Lisieux; he translated Aristotle and was dean of the Church of Rouen; the famous Peter d'Ailly and the historian Thomas Basin, later Bishop of Lisieux belonged to the Chapter of Rouen. St. Remy, Bishop of Rouen, was after Chrodigang, Bishop of Metz, the principal initiator in the reform which under Pepin replaced the Gallican with the Roman liturgy. In 1729 the cathedral of Rouen accepted the breviary of Urbain Robinet, vicar-general of Rouen, who revised the liturgy in a Gallican sense. Later Cardinal Bonnechose insisted on the use of the Roman liturgy in the diocese. The Chapter of Rouen preserved the custom until the Revolution of chanting the Office by heart; it was forbidden even to bring a book into the choir. The faculty of Catholic theology of Rouen was founded in 1808 and organized in 1809; it was however suppressed in 1885. No town of France has produced such marvels of religious architecture as Rouen. The oldest part of the Cathedral, which has survived all fires, is the belfry of St. Romanus's tower, which dates from about 1160; the construction of the nave began about 1200; the Calende portal, so called from an imaginary animal, and the portals of the libraries, famous for the richness of their ornamentation, were finished in the first quarter of the fourteenth century. The Butter Tower (la Tour de Beurre), so called because it was built with the alms derived from the Lenten dispensations, dates from the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, and is one of the most famous edifices in the flamboyant style. The ninety-six choir stalls were carved in the fifteenth century under the direction of Philippot Viart and represent in their workmanship all the professions of the period. There are three celebrated tombs preserved in the cathedral; one, whether correctly or not, is said to be the tomb of Archbishop Maurille, and dates from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; that of the two cardinals d'Amboise dates from 1520 to 1525 and on it is the statue of George d'Amboise, the work of Jean Goujon; that of Louis de Breze, attributed in part to Jean Goujon, was executed from 1535 to 1544 at the expense of Diane de Poitiers, widow of Louis de Breze. The present Church of St. Ouen, where a small Roman apse is still preserved and some bases of Roman pillars dating from the eleventh century, is one of the rare examples that exists in France of a large and beautiful church of the fourteenth century, almost complete, and one of the most delicate pieces of architecture extant. The Church of St. Maclou dates from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; the folding doors are attributed to Jean Goujon. On one side of the church is a monument unique in its way, the aitre st. Maclou. The word aitre is derived from Atrium. L'aitre St. Maclou, the old cemetery of the parish, is a large rectangular space surrounded by porticoes built in 1526-40, and shows the Renaissance style in all its purity. A Dance of Death (Danse Macabre) sculptured on its columns was unfortunately badly defaced by the Huguenots. The Palace of Justice in Rouen is one of the most celebrated buildings belonging to the end of the Gothic period. Among the twelve Benedictine abbeys for men which the Diocese of Rouen possessed under the old regime must be mentioned, besides Fontenelle and Jumieges, the Benedictine Abbey of St. Ouen de Rouen, founded in 548, where a school of theology flourished which was recognized by Gregory IX in 1238; and the Abbey of Fecamp, dedicated to the Trinity in 658 by St. Waningus (Vaning), Governor of Neustria and Count of the Palace under Clovis II. This was first occupied by nuns under the direction of St. Hildemarche, was ruined by the Normans in 841, and reopened for priests by Richard, first Duke of Normandy, who had the present beautiful church dedicated in 990. St. William (1001-28) was the first Abbot of Fecamp; he had among his successors the future Pope Clement VI and Jean Casimir, King of Poland, who, after abdicating his throne, became Abbot of Fecamp in 1669. The Abbey of St. George de Boscherville was founded in 1060 by Raoul de Tancarville, chamberlain of William the Conqueror. The abbey of Treport was founded in 1056-59 by Robert, Count d'Eu, companion of William the Conqueror. During the religious wars the Calvinists committed great ravages in Rouen; having become masters of the city 16 April, 1562, they devastated St. Ouen, made a pyre in the centre of the church with the stalls and fragments of the superb screen, and then burnt the body of St. Ouen and other relics of the basilica. Rouen was retaken 26 October, 1562, by Franc,ois de Guise and Antoine de Bourbon; the majority of Charles IX was proclaimed there in 1563. Rouen, which had declared for the League, was ineffectually besieged by Henry IV from December, 1591, to April, 1592, and only surrendered in 1594 to the new Bourbon king. In the eleventh century an association of distinguished men was founded at Rouen in honour of the Immaculate Conception. Its chief or president was called "prince". In 1486 Pierre Dare, lieutenant-general of the bailiwick of Rouen, was "prince" and converted the association into a literary society which awarded a prize for the best poems written on the Immaculate Conception. Every stanza of the poems, according to a special rule, must end with the same verse as the first; this repeated verse, which they called "palinodie", gave the name of "Palinod" to the confraternity. Malherbe took the prize in 1555; Pierre Corneille competed in 1633, but does not seem to have been crowned; Jacqueline Pascal received the prize in 1640; Thomas Corneille in 1641. The three-volume Bible, finished at the end of the twelfth century for the Chapter of Rouen, is one of the finest specimens of calligraphy of the Middle Ages. A copy of the "Chroniques de Normandie", made at Rouen about 1450 for the aldermen and given to Colbert in 1682 for the royal library, is illustrated with ten miniatures which are among the most beautiful productions of the fifteenth century., The finest copy extant of the "Chroniques de Monstrelet" was made at Rouen and contains drawings of the greatest importance for the history of the fifteenth century. The manuscripts, written in the sixteenth century by order of Cardinal George d'Amboise, who brought back with him the most beautiful manuscripts from the royal library of Naples, compare favourably with those of the best Italian masters. Besides those already mentioned, many saints are connected with the history of the Diocese of Rouen or are the objects there of special devotion: St. Severus (sixth century) who perhaps was the Bishop of Avranches and whose relics are preserved at the cathedral of Rouen; St. Austreberta, Benedictine abbess (seventh century); St. Sidonius, of Irish origin (seventh century); the hermit St. Clair, of Vexin, martyr of the ninth century; St. Lawrence O'Toole, Archbishop of Dublin, died at Eu in the diocese 1180; Blessed Joan of Arc was imprisoned at Rouen in the tower constructed in 1206 by King Philip Augustus, and was burned in the old market place 31 May, 1431, after her so-called abjuration at the cemetery of St. Ouen; St. John Baptist de la Salle, who established the first novitiate of the Brothers of the Christian Schools at St. Yon near Rouen in 1705 and died at Rouen in 1719. The saints given to the diocese by Fontenelle and Jumieges must also be mentioned. The saints of Fontenelle are: the founder, St. Wandrille (Wandregesilus) (570-667); the abbots St. Bain (about 729), St. Wando (742-756); St. Gerbold (died 806); St. Ansegisus (823-833), who compiled the capitularies or statutes of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious; St. Gerard (1008-31); and the monks St, Gond (died about 690); St. Erembert, who became, about 657, Bishop of Toulouse; St. Wulfram, Archbishop of Sens and apostle of the Frisians (died in 720); St. Agatho; St. Desire; St. Sindoard; St. Conde (second half of the seventh century); St. Erbland or Hermeland, who died in 715 after founding the monastery of Hindre (Indret) in the Diocese of Nantes; St. Erinhard (died 739); St. Hardouin (died 811). The saints of Jumieges are: the founder, St. Philcert (675); St. Aicadre (died 687), and St. Gontard (1072-95). The distinguished natives of the diocese should also be mentioned: the two Corneille brothers; the philosopher, Fontenelle (1657-1757); the Jesuit, Brumoy (1688-1742), famous for his translations of Greek plays; the Jesuit, Gabriel Daniel (1649-1728), whose three-volume "History of France", published in 1713, is considered the first reliable and complete history of France; Cavelier de la Salle (1640-87), explorer of the Valley of the Mississippi; the Protestant theologian, Samuel Bochart (1599-1677), a famous Oriental scholar; the numerous Protestant family of Basnage, the most distinguished member of which, Jacques Basnage (1653-1723), is well known as a historian and diplomat; the liberal publicist, Armand Carrel (1800-36); Boildieu, the composer (1775-1834) and pupil of the cathedral music school of Rouen. The principal pilgrimages of the archdiocese are: Our Lady of Salvation (Notre Dame de Salut), near Fecamp, which dates from the eleventh century; Our Lady of Good Help (Notre Dame de Bon Secours) at Blosseville, a pilgrimage which existed in the thirteenth century; Our Lady of the Waves (Notre Dame des Flots) at St. Adresse, near the harbour of Havre, is a chapel built in the fourteenth century. Before the Law of 1901 directed against the religious orders, there were in the Diocese of Rouen, Benedictines, Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Picpusiens, Fathers of the Holy Ghost and of the Sacred Heart of Mary, and Brothers of the Christian Schools. Some religious orders for women originated in the diocese, of which the most important are the Sisters of Providence, a teaching order founded in Rouen in 1666 by the Minim Barre and the priest Antoine de Lahaye, and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, hospitaliers and teachers, founded at Ernemont in 1698 by Archbishop Colbert. The religious owned in the Diocese of Rouen at the end of the nineteenth century 6 infant asylums, 43 infant schools, 1 asylum for deaf-mutes, 5 orphanages for boys, 1 orphanage for children of both sexes, 28 girls' orphanages, 3 schools of apprenticeship, 7 societies for preservation, 1 house of correction, 38 hospitals, 1 dispensary, 26 houses of religious who care for the sick in their homes, 4 houses of convalescence, 2 homes for incurables, 1 asylum for the blind. In 1910 the Diocese of Rouen had 863,879 inhabitants, 5 archdeaconeries, 45 deaneries, 16 first-class parishes, 47 second-class parishes, 599 succursal parishes, 53 curacies and about 800 priests. Gallia Christ. (nova) (1759), XI, 1-121, instr. 58; FISQUET. La France pontificale (Rouen, Paris, 1866); DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux, II, 200-11; SAUVAGE, Elenchi episcoporum Rotomagensium in Anal. Boll. VIII (1889); FALLUE, Histoire politique et religieuse de l'eglise metropolitaine et du diocese 4e Rouen (Rouen, 1850); VACANDARD, St Victrice eveque de Rouen (Paris, 1903); IDEM, Vie de St Ouen, eveque de Rouen (Paris, 1902); CHERUEL, Histoire de Rouen sous la domination anglaise au XV ^e siecle (Rouen. 1840); THIERRY, Armorial des archeveques de Rouen (Rouen, 1864); LOTH, Histoire du cardinal de la Rochefoucauld et du diocese de Rouen pendant la Revolution (Rouen, 1893); CLERAMBRAY, La Terreur `a Rouen (Rouen, 1901); TOUGARD, Catalogue des saints du diocese de Rouen (Rouen, 1897); IDEM, L'hagiographie Rouennaise in Revue catholique de Normandie, 1909; LONGNON, Pouilles de la province de Rouen (Paris, 1903); Palinods presentes au Puy de Rouen, ed. ROBLLARD DE BEAUREPAIRE (Rouen, 1896); GUIOT, Les trois siecles palinodiques ou histoire generale des palinods, ed. TOUGARD (Rouen, 1898); SARRAZIN, Histoire de Rouen d'apres les miniatures des manuscrits (Rouen, 1904); COOK, The Story of Rouen (London, 1899); COLLETTE, Histoire du breviaire de Rouen (Rouen, 1902); ENLART, Rouen (Paris, 1904); PERKINS, The Churches of Rouen (London, 1900); LAALAND, A Short Guide to Rouen (Rouen, 1907); CHEVALIER, Topobibl., 2618-28. GEORGES GOYAU. Synods of Rouen Synods of Rouen The first synod is generally believed to have been held by Archbishop Saint-Ouen about 650. Sixteen of its decrees, one against simony, the others on liturgical and canonical matters, are still extant. Pommeraye (loc. cit. infra.) and a few others place this synod in the second half of the ninth century. Later synods were presided over by: Archbishop St. Ansbert some time between 689-93; Archbishop Mauger in 1048; the papal legate Hermanfrid of Sitten at Lisieux in 1055, at which Archbishop Mauger of Rouen was deposed for his loose morals; Archbishop Maurilius in 1055, which drew up a creed against Berengarius of Tours to be subscribed to by all newly elected bishops; Archbishop John of Bayeaux, one in 1072 and two in 1074, urging ecclesiastical reforms; Archbishop William in 1096, at which the decrees of the Council of Clermont (1095) were proclaimed; Archbishop Goisfred in 1118, at which the papal legate Conrad asked the assembled prelates and princes to support Gelasius II against Emperor Henry V and his antipope, Burdinus (Gregory VIII); the same Archbishop in 1119, and the cardinal legate Matthew of Albano, in 1128, to enforce clerical celibacy; Archbishop Gualterus in 1190, and the papal legate Robert de Courc,on, in 1214 to urge clerical reform. Other synods were held in 1223, 1231, 1278, 1313, 1321, 1335, 1342, 1445, and 1581. The synod held by Archbishop Colbert in 1699 condemned Fenelon's "Maximes des Saints". The last provincial synod was held by Archbishop Bailleul in 1830; for its Acts see "Collectio Lacensis", IV, 513-36. MICHAEL OTT Adrien Rouquette Adrien Rouquette Born in Louisiana in 1813, of French parentage; died as a missionary among the Choctaw Indians in 1887. The great passion of his youth was devotion to the Choctaw Indians. He was sent north in 1824 to divert his mind from his savage associates. In 1829 he was sent to France and finished his collegiate studies in Paris, Nantes, and Rennes, winning his baccalaureate in 1833. He returned to New Orleans, but refused to mingle in worldly pleasures, and spent much time alone or among his Indian friends. Later he returned to Paris to study law, but preferred literature, and returning to Louisiana, led a desultory life until 1842. He then made a third visit to France, where he published his first poetic essay, "Les Savannes". This was well received and he returned to Louisiana to become editor of "Le Propagateur Catholique". Ere long he found his true vocation and was ordained priest in 184. Assigned to duty at the Cathedral of Saint Louis, at New Orleans, his eloquence crowded the building, and his holy life commanded the love and respect of all denominations. He served for fourteen years as a priest at New Orleans, then suddenly, in 1859, he severed all connection with civilization and made his home for twenty-nine years as a missionary among the Chocktaw Indians on the banks of Bayou La Combe. As a result of his patient labours, he won many converts to the Faith. Among his publications are: "La Thebiade de L'Amerique", "L'Antoniade", "La Nouvelle Atala", "Wild Flowers". S.B. ELDER Jean-Baptiste Rousseau Jean-Baptiste Rousseau French poet, b. in Paris, 16 April 1670; d. at La Genette, near Brussels, 17 May, 1741. Although he was the son of a shoemaker, he was educated with the greatest care and made his studies a the Jesuit College of Louis le Grand, Paris. On account of his wit, he was admitted to the most exclusive salons. After a short sojourn in London, as private secretary to the French ambassador, Tallard, be frequented the irreligious society which gathered at the Temple, the evil influence of which caused his misfortunes. His first dramatic attempts were failures, but his epigrams gained him a great reputation. He was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1700. "Couplets infames", a libel of a most licentious character. Having retorted that they had been written by Saurin, he was sentenced by the Parliament to pay four thousand livres damages to Saurin, and soon after sent to exile. He went first to Switzerland, where he was sheltered by the French ambassador, Count de Luc, then to Vienna, to Prince Eugene's Court, and finally to Brussels. He tried several times to have the court's decision annulled, but failed because of the hostility of Voltaire and a few others. His works consist of: (1) a comedy in prose, "Le cafe" (1694), two operas, "Jason" (1696) and "Venus et Adonis" (1697), and five comedies in verse, only two of which were produced on the stage, "Le flatteur" (1696) and "Le capricieux" (1700); (2) four books of odes, the first being an adaptation of the Psalms, two books of allegories and a score of cantatas; (3) his epigrams, the best part of his work, which will secure his fame; (4) his letters. His works were repeatedly reprinted from 1710 to 1820. His lyrics are not esteemed now, but he is still regarded as the greatest epigrammatist of the eighteenth century. BRUNETIERE, Manuel del l'hist. de la litt. Franc,aise (Paris, 1899); FAGUET, Revue des cours et conferences (Paris, 1899-1900). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Benedetto Da Rovezzano Benedetto da Rovezzano Sculptor and architect, b. in 1490, either at Rovezzano, near Florence, or, according to some authorities, at Canapale, near Pistoia; d. at Florence, 1530. His family name is said to have been Gratini or Grazini. One of his most important works was the sculptures for the Church of St. John Gualbertus (1505); these sculptures were injured during the siege of Florence, 1530. The mutilated fragments, five reliefs from the life of the saint, are in the Bargello. Benedetto executed many tombs, chiefly architectural in design, with ornaments in sculpture. The monument of Odde Altoviti, Church of SS. Apostoli, Florence, done in 1507, is by him; the monument of Piero Soderini in the choir, church of the Carmine, Florence; and others. Leo X sent to Card. Wolsey twelve terra cotta medallions by Rovezzano and the sculptor himself went to England in 1524. The cardinal engaged him upon a tomb for himself, but as he fell into disgrace before its completion, it was finished by the king's order. Charles I wished to be buried in it, but the tomb remained empty until the death of Nelson. Rovezzano is believed to have acquired prosperity in England. He returned to Florence in later life, and endured long years of blindness before his death. Further works are the altar of St. Denis in the S. Trinit`a, Florence; two altars in the church of Badia; door of SS. Aposotoli; a St. John in marble in the Duomo; and in the Bargello, marble niches from the Palazzo Cepparello and a chimney piece. PERKINS, Tuscan Sculptors (London, 1886); SEMPER, Hervorragende Bildhauer, Architekten de Renaissance (Dresden, 1880); SINGER, Allgemeines Kuenstler Lexicon (Frankfort, 1901); BOCARDO, Nuova Enciclopedia (Turin, 1886). M.L. HANDLEY Stephen Rowsham Stephen Rowsham A native of Oxfordshire, entered Oriel College, Oxford, in 1572. He took orders in the English Church and was minister at the University Church about 1578, but becoming convinced of the truth of the Catholic religion he went to Reims (23 April, 1581), where he was ordained priest, and sent on the English mission (30 April, 1582). Being recognized almost immediately on his landing, he was apprehended and sent to the Tower, 19 May, 1582, and remained a prisoner for more than three years, during half of which time (14 Aug., 1582, until 12 Feb., 1584) he was confined to the dungeon known as the "Little Ease". On the latter date he was transferred to the Marshalsea, from which prison he was carried into exile in the autumn of 1585. He arrived at Reims, 8 October, but set out from England again, 7 Feb., 1586. The field of his labours, which were continued for about a year, was in the west of England. He was taken at the house of the Widow Strange in Gloucester. His trial and martyrdom were at Gloucester in March, 1586-87. Dowdy Diaries; Req. Univ. Oxon.; RISHTON, Diarium Turri-Lundin; POLLEN, Acts of Eng. Martyrs (London, 1891); Prison Lists (Catholic Record Society). J.L. WHITFIELD The Royal Declaration The Royal Declaration This is the name most commonly given to the solemn repudiation of Catholicity which, in accordance with provisions of the "Bill of Rights" (1689) and of "the Act of Succession" (1700), every sovereign succeeding to the throne of Great Britain was, until quite recently, required to make in the presence of the assembled Lords and Commons. This pronouncement has also often been called "the King's Protestant Declaration" or "the Declaration against Transubstantiation" and (but quite incorrectly) "the Coronation Oath". With regard to this last term it is important to notice that the later coronation oath, which for two centuries has formed part of the coronation service and which still remains unchanged, consists only of certain promises to govern justly and to maintain "the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law". No serious exception has ever been taken by Catholics to this particular formula, but the Royal Declaration, on the other hand, was regarded for long years as a substantial grievance, constituting as it did an insult to the faith professed by many millions of loyal subjects of the British Crown. The terms of this Declaration, which from 1689 to 1910 was imposed upon the sovereign by statute, ran as follows: "I, A. B., by the grace of God King (or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning". The terms of the document are important, for even the extravagant and involved wording of the "long rigmarole" at the end added much to the sense of studied insult conveyed by the whole formula. Not only is the Mass stigmatized as idolatrous, but a false statement of Catholic doctrine is implied in the reference to the "adoration" of the Virgin Mary and the saints "as now used in the Church of Rome", while the existence of a supposed dispensing power is assumed which the Catholic Church has never asserted. What added still more to the just resentment of Catholics at the continued retention of the Declaration was the consciousness that, in the words of Lingard, it owed its origin "to the perjuries of an imposter and the delusion of a nation". The formula was no one drafted by a Parliament in its sober senses. With the object of excluding Catholics from the throne, the Bill of Rights, after the deposition of James II in 1689, exacted of the monarch a profession of faith or "Test". The test selected was one which already stood in the statute book, and which was first placed there during the frenzy excited by the supposed Popish Plot of 1678. It was amid the panic created by the fabrications of Titus Oates, that this Test was drafted (not improbably by himself), and it was imposed upon all officials and public servants, thus effectually excluding Catholics from Parliament and positions of trust. By a curious inversion of history the declaration which was drawn up in 1678 to be taken by every official except the king, had come two hundred years later to be exacted of the king and of no one else. Although statements have been made contending that the substance of the Royal Declaration is older that Titus Oates' time, an examination of these earlier formulae shows little to support such a conclusion (see a full discussion in "The Tablet", 13 Aug., 1910). A brief account of these formulae, and of the attempts which were made in 1891 and subsequent years to abolish or modify the Royal Declaration, has already been given in the article OATHS. It will be sufficient to cite here the terms of the new Declaration which was formally carried by Mr. Asquith's Government in August, 1910, in time to relieve King George V from the necessity of wounding the feelings of his Catholic subjects by a repetition of the old formula. In virtue of Mr. Asquith's "Accession Declaration Act" the brief statement, which now replaces that quoted above, runs as follows: "I, N., do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power." See sections IV and V of the bibliography under the article OATHS: THURSTON IN Dublin Review (Oct., 1909), 225-38; The Tablet (London, July and August, 1910), passim. HERBERT THURSTON Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard Philosopher and French politician, b. at Sompuis (Marne), 21 June, 1763; d. at Chateauvieux (Loire et Cher), 4 September, 1845. An advocate under the ancient regime, and assistant registrar of the municipality of Paris from 1790 till 1792, he withdrew to La Marne during the Terror. In 1797 he represented La Marne in the Council of the Five Hundred (Cinq-Cents) and became prominent through a celebrated discourse in which he demanded liberty for the Catholic religion, "which rallied under its ancient standards seven-eighths of the French people", and accused of "profound folly" those who wished to substitute "I know not what philosophical silliness". Driven from the council by the stroke of the 18 Fructidor, he turned to the restoration of the Bourbons and began a correspondence with Louis XVIII; he was even, up to 1804, a member of a secret council which sent messages to the future king. Under the empire he withdrew from public life, but accepted from Napoleon (December, 1809) the chair of philosophy at the Sorbonne. His teaching, which was influenced by the School of Reid, marked a reaction against the sensualism of the eighteenth century. He held to a certain spiritualism based on "common sense", and an "understanding of human weakness". Under the Restoration he again took up politics; he became deputy and was president for five years of the Committee of Public instruction as counsellor of state. As deputy he opposed both the intrigues of the Ultras, and the anti-constitutional manoeuvres of the Left. His discourses on the religious laws of the epoch show that he was inclined to admit, as a consequence of the Concordat, the interference of the state in Church matters. Educated by a Jansenist mother, and declaring voluntarily that "whoever did not know Port-Royal did not know humanity", he preserved certain prejudices against Roman influence and gave expression to them in his discourses. He opposed the law punishing sacrilege with death, and the laws restraining the liberty of the Press. In 1827 he was elected by seven electoral colleges, became president of the Chamber in 1828, and presented to Charles X in 1830 the address of the two hundred and twenty-one in which the Chamber refused to accept Polignac. Royer-Collard described himself when he wrote to Barante (19 Sept., 1833): "my only vocation as a liberal was on the side of the Legitimists". For the "doctrinaires", of whom he was the head, the legitimist monarchy without liberty was an arbitrary absolutism, liberty without the legitimist monarchy, anarchy. Under the monarchy of July he continued as deputy, but only as a spectator. The "Restoration" writes Barante, "was for him a country", and from 1830 this country no longer existed. He resigned from the Chamber in 1842, and passed his last years in retirement, but his disciples, both in philosophy and politics -- Jouffroy, Cousin, Guizot, Remusat -- perpetuated the influence of certain of his writings; and M. Faguet declares that in these one must seek "the most penetrating, the most solid, and the most far-seeing doctrine on parliamentary government". This he developed with a grave, austere eloquence, trusting to logic for its strength. Whilst during the first half of the nineteenth century the word "liberal" was generally synonymous with Voltaireanism and hostility to the Jesuits, certain speeches of Royer-Collard quoted by Barante show that this liberal, especially in his later years, professed a deferential attachment for the Church. "If Christianity", he wrote, "has been a degradation, a corruption, Voltaire in attacking it has been a benefactor of the human race; but if the contrary be true, then the passing of Voltaire over the Christian earth has been a great calamity." In a letter to Pere de Ravignan he comments upon the institution of the Jesuits as a wonderful creation. His death was that of a professing and believing Catholic. He was the incarnation of the upper middle class of his time. He was a member of the French Academy from 1827. JOUFFROY, OEuvres de Thomas Reid, III, IV (Paris, 1828-36), contains some lessons in philosophy and historical fragments by Royer-Collard; DE BARANTE, La vie politique de M. de Royer-Collard, ses discours et ses ecrits (2 vols., Paris, 1861); FAGUET, Politiques et moralistes du 19 siecle, first series (Paris, 1891); SPULLER, Royer-Collard (1895). GEORGE GOYAU St. Ruadhan St. Ruadhan One of the twelve "Apostles of Erin"; died at the monastery of Lorrha, County Tipperary, Ireland, 5 April, 584. Ruadhan studied under Saint Finian of Clonard. His embassy to King Dermot at Tara, in 556, is worked into a romance known as the "Cursing of Tara", but the ardri continued to reside at Tara till his death (564). The legend as to Tara's halls having been deserted after 564 is of comparatively late origin, and is contradicted by the fact that a Feis was held at Tara in 697. St. Ruadhan founded the monastery of Lorrha. His bell is preserved in the British Museum; St. Ruadhan's feast is kept on the anniversary of his death. O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints, IV (Dublin, s.d.); HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (4th ed., Dublin, 1902); UA CLERIGH, History of Ireland (London, 1908). W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Ruben (Reuben) Ruben (REUBEN.) A proper name which designates in the Bible: (1) a patriarch; (II) a tribe of Israel. I. THE PATRIARCH Ruben, Jacob's eldest son (Genesis 46:8; 49:3) by Lia, was born in Mesopotamia, and called Ruben ("see ye, a son") as an allusion to Lia's distress because of Jacob's previous dislike of her: "The Lord saw my affliction: now my husband will love me" (Genesis 29:32). Ruben was deprived of his birthright in punishment of an incest which he committed in Chanaan (Genesis 35:22; 49:4). It was at his suggestion that instead of killing Joseph, his brothers threw the latter into a pit, whence Ruben vainly hoped to rescue him (Genesis 37:18-24; 29-30; 42:22). When Jacob refused to allow Benjamin to go to Egypt with his brothers, Ruben offered two of his sons as a pledge that Benjamin would be brought back (Genesis 42:37). To these few biblical data concerning Jacob's firstborn, numerous and worthless Haggadic details are added in rabbinical and apocryphal literature. II. THE TRIBE OF ISRAEL Situated east of Jordan, and sharing with the tribe of Gad, the original territory of the Amorrhite king, Sehon, between the Arnon and the Jeboc and as far east as Jaser, the border of the Ammonites. The respective lot of Ruben and Gad cannot be given with perfect accuracy, although on the basis of Josue 13:15-23, Ruben's territorial possessions are usually described as on the east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, between Gad on the north and Moab on the south. Among the prominent towns of the Rubenites were Baalmaon, Bethphogor, Cariathaim, Dibon, Hesebon, Jassa, Medaba, and Sabama. During the journey through the wilderness, the tribe of Ruben counted over 40,000 men (Numbers 1:21; 26:7) and marched with Gad and Simeon on the south side of Israel. To the same period are referred the rebellion of the Rubenite chiefs, Dathan and Abiron, against Moses, and its signal punishment (Numbers 16; Deuteronomy 11:6). After contributing to the conquest of Western Palestine and sharing in the various incidents connected with the erection of a great altar, the descendants of Ruben settled in a district favourable to pastoral pursuits (Numbers 32; Josue 22). Together with the Gadites, they held aloof from the war against Sisara (Judges 5), were smitten by Hazael (IV Kings 10:32-3), and carried into captivity by Teglathphalasar (734 B.C.). The Rubenites were pre-eminently a pastoral race, little fitted to resist invasion, and several of their cities fell into the hands of Moab long before the tribes east of Jordan were carried captive by the Assyrians (cf. Isaias 15; Mesa). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Peter Paul Rubens Peter Paul Rubens Eminent Flemish painter, b. at Siegen, Westphalia, 28 June, 1577; d. at Antwerp, 30 May, 1640. His father, Jan Rubens, a lawyer and alderman of Antwerp, was a Protestant who had fled from his native city to Cologne at the time that the Spanish governor was making strong efforts to extirpate heresy in Flanders. After various troublous experiences in connection with the Dutch army, with the wife of Prince William of Orange, and follwing upon more than one imprisonment, the father, who had temporarily to leave Cologne, returned to that city, where Peter Paul commenced his studies. His mother, Maria Pypelinx, had continued a Catholic, although she temporarily concealed the fact during her aggressive husband's life, but she insisted upon the boy's education at a Jesuit school. She herself was formally received back into the Catholic Church, immediately upon the death of the elder Rubens, when, though in reduced circumstances, she was able to return to Antwerp. From her and from his schoolmaster Rombout Verdonck, Rubens acquired the strong religious character which marked the whole of his career. His earliest days were passed as a page in the household of a princess, the widow of Count van Lalaing, former Governor of Antwerp. When nearly thirteen the young Rubens was sent to the studio of Tobias Verhaecht, and thence quickly removed to study under Adam van Noort where he made the acquaintance of Jordaens, a fellow pupil in the same studio and a lifelong friend of the great artist. He soon went to a third studio, that of Otto van Veen, and remained with this last master until 1598, when he was admitted to the Painters' Guild of Antwerp, and started on his first jorney to Italy (1600). He carried introductions to the Duke of Mantua, Vincenzo Gonzaga, received his patronage, and was sent by him to Florence, Genoa, and Rome to carry out important commissions. He then returned to Mantua and was sent to Spain in charge of certain portraits intended as diplomatic presents. On his return to Italy he entered into the Duke's permanent service, but was permitted to spend considerable time in Rome where he continued his studies. In 1608 he left Italy and returned to his own city of Antwerp, where he married Isabella Brant and settled down as an artist of great renown. He joined more than one religious guild connected with the local churches, and especially became attached to that of St. Peter and St. Paul, in honour of whose great festival on the day of his birth, Rubens had received his two Christian names. At this time he commenced his great house, splendidly built, lavishly decorated, and installed with many fine treasures which he had acquired in Italy. He lived there in great luxury, full of commissions, and surrounded by a host of pupils, among whom was Anthony van Dyck who rivalled and even surpassed him in portraiture, and the eminent painters Jordaens, Snyders, de Vos, and Justus von Egmont. Here his two sons, Albert and Nicholas, were born. In 1622 he was commissioned to paint the great pictures representing Marie de' Medici, now in a gallery in the Louvre; this occupied him for two years. His wife died in 1626, and four years after, he married Helena Fourment, the daughter of Isabella Brant's sister. Meantime, he had become painter-in-ordinary to the new Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, the Infanta Isabella, who kept him very busy, both as artist and diplomatist, for which his courtliness and sweetness of manner particularly fitted him. In 1629 he was sent to London by the Count Olivares by way of Brussels and Paris, and was knighted by Charles I on 21 February,1629-30. After his second marriage he purchased a great house near Mechlin and there prepared his designs for the pageant intended to commemorate the triumphal entry into Antwerp of the new governor, Archduke Ferdinand. This governor made him Court painter and showered various commissions upon him, among them the decorations of a shooting box which the King of Spain was at that time erecting near Madrid. By this time Rubens' wonderful energy and health were so broken, that many of his later pictures were executed by his pupils under his supervision and are to a very slight extent his own work. He had become a man of considerable means through countless commissions not only in painting and designing pictures, but in etching, silver point work, preparing designs for tapestry, engraving on silver, and scheming the entire decoration for the wonderful pageants that were a feature of his period and country. A man of prodigious energy and overpowering enthusiasm, he was the author of perhaps a larger number of huge pictures than can be attributed to any other painter, and though very many of his works were entirely executed by his own hand, he trained his pupils to so skilfully copy his methods and carry out his ideas that in many cases all the rough and bolder work of the picture was executed by them, he himself applying the final details and glazes, which enabled the picture to be declared a masterpiece and gave to it that quality which his hand alone could supply. The best of his religious work is at Antwerp, but the twenty-two pictures representing the history of Marie de' Medici, on all of which he was supposed to have worked to a certain extent, stand supreme in decorative work. Several of his finest portraits are in Madrid, others in Munich, and one or two of his masterpieces in the National Gallery in London, but almost all the great galleries of Europe contain representative examples of his work. Dresden, Brussels, Frankfort, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, Florence, and Windsor must all be visited if any adequate idea of the output of this extraordinary and remarkable painter is to be obtained. He has been the subject of many biographies and of constant research. He is always somewhat of a mystery, for at first one is depressed by his very exuberance, his unbridled artistic frenzy, and the vast show of flesh and power which characterize his pictures, while to many who love tenderness, mysticism, a sensitive quality, and stately dignity, his impropriety and exaggerated enthusiasm is repugnant. Some of the greatest artists, such as Rossetti, were in their early days unable to understand the anomalies in the art of Rubens or to appreciate his greatest pictures even in their most lenient moods. There is such an abundant glory, such powerful organic life in the work of this majestic colourist, that his pictures are not easy to appreciate until one is practically vanquished by the glory of their colour and the luxuriance of their unrestraint. A deeper consideration awakens fuller appreciation and the marvellous conceptions of the artist and his exuberant ideas of magnificence impress and reveal the high position of the painter. In his drawings he is almost supreme. His religious pictures, when properly regarded and thoughtfully understood, are impressive in their intense religious quality apart from the fury of colour and extravagance. His portraits are triumphant, sometimes perhaps sensual, often dreamy, always impressive. He is unequalled as to colours, and though fuller of the delights of earth than of heaven, yet when the nature of the man is understood the intensely devout quality of his beautiful religious pictures can be appreciated. It is, however, as a draughtsman and colourist, as a master of pageant and a decorator of the highest position that the fame of Rubens has been created. MICHEL, Histoire de la Vie de Rubens (Brussels, 1771); GACHET, Letters of Rubens (Brussels, 1840); ROOSES, The Work of Rubens (Antwerp, 1886); WAUTERS, The Flemish School of Painting (London, 1885). See also various cartalogues of Rubens exhibitions and articles upon him, specially those by WAAGEN, SAINSBURY, and RUELENS. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Rubrics Rubrics I. IDEA Among the ancients, according to Columella, Vitruvius, and Pliny, the word rubrica, rubric, signified the red earth used by carpenters to mark on wood the line to follow in cutting it; according to Juvenal the same name was applied to the red titles under which the jurisconsults arranged the announcements of laws. Soon the red colour, at first used exclusively for writing the titles, passed to the indications or remarks made on a given text. This custom was adopted in liturgical collections to distinguish from the formulae of the prayers the instructions and indications which should regulate their recitation, so that the word rubric has become the consecrated term for the rules concerning Divine service or the administration of the sacraments. Gavanti said that the word appeared for the first time in this sense in the Roman Breviary printed at Venice in 1550, but it is found in MSS, of the fourteenth century, such as 4397 of the Vatican Library, fol. 227-28; see also the fifteenth-century "Ordo Romanus" of Peter Amelius. The word is used sometimes to indicate the general laws, sometimes to mark a particular indication, but always to furnish an explanation of the use of the text, hence the saying: "Lege rubrum si vis intelligere nigrum" (read the red if you would understand the black). Thus in liturgical books the red characters indicate what should be done, the black what should be recited, and the Rubrics may be defined as: the rules laid down for the recitation of the Divine Office, the celebration of Mass, and the administration of the sacraments. In some respects the rubrics resemble ceremonies, but they differ inasmuch as the ceremonies are external attitudes, actions considered as accidental rites and movements, while the Rubrics bear on the essential rite. II. KINDS Writers distinguish between the rubrics of the Breviary, the Missal, and the Ritual, according as the matter regulated concerns the Divine Office, the Mass, or the sacraments; and again between essential and accidental rubrics according as they relate to what is of necessity or to external circumstances in the act which they regulate, etc. But the chief distinction seems to be that which divides them into general and particular rubrics. The first are the rules common to the same sacred function, e.g., those which regulate the recitation of the Divine Office, whether considered as a whole, in its chief parts, or in its secondary parts; they are at present printed under thirty-four titles in the editions of the Roman Breviary at the head of the part for autumn; those which regulate the celebration of Mass printed at the beginning of the Roman Missal (twenty titles containing the general rules, thirteen others giving the rite to be followed in the celebration, and ten others explaining the defects which may occur); those which regulate the administration of the sacraments (given by the Ritual at the beginning of each of the sacraments, as also by the Pontifical for the sacraments administered by a bishop). The particular rubrics are the special rules which determine during the course of the action what must be done at each period of the year, on certain fixed days, as the days of Holy Week, or when a particular formula is recited. They are inserted in the midst of the formulae of Breviary, Missal, or Ritual. III. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT The Rubrics are as ancient as the Offices themselves. They were long transmitted by oral tradition and when they were consigned to writing it was not in the fullness known to us. Like the various elements of the Divine Office and the Mass, the manner of celebrating them had at first a local character; there were observances peculiar to churches. Thus St. Cyprian (Ep. lvi, in P. L., IV, 410) mentions the peculiarities of Carthage in the administration of the sacraments; St. Augustine in his reply to Januarius (Ep. lv, in P.L., XXXIII, 204) treats at length the rites of the Church, those which might under no circumstances be neglected and those which might be discontinued; St. Gregory the Great, writing to St. Augustine of Canterbury (XI, lxiv, in P.L., LXXVII, 1186) suggests to him the same wise direction with regard to local practices. It is difficult to determine the period at which these rules were consigned to writing. The ancient Sacramentaries, the MSS. Missals, and even the early printed Missals contain some, but very few, rubrics. There is every reason to believe that they were contained in special collections known as Ordinaries, Directories, and Rituals. An Ordo Romanus has been attributed to Gregory the Great (see LITURGICAL BOOKS), but it is difficult to say what it was. Relying on the "Ordines Romani" published by Mabillon, Father Grisar (Civilt`a Cattolica, 20 May, 1905) gives the oldest description of the solemn pontifical Mass as dating from the pontificate of Gregory the Great. Hittorp s publication has been much discussed, Cardinal Bona (De divina psalmodia, i, 604) regarding the collection as very ancient but overloaded with the ceremonies of subsequent ages, which is the case with all the ritualistic books. Cardinal Tommasi (Opera, IV, p. xxxv) characterizes it as a confused mass in which it is impossible to distinguish the most ancient and authentic practices. In this primitive state rubrics and ceremonies were generally mingled. There were no rubricists until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. At first they were compilers and worked on separate parts. Cardinal Quignonez found the ancient rubrics obscure and confused; the new rubrics which still exist with some additions and alterations form an excellent exposition borrowed from the "Directorium Officii Divini", published in 1540 by the Franciscan L. Ciconialano with the approval of Paul III. In 1502, under Leo X, Burchard edited the general rubrics of the Roman Missal; they were printed in the edition of the "Missale Pianum" and have thuis reached us. In collaboration with Aug. Patrizi Piccolomini, Burchard also issued (1488) the ordinary and the ceremonies of the pontifical Mass under the title "Romanae Ecclesiae Caeremoniarium libri tres"; these have passed into our present Pontifical. Finally the Roman Ritual, edited in 1614 under Paul V, was compiled, with the aid of the Ritual of Cardinal Giulio Antonio Santario, from which most of the rubrics are derived. Thus various collections of the rubrics compiled by individuals have received the approval of the sovereign pontiffs, and since Pius V, instead of being published as separate treatises, they have been inserted in the liturgical books with which they dealt. The S. C. of Rites, instituted by Sixtus V in 1587, is commissioned to approve new rites, to suppress abuses in liturgical matters, issue authentic editions of liturgical books, to interpret the rubrics, and to solve difficulties connected therewith. Besides this interpreting authority, individual liturgists may also write commentaries and explanations on the subject. IV. OBLIGATORY CHARACTER In describing the kinds of rubrics we have intentionally omitted mention of distinctions which seem to us without sufficient foundation, writers distinguish between Divine and human rubrics, but as soon as rubrics are approved by the soverign pontiff and promulgated in his name it seems to us that they emanate from a Divine-human authority, and none save the Church has the right to establish such rules. According to a prevalent sentiment, we should do away with the distinction between the preceptive rubrics (those which bind under pain of sin, mortal or venial according to the matter) and directive rubrics (those which are not binding in themselves, but state what is to be done in the form of an instruction or counsel). It may be said that the rubrics of the liturgical books are real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority--the sovereign pontiff--and considering the terms in which they are promulgated it does not appear that the supreme head of the Church merely desires to give a counsel. Hence the distinction between the preceptive and directive rubrics is (a) in contradiction to the terms of the definition of rubrics, which are rules, consequently ordinances, laws, whose character is to be at once both directive and preceptive, i.e., to impose an obligation: (b) it is contrary to the mind of the sovereign pontiffs as expressed in their Bulls, which in establishing and promulgating rubrics intend to make them real laws. Pius V in the Bull "Quod a nobis", for the publication of the Roman Breviary (1508), expressed himself as follows: "Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo unquam tempore, vel totum vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse". The same pope uses similar terms in the Bull "Quo primum tempore", for the publication of the Roman Missal (1870): "Mandantes, ac districte . . . praecipientes ut coeteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis ac plane rejectis, Missam juxta ritum, modum ac normam quae per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur decantent ac legant, neque in Missae celebratione alias caeremonias, vel preces quam quae hoc Missali continentur addere vel recitare praesumant." No less explicit are the expressions employed by Paul V for the publication of the Ritual (Brief "Apostolicae Sedi", 1614), by Clement VIII for the publication of the Pontifical (Brief "Ex quo in Ecclesia", 1596), etc.; (c) this distinction is equally contrary to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which constitute a real command, while it cannot be said that they involve a greater obligation than the rubrics which they explain, which would be the case if the rubrics were not preceptive, when the commentary would have greater force than the text itself. (d) It is contrary to the rubricists' manner of expressing themselves. Thus Bissus declares that the rubrics are laws: "Leges tam Missalis quam Breviarii dicuntur Rubricae, cum legibus et aliis ordinationibus et solent esse firmae donec revocentur". De Herdt is still more explicit: Rubricae sunt regulae juxta quas officium divinum persolvi, Missae sacrificum celebrari, et sacramenta administrari debent. It is true that many others admit the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics, as De Herdt does, but they write from the standpoint of conscience, and when they excuse infractions of the rule it is in virtue of special reasons due to circumstances. It is also objected that certain rubrics are marked "Ad libitum", e.g. the third Collect of the Mass for certain days, the optional recitation of the "Dies Irae" in low unprivileged Masses for the dead. But even in these cases there is a certain prescription: a third prayer must be said, which is left to the choice of the celebrant; half of the "Dies Irae" may not be said, but it must either be omitted or said entire. Rubrical indications whose obligatory character is completely lacking, such as the prayers in preparation for Mass, "pro opportunitate sacerdotis facienda", are exceptional instances, the very terms of which show what is to be understood, but these exceptions merely confirm the thesis. To make them the starting-point in establishing a distinction is merely to multiply distinctions at will, a procedure that is all the more useless because it would eventually amount to saying that there are preceptive precepts and non-preceptive precepts. We can only conclude that the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics should be done away with, or if it be mentioned at all, it should be simply as an historical reference (see Ephemerides Liturgicae, I, 146). Under certain circumstances rubrics may be modified by custom, but in this respect they do not differ from laws in general. GAVANTI, Thesaurus sacr. rit. cum addit.. Merati (Venice, 1769); DE HERDT, Sac. liturg. praxis (Louvain, 1863); MENGHINI, Elem. juris liturg. (Rome, 1907); VAN DER STAPPEN, Sac. liturg. cursus (Mechlin, 1898); ZACCARIA, Bib. ritual. (Rome, 1778); ONOMASTICON (Fraenza, 1787). F. CABROL William Rubruck William Rubruck (Also called William of Rubruck and less correctly Ruysbrock, Ruysbroek, and Rubruquis), Franciscan missionary and writer of travels; b. at Rubrouc in northern France probably about 1200; d. after 1256. He became closely connected with St. Louis (Louis IX) in Paris, accompanied him on his crusade, and was at Acre and Tripoli. Louis, notwithstanding his repeated ill-success, again formed the plan of converting the Tatars to Christianity, and at the same time of winning them as confederates against the Saracens. Consequently at his orders Rubruck undertook an extended missionary journey, going first to visit Sartach, son of Batu and ruler of Kiptchak, then reported to have become a Christian. In 1253 Rubruck started from Constantinople, crossed the Black Sea, traversed the Crimea towards the North, and then continued eastward; nine days after crossing the Don he met the khan. The latter was not inclined to agree to the schemes of St. Louis and sent the ambassadors to his father Batu, living near the Volga. Batu would not embrace Christianity and advised the envoys to visit the great Khan Mangu. In midwinter they reached the eastern point of Lake Alakul, south of Lake Balkasch, and near this the Court of the khan, with which they arrived at Karakorum at Easter, 1254. After residing for some time in this city they had to return home without having obtained anything. On the return journey they took a somewhat more northerly route and arrived in the spring of 1255 by way of Asia Minor at Cyprus, whence they proceeded to Tripoli. The report of the journey which Rubruck presented to the king is a geographical masterpiece of the Middle Ages. It exceeds all earlier treatises in matter, power of observation, keenness of grasp, and clearness of presentment, besides being but little spoiled by fabulous narratives. In it Rubruck gives a clear account of the condition of China, of the characteristics and technical skill of its inhabitants, of their peculiar writing, and of the manufacture of silk; he also mentions paper money, printing, the division into castes, rice brandy, kumiss, speaks of the physicians who diagnosed diseases by the pulse, and prescribed rhubarb. The Middle Ages also owed to him the solution of a disputed geographical question; he proved that the Caspian was an inland sea and did not flow into the Arctic. He called attention to the relationship between German and the Indo-Germanic group of languages, and to the family unity of the Hungarians, Bashkirs, and Huns in the great racial division of the Finns; and he also gave a circumstantial account of the religion of the Mongols and the various ceremonies of the idolaters. Rubruck's account has been edited by the Societe de Geographie in the "Recueil de voyages et de memoires", IV (Paris, 1893), German translation by Kulb in the "Geschichte der Missionsreisen nach Mongolei", I, II (Ratisbon, 1860); English tr. by Rockhill, "The Journey of William of Rubruk to the Eastern Parts" (London, 1900). SCHMIDT, Uber Rubruks Reise in Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fur Erkunde zu Berlin, XX (Berlin, 1885); MATROD, Le voyage de Fr. Guillaume de Rubrouck (Couvin, 1909); SCHLAGER, Mongolenfahrten der Franziskaner (Trier, 1911), 45-126. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Rudolf of Fulda Rudolf of Fulda Chronicler, d. at Fulda, 8 March, 862. In the monastery of Fulda Rudolf entered the Benedictine Order, studied under the celebrated Rabanus Maurus, and was himself a teacher. He was undoubtedly associated with King Louis the Pious, whose intimate friend he considered himself, but it is not known how long he remained at court. It is probable that, after the elevation of Rhabanus to the Archiepiscopal See of Mainz, Rudolf followed him thence, and only towards the close of his life took up his permanent residence once more at Fulda. He was one of the most distinguished scholars of his time. The "Annales Fuldenses", begun by Einhard and continued (838-63) on the same lines by Rudolf, are valuable contributions to the general history of the period on account of his close connection with the court. Among the many editions of the "Annales Fuldenses sive Annales regni Francorum orientalis", that of Kurze (Hanover, 1891) is the best (German tr.by Wattenbach, "Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit", XXIII, Leipzig, 1889). At the suggestion of his master Rabanus, Rudolf (838) compiled, from notes of the priest Mego and from oral tradition, a life of St. Lioba or Leobgyth (published in "Acta SS.", VII, Sept., Antwerp ed., 760-9, and in "Mon. Germ. Script.", XV, i, 121-31). It was St. Lioba whom St. Boniface called to Bischofsheim on the Tauber to assist him by her activity. Under the misleading title, "Vita beati Rabani Mauri, archiepiscopi Moguntini in Germania", there is extant a work upon the miracles performed by the relics brought to Fulda by Rabanus, interspersed, according to the spirit of the times, with important historical and ethnological notes. In the "Mon. Germ. Script." (XV, 329-41) it is printed under the more correct title, "Miracula sanctorum in Fuldenses ecclesias translatorum". A similar work of much more importance historically is "Translatio sancti Alexandri Wildeshusam anno 851" in "Mon. Germ. Script.", II, 673-81, begun by Rudolf in 863 at the request of Waltbraht, a grandson of Widukin, and completed by Meginhart. Taking the "Germania" of Tacitus for his model, he pictured the history of ancient Saxony and the introduction of Christianity. WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, II (Berlin, 1893), 227 sq., 238 sq.; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi (Berlin, 1896), I, 67; II, 1151, 1429, 1540. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Rudolf of Habsburg Rudolf of Habsburg German king, b. 1 May 1218; d. at Speyer, 15 July, 1291. He was the son of Albert IV, the founder of the Habsburg line, and Countess Heilwige of Kiburg. After the death of his father in the Holy Land, Rudolf pursued an independent line of politics. In the conflict between the papacy and the empire he supported the Hohenstaufens, and, during the interregnum, strove to increase the power of his house, especially in Switzerland. In his extensive domains, of which Swabia formed the centre, he showed himself a good, if stern ruler, and especially in the south won many friends. At the instigation of Gregory X, who threatened to appoint a regent to govern the empire if steps were not taken to restore order to the country by the election of a prince who would exercise an effective rule, Rudolf was chosen emperor 1 October, 1273. Towering but lean of stature, with bony cheeks and hooked nose, he was a courageous warrior, a skilled diplomat, and distinguished alike for unrelenting sternness and genial kindness. Six electors voted for Rudolf; the seventh, Ottakar of Bohemia, abstained from voting. This powerful king ruled from Meissen and the mountains in the north of Bohemia as far as the Adriatic, having added Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Krain to his inherited domains. When Ottakar was summoned to answer for this alienation of the imperial fiefs, Rudolf proved himself an astute politician in the proceedings against Bohemia. Recognizing that it was impossible to force the German princes to the position of vassals, he utilized every opportunity to enhance the power of his house, for only the possession of great domains could ensure for a German king a position of prominence. Supported by the Church, Rudolf began the war in 1276, and on the Marchfeld on 26 August, 1278, Ottakar lost his throne and his life. The ancient possessions of the Bohemian royal house were left to Ottakar s son Wenceslaus, who was still a minor, but the Austrian lands had to be given up and were formally granted by Rudolf to his sons, as according to the prevailing laws of the empire, the sovereign could not retain confiscated lands. In this manner Ostmark came permanently into the possession of the Habsburgs. Whether the downfall of Ottakar was a German success or not, is still an open question among scholars. In recent times, the opinion has prevailed that, far from being hostile to the Germans, Ottakar favoured German immigration into Bohemia, and that, with the possession of the Austrian lands, he might perhaps have completely germanized Bohemia; and, had he secured the imperial crown, this powerful prince might have given a new importance to the imperial authority. The creation of a strong central power was also the object of Rudolf s politics. For the consolidation of his kingdom about the Danube, peace and stability were necessary, and these only a strong imperial government could guarantee. There was no fixed imperial constitution, and the development of such would have been resisted by the territorial princes. Rudolf was shrewd enough to abstain from attempting forcibly to increase his constitutional powers, and contented himself with preserving such domains and rights as were still left to the crown. He sought to recover the many imperial possessions which had been lost since 1245, moreover he saw to it that the taxes laid upon the imperial cities and towns were duly paid; although he failed to establish uniform system of taxation owing to the resistance of many cities which had to be put down by force of arms before they came to an agreement with the Emperor. With Rudolf began a period of national peace for Germany which was to last for two hundred years. Taking as his model the pacific settlement made by the Emperor Frederick II, in the Landfrieden at Mainz, in 1235, he drew up a number of agreements which, though often broken, were the chief means of protecting commerce and trade. But here also he had to be content, if the princes and towns really carried out these settlements to do which they claimed as their right and if they really checked the system of robbery, which, under the form of feuds, prevailed more and more. This however was not always the case. Even in such cases Rudolf did not take vigorous measures and prove practically that the maintenance of public peace was the duty of the Emperor. Lesser peace-breakers he punished; greater ones only in case they threatened his dynastic interests. In Swabia his governor (Landvogt), Count Albert of Hohenberg, fought without much success against Count Eberhard the Illustrious of W rtemberg; against Siegfried, the ambitious Metropolitan of Cologne, he proceeded by force of arms. But it was not the warlike measures of Rudolf, but the defeat of Siegfried near Worringen in 1288 by the Duke of Brabant in the quarrel concerning the inheritance of Duke Walram of Limburg that curbed the ambitious efforts of the archbishop. Rudolf was more successful in his efforts (1289) to settle the disputes in the House of Wettin. But his chief ambition, to secure the imperial crown for his house, he failed to realize. The electoral authority grew stronger during his reign, and the system of electing its kings remained the canker of the German Empire. Until the very last he endeavored to increase the power of his family; indeed, in the east of the empire, he created for his family such a position that a little later it developed into a decisive factor in the subsequent historical evolution of the German Empire. Meanwhile, considering the difficult conditions, he did very much to restore the unity of the empire. By his wise moderation he secured for himself general recognition, being the first emperor for a long period to achieve this end. The many diets which he held must also have strengthened the feeling of the unity of the empire. His foreign policy showed the same wise moderation. He abstained from taking any action in the Italian question, without however resigning the rights of the empire. However much the pope strove to secure the support of the German king against the powerful Charles of Anjou in order to check his power in the south of the peninsula, Rudolf was always able to skilfully avoid the overtures; even the attractions of the imperial crown were of no account in the eyes of this sober and calculating prince. In Burgundian affairs he interfered only as far as his action was likely to increase the power of his house, by strengthening it on the imperial frontiers towards Burgundy. Otherwise his policy in the west was guided by the principle of preserving peaceful relations with France. The death of this upright and popular monarch was received with lamentations throughout the empire. He was buried at Speyer. LIUDNER, Deutsche Gesch. unter den Habsburgern u. Luxemburgern (Stuttgart, 1888-93); KOPP, Gesch. der eidgen ssischen B nde (Basle, 1882); MICHAEL, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters (Freiburg, 1897-1903); SCHULTE, Gesch. der Habsburger in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Innsbruck, 1887); REDLICH, Rudolph von Habsburg (Innsbruck, 1903). FRANZ KAMPERS Rudolf of Rudesheim Rudolf of Ruedesheim Bishop of Breslau, b. at Ruedesheim on the Rhine, about 1402; d. at Breslau in Jan., 1482. From 1422 to 1426 he studied at the University of Heidelberg from which he graduated as master. He then proceeded to Italy, graduated as doctor in ecclesiastical law and became auditor of the Rota. Numerous benefices were conferred upon him at an early date, particularly in the dioceses of Mainz and Worms. From 1438 onward he represented the cathedral chapter of the latter city at the schismatic Council of Basle, where he formed a friendship with Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini, subsequently Pope Pius II. The latter, his successor Paul II, and the Emperor Frederick III entrusted Rudolf with important missions and difficult negotiations. Pius II named him in 1463 Bishop of Lavant in Tyrol. The See of Breslau was conferred on him in 1468, at a time when the inhabitants were spiritedly resisting their ruler, George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia. The latter had been deposed and excommunicated, but maintained his position as ruler. The war which resulted was protracted beyond Podiebrad's lifetime and terminated, with Rudolf's co-operation, in the Peace at Olmuetz in 1479. Now intent more exclusively upon the spiritual welfare of his diocese, the bishop sought to heal the wounds of the war, endeavoured to imbue the diocesan secular and regular clergy with a sound ecclesiastical spirit, and insisted upon the importance of their proper theological training. The acts of the synods held in 1473 and 1475 bear witness to the zeal and energy of the skilful prelate. ZAUN, Rudolf von Ruedesheim, (Frankfort, 1881); PASTOR, Hist. of the Popes, tr. ANTROBUS, III (London, 1894), 174, 198-201. N.A. WEBER Rudolf von Ems Rudolf von Ems (Hohenems in Switzerland). A Middle High German epic poet of the thirteenth century. Almost nothing is known of his life. He himself tells us that he was in the service of the Counts of Montfort and from the anonymous continuator of the "Weltchronik" we learn that the poet died "in welschen richen", i.e. in Italy, whither he had probably gone with King Konrad IV, about 1254. He professes himself a follower of Gottfried von Strassburg, for whom he entertains the greatest admiration, but his moralizing and didactic tendency differs strikingly from Gottfried's joyous sensualism, and he is prone to diffuseness and redundancy. In the choice of subjects he shows a predilection for those that are learned, and he generally draws from Latin sources. The earliest of his extant poems and one of the best is "Der gute Gerhard" in which the simple piety of an humble merchant of Cologne puts to shame the pharisaical ostentation of the Emperor Otto. The didactic tendency is very conspicuous in the poem "Barlaam und Josaphat", which treats a well-known Christian legend that seems to have its root in Buddhist sources and which on account of its glorification of the ascetic life and its defense of Christianity against Paganism was a favorite subject with medieval poets. Another poem on a legendary subject, the conversion of St. Eustace, which Rudolf mentions among his works, has not been preserved. "Wilhelm von Orlens", a courtly epic with a conventional love story, is based on a French original and was written for one Konrad von Winterstetten (d. 1241). Rudolf's most ambitious efforts were the historical epics "Alexander" and "Weltchronik". For the former the chief sources are the "historia de preliis" and the work of Curtius Rufus. The "Weltchronik" was undertaken at the request of King Konrad IV and was to be a complete history of the world from the beginning to the poet's own time. But death intervened and the story breaks off with King Solomon's reign. An anonymous poet then took up the subject and, making free use of Rudolf's material as well as drawing on Godfrey of Viterbo's "Pantheon", he gave a version that carried the story as far as the Book of Judges. This second recension, usually called the "Christ-Herre-Chronik", from its opening words, was subsequently still further amalgamated with Rudolf's version and amplified by various continuators, notably one Heinrich von Muenchen (fourteenth century). In this form the work became very popular and was finally resolved into prose. "Der gute Gerhard" was edited by Haupt (Leipzig, 1840); "Barlaam und Josaphat" by Pfeiffer (Leipzig, 1843). Of the other works there are as yet no critical editions. A MS. reprint of a "Willehalm von Orlens" was given by Victor Junk in "Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters" (Berlin, 1905), II; selections from "Alexander" by Junk in "Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache" (1904), 29, 369-469; from "Weltchronik", by Vilmar, "Die zwei Rezensionen und die Handschriftenfamilien der Weltchronik Rudolfs v. E." (Marburg, 1839). KRUGER, Stilistische Untersuchungen uber R. v. E. als Nachahmer Gottfrieds (Lubeck, 1896); ZINGERLE, Die Quellen zum Alex. des R. v. E. in WEINHOLD AND VOGT, Germanistische Abhandlungen IV (Breslau, 1885); ZEIDLER, Die Quellen von Rudolfs v. E. Wilhelm von Orlens (Berlin, 1894); JUNK, Die Epigonen des hofischen Epos in Sammlung Goschen, no. 289 (Leipzig, 1906), 16-62. ARTHUR F.J. REMY Family of Rueckers Family of Rueckers Famous organ and piano-forte builders of Antwerp. Hans Rueckers, the founder, lived in Amsterdam at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, where he became a member of the Guild of St. Luke and was active principally as organ-builder. He died in 1640 or 1641. In what year the house which he established in Amsterdam was transferred to Antwerp is not known, but it was in the latter city that it attained its renown. Hans Rueckers originated a spinet (forerunner of the piano-forte) with two keyboards, which could be played singly or simultaneously. They could be coupled, a higher octave on one keyboard, with a lower octave on the other, thereby doubling the sonority. Hans Rueckers' son, Andreas, b. in 1579, still further perfected the mechanism of their instruments, which gained world-wide celebrity under Andreas the Younger during the second half of the seventeenth century, their importance continuing under his successors throughout the greater part of the eighteenth. Rueckers' pianos were exported to foreign countries, particularly to England, and sold for the price, in those days fabulous, of 3000 francs. Many of these instruments were decorated by famous painters, which caused some of them to be destroyed so that the paintings might be preserved. RIMBAULT, The Pianoforte, its Origin, Progress, and Construction (London, 1860); HOPKINS, Old Keyboard Instruments (London, 1887); Musikalisches Konversationslexikon (Berlin, 1877). JOSEPH OTTEN Paolo Ruffini Paolo Ruffini Physician and mathematician, b. at Valentano in the Duchy of Castro, 3 Sept., 1765; d. at Modena, 10 May, 1822. At first he intended to enter Holy orders and went so far as to receive the tonsure, but changing his mind, he began the study of mathematics and medicine in the University of Modena, where he received the degree of doctor. At the age of twenty-three he was appointed professor of analysis after having substituted for a year for his teacher Cassiani. In 1791, the chair of elementary mathematics was entrusted to him. In the meantime, he did not neglect the study and practice of medicine. At the time of the French invasion of Italy (1796), he was unexpectedly appointed a member of the Juniori in the legislative body at Milan. It was not without difficulty that he succeeded in returning to his lectures at Modena. Because he refused to take the republican oath without the conditional declaration dictated by his conscience, he was dismissed from his position as a public lecturer; but with the return of the Austrians in 1799 he was restored to his former post and maintained therein by succeeding governments. A call to the chair of higher mathematics in Pavia he declined, because he did not wish to give up his medical practice among his dear Modenese. The university having been degraded to the rank of lyceum, he accepted (1806) the chair of applied mathematics at the newly established military school. In 1814 Franceso IV re-established the university and appointed Ruffini rector for life, and at the same time professor of practical medicine and applied mathematics. By his lectures with the patients actually present he revived the clinical studies which had been neglected for several years. During the typhus epidemic of 1817 he sacrificed himself for his fellow citizens, and finally succumbed. Although he recovered, he never regained his strength. He was buried in the Church of Santa Maria di Pomposa, between the tombs of Sigonio and Muratori. Ruffini's sole medical treatise is a "Memoria sul tifo contagioso". As a mathematician his name is inseparably associated with the proof of the impossibility of solving algebraically the quintic equation, on which subject he wrote several treatises ("Teoria generale delle equazioni, in cui si dimostra impossibile la soluzione algebraica delle equazioni generali di grado superiore al 4DEG", 2 vols., Bologna, 1798; "Della soluzione delle equazioni alg. determinate particolari di grado sup. al 4DEG" in "Mem. Soc. Ital.", IX, 1802, which was awarded a prize by the National Institute of Milan; "Della insolubilit`a etc. qualunque metodo si adoperi, algebraico esso sia o trascendente" in "Mem. Inst. Naz. Ital.", I, 1806). He also proved the impossibility of the quadrature of the circle ("Riflessioni intorno alla rettificazione ed alla quadratura del circolo" in "Mem. Soc. Ital.", IX, 1802). Less known, however, is the fact that Ruffini published the now familiar "Horner's method" of approximation to the roots of numerical equations fifteen years before Horner's first paper on it appeared in the "Philosophical Transactions" of 1819 (pt. I, pp. 308-35). In 1802 the Italian Society of Forty offered a gold medal for the best method of determining the root of a numerical equation of any degree. In 1804 the medal was awarded to Ruffini, and the dissertation was published under the title "Sopra la determinazione delle radice nelle equazioni numeriche di qualunque grado". In a paper read before the Southwestern Section of the American Math. Soc. (26 Nov., 1910), Professor Florian Cajori pointed out that the computation demanded by Ruffini is identical with that in "Horner's method", and that this method is elaborated by Ruffini with a clearness and thoroughness not surpassed in Horner's own exposition of 1819. In view of this fact, Professor Cajori insists that the name of Ruffini should be associated with that of Horner in the designation of the method. Ruffini again wrote on this subject in 1807 (Algebra elementare, cap. iv, v), and in 1813 (Memorie Soc. It., XVI, XVII). Ruffini was during his whole life a zealous Catholic. His convictions find expression in his apologetic works: "Dell' immortalit`a dell' anima" (Modena, 1806), dedicated to Pius VII, who sent him a gold medal; "Riflessioni critiche sopra il saggio filosofico intorno alle probabilit`a del Sig. Conte de la Place" (Modena, 1821), in which he proves himself to be as familiar with metaphysics as with questions of religion. FANTONETTI, Note storiche sopra i socj defunti: Paolo Ruffini in Mem. Imp. Reg. Ist. del Regno Lomb. Ven., V (1838), 40-41; LOMBARDI, Notizie sulla vita di Paolo Ruffini (Florence, 1824); POGGENDORF, Biogr.-Litt. Handwoerterb. zur Gesch. der Exact. Wiss. (1858-63); CAJORI, Horner's Method of Approximation Anticipated by Ruffini in Bull. of American Math. Soc. (May, 1911). J. STEIN Rufford Abbey Rufford Abbey A monastery of the Cistercian Order, situated on the left bank of the Rainworth Water, about two miles south of Ollerton in Nottinghamshire, was founded by Gilbert de Gant in or about 1147, and colonized with monks from Rievaulx abbey. Gilbert endowed it with the manor of Rufford, and shortly afterwards added "Cratil" (Wellow), Barton, and Willoughby; these donations were confirmed by Stephen and Henry II, who also granted exemption from certain tolls and customs. Other benefactions followed and the abbey grew rich enough to be required in 1310 to supply victuals for Edward II's expedition to Scotland, and to be asked in 1319 for a contribution towards making good the losses suffered by the Archbishop of York through the Scottish war; yet in 1409 it escaped payment of a tenth to the king on the ground of extreme poverty. The published lists of abbots, in Dugdale and the Victoria County History, begin with Philip de Kyme, a well-known Lincolnshire magnate, whose inclusion is due to a mis-punctuation in a Pontefract charter. Both lists also omit the following early abbots: Gamellus, who occurs as witness to a Kirkstead charter of 1148-49 (Dugdale, V, 420) and is eulogized in two epitaphs contained in a Rufford manuscript now in the British Museum (Tit. D. xxiv, ff., 81b, 88); Elias (1156 and 1160), in Bulls of Adrian IV and Alexander III (Harl. Ch. 111, A.2,5); Matthew (c. 1170-80), in various undated charters (Harl. MS. 1063, ff. 10b, 65b, etc.); William, oc. between 1189-95 ("Reg. of Abp. W. Gray", Surtees Soc., p. 39); Walter, 1212 (Harl. MS. 1063, f. 66); Robert, 1228 (ib., f. 127b); John, c. 1260-70 (ibid., f. 22b). The last abbot but one, Rowland Blyton, or Bliton, left Rufford in 1533 to become Abbot of Rievaulx. His successor, Thomas Doncaster, was given a pension of -L-25 at the dissolution in 1536; but relinquished it within a few months on becoming rector of Rotherham. The dissolved abbey, with its estates, valued at -L-246 15s. 5d. yearly, was granted in 1537 to George Talbot, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury. On the death of Edward, eighth earl, in 1618, it passed to Sir George Savile through his marriage with Lady Mary Talbot; and it has remained ever since in the possession of the Savile family, the present owner being John, Lord Savile. The remains of the monastic buildings are incorporated in the modern mansion. DUGDALE, Monast. Anglicanum, V (1825), 517-21; PAGE, Victoria History of co. Nottingham, ii (1910), 101-5; WARNER AND ELLIS, Facsimiles of Brit. Mus. Charters, I (1903), no. 48; authorities cited, especially Harl. MS. 1063, a seventeenth cent. transcript of Abbot John Lyle's chartulary compiled in 1471. J.A. HERBERT Sts. Rufina Sts. Rufina The present Roman Martyrology records saints of this name on the following days: (1) On 10 July, Rufina and Secunda, Roman martyrs, who according to the legendary Acts (Acta SS., July, III, 30-1) suffered in 287 during the Aurelian persecution. Their place of burial was at the ninth milestone of the Via Cornelia, as is stated in the Berne manuscript of the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 89). These martyrs are also recorded in the Itineraries of the seventh century as on the road just mentioned (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 18283). Pope Damasus erected a church over the grave of the saints. The town on this spot named after St. Rufina became the see of one of the suburbicarian dioceses that was later united with Porto (cf. Allard, "Histoire des Persecutions":, III, 96). (2) On 19 July, Justa and Rufina, martyrs at Seville (Hispalis) in Spain. Only St. Justa is mentioned in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (93), but in the historical martyrologies (Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques", 176-77) Justina is also mentioned, following the legendary Acts. There is no doubt that both are historical martyrs of the Spanish Church. (3) On 31 August, Theodotus, Rufina, and Ammia, of who the first two are said to be the parents of the celebrated martyr Mamas (Mammes), venerated at Caesarea in Cappadocia (cf. the various Passions of these saints in the "Bibl. hagiographica latina", II, 771 sq., and in the "Bibl. hagiogr. graeca", 2nd ed., 143). (4) On 24 of 25 August, the feast of two martyrs, Rufina and Eutyche, at Cupua in Campania is recorded in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (110). Nothing further is known of either of these saints. J.P. KIRSCH Saints Rufinus Sts. Rufinus The present Roman Martyrology records eleven saints named Rufinus: (1) On 28 February, a Roman martyr Rufinus, with several companions in martyrdom; nothing is known concerning them. (2) On 7 April, an African martyr Rufinus with two companions; their names are mentioned under 6 April in a list of martyrs in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 40). (3) On 14 June, the two martyrs Valerius and Rufinus who suffered at Soissons, France, during the Diocletian persecution; their names are given under this date in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. cit., 78; cf. 66 under 26 May; also Acta SS., June, II, 796 sqq.). (4) On 21 June, Rufinus who suffered martyrdom with Martia at Syracuse; nothing is known concerning him. (5) On 30 July, Rufinus of Assisi, who was according to legend the bishop of this city and a martyr. He is probably identical with the "episcopus Marsorum" noted under 11 August. The Acts of the martyrdom of this Rufinus are purely legendary [cf. "Bibliotheca hagiographica latina", II, 1068; Elisei, "Studio sulla chiesa cattedrale di S. Rufino" (Assisi, 1893); D. de Vincentiis, "Notizie di S. Rufino" (Avezzano, 1885)]. (6) On 19 August, Rufinus, confessor at Mantua. (7) On 26 August, a confessor Rufinus venerated at Capua (cf. Acta SS., August, V, 819-820). His name is given in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" under 26 and 27 August. (8) On 4 September, a martyr Rufinus with his companions in martyrdom who suffered at Ancyra in Galatia; he is also mentioned in company with several others in the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 113) under 31 August, and again under 4 September (ed. cit., 116). (9) On 9 September, Rufinus and Rufinianus, with no further particulars. (10) On 16 November, Rufinus, a martyr in Africa with several companions in martyrdom; nothing is known concerning this saint. (11) Besides the saints already given mention should also be made of a martyr Rufinus of Alexandria whose name is given under 22 June in the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 81) J.P. KIRSCH Saints Rufus Sts. Rufus The present Roman Martyrology records ten saints of this name. Historical mention is made of the following: (1) On 19 April, a group of martyrs in Melitene in Armenia, one of whom bears the name of Rufus. These martyrs are mentioned already in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 46). (2) On 1 August, Rufus, with several companions who, according to the most reliable manuscripts of the "Martyrol. Hieronym." died at Tomi, the place being afterwards by mistake changed to Philadelphia (cf. Quentin, "Les martyrologes historiques", 337). (3) On 27 August, two martyrs named Rufus at Capua -- one, whose name also appears as Rufinus in the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 111). The other is said to have suffered with a companion, Carponius, in the Diocletian persecution (cf. "Bibliotheca hagiographica latina", II, 1070; Acta SS., VI August, 18-19). (4) On 25 September, several martyrs at Damascus, among them one named Rufus. (5) On 7 November, a St. Rufus, who is said to have been Bishop of Metz; his history, however, is legendary. His name was inserted at a later date in an old manuscript of the "Martyrol. Hieronym." (ed. cit., 140). In the ninth century his relics were transferred to Gau-Odernheim in Hesse, Diocese of Mainz. (6) On 12 November, Rufus, a supposed Bishop of Avignon, who is perhaps identical with Rufus, the disciple of Paul (21 November). Legend, without any historical proof, has made him the first Bishop of Avignon [cf. Duchesne, "Fastes episcopaux de l'ancienne Gaule", I, 258; Duprat in "Memoires de l'Academie de Vaucluse" (1889), 373 sqq.; (1890), 1 sqq., 105 sqq.]. (7) On 21 November, Rufus the disciple of the Apostles, who lived at Rome and to whom St. Paul sent a greeting, as well as he did also to the mother of Rufus (Rom., xvi, 13). St. Mark says in his Gospel (xv, 21) that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus, and as Mark wrote his Gospel for the Roman Christians, this Rufus is probably the same as the one to whom Paul sent a salutation [cf. Cornely, "Commentar. in Epist. ad Romanos" (Paris, 1896), 778 sq.]. (8) On 28 November, a Roman martyr Rufus, probably identical with the Rufinianus who was buried in the Catacomb of Generosa on the Via Portuensis, and who is introduced in the legendary Acts of the martyrdom of St. Chrysogonus (cf. Allard, "Histoire des persecutions", IV, 371 sq.). (9) On 18 December, the holy martyrs Rufus and Zosimus, who were taken to Rome with St. Ignatius of Antioch and were put to death there for their unwavering confession of Christianity during the persecution of Trajan. St. Polycarp speaks of them in his letter to the Philippians (c. ix). J.P. KIRSCH Juan de Ruiz de Alarcon y Mendoza Juan de Ruiz de Alarcon y Mendoza Spanish dramatic poet, b. at Mexico City, about 1580; d. at Madrid, 4 August, 1639. He received his elementary education in Mexico and finished his studies at the University of Salamanca, obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Laws. In 1606, he removed to Seville with the object of practicing his profession, and remained in that city for three years. While there his friends and associates were the men of letters of the city, among them the illustrious Miguel Cervantes Saavedra, with whom he formed a close friendship The years between 1609 and 1611 he passed in his native country. Returning to Spain, he settled in Madrid. A few years before Philip II had transferred his court to that city, and it was not long before Alarcon's dreams of a prominent position at the bar were shattered, for he saw that only through intrigue and adulation could he hope for preferment. This being distasteful to a man of his temperament, he turned to writing for the stage, attracted by the success of Lope de Vega, Gabriel Tellez (Tirso de Molina), and others of that period, which was so rich in literary masters. He was successful almost from the start. Unfortunately, he gained as well the envy and enmity of some of the poets of the time, among them Lope de Vega, Gongora, and Montalvan, who lampooned him mercilessly. After his death he was gradually forgotten, save by plagiarists, who could safely pilfer from his unread works. Posterity, however, has given him his due, and he is considered the first great literary product of the New World and perhaps even to this day, one of the greatest. He is admittedly in the foremost rank of Spanish dramatists, being surpassed if at all, only by Lope de Vega and Calderon. Alarcon was the author of many plays, all of them masterpieces. Among the best known are: "Truth Suspected", which drew forth the highest praise from Corneille, who used it as a basis for his "Le Menteur"; "Walls have Ears" was meant to ridicule the habits of gossip and slander; "The Weaver of Segovia", a drama of intrigue and passion, in two parts, the first of which has been attributed to another author, being so much inferior to the second. In general his plays are distinguished by their ingenious plots, moral tone, vigorous and pure style, and purity of versification. HARTZENBUSCH, Comedias de J. Ruiz de Alarcon y Mendoza (1852); ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nola (Madrid, 1783-88); LATOUR, Espagne, tradition, maeurs et litterature (1869); GUERRE Y ORBE, D. J. R. de Alarcon y Mendoza (Madrid, 1871). VENTURA FUENTES Antonio Ruiz de Montoya Antonio Ruiz de Montoya One of the most distinguished pioneers of the original Jesuit mission in Paraguay, and a remarkable linguist; b. at Lima Peru, on 13 June, 1585, d. there 11 April, 1652. After a youth full of wild and daring pranks and adventures he entered the Society of Jesus on 1 November, 1606. In the same year he accompanied Father Diego Torres, the first provincial of Paraguay, to this mission, where he laboured for thirty years as one of its most capable and successful apostles. Father Ruiz de Montoya was one of the true type of great Spanish missionaries of that era, who, as if made of cast-iron, united a burning zeal for souls with an incredible fewness of wants and great power of work. In co-operation with Fathers Cataldino and Mazeta he founded the Reductions of Guayra, brought a number of wild tribes into the Church, and is said to have baptized personally 100,000 Indians. As head of the missions he had charge from 1620 of the "reductions" on the upper and middle course of the Parana, on the Uruguay, and the Tape, and added thirteen further "reductions" to the twenty six already existing. When the missions of Guayra were endangered by the incursions of marauders from Brazil in search of slaves, Father Mazeta and he resolved to transport the Christian Indians, about 15,000 in number, to the Reductions in Paraguay, partly by water with the aid of seven hundred rafts and numberless canoes, and partly by land through the mazes of the primeval forest. The plan was successfully carried out in 1631 after the suffering of incredible hardships and dangers. "This expedition", says the Protestant von Ihering, "is one of the most extraordinary undertakings of this kind known in history" [Globus, LX (1891), 179]. In 1637 Montoya on behalf of the governor, of the Bishop of Paraguay, and of the heads of the orders laid a complaint before Philip IV as to the Brazilian policy of sending marauding expeditions into the neighboring regions. He obtained from the king important exemptions, privileges, and measures of protection for the Reductions (see REDUCTIONS OF PARAGUAY). Soon after his return to America Montoya died in the odor of sanctity. He was a fine scholar in the beautiful but difficult language of the Guarani Indians, and has left works upon it which were scarcely exceeded later. These standard works are: "Tesora de la lingua guarani" (Madrid, 1639), a quarto of 407 pages; "Arte y vocabulario de la lingua guarani" (Madrid, 1640), a quarto of 234 pages; "Catecismo de la lingua guarani" (Madrid, 1648), a quarto of 336 pages. Mulhall calls Ruiz de Montoya's grammar and vocabulary "a lasting memorial of his industry and learning". The German linguist Von der Gabelentz regarded them as the very best sources for the study of the Guarani language, while Hervas declares that the clearness and comprehensive grasp of the rules to which Montoya traced back the complicated structure and pronunciation of Guarani are most extraordinary. All three works were repeatedly republished and revised. In 1876 Julius Platzmann, the distinguished German scholar in native American languages, issued at Leipzig an exact reprint of the first Madrid edition of this work "unique among the grammars and dictionaries of the American languages". A Latin version was edited by the German scholar Christ. Friedr. Seybold at Stuttgart in 1890-91. A collected edition of all Montoya's works was published at Vienna under the supervision of the Vicomte de Porto Seguro in 1876. Of much importance as one of the oldest authorities for the history of the Reductions of Paraguay is Montoya's work, "Conquista espiritual hecha por los religiosos de la C. de J. en las provincias del Paraguay, Parana, Uruguay y Tape" (Madrid, 1639), in quarto; a new edition was issued at Bilbao in 1892. In addition to the works already mentioned Montoya wrote a number of ascetic treatises. Letters and various literary remains of Ruiz de Montoya are to be found in the "Memorial histor. espanol", XVI (Madrid, 1862), 57 sqq.; in "Litterae annuae provinc. Paraguariae" (Antwerp, 1600), and in the "Memorial sobre limites de la Republ. Argentina con el Paraguay" (Buenos Aires, 1867), I, appendix; II, 216-252; cf. Backer-Sommervogel, "Bibl. de la C. de Jesus", VI, 1675 sqq. DAHLMANN, Die Sprachenkunde und die Missionen (Freiburg 1891), 84 sqq.; Conquista espiritual (Bilbao), Prologo; SALDAMANHO, Los antiquos Jesuitas del Peru (Lima, 1882), 61 sqq.; XARQUE, Vida de P. Ant. Ruiz de Montova (Saragossa, 1662); DE ANDRADE, Varones ilustres (Madrid, 1666); PLATZMANN, Verzeichniss einer Auswahl amerikan. Grammatiken, Worterbucher, etc. (Leipzig, 1876), s. vv. GUARANI and RUIZ; MULHALL, Between the Amazon and Andes (London, 1881), 248 sqq. Revista Peruana, IV, 119. ANTHONY HUONDER Diego Ruiz de Montoya Diego Ruiz de Montoya Theologian, b. at Seville, 1562; d. there 15 March, 1632. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1572 and was professed 22 July 1592. He taught philosophy in Granada, moral theology for one year in Baeza, and theology for about twenty years in Cordova and Seville. For a time he was rector of the College of Cordova, and represented his province, Andalusia, at the Sixth General Congregation. The last years of his life were devoted to writing. His distinguishing characteristics seem to have been humility, a retiring disposition, and integrity. Notwithstanding the fact that the Duke of Lerma promised to obtain permission from Paul V to publish his manuscripts "De Auxiliis", if he furthered his plans, he declined to advise the citizens of Seville to pay a certain tribute. Fray Miguel de San Jose considers him a most finished theologian; Merlin a wise, subtle, prudent student and faithful interpreter of the Fathers, and Kleutgen and Menendez-Pelayo think that he combined positive historic theology with scholastic, in a manner not achieved by any of the theologians who preceded him. His published works are: "Doctrine Christiana", written by command of the Bishop of Cordova, published anonymously and several times reprinted; "Commentaria ac disputationes in primam partem D. Thomae"--(a) "De Trinitate" (Lyons, 1625), his principal treatise and one of the best on this subject; (b) "De praedestinatione ac reprobatione hominum et angelorum" (Lyons, 1628); (c) "De scientia, ideis, veritate ac vita Dei" (Paris, 1629); (d) "De voluntate Dei et propriis actibus ejus" (Lyons, 1630); (e) "De providentia" (Lyons, 1631); (f) "De nominibus Dei". These are rare and much sought editions. In manuscript preserved in various libraries: "De auxiliis", two volumes classified as very good by Father Vitelleschi; "De angelic"; "Commentarii in materiam de peccatis"; "Controversiae et quaestiones theologicae"; "De beneficiis parochialibus conferendis"; "De eliminandis e republica comoediis vulgaribus"; "De statu eorum, qui petunt dimissionem in Societate Jesu"; "De causis dimittendi a Societate Jesu". MUNOZ DE GALVEZ, Carta . . . sobre la muerte y virtudes del Padre Montoya. Uriarte says this was signed in Seville in 1632 and was written by Father Feliciano de Figuero (Catalogue. . .No. 3797). ANDRADE, Varones ilustres, VII (Bilbso, 1891), 162; MICHAEL A S. JOSEPH, Bibliogr. Crit. sacra et prof., IV (Madrid, 1742), 85; NICOLAS ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova, I (Matriti, 1793), 311; SOTWEL, Bibliot. scrip. societ. (Rome, 1676, 1774); HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), no. 265; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, VII (l896), col. 323; Memorial del Colegio de Cordoba, I, cap. viii, p. iv, n. ii; GUlLHERMY, Menologe: Espagne, I, 433. ANTONIO PEREZ GOYENA Rumania Rumania A kingdom in the Balkan Peninsula, situated between the Black Sea, the Danube, the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pruth. I. HISTORY The modern Rumanians are generally regarded as the descendants of the Dacians, a branch of the ancient Thracians; they dwelt north of the Danube in the territory now known as Transylvania, and formed at the beginning of the Christian era a comparatively well-organized state. Under the rule of able princes (e.g. Decebalus) they frequently threatened the Roman civilization between the Adriatic Sea and the Danube. Trajan first succeeded after several campaigns (102-06) in bringing the country under the Roman dominion: the new Roman province received the name of Dacia, and embraced the modern Transylvania, Banat, and Rumania. To replace the Dacians, a portion of whom had emigrated northwards, Trajan introduced colonists into the land from every part of the Roman Empire, especially from the neighbouring Illyrian provinces; these settlers soon converted the Dacian territories wasted by the wars into one of the most flourishing Roman provinces, which was shortly known as "Dacia felix". From the fusion of the remaining Thracians and the Roman colonists, who possessed a higher culture, issued in the course of the third and fourth centuries the Daco-Rumanian people. As early as the second century began the assaults of the Germanic tribes on the Roman Empire. After several unsuccessful attempts, the Goths occupied the Dacian province in the third century, and in 271 Emperor Aurelian formally ceded the territory to them. In the fourth century the Goths were followed by the Huns, who in similar fashion brought the Romans and Goths into subjection after several campaigns. In the fifth century came the Gepidae, and in the sixth the Avars, who occupied Dacia for two centuries. Under the dominion of the Avars the Slavs made their appearance, settling peacefully among the inhabitants; they have left many traces of their presence in the names of places and rivers. Gradually, however, they were absorbed and Romanized, so that the Latin character of the language was preserved. The influence of the Slavs was greater on the right bank of the Danube, where they overwhelmed the Thraco-Roman population by weight of numbers, and denationalized the Finnic Bulgars who settled in the country in the seventh century. In this way the Romanic population of the Balkan Peninsula was divided by the Slavs into two sections; the one withdrew northwards to the Carpathians, where people of kindred race had settled, while the other moved southwards to the valleys of the Pindus and the Balkan Mountains, where their descendants (the modern Aromuni or Macedo-Vlachs) still maintain themselves. In the history of the Southern Rumanians the erection of the Rumano-Bulgar Empire by the brothers, Peter, Jonita, and Asen at the end of the twelfth century is especially noteworthy; this empire became disintegrated in the middle of the thirteenth century on the extinction of the Asen dynasty (see BULGARIA). The Bulgar dominion over ancient Dacia exercised a decisive influence on the ecclesiastical development of the country. Christianity had been introduced -- especially into the modern Dobrudja, where there was a strong garrison -- by Roman colonists and soldiers, the Latin form and liturgy being employed. In Tomi (now Constanta) existed an episcopal see, nine occupants of which between the fourth and sixth centuries are known. During the dominion of the Bulgars the ancestors of the Rumanians with their lords came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and were thus drawn into the Greek Schism. Consequently, even to-day the vast majority of the inhabitants of Rumania belong to the Orthodox Church (see below). The immigration of the Bulgars was followed by the campaigns of the Magyars, who however made no permanent settlement in the land, choosing for settlement the plain between the Danube and the Theiss. At the beginning of the tenth century the country was subjected to the repeated attacks of the Peshenegs, and in the middle of the eleventh to those of the Cumans. During the migrations and invasions of various tribes, the population of the country was strongly impregnated with Slav and other elements, and only in the wooded hills of Northwestern Moldavia and Transylvania did the original Daco-Rumanian population remain pure and unmixed. After peace had been restored, the people descended from these remote retreats, and united with the inhabitants of the plains to form the Rumanian people. During the tenth and eleventh centuries small principalities called Banats were formed in the territory of ancient Dacia; those which extended from Transylvania northwards and westwards to the valley of the Theiss came gradually under the sway of the Magyars, while those extending eastwards and southwards from the Carpathians maintained their independence. From the latter originated the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. By uniting the smaller districts on both sides of the River Olt, Voivode Bassarab (died 1340) founded toward the end of the thirteenth century the Grand Banat, Little Wallachia, and successful wars against Charles I, King of Hungary, and Robert of Anjou enabled him to preserve his independence and to extend his authority to the Danube and the Black Sea. A little later (about the middle of the fourteenth century) Bogdan, Voivode of Maramaros in Transylvania, who rebelled against the suzerainty of Hungary in 1360, founded the Principality of Moldavia by overrunning the Carpathians and reducing under his sway the hilly country along the River Moldau. Both these Rumanian principalities had to contend with great difficulties from their foundation: on the one hand their independence was threatened by the neighbouring kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, while on the other domestic quarrels and a want of unity between the kindred principalities lessened their strength. But their most dangerous enemy was the Turk, who extended his conquests into the Balkan Peninsula in the middle of the fourteenth century. In wars against the Turks and vain efforts to shake off the Turkish yoke, almost the whole activity of the two principalities was exhausted for several centuries. By their unflinching defence of their religion, the ancestors of the present Rumanians protected the culture and civilization of the Christian West from the onslaught of Islam, and thus played a role in universal history. Several of the princes who reigned during this heroic period of Rumanian history are especially conspicuous: Mircea the Old or the Great (1386-1418) and Radul the Great (1496-1508) in Wallachia, and Alexander the Good (1400-33) and Stephen the Great (1457-1504) in Moldavia. Mircea organized his dominions and extended his frontiers to the Black Sea by seizing Dobrudja and the town of Pilistria from the Bulgars in 1391. To repel the onsets of the Turks, he formed with King Sigismund of Hungary (afterward emperor) an offensive and defensive alliance in accordance with which he participated in the ill-fated battle near Nicopolis in 1396. In 1402 he had to recognize the suzerainty of Turkey, to vacate the right bank of the Danube, and to pay a yearly tribute, in return for which the Porte guaranteed the free election of the Wallachian princes and the independent internal administration of their territory. The immediate followers of Mircea were weak princes, and disputes concerning the succession postponed the casting off of the Turkish yoke. Radul the Great, son and successor of the ex-monk Vlad I who had been appointed prince by the Turks (1481), sought by reforms in the administration and in ecclesiastical matters to mitigate the general distress and to secure greater independence from Turkey. For Moldavia the long reign of Alexander the Good (1401-32) was a time of prosperity: he organized the finances, the administration, and the army, drew up a code of laws after Byzantine models, and increased the culture of the people by founding schools and monasteries. Alexander had on three occasions to take the oath of fealty to the King of Poland; his sons had likewise to recognize the suzerainty of Poland, and his natural son, Peter (1455-57), had in addition to pay tribute to the Turks. After a period of almost uninterrupted wars for the princely dignity, Stephen the Great (1457-1504), a grandson of Alexander, inaugurated a period of peace and splendour for Moldavia. Thanks to his valiant and well-organized army, he succeeded not only in keeping his country independent of the Turks and Poland for nearly half a century, but also increased his territory by subduing a portion of Bessarabia, organized the Church, founded a new bishopric, and built several new churches and monasteries. Under him Moldavia reached its greatest power and extent. His son Bogdan III (1504-17), in view of the superior forces of the Turks, had to engage to pay a yearly tribute, in return for which Moldavia was (like Wallachia) allowed the maintenance of the Christian faith, the free election of its princes, and independent domestic administration. In spite of these treaties, a period of bondage began for both lands after the battle of Mohacs, which had brought Turkey to the height of its power. The Turks created a military zone along the Danube and the Dniester, established Turkish garrisons in important places, and compelled the princes to do personal homage to the sultan in Constantinople every three years, to bring (in addition to the tribute) presents in token of their submission, to perform military service, to maintain a troop of janizaries in their retinue, and to give relatives as hostages for their fidelity. The sultans finally arrogated to themselves the right of appointing and removing at will the vaivodes of both principalities; the princes thus became mere blind tools of the Porte, were for the most part engaged in harrying each other, and in very many instances fell by the hands of assassins. Turkey abused its power to appoint new princes at short intervals; as the princes had usually to purchase the recognition of the Porte with large sums of money, they exacted from their subjects twice or three times the amounts thus paid. The chief portions of these extortions were wrung from the peasants, who were reduced by the large landowners and the nobles (the boyars) to the condition of serfs. The nobles also became demoralized, and wasted their strength in scheming to obtain the vaivodeship. Both principalities, however, occasionally enjoyed a brief period of prosperity. Thus, Michael the Brave of Wallachia (1593-1601) succeeded in casting off the Turkish yoke, defeating an army twenty times as numerous as his own in 1595. In 1599 he occupied Transylvania and in 1600 Moldavia, and thus formed an united Rumanian Kingdom which, however, again collapsed on his assassination in 1601. The reign of Matthias Bassarab (1632-54) was also beneficient for Wallachia; he protected his boundaries from the attacks of the Turks on the Danube, restrained the previously inordinate influence of the Greeks, founded in 1652 the first Rumanian printing establishment, and had a code of laws compiled after Greek and Slav models. His example was imitated by Vasili Lupu, Vaivode of Moldavia (1632-53), who in addition endeavoured by the foundation of schools and charitable institutions to promote the culture of the land. Thus, despite the oppressive political conditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, became possible the existence of a flourishing ecclesiastical literature and spiritual lyrical poetry, which kept alive the national consciousness of the people. At this period were laid the enduring foundations of Rumanian culture. Of great importance also was the circumstance that the Old Slavonic language then began to be replaced by the Rumanian both in public life and in the Church. When, towards the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Turkish power was broken by the victories of Austria, the influence of Austria and Russia began to make itself felt in the affairs of the two Rumanian principalities. To rid themselves of the Turkish domination, the princes turned now to one power and now to the other, but were deceived by both. To oppose these attempts the Porte ceased to appoint native Rumanian nobles to the vaivodeship as previously, appointing Greeks -- especially from the Fanar district in Constantinople, who were able to offer larger sums for their appointment than the boyars; the princely dignity was thus in the strictest sense of the word leased. For the Rumanian lands thus began the gloomiest period of their history, the period of the Fanariots, which lasted from 1712 to 1821. Foreign princes succeeded one another at the shortest intervals, taking possession of the country with a numerous retinue of wards, relatives, and creditors, and reducing it to greater and greater poverty. A great portion of the land was presented to Greek monasteries, and much of its income left the land and enriched Greek monasteries throughout the East (especially Mount Athos). Meanwhile the Porte arbitrarily raised the tribute to many times its former amount. Some Greek princes formed a glorious exception, and, by introducing reforms in favour of the peasants, rendered great services to both countries; especially notable in this respect were Nicholas and Constantine Mavrocordatus in Wallachia and Gregory Ghica in Moldavia. During the Fanariot dominion Rumania was frequently the scene of the wars waged by Turkey against Austria or against Russia. In 1718 the western portion fell to Austria, but in 1739 it was recovered by Turkey. After the Turco-Russian War of 1768-74 Russia wished to occupy the Rumanian principalities; Austria opposed this and, in return for this service, the Porte ceded to Austria Upper Moldavia (the present crownland of Bucovina). Moldavia had to bear the cost of the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-12, the eastern portion of the country between the Pruth and the Dniester (Bessarabia) being ceded by Turkey to Russia. Of the Moldavia of Stephen the Great only half now remained. When Vaivode Alexander Ypsilanti, a Fanariot, utilized the princely office to promote the rebellion of the Greeks against the Turkish rule, the Porte found itself compelled to cease appointing Greeks to the princely dignity, and to revert to the old practice of naming Rumanians. Russia now began to interest itself in the principalities, though only for interested reasons; by the Treaty of Akerman it obtained that only boyars should be appointed princes. A new war having broken out between Russia and Turkey in connexion with the Greek struggle for freedom, Russia occupied the two principalities after the Peace of Adrianople (1828); the Russian Count Kisselew, who governed the territories at the head of the Russian army of occupation, regulated anew the administration and the political organization of the countries. After the Russian occupation Russia appointed as princes for life, for I Moldavia Michael Sturdza (1834-49), and for Wallachia Alexander Ghica (1834-43), who was succeeded by another favourite of the tsar, George Bibescu. The reforms introduced under the Russians subsequently prepared the way for the gradual economic development of the territories. However, this improvement benefited almost exclusively the boyars and the great landowners, while the people remained in their former pitiable condition. These circumstances, as well as the interference of Russia in the domestic affairs of the principalities, the spread of patriotic and liberal ideas, the desire for national unity, the curtailment of the privileges of the boyars, and free institutions, finally led (owing to the example given by the French Revolution of February) to an insurrection, which was successful only in Wallachia. On 21 June, 1848, George Bibescu was forced to abdicate, a new constitution was proclaimed, and a provisional government appointed. However, Russia and Turkey occupied the principalities in common, set aside the constitution, and restored the old conditions by the Convention of Balta-Limani (1 May, 1849); at the same time the election of princes for life and the national assembly were abolished. Barbu Stirbeiu, Bibsecu's brother, was named Prince of Wallachia, and Gregory Alexander Prince of Moldavia for a period of seven years. During the Crimean War both principalities were occupied first by Russia, and then (after 1854) by Austria. The Congress of Paris rearranged their relations, setting aside the Russian suzerainty and restoring that of Turkey. A commission of the great powers which had been sent to the principalities having learned the wishes of the Rumanian people, both were given autonomy to the extent of their ancient treaty with Turkey and a constitutional government by the Convention of Paris (1858); the further wishes of the people for the union of the two territories and the nomination of a prince from one of the ruling houses of Europe were not fulfilled, the two principalities being kept separate and each electing a prince for life. In 1859, however, a personal union was effected, Colonel Alexander John Cuza being elected for Moldavia on 17 January and for Wallachia on 24 January; the double election was ratified by the Porte after some hesitation. In 1861 Cuza established, instead of the separate ministries, a common ministry and a common representative assembly, and in 1862 the union of the principalities, henceforth known as Rumania, was proclaimed. Prince Cuza introduced a series of reforms; the most important were the secularization of the Greek monasteries, the law dealing with public instruction, the codification of the laws on the basis of the Napoleonic Code, and especially the land laws of 1864, by which the peasants were given free possession of the land and the remnants of serfdom, socage and tithes, were abolished. As the chamber, which was controlled by the boyars, was particularly opposed to the last measure, Cuza abolished the chamber in 1864 and gave the country a new constitution with two chambers. Notwithstanding all his services, Cuza brought the country into a financial crisis. A conspiracy was formed against him, in which the army participated; on the night of 22 February, 1866, he was seized by the conspirators and compelled to abdicate the following morning. After Count Philip of Flanders, brother of King Leopold of Belgium, had refused the sovereignty, the Catholic prince, Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was elected hereditary prince at the instance of Napoleon III on 14 April, 1866. On 22 May he entered Bucharest, and after some months was recognized by the Porte, although Rumania had again to recognize its obligation to pay tribute. From the beginning of his reign Charles had great difficulties to overcome; the development of the country had been prevented by centuries of foreign occupation, commerce and manufacture were to a great extent in the hands of foreigners, the land was for the most part in the power of a few great landowners, while the mass of the population were poor and burdened with heavy taxation. Notwithstanding frequent rotation in power of the political parties, a series of reforms were passed, and the army, organized after the Prussian model, made creditably efficient. When the Russo-Turkish War broke out in 1878, Rumania made a treaty with the tsar, allowing the Russian troops to march through its territory, and on 22 May, 1877, declared its independence of the Porte. At the storming of Plevna and the besieging of other places the Rumanian army rendered very important services to Russia -- services for which Russia showed no gratitude. The complete independence of Rumania was recognized by the Congress of Berlin (13 July, 1878), but it was compelled to cede to Russia Bessarabia, which it had acquired in 1856, and to content itself with the less important Dobrudja. In consequence of this disappointment Rumania has since favoured Germany and Austria in its foreign policy. On 26 March, 1881, Charles had himself crowned king. The new kingdom soon began to display a successful activity in both the material and intellectual domains. The natural richness of the land was developed, the building of roads and railways promoted, and the standard of public instruction raised. Between 1882 and 1885 the independence of the Orthodox Church in Rumania from the Patriarchate of Constantinople was effected, and in 1883 the Archdiocese of Bukarest was erected for the Catholics. Thanks to its intellectual and material development and its military strength, Rumania has become an important factor in European politics. Grievous conditions, however, still prevail in the country in one connexion -- the distribution of the land and real property. Almost half of the landed interest (over 47 per cent) is vested in the hands of scarcely 4200 persons, so that Rumania out rivals Southern Italy as the land of big estates with all the resulting evils. As these great landowners possess political as well as economical power, and exercise it to the detriment of the peasants, a serious rising of the peasants broke out in 1907, and could be suppressed only with the aid of the army after the proclaiming of martial law. To abolish gradually these evil conditions and to protect the peasants from the oppression of the landowners and lessees and from usury, a series of excellent agrarian reforms have been introduced since 1907 and have been in many cases already enforced. II. PRESENT CONDITION The area of Rumania is 50,720 sq. miles; according to the census of 1899 the population was 5,956,690 (at the beginning of 1910 the estimated population was 6,865,800). In 1899 the population included: 5,451,787 Greek Orthodox (over 91.5 per cent), 149,677 Catholics (2.5 per cent), 22,749 Protestants, 15,094 Lippovans, 5787 Armenians, 266,652 Jews, 44,732 Mohammedans, 222 of other religions. According to nationality the population was as follows: 5,489,296 Rumanians, 108,285 Austrians and Hungarians, 23,756 Turks, 20,103 Greeks, 8841 Italians, 7964 Bulgarians, 7636 Germans, 5859 foreign Jews, 11,380 of other nationalities. According to the constitution of 19 June, 1866, Rumania is a constitutional monarchy, the legislative power being vested jointly in the king and parliament. The national assembly consists of two chambers, a senate and a house of representatives. To the senate belong the adult princes of the royal house, the eight bishops of the Orthodox Church, one representative of each of the two national universities, and 110 members elected by two electoral colleges; the house of representatives consists of 183 members elected by adult Rumanians paying taxes organized into 3 electoral colleges. The bills passed by Parliament receive the force of laws only when sanctioned by the king. While according to the constitution the Greek Orthodox is the State Church, liberty in the practice of their religion is granted to all the other Churches, and the State refrains from all interference in the election and appointment of the clergy of the various denominations. State support is given only to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church of Rumania declared itself independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1859, a declaration which was not recognized by the latter until 1885. The supreme ecclesiastical authority is the Holy Synod, consisting of the two metropolitans, the six bishops, and the eight titular archpriests of Rumania; its duties are to preserve the unity of the Rumanian with the Eastern Church in dogma and the canons, to maintain ecclesiastical discipline within the territory of Rumania, and to decide all purely ecclesiastical spiritual and legal questions according to the holy canons. The choice of bishops is vested in an electoral body composed of the eight bishops, the titular archpriests, and all the Orthodox representatives and senators; the election is by secret ballot. For ecclesiastical administration the country is divided into eight eparchies (dioceses), of which the eparchies Ungro-Wallachia, with its seat at Bukarest, and Moldau, and Sucea, with its seat at Jassy, are metropolitan. The Primate of Rumania is the Metropolitan of Bukarest. For the Catholics of Rumania have been erected the Archdiocese of Bukarest and the Diocese of Jassy. The ancient Catholic Church of Rumania disappeared when the people, influenced by the Bulgars, placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Greek Church in the ninth century and thus became involved in its schism. The seed of the modern Catholic Church in Rumania developed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in consequence of the immigration of the Hungarians and Poles, and various Catholic dioceses were founded in the Middle Ages. However, the mass of the population was never won over to reunion with Rome, and the dioceses soon vanished. In 1211 King Andreas II presented to the Teutonic Order the land about Kronstadt in Transylvania, but he withdrew his donation in 1225 and entered into personal possession of the territory. Numerous Hungarians and Germans had meanwhile settled in the plain of the Danube, then occupied mostly by the pagan Cumans, and the majority of the latter were won for Christianity. For these converted Cumans the Archbishop of Gran erected the "Diocese of the Cumans", which included not only the modern Rumania, but also Bessarabia and a portion of Transylvania. Theodorich, a Dominican, was the first occupant of the see, and fixed his seat at Milcov. In 1241, however, the diocese was ravaged by the Tatars; the title alone was retained, being given to Hungarian vicars-general (even to ordinary parish priests) until 1523. To replace this see a Catholic bishopric was established in 1246 at Severin, a town on the Danube near the Hungarian frontier which had been taken from the Bulgar-Rumanian Empire of the Asens by King Andreas II in 1230 and presented to the Knights of Malta in 1247. The first bishops, Gregory (about 1246) and another Gregory (about 1382), were actual bishops, but the remaining ten occupants of the see (mentioned until 1502) were merely titular bishops, who lived mostly in Hungary. A third Catholic diocese was founded at Sereth. When the Eastern emperor, John Palaeologus the Elder, made his submission to Rome in 1369, Latzco, the Rumanian Prince of Moldavia, followed his example, and asked Pope Urban V to erect a diocese at Sereth (1370). The first bishop was the Conventual, Nicholas Andrea Wassilo; he became Administrator of Halicz in 1373, and Bishop of Wilna in 1388. As the next two bishops were also coadjutors of Cracow, this see was reduced to the rank of a titular see. In consequence of the efforts for reunion of Urban V, who wished to restore the old Diocese of Milcov, another Catholic diocese was founded at Arges in 1381, and the Dominican Nicholas Antonii appointed its first incumbent. Of his sixteen successors, known until 1664, all lived outside the diocese, the title of which they added to their other titles. A fifth diocese was founded at Baja, the oldest town in Moldavia. The names of seven bishops who lived before 1523 are known; in the sixteenth century the population almost unanimously embraced Protestantism. The foundation of the Diocese of Bacau (1G07), whose occupants resided in Poland, did as little to strengthen the Catholic Church. As the bishops of these dioceses resided almost exclusively outside their sees, the ministration to the Catholics, whose number was never very great, was undertaken by the religious orders -- especially the Franciscans and Dominicans, who founded many monasteries in the territory of the present Rumania. During the time of the Reformation most of the Catholics joined either the Greek schismatics or the Protestants. The spiritual care of the few who remained faithful was undertaken by the Conventuals from Constantinople; to these friars is due the maintenance of the Catholic faith in Rumania, and the erection of a church in Bukarest (1633). When, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, an episcopal see was established at Sofia, its first occupant, Petrus a Solis (1610), was named Administrator Apostolic of Wallachia -- an office also fulfilled by his successors. The most famous of these administrators was Petrus Deodatus Baksich (1641-74; from 1642 archbishop), whose report of his canonical visitation is preserved in the Archives of the Propaganda. As most of the bishops of Sofia were chosen from the Franciscan Observants, these friars gradually replaced the Conventuals as missionaries. In similar fashion the bishops of the Diocese of Marcianopolis (erected in 1643) were appointed administrators Apostolic for the Catholics of Moldavia, and the bishops of Nicopolis (1648) for the Catholics of Dobrudja. When, subsequently to 1715, the See of Sofia was left vacant, the administration of Wallachia was transferred to the Bishop of Nicopolis. During the plague of 1792-3 Bishop Paulus Dovanlia of Nicopolis (1777-1804) transferred the seat of his diocese to the Franciscan monastery in Bukarest; since then the bishops of Nicopolis have resided in Bukarest, or at Ciople in the neighbourhood. Dovanlia's successors have been chosen mostly from the Passionists, who came to Bukarest in 1781. The first was Francis Ferrari, who died of the plague in 1813. His successor, Fortunatus Ercolani (1815), became involved in a quarrel with his flock in consequence of his attitude towards the Franciscans, who had won the affection of the people, and was transferred to Civit`a Castellana in 1822. The next bishops were Josephus Molajoni (1822-47) and Angelo Parsi (1852-63); the latter built a new church and episcopal residence at Bukarest and introduced the Brothers of the Christian Schools and religious orders of women into the country. Parsi's successor, Joseph Pluym, became Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople in 1869. The number of Catholics so greatly increased in the nineteenth century, owing mainly to immigration from Austria and Hungary, that a reorganization of the Catholic Church in Rumania became necessary. This was done in 1883: the territory of Rumania was separated ecclesiastically from the Diocese of Nicopolis, Bishop Ignatius Paoli (1870-85) was named Archbishop of Bukarest in 1883, and the exempt Diocese of Jassy simultaneously re-erected. (Concerning the further history and ecclesiastical statistics, see BUKAREST and JASSY.) ABT, Die katholische Kirche in Rumanien (Wuerzburg, 1879); SAMUELSON, Rumania, past and present (London, 1882); RUDOW, Gesch. des rumaen. Schrifttums (Wernigerode, 1892); DE MARTONNE, La Roumanie (Paris, 1900); BENGER, tr. KEANE, Rumania in 1900 (London, 1901); NETZHAMMER, Aus Rumaenien (Einsiedeln, 1909); STURDZA, La terre et la race Roumaines depuis leurs origines jusqu'`a nos jours (Paris, 1904); ONCIUL, Din Istoria Romanici (Bukarest, 1906); BELLESSORT, La Roumanie contemporaine (Paris, 1907); XENOPOL, Les Roumains (Paris, 1909); FORGA, Istoria biscricii Romanesti (2 vols., Bukarest, 1905-09); CREANGA, Grundbesetz verteilung u. Bauernfrage in Rumaenien (3 vols., Leipzig, 1907-09); LE POINTE, La Roumaine moderne (Paris, 1910); FISCHER, Die Kulturarbeit des Deutschtums in Rumanien (Hermannstadt, 1911). JOSEPH LINS. Karl Friedrich Rumohr Karl Friedrich Rumohr Art historian, b. at Dresden, 1785; d. there, 1843. He became a Catholic in 1804. He was blessed not only with worldly possessions, but also with a practically unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and especially with a keen sense of form and beauty, which fitted him for the critical treatment of art and social relations. Italy was frequently visited by him, and he was fond of varying life in the large cities with the stillness and loneliness of the country. Exercising a magnificent hospitality, he himself was in many places, despite his very irritable temperament, a welcome guest--even with King William IV of Prussia and Christian VIII of Denmark. In his "Italienische Forschungen" (3 vols., 182-31), he treated in masterly fashion the Umbrian-Tuscan School of painting, and prepared the way for a critical conception of art history in Italy. His residence in Italy also gave rise to interesting works on the rural condition of Central and Upper Italy. His "Drei Reisen nach Italien" appeared as a special work. As the result of searching study he wrote "Hans Holbein der Jungere in seinem Verhaeltnis zum deutschen Formschnittwesen", "Zur Geschichte und Theorie der Formschneidekunst", and "Geschichte der koeniglichen Kupferstichsammlung zu Kopenhagen". His "Novellen" ae unimportant, his "Deutsche Denkwuerdigkeiten" (4 vols.), of little interest; his "Hunde-Fuechsestreit" (Kynalopekomachie) and "Schule der Hoeflichkeit" are written in a humorous vein. The "Geist der Kochkunst" also extended his fame and popularity. King Christian VIII built a monument in his honour. Biography by SCHULZ (Leipzig, 1844); POEL in Allg. Deutsche Biogr., XXIX. G. GIETMANN St. Rupert St. Rupert (Alternative forms, RUPRECHT, Hrodperht, Hrodpreht, Roudbertus, Rudbertus, Robert, Ruprecht). First Bishop of Salzburg, contemporary of Childebert III, king of the Franks (695-711), date of birth unknown; d. at Salzburg, Easter Sunday, 27 March, 718. According to an old tradition, he was a scion of the Frankish Merovingian family. The assumption of 660 as the year of his birth is merely legendary. According to the oldest short biographical notices in the "Mon. Germ. Script.", XI, 1-15, Rupert was noted for simplicity, prudence, and the fear of God; he was a lover of truth in his discourse, upright in opinion, cautious in counsel, energetic in action, far-seeing in his charity, and in all his conduct a glorious model of rectitude. While he was Bishop of Worms, the fame of his learning and piety drew many from far and wide. The report of the bishop's ability reached Duke Theodo II of Bavaria, who had placed himself at the head of the current ecclesiastical movement in Bavaria. Theodo sent Rupert messengers with the request that, he should come to Bavaria to revive, confirm, and propagate the spirit of Christianity there. Despite the work of early missionaries, Bavaria was only superficially Christian; its very Christianity was indeed to some extent Arian, while heathen customs and views were most closely interwoven with the external Christianity which it had retained. St. Rupert acceded to Theodo's request, after he had by messengers made himself familiar with the land and people of Bavaria. St. Rupert was received with great honour and ceremony by Theodo in the old residential town of Ratisbon (696). He entered immediately upon his apostolic labours, which extended from the territory of the Danube to the borders of Lower Pannonia, and upon his missionary journey came to Lorch. Thence he travelled to the lonely shores of the Wallersee, where he built a church in honour of Saint Peter, thereby laying the foundation of the present market-town of Seekirchen in the Newmarket district of Salzburg. From the Roman colony there Rupert obtained an account of the ancient Roman town of Juvavum, upon the site of which there still remained many more or less dilapidated buildings, overgrown with briars and brushwood. Having personally verified the accuracy of this account concerning the place and position, Rupert requested Theodo, in the interests of his apostolic mission to the country, to give him the territory of Juvavum (which was still a place of considerable commerce) for the erection of a monastery and an episcopal see. The duke granted this petition, bequeathing the territory of Juvavum (the modern Salzburg), two square miles in area, to St. Rupert and his successors. At the foot of the precipice of the Monchberg, where once St. Maximus, a disciple of St. Severin, had suffered martyrdom with his companions (476), St. Rupert erected the first church in Salzburg, the Church of St. Peter, in honour of the Prince of the Apostles, as well as a monastery. Upon the lofty prominences (Nonnberg) to the southeast of the town, where the old Roman fortress once towered, he established a convent of nuns which, like the monastery of the Moenchberg, he placed under the protection and Rule of St. Benedict. To set his institutions upon a solid basis, Rupert repaired home, and returned with twelve companions besides his niece Ehrentraud (Erindruda), whom he made abbess over the Benedictine Convent of Nonnberg, while he with his twelve companions formed the first congregation of the famous Benedictine Monastery of St. Peter at Salzburg, which remains to the present day. St. Rupert thenceforth devoted himself entirely to the work of salvation and conversion which he had already begun, founding in connection therewith manny churches and monasteries--e.g., Maxglan, near Salzburg, Maximilianszelle (now Bischofshofen in Pongau), Altotting, and others. After a life of extraordinarily successful activity, he died at Salzburg, aided by the prayers of his brethren in the order; his body reposed in the St. Peterskirche until 24 Sept., 774, when his disciple and successor, Abbot-Bishop St. Virgil, had a portion of his remains removed to the cathedral. On 24 Sept., 1628, these relics were interred by Archbishop Paris von Ladron (1619-54) under the high altar of the new cathedral. Since then the town and district of Salzburg solemnize the feast of St. Rupert, Apostle of Bavaria and Carlnthia, on 24 September. In Christian art St. Rupert is portrayed with a vessel of salt in his hand, symbolizing the universal tradition according to which Rupert inaugurated salt-mining at Salzburg; this portrayal of St. Rupert is generally found upon the coins of the Duchy of Salzburg and Carinthia. St. Rupert is also represented baptizing Duke Theodo; this scene has no historical foundation. St. Rupert was the first Abbot-Bishop of Salzburg, for, as he established his foundations after the manner of the Irish monks, he combined in his own person the dignities of abbot and bishop. A similar combination of dignities existed also in Ratisbon and Freising. This twofold character of the bishop continued in Salzburg for nearly 300 years until the separation of the dignities was effected in 987 by Archbishop Friedrich I of Salzburg, Count of Chiemgau, the twenty-first Abbot of the Monastery of St. Peter. The period of St. Rupert's activity was until very lately a matter of great discussion. Formerly the opinion was held that the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries was the age of his missionary work, but, according to the most exhaustive and reliable investigations, the late seventh and early eighth centuries formed the period of his activity. This fact is established especially by the "Breves notitiae Salzburgenses", a catalogue of the donations made to the Church of Salzburg, with notices from the ninth century. In these latter Bishop St. Virgil, whose ministry is referred to 745-84, appears as a direct disciple of St. Rupert. It is forthwith evident that the assumption of the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh centuries as the period of Rupert's activity is extremely doubtful, even apart from the fact that this view also involves the rejection of the catalogue of the bishops of Salzburg and of Easter Sunday as the day of Rupert's death. Many churches and places bearing Rupert's name, serve as surviving memorials of his missionary activity. A successor of St. Rupert, the present scholarly Abbot of St. Peters in Salzburg, Willibald Hauthaler, has written an interesting work upon this subject entitled "Die dem hl. Rupertus Apostel von Bayern geweihten Kirchen und Kapellen" (with map, Salzburg, 1885). ULRICH SCHMID Rusaddir Rusaddir A titular see of Mauritania Tingitana. Rusaddir is a Phoenician settlement whose name signifies a lofty cape. This city is mentioned by Ptolemy (IV, 1) and Pliny (V, 18) who call it "oppidum et portus", also by Mela (I, 33), under the corrupted form Rusicada and by the "Itinerarium Antonini". During the Middle Ages it was the Berber city of Mlila; it is now known as Melilla. In 1497 it fell into the hands of the Duke of Medina Sidonia, and in 1506 was returned to the Crown of Spain. Since then its history is a succession of famines and sieges of which the most renowned is that of 1774 and the most recent that of 1893. In 1909 it was the seat of the warfare carried on between Spain and the Rif tribes. Melilla is, after Ceuta, the most important of the Spanish fortresses or presidios on the African coast. It has about 9000 inhabitants, and is built in the form of an amphitheatre on the east slope of a steep rock 1640 feet high, bounded by abrupt cliffs, whereon is the Fort of Rosario. A free port since 1881, Melilla carries on an active commerce with the Rif. There is no record of any bishop of this see. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr. s. v.; MULLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 583; MEAKIN, The Land of the Moor (London, 1901); BARRE, Melilla et les presides espagnols in Revue francaise (1908). S. PETRIDES Rusicade Rusicade A titular see of Numidia. It is mentioned by Ptolemy (IV, 3), Mela (I, 33), Pliny (V, 22), "Itinerarium Antonini", the "Tabula Peutingerii'; etc. Nothing is known of its history. Situated near the mouth of the Thapsus, it served as the commercial port of Cirta and exported grain to Rome. The port was called Stora or Ustura, where under Valentinian and Valens granaries were built whose ruins are still visible. The city was known as Colonia Veneria Rusicada. It was a total ruin when rebuilt by the French as Philippeville. Philippeville is the capital of the province of the Department of Constantine (Algeria); it has 21,550 inhabitants of whom 8200 are French, 5900 foreigners, mostly Italians and Maltese, 450 Jews, and 7000 Arabs. The ancient name survives in Ras Skidda, a point of the Djebel Addouna from which juts forth the great pier. The commerce is considerable. Ruins of a theatre, museum, Christian sarcophagus, Christian inscriptions, and the remains of a basilica dedicated to Saint Digna may be found there. Six bishops of Rusicade are known: Verulus, present at the Council of Carthage (255), perhaps the martyr in the martyrology, 21 February; Victor, condemned at the Council of Cirta (305) as a traitor or betrayer of the Scriptures; Navigius whose remains and epitaph have been recovered in the church which he erected to Saint Digna in the fourth century; Faustinianus, present at the Conference of Carthage (411) with his Donatist rival, Junior; Quintilianus (?) in 425; Eusebius, exiled by Huneric in 484. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v., MULLEN, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 614; TOULOTTE, Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne: Numidie (Rennes and Paris, 1894), 258-63. S. PETRIDES Ruspe Ruspe Titular see of Byzacena in Africa, mentioned only by Ptolemy (IV, 3) and the "Tabula" Peutinger. According to the first it was on the coast between Acholla (Kasr el Abiah) and Usilla (Henshir Inshilla); the "Tabula", or map of Peutinger, states that it was six (doubtless twenty-six) miles from the latter place. It is identified with the ruins called Ksour Siad, seventeen miles from Acholla. Others believe it to be at Henshir Sbia, four miles west of Cape Kapoudia (north of the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia), its name being preserved at Koudiat Rosfa near Ras el Louza. It seems more probable that Koudiat Rospa is itself the ancient Ruspe. Four bishops of the see are known: Stephanus, exiled by King Huneric (484); St. Fulgentius, consecrated in 508, died in 533; Felicianus, his companion in exile and successor, who assisted at the Council of Carthage (about 534); Julianus, who signed in 641 the Anti-Monothelite letter of the bishops of Byzancena to the Emperor Constantine. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v.; MULLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 622; TOULOTTE, Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne: Byzacene et Tripolitaine (Montreuil, 1894), 164-6. S. PETRIDES Charles Russell Charles Russell (BARON RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN). Born at Newry, Ireland, 10 November, 1832; died in London, 10 August, 1900. He was the elder son of Arthur Russell of Killowen and Margaret Mullin of Belfast. The family was in moderate circumstances, their ancestors having suffered much for the Faith in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Arthur Russell having died in 1845, the care of his large family devolved upon their talented mother and their paternal uncle, the celebrated Dr. Russell of Maynooth. Having studied at the diocesan seminary, Belfast, at a private school in Newry, and St. Vincent's College, Castleknock, Dublin, Charles Russell entered the law offices of Mr. Denvir, Newry, in 1849, and of Mr. O'Rorke, Belfast, in 1852. Admitted a solicitor in 1854, he practiced in the county courts of Down and Antrim, and became at once the champion of the Catholics who had resisted organized attempts at proselytizing by Protestants in these counties. His success was so striking that his legal friends urged him to become a barrister in London, and in 1856 he entered at Lincoln's Inn. Having followed an extensive course by close private study under the direction of Maine, Broom, and Birkbeck, he was called to the bar in 1859. His success on the northern circuit soon recalled him to London, where he became "Queen's Counsel" in 1872, and divided the mercantile business of the circuit with Lord Herschell. The increasing demand for his services may be judged by his fees which averaged $15,000 a year from 1862-72, $50,000 in the next decade, $80,000 in the third, and in 1893-4, his last year of practice, reached $150,000. His knowledge of law, business, and human character, a flexible and often passionate eloquence which derived its force from intense earnestness rather than oratorical device, marvelous dexterity in extracting the truth from witnesses, and a manifest honesty of purpose gave him a power over judge and jury which made him universally regarded as the first advocate of his age. Though in his first years in London he had been weekly correspondent of the Dublin "Nation", an advanced Nationalist organ, he entered Parliament as a Liberal being elected, after two defeats, member for Dundalk in 1880. He generally acted with the Nationalists on Irish, and always on Catholic, questions, and, when he visited the United States in 1883, bore a flattering introduction from Mr. Parnell. Elected member for South Hackney (1885-94), he was appointed attorney-general by Mr. Gladstone in 1886, and again in 1892 on the return of the Liberals to power. He was a strenuous advocate of Home Rule in Parliament and on public platforms, and was leading advocate for Mr. Parnell at the Parnell Commission trial in 1888. His cross-examination of the witnesses of the "Times", and especially his exposure of Pigott, the author of the "Times" forgeries, made a favorable verdict inevitable. His famous eight-day speech for the defense was his greatest forensic effort. In 1893 he represented Great Britain in the Behring Sea Arbitration, his speech against the United States' contentions lasting eleven days, and was knighted for his services. Made Lord of Appeal, 1894, he was raised to the peerage for life, taking his title from his native townland of Killowen. In the same year he was appointed Lord Chief Justice of England, the first Catholic to attain that office for centuries. He won speedily the public confidence and is ranked with the most illustrious of his predecessors. He revisited the United States in 1896 as the guest of the American Bar Association and delivered a notable address on arbitration. In 1899 he represented England on the Venezuelan Boundaries Commission, and displayed all his old power of separating vital points from obscuring details. The following year he was attacked while on circit by an internal malady, and, after a few weeks illness, died piously in London, after receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church, of which he had been always a faithful and devoted member. He was survived by his widow (Ellen, daughter of Dr. Mulholland of Belfast), whom he married in 1858, and by five sons and four daughters. The unanimous tribute paid him by the English and American Bar and by the people and journals of the most diverse political and religious views attested that, despite his masterful character as lawyer, judge, and parliamentarian, and his stalwart loyalty to his Faith and country, he had attained a rare and widespread popularity. In him were blended many qualities not usually found together. With a keen and orderly mind, a resolute will, great capacity for work, and severe official dignity, he combined sensibility of temperament, a spirit of helpfulness and comradeship, and a dreamer's devotion to ideals. He was always ready to write and speak for educational, religious, and benevolent purposes, though such action was not calculated to forward his political ambitions. Devoted to his family, he crossed the continent on his first American trip to visit Mother Mary Baptist Russell of San Francisco (who, with two others of his sisters, had entered the Order of Mercy), and found time to write for his children and send them day by day an admirable account of his experiences. This "Diary of a Visit to the United States" has been since edited by his brother, Rev. Matthew Russell, S.J., and published (1910) by the U.S. Catholic Historical Society. His other published works include: "New Views of Ireland" (London, 1880); "The Christian Schools of England and Recent Legislation" (1883); his speech before the Parnell Commission (1888); essay on Lord Coleridge in the "North American Review" (1894), and on the legal profession in the "Strand Magazine" (1896); "Arbitration, its Origin, History, and Prospects" (London, 1896). BARRY O'BRIEN, Life (London, 1901); personal recollections in The Times (London, 11 Aug., 1900), and files of the daily press; Irish Monthly and other magazines (Sept. and Oct., 1900); Reports of American Bar Association (31 Aug., 1900), and of the unveiling of the Lord Russell Statue (London, Jan.,1905); FOSTER, Men at the Bar; Lincoln's Inn Reg.; Burke's Peerage (1900), COKAYNE, Complete Peerage (1900). M. KENNY Charles William Russell Charles William Russell Born at Killough, Co. Down, 14 May, 1812; died at Dublin 26 Feb., 1880. He was descended from the Russells who held the barony of Killough of Quoniamstown and Ballystrew. He received his early education at Drogheda grammar school and Downpatrick, after which he entered Maynooth in 1826. After a brilliant course he was ordained on 13 June, 1835, and became one of the professors of humanities at the college. In 1842 he was chosen by Gregory XVI to be the first Vicar Apostolic of Ceylon, but he refused the dignity as also the Bishopric of Down and the Archbishopric of Armagh. Three years later he returned to Maynooth as professor of ecclesiastical history. Having published his translation of Leibnitz's "System of Theology" in 1850, he was occupied on his "Life of Cardinal Mezzofanti" which appeared in 1858. In 1857 he succeeded Dr. Renehan as President of Maynooth. His profound antiquarian learning caused him to be appointed a member of the Historical Manuscripts Commission in 1869, and in that capacity he acted as joint editor (with John Prendergast) of the eight-volume "Report on the Carte Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library" (1871) and the "Calendar of Irish State Papers during the reign of James I" (4 vols., 1872-77). He was also a frequent contributor to the "Dublin Review" which for thirty years he enriched by various papers, often writing more than one for the same number. The last of these were the two masterly articles on the sonnet (1876-77). He wrote many articles for "Chambers's Encyclopedia", and two--"Palimpsests" and "Papyrus"--for the "Encyclopedia Britannica". He contributed also to many other magazines such as the "Edinburgh Review", the "Month", and "Irish Monthly". A humbler but very popular work has been his translation of Canon Schmid's " Tales for the Young" first published in 1846. Besides his literary work and all that he accomplished for Maynooth, he exercised a very powerful influence on the leading men of his age by the charm and force of his personality. Wiseman and Newman alike counted him as an intimate friend, and the latter wrote of him: "He had perhaps more to do with my conversion than any one else". Dr. Russell lived to witness the early success of his nephew Charles who subsequently became Lord Chief Justice of England. HEALY, Centenary History of Maynooth College (Dublin, 1895); CARLYLE in Dict. Nat. Biog,; WARD, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (London, 1897). EDWIN BURTON Richard Russell Richard Russell Bishop of Vizeu in Portugal, b. in Berkshire, 1630; d. at Vizeu, 15 Nov., 1693. He was of humble station, and when twelve years old became servant to Dr. Edward Daniel, newly appointed President of Lisbon College. Five years later, having meanwhile applied his leisure to study, he was admitted an alumnus of the college and took the oath, 14 Aug, 1647. In 1653 he went to Douai College, and thence to Paris, where he was ordained. In 1655 he returned to Lisbon as procurator, but two years later was summoned by the Chapter to England, where he spent three years as a chaplain to the Portuguese ambassador. On his return to Portugal he received the title of Secretary to the Queen, and a pension, in consideration of his services to the crown of Portugal. Shortly afterwards he was again in England on business connected with the marriage treaty of Charles II and Catharine of Braganza, and on this occasion he was elected a Canon of the English Chapter (26 June, 1661). Having declined the Bishopric of the Cape Verde Islands, Russell accompanied the Infanta to England. The English Chapter hoped that he might be consecrated bishop of a Portuguese see and that then he would return to England, resign his diocese and become head of the English clergy with episcopal powers; for the English Catholics had long been without a resident bishop, and they had had no episcopal superior at all since the death of Bishop Smith in 1655. This plan, however, came to nothing, and when Russell was persuaded to accept the see of Portalegre in 1671 he decided to remain in his diocese. He was consecrated bishop in the chapel of the English College, Lisbon, on 27 Sept., 1671. Overcoming the first opposition of his clergy to a foreign bishop, he spent ten years in zealous and apostolic labor and effected a complete reformation of the diocese. In 1682 he was transferred to the diocese of Vizeu where he spent the last eleven years of his life. His portrait is preserved at the English College, Lisbon. KIRK IN CROFT, Historical Account of Lisbon College (London 1902), with portrait; DODD, Church History, III (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); SERJEANT, Account of the Chapter (London, 1853); BRADY, Episcopal Succession, III (Rome, 1877); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v. Russell, Richard Fifth Douay Diary in Catholic Record Society, X (London, 1911). EDWIN BURTON Russia Russia GEOGRAPHY Russia (Rossiiskaia Imperiia; Russkoe Gosudarstvo) comprises the greater part of Eastern Europe, and a third of Asia; its area is one-sixth of the land surface of the globe. In the reign of Alexander II the total area of the empire was 8,689,945 sq. miles, of which only 2,156,000 were in Europe. The greatest length of Russia from east to west is 6666 miles, and its greatest breadth is 2666 miles; it lies between 35-o 45' and 79-o N. lat., and 17-o 40' and 191-o E. long. (i. e., 169 W. long.). The boundaries of Russia are: on the north, the Arctic Ocean; on the west, Sweden, Norway, the Baltic Sea, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Rumania; on the south, the Black Sea, Turkey, Persia, the Caspian Sea; Afghanistan, and China; on the east, the Pacific Ocean. Russia forms a vast, compact territory, the area of its islands being only 107,262 sq. miles, which was greatly reduced by the cession of the southern part of Sakhalin to Japan. Geographers usually divide Russia into European and Asiatic Russia, regarding the natural boundary to be the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Don, and the Volga; this division is based neither on natural nor on political grounds. The Ural Mountains form a chain of wooded highlands, which may be compared to the central axis of the empire rather than to a dividing barrier; moreover there is no natural boundary line between the southern extremity of these mountains and the Caspian Sea. The division between European and Asiatic Russia can best be established ethnologically, and this method is frequently used in Russian geographies. SEAS The coasts of Russia are washed by many seas; the Arctic Ocean, the White Sea, the Bay of Tcheskaya, the Bay of Kara, the Gulf of Obi, the Baltic Sea, the Gulfs of Bothnia, Finland, and Riga, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azof, the Caspian Sea, the Pacific Ocean, Behring Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Sea of Japan. But Russia is not destined to become a great maritime power, because for the most part the seas of Russia are in regions where navigation is impossible in winter; for periods of six months in the Arctic Ocean, and from fifteen days to one month at some points in the Black Sea. And the future of Russia as a maritime power is moreover obstructed by political difficulties; the way from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean is closed by the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles; the way from the Baltic to the Atlantic is closed by Sweden, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. The Arctic Ocean washes the extreme northern coasts of Russia, sterile, uninhabited regions, over which there hangs a winter of nine months, paralyzing the activities of life. The ice, whether fixed or floating, blocks the way of ships; these ply however in the White Sea, which is free of ice for three months of the year, and the waters of which form the Gulfs of Mezen, the Dwina, Onega, and Kandalak, the latter being the most frequented. There are but few islands in this immense extent of ice; the more important ones are the islands of Kolguet, Vaigatch, Nova Zembla, New Siberia, and the islands of Solovka, on one of which is a famous monastery founded in the fifteenth century by St. Sabbatius and the Blessed Germanus. Among the most important peninsulas may be cited that of Kola or Russian Lapland. Russia shares the possession of the Baltic Sea with Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, and its waters have been the highway of Russian commerce since the time of Peter the Great, although their shores are rugged and reefs numerous. The Gulfs of Bothnia, Finland and Riga are frozen for several months of the year, while the Gulf of Livadia is frozen for six weeks, although it sometimes remains free of ice through the whole year. Notwithstanding these natural obstacles, Russian commerce has been developed on the Baltic, the shortest route for the exportation of Russian products to European countries and America. The Baltic Sea is studded with islands, of which the following belong to Russia: the numerous Aland group, eighty of which are inhabited; the Islands of Dago, Oesel, Mohn, Wornes, and Kotlin; on the last is built the formidable fortress of Kronstadt. CLIMATE In European Russia the climate is severe, both in winter and summer, the rains are scanty, and the temperature is not as mild as in Western Europe. The coasts of the Baltic and the shores of the Vistula have a climate similar to that of Western Europe. European Russia presents graduated variations of climate between 40-o and 70-o N. lat., and also from east to west. At Nova Zembla the lowest winter temperature is 16-o F., while at the south of the Crimea it rises to 56.3-o in summer. The isothermal lines of European Russia are not coincident with the parallels of latitude, but diverge towards the southeast. There are places situated on the same parallel presenting considerable differences in mean temperature, e. g. Libau, 49.1-o; Moscow, 39.2-o; Kazan, 37.4-o; Yekaterinburg, 32.9-o. In the valley of the Rion in the Caucasus, cotton and sugar-cane are grown, while the tundras of the Kola Peninsula are sparsely covered with moss. In Western Russia, the cold of winter is never greater than 31-o below zero, while the heat of summer is never in excess of 86-o; but in Eastern Russia the thermometer falls to 40-o below zero in winter, and rises to 109-o in summer. European Russia may be divided into four climatic zones: the cold zone, which includes the coasts of the Arctic Ocean and their adjacent islands, and extends beyond the Arctic Circle; its winter lasts nine months, and its summer three; the cold-temperate zone, from the Arctic Circle to 61-o N. lat.; its winter Lasts six months, and each of the other seasons two months; the temperate zone, extending from 61-o to 48-o N. lat.; each season lasts three months, the winter being longer towards the north, and summer longer towards the south; the warm zone, between 48-o N. lat. and the southern frontier of Russia; the summer lasts six months, and the other three seasons two months each. European Russia is not unhealthy, although in the cold zone scurvy is frequent, and near the Gulf of Finland ailments of the throat and the respiratory organs; plica polonica infects the marshy regions of Lithuania and Russian Poland; and there is the so-called Crimean fever in the neighbourhood of the Sivash and in a region on the coast of the Black Sea. The climate of the Caucasus is not of a uniform character; it belongs in the north to the cold-temperate zone, and in Transcaucasia to the warm zone. In the north, summer lasts six months, and the other seasons two months each. In Transcaucasia the summer lasts nine months, and the other three months of the year are like spring. Nevertheless the irregularity of the mountain system of the Caucasus produces differences of temperature in places separated by short distances. On the coast of the Black Sea between Batum and Sukhum, the temperature seldom falls below 32-o; in January the temperature rises as high as 43-o. Western Transcaucasia receives warm and humid winds, while the eastern part is exposed to dry winds from the north-east. The part of Siberia that borders on the Arctic Ocean lies entirely within the cold zone; the winter lasts nine months, and the summer is like the beginning of spring in European Russia. The portion of Siberia between the Arctic Circle and 60-o N. lat. has a winter that lasts six months; the region below the parallel of 60-o N. lat. has a winter a little longer than the summer. In proportion to the distance from the Ural Mountains the climate of Western Siberia experiences greater extremes of temperature, the winter and the heat of summer becoming more severe; and the same is true of Eastern Siberia in relation to the Pacific Ocean. The greatest variations of temperature in Eastern Siberia are observed at Irkutsk, Yakutsk, and Verkhoyansk, where the thermometer registers at times 59.6-o below zero in winter, and 49.46-o in summer. In midwinter the northern extremity of Siberia resembles the polar regions; during several days the sun does not rise, and the vast plain of snow is lit up by the Aurora Borealis, while at times the region of the tundras is swept by violent snowstorms. The climate of Turkestan is similar to Siberia. Those regions are far from the sea, and have cold winters and very warm summers, a sky that is always clear, a dry atmosphere, and strong northerly and north-easterly winds. The north winds develop violent snowstorms. The summer is unbearable; in the shade, the thermometer rises to 104-o, and even to 117.5-o, while the ground becomes heated to 158-o. MEAN TEMPERATURE OF CERTAIN RUSSIAN CITIES: -- January July St. Petersburg 15.26 63.86 Moscow 12.20 66.10 Kieff 20.84 66.56 Kazan 07.16 67.46 Yekaterinburg 02.30 63.50 Reval 42.80 53.96 Libau 36.14 62.00 Astrakhan 44.96 77.90 Verhoyansk -59.44 49.46 The mean yearly rainfall is estimated at from 8 to 24 inches. In general, those parts of Russia that are exposed to the North, and are covered with snow during the winter, abound in forests that preserve the humidity, in which they have an advantage over the southern part of the country. In the former, the rains are not violent, but are lasting, and moisten the earth to a considerable depth; in the South they are resolved into severe tempests, which pour down great quantities of water that are dispersed in torrents and rivers, and do not sink deep into the ground. The greatest rainfall of Russia is around the Baltic Sea (20 to 28 inches); and the least is in the Caucasus (4 to 8 inches). The advantages of the western over the eastern part of Russia are due to its greater proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the vapours of which are carried over Europe into Russia. The mean rainfall of Western Russia is calculated at 18.3 inches; that of the north-east, 15 inches; that of the east, from 12 to 15 inches; and that of the south is still less. The months of greatest rainfall are June, July, and August. The yearly rainfall at St. Petersburg is 20 inches, there being rain on 150 days of the year. The number of days upon which rain falls diminishes considerably towards the East and South. MINERAL RICHES The mineral riches of Russia consist principally of salt, coal, and iron. Salt is found in the mineral state in the Governments of Orenburg, Astrakhan, Kharkoff, and Yekaterinoslaff; and as a sediment, deposited by salt waters, in the Government of Astrakhan, and in the Crimean lakes of Sakskoe, Sasyk, and Sivash. The river basin that most abounds in coal is that of the Donetz; it is 233 miles in length, and 100 in breadth, and produces every known species of fossil coal. This basin also furnishes great quantities of peat, naphtha, gold, silver, platinum, copper, tin, mercury, iron, emeralds, topazes, rubies, sapphires, amethysts, porphyry, marble, granite, graphite, asphalt, and phosphorus. The Central Ural Mountains yield malachite and jasper. There are abundant petroleum springs in the Caucasus Mountains, especially in the vicinity of Baku. In the Kolivan Mountains, which is a ramification of the Altai system, deposits of malachite are found. ETHNOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS OF POPULATION The ethnographical history of primitive Russia is obscure. There is record of the Anti, a people who in the fourth century inhabited the regions about the mouths of the Danube and Don, but their name is lost after that date. Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Russian chroniclers refer to twelve tribes, collected under the general name of Russians; they are the Slovenes, Krivitches, Dregovitches, Drevilans, Polians, Duliebys, Buzhans, Tivercys, Ulitches, Radimitches, Viatics, and the Sieverians. The political cradle of Russia is the region of Kieff, where the Varangian princes formed the first Russian state. The invasions of the Tatars exercised a great influence upon the Russians; but it is a mistake to say that the Russians disappeared entirely before the Tatars and that, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the regions evacuated by the Tatars were peopled by Little Russians from Galicia. The population of Russia has steadily increased in numbers during the last two centuries, its rapid development being partly due to the birth-rate, and partly to the conquest of vast foreign territories. In 1724 Russia had a population of 14,000,000, which had increased to 36,000,000 in 1793, to 69,000,000 in 1851, and to 128,967,694 in 1897. The census of 1897 was the first official census of Russia. Its data, however, are only relatively correct, partly on account of the great extension of the Russian Empire, partly on account of the continuous emigration within the frontiers of that country, partly because of the lack of information concerning some of the centres of population in Siberia, and partly because of the resistance of some tribes to submit to the control of European civilization. In view of the enormous excess of births over deaths, the progressive increase of the population is calculated to be 2,000,000 each year. In 1904, basing the calculation on the statistics of births, the population of Russia was 146,000,000; in 1908, 154,000,000; and in 1910, 158,000,000. The greatest increase in the population is given by the region of New Russia, that of the Baltic, and the Province of Moscow. In general, the number of births in Russia is calculated at 48 per 1000, and that of the deaths at 34 per 1000. Compared with other European states, Russia is very thinly peopled, except in a few regions; for the whole empire, it is 17.325 per sq. mile; for European Russia 65; for Poland, 214; and for Siberia, 1.35. The government in which the population appears to be most dense is that of Piotrkow, where the corresponding figures are 295 inhabitants per sq. mile; after which follow in order the Governments of Moscow (187), Podolia (184.5), and Kieff (180). In the Government of Archangel, there are 2.25 inhabitants per sq. mile, and in Yakutsk .225. The great mass of the population consists of peasants; they form 84 per cent of the population of European Russia, a percentage greatly in excess of that of Rumania, Hungary, and Switzerland, nations that are essentially agricultural. The nobles and their servants constitute 1.5 per cent of the population; the clergy, 0.5 per cent; the citizens or merchants, 0.6 per cent; the burgesses (mieshanstvo), 10.6 per cent. The proportion of working men shows a notable increase: from 1885 to 1897 the increase in the mining centres was 91 per cent, and in the manufacturing centres 73 per cent; the population of the cities also is continually increasing. Some of these cities, as Kazan, Astrakhan, Tiflis, and Bakhtchisarai, are semi-Asiatic in character, as are also the cities of Turkestan. The cities of ancient Livonia, e. g., Riga and Reval, have the appearance of medieval German towns. The villages of Great Russia have a commercial character, and stretch along the principal roads and waterways. On the other hand the villages of Little Russia are agricultural in character. The White Russian villages are noticeable for the small number of houses they contain. With relation to sex, according to the statistics of 1905, the population of Russia has 103.2 women for each 100 men. In the villages, the corresponding proportion of women is 106.1; in the cities, it is 85.9. In 13 out of 50 of the governments of European Russia, the number of men is greater than that of the women; in 3 the numbers are equal, and in 34 the number of women is in excess of that of the men; in 12 governments the proportion is 100 men to 110 women. With regard to religion, Christianity in various denominations is the religion of the great majority of the people. There are 123,000,000 Christians (84.3 per cent of the entire population). The majority are of the Orthodox Church, which has 102,600,000 adherents (69.9 per cent of the population, the corresponding figures for European Russia being 91,000,000 (75 per cent). Consequently among the Russians Orthodox and Russian are synonymous terms. Since the Ukase of 17 April, 1905, which proclaimed freedom of conscience, Russian orthodoxy has lost 1,000,000 of followers, through conversions to Catholicism, to Protestantism, and to Mohammedanism. The Catholics of Russia number 13,000,000 (8.9 per cent); the Protestants, 7,200,000 (4.9 per cent); other Christian denominations, 1,400,000 (1 per cent); Mohammedans, 15,900,000 (10 per cent); pagans, 700,000 (0.4 per cent). Pagans, to the number of 300,000, are to be found, not only in Siberia, but also in European Russia (Kalmucks and Samogitians). The Catholics are chiefly in Poland, where, according to the census of 1897, they constituted 74.8 per cent of the population. On the other hand, one-half of the Jews who are scattered over the earth are in Russia, the number of them in that country being estimated at from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000, all concentrated within the boundaries of fifteen governments. From the standpoint of education, Russia does not occupy even a secondary position in Europe. In European Russia the percentage of those who know how to read and write is 22.9. The regions in which there are the least numbers of the educated are as follows: Esthonia (79 per cent); Livonia (77.7 per cent); Courland (70.9 per cent); the cities of St. Petersburg (55.1 per cent) and Moscow (40.2 per cent), and Poland (41 per cent). Emigration, as a rule, takes place only within the boundaries of the empire. From the most remote times, the inhabitants of Novgorod founded colonies as far away as the shores of the White Sea and the Ural Mountains. Emigration to Siberia began in 1582; the first colonists of that country were the exiles, the Cossacks, fishermen, and prospectors in search of gold; and this emigration was considerably increased after the liberation of the serfs in 1861. In 1891 the Siberian Railway Company undertook the colonization of Siberia, and by opportune measures gave a great impulse to Siberian immigration. In 1889 the number of Russian emigrants to that region was between 25,000 and 40,000; in 1900 it had increased to 220,000. These emigrants, who came from Central Russia and from Little Russia, spread at first over Western Siberia, and then over Central Siberia; but later they went farther and farther towards the extreme east, a movement to which the war with Japan put a stop, but which was again taken up with greater activity when that war ended. In 1906, 200,790 emigrants passed through Cheliabinsk to Siberia, and 400,000 in 1907. A part of the emigration is directed towards the southeast of Turkestan. The first colonists arrived in the Province of Semiryetchensk in 1848, and in the Province of Sir-Daria in 1876. Emigration beyond the frontiers of Russia is very limited, amounting in numbers at the present time to from 75,000 to 100,000, who for the greater part pass through the ports of Bremen and Hamburg. From 1891 to 1906, out of every 1000 Russian emigrants, 900 went to the United States, and the majority of the others to Brazil and the Argentine Republic. The population of Russia is very much divided linguistically, it being calculated that a hundred languages are spoken within the empire, of which forty-two are in use in the city of Tiflis alone. Russian is the official language of eighty-nine governments and provinces, but it is the predominant language in only forty-one of them. Among the dialects, Great Russian is the one that is most extensively used. The tongues of the Mongolian tribes that are subject to Russia are little developed, and are generally without a literature. The population of Russia presents a great variety of races, united by a political rule, by the community of the Russian language, and to a great extent by the Orthodox religion; it is characterized also by a great preponderance of the rural over the urban population, and by the presence of a high percentage of peoples or tribes with little culture of their own, and little aptitude for the assimilation of the culture of Europe. SPECIAL ETHNOGRAPHY Ethnographically the population of the Russian Empire is divided into two races, the Caucasian, which predominates, and the Mongolian. Of the total population 121,000,000, or 82.6 per cent, are Caucasians; while the Mongolian races in all Russia constitute 17 per cent of the whole population. Russians, properly so-called, constitute 87.7 per cent of the population in Western Siberia, 80 per cent in European Russia, 53.9 per cent in eastern Siberia, 8.9 per cent in central Asia, 6.7 per cent in the region of the Vistula, and 0.2 per cent in Finland. Notwithstanding the difference in types, the Russians constitute a single people, ethnographically divided into three classes, Great Russians, Little Russians, and White Russians. These three ethnographical branches are differentiated from each other by dialectical differences, domestic traditions and customs, character, and historical tradition. It is difficult to determine the zones of the three branches, or the numbers of individuals of which they consist. According to the census of 1897, there were 55,667,469 Great Russians (Velikorussi), 22,380,350 Little Russians (Malorussi), and 5,885,547 White Russians (Bielorussi). At present, there are 65,000,000 Great Russians. They occupy the central and northern parts of European Russia, their centres of population extending from the White Sea to the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Azoff, and are to be found also in Siberia and in the Caucasus. They have emigrated to Little Russia in considerable numbers; at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Kharkoff was inhabited almost entirely by Little Russians, but in 1897 Great Russians constituted 58 per cent of the population, and the Little Russians only 25 per cent. The Great Russians are active and energetic, and have great aptitude for commerce and work in general. They are regarded as the essentially Russian race, which has not only preserved its known ethnical characteristics under difficult conditions, but has assimilated with itself other races, especially of the Finnish stock. Their language is the predominant tongue of the Russian Empire. The small commerce of the cities is in their hands, as is also the commerce of the wines and fruit that come from Bessarabia, the Crimea and the Don, and the fish from the Black Sea and the Ural River. The Little Russians inhabit the south of Russia and the basin of the middle and lower course of the Dnieper, and constitute 26.6 per cent of the total population of the empire. Their greatest masses are to be found in the Governments of Pultowa (93 per cent), Tchernigoff (85.6 per cent), Podolia (80.9 per cent), Kharkoff (80.6 per cent), Stavropol (80 per cent), Kieff (79.2 per cent), Volhynia (70.1 per cent), and Yekaterinoslaff (68.9 per cent). The Little Russians are an agricultural people, and remain in their native districts. Their emigrations extend only to the steppes of New Russia, and to the territories of the Don and of the Kuban rivers. Of recent times they have furnished a large contingent to the agricultural colonization of Siberia. From the standpoint of culture that of the Great Russians is superior to that of the Little Russians, although the intellectual level of Little Russia was much higher than that of Great Russia during the Polish domination. The musical and poetical talents of this people are very much developed and their popular literature abounds in beautiful songs. The difference between Great and Little Russians is not only anthropological, but is also one of temperament and character, the Little Russians protesting that they are not Muscovites; and to emphasize their antipathy for the other race, in the nineteenth century they attempted to give a literary development to their dialect. The White Russians inhabit the forest and marsh region that is comprised between the Rivers Duena, Dnieper, Pripet, and Bug. They represent 7 per cent of the total population, and are scattered through the Governments of Vilna, Vitebsk, Grodno, Kovno, Minsk, Mohileff, Suwalki, and Yelisavetpol. Both physically and intellectually they are less developed Great and Little Russians. According to the Russians, the intellectual inferiority of that people is due to the despotism of Polish masters, under which they lived for several centuries to the loss of their nobility, which became Polish, and to the economic supremacy of the Jews. Accordingly, the White Russians are poor, ignorant, and superstitious. There is a great admixture of Polish and Lithuanian terms in their dialect. At the present time, however, national sentiment is awakening in the White Russians, who publish newspapers in their own language, and aspire to better their economic conditions. Ethnographically, the Caucasians are Great and Little Russians. They are a race of warrior-merchants and agriculturists, who developed the characteristic traits of their social and domestic life in struggles with the Tatars and Turks. According to the statistics of 1905, there were 3,370,000 Cossacks in all Russia, or 2.3 per cent of the population of the empire. Those of the Don are Great Russians. They are famous for their military qualities in general, and in particular for the part that they took in the liberation of Moscow from Polish occupation in 1612, in the conquest of Siberia, and in the war of 1812. At present they devote themselves to agriculture, raising cattle, commerce, and military service, and they enjoy many exemptions and privileges. The Cossacks of the Urals are noted for their religious fanaticism. Those of the Kuban and of the Black Sea are of Little Russian origin. They are called Cossacks of "the Line", because, after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, they built a line of fortified villages on the shores of the Kuban, to defend their new possessions against incursions of the so-called mountaineers of the Caucasus, the Tcherkesy, Tchetchency, Abkhazy, Osetiny, and Lezginy. In their life they have preserved the Little Russian customs and traditions. Besides the Russian, properly so-called, there are a great many other races that belong politically to Russia. Among the Slav races within the Russian frontiers, the most numerous are the Poles, of whom there are 12,000,000, and who chiefly inhabit the region of the Vistula. The Bulgarians and Servians have emigrated to the region of New Russia since 1752, forming colonies of peasants. The Servians allowed themselves to be easily russianized; but the Bulgarians showed reluctance to this, and still preserve their national character. The Lithuanians live along the Vilia River and the lower course of the Niemen, at the Prussian frontier. Their number is given as 3,500,000. They come in succession under Russian, Polish, Finnish, and Jewish influence. They are fervent Catholics, and their economic conditions are prosperous. Their national sentiment, depressed for several centuries, has awakened in recent times, and nationalist Lithuanians seek to throw off Russian and Polish influence and to form a national literature. Related to the Lithuanians are the Letts (Latyshi); they are a hard-working race and have a high moral standard. Their religion is chiefly Lutheranism; a few of them are of the Orthodox Church. To the Germanic race belong the Germans and Swedes. The Germans of Russia live on the Baltic Sea and on the western frontier, while colonies of them are to be found in European Russia and in the region of the Volga. In the Baltic region they constitute the higher classes of the population, being for the most part merchants and artisans. They own the greater portion of the land, because, after the imperial manifesto of 19 February, 1861, they freed their serfs (Letts and Esthonians), but did not divide their lands among them. There are over 100,000 of them in this region; in that of the Vistula, there are German colonists, some of whom descend from those who were called by the Polish nobility to occupy the free lands. At the present time, the Germans are devoted chiefly to industry, and have established a great many factories, especially at Lodz. There are German colonies on the steppes, which, having the authorization of the Government and special privileges, are prosperous, but which oppose effective resistance to all attempts to russianize them. The Swedes, about 400,000 in number, are concentrated in Finland, especially in the Governments of Nyland (45 per cent) and Vasa (28.8 per cent). They constitute the aristocratic and intellectual classes of Finland; but their political and literary influence, which was considerable, tends to diminish before the development of Finnish national sentiment. The Romanic races are represented by about 1,000,000 Moldavians, and by the Wallachians, who inhabit Bessarabia and the western part of the Government of Kherson. They are all of the Orthodox religion, and as a rule are employed in wine production and gardening. They resemble the Little Russians both physically and morally. The Iranian races are represented by about 1,000,000 Armenians, part of whom inhabit the Little Caucasus; the rest are scattered about the Various cities of the Caucasus and in European Russia. They are famous for the beauty of their type and for their patriarchal habits. Families are to be found among them numbering as many as fifty individuals, who are ruled by the eldest of them. They devote themselves to agriculture and commerce, for the latter of which pursuits they have a special aptitude. They are Monophysites, and reject the Council of Chalcedon (Armenian-Gregorians), being under the jurisdiction of a katolicos who resides at Etchmiadzin. They have the greatest attachment to their language and the traditions of their mother-country. Among those who live in the Caucasus, there is a considerable literary culture. Several thousands of them are Catholics. On the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azoff there are several colonies of Greeks who devote themselves to agriculture, and especially to the production of tobacco. There are Greek colonies also in the chief centres of population of Russia, especially at Odessa and St. Petersburg. The Jews are a scattered population, principally in the Governments of Western and Southern Russia. Their presence in Russia is due to emigrations of German Jews from Poland, and they still preserve their dialect of Hebrew German, which is the language of their Press. As elsewhere, they evince the greatest aptitude for commercial matters and the commerce and industry of Western Russia is in their hands. The severe laws that limit the civil rights of the Jews in Russia have concentrated the members of that race in the cities, and the number of workmen and of artisans among them is very great, making their struggle for existence very difficult. Large fortunes are to be found among the Russian Jews, but their masses constitute a proletariat that on various occasions has been the victim of cruel massacres. Among these Russian Jews there is the greatest devotion to the Jewish religion and the greatest racial brotherhood. The Government admits only a limited number of them to the establishments of higher education; nevertheless, in the large cities, there is a great number of Jews who exercise the liberal professions, and especially that of medicine. The number of those who devote themselves to industrial pursuits increases each year. The Finns inhabit the regions of the Baltic Sea, the Volga, and the Ural Mountains. The Finns, properly so-called, who inhabit Finland are 2,500,000 in number. For several centuries they were under the domination of Sweden, by which country they were barred from western civilization. They are famous for their honesty, love of their country and traditions (they are Lutherans), their high intellectual level (there are scarcely any illiterate among them), the status of their women (the University of Helsingfors has six hundred women students, and the Parliament of Helsingfors has twenty-two women members), and their tenacity of character, by which they have transformed the poor soil of Finland. The progress of the Finns during the last fifty years has been considerable, but in 1910 the Government suppressed the liberty and autonomy of Finland, and possibly thereby has placed a barrier to the development of Finnish culture. The Korely, who live to the north of Lakes Ladoga and Onega, and of whom there are 210,000, are Baltic Finns; there are also small groups of them between Lake Ilmen and the Volga. They have been more amenable to russianization, and have embraced the Orthodox faith. The Esthonians occupy the southern part of the plain of the Baltic. There are 1,300,000 of them, who constitute a class of poor peasants, among whom remain many traditions and customs of paganism. They are mostly Lutherans. The Finns of the Volga comprise the Tcheremisy, the Mordva, and the Tchuvashi. The first, to the number of 400,000, live on the banks of the Volga, in the Governments of Kazan and of Vyatka. They were converted to Christianity by the Russian missionaries, but they remain pagans at heart, and in their customs. They devote themselves to agriculture, the chase, lumber commerce, and fishing. Their villages are small, having each not more than thirty houses. They are poor but honest, theft being regarded among them as a grave offence. The Tchuvashi are 800,000 in number; they live on the right bank of the Volga, and their chief centres of population are in the Governments of Kazan, Orenburg, Simbirsk, and Saratoff. Although they are Finns, they have adopted Russian customs, and tend more and more to become russianized. From the eighteenth century the Russian missionaries have attempted to convert them to orthodoxy, and have baptized a great number of them; but the Tchuvashi preserve a basis of paganism that is revealed in their rite and in their creed. Agriculture is their favourite pursuit, but they devote themselves also to the culture of bees, and they supply the markets of St. Petersburg with poultry and eggs. Other less important races are mentioned by Russian geographers. The total number of the various nationalities that constitute the Russian Empire is about one hundred. Their multiplicity, which transforms Russia into a true ethnographical museum, is an obstacle in the way of civilization, to the dissemination of instruction, and to the stability of the representative system. ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS For the purposes of administration Russia is divided into six great territorial regions: + (1) European Russia, properly so-called; + (2) the Governments of the Vistula (Privislanskila gubernii); + (3) the Grand duchy of Finland; + (4) the Caucasus; + (5) Siberia; + (6) Central Asia. These territories are divided into governments (gubernii) and provinces (oblasti). The governments are ruled with laws that are called "Statutes of the Governments" (Polozhenie o guberniiazh); the provinces, besides the general laws, have special laws that are made necessary by the great number of non-Russians and of the non-Orthodox who inhabit those regions. The governments are divided into districts called uiezdy, and the provinces into districts called okrugi. The number of these districts, both in the governments and provinces, varies from four to fifteen. The districts are divided into volosti, selskiia obshestva, etc. The okrugi are divided into military, judicial, scholastic, postal, etc. In European Russia there are seven gradonatchalstva, i. e., cities that have administrations independent of the governments and provinces in which they are situated: these are St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa, Rostoff-on-the-Don, Sebastopol, Kertch-Yenikale, and Nikolaieff. Kronstadt constitutes a separate military government. European Russia contains fifty-nine governments and two provinces. The governments of the Vistula, consisting of the territory of the former Kingdom of Poland that was annexed to Russia (carstvo polskoe), belong to European Russia. They enjoyed a certain autonomy until the revolution of 1863 led the Russian Government to suppress all their privileges and to employ every means for their russianization. After the liberal edicts of 1905 it was hoped that autonomy would be restored to the Russian Poles; but these hopes are far from being realized. The Grand duchy of Finland, which was united to Russia in 1809 as an integral part of the empire, enjoyed a special autonomy that gave an admirable development to the culture and prosperity of that land. The Finns had a code of special laws, a diet, senate, bank, coinage, and postal service. After 1905 there was universal suffrage, and the new chamber of deputies admitted women also to its membership. In 1910, however, the Duma approved a bill relating to Finland, which, if carried into effect, would bring Finnish autonomy to an end. Finland is divided into eight governments. In the Caucasus, where the Russian population is in a minority, besides the various governments, there are provinces where special laws are in force. Siberia is divided into governments and provinces. Among the latter the Island of Sakhalin, with an area of 14,836 sq. miles, has a population of 17,900. The southern portion of this island, however, was ceded to Japan by the treaty of Portsmouth, 16-29 August, 1905. The governments and provinces of Siberia are eight in number. Asiatic Russia has provinces (oblasti) only, because the Russians constitute only a small minority of the population. AGRICULTURE, AND CONDITION OF THE PEASANTS. Russia is a great agricultural nation; three-quarters of its population derive their support from the soil, which furnishes the most important resources of the country. The statistics concerning agriculture date from 1877-78, and were collected by the Central Committee of Statistics. More precise information was gathered by the same committee in 1886-88, and in 1905. According to the latest of these statistics, there were in European Russia, exclusive of the Kingdom of Poland, 1,067,019,596 acres of cultivated land, besides 17,609,124 acres in the Kalmuck steppes, and 19,133,296 in the steppes of the Kirghiz. The cultivated lands are divided into three classes: + (1) private property (274,685,426 acres); + (2) lands granted by the government to the peasants or nadiel'nyja zemli (374,672,484 acres); + (3) lands belonging to the treasury, the churches, monasteries, cities, and institutions (417,661,685). A comparison of these statistics with those of 1877 shows that in 1905 the lands owned by the nobles had diminished in area by 53,851,008 acres, and those of foreign subjects by 341,679 acres. On the other hand the landed property of the peasants had increased by 20,051,428 acres, and that of the other social classes had increased proportionately. In Siberia all the land, except the southern part of the Government of Tomsk which belongs to the imperial family, is the property of the Government, for as yet only a small portion has been granted to public and private institutions. The state lands of European Russia are distributed very irregularly. In the Governments of Archangel, Olonetz, and Vologda, the State owns from 83 to 90 per cent of the land; in the region of Tchernozom, 5 per cent, and in the Governments of Pultowa, Bessarabia, and in Esthonia less than 1 per cent. The lands granted to the peasants occupy more than half of the Governments of Orenburg, Vyatka, Ufa, Kazan, Penza, Voronezh, Samara, the Province of the Don, Vladimir, Ryazan, Kursk, Moscow, Kaluga, Kharkoff, Tchernigoff, and Pultowa. Of the lands that are private property, 52 per cent belong to the nobility, 24 per cent to the peasants, 16 per cent to the merchants, and the remainder is divided among other classes. The possessions of the nobility are chiefly in the Baltic region, Lithuania, and the Governments of Minsk, Perm, Podolia, and Kieff. In the period between 1860 and 1905 the rural property of the nobility, which had reached 213,300,000 acres, was reduced to 143,100,000 acres. The great landowners, possessing more than 2700 acres each, are chiefly in the eastern governments and in those of the Baltic. The arable lands of the Kingdom of Poland occupy an area of 30,312,168 acres of which 44.56 per cent belong to private owners, 45.58 per cent to the peasants through government concessions, 4.02 per cent to the cities, and 5.84 per cent to the churches and other institutions. The land belonging to the churches and monasteries in the whole of European Russia, including Poland, is estimated at 0.6 per cent of all the arable land of that division of the empire. There are 591,788 rural villages in European Russia, with a total population of 81,050,300, of whom 84.5 per cent are peasants. According to statistics, 38.8 per cent of the total surface is forest; 26.2 per cent is arabic land; 19.1 per cent is land not available for cultivation; and 15.9 per cent is prairies and pasture lands. The lands unavailable for cultivation are the salt steppes, the marshes, and the tundras. In Finland these lands occupy 35.6 per cent of the country, and the proportion is still greater in Siberia and Turkestan, where the arable land is only 2 per cent. The "extensive" and the "intensive" systems of cultivation are variously applied in Russia, according to the region. In the governments of Northern Russia (Archangel, Olonetz, Vologda, Novgorod, and in parts of Yaroslaff, Kostroma, Vyatka, and Perm) the system called podsietchnaja obtains, consisting in stripping and uprooting the forests, planting wheat on their sites for intervals of from three to nine years, and then allowing the forests to grow up again when the fertility of the soil has been exhausted. In the Governments of Kherson, Yekaterinoslaff, Taurida, Stavropol, Orenburg, the Province of the Urals, and the Province of the Don Cossacks is practised the method called zalezhnaia (Fr. jachere). This consists in cultivating the land while its productive power endures; then it is transformed into pasture, and its cultivation is not resumed for an interval of ten, twelve, or fifteen years, as occasion may require. The intensive method of agriculture obtains in the central governments of Russia, in the zone of Tchernozom, and in other governments. A field is divided into three sections; in the first, winter grain (rye, corn) is sown; in the second, a crop of summer grain is put in (wheat, barley, oats); and in the third, grass for pasture is allowed to grow; each year the crop of each section is changed for one of the other two, thus allowing each section to rest once in three years. In the regions of the Vistula and the Baltic and in the south-western part of Finland the intensive system of agriculture obtains; no portion of the land remains untilled, but the peasants sow seed and plant vegetables in alternate years, so as not to exhaust the productiveness of the soil. In several regions, especially in the Caucasus, in Daghestan, Transcaucasia, and Turkestan, a remedy is found for the aridity of the soil in irrigation by means of canals. In other regions of a marshy character the work of draining the swamps is carried on, at times by the Government, and at times by private parties. In Podlachia alone, from 1874 to 1892, there were reclaimed 6,210,000 acres of swamp lands. The same kind of work was accomplished in Siberia. Russia is a great cereal-producing country. According to the statistics of 1908, in 73 governments (63 in Russian Europe, 1 in Transcaucasia, 4 in Siberia, and 5 in Central Asia), out of 327,642,983 acres of land, 56.2 per cent were devoted to the culture of cereals, 3.2 per cent to the culture of the potato, 13.9 per cent to the oat crop, and 26.7 per cent to artificial meadow lands. In 1908 the grain crop amounted to 48,000,000 tons; the potato crop yielded 29,000,000 tons; oats, 13,000,000 tons, and hay from artificial meadows, 47,000,000 tons. The governments that are the most productive of cereals are those of Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Yekaterinoslaff, and the Province of the Don Cossacks. As a cereal-producing country, Russia is the second in the world, the United States being the first. The development of potato culture, which was introduced into Russia in 1767, is notable. The grain that Russia produces is not only sufficient to supply the home market, but also constitutes one of the chief exports. The amount of it that is exported amounts on an average to 15,000,000 tons a year. It should be noticed, however, that in proportion to the area of the empire, the grain production of Russia is not high: Germany, France, and Austria, the combined area of which countries is only one-third of that of European Russia, produce together more grain than is produced in all Russia. There are abundant crops of other staples, also, that Russia produces; these are the flax crop, which yields 500,000 tons a year, produced in several of the governments of the north-east, north-west, and south; hemp, 400,000 tons; cotton, raised in Transcaucasia and Turkestan, especially in the Province of Ferghana, annual yield more than 170,000 tons. Tobacco was introduced into Russia in the seventeenth century; its use was prohibited by severe laws, but was allowed from the time of Peter the Great; it is cultivated in the Governments of Tchernigoff, Pultowa, Samara, Saratoff, Taurida, Bessarabia, Kuban, etc. Its annual yield is about 100,000 tons, while the lands that are devoted to its cultivation cover an area of 1,755,000 acres. The principal tobacco factories are at St. Petersburg, Moscow, Riga, Kieff, and Odessa. The culture of beets, introduced into Russia about the beginning of the nineteenth century, has been greatly developed during the last thirty years, there being now devoted to it an aggregate area of 1,485,000 acres, the greater portion of which is in the Governments of Kieff and Podolia, the annual crop amounting to 10,000 tons. Wine is not extensively produced in Russia, and is of inferior quality. The best vineyards are in the Crimea, in Kakhetia, and in the Province of the Don Cossacks. There are 729,000 acres devoted to vine culture, and the yearly product amounts to not more than 88 million gallons. The Government seeks to encourage the home production of wine by very high duties on foreign wines. The culture of vegetables and fruit is not greatly developed; market gardens thrive in the neighbourhood of the large cities, especially in the District of Rostoff, and in the Governments of Saratoff and Samara. The production of fruit is abundant in Transcaucasia and the Crimea.