__________________________________________________________________ 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 Théologiques", I, 572; II, 387). III. NECESSITY OF REVELATION Can it be said that Revelation is necessary to man? There can be no question as to its necessity, if it be admitted that God destines man to attain a supernatural beatitude which surpasses the exigencies of his natural endowments. In that case God must needs reveal alike the existence of that supernatural end and the means by which we are to attain it. But is Revelation necessary even in order that man should observe the precepts of the natural law? If our race be viewed in its present condition as history displays it, the answer can only be that it is, morally speaking, impossible for men unassisted by Revelation, to attain by their natural powers such a knowledge of that law as is sufficient to the right ordering of life. In other words, Revelation is morally necessary. Absolute necessity we do not assert. Man, Catholic theology teaches, possesses the requisite faculties to discover the natural law. Luther indeed asserted that man's intellect had become hopelessly obscured by original sin, so that even natural truth was beyond his reach. And the Traditionalists of the nineteenth century (Bautain, Bonnetty, etc.) also fell into error, teaching that man was incapable of arriving at moral and religious truth apart from Revelation. The Church, on the contrary, recognizes the capacity of human reason and grants that here and there pagans may have existed, who had freed themselves from prevalent errors, and who had attained to such a knowledge of the natural law as would suffice to guide them to the attainment of beatitude. But she teaches nevertheless that this can only be the case as regards a few, and that for the bulk of mankind Revelation is necessary. That this is so may be shown both from the facts of history and from the nature of the case. As regards the testimony of history, it is notorious that even the most civilized of pagan races have fallen into the grossest errors regarding the natural law; and from these it may safely be asserted they would never have emerged. Certainly the schools of philosophy would not have enabled them to do so; for many of these denied even such fundamental principles of the natural law as the personality of God and the freedom of the will. Again, by the very nature of the case, the difficulties involved in the attainment of the requisite knowledge are insuperable. For men to be able to attain such a knowledge of the natural law as will enable them to order their lives rightly, the truths of that law must be so plain that the mass of men can discover them without long delay, and possess a knowledge of them which will be alike free from uncertainty and secure from serious error. No reasonable man will maintain that in the case of the greater part of mankind this is possible. Even the most vital truths are called in question and are met by serious objections. The separation of truth from error is a work involving time and labour. For this the majority of men have neither inclination nor opportunity. Apart from the security which Revelation gives they would reject an obligation both irksome and uncertain. It results that a revelation even of the natural law is for man in his present state a moral necessity. IV. CRITERIA OF REVELATION The fact that Revelation is not merely possible but morally necessary is in itself a strong argument for the existence of a revelation, and imposes on all men the strict obligation of examining the credentials of a religion which presents itself with prima facie marks of truth. On the other hand if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants. The criteria of Revelation are either external or internal: (1) External criteria consist in certain signs attached to the revelation as a divine testimony to its truth, e.g., miracles. (2) Internal criteria are those which are found in the nature of the doctrine itself in the manner in which it was presented to the world, and in the effects which it produces on the soul. These are distinguished into negative and positive criteria. (a) The immunity of the alleged revelation from any teaching, speculative or moral, which is manifestly erroneous or self-contradictory, the absence of all fraud on the part of those who deliver it to the world, provide negative internal criteria. (b) Positive internal criteria are of various kinds. One such is found in the beneficent effects of the doctrine and in its power to meet even the highest aspirations which man can frame. Another consists in the internal conviction felt by the soul as to the truth of the doctrine (Suarez, "De Fide", IV, sect. 5, n. 9.) In the last century there was in certain schools of thought a manifest tendency to deny the value of all external criteria. This was largely due to the Rationalist polemic against miracles. Not a few non-Catholic divines anxious to make terms with the enemy adopted this attitude. They allowed that miracles are useless as a foundation for faith, and that they form on the contrary one of the chief difficulties which lie in faith's path. Faith, they admitted, must be presupposed before the miracle can be accepted. Hence these writers held the sole criterion of faith to lie in inward experience -- in the testimony of the Spirit. Thus Schleiermacher says: "We renounce altogether any attempt to demonstrate the truth and the necessity of the Christian religion. On the contrary we assume that every Christian before he commences inquiries of this kind is already convinced that no other form of religion but the Christian can harmonize with his piety" (Glaubenslehre, n. 11). The Traditionalists by denying the power of human reason to test the grounds of faith were driven to fall back on the same criterion (cf. Lamennais, "Pensées Diverses", p. 488). This position is altogether untenable. The testimony afforded by inward experience is undoubtedly not to be neglected. Catholic doctors have always recognized its value. But its force is limited to the individual who is the subject of it. It cannot be employed as a criterion valid for all; for its absence is no proof that the doctrine is not true. Moreover, of all the criteria it is the one with regard to which there is most possibility of deception. When truth mingled with error is presented to the mind, it often happens that the whole teaching, false and true alike, is believed to have a Divine guarantee, because the soul has recognized and welcomed the truth of some one doctrine, e.g., the Atonement. Taken alone and apart from objective proof it conveys but a probability that the revelation is true. Hence the Vatican Council expressly condemns the error of those who teach it to be the only criterion (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. iii). The perfect agreement of a religious doctrine with the teachings of reason and natural law, its power to satisfy, and more than satisfy, the highest aspirations of man, its beneficent influence both as regards public and private life, provide us with a more trustworthy test. This is a criterion which has often been applied with great force on behalf of the claims of the Catholic Church to be the sole guardian of God's Revelation. These qualities indeed appertain in so transcendent a degree to the teaching of the Church, that the argument must needs carry conviction to an earnest and truth-seeking mind. Another criterion which at first sight bears some resemblance to this claims a mention here. It is based upon the theory of Immanence and has of recent years been strenuously advocated by certain of the less extreme members of the Modernist School. These writers urge that the vital needs of the soul imperatively demand, as their necessary complement, Divine co-operation, supernatural grace, and even the supreme magisterium of the Church. To these needs the Catholic religion alone corresponds. And this correspondence with our vital needs is, they hold, the one sure criterion of truth. The theory is altogether inconsistent with Catholic dogma. It supposes that the Christian Revelation and the gift of grace are not free gifts from God, but something of which the nature of man is absolutely exigent; and without which it would be incomplete. It is a return to the errors of Baius. (Denz. 1021, etc.) While the Church, as we have said, is far from undervaluing internal criteria, she has always regarded external criteria as the most easily recognizable and the most decisive. Hence the Vatican Council teaches: "In order that the obedience of our faith might be agreeable to reason, God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit, there should be joined external proofs of His Revelation, viz: Divine works (facta divina), especially miracles and prophecy, which inasmuch as they manifestly display the omnipotence and the omniscience of God are most certain signs of a Divine revelation and are suited to the understanding of all" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii). As an instance of a work evidently Divine and yet other than miracle or prophecy, the council instances the Catholic Church, which, "by reason of the marvellous manner of its propagation, its surprising sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works, its catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a mighty and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable testimony to its own divine legation" (l. c.). The truth of the teaching of the council regarding external criteria is plain to any unprejudiced mind. Granted the presence of the negative criteria, external guarantees establish the Divine origin of a revelation as nothing else can do. They are, so to say, a seal affixed by the hand of God Himself, and authenticating the work as His. (For a fuller treatment of their apologetic value, and for a discussion of objections, see MIRACLES; APOLOGETICS.) V. THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or "deposit of faith" from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit -- "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude, 2) -- for which the Church was to "contend" but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition. The gift of Divine assistance (see I), sometimes confounded with Revelation by the less instructed of anti-Catholic writers, merely preserves the supreme pontiff from error in defining the faith; it does not enable him to add jot or tittle to it. All subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone, They may indeed be a legitimate object for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies: + that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the moral law, and, + that there are sufficient indications of their truth to justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without being guilty of superstition or of imprudence. It may however be further asked, whether the Christian Revelation does not receive increment through the development of doctrine. During the last half of the nineteenth century the question of doctrinal development was widely debated. Owing to Guenther's erroneous teaching that the doctrines of the faith assume a new sense as human science progresses, the Vatican Council declared once for all that the meaning of the Church's dogmas is immutable (De Fide Cath., cap. iv, can. iii). On the other hand it explicitly recognizes that there is a legitimate mode of development, and cites to that effect (op. cit., cap. iv) the words of Vincent of Lirins: "Let understanding science and wisdom [regarding the Church's doctrine] progress and make large increase in each and in all, in the individual and in the whole Church, as ages and centuries advance: but let it be solely in its own order, retaining, that is, the same dogma, the same sense, the same import" (Commonit. 28). Two of the most eminent theological writers of the period, Cardinal Franzelin and Cardinal Newman, have on very different lines dealt with the progress and nature of this development. Cardinal Franzelin in his "De Divina Traditione et Scriptura" (pt. XXII VI) has principally in view the Hegelian theories of Guenther. He consequently lays the chief stress on the identity at all points of the intellectual datum, and explains development almost exclusively as a process of logical deduction. Cardinal Newman wrote his "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" in the course of the two years (1843 45) immediately preceding his reception into the Catholic Church. He was called on to deal with different adversaries, viz., the Protestants who justified their separation from the main body of Christians on the ground that Rome had corrupted primitive teaching by a series of additions. In that work he examines in detail the difference between a corruption and a development. He shows how a true and fertile idea is endowed with a vital and assimilative energy of its own, in virtue of which, without undergoing the least substantive change, it attains to an ever completer expression, as the course of time brings it into contact with new aspects of truth or forces it into collision with new errors: the life of the idea is shown to be analogous to an organic development. He provides a series of tests distinguishing a true development from a corruption, chief among them being the preservation of type, and the continuity of principles; and then, applying the tests to the case of the additions of Roman teaching, shows that these have the marks not of corruptions but of true and legitimate developments. The theory, though less scholastic in its form than that of Franzelin, is in perfect conformity with orthodox belief. Newman no less than his Jesuit contemporary teaches that the whole doctrine, alike in its later as in its earlier forms, was contained in the original revelation given to the Church by Our Lord and His Apostles, and that its identity is guaranteed to us by the infallible magisterium of the Church. The claim of certain Modernist writers that their views on the evolution of dogma were connected with Newman's theory of development is the merest figment. OTTIGER, Theologia fundamentalis (Freiburg, 1897); VACANT, Etudes Th ologiques sur la Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); LEBACHELET, De l apolog tique traditionelle et l apolog tique moderne. (Paris, 1897); DE BROGLIE, Religion et Critique (Paris, 1906); BLONDEL, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pens e moderne en mati re apolog tique in Annales de la Philos: Chr tienne (Paris. 1896). On private revelations: SUAREZ, De Fide, disp. III, sect. 10; FRANZELIN, De Scriptura et Traditione, Th. xxii (Rome, 1870); POULAIN, Graces of Interior Prayer, pt. IV, tr. (London, 1910). On development of doctrine: BAINVEL, De magisterio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905); VACANT, op. cit., II, p. 281 seq.; PINARD, art. Dogme in Dict. Apolog tique de la Foi Catholique, ed. D AL S (Paris, 1910); O DWYER, Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi (London, 1908). Among those who from one point of view or another have controverted the Christian doctrine of Revelation the following may be mentioned: PAINE, Age of Reason (ed. 1910), 1 30; F. W. NEWMAN, Phases of Faith (4th ed., London, 1854); SABATIER, Esquisse d une philosophie de la religion, I, ii (Paris, 1902); PFLEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Berlin, 1896), 493 seq.; LOISY, Autour d un petit livre (Paris, 1903), 192 sqq.; WILSON, art. Revelation and Modern Thought in Cambridge Theol. Essays (London, 1905); TYRRELL, Through Scylla and Charybdis (London, 1907), ii; MARTINEAU, Seat of Authority in Religion, III, ii (London, 1890). G.H. JOYCE Private Revelations Private Revelations There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained in the article CONTEMPLATION. Some of them are at first thought surprising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e.g., of the life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate, although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidelity. This error is quite natural, being based on the assumption that, if the vision comes from God, all its details (the landscape, dress, words, actions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction of the historical past. This assumption is not justified, for accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly true. It may be objected that the Bible contains historical books, and that thus God may sometimes wish to reveal certain facts in religious history to us exactly. That doubtless is true, when there is question of facts which are necessary or useful as a basis for religion, in which case the revelation is accompanied by proofs that guarantee its accuracy. A vision need not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only. There are cases in which we can be certain that a revelation is Divine. (1) God can give this certainty to the person who receives the revelation (at least during it), by granting an insight and an evidence so compelling as to exclude all possibility of doubt. We can find an analogy in the natural order: our senses are subject to many illusions, and yet we frequently perceive clearly that we have not been deceived. (2) At times others can be equally certain of the revelation thus vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of the Old Testament gave indubitable signs of their mission; otherwise they would not have been believed. There were always false prophets, who deceived some of the people but, inasmuch as the faithful were counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from the true, it was possible so to distinguish. One incontrovertible proof is the working of a miracle, if it be wrought for this purpose and circumstances show this to be so. A prophecy realized is equally convincing, when it is precise and cannot be the result of chance or of a conjecture of the evil spirit. Besides these rather rare means of forming an opinion, there is another, but longer and more intricate method: to discuss the reasons for and against. Practically, this examination will often give only a probability more or less great. It may be also that the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad outlines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for example, contradictory opinions have been expressed: some believe unhesitatingly everything they contain, and are annoyed when anyone does not share their confidence; others give the revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori grounds); finally there are many who are sympathetic, but do not know what to reply when asked what degree of credibility is to be attributed to the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification "on account of the book". Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit with probability that many of them are true. For these two visionaries led lives that were regarded as very holy. Competent authorities have judged their ecstasies as divine. It is therefore prudent to admit that they received a special assistance from God, preserving them not absolutely, but in the main, from error. In judging of revelations or visions we may proceed in this manner: (1) get detailed information about the person who believes himself thus favored; (2) also about the fact of the revelation and the circumstances attending it. To prove that a revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the method of exclusion is sometimes employed. It consists in proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have interfered (at least on important points) with God's action, and that no one has retouched the revelation after its occurrence. This method differs from the preceding one only in the manner of arranging the information obtained, but it is not so convenient. To judge revelations or visions, we must be acquainted with the character of the person favoured with them from a triple point of view: natural, ascetical, and mystical. (For those who have been beatified or canonized, this inquiry has been already made by the Church.) Our inquiry into the visionary's character might be pursued as follows: 1. What are his natural qualities or defects, from a physical, intellectual, and especially moral standpoint? If the information is favourable (if the person is of sound judgment, calm imagination; if his acts are dictated by reason and not by enthusiasm, etc.), many causes of illusion are thereby excluded. However, a momentary aberration is still possible. 2. How has the person been educated? Can the knowledge of the visionary have been derived from books or from conversations with theologians? 3. What are the virtues exhibited before and after the revelation? Has he made progress in holiness and especially in humility? The tree can be judged by its fruits. 4. What extraordinary graces of union with God have been received? The greater they are the greater the probability in favour of the revelation, at least in the main. 5. Has the person had other revelations that have been judged Divine? Has he made any predictions that have been clearly realized? 6. Has he been subjected to heavy trials? It is almost impossible for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy crosses; for both are marks of God's friendship, and each is a preparation for the other. 7. Does he practice the following rules: fear deception; be open with your director; do not desire to have revelations? Our information concerning a revelation considered in itself or concerning the circumstances that accompanied it might be secured as follows: 1. Is there an authentic account, in which nothing has been added, suppressed, or corrected? 2. Does the revelation agree with the teaching of the Church or with the recognized facts of history or natural science? 3. Does it teach nothing contrary to good morals, and is it unaccompanied by any indecent action? The commandments of God are addressed to everyone without exception. More than once the demon has persuaded false visionaries that they were chosen souls, and that God loved them so much as to dispense them from the burdensome restrictions imposed on ordinary mortals. On the contrary, the effect of Divine visitations is to remove us more and more from the life of sense, and make us more rigorous towards ourselves. 4. Is the reaching helpful towards the obtaining of eternal salvation? In spiritism we find the spirits evoked treat only of trifles. They reply to idle questions, or descend to providing amusement for an assembly (e.g., by moving furniture about); deceased relatives or the great philosophers are interrogated and their replies are woefully commonplace. A revelation is also suspect if its aim is to decide a disputed question in theology, history, astronomy, etc. Eternal salvation is the only thing of importance in the eyes of God. "In all other matters", says St. John of the Cross, "He wishes men to have recourse to human means" (Montée, II, xxii). Finally, a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading. 5. After examining all the circumstances accompanying the vision (the attitudes, acts, words, etc.), do we find that the dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty? The spirits evoked by Spiritists often speak in a trivial manner. Spiritists try to explain this by pretending that the spirits are not demons, but the souls of the departed who have retained all their vices; absurd or unbecoming replies are given by deceased persons who are still liars, or libertines, frivolous or mystifiers, etc. But if that be so, communications with these degraded beings is evidently dangerous. In Protestant "revivals" assembled crowds bewail their sins, but in a strange, exaggerated way, as if frenzied or intoxicated. It must be admitted that they are inspired by a good principle: a very ardent sentiment of the love of God and of repentance. But to this is added another element that cannot be regarded as Divine: a neuropathic enthusiasm, which is contagious and sometimes develops so far as to produce convulsions or repugnant contortions. Sometimes a kind of unknown language is spoken, but it consists in reality of a succession of meaningless sounds. 6. What sentiments of peace, or, on the other hand, of disturbance, are experienced during or after the revelations? Here is the rule as formulated by St. Catherine of Siena and St. Ignatius: "With persons of good will [it is only of such that we are here treating] the action of the good spirit [God or His Angels] is characterized by the production of peace, joy, security, courage; except perhaps at the first moment." Note the restriction. The Bible often mentions this disturbance at the first moment of the revelation; the Blessed Virgin experienced it when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her. The action of the demon produces quite the contrary effect: "With persons of good will he produces, except perhaps at the first moment, disturbance, sorrow, discouragement, perturbation, gloom." In a word the action of Satan encounters a mysterious resistance of the soul. 7. It often happens that the revelation inspires an exterior work - for instance, the establishment of a new devotion, the foundation of a new religious congregation or association, the revision of the constitutions of a congregation, etc., the building of a church or the creation of a pilgrimage, the reformation of the lax spirit in a certain body, the preaching of a new spirituality, etc. In these cases the value of the proposed work must be carefully examined; is it good in itself, useful, filling a need, not injurious to other works, etc.? 8. Have the revelations been subjected to the tests of time and discussion? 9. If any work has been begun as a result of the revelation, has it produced great spiritual fruit? Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work? This is very well illustrated in the cases of the Scapular of Mount Carmel, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the miraculous medal. These are the signs that enable us to judge with probability if a revelation is Divine. In the case of certain persons very closely united to God, the slow study of these signs has been sometimes aided or replaced by a supernatural intuition; this is what is known as the infused gift of the discernment of spirits. As regards the rules of conduct, the two principal have been explained in the article on CONTEMPLATION, namely 1. if the revelation leads solely to the love of God and the saints, the director may provisionally regard it as Divine; 2. at the beginning the visionary should do his best to repulse the revelation quietly. He should not desire to receive it, otherwise he will be exposing himself to the risk of being deceived. Here are some further rules: + the director must be content to proceed slowly, not to express astonishment, to treat the person gently. If he were to be harsh or distrustful, he would intimidate the soul he is directing, and incline it to conceal important details from him; + he must be very careful to urge the soul to make progress in the way of sanctity. He will point out that the only value of the visions is in the spiritual fruit that they produce; + he will pray fervently, and have the subject he is directing pray, that the necessary light may be granted. God cannot fail to make known the true path to those who ask Him humbly. If on the contrary a person confided solely in his natural prudence, he would expose himself to punishment for his self-sufficiency; + the visionary should be perfectly calm and patient if his superiors do not allow him to carry out the enterprises that he deems inspired by Heaven or revealed. One who, when confronted with this opposition, becomes impatient or discouraged, shows that he has very little confidence in the power of God and is but little conformed to His will. If God wishes the project to succeed, He can make the obstacles suddenly disappear at the time appointed by Him. A very striking example of this divine delay is to be found in the life of St. Juliana, the Cistercian prioress of Mont-Cornillon, near Liège (1192-1258). It is to her that the institution of the feast of the Blessed Sacrament is due. All of her life was passed in awaiting the hour of God, which she was never to see, for it came only more than a century after the beginning of the revelations. As regards inspirations ordinarily, those who have not passed the period of tranquility or a complete union, must beware of the idea that they hear supernatural words; unless the evidence is irresistible, they should attribute them to the activity of their own imaginations. But they may at least experience inspirations or impulses more or less strong, which seem to point out to them how to act in difficult circumstances. This is a minor form of revelation. The same line of conduct should be followed as in the latter case. We must not accept them blindly and against the dictates of reason, but weigh the reasons for and against, consult a prudent director, and decide only after applying the rules for the discernment of spirits. The attitude of reserve that has just been laid down does not apply to the simple, sudden and illuminating views of faith, which enables one to understand in a higher manner not novelties, but the truths admitted by the Church. Such enlightenment cannot have any evil result. It is on the contrary a very precious grace, which should be very carefully welcomed and utilized. Consult the writings of ST. TERESA AND ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, passim; PHILIP OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, Summa theologica mysticae (Lyons, 1656), pt. II, tr. iii; DE VALLGORNERA, Mystica Theologia (Barcelona, 1662), Q. ii, disp. 5; LOPEZ DE EZQUERRA, Lucerna Mystica (Venice, 1692), tr. v; AMORT, De revelationibus (Augsburg, 1744); BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei canonizatione (Rome, 1767), l.III, c. liii; SCARAMELLI, Direttorio mistico (Venice, 1754), tr.iv; SCHRAM, Institutiones theologicae mysticae (Augsburg, 1777), pt. II, c. iv; ST. LIGUORI, Homo apostolicus (Venice, 1782), append.i, n. 19; RIBET, La mystique divine, II (Paris, 1879); POULAIN, Des graces d'oraison (5th ed., Paris, 1909), tr. The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910). AUG. POULAIN Revocation 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'Estrées to Louvois, cited by Ranke, II, 424). But James, though early informed, was reluctant to believe that his son-in-law would head an insurrection against him. On the day the seven bishops were acquitted seven English statesmen sent a letter to William inviting him to rescue the religion and liberties of England. But William was threatened by a French army on the Belgian frontier, and could not take action. Louis XIV made a last effort to save James, and warned the Dutch States General that he would regard any attack on England as a declaration of war against France. This was keenly resented by James who regarded it as a slight upon English independence, and he repudiated the charge that he had made a secret treaty with France. Thereupon Louis left him to his fate, removed the French troops from Flanders to begin a campaign against the empire, and thus William was free to move. When it was too late James realized his danger. By hasty concessions granted one after another he tried to undo his work and win back the Tory churchmen to his cause. But he did not remove the Catholic officers or suggest the restriction of the dispensing power. In October Sunderland was dismissed from office, but William was already on the seas, and, though driven back by a storm, he re-embarked and landed at Torbay on 5 Nov., 1688. James at first prepared to resist. The army was sent to intercept William, but by the characteristic treachery of Churchill, disaffection was spread, and the king, not knowing in whom he could place confidence, attempted to escape. At Sheerness he was stopped and sent back to London, where he might have proved an embarrassing prisoner had not his escape been connived at. On 23 Dec., 1688, he left England to take refuge with Louis XIV; the latter received him generously and granted him both palace and pension. On his first departure the mob had risen in London against the Catholics, and attacked chapels and houses, plundering and carrying off the contents. Even the ambassadors' houses were not spared, and the Spanish and Sardinian embassy chapels were destroyed. Bishops Giffard and Leyburn were arrested and committed to the Tower. Father Petre had escaped, and the Nuncio disguised himself as a servant at the house of the envoy from Savoy, till he was enabled to obtain from William a passport. So far as the English Catholics were concerned, the result of the Revolution was that their restoration to freedom of worship and liberation from the penal laws was delayed for a century and more. So completely had James lost the confidence of the nation that William experienced no opposition and the Revolution ran its course in an almost regular way. A Convention Parliament met on 22 January, 1689, declared that James "having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant", and "that experience had shown it to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince". The crown was offered to William and Mary, who accepted the Declaration of Right, which laid down the principles of the constitution with regard to the dispensing power, the liberties of Parliament, and other matters. After their proclamation as king and queen, the Declaration was ratified by the Bill of Rights, and the work of the Revolution was complete. English Catholics have indeed had good cause to lament the failure of the king's well-meant, if unwise, attempts to restore their liberty, and to regret that he did not act on the wise advice of Pope Innocent XI and Cardinal Howard to proceed by slow degrees and obtain first the repeal of the penal laws before going on to restore their full civil rights. But on the other hand we can now realize that the Revolution had the advantage of finally closing the long struggle between king and Parliament that had lasted for nearly a century, and of establishing general principles of religious toleration in which Catholics were bound sooner or later to be included. LINGARD, Hist. of England, X (London, 1849), the standard Catholic account; LODGE in HUNT and POOLE, Political Hist. of England, Vlll (London, 1910); TEMPERLEY in Cambridge Modern Hist., V (London, 1908); TREVELYAN, England under the Stuarts (London, 1904); WYATT-DAVIES, Hist. of England for Catholic Schools (London, 1903); GREEN, Hist. of the English People (London, 1877-80); MACAULAY, Hist. of England (London, 1849); TASWELL-LANGMEAD, English Constitutional Hist. (London, 1875); BRIGHT, Hist. of England, 2nd period (London, 1880); GUIZOT Pourquoi la Révolution a-t-elle réussi? (1640~1688) (Paris, 1850); MAZURE, Hist. de la révol. de 1688 (3 vols., Paris, 1825). For earlier accounts consult DEFOE, Revol. of 1688 reprinted in ARBER, English Garner, XII (London, 1903); EACHARD, Hist. of the Revol. in 1688 (London, 1725); BURNET, Hist. of my Own Times (last edition, Oxford 1897-1900); DODD, Church Hist. (Wolverhampton vere Brussels, 1737 -42); SPEKE, Secret Hist. of the happy Revol., 1688 (London, 1715). EDWIN BURTON French Revolution French Revolution The last thirty years have given us a new version of the history of the French Revolution, the most diverse and hostile schools having contributed to it. The philosopher, Taine, drew attention to the affinity between the revolutionary and what he calls the classic spirit, that is, the spirit of abstraction which gave rise to Cartesianism and produced certain masterpieces of French literature. Moreover he admirably demonstrated the mechanism of the local revolutionary committees and showed how a daring Jacobin minority was able to enforce its will as that of "the people". Following up this line of research M. Augustin Cochin has quite recently studied the mechanism of the sociétés de pensée in which the revolutionary doctrine was developed and in which were formed men quite prepared to put this doctrine into execution. The influence of freemasonry in the French Revolution proclaimed by Louis Blanc and by freemasonry itself is proved by the researches of M. Cochin. Sorel has brought out the connection between the diplomacy of the Revolution and that of the old regime. His works prove that the Revolution did not mark a break in the continuity of the foreign policy of France. The radically inclined historical school, founded and led by M. Aulard, has published numerous useful documents as well as the review, "La Révolution Française". Two years since, a schism occured in this school, M. Mathiez undertaking opposition to M. Aulard the defence of Robespierre, in consequence of which he founded a new review "Les Annales Révolutionaires". The "Société d'histoire contemporaine", founded under Catholic auspices, has published a series of texts bearing on revolutionary history. Lastly the works of Abbé Sicard have revealed in the clergy who remained faithful to Rome various tendencies, some legitimist, others more favourable to the new political forms, a new side of the history of the French clergy being thus developed. Such are the most recent additions to the history of the French Revolution. This article, however, will emphasize more especially the relations between the Revolution and the Church (see France). MEETING OF THE ESTATES The starting point of the French Revolution was the convocation of the States General by Louis XVI. They comprised three orders, nobility, clergy, and the third estate, the last named being permitted to have as many members as the two other orders together. The electoral regulation of 24 January, 1789, assured the parochial clergy a large majority in the meetings of the bailliages which were to elect clerical representatives to the States General. While chapters were to send to these meetings only a single delegate for ten canons, and each convent only one of its members, all the curés were permitted to vote. The number of the "order" of clergy at the States General exceeded 300, among whom were 44 prelates, 208 curés, 50 canons and commendatory abbots, and some monks. The clergy advocated almost as forcibly as did the Third Estate the establishment of a constitutional government based on the separation of the powers, the periodical convocation of the States General, their supremacy in financial matters, the responsibility of ministers, and the regular guarantee of individual liberty. Thus the true and great reforms tending to the establishment of liberty were advocated by the clergy on the eve of the Revolution. When the Estates assembled 5 May, 1789, the Third Estate demanded that the verification of powers should be made in common by the three orders, the object being that the Estates should form but one assembly in which the distinction between the "orders" should disappear and where every member was to have a vote. Scarcely a fourth of the clergy advocated this reform, but from the opening of the Estates it was evident that the desired individual voting which would give the members of the Third Estate, the advocates of reform, an effectual preponderance. As early as 23 May, 1789, the curés at the house of the Archbishop of Bordeaux were of the opinion that the power of the deputies should be verified in the general assembly of the Estates, and when on 17 June the members of the Third Estate proclaimed themselves the "National Assembly", the majority of the clergy decided (19 June) to join them. As the higher clergy and the nobility still held out, the king caused the hall where the meetings of the Third Estate were held to be closed (20 June), whereupon the deputies, with their president, Bailly, repaired to the Jeu de Paume and an oath was taken not to disband till they had provided France with a constitution. After Mirabeau's thundering speech (23 June) addressed to the Marquis de Dreux-Brézé, master-of-ceremonies to Louis XVI, the king himself (27 June) invited the nobility to join the Third Estate. Louis XVI's dismissal of the reforming minister, Necker, and the concentration of the royal army about Paris, brought about the insurrection of 14 July, and the capture of the Bastille. M. Funck-Brentano has destroyed the legends which rapidly arose in connection with the celebrated fortress. There was no rising en masse of the people of Paris, and the number of the besiegers was but a thousand at most; only seven prisoners were found at the Bastille, four of whom were forgers, one a young man guilty of monstrous crimes and who for the sake of his family was kept at the Bastille that he might escape the death penalty, and two insane prisoners. But in the public opinion the Bastille symbolized royal absolutism and the capture of this fortress was regarded as the overthrow of the whole regime, and foreign nations attached great importance to the event. Louis XVI yielded before this agitation; Necker was recalled; Bailly became Mayor of Paris; Lafayette, commander of the national militia; the tri-colour was adopted, and Louis XVI consented to recognize the title of "National Constituent Assembly". Te Deums and processions celebrated the taking of the Bastille; in the pulpits the Abbé Fauchet preached the harinony of religion and liberty. As a result of the establishment of the "vote by order" the political privileges of the clergy may be considered to have ceased to exist. During the night of 4 August, 1789, at the instance of the Vicomte de Noailles, the Assembly voted with extraordinary enthusiasm the abolition of all privileges and feudal rights and the equality of all Frenchmen. A blow was thereby struck at the wealth of the clergy, but the churchmen were the first to give an example of sacrifice. Plurality of benefices and annates was abolished and the redemption of tithes was agreed upon, but two days later, the higher clergy becoming uneasy, demanded another discussion of the vote which had carried the redemption. The result was the abolition, pure and simple, of tithes without redemption. In the course of the discussion Buzot declared that the property of the clergy belonged to the nation. Louis XVI's conscience began to be alarmed. He temporized for five weeks, then merely published the decrees as general principles, reserving the right to approve or reject the measures which the Assembly would take to enforce them. DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN. CATHOLICISM CEASES TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE STATE Before giving France a constitution the Assembly judged it necessary to draw up a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", which should form a preamble to the Constitution. Camus's suggestion that to the declaration of the rights of man should be added a declaration of his duties, was rejected. The Declaration of Rights mentions in its preamble that it is made in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, but out of three of the articles proposed by the clergy, guaranteeing the respect due to religion and public worship, two were rejected after speeches by the Protestant, Rabaut Saint-Etienne, and Mirabeau, and the only article relating to religion was worded as follows: "No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." In fact it was the wish of the Assembly that Catholicism should cease to be the religion of the State and that liberty of worship should be established. It subsequently declared Protestants eligible to all offices (24 Dec., 1789), restored to their possessions and status as Frenchmen the heirs of Protestant refugees (10 July and 9 Dec., 1790), and took measures in favour of the Jews (28 January, 26 July, 16 Aug., 1790). But it soon became evident in the discussions relating to the Civil Constitution of the clergy that the Assembly desired that the Catholic Church, to which the majority of the French people belonged, should be subject to the State and really organized by the State. The rumours that Louis XVI sought to fly to Metz and place himself under the protection of the army of Bouillé in order to organize a counter-revolutionary movement and his refusal to promulgate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, brought about an uprising in Paris. The mob set out to Versailles, and amid insults brought back the king and queen to Paris (6 Oct., 1789). Thenceforth the Assembly sat at Paris, first at the archiepiscopal residence, then at the Tuileries. At this moment the idea of taking possession of the goods of the clergy in order to meet financial exigencies began to appear in a number of journals and pamphlets. The plan of confiscating this property, which had been suggested as early as 8 August by the Marquis de Lacoste, was resumed (24 Sept.) by the economist, Dupont de Nemours, and on 10 October was supported in the name of the Committee of Finances in a report which caused scandal by Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, who under the old regime had been one of the two "general agents" charged with defending the financial interests of the French clergy. On 12 October Mirabeau requested the Assembly to decree (1) that the ownership of the church property belonged to the nation that it might provide for the support of the priests; (2) that the salary of each curé should not be less than 1200 livres. The plan was discussed from 13 October to 2 November. It was opposed the Abbé de Montesquieu, and the Abbé Maury, who contended that the clergy being a moral person could be an owner, disputed the estimates placed upon placed upon the wealth of the clergy, and suggested that their possessions should simply serve as a guarantee for a loan of 400,000,000 livres to the nation. The advocates of confiscation maintained that the clergy no longer existed as an order, that the property was like an escheated succession, and that the State had a right to claim it, that moreover the Royal Government had never expressly recognized the clergy as a proprietor, that in 1749 Louis XV had forbidden the clergy to receive anything without the authority of the State, and that he had confiscated the property of the Society of Jesus. Malouet took an intermediate stand and demanded that the State should confiscate only superfluous ecclesiastical possessions, but that the parochial clergy should be endowed with land. Finally, on 2 November, 1789, the Assembly decided that the possessions of the clergy be "placed at the disposal" of the nation. The results of this vote were not long in following. The first was Treilhard's motion (17 December), demanding in the name of the ecclesiastical committee of the Assembly, the closing of useless convents, and decreeing that the State should permit the religious to release themselves from their monastic vows. The discussion of this project began in February, 1790, after the Assembly by the creation of assemblies of departments, districts, and commons, had proceeded to the administrative reorganization of France. The discussion was again very violent. On 13 February, 1790, the Assembly, swayed by the more radical suggestions of Barnave and Thouret, decreed as a "constitutional article" that not only should the law no longer recognize monastic vows, but that religious orders and congregations were and should remain suppressed in France, and that no others should be established in the future. After having planned a partial suppression of monastic orders the Assembly voted for their total suppression. The proposal of Cazalès (17 February) calling for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and the rightful efforts, made by the higher clergy to prevent Catholics from purchasing the confiscated goods of the Church provoked reprisals. On 17 March, 1790, the Assembly decided that the 400,000,000 livres worth of alienated ecclesiastical properties should be sold to municipalities which in turn should sell them to private buyers. On 14 April it decided that the maintenance of Catholic worship should be provided for without recourse to the revenues of former ecclesiastical property and that a sufficient sum, fixed at more than 133,000,000 livres for the first year, should be entered in the budget for the allowances to be made to the clergy; on 17 April the decree was passed dealing with the assignats, the papers issued by the Government paying interest at 5 per cent, and which were to be accepted as money in payment for the ecclesial property, thenceforth called national property; finally, on 9 July, it was decreed that all this property should be put up for sale. CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY On 6 February, 1790, the Assembly charged its ecclesiastical committee, appointed 20 Aug., 1789, and composed of fifteen members to prepare the reorganization of the clergy. Fifteen new members were added to the committee on 7 February. The "constituents" were disciples of the eighteenth century philosophes who subordinated religion to the State; moreover, to understand their standpoint it is well to bear in mind that many of them were jurists imbued with Gallican and Josephist ideas. Finally Taine has proved that in many respects their religious policy merely followed in the footsteps of the old regime, but while the old regime protected the Catholic Church and made it the church exclusive, recognized, the constituents planned to enslave it after having stripped it of its privileges. Furthermore they did not take into account that there are mixed matters that can only be regulated after an agreement with ecclesiastical authority. They were especially incensed against the clergy after the consistorial address in which Pius VI (22 March, 1790) reproved some of the measures already taken by the Constituent Assembly, and by the news received from the West and South where the just dissatisfaction of Catholic consciences had provoked disturbances; in particular the election of the Protestant Rabaut Saint-Etienne to the presidency of the National Assembly brought about commotions at Toulouse and Nimes. Under the influence of these disturbances the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was developed. On 29 May, 1790, it was laid before the Assembly. Bonal, Bishop of Clermont, and some members of the Right requested that the project should be submitted to a national council or to the pope. But the Assembly proceeded; it discussed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy from 1 June to 12 July, 1790, on which date it was passed. This Constitution comprised four titles. Title I, Ecclesiastical Offices: Diocesan boundaries were to agree with those of departments, 57 episcopal sees being thus suppressed. The title of archbishop was abolished; out of 83 remaining bishoprics 10 were called metropolitan bishoprics and given jurisdiction over the neighbouring dioceses. No section of French territory should recognize the authority of a bishop living abroad, or of his delegates, and this, adds the Constitution, "without prejudice to the unity of faith and the communion which shall be maintained with the head of the Universal Church". Canonries, prebends, and priories were abolished. There should no longer be any sacerdotal posts especially devoted to fulfilling the conditions of Mass foundations. All appeals to Rome were forbidden. Title II, Appointment to Benefice: Bishops should be appointed by the Electoral Assembly of the department; they should be invested and consecrated by the metropolitan and take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the King, the Law, and the Constitution; they should not seek any confirmation from the pope. Parish priests should be elected by the electoral assemblies of the districts. Thus all citizens, even Protestants, Jews, and nominal Catholics, might name titulars to ecclesiastical offices, and the first obligation of priests and bishops was to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution which denied to the Holy See any effective power over the Church. Title III, Salary of ministers of Religion: The Constitution fixed the salary of the Bishop of Paris at 51,000 livres (about $10,200), that of bishops of towns whose population exceeded 50,000 souls at 20,000 livres (about $4000), that of other bishops at 12,000 livres (about $2400), that of curés at a sum ranging from 6000 (about $1200) to 1200 livres (about $240). For the lower clergy this was a betterment of their material condition, especially as the real value of these sums was two and one-half times the present amount. Title IV, dealing with residence, made very severe conditions regarding the absences of bishops and priests. At the festival of the Federation (14 July, 1790) Talleyrand and three hundred priests officiating at the altar of the nation erected on the Champs-de-Mars wore the tri-colored girdle above their priestly vestments and besought the blessing of God on the Revolution. Deputations were present from the towns of France, and there was inaugurated a sort of cult, of the Fatherland, the remote origin of all the "Revolutionary cults". On 10 July, 1790, in a confidential Brief to Louis XVI, Pius VI expressed the alarm with which the project under discussion filled him. He commissioned two ecclesiastics who were ministers of Louis XVI, Champion de Cicé and Lefranc de Pompignan, to urge the king not to sign the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On 28 July, in a letter to the pope, Louis XVI replied that he would be compelled, "with death in his soul", to promulgate the Constitution, that he would reserve the right to broach as soon as possible the matter of some concession, but that if he refused, his life and the lives of his family would be endangered. The pope replied (17 August) that he still held the same opinion of the Constitution, but that he would make no public declaration on the subject until he consulted with the Sacred College. On 24 August the king promulgated the Constitution, for which he was blamed by the pope in a confidential Brief on 22 September. M. Mathiez claims to have proved that the hesitancy of Pius VI was due to temporal rather than to spiritual considerations, to his serious fears about the affairs of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, where certain popular parties were clamoring for French troops, but the truth is that Pius VI, who had made known his opinion of the Constitution to two French prelates, was awaiting some manifestation on the part of the French episcopate. Indeed the bishops spoke before the pope had spoken publicly. At the end of October, 1790, they published an "Exposition des principes sur la constitution civile du clergé", compiled by Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix in which they rejected the Constitution and called upon the faithful to do the same. This publication marks the beginning of a violent conflict between the episcopate an the Constitution. On 27 November, 1790, after a speech by Mirabeau, a decree stipulated that all bishops and priests should within a week, under penalty of losing their offices, take the oath to the Constitution, that all who refused and who nevertheless continued to discharge their priestly functions should be prosecuted as disturbers of the public peace. The king, who was much disturbed by this decree, eventually sanctioned it (26 December, 1790) in order to avoid a rising. Hitherto a large section of the lesser clergy had shown a certain amount of sympathy for the Revolution, but when it was seen that the episcopal members of the Assembly refused to take the oath, thus sacrificing their sees, a number of the priests followed this disinterested example. It may be said that from the end of 1790 the higher clergy and the truly orthodox elements of the lower clergy were united against the revolutionary measures. Thenceforth there were two classes, the non-juring or refractory priests, who were faithful to Rome and refused the oath, and the jurors, sworn, or Constitutional priests, who had consented to take the oath. M. de la Gorce has recently sought to estimate the exact proportion of the priests who took the oath. Out of 125 bishops there were only four, Talleyrand of Autun, Brienne of Sens, Jarente of Orleans, and Lafond de Savine, of Viviers; three coadjutors or bishops in partibus, Gobel, Coadjutor Bishop of Bâle; Martial de Brienne, Coadjutor of Sens; and Dubourg-Miraudet, Bishop of Babylon. In the important towns most of the priests refused to take the oath. Statistics for the small boroughs and the country are more difficult to obtain. The national archives preserve the complete dockets of 42 departments which were sent to the Constituent Assembly by the civil authorities. This shows that in these 42 departments, of 23,093 priests called upon to swear, 13,118 took the oath. There would be therefore out of 100 priests, 56 to 57 jurors against 43 to 44 non-jurors. M. de la Gorce gives serious reasons for contesting these statistics, which were compiled by zealous bureaucrats anxious to please the central administrators. He asserts on the other hand that the schism had little hold in fifteen departments and concludes that in 1791 the number of priests faithful to Rome was 52 to 55 out of 100; this is a small enough majority, but one which M. de la Gorce considers authentic. On 5 February, 1791, the Constituent Assembly forbade every non-juring priest to preach in public. In March the elections to provide for the vacant episcopal sees and parishes took place. Disorder grew in the Church of France; young and ambitious priests, better known for their political than for their religious zeal, were candidates, and in many places owing to the opposition of good Catholics those elected had much difficulty in taking possession of their churches. At this juncture, seeing the Constitutional Church thus setup in France against the legitimate Church, Pius VI wrote two letters, one to the bishops and one to Louis XVI, to inquire if there remained any means to prevent schism; and finally, on 13 April, 1791, he issued a solemn condemnation of the Civil Constitution in a solemn Brief to the clergy and the people. On 2 May, 1791, the annexation of the Comtat Venaissin and the city of Avignon by the French troops marked the rupture of diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See. From May, 1791, there was no longer an ambassador from France at Rome or a nuncio at Paris. The Brief of Pius VI encouraged the resistance of the Catholics. The Masses celebrated by non-juring priests attracted crowds of the faithful. Then mobs gathered and beat and outraged nuns and other pious women. On 7 May, 1791, the Assembly decided that the non-juring priests as prêtres habitués might continue to say Mass in parochial churches or conduct their services in other churches on condition that they would respect the laws and not stir up revolt against the Civil Constitution. The Constitutional priests became more and more unpopular with good Catholics; Sciout's works go to show that the "departmental directories" had to spend their time in organizing regular police expeditions to protect the Constitutional priests against the opposition of good Catholics, or to prosecute the non-juring priests who heroically persisted in remaining at their posts. Finally on 9 June, 1791, the Assembly forbade the publication of all Bulls or Decrees of the Court of Rome, at least until they had been submitted to the legislative body and their publication authorized. Thus Revolutionary France not only broke with Rome, but wished to place a barrier between Rome and the Catholics of France The king's tormenting conscience was the chief reason for his attempted flight (20-21 June, 1791). Before fleeing he had addressed to the Assembly a declaration of his dissatisfaction with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and once more protested against the moral violence which had compelled him to accept such a document. Halted at Varennes, Louis XVI was brought back on 25 June, and was suspended from his functions till the completion of the Constitution, to which he took the oath 13 Sept., 1791. On 30 Sept., 1791, the Constituent Assembly dissolved, to make way for the Legislative Assembly, in which none of the members of the Constituent Assembly could sit. The Constituent Assembly had passed 2500 laws and reorganized the whole French administration. Its chief error from a social standpoint, which Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu calls a capital one, was to pass the Chapelier Decree (15 June, 1791), which forbade working people to band together and form associations "for their so-called common interest". Led astray by their spirit of individualism and their hatred for certain abuses of the old corporations, the Constituents did not understand that the world of labour should be organized. They were responsible for the economic anarchy which reigned during the nineteenth century, and the present syndicate movement as well as the efforts of the social Catholics in conformity with the Encyclical "Rerum novarum" marks a deep and decisive reaction against the work of the Constituent Assembly. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY When the Constituent Assembly disbanded (30 Sept., 1791), France all was aflame concerning the religious question. More than half the French people did not want the new Church, the factitious creation of the law; the old the Church was ruined, demolished, hunted down, and the general amnesty decreed by the Constituent Assembly before disbanding could do nothing towards restoring peace in the country where that Assembly's bungling work had unsettled the consciences of individuals. The parties in the Legislative Assembly were soon irreconcilable. The Feuillants, on the Right, saw no salvation save in the Constitution; the Girondins on the Left, and the Montagnards on the Extreme Left, made ready for the Republic. There were men who, like the poet André Chénier, dreamed of a complete Separation of Church and State. "The priests", he wrote in a letter to the "Moniteur" (22 October, 1791), "will not trouble the Estates when no one is concerned about them, and they will always trouble them while anyone is concerned about them as at present." But the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the departmental or district assemblies; they had fought against the non-juring priests and brought violent passions and a hostile spirit to the Legislative Assembly. A report from Gensonné and Gallois to the Legislative Assembly (9 October, 1791) on the condition of the provinces of the West denounced the non-juring priests as exciting the populace to rebellion and called for measures against them. It accused them of complicity with the émigrés bishops. At Avignon the Revolutionary Lécuyer, having been slain in a church, some citizens reputed to be partisans of the pope were thrown into the ancient papal castle and strangled (16-17 Oct., 1791). Calvados was also the scene of serious disturbances. The Legislative Assembly, instead of repairing the tremendous errors of the Constituent Assembly, took up the question of the non-juring priests. On 29 November, on the proposal of François de Neufchâteau, it decided that if within eight days they did not take the civil oath they should be deprived of all salary, that they should be place under the surveillance of the authorities, that if troubles arose where they resided they should be sent away, that they should be imprisoned for a year if they persisted in remaining and for two years if they were convicted of having provoked disobedience to the king. Finally it forbade non-juring priests the legal exercise of worship. It also requested from the departmental directories lists of the jurors and non-jurors, that it might, as it said, "stamp out the rebellion which disguises itself under the pretended dissidence in the exercise of the Catholic religion". Thus its decree ended in a threat. But this decree was the object of a sharp conflict between Louis XVI and the Assembly. On 9 Dec., 1791, the king made his veto known officially. Parties began to form. On one side were the king and the Catholics faithful to Rome, on the other the Assembly and the priests who had taken the oath. The legislative power was on one side, the executive on the other. In March, 1792, the Assembly accused the ministers of Louis XVI; the king replaced them by a Girondin ministry headed by Dumouriez, with Roland, Servan, and Clavière among its members. They had a double policy: abroad, war with Austria, and at home, measures against the non-juring priests. Louis XVI, surrounded by dangers, was also accused of duplicity; his secret negotiations with foreign courts made it possible for his enemies to say that he had already conspired against France. A papal Brief of 19 March, 1792, renewed the condemnation of the Civil Constitution and visited with major excommunication all juring priests who after sixty days should not have retracted, and all Catholics who remained faithful to these priests. The Assembly replied by the Decree of 27 May, 1792, declaring that all non-juring priests might be deported by the directory of their department at the request of twenty citizens, and if they should return after expulsion they would be liable to ten years of imprisonment. Louis vetoed this decree. Thus arose a struggle not only between Louis XVI and the Assembly, but between the king and his ministry. On 3 June 1792, the Assembly decreed the formation of a camp near Paris of 20,600 volunteers to guard the king. At the ministerial council Roland read an insulting letter to Louis, in which he called upon him to sanction the decrees of November and May against the non-juring priests. He was dismissed, whereupon the populace of Paris arose and invaded the Tuileries (20 June, 1792). and for several hours the king and his family were the objects of all manner of outrages. After the public manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick in the name of the powers in coalition against France (25 July, 1792) and the Assembly's declaration of "Fatherland in danger" there came petitions for the deposition of the king, who was accused of being in communication with foreign rulers. On 10 August, Santerre, Westermann, and Fournier l'Américain at the head of the national guard attacked the Tuileries defended by 800 Swiss. Louis refused to defend himself, and with his family sought refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed a decree which suspended the king's powers, drew up a plan of education for the dauphin, and convoked a national convention. Louis XVI was imprisoned in the Temple by order of the insurrectionary Commune of Paris. Madness spread through France caused by the threatened danger from without; arrests of non-juring priests multiplied. In an effort to make them give way. The Assembly decided (15 August) that the oath should consist only of the promise to uphold with all one's might liberty, equality, and the execution of the law, or to die at one's post". But the non-juring priests remained firm and refused even this second oath. On 26 August the Assembly decreed that within fifteen days they should be expelled from the kingdom, that those who remained or returned to France should be deported to Guiana, or should be liable to ten years imprisonment. It then extended this threat to the priests, who, having no publicly recognized priestly duties, had hitherto been dispensed from the oath, declaring that they also might be expelled if they were convicted of having provoked disturbances. This was the signal for a real civil war. The peasants armed in La Vendée, Deux Sèvres, Loire Inférieure, Maine and Loire, Ile and Vilaine. This news and that of the invasion of Champagne by the Prussian army caused hidden influences to arouse the Parisian populaces hence the September massacres. In the prisons of La Force, the Conciergerie, and the Abbaye Saint Germain, at least 1500 Women, priests and soldiers fell under the axe or the club. The celebrated tribune, Danton, cannot be entirely acquitted of complicity in these massacres. The Legislative Assembly terminated its career by two measures against the Church: it deprived priests of the right to register births etc., and authorize divorce. Laicizing the civil state was not in the minds of the Constituents, but was the result of the blocking of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Legislative Assembly was induced to enact it because the Catholics faithful to Rome would not have recourse to Constitutional priests for registering of births, baptisms, and deaths. THE CONVENTION; THE REPUBLIC; THE REIGN OF TERROR The opening of the National Convention (21 Sept., 1792) took place the day following Dumouriez's victory at Valmy over the Prussian troops. The constitutional bishop, Grégoire, proclaimed the republic at the first session; he was surrounded in the assembly by fifteen constitutional bishops and twenty-eight constitutional priests. But the time was at hand when the constitutional clergy in turn was to be under suspicion, the majority of the Convention being hostile to Christianity itself. As early as 16 November, 1792, Cambon demanded that the salaries of the priests be suppressed and that thenceforth no religion be subsidized by the State, but the motion was rejected for the time being. Henceforth the Convention enacted all manner of arbitrary political measures: it undertook the trial of Louis XVI, and on 2 January, 1799, "hurled a kings head at Europe". But from a religious standpoint it was more timid; it feared to disturb the people of Savoy and Belgium, which its armies were annexing to France. From 10 to 15 March, 1793, formidable insurrections broke out in La Vendée, Anjou, and a part of Brittany. At the same time Dumouriez, having been defeated at Neerwinden, sought to turn his army against the Convention, and he himself went over to the Austrians. The Convention took fright; it instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal on 9 March and on 6 April the Committee of Public Safety, formidable powers, was established. Increasingly severe measures were taken chiefly against the non-juring clergy. On 18 Feb., 1793, the Convention voted a prize one hundred livres to whomsoever should denounce a priest liable to deportation and who remained in France despite the law. On 1 March the émigrés were sentenced to perpetual banishment and their property confiscated. On 18 March it was decreed that any émigré or deported priest arrested on French soil should be executed within twenty-four hours. On 23 April it was enacted that all ecclesiastics, priests or monks, who had not taken the oath prescribed by the Decree of 15 August, 1792, should be transported to Guiana; even the priests who had taken the oath should be treated likewise if six citizens should denounce them for lack of citizenship. But despite all these measures the non-juring priests remained faithful to Rome. The pope had maintained in France an official internuncio, the Abbé de Salamon, who kept himself in hiding and performed his duties at the risk of his life, gave information concerning current events, and transmitted orders. The proconsuls of the Convention, Fréron and Barras at Marseilles and Toulon, Tallien at Bordeaux, Carrier at Nantes, perpetuated abominable massacres. In Paris the Revolutionary Tribunal, carrying out the proposals of the public accuser, Foquier-Tinville, inaugurated the Reign of Terror. The proscription of the Girondins by the Montagnards (2 June, 1793), marked a progress in demagogy. The assassination of the bloodthirsty in demagogue Marat, by Charlotte Corday 913 July 1793) gave rise to extravagant manifestations in honour of Marat. But the provinces did not follow this policy. News came of insurrections in Caen, Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon; and at the same time the Spaniards were in Roussillon, the Piedmontese in Savoy, the Austrians in Valenciennes, and the Vendeans defeated Kleber at Torfou (Sept., 1793). The crazed Convention decreed a rising en masse; the heroic resistance of Valenciennes and Mainz gave Carnot time to organize new armies. At the same time the Convention passed the Law of Suspects. (17 Sept., 1793), which authorized the imprisonment of almost anyone and as a consequence of which 30,000 were imprisoned. Informing became a trade in France. Queen Marie Antoinette was beheaded 16 October, 1793. Fourteen Carmelites who were executed 17 July, 1794, were declared Venerable by Leo XIII in 1902. From a religious point of view a new feature arose at this period -- the constitutional clergy, accused of sympathy with the Girondins, came to be suspected almost as much as the non-juring priests. Numerous conflicts arose between the constitutional priests and the civil authorities with regard to the decree of the Convention which did not permit the priests to ask those intending to marry if they were baptized, had been to confession, or were divorced. The constitutional bishops would not submit to the Convention when it required them to give apostate priests the nuptial blessing. Despite the example of the constitutional bishop, Thomas Lindet, a member of the Convention, who won the applause of the Assembly by ann his marriage, despite the scandal given by Gobel, Bishop of Paris, in appointing a married priest to a post in Paris the majority of constitutional bishops remained hostile to the marriage of priests. The conflict between them and the Convention became notorious when, on 19 July, 1793, a decree of the Convention decided that the bishops who directly or indirectly offered any obstacle to the marriage of priests should be deported and replaced. In October the Convention declared that the constitutional priests themselves should be deported if they were found wanting in citizenship. The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the dechristianization of France. On the one hand the rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest; on the other the Convention commissioned Leonard Bourdon (19 Sept., 1793) to compile a collection of the heroic actions of Republicans to replace the lives of the saints in the schools. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices, endeavoured to constrain priests to marry, and threatened with deportation for lack of citizenship priests who refused to abandon their posts. Persecution of all religious ideas began. At the request of the Paris Commune, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, and thirteen of his vicars resigned at the bar of the Convention (7 November) and their example was followed by several constitutional bishops. The Montagnards who considered worship necessary replaced the Catholic Sunday Mass by the civil mass of décadi. Having failed to reform and nationalize Catholicism they endeavoured to form a sort of civil cult, a development of the worship of the fatherland which had been inaugurated at the feast of the Federation. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes. Recent research has thrown new light on the history of these cults. M. Aulard was the first to recognize that the idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Going deeper M. Mathiez developed the theory that confronted by the blocking of the Civil Constitution, the Conventionals, who had witnessed in the successive feasts of the Federation the power of formulas on the minds of the masses, wanted to create a real culte de la patrie, a sanction of faith in the fatherland. On 23 November, 1793, Chaumette passed a law alienating all churches in the capital. This example was followed in the provinces, where all city churches and a number of those in the country were closed to Catholic worship. The Convention offered a prize for the abjuration of priests by passing a decree which assured a pension to Priests who abjured, and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November, 1793, when men, women, and children dressed in Priestly garments taken from the Church of St. Germain des Prés marched through the hall of the Convention. Laloi, who presided, congratulated them, saying they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error". Despite the part played by Chaumette and the Commune of Paris in the work of violent dechristianization, M. Mathiez has proved that it is not correct to lay on the Commune and the Exagérés, they were called, the entire responsibility, and that a Moderate, an Indulgent, namely Thuriot, the friend of Danton, was one of the most violent instigators. It is thus clear why Robespierre who desired a reaction against these excesses, should attack both Exagérés and Indulgents. Indeed a reactionary movement was soon evident. As early as 21 November, 1793, Robespierre complained of the "madmen who could only revive fanaticism". On 5 December he caused the Convention to adopt the text of a manifesto to the nations of Europe in which the members declared that they sought to protect the liberty of all creeds; on 7 December, he supported the motion of the committee of public safety which reported the bad effect in the provinces of the intolerant violence of the missionary representatives, and which forbade in the future all threats or violence contrary to liberty of worship. These decrees were the cause of warfare between Robespierre an enthusiasts such as Hébert and Clootz. At first Robespierre sent his enemies to the scaffold; Hébert and Clootz were beheaded in March, 1704, Chaumette and Bishop Gobel in April. But in this same month of April Robespierre sent to the scaffold the Moderates, Desmoulins and Danton, who wanted to stop the Terror, and became the master of France with his lieutenants Couthon and Saint-Just. M. Aulard regards Robespierre as having been hostile to the dechristianization for religious and political motives; he explains that Robespierre shared the admiration for Christ felt by Rousseau's Vicar Savoyard and that he feared the evil effect on the powers of Europe of the Convention's anti-religious policy. M. Mathiez on the other hand considers that Robespierre did not condemn the dechristianization in principle; that he knew the common hostility to the Committee of Public Safety of Moderates such as Thuriot and enthusiasts like Hébert; and that on the information of Basire and Chabot he suspected both parties of having furthered the fanatical measures of dechristianization only to discredit the Convention abroad and thus more easily to plot with the powers hostile to France. Robespierre's true intentions are still an historical problem. On 6 April, 1794, he commissioned Couthon to propose in the name of the Committee of Public Safety that a feast be instituted in honour of the Supreme Being, and on 7 May Robespierre himself outlined in a long speech the plan of the new religion. He explained that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention desired to have this speech translated into all languages and adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794, with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. The victories of the Republican armies, especially that of Fleurus (July, 1794), reassured the patriots of the Convention; those of Cholet, Mans, and Savenay, marked the checking of the Vendean insurrection. Lyons and Toulon were recaptured, Alsace was delivered, and the victory of Fleurus (26 June, 1794) gave Belgium to France. While danger from abroad was decreasing, Robespierre made the mistake of putting to vote in June the terrible law of 22 Prairial, which still further shortened the summary procedure of the Revolutionary tribunal and allowed sentence to be passed almost without trial even on the members of the Convention. The Convention took fright and the next day struck out this last clause. Montagnards like Tallien, Billaud-Varenne, and Collot d'Herbois, threatened by Robespierre, joined with such Moderates as Boissy d'Anglas and Durand Maillane to bring about the coup d'état of 9 Thermidor (27 July, 1794). Robespierre and his partisans were executed, and the Thermidorian reaction began. The Commune of paris was suppressed, the Jacobin Club closed, the Revolutionary tribunal disappeared after having sent to the scaffold the public accuser Fouquier-tinville and the Terrorist, Carrier, the author of the noyades (drownings) of Nantes. The death of Robespierre was the signal for a change of policy which proved of advantage to the Church; many imprisoned priests were released and many émigré priests returned. Not a single law hostile to Catholicism was repealed, but the application of them was greatly relaxed. The religious policy of the Convention became indecisive and changeable. On 21 December 1794, a speech of the constitutional bishop, Grégoire, claiming effective liberty of worship, aroused violent murmurings in the Convention, but was applauded by the people; and when in Feb., 1795, the generals and commissaries of the Convention in their negotiations with the Vendeans promised them the restoration of their religious liberties, the Convention returned to the idea supported by Grégoire, and at the suggestion of the Protestant, Boissy d'Anglas, it passed the Law of 3 Ventôse (21 Feb., 1795), which marked the enfranchisement of the Catholic Church. This law enacted that the republic should pay salaries to the ministers of no religion, and that no churches should be reopened, but it declared that the exercise of religion should not be disturbed, and prescribed penalties for disturbers. Immediately the constitutional bishops issued an Encyclical for the Establishment of Catholic worship, but their credit was shaken. The confidence of the faithful was given instead to the non-juring priests who were returning by degrees. These priests were soon so numerous that in April, 1795, the Convention ordered them to depart within the month under pain of death. This was a fresh outbreak of anti-Catholicism. With the fluctuation which thenceforth characterized it the Convention soon made a counter-movement. On 20 May, 1795, the assembly hall was invaded by the mob and the deputy Féraud assassinated. These violences of the Extremists gave some influence to the Moderates, and 30 May, at the suggestion of the Catholic, Lanjuinais, the Convention decreed that (Law of 11 Prairial) the churches not confiscated should be place at the disposal of citizens for the exercise of their religion, but that every priest who wished to officiate in these churches should previously take an oath of submission to the laws; those who refused might legally hold services in private houses. This oath of submission to the laws was much less serious than the oaths formerly prescribed by the Revolutionary authorities, and the Abbé Sicard has shown how Emery, Superior General of St. Sulpice, Bausset, Bishop of Alais and other ecclesiastics were inclined to a policy of pacification and to think that such an oath might be taken. While it seemed to be favouring a more tolerant policy the Convention met with diplomatic successes, the reward of the military victories: the treaties of Paris with Tuscany, of the Hague with the Batavian Republic, of Basle with Spain, gave to France as boundaries the Alps, the Rhine, and the Meuse. But the policy of religious pacification was not lasting. Certain periods of the history of the Convention justify M. Champion's theory that certain religious measures taken by the Revolutionists were forced upon them by circumstances. The descent of the émigrés on the Breton coasts, to be checked by Hoche at Quiberon, aroused fresh attacks on the priests. On 6 Sept., 1795 (Law of 20 Fructidor), the Convention exacted the oath of submission to the laws even of priests who officiated in private houses. The Royalist insurrection of 13 Vendémiaire, put down by Bonaparte, provoked a very severe decree against deported priests who should be found on French territory; they were to be sentenced to perpetual banishment. Thus at the time when the Convention was disbanding, churches were separated from the State. In theory worship was free; the Law of 29 Sept., 1795 (7 Vendémiaire), on the religious policy, though still far from satisfactory to the clergy, was nevertheless an improvement on the laws of the Terror, but anarchy and the spirit of persecution still disturbed the whole country. Nevertheless France owes to the Convention a number of lasting creations: the Ledger of the Public Debt, the Ecole Polytechnique, the Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, the Bureau of Longitudes, the Institute of France, and the adoption of the decimal system of weights and measures. The vast projects drawn up with regard to primary, secondary and higher education had almost no results. THE DIRECTORY In virtue of the so-called "Constitution of the year III", promulgated by the Convention 23 Sept., 1795, a Directory of five members (27 Oct., 1795) became the executive, and the Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients, the legislative power. At this time the public treasuries were empty, which was one reason why the people came by degrees to feel the necessity of a strong restorative power. The Directors Carnot, Barras, Letourneur, Rewbell, La Reveillière-Lépeaux were averse to Christianity, and in the separation of Church and State saw only a means of annihilating the Church. They wished that even the Constitutional episcopate, though they could not deny its attachment to the new regime, should become extinct by degrees, and when the constitutional bishops died they sought to prevent the election of successors, and multiplied measures against the non-juring priests. The Decree of 16 April, 1796, which made death the penalty for, provoking any attempt to overthrow the Republican government was a threat held perpetually over the heads of the non-juring priests. That the Directors really wished to throw difficulties in the way of all kinds of religion, despite theoretical declarations affirming liberty of worship is proved by the Law of 11 April, 1796, which forbade the use of bells and all sorts of public convocation for the exercise of religion, under penalty of a year in prison, and, in case of a second offense of deportation. The Directory having ascertained that despite police interference some non-juring bishops were officiating publicly in Paris, and that before the end of 1796 more than thirty churches or oratories had been opened to non-juring priests in Paris, laid before the Five Hundred a plan which, after twenty days, allowed the expulsion from French soil, without admission to the oath prescribed by the Law of Vendémiaire, all priests who had not taken the Constitutional Oath prescribed in 1790, or the Oath of Liberty and Equality prescribed in 1792; those who after such time should be found in France would be put to death. But amid the discussions to which this project gave rise, the revolutionary Socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was discovered, which showed that danger lay on the Left; and on @5 Aug., 1796, the dreadful project which had only been passed with much difficulty by the Five Hundred was rejected by the Ancients. The Directory began to feel that its policy of religious persecution was no longer followed by the Councils. It learned also that Bonaparte, who in Italy led the armies of the Directory from victory to victory, displayed consideration for the pope. Furthermore, the electors themselves showed that they desired a change of policy. The elections of 20 may, 1797, caused the majority of Councils to pass from the Left to the Right. Pichegru became president of the Five Hundred, a Royalist, Barthélemy, became one of the Five Directors. Violent discussions which took place from 26 June to 18 July, in which Royer-Collard distinguished himself, brought to the vote the proposal of the deputy Dubruel for the abolition of all laws against non-juring priests passed since 1791. The Directors, alarmed by what they considered a reactionary movement, commissioned General Augereau to effect the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor (4 Sept., 1797); the elections of 49 departments were quashed, two Directors, Carnot and Barthélemy, proscribed, 53 deputies deported, and laws against the émigré and non-juring priests restored to their vigour. Organized hunting for these priests took place throughout France; the Directory cast hundreds of them on the unhealthy shore of Sinnamary, Guiana, where they died. At the same time the Directory commissioned Berthier to make the attack on the Papal States and the pope, from which Bonaparte had refrained. The Roman Republic was proclaimed in 1798 and Pius VI was taken prisoner to Valence. An especially odious persecution was renewed in France against the ancient Christian customs; it was known as the décadaire persecution. Officials and municipalities were called upon to overwhelm with vexations the partisans of Sunday and to restore the observance of décadi. The rest of that day became compulsory not only for administrations and schools, but also for business and industry. Marriages could only be celebrated on décadi at the chief town of each canton. Another religious venture of this period was that of Theophilanthropists, who wished to create a spiritualist church without dogmas, miracles, priesthood or sacraments, a sort of vague religiosity, similar to the "ethical societies of the United States." Contrary to what has been asserted for one hundred years, M. Mathiez has proved that Theophilanthropism was not founded by the director La Réveillière-Lépeaux. It was the private initiative of a former Girondin, the librarian Chemin Dupontés, which gave rise to this cult; Valentine Hauy, instructor of the blind and former Terrorist, and the physiocrat, Dupont de Nemours, collaborated with him. During its early existence, the new Church was persecuted by agents of Cochon, Minister of Police, who was the tool of Camot, and it was only for a short time, after the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor, that the the Theophanthropists benefited by the protection of La Réveillière. In proportion to the efforts of the Directory for the culte décadaire, the Theophilanthropists suffered and were persecuted; in Paris, they were sometimes treated even worse than the Catholics, Catholic priests being at times permitted to occupy the buildings connected with certain churches while the Theophilanthropists were driven out. On a curious memoir written after 18 Fructidor entitled "Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Revolution et des principes qui doivent fonder la Républic en France", the famous Madame de Stael, who was a Protestant, declared herself against Theophilanthropy; like many Protestants, she hoped that Protestantism would become the State religion of the Republic. Through its clumsy and odious religious policy the Directory exposed itself to serious difficulties. Disturbed by the anti-religious innovations, the Belgian provinces revolted; 6000 Belgian priests were proscribed. Brttany, Anjou. and Maine again revolted, winning over Normandy. Abroad the prestige of the French armies was upheld by were upheld by Bonaparte in Egypt, but they were hated on the Continent, and in 1799 were compelled to evacuate most of Italy. Bonaparte's return and the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire (10 November 1799) were necessary to strengthen the glory of the French armies and to restore peace to the country and to consciences. TOURNEUX, Bibl. de l'hist. de Paris pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1896-1906); TUETEY, Répertoire des sources manuscrites de l'hist de Paris sous la Révolution, 7 vols. already published (Paris, 1896-1906); FORTESCUE, List of the three collections of books, pamphlets, and journals in the British Museum relating to the French Revolution (London, 1899). Reprint of the Moniteur Universel (1789-99); the two collections in course of publication of Documents inédits sur l'hist. économique de la Révolution française; and Documents sur l'hist. de Paris pendant la Révolution française; the works of BARRUEL (q.v.); BOURGIN, La france et Rome de 1788 à 1797, regeste des dépêches du cardinal secrétaire d'état, tirée du fond des "Vescovi" des archives secrètes du Vatican (Paris, 1909), fasc. 102 of the Library of French Schools of Athens and Rome; among numerous memoirs on france on the eve of the Revolution may be mentioned: YOUNG, Travels in France, ed. BETHAM-EDWARDS (London, 1889); and on the Revolution itself: Mémoires de l'internounce Salamon, ed. BRIDIER (Paris, 1890); GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, Diary and Letters (New York, 1882); Un séjour en France 1792 à 1795, lettres d'un témoin de la Révolution française, tr. TAINE (Paris, 1883); the work of the famous BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed, SELBY (London, 1890), remains an important criticism of Revolutionary ideas. General Works -- THIERS, Hist. de la Révolution française (tr. Paris, 1823-27); MIGNET, Hist. de la Révolution française (Paris, 1824); MICHELET, Hist. de la Révolution française (Paris, 1847-1853); LOUIS BLANK, Hist. de la Révolution française (Paris, 1847-1863; TOCQUEVILLE, L'ancien régime et la Révolution (Paris, 1856); TAINE, Les Origines de la France contemporaine: la Révolution (tr. Paris, 1878-84); SOREL, L'Europe et la Révolution française (Paris, 1885-1904); SYBEL, Gesch. der Revolutionszeit (Dusseldorf, 1853-57); CHUQUET, Les guerres de la Révolution (Paris, 1889-1902); AULARD, Hist. Politique de la Révolution française (Paris, 1901); IDEM, Etudes et leçons sur la Révolution française (Paris, 1893-1910); GAUTHEROT, Cours professés à l'Institut Catholique de Paris sur la Révolution française, a periodical begun at the end of 1910 and promising to be very important; MADELIN, La Révolution (Paris, 1911), a summary commendable for the exactness of its information and its effort at justice in the most delicate questions; The Cambridge Modern History, planned by the late LORD ACTON, II the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1904); MacCARTHY, The French Revolution (London, 1890-97); Ross, The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era (Cambridge, 1907); LEGG, Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the French Revolution (Oxford, 1905); GIBBS, Men and Women of the French Revolution (London, 1905). Monographs and Special Works -- AULARD, Taine, historien de la Révolution française (Paris, 1907); COCHIN, La crise de l'hist révolutionaire: Taine et M. Aulard (Paris, 1909); BORD, La francmaçonnerie en France des origiines à 1815, bk. I, Les ouvriers de l'idée révolutionaire (Paris, 1909); IDEM, La conspiration révolutionnaire de 1789, les complices, les victimes (Paris, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Légendes et archives de la Bastille (Paris, 1898); MALLET, Mallet du Pan and the French Revolution (London, 1902); FLING, Mirabeau and the French Revolution (London, 1906); LENOTRE, Mémoires et souvenirs sur la Révolution et l'Empire (Paris, 1907-9); IDEM, Paris révolutionaire, vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (Paris, 1900-10); WARWICK, Robespierre and the French Revolution (Philadelphia, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Légendes et archives de la Bastille (Paris, 1898); BLIARD, Fraternité révolutionnaire, études et récits d'après des documents inédits (Paris, 1909); MORTIMER TERNAUX, Hist. de la Terreur (Paris, 1862-1881); WALLON, Hist. du tribunal révolutionnaire (Paris, 1880-2); IDEM, La journéedu 31 Mai et le fédéralisme en 1793 (Paris, 1886); IDEM, Les représentants en mission (Paris, 1888-90); DAUDET, Hist. de l'émigration pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1904-7); LALLEMAND, La Révolution et les pauvres (Paris, 1898); ALGER, Englishment in the French Revolution (London, 1889); DOWDEN, The French Revolution and English Literture (London, 1897); CESTRE, La Révolution française et les poètes anglais (Paris, 1906). Religious History. -- SICARD, L'ancien clergé de France II,III (Paris, 1902-3) IDEM, L'éducation morale et civique avant et pendant la Révolution (Paris, 1884); PIERRE DE LA GORCE, Hist. religieuse de la Révolution française I (Paris, 1909); MATHIEZ, rome et le clergé française sous la Constituante (Paris, 1911); IDEM, La théophilanthropie et le culte décadaire (Paris, 1904); IDEM, Contribution à l'histoire religieuse de la Révolution Française (Paris, 1907); IDEM, La Révolution et l'Eglise (Paris, 1910); AULARD, La Révolution française et les congrégations (Paris, 1911); IDEM, Le culte de la raison et le culte de l'Etre suprème (Paris, 1907); IDEM, Le culte de la séparation de 'Eglise et de l'Etat en 1794 (Paris, 1903); PIERRE, La Déportation ecclésiastique sous le Directoire (Paris, 1906). GEORGES GOYAU Rex Gloriose Martyrum Rex Gloriose Martyrum Rex Gloriose Martyrum, the hymn at Lauds in the Common of Martyrs (Commune plurimorum Martyrum) in the Roman Breviary. lit comprises three strophes of four verses in Classical iambic dimeter, the verses rhyming in couplets, together with a fourth concluding strophe (or doxology) in unrhymed verses varying for the season. The first stanza will serve to illustrate the metric and rhymic scheme: Rex gloriose martyrum, Corona confitentium, Qui respuentes terrea Perducis ad coelestia. The hymn is of uncertain date and unknown authorship, Mone (Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, III, 143, no. 732) ascribing it to the sixth century and Daniel (Thesaurus Hymnologicus, IV, 139) to the ninth or tenth century. The Roman Breviary text is a revision, in the interest of Classical prosody, of an older form (given by Daniel, I, 248). The corrections are: terrea instead of terrena in the line "Qui respuentes terrena"; parcisque for parcendo in the line "Parcendo confessoribus"; inter Martyres for in Martyribus in the line "Tu vincis in Martyribus"; "Largitor indulgentiæ" for the line "Donando indulgentiam". A non-prosodic correction is intende for appone in the line "Appone nostris vocibus". Daniel (IV, 139) gives the Roman Breviary text, but mistakenly includes the uncorrected line "Parcendo confessoribus". lie places after the hymn an elaboration of it in thirty-two lines, found written on leaves added to a Nuremberg book and intended to accommodate the hymn to Protestant doctrine. This elaborated form uses only lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the original. Two of the added strophes may be quoted here to illustrate the possible reason (but also a curious misconception of Catholic doctrine in the apparent assumption of the lines) for the modification of the original hymn: Velut infirma vascula Ictus inter lapideos Videntur sancti martyres, Sed fide durant fortiter. Non fidunt suis meritis, Sed sola tua gratia Agnoscunt se persistere In tantis cruciatibus. 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 Cælitum The Roman Breviary hymn for Matins of Sundays and weekdays during the Paschal Time (from Low Sunday to Ascension Thursday). Cardinal Thomasius ("Opera omnia", II, Rome, 1747, 370) gives its primitive form in eight strophes, and Vezzosi conjectures, with perfect justice, that this is the hymn mentioned both by Cæsarius (died 542) and Aurelianus (died circa 550) of Arles, in their "Rules for Virgins", under the title "Rex æterne domine". Pimont (op. cit. infra, III, 95) agrees with the conjecture, and present-day hymnologists confirm it without hesitation. The hymn is especially interesting for several reasons. In his "De arte metrica" (xxiv) the Ven. Bede selects it from amongst "Alii Ambrosiani non pauci" to illustrate the difference between the metre of Classical iambics and the accentual rhythms imitating them. Ordinarily brief in his comment, he nevertheless refers to it (P. L., XC, 174) as "that admirable hymn . . . fashioned exquisitely after the model of iambic metre" and quotes the first strophe: Rex æterne Domine, Rerum Creator omnium, Qui eras ante sæcula Semper cum patre filius. Pimont (op. cit., III, 97) points out that, in its original text, it is amongst all the hymns, the one assuredly which best evidences the substitution of accent for prosodical quantity, and that the (unknown) author gives no greater heed to the laws of elision than to quantity "qui eras", "mundi in primordio", "plasmasti hominem", "tuæ imagini", etc. The second strophe illustrates this well: Qui mundi in primordio Adam plasmasti hominem, Qui tuæ imagini Vultum dedisti similem. Following the law of binary movement (the alternation of arsis and thesis), the accent is made to shorten long syllables and to lengthen short ones, in such wise that the verses, while using the external form of iambic dimeters, are purely rhythmic. Under Urban VIII, the correctors of the hymns omitted the fourth stanza and, in their zeal to turn the rhythm into Classical iambic dimeter, altered every line except one. Hymnologists, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are usually severe in their judgment of the work of the correctors; but in this instance, Pimont, who thinks the hymn needed no alteration at their hands, nevertheless hastens to add that "never, perhaps, were they better inspired". And it is only just to say that, as found now in the Roman Breviary, the hymn is no less vigorous than elegant. PIMONT, Les hymnes du bréviaire romain, III (Paris, 1884), 93-100, gives the old and the revised text, supplementary stanzas, and much comment. Complete old text with various Manuscript readings in Hymnarium Sarisburiense (London, 1851), 95, and in DANIEL, Thesaurus hymnol., I (Halle, 1841), 85 (together with Rom. Brev. text and notes). Text (8 strophes) With English version, notes, plainsong and other settings in Hymns, Ancient and Modern, Historical Edition (London, 1909), 205-7. Old text, with many Manuscript references and readings, and notes, in BLUME, Der Cursus s. Benedicti Nursini (Leipzig, 1909), 111-13 (cf, also the alphabetical index). For first lines of translations etc., JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology (London, 1907), s. vv. Rex aeterne Domine and Rex sempiterne coelitum. To his list should be added BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), 78, and DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908), 22. The translation in BUTE, The Roman Breviary (Edinburgh, 1879), is by Moultrie, an Anglican clergyman. H. T. HENRY. Anthony Rey Anthony Rey An educator and Mexican War chaplain, born at Lyons, 19 March, 1807; died near Ceralvo, Mexico, 19 Jan., 1847. He studied at the Jesuit college of Fribourg, entered the novitiate of that Society, 12 Nov., 1827, and subsequently taught at Fribourg and Sion in Valais, In 1840 he was sent to the United States, appointed professor of philosophy in Georgetown College, and in 1843 transferred to St. Joseph's Church in Philadelphia. He became assistant to the Jesuit provincial of Maryland, pastor of Trinity Church, Georgetown, and vice-president of the college (1845). Appointed chaplain in the U. S. Army in 1846, he ministered to the wounded and dying at the siege of Monterey amid the greatest dangers; after the capture of the city, he remained with the army at Monterey and preached to the rancheros of the neighbourhood. Against the advice of the U. S. officers, he set out for Matamoras, preaching to a congregation of Americans and Mexicans at Ceralvo. It is conjectured that he was killed by a band under the leader Canales, as his body was discovered, pierced with lances, a few days later. He left letters dating from November, 1846, which were printed in the "Woodstock Letters" (XVII, 149-50, 152-55, 157-59). DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque, VI, 1689; APPLETONS' Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York, 1888), s. v. N. A. WEBER William Reynolds William Reynolds (RAINOLDS, RAYNOLDS, REGINALDUS) Reynolds, William, born. at Pinhorn near Exeter, about 1544; died at Antwerp, 24 August, 1594, the second son of Richard Rainolds, and elder brother of John Rainolds, one of the chief Anglican scholars engaged on the "Authorized Version" of the Bible. Educated at Winchester School, he became fellow of New College, Oxford (1560-1572). He was converted partly by the controversy between Jewel and Harding, and partly by the personal influence of Dr. Allen. In 1575 he made a public recantation in Rome, and two years later went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He removed with the other collegians from Douai to Reims in 1578 and was ordained priest at Chalons in April, 1580. He then remained at the college, lecturing on Scripture and Hebrew, and helping Gregory Martin in translating the Reims Testament. Some years before his death he had left the college to become chaplain to the Beguines at Antwerp. He translated several of the writings of Allen and Harding into Latin and wrote a "Refutation" of Whitaker's attack on the Reims version (Paris, 1583); "De justa reipublicæ christianæ in reges impios et hæreticos authoritate" (Paris, 1590), under the name of Rossæus; a treatise on the Blessed Sacrament (Antwerp, 1593); "Calvino-Turcismus" (Antwerp, 1597). KIRBY, Annals of Winchester College (London, 1892); FOSTER, Alumni Ozonienses (Oxford. 1891); Douay Diaries (London, 1878); WOOD, Athenae Ozonienses (London, 1813); PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD. Church History, II (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); GILLOW in Biog. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; RIGG in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Rainolds. EDWIN BURTON. Rhaetia Rhætia (RHÆTORUM). Prefecture Apostolic in Switzerland; includes in general the district occupied by the Catholics belonging to the Rhæto-Romanic race in the canton of the Grisons (Graubünden). The prefecture is bounded on the north by the Prättigau, on the south by Lombardy, on the east by the Tyrol, on the west by the cantons of Tessin (Ticino), Uri, and Glarus. During the sixteenth century the greater part of the inhabitants of the Grisons became Calvinists. In 1621 Paul V, at the entreaty of Bishop John Flugi of Coire (Chur) and Archduke Leopold of Austria, sent thither Capuchin missionaries from Brixen in the Tyrol; the first superior was P. Ignatius of Cosnigo, who resided in the mission (1621-45) and conducted it under the title of prefect Apostolic. The best known of the missionaries is St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who was martyred. After the death of P. Ignatius the mission was cared for by the Capuchin province of Brixen, represented in the mission by a sub-prefect. For a long time after the suppression of the religious orders by Napoleon, the mission was without an administrator; upon the restoration of the order, Capuchins from various provinces were sent into the mission. At present it is under the care of Capuchins of the Roman province. It has 22 parishes, in three of which the majority of inhabitants speak Italian; 52 churches and chapels; 40 schools for boys and girls; 7200 Catholics; 25 Capuchins. The prefect Apostolic lives at Sagens. BÜCHI, Die kath. Kirche in der Schweiz (Munich, 1902), 89; Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907), 103; MAYER, Gesch. des Bistums Chur (Stans, 1907), not yet completed. JOSEPH LINS. Rhaphanaea Rhaphanæa A titular see in Syria Secunda, suffragan of Apamea. Rhaphanæa is mentioned in ancient times only by Josephus (Bel. Jud., VII, 5, 1), who says that in that vicinity there was a river which flowed six days and ceased on the seventh, probably an intermittent spring now called Fououar ed-Deir, near Rafanieh, a village of the vilayet of Alep in the valley of the Oronte. The ancient name was preserved. At the time of Ptolemy (V, 14, 12), the Third Legion (Gallica) was stationed there. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 712, 8) and Georgius Cyprius, 870 (Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani", 44) mention it among the towns of Syria Secunda. The crusaders passed through it at the end of 1099; it was taken by Baldwin and was given to the Count of Tripoli ("Historiens des croisades", passim; Rey in "Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de France", Paris, 1885, 266). The only bishops of Rhaphanæa known are (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 921): Bassianus, present at the Council of Nicæa, 325; Gerontius at Philippopolis, 344; Basil at Constantinople, 381; Lampadius at Chalcedon, 451; Zoilus about 518; Nonnus, 536. The see is mentioned as late as the tenth century in the "Notitia episcopatuum" of Antioch (Vailhé "Echos d'Orient", X, 94). SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. geogr., s. v.; MÜLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 973. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger A composer and organist, born at Vaduz, in the Principality of Lichtenstein, Bavaria, 17 March, 1839; died at Munich, 25 Nov., 1901. When seven years old, he already served as organist in his parish church, and at the age of eight composed a mass for three voices. After enjoying for a short time the instruction of Choir-master Schmutzer in Feldkirch, he attended the conservatory at Munich from 1851 to 1854, and finished his musical education with a course under Franz Lachner. In 1859 he was appointed professor of the theory of music and organ at the conservatory, a position which he held until a few months before his death. Besides his duties as teacher he acted successively as organist at the court Church of St. Michael, conductor of the Munich Oratorio Society, and instructor of the solo artists at the royal opera. In 1867 he received the title of royal professor, and became inspector of the newly established royal school for music, now called the Royal Academy of Music. In 1877 he was promoted to the rank of royal court conductor, which position carried with it the direction of the music in the royal chapel. Honoured by his prince with the title of nobility and accorded the honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the Munich University, Rheinberger for more than forty years wielded as teacher of many of the most gifted young musicians of Europe and America, perhaps more influence than any of his contemporaries. As a composer he was remarkable for his power of invention, masterful technique, and a noble, solid style. Among his two hundred compositions are oratorios (notably "Christoforus" and "Monfort"); two operas; cantatas for soli, chorus, and orchestra ("The Star of Bethlehem", "Toggenburg", "Klãrchen auf Eberstein" etc.); smaller works for chorus and orchestra; symphonies ("Wallenstein"), overtures, and chamber music for various combinations of instruments, Most important of all his instrumental works are his twenty sonatas for organ, the most notable productions in this form since Mendelssohn. Rheinberger wrote many works to liturgical texts, namely, twelve masses (one for double chorus, three for four voices a cappella, three for women's voices and organ, two for men's voices and one with orchestra), a requiem, Stabat Mater, and a large number of motets, and smaller pieces. Rheinbergen's masses rank high as works of art, but some of them are defective in the treatment of the text. Joseph Renner, Jr., has recently remedied most of these defects, and made the masses available for liturgical purposes. KRAYER, Joseph Rheinberger (Ratisbon, 1911); RENNER, Rheinberger's Messen in Kirchen-musikalisches Jahrbuch (Ratisbon, 1909). JOSEPH OTTEN Rhesaena Rhesæna A titular see in Osrhoene, suffragan of Edessa. Rhesæna (numerous variations of the name appear in ancient authors) was an important town at the northern extremity of Mesopotamia near the sources of the Chaboras (now Khabour), on the way from Carrhæ to Nicephorium about eighty miles from Nisibis and forty from Dara; Near by Gordian III fought the Persians in 243. Its coins show that it was a Roman colony from the time of Septimus Severus. The "Notitia dignitatum" (ed. Boecking, I, 400) represents it as under the jurisdiction of the governor or Dux of Osrhoene. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 714, 3) also locates it in this province but under the name of Theodosiopolis; it had in fact obtained the favour of Theodosius the Great and taken his name. It was fortified by Justinian. In 1393 it was nearly destroyed by Tamerlane's troops. To-day under the name of Râs-el-'Ain, it is the capital of a caza in the vilayet of Diarbekir and has only 1500 inhabitants. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, II, 979) mentions nine bishops of Rhesæna: Antiochus, present at the Council of Nicæa (325); Eunomius, who (about 420) forced the Persians to raise the siege of the town; John, at the Council of Antioch (444); Olympius at Chalcedon (451); Andrew (about 490); Peter, exiled with Sevenian (518); Ascholius, his successor, a Monophysite; Daniel (550); Sebastianus (about 600), a correspondent of St. Gregory the Great. The see is again mentioned in the tenth century in a Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch (Vailhé, in "Echos d'Orient", X, 94). Le Quien (ibid., 1329 and 1513) mentions two Jacobite bishops: Scalita, author of a hymn and of homilies, and Theodosius (1035). About a dozen others are known. Revue de l'Orient chrét. VI (1901), 203; D'HERBELOT, Bibl. orientale, I, 140; III, 112; RITTER. Erdkunde, XI, 375; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v., with bibliography of ancient authors; MÜLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 1008; CHAPOT, La frontière de l'Euphrate de Pompée à la conquête arabe (Paris, 1907). 302. S. PÉTRIDÈS Rhinocolura Rhinocolura A titular see in Augustamnica Prima, suffragan of Pelusium. Rhinocolura or Rhinocorura was a maritime town so situated on the boundary of Egypt and Palestine that ancient geographers attributed it sometimes to one country and sometimes to the other. Its history is unknown. Diodorus Siculus (I, 60, 5) relates that it must have been founded by Actisanes, King of Ethiopia, who established there convicts whose noses had been cut off; this novel legend was invented to give a Greek meaning to the name of the town. Strabo (XVI, 781) says that it was formerly the great emporium of the merchandise of India and Arabia, which was unloaded at Leuce Come, on the eastern shore of the Red Sea, whence it was transported via Petra to Rhinocolura, It is identified usually with the present fortified village El Anish, which has 400 inhabitants, excluding the garrison, situated half a mile from the sea, and has some ruins of the Roman period. It was taken by the French in 1799, who signed there in 1800 the treaty by which they evacuated Egypt. To-day it and its vicinity are occupied by Egypt, after having been for a long period claimed by Turkey. The village is near a stream which bears its name (Wadi el-Arish), and receives its waters from central Sinai; it does not flow in winter, but is torrential after heavy rain. It is the "nahal Misraim", or stream of Egypt, frequently mentioned in the Bible (Gen., xv, 18, etc.), as marking on the south-west the frontier of the Promised Land. Instead of the ordinary translation of the Hebrew name, the Septuagint in Is., xxvii, 12, render it by Hrinokoroura; see St. Jerome (In Isaiam, XXVII, 12 in P. L., XXIV, 313). Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 541) gives a list of thirteen bishops of Rhinocolura: the first does not belong to it. A Coptic manuscript also wrongly names a bishop said to have assisted in 325 at the Council of Nice. The first authentic titular known is St. Melas, who suffered exile under Valens and is mentioned on 16 January in the Roman Martyrology. He was succeeded by his brother Solon. Polybius was the disciple of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, whose life he wrote. Hermogenes assisted at the Council of Ephesus (431), was sent to Rome by St. Cyril, and received many letters from his suffragan St. Isidore. His successor Zeno defended Eutyches at the Second Council of Ephesus (451). Other bishops were: Alphius, the Massalian heretic; Ptolemy, about 460, Gregory, 610. Of the other bishops on the list one did not belong to Rhinocolura; the other three are Coptic heretics. RELAND, Palæstina, 285, 969 sq.; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MÜLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, 1, 683; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Egypte (torrent ou ruisseau d'); AMÉLINEAU, Géoqraphie de l'Egypte à l'époque copte, 404; RITTER, Erdkunde, XVI, 143; XVI, 39, 41. S. PÉTRIDÈS Rhithymna Rhithymna (RHETHYMNA) A titular see of Crete, suffragan of Gortyna, mentioned by Ptolemy, III, 15, Pliny, IV, 59, and Stephen of Byzantium. Nothing is known of its ancient history but some of its coins are extant. It still exists under the Greek name of Rhethymnon (Turkish, Resmo, It. and Fr. Retimo). It is a small port on the north side of the island thirty-seven miles south-west of Candia; it has about 10,000 inhabitants (half Greeks, half Mussulmans), and some Catholics who have a church and school. Rhithymna exports oil and soap. During the occupation of Crete by the Venetians it became a Latin see. According to Corner (Creta sacra, II, 138 sq.), this see is identical with Calamona. For a list of twenty-four bishops (1287 to 1592) see Eubel (Hier. cath. med. ævi, I, 161; II, 128; III, 161). Three other names are mentioned by Corner from 1611 to 1641. The Turks who had already ravaged the city in 1572, captured it again in 1646. At present the Greeks have a bishop there who bears the combined titles of Rhethymnon and Aulopotamos. The date of the foundation of the see is unknown. It is not mentioned in the Middle Ages in any of the Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum". SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Rhizus Rhizus ( Rizous.) A titular see of Pontus Polemoniacus suffragan of Neocaesarea, mentioned by Ptolemy (V, 6) as a port on the Black Sea (Euxine); it is referred to also in other ancient geographical documents, but its history is unknown, Procopius ("De bello gothico", IV, 2), tells us that the town was of some importance and that it was fortified by Justinian. He calls it Rhizaion, and it is so styled in the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum". It was originally a suffragan of Neocaesarea, then an "autocephalous" archdiocese, finally a metropolitan see; the dates of these changes are uncertain. With the decrease of the Christian element the suffragan has become a simple exarchate. To-day there are no more than 400 Greeks among the 2000 inhabitants of Rizeh, as the Turks call the town. It is the capital of the Sanjak of Lazistan in the Vilayet of Trebizond, and exports oranges and lemons. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 517), mentions three bishops; Nectarius, present at the Council of Nice, 787; John, at the Council of Constantinople, 879, and Joachim (metropolitan) in 1565. SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MÜLLER, Notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 868. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Giacomo Rho Giacomo Rho Missionary, born at Milan, 1593; died at Peking 27 April, 1638. He was the son of a noble and learned jurist, and at the age of twenty entered the Society of Jesus. While poor success attended his early studies, he was later very proficient in mathematics. After his ordination at Rome by Cardinal Bellarmine, he sailed in 1617 for the Far East with forty-four companions. After a brief stay at Goa he proceeded to Macao where, during the siege of that city by the Dutch, he taught the inhabitants the use of artillery and thus brought about its deliverance. This service opened China to him. He rapidly acquired the knowledge of the native language and was summoned in 1631 by the emperor to Peking for the reform of the Chinese calendar. With Father Schall he worked to the end of his life at this difficult task. When he died, amidst circumstances exceptionally favourable to the Catholic mission, numerous Chinese officials attended his funeral. He left works relative to the correction of the Chinese calendar, to astronomical and theological questions. DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jésus, VI (9 vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1709-11; HUC, Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet, II (tr. New York, 1884), 265-66. N. A. WEBER. Rhode Island Rhode Island The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one of the thirteen original colonies, is in extent of territory (land area, 1054 square miles), the smallest state in the American union. It includes the Island of Rhode Island, Block Island, and the lands adjacent to Narragansett Bay, bounded on the north and east by Massachusetts, on the south by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by Connecticut. The population, according to the United States Census of 1910, numbers 542,674. Providence, the capital, situated at head of Narragansett Bay, and having a population of 224,326, is the industrial centre of an extremely wealthy and densely populated district. Rhode Island has long since ranked as chiefly a manufacturing state, although the agricultural interest in certain sections are still considerable. The agriculture in Rhode Island has not kept pace with manufacturers is illustrated by instances of rural population. Two country towns have fewer inhabitants than in 1748; two others, but a few more than at that date; one town, less than in 1782; two, less than in 1790, and another, less than in 1830. Coal exists and has been mined, but it is of graphitic nature. Granite of high grade is extensively quarried. The value of stone quarried in 1902 was $734,623; the value of all other minerals produced, $39,998. The power supplied by the rivers gave early impetus to manufacturing are general, including cotton, woolen, and rubber goods, jewelry, silverware, machinery and tools. In 1905 there were 1617 manufacturing establishments with a total capitalization of $215,901,375; employing 97,318 workers with a payroll of $43,112,637, and an output of the value of $202,109,583. The total assets of banks and trust companies in June, 1909, were $252,612,122. The bonded State debt,1 Jan., 1910, was $4,800,000 with a sinking fund of $654,999. The direct foreign commerce is small, imports in 1908 being $1,499,116 and exports $21,281. The population of Rhode Island in 1708 was 7181. In 1774 it had increased to 59,707, subsequently decreasing until in 1782 it was 52,391. Thereafter until 1840 the average annual increase was 973; and from 1840 to 1860, 3289. During the latter period and for several years afterward came a heavy immigration from Ireland, followed by a large influx from Canada. For the last twenty-five years, the increase from European countries, especially Italy, has been great. According to the State census of 1095, the number of foreign-born in Rhode Island is as follows; born in Canada, 38,500; in Ireland, 32,629; In England, 24,431; In Italy, 18,014; In Sweden, 7201; In Scotland, 5649; in Portugal, 5293; In Russia, 4505; in Germany, 4463; in Poland, 4104. This classification does not distinguish the Jews, who are rapidly increasing, and who in 1905 numbered 14,570. HISTORY A. Political It is probable that Verrazano, sailing under the French flag, visited rhode Island waters in 1524. A dutch navigator, Adrian Block, in 1614 explored Narragansett Bay and gave to Block Island the name it bears. The sentence of banishment of Roger Williams from Plymouth Colony was passed in 1635, and in the following year he settled on the site of Providence, acquiring land by purchase from the Indians. One cause of Williams's banishment was his protest against the interference of civil authorities in religious matters. In November, 1637, William Coddington was notified to eave Massachusetts. With the help f of Williams, he settled on the site of Portsmouth, in the northerly part of the island of Rhode Island, which was then call Aquidneck. Disagreements arising at Portsmouth, Coddington, with a minority of his townsmen, in 1639 moved southward on the island and began the settlement of New port. Samuel Gorton, another refugee from Massachusetts, in 1638 came first to Portsmouth, and later to Providence, creating discord at both places by denying all power in the magistrates. Gorton finally, in 1643, purchased from the Indians a tract of land in what is now the town of Warwick, and settled there. The four towns, Providence, Warwick, Portsmouth, and Newport, lying in a broken line about thirty miles in length, for many years constituted the municipal divisions of the colony. In 1644 Roger Williams secured from the English Parliament the first charter, which was accepted by an assembly of delegates from the four towns; and a bill of rights, and a brief code of laws, declaring the government to be "held by the common consent of all the free inhabitants", were enacted thereunder. In 1663 was granted the charter of Charles II, the most liberal of all the colonial charters. It ordained that no person should be in any way molested on account of religion; and created the General Assembly, with power to enact all laws necessary for the government of the colony, such laws being not repugnant to but agreeable as near as might be to the laws of England, "considering the nature and constitution of the place and people there" The separate existence of the little colony was long precarious. Coddington in 1651 secured for himself a commission as governor of the islands of Rhode Island and Conanicut, but his authority was vigorously assailed, and his commission finally revoked. The Puritans in Massachusetts were no friends of the people of Rhode Island, and portions of the meagre territory were claimed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. Rhode Island, like the other colonies was threatened both in England and in America by those who favoured direct control by the English Government. Under the regime of Andros, Colonial Governor at Boston, the charter government was suspended for two years; and had the recommendations of the English commissioner, Lord Bellemont, been adopted, the charter government would have been abolished. In 1710 the colony first issued "bills of credit", paper money, which continued increasing in volume and with great depreciation in value, until after the close of the Revolution, causing and inciting bitter partisan and sectional strife, and at times leading to the verge of civil war. The advocates of this currency defended it on the ground of necessity, lack of specie, and the demand for some medium to pay the expenses os successive wars. In 1787 the State owed £150,047, English money, on interest-bearing notes, which in 1789 the Assembly voted to retire by paying them in paper money then passing at the ratio of twelve to one. By the early part of the eighteenth century the people were extensively engaged in ship-building, and it is said that in the wars in America between Great Britain and France, Rhode Island fitted out more ships for service than any other colony. The extraordinary measure of self-government granted to the colonists by the charter fostered in them a spirit of loyalty toward the mother country, substantially and energetically manifested on every occasion; but which, nevertheless, when the danger from the foreign foe was no longer imminent, was supplanted by a feeling of jealous apprehension of the encroachments on that the colonist s had now learned to regard as their natural rights. Rhode Island heartily joined the other colonies in making the Revolution her cause. In 1768 the Assembly ratified the Massachusetts remonstrance against the British principle of taxation, in spite of Lord Hillsborough's advice to treat it with "the contempt it deserves". The first overt act of the Revolution, the scuttling of the revenue sloop "Liberty", took place in Newport harbour, 19 July, 1769; followed three years later by the burning of the British ship of war "Gaspee" at Providence. A strong loyalist party in the colony for social and commercial reasons was anxious to avoid an open breach with the mother country, but the enthusiasm with which the news of Lexington was received showed that the majority of the people welcomed the impending struggle. on 4 May, 1776, the Rhode Island Assembly by formal act renounced its allegiance to Great Britain, and in the following July voted its approval of the Declaration of Independence. The colony bore its burden, too, of the actual conflict. From 1776 until 1779, the British occupied Newport as their headquarters, ruining the commerce of the town and wasting the neighbouring country. The evident strategic importance of the possession of Newport by the British, and the possibility of the place's becoming the centre of a protracted and disastrous war, created great alarm not only in the colony but throughout New England. Two attempts were made to dislodge the enemy, the second with the co-operation of the French fleet, but both failed. The levies of men and money were promptly met by the people of the colony in spite of the widespread privation and actual suffering. At last the British headquarters were shifted to the south, and the French allies Newport until the end of the war. The same consideration, the instinct for local self-government, which prompted Rhode Island to resist the mother country, made her slow to join with the other colonies in establishing a strong centralized government. "We have not seen our way clear to do it consistent with our idea of the principles upon which we are all embarked together", wrote the Assemble to the President of Congress. The proposed federal organization seemed scarcely less objectionable than the former British rule. Rhode Island took no part in the Convention of 1787, and long refused even to submit the question of the adoption of the Constitution to a state convention. Eight times the motion to submit was lost in the Assemble, and it was only when it became evident that the other states did not regard Rhode Island's condition single independence as an "eligible" one, and where quite ready to act in support of their opinion even to the extent of parcelling her territory among themselves, that the Constitution was submitted to a convention and adopted by a majority of two votes, 29 May, 1790. Admitted to the Union, Rhode Island did not follow the example of most of the other states in framing a constitution adapted to the new national life, but continued under the old charter. This fact underlies here political history for the next fifty years. The charter of Charles II, though suitable to its time, was bound to become oppressive. First, it fixed the representation of the several towns without providing for a readjustment to accord with the relative changes therein. Hence, the natural and social forces, necessarily operating in the course of two hundred years to enlarge some communities and to reduce others, failed to find a corresponding political expression. Again, the charter had conferred the franchise upon the "freemen" of the towns, leaving to the Assemble the task of defining the term. From early colonial days the qualification had fluctuated until in 1798 it was fixed at the ownership of real estate to the value of $134, or of $7 annual rental (the eldest sons of freeholders being also eligible). Agitation for a constitution began as soon as Rhode Island had entered the Union, and continued for many years with little result. It came to a head ultimately in 1841 in the Dorr Rebellion, the name given to that movement whereby a large part in the state, under the leadership of Thomas W. Dorr of Providence, proceeded to frame a constitution, independently of the existing government and to elect officers thereunder. The movement was readily put down by the authorities after some display of force, and Dorr was obliged to flee the state. Returning later, he was indicted for treason, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was pardoned and set at liberty within a year. His work was not a failure, however, for in 1842 a constitution was adopted incorporating his proposed reforms. A personal property qualification was instituted, practically equivalent to the real estate qualification; and neither was required, except in voting upon an proposition to impose a tax or to expend money, or for the election of the City Council of Providence. The personal property qualification was not available, to foreign-born citizens, and this discrimination persisted until 1888, when it was abolished by constitutional amendment. Each town and city was entitled to one member in the Senate; and the membership of the Lower House, limited to seventy-two, was apportioned among the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the proviso that now town or city should have more than one-sixth of the total membership. In 1909, an amendment was adopted increasing the membership of the Lower House to one hundred, apportioned as before among the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the proviso that no town or city should have more than one-fourth of the total membership. It is significant that under this amendment the City of Providence has twenty-five representatives whereas its population warrants forty-one. In the same year, the veto power was for the first time bestowed upon the governor. Notwithstanding these approaches toward a republican form of government, there is a strong demand for a thorough revision of the Constitution. According to an opinion of the Supreme Court a constitutional convention is out of the question, inasmuch as the Constitution itself contains no provision therefor (In re The Constitutional Convention, IIV R. I., 469), and the only hope of reform seems to be in the slow and difficult process of amendment. B. Religious The earliest settlers in this state were criticized by their enemies for lack of religion. Cotton Mather described them as a "colluvies" of everything but Roman Catholics and real Christians. In Providence Roger Williams was made pastor of the first church, the beginning of the present First Baptist Church. In 1739 there were thirty-three churches in the colony; twelve Baptist, ten Quaker, six Congregational or Presbyterian, and five Episcopalian. It is said that in 1680 there was not one Catholic in the colony, and for a long period their number must have been small. In 1828 there were probably less than 1000 Catholics in the state. In that year Bishop Fenwick of Boston assigned Rev. Robert Woodley to a "parish" which included all of Rhode Island and territory to the east in Massachusetts. A church was built in Pawtucket in 1829. Father Woodley in 1828 acquired in Newport a lot and building which was used for a church and school. In 1830 Rev. John Corry was assigned to Taunton and Providence, and built a church in Taunton in that year. The first Catholic church in Providence was built in 1837 on the site of the present cathedral. At that time Father Corry was placed in charge of Providence alone. From 1844 to 1846 the mission of Rev. James Fitton included Woonsocket, Pawtucket, Crompton and Newport, a series of districts extending the length of the state. In 1846, Newport was made a parish by itself. Woonsocket received a pastor at about the same time; Pawtucket in 1847; Warren in 1851; Pascoag in 1851; East Greenwich in 1853; Georgiaville in 1855. These parishes were not confined to the limits of the towns or villages named, but included the surrounding territory. In 1844 the Diocese of Hartford was created, including Rhode Island and Connecticut, with the episcopal residence at Providence. At this time there were only six priests in the two states. In 1872 the diocese of Hartford was divided and the Diocese of Providence created, including all Rhode Island, and in Massachusetts, the counties of Bristol, Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket, also the towns of Mattapoisset, Marion, and Wareham in the County of Plymouth. In 1904 the Diocese of Fall River was created, leaving the Diocese of Providence coextensive with the state. After 1840, and especially following the famine in Ireland, the Irish increased with great rapidity and long formed the bulk of the Catholic population. The growth of cotton manufactures after the Civil War drew great numbers of Canadian Catholics. In more recent years Italians have settled in Rhode Island in great numbers, and many Polish Catholics. Included in the Catholic population are approximately 65,000 Canadians and French, 40,000 Italians, 10,000 Portuguese,8000 Poles, and 1000 Armenians and Syrians. According to a special government report on the census of religious bodies of the United States, 76.5 per cent, of the population of the City of Providence are Catholics. There are 199 priests in the diocese, including about 47 Canadian and French priests, 8 Italian, and 5 Polish priests. Thirty parishes support parochial schools. Under Catholic auspices are two orphan asylums, one infant asylum, two hospitals, one home for the aged poor, one industrial school, one house for working boys, and two houses for working girls. The first Catholic governor of the State was James H. Higgins, a Democrat, who was elected for two terms, 1907, 1908. He was succeeded by Aram J. Pothier, A Catholic, and a Republican. The State census of 1905 gives the following statistics of religious denominations: + Catholic: 200,00 members (76 churches) + Protestant Episcopal: 15,441 members (68 churches) + Baptist: 14,761 members (75 churches) + Methodist Episcopal: 5,725 members (45 churches) + Congregationalist: 9,738 members (42 churches) + Lutheran: 2,217 members (12 churches) + Free Baptist: 3,306 members (30 churches) + Presbyterian: 993 members (4 churches) + Universalist: 1,166 members (9 churches) + Unitarian: 1,000 members (4 churches) + Seventh Day Baptist: 1,040 members (5 churches) + Friends: 915 members (7 churches) Value of property owned by certain denominations is stated as follows: Protestant Episcopal, $1,957,518; Congregational, $1,417,089; Baptist, $1,124,348; Methodist Episcopal, $624,900; Unitarian $280,000; Universalist, $259,000; Free Baptist, $242,000. Education Provision was made for a public school in New port in 1640. State supervision of public schools was not inaugurated until 1828. The number of pupils enrolled in public schools in 1907 was 74,065, and the number of teachers employed, 2198. The State maintains an agricultural college, a normal school, a school for the deaf, a home and school for dependent children not criminal or vicious, and makes provision for teaching the blind. Schools are supported mainly by the towns wherein they are located. The state appropriates annually $120,000 to be used only for teachers salaries, and to be divided among the towns and cities in proportion to school population, but no town may receive its allotment without appropriating at least an equal amount for the same purpose. Another appropriation is paid to towns maintaining graded high schools. This appropriation in 1910 was $26,500. The total amount expended on public schools in 1907, exclusive of permanent improvements, was $1,800,325, the number of school buildings was 528; and the valuation of school property, $6,550,172. The number of parochial school pupils in 1907 was 16,254; the total attendance of Catholic parochial schools and academies in 1910 was 17,440. These schools cost about $1,500,000, and their annual maintenance about $150,000. The average monthly expense per pupil in the public schools in 1907 was stated as $3.14. Allowing ten months for the school year, on the basis of that cost, the 16,254 parochial school pupils, if attending the public school, would have cost the State and towns $510,375. Providence is the seat of Brown University, a Baptist institution founded in 1764. The corporation consists of a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellow. A majority of the trustees must be Baptists and the rest of the trustees must be chosen from three other prescribed Protestant denominations. A majority of the fellows including the president, must be Baptists; "the rest indifferently of any or all denominations". It is provided that the places of professors, tutors and all officers, the president alone excepted, shall be free and open to all denominations of Protestants. The total enrollment of the university for the academic year 1909-10 was 967, including the graduate department and the Women's College. Legislation Affecting Religion In 1657 the Assembly denied the demand of the commissioners of the United Colonies that Quakers should be banished from Rhode Island, and later passed a law that military service should not be exacted from those whose religious belief forbade the bearing of arms. The Charter of 1663 guaranteed freedom of conscience, and the colonial laws prohibited compulsory support of any form of worship. In 1663, Charles II wrote to the Assembly declaring that all men of civil conversation, obedient to magistrates though of differing judgments, might be admitted as freemen, with liberty to choose and be chosen to office, civil and military. In this communication it was voted that all those who should take an oath of allegiance to Charles II and were of competent estate, should be admitted as freemen; but none should vote or hold office until admitted by vote of the assembly. In the volume of laws printed in 1719, appeared a provision that all men professing Christianity, obedient to magistrates, and of civil conversation, though of differing judgments in religious matters, Roman Catholics alone excepted should have liberty to choose and be chosen to offices both civil and military. The date of the original enactment of this exception is not known. It was repealed in 1783. The State Constitution of 1842 guarantees freedom of conscience, and provides that no man's civil capacity shall be increased or diminished on account of his religious belief. The Sunday law of Rhode Island, following the original English statute (Charles II, e. VII, sect. 1) differs from the law of most other states in that it forbids simply the exercise of one's ordinary calling upon the Lord's day; excepting of course works of charity and necessity. Hence a release given on Sunday has been held good (Allen v. Gardiner, VII, R.I. 22); and probably any contracts not in pursuance of one's ordinary calling would be sustained though made on Sunday. A characteristic exception exists in favour of Jews and Sabbatarians, who are permitted with certain restrictions, to pursue their ordinary calling on the first day of the week. Fishing and fowling, except on one's own property, and all games, sports, plays, and recreations on Sunday are forbidden. The penalty for the first violation of the statute is $5, and $10 for subsequent violations. Service of civil process on Sunday is void. Witnesses are sworn with the simple formality of raising the right hand; or they make affirmation upon peril of the penalty for perjury. Judges assemblymen, and all State officers, civil and military, must take an oath of office. The substance of the oath is to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of this State, and faithfully and impartially to discharge the duties of the office. The judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts also swear to administer justice without respect of persons, and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. Lawyers, auditors and almost every city and town official take an oath office. Blasphemy is punished by imprisonment not exceeding two months or fine not exceeding $200; profane cursing swearing by fine not exceeding $5. New State and municipal governments are generally inaugurated with prayer. Legal holidays include New Year's Day, Columbus Day, and Christmas. Good Friday is a Court holiday by rule of Court and a school holiday in Providence by vote of the school committee. There is no statute or reported decision regarding evidence of statements made under the seal of confession. Should a question arise concerning this, it would have to be decided on precedent and on grounds of public policy. The sole statutory privilege is that accorded to communications between husband and wife; although the common law privilege of offers of compromise and settlement and of communications between attorney and client are recognized. Physicians may be compelled to disclose statements made to them by patients regarding physical condition. Incorporation and Taxation In 1869 an act was passed enabling the bishop of the Diocese of Hartford, with the vicar-general, the pastor and two lay members of any Catholic congregation in this State, to incorporate, and to hold the Church property of such congregation, by filing with the secretary of State an agreement to incorporate. This act was amended upon the creation of the Diocese of Providence. The property of all the organized and self-sustaining Catholic parishes is held by corporations so formed. The system furnishes a convenient means of continuing the ownership of the property of the respective parishes. In 1900 the bishop of the Diocese of Providence and his successors were created a corporation sole with power to hold property for the religious and charitable purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. Since 1883 there has existed an act enabling Episcopalian parishes to incorporate. Special chatters are freely granted when desired. There is a general law allowing libraries, lyceums and societies for religious charitable, literary, scientific, artistic, musical or social purposes to incorporate by filing an agreement stating the names of the promoters and the object of the corporation, and by paying a nominal charge. Such corporations may hold property up to $100,000 in value. By general law, buildings for religious worship, and the land on which they stand, not exceeding one acre, so far as such land and buildings are occupied and used exclusively for religious or educational purposes, are exempt from taxation. The exemption does not apply to pastors' houses. The buildings and personal property of any corporation used for schools, academies, or seminaries of learning, and of any incorporated public charity, and the land, not exceeding one acre, on which such buildings stand, are exempt. School property is exempt only so far as it is used exclusively for educational purposes. Property used exclusively for burial purposes, hospitals, public libraries, and property used for the aid of the poor, are exempt. Any church property other than that specified is taxed, unless it is in a form exempted by national law. Clergymen are exempt from jury and military duty. Marriage and Divorce Marriage between grandparent and grandchild, or uncle and niece, and between persons more closely related by blood, is void; as is marriage with a step-parent, with the child or grandchild or one's husband or wife, with the husband or wife of one's child or grandchild, and with the parent or grandparent of one's wife or husband. The statute contains no express requirement regarding the age of the parties contracting marriage, but it is a defence to an indictment for bigamy that the prior marriage was contracted when the man was under fourteen years of age, and the woman under twelve. Marriages among Jews are valid in law if they are valid under the Jewish religion. Marriages may be performed by licensed clergymen and by the judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts. Before marriage, parties must obtain a licence by personal application from the town clerk, or city clerk, or registrar; and a non-resident woman must obtain such licence at least five days previous to the marriage. The licence must be presented to the clergyman or judge officiating, who must make return of the marriage. Two witnesses are required to the marriage ceremony. Failure to observe the licence regulations will not invalidate the marriage provided either of the contracting parties supposes they have been complied with; but the noncompliance is punished by fine or imprisonment. Causes for divorce include adultery, extreme cruelty, wilful desertion for five years, or for a shorter time in the discretion of the Court, continued drunkenness, excessive use of opium, morphine, or chloral, neglect of husband to provide necessaries for this wife, and an other gross misbehaviour and wickedness repugnant to the marriage covenant. If the parties have been separated for ten years, the Court may in its discretion decree a divorce. Under the law of Rhode Island marriage is regarded as a status, pertaining to the citizen, which the State may regulate or alter. Hence a Court having jurisdiction over one of the parties to a marriage as a bona fide domiciled citizen of the State, may dissolve the marriage although the other party is beyond the jurisdiction; and such dissolution will be recognized by other states b virtue of the comity provision of the Federal Constitution (Ditson vs. Ditson, IV R.I. 87). Liquor Laws, Corrections, etc. A Constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor was adopted in 1886, and repealed in 1889. At present Rhode Island is a local option state, the question of licence or no-licence being submitted annually to the voters of the several cities and towns. The licensing boards may in their discretion refuse any application. The number of licences in any town may not exceed the proportion of one licence to each 500 inhabitants. The owners of the greater part of the land within two hundred feet of any location may bar its licence. No licence can be granted for a location within two hundred feet, measured on the street, of any public or parochial school. Maximum and minimum licence fees are fixed by statute, and the exact sum is determined by the licensing boards. For retail licences the minimum fee is $300, and the maximum, $1000. In the City of Cranston are located the "State institutions", so-called, including the State prison, the county jail, the State workhouse, a reform school for girls, and another for boys. The probation system is extensively employed, and in the case of juvenile offenders especially, the State makes every effort to prevent their becoming hardened criminals. Probation officers have the power of bail over persons committed to them. In proper cases, probation officers may provide for the maintenance of girls and women apart from their families. Capital punishment does not exist in the State except in cases where a life convict commits murder. Wills disposing of personal property may be made by persons eighteen years of age or over; wills disposing of real estate, by persons twenty-one years of age or over. Probate clerks are required to notify corporations and voluntary associations of all gifts made to them by will. If a gift for charity is made by will to a corporation and the acceptance thereof would be ultra vires, the corporation may at once receive the gift, and may retain it on condition of securing the consent of the legislature within one year. It has been held that a legacy for Masses should be paid in full even if the estate were insufficient to pay general pecuniary legacies in full, on the ground that the gift for Masses is for services to be rendered and is not gratuitous, furthermore that a gift for Masses is legal and is not void as being a superstitious use (Sherman v. Baker, XX R.I., 446, 613). Cemeteries are regulated to the extent that town councils may prevent their location in thickly populated districts, and for the protection of health may pass ordinances regarding burials and the use of the grounds. Desecration of graves is punished. Towns may receive land for burial purposes, and town councils may hold funds for the perpetual care of burial lots. Cemeteries are generally owned by corporations specially chartered, by churches and families. Field, State of R.I. and Providence Plantations (Boston, 1902); Arnold, Hist. of R.I. (New York, 1860); Staples, Annals of Providence (Providence, 1843); Dowling, Hist. of the Catholic Church in New England (Boston, 1899); R.I. Colonial Records. ALBERT B. WEST Alexandre de Rhodes Alexandre De Rhodes A missionary and author, born at Avignon, 15 March, 1591; died at Ispahan, Persia, 5 Nov., 1660. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Rome, 24 April, 1612, with the intention of devoting his life to the conversion of the infidels. He was assigned to the missions of the East Indies, and inaugurated his missionary labours in 1624 with great success in Cochin China. In 1627 he proceeded to Tongking where, within the space of three years, he converted 6000 persons, including several bonzes. When in 1630 persecution forced him to leave the country, the newly-made converts continued the work of evangelization. Rhodes was later recalled to Rome where he obtained permission from his superiors to undertake missionary work in Persia. Amidst the numerous activities of a missionary career, he found time for literary productions: "Tunchinensis historiæ libri duo" (Lyons, 1652); "La glorieuse mort d'André, Catéchiste . . ." (Paris, 1653); "Catechismus", published in Latin and in Tongkingese at Rome in 1658. DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jésus, VI (9 vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1718-21; CARAYON, Voyages et Missions du P. Rhodes (Paris and Le Mans, 1854). N. A. WEBER. Rhodes Rhodes (RHODUS) A titular metropolitan of the Cyclades (q. v.). It is an island opposite to Lycia and Caria, from which it is separated by a narrow arm of the sea. It has an area of about 564 sq. miles, is well watered by many streams and the river Candura, and is very rich in fruits of all kinds. The climate is so genial that the sun shines ever there, as recorded in a proverb already known to Pliny (Hist. natur., II, 62). The island, inhabited first by the Carians and then by the Phoenicians (about 1300 b.c.) who settled several colonies there, was occupied about 800 b.c. by the Dorian Greeks. In 408 b.c. the inhabitants of the three chief towns, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus founded the city of Rhodes, from which the island took its name. This town, built on the side of a hill, had a very fine port. On the breakwater, which separated the interior from the exterior port, was the famous bronze statue, the Colossus of Rhodes, 105 feet high, which cost 300 talents. Constructed (280) from the machines of war which Demetrius Poliorcetes had to abandon after his defeat before the town, it was thrown down by an earthquake in 203 B.C.; its ruins were sold in the seventh century by Caliph Moaviah to a Jew from Emesus, who loaded them on 900 camels. After the death of Alexander the Great and the expulsion of the Macedonian garrison (323 b.c.) the island, owing to its navy manned by the best mariners in the world, became the rival of Carthage and Alexandria. Allied with the Romans, and more or less under their protectorate, Rhodes became a centre of art and science; its school of rhetoric was frequented by many Romans, including Cato, Cicero, Cæsar, and Pompey. Ravaged by Cassius in 43 b.c. it remained nominally independent till a.d. 44, when it was incorporated with the Roman Empire by Claudius, becoming under Diocletian the capital of the Isles or of the Cyclades, which it long remained. The First Book of Machabees (xv, 23) records that Rome sent the Rhodians a decree in favour of the Jews. St. Paul stopped there on his way from Miletus to Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 1); he may even have made converts there. In three other passages of Holy Writ (Gen., x, 4; I Par., i, 7; Ezech., xxvii, 15) the Septuagint renders by Rhodians what the Hebrew and the Vulgate rightly call Dodanim and Dedan. If we except some ancient inscriptions supposed to be Christian, there is no trace of Christianity until the third century, when Bishop Euphranon is said to have opposed the Encratites. Euphrosynus assisted at the Council of Nicæa (325). As the religious metropolitan of the Cyclades, Rhodes had eleven suffragan sees towards the middle of the seventh century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . . . Texte der Notitiæ episcopatuum", 542); at the beginning of the tenth century, it had only ten (op. cit., 558); at the close of the fifteenth, only one, Lerne (op. cit., 635), which has since disappeared. Rhodes is still a Greek metropolitan depending on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On 15 August, 1310, under the leadership of Grand Master Foulques de Villaret, the Knights of St. John captured the island in spite of the Greek emperor, Andronicus II, and for more than two centuries, thanks to their fleet, were a solid bulwark between Christendom and Islam. In 1480 Rhodes, under the orders of Pierre d'Aubusson, underwent a memorable siege by the lieutenants of Mahomet II; on 24 October, 1522, Villiers de l'Isle Adam had to make an honorable capitulation to Solyman II and deliver the island definitively to the Turks. From 1328 to 1546 Rhodes was a Latin metropolitan, having for suffragans the sees of Melos, Nicaria, Carpathos, Chios, Tinos, and Mycone; the list of its bishops is to be found in Le Quien (Oriens christ., III, 1049) and Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii ævi, I, 205; II, 148; III, 188). The most distinguished bishop is Andreas Colossensis (the archdiocese was called Rhodes or Colossi) who, in 1416 at Constance and 1439 at Florence, defended the rights of the Roman Church against the Greeks, and especially against Marcus Eugenicus. After the death of Marco Cattaneo, the last residential archbishop, Rhodes became a mere titular bishopric, while Naxos inherited its metropolitan rights. On 3 March, 1797 it became again a titular archbishopric but the title was thenceforth attached to the See of Malta. Its suffragans are Carpathos, Leros, Melos, Samos, and Tenedos. By a decree of the Congregation of the Propaganda, 14 August, 1897, a prefecture Apostolic, entrusted to the Franciscans, was established in the Island of Rhodes; it has in addition jurisdiction over a score of neighbouring islands, of which the principal are Carpathos, Leros, and Calymnos. There are in all 320 Catholics, while the island, the capital of the vilayet of the archipelago, contains 30,000 inhabitants. The Franciscans have three priests; the Brothers of the Christian Schools have established there a scholasticate for the Orient as well as a school; the Franciscan Sisters of Gemona have a girls' school. The most striking feature of the city, in addition to a series of medieval towers and fortifications, is the Street of the Knights, which still preserves their blason (Order of St. John) and the date of the erection of each house or palace; several of the mosques are former churches. MEURSIUS, Creta, Cyprus, Rhodus (Amsterdam, 1675): CORONELLI, Isola di Rodi geographica, storica (Venice, 1702); LE QUIEN, Oriens christ., I, 923 30; PAULSEN, Commentatio exhibens Rhodi descriptionem macedonica oetate (Göttingsn, 1818); MENGE, Ueber die Vorgesch. der Insel Rhodus (Cologne, 1827): ROTTIERS, Description des monuments de Rhodes (Brussels, 1828); ROSS, Reisen auf den griech. Inseln, III, 70-113; IDEM, Reisen nach Kos, Halikarnassos, Rhodos (Stuttgart, 1840); BERG, Die Insel Rhodos (Brunswick, 1860); SCHNEIDERWIRTH, Gesch. der Insel Rhodos (Heiligenstadt. 1868); GUÉRIN, L'île de Rhodes (Paris, 1880); BILLIOTI AND COTTERET, L'île de Rhodes (Paris, 1891); BECKER, De Rhodiorum primordiis (Leipzig, 1882); TORR, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885); IDEM, Rhodes in Modern Times (Cambridge, 1887); SCHUMACHER, De Republica Rhodiorum commentatio (Heidelberg, 1886); VON GELDER, Gesch. der alten Rhodier (La Haye, 1900); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; FILLION in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; Missiones catholicae (Rome, 1907). S. VAILHÉ Rhodesia Rhodesia A British possession in South Africa, bounded on the north and north-west by the Congo Free State and German East Africa; on the east by German East Africa, Nyassaland, and Portuguese East Africa; on the south by the Transvaal and Bechuanaland; on the west by Bechuanaland and Portuguese West Africa. Cecil John Rhodes, to whom the colony owes its name, desired to promote the expansion of the British Empire in South Africa. The Dutch South African Republic and Germany were contemplating annexations in the neighbourhood of the Zambesi River. To thwart these enemies of unity without delay and without the aid of the British Parliament was the task to which Mr. Rhodes and his colleagues set themselves. Early in 1888 Lobengula, King of Matabeleland, entered into a treaty with Great Britain and on 30 October of the same year he granted to Rhodes's agents "the complete and exclusive charge over all metals and minerals" in his dominions. On 28 October, 1889, the British South Africa Company was formed under a royal charter. The company, on Lobengula's advice, first decided to open up Mashonaland, which lies north and west of Matabeleland and south of the Zambesi. In September, 1890, an expeditionary column occupied that country and, in the next four years, much was done to develop its resources. In 1893 the company, who questioned the right of the Matabele to make annual raids among their neighbours the Mashonas, came to blows with King Lobengula. Five weeks of active operations and the death of the king, probably by self-administered poison, brought the whole of Southern Rhodesia under the absolute control of the company. After the war, the settlement and opening up of the country was carried on under the direction of Mr. Rhodes who, on the ruins of Lobengula's royal kraal at Bulawayo, built Government House, and in the vicinity, laid out the streets and avenues of what was intended soon to become a great city. At one time Bulawayo had a population of some 7000 white inhabitants and seemed to be fulfilling the dreams of its founder when its progress and that of the whole country was cut short by the cattle pest, the native rebellion of 1896, and by years of stagnation and inactivity consequent upon the Boer War. Its white population (1911) is 5200. Besides Southern Rhodesia the chartered company own the extensive teritories of North-western and North-eastern Rhodesia which lie north of the Zambesi and which, with the more populous southern province, cover an area of some 450,000 square miles and form a country larger than France, Germany, and the Low Countries combined. The black population is less than 1,500,000, while the whites hardly exceed 16,000. All the native tribes of Rhodesia belong to the great Bantu family of the negro race. Before the arrival of the pioneer columns the dominant race south of the Zambesi were the Matabele, an off-shoot of the Zulus, who conquered the country north of the Limpopo River in the middle of the last century. They formed a military caste which lived by war and periodical raids upon their weaker neighbours. The destruction of this military despotism was a necessary step to the evangelizing of the country. Before the arrival of the Matabele warriors the principal inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia were the Makaranga whose ancestors had formed the once powerful empire of Monomotapa. North-western Rhodesia or Barotseland is ruled partly by an administrator residing at Livingstone, near the Victoria Falls of the Zambesi and partly by its native King Lewanika, the chief of the Barotse, who has been heavily subsidised by the company. The predominant people in North-eastern Rhodesia are the Awemba and the Angoni whose raiding propensities and coöperation with the Arab slave drivers caused much trouble and expense until their definitive annexation by the company in 1894. The earliest attempt to evangelize Matabeleland was made in 1879 when three Jesuit Fathers, travelling by ox-wagon, accomplished the journey of some twelve hundred miles between Grahamstown and Bulawayo. They were hospitably received by King Lobengula who had been assured by some resident traders that the missionaries had come for his people's good. He granted them a free passage through his dominions and allowed them to train his subjects in habits of industry but not to preach the Gospel of Christ which, as he well knew, would lead to drastic changes, not only in the domestic life of his people, but in his whole system of government. For some fourteen years the missionaries held their ground awaiting events and it was only through the conquest of the country by the company that free missionary work was rendered possible. It was during this period that Baron von Hubner, who was not without personal experience of South Africa, declared that he would never contribute a penny to the Zambesi Mission, since he thought it contrary to his duty to foster an enterprise doomed to failure and disaster. Events seemed to justify his prognostications, for the mission, owing to fever and the hardships of travel, seemed to be losing more workers than it made converts. In 1893, however, the power of Lobengula was broken and mission stations began to grow up in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, the capital, and of Bulawayo. In Matabeleland there are two mission stations, one at Bulawayo and the second at Empandeni, some sixty miles away. This last station owns a property of about one hundred square miles most of which formed the original grant of Lobengula and the title to which was confirmed by the company. The principal station among the Mashonas or Makaranga is Chishawasha, fourteen miles from Salisbury (founded in 1892). There are other stations of more recent date at Salisbury, Driefontein, Hama's Kraal, and Mzondo, near Victoria, all under the charge of the Jesuit Fathers. The Missionaries of Marianhill, recently separated from the Trappists, have two missions in Mashonaland at Macheke and St. Trias Hill. The Makaranga who are thus being evangelized from seven mission stations are the descendants of the predominant tribe who received the faith from the Ven. Father Gonçalo de Silveira in 1561. Among the Batongas, who owe a somewhat doubtful allegiance to King Lewanika in North-western Rhodesia, there are two Jesuit mission stations on the Chikuni and Nguerere Rivers. These missions are under the jurisdiction of the Jesuit Prefect Apostolic of the Zambesi, resident in Bulawayo. There are 35 priests, 30 lay brothers, and 83 nuns in charge of the missions. The Catholic native population is about 3000. For the missions of North-eastern Rhodesia see NYASSA, VICARIATE, APOSTOLIC OF. The land of the mission stations in Rhodesia is usually a grant from the Government made on condition of doing missionary work and is therefore inalienable without a special order in Council. Native schools, in some cases, are in receipt of a small grant from the Government. The Jesuit Fathers have one school for white boys (120) at Bulawayo, while the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic have three: at Bulawayo (210), Salisbury (130) and Gwelo (40). These schools are undenominational and receive grants from the Government. Hence Catholics who were first in the field, have a very considerable share in the education of the country. New Government schools have been built recently in Salisbury, Bulawayo, and Gwelo and other places in order to meet the growing demand for education and they have, so far, succeeded in filling their school-rooms without taking many pupils from the schools managed by Catholics. The chief source of information about the Zambesi Mission is the Zambesi Mission Record, issued quarterly (Roehampton, England); HENSMAN, A History of Rhodesia (London, 1900); HONE, Southern Rhodesia (London, 1909); HALL, Prehistoric Rhodesia (London, 1909); MICHELL, Life of C. J. Rhodes (2 vols., London, 1910). JAMES KENDAL. Rhodiopolis Rhodiopolis A titular see of Lycia, suffragan of Myra, called Rhodia by Ptolemy (V, 3) and Stephanus Byzantius; Rhodiapolis on its coins and inscriptions; Rhodiopolis by Pliny (V, 28), who locates it in the mountains to the north of Corydalla. Its history is unknown. Its ruins may be seen on a hill in the heart of a forest at Eski Hissar, vilayet of Koniah. They consist of the remains of an aqueduct, a small theatre, a temple of Escalapius, sarcophagi, and churches. Only one bishop is known, Nicholas, present in 518 at a Council of Constantinople. The "Notitiæ episcopatuum" continue to mention the see as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 991; SPRATT AND FORBES, Travels in Lycia, I, 166, 181; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr., s. v. S. PÉTRIDÈS Rhodo 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 "Notitiæ episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch, of the sixth century (Vailhé in "Echos d'Orient", X, 145) and one dating from about 840 (Parthey, "Hieroclis synecd. et notit. gr. episcopat.", not. Ia, 827). In another of the tenth century Rhosus is included among the exempt sees (Vailhé, ibid 93 seq.). In the twelfth century the town and neighbouring fortress fell into the hands of the Armenians; in 1268 this castle was captured from the Templars by Sultan Bibars (Alishan, "Sissouan", Venice, 1899, 515). Rhosus is near the village of Arsous in the vilayet of Adana. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Rhymed Bibles Rhymed Bibles The rhymed versions of the Bible are almost entirely collections of the psalms. The oldest English rhymed psalter is a pre-Reformation translation of the Vulgate psalms, generally assigned to the reign of Henry II and still preserved in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has another Catholic rhyming psalter of much the same style, assigned epigraphically to the time of Edward II. Thomas Brampton did the Seven Penitential Psalms, from the Vulgate into rhyming verse in 1414; the Manuscript is in the Cottonian collection, British Museum. These and other pre-Reformation rhyming psalters tell a story of popular use of the vernacular Scripture in England which they ignore who say that the singing of psalms in English began with the Reformation. Sir Thomas Wyat (died 1521) is said to have done the whole psalter. We have only "Certayne Psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, commonly called the VII Penitential Psalmes, Drawen into English metre". Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (died 1547), translated Pss. lv, lxxiii, lxxxviii into English verse. Miles Coverdale (died 1567) translated several psalms in "Goastly psalmes and spirituall songs drawen out of the Holy Scripture". The old Version of the Anglican Church, printed at the end of the Prayer Book (1562) contains thirty-seven rhyming psalms translated by Thomas Sternhold, fifty-eight by John Hopkins, twenty-eight by Thomas Norton, and the remainder by Robert Wisdom (Ps. cxxv), William Whittingham (Ps. cxix of 700 lines) and others. Sternhold's psalms had been previously published (1549). Robert Crowley (1549) did the entire psalter into verse. The Seven Penitential Psalms were translated by very many; William Hunnis (1583) entitles his translation, with quaint Elizabethan conceit, "Seven Sobs of a Sorrowful Soul for Sinne". During the reign of Edward VI, Sir Thomas Smith translated ninety-two of the psalms into English verse, while imprisoned in the Tower. A chaplain to Queen Mary, calling himself the "symple and unlearned Syr William Forrest, preeiste", did a poetical version of fifty psalms (1551). Matthew Parker (1557), later Archbishop of Canterbury, completed a metrical psalter. The Scotch had their Psalmes buickes from 1564. One of the most renowned of Scotch versifiers of the Psalms was Robert Pont (1575). Zachary Boyd, another Scotchman, published the Psalms in verse early in the seventeenth century. Of English rhyming versifications of the Psalms, the most charming are those of Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586) together with his sister, Countess of Pembroke. This complete psalter was not published till 1823. The rich variety of the versification is worthy of note; almost all the usual varieties of lyric metres of that lyric age are called into requisition and handled with elegance. The stately and elegant style of Lord Bacon is distinctive of his poetical paraphrases of several psalms. Richard Verstegan, a Catholic, published a rhyming version of the Seven Penitential Psalms (1601). George Sandys (1636) published a volume containing a metrical version of other parts of the Bible together with "a Paraphrase upon the Psalmes of David, set to new Tunes for Private Devotion, and a Thorow Base for Voice and Instruments"; his work is touching in its simplicity and unction. The Psalm Books of the various Protestant churches are mostly rhyming versions and are numerous: New England Psalm Book (Boston, 1773); Psalm Book of the Reformed Dutch Church in North America (New York, 1792); The Bay Psalm Book (Cambridge, 1640). Noteworthy also, among the popular and more recent rhymed psalters are: Brady and Tate (poet laureate), "A new Version of the Psalms of David" (Boston, 1762); James Merrick, "The Psalms in English Verse" (Reading, England, 1765); I. Watts, "The Psalms of David" (27th ed., Boston, 1771); J. T. Barrett, "A Course of Psalms" (Lambeth, 1825); Abraham Coles, "A New Rendering of the Hebrew Psalms into English Verse" (New York, 1885); David S. Wrangham, "Lyra Regis" (Leeds, 1885); Arthur Trevor Jebb "A Book of Psalms" (London, 1898). Such are the chief rhyming English psalters. Other parts of Holy Writ done into rhyming English verse are: Christopher Tye's "The Acts of the Apostles translated into English Metre" (1553); Zachary Boyd's "St. Matthew" (early seventeenth cent.); Thomas Prince's "Canticles, parts of Isaias and Revelations" in New England Psalm Book (1758); Henry Ainswort, "Solomon's Song of Songs" (1642); John Mason Good's "Song of Songs" (London, 1803); C. C. Price's "Acts of the Apostles" (New York, 1845). The French have had rhyming psalters since the "Sainctes Chansonettes en Rime Française" of Clement Marot (1540). Some Italian rhymed versions of the Bible are: Abbate Francesco Rezzano, "II Libro di Giobbe" (Nice, 1781); Stefano Egidio Petroni, "Proverbi di Salomone" (London, 1815); Abbate Pietro Rossi, "Lamentazioni di Geremia, i Sette Salmi Penitenziali e il Cantico di Mose" (Nizza, 1781); Evasio Leone, "II Cantico de' Cantici" (Venice, 1793); Francesco Campana, "Libro di Giuditta" (Nizza, 1782). Bibliotheca Sussexiana, II (London. 1839); WARTON, History of English Poetry (1774-81); HOLLAND, The Psalmists of Britain (London, 1843). WALTER DRUM. Rhythmical Office 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 Liège about the end of the ninth century: Antiphona I: Orbita solaris præsentia gaudia confert Præsulis 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 hærebat in æhra; or stanzas in very free rhythm, as e. g., the second response to the first nocturn: Hæc femina laudabilis Meritisque honorabilis Rictrudis egregia Divina providentia Pervenit in Galliam, Præclaris 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 Magnæ jucunditatis repræsentant gaudia, Quæ merito cleri suscipiuntur voto Ac populi celebrantur tripudio. Lætetur tellus tali compta præsule, Exsultet polus tanto ditatus compare; Solus dæmon 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 Romæ E senatorum sanguine Fulsit mundo velut gemma Auro superaddita, Dum præclarior præclaris 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 cæli choris; Levemus cordis studium In trinum lucis radium Splendoris et amoris. It is interesting to compare with the preceding the antiphons to the first nocturn, which have quite a different structure; the third of them exhibits the profound thought: Leventur cordis ostia: Memoria Giguenti Nato intelligentia, Voluntas Procedenti. again the first response to the third nocturn: Candor lucis, perpurum speculum Patris splendor, perlustrans sæculum, Nubis levis intrans umbraculum In Ægypti 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 ecclesiæ In carne fulgens veritas. II. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE It cannot be definitely stated which of the three old abbeys: Prüm, Landévennec, or Saint-Amand can claim priority in composing a rhythmical office. There is no doubt however that Saint-Amand and the monasteries in Hainault, Flanders, and Brabant, was the real starting-point of this style of poetry, as long ago as the ninth century. The pioneer in music, the Monk Hucbald of Saint-Amand, composed at least two, probably four, rhythmical offices; and the larger number of the older offices were used liturgically in those monasteries and cities which had some connexion with Saint-Amand. From there this new branch of hymnody very soon found its way to France, and in the tenth and eleventh, and particularly in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, showed fine, if not the finest results, both in quality and quantity. Worthy of especial mention as poets of this order are: the Abbots Odo (927-42) and Odilo (994-1049) of Cluny, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (1017-28), the Benedictine Monk Odorannus of Sens (died 1045), Pope Leo IX (died 1054); Bishop Stephen of Tournay (1192-1203); Archdeacon Rainald of St. Maurice in Angers (died about 1074); Bishop Richard de Gerberoy of Amiens (1204-10); Prior Arnaud du Prè of Toulouse (died 1306), and the General of the Dominican Order, Martialis Auribelli, who in 1456 wrote a rhymed office for the purpose of glorifying St. Vincent Ferrer. The most eminent poet and composer of offices belongs to Germany by birth, but more so to France by reason of his activity; he is Julian von Speyer, director of the orchestra at the Frankish royal court, afterwards Franciscan friar and choir master in the Paris convent, where about 1240 he composed words and music for the two well-known offices in honour of St. Francis of Assisi and of St. Anthony of Padua (Anal. Hymn., V, nos. 61 and 42). These two productions, the musical value of which has in many ways been overestimated, served as a prototype for a goodly number of successive offices in honour of saints of the Franciscan Order as well as of others. In Germany the rhymed offices were just as popular as in France. As early as in the ninth century an office, in honour of St. Chrysantus and Daria, had its origin probably in Prüm, perhaps through Friar Wandalbert (Anal. Hymn,, XXV, no. 73); perhaps not much later through Abbot Gurdestin of Landévennec a similar poem in honour of St. 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 Linköping (1374-91), and Johannes Benechini of Oeland (about 1440). The number of offices where the composer's name is known is insignificantly small. No less than seven hundred anonymous rhythmical offices have been brought to light during the last twenty years through the "Analecta Hymnica". It is true not all of them are works of art; particularly during the fifteenth century many offices with tasteless rhyming and shallow contents reflect the general decadence of hymnody. Many, however, belong to the best products of religious lyric poetry. For six centuries in all countries of the West, men of different ranks and stations in life, among them the highest dignitaries of the Church, took part in this style of poetry, which enjoyed absolute popularity in all dioceses. Hence one may surmise the significance of the rhythmical offices with reference to the history of civilization, their importance in history and development of liturgy, and above all their influence on other poetry and literature. BLUME AND DREVES, Analecta Hymnica medii oevi, V, XIII, XVII, XVIII-XXVI, XXVIII, XL Va, LII, appendix (Leipzig, 1889-1909); BÄUMER, Reimofficien, 356-64, in Gesch. des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BLUME, Zur Poesie des kirchlichen Stundengebetes, 132-45, in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1898); FELDER, Liturgische Reimofficien auf die hll. Franziskus und Antonius (Fribourg, 1901). CLEMENS BLUME. Pedro de Ribadeneira Pedro de Ribadeneira (or RIBADENEYRA and among Spaniards often RIVADENEIRA) Pedro De Ribadeneira was born at Toledo, of a noble Castilian family, 1 Nov., 1526 (Astrain, I, 206); died 22 Sept., 1611. His father Alvaro Ortiz de Cisneros, was the son of Pedro Gonzales Cedillo and grandson of Hernando Ortiz de Cisneros whom Ferdinand IV had honoured with the governorship of Toledo and important missions. His mother, of the illustrious house of Villalobos, was still more distinguished for her virtue than for her birth. Already the mother of three daughters, she promised to consecrate her fourth child to the Blessed Virgin if it should be a son. Thus vowed to Mary before his birth, Ribadeneira received in baptism the name of Pedro which had been borne by his paternal grandfather and that of Ribadeneira in memory of his maternal grandmother, of one of the first families of Galicia. In the capacity of page he followed Cardinal Alexander Farnese to Italy, and at Rome entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fourteen, on 18 Sept., 1540, eight days before the approval of the order by Paul III. After having attended the Universities of Paris, Louvain, and Padua, where, besides the moral crises which assailed him, he often had to encounter great hardships and habitually confined himself to very meagre fare [he wrote to St. Ignatius (Epp. mixtæ, V, 649): "Quanto al nostro magnare ordinariamente é, a disnare un poco de menestra et un poco de carne, et con questo è finito"]. He was ordered in November, 1549, to go to Palermo, to profess rhetoric at the new college which the Society had just opened in that city. He filled this chair for two years and a half, devoting his leisure time to visiting and consoling the sick in the hospitals. Meanwhile St. Ignatius was negotiating the creation of the German College which was to give Germany a chosen clergy as remarkable for virtue and orthodoxy as for learning: his efforts were soon successful, and during the autumn of 1552 he called on the talent and eloquence of the young professor of rhetoric at Palermo. Ribadeneira amply fulfilled the expectations of his master and delivered the inaugural address amid the applause of an august assembly of prelates and Roman nobles. He was ordained priest 8 December, 1553 (Epp. mixtæ, III, 179); during the twenty-one years which followed he constantly filled the most important posts in the government of his order. From 1556 to 1560 he devoted his activity to securing the official recognition of the Society of Jesus in the Low Countries. At the same time he was charged by his general with the duty of promulgating and causing to be accepted in the Belgian houses the Constitutions, which St. Ignatius had just completed at the cost of much labour. But these diplomatic and administrative missions did not exhaust Ribadeneira's zeal. He still applied himself ardently to preaching. In December, 1555 he preached at Louvain with wonderful success, and likewise in January, 1556, at Brussels. On 25 November of the same year he left Belgium and reached Rome 3 February, 1557, setting out again, 17 October for Flanders. His sojourn in the Low Countries was interrupted for five months (November, 1558 to March, 1559); this period he spent in London, having been summoned thither on account of the sickness of Mary Tudor, Queen of England, which ended in her death. In the summer of 1559 he was once more with his general, Lainez, whose right hand he truly was. On 3 November, 1560, he made his solemn profession, and from then until the death of St. Francis Borgia (1572) he continued to reside in Italy, filling in turn the posts of provincial of Tuscany, of commissary-general of the Society in Sicily, visitor of Lombardy, and assistant for Spain and Portugal. The accession of Father Everard Mercurian as general of the order brought a great change to Ribadeneira. His health being much impaired, he was ordered to Spain, preferably to Toledo, his native town, to recuperate. This was a dreadful blow to the poor invalid, a remedy worse than the disease. He obeyed, but had been scarcely a year in his native land when he began to importune his general by letter to permit him to return to Italy. These solicitations continued for several years. At the same time his superiors saw that he was as sick in mind as in body, and that his religious spirit was somewhat shaken. Not only was he lax in his religious observances, but he did not hesitate to criticize the persons and affairs of the Society, so much so that he was strongly suspected of being the author of the memoirs then circulated through Spain against the Jesuits (Astrain, III, 106-10). This, however, was a mistake, and his innocence was recognized in 1578. He it was who took upon himself the task of refuting the calumnies which mischief-makers, apparently Jesuits, went about disseminating against the Constitutions of the Society, nor did he show less ardour and filial piety in making known the life of St. Ignatius Loyola and promoting his canonization. Outside of the Society of Jesus, Ribadeneira is chiefly known for his literary works. From the day of his arrival in Spain to repair his failing health until the day of his death his career was that of a brilliant writer. His compatriots regard him as a master of Castilian and rank him among the classic authors of their tongue. All lines were familiar to him, but he preferred history and ascetical literature. His chief claim to glory is his Life of St. Ignatius Loyola, in which he speaks as an eye-witness, admirably supported by documents. Perhaps the work abounds too much in anecdotal details which tend to obscure the grand aspect of the saint's character and genius (Analecta Bolland., XXIII, 513). It appeared for the first time in Latin at Naples in 1572 (ibid., XXI, 230). The first Spanish edition, revised and considerably augmented by the author, dates from 1583. Other editions followed, all of them revised by the author; that of 1594 seems to contain the final text. It was soon translated into most of the European languages. Among his other works must be mentioned his "Historia eclesiástica del Cisma del reino de Inglaterra" and the "Flos sanctorum", which has been very popular in many countries. Some unpublished works of his deserve publication, notably his History of the persecution of the Society of Jesus and his History of the Spanish Assistancy. ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en le Asistencia de España (Madrid, 1902-09); PEAT, Histoire du Père Ribadeneyra, disciple de S. Ignace (Paris, 1862); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliothèque de la C. de J., VI, 1724-58; DE LA FUENTE, Obras escojidas del Padre Pedro de Rivadeneira, con una noticia de su vida y juicio crítico de sus escritos in Biblioteca de autores Españoles, LX (1868); Monumenta historica S.J.; Ignatiana, ser. I, Epistoloe, II; ser. IV, I; POLANCO, Chronicon Soc. Jesu, VI; Epistoloe mixtoe, V. FRANCIS VAN ORTROY. Andres Perez de Ribas Andrés Pérez De Ribas A pioneer missionary, historian of north-western Mexico; born at Cordova, Spain, 1576; died in Mexico, 26 March, 1655. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1602, coming at once to America, and finishing his novitiate in Mexico in 1604. In the same year he was sent to undertake the Christianization of the Ahome and Suaqui of northern Sinaloa, of whom the former were friendly and anxious for teachers, while the latter had just been brought to submission after a hard campaign. He succeeded so well that within a year he had both tribes gathered into regular towns, each with a well-built church, while all of the Ahome and a large part of the Suaqui had been baptized. The two tribes together numbered about 10,000 souls. In 1613, being then superior of the Sinaloa district, he was instrumental in procuring the submission of a hostile mountain tribe. In 1617, in company with other Jesuit missionaries whom he had brought from Mexico City, he began the conversion of the powerful and largely hostile Yaqui tribe (q.v.) of Sonora, estimated at 30,000 souls, with such success that within a few years most of them had been gathered into orderly town communities. In 1620 he was recalled to Mexico to assist in the college, being ultimately appointed provincial, which post he held for several years. After a visit to Rome in 1643 to take part in the election of a general of the order, he devoted himself chiefly to study and writing until his death. He left numerous works, religious and historical, most of which are still in manuscript, but his reputation as an historian rests secure upon his history of the Jesuit missions of Mexico published at Madrid in 1645, one year after its completion, under the title: "Historia de los Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe entre gentes las más bárbaras . . . conseguidos por los soldados de la milicia de Ia Compañía de Jesús en las misiones de la Provincia de Nueva-España". Of this work Bancroft says: "It is a complete history of Jesuit work in Nueva Vizcaya, practically the only history the country had from 1590 to 1644, written not only by a contemporary author but by a prominent actor in the events narrated, who had access to all the voluminous correspondence of his order, comparatively few of which documents have been preserved. In short, Ribas wrote under the most favourable circumstances and made good use of his opportunities." ALEGRE, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús (Mexico, 1841); BANCROFT, Hist. North Mexican States and Texas, I (San Francisco, 1886); BERÍSTAIN Y SOUZA, Biblioteca Hispano-Americana Setentrional, III (Amecemeca, 1883). JAMES MOONEY Diocese of Preto Ribeirao Ribeirao Preto (DE RIBERAO PRETO) A suffragan see of the Archdiocese of São Paulo, Brazil, established 7 June, 1908, with a Catholic population of 500,000 souls. The first and present bishop, Rt. Rev. Alberto José Gonçalves, was born 20 July, 1859, elevated 5 December, 1908, and consecrated 29 April, 1909. The district of Ribeirão Preto is at present the most important one of the State of São Paulo, both on account of the richness of its soil and the great number of agricultural, industrial, and commercial establishments therein. Its principal product is coffee, the shipments of which are so considerable as to necessitate the constant running of an extraordinary number of trains. The seat of the diocese is the city of Ribeirão Preto, situated on the shores of Ribeirão Preto and Ribeirão Retiro, 264 miles from the capital of the state. The municipality, created by law of 1 April, 1889, is divided into four wards, viz.: Villa Tibeiro, Barracão, Morro do Cipó, and Republica. It is, like most of the interior towns of São Paulo, of modern construction. The city is lighted by electric light and has excellent sewer and water-supply systems. The streets are well laid, straight, and intersecting at right angles, with many parks and squares. The cathedral now nearing completion will be one of the finest buildings of its kind in Brazil. It is well provided with schools and colleges, prominent among which are those maintained by the Church. JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE. Jusepe de Ribera Jusepe de Ribera Jusepe De Ribera, called also SPAGNOLETTO, L'ESPAGNOLET (the little Spaniard), painter born at Jativa, 12 Jan., 1588; died at Naples, 1656. Fantastic accounts have been given of his early history; his father was said to be a noble, captain of the fortress of Naples, etc. All this is pure romance. A pupil of Ribalta, the author of many beautiful pictures in the churches of Valencia, the young man desired to know Italy. He was a very determined character. At eighteen, alone and without resources, he begged in the streets of Rome in order to live, and performed the services of a lackey. A picture by Caravaggio aroused his admiration, and he set out for Naples in search of the artist, but the latter had just died (1609). Ribera was then only twenty. For fifteen years the artist is entirely lost sight of; it is thought that he travelled in upper Italy. He is again found at Naples in 1626, at which time he was married, living like a nobleman, keeping his carriage and a train of followers, received by viceroys, the accomplished host of all travelling artists, and very proud of his title of Roman Academician. Velasquez paid him a visit on each of his journeys (1630, 1649). A sorrow clouded the end of his life; his daughter was seduced by Don Juan of Austria. Her father seems to have died of grief, but the story of his suicide is a fiction. Ribera's name is synonymous with a terrifying art of wild-beast fighters and executioners. Not that he did not paint charming figures. No artist of his time, not excepting Rubens or Guido Reni, was more sensitive to a certain ideal of Correggio-like grace. But Ribera did not love either ugliness or beauty for themselves, seeking them in turn only to arouse emotion. His fixed idea, which recurs in every form in his art, is the pursuit and cultivation of sensation. In fact the whole of Ribera's work must be understood as that of a man who made the pathetic the condition of art and the reason of the beautiful. It is the negation of the art of the Renaissance, the reaction of asceticism and the Catholic Reformation on the voluptuous paganism of the sixteenth century. Hence the preference for the popular types, the weather-beaten and wrinkled beggar, and especially the old man. This "aging" of art about 1600 is a sign of the century. Heroic youth and pure beauty were dead for a long time. The anchorites and wasted cenobites, the parchment-like St. Jeromes, these singular methods of depicting the mystical life seem Ribera's personal creation; to show the ruins of the human body, the drama of a long existence written in furrows and wrinkles, all engraved by a pencil which digs and scrutinizes, using the sunlight as a kind of acid which bites and makes dark shadows, was one of the artist's most cherished formulas. No one demonstrates so well the profound change which took place in men's minds after the Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thenceforth concern for character and accent forestalled every other consideration. Leanness, weariness, and abasement became the pictorial signs of the spiritual life. A sombre energy breathes in these figures of Apostles, prophets, saints, and philosophers. Search for character became that of ugliness and monstrosity. Nothing is so personal to Ribera as this love of deformity. Paintings like the portrait of "Cambazo", the blind sculptor, the "Bearded Woman" (Prado, 1630), and the "Club Foot" of the Louvre (1651) inaugurate curiosities which had happily been foreign to the spirit of the Renaissance. They show a gloomy pleasure in humiliating human nature. Art, which formerly used to glorify life, now violently emphasized its vices and defects. The artist seized upon the most ghastly aspects even of antiquity. Cato of Utica howling and distending his wound, Ixion on his wheel, Sisyphus beneath his rock. This artistic terrorism won for Ribera his sinister reputation, and it must be admitted that it had depraved and perverted qualities. The sight of blood and torture as the source of pleasure is more pagan than the joy of life and the laughing sensuality of the Renaissance. At times Ribera's art seems a dangerous return to the delights of the amphitheatre. His "Apollo and Marsyas" (Naples) his "Duel" or "Match of Women" (Prado) recall the programme of some spectacle manager of the decadence. In nothing is Ribera more "Latin" than in this sanguinary tradition of the games of the circus. However, it would be unjust wholly to condemn this singular taste in accordance with our modern ideas. At least we cannot deny extraordinary merit to the scenes of martyrdom painted by Ribera. This great master has never been surpassed as a practical artist. For plastic realism, clearness of drawing and evidence of composition the "Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew" (there are in Europe a dozen copies, of which the most beautiful is at the Prado) is one of the masterpieces of Spanish genius. It is impossible to imagine a more novel and striking idea. No one has spoken a language more simple and direct. In this class of subjects Rubens usually avoids atrocity by an oratorical turn, by the splendour of his discourse, the lyric brilliancy of the colouring. Ribera's point of view is scarcely less powerful with much less artifice. It is less transformed and developed. The action is collected in fewer persons. The gestures are less redundant, with a more spontaneous quality. The tone is more sober and at the same time stronger. Everything seems more severe and of a more concentrated violence. The art also, while perhaps not the most elevated of all, is at least one of the most original and convincing. Few artiste have given us, if not serene enjoyment, more serious thoughts. The "St. Lawrence" of the Vatican is scarcely less beautiful than the "St. Bartholomew". Moreover it must not be thought that these ideas of violence exhaust Ribera's art. They are supplemented by sweet ideas, and in his work horrible pictures alternate with tender ones. There is a type of young woman or rather young girl, still almost a child, of delicate beauty with candid oval features and rather thin arms, with streaming hair and an air of ignorance, a type of paradoxical grace which is found in his "Rapture of St. Magdalen" (Madrid, Academy of S. Fernando), or the "St. Agnes" of the Dresden Museum. This virginal figure is truly the "eternal feminine" of a country which more than any other dreamed of love and sought to deify its object summarizing in it the most irreconcilable desires and virtues. No painter has endowed the subject of the Immaculate Conception with such grandeur as Ribera in his picture for the Ursulines of Salamanca (1636). Even a certain familiar turn of imagination, a certain intimate and domestic piety, a sweetness, an amicable and popular cordiality which would seem unknown to this savage spirit were not foreign to him. In more than one instance he reminds us of Murillo. He painted several "Holy Families", "Housekeeping in the Carpenter Shop" (Gallery of the Duke of Norfolk). All that is inspired by tender reverie about cradles and chaste alcoves, all the distracting delights in which modern religion rejoices and which sometimes result in affectation, are found in more than germ in the art of this painter, who is regarded by many as cruel and uniformly inhuman. Thus throughout his work scenes of carnage are succeeded by scenes of love, atrocious visions by visions of beauty. They complete each other or rather the impression they convey is heightened by contrast. And under both forms the artist incessantly sought one object, namely to obtain the maximum of emotion; his art expresses the most intense nervous life. This is the genius of antithesis. It forms the very basis of Ribera's art, the condition of his ideas, and even dictates the customary processes of his chiaroscuro. For Ribera's chiaroscuro, scarcely less personal than that of Rembrandt, is, no less than the latter's, inseparable from a certain manner of feeling. Less supple than the latter less enveloping, less penetrating, less permeable by the light, twilight, and penumbra, it proceeds more roughly by clearer oppositions and sharp intersections of light and darkness. Contrary to Rembrandt, Ribera does not decompose or discolour, his palette does not dissolve under the influence of shadows, and nothing is so peculiar to him as certain superexcited notes of furious red. Nevertheless, compared to Caravaggio, his chiaroscuro is much more than a mere means of relief. The canvas assumes a vulcanized, carbonized appearance. Large wan shapes stand out from the asphalt of the background, and the shadows about them deepen and accumulate a kind of obscure tragic capacity. There is always the same twofold rhythm, the same pathetic formula of a dramatized universe regarded as a duel between sorrow and joy, day and night. This striking formula, infinitely less subtile than that of Rembrandt, nevertheless had an immense success. For all the schools of the south Caravaggio's chiaroscuro perfected by Ribera had the force of law, such as it is found throughout the Neapolitan school, in Stanzioni, Salvator Rosa, Luca Giordano. In modern times Bonnat and Ribot painted as though they knew no master but Ribera. Rest came to this violent nature towards the end of his life; from the idea of contrast he rose to that of harmony. His last works, the "Club Foot" and the "Adoration of the Shepherds" (1650), both in the Louvre, are painted in a silvery tone which seems to foreshadow the light of Velasquez. His hand had not lost its vigour, its care for truth; he always displayed the same implacable and, as it were, inflexible realism. The objects of still life in the "Adoration of the Shepherds" have not been equalled by any specialist, but these works are marked by a new serenity. This impassioned genius leaves us under a tranquil impression; we catch a ray-- should it rather be called a reflection?-- the Olympian genius of the author of "The Maids of Honour". Ribera was long the only Spanish painter who enjoyed a European fame; this he owed to the fact that he had lived at Naples and has often been classed with the European school. Because of this he is now denied the glory which was formerly his. He is regarded more or less as a deserter, at any rate as the least national of Spanish painters. But in the seventeenth century Naples was still Spanish, and by living there a man did not cease to be a Spanish subject. By removing the centre of the school to Naples, Ribera did Spain a great service. Spanish art, hitherto little known, almost lost at Valencia and Seville, thanks to Ribera was put into wider circulation. Through the authority of a master recognized even at Rome the school felt emboldened and encouraged. It is true that his art, although more Spanish than any other, is also somewhat less specialized; it is cosmopolitan. Like Seneca and Lucian, who came from Cordova, and St. Augustine, who came from Carthage, Ribera has expressed in a universal language the ideal of the country where life has most savour. DOMINICI, Vite de' pittori . . . napoletani (Naples, 1742-1743; 2nd ed., Naples, 1844); PALOMINO, El Museo Pictórico, I (Madrid, 1715); II (Madrid, 1724); Noticias, Elogios y Vidas de Los Pintores, at the end of vol. II, Separate edition (London, 1742), in German (Dresden, 1781); BERMÚDEZ, Diccionario historíco de los más ilustres profesores de las bellas artes en España (Madrid, 1800); STIRLING. Annals of the artists of Spain (London, 1848); VIARDOT, Notices sur les principaux peintres de l'Espagne (Paris, 1839); BLANC, Ecole Espagnole (1869); MEYER, Ribera (Strasburg, 1908); LAFOND, Ribera et Zurbaran (Paris, 1910). LOUIS GILLET. Ricardus Anglicus Ricardus Anglicus Ricardus Anglicus, Archdeacon of Bologna, was an English priest who was rector of the law school at the University of Bologna in 1226, and who, by new methods of explaining legal proceedings, became recognized as the pioneer of scientific judicial procedure in the twelfth century. His long-lost work "Ordo Judiciarius" was discovered in Manuscript by Wunderlich in Douai and published by Witt in 1851. A more correct Manuscript was subsequently discovered at Brussels by Sir Travers Twiss, who, on evidence which seems insufficient, followed Panciroli in identifying him with the celebrated Bishop Richard Poor (died 1237). Probably he graduated in Paris, as a Papal Bull of 1218 refers to "Ricardus Anglicus doctor Parisiensis", but there is no evidence to connect him with Oxford. He also wrote glosses on the papal decretals, and distinctions on the Decree of Gratian. He must be distinguished from his contemporary, Ricardus Anglicanus, a physician. RASHDALL, Mediæval Universities, II, 750 (London, 1895); TWISS, Law Magazine and Review, May, 1894; SARTI AND FATTORINI, De claris Archigymnasii Bononiensis Professoribus; BLAKISTON in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Poor, Richard. EDWIN BURTON. Nicholas Riccardi Nicholas Riccardi A theologian, writer and preacher; born at Genoa, 1585; died at Rome, 30 May, 1639. Physically he was unprepossessing, even slightly deformed. His physical deficiencies, however, were abundantly compensated for by mentality of the highest order. His natural taste for study was encouraged by his parents who sent him to Spain to pursue his studies in the Pincian Academy. While a student at this institution he entered the Dominican order and was invested with its habit in the Convent of St. Paul, where he studied philosophy and theology. So brilliant was his record that after completing his studies he was made a professor of Thomistic theology at Pincia. While discharging his academic duties, he acquired a reputation as a preacher second only to his fame as a theologian. As a preacher Philip III of Spain named him "The Marvel", a sobriquet by which he was known in Spain and at Rome till the end of his life. On his removal to Rome in 1621, he acquired the confidence of Urban VIII. He was made regent of studies and professor of theology at the College of the Minerva. In 1629 Urban VIII appointed him Master of the Sacred Palace to succeed Niccolò Ridolphi, recently elected Master General of the Dominicans. Shortly after this the same pontiff appointed him pontifical preacher. These two offices he discharged with distinction. His extant works number twenty. Besides several volumes of sermons for Advent, Lent, and special occasions, his writings treat of Scripture, theology, and history. One of his best known works is the "History of the Council of Trent" (Rome, 1627). His commentaries treat of all the books of Scripture, and are notable for their originality, clearness, and profound learning. Two other commentaries treat of the Lord's Prayer and the Canticle of Canticles. QUÉTIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 503, 504. JOHN B. O'CONNOR. Lorenzo Ricci Lorenzo Ricci General of the Society of Jesus b. at Florence, 2 Aug., 1703; d. at the Castle of Sant' Angelo, Rome, 24 Nov., 1775. He belonged to one of the most ancient, and illustrious families of Tuscany. He had two brothers, one of whom subsequently became canon of the. cathedral and the other was raised by Francis I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, to the dignity of first syndic of the Grand duchy. Sent when very young to Prato to pursue, his studies under the direction of the Society of Jesus in the celebrated Cicognini college, he entered the society when he was scarcely fifteen, 16 Dec., 1718, at the novitiate of S. Andrea at Rome. Having made the usual course of philosophical and theological studies and twice defended with rare success public theses in these subjects, he was successively charged with teaching belles lettres and philosophy it Siena, and philosophy and theology at the Roman College, from which he was promoted to the foremost office of his order. Meanwhile he was admitted to the profession of the four vows, 15 Aug., 1736. About 1751 his edifying and regular life, his discretion, gentleness, and simplicity caused him to be appointed to the important office of spiritual father, the duties of which he discharged to the satisfaction of all. In 1755 Father Luigi Centurione, who appreciated his eminent qualities, chose him as secretary of the society. Finally in the Nineteenth Congregation he was elected general by unanimous vote, (21 May, 1758). It was at the most stormy and distressed period of its existence that the senate of the society placed its government and its destinies in the, hand of a man deeply virtuous and endowed with rare merit, but, who was inexperienced in the art of governing and who had always lived apart from the world and diplomatic intrigues. The historiographer Julius Cordara, who lived near Ricci and seems to have known him intimately, deplored this choice: "Eundem tot, inter iactationes ac fluctus cum aliquid praeter morem audendum et malis inusitatis inusitata remedia adhibenda videbantur, propter ipsam nature placiditatem et nulla unquam causa incalescentem animum, minus aptum arbitrabar" (On account of his placid nature and too even temper, I regarded him as little suited for a time when disturbance and storm seem to require extraordinary application of unusual remedies to unusual evils). (Denkwurdigkeiten der Jesuiten, p.19.) On the other hand it must be admitted that the new general did not have much leeway. In his first interview with Clement XIII, who had assumed the tiara 6 July, 1758, and always showed himself deeply attached to the Jesuits, the pope counselled him: "Silentium, patientiam et preces; cetera sibi curae fore" (Cordara, op. cit., 22), The saintly superior followed this line of conduct to the letter and incessantly inculcated it in his subordinates. The seven encyclical letters which he addressed to them in the fifteen years of his generalship all breathe the sweetest and tenderest piety and zeal for their religious perfection. "Preces vestras", he says in the last, that of 21 Feb., 1773, "animate omni pietatis exercitio accurate fervideque obeundo, mutua inter vosmetipsos caritate, obedientia et observantia erga eos qui vobis Dei loco sunt, tolerantia laborurn, aerumnarum, paupertatis, contumeliarum, secessu et solitudine, prudentia et evangelica in agendo simplicitate, boni exempli operibus, piisque colloquiis" (Let your prayers be inspired by every practice of piety, with mutual charity among yourselves, obedience and respect for those who hold the place of God in your regard, en durance of labour, of hardships, of poverty, of insult in retreat and solitude, with prudence and evangelical simplicity of conduct, the example of good works, and pious conversation). (Epistolae praepositorum generalium S.J., 11, Ghent 1847, 306). This pious and profoundly upright man was nevertheless not wanting on occasion in courage and firmness. When it was suggested to save the French provinces of his order by giving them a superior entirely independent of the general of Rome he refused thus to transgress the. constitutions committed to his care and uttered to the pope the ever famous saying: "Sint ut sunt aut non sint" (Leave them as they are or not at all). (Cordara, op. cit., 35) Unfortunately he placed all his confidence in hi,, assistant for Italy, Father Timoni, of Greek origin, "vir quippe praefidens sibi, iudiciique sui plus nimio tenax" (Idem, op. cit., 20), who, like many other expected the society to be saved by a miracle of Providence. When, to the mass of pamphlets aimed against the Jesuits, the Portuguese episcopate brought the reinforcement of pastoral letters, a number of bishops wrote to the pope letters which were very eulogistic of the Society of Jesus and its Institute, and Clement XIII hastened to send a copy to Father Ricci. It was a brilliant apologia for the order Cordara and many of his brethren considered it, expedient to publish this correspondence in full with the sole title: "ludicium Ecclesiae, universae, de statu praesenti Societatis Iesu" (op. cit., 26). Timoni, who fancied that no one would dare any thing against the Jesuits of Portugal, was of a contrary opinion, and the general was won over to his way of thinking. Disaster followed disaster, and Ricci experienced the most serious material difficulties in assisting the members who were expelled from every country. At his instance, and perhaps even with his collaboration, Clement XIII, solicitous for the fate of the Society, published 7 January, 1765, the Bull "Apostolicam pascendi", which was a cogent defence of the Institute and its members (Masson, "Le cardinal de, Bernis depuis son ministere" 80). But even the pontiff's intervention could not stay the devastating torrent. After the suppression of the Jesuits in Naples and the Duchy of Parma, the ambassadors of France, Spain, and Portugal went (Jan., 1769) to request officially of the pope the total suppression of the society. This was the death-blow of Clement XIII, who died some days later (2 Feb., 1769) of an apoplectic attack. His successor, the conventual Ganganelli, little resembled him. Whatever may have been his sympathies for the order prior to his elevation to the sovereign pontificate, and his indebtedness to Ricci, who had used his powerful influence to secure for him the cardinal's hat, it is indisputable that once he became pope he assumed at least in appearance a hostile attitude. "Se palam Jesuitis infensum praebere atque ita quidem, ut ne generalem quidem praepositum in conspectum admitteret" (Cordara, 43). There is no necessity of repeating even briefly the history of the pontificate of Clement XIV (18 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774), which was absorbed by his measures to bring about the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Despite the exactions and outrageous injustices which the Jesuit houses had to undergo even at Rome, the general did not give up hope of a speedy deliverance, as is testified by the letter he wrote to Cordara the day after the feast of St. Ignatius, 1773 (Cordara, loc. cit., 53). Although the Brief of abolition had been signed by the pope ten days previously, Father Ricci was suddenly notified on the evening of 16 August. The next day he was assigned the English College as residence, until 23 Sept., 1773, when he was removed to the Castle of Sant' Angelo, where he was held in strict captivity for the remaining two years of his life. The surveillance was so severe that he did not learn of the death of his secretary Cornolli, imprisoned with him and in his vicinity, until six months after the event=2E To satisfy the hatred of his enemies his trial and that of his companions was hastened, but the judge ended by recognizing "nunquam objectos sibi reos his innocentiores; Riccium etiam ut hominem vere sanctum dilaudabat" (Cordara, op. cit., 62); and Cardinal de Bernis dared to write (5 July): "There are not, perhaps, sufficient proofs for judges, but there are enough for upright and reasonable men" (Masson, op. cit., 324). Justice required that the ex-general be at once set at liberty, but nothing was done, apparently through fear lest the scattered Jesuits should gather about their old head, to reconstruct their society at the centre of Catholicism. At the end of August, 1775, Ricci sent an appeal to the new pope, Pius VI, to obtain his release. But while his claims were being considered by the circle of the Sovereign Pontiff, death came to summon the venerable old man to the tribunal of the supreme Judge. Five days previously, when about to receive Holy Viaticum, he made this double protest: (1) "I declare and protest that the suppressed Society of Jesus has not given any cause for its suppression; this I declare and protest with all that moral certainty that a superior well informed of his order can have. (2) I declare and protest that I have not given any cause, even the slightest, for my imprisonment; this I declare and protest with that supreme certainty and evidence that each one has of his own actions. I make this second protest only because it is necessary for the reputation of the suppressed Society of Jesus, of which I was the general." (Murr, "Journal zur Kunstgeschichte", IX, 281.) To do honour to his memory the pope caused the celebration of elaborate funeral services in the church of St. John of the Florentines near the Castle of Sant' Angelo. As is customary with prelates, the body was placed on a bed of state. It was carried in the evening to the Church of the Gesu where it was buried in the vault reserved for the burial of his predecessors in the government of the order. CORDARA, Denkwürdigkeiten in DÖLLINGER, Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Culturgesch., III (1882), 1-74. These memoirs carry much weight, inasmuch as Cordara speaks with severity of his former brothers in arms, and of the Society of Jesus. CARAYON, Documents inedits concernant la Compagnie de Jesus, XVII, Le Pere Ricci et la suppression de la Compagnie de Jesus en 1773, CLXXIV (Poitiers, 1869); Epistoloe proepositorum generalium Societatis Jesu, If (Ghent, 1847); SMITH, The Suppression of the Society of Jesus in The Month (1902-03); MURR, Journal zur Kunstgesch. u. zur allgemeinen Litteratur, IX (Nuremberg, 1780), 254-309; MASSON, Le Cardinal de Bernis depuis son ministere 1758-1794 (Paris, 1903), a good collection of documents, but the author does not know the history of the Jesuits; RAVIGNAN, Clement XIII et Clement XI V, supplementary volume, historical and critical documents (Paris, 1854); BOERO, Osservazioni sopra l'istoria del pontificato di Clemente XIV scritta dal P. A. Theiner (2nd ed., Monza, 1854), useful for documents. FRANCIS VAN ORTROY Matteo Ricci Matteo Ricci Founder of the Catholic missions of China, b. at Macerata in the Papal States, 6 Oct. 1552; d. at Peking, 11 May, 1610. Ricci made his classical studies in his native town, studied law at Rome for two years, and on 15 Aug., 1571, entered the Society of Jesus at the Roman College, where he made his novitiate, and philosophical and theological studies. While there he also devoted his attention to mathematics, cosmology, and astronomy under the direction of the celebrated Father Christopher Clavius. In 1577 he asked to be sent on the missions in Farthest Asia, and his request being granted he embarked at Lisbon, 24 March, 1578. Arriving at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese Indies, on 13 Sept. of this year, he was employed there and at Cochin in teaching and the ministry until the end of Lent, 1582, when Father Alessandro Valignani (who had been his novice-master at Rome but who since August, 1573, was in charge of all the Jesuit missions in the East Indies) summoned him to Macao to prepare to enter China. Father Ricci arrived at Macao on 7 August, 1582. Beginning of the Mission In the sixteenth century nothing remained of the Christian communities founded in China by the Nestorian missionaries in the seventh century and by the Catholic monks in the thirteenth and fourteenth (see CHINA). Moreover it is doubtful whether the native Chinese population was ever seriously affected by this ancient evangelisation. For those desiring to resume the work everything therefore remained to be done, and the obstacles were greater than formerly. After the death of St. Francis Xavier (27 November, 1552) many fruitless attempts had been made. The first missionary to whom Chinese barriers were temporarily lowered was the Jesuit, Melchior Nuñez Barreto, who twice went as far as Canton, where he spent a month each time (1555). A Dominican, Father Gaspar da Cruz, was also admitted to Canton for a month, but he also had to refrain from "forming a Christian Christianity". Still others, Jesuits, Augustinians, and Fransciscans in 1568, 1575, 1579, and 1582 touched on Chinese soil, only to be forced, sometimes with ill treatment, to withdraw. To Father Valignani is due the credit of having seen what prevented all these undertakings from having lasting results. The attempts had hitherto been made haphazard, with men insufficiently prepared and incapable of profiting by favourable circumstances had they encountered them. Father Valignani substituted the methodical attack with previous careful selection of missionaries who, the field once open, would implant Christianity there. To this end he first summoned to Macao Father Michele de Ruggieri, who had also come to India from Italy in 1578. Only twenty years had elapsed since the Portuguese had succeeded in establishing their colony at the portals of China, and the Chinese, attracted by opportunities for gain, were flocking thither. Ruggieri reached Macao in July, 1579, and, following the given orders applied himself wholly to the study of the Mandarin language, that is, Chinese, as it is spoken throughout the empire by the officials and the educated. His progress, though very slow, permitted him to labour with more fruit than his predecessors in two sojourns at Canton (1580-81) allowed him by an unwonted complacency of the mandarins. Finally, after many untoward events, he was authorized (10 Sept., 1583) to take up his residence with Father Ricci at Chao-k'ing, the administrative capital of Canton. Method of the Missionaries The exercise of great prudence alone enabled the missionaries to remain in the region which they had had such difficulty in entering. Omitting all mention at first of their intention to preach the Gospel, they declared to the mandarins who questioned them concerning their object "that they were religious who had left their country in the distant West because of the renown of the good government of China, where they desired to remain till their death, serving god, the Lord of Heaven". Had they immediately declared their intention to preach a new religion, they would never have been received; this would have clashed with Chinese pride, which would not admit that China had anything to learn from foreigners, and it would have especially alarmed their politics, which beheld a national danger in every innovation. However, the missionaries never hid their Faith nor the fact that they were Christian priests. As soon as they were established at Chao-k'ing they placed in a conspicuous part of their house a picture of the Blessed Virgin with the Infant Jesus in her arms. Visitors seldom failed to inquire the meaning of this, to them, novel representation, and the missionaries profited thereby to give them a first idea of Christianity. The missionaries assumed the initiative in speaking of their religion as soon as they had sufficiently overcome Chinese antipathy and distrust to see their instructions desired, or at least to be certain of making them understood without shocking their listeners. They achieved this result by appealing to the curiosity of the Chinese, by making them feel, without saying so, that the foreigners had something new and interesting to teach; to this end they made use of the European things they had brought with them. Such were large and small clocks, mathematical and astronomical instruments, prisms revealing the various colours, musical instruments, oil paintings and prints, cosmographical, geographical, and architectural works with diagrams, maps, and views of towns and buildings, large volumes, magnificently printed and splendidly bound, etc. The Chinese, who had hitherto fancied that outside of their country only barbarism existed, were astounded. Rumours of the wonders displayed by the religious from the West soon spread on all sides, and thenceforth their house was always filled, especially with mandarins and the educated. It followed, says Father Ricci, that "all came by degrees to have with regard to our countries, our people, and especially of our educated men, an idea vastly different from that which they had hitherto entertained". This impression was intensified by the explanations of the missionaries concerning their little museum in reply to the numerous questions of their visitors. One of the articles which most aroused their curiosity was a map of the world. The Chinese had already had maps, called by their geographers "descriptions of the world", but almost the entire space was filled by the fifteen provinces of China, around which were painted a bit of sea and a few islands on which were inscribed the names of countries of which they had heard -- all together was not as large as a small Chinese province. Naturally the learned men of Chao-k'ing immediately protested when Father Ricci pointed out the various parts of the world on the European map and when they saw how small a part China played. But after the missionaries had explained its construction and the care taken by the geographers of the West to assign to each country its actual position and boundaries, the wisest of them surrendered to the evidence, and beginning with the Governor of Chao-k'ing, all urged the missionary to make a copy of his map with the names and inscriptions in Chinese. Ricci drew a larger map of the world on which he wrote more detailed inscriptions, suited to the needs of the Chinese; when the work was completed the governor had it printed, giving all the copies as presents to his friends in the province and at a distance. Father Ricci does not hesitate to say: "This was the most useful work that could be done at that time to dispose China to give credence to the things of our holy Faith. . . . Their conception of the greatness of their country and of the insignificance of all other lands made them so proud that the w hole world seemed to them savage and barbarous compared with themselves; it was scarcely to be expected that they, while entertaining this idea, would heed foreign masters." But now numbers were eager to learn of European affairs from the missionaries, who profited by these dispositions to introduce religion more frequently with their explanations. For example, their beautiful Bibles and the paintings and prints depicting religious subjects, monuments, churches, etc., gave them an opportunity of speaking of "the good customs in the countries of the Christians, of the falseness of idolatry, of the conformity of the law of God with natural reason and similar teachings found in the writings of the ancient sages of China". This last instance shows that Father Ricci already knew how to draw from his Chinese studies testimony favourable to the religion which he was to preach. It was soon evident to the missionaries that their remarks regarding religion were no less interesting to many of their visitors than their Western curiosities and learning, and, to satisfy those who wished to learn more, they distributed leaflets containing a Chinese translation of the Ten Commandments, an abbreviation of the moral code much appreciated by the Chinese, composed a small catechism in which the chief points of Christian doctrine were explained in a dialogue between a pagan and a European priest. This work, printed about 1584, was also well received, the highest mandarins of the province considering themselves honoured to receive it as a present. The missionaries distributed hundreds and thousands of copies and thus "the good odour of our Faith began to be spread throughout China". Having begun their direct apostolate in this manner, they furthered it not a little by their edifying regular life, their disinterestedness, their charity, and their patience under persecutions which often destroyed the fruits of their labours. Development of the Missions Father Ricci played the chief part in these early attempts to make Christianity known to the Chinese. In 1607 Father Ruggieri died in Europe, where he had been sent in 1588 by Father Valignani to interest the Holy See more particularly in the missions. Left alone with a young priest, a pupil rather than an assistant, Ricci was expelled from Chao-k'ing in 1589 by a viceroy of Canton who had found the house of the missionaries suited to his own needs; but the mission had taken root too deeply to be exterminated by the ruin of its first home. Thenceforth in whatever town Ricci sought a new field of apostolate he was preceded by his reputation and he found powerful friends to protect him. He first went to Shao-chow, also in the province of Canton, where he dispensed with the services of interpreters and adopted the costume of the educated Chinese. In 1595 he made an attempt on Nan-king, the famous capital in the south of China, and, though unsuccessful, it furnished him with an opportunity of forming a Christian Church at Nan-ch'ang, capital of Kiang-si, which was so famous for the number and learning of its educated men. In 1598 he made a bold but equally fruitless attempt to establish himself at Peking. Forced to return to Nan-king on 6 Feb., 1599, he found Providential compensation there; the situation had changed completely since the preceding year, and the highest mandarins were desirous of seeing the holy doctor from the West take up his abode in their city. Although his zeal was rewarded with much success in this wider field, he constantly longed to repair his repulse at Peking. He felt that the mission was not secure in the provinces until it was established and authorized in the capital. On 18 May, 1600, Ricci again set out for Peking and, when all human hope of success was lost, he entered on 24 January, 1601, summoned by Emperor Wan-li. Last Labours Ricci's last nine years were spent at Peking, strengthening his work with the same wisdom and tenacity of purpose which had conducted it so far. The imperial goodwill was gained by gifts of European curiosities, especially the map of the world, from which the Asiatic ruler learned for the first time the true situation of his empire and the existence of so many other different kingdoms and peoples; he required Father Ricci to make a copy of it for him in his palace. At Peking, as at Nan-king and elsewhere, the interest of the most intelligent Chinese was aroused chiefly by the revelations which the European teacher made to them in the domain of the sciences, even those in which they considered themselves most proficient. Mathematics and astronomy, for example, had from time immemorial formed a part of the institutions of the Chinese Government, but, when they listened to Father Ricci, even the men who knew most had to acknowledge how small and how mingled with errors was their knowledge. But this recognition of their ignorance and their esteem for European learning, of which they had just got a glimpse, impelled very few Chinese to make serious efforts to acquire this knowledge, their attachment to tradition or the routine of national teaching being too deep-rooted. However, the Chinese governors, who even at the present day have made no attempt at reform in this matter, did not wish to deprive the country of all the advantages of European discoveries. To procure them recourse had to be had to the missionaries, and thus the Chinese mission from Ricci's time until the end of the eighteenth century found its chief protection in the services performed with the assistance of European learning. Father Ricci made use of profane science only to prepare the ground and open the way to the apostolate properly so called. With this object in view he employed other means, which made a deep impression on the majority of the educated class, and especially on those who held public offices. He composed under various forms adapted to the Chinese taste little moral treatises, e.g., that called by the Chinese "The Twenty-five Words", because in twenty-five short chapters it treated "of the mortification of the passions and the nobility of virtue". Still greater admiration was aroused by the "Paradoxes", a collection of practical sentences, useful to a moral life, familiar to Christians but new to the Chinese, which Ricci developed with accounts of examples, comparisons, and extracts from the Scriptures and from Christian philosophers and doctors. Not unreasonably proud of their rich moral literature, the Chinese were greatly surprised to see a stranger succeed so well; they could not refrain from praising his exalted doctrine, and the respect which they soon acquired for the Christian writings did much to dissipate their distrust of strangers and to render them kindly disposed towards the Christian religion. But the book through which Ricci exercised the widest and most fortunate influence was his "T'ien-chu-she-i" (The True Doctrine of God). This was the little catechism of Chao-k'ing which had been delivered from day to day, corrected and improved as occasion offered, until it finally contained all the matter suggested by long years of experience in the apostolate. The truths which must be admitted as the necessary preliminary to faith -- the existence and unity of God, the creation, the immortality of the soul, reward or punishment in a future life -- are here demonstrated by the best arguments from reason, while the errors most widespread in China, especially the worship of idols and the belief in the transmigration of souls, are successfully refuted. To the testimony furnished by Christian philosophy and theology Ricci added numerous proofs from the ancient Chinese books which did much to win credit for his work. A masterpiece of apologetics and controversy, the "T'ien-chu-she-i", rightfully became the manual of the missionaries and did most effacacious missionary work. Before its author's death it had been reprinted at least four times, and twice by the pagans. It led countless numbers to Christianity, and aroused esteem for our religion in those readers whom it did not convert. The perusal of it induced Emperor K'ang-hi to issue his edict of 1692 granting liberty to preach the Gospel. The Emperor Kien-long, although he persecuted the Christians, ordered the "T'ien-chu-she-i" to be placed in his library with his collection of the most notable productions of the Chinese language. Even to the present time missionaries have experienced its beneficent influence, which was not confined to China, being felt also in Japan, Tong-king, and other countries tributary to Chinese literature. Besides the works intended especially for the infidels and the catechumens whose initiation was in progress, Father Ricci wrote others for the new Christians. As founder of the mission he had to invent formulae capable of expressing clearly and unequivocally our dogmas and rites in a language which had hitherto never been put to such use (except for the Nestorian use, with which Ricci was not acquainted). It was a delicate and difficult task, but it formed only a part of the heavy burden which the direction of the mission was for Father Ricci, particularly during his last years. While advancing gradually on the capital Ricci did not abandon the territory already conquered; he trained in his methods the fellow-workers who joined him and commissioned them to continue his work in the cities he left. Thus in 1601, the mission included, besides Peking, the three residences of Nan-king, Nan-ch'ang, Shao-chow, to which was added in 1608 that of Shang-hai. In each of these there were two or three missionaries with "brothers", Chinese Christians from Macao who had been received into the Society of Jesus, and who served the mission as catechists. Although as yet the number of Christians was not very great (2000 baptized in 1608), Father Ricci in his "Memoirs" has said well that considering the obstacles to the entrance of Christianity into China the result was "a very great miracle of Divine Omnipotence". To preserve and increase the success already obtained, it was necessary that the means which had already proved efficacious should continue to be employed; everywhere and always the missionaries, without neglecting the essential duties of the Christian apostolate, had to adapt their methods to the special conditions of the country, and avoid unnecessary attacks on traditional customs and habits. The application of this undeniably sound policy was often difficult. In answer to the doubts of his fellow-workers Father Ricci outlined rules, which received the approval of Father Valignano; these insured the unity and fruitful efficacy of the apostolic work throughout the mission. Question of the Divine Names and the Chinese Rites The most difficult problem in the evangelization of China had to do with the rites or ceremonies, in use from time immemorial, to do honour to ancestors or deceased relatives and the particular tokens of respect which the educated felt bound to pay to their master, Confucius. Ricci's solution of this problem caused a long and heated controversy in which the Holy See finally decided against him. The discussion also dealt with the use of the Chinese terms T'ien (heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) to designate God; here also the custom established by Father Ricci had to be corrected. The following is a short history of this famous controversy which was singularly complicated and embittered by passion. With regard to the designations for God, Ricci always preferred, and employed from the first, the term T'ien chu (Lord of Heaven) for the God of Christians; as had been seen, he used it in the title of his catechism. But in studying the most ancient Chinese books he considered it established that they said of T'ien (Heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) what we say of the true God, that is, they described under these two names a sovereign lord of spirits and men who knows all that takes place in the world, the source of all power and all lawful authority, the supreme regulator and defender of the moral law, rewarding those who observe and punishing those who violate it. Hence he concluded that, in the most revered monuments of China, T'ien and Shang'ti designate nothing else than the true God whom he himself preached. Ricci maintained this opinion in several passages of his T'ien-chu-she-i; it will be readily understood of what assistance it was to destroy Chinese prejudices against the Christian religion. It is true that, in drawing this conclusion, Ricci had to contradict the common interpretation of modern scholars who follow Chu-Hi in referring T'ien and Shang-ti to apply to the material heaven; but he showed that this material interpretation does not do justice to the texts and it is at least reasonable to see in them something better. In fact he informs us that the educated Confucianists, who did not adore idols, were grateful to him for interpreting the words of their master with such goodwill. Indeed, Ricci's opinion has been adopted and confirmed by illustrious modern Sinologists, amongst whom it suffices to mention James Legge ("The Notions of the Chinese concerning God and Spirits", 1852; "A Letter to Prof. Max Muller chiefly on the Translation of the Chinese terms Ti and Chang-ti", 1880). Therefore it was not without serious grounds that the founder of the Chinese mission and his successors believed themselves justified in employing the terms T'ien and Shang-ti as well as T'ien-chu to designate the true God. However, there were objections to this practice even among the Jesuits, the earliest rising shortly after the death of Father Ricci and being formulated by the Japanese Jesuits. In the ensuing discussion carried on in various writings for and against, which did not circulate beyond the circle of the missionaries only one of those working in China declared himself against the use of the name Shang-ti. This was Father Nicholas Longobardi, Ricci's successor as superior general of the mission, who, however, did not depart in anything from the lines laid down by its founder. After allowing the question to be discussed for some years, the superior ordered the missionaries to abide simply by the custom of Father Ricci; later this custom together with the rites was submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1704 and 1715 Clement XI, without pronouncing as to the meaning of T'ien and Shang-ti in the ancient Chinese books, forbade, as being open to misconstruction, the use of these names to indicate the true God, and permitted only the T'ien-chu. Regarding the rites and ceremonies in honour of ancestors and Confucius, Father Ricci was also of the opinion that a broad toleration was permissible without injury to the purity of the Christian religion. Moreover, the question was of the utmost importance for the progress of the apostolate. To honour their ancestors and deceased parents by traditional prostrations and sacrifices was in the eyes of the Chinese the gravest duty of filial piety, and one who neglected it was treated by all his relatives as an unworthy member of his family and nation. Similar ceremonies in honour of Confucius were an indispensable obligation for scholars, so that they could not receive any literary degree nor claim any public office without having fulfilled it. This law still remains inviolable; Kiang-hi, the emperor who showed most goodwill towards the Christians, always refused to set it aside in their favour. In modern times the Chinese Government showed no more favour to the ministers of France, who, in the name of the treaties guaranteeing the liberty of Catholicism in China, claimed for the Christians who had passed the examinations, the titles and advantages of the corresponding degrees without the necessity of going through the ceremonies; the Court of Peking invariably replied that this was a question of national tradition on which it was impossible to compromise. After having carefully studied what the Chinese classical books said regarding these rites, and after having observed for a long time the practice of them and questioned numerous scholars of every rank with whom he was associated during this eighteen years of apostolate, Ricci was convinced that these rites had no religious significance, either in their institution or in their practice by the enlightened classes. The Chinese, he said, recognized no divinity in Confucius any more than in their deceased ancestors; they prayed to neither; the made no requests nor expected any extraordinary intervention from them. In fact they only did for them what they did for the living to whom they wished to show great respect. "The honour they pay to their parents consists in serving them dead as they did living. They do not for this reason think that the dead come to eat their offerings [the flesh, fruit, etc.] or need them. They declare that they act in this manner because they know no other way of showing their love and gratitude to their ancestors. . . . Likewise what they do [especially the educated], they do to thank Confucius for the excellent doctrine which he left them in his books, and through which they obtained their degrees and mandarinships. Thus in all this there is nothing suggestive of idolatry, and perhaps it may even be said that there is no superstition." The "perhaps" added to the last part of this conclusion shows the conscientiousness with which the founder acted in this matter. That the vulgar and indeed even most of the Chinese pagans mingled superstition with their national rites Ricci never denied; neither did he overlook the fact that the Chinese, like infidels in general, mixed superstition with their most legitimate actions. In such cases superstition is only an accident which does not corrupt the substance of the just action itself, and Ricci thought this applied also to the rites. Consequently he allowed the new Christians to continue the practice of them avoiding everything suggestive of superstition, and he gave them rules to assist them to discriminate. He believed, however, that this tolerance, though licit, should be limited by the necessity of the case; whenever the Chinese Christian community should enjoy sufficient liberty, its customs, notably its manner of honouring the dead, must be brought into conformity with the customs of the rest of the Christian world. These principles of Father Ricci, controlled by his fellow-workers during his lifetime, and after his death, served for fifty years as the guide of all the missionaries. In 1631 the first mission of the Dominicans was founded at Fu-kien by two Spanish religious; in 1633 two Franciscans, also Spanish, came to establish a mission of their order. The new missionaries were soon alarmed by the attacks on the purity of religion which they thought they discerned in the communities founded by their predecessors. Without taking sufficient time perhaps to become acquainted with Chinese matters and to learn exactly what was done in the Jesuit missions they sent a denunciation to the bishops of the Philippines. The bishops referred it to Pope Urban VIII (1635), and soon the public was informed. As early as 1638 a controversy began in the Philippines between the Jesuits in defence of their brethren on the one side and the Dominicans and Franciscans on the other. In 1643 one of the chief accusers, the Dominican, Jean-Baptiste Moralez, went to Rome to submit to the Holy See a series of "questions" or "doubts" which he said were controverted between the Jesuit missionaries and their rivals. Ten of these questions concerned the participation of Christians in the rites in honour of Confucius and the dead. Moralez's petition tended to show that the cases on which he requested the decision of the Holy See represented the practice authorized by the Society of Jesus; as soon as the Jesuits learned of this they declared that these cases were imaginary and that they had never allowed the Christians to take part in the rites as set forth by Moralez. In declaring the ceremonies illicit in its Decree of 12 Sept., 1645 (approved by Innocent X), the congregation of the Propaganda gave the only possible reply to the questions referred to it. In 1651 Father Martin Martini (author of the "Novus Atlas Sienensis") was sent from China to Rome by his brethren to give a true account of the Jesuits practices and permissions with regard to the Chinese rites. This delegate reached the Eternal City in 1654, and in 1655 submitted four questions to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. This supreme tribunal, in its Decree of 23 March, 1656, approved by Pope Alexander VII, sanctioned the practice of Ricci and his associates as set forth by Father Martini, declaring that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius and ancestors appeared to constitute "a purely civil and political cult". Did this decree annul that of 1645? Concerning this question, laid before the Holy Office by the Dominican, Father John de Polanco, the reply was (20 Nov., 1669) that both decrees should remain "in their full force" and should be observed "according to the questions, circumstances, and everything contained in the proposed doubts". Meanwhile an understanding was reached by the hitherto divided missionaries. This reconciliation was hastened by the persecution of 1665 which assembled for nearly five years in the same house at Canton nineteen Jesuits, three Dominicans, and one Franciscan (then the sole member of his order in China). Profiting by their enforced leisure to agree on a uniform Apostolic method, the missionaries discussed all the points on which the discipline of the Church should be adapted to the exigencies of the Chinese situation. After forty days of conferences, which terminated on 26 Jan., 1668, all (with the possible exception of the Franciscan Antonio de Santa Maria, who was very zealous but extremely uncompromising) subscribed to forty-two articles, the result of the deliberations, of which the forty-first was as follows: "As to the ceremonies by which the Chinese honour their master Confucius and the dead, the replies of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition approved by our Holy Father Alexander VII, in 1656, must be followed absolutely because they are based on a very probable opinion, to which it is impossible to offset any evidence to the contrary, and, this probability assumed, the door of salvation must not be closed to the innumerable Chinese who would stray from the Christian religion if they were forbidden to what they may do licitly and in good faith and which they cannot forego without serious injury." After the subscription, however, a new courteous discussion of this article in writing took place between Father Domingo Fernandez Navarrete, superior of the Dominicans, and the most learned of the Jesuits at Canton. Navarrette finally appeared satisfied and on 29 Sept., 1669, submitted his written acceptance of the article to the superior of the Jesuits. However, on 19 Dec. of this year he secretly left Canton for Macao whence he went to Europe. There, and especially at Rome where he was in 1673, he sought from now on only to overthrow what had been attempted in the conferences of Canton. He published the "Tratados historicos, politicos, ethicos, y religiosos de la monarchia de China" (I, Madrid, 1673; of vol. II, printed in 1679 and incomplete, only two copies are known). This work is filled with impassioned accusations against the Jesuit missionaries regarding their methods of apostolate and especially their toleration of the rites. Nevertheless, Naverrette did not succeed in inducing the Holy See to resume the question, this being reserved for Charles Maigrot, a member of the new Société des Missions Étrangères. Maigrot went to China in 1683. He was Vicar Apostolic of Fu-kien, before being as yet a bishop, when, on 26 March, 1693, he addressed to the missionaries of his vicariate a mandate proscribing the names T'ien and Shang-ti; forbidding that Christians be allowed to participate in or assist at "sacrifices or solemn oblations" in honour of Confucius or the dead; prescribing modifications of the inscriptions on the ancestral tablets; censuring and forbidding certain, according to him, too favourable references to the ancient Chinese philosophers; and, last but not least, declaring that the exposition made by Father Martini was not true and that consequently the approval which the latter had received from Rome was not to be relied on. By order of Innocent XII, the Holy Office resumed in 1697 the study of the question on the documents furnished by the procurators of Mgr Maigrot and on those showing the opposite side brought by the representatives of the Jesuit missionaries. It is worthy of note that at this period a number of the missionaries outside the Society of Jesus, especially all the Augustinians, nearly all the Franciscans, and some Dominicans, were converted to the practice of Ricci and the Jesuit missionaries. The difficulty of grasping the truth amid such different representations of facts and contradictory interpretations of texts prevented the Congregation from reaching a decision until towards the end of 1704 under the pontificate of Clement XI. Long before then the pope had chosen and sent to the Far East a legate to secure the execution of the Apostolic decrees and to regulate all other questions on the welfare of the missions. The prelate chosen was Charles-Thomas-Maillard de Tournon (b. at Turin) whom Clement XI had consecrated with his own hands on 27 Dec., 1701, and on whom he conferred the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Leaving Europe on 9 Feb., 1703, Mgr de Tournon stayed for a time in India (see MALABAR RITES) reaching Macao on 2 April, 1705, and Peking on 4 December of the same year. Emperor K'ang-hi accorded him a warm welcome and treated him with much honour until he learned, perhaps through the imprudence of the legate himself, that one of the objects of his embassy, if not the chief, was to abolish the rites amongst the Christians. Mgr de Tournon was already aware that the decision against the rites had been given since 20 Nov., 1704, but not yet published in Europe, as the pope wished that it should be published first in China. Forced to leave Peking, the legate had returned to Nan-king when he learned that the emperor had ordered all missionaries, under penalty of expulsion, to come to him for a piao or diploma granting permission to preach the Gospel. This diploma was to be granted only to those who promised not to oppose the national rites. On the receipt of this news the legate felt that he could no longer postpone the announcement of the Roman decisions. By a mandate of 15 January, 1707, he required all missionaries under pain of excommunication to reply to Chinese authority, if it questioned them, that "several things" in Chinese doctrine and customs did not agree with Divine law and that these were chiefly "the sacrifices to Confucius and ancestors" and "the use of ancestral tablets", moreover that Shang-ti and "T'ien" were not "the true God of the Christians". When the emperor learned of this Decree he ordered Mgr de Tournon to be brought to Macao and forbade him to leave there before the return of the envoys whom he himself sent to the pope to explain his objections to the interdiction of the rites. While still subject to this restraint, the legate died in 1710. Meanwhile Mgr Maigrot and several other missionaries having refused to ask for the piao had been expelled from China. But the majority (i.e. all the Jesuits, most of the Franciscans, and other missionary religious, having at their head the Bishop of Peking, a Franciscan, and the Bishop of Ascalon, Vicar Apostolic of Kiang-si, an Augustinian) considered that, to prevent the total ruin of the mission, they might postpone obedience to the legate until the pope should have signified his will. Clement XI replied by publishing (March, 1709) the answers of the Holy Office, which he had already approved on 20 November, 1704, and then by causing the same Congregation to issue (25 Sept., 1710) a new Decree which approved the acts of the legate and ordered the observance of the mandate of Nan-king, but interpreted in the sense of the Roman replies of 1704, omitting all the questions and most of the preambles, and concluded with a form of oath which the pope enjoined on all the missionaries and which obliged them under the severest penalties to observe and have observed fully and without reserve the decisions inserted in the pontifical act. This Constitution, which reached China in 1716, found no rebels among the missionaries, but even those who sought most zealously failed to induce the majority of their flock to observe its provisions. At the same time the hate of the pagans was reawakened, enkindled by the old charge that Christianity was the enemy of the national rites, and the neophytes began to be the objects of persecutions to which K'ang-hi, hitherto so well-disposed, now gave almost entire liberty. Clement XI sought to remedy this critical situation by sending to China a second legate, John-Ambrose Mezzabarba, whom he named Patriarch of Alexandria. This prelate sailed from Lisbon on 25 March, 1720, reaching Macao on 26 September, and Canton on 12 October. Admitted, not without difficulty, to Peking and to an audience with the emperor, the legate could only prevent his immediate dismissal and the expulsion of all the missionaries by making known some alleviations of the Constitution "Ex illâ die", which he was authorized to offer, and allowing K'ang-hi to hope that the pope would grant still others. Then he hastened to return to Macao, whence he addressed (4 November, 1721) a pastoral letter to the missionaries of China, communicating to them the authentic text of his eight "permissions" relating to the rites. He declared that he would permit nothing forbidden by the Constitution; in practice, however, his concessions relaxed the rigour of the pontifical interdictions, although they did not produce harmony or unity of action among the apostolic workers. To bring about this highly desirable result the pope ordered a new investigation, the chief object of which was the legitimacy and opportuneness of Mezzabarba's "permissions"; begun by the Holy Office under Clement XII a conclusion was reached only under Benedict XIV. On 11 July, 1742, this pope, by the Bull "Ex quo singulari", confirmed and reimposed in a most emphatic manner the Constitution "Ex illâ die", and condemned and annulled the "permissions" of Mezzabarba as authorizing the superstitions which that Constitution sought to destroy. This action terminated the controversy among Catholics. The Holy See did not touch on the purely theoretical questions, as for instance what the Chinese rites were and signified according to their institution and in ancient times. In this Father Ricci may have been right; but he was mistaken in thinking that as practised in modern times they are not superstitious or can be made free from all superstition. The popes declared, after scrupulous investigations, that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius or ancestors and deceased relatives are tainted with superstition to such a degree that they cannot be purified. But the error of Ricci, as of his fellow-workers and successors, was but an error in judgment. The Holy See expressly forbade it to be said that they approved of idolatry; it would indeed be an odious calumny to accuse such a man as Ricci, and so many other holy and zealous missionaries, of having approved and permitted their neophytes practices which they knew to be superstitions and contrary to the purity of religion. Despite this error, Matto Ricci remains a splendid type of missionary and founder, unsurpassed for his zealous intrepidity, the intelligence of the methods applied to each situation, and the unwearying tenacity with which he pursued the projects he undertook. To him belongs the glory not only of opening up a vast empire to the Gospel, but of simultaneously making the first breach in that distrust of strangers which excluded China from the general progress of the world. The establishment of the Catholic mission in the heart of this country also had its economic consequences: it laid the foundation of a better understanding between the Far East and the West, which grew with the progress of the mission. It is superfluous to detail the results from the standpoint of the material interests of the whole world. Lastly, science owes to Father Ricci the first exact scientific knowledge received in Europe concerning China, its true geographical situation, its ancient civilization, its vast and curious literature, its social organization so different from what existed elsewhere. The method instituted by Ricci necessitated a fundamental study of this new world, and if the missionaries who have since followed him have rendered scarcely less service to science than to religion, a great part of the credit is due to Ricci. [MATTEO RICCI], "Dell' entrata della Campagnia di Giesu e christianita nella Cina" (MS. Of Father Ricci, extant in the archives of the Society of Jesus; cited in the foregoing article as the "Memmoirs of Father Ricci", a somewhat free tr. Of his work is given in TRIGAULT, "De christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu". "Ex P. Matthaei Ricci commentariis libri", V (Augsbrg, 1615); DE URSIS, "P. Matheus Ricci, S.J. Relacao escripta pelo seu companhiero" (Rome, 1910); BARTOLI, "Dell' Historia della Compagnia di Gesu. La Cina", I-II (Rome, 1663). Bartoli is the most accurate biographer of Ricci; d'ORLEANS, "La vie du Pere Matthieu Ricci" (Paris, 1693); NATALI, "Il secondo Confucio" (Rome, 1900); VENTURI, "L'apostolato del P. M. Ricci d. C. d. G. in Cina secondo I suoi scritti inediti" (Rome, 1910); BRUCKER, "Le Pere Matthieu Ricci" in "Etudes", CXXIV (Paris, 1910), 5-27; 185-208; 751-79; DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, "Bibl. Des ecrivains de la C. de J", VI, 1792-95). Chinese Rites.-BRUCKER in VACANT, "Dict. De Theol. cath., s.v. "Chinois (Rites"" and works indicated; CORDIER, "Bibl. Sinica", II, 2nd. Ed., 869-925; IDEM, "Hist. Des relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales", III (Paris, 1902) xxv. JOSEPH BRUCKER Giovanni Battista Riccioli Giovanni Battista Riccioli Italian astronomer, b. at Ferrara 17 April, 1598; d. at Bologna 25 June, 1671. He entered the Society of Jesus 6 Oct., 1614. After teaching philosophy and theology for a number of years, chiefly at Parma and Bologna, he devoted himself, at the request of his superiors, entirely to the study of astronomy, which at that time, owing to the discoveries of Kepler and the new theories of Copernicus, was a subject of much discussion. Realizing the many defects of the traditional astronomy inherited from the ancients, he conceived the bold idea of undertaking a reconstruction of the science with a view to bringing it into harmony with contemporary progress. This led to his "Almagestum novum, astronomiam veterem novamque complectens" (2 vols., Bologna, 1651), considered by many the most important literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century. The author in common with many scholars of the time, notably in Italy, rejected the Copernican theory, and in this work, admittedly of great erudition, gives an elaborate refutation in justification of the Roman Decrees of 1616 and 1633. He praises, however, the genius of Copernicus and readily admits the value of his system as a simple hypothesis. His sincerity in this connexion has been called into question by some, e.g. Wolf, but a study of the work shows beyond doubt that he wrote from conviction and with the desire of making known the truth. Riccioli's project also included a comparison of the unit of length of various nations and a more exact determination of the dimensions of the earth. His topographical measurements occupied him at intervals between 1644 and 1656, but defects of method have rendered his results of but little value. His most important contribution to astronomy was perhaps his detailed telescopic study of the moon, made in collaboration with P. Grimaldi. The latter's excellent lunar map was inserted in the "Almagestum novum", and the lunar nomenclature they adopted is still in use. He also made observations on Saturn's rings, though it was reserved for Huyghens to determine the true ring-structure. He was an ardent defender of the new Gregorian calendar. Though of delicate health, Riccioli was an indefatigable worker and, in spite of his opposition to the Copernican theory, rendered valuable services to astronomy and also to geography and chronology. His chief works are: "Geographiæ et hydrographiæ reformatæ libri XII" (Bologna, 1661); "Astronomia reformata" (2 vols., Bologna, 1665); "Chronologia reformata" (1669); "Tabula latitudinum et longitudinum" (Vienna, 1689). SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895), 1795; DELAMBRE, Hist. de l'Astronomie Moderne, II (Paris, 1821), 274; WOLF, Gesch. d. Astronomie (Munich, 1877), 434; WALSH, Catholic Churchmen in Science (2nd series, Philadelphia, 1909); LINSMEIER, Natur. u. Offenbarung, XLVII, 65 sqq. H. M. BROCK Edmund Ignatius Rice Edmund Ignatius Rice Founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (better known as "Irish Christian Brothers"), b. at Callan, Co. Kilkenny, 1762; d. at Waterford, 1844. He was educated in a Catholic school which, despite the provision of the iniquitous penal laws, the authorities suffered to exist in the City of Kilkenny. In 1779 he entered the business house of his uncle, a large export and import trader in the City of Waterford, and, after the latter's death, became sole proprietor. As a citizen he was distinguished for his probity, charity, and piety; he was an active member of a society established in the city for the relief of the poor. About 1794 he meditated entering a continental convent, but his brother, an Augustinian who had but just returned from Rome, discountenanced the idea. Rice, thereupon, devoted himself to the extension of his business. Some years later, however, he again desired to become a religious. As he was discussing the matter with a friend of his, a sister of Bishop Power of Waterford, a band of ragged boys passed by. Pointing to them Miss Power exclaimed: "What! would you bury yourself in a cell on the continent rather than devote your wealth and your life to the spiritual and material interest of these poor youths?" The words were an inspiration. Rice related the incident to Dr. Lanigan, bishop of his native Diocese of Ossory, and to others, all of whom advised him to undertake the mission to which God was evidently calling him. Rice settled his worldly affairs, his last year's business (1800) being the most lucrative one he had known, and commenced the work of the Christian schools. Assisted by two young men, whom he paid for their services, he opened his fist school in Waterford in 1802. In June of this year Bishop Hussey of Waterford laid the foundation stone of a schoolhouse on a site which he named Mount Sion. The building was soon ready for occupation, but Rice's assistants had fled and could not be induced to return even when offered higher salaries. In this extremity two young men from Callan offered themselves as fellow-labourers. Other workers soon gathered round him, and by 1806 Christian schools were established in Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir, and Dungarvan. The communities adopted a modified form of the Rule of the Presentation order of nuns, and, in 1808, pronounced their vows before Bishop Power. Houses were established in Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and elsewhere. Though the brothers, as a rule, made their novitiate in Mount Sion and regarded Rice as their father and model, he was not their superior; they were subject to the bishops of their respective dioceses. In 1817, on the advice of Bishop Murray, coadjutor to the Archbishop of Dublin, and of Father Kenny, S.J., a special friend, Rice applied to the Holy See for approbation and a constitution for his society. In 1820 Pius VII formally confirmed the new congregation of "Fratres Monachi" by the Brief "Ad pastoralis dignitatis fastigium". This was the first confirmation by the Church of a congregation of religious men in Ireland. Brother Rice was unanimously elected superior general by the members. All the houses were united except the house in Cork, where Bishop Murphy refused his consent. Later, however, in 1826, the Brothers in Cork attained the object of their desire, but one of their number, preferring the old condition of things, offered his services to the bishop, who placed him in charge of a school on the south side of the city. This secession of Br. Austin Reardon was the origin of the teaching congregation of the Presentation Brothers. The confirmation of the new Institute attracted considerable attention, even outside of Ireland, and many presented themselves for the novitiate. The founder removed the seat of government to Dublin. At this time the agitation for Catholic Emancipation was at its height and the people were roused to indignation by the reports of the proselytizing practices carried on in the Government schools. Brother Rice conceived the idea of establishing a "Catholic Model School". The "Liberator" entered warmly into his scheme, and procured a grant of £1500 from the Catholic Association in aid of the proposed building. On St. Columba's day, 1828, Daniel O'Connell laid the foundation stone, in North Richmond Street, Dublin, of the famous school, since known as the "O'Connell Schools". In his speech on the occasion he referred to Brother Rice as "My old friend, Mr. Rice, the Patriarch of the Monks of the west". The founder resigned his office in 1838 and spent his remaining years in Mount Sion. Before his death he saw eleven communities of his institute in Ireland, eleven in England, and one in Sydney, Australia, while applications for foundations had been received from the Archbishop of Baltimore and from bishops in Canada, Newfoundland, and other places. PATRICK J. HENNESSY Richard (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 Orléans and Troyes. In the latter town he first met Bl. Joan of Arc. Having contributed much to the submission of Troyes to Charles VII, Richard now followed the French army and became confessor and chaplain to Bl. Joan. Some differences, however, arose between the two on account of Catherine de la Rochelle, who was protected by the friar, but scorned by Joan. Richard's name figures also in the proceedings against Bl. Joan of Arc in 1431; in the same year he preached the Lent in Orléans and shortly after was interdicted from preaching by the inquisitor of Poitiers. No trace of him is found after this. DE KERVAL, Jeanne d'Arc et les Franciscains (Vanves, 1893); DEBOUT, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1905-07), I, 694-97 and passim; WALLON, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1883), 125, 200, 261. LIVARIUS OLIGER Richard I, King of England Richard I, King Of England Richard I, born at Oxford, 6 Sept, 1157; died at Chaluz, France, 6 April, 1199; was known to the minstrels of a later age, rather than to his contemporaries, as "Coeur-de-Lion". He was only the second son of Henry II, but it was part of his father's policy, holding, as he did, continental dominions of great extent and little mutual cohesion, to assign them to his children during his own lifetime and even to have his sons brought up among the people they were destined to govern. To Richard were allotted the territories in the South of France belonging to his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine, and before he was sixteen he was inducted as Duke of that province. It was a weak point in the old King's management of his sons, that, while dazzling them with brilliant prospects, he invested them with very little of the substance of power. In 1173 the young Henry, who, following a German usage, had already been crowned king in the lifetime of his father, broke out into open revolt, being instigated thereto by his father-in-law, Louis VII, King of France. Under the influence of their mother Eleanor, who bitterly resented her husband's infidelities, Geoffrey and Richard in 1173 also threw in their lot with the rebel and took up arms against their father. Allies gathered round them and the situation grew so threatening, that Henry II thought it well to propitiate heaven by doing penance at the tomb of the martyred Archbishop St. Thomas (11 July, 1174). By a remarkable coincidence, on the very next day, a victory in Northumberland over William, King of Scotland, disposed of Henry's most formidable opponent. Returning with a large force to France, the King swept all before him, and though Richard for a while held out alone he was compelled by 21 Sept. to sue for forgiveness at his father's feet. The King dealt leniently with his rebellious children, but this first outbreak was only the harbinger of an almost uninterrupted series of disloyal intrigues, fomented by Louis VII and by his son and successor, Philip Augustus, in which Richard, who lived almost entirely in Guienne and Poitou, was engaged down to the time of his father's death. He acquired for himself a great and deserved reputation for knightly prowess, and he was often concerned in chivalrous exploits, showing much energy in particular in protecting the pilgrims who passed through his own and adjacent territories on their way to the shrine of St. James of Compostella. His elder brother Henry grew jealous of him and insisted that Richard should do him homage. On the latter's resistance war broke out between the brothers. Bertrand de Born, Count of Hautefort, who was Richard's rival in minstrelsy as well as in feats of arms, lent such powerful support to the younger Henry, that the old King had to intervene on Richard's side. The death of the younger Henry, 11 June, 1183, once more restored peace and made Richard heir to the throne. But other quarrels followed between Richard and his father, and it was in the heat of the most desperate of these, in which the astuteness of Philip Augustus had contrived to implicate Henry's favourite son John, that the old King died broken-hearted, 6 July, 1189. Despite the constant hostilities of the last few years, Richard secured the succession without difficulty. He came quickly to England and was crowned at Westminster on 3 Sept. But his object in visiting his native land was less to provide for the government of the kingdom than to collect resources for the projected Crusade which now appealed to the strongest, if not the best, instincts of his adventurous nature, and by the success of which he hoped to startle the world. Already, towards the end of 1187, when the news had reached him of Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem, Richard had taken the cross. Philip Augustus and Henry II had subsequently followed his example, but the quarrels which had supervened had so far prevented the realization of this pious design. Now that he was more free the young King seems to have been conscientiously in earnest in putting the recovery of the Holy Land before everything else. Though the expedients by which he set to work to gather every penny of ready money upon which he could lay hands were alike unscrupulous and impolitic, there is something which commands respect in the energy which he threw into the task. He sold sheriffdoms, justiceships, church lands, and appointments of all kinds, both lay and secular, practically to the highest bidder. He was not ungenerous in providing for his brothers John and Geoffrey, and he showed a certain prudence in exacting a promise from them to remain out of England for three years, in order to leave a free hand to the new Chancellor William of Longehamp, who was to govern England in his absence. Unfortunately he took with him many of the men, e. g. Archbishop Baldwin, Hubert Walter, and Ranulf Glanvill, whose statesmanship and experience would have been most useful in governing England and left behind many restless spirits like John himself and Longehamp, whose energy might have been serviceable against the infidel. Already on 11 Dec., 1189, Richard was ready to cross to Calais. He met Philip Augustus, who was also to start on the Crusade, and the two Kings swore to defend each other's dominions as they would their own. The story of the Third Crusade has already been told in some detail (see CRUSADES). It was September, 1190, before Richard reached Marseilles; he pushed on to Messina and waited for the spring. There miserable quarrels occurred with Philip, whose sister he now refused to marry, and this trouble was complicated by an interference in the affairs of Sicily, which the Emperor Henry VI watched with a jealous eye, and which later on was to cost Richard dear. Setting sail in March, he was driven to Cyprus, where he quarrelled with Isaac Comnenus, seized the island, and married Berengaria of Navarre. He at last reached Acre in June and after prodigies of valour captured it. Philip then returned to France but Richard made two desperate efforts to reach Jerusalem, the first of which might have succeeded had he known the panic and weakness of the foe. Saladin was a worthy opponent, but terrible acts of cruelty as well as of chivalry took place, notably when Richard slew his Saracen prisoners in a fit of passion. In July, 1192, further effort seemed hopeless, and the King of England's presence was badly needed at home to secure his own dominions from the treacherous intrigues of John. Hastening back Richard was wrecked in the Adriatic, and falling eventually into the hands of Leopold of Austria, he was sold to the Emperor Henry VI, who kept him prisoner for over a year and extorted a portentous ransom which England was racked to pay. Recent investigation has shown that the motives of Henry's conduct were less vindictive than political. Richard was induced to surrender England to the Emperor (as John a few years later was to make over England to the Holy See), and then Henry conferred the kingdom upon his captive as a fief at the Diet of Mainz, in Feb., 1194 (see Bloch, "Forschungen", Appendix IV). Despite the intrigues of King Philip and John, Richard had loyal friends in England. Hubert Walter had now reached home and worked energetically with the Justices to raise the ransom, while Eleanor the Queen Mother obtained from the Holy See an excommunication against his captors. England responded nobly to the appeal for money and Richard reached home in March, 1194. He showed little gratitude to his native land, and after spending less than two months there quitted it for his foreign dominions never to return. Still, in Hubert Walter, who was now both Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar, he left it a capable governor. Hubert tried to wring unconstitutional supplies and service from the impoverished barons and clergy, but failed in at least one such demand before the resolute opposition of St. Hugh of Lincoln. Richard's diplomatic struggles and his campaigns against the wily King of France were very costly but fairly successful. He would probably have triumphed in the end, but a bolt from a cross-bow while he was besieging the castle of Chaluz inflicted a mortal injury. He died, after receiving the last sacraments with signs of sincere repentance. In spite of his greed, his lack of principle, and, on occasions, his ferocious savagery, Richard had many good instincts. He thoroughly respected a man of fearless integrity like St. Hugh of Lincoln, and Bishop Stubbs says of him with justice that he was perhaps the most sincerely religious prince of his family. "He heard Mass daily, and on three occasions did penance in a very remarkable way, simply on the impulse of his own distressed conscience. He never showed the brutal profanity of John." Lingard and all other standard Histories of England deal fully with the reign and personal character of Richard. DAVIS, A History of England in Six Volumes, II (2nd ed., London, 1909), and ADAMS, The Political History of England. II (London, 1905), may be specially recommended. The Prefaces contributed by Bishop Stubbs to his editions of various Chronicles in the R. S. are also very valuable, notably those to Roger of Hoveden (London, 1868-71); Ralph de Diceto (1875); and Benedict of Peterborough (1867). Besides these should be mentioned in the same series the two extremely important volumes of Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I (London, 1864-65), also edited by Stubbs; the Magna Vita S. Hugonis, edited by Dimock, 1864; and Randulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, 1875. See also NORGATE, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1889); LUCRAIRE AND LAVISSE, Histoire de France (Paris, 1902); KNELLER, Des Richard Löwenherz deutsche Gefangenshaft (Freiburg, 1893); BLOCH, Forschungen zur Politik Kaisers Heinrich VI in den Jahren 1191-1194 (Berlin, 1892); KINDT, Gründe der Gefangenschaft Richard I von England (Halle, 1892); and especially RÖHRICHT, Gesch. d. Konigreich Jerusalem (Innsbruck, 1890). HERBERT THURSTON. Charles-Louis Richard Charles-Louis Richard Theologian and publicist; b. at Blainville-sur-l'Eau, in Lorraine, April, 1711; d. at Mons, Belgium, 16 Aug., 1794. His family, though of noble descent, was poor, and he received his education in the schools of his native town. At the age of sixteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic and, after his religious profession, was sent to study theology in Paris, where he received the Doctorate at the Sorbonne. He next applied himself to preaching and the defense of religion against d'Alembert, Voltaire, and their confederates. The outbreak of the Revolution forced him to seek refuge at Mons, in Belgium. During the second invasion of that country by the French, in 1794, old age prevented him from fleeing, and, though he eluded his pursuers for some time, he was at last detected, tried by court martial, and shot, as the author of "Parallèle des Juifs qui ont crucifié Jésus-Christ, avec les Français qui ont exécuté leur roi" (Mons, 1794). Among his works may be mentioned "Bibliothèque sacrée, ou dictionnaire universelle des sciences ecclésiastiques" (5 vols., Paris, 1760) and "Supplément" (Paris, 1765), the last and enlarged edition being that of Paris, 1821-27, 29 vols., and "Analyses des conciles généraux et particuliers" (5 vols., Paris, 1772-77). MOULAERT, Ch. L. Richard aus dem Predigerorden (Ratisbon, 1870); Nomenclator, III (3rd ed.), 433-35. H.J. SCHROEDER Richard de Bury 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 François-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne Archbishop of Paris, born at Nantes, 1 March, 1819; died in Paris, 28 January, 1908. Educated at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice he became in 1849 secretary to Bishop Jacquemet at Nantes, then, from 1850 to 1869, vicar-general. In 1871 he became Bishop of Belley where he began the process for the beatification of the Curé d'Ars. On 7 May, 1875, he became coadjutor of Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop of Paris, whom he succeeded 8 July, 1886, becoming cardinal with the title of Santa Maria in Via, 24 May, 1889. He devoted much energy to the completion of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Montmartre, which he consecrated. Politically, Cardinal Richard was attached by ties of esteem and sympathy to the Monarchist Catholics. In 1892, when Leo XIII recommended the rallying of Catholics to the Republic (see FRANCE, The Third Republic and the Church in France), the cardinal created the "Union of Christian France" (Union de la France Chrétienne), to unite all Catholics on the sole basis of the defence of religion. The Monarchists opposed this "rallying" (Ralliement) with the policy which this union represented, and at last, at the pope's desire, the union was dissolved. On many occasions Cardinal Richard spoke in defence of the religious congregations, and Leo XIII addressed to him a letter (27 December, 1900) on the religious who were menaced by the then projected Law of Associations. In the domain of hagiography he earned distinction by his "Vie de la bienheureuse Françoise d'Amboise" (1865) and "Saints de l'église de Bretagne" (1872). L'episcopat français, 1802-1905, s. v. Belley, Paris; LECANUET, L'Eglise de France sous la troisieme republique, II (Paris, 1910). GEORGES GOYAU St. Richard de Wyche 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 Montfauçon as attributed to a "Ricardus Secundus a Sancto Victore", and may probably be identical with the treatise "De potestate solvendi et ligandi" above mentioned. Nothing is otherwise known of a second Richard of St. Victor. Fifteen other MSS. are said to exist of works attributed to Richard which have appeared in none of the published editions, and are probably spurious. Eight editions of his works have been published: Venice, 1506 (incomplete) and 1592; Paris, 1518 and 1550; Lyons, 1534; Cologne, 1621; Rouen, 1650, by the Canons of St. Victor; and by Migne. HUGONIN, Notice sur R. de St. Victor in P.L., CXCVI; ENGELHARDT, R. von St. Victor u. J. Ruysbroek (Erlangen, 1838); VAUGHAN, Hours uith the Mystics V (London, 1893); INGE, Christian Mysticism (London, 1898); DE WULF, Histoire de la philosophie medievale (Louvain, 1905); BUONAMICI, R. di San Vittore saggi di studio sulla filosofia mistica del secolo XII (Alatri, 1898); VON HUGEL, The Mystical Element in Religion (London, 1909); UNDERHILL, Mysticism (London, 1911). A.B. SHARPE Ven. William Richardson 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 Luçon and retired to the Grande Chartreuse, Richelieu obtained the see from Henry IV and withdrew to the country to take up his theological studies under the direction of Bishop Cospéan of Aire. He was consecrated bishop on 17 April, 1607; he was not yet twenty-two years old, although the Brief of Paul V dated 19 December, 1606, announcing his appointment contains the statement: "in vigesimo tertio aetatis anno tantum constitutus". Mgr. Lacroix, the historian of Richelieu's youth, believes that in a journey made to Rome at the end of 1606, Richelieu deceived the pope as to his age, but the incident is still obscure. In his diocese, Richelieu showed great zeal for the conversion of Protestants and appointed the Oratorians and the Capuchins to give missions in all the parishes. Richelieu represented the clergy of Poitou in the States General of 1614, where his political career began. There he was the mouth-piece of the Church, and in a celebrated discourse demanded that bishops and prelates be summoned to the royal councils, that the distribution of ecclesiastical benefices to the laity be forbidden, that the Church be exempt from taxation, that Protestants who usurped churches or had their coreligionists interred in them be punished, and that the Decrees of the Council of Trent be promulgated throughout France. He ended by assuring the young king Louis XIII that the desire of the clergy was to have the royal power so assured that it might be "comme un ferme rocher qui brise tout ce qui le heurte" (as a firm rock which crushes all that opposes it). Richelieu was named secretary of state on 30 November, 1616, but after the assassination of Concini, favourite of Maria de' Medici, he was forced to leave the ministry and follow the queen mother to Blois. To escape the political intrigues which pursued him he retired in June, 1617, to the priory of Coussay and, during this time of leisure caused by his disgrace, published in October, 1617 (date confirmed by Mgr. Lacroix), his "Les principaux points de la foi de l'église catholique, défendus contre l'éecrit adressé au Roi par les quartre ministres de Charenton"; it was upon reading this book half a century later that Jacques de Coras, a Protestant pastor of Tonneins, was converted to Catholicism. Richelieu continued to be represented to the king as an enemy to his power; the Capuchin, Leclerc du Tremblay, never succeeded in completely clearing him in Louis XIII's opinion. To disarm suspicion Richelieu asked the king to name a place of exile, and at his order went in 1618 to Avignon, where he passed nearly a year and where he composed a catechism which became famous under the name of "Instruction du chrétien". This book, destined to be read in every parish each Sunday at the sermon, was a real blessing at a time when ignorance of religion was the principal evil. When Maria de' Medici escaped from Blois in 1619, Richelieu was chosen by the minister Luynes to negotiate for peace between Louis XIII and his mother. By Brief of 3 November, 1622, he was created cardinal by Gregory XV. On 19 April, 1624, he re-entered the Council of Ministers, and on 12 August, 1624, was made its president. Richelieu's policy can be reduced to two principal ideas: the domestic unification of France and opposition to the House of Austria. At home he had to contend with constant conspiracies in which Maria de' Medici, Queen Anne of Austria, Gaston d'Orléans (the king's brother), and the highest nobles of the court were involved. The executions of Marillac (1632), Montmorency (1632), Cinq-Mars and of de Thou (1642) intimidated the enemies of the cardinal. He had also to contend with the Protestants who were forming a state within the state (see HUGUENOTS). The capitulation of La Rochelle and the peace of Alais (28 June, 1629) annihilated Protestantism as a political party. Richelieu's foreign policy (for which see LECLERC DU TREMBLAY) was characterized by his fearlessness in making alliances with the foreign Protestants. At various times the Protestants of the Grisons, Sweden, the Protestant Princes of Germany, and Bernard of Saxe-Weimar were his allies. The favourable treaties signed by Mazarin were the result of Richelieu's policy of Protestant alliances, a policy which was severely censured by a number of Catholics. At the end of 1625, when Richelieu was preparing to give back Valteline to the Protestant Grisons, the partisans of Spain called him "Cardinal of the Huguenots", and two pamphlets, attributed to the Jesuits Eudemon Joannes and Jean Keller, appeared against him; these he had burned. Hostilities, however, increased until finally the king's confessor opposed the foreign policy of the cardinal. This was a very important episode, and on it the recent researches of Father de Rochemonteix in the archives of the Society of Jesus have cast new light. Father Caussin, author of "La Cour Sainte", the Jesuit whom Richelieu, on 25 March, 1636, had made the king's confessor, tried to use against the cardinal the influence of Mlle. de La Fayette, a lady for whom the king had entertained a certain regard and who had become a nun. On 8 December, 1637, in a solemn interview Caussin recalled to the king his duties towards his wife, Anne of Austria, to whom he was too indifferent; asked him to allow his mother, Maria de' Medici, to return to France; and pointed out the dangers to Catholicism which might arise through Richelieu's alliance with the Turks and the Protestant princes of Germany. After this interview Caussin gave Communion to the king and addressed him a very beautiful sermon, entreating him to obey his directions. Richelieu was anxious that the king's confessor should occupy himself solely with "giving absolutions", consequently, on 10 December, 1637, Caussin was dismissed and exiled to Rennes, and his successor, Father Jacques Sirmond, celebrated for his historical knowledge, was forced to promise that, if he saw "anything censurable in the conduct of the State", he would report it to the cardinal and not attempt to influence the king's conscience. However, Father Caussin's fears concerning Richelieu's foreign policy were not shared by all of his confrères. Father Lallemand, for instance, affirmed that it was rash to blame the king's political alliance with the Protestant princes -- an alliance which had been made only after an unsuccessful attempt to form one with Bavaria and the Catholic princes of Germany. That Richelieu was possessed of religious sentiments cannot be contested. It was he who in February, 1638, prompted the declaration by which Louis XIII consecrated the Kingdom of France to the Virgin Mary; in the ministry he surrounded himself with priests and religious; as general he employed Cardinal de la Valette; as admiral, Sourdis, Archbishop of Bordeaux; as diplomat, Bérulle; as chief auxiliary he had Leclerc du Tremblay. He himself designated Mazarin his successor. He had a high idea of the sacerdotal dignity, was continually protesting against he encroachments of the parlements on the jurisdiction of the Church, and advised the king to choose as bishops only those who should "have passed after their studies a considerable time in the seminaries, the places established for the study of the ecclesiastical functions". He wished to compel the bishops to reside in their dioceses, to establish seminaries there, and to visit their parishes. He aided the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul to induce the bishops to institute the "exercises des ordinants", retreats, during which the young clerics were to prepare themselves for the priesthood. Richelieu foresaw the perils to which nascent Jansenism would expose the Church. Saint-Cyran's doctrines on the constitution of the Church, his views on the organization of the "great Christian Republic", his liaison with Jansenius (who in 1635 had composed a violent pamphlet against France under the names of Mars gallicus), and the manner in which he opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orléans, drew upon him the cardinal's suspicion. In having him arrested 14 May, 1638, Richelieu declared that "had Luther and Calvin been confined before they had begun to dogmatize, the states would have been spared many troubles". Two months later Richelieu forced the solitaries of Port Royal-des- Champs to disperse; some were sent to Paris, others to Ferte-Milon. Saint-Cyran remained in the dungeon of Vincennes until the cardinal's death. With the co-operation of the Benedictine Gregoire Tarisse, Richelieu devoted himself seriously to the reform of the Benedictines. Named coadjutor to the Abbot of Cluny in 1627, and Abbot of Cluny in 1629, he called to this monastery the Reformed Benedictines of Saint-Vannes. He proposed forming the congregations of Saint-Vannes and Saint-Maur into one body, of which he was to have been superior. Only half of this project was accomplished, however, when in 1636 he succeeded in uniting the Order of Cluny with the Congregation of Saint-Maur. From 1622 Richelieu was proviseur of the Sorbonne, and was in virtue of this office head of the Association of Doctors of the Sorbonne. He had the Sorbonne entirely rebuilt between 1626 and 1629, and between 1635 and 1642 built the church of the Sorbonne, in which he is now buried. On the question of the relations between the temporal and the spiritual powers, Richelieu really professed the doctrine called Duvalism after the theologian Duval, who admitted at the same time the supreme power of the pope and the supreme power of the king and the divine right of both. In the dissensions between Rome and the Gallicans he most frequently acted as mediator. When in 1626 a book by the Jesuit Sanctarel appeared in Paris, affirming the right of the popes to depose kings for wrong-doing, heresy, or incapacity, it was burned in the Place de Greve; Father Coton and the three superiors of the Jesuits houses summoned before the Parlement were forced to repudiate the work. The enemies ofthe Jesuits wished immediately to create a new disturbance on the occasion of the publication of the "Somme theologique des vérités apostoliques capitales de la religion chrétienne", by Father Garasse, but Richelieu opposed the continued agitation. It was, however, renewed at the end of 1626, owing to a thesis of the Dominican Têtefort, which maintained that the Decretals formed part of the Scripture. Richelieu again strove to allay feeling, and in a discourse (while still affirming that the king held his kingdom from God alone) declared that "the king cannot make an article of faith unless this article has been so declared by the Church in her oecumenical councils". Subsequently, Richelieu gave satisfaction to the pope when on 7 December,1 629, he obtained a retraction from the Gallican Edmond Richer, syndic of the theological faculty, who submitted his book "La puissance ecclesiastique et politique" to the judgment of the pope. Nine years alter, however, Richelieu's struggles against the resistance offered by the French clergy to taxes led him to assume an attitude more deliberately Gallican. Contrary to the theories which he had maintained in his discourse of 1614 he considered, now that he was a minister, that the needs of the State constituted a case of force majeure, which should oblige the clergy to submit to all the fiscal exigencies of the civil power. As early as 1625 the assembly of the clergy, tired of the incessant demands of the Government for money, had decreed that no deputy could vote supplies without having first received full powers on the subject; Richelieu, contesting this principle, declared that the needs of the State were actual, while those of the Church were chimerical and arbitrary. In 1638 the struggle between the State and the clergy on the subject of taxes became critical, and Richelieu, to uphold his claims, enlisted the aid of the brothers Pierre and Jacques Dupuy, who about the middle of 1638 published "Les libertés de l'église gallicane". This book established the independence of the Gallican Church in opposition to Rome only to reduce it into servile submission to the temporal power. The clergy and the nuncio complained; eighteen bishops assembled at the house of Cardinal de la Rouchefoucald, and denounced to their colleagues this "work of the devil". Richelieu then exaggerated his fiscal exigencies in regard to the clergy; an edict of 16 April, 1639, stipulated that ecclesiastics and communities were incapable of possessing landed property in France, that the king could compel them to surrender their possessions and unite them to his domains, but that he would allow them to retain what they had in consideration of certain indemnities which should be calculated in going back to the year 1520. In Oct., 1639, after the murder of an equerry of Marshal d'Estrees, the French Ambassador, Estrees declared the rights of the people violated. Richelieu refused to receive the nuncio (October, 1639); a decree of the royal council, 22 December, restrained the powers of the pontifical Briefs, and even the canonist Marca proposed to break the Concordat and to hold a national council at which Richelieu was to have been made patriarch. Precisely at this date Richelieu had a whole series of grievances against Rome: Urban VIII had refused successively to name him Legate of the Holy See in France, Legate of Avignon, and coadjutor to the Bishop of Trier; he had refused the purple to Father Joseph, and had been opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orléans. But Richelieu, however furious he was, did not wish to carry things to extremes. After a certain number of polemics on the subject of the taxes to be levied on the clergy, the ecclesiastical assembly of Mantes in 1641 accorded to the Government (which was satisfied therewith) five and a half millions, and Richelieu, to restore quiet, accepted the dedication of Marca's book "La concorde du sacerdoce et de l'empire", in which certain exceptions were taken to Dupuy's book. At the same time the sending of Mazarin as envoy to France by Urban VIII, and the presentation to him of the cardinal's hat put an end to the differences between Richelieu and the Holy See. Upon the whole, Richelieu's policy was to preserve a just mean between the parliamentary Gallicans and the Ultramontanes. "In such matters", he wrote in his political testament, "one must believe neither the people of the palace, who ordinarily measure the power of the king by the shape of his crown, which, being round, has no end, nor those who, in the excesses of an indiscreet zeal, proclaim themselves openly as partisans of Rome". One may believe that Pierre de Marca's book was inspired by him and reproduces his ideas. According to this book the liberties of the Gallican Church have two foundations: (1) the recognition of the primacy and the sovereign authority ofthe Church of Rome, a primacy consisting in the right to make general laws, to judge without appeal, and to be judged neither by bishops nor by councils; (2) the sovereign right of the kings which knows no superior in temporal affairs. It is to be noted that Marca does not give the superiority of a council over the pope as a foundation of the Gallican liberties. (For Richelieu's work in Canada see article CANADA.) In 1636 Richelieu founded the Academie Française. He had great literary pretensions, and had several mediocre plays of his own composition produced in a theatre belonging to him. With a stubbornness inexplicable to-day Voltaire foolishly denied that Richelieu's "Testament politique" was authentic; the researches of M. Hanotaux have proved its authenticity, and given the proper value to admirable chapters such as the chapter entitled, "Le conseil du Prince", into which Richelieu, says M. Hanotaux, "has put all his soul and his genius". [For Richelieu's "Mémoires" see HARLAY, FAMILY OF: (2) Achille de Harlay.] Besides the works indicated in the articles LECLERC DU TREMBLAY and MARIA DE' MEDICI the following may be consulted: Maximes d'etat et fragments politiques du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HANTAUX (Paris, 1880); Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'etat du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. AVERNEL (8 vols., Paris, 1853-77); Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HORRIC DE BEAUCAIRE, I (Paris, 1908); LAIR, LAVOLLEE, BRUEL, GABRIEL DE MUN, and LECESTRE, Rapports et notices sur l'edition des Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu preparee pour la societe de l'histoire de France (3 fasc., Paris, 1905-07); HANOTAUX, Hist. du cardinal de Richelieu (2 tomes in 3 vols., Paris, 1893-1903), extends to 1624; CAILLET, L'Administration en France sous le ministere du cardinal de Richelieu (2 vols., Paris, 1863); D'AVENEL, Richelieu et la monarchie absolue (4 vols., Paris, 1880-7); IDEM, La noblesse francaise sous Richelieu (Paris, 1901); IDEM, Pretres, soldats et juges sous Richelieu (Paris, 1907); LACROIX, Richelieu a Lucon, sa jeunese, son episcopat (Paris, 1890); GELEY, Fancan et la politique de Richelieu de 1617 a 1627 (Paris, 1884); DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Nicholaus Caussin, confesseur de Louis XIII, et le cardinal de Richelieu (Paris, 1911); PERRAUD, Le cardinal de Richelieu eveque, theologien et protecteur des lettres (Autun, 1882); VALENTIN, Cardinalis Richelieu scriptor ecclesiasticus (Toulouse, 1900); LODGE, Richelieu (London, 1896); PERKINS, Richelieu and the Growth of French Power (New York, 1900). GEORGES GOYAU Diocese of Richmond Diocese of Richmond (RICHMONDENSIS.) Suffragan of Baltimore, established 11 July, 1820, comprises the State of Virginia, except the Counties of Accomac and Northampton (Diocese of Wilmington); and Bland, Buchanan, Carroll, Craig (partly), Dickinson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Pulaski, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe (Diocese of Wheeling); and in the State of West Virginia, the Counties of Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, and Pendleton. It embraces 31,518 square miles in Virginia and 3290 square miles in West Virginia. Originally it included also the territory of the present Diocese of Wheeling, created 23 July, 1850. Colonial Period In the summer of 1526 a Spanish Catholic settlement was made in Virginia on the very spot (according to Ecija, the pilot-in-chief of Florida) where, in 1607, eighty-one years later, the English founded the settlement of Jamestown. Lucas Vasques de Ayllón, one of the judges of the island of San Domingo, received from the King of Spain, 12 June, 1523, a patent empowering him to explore the coast for 800 leagues, establish a settlement within three years and Christianize the natives. In June, 1526, Ayllón sailed from Puerto de la Plata, San Domingo, with three vessels, 600 persons of both sexes, horses and supplies. The Dominicans Antonio de Montesinos and Antonio de Cervantes, with Brother Peter de Estrada, accompanied the expedition. Entering the Capes at the Chesapeake, and ascending a river (the James), he landed at Guandape, which he named St. Michael. Buildings were constructed and the Holy Sacrifice offered in a chapel, the second place of Catholic worship on American soil. Ayllón died of fever, 18 Oct., 1526. The rebellion of the settlers and hostility of the Indians caused Francisco Gomez, the next in command, to abandon the settlement in the spring of 1527, when he set sail for San Domingo in two vessels, one of which foundered. Of the party only 150 reached their destination. A second expedition sent by Menendez, the Governor of Florida and nominal Governor of Virginia, settled on the Rappahannock River at a point called Axacan, 10 Sept., 1570. It consisted of Fathers Segura, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits, and Luis de Quiros, six Jesuit brothers, and a few friendly Indians. A log building served as chapel and home. Through the treachery of Don Luis de Velasco, an Indian pilot of Spanish name, Father Quiros and Brothers Solis and Mendez were slain by the Indians, 14 Feb., 1571. Four days later were martyred Father Segura, Brothers Linares, Redondo, Gabriel, Gomez, and Sancho Zevalles. Menendez, several months later, sailed for Axacan, where he had eight of the murderers hanged; they being converted before death by Father John Rogel, a Jesuit missionary. Attempts to found Catholic settlements in Virginia were made by Lord Baltimore in 1629, and Captain George Brent in 1687. In the spring of 1634 Father John Altham, a Jesuit companion of Father Andrew White, the Maryland missionary, laboured amongst some of the Virginia tribes on the south side of the Potomac. Stringent laws were soon enacted in Virginia against Catholics. In 1687 Fathers Edmonds and Raymond were arrested at Norfolk for exercising their priestly functions. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century the few Catholic settlers at Aquia Creek, near the Potomac, were attended by Father John Carroll and other Jesuit missionaries from Maryland. American Period Rev. Jean Dubois, afterwards third Bishop of New York, accompanied by a few French priests and with letters of introduction from Lafayette to several prominent Virginia families, came to Norfolk in August, 1791, where he laboured a few months, and probably left the priests who came with him. Proceeding to Richmond towards the end of the year, he offered in the House of Delegates, by invitation of the General Assembly, the first Mass ever said in the Capital City. His successors at Richmond, with interruptions, were the Revs. T.C. Mongrand, Xavier Michel, John McElroy, John Baxter, John Mahoney, James Walsh, Thomas Hore, and Fathers Horner and Schreiber. Tradition tells us that at an early date, probably at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Alexandria had a log chapel with an unknown resident priest. Rev. John Thayer of Boston was stationed there in 1794. Rev. Francis Neale, who in 1796 constructed at Alexandria a brick church, erected fourteen years later a more suitable church where Fathers Kohlmann, Enoch, and Benedict Joseph Fenwick, afterwards second Bishop of Boston, frequently officiated. About 1796 Rev. James Bushe began the erection of a church at Norfolk. His successors were the Very Rev. Leonard Neale, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore (see Baltimore, Archdiocese of), Revs. Michael Lacy, Christopher Delaney, Joseph Stokes, Samuel Cooper, J. VanHorsigh, and A.L. Hitzelberger. Bishops of Richmond (1) Right Rev. Patrick Kelly, D.D., consecrated first Bishop of Richmond, 24 Aug., 1820, came to reside at Norfolk, where the Catholics were much more numerous than at Richmond, 19 Jan., 1821. The erection of Virginia into a diocese had been premature and was accordingly opposed by the Archbishop of Baltimore. Because of factions and various other difficulties, Bishop Kelly soon petitioned Rome to be relieved of his charge. He left Virginia in July, 1822, having been transferred to the See of Waterford and Lismore, where he died, 8 Oct., 1829. Archbishop Marechal of Baltimore was appointed administrator of the diocese. Rev. Timothy O'Brien, who came as pastor to Richmond in 1832, did more for Catholicism during his eighteen years' labour than any other missionary, excepting the Bishops of the See. In 1834 he built St. Peter's Church, afterwards the cathedral, and founded St. Joseph's Female Academy and Orphan Asylum, bringing as teachers three Sisters of Charity. (2) The Right Rev. Richard Vincent Whelan, D.D., consecrated 21 March, 1841, established the same year, on the outskirts of Richmond, St. Vincent's Seminary and College, discontinued in 1846. Leaving Rev. Timothy O'Brien at St. Peter's, Richmond, the Bishop took up his residence at the seminary, and acted as president. In 1842 Bishop Whelan dedicated St. Joseph's Church, Petersburg, and St. Patrick's Church, Norfolk, and the following year that of St.Francis at Lynchburg. In 1846 he built a church at Wheeling and, two years later, founded at Norfolk St. Vincent's Female Orphan Asylum. Wheeling was made a separate see, 23 July, 1850, and to it was transferred Bishop Whelan. (3) Right Rev. John McGill, D.D., consecrated 10 Nov., 1850, was present in Rome in 1854 when the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed. By pen and voice he opposed Knownothingism. In 1855 Bishop McGill convened the First Diocesan Synod. During the yellow fever plague of the same year, Rev. Matthew O'Keefe of Norfolk and Rev. Francis Devlin of Portsmouth won renown; the latter dying a martyr to priestly duty. In 1856 St. Vincent's Hospital, Norfolk, was founded. Alexandria, formerly in the Baltimore archdiocese as part of the District of Columbia, but ceded back to Virginia, was annexed to the Richmond diocese, 15 Aug., 1858. In 1860 the bishop transferred St. Mary's German Church, Richmond, to the Benedictines. During the Civil War Bishop McGill wrote two learned works, "The True Church Indicated to the Inquirer", and "Our Faith, the Victory", republished as "The Creed of Catholics". The bishop established at Richmond the Sisters of the Visitation, and at Alexandria the Sisters of the Holy Cross. He also took part in the Vatican Council. Bishop McGill died at Richmond, 14 January, 1872. (4) Right Rev. James Gibbons, D.D. (afterwards archbishop and cardinal), consecrated titular Bishop of Adramyttum to organize North Carolina into a vicariate, 16 Aug., 1868, was appointed Bishop of Richmond, 30 July, 1872. He established at Richmond the Little Sisters of the Poor, and St. Peter's Boys' Academy. Erecting new parishes, churches, and schools, making constant diocesan visitations, frequently preaching to large congregations of both Catholics and non-Catholics, Bishop Gibbons, during his short rule of five years, accomplished in the diocese a vast amount of religious good. Made coadjutor Bishop of Baltimore, 29 May, 1877, he succeeded Archbishop Bayley in that see, 3 Oct., 1877. (5) Right Rev. John Joseph Keane, D.D. (afterwards archbishop), consecrated, 25 Aug., 1878. Gifted with ever-ready and magnetic eloquence, Bishop Keane drew great numbers of people to hear his inspiring discourses. He held the Second Diocesan Synod in 1886, and introduced into the diocese the Josephites and the Xaverian Brothers. Bishop Keane was appointed first Rector of the Catholic University, Washington, 12 Aug., 1888, created titular Archbishop of Damascus, 9 Jan., 1897, and transferred to the See of Dubuque, 24 July, 1900. (6) Right Rev. Augustine Van De Vyver, D.D., consecrated, 29 Oct., 1889, began an able and vigorous rule. On 3 June, 1903, he publicly received the Most Rev. Diomede Falconio, Apostolic Delegate, who the following day laid the cornerstone of the new Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the most artistic edifices in the country, designed by Joseph McGuire, architect, of New York. A handsome bishop's house and a pastoral residence adjoin the cathedral. The latter was solemnly conscrated by Mgr. Falconio on 29 Nov., 1906. The event was the most imposing Catholic ceremony in the history of the diocese. Besides Cardinal Gibbons, and the Apostolic Delegate, there were present 18 archbishops and bishops. Bishop Van De Vyver convened a quasi-synod, 12 Nov., 1907, which approved the decrees of the Second Synod and enacted new and needed legislation. In 1907 the Knights of Columbus held at the Jamestown Exposition their national convention and jubilee celebration, participated in by the Apostolic Delegate, and several archbishops and bishops; while the following year the St. Vincent de Paul Society held a similar celebration in Richmond. In June, 1909, St. Peter's (Richmond) handsome new residence and the adjoining home of the McGill Union and the Knights of Columbus were completed, at a total cost of about $50,000. In the following autumn St. Peter's Church (the old cathedral) celebrated the diamond jubilee of its existence. With it, either as bishops or as priests, are indelibly linked the names of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishops Keane and Janssens, and Bishops Van De Vyver, Whelan, McGill, Becker, Kelley and O'Connell of San Francisco. Most Rev. John J. Kain, deceased archbishop of St. Louis, had also been a priest of the diocese. Bishop Van De Vyver introduced into the diocese the Fathers of the Holy Ghost; additional Benedictine and Josephite Fathers and Xaverian Brothers; the Christian Brothers; additional Sisters of Charity; the Benedictine and Franciscan Sisters; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, of the Blessed Sacrament and of the Perpetual Adoration. Under his regime have been founded 12 new parishes, 32 churches, 3 colleges, 4 industrial schools, 2 orphan asylums, 1 infant asylum (coloured), and many parochial schools. Notable Benefactors Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Fortune Ryan, of New York, the former donating, the latter furnishing, the imposing Sacred Heart Cathedral (nearly $500,000), together with other notable benefactions. Mrs.Ryan has built churches, schools, and religious houses in various parts of the state. Other generous benefactors were Right Rev. Bernard McQuaid, D.D., Joseph Gallego, John P. Matthews, William S. Caldwell, Mark Downey, and John Pope. Statistics (1911) Secular priests, 50; Benedictines, 10; Josephites, 6; Holy Ghost Fathers, 2; Brothers, Xaverian, 35; Christian, 12; Sisters of Charity, 60; of St. Benedict, 50; Visitation Nuns, 23; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, Kentucky, 20; of the Holy Cross, 20; Little Sisters of the Poor, 18; Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, 18; of St. Francis, 12; of Perpetual Adoration, 10; parishes with resident priests, 35; msisions with churches, 48; colleges, 3 (1 coloured), academies, 9; parochial schools, 26; industrial schools, 4 (2 coloured); orphan asylums, 4; infant asylums, 1 (coloured); young people attending Catholic institutions, 7500; home for aged, 1 (inmates, 200); Catholic Hospital, 1 (yearly patients, 3000). Catholic Societies Priests' Clerical Fund Association; Eucharistic League; Holy Name; St. Vincent dePaul; League of Good Shepherd; boys' and girls' sodalities; tabernacle, altar, and sanctuary societies; women's benevolent and beneficial; fraternal and social, such as Knights of Columbus, Hibernians, and flourishing local societies. Of parishes there are one each of Germans, Italians, and Bohemians, and 4 for the coloured people. Catholic population, 41,000. The causes of growth are principally natural increase and conversions, there being little Catholic immigration into the diocese. Magri, The Catholic Church in the City and Diocese of Richmond (Richmond, Virginia, 1906); Parks, Catholic Missions in Virginia (Richmond, 1850); Keiley, Memoranda (Norfolk, Virginia, 1874); Proceedings of the Catholic Benevolent Union (Norfolk, 1875); The Metropolitan catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1841-61); Catholic Almanac and Directory (New York, 1865-95); Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1895-9); Official Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, 1900-11); Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Colonial and Federal (London, 1907); Shea, The History of the Catholic Church in the United States (Akron, Ohio, 1890); foreign references cited by Shea (I, bk II, i,106, 107, 149, 150); Navarette, Real Cedula que contiene el asiento capitulado con Lucas Vasquez de Ayllón; Coleccion de Viages y Descubrimientos (Madrid, 1829), ii, 153, 156; Fernandez, Historia Ecclesiastica de Nuestros Tiempos (Toledo, 1611); Quiros, Letter of 12 Sept., 1570; Rogel, Letter of 9 Dec., 1520; Barcia, Ensayo Cronologico, 142-6; Tanner, Societas Militaris, 447-51. F. JOSEPH MAGRI 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 "Epistolæ de Perditione Acconis" are five letters in the form of lamentations over the fall of Ptolemais (written about 1292, published at Paris, 1884). Ricoldo's best known work is the "Contra Legem Sarracenorum", written at Bagdad, which has been very popular as a polemical source against Mohammedanism, and has been often edited (first published at Seville, 1500). The "Christianæ Fidei Confessio facta Sarracenis" (printed at Basle, 1543) is attributed to Ricoldo, and was probably written about the same time as the above mentioned works. Other works are: "Contra errores Judæorum" (MS. at Florence); "Libellus contra nationes orientales" (MSS. at Florence and Paris); "Contra Sarracenos et Alcoranum" (MS. at Paris); "De variis religionibus" (MS. at Turin). Very probably the last three works were written after his return to Europe. Ricoldo is also known to have written two theological works--a defence of the doctrines of St. Thomas (in collaboration with John of Pistoia, about 1285) and a commentary on the "Libri sententiarum" (before 1288). Ricoldo began a translation of the Koran about 1290, but it is not known whether this work was completed. MANDONNET in Revue Biblique (1893), 44-61, 182-202, 584-607; ECHARD-QUÉTIF, Script. Ord. Proed., I, 506; TOURON, Hist. des Hommes illus. de l'ordre de St. Dom., I, 759-63; MURRAY, Discoveries and Travels in Asia, I, 197. J.A. MCHUGH Riemenschneider Tillmann Riemenschneider One of the most important of Frankish sculptors, b. at Osterode am Harz in or after 1460; d. at Würzburg, 1531. In 1483 he was admitted into the Guild of St. Luke at Würzburg, where he worked until his death. In the tombstone of the Ritter von Grumbach he still adheres to the Gothic style, but in his works for the Marienkapelle at Würzburg he adopts the Renaissance style, while retaining reminiscences of earlier art. For the south entrance he carved, besides an annunciation and a representation of Christ as a gardener, the afterwards renowned statues of Adam and Eve, the heads of which are of special importance. There also he showed his gift of depicting character in the more than life-size statues of Christ, the Baptist, and the Twelve Apostles for the buttresses. Elsewhere indeed we seek in vain for the merits of rounded sculpture. He had a special talent for the noble representation of female saints (cf. for example, Sts. Dorothea and Margareta in the same chapel, and the Madonna in the Münsterkirche). A small Madonna (now in the municipal museum at Frankfort) is perfect both in expression and drapery. Besides other works for the above-mentioned churches and a relief with the "Vierzehn Nothelfer" for the hospital (St. Burkhard), he carved for the cathedral of Würzburg a tabernacle reaching to the ceiling, two episcopal tombs, and a colossal cross--all recognized as excellent works by those familiar with the peculiar style of the master. Riemenschneider's masterpiece is the tomb of Emperor Henry II in the Cathedral of Bamberg; the recumbent forms of the emperor and his spouse are ideal, while the sides of the tomb are adorned with fine scenes from their lives. The figures instinct with life, the drapery, and the expression of sentiment, are all of equal beauty. Among his representations of the "Lament over Christ", those of Heidingsfeld and Maidbrunn, in spite of some defects, are notable works; resembling the former, but still more pleasing, is a third in the university collection. The defects in many of his works are probably to be referred for the most part to his numerous apprentices. There are a great number of other works by him in various places, e.g. a beautiful group of the Crucifixion in the Darmstadt Museum, another at Volkach am Main representing Our Lady surrounded by a rosary with scenes from her life in relief and being crowned by angels playing music--the picture is suspended from the roof. There is a second Meister Tillmann Riemenschneider, who carved the Virgin's altar in Creglingen. This bears so close a resemblance to the works of the younger "Master Dill", that recently many believed it should be referred to him; in that case, however, he would have executed one of his best works as a very young man. BODE, Gesch. der deutschen Plastik (Berlin, 1885); WEBER, Leben u. Wirken T. Riemenschneiders (2nd ed., Würzburg, 1888); TONNERS, Leben u. Werke T. Riemenschneiders (Strasburg, 1900); ADELMANN in Walhalla, VI (1910). G. GIETMANN Cola di Rienzi Cola di Rienzi (i.e., NICOLA, son of Lorenzo) A popular tribune and extraordinary historical figure. His father was an innkeeper at Rome in the vicinity of the Trastevere; though it was believed that he was really the son of the Emperor Henry VII. His childhood and youth were passed at Anagni, with some relatives to whom he was sent on the death of his mother. Though he was thus brought up in the country he succeeded in acquiring a knowledge of letters and of Latin, and devoted himself to a study of the history of ancient Rome in the Latin authors, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, and the poets. When his father died he returned to Rome and practised as a notary. The sight of the remains of the former greatness of Rome only increased his admiration for the city and the men described in his favourite authors. Contemplating the condition in which Rome then was in the absence of the popes, torn by the factions of the nobles who plundered on all sides and shed innocent blood, he conceived a desire of restoring the justice and splendour of former days. His plans became more definite and settled when his brother was slain in a brawl between the Orsini and the Colonna. Thenceforth he thought only of the means of breaking the power of the barons. To accomplish this he had first to win the favour of the populace by upholding the cause of the oppressed. In consequence of this and on account of the eloquence with which he spoke in Latin, he was sent to Avignon in 1343 to Clement VI, by the captain of the people, to ask him to return to Rome and grant the great jubilee every five years. Cola explained to the pope the miserable condition of Rome. Clement was much impressed, and appointed him to the office of notary (secretary) of the Camera Capitolina, in which position he could gain a better knowledge of the misfortunes of the city. Cola then by his public discourses and private conversations prepared the people; a conspiracy was formed, and on 19 May, 1347, he summoned the populace to assemble the following day in the Campidoglio. There Cola explained his plans and read a new democratic constitution which, among other things, ordained the establishment of a civic militia. The people conferred absolute power on him; but Cola at first contented himself with the title of tribune of the people; later, however, he assumed the bombastic titles of Candidatus Spiritus Sancti, Imperator Orbis, Zelator Italiæ, Amator Orbis et Tribunus Augustus (candidate of the Holy Spirit, emperor of the world, lover of Italy, of the world, august tribune). He was wise enough to select a colleague, the pope's vicar, Raymond, Bishop of Orvieto. The success of the new regime was wonderful. The most powerful barons had to leave the city; the others swore fealty to the popular government. An era of peace and justice seemed to have come. The pope, on learning what had happened, regretted that he had not been consulted, but gave Cola the title and office of Rector, to be exercised in conjunction with the Bishop of Orvieto. His name was heard everywhere, princes had recourse to him in their disputes, the sultan fortified his ports. Cola then thought of reestablishing the liberty and independence of Italy and of Rome, by restoring the Roman Empire with an Italian emperor. In August, 1347, two hundred deputies of the Italian cities assembled at his request. Italy was declared free, and all those who had arrogated a lordship to themselves were declared fallen from power; the right of the people to elect the emperor was asserted. Louis the Bavarian and Charles of Bohemia were called upon to justify their usurpation of the imperial title. Cola flattered himself secretly with the hope of becoming emperor; but his high opinion of himself proved his ruin. He was a dreamer rather than a man of action; he lacked many qualities for the exercise of good government, especially foresight and the elements of political prudence. He had formed a most puerile concept of the empire. He surrounded himself with Asiatic luxury, to pay for which he had to impose new taxes; thereupon the enthusiasm of the people, weary of serving a theatrical emperor, vanished. The barons perceived this, and forgetting for the moment their mutual discord, joined together against their common enemy. In vain the bell summoned the people to arms in the Campidoglio. No one stirred. Cola had driven out the barons, but he had not thought of reducing them to inaction; on the contrary he had rendered them more hostile by his many foolish and humiliating acts. Lacking all military knowledge he could offer no serious resistance to their attacks. The discontent of the people increased; the Bishop of Orvieto, the other Rector of Rome, who had already protested against what had occurred at the convention of the Italian deputies, abandoned the city; the pope repudiated Cola in a Bull. Thus deserted, and not believing himself safe, he took refuge in the Castle of S.Angelo, and three days later (18 Dec., 1347) the barons returned in triumph to restore things to their former condition. Cola fortunately succeeded in escaping. He sought refuge with the Spiritual Franciscans living in the hermitages of Monte Maiella. But the plague of 1348, the presence of bands of adventurers and the jubilee of 1350 had increased the mysticism of the people and still more of the Spirituals. One of the latter, Fra Angelo, told Rienzi that it was now the proper moment to think of the common weal, to co-operate in the restoration of the empire and in the purification of the Church: all of which had been predicted by Joachim of Flora, the celebrated Calabrian abbot, and that he ought to give his assistance. Cola betook himself thence to Charles IV at Prague (1350), who imprisoned him, either as a madman or as a heretic. After two years Cola was sent at the request of the pope to Avignon, where through the intercession of Petrarch, his admirer, though now disillusioned, he was treated better. When Innocent VI sent Cardinal Albornoz into Italy (at the beginning of 1353) he allowed Cola di Rienzi to accompany him. The Romans, who had fallen back into their former state of anarchy, invited him to return, and Albornoz consented to appoint him senator (sindaco) of Rome. On 1 Aug., 1354, Rienzi entered Rome in triumph. But the new government did not last long. His luxury and revelry, followed by the inevitable taxation, above all the unjust killing of several persons (among whom was Fra Moriale, a brigand, in the service of Cola), provoked the people to fury. On 8 Oct., 1354, the cry of "Death to Rienzi the traitor!" rose in the city. Cola attempted to flee, but was recognized and slain, and his corpse dragged through the streets of the city. Cola represented, one might say, the death agony of the Guelph (papal-national-democratic) idea and the rise of the classical (imperial and æsthetic) idea of the Renaissance. Vita Nicolai Laurentii in MURATORI, Antiquitates; Vita Nicolai Laurentii, ed. DEL Rè (Florence, 1854); GABRIELLI, Epistolario de Cola Rienzo (Rome, 1890); PAPENCORDT, Cola de Rienzo und seine Zeit (Hamburg, 1841); RODOCANACHI, Cola di Rienzo (Paris, 1888). U. BENIGNI Rieti 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 Möhler at Tübingen. After his ordination to the priesthood, 18 Dee., 1830, he was named assistant priest at Bingen. In 1835 he was appointed to a parish at Giessen, and to the chair of moral theology in the local theological faculty. His transfer to the professorship in Church history followed in 1837. The publication of the first volume of his Church history in 1841 aroused a storm of indignation among Protestants, to whom his accurate though not flattering account of the Reformation was distasteful. The Hessian Government hastened to pension the fearless teacher (19 Nov., 1842). This measure caused intense indignation among the diocesan Catholic clergy, who denounced the Protestant atmosphere of the university. Riffel retired to Mainz, where Bishop von Ketteler appointed him in 1851 professor of Church history in his newly organized ecclesiastical seminary. Death put a premature end to the teaching of this Catholic educator, who contributed largely to the restoration of a truly ecclesiastical spirit among the German clergy. He wrote: "Geschichtliche Darstellung des Verhältnisses zwischen Kirche und Staat", Mainz, 1836; "Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage des Jahres", Mainz, 1839-40, 3rd ed., 1854; "Christliche Kirchengeschichte der neuesten Zeit", Mainz, 1841-46; "Die Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens", 3rd ed., Mainz, 1855. GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse: le Catholicisme, II (Paris, 1905), 313. N.A. WEBER St. John Rigby 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 Brügge in Flanders. There St. Ansgar, first Archbishop of Hamburg, became acquainted with him, and later made him his constant companion When Ansgar died on 2 February, 865, Rimbert was chosen his successor. Pope Nicholas I sent him the pallium in December, 865. As Ansgar's missionary system was based on a connection with the Benedictine Order, Rimbert became, shortly after his consecration, a monk at Corvey, and subsequently made missionary journeys to West Friesland, Denmark, and Sweden, but concerning these unfortunately we have no detailed information. In 884 he succeeded in putting to flight the Norman marauders on the coast of Friesland; in remembrance of this incident he was later held in special veneration in Friesland. Among his episcopal achievements the foundation of a monastery in Bücken near Bremen and his care for the poor and sick are especially emphasized. Historians are indebted to him for a biography of St. Ansgar, which is distinguished by valuable historical information and a faithful character sketch. On the other hand, the biography of Rimbert himself, written by a monk of Corvey, is, while very edifying, poor in actual information; hence we know so little of his life. KLEMENS LÖFFLER Council of Rimini 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 façade; in the cathedral are the tombs of Sigismondo and his wife Isotta. The plastic decorations of the main nave and some of the chapels, a glorification to Sigismondo and Isotta, are by Agostino di Duccio, and breathe the pagan spirit of the Renaissance. On the southern side are the tombs of illustrious humanists, among them that of the philosopher Gemistus Pletho, whose remains were brought back by Sigismondo from his wars in the Balkans. There is a remarkable fresco of Piero della Francesca. In San Giuliano is the great picture of Paul Veronese representing the martyrdom of that saint, also pictures of Bittino da Faenza (1357) dealing with some episodes of the saint's life. Among the profane edifices are the Arch of Augustus (27 B. C.), the remains of an amphitheatre, and the five-arched bridge of Augustus over the Marecchia. The town hall has a small but valuable gallery (Perin del Vaga, Ghirlandajo, Bellini, Benedetto Coda, Tintoretto, Agostino di Duccio); the Gambalunga Library (1677) has valuable manuscripts. There is an archæological museum and a bronze statue of Paul V; the castle of Sigismondo Malatesta is now used as a prison. Ariminum was built by the Umbri. In the sixth century B. C. it was taken by the Gauls; after their last defeat (283) it returned to the Umbri and became in 263 a Latin colony, very helpful to the Romans during the late Gallic wars. Rimini was reached by the Via Flamminia, and here began the Via Æmilia that led to Piacenza. Augustus did much for the city and Galla Placida built the church of San Stefano. When the Goths conquered Rimini in 493, Odoacer, besieged in Ravenna, had to capitulate. During the Gothic wars Rimini was taken and retaken many times. In its vicinity Narses overthrew (553) the Alamanni. Under Byzantine dominion it belonged to the Pentapolis. In 728 it was taken with many other cities by the Lombard King Liutprand but returned to the Byzantines about 735. King Pepin gave it to the Holy See, but during the wars of the popes and the Italian cities against the emperors, Rimini sided with the latter. In the thirteenth century it suffered from the discords of the Gambacari and Ansidei families. In 1295 Malatesta I da Verucchio was named "Signore" of the city, and, despite interruptions, his family held authority until 1528. Among his successors were: Malatesta II (1312-17); Pandolfo I, his brother (d. 1326), named by Louis the Bavarian imperial vicar in Romagna; Ferrantino, son of Malatesta II (1335), opposed by his cousin Ramberto and by Cardinal Bertando del Poggetto (1331), legate of John XXII; Malatesta III, Guastafamiglia (1363), lord also of Pesaro; Malatesta IV l'Ungaro (1373); Galeotto, uncle of the former (1385), lord also of Fano (from 1340), Pesaro, and Cesena (1378); his son Carlo (1429), the noblest scion of the family, laboured for the cessation of the Western Schism, and was the counsellor, protector, and ambassador of Gregory XII, and patron of scholars; Galeotto Roberto (1432); his brother Sigismondo Pandolf (1468) had the military and intellectual qualities of Carlo Malatesta but not his character. He was tyrannous and perfidious, in constant rebellion against the popes, a good soldier, poet, philosopher, and lover of the fine arts, but a monster of domestic and public vices; in 1463 he submitted to Pius II, who left him Rimini; Robert, his son (1482), under Paul II nearly lost his state and under Sixtus IV became the commanding officer of the pontifical army against Alfonso of Naples, by whom he was defeated in the battle of Campo Morto (1482); Pandolfo V, his son (1500), lost Rimini to Cesare Borgia (1500-3), after whose overthrow it fell to Venice (1503-9), but was retaken by Julius II and incorporated with the territory of the Holy See. After the death of Leo X Pandolfo returned for several months, and with his son Sigismondo held tyrannous rule. Adrian VI gave Rimini to the Duke of Urbino, the pope's vicar. In 1527 Sigismondo managed to regain the city, but the following year the Malatesta dominion passed away forever. Rimini was thenceforth a papal city, subject to the legate at Forlì. In 1845 a band of adventurers commanded by Ribbotti entered the city and proclaimed a constitution which was soon abolished. In 1860 Rimini and the Romagna were incorporated with the Kingdom of Italy. Rimini was probably evangelized from Ravenna. Among its traditional martyrs are: St. Innocentia and companions; Sts. Juventinus, Facundinus, and companions; Sts. Theodorus and Marinus. The see was probably established before the peace of Constantine. Among the bishops were: Stennius, at Rome in 313; Cyriacus, one of his successors, sided with the Arians; under St. Gaudentius the famous Council of Rimini was held (359); he was later put to death by the Arians for having excommunicated the priest Marcianus; Stephanus attended at Constantinople (551); the election of Castor (591) caused much trouble to St. Gregory I, who had to send to Rimini a "visitor"; Agnellus (743) was governor of the city subject to the Archbishop of Ravenna; Delto acted frequently as legate for John VIII; Blessed Arduino (d. in 1009); Uberto II is mentioned with praise by St. Peter Damian; Opizo was one of the consecrators of the Antipope Clement III (Guiberto, 1075); Ranieri II degli Uberti (1143) consecrated the ancient cathedral of St. Colomba; Alberigo (1153) made peace between Rimini and Cesena; Bonaventura Trissino founded the hospital of Santo Spirito; under Benno (1230) some pious ladies founded a hospital for the lepers, and themselves cared for the afflicted. At the end of the thirteenth century the Armenians received at Rimini a church and a hospital. From 1407 Gregory XII resided at Rimini. Giovanni Rosa united the eleven hospitals of Rimini into one. Under Giulio Parisani (1549) the seminary was opened (1568). Giambattista Castelli (1569) promoted the Tridentine reforms and was nuncio at Paris. Andrea Minucci was severely tried during the French Revolution; under him the Malatesta church (San Francesco) became the cathedral. The diocese has 124 parishes, 125,400 inhabitants, 336 priests, 10 houses of religious with 56 priests, 24 houses of religious women, who care for the hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable institutions, or communal and private schools. There are also 1 school for boys and 3 for girls. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, II; NARDI, Cronotassi dei pastori della Chiesa di Rimini (Rimini, 1813); TONINI, Storia civile e sacra di Rimini (6 vols., Rimini, 1848-88); IDEM, Compendio della storia di Rimini (1896); YRIARTE, Rimini: Etudes sur les lettres et les arts à la cour des Malatesta (Paris, 1882). U. BENIGNI Rimouski Rimouski DIOCESE OF RIMOUSKI (SANCTI GERMANI DE RIMOUSKI) Suffragan of Quebec, comprises the counties of Bonaventure, Gaspé (except Magdalen Islands), Rimouski and the greater part of Temiscouata, and forms the eastern extremity of the province of Quebec. At the extreme point of the Gaspé peninsula (formerly called Honguedo), Jacques Cartier landed on his first voyage of discovery (1534) and planted a cross with the royal arms of France. The Souriquois or Micmacs occupied the shores of Baie des Chaleurs, and their successive missionaries, Recollets, Capuchins, Jesuits, amongst them Father Labrosse, and Spiritians (or priests of the seminary of the Holy Ghost), including the celebrated Pierre Maillard, ministered to that region of the Rimouski diocese. The first Mass was celebrated near the city of Rimouski, at a place since called Pointe-au-Père, by the Jesuit Henri Nouvel, in 1663, on his way to the Papinachois and Montagnais of Tadoussac, on the north shore. The first settler at Rimouski was Germain Lepage (1696), whose patronymic was chosen as titular of the future parish and diocese. The seigniory had been conceded to his son René in 1688. The latest statistics give 120 churches and chapels, with 148 priests. Two wooden churches were built at Rimouski, in 1712 and 1787 respectively; the first stone church, 1824, was replaced by the present cathedral in 1854. Before the creation of the see, Rimouski was successively visited by Bishops Hubert (1791), Denaut (1798), Plessis (1806-14-22), Panet (1810-26), Signay (1833-38-43), Turgeon (1849), and Baillargeon (1855-60-65). The see was created and its first titular nominated on 15 January, 1867, and acquired civil incorporation ipso facto the same day, according to the law of the country. The first bishop, Jean-Pierre-François Laforce-Langevin, was b. at Quebec, 22 Sept., 1821, and ordained on 12 Sept., 1844. as director of the Quebec seminary he was one of the joint founders of Laval University (1852). He successively filled the offices of pastor to the parishes of Ste Claire and Beauport, and of principal of Laval Normal School. He was consecrated 1 may, 1867, resigned 1891, and died 1892. He completed the organization of a classical college previously founded by the Abbés C. Tanguay and G. Potvin and adopted it as the seminary of the diocese. He introduced the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame (Montreal) and sanctioned the foundation (1879) of the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary, a flourishing institute largely due to the zeal of Vicar-General Langevin, his brother. Bishop Langevin established the cathedral chapter in 1878. The second bishop, still in office, André-Albert Blais, b. at St-Vallier, P.Q., 1842, studied at the college of Ste Anna de la Pocatière, graduated in Rome Doctor of Canon Law, and taught the same branch at Laval University. He was consecrated bishop 18 May, 1890, and took possession of the see in 1891. Bishop Blais created many new parishes in the diocese, and founded a normal school under the management of the Ursulines. The clergy, exclusively French-Canadian, study classics and philosophy at the diocesan seminary, and theology principally at Laval University, in some cases at the Propaganda, Rome. (For parochial system, incorporation of religious institutions, etc. see CANADA, and QUEBEC, PROVINCE OF.) There are no cities besides Rimouski, but all the larger rural parishes have fine churches and convent-schools; the only domestic mission is that of the Micmacs at Ristigouche, under the care of the Capuchins. Besides a Priests' Aid Society, there are several benevolent and mutual aid societies for the laity. The religious orders of men are the Capuchins, Eudists, and Brothers of the Cross of Jesus; those of women are the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, of the Good Shepherd (teaching), of the Holy Rosary, of the Holy Family, and the Daughters of Jesus. Retreats for the clergy are given each year; conferences to discuss theological cases take place every three months. Nearly all the secular clergy (110 our of 137) belong to the Eucharistic league. Out of a total Catholic population of 118,740, only 3695 are not French Canadians. The Indians number 610. The Protestant element amounts to 8798. There is no friction between these different elements and no difficult racial problem to solve, the parishes containing an English-speaking element as well as the Micmacs being instructed in their native tongues. GUAY, Chroniques de Rimouski (Quebec, 1873); Le Canada ecclesiastique (Montreal, 1911). LIONEL LINDSAY Rings Rings In General Although the surviving ancient rings, proved by their devices, provenance, etc., to be of Christian origin, are fairly numerous (See Fortnum in "Arch. Journ.", XXVI, 141, and XXVIII, 275), we cannot in most cases identify them with any liturgical use. Christians no doubt, just like other people, wore rings in accordance with their station in life, for rings are mentioned without reprobation in the New Testament (Luke, xv, 22, and James, ii, 2). Moreover, St. Clement of Alexandria (Paed., III, c. xi) says that a man might lawfully wear a ring on his little finger, and that it should bear some religious emblem--a dove, or a fish, or an anchor - though, on the other hand, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Apostolic Constitutions (I, iii) protest against the ostentation of Christians in decking themselves with rings and gems. In any case the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas (c. xxi), about the beginning of the third century, inform us of how the martyr Saturus took a ring from the finger of Pudens, a soldier who was looking on, and gave it back to him as a keepsake, covered with his own blood. Knowing, as we do, that in the pagan days of Rome every flamen Dialis (i.e., a priest specially consecrated to the worship of Jupiter) had, like the senators, the privilege of wearing a gold ring, it would not be surprising to find evidence in the fourth century that rings were worn by Christian bishops. But the various passages that have been appealed to, to prove this, are either not authentic or else are inconclusive. St. Augustine indeed speaks of his sealing a letter with a ring (Ep. ccxvii, in P.L., XXXIII, 227), but on the other hand his contemporary Possidius expressly states that Augustine himself wore no ring (P.L., XXXII, 53), whence we are led to conclude that the possession of a signet does not prove the use of a ring as part of the episcopal insignia. However, in a Decree of Pope Boniface IV (A.D. 610) we hear of monks raised to the episcopal dignity as anulo pontificali subarrhatis, while at the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, we are told that if a bishop has been deposed from his office, and is afterwards reinstated, he is to receive back stole, ring, and crosier (orarium, anulum et baculum). St. Isidore of Seville at about the same period couples the ring with the crosier and declares that the former is conferred as "an emblem of the pontifical dignity or of the sealing of secrets" (P.L., LXXXIII, 783). From this time forth it may be assumed that the ring was strictly speaking an episcopal ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and that it was commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop to his Church. In the eighth and ninth centuries in MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary and in a few early Pontificals (e.g., that attributed to Archbishop Egbert of York) we meet with various formulae for the delivery of the ring. The Gregorian form, which survives in substance to the present day, runs in these terms: "Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of faith, whereby thou, being thyself adorned with spotless faith, mayst keep unsullied the troth which thou hast pledged to the spouse of God, His holy Church." These two ideas--namely of the seal, indicative of discretion, and of conjugal fidelity--dominate the symbolism attaching to the ring in nearly all its liturgical uses. The latter idea was pressed so far in the case of bishops that we find ecclesiastical decrees enacting that "a bishop deserting the Church to which he was consecrated and transferring himself to another is to be held guilty of adultery and is to be visited with the same penalties as a man who, forsaking his own wife, goes to live with another woman" (Du Saussay, "Panoplia episcopalis", 250). It was perhaps this idea of espousals which helped to establish the rule, of which we hear already in the ninth century, that the episcopal ring was to be placed on the fourth finger (i.e., that next the little finger) of the right hand. As the pontifical ring had to be worn on occasion over the glove, it is a common thing to find medieval specimens large in size and proportionately heavy m execution. The inconvenience of the looseness thus resulting was often met by placing another smaller ring just above it as a keeper (see Lacy, "Exeter Pontifical", 3). As the pictures of the medieval and Renaissance periods show, it was formerly quite usual for bishops to wear other rings along with the episcopal ring; indeed the existing "Caeremoniale episcoporum" (Bk. II, viii, nn. 10-11) assumes that this is still likely to be the case. Custom prescribes that a layman or a cleric of inferior grade on being presented to a bishop should kiss his hand, that is to say his episcopal ring, but it is a popular misapprehension to suppose that any indulgence is attached to the act. Episcopal rings, both at an earlier and later period, were sometimes used as receptacles for relics. St. Hugh of Lincoln had such a ring which must have been of considerable capacity. (On investiture by ring and staff see Investitures, Conflict of.) Besides bishops, many other ecclesiastics are privileged to wear rings. The pope of course is the first of bishops, but he does not habitually wear the signet ring distinctive of the papacy and known as "the Ring of the Fisherman" (see below in this article), but usually a simple cameo, while his more magnificent pontifical rings are reserved for solemn ecclesiastical functions. Cardinals also wear rings independently of their grade in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ring belonging to the cardinalitial dignity is conferred by the pope himself in the consistory in which the new cardinal is named to a particular "title". It is of small value and is set with a sapphire, while it bears on the inner side of the bezel the arms of the pope conferring it. In practice the cardinal is not required to wear habitually the ring thus presented, and he commonly prefers to use one of his own. The privilege of wearing a ring has belonged to cardinal-priests since the time of Innocent III or earlier (see Sägmüller, "Thatigkeit und Stellung der Cardinale", 163). Abbots in the earlier Middle Ages were permitted to wear rings only by special privilege. A letter of Peter of Blois in the twelfth century (P.L., CCVII, 283) shows that at that date the wearing of a ring by an abbot was apt to be looked upon as a piece of ostentation, out in the later Pontificals the blessing and delivery of a ring formed part of the ordinary ritual for the consecration of an abbot, and this is still the case at the present day. On the other hand: there is no such ceremony indicated in the blessing of an abbess, though certain abbesses have received, or assumed, the privilege of wearing a ring of office. The ring is also regularly worn by certain other minor prelates, for example prothonotaries, but the privilege cannot be said to belong to canons as such (B. de Montault, "Le costume, etc.", I, 170) without special indult. In any case such rings cannot ordinarily be worn by these minor prelates during the celebration of Mass. The same restriction, it need hardly be said, applies to the ring which is conferred as part of the insignia of the doctorate either of theology or of canon law. The plain rings worn by certain orders of nuns and conferred upon them in the course of their solemn profession, according to the ritual provided in the Roman Pontifical appear to find some justification in ancient tradition. St. Ambrose (P.L., XVII, 701, 735) speaks as though it were a received custom for virgins consecrated to God to wear a ring in memory of their betrothal to their heavenly Spouse. This delivery of a ring to professed nuns is also mentioned by several medieval Pontificals, from the twelfth century onwards. Wedding rings, or more strictly, rings given in the betrothal ceremony, seem to have been tolerated among Christians under the Roman Empire from a quite early period. The use of such rings was of course of older date than Christianity, and there is not much to suggest that the giving of the ring was at first incorporated in any ritual or invested with any precise religious significance. But it is highly probable that, if the acceptance and the wearing of a betrothal ring was tolerated among Christians, such rings would have been adorned with Christian emblems. Certain extant specimens, more particularly a gold ring found near Arles, belonging apparently to the fourth or fifth century, and bearing the inscription, Tecla vivat Deo cum marito seo [suo], may almost certainly be assumed to be Christian espousal rings. In the coronation ceremony, also, it has long been the custom to deliver both to the sovereign and to the queen consort a ring previously blessed. Perhaps the earliest example of the use of such a ring is in the case of Judith, the step-mother of Alfred the Great. It is however in this instance a little difficult to determine whether the ring was bestowed upon the queen in virtue of her dignity as queen consort or of her nuptials to Ethelwulf. Rings have also occasionally been used for other religious purposes. At an early date the small keys which contained filings from the chains of St. Peter seem to have been welded to a band of metal and worn upon the finger as reliquaries. In more modern times rings have been constructed with ten small knobs or protuberances, and used for saying the rosary. Babington in Dict. Christ. Antiq.; Leclercq in Dict. dæarch. chret., I (Paris, 1907), s. v. Anneaux; Deloche, Etude historique et archeologique sur les anneaux (Paris, 1900); Du Saussay, Panoplia episcopalis (Paris, 1646), 175-294; Dalton, Catalogue of early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum (London, 1901); Barbier de Montault, Le costume et les usages ecclesiastiques selon la tradition romaine (Paris, 1897-1901). HERBERT THURSTON The Ring of 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-François Rio French writer on art, b. on the Island of Arz, Department of Morbihan, 20 May, 1797; d. 17 June, 1874. He was educated at the college of Vannes, where he received his first appointment as instructor, which occupation however proved to be distasteful. He proceeded to Paris, but was temporarily disappointed in his hope of obtaining there a chair of history. His enthusiastic championship of the liberty of the Greeks attracted the attention of the Government, which appointed him censor of the public press. His refusal of this appointment won him great popularity and the lifelong friendship of Montalembert. In 1828 he published his first work, "Essai sur l'histoire de l'esprit humain dans l'antiquité", which brought him the favour of the minister de La Ferronays and a secretariate in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This position allowed him (as Montalembert later wrote to him) to become for Christian, what Winckelmann had been for ancient, art. He spent the greater portion of the period 1830-60 in travels through Italy, Germany, and England. In Munich he became acquainted with the spokesmen of contemporary Catholicism -- Boisserée, Baader, Döllinger, Görres, and Rumohr -- and also with Schelling. Schelling gave him an insight into the aesthetic ideal; Rumohr directed him to Italy, where the realization of this ideal in art could be seen. In 1835 the first volume of his "Art chrétien" appeared under the misleading title, "De la poésie chrétienne--Forme de l'art". This work, which was received with enthusiasm in Germany and Italy, was a complete failure in France. Discouraged, he renounced art study and wrote a history of the persecutions of the English Catholics, a work which was never printed. As the result of his intercourse with the Pre-Raphaelites of England, where he lived for three years and married, and especially of Montalembert's encouragement, he visited again, in company with his wife, all the important galleries of Europe, although he had meanwhile become lame and had to drag himself through the museums on crutches. Prominent men like Gladstone, Manzoni, and Thiers became interested in his studies, which he published in four volumes under the title "L'art chrétien" (1861-7). This work is not a history of all Christian art, but of Italian painting from Cimabue to the death of Raphael. Without any strict method or criticism, he expresses preference for the art of the fifteenth century, not without many an inexact and even unjust judgment on the art of later ages; but, in spite, or rather on account of this partiality, he has contributed greatly towards restoring to honour the forgotten and despised art of the Middle Ages. Rio describes the more notable incidents of his life in the two works, "Histoire d'un collège breton sous l'Empire, la petite chouannerie" (1842) and "Epilogue à l'art chrétien" (2 vols., Paris, 1872). He also published the following works: "Shakespeare" (1864), in which he claims the great dramatist as a Catholic; "Michel-Ange et Raphael" (1867); "L'idéal antique et l'idéal chrétien" (1873). Lefébure, Portraits de croyants (2nd ed., Paris, 1905), 157-284. B. KLEINSCHMIDT Riobamba Riobamba Diocese of (Bolivarensis), suffragan of Quito, Ecuador, erected by Pius IX, 5 January, 1863. The city, which has a population of 18,000, is situated 9039 feet above sea-level, 85 miles E.N.E. of Guayaquil. Its streets are wide and its adobe houses generally but one story high on account of the frequent earthquakes. Formerly the city was situated about 18 miles further west near the village of Cajabamba and contained 40,000 inhabitants. but it was completely destroyed on 4 February, 1797, by an earthquake. Old Riobamba was the capital of the Kingdom of Puruha before the conquest of the Incas; it was destroyed by Ruminiahui during his retreat in 1533 after his defeat by Benalcázar. The cathedral and the Redemptorist church in the new city are very beautiful. Velasco the historian and the poets Larrea and Orozco were natives of Riobamba. It was here too that the first national Ecuadorian convention was held in 1830. The diocese, comprising the civil Provinces of Chimborazo and Bolivar (having an area of 4250 square miles), has 63 priests, 48 churches and chapels, and about 200,000 inhabitants. The present bishop, Mgr Andres Machado, S.J., was born at Cuenca, Ecuador, 16 October, 1850, and appointed, 12 November, 1907, in succession to Mgr Arsenio Andrade (b. at Uyumbicho, in the Archdiocese of Quito, 8 September, 1825, appointed on 13 November, 1884, d. 1907). Mera, Geog. de la republica del Ecuador. A.A. MacERLEAN Rio Negro Rio Negro Prefecture Apostolic in Brazil, bounded on the south by a line running westwards from the confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio Branco along the watershed of the Rio Negro to Colombia, separating the new prefecture from those of Teffé and Upper Solimões, and the See of Amazones (from which it was separated by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, 19 Oct., 1910), on the west by Colombia, on the north by Colombia and Venezuela, on the east by the territory of Rio Branco. The white population is small, and confined to the few villages along the banks of the Rio Negro. As early as 1658 a Jesuit Father, Francisco Gonsales, established a mission among the natives of the Upper Rio Negro, and traces of the work of the Jesuit missionaries still exist in the scattered villages. Two years later a Carmelite, Father Theodosius, evangelized the Tucumaos. The Franciscans labored among the Indians from 1870 and had seven stations on the Rio Uaupés (Tariana Indians), four on the Rio Tikié (Toccana Indians), and one on the Rio Papuri (Macu Indians), but on the fall of the empire most of the missions were abandoned, though some of them were re-established later. A.A. MACERLEAN Juan Martinez de Ripalda Juan Martínez de Ripalda Theologian, b. at Pamplona, Navarre, 1594; d. at Madrid, 26 April, 1648. He entered the Society of Jesus at Pamplona in 1609. In the triennial reports of 1642 he says of himself that he was not physically strong, that he had studied religion, arts, and theology, that he had taught grammar one year, arts four, theology nineteen, and had been professed. According to Southwell, he taught philosophy at Monforte, theology at Salamanca, and was called from there to the Imperial College of Madrid, where, by royal decree, he taught moral theology. Later he was named censor to the Inquisition and confessor of de Olivares, the favorite of Philip IV, whom he followed when he was exiled from Madrid. Southwell describes his character by saying that he was a good religious, noted for his innocence. Mentally he qualifies him as subtle in argument, sound in opinion, keen-edged and clear in expression, and well-versed in St. Augustine and St. Thomas. According to Drews, no Jesuit ever occupied this chair in the University of Salamanca with more honor than he, and Hurter places him, with Lugo, first among the contemporary theologians of Spain, and perhaps of all Europe. Among the numerous theological opinions which characterize him the following are worth citing: (1) He thinks that the creation of an intrinsically supernatural substance is possible, in other words, that a creature is possible to which supernatural grace, with the accompanying gifts and intuitive vision, is due. (2) He holds that, by a positive decree of God, supernatural grace is conferred, in the existing providence for every good act whatsoever; so that every good act is supernatural, or at least that every natural good act is accompanied by another which is supernatural. (3) He maintains that, prescinding from the extrinsic Divine law, and taking into account only the nature of things, the supernatural faith which is called lata would be sufficient for justification, that faith, namely, which comes by the contemplation of created things, though assent is not produced with- out grace. (4) He affirms that in the promissory revelations the formal object of faith is God's faithfulness to His promises, the constancy of His will, and the efficacy of omnipotence. (5) He asserts that all the propositions of Baius were condemned for doctrine according to the sense in which he (Baius) held them. (6) He maintains that the Divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is of itself a sanctifying form. The following are his works: "De ente supernaturali disputationes in universam theologiam", .three vols., I (Bordeaux, 1634), II (Lyons, 1645), III, written "Adversus Bajanos" (Cologne, 1648); rare editions like that of Lyons, 1663, have been published of the two first volumes. It is a classic work in which he included questions which are not included in ordinary theological treatises. His third volume was attacked in an anonymous work, "P. Joannis Martínez . . . Vulpes capta per theologos . . . Academiae Lovaniensis", which Reusch says was the work of Sinnich. "Expositio brevis litterae Magistri Sententiarum" (Salamanca, 1635), praised by the Calvinist Voet. "Tractatus theologici et scholastici de virtutibus, fide, spe et charitate" (Lyons, 1652), a posthumous work and very rare. Two new editions of all his works have been issued: Vives (8 vols., Paris, 1871-3), Palmé (4 vols., Paris, Rome, Propaganda Fide, 1870-1). "Discurso sobre la elección de sucessor del pontificado en vida del pontifice" (Seville). Uriarte says this work was published in Aragon, perhaps in Huesca, with the anagram of Martín Jirón de Palazeda, written by order of the Count de Olivares. The following are in manuscript: "De visione Dei" (2 vols.); "De praedestinatione"; "De angelis et auxiliis"; "De voluntate Dei" preserved in the University of Salamanca; "Discurso acerca de la ley de desafío y parecer sobre el desafio de Medina Sidonia a Juan de Braganza", preserved in the Biblioteca Nacional. SOUTHWELL, Biblioteca scriptorum S. J. (Rome, 1670), 478; ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova, I (Madrid, 1783), 736; HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 381; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, V., col. 640, Biografia eclesiastica completa, XXII (Madrid, 1864), 179. ANTONIO PEREZ GOYENA Ripatransone 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-Ménehould, Lorraine, 29 June, 1585. He was probably a younger son of John Rishton of Dunkenhalgh and Dorothy Southworth. He studied at Oxford from 1568 to 1572, when he proceeded B.A. probably from Brasenose College. During the next year he was converted and went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He was the first Englishman to matriculate at Douai, and is said to have taken his M.A. degree there. While a student he drew up and published a chart of ecclesiastical history, and was one of the two sent to Reims in November, 1576, to see if the college could be removed there. After his ordination at Cambrai (6 April, 1576) he was sent to Rome. In 1580 he returned to England, visiting Reims on the way, but was soon arrested. He was tried and condemned to death with Blessed Edmund Campion and others on 20 November, 1581, but was not executed, being left in prison, first in King's Bench, then in the Tower. On 21 January he was exiled with several others, being sent under escort as far as Abbeville, whence he made his way to Reims, arriving on 3 March. Shortly afterwards, at the suggestion of Father Persons, he completed Sander's imperfect "Origin and Growth of the Anglican Schism". With the intention of taking his doctorate in divinity he proceeded to the University of Pont-à-Mousson in Lorraine, but the plague broke out, and though he went to Saint-Ménehould to escape the infection, he died of it and was buried there. Dodd in error ascribes his death to 1586, in which mistake he has been followed hy the writer in the "Dictionary of National Biography" and others. After his death the book on the schism was published by Father Persons, and subsequent editions included two tracts attributed to Rishton, the one a diary of an anonymous priest in the Tower (1580-5), which was probably the work of Father John Hart, S.J.; the other a list of martyrs with later additions by Persons. Recent publication of the "Tower Bills" makes it certain that Rishton did not write the diary, and his only other known works are a tract on the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (Douai, 1575) and "Profession of his faith made manifest and confirmed by twenty-one reasons". PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD, Church History (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42), II, 74, a very inaccurate account; A WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. BLISS (London, 1813 - 20); KINSELLA AND DEANE, The Rise and Progress of the English Reformation (Dublin, 1827), a translation of Sander; LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877, the best translation of Sander, the editor accepts the diary in the Tower as being by Rishton; KNOX, First and Second Douay Diaries (London, 1878); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S.J., VI (London 1880); FOSTER, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. SIMPSON, Edmund Campion, revised ed. (London, 1896-1907); COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; PERSONS, Memoirs in Catholic Record Society, II, IV (London, 1906); Tower Bills, ed. POLLEN in Catholic Record Society, III (London, 1906). EDWIN BURTON St. Rita of Cascia 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, græco Herculi ut ab Evandro instituta erant (Romulus) facit"; then, in general, any custom or usage. In English the word "rite" ordinarily means, the ceremonies, prayers, and functions of any religious body, whether pagan, Jewish, Moslem, or Christian. But here we must distinguish two uses of the word. We speak of any one such religious function as a rite -- the rite of the blessing of palms, the coronation rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often considered equivalent to liturgy, which, however, in the older and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions "rite" is preferable. A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body. In the case of Protestants these three elements must be modified to suit their theological opinions. II. DIFFERENCE OF RITE The Catholic Church has never maintained a principle of uniformity in rite. Just as there are different local laws in various parts of the Church, whereas certain fundamental laws are obeyed by all, so Catholics in different places have, their own local or national rites; they say prayers and perform ceremonies that have evolved to suit people of the various countries, and are only different expressions of the same fundamental truths. The essential elements of the functions are obviously the same everywhere, and are observed by all Catholic rites in obedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles, thus in every rite is administered with water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity; the Holy Eucharist is celebrated with bread and wine over which the words of institution are said; penance involves the confession of sins. In the amplification of these essential elements in the accompanying prayers and practical or ceremonies, various customs have produced the changes which make the different rites. If any rite did not contain one of the essential notes of the service it would be invalid in that point, if its prayers or ceremonies expressed false doctrine it would he heretical. Such rites would not be tolerated in the Catholic Church. But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance. To lose these would be a misfortune second only to the loss of the Roman Rite. Leo XIII in his Encyclical, "Præclara" (20 June, 1894), expressed the traditional attitude of the papacy when he wrote of his reverence for the venerable able rites of the Eastern Churches and assured the schismatics, whom be invited to reunion, that there was no jealousy of these things at Rome; that for all Eastern customs "we shall provide without narrowness." At the time of the Schism, Photius and Cerularius hurled against Latin rites and customs every conceivable absurd accusation. The Latin fast on Saturday, Lenten fare, law of celibacy, confirmation by a bishop, and especially the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist were their accusations against the West. Latin theologians replied that both were right and suitable, each for the people who used them, that there was no need for uniformity in rite if there was unity in faith, that one good custom did not prove another to be bad, thus defending their customs without attacking those of the East. But the Byzantine patriarch was breaking the unity of the Church, denying the primacy, and plunging the East into schism. In 1054, when Cerularius's schism had begun, a Latin bishop, Dominic of Gradus and Aquileia, wrote concerning it to Peter III of Antioch. He discussed the question Cerularius had raised, the use of azymes at Mass, and carefully explained that, in using this bread, Latins did not intend to disparage the Eastern custom of consecrating leavened bread, for there is a symbolic reason for either practice. "Because we know that the sacred mixture of fermented bread is used and lawfully observed by the most holy and orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Churches, we faithfully approve of both customs and confirm both by a spiritual explanation" (Will, "Acta et scripta quæ de controversiis ecclesiæ græcæ et latinæ sæc. XI composite extant", Leipzig, 1861, 207). These words represent very well the attitude of the papacy towards other rites at all times. Three points, however, may seem opposed to this and therefore require some explanation: the supplanting of the old Gallican Rite by that of Rome almost throughout the West, the modification of Uniat rites, the suppression of the later medieval rites. The existence of the Gallican Rite was a unique anomaly. The natural principle that rite follows patriarchate has been sanctioned by universal tradition with this one exception. Since the first organization of patriarchates there has been an ideal of uniformity throughout each. The close bond that joined bishops and metropolitans to their patriarch involved the use of his liturgy, just as the priests of a diocese follow the rite of their bishop. Before the arbitrary imposition of the Byzantine Rite on all Orthodox Churches no Eastern patriarch would have tolerated a foreign liturgy in his domain. All Egypt used the Alexandrine Rite, all Syria that of Antioch-Jerusalem, all Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkan lands, that of Constantinople. But in the vast Western lands that make up the Roman patriarchate, north of the Alps and in Spain, various local rites developed, all bearing a strong resemblance to each other, yet different from that of Rome itself. These form the Gallican family of liturgies. Abbot Cabrol, Dom Cagin, and other writers of their school think that the Gallican Rite was really the original Roman Rite before Rome modified it Paléographie musicale V, Solesmes, 1889; Cabrol, Les origines liturgiques Paris 1906). Most writers, however, maintain with Mgr Duchesne ("Origines du culte Chrétien", Paris, 1898, 8489), that the Gallican Rite is Eastern, Antiochene in origin. Certainly it has numerous Antiochene peculiarities (see GALLICAN RITE), and when it emerged as a complete rite in the sixth and seventh centuries (in Germanus of Paris, etc.), it was different from that in use at Rome at the time. Non-Roman liturgies were used at Milan, Aquileia, even at Gobble at the gates of the Roman province (Innocent I's letter to Decentius of Eugubium; Ep. xxv, in P. L., XX, 551-61). Innocent (401-17) naturally protested against the use of a foreign rite in Umbria; occasionally other popes showed some desire for uniformity in their patriarchate, but the great majority regarded the old state of things with perfect indifference. When other bishops asked them how ceremonies were performed at Rome they sent descriptions (so Pope Vigilius to Profuturus of Braga in 538; Jaffé, "Regesta Rom. Pont.", n. 907), but were otherwise content to allow different uses. St. Gregory I (590-604) showed no anxiety to make the new English Church conform to Rome, but told St. Augustine to take whatever rites he thought most suitable from Rome or Gaul (Ep. xi, 64, in P. L., LXXVII, 1186-7). Thus for centuries the popes alone among patriarchs did not enforce their own rite even throughout their patriarchate. The gradual romanization and subsequent disappearance of Gallican rites were (beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries), the work not of the popes but of local bishops and kings who naturally wished to conform to the use of the Apostolic See. The Gallican Rites varied everywhere (Charles the Great gives this as his reason for adopting the Roman Use; see Hauck, "Kirchengesch. Deutschlands", 11, 107 sq.), and the inevitable desire for at least local uniformity arose. The bishops' frequent visits to Rome brought them in contact with the more dignified ritual observed by their chief at the tomb of the Apostles, and they were naturally influenced by it in their return home. The local bishops in synods ordered conformity to Rome. The romanizing movement in the West came from below. In the Frankish kingdom Charles the Great, as part of his scheme of unifying, sent to Adrian I for copies of the Roman books, commanding their use throughout his domain. In the history of the substitution of the Roman Rite for the Gallican the popes appear as spectators, except perhaps in Spain and much later in Milan. The final result was the application in the West of the old principle, for since the pope was undoubtedly Patriarch of the West it was inevitable, that sooner or later the West should conform to his rite. The places, however, that really cared for their old local rites (Milan, Toledo) retain them even now. It is true that the changes made in some Uniat rites by the Roman correctors have not always corresponded to the best liturgical tradition. There are as Mgr Duchesne says, "corrections inspired by zeal that was not always according to knowledge " (Origines du culte, 2nd ed., 69), but they are much fewer than is generally supposed and have never been made with the idea of romanizing. Despite the general prejudice that Uniat rites are mere mutilated hybrids, the strongest impression from the study of them is how little has been changed. Where there is no suspicion of false doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the only change made was the restoration of the name of the pope where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost has been so fruitful a source of dispute between Rome and Constantinople the Filioque clause was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the Roman authorities insist on its addition. So Rome is content that Eastern Catholics should keep their traditional form unchanged, though they believe the Catholic doctrine. The Filioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniats who wish it themselves, as the Ruthenians. Other rites were altered in places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected of heresy. All other Uniats came from Nestorian, Monophysite, or Monothelete sects, whose rites had been used for centuries by heretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to the Catholic Church their services were keenly studied at Rome for possible heresy. In most cases corrections were absolutely necessary. The Nestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain the words of institution, which had to be added to the Liturgy of the converted Chaldees. The Monophysite Jacobites, Copts, and Armenians have in the Trisagion the fateful clause: "who wast crucified for us", which has been the watchword of Monophysitism ever since Peter the Dyer of Antioch added it (470-88). If only because of its associations this could not remain in a Catholic Liturgy. In some instances, however, the correctors were over scrupulous. In the Gregorian Armenian Liturgy the words said by the deacon at the expulsion of the catechumens, long before the Consecration: "The body of the Lord and the blood of the Saviour are set forth (or "are before us") (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 430) were in the Uniat Rite changed to: "are about to be before us". The Uniats also omit the words sung by the Gregorian choir before the Anaphora: "Christ has been manifested amongst us (has appeared in the midst of us)" (ibid., 434), and further change the cherubic hymn because of its anticipation of the Consecration. These misplacements are really harmless when understood, yet any reviser would be shocked by such strong cases. In many other ways also the Armenian Rite shows evidence of Roman influence. It has unleavened bread, our confession and Judica psalm at the beginning of Mass, a Lavabo before the Canon, the last Gospel, etc. But so little is this the effect of union with Rome that the schismatical Armenians have all these points too. They date from the time of the Crusades, when the Armenians, vehemently opposed to the Orthodox, made many advances towards Catholics. So also the strong romanizing of the Maronite Liturgy was entirely the work of the Maronites themselves, when, surrounded by enemies in the East, they too turned towards the great Western Church, sought her communion, and eagerly copied her practices. One can hardly expect the pope to prevent other Churches from imitating Roman customs. Yet in the case of Uniats he does even this. A Byzantine Uniat priest who uses unleavened bread in his Liturgy incurs excommunication. The only case in which an ancient Eastern rite has been wilfully romanized is that of the Uniat Malabar Christians, where it was not Roman authority but the misguided zeal of Alexius de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and his Portuguese advisers at the Synod of Diamper (1599) which spoiled the old Malabar Rite. The Western medieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites), really independent of Rome. They are merely the Roman Rite with local additions and modifications, most of which are to its disadvantage. They are late, exuberant, and inferior variants, whose ornate additions and long interpolated tropes, sequences, and farcing destroy the dignified simplicity of the old liturgy. In 1570 the revisers appointed by the Council of Trent restored with scrupulous care and, even in the light of later studies, brilliant success the pure Roman Missal, which Pius V ordered should alone be used wherever the Roman Rite is followed. It was a return to an older and purer form. The medieval rites have no doubt a certain archæological interest; but where the Roman Rite is used it is best to use it in its pure form. This too only means a return to the principle that rite should follow patriarchate. The reform was made very prudently, Pius V allowing any rite that could prove an existence of two centuries to remain (Bull "Quo primum", 19 July, 1570, printed first in the Missal), thus saving any local use that had a certain antiquity. Some dioceses (e.g. Lyons) and religious orders (Dominicans, Carthusians, Carmelites), therefore keep their special uses, and the independent Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, whose loss would have been a real misfortune (see LITURGY, MASS, LITURGY OF THE) still remain. Rome then by no means imposed uniformity of rite. Catholics are united in faith and discipline, but in their manner of performing the sacred functions there is room for variety based on essential unity, as there was in the first centuries. There are cases (e.g. the Georgian Church) where union with Rome has saved the ancient use, while the schismatics have been forced to abandon it by the centralizing policy of their authorities (in this case Russia). The ruthless destruction of ancient rites in favour of uniformity has been the work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople. Since the thirteenth century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the one centre of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and ancient Liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the Orthodox to use its own late derived rite. The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark has ceased to exist; that of St. James has been revived for one or two days in the year at Zakynthos and Jerusalem only (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). The Orthodox all the world over must follow the Rite of Constantinople. In this unjustifiable centralization we have a defiance of the old principle, since Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cyprus, in no way belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. Those who accuse the papacy of sacrificing everything for the sake of uniformity mistake the real offender, the oecumenical patriarch. III. THE OLD RITES (CATHOLIC AND SCHISMATICAL) A complete table of the old rites with an account of their mutual relations will be found in the article LITURGY. Here it need only be added that there is a Uniat body using each of the Eastern rites. There is no ancient rite that is not represented within the Catholic Church. That rite, liturgical language, and religious body connote three totally different ideas has been explained at length in the article GREEK RITES. The rite a bishop or priest follows is no test at all of his religion. Within certain broad limits a member of any Eastern sect might use any rite, for the two categories of rite and religion cross each other continually. They represent quite different classifications: for instance, liturgically all Armenians belong to one class, theologically a Uniat Armenian belongs to the same class as Latins, Chaldees, Maronites, etc., and has nothing to do with his Gregorian (Monophysite) fellow-countrymen (see EASTERN CHURCHES). Among Catholics the rite forms a group; each rite is used by a branch of the Church that is thereby a special, though not separate, entity. So within the Catholic unity we speak of local Churches whose characteristic in each case is the rite they use. Rite is the only basis of this classification. Not all Armenian Catholics or Byzantine Uniats obey the same patriarch or local authority; yet they are "Churches" individual provinces of the same great Church, because each is bound together by their own rites. In the West there is the vast Latin Church, in the East the Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, and Malabar Uniat Churches. It is of course possible to subdivide and to speak of the national Churches (of Italy, France, Spain, etc.) under one of these main bodies (see LATIN CHURCH). In modern times rite takes the place of the old classification in patriarchates and provinces. IV. PROTESTANT RITES The Reformation in the sixteenth century produced a new and numerous series of rites, which are in no sense continuations of the old development of liturgy. They do not all represent descendants of the earliest rites, nor can they be classified in the table of genus and species that includes all the old liturgies of Christendom. The old rites are unconscious and natural developments of earlier ones and go back to the original fluid rite of the first centuries (see LITURGY). The Protestant rites are deliberate compositions made by the various Reformers to suit their theological positions, as new services were necessary for their prayer meetings. No old liturgy could be used by people with their ideas. The old rites contain the plainest statements about the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prayers to saints, and for the dead, which are denied by Protestants. The Reformation occurred in the West, where the Roman Rite in its various local forms had been used for centuries. No Reformed sect could use the Roman Mass; the medieval derived rites were still more ornate, explicit, in the Reformers' sense superstitious. So all the Protestant sects abandoned the old Mass and the other ritual functions, composing new services which have no continuity, no direct relation to any historic liturgy. However, it is hardly possible to compose an entirely new Christian service without borrowing anything. Moreover, in many cases the Reformers wished to make the breach with the past as little obvious as could be. So many of their new services contain fragments of old rites; they borrowed such elements as seemed to them harmless, composed and re-arranged and evolved in some cases services that contain parts of the old ones in a new order. On the whole it is surprising that they changed as much as they did. It would have been possible to arrange an imitation of the Roman Mass that would have been much more like it than anything they produced. They soon collected fragments of all kinds of rites, Eastern, Roman, Mozarabic, etc., which with their new prayers they arranged into services that are hopeless liturgical tangles. This is specially true of the Anglican Prayer-books. In some cases, for instance, the placing of the Gloria after the Communion in Edward VI's second Prayer-book, there seems to be no object except a love of change. The first Lutheran services kept most of the old order. The Calvinist arrangements had from the first no connexion with any earlier rite. The use of the vulgar tongue was a great principle with the Reformers. Luther and Zwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old language disappeared in all Protestant services. Luther in 1523 published a tract, "Of the order of the service in the parish" ("Von ordenung gottis diensts [sic] ynn der gemeine" in Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur prakt. Theologie", 1, 24-6), in which he insists on preaching, rejects all "unevangelical" parts of the Mass, such as the Offertory and idea of sacrifice, invocation of saints, and ceremonies, and denounces private Masses (Winkelmessen), Masses for the dead, and the idea of the priest as a mediator. Later in the same year he issued a "Formula missæ et communionis pro ecclesia Vittebergensi" (ibid., 26-34), in which he omits the preparatory prayers, Offertory, all the Canon to qui pridie, from Unde et memores to the Pater, the embolism of the Lord's Prayer, fraction, Ite missa est. The Preface is shortened, the Sanctus is to be sung after the words of institution which are to be said aloud, and meanwhile the elevation may be made because of the weak who would be offended by its sudden omission (ibid., IV, 30). At the end he adds a new ceremony, a blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Latin remained in this service. Karlstadt began to hold vernacular services at Wittenberg since 1521. In 1524 Kaspar Kantz published a German service on the lines of Luther's "Formula missæ" (Lohe, "Sammlung liturgischer Formuläre III, Nördlingen, 1842, 37 sq.); so also Thomas Münzer the Anabaptist, in 1523 at Alstedt (Smend, "Die evang. deutschen Messen", 1896, 99 sq.). A number of compromises began at this time among the Protestants, services partly Latin and partly vernacular (Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", 1, 404-9). Vernacular hymns took the place of the old Proper (Introit, etc.). At last in 1526 Luther issued an entirely new German service, "Deudsche Messe und ordnung Gottis diensts" (Clemen, op. cit., 3443), to be used on Sundays, whereas the "Formula missæ", in Latin, might be kept for week-days. In the "Deudsche Messe" "a spiritual song or German psalm" replaces the Introit, then follows Kyrie eleison in Greek three times only. There is no Gloria. Then come the Collects, Epistle, a German hymn, Gospel, Creed, Sermon, Paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer, words of institution with the account of the Last Supper from I Cor, xi, 20-9, Elevation (always kept by Luther himself in spite of Karlstadt and most of his colleagues), Communion, during which the Sanctus or a hymn is sung, Collects, the blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Except the Kyrie, all is in German; azyme bread is still used but declared indifferent; Communion is given under both kinds, though Luther preferred the unmixed chalice. This service remained for a long time the basis of the Lutheran Communion function, but the local branches of the sect from the beginning used great freedom in modifying it. The Pietistic movement in the eighteenth century, with its scorn for forms and still more the present Rationalism, have left very little of Luther's scheme. A vast number of Agendæ, Kirchenordnungen, and Prayer-books issued by various Lutheran consistories from the sixteenth century to our own time contain as many forms of celebrating the Lord's Supper. Pastors use their own discretion to a great extent, and it is impossible to foresee what service will be held in any Lutheran church. An arrangement of hymns, Bible readings (generally the Nicene Creed), a sermon, then the words of institution and Communion, prayers (often extempore), more hymns, and the blessing from Num., vi, make up the general outline of the service. Zwingli was more radical than Luther. In 1523 he kept a form of the Latin Mass with the omission of all he did not like in it ("De canone missæ epichiresis" in Clemen, op. cit., 43-7), chiefly because the town council of Zurich feared too sudden a change, but in 1525 he overcame their scruples and issued his "Action oder bruch (=Brauch) des nachtmals" (ibid., 47-50). This is a complete breach with the Mass an entirely new service. On Maundy Thursday the men and women are to receive communion, on Good Friday those of "middle age", on Easter Sunday only the oldest (die alleraltesten). These are the only occasions on which the service is to be held. The arrangement is: a prayer said by the pastor facing the people, reading of 1 Cor, xi, 20-9, Gloria in Excelsis, "The Lord be with you" and its answer, reading of John, vi, 47-63, Apostles' Creed, an address to the people, Lord's Prayer, extempore prayer, words of institution, Communion (under both kinds in wooden vessels), Ps. cxiii, a short prayer of thanksgiving; the pastor says: "Go in peace". On other Sundays there is to be no Communion at all, but a service consisting of prayer, Our Father, sermon, general confession, absolution, prayer, blessing. Equally radical was the Calvinist sect. In 1535 through Farel's influence the Mass was abolished in Geneva. Three times a year only was there to be a commemorative Supper in the baldest form; on other Sundays the sermon was to suffice. In 1542 Calvin issued "La forme des prières ecclésiastiques" " (Clemen, op. cit., 51-8), a supplement to which describes "La manière de célébrer la cène" (ibid., 51-68). This rite, to be celebrated four times yearly, consists of the reading of 1 Cor, xi, an excommunication of various kinds of sinners, and long exhortation. "This being done, the ministers distribute the bread and the cup to the people, taking care that they approach reverently and in good order" (ibid., 60). Meanwhile a psalm is sung or a lesson read from the Bible, a thanksgiving follows (ibid., 55), and a final blessing. Except for their occurrence in the reading of I Cor, xi, the words of institution are not said; there is no kind of Communion form. It is hardly possible to speak of rite at all in the Calvinist body. The other ritual functions kept by Protestants (baptism, confirmation as an introduction to Communion marriage, funerals, appointment of ministers) went through much the same development. The first Reformers expunged and modified the old rites, then gradually more and more was changed until little remained of a rite in our sense. Psalms, hymns, prayers, addresses to the people in various combinations make up these functions. The Calvinists have always been more radical than the Lutherans. The development and multiple forms of these services may be seen in Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", II, and Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie", I (texts only). The Anglican body stands somewhat apart from the others, inasmuch as it has a standard book, almost unaltered since 1662. The first innovation was the introduction of an English litany under Henry VIII in 1544. Cranmer was preparing further changes when Henry VIII died (see Procter and Frere, "A New History of the Book of Common Prayer" London, 1908, 29-35). Under Edward VI (1547-53) many changes were made at once: blessings, holy water, the creeping to the Cross were abolished, Mass was said in English (ibid., 39-41), and in 1549 the first Prayer-book, arranged by Cranmer, was issued. Much of the old order of the Mass remained, but the Canon disappeared to make way for a new prayer from Lutheran sources. The "Kölnische Kirchenordnung" composed by Melanchthon and Butzer supplied part of the prayers. The changes are Lutheran rather than Calvinist. In 1552 the second Prayerbook took the place of the first. This is the present Anglican Book of Common Prayer and represents a much stronger Protestant tendency. The commandments take the place of the Introit and Kyrie (kept in the first book), the Gloria is moved to the end, the Consecration-prayer is changed so as to deny the Sacrifice and Real Presence, the form at the Communion becomes: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving" (similarly for the chalice). In 1558 Elizabeth's Government issued a new edition of the second Prayer-book of Edward VI with slight modifications of its extreme Protestantism. Both the Edwardine forms for communion are combined. In 1662 a number of revisions were made. In particular the ordination forms received additions defining the order to be conferred. A few slight modifications (as to the lessons read, days no longer to be kept) have been made since. The Anglican Communion service follows this order: The Lord's Prayer, Collect for purity, Ten Commandments, Collect for the king and the one for the day, Epistle, Gospel, Creed, sermon, certain sentences from the Bible (meanwhile a collection is made), prayer for the Church militant, address to the people about Communion, general confession and absolution, the comfortable words (Matt., xi, 28; John, iii, 16; 1 Tim., i, 15; 1 John, ii, 1), Preface, prayer ("We do not presume"), Consecration-prayer, Communion at once, Lord's Prayer, Thanksgiving-prayer, "Glory be to God on high", blessing. Very little of the arrangement of the old Mass remains in this service, for all the ideas Protestants reject are carefully excluded. The Book of Common Prayer contains all the official services of the Anglican Church, baptism, the catechism, confirmation, marriage, funeral, ordination, articles of religion, etc. It has also forms of morning and evening prayer, composed partly from the Catholic Office with many modifications and very considerably reduced. The Episcopal Church in Scotland has a Prayer-book, formed in 1637 and revised in 1764, which is more nearly akin to the first Prayer-book of Edward VI and is decidedly more High Church in tone. In 1789 the Protestant Episcopal Church of America accepted a book based on the English one of 1662, but taking some features from the Scotch services. The Anglican service-books are now the least removed from Catholic liturgies of those used by any Protestant body. But this is saying very little. The Non-jurors in the eighteenth century produced a number of curious liturgies which in many ways go back to Catholic principles, but have the fault common to all Protestant services of being conscious and artificial arrangements of elements selected from the old rites, instead of natural developments (Overton, "The Non-jurors", London, 1902, ch. vi). The Irvingites have a not very-successful service-book of this type. Many Methodists use the Anglican book; the other later sects have for the most part nothing but loose arrangements of hymns, readings, extempore prayers, and a sermon that can hardly be called rites in any sense. V. LITURGICAL LANGUAGE The language of any Church or rite, as distinct from the vulgar tongue, is that used in the official services and may or may not be the common language. For instance the Rumanian Church uses liturgically the ordinary language of the country, while Latin is used by the Latin Church for her Liturgy without regard to the mother tongue of the clergy or congregation. There are many cases of an intermediate state between these extremes, in which the liturgical language is an older form of the vulgar tongue, sometimes easily, sometimes hardly at all, understood by people who have not studied it specially. Language is not rite. Theoretically any rite may exist in any language. Thus the Armenian, Coptic, and East Syrian Rites are celebrated always in one language, the Byzantine Rite is used in a great number of tongues, and in other rites one language sometimes enormously preponderates but is not used exclusively. This is determined by church discipline. The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in Latin. The reason why a liturgical language began to be used and is still retained must be distinguished in liturgical science from certain theological or mystic considerations by which its use may be explained or justified. Each liturgical language was first chosen because it was the natural language of the people. But languages change and the Faith spreads into countries where other tongues are spoken. Then either the authorities are of a more practical mind and simply translate the prayers into the new language, or the conservative instinct, always strong in religion, retains for the liturgy an older language no longer used in common life. The Jews showed this instinct, when, though Hebrew was a dead language after the Captivity, they continued to use it in the Temple and the synagogues in the time of Christ, and still retain it in their services. The Moslem, also conservative, reads the Koran in classical Arabic, whether he be Turk, Persian, or Afghan. The translation of the church service is complicated by the difficulty of determining when the language in which it is written, as Latin in the West and Hellenistic Greek in the East, has ceased to be the vulgar tongue. Though the Byzantine services were translated into the common language of the Slavonic people that they might be understood, this form of the language (Church-Slavonic) is no longer spoken, but is gradually becoming as unintelligible as the original Greek. Protestants make a great point of using languages "understanded of the people", yet the language of Luther's Bible and the Anglican Prayerbook is already archaic. History When Christianity appeared Hellenistic Greek was the common language spoken around the Mediterranean. St. Paul writes to people in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy in Greek. When the parent rites were finally written down in the fourth and fifth centuries Eastern liturgical language had slightly changed. The Greek of these liturgies (Apost. Const. VIII, St. James, St. Mark, the Byzantine Liturgy) was that of the Fathers of the time, strongly coloured by the Septuagint and the New Testament. These liturgies remained in this form and have never been recast in any modern Greek dialect. Like the text of the Bible, that of a liturgy once fixed becomes sacred. The formulæ used Sunday after Sunday are hallowed by too sacred associations to be changed as long as more or less the same language is used. The common tongue drifts and develops, but the liturgical forms are stereotyped. In the East and West, however, there existed different principles in this matter. Whereas in the West there was no literary language but Latin till far into the Middle Ages, in the East there were such languages, totally unlike Greek, that had a position, a literature, a dignity of their own hardly inferior to that of Greek itself. In the West every educated man spoke and wrote Latin almost to the Renaissance. To translate the Liturgy into a Celtic or Teutonic language would have seemed as absurd as to write a prayerbook now in some vulgar slang. The East was never hellenized as the West was latinized. Great nations, primarily Egypt and Syria, kept their own languages and literatures as part of their national inheritance. The people, owing no allegiance to the Greek language, had no reason to say their prayers in it, and the Liturgy was translated into Coptic in Egypt, into Syriac in Syria and Palestine. So the principle of a uniform liturgical language was broken in the East and people were accustomed to hear the church service in different languages in different places. This uniformity once broken never became an ideal to Eastern Christians and the way was opened for an indefinite multiplication of liturgical tongues. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Rites of Antioch and Alexandria were used in Greek in the great towns where people spoke Greek, in Coptic or Syriac among peasants in the country. The Rite of Asia Minor and Constantinople was always in Greek, because here there was no rival tongue. But when the Faith was preached in Armenia (from Cæsarea) the Armenians in taking over the Cæsarean Rite translated it of course into their own language. And the great Nestorian Church in East Syria, evolving her own literature in Syriac, naturally used that language for her church services too. This diversity of tongues was by no means parallel to diversity of sect or religion. People who agreed entirely in faith, who were separated by no schism, nevertheless said their prayers in different languages. Melchites in Syria clung entirely to the Orthodox faith of Constantinople and used the Byzantine Rite, yet used it translated into Syriac. The process of translating the Liturgy continued later.. After the Schism of the eleventh century, the Orthodox Church, unlike Rome, insisted on uniformity of rite among her members. All the Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite, yet have no idea of one language. When the Slavs were converted the Byzantine Rite was put into Old Slavonic for them; when Arabic became the only language spoken in Egypt And Syria, it became the language of the Liturgy in those countries. For a long time all the people north of Constantinople used Old Slavonic in church, although the dialects they spoke gradually drifted away from it. Only the Georgians, who are Slavs in no sense at all, used their own language. In the seventeenth century as part of the growth of Rumanian national feeling came a great insistence on the fact that they were not Slavs either. They Wished to be counted among Western, Latin races, so they translated their liturgical books into their own Romance language. These represent the old classical liturgical languages in the East. The Monophysite Churches have kept the old tongues even when no longer spoken; thus they use Coptic in Egypt, Syriac in Syria, Armenian in Armenia. The Nestorians and their daughter-Church in India (Malabar) also use Syriac. The Orthodox have four or five chief liturgical languages: Greek, Arabic, Church-Slavonic, and Rumanian. Georgian has almost died out. Later Russian missions have very much increased the number. They have translated the same Byzantine Rite into German, Esthonian, and Lettish for the Baltic provinces Finnish and Tartar for converts in Finland and Siberia, Eskimo, a North American Indian dialect, Chinese, and Japanese. Hence no general principle of liturgical language can be established for Eastern Churches, though the Nestorians and Monophysites have evolved something like the Roman principle and kept their old languages in the liturgy, in spite of change in common talk. The Orthodox services are not, however, everywhere understood by the people, for since these older versions were made language has gone on developing. In the case of converts of a totally different race, such as Chinese or Red Indians, there is an obvious line to cross at once and there is no difficulty about translating what would otherwise be totally unintelligible to them. At home the spoken language gradually drifts away from the form stereotyped in the Liturgy, and it is difficult to determine when the Liturgy ceases to be understood. In more modern times with the growth of new sects the conservative instinct of the old Churches has grown. The Greek, Arabic, and Church-Slavonic texts are jealously kept unchanged though in all cases they have become archaic and difficult to follow by uneducated people. Lately the question of liturgical language has become one of the chief difficulties in Macedonia. Especially since the Bulgarian Schism the Phanar at Constantinople insists on Greek in church as a sign of Hellenism, while the people clamour for Old-Slavonic or Rumanian. In the West the whole situation is different. Greek was first used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (see MASS, LITURGY OF THE), which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival language for many centuries. As the Western barbarians became civilized they accepted a Latin culture in everything, having no literatures of their own. Latin was the language of all educated people, so it was used in church, as it was for books or even letter-writing. The Romance people drifted from Latin to Italian, Spanish, French, etc., so gradually that no one can say when Latin became a dead language. The vulgar tongue was used by peasants and ignorant people only; but all books were written, lectures given, and solemn speeches made in Latin. Even Dante (d. 1321) thought it necessary to write an apology for Italian (De vulgari eloquentia). So for centuries the Latin language was that, not of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman patriarchate. When people at last realized that it was dead, it was too late to change it. Around it had gathered the associations of Western Christendom; the music of the Roman Rite was composed and sung only to a Latin text; and it is even now the official tongue of he Roman Court. The ideal of uniformity in rite extended to language also, so when the rebels of the, sixteenth century threw over the old language, sacred from its long use, as they threw over the old rite and Id laws, the Catholic Church, conservative in all these things, would not give way to them. As a bond of union among the many nations who make up he Latin patriarchate, she retains the old Latin tongue with one or two small exceptions. Along he Eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea the Roman Rite has been used in Slavonic (with the Glagolitic letters) since the eleventh century, and the Roman Mass is said in Greek on rare occasions at Rome. It is a question how far one may speak of a special liturgical Latin language. The writers of our Collects, hymns, Prefaces, etc., wrote simply in the language of their time. The style of the various elements of the Mass and Divine Office varies greatly according to the time at which they were written. We have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century. Liturgical Latin then is simply late Christian Latin of various periods. On the other hand the Liturgy had an influence on the style of Christian Latin writers second only to that of the Bible. First we notice Hebraisms (per omnia soecula soeculorum), many Greek constructions (per Dominum nostrum, meaning" for the sake of", dia) and words (Eucharistia, litania, episcopus), expressions borrowed from Biblical metaphors (pastor, liber proedestinationis, crucifigere carnem, lux, vita, Agnus Dei), and words in a new Christian sense (humilitas, compunctio, caritas). St. Jerome in his Vulgate more than any one else helped to form liturgical style. His constructions and phrases occur repeatedly in the non-Biblical parts of the Mass and Office. The style of the fifth and sixth centuries (St. Leo I, Celestine I, Gregory I) forms perhaps the main stock of our services. The mediæval Schoolmen (St. Thomas Aquinas) and their technical terminology have influenced much of the later parts, and the Latin of the Renaissance is an important element that in many cases overlays the ruder forms of earlier times. Of this Renaissance Latin many of the Breviary lessons are typical examples; a comparison of the earlier forms of the hymns with the improved forms drawn up by order of Urban VIII (1623-44) will convince any one how disastrous its influence was. The tendency to write inflated phrases has not yet stopped: almost any modern Collect compared with the old ones in the "Gelasian Sacramentary" will show how much we have lost of style in our liturgical prayers. Use of Latin The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or universal. The authority of the Church could change the liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that the Catholic Church uses eight or nine different liturgical languages. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431). Uniformity of rite or liturgical language has never been a Catholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any such idea the language would have been Hebrew or Greek. The objections of Protestants to a Latin Liturgy can be answered easily enough. An argument often made from I Cor., xiv, 4-18, is of no value. The whole passage treats of quite another thing, prophesying in tongues that no one understands, not even the speaker (see 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit"). The other argument, from practical convenience, from the loss to the people who do not understand what is being said, has some value. The Church has never set up a mysterious unintelligible language as an ideal. There is no principle of sacerdotal mysteries from which the layman is shut out. In spite of the use of Latin the people have means of understanding the service. That they might do so still better if everything were in the vulgar tongue may be admitted, but in making this change the loss would probably be greater than the gain. By changing the language of the Liturgy we should lose the principle of uniformity in the Roman patriarchate. According to the ancient principle that rite follows patriarchate, the Western rite should be that of the Western patriarch, the Roman Bishop, who uses the local rite of the city of Rome. There is a further advantage in using it in his language, so the use of Latin in the West came about naturally and is retained through conservative instinct. It is not so in the East. There is a great practical advantage to travellers, whether priests or laymen, in finding their rite exactly the same everywhere. An English priest in Poland or Portugal could not say his Mass unless he and the server had a common language. The use of Latin all over the Roman patriarchate is a very obvious and splendid witness of unity. Every Catholic traveller in a country of which he does not know the language has felt the comfort of finding that in church at least everything is familiar and knows that in a Catholic church of his own rite he is at home anywhere. Moreover, the change of liturgical language would be a break with the past. It is a witness of antiquity of which a Catholic may well be proud that in Mass to-day we are still used to the very words that Anselm, Gregory, Leo sang in their cathedrals. A change of language would also abolish Latin chant. Plainsong, as venerable a relic of antiquity as any part of the ritual, is composed for the Latin text only, supposes always the Latin syllables and the Latin accent, and becomes a caricature when it is forced into another language with different rules of accent. These considerations of antiquity and universal use always made proportionately (since there are the Eastern Uniat rites) but valid for the Roman patriarchate may well outweigh the practical convenience of using the chaos of modern languages in the liturgy. There is also an æsthetic advantage in Latin. The splendid dignity of the short phrases with their rhythmical accent and terse style redolent of the great Latin Fathers, the strange beauty of the old Latin hymns, the sonorous majesty of the Vulgate, all these things that make the Roman Rite so dignified, so characteristic of the old Imperial City where the Prince of the Apostles set up his throne, would be lost altogether in modern English or French translations. The impossibility of understanding Latin is not so great. It is not a secret, unknown tongue, and till quite lately every educated person understood it. It is still taught in every school. The Church does not clothe her prayers in a secret language, but rather takes it for granted that people understand Latin. If Catholics learned enough Latin to follow the very easy style of the Church language all difficulty would be solved. For those who cannot take even this trouble there is the obvious solution of a translation. The Missal in English is one of the easiest books to procure; the ignorant may follow in that the prayers that lack of education prevents their understanding without it. The liturgical languages used by Catholics are: 1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia). 2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively). 3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites. 4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite. 5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite. 6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite). 7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia. 8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite). 9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite). VI. LITURGICAL SCIENCE A. Rubrics The most obvious and necessary study for ecclesiastical persons is that of the laws that regulate the performance of liturgical functions. From this point of view liturgical study is a branch of canon law. The rules for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, administration of sacraments, etc., are part of the positive law of the Church, just as much as the laws about benefices, church property, or fasting, and oblige those whom they concern under pain of sin. As it is therefore the duty of persons in Holy orders to know them, they are studied in all colleges and seminaries as part of the training of future priests, and candidates are examined in them before ordination. Because of its special nature and complication liturgical science in this sense is generally treated apart from the rest of canon law and is joined to similar practical matters (such as preaching, visiting the sick, etc.) to make up the science of pastoral theology. The sources from which it is learned are primarily the rubrics of the liturgical books (the Missal, Breviary, and Ritual). There are also treatises which explain and arrange these rubrics, adding to them from later decrees of the S. Congregation of Rites. Of these Martinucci has not yet been displaced as the most complete and authoritative, Baldeschi has long been a favourite and has been translated into English, De Herdt is a good standard book, quite sound and clear as far as it goes but incomplete, Le Vavasseur is perhaps the most practical for general purposes. B. History The development of the various rites, their spread and mutual influence, the origin of each ceremony, etc., form a part of church history whose importance is becoming more and more realized. For practical purposes all a priest need know are the present rules that affect the services he has to perform, as in general the present laws of the Church are all we have to obey. But just as the student of history needs to know the decrees of former synods, even if abrogated since, as he studies the history of earlier times and remote provinces of the Church, because it is from these that he must build up his conception of her continuous life, so the liturgical student will not be content with knowing only what affects him now, but is prompted to examine the past to inquire into the origin of our present rite and study other rites too as expressions of the life of the Church in other lands. The history of the liturgies that deeply affect the life of Christians in many ways, that are the foundation of many other objects of study (architecture, art, music, etc.) is no inconsiderable element of church history. In a sense this study is comparatively new and not yet sufficiently organized though to some extent it has always accompanied the practical study of liturgy. The great mediæval liturgists were not content with describing the rites of their own time. They suggested historical reasons for the various ceremonies and contrasted other practices with those of their own Churches. Benedict XIV's treatise on the Mass discusses the origin of each element of the Latin liturgy. This and other books of seventeenth and eighteenth-century liturgiologists are still standard works. So also in lectures and works on liturgy in our first sense it has always been the custom to add historical notes on the origin of the ceremonies and prayers. But the interest in the history of liturgy for its own sake and the systematic study of early documents is a comparatively new thing. In this science England led the way and still takes the foremost place. It followed the Oxford Movement as part of the revived interest in the early Church among Anglicans. W. Palmer (Origines liturgicæ) and J. M. Neale in his various works are among those who gave the first impulse to this movement. The Catholic Daniel Rock ("Hierurgia" and "The Church of our Fathers") further advanced it. It has now a large school of followers. F.C. Brightman's edition of "Eastern Liturgies" is the standard one used everywhere. The monumental editions of the "Gelasian Sacramentary" by H.A. Wilson and the "Leonine Sacramentary " by C. L. Feltoe, the various essays and discussions by E. Bishop, C. Atchley, and many others keep up the English standard. In France Dom Guéranger (L'année liturgique) and his school of Benedictines opened a new epoch. Mgr Duchesne supplied a long-felt want with his "Origines du suite chrétien", Dom Cabral and Dom Leclereq ("Mon. eccl. lit.", etc., especially the monumental "Dict. d'arch. chrét. et de liturgie") have advanced to the first place among modern authorities on historical liturgy. From Germany we have the works of H. Daniel (Codex lit. eccl. universæ), Probst, Thalhofer, Gihr, and a school of living students (Drews, Rietschel, Baumstark, Buchwald, Rauschen). In Italy good work is being done by Semeria, Bonaccorsi, and others. Nevertheless the study of liturgy hardly yet takes the place it deserves in the education of church students. Besides the practical instruction that forms a part of pastoral theology, lectures on liturgical history would form a valuable element of the course of church history. As part of such a course other rites would be considered and compared. There is a fund of deeper understanding of the Roman Rite to be drawn from its comparison with others, Gallican or Eastern. Such instruction in liturgiology should include some notion of ecclesiology in general, the history and comparison of church planning and architecture, of vestments and church music. The root of all these things in different countries is the liturgies they serve and adorn. Dogmatic Value The dogmatic and apologetic value of liturgical science is a very important consideration to the theologian. It must, of course, be used reasonably. No Church intends to commit herself officially to every statement and implication contained in her official books, any more than she is committed to everything said by her Fathers. For instance, the Collect for St. Juliana Falconieri (19 June) in the Roman Rite refers to the story of her miraculous communion before her death, told at length in the sixth lesson of her Office, but the truth of that story is not part of the Catholic Faith. Liturgies give us arguments from tradition even more valuable than those from the Fathers, for these statements have been made by thousands of priests day after day for centuries. A consensus of liturgies is, therefore, both in space and time a greater witness of agreement than a consensus of Fathers, for as a general principle it is obvious that people in their prayers say only what they believe. This is the meaning of the well known axiom: Lex orandi lex credendi. The prayers for the dead, the passages in which God is asked to accept this Sacrifice, the statements of the Real Presence in the oldest liturgies are unimpeachable witnesses of the Faith of the early Church as to these points. The Bull of Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception ("Ineffabilis Deus", 8 Dec., 1854) contains a classical example of this argument from liturgy. Indeed there are few articles of faith that cannot be established or at least confirmed from liturgies. The Byzantine Office for St. Peter and St. Paul (29. June) contains plain statements about Roman primacy. The study of liturgy from this point of view is part of dogmatic theology. Of late years especially dogmatic theologians have given much attention to it. Christian Pesch, S.J., in his "Prælectiones theologiæ dogmaticæ" (9 vols., Freiburg i. Br.) quotes the liturgical texts for the theses as part of the argument from tradition. There are then these three aspects under which liturgiology should be considered by a Catholic theologian, as an element of canon law, church history, and dogmatic theology. The history of its study would take long to tell. There have been liturgiologists through all the centuries of Christian theology. Briefly the state of this science at various periods is this: Liturgiologists in the Ante-Nicene period, such as Justin Martyr, composed or wrote down descriptions of ceremonies performed, but made no examination of the sources of rites. In the fourth and fifth centuries the scientific study of the subject began. St. Ambrose's "Liber de Mysteriis" (P. L., XVI, 405-26) the anonymous (pseudo-Ambrose) "De Sacramentis" (P. L., XVI, 435-82), various treatises by St. Jerome (e. g., "Contra Vigilantium" in P. L., XXIII, 354-367) and St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Jerusalem's "Catechetical Instructions" (P. L., XXXIII, 331-1154) and the famous "Peregrinatio Silvæ" (in the "Corpus script. eccl. Latin. of Vienna: "Itinera hierosolymitana", 35-101) represent in various degrees the beginning of an examination of liturgical texts. From the sixth to the eighth centuries we have valuable texts (the Sacramentaries and Ordines) and a liturgical treatise of St, Isidore of Seville ("De eccl. officiis" in P. L., LXXXIII). The Carlovingian revival of the eighth and ninth centuries began the long line of medieval liturgiologists. Alcuin (P. L., C-CI), Amalarius of Metz (P. L., XCIX, CV), Agobard (P. L., CIV), Florus of Lyons (P. L., CXlX, 15-72), Rabanus Maurus (P. L., CVII-CXII), and Walafrid Strabo (P. L., CXIV, 916--66) form at this time a galaxy of liturgical scholars of the first importance. In the eleventh century Berno of Constance ("Micrologus" in P. L., CLI, 974-1022), in the twelfth Rupert of Deutz ("De divinis officiis" in P. L., CLXX, 9-334), Honorius of Autun ("Gemma animæ" and "De Sacramentis" in P. L., CLXXII), John Beleth ("Rationale div. offic." in P. L., CCII, 9-166), and Beroldus of Milan (ed. Magistretti, Milan, 1894) carry on the tradition. In the thirteenth century see DURANDUS) is the most famous of all the William Durandus of Mende ("Rationale div. medieval liturgiologists. There is then a break till the sixteenth century. The discussions of the Reformation period called people's attention again to liturgies, either as defenses of the old Faith or as sources for the compilation of reformed services. From this time editions of the old rites were made for students, with commentaries. J. Clichtove ("Elucidatorium eccl.", Paris, 1516) and J. Cochlæus ("Speculum ant. devotionis", Mainz, 1549) were the first editors of this kind. Claude de Sainctes, Bishop of Evreux, published a similar collection ("Liturgiæ sive missæ ss. Patrum", Antwerp, 1562). Pamelius's " Liturgies. latin." (Cologne, 157 1) is a valuable edition of Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic texts. Melchior Hittorp published a collection of old commentaries on the liturgy ("De Cath. eccl. div. offic. " Cologne, 1568) which was re-edited in Bigne's "Bibl. vet. Patrum.", X (Paris, 1610). The seventeenth century opened a great period. B. Gavanti ("Thesaurus sacr. rituum", re-edited by Merati, Rome, 1736-8) and H. Menard, O.S.B. ("Sacramentarium Gregorianum" in P. L., LXXVIII) began a new line of liturgiologists. J. Goar, O.P. ("Euchologion", Paris, 1647), and Leo Allatius in his various dissertations did great things for the study of Eastern rites. The Oratorian J. Morin ("Comm. hist. de disciplina in admin. Sac. Poen." Paris 1651, and "Comm. de sacris eccl. ordinationibus", Paris, 1655). Cardinal John Bons ("Rerum lit. libri duo", Rome, 1671), Card. Tommasi ("Codices sacramentorum", Rome, 1680; "Antiqui libri missarum ", Rome, 1691), J. Mabillon, O.S.B. ("Musæum Italicum" Paris 1687-9), E. Martène, O.S.B. (" De ant. eccl. ritibus; Antwerp, 1736-8), represent the highest point of liturgical study. Dom Claude de Vert wrote a series of treatises on liturgical matters. In the eighteenth century the most important names are: Benedict XIV ("De SS. Sacrificio Missæ", republished at Mainz, 1879), E. Renaudot ("Lit. orient. collectio ", Paris, 1716), the four Assemani, Maronites ("Kalendaria eccl. universæ", Rome, 1755; "Codex lit. eccl. universæ", Rome, 1749-66, etc.) Muratori ("Liturgia romana vetus", Venice, 1748). So we come to the revival of the nineteenth century, Dom Guéranger and the modern authors already mentioned. ADRIAN FORTESCUE BENEDICTINE RITE The only important rite peculiar to the Benedictine Order is the Benedictine Breviary (Breviarium Monasticum). St. Benedict devotes thirteen chapters (viii-xx), of his rule to regulating the canonical hours for his monks, and the Benedictine Breviary is the outcome of this regulation. It is used not only by the so-called Black Benedictines, but also by the Cistercians, Olivetans, and all those orders that have the Rule of St. Benedict as their basis. The Benedictines are not at liberty to substitute the Roman for the Monastic Breviary; by using the Roman Breviary they would not satisfy their obligation of saying the Divine Office. Each congregation of Benedictines has its own ecclesiastical calendar. MICHAEL OTT CARMELITE RITE The rite in use among the Carmelites since about the middle of the twelfth century is known by the name of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, the Carmelite Rule, which was written about the year 1210, ordering the hermits of Mount Carmel to follow the approved custom of the Church, which in this instance meant the Patriarchal Church of Jerusalem: "Hi qui litteras noverunt et legere psalmos, per singulas horas eos dicant qui ex institutione sanctorum patrum et ecelesiæ approbata consuetudine ad horas singulas sunt deputati." This Rite of the Holy Sepulchre belonged to the Gallican family of the Roman Rite; it appears to have descended directly from the Parisian Rite, but to have undergone some modifications pointing to other sources. For, in the Sanctorale we find influences of Angers, in the proses traces of meridional sources, while the lessons and prayers on Holy Saturday are purely Roman. The fact is that most of the clerics who accompanied the Crusaders were of French nationality; some even belonged to the Chapter of Paris, as is proved by documentary evidence. Local influence, too, played an important part. The Temple itself, the Holy Sepulchre, the vicinity of the Mount of Olives, of Bethany, of Bethlehem, gave rise to magnificent ceremonies, connecting the principal events of the ecclesiastical year with the very localities where the various episodes of the work of Redemption has taken place. The rite is known to us by means of some manuscripts one (Barberini 659 of A. D. 1160) in the Vatican library, another at Barletta, described by Kohler (Revue de I'Orient Latin, VIII, 1900-01, pp. 383-500) and by him ascribed to about 1240. The hermits on Mount Carmel were bound by rule only to assemble once a day for the celebration of Mass, the Divine Office being recited privately. Lay brothers who were able to read might recite the Office, while others repeated the Lord's Prayer a certain number of times, according to the length and solemnity of the various offices. It may be presumed that on settling in Europe (from about A. D. 1240) the Carmelites conformed to the habit of the other mendicant orders with respect to the choral recitation or chant of the Office, and there is documentary evidence that on Mount Carmel itself the choral recitation was in force at least in 1254. The General Chapter of 1259 passed a number of regulations on liturgical matters, but, owing to the loss of the acts, their nature is unfortunately not known. Subsequent chapters very frequently dealt with the rite chiefly adding new feasts, changing old established customs, or revising rubrics. An Ordinal, belonging to the second half of the thirteenth century, is preserved at Trinity College, Dublin, while portions of an Epistolarium of about 1270 are at the Maglia, becchiana at Florence (D6, 1787). The entire Ordinal was rearranged and revised in 1312 by Master Sibert de Beka, and rendered obligatory by the General Chapter, but it experienced some difficulty in superseding the old one. Manuscripts of it are preserved at Lambeth (London), Florence, and else where. It remained in force until 1532, when a (committee was appointed for its revision; their work was approved in 1539, but published only in 1544 after the then General Nicholas Audet had introduced some further changes. The, reform of the Roman liturgical books under St. Pius V called for a corresponding reform of the Carmelite Rite, which was taken in hand in 1580, the Breviary appearing in 1584 and the Missal in 1587. At the same time the Holy See withdrew the right hitherto exercised by the chapters and the generals of altering the liturgy of the order, and placed all such matters in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The publication of the Reformed Breviary of 1584 caused the newly established Discaleed Carmelites to abandon the ancient rite once for all and to adopt the Roman Rite instead. Besides the various manuscripts of the Ordinal already mentioned, we have examined a large number of manuscript missals and breviaries preserved in public and private libraries in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and other countries. We have seen most of the early prints of the Missal enumerated by Weale, as well as some not mentioned by him, and the breviaries of 1480, 1490, 1504, 1516 (Horæ), 1542, 1568, 1575, and 1579. Roughly speaking, the ancient Carmelite Rite may be said to stand about half way between the Carthusian and the Dominican rites. It shows signs of great antiquity -- e.g. in the absence of liturgical colours, in the sparing use of altar candles (one at low Mass, none on the altar itself at high Mass but only acolytes' torches, even these being extinguished during part of the Mass, four torches and one candle in choir for Tenebræ); incense, likewise, is used rarely and with noteworthy restrictions; the Blessing at the end of the Mass is only permitted where the custom of the country requires it; passing before the tabernacle, the brethren are directed to make a profound inclination, not a genuflexion. Many other features might be quoted to show that the whole rite points to a period of transition. Already according to the earliest Ordinal Communion is given under one species, the days of general Communion being seven, later on ten or twelve a year with leave for more frequent Communion under certain conditions. Extreme Unction was administered on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, both hands (the palms, with no distinction between priests and others) and the feet superius. The Ordinal of 1312 on the contrary orders the hands to be anointed exterius, but also without distinction for the priests; it moreover adds another anointing on the breast (super pectus: per ardorem libidinis). In the Mass there are some peculiarities. the altar remains covered until the priest and ministers are ready to begin, when the acolytes then roll back the cover; likewise before the end of the Mass they cover the altar again. On great feasts the Introit is said three times, i.e. it is repeated both before and after the Gloria Patri; besides the Epistle and Gospel there is a lesson or prophecy to be recited by an acolyte. At the Lavabo the priest leaves the altar for the piscina where he says that psalm, or else Veni Creator Spiritus or Deus misereatur. Likewise after the first ablution he goes to the piscina to wash his fingers. During the Canon of the Mass the deacon moves a fan to keep the flies away, a custom still in use in Sicily and elsewhere. At the word fregit in the form of consecration, the priest, according to the Ordinal of 1312 and later rubrics, makes a movement as if breaking the host. Great care is taken that the smoke of the thurible and of the torches do not interfere with the clear vision of the host when lifted up for the adoration of the faithful; the chalice, however, is only slightly elevated. The celebrating priest does not genuflect but bows reverently. After the Pater Noster the choir sings the psalm Deus venerunt genies for the restoration of the Holy Land. The prayers for communion are identical with those of the Sarum Rite and other similar uses, viz. domine sancte pater, Domine Jesu Christe (as in the Roman Rite), and Salve salus mundi. The Domine non sum dignus was introduced only in 1568. The Mass ended with Dominus vobiscum, Ite missa est (or its equivalent) and Placeat. The chapter of 1324 ordered the Salve regina to be said at the end of each canonical hour as well as at the end of the Mass. The Last Gospel, which in both ordinals serves for the priest's thanksgiving, appears in the Missal of 1490 as an integral part of the Mass. On Sundays and feasts there was, besides the festival Mass after Terce or Sext, an early Mass (matutina) without solemnities, corresponding to the commemorations of the Office. From Easter till Advent the Sunday Mass was therefore celebrated early in the morning, the high Mass being that of the Resurrection of our Lord; similarly on these Sundays the ninth lesson with its responsory was taken from one of the Easter days; these customs had been introduced soon after the conquest of the Holy Land. A solemn commemoration of the Resurrection was held on the last Sunday before Advent; in all other respects the Carmelite Liturgy reflects more especially the devotion of the order towards the Blessed Virgin. The Divine Office also presents some noteworthy features. The first Vespers of certain feasts and the Vespers during Lent have a responsory usually taken from Matins. Compline has various hymns according to the season, and also special antiphons for the Canticle. The lessons at Matins follow a somewhat different plan from those of the Roman Office. The singing of the genealogies of Christ after Matins on Christmas and the Epiphany gave rise to beautiful ceremonies. After Tenebræ in Holy Week (sung at midnight) we notice the chant of the Tropi; all the Holy Week services present interesting archaic features. Other points to be mentioned are the antiphons Pro fidei meritis etc. on the Sundays from Trinity to Advent and the verses after the psalms on Trinity, the feasts of St. Paul, and St. Laurence. The hymns are those of the Roman Office; the proses appear to be a uniform collection which remained practically unchanged from the thirteenth century to 1544, when all but four or five were abolished. The Ordinal prescribes only four processions in the course of the year, viz. on Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the Ascension, and the Assumption. The calendar of saints, in the two oldest recensions of the Ordinal, exhibits some feasts proper to the Holy Land, namely some of the early bishops of Jerusalem, the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Lazarus. The only special features were the feast of St. Anne, probably due to the fact that the Carmelites occupied for a short time a convent dedicated to her in Jerusalem (vacated by Benedictine nuns at the capture of that city in 1187), and the octave of the Nativity of Our Lady, which also was proper to the order. In the works mentioned below we have given the list of feasts added in the course of three centuries, and shall here speak only of a few. The Chapter of 1306 introduced those of St. Louis, Barbara, Corpus Christi, and the Conception of Our Lady (in Conceptione seu potius veneratione sanctificationis B. V.); the Corpus Christi procession, however, dates only from the end of the fifteenth century. In 1312 the second part of the Confiteor, which till then had been very short, was introduced. Daily commemorations of St. Anne and Sts. Albert and Angelus date respectively from the beginning and the end of the fifteenth century, but were transferred in 1503 from the canonical Office to the Little Office of Our Lady. The feast of the "Three Maries" dates from 1342, those of the Visitation, of Our Lady ad nives, and the Presentation from 1391. Feasts of the order were first introduced towards the end of the fourteenth century -- viz. the Commemoration (Scapular Feast) of 16 July appears first about 1386; St. Eliseus, prophet and St. Cyril of Constantinople in 1399; St. Albert in 1411; St. Angelus in 1456. Owing to the printing of the first Breviary of the order at Brussels in 1480, a number of territorial feasts were introduced into the order, such as St. Joseph, the Ten Thousand Martyrs, the Division of the Apostles. The raptus of St. Elias (17 June) is first to be found in the second half of the fifteenth century in England and Germany; the feast of the Prophet (20 July) dates at the earliest from 1551. Some general chapters, especially those of 1478 and 1564, added whole lists of saints, partly of real or supposed saints of the order, partly of martyrs whose bodies were preserved in various churches belonging to the Carmelites, particularly that of San Martino ai Monti in Rome. The revision of 1584 reduced the Sanctorale to the smallest possible dimensions, but many feasts then suppressed were afterwards reintroduced. A word must be added about the singing. The Ordinal of 1312 allows fauxbourdon, at least on solemn occasions; organs and organists are mentioned with ever-increasing frequency from the first years of the fifteenth century, the earliest notice being that of Mathias Johannis de Lucca, who in 1410 was elected organist at Florence; the organ itself was a gift of Johannes Dominici Bonnani, surnamed Clerichinus, who died at an advanced age on 24 Oct., 1416. BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN CISTERCIAN RITE This rite is to be found in the liturgical books of the order. The collection, composed of fifteen books, was made by the General Chapter of Cîteaux, most probably in 1134; they are now included in the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and calendar, or Martyrology. When Pius V ordered the entire Church to conform to the Roman Missal and Breviary, he exempted the Cistercians from this law, because their rite had been more than 400 years in existence. Under Claude Vaussin, General of the Cistercians (in the middle of the seventeenth century), several reforms were made in the liturgical books of the order, and were approved by Alexander Vll, Clement IX, and Clement XIII. These approbations were confirmed by Pius IX on 7 Feb., 1871, for the Cistercians of the Common as well as for those of the Strict Observance. The Breviary is quite different from the Roman, as it follows exactly the prescriptions of the Rule of St. Benedict, with a very few minor additions. St. Benedict wished the entire Psalter recited each week; twelve psalms are to be said at Matins when there are but two Nocturns; when there is a third Nocturn, it is to be composed of three divisions of a canticle, there being in this latter case always twelve lessons. Three psalms or divisions of psalms are appointed for Prime, the Little Hours, and Compline (in this latter hour the "Nunc dimittis" is never said), and always four psalms for Vespers. Many minor divisions and directions are given in St. Benedict's Rule. In the old missal before the reform of Claude Vaussin, there were wide divergences between the Cistercian and Roman rites. The psalm "Judica" was not said, but in its stead was recited the "Veni Creator"; the "Indulgentiam" was followed by the "Pater" and "Ave", and the "Oramus te Domine" was omitted in kissing the altar. After the "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", the "Agnus Dei" was said thrice, and was followed immediately by "Hæc sacrosancta commixtio corporis", said by the priest while placing the small fragment of the Sacred Host in the chalice; then the "Domine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei Vivi" was said, but the "Corpus Tuum" and "Quod ore sumpsimus" were omitted. The priest said the "Placeat" as now, and then "Meritis et precibus istorum et onmium sanctorum. Suorum misereatur nostri Omnipotens Dominus. Amen", while kissing the altar; with the sign of the Cross the Mass was ended. Outside of some minor exceptions in the wording and conclusions of various prayers, the other parts of the Mass were the same as in the Roman Rite. Also in some Masses of the year the ordo was different; for instance, on Palm Sunday the Passion was only said at the high Mass, at the other Masses a special gospel only being said. However, since the time of Claude Vaussin the differences from the Roman Mass are insignificant. In the calendar there are relatively few feasts of saints or other modern feasts, as none were introduced except those especially prescribed by Rome for the Cistercian Order; this was done in order to adhere as closely as possible to the spirit of St. Benedict in prescribing the weekly recitation of the Psalter. The divisions of the feasts are: major or minor feast of sermon; major or minor feast of two Masses; feast of twelve lessons and Mass; feast of three lessons and Mass; feast of commemoration and Mass; then merely a commemoration; and finally the feria. The differences in the ritual are very small. As regards the last sacraments, Extreme Unction is given before the Holy Viaticum, and in Extreme Unction the word "Peccasti" is used instead of the "Deliquisti" in the Roman Ritual. In the Sacrament of Penance a shorter form of absolution may be used in ordinary confessions. EDMOND M. OBRECHT DOMINICAN RITE A name denoting the distinctive ceremonies embodied in the privileged liturgical books of the Order of Preachers. (a) Origin and development The question of a special unified rite for the order received no official attention in the time of St. Dominic, each province sharing in the general liturgical diversities prevalent throughout the Church at the time of the order's confirmation (1216). Hence, each province and often each convent had certain peculiarities in the text and in the ceremonies of the Holy Sacrifice and the recitation of the Office. The successors of St. Dominic were quick to recognize the impracticability of such conditions and soon busied themselves in an effort to eliminate the embarrassing distinctions. They maintained that the safety of a basic principle of community life unity of prayer and worship-was endangered by this conformity with different diocesan conditions. This belief was impressed upon them more forcibly by the confusion that these liturgical diversities occasioned at the general chapters of the order where brothers from every province were assembled. The first indication of an effort to regulate liturgical conditions was manifested by Jordan of Saxony, the successor of St. Dominic. In the Constitutions (1228) ascribed to him are found several rubrics for the recitation of the Office. These insist more on the attention with which the Office should be said than on the qualifications of the liturgical books. However, it is said that Jordan took some steps in the latter direction and compiled one Office for universal use. Though this is doubtful, it is certain that his efforts were of little practical value, for the Chapters of Bologna (1240) and Paris (1241) allowed each convent to conform with the local rites. The first systematic attempt at reform was made under the direction of John the Teuton, the fourth master general of the order. At his suggestion the Chapter of Bologna (1244) asked the delegates to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245) their special rubrics for the recitation of the Office, their Missals, Graduals, and Antiphonaries, "pro concordando officio". To bring some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed consisting of four members, one each from the Provinces of France, England, Lombardy, and Germany, to carry out the revision at Angers. They brought the result of their labours to the Chapter of Paris (1246), which approved the compilation and ordered its exclusive use by the whole Order. This same chapter approved the "Lectionary" which had been entrusted to Humbert of Romains for revision. The work of the commission was again approved by the Chapters of Montepulciano (1247) and Paris (1248). But dissatisfaction with the work of the commission was felt on all sides, especially with their interpretation of the rubrics. They had been hurried in their work, and had left too much latitude for local customs. The question was reopened and the Chapter of London (1250) asked the commission to reassemble at Metz and revise their work in the light of the criticisms that had been made; the result of this revision was approved at the Chapters of Metz (1251) and Bologna (1252) and its use made obligatory for the whole order. It was also ordained that one copy of the liturgical books should be placed at Paris and one at Bologna, from which the books for the other convents should be faithfully copied. However, it was recognized that these books were not entirely perfect, and that there was room for further revision. Though this work was done under the direction of John the Teuton, the brunt of the revision fell to the lot of Humbert of Romains, then provincial of the Paris Province. Humbert was elected Master General of the Chapter of Buda (1254) and was asked to direct his attention to the question of the order's liturgical books. He subjected each of them to a most thorough revision, and after two years submitted his work to the Chapter of Paris (1256). This and several subsequent chapters endorsed the work, effected legislation guarding against corruption, constitutionally recognized the authorship of Humbert, and thus once and for all settled a common rite for the Order of Preachers throughout the world. (b) Preservation Clement IV, through the general, John of Vercelli, issued a Bull in 1267 in which he lauded the ability and zeal of Humbert and forbade the making of any changes without the proper authorization. Subsequent papal regulation went much further towards preserving the integrity of the rite. Innocent XI and Clement XII prohibited the printing of the books without the permission of the master general and also ordained that no member of the order should presume to use in his fulfilment of the choral obligation any book not bearing the seal of the general and a reprint of the pontifical Decrees. Another force preservative of the special Dominican Rite was the Decree of Pius V (1570), imposing a common rite on the universal Church but excepting those rites which had been approved for two hundred years. This exception gave to the Order of Friars Preachers the privilege of maintaining its old rite, a privilege which the chapters of the order sanctioned and which the members of the order gratefully accepted. It must not be thought that the rite has come down through the ages absolutely without change. Some slight corruptions crept in despite the rigid legislation to the contrary. Then new feasts have been added with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs and many new editions of the liturgical books have been printed. Changes in the text, when they have been made, have always been effected with the idea of eliminating arbitrary mutilations and restoring the books to a perfect conformity with the old exemplars at Paris and Bologna. Such were the reforms of the Chapters of Salamanca (1551), Rome (1777), and Ghent (1871). Several times movements have been started with the idea of conforming with the Roman Rite; but these have always been defeated, and the order still stands in possession of the rite conceded to it by Pope Clement in 1267. (c) Sources of the rite To determine the sources of the Dominican Rite is to come face to face with the haze and uncertainty that seems to shroud most liturgical history. The thirteenth century knew no unified Roman Rite. While the basis of the usages of north-western Europe was a Gallicanized-Gregorian Sacramentary sent by Adrian IV to Charlemagne, each little locality had its own peculiar distinctions. At the time of the unification of the Dominican Rite most of the convents of the order were embraced within the territory in which the old Gallican Rite had once obtained and in which the Gallico-Roman Rite then prevailed. Jordan of Saxony, the pioneer in liturgical reform within the a order, greatly admired the Rite of the Church Paris and frequently assisted at the recitations of the Office at Notre-Dame. Humbert of Romains, who played so important a part in the work of unification, was the provincial of the French Province. These facts justify the opinion that the basis of the Dominican Rite was the typical Gallican Rite of the thirteenth century. But documentary evidence that the rite was adapted from any one locality is lacking. The chronicles of the order state merely that the rite is neither the pure Roman nor the pure Gallican, but based on the Roman usage of the thirteenth century, with additions from the Rites of Paris and other places in which the order existed. Just from where these additions were obtained and exactly what they were cannot be determined, except in a general way, from an examination of each distinctive feature. Two points must be emphasized here: (1) the Dominican Rite is not an arbitrary elaboration of the Roman Rite made against the spirit of the Church or to give the order an air of exclusiveness, nor can it be said to be more gallicanized then any use of the Gallico-Roman Rite of that period. It was an honest and sincere attempt to harmonize and simplify the widely divergent usages of the early half of the thirteenth century. (2) The Dominican Rite, formulated by Humbert, saw no radical development after its confirmation by Clement IV. When Pius V made his reform, the Dominican Rite had been fixed and stable for over three hundred years, while a constant liturgical change had been taking place in other communities. Furthermore the comparative simplicity of the Dominican Rite, as manifested in the different liturgical books, gives evidence of its antiquity. (d) Liturgical books The rite compiled by Humbert contained fourteen books: (1) the Ordinary, which was a sort of an index to the Divine Office, the Psalms, Lessons, Antiphons, and Chapters being indicated by their first words. (2) The Martyrology, an amplified calendar of martyrs and other saints. (3) The Collectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. (4) The Processional, containing the hymns (text and music) for the processions. (5) The Psalterium, containing merely the Psalter. (6) The Lectionary, which contained the Sunday homilies, the lessons from Sacred Scripture and the lives of the saints. (7) The Antiphonary, giving the text and music for the parts of the Office sung outside of the Mass. (8) The Gradual, which contained the words and the music for the parts of the Mass sung by the choir. (9) The Conventual Missal, for the celebration of solemn Mass. (10) The Epistolary, containing the Epistles for the Mass and the Office. (11) The Book of Gospels. (12) The Pulpitary, which contained the musical notation for the Gloria Patri, the Invitatory, Litanies, Tracts, and the Alleluia. (13) The Missal for a private Mass. (14) The Breviary, a compilation from all the books used in the choral recitation of the Office, very much reduced in size for the convenience of travellers. By a process of elimination and synthesis undergone so by the books of the Roman Rite many of the books of Humbert have become superfluous while several others have been formed. These add nothing to the original text, but merely provide for the Addition of feasts and the more convenient recitation of the office. The collection of the liturgical books now contains: (1) Martyrology; (2) Collectarium; (3) Processional; (4) Antiphonary; (5) Gradual; (6) Missal for the conventual Mass; (7) Missal for the private Mass; (8) Breviary; (9) Vesperal; (10) Horæ Diurnæ; (11) Ceremonial. The contents of these books follow closely the books of the same name issued by Humbert and which have just been described. The new ones are: (1) the Horæ Diurnæ (2) the Vesperal (with notes), adaptations from the Breviary and the Antiphonary respectively (3) the Collectarium, which is a compilation from all the rubrics scattered throughout the other books. With the exception of the Breviary, these books are similar in arrangment to the correspondingly named books of the Roman Rite. The Dominican Breviary is divided into two parts: Part I, Advent to Trinity; Part II, Trinity to Advent. (e) Distinctive marks of the Dominican Rite Only the most striking differences between the Dominican Rite and the Roman need be mentioned here. The most important is in the manner of celebrating a low Mass. The celebrant in the Dominican Rite wears the amice over his head until the beginning of Mass, and prepares the chalice as soon as he reaches the altar. The Psalm "Judica me Deus" is not said and the Confiteor, much shorter than the Roman, contains the name of St. Dominic. The Gloria and the Credo are begun at the centre of the altar and finished at the Missal. At the Offertory there is a simultaneous oblation of the Host and the chalice and only one prayer, the "Suscipe Sancta Trinitas". The Canon of the Mass is the same as the Canon of the Roman Rite, but after it are several noticeable differences. The Dominican celebrant says the "Agnus Dei" immediately after the "Pax Domini" and then recites three prayers "Hæc sacrosancta commixtio" "Domine Jesu Christe", and "Corpus et sanguis" Then follows the Communion, the priest receiving the Host from his left hand. No prayers are said at the consumption of the Precious Blood, the first prayer after the "Corpus et Sanguis" being the Communion. These are the most noticeable differences in the celebration of a low Mass. In a solemn Mass the chalice is prepared just after the celebrant has read the Gospel, seated at the Epistle side of the sanctuary. The chalice is brought from the altar to the place where the celebrant is seated by the sub-deacon, who pours the wine and water into it and replaces it on the altar. The Dominican Breviary differs but slightly from the Roman. The Offices celebrated are of seven classes:--of the season (de tempore), of saints (de sanctis), of vigils, of octaves, votive Offices, Office of the Blessed Virgin, and Office of the Dead. In point of dignity the feasts are classified as "totum duplex", "duplex" "simplex" "of three lessons", and "of a memory". The ordinary "totum duplex" feast is equivalent to the Roman greater double. A "totum duplex" with an ordinary octave (a simple or a solemn octave) is equal to the second-class double of the Roman Rite, and a "totum duplex" with a most solemn octave is like the Roman first-class double. A "duplex" feast is equivalent to the lesser double and the "simplex" to the semi-double. There is no difference in the ordering of the canonical hours, except that all during Paschal time the Dominican Matins provide for only three psalms and three lessons instead of the customary nine psalms and nine lessons. The Office of the Blessed Virgin must be said on all days on which feasts of the rank of duplex or "totum duplex" are not celebrated. The Gradual psalms must be said on all Saturdays on which is said the votive Office of the Blessed Virgin. The Office of the Dead must be said once a week except during the week following Easter and the week following Pentecost. Other minor points of difference are the manner of making the commemorations, the text of the hymns, the Antiphons, the lessons of the common Offices and the insertions of special feasts of the order. There is no great distinction between the musical notation of the Dominican Gradual, Vesperal, and Antiphonary and the corresponding books of the new Vatican edition. The Dominican chant has been faithfully copied from the MSS. of the thirteenth century, which were in turn derived indirectly from the Gregorian Sacramentary. One is not surprised therefore at the remarkable similarity between the chant of the two rites. For a more detailed study of the Dominican Rite reference may be had to the order's liturgical books. IGNATIUS SMITH. FRANCISCAN RITE The Franciscans, unlike the Dominicans, Carmelites, and other orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but, conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi, have always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However, the Friars Minor and the Capuchins wear the amice, instead of the biretta, over the head, and are accustomed to say Mass with their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy certain privileges in regard to the time and place of celebrating Mass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many proper Masses not found in the Roman Missal. These are mostly feasts of Franciscan saints and blessed, which are not celebrated throughout the Church, or other feasts having a peculiar connexion with the order, e.g. the Feast of the Mysteries of the Way of the Cross (Friday before Septuagesima), and that of the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin (First Sunday after the octave of the Assumption). The same is true in regard to the Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum, and Martyrologium Romano-Seraphicum. The Franciscans exercised great influence in the origin and evolution of the Breviary, and on the revision of the Rubrics of the Mass. They have also their own calendar, or ordo. This calendar may be used not only in the churches of the First Order, but also in the churches and chapels of the Second Order, and Third Order Regular (if aggregated to the First Order) and Secular, as well as those religious institutes which have had some connexion with the parent body. It may also be used by secular priests or clerics who axe members of the Third Order. The order has also its own ritual and ceremonial for its receptions, professions, etc. FERDINAND HECKMANN FRIARS MINOR CAPUCHIN RITE The Friars Minor Capuchin use the Roman Rite, except that in the Confiteor the name of their founder, St. Francis is added after the names of the Apostles, and in the suffrages they make commemorations of St. Francis and all saints of their order. The use of incense in the conventual mass on certain solemnities, even though the Mass is said and not sung, is another liturgical custom (recently sanctioned by the Holy See) peculiar to their order. Generally speaking, the Capuchins do not have sung Masses except in parochial churches, and except in these churches they may not have organs without the minister general's permission. By a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1890, the minister general, when celebrating Mass at the time of the canonical visitation and on solemnities, has the privileges of a domestic prelate of His Holiness. In regard to the Divine Office, the Capuchins do not sing it according to note but recite it in monotone. In the larger communities they generally recite Matins and Lauds at midnight, except on the three last days of Holy Week, when Tenebræ is chanted on the preceding evening, and during the octaves of Corpus Christi and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when matins are recited also on the preceding evening with the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Every day after Compline they add, extra-liturgically, commemorations of the Immaculate Conception, St. Francis, and St. Anthony of Padua. On the feast of St. Francis after second Vespers they observe the service called the "Transitus" of St. Francis, and on all Saturdays, except feasts of first and second class and certain privileged feriæ and octaves, all Masses said in their churches are votive in honour of the Immaculate Conception, excepting only the conventual mass. They follow the universal calendar, with the addition of feasts proper to their order. These additional feasts include all canonized saints of the whole Franciscan Order, all beati of the Capuchin Reform and the more notable beati of the whole order; and every year the 5th of October is observed as a commemoration of the departed members of the order in the same way as the 2nd of November is observed in the universal Church. Owing to the great number of feasts thus observed, the Capuchins have the privilege of transferring the greater feasts, when necessary, to days marked semi-double. According to the ancient Constitutions of the Order, the Capuchins were not allowed to use vestments of rich texture, not even of silk, but by Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 December, 1888, they must now conform to the general laws of the Church in this matter. They are, however, still obliged to maintain severe simplicity in their churches, especially when nonparochial. FATHER CUTHBERT PREMONSTRATENSIAN RITE The Norbertine rite differs from the Roman in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Divine Office, and in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance. (1) Sacrifice of the Mass The Missal is proper to the order and is not arranged like the Roman Missal. The canon is identical, with the exception of a slight variation as to the time of making the sign of the cross with the paten at the "Libera nos". The music for the Prefaces etc. differs, though not considerably, from that of the Roman Missal. Two alleluias are said after the "Ite missa est" for a week after Easter; for the whole of the remaining Paschal time one alleluia is said. The rite for the celebration of feasts gives the following grades: three classes of triples, two of doubles, celebre, nine lessons, three lessons. No feasts are celebrated during privileged octaves. There are so many feasts lower than double that usually no privilege is needed for votive Masses. The rubrics regulating the various feasts of the year are given in the "Ordinarius Sen. liber cæremomarum canonici ordinis Præmonstratensis". Rubrics for the special liturgical functions are found in the Missal, the Breviary, the Diurnal, the Processional, the Gradual, and the Antiphonary. (2) Divine Office The Breviary differs from the Roman Breviary in its calendar, the manner of reciting it, arrangement of matter. Some saints on the Roman calendar are omitted. The feasts peculiar to the Norbertines are: St. Godfried, C., 16 Jan.; St. Evermodus, B. C., 17 Feb.; Bl. Frederick, Abbot, 3 Mar.; St. Ludolph, B. M., 29 Mar.; Bl. Herman Joseph, C., 7 Apr.; St. Isfrid, B. C.,' 15 June; Sts. Adrian and James, MM., 9 July; Bl. Hrosnata, 19 July, 19; Bl. Gertrude, V., 13 Aug.; Bl. Bronislava, V., 30 Aug.; St. Gilbert, Abbot, 24 Oct.; St. Siardus, Abbot, 17 Nov. The feast of St. Norbert, founder of the order, which falls on 6 June in the Roman calendar, is permanently transferred to 11 July, so that its solemn rite may not be interfered with by the feasts of Pentecost and Corpus Christi. Other feasts are the Triumph of St. Norbert over the sacramentarian heresy of Tanchelin, on the third Sunday after Pentecost, and the Translation of St. Norbert commemorating the translation of his body from Magdeburg to Prague, on the fourth Sunday after Easter. Besides the daily recitation of the canonical hours the Norbertines are obliged to say the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, except on triple feasts and during octaves of the first class. In choir this is said immediately after the Divine Office. (3) Administration of the Sacrament of Penance The form of absolution is not altogether in harmony with that of the Roman Ritual. The following is the Norbertine formula: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius, mihi licet indignissimo concessa, absolvo te in primis, a vinculo excommunicationis ... in quantum possum et indiges", etc. The liturgical books of the Norbertines were reprinted by order of the general chapter held at Prémontré, in 1738, and presided over by Claude H. Lucas, abbot-general. A new edition of the Missal and the Breviary was issued after the General Chapter of Prague, in 1890. In 1902 a committee was appointed to revise the Gradual, Antiphonary, etc. This committee received much encouragement in its work by the Motu Proprio of Pius X on church music. The General Chapter of Tepl, Austria, in 1908, decided to edit the musical books of the order as prepared, in accordance with ancient MSS. by this committee G. RYBROOK SERVITE RITE The Order of Servites (see SERVANTS OF MARY) cannot be said to possess a separate or exclusive rite similar to the Dominicans and others, but follows the Roman Ritual, as provided in its constitutions, with very slight variations. Devotion towards the Mother of Sorrows being the principal distinctive characteristic of the order, there are special prayers and indulgences attaching to the solemn celebration of the five major Marian feasts, namely, the Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption, Presentation, and Nativity of our Blessed Lady. The feast of the Seven Dolours of the Blessed Virgin Mary, celebrated always on the Third Sunday of September, has a privileged octave and is enriched with a plenary indulgence ad instar Portiunculoe; that is, as often as a visit is made to a church of the order. In common with all friars the Servite priests wear an amice on the head instead of a biretta while proceeding to and from the altar. The Mass is begun with the first part of the Angelical Salutation, and in the Confiteor the words Septem beatis patribus nostris are inserted. At the conclusion of Mass the Salve Regina and the oration Omnipotens sempiterne Deus are recited. In the recitation of the Divine Office each canonical hour is begun with the Ave Maria down to the words ventris tui, Jesus. The custom of reciting daily, immediately before Vespers, a special prayer called Vigilia, composed of the three psalms and three antiphons of the first nocturn of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, followed by three lessons and responses, comes down from the thirteenth century, when they were offered in thanksgiving for a special favour bestowed upon the order by Pope Alexander IV (13 May, 1259). The Salve Regina is daily chanted in choir whether or not it is the antiphon proper to the season. LITURGICAL SCIENCE.--RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (Frankfurt, 1847); MARTENE Le antiquis ecclesioe ritibus (Antwerp and Milan, 1736-8); ASSEMANI, Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Rome, 1749-66); DANIEL, Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Leipzig, 1847); DENZIGER, Ritus Orientalium (Wurzburg, 1863); NILLES, Kalendarium manuals (Innsbruck, 1896); HAMMOND, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878); BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); CABROL, Introduction aux études liturgiques (Paris, 1907); RIETSCHEL, Lehrbuch der Liturgik (Berlin, 1900); CLEMEN, Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie, 1: Liturgik (Giessen, 1910); The Prayer-books of Edward VI and Elizabeth are reprinted in the Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature (London); PROCTOR AND FRERE, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1908); MAUDE, A History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1899). CARMELITE RITE.--ZIMMERMAN, Le cérémonial de Maitre Sibert de Beka in Chroniques du Carmel Jambes-lez-Namur, 1903-5); IDEM, Ordinaire de l'Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel (Paris, 1910), being the thirteenth volume of Bibliothèque liturgique; WESSELS, Ritus Ordinis in Analecta Ordinis Carmelitarum (Rome, 1909); WEALE, Bibliographia liturgica (London, 1886). The oldest Ordinal, now in Dublin but of English origin, written after 1262 and before the publication of the Constitution of Boniface VIII, "Gloriosus Deus," C. Gloriosus, de Reliquiis, in Sexto, has not yet been printed. CISTERCIAN RITE.-- Missale Cisterciense, MS. of the latter part of the fourteenth century; Mis. Cist. (Strasburg, 1486); Mis. Cist. (Paris, 1516, 1545, 1584); Regula Ssmi Patris Benedicti; Breviarium Cist. cum Bulla Pii Papoe IX die 7 Feb., 1871; BONA, Op. omnia (Antwerp, 1677); GUIGNART, Mon. primitifs de la règle cist. (Dijon, 1878); Rubriques du bréviaire cist., by a religious of La Grande Trappe (1882); TRILHE, Mémoire sur le projet de cérémonial cist. (Toulouse, 1900); IDEM, Man. Coeremoniarum juxta usum S.O. Cist. (Westmalle, 1908). DOMINICAN RITE.--MORTIER, Hist. des mattres généraux de l'Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, I (Paris, 1903), 174, 309-312, 579 sq.; CASSITTO, Liturgia Dominicana (Naples, 1804); MASETTI, Mon. et Antiq. vet. discipl. Ord. Præd. (Rome, 1864); DANZAS, Etudes sur too temps prim. de l'ordre do S. Dominique (Paris, 1884); Acta Capitulorum Ord. Proed., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1898-1904); Litt. Encyc. Magist. Gener. O. P., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1900); TURON, Hist. des hommes ill. do I'Ordre de St. Dominique, 1, 341; Bullarium O. P., passim. FRANCISCAN RITE.-- Coerem. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1908); Rit. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1910); Promptuarium Seraph. Quaracchi, 1910). CAPUCHIN RITE.-- Ceremoniale Ord. Cap.; Analecta Ord. Cap.; Constit. ord. (Rome). P.J. GRIFFIN Rites in the United States 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 Göttingen, 20 March, 1889). Having completed his studies in the gymnasium at Stettin, where his father resided as general superintendent of Pomerania, Ritschl attended the University of Bonn, and was for a time captivated by the "Biblical supernaturalism" of his teacher, K.J. Nitzsch. Mental dissatisfaction caused him to leave Bonn in 1841, and he continued his studies under Julius Müller and Tholuck in the University of Halle, Disabused here also as to the teachings of his professors, he sought and found peace in the reconciliation doctrine of the Tübingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, through whose writings he was won over to the philosophy of Hegel. On 21 May, 1843, he graduated Doctor of Philosophy at Halle with the dissertation, "Expositio doctrinæ Augustini de creatione mundi, peccato, gratia" (Halle, 1843). After a long residence in his parents' house at Stettin, he proceeded to Tübingen, and there entered into personal intercourse with the celebrated head of the (later) Tübingen School, Ferdinand Christian Baur. He here wrote, entirely in the spirit of this theologian, "Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lukas" (Tübingen, 1846), wherein he attempts to prove that the apocryphal gospel of the Gnostic Marcion forms the real foundation of the Gospel of St. Luke. Having qualified as Privatdocent at Bonn on 20 June, 1846, he was appointed professor extraordinary of Evangelical theology on 22 December, 1852, and ordinary professor on 10 July, 1859. Meanwhile he had experienced a radical change in the earlier views which he had formed under Baur's influence; this change removed him farther and farther from the Tübingen School. In 1851 he had withdrawn his hypothesis concerning the origin of the Gospel of St. Luke as untenable, and in 1856 he had a public breach with Baur. Henceforth Ritschl was resolved to tread his own path. In the second edition of his "Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche" (Bonn, 1857; 1st ed., 1850), he rejected outright Baur's sharp distinction between St. Paul and the original Apostles -- between Paulinism and Petrinism -- by maintaining the thesis that the New Testament contains the religion of Jesus Christ in a manner entirely uniform and disturbed by no internal contradictions. At Göttingen, whither he was called at Easter, 1864, his peculiar ideas first found full realization in his "Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung" (3 vols., Bonn, 1870-4; 4th ed., 1895-1903). His practical conception of Christianity was described first in his lecture on "Christliche Vollkommenheit" (Göttingen, 1874; 3rd ed., 1902) and then in his "Unterricht in der christlichen Religion" (Bonn, 1875; 6th ed., 1903), which was intended as a manual for the gymnasium, but proved very unsatisfactory for practical purposes. In his small, but important, work, "Theologie und Metaphysik" (Bonn, 1881; 3rd ed., Göttingen, 1902), he denies the influence of philosophy in the formation of theology. In addition to numerous smaller writings, which were re-edited after his death under the title "Gesammelte Aufsätze" (2 vols., Göttingen, 1893-6), he compiled a "Geschichte des Pietismus" (3 vols., Bonn, 1880-6), based upon a wide study of the sources. Pietism itself, as it appeared in Calvinistic and Lutheran circles during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries he condemns as an abortion of modern Protestantism caused by the false Catholic ideal of piety. His last and incomplete, "Fides implicita, oder eine Tintersuchung über Köhlerglauben, Wissen und Glauben, Glauben und Kirche" Bonn, 1890), appeared shortly after his death. After 1888 he suffered from heart disease, of which he died in the following year. Although Ritschl was violently attacked during his lifetime not only by the orthodox party, but also by the Erlangen school named after Hofmann, he attached to himself a large circle of enthusiastic followers with Liberal leanings, who are included under the name of Ritschlianists. The literary organs of Ritschlianism in Germany are the "Theologische Literaturzeitung", the "Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche", and the "Christliche Welt". To understand and rightly appraise the rather abstruse train of thought in the doctrine of justification, which constitutes the focus of Ritschl's theological system, we must go back to the epistemology on which the whole edifice rests. Influenced by the philosophy of Kant rather than of Lotze, Ritschl denies human reason the power to arrive at a scientific knowledge of God. Consequently religion cannot have an intellectual, but merely a practical-moral foundation. Religious knowledge is essentially distinct from scientific knowledge. It is not acquired by a theoretical insight into truth, but, as the product of religious faith, is bound up with the practical interests of the soul. Religion is practice, not theory. Knowledge and faith are not only distinct domains; they are independent of and separated from each other. While knowledge rests on judgments of existence (Seinsurteile), faith proceeds on independent "judgments of value" (Werturteile), which affirm nothing concerning the essence or nature of Divine things, but refer simply to the usefulness and fruitfulness of religious ideas. Anticipating to some extent the principles of Pragmatism put forward in a later generation by W. James, Schiller, etc., Ritschl declared that knowledge alone valuable which in practice brings us forward. Not what the thing is "in itself", but what it is "for us", is decisive. So far Ritschl is not original, since Schleiermacher had already banished metaphysics from Christian philosophy, and had explained the nature of religion subjectively as springing from the feeling of our absolute dependence on God. Ritschl's teaching is distinguished from that of the Berlin scholar especially by the fact that he seeks to establish a better Biblical and historical foundation for his ideas. In the latter respect he is the promoter of the so-called historical-critical method, of the application of which many Ritschlianists of the present day are thorough masters. Like Schleiermacher, Ritschl connects mankind's subjective need of redemption with Jesus Christ, the "originator of the perfect spiritual and moral religion". Since we can determine the historical reality of Christ only though the faith of the Christian community, the religious significance of Jesus is really independent of His biography and investigation into His life. A convinced Ritschlianist seems to be ready to persevere in his Christianity, even though radical criticism were to succeed in setting aside the historical existence of Christ. He could be a Christian without Christ, as there could be a Tibetan Buddhist without an historical Buddha (cf. "Christliche Welt", 1901, n. 35). Ritschl himself never wished to separate Christianity from the Person of Christ. Since, as Ritschl especially emphasizes in reply to Baur, the original consciousness of the early Christian community reveals itself with perfect consistency in the writings of the New Testament, theology must in its investigation of the authentic contents of the Christian religion begin with the Bible as source, for the more thorough understanding of which the ancient Christian professions of faith furnish an indirect, and the symbolical books of Protestants (Luther) a direct, guidance. The Reformation rightly elevated the Pauline justification by faith to the central place in Christian doctrine, and in the West carried it to a successful conclusion. As the necessary doctrine of salvation through Christ, this doctrine of justification is thus alone obligatory for theology and Church, while the other convictions and institutions of the earliest Christian community are of a subsidiary nature. For this reason, therefore, Luther himself recognized the Bible as the Word of God only in so far as it "makes for Christ". Since the Christian faith exists only through personal experience or subjective acquaintance with justification and reconciliation, the objects of faith are not presented to the mind from without through a Divine revelation as an authoritative rule of faith, but become vividly present for the Christian only through subjective experience. The revelation of God is given only to the believer who religiously lays hold of it by experience, and recognizes it as such. Justifying faith especially is no mere passive attitude of man towards God, but an active trust in Him and His grace, evincing itself chiefly in humility, patience, and prayer. It is by no means a dogmatical belief in the truth of Revelation, but it possesses essentially a thoroughly practico-moral character. Ritschlianism can thus speak without any inconsistency of an "undogmatic Christianity" (Kaftan). The harmonizing of the free-religious moral activity of the Christian with dependence on God is proclaimed by Ritschl the "master-question of theology". This fundamental problem he solves as follows: The returning sinner is at first passively determined by God, whereupon justification achieves its practical success in reconciliation and regeneration, which in their turn lead to Christian activity. Justification and reconciliation are so related that the former is also the forgiveness of sin and as such removes man's consciousness of guilt (i.e., mistrust of God), while the latter, as the cessation of active resistance to God, introduces a new direction of the will calculated to develop Christian activity in the true fulfilment of one's vocation. These two -- justification and reconciliation -- form the basis of our sonship as children of God. This justification identical with forgiveness of sin is however, no real annihilation of sin, but a forensic declaration of righteousness, inasmuch as God regards the believing sinner, in spite of his sins, as just and pleasing in consideration of the work of Christ. A special characteristic of Ritschlianism lies in the assertion that justifying faith is possible only within the Christian community. The Church of Christ (by which, however, is to be understood no external institution with legal organization) is on the one hand the aggregate of all the justified believers, but on the other hand has, as the enduring fruit of the work of Christ, a duration and existence prior to all its members just as the whole is prior to its parts. Like the children in the family and the citizens in the state, the believers must also be born in an already existing Christian community. In this alone is God preached as the Spirit of Love, just as Jesus Himself preached, and in this alone, through the preaching of Christ and His work, is that justifying faith rendered possible, in virtue of which the individual experiences regeneration and attains to adoption as a son of God (cf. Conrad, "Begriff und Bedeutung der Gemeinde in Ritschl's Theologie" in "Theol. Studien und Krit.", 1911, 230 sqq.). It is plain that, according to this view, Christian baptism loses all its importance as the real door to the Church. What is Ritschl's opinion of Jesus Christ? Does he consider Him a mere man? If we set aside the pious flourishes with which he clothes the form of the Saviour, we come speedily to the conviction that he does not recognize the true Divinity of Jesus Christ. As the efficacious bearer and transmitter of the Divine Spirit of Love to mankind Jesus is "superordinate" to all men, and has in the eternal decree of God a merely ideal pre-existence. He is therefore, as for the earliest community so also for us, our "God and Saviour" only in the metaphorical sense. All other theological questions -- such as the Trinity, the metaphysical Divine sonship of Christ, original sin, eschatology -- possess an entirely secondary importance. This self-limitation is specially injurious to the doctrine concerning God: all the Divine attributes, except such as are practico-moral, are set aside as unknowable. The essence of God is love, to which all His other attributes may be traced. Thus, His omnipotence is another phase of love inasmuch as the world is nothing else than the means for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Even the Divine justice ends in love, especially in God's fidelity to the chosen people in the Old Testament and to the Christian community in the New. Every other explanation of the relation between the just God and sinful mankind -- such as the juridical doctrine of satisfaction taught by St. Anselm of Canterbury -- is called by Ritschl "sub-Christian". Only the sin against the Holy Ghost, which renders man incapable of salvation, calls forth the anger of God and hurls him into everlasting damnation. Other evils decreed by God are not punishments for sin, but punishments intended for our instruction and improvement. Sin being conceivable only as personal guilt, the idea of original sin is morally inconceivable. Although Ritschlianism has undergone manifold alterations and developments in one direction or another at the hands of its learned representatives (Harnack, Kaftan, Bender, Sell, and so on), it has remained unchanged in its essential features. The Liberal and modern-positive theology of Germany is distinctly coloured with Ritschlianism, and the efforts of orthodox Protestantism to combat it have met with poor success. More than a decade ago Adolf Zahn ("Abriss einer Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert", 3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1893) passed the sharp judgment on Ritschlianism, that it was "a rationalist scepticism and Pelagian moralism, vainly decked out in the truths of the Reformers, the threadbare garment of Lutheranism, for purposes of deceit; the clearest sign of the complete exhaustion and impoverishment of Protestantism, which at the end of the nineteenth century again knows no more than the common folk have ever known: 'Do right and fear no man'." The Catholic critic will probably see in the scorn for metaphysics and the elimination of the intellectual factor the chief errors of Ritschlian theology. The separation of faith and knowledge, of theology and metaphysics, has indeed a long and gloomy history behind it. The philosophy of the Renaissance, with its doctrine of the "double truth" erected the first separating wall between faith and knowledge; this division was increased by Spinoza, when he assigned to faith the rôle of concerning itself with pia dogmata, but entrusted to philosophy alone the investigation of truth. Finally appeared Kant, who cut the last threads which still held together theology and metaphysics. By denying the demonstrability of the existence of God through reason, he consistently effected the complete segregation of faith and knowledge into two "separate households". In this he was followed by Schleiermacher and Ritschl. Since recent Modernism, with its Agnosticism and Immanentism, adopts the same attitude, it is, whether avowedly or not, the death-knell not only of Christianity, but of every objective religion. Consequently, the regulations of Pius X against Modernism represent a contest in which the vital interests of the Catholic religion are at stake. As the foremost champion of the powers and rights of reason in its relations with faith, Catholicism is the defender of the law of causality which leads to the knowledge of metaphysical and Divine truths, the guardian of a constant, eternal, and unalterable truth, and the outspoken foe of every form of Scepticism, Criticism, Relativism, and Pragmatism -- always in the interests of Christianity itself, since, without a rational foundation and substructure, Revelation and faith would hang unsupported in the air. In this statement the Catholic opposition to Ritschlianism in one of the most fundamental points of difference is sufficiently characterized. O. RITSCHL, Albert Ritschl's Leben (Leipzig, 1892-6). Concerning the system Consult: FRICKE, Metaphysik u. Dogmatik in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis unter besonderer Beziehung auf die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1882); THICOTTER, Darstellung u. Beurteilung der Theologie A. Ritschl's (Leipzig, 1887); FLÜGEL, A. Ritschl's philosoph. Ansichten (Langensalza, 1886); LIPSIUS, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1888); HÄRING, Zu Ritschl's Versöhnungslehre (Zurich, 1888); HERRMANN, Der evangel. Glaube u. die Theologie A. Ritschl's (Marburg, 1890); PFLEIDERER, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Brunswick, 1891); BERTRAND, Une nouvelle conception de la Rédemption. La doctrine de la justification et de la réconciliation dans le système théologique de Ritschl (Paris, 1891); GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse (Paris, 1897), 94 sqq.; GARVIE, The Ritschlian Theology (Edinburgh, 1899); KATTENBUSCH, Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl (Halle, 1903); SCHOEN, Les origines histor. de la théol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1893); FABRE, Les principes philosophiques de la théol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1894); VON KUGELCHEN, Grundriss der Ritschl'schen Dogmatik (Göttingen, 1903); SWING, The Theology of A. Ritschl (New York, l901); FABRICIUS, Die Entwickelung in R.'s Theol. von 1874-1889 (Leipzig, 1909); HERRMANN, tr. MATHESON AND STEWART, Faith and Morals: I. Faith as Ritschl Defined it; II. The Moral Law, as Understood in Romanism and Protestantism (London, 1910). Cf. also SANDAY, Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford, 1910), 81 sqq. For refutation consult: STRANGE, Der dogmatische Ertrag der Ritschl'schen Theologie nach Kaftan (Leipzig, 1906); SCHÄDER, Theozentrische Theologie, I (Leipzig, 1909); EDGHILL, Faith and Fact, A Study of Ritschlianism (London, 1910) (a fundamental work). See also: O. RITSCHL in Realencykl. für prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1906), s. v. Ritschl, Albrecht Benjamin; American Journal of Theol. (Chicago, 1906), 423 sqq.; KIEFL, Der geschichtl. Christus u. die moderne Philosophie (Mainz, 1911), 51 sqq. JOSEPH POHLE Joseph Ignatius Ritter Joseph Ignatius Ritter Historian, b. at Schweinitz, Silesia, 12 April, 1787; d. at Breslau, 5 Jan., 1857. He pursued his philosophical and theological studies at the University of Breslau, was ordained priest in 1811, and for several years was engaged in pastoral work. An annotated translation of St. John Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood not only obtained for him the doctorate in theology, but also attracted the attention of the Prussian ministry, which in 1823 named him ordinary professor of church history and patrology at the University of Bonn. Here he made the acquaintance of Hermes, and became favorably disposed towards his system. He was in 1830 named professor and canon at Breslau. As administrator of this diocese (1840-43), he atoned for his earlier Hermesian tendencies by his fearless Catholic policy, notably in the question of mixed marriages. Later he published tracts defending the Church against the attacks of Ronge, the founder of the so-called German Catholics. Also worthy of commendation is his beneficence, exercised particularly towards deserving students. His principal writings which bear on church history and canon law are: "Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte" Elberfeld and Bonn, 1826-33; sixth edition by Ennen, Bonn, 1862; "Irenicon oder Briefe zur Förderung des Friedens zwischen Kirche u. Staat", Leipzig, 1840; "Der Capitularvicar", Münster, 1842; "Geschichte der Diöcese Breslau", Breslau, 1845. With J. W. J. Braun he brought out a new edition of Pellicia's work, "De Christianae ecclesiae politia", Cologne, 1829-38. BELLAMY, La Theologie Cath. au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1904), 36. N.A. WEBER Ritual Ritual The Ritual (Rituale Romanum) is one of the official books of the Roman Rite. It contains all the services performed by a priest that are not in the Missal and Breviary and has also, for convenience, some that are in those books. It is the latest and still the least uniform book of our rite. When first ritual functions were written in books, the Sacramentary in the West, the Euchologion in the East contained all the priest's (and bishop's) part of whatever functions they performed, not only the holy Liturgy in the strict sense, but all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of every kind as well. The contents of our Ritual and Pontifical were in the Sacramentaries. In the Eastern Churches this state of things still to a great extent remains. In the West a further development led to the distinction of books, not according to the persons who use them, but according to the services for which they are used. The Missal, containing the whole Mass, succeeded the Sacramentary. Some early Missals added other rites, for the convenience of the priest or bishop; but on the whole this later arrangement involved the need of other books to supply the non-Eucharistic functions of the Sacramentary. These books, when they appeared, were the predecessors of our Pontifical and Ritual. The bishop's functions (ordination, confirmation, etc.) filled the Pontifical, the priest's offices (baptism, penance, matrimony, extreme unction, etc.) were contained in a great variety of little handbooks, finally replaced by the Ritual. The Pontifical emerged first. The book under this name occurs already in the eighth century (Pontifical of Egbert). From the ninth there is a multitude of Pontificals. For the priest's functions there was no uniform book till 1614. Some of these are contained in the Pontificals; often the chief ones were added to Missals and Books of Hours. Then special books were arranged, but there was no kind of uniformity in arrangement or name. Through the Middle Ages a vast number of handbooks for priests having the care of souls was written. Every local rite, almost every diocese, had such books; indeed many were compilations for the convenience of one priest or church. Such books were called by many names-- Manuale, Liber agendarum, Agenda, Sacramentale, sometimes Rituale. Specimens of such medieval predecessors of the Ritual are the Manuale Curatorum of Roeskilde in Denmark (first printed 1513, ed. J. Freisen, Paderborn, 1898), and the Liber Agendarum of Schleswig (printed 1416, Paderborn, 1898). The Roeskilde book contains the blessing of salt and water, baptism, marriage, blessing of a house, visitation of the sick with viaticum and extreme unction, prayers for the dead, funeral service, funeral of infants, prayers for pilgrims, blessing of fire on Holy Saturday, and other blessings. The Schleswig book has besides much of the Holy Week services, and that for All Souls, Candlemas, and Ash Wednesday. In both many rites differ from the Roman forms. In the sixteenth century, while the other liturgical books were being revised and issued as a uniform standard, there was naturally a desire to substitute an official book that should take the place of these varied collections. But the matter did not receive the attention of the Holy See itself for some time. First, various books were issued at Rome with the idea of securing uniformity, but without official sanction. Albert Castellani in 1537 published a Sacerdotale of this kind; in 1579 at Venice another version appeared, arranged by Grancesco Samarino, Canon of the Lateran; it was re-edited in 1583 by Angelo Rocca. In 1586 Giulio Antonio Santorio, Cardinal of St. Severina, printed a handbook of rites for the use of priests, which, as Paul V says, "he had composed after long study and with much industry and labor" (Apostolicæ Sedis). This book is the foundation of our Roman Ritual. In 1614 Paul V published the first edition of the official Ritual by the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" of 17 June. In this he points out that Clement VIII had already issued a uniform text of the Pontifical and the Cærimoniale Episcoporum, which determines the functions of many other ecclesiastics besides bishops. (That is still the case. The Cærimoniale Episcoporum forms the indispensable complement of other liturgical books for priests too.) "It remained", the pope continues, "that the sacred and authentic rites of the Church, to be observed in the administration of sacraments and other ecclesiastical functions by those who have the care of souls, should also be included in one book and published by authority of the Apostolic See; so that they should carry out their office according to a public and fixed standard, instead of following so great a multitude of Rituals". But, unlike the other books of the Roman Rite, the Ritual has never been imposed as the only standard. Paul V did not abolish all other collections of the same kind, nor command every one to use only his book. He says: "Wherefore we exhort in the Lord" that it should be adopted. The result of this is that the old local Rituals have never been altogether abolished. After the appearance of the Roman edition these others were gradually more and more conformed to it. They continued to be used, but had many of their prayers and ceremonies modified to agree with the Roman book. This applies especially to the rites of baptism, Holy Communion, the form of absolution, extreme unction. The ceremonies also contained in the Missal (holy water, the processions of Candlemas and Palm Sunday, etc.), and the prayers also in the Breviary (the Office for the Dead) are necessarily identical with those of Paul V's Ritual; these have the absolute authority of the Missal and Breviary. On the other hand, many countries have local customs for marriage, the visitation of the sick, etc., numerous special blessings, processions and sacramentals not found in the Roman book, still printed in various diocesan Rituals. It is then by no means the case that every priest of the roman Rite uses the Roman Ritual. Very many dioceses or provinces still have their own local handbooks under the name of Rituale or another (Ordo administrandi sacramenta, etc.), though all of these conform to the Roman text in the chief elements. Most contain practically all the Roman book, and have besides local additions. The further history of the Rituale Romanum is this: Benedict XIV in 1752 revised it, together with the Pontifical and Cærimoniale Episcoporum. His new editions of these three books were published by the Brief "Quam ardenti" (25 March, 1752), which quotes Paul V's Constitution at length and is printed, as far as it concerns this book, in the beginning of the Ritual. He added to Paul V's text two forms for giving the papal blessing (V, 6; VIII, 31). Meanwhile a great number of additional blessings were added in an appendix. This appendix is now nearly as long as the original book. Under the title Benedictionale Romanum it is often issued separately. Leo XIII approved an editio typica published by Pustet at Ratisbon in 1884. This is now out of date. The Ritual contains several chants (for processions, burials, Office of the Dead, etc.). These should be conformable to the Motu Proprio of Pius X of 22 Nov., 1903, and the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 8 Jan., 1904. All the Catholic liturgical publishers now issue editions of this kind, approved by the Congregation. The Rituale Romanum is divided into ten "titles" (tituli); all, except the first, subdivided into chapters. In each (except I and X) the first chapter gives the general rules for the sacrament or function, the others give the exact ceremonies and prayers for various cases of administration. Titulus I (caput unicum) is "of the things to be observed in general in the administration of sacraments"; II, About baptism, chap. vi gives the rite when a bishop baptizes, vii the blessing of the font, not on Holy Saturday or Whitsun Eve; III, Penance and absolutions from excommunication; IV, Administration of Holy Communion (not during Mass); V, Extreme Unction, the seven penitential psalms, litany, visitation and care of the dying, the Apostolic blessing, commendation of a departing soul; VI, Of funerals, Office of the Dead, absolutions at the grave on later days, funerals of infants; VII, Matrimony and churching of women; VII, Blessings of holy water, candles, houses (on Holy Saturday), and many others; then blessings reserved to bishops and priests who have special faculties, such as those of vestments, ciboriums, statues, foundation stones, a new church (not, of course, the consecration, which is in the Pontifical), cemeteries, etc.; IX, Processions, for Candlemas, Palm Sunday, Rogation Days, Corpus Christi, etc.; X, Exorcism and forms for filling up parochial books (of baptism, confirmation, marriage, status animarum, the dead). The blessings of tit. VIII are the old ones of the Ritual. The appendix that follows tit. X contains additional forms for blessing baptism water, for confirmation as administered by a missionary priest, decrees about Holy Communion and the "Forty Hours" devotion, the litanies of Loreto and the Holy Name. Then follow a long series of blessings, not reserved; reserved to bishops and priests they delegate, reserved to certain religious orders; then more blessings (novissim) and a second appendix containing yet another collection. These appendixes grow continually. As soon as the Sacred Congregation of Rites approves a new blessing it is added to the next edition of the Ritual. The Milanese Rite has its own ritual (Rituale Ambrosianum, published by Giacomo Agnelli at the Archiepiscopal Press, Milan). In the Byzantine Rite the contents of our ritual are contained in the Euchologion. The Armenians have a ritual (Mashdotz) like ours. Other schismatical Churches have not yet arranged the various parts of this book in one collection. But nearly all the Eastern Catholics now have Rituals formed on the Roman model (see LITURGICAL BOOKS, IV). BARUFFALDI, Ad rituale romanum commentaria (Venice, 1731); CATALANI, Rituale romanum . . . perpetuis commentariis exornatum (Rome, 1757); ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776); THALHOFER, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, II (Freiburg, 1893), 509-36. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Ritualists 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 siècle (Paris, 1901-8), especially in the third volume. The most important Anglican account is probably WARRE-CORNISH, History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1910), especially Part II; a good summary is also provided by HOLLAND in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York, 1910), s. v. Ritualism. The best materials for the history of the movement may be found in the Blue Books issued by the various royal commissions more especially the Report and the four accompanying volumes of minutes of evidence printed for the royal commission on ecclesiastical discipline in 1906. The letters and other documents published in such complete biographies as those of Pusey, Bishop S. Wilberforce, Archbishop Tait, Bishop Wilkinson, Archbishop Benson, Lord Shaftesbury, Charles Lowder, and others, are also very useful. See also SPENCER JONES, England and the Holy See London, 1902); MALLOCK, Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption (London, 1908); MACCOLL, The Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric (London, 1906); MOYES, Aspects of Anglicanism (London, 1906); DOLLING, Ten Years in a Portsmouth Slum (London, 1898); MACCOLL, Lawlessness, Sacerdotalism and Ritualism (London, 1875); ROSCOE, The Bishop of Lincoln's Case (London, 1891); SANDAY, The Catholic Movement and the Archbishop's Decision (London, 1899); TOMILSON, Historical Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment (London, 1891), and in general The Reunion Magazine and the now extinct Church Review. HERBERT THURSTON. Luke Rivington 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 José Mercado Rizal Filipino hero, physician, poet, novelist, and sculptor; b. at Calamba, Province of La Laguna, Luzon, 19 June, 1861; d. at Manila, 30 December, 1896. On his father's side he was descended from Lam-co, who came from China to settle in the Philippines in the latter part of the seventeenth century. His mother was of Filipino-Chinese-Spanish origin. Rizal studied at the Jesuit College of the Ateneo, Manila, where he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with highest honours before he had completed his sixteenth year. He continued his studies in Manila for four years and then proceeded to Spain, where he devoted himself to philosophy, literature, and medicine, with ophthalmology as a specialty. In Madrid he became a Freemason, and thus became associated with men like Zorilla, Sagasta, Castelar, and Balaguer, prominent in Spanish politics. Here and in France he began to imbibe the political ideas, which later cost him his life. In Germany he was enrolled as a law student in the University of Heidelburg and became acquainted with Virchow and Blumentritt. In Berlin was published his novel "Noli me tangere" (1886) characterized, perhaps too extravagantly, by W.D. Howells as "a great novel" written by one "born with a gift so far beyond that of any or all of the authors of our roaring literary successes." Several editions of the work were published in Manila and Spain. There is a French translation ("Bibliothèque sociologique", num 25, Paris, 1899), and two abbreviated English translations of little value: "An Eagle's Flight" (New York, 1900) and "Friars and Filipinos" (New York, 1902). The book satirizes the friars in the Philippines as well as the Filipinos. Rizal's animosity to the friars was largely of domestic origin. The friars were the landlords of a large hacienda occupied by his father; there was a vexatious litigation, and a few years later, by Weyler's order, soldiers destroyed the buildings on the land, and various members of the family were exiled to other parts of the Islands. Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1887. After a stay of about six months he set out again for Europe, passing through Japan and the United States. In London he prepared his annotated edition of Morga's "Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas" which he completed in Paris (1890). In Belgium he published (Ghent, 1891; Manila, 1900) "El Filibusterismo", a sequel to "Noli me tangere". Its animus may be judged from its dedication to three Filipino priests who were executed for complicity in the Cavite outbreak of 1872. In 1891 he arrived in Hong Kong, where he practised medicine. The following year he came to Manila, but five days before his arrival a case was filed against him for "anti-religious and anti-patriotic propaganda". On 7 July the governor-general ordered Rizal's deportation to Mindanao. The reasons given were the finding in his baggage of leaflets, "satirizing the friars and tending to de-catholicize and so de-nationalize the people"; and the "publication of 'El Filibusterismo' dedicated to the memory of three traitors_condemned and executed by competent authority_and whom he hails as martyrs". Rizal spent four years in peaceful exile in Dapitan, Mindanao, when he volunteered his services to the governor to go to Cuba as a surgeon in the Spanish Army. The offer was accepted. When he arrived in Spain, he was arrested and brought back to Manila, where he was charged with founding unlawful associations and promoting rebellion, and sentenced to be shot. Rizal had given up the practice of his religion long years before. But now he gladly welcomed the ministrations of the Jesuit Fathers, his former professors, and he wrote a retraction of his errors and of Masonry in particular. On the morning of his execution he assisted at two Masses with great fervour, received Holy Communion and was married to an Irish half-caste girl from Hong-King with whom he had cohabited in Dapitan. Almost the last words he spoke were to the Jesuit who accompanied him: "My great pride, Father, has brought me here." 30 December, the day of his execution, has been made a national holiday by the American Government and $50,000 appropriated for a monument to his memory; a new province, adjacent to Manila, is called Rizal; the two centavo postage stamp and two peso bill_the denominations in most common use_bear his picture. Whether he was unjustly executed or not, is disputed; his plea in his own defense is undoubtedly a strong one (cf. Retata). The year of his death was a year of great uprising in the Islands and feeling ran high. Whatever may be said about his sentence, its fulfillment was a political mistake. Rizal, it is said, did not favour separation from Spain, nor the expulsion of the friars. Nor did he wish to accomplish his ends_reforms in the Government_by revolutionary methods, but by the education of his countrymen and their formation to habits of industry. Besides the works mentioned above, Rizal wrote a number of poems and essays in Spanish of literacy merit, some translations and short papers in German, French, English, and in his native dialect, Tagalog. A complete list of his writings is given in Retana, "Vida y escritos del Dr. Rizal" (Madrid, 1907). CRAIG, The Story of José Rizal (Manila, 1909); El Dr. Rizal y la obra in La Juventad (Barcelona, Jan., Feb., 1897); PI, La muerte cristiana del Dr. Rizal (Manila, 1910); CRAIG, Los errores de Retana (Manila, 1910.) PHILIP M. FINEGAN Andrea Della Robbia 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 Réné d'Anjou, London, South Kensington Museum, and other works in Naples, Sicily, and elsewhere. The admirable and much disputed group of the Visitation at S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas, Pistoia, is attributed both to Luca and Andrea. BARBET DE JOUY, Les Della Robbia (Paris, 1855); MÜNTZ, Hist. de;'Art pendant la Renaissance (Paris, 1895); REYMOND, Les Della Robbia (Florence, 1897); CRUTWELL, Luca and Andrea Della Robbia (London, 1902). M.L. HANDLEY St. Robert St. Robert Founder of the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne, b. at Aurilac, Auvergne, about 1000; d. in Auvergne, 1067. On his father's side he belonged to the family of the Counts of Aurilac, who had given birth to St. Géraud. He studied at Brioude near the basilica of St-Julien, in a school open to the nobility of Auvergne by the canons of that city. Having entered their community, and being ordained priest, Robert distinguished himself by his piety, charity, apostolic zeal, eloquent discourses, and the gift of miracles. For about forty years he remained at Cluny in order to live under the rule of his compatriot saint, Abbé Odilo. Brought back by force to Brioude, he started anew for Rome in order to consult the pope on his project. Benedict IX encouraged him to retire with two companions to the wooded plateau south-east of Auvergne. Here he built a hermitage under the name of Chaise-Dieu (Casa Dei). The renown of his virtues having brought him numerous disciples, he was obliged to build a monastery, which he placed under the rule of Saint Benedict (1050). Leo IX erected the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu, which became one of the most flourishing in Christendom. At the death of Robert it numbered 300 monks and had sent multitudes all though the centre of France. Robert also founded a community of women at Lavadieu near Brioude. Through the elevation of Pierre Roger, monk of Chaise-Dieu, to the sovereign pontificate, under the name of Clement VI, the abbey reached the height of its glory. The body of Saint Robert, preserved therein, was burned by the Huguenots during the religious wars. His work was destroyed by the French Revolution, but there remain for the admiration of tourists, the vast church, cloister, tomb of Clement VI, and Clementine Tower. The feast-day of St. Robert is 24 April. A. FOURNET Robert of Arbrissel Robert of Arbrissel Itinerant preacher, founder of Fontevrault, b. c. 1047 at Arbrissel (now Arbressec) near Rhétiers, Brittany; d. at Orsan, probably 1117. Robert studied in Paris during the pontificate of Gregory VII, perhaps under Anselm of Laon and later displayed considerable theological knowledge. The date and place of his ordination are unknown. In 1089 he was recalled to his native Diocese of Rennes by Bishop Sylvester de la Guerche, who desired to reform his flock. As archpriest, Robert devoted himself to the suppression of simony, lay investiture, clerical concubinage, irregular marriages, and to the healing of feuds. This reforming zeal aroused such enmity that upon Sylvester's death in 1093, Robert was compelled to leave the diocese. He went to Angers and there commenced ascetic practices which he continued throughout his life. In 1095 he became a hermit in the forest of Craon (s.w. of Laval), living a life of severest penance in the company of Bernard, afterwards founder of the Congregation of Tiron, Vitalis, founder of Savigny, and others of considerable note. His piety, eloquence, and strong personality attracted many followers, for whom in 1096 he founded the monastery of Canons Regular of La Roé, becoming himself the first abbot. In the same year Urban II summoned him to Angers and appointed him a "preacher (seminiverbus, cf. Acts 17, 18) second only to himself with orders to travel everywhere in the performance of this duty" (Vita Baldrici). There is no evidence that Robert assisted Urban to preach the Crusade, for his theme was the abandonment of the world and especially poverty. Living in the utmost destitution, he addressed himself to the poor and would have his followers known only as the "poor of Christ", while the ideal he put forward was "In nakedness to follow Christ naked upon the Cross". His eloquence, heightened by his strikingly ascetic appearance, drew crowds everywhere. Those who desired to embrace the monastic state under his leadership he sent to La Roé, but the Canons objected to the number and diversity of the postulants, and between 1097 and 1100 Robert formally resigned his abbacy, and founded Fontevrault (q.v.). His disciples were of every age and condition, including even lepers and converted prostitutes. Robert continued his missionary journeys over the whole of Western France till the end of his life, but little is known of this period. At the Council of Poitiers, Nov., 1100, he supported the papal legates in excommunicating Philip of France on account of his lawless union with Bertrade de Montfort; in 1110 he attended the Council of Nantes. Knowledge of his approaching death caused him to take steps to ensure the permanence of his foundation at Fontevrault. He imposed a vow of stability on his monks and summoned a Chapter (September, 1116) to settle the form of government. From Hautebruyère a priory founded by the penitent Bertrade, he went to Orsan, another priory of Fontevrault, where he died. The "Vita Andreæ" gives a detailed account of his last year of life. Robert was never canonized. The accusation made against him by Geoffrey of Vendôme of extreme indiscretion in his choice of exceptional ascetic practices (see P.L., CLVII, 182) was the source of much controversy during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Other evidence of eccentric actions on Robert's part and scandals among his mixed followers may have helped to give rise to these rumors. The Fontevrists did everything in their power to discredit the attacks on their founder. The accusatory letters of Marbodius of Rennes and Geoffrey of Vendôme were without sufficient cause declared to be forgeries and the MS. Letter of Peter of Saumur was made away with, probably at the instigation of Jeanne Baptiste de Bourbon, Abbess of Fontevrault. This natural daughter of Henry IV applied to Innocent X for the beatification of Robert, her request being supported by Louis XIV and Henrietta of England. Both this attempt and one made about the middle of the nineteenth century failed, but Robert is usually given the title of "Blessed". The original recension of the Rule of Fontevrault no longer exists; the only surviving writing of Robert is his letter of exhortation to Ermengarde of Brittany (ed. Petigny in "Bib. de l'école des Chartes", 1854, V, iii). Acta SS., Feb., III, 593 sqq., contains two ancient lives by BALDRIC of Dol and the monk ANDREW; PETIGNY, Robert d'Arbissel et Geoffroi de Vendôme in Bib. de l' école des Chartes; WALTER, Ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs, I (Leipzig, 1903), a modern scientific book; IDEM, Excurs, II (1906); BOEHMER in Theologische Literaturzeitung, XXIX, col. 330, 396, a hostile review. RAYMUND WEBSTER Robert of Courcon Robert of Courçon (DE CURSONE, DE CURSIM, CURSUS, ETC.). Cardinal, born at Kedleston, England; died at Damietta, 1218. After having studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, he became in 1211 Chancellor of the University of Paris; in 1212 he was made Cardinal of St. Stephen on the Cedilla Hill; in 1213 he was appointed legate a latere to preach the crusade, and in 1215 was placed at the head of a commission to inquire into the errors prevalent at the University of Paris. He took an active part in the campaign against heresy in France, and accompanied the army of the Crusaders into Egypt as legate of Honorius III. He died during the siege of Damietta. He is the author of several works, including a "Summa: devoted to questions of canon law and ethics and dealing at length with the question of usury. His interference in the affairs of the University of Paris, in the midst of the confusion arising from the introduction of the Arabian translations of Aristotle, resulted in the proscription (1215) of the metaphysical as well as the physical treatises of the Stagyrita, together with the summaries thereof (Summæ de esidem). At the same time, his rescript (Denifle, "Chartul. Univ. Paris", I, 78) renews the condemnation of the Pantheists, David of Dinant, and Amaury of Bene, but permits the use, as texts, of Aristotle's "Ethics" and logical treatises. The rescript also contains several enactments relating to academic discipline. DENIFLE, Chartul. Univ. Paris, I (Paris, 1889), 72, 78; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 252. WILLIAM TURNER Robert of Geneva Robert of Geneva Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d. at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III. Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of Thérouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal 30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is dais to have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was consequently called "the executioner of Cesena". Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism. France, Scotland, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal, Savoy, and some minor German states, Denmark, and Norway acknowledged his authority. Unable to maintain himself in Italy, he took up his residence at Avignon, where he became dependent on the French Court. He created excellent cardinals, but donated the larger part of the Pontifical States to Louis II of Anjou, resorted to simony and extortion to meet the financial needs of his court, and seems never to have sincerely desired the termination of the Schism. BALUZE, Vitæ Paparum Avenionensium, I (Paris, 1693, 486 sqq.; SALEMBIER, The Great Schism of the West, (tr. New York, 1907), passim. N.A. TURNER Robert of Jumieges Robert of Jumièges Archbishop of Canterbury (1051-2). Robert Champart was a Norman monk of St. Ouen at Rouen and was prior of that house in 1037 he was elected Abbot of Jumièges. As abbot he began to build the fine Norman abbey-church, and at this time he was able to be of service to St. Edward the Confessor, then an exile. When Edward returned to England as king in 1043 Robert accompanied him and was made Bishop of London in 1044. In this capacity he became the head of the Norman party in opposition to the Saxon party under Godwin, and exerted supreme influence over the king. In 1051 Robert was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and went to Rome for his pall, but the appointment was very unpopular among the English clergy who resented the intrusion of a foreigner into the metropolitan see. For a time he was successful in opposing Godwin even to the extent of instigating his exile, but when Godwin returned in 1052 Robert fled to Rome and was outlawed by the Wirenagemot. The pope reinstated him in his see, but he could not regain possession of it, and William of Normandy made his continued exclusion one of his pretexts for invading England. The last years of his life were spent at Jumièges, but the precise date of his death has not been ascertained, though Robert de Torigni states it as 26 May, 1055. The valuable liturgical MS. Of the "Missal of Robert of Jumièges", now at Rouen, was given by him, when Bishop of London to the abbey at Jumièges. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. THORPE, r.s., (London, 1861); Vita Eadwardi in LUARD, Lives of Edward the Confessor, R. S. (London, 1858); HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1865-75); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Nobles, and Kings (Cambridge, 1899); Obituary of the Abbey of Jumièges in Receuil de Historiens, XXIII (Rouen, 1872), 419. EDWIN BURTON Robert of Luzarches Robert of Luzarches (LUS). Born at Luzarches near Pontoise towards the end of the twelfth century; is said to have been summoned to Paris by Philip Augustus who employed him in beautifying the city, and to have had a share in the work on Notre Dame. The real fame of this master is, however, connected with the cathedral of Notre Dame in Amiens. The old cathedral was destroyed by fire in 1218 and Bishop Evrard de Fouilloy had it rebuilt in Gothic style. An inscription made in 1288 in the "labyrinth" of the floor (now removed) testified that the building had begun in 1220, and names "Robert, called of Luzarches", as the architect, and as his successors, Thomas de Cormont and the latter's son. The work was completed in later centuries. Viollet-le-Duc sees a fact of great significance in the employment of the layman, Robert; but it is not accurate that in Romanesque times the architects were always bishops, priests, or monks; or, on the other hand, that since the Gothic period the Church relinquished the direction of church-building so entirely as is now believed. Robert was not long employed on the cathedral. Under the successor of Bishop Evrard, who apparently died in 1222, Cormont appears as the architect. Before 1240 Bishop Bernard put a choir window in the provisionally completed cathedral. An intended alteration of the original plan was not used in the finished building, so that the whole remains a splendid moment to Robert. In his day it was already called the "Gothic Parthenon". Gracefully built and better lighted than several of the large churches of France, there is yet, especially about the façade, a majestic severity. It is more spacious than Notre Dame in Paris and considerably larger than the cathedral of Reims. The former is effective through its quiet simplicity, which amounts to austerity; the latter is less rich in the modelling of choir, windows, and triforium. But Robert's creation became a standard far and near, through France and beyond, on account of the successful manner in which weight and strength are counterbalanced and of the consistently Gothic style. The design presents a middle aisle and two side aisles, though the choir has five aisles and the transept has the width of seven aisles. The choir is flanked by seven chapels; that in the centre (the Lady chapel) projecting beyond the others in French style. The majestic and harmonious interior is surpassed in beauty by few cathedrals. The nave is about 470 ft. in length, 164 ft. in breadth (213 ft. in the transept), and 141 ft. in height. A poet writes aptly, "Fabrica nil demi patitur nec susinet addi" (It is not possible to add anything to or to take anything from it). G. GIETMANN Robert of Melun Robert of Melun (DE MELDUNO; MELIDENSIS; MEIDUNUS). An English philosopher and theologian, b. in England abut 1100; d. at Hereford, 1167. He gets his surname from Melun, near Paris, where after having studied under Hugh of St. Victor and probably Abelard, he taught philosophy and theology. Among his pupils were John of Salisbury and Thomas à Beckett. Through the influence of the latter he was made Bishop of Hereford in 1163. Judging from the tributes paid him by John of Salisbury in the "Metalogicus" (P.L. CXCIX), Robert must have enjoyed great renown as a teacher. On the question of Universals, which agitated the schools in those days, he opposed the nominalism of Roscelin and seemed to favour a doctrine of moderate realism. His principal work, "Summa Theologiæ" or "Summa Sententiarum" is still in MS,. Except portions which have been published by Du Boulay in his "Historia Univ. Paris", ii, 585 sqq. He also wrote "Queæstiones de Epistolis Pauli", both of which are kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Those who have examined the "Summa" pronounce it to be of great value in tracing the history of scholastic doctrines. Materials for the History of Thomas Beckett in Rer. Britt, SS. contains valuable data; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 210; HAURÉAU, Hist. de la phil. Scol. (Paris, 1872), 490 sqq. G. GIETMANN St. Robert of Molesme St. Robert of Molesme Born about the year 1029, at Champagne, France, of noble parents who bore the names of Thierry and Ermengarde; d. at Molesme, 17 April, 1111. When fifteen years of age, he commenced his novitiate in the Abbey of Montier-la-Celle, or St. Pierre-la-Celle, situated near Troyes, of which he became later prior. In 1068 he succeeded Hunaut II as Abbot of St. Michael de Tonnerre, in the Diocese of Langres. About this time a band of seven anchorites who lived in the forest of Collan, in the same diocese, sought to have Robert for their chief, but the monks, despite their constant resistance to his authority, insisted on keeping their abbot who enjoyed so great a reputation, and was the ornament of their house. Their intrigues determined Robert to resign his charge in 1071, and seek refuge in the monastery of Montier-la-Celle. The same year he was placed over the priory of St. Ayoul de Provins, which depended on Montier-la-Celle. Meantime two of the hermits of Collan went to Rome and besought Gregory VII to give them the prior of Provins for their superior. The pope granted their request, and in 1074 Robert initiated the hermits of Collan in the monastic life. As the location at Collan was found unsuitable, Robert founded a monastery at Molesme in the valley of Langres at the close of 1075. To Molesme as a guest came the distinguished canon and doctor (écolâtre) of Reims, Bruno, who, in 1082, placed himself under the direction of Robert, before founding the celebrated order of the Chartreux. At this time the primitive discipline was still in its full vigour, and the religious lived by the labour of their hands. Soon, however, the monastery became wealthy through a number of donations, and with wealth, despite the vigilance of the abbot, came laxity of discipline. Robert endeavoured to restore the primitive strictness, but the monks showed so much resistance that he abdicated, and left the care of his community to his prior, Alberic, who retired in 1093. In the following year he returned with Robert to Molesme. On 29 Nov., 1095, Urban II confirmed the institute of Molesme. In 1098 Robert, still unable to reform his rebellious monks, obtained from Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons and Legate of the Holy See, authority to found a new order on new lines. Twenty-one religious left Molesme and set out joyfully for a desert called Citeaux in the Diocese of Chalons, and the Abbey of Citeaux (q.v.) was founded 21 March, 1098. Left to themselves, the monks of Molesme appealed to the pope, and Robert was restored to Molesme, which thereafter became an ardent centre of monastic life. Robert died 17 April, 1111, and was buried with great pomp in the church of the abbey. Pope Honorius III by Letters Apostolic in 1222 authorized his veneration in the church of Molesme, and soon after the veneration of St. Robert was extended to the whole Church by a pontifical Decree. The feast was fixed at first on 17 April, but later it was transferred to 29 April. The Abbey of Molesme existed up to the French Revolution. The remains of the holy founder are preserved in the parish church. Vita S. Roberti, Abbatis Molismensis, auctore monacho molismensi sub Adone, abb. saec. XII; Exordium Cisterciensis Cenobii; CUIGNARD, Les monuments primitifs de la Regle Cistercienne (Dijon, 1878); WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Bk. I, De rebus gestis Anglorum, P.L., CLXXIX; LAURENT, Cart. de Molesme, Bk. I (Paris, 1907). F.M. GILDAS St. Robert of Newminster 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 Möhler. This work considerably influenced some of the Oxford Tractarians. In 1855 Dr. Newman nominated Robertson as professor of geography and modern history in the Catholic University of Ireland. In this capacity he published two series of lectures (1859 and 1864), as well as "Lectures on Edmund Burke" (1869), and a translation of Dr. Hergenröther's "Anti Janus" (1870) to which he prefixed a history of Gallicanism. He also wrote a poem, "The Prophet Enoch" (1859), and contributed several articles to the "Dublin Review". His services to literature obtained for him a pension from the Government in 1869, and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Pius IX (1875). He is buried in Glasnevin cemetary. Tablet (24 Feb., 1877); GILLOW in Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; The Edmundian, II, no. 8 (1895). EDWIN BURTON Ven. Christopher Robinson 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 Tomás de Rocaberti Theologian, b. of a noble family at Perelada, in Catalina, c. 1624; d. at Madrid 13 June, 1699. Educated at Gerona he entered the Dominican convent there, receiving the habit in 1640. His success in theological studies at the convent of Valencia secured for him the chair of theology in the university. In 1666he was chosen provincial of Aragon, and in 1670 the General Chapter elected him general of the order. He became endeared to all who came in contact with him. No one, perhaps, held him in greater esteem than Clement X. The celebrated Dominican Contenson dedicated to him his "Theologia mentis el cordis". He obtained the canonization of Sts. Louis Bertrand and Rose of Lima, the solemn beatification of Pius V, and the annual celebration in the order of the feast of Bl. Albert the Great and others. In 1676 he was appointed by Charles II first Archbishop of Valencia and then governor of that province. In 1695 he was made inquisitor-general of Spain. Rocaberti is best known as an active apologist of the papacy against Gallicans and Protestants. His first work in the sense was "De Romani poniticis auctoritate" (3 vols., Valentia, 1691-94). His most important work is the "Bibliotheca Maxima Pontificia" (21 vols., Rome, 1697-00). In this monumental work the author collected and published in alphabetical order, and in their entirety, all the important works dealing with the primacy of the Holy See from an orthodox point of view, beginning with Abraham Bzovius and ending with Zacharias Boverius. An excellent summary is given in Hurter's "Nomenclator". QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. ord. Prad., II (Paris, 1721), 630,827; TOURON, Hist. des hom. Ill. De l'ordre Dom., V (Paris, 1748), 714-26; HURTER, Nomenclator, II: Année Dominicaine, XIII, 785. H.J. SCHROEDER Rocamadour Rocamadour Communal chief town of the canton of Gramat, district of Gourdon, Department of Lot, in the Diocese of Cahors and the ancient province of Quercy. This village by the wonderful beauty of its situation merits the attention of artists and excites the curiosity of archæologists; but its reputation is due especially to its celebrated sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin which for centuries has attracted pilgrims from every country, among them kings, bishops, and nobles. A curious legend purported to explain the origin of this pilgrimage has given rise to controversies between critical and traditional schools, especially in recent times. According to the latter, Rocamadour is indebted for its name to the founder of the ancient sanctuary, St. Amadour, who was none other than Zacheus of the Gospel, husband of St. Veronica, who wiped the Saviour's face on the way to Calvary. Driven forth from Palestine by persecution, Amadour and Veronica embarked in a frail skiff and, guided by an angel, landed on the coast of Aquitaine, where thy met Bishop St. Martial, another disciple of Christ who was preaching the Gospel in the south-west of Gaul. After journeying to Rome, where he witnessed the martydoms of Sts. Peter and Paul, Amadour, having returned to France, on the death of his spouse, withdrew to a wild spot in Quercy where he built a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin, near which he died a little later. This marvellous account, like most other similar legends, unfortunately does not make its first appearance till long after the age in which the chief actors are deemed to have lived. The name of Amadour occurs in no document previous to the compilation of his Acts, which on careful examination and on an application of the rules of the cursus to the text cannot be judged older than the twelfth century. It is now well established that St. martial, Amadour's contemporary in the legend, lived in the third not the first century, and Rome has never included him among the members of the Apostolic College. The mention, therefore, of St. martial in the Acts of St. Amadour would alone suffice, even if other proof were wanting, to prove them a forgery. The untrustworthiness of the legend has led some recent authors to suggest that Amadour was an unknown hermit or possible St. Amator, Bishop of Auxerre, but this is mere hypothesis, without any historical basis. Although the origin of the sanctuary of Rocamadour, lost in antiquity, is thus first set down along with fabulous traditions which cannot bear the light of sound criticism, yet it is undoubted that this spot, hallowed by the prayers of innumerable multitudes of pilgrims, is worthy of our veneration. After the religious manifestations of the Middle Ages, Rocamadour, as a result of war and revolution, had become almost deserted. Recently, owing to the zeal and activity of the bishops of Cahors, it seems to have revived and pilgrims are beginning to crown there again. DE GISSEY, Hist. et miracles de N. D. de Roc-Amadour au pays de Quercy (Tulle, 1666); CAILLAU, Hist. crit. Et relig. De N .D. de Rod-Amadour (Paris, 1834); IDEM, Le Jour de Marie ou le guide du pèlerin de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1836); SERVOIS, Notice et extraits du recueil des miracles de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1856); LIEUTAUD, La Vida de S. Amadour, texte provençal du XIV's. (Cahors, 1876); BOURRIÈRES, Saint Amadour et Sainte Véronique, disciples de Notre Seigneur et apôtres de Gauels (Paris, 1895); ENARD, Lettre pastorale sur l'hist de Roc-Amadour. . . (Cahors, 1899); RUPIN, Roc-Amadour etude hist. et archéol. (Paris, 1904), an excellent work containing the definitive history of Roc-Amadour; ALBE, Les miracles de N. D. de Rod-Amadour au XIIx s., texte et traduction des manusrits de la Bibiothèque nationale (Paris, 1907), corroborating the work of Rupin. LÉON CLUGNET Angelo Rocca Angelo Rocca Founder of the Angelica Library at Rome, b. at Rocca, now Arecevia, near Ancone, 1545; d. at Rome, 8 April, 1620. He was received at the age of seven into the Augustinian monastery at Camerino (hence also called Camers, Camerinus), studied at Perugia, Rome, Venice, and in 1577 graduated as doctor in theology from Padua. He became secretary to the superior-general of the Augustinians in 1579, was placed at the head of the Vatican printing-office in 1585, and entrusted with the superintendence of the projected editions of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. In 1595 he was appointed sacristan in the papal chapel, and in 1605 became titular Bishop of Tagaste in Numidia. The public library of the Augustinians at Rome, formally established 23 October, 1614, perpetuated his name. It is mainly to his efforts that we owe the edition of the Vulgate published during the pontificate of Clement VIII. He also edited the works of Egidio Colonna (Venice, 1581), of Augustinus Triumphus (Rome, 1582), and wrote: "Bibliothecæ theologicæ et scripturalis epitome" (Rome, 1594); "De Sacrosancto Christi corpore romanis pontificibus iter conficientibus præferendo commentarius" (Rome, 1599); "De canonizatione sanctorum commentarius" (Rome, 1601), "De campanis" (Rome, 1612). An incomplete collection of his works was published in 1719 and 1745 at Rome: "Thesaurus pontificiarum sacrarumque antiquitatum necnon rituum praxium et cæremoniarium". OSSINGER, Bibl. August (Ingolstadt, 1768), 754-64; CHALMERS, Gen. Biol. Dict., s. v. N.A. WEBER St. Roch 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 Vendôme, France, 1 July, 1725; d. at Thoré, 10 May, 1807. At the age of sixteen he entered the army and in 1745 became an aid to Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, subsequently commanding a regiment. He served with distinction in several important battles, notably those of Minorca, Crevelt, and Minden, and was wounded at the battle of Lafeldt. When the French monarch resolved to despatch a military force to aid the American colonies in the Revolutionary War, Rochambeau was created a lieutenant-general and placed in command of a body of troops which numbered some 6000 men. It was the smallness of this force that made Rochambeau at first averse to taking part in the American War, but his sympathy with the colonial cause compelled him eventually to accept the command, and he arrived at Newport, Rhode Island July, 1780, and joined the American army under Washington, on the Hudson a few miles above the city of New York. Rochambeau performed the double duties of a diplomat and general in an alien army with rare distinction amidst somewhat trying circumstances, not the least of which being a somewhat unaccountable coolness between Washington and himself, which, fortunately, was of but passing import (see the correspondence and diary of Count Axel Fersen). After the first meeting with the American general he marched with his force to the Virginia peninsula and rendered heroic assistance at Yorktown in the capture of the English forces under Lord Cornwallis, which concluded the hostilities. When Cornwallis surrendered, 19 Oct., 1781, Rochambeau was presented with one of the captured cannon. After the surrender he embarked for France amid ardent protestations of gratitude and admiration from the officers and men of the American army. In 1783 he received the decoration of Saint-Esprit and obtained the baton of a marshal of France in 1791. Early in 1792 he was placed in command of the army of the North, and conducted a force against the Austrians, but resigned the same year and narrowly escaped the guillotine when the Jacobin revolutionary power had obtained supreme control in Paris. When the fury of the revolution had spent itself, Rochambeau was reinstated in the regard of his countrymen. He was granted a pension by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804, and was decorated with the Cross of Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour. The last years of the distinguished military leader's life were passed in the dictation of his memoirs, which appeared in two volumes in Paris in 1809, and which throw many personal and brilliant sidelights on the events of two of the most historically impressive revolutions, and the exceptional men therein concerned. WRIGHT, Memoirs of Marshal Count de Rochambeau Relative to the War or Independence (1838); SOULÉ, Histoire des troubles de l'Amerique anglaise(Paris, 1787); standard histories of the United States may also be consulted. JARVIS KEILEY 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 Wærmund I, 781-5 Beornmod, 803-5 Tatnoth, 844 Beadunoth (possibly identical with Wærmund II) Wærmund 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 Sées, 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 Gewänder, II (Bonn, 1866), 329 sqq.; ROHAULT DE BLEURY, La Messe, VII (Paris, 1888). JOSEPH BRAUN Desire Raoul Rochette Désiré Raoul Rochette Usually known as Raoul-Rochette, a French archæologist, b. at St. Amand (Cher), 9 March, 1789; d. in Paris, 3 June, 1854. His father was a physician. He made his classical studies the lyceum of Bourges, and then took up post-graduate work in the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. In 1810, he obtained a chair of grammar in the lyceum Louis-le-Grand, and in the same year, married the daughter of the celebrated sculptor Houdon. Three years later, he was awarded a prize by the Institute for his "Mémoire sur les Colonies Grecques". In 1815, he became lecturer at the Ecole Normale and succeeded Guizot in the chair of modern history at the Sorbonne. It has been often said that he owed his rapid advancement only to favoritism, because of his devotion to the ruling power; this is not entirely true. He was a real scholar whose deep knowledge of archæology was admired even by his political enemies. He was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1816, and two years later, made a keeper of medals and antiques. His appointment to the position of censor (1820) aroused the hostility of his students, who prevented him from delivering his lectures and caused the course to be suspended. In 1824 he was transferred to the chair of archæology. He entered the Academy of Fine Arts in 1838, and was made it perpetual secretary in 1839. Besides his memoirs for the Institute and numerous contributions to the "Journal de Savants, he wrote many books, the chief of which are: "Histoire critique de;'etablissement des colonies grecques" (Paris, 1815); "Antiquités grecques du Bosphore Cimmérien" (Paris, 1822); "Lettres sur le Suisse" (Paris, 1826); "Mémoires inédits d'antiquité figurée grecque, étrusque et Romaine" (Paris, 1828); "Pompéi" (Paris, 1828); "Cours d'archéologie" (Paris, 1828); "Peintures antiques inédites" (Paris, 1836). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Daniel Rock Daniel Rock Antiquarian and ecclesiologist, b. at Liverpool, 31 August, 1799; d. at Kensington, London, 28 November, 1871. He was educated at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, where he studied from April, 1813, to Dec., 1818. There he came under the influence of the Rev. Louis Havard from whom he acquired his first interest in liturgy, and was the intimate companion of the future historian, Mark A. Tierney. He was then chosen as one of the first students sent to reopen the English College at Rome, where he remained till he took the degree of D.D. in 1825. He had been ordained priest, 13 March, 1824. On his return to London he becomes assistant priest at St. Mary's, Moorfields, till 1827, when he was appointed domestic chaplain to John, Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom he had contracted a friendship based on similarity of tastes while at Rome. He accordingly resided at Alton Towers, Staffordshire, till 1840, with the exception of two years during which Lord Shrewsbury's generosity enabled him to stay at Rome collecting materials for his great work, "Hierurgia or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", which was published in 1833. He had previously published two short works: "Transubstantiation vindicated from the strictures of the Rev. Maurice Jones" (1830), and "The Liturgy of the Mass and Common Vespers for Sundays" (1832). In 1840 he became chaplain to Sir Robert Throckmorton of Buckland in Berkshire, and while there wrote his greatest book, "The Church of Our Fathers", in which he studies the Sarum Rite and other medieval liturgical observances. This work, which has profoundly influenced liturgical study in England and which caused his recognition as the leading authority on the subject, was published in 1849 (vols. I and II) and 1853-4 (vol. III). After 1840 Dr. Rock was a prominent member of the "Adelphi", an association of London priests who were working together for the restoration of the hierarchy. When this object was achieved, he was elected one of the first canons of Southwark (1852). Shortly after, he ceased parochial work, and having resided successfully at Newick, Surrey (1854-64), he went to live near the South Kensington Museum in which he took the keenest interest and to which he proved of much service. His "Introduction to the Catalogue of Textile Fabrics" in that Museum has been separately reprinted (1876) and is of great authority. He also contributed frequent articles to the Archæological Journal, the Dublin Review, and other periodicals. For many years before his death he held the honourable position of President of the Old Brotherhood of the English Secular Clergy. There is an oil painting of him at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; SUTTON in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. incorrectly dating his departure for Rome 1813 instead of 1818; KELLY, Life of Daniel Rock, D.D., prefixed to the modern Anglican ed. The Church of Our Fathers, ed. HART AND FRERE (London, 1903), with portrait. The Edmundian, II (1895), no. 8. EDWIN BURTON Diocese of Rockford 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 émigrés, who used the word to designate in whimsical fashion the old shellwork style (style rocaille), then regarded as Old Frankish, as opposed to the succeeding more simple styles. Essentially, it is in the same kind of art and decoration as flourished in France during the regency following Louis XIV's death, and remained in fashion for about forty years (1715-50). It might be termed the climax or degeneration of the Baroque, which, coupled with French grace, began towards the end of the reign of Louis XIV to convert grotesques into curves, lines, and bands (Jean Bérain, 1638-1711). As its effect was less pronounced on architectural construction than elsewhere, it is not so much a real style as a new kind of decoration, which culminates in the resolution of architectural forms of the interiors (pilasters and architraves) by arbitrary ornamentation after the fashion of an unregulated, enervated Baroque, while also influencing the arrangement of space, the construction of the façades, the portals, the forms of the doors and windows. The Rococo style was readily received in Germany, where it was still further perverted into the arbitrary, unsymmetrical, and unnatural, and remained in favour until 1770 (or even longer); it found no welcome in England. In Italy a tendency towards the Rococo style is evidenced by the Borrominik Guarini, and others. The French themselves speak only of the Style Régence and Louis XV, which, however, is by no means confined to this one tendency. To a race grown effeminate to the Baroque forms seemed too coarse and heavy, the lines too straight and stiff, and whole impression to weighty and forced. The small and the light, sweeps and flourishes, caught the public taste; in the interiors the architectonic had to yield to the picturesque, the curious, an the whimsical. There develops a style for elegant parlours, dainty sitting-rooms and boudoirs, drawing-rooms and libraries, in which walls, ceiling, furniture, and works of metal and porcelain present one ensemble of sportive, fantastic, and sculptured forms. The horizontal lines are almost completely superseded by curves and interruptions, the vertical varied at least by knots; everywhere shell-like curves appear to a cusp; the natural construction of the walls is concealed behind thick stucco-framework; on the ceiling perhaps a glimpse of Olympus enchants the view--all executed in a beautiful white or in bright colour tones. All the simple laws and rules being set aside in favour of free and enchanting imaginativeness, the fancy received all the greater incentive to activity, and the senses were the more keenly requisitioned. Everything vigorous is banned, every suggestion of earnestness; nothing disturbs the shallow repose of distinguished banality; the sportively graceful and light appears side by side with the elegant and the ingenious. The sculptor Bouchardon represented Cupid engaged in carving his darts of love from the club of Hercules; this serves as an excellent symbol of the Rococo style--the demigod is transformed into the soft child, the bone-shattering club becomes the heart-scathing arrows, just as marble is so freely replaced by stucco. Effeminacy, softness, and caprice attitudinize before us. In this connection, the French sculptors, Robert le Lorrain, Michel Clodion, and Pigalle may be mentioned in passing. For small plastic figures of gypsum, clay, biscuit, porcelain (Sèvres, Meissen), the gay Rococo is not unsuitable; in wood, iron, and royal metal, it has created some valuable works. However, confessionals, pulpits, altars, and even façades lead ever more into the territory of the architectonic, which does not easily combine with the curves of Rococo, the light and the petty, with forms whose whence and wherefore baffle inquiry. Even as mere decoration on the walls of the interiors the new forms could maintain their ground only for a few decades. In France the sway of the Rococo practically ceases with Oppenord (d. 1742) and Meissonier (d. 1750). Inaugurated in some rooms in the Palace of Versailles, it unfolds its magnificence in several Parisian buildings (especially the Hôtel Soubise). In Germany French and German artists (Cuvilliés, Neumann, Knobelesdorff, etc.) effected the dignified equipment of the Amalienburg near Munich, and the castles of Wurzburg, Potsdam, Charlottenburg, Brühl, Bruchsal, Schönbrunn, etc. In France the style remained somewhat more reserved, since the ornaments were mostly of wood, or, after the fashion of wood-carving, less robust and naturalistic and less exuberant in the mixture of natural with artificial forms of all kinds (e.g. plant motives, stalactitic representations, grotesques, masks, implements of various professions, badges, paintings, precious stones). As elements of the beautiful France retained, to a greater extent than Germany, the unity of the whole scheme of decoration and the symmetry of its parts. This style needs not only decorators, goldsmiths, and other technicians, but also painters. The French painters of this period reflect most truly the moral depression dating from the time of Louis XIV, even the most deliberated among them confining themselves to social portraits of high society and depicting " gallant festivals", with their informal frivolous, theatrically or modishly garbed society. The "beautiful sensuality" is effected by masterly technique, especially in the colouring, and to a great extent by quite immoral licenses or mythological nudities as in loose or indelicate romances. As for Watteau (1682-1721), the very titles of his works--e.g. Conversation, Breakfast in the Open Air, Rural Pleasures, Italian or French Comedians, Embarkment for the Island of Cythera--indicate the spirit and tendency of his art. Add thereto the figures in fashionable costume slim in head, throat, and feet, in unaffected pose, represented amid enchanting, rural scenery, painted in the finest colours, and we have a picture of the high society of the period which beheld Louis XV and the Pompadour. François Boucher (1703-770) is the most celebrated painter of ripe Rococo. For the church Rococo may be, generally speaking, compared with worldly church music. It lacks of simplicity, earnestness, and repose is evident, while its obtrusive artificiality, unnaturalness, and triviality have a distracting effect. Its softness and prettiness likewise do not become the house of God. However, shorn of its most grievous outgrowths, it may have been less distracting during its proper epoch, since it then harmonized with the spirit of the age. A development of Baroque, it will be found a congruous decoration for baroque churches. In general it makes a vast difference whether the style is used with moderation in the finer and more ingenious form of the French masters, or is carried to extremes with the consistency of the German. The French artists seem ever to have regarded the beauty of the whole composition as the chief object, while the German laid most stress on the bold vigour of the lines; thus, the lack of symmetry was never so exaggerated in the works of the former. In the church Rococo may at times have the charm of prettiness and may please by its ingenious technic, provided the objects be small and subordinate a credence table with cruets and plate, a vase, a choir desk, lamps, key and lock, railings or balustrade, do not too boldly challenge the eye, and fulfil (sic) all the requirements of mere beauty of form. Rococo is indeed really empty, solely a pleasing play of the fancy. In the sacristy (for presses etc.) and ante chambers it is m ore suitable than in the church itself--at least so far as its employment in conspicuous places is concerned. The Rococo style accords very ill with the solemn office of the monstrance, the tabernacle, and the altar, and even of the pulpit. The naturalism of certain Belgian pulpits, in spite or perhaps on account of their artistic character, has the same effect as have outspoken Rococo creations. The purpose of the confessional and the baptistery would also seem to demand more earnest forms. In the case of the larger objects, the sculpture of Rococo forms either seems pretty, or, if this prettiness be avoided, resembles Baroque. The phantasies of this style agree ill with the lofty and broad walls of the church. However, everything must be decided according to the object and circumstances; the stalls in the cathedral of Mainz elicit not only our approval but also our admiration, while the celebrated privilege d altar of Vierzehnheiligen repels us both by its forms and its plastic decoration. Thee are certain Rococo chalices (like that at the monastery of Einsiedeln which are, as one might say, decked out in choice festive array; there are others, which are more or less misshapen owing to their bulging curves or figures. Chandeliers and lamps may also be disfigured by obtrusive shellwork or want of all symmetry, or may amid great decorativeness be kept within reasonable limits. The material and technic are also of consequence in Rococo. Woven materials, wood-carvings, and works in plaster of Paris are evidently less obtrusive than works in other materials, when they employ the sportive Rococo. Iron (especially in railings) and bronze lose their coldness and hardness, when animated by the Rococo style; in the case of the latter, gilding may be used with advantage. Gilding and painting belong to the regular means through which this style, under certain circumstances, enchants the eye and fancy. All things considered, we may say of the Rococo style--as has not unreasonably been said of the Baroque and of the Renaissance--that it is very apt to introduce a worldly spirit into the church, even if we overlook the figural accessories, which are frequently in no way conducive to sentiments of devotion, and are incompatible with the sobriety and greatness of the architecture and with the seriousness of sacred functions. Ornaments Louis XV et du style Rocaille, reproduits d'apres les originaux (Paris, 1890); Recueil des oeuvres de G. M. Oppenord (Paris, 1888); Recueil des oeuvres de J. A. Meissonier (Paris, 1888); Gurlitt, Das Barock- u. Roko ko-Architektur; Jessen, Das Ornament des Rokoko (Leipzig, 1894). G. GIETMANN Rodez Rodez (RUTHENAE) The Diocese of Rodez was united to the Diocese of Cahors by the Concordat of 1802, and again became an episcopal see by the Concordat of 1817 and Bull of 1822, having jurisdiction over: (1) the ancient Diocese of Rodez with the exception of the deanery of Saint Antonin, incorporated with the Diocese of Montauban; (2) the ancient Diocese of Vabres; (3) a few scattered communes of the Diocese of Cahors. The Diocese of Rodez corresponds exactly to the Department of Aveyron (formerly Rouergue). It was suffragan of Bourges until 1676, then of Albi, and has again been suffragan of Aibi since 1822. Modern tradition attributes to St. Martial the foundation of the church of Rodez and the sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin at Ceignac, for according to Cardinal Bourret, the church of Rodez honoured St. Martial as early as the sixth century (see Limoges). There were bishops of Rodez before 675, as Sidonius Apollinaris mentions that the Goths left it at that date without bishops. Amantius, who ruled about the end of the fifth century, is the first bishop mentioned. Among others are: S. Quintianua who assisted at the Councils of Agde (508) and Orléans (511), afterwards Bishop of Clermont; 8. Dalmatius (524-80); S. Gausbert (tenth century), probably a Bishop of Cahors; Jean de Cardaillac (1371-9); Patriarch of Alexandria, who fought against English rule; Blessed Francis d'Estaing (1501-29), ambassador of Louis XII to Juluis II; Louis Avelly (1664-6) who wrote the life of St. Vincent of Paul; Joseph Bourret (1871-96), made Cardinal in 1893. The Benedictine Abbey of Vabres, founded in 862 by Raymond I, Count of Toulouse, was raised to episcopal rank in 1317, and its diocesan territory was taken from the southeastern portion of the Diocese of Rodez. Some scholars hold that within the limits of the modern Diocese of Rodez there existed in Merovingian times the See of Arisitum which, according to Mgr Duchesne, was in the neighbourhood of Alais. During the Middle Ages the Bishop of Rodez held temporal dominion over that portion of the town known as the Cité while in the eleventh century the Bourg became the County of Rodez. The cathedral of Rodez (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) is a beautiful Gothic building, famous for its belfry (1510-26) and unique rood-beam. It was spared during the Revolution for dedication to Marat. The town of Milhau adopted Calvinism in 1534, and in 1573 and 1620 was the scene of two large assemblies of Protestant deputies. In 1629 Milhau and Saint-Afrique, another Protestant stronghold, were taken and dismantled by Louis XIII. In 1628 a pest at Villefranche carried off 8000 inhabitants within six months; Father Ambroise, a Franciscan, and the chief of police Jean de Pomayrol saved the lives of many little children by causing them to bo suckled by goats. The Cistercian Abbeys of Silbanès, Beaulieu, Loc-Dieu, Bonneval, and Bonnecombe were model-farms during the Middle Ages. Attacked by brigands in the Rouergue country on his way to Santiago di Compostella, Adalard, Viscount of Flanders, erected in 1031 a monastery known as the Domerie d'Aubrac, a special order of priests, knights, lay brothers, ladies, and lay sisters for the care and protection of travellers. At Milhau, Rodez, Nazac, and Bozouls, hospitals, styled "Commanderies", of this order of Aubrac adopted the rule of St. Augustine in 1162. The Diocese of Rodez is famous also through the Abbey of Conques and the cult of Sainte Foy. Some Christians, flying from the Saracens about 730, sought a refuge in the "Val Rocheux" of the Dourdou and built an oratory there. In 790 the hermit Dadon made this his abode and aided by Louis the Pious, then King of Aquitaine, founded an abbey, which Louis named Conques. In 838 Pepin, King of Aquitaine, gave the monastery of Figeac to Conques. Between 877 and 883 the monks carried off the body of the youthful martyr Ste-Foy from the monastery of Sainte Foy to Conques, where it became the object of a great pilgrimage. Abbot Odolric built the abbey church between 1030 and 1060; on the stonework over the doorway is carved the most artistic representation in France of the Last Judgment. Abbot Begon (1099-1118) enriched Conques with a superb reliquary of beaten gold and cloisonne's enamels of a kind extremely rare in France. Pascal II gave him permission for the name of Ste-Foy to be inserted in the Canon of the Mass after the names of the Roman virgins. At this time Conques, with Agen and Schelestadt in Alsace, was the centre of the cult of Ste. Foy which soon spread to England, Spain, and America where many towns bear the name of Santa Fe^. The statute of Ste-Foy seated, which dated from the tenth century, was originally a small wooden one covered with gold leaf. In time, gems, enamels, and precious stones were added in such quantities that it is a living treatise on the history of the goldsmiths art in France between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries. It was known during the Middle Ages as "Majesté de Sainte Foy". The shrine enclosing the relics of the Saint, which in 1590 was hidden in the masonry connecting the pillars of the choir, was found in 1875, repaired, transferred to the cathedral of Rodez for a novena, and brought back to Conques, a distance of 25 miles, on the shoulders of the clergy. Among Saints specially honoured in the Diocese of Rodez and Vabres are: S. Antoninus of Pamiers, Apostle of the Rouergue (date uncertain); S. Gratus and S. Ansutus, martyrs (fourth century); S. Naamatius, deacon and confessor (end of fifth century); Ste. Tarsicia, grand-daughter of Clothaire I and of Ste-Radegunda, who retired to the Rouergue to lead an ascetic life (sixth century); S. Africanus, wrongly styled Bishop of Comminges, who died in the Rouergue (sixth century); S. Hilarianus, martyred by the Saracens in the time of Charlemagne (eighth and ninth century); S. George, a monk in the Diocese of Vabres, afterwards Bishop of Lodève (877); 8. Guasbert, founder and first abbot of the monastery of Montsalvy in the modern Diocese of St. Flour (eleventh century). Among natives of the diocese are: Cardinal Bernard of Milhau, Abbot of St. Victor's at Marseilles in 1063, and legate of Gregory VII; Theodatus de Gozon (d. 1353) and John of La Valetta (1494-1568), grand masters of the order of St. John of Jerusalem; the former is famous for his victory over the dragon of Rhodes, the latter for his heroic defence of Malta; Frassinous (1765-1841), preacher and minister of worship under the Restoration; Bonald (1754-1840) and Laromiguière (1736-1837), philosophers; Affre (1793-1848), born at St. Rome de Tarn and slain at the Barricades as Archbishop of Paris. The chief shrines of the diocese are: Notre Dame de Ceignac, an ancient shrine rebuilt and enlarged in 1455, which over 15,000 pilgrims visit annually; Notre Dame du Saint Voile at Coupiac, another ancient shrine; Notre Dame des Treize Pierres at Villefranche, a pilgrimage dating from 1509. Before the application of the Associations' Law in 1901, there were in the Diocese of Rodez, Capuchins, Jesuits, Trappists, Pères Blancs, Premonstratensians, Fathers of Picpus, Sulpicians, Clerics of St. Victor, and many congregations of teaching brothers. This diocese furnishes more missionaries than any other in France. Of the numerous congregations for women which had their origin there, the principal are: affiliations of the Sisters of St. Francis of Sales, known as the Union, teaching orders founded in 1672, 1698, 1739, 1790, with mother-houses at St-Geniez, d'Olt, Bozouls, Lavernhe, Auzits; the Sisters of St. Joseph, founded in 1682 for teaching and district nursing, with mother-house at Marcillac, and other sisters of the same name, united in 1822, 1824, 1856, with mother-houses at Milhau, Villecomtal, Salles-la-Source; the Sisters of the Holy Family, a teaching and nursing order, founded in 1816 by Emilie de Rodat, with mother-house at Villefranche and many convents throughout the diocese; the Minim Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary founded in 1844 by Mile. Chauchard, with mother-house at Crújouls, for the care of the sick and children of the working classes; wo branches of Dominican Sisters, teaching orders, founded in 1843 and 1849 with mother-houses at Gramond and Bor-et-Bar; the Sisters of the Union of Ste-Foy, teaching and nursing nuns, founded in 1682 with mother-house at Rodez. At the close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations of the diocese had charge of 75 nurseries; 1 institute for the deaf and dumb; 3 orphanages for boys; 13 orphanages for girls; 2 houses of rescue; 2 houses of mercy; 1 economic bakery; 83 houses of religious women devoted to the care of the sick in their own homes; 3 hospitals. At the end of 1909 the diocese had a population of 377,299, 51 parishes, 617 auxiliary parishes, 287 curacies, and 1200 priests. Gallia Christiana, Nova (1715), I, 195-234; Instrumenta, 49-55, 203; DUCHESNE, Pastes Episcopaux, II, 39-41; SICARD, Ruthena Christiana, ed. MAISONABE in Mémoires de la société des lettres, sciences et arts de V Avyron, XIV (Rodez, 1893), 331-447; BOURRET, Documents sur les origines chrétiennes de Rouergue. Saint Martial (Rodez, 1902); SERVIÈRES, Les Saints du Rouergue (Rodez, 1872); IDEM, Histoire de l'Eglise du Rouergue (Rodez, 1875); BOUILLET AND SERVIÈRES, Sainte Foy merge et martyre (Rodez, 1900); GRIMALDI, Les Benefices du. Diocese de Rodez avant la Revolution de 1789 (Rodez, 1906); DE MARLAVAGNE, Histoire de la cathedrals de Rodez (Rodez, 1876); BOCSQUET, Tableau chronologique et biograph. des cardinaux, archevéques et évêques originaires du Rouergue (Rodez, 1850); CALMET, L'abbaye de Vabres et son erection en évêché in Ann. de St. Louis des Français (1898). GEORGES GOYAU Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira 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 Pagès (Paris, 1862). RÉMUSAT, in Nouv. Melanges asiat., I (Paris, 1829), 354-57; GANSEN, in Buchberger=1Cs Handlexikon, s. v. N.A. WEBER Bartholomew Roe 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 æternum"; thereupon the General Chapter of Narbonne in 1260 promulgated the above-mentioned decree, identical with the "constitutio gravis in contrarium" Bacon speaks of, as the text shows (see the constitution published by Ehrle, S.J., "Die ältesten Redactionen der Generalconstitutionen des Franziskanerordens" in "Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters", VI, 110; St. Bonaventure, "Opera Omnia", Quaracchi, VIII, 456). We need not wonder then that Roger's immediate superiors put the prohibition into execution, especially as Bacon was not always very correct in doctrine; and although on the one hand it is wrong to consider him as a necromancer and astrologer, an enemy of scholastic philosophy, an author full of heresies and suspected views, still we cannot deny that some of his expressions are imprudent and inaccurate. The judgments he passes on other scholars of his day are sometimes too hard, so it is not surprising that his friends were few. The above-mentioned prohibition was rescinded in Roger's favour unexpectedly in 1266. Some years before, while still at Oxford, he had made the acquaintance of Cardinal Guy le Gros de Foulques, whom Urban IV had sent to England to settle the disputes between Henry III and the barons; others believe that the cardinal met Roger at Paris, in 1257 or 1258 (see "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 442). After a conference about some current abuses, especially about ecclesiastical studies, the cardinal asked Roger to present his idea in writing. Roger delayed in doing this; when the Cardinal became Clement IV and reiterated his desire, Bacon excused himself because the prohibition of his superiors stood in the way. Then the pope in a letter from Viterbo (22 June, 1266) commanded him to send his work immediately, notwithstanding the prohibition of superiors or any general constitution whatsoever, but to keep the commission a secret (see letter published by Martene-Durand, "Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", II, Paris, 1717, 358, Clement IV, epp. n. 317 a; Wadding, "Annales", ad an. 1266, n. 14, II, 294; IV, 265; Sbaralea, "Bullarium Franciscanum", III, 89 n. 8f, 22 June, 1266). We may suppose that the pope, as Bacon says, from the first had wished the matter kept secret; otherwise we can hardly understand why Bacon did not get permission of his superiors; for the prohibition of Narbonne was not absolute; it only forbade him to publish works outside the order "unless they were examined thoroughly by the minister general or by the provincial together with his definitors in the provincial chapter". The removal of the prohibitive constitution did not at once remove all the obstacles; the secrecy of the matter rather produced new embarrassments, as Bacon frankly declares. The first impediment was the contrary will of his superiors: "as your Holiness", he writes to the pope, "did not write to them to excuse me, and I could not make known to them Your secret, because You had commanded me to keep the matter a secret, they did not let me alone but charged me with other labours; but it was impossible for me to obey because of Your commandment". Another difficulty was the lack of money necessary to obtain parchment and to pay copyists. As the superiors knew nothing of his commission, Bacon had to devise means to obtain money. Accordingly, he ingenuously reminded the pope of this oversight, "As a monk", he says, "I for myself have no money and cannot have; therefore I cannot borrow, not having wherewith to return; my parents who before were rich, now in the troubles of war have run into poverty; others, who were able refused to spend money; so deeply embarrassed, I urged my friends and poor people to expend all they had, to sell and to pawn their goods, and I could not help promising them to write to You and induce Your Holiness to fully reimburse the sum spent by them (60 pounds)" ("Opus Tertium", III, p. 16). Finally, Bacon was able to execute the pope's desire; in the beginning of 1267 he sent by his pupil John of Paris (London?) the "Opus Majus", where he puts together in general lines all his leading ideas and proposals; the same friend was instructed to present to the pope a burning-mirror and several drawings of Bacon appertaining to physics, and to give all explanations required by His Holiness. The same year (1267) he finished his "Opus Minus", a recapitulation of the main thoughts of the "Opus Majus", to facilitate the pope's reading or to submit to him an epitome of the first work if it should be lost. With the same object, and because in the first two works some ideas were but hastily treated, he was induced to compose a third work, the "Opus Tertium"; in this, sent to the pope before his death (1268), he treats in a still more extensive manner the whole material he had spoken of in his preceding works. Unfortunately his friend Clement IV died too soon, without having been able to put into practice the counsels given by Bacon. About the rest of Roger's life we are not well informed. The "Chronica XXIV Generalium Ordinis Minorum" says that "the Minister General Jerome of Ascoli [afterwards Pope Nicholas IV] on the advice of many brethren condemned and rejected the doctrine of the English brother Roger Bacon, Doctor of Divinity, which contains many suspect innovations, by reason of which Roger was imprisoned" (see the "Chronica" printed in "Analecta Franciscana", III, 360). The assertion of modern writers, that Bacon was imprisoned fourteen or fifteen years, although he had proved his orthodoxy by the work "De nullitate magiæ", has no foundation in ancient sources. Some authors connect the fact of imprisonment related in the "Chronica" with the proscription of 219 theses by Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, which took place 7 March, 1277 (Denifle, "Chartularium Universitatis Pariensis", I, 543, 560). Indeed it was not very difficult to find some "suspect innovation" in Bacon's writings, especially with regard to the physical sciences. As F. Mandonnet, O.P., proves, one of his incriminated books or pamphlets was his "Speculum Astronomiæ", written in 1277, hitherto falsely ascribed to Blessed Albert the Great [Opera Omnia, ed. Vives, Paris, X, 629 sq.; cf. Mandonnet, "Roger Bacon et le Speculum Astronomiæ (1277) in "Revue Néo-Scolastique", XVII, Louvain, 1910, 313-35]. Such and other questions are not yet ripe for judgment; but it is to be hoped that the newly awakened interest in Baconian studies and investigations will clear up more and more what is still obscure in Roger's life. The writings attributed to Bacon by some authors amount to about eighty; many (e.g. "Epistola de magnete", composed by Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt) are spurious, while many are only treatises republished separately under new titles. Other writings or parts of writings certainly composed by him were put in circulation under the name of other scholars, and his claim to their authorship can be established only from internal reasons of style and doctrine. Other treatises still lie in the dust of the great European libraries, especially of England, France, and Italy. Much remains to be done before we can expect an edition of the "Opera Omnia" of Roger Bacon. For the present the following statements may suffice. Before Bacon entered the order he had written many essays and treatises on the subjects he taught in the school, for his pupils only, or for friends who had requested him to do so, as he confesses in his letter of dedication of the "Opus Majus" sent to the pope: "Multa in alio statu conscripseram propter juvenum rudimenta" (the letter was discovered in the Vatican Library by Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B., and first published by him in the "English Historical Review", 1897, under the title "An unpublished fragment of a work by Roger Bacon", 494 sq.; for the words above cited, see p. 500). To this period seem to belong some commentaries on the writings of Aristotle and perhaps the little treatise "De mirabili potestate artis et naturæ et de nullitate magiæ" (Paris, 1542; Oxford, 1604; London, 1859). The same work was printed under the title "Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturæ" (Hamburg, 1608, 1618). After joining the order, or more exactly from about the years 1256-57, he did not compose works of any great importance or extent, but only occasional essays requested by friends, as he says in the above-mentioned letter, "now about this science, now about another one", and only more transitorio (see "Eng. Hist. Rev.", 1897, 500). In the earlier part of his life he probably composed also "De termino pascali" (see letter of Clement IV in "Bull. Franc.", III, 89); for it is cited in another work, "Computus naturalium", assigned to 1263 by Charles ("Roger Bacon. Sa vie, etc.", Paris, 1861, p. 78; cf. pp. 334 sqq.). The most important of all his writings are the "Opus Majus", the "Opus Minus", and the "Tertium". The "Opus Majus" deals in seven parts with (1) the obstacles to real wisdom and truth, viz. errors and their sources; (2) the relation between theology and philosophy, taken in its widest sense as comprising all sciences not strictly philosophical: here he proves that all sciences are founded on the sacred sciences, especially on Holy Scripture; (3) the necessity of studying zealously the Biblical languages, as without them it is impossible to bring out the treasure hidden in Holy Writ; (4) mathematics and their relation and application to the sacred sciences, particularly Holy Scripture; here he seizes an opportunity to speak of Biblical geography and of astronomy (if these parts really belong to the "Opus Majus"); (5) optics or perspective; (6) the experimental sciences; (7) moral philosophy or ethics. The "Opus Majus" was first edited by Samuel Jebb, London, 1733, afterwards at Venice, 1750, by the Franciscan Fathers. As both editions were incomplete, it was edited recently by J. H. Bridges, Oxford, 1900 (The 'Opus Majus' of Roger Bacon, edited with introduction and analytical table," in 2 vols.); the first three parts of it were republished the same year by this author in a supplementary volume, containing a more correct and revised text. It is to be regretted that this edition is not so critical and accurate as it might have been. As already noted, Bacon's letter of dedication to the pope was found and published first by Dom Gasquet; indeed the dedication and introduction is wanting in the hitherto extant editions of the "Opus Majus", whereas the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium" are accompanied with a preface by Bacon (see "Acta Ord. Min.", Quaracchi, 1898, where the letter is reprinted). Of the "Opus Minus", the relation of which to the "Opus Majus" has been mentioned, much has been lost. Originally it had nine parts, one of which must have been a treatise on alchemy, both speculative and practical; there was another entitled "The seven sins in the study of theology". All fragments hitherto found have been published by J. S. Brewer, "Fr. R. Bacon opp. quædam hactenus inedita", vol. I (the only one) containing: (1) "Opus Tertium"; (2) "Opus Minus"; (3) "Compendium Philos." The appendix adds "De secretis artis et naturæ operibus et de nullitate magiæ", London, 1859 (Rerum Britann. med. æv. Script.). The aim of the "Opus Tertium" is clearly pointed out by Bacon himself: "As these reasons [profoundness of truth and its difficulty] have induced me to compose the Second Writing as a complement facilitating the understanding of the First Work, so on account of them I have written this Third Work to give understanding and completeness to both works; for many things are here added for the sake of wisdom which are not found in the other writings ("Opus Tertium", I, ed. Brewer, 6). Consequently this work must be considered, in the author's own opinion, as the most perfect of all the compositions sent to the pope; therefore it is a real misfortune that half of it is lost. The parts we possess contain many autobiographical items. All parts known in 1859 were published by Brewer (see above). One fragment dealing with natural sciences and moral philosophy has been edited for the first time by Duhem ("Un fragment inédit de l'Opus Tertium de Roger Bacon précédé d'une étude sur ce fragment", Quaracchi, 1909); another (Quarta pars communium naturalis philos.) by Höver (Commer's "Jahrb. für Philos. u. speculative Theol.", XXV, 1911, pp. 277-320). Bacon often speaks of his "Scriptum principale". Was this a work quite different from the others we know? In many texts the expression only means the "Opus Majus", as becomes evident by its antithesis to the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". But there are some other sentences where the expression seems to denote a work quite different from the three just mentioned, viz. one which Bacon had the intention of writing and for which these works as well as his proeambula were only the preparation. If we may conclude from some of his expressions we can reconstruct the plan of this grand encyclopædia: it was conceived as comprising four volumes, the first of which was to deal with grammar (of the several languages he speaks of) and logic; the second with mathematics (arithmetic and geometry), astronomy, and music; the third with natural sciences, perspective, astrology, the laws of gravity, alchemy, agriculture, medicine, and the experimental sciences; the fourth with metaphysics and moral philosophy (see Delorme in "Dict. de Theol.", s. v. Bacon, Roger; Brewer, pp. 1 sq.; Charles, 370 sq., and particularly Bridges, I, xliii sq.). It is even possible that some treatises, the connection of which with the three works ("Opus Majus", "Opus Minus", "Opus Tertium") or others is not evident, were parts of the "Scriptum principale"; see Bridges, II, 405 sq., to which is added "Tractatus Fr. Rogeri Bacon de multiplicatione specierum", which seems to have belonged originally to a work of greater extent. Here may be mentioned some writings hitherto unknown, now for the first time published by Robert Steele: "Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi. Fasc. I: Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri ordinis fratrum minorum. De viciis contractis in studio theologiæ, omnia quæ supersunt nunc primum edidit R. St.", London, 1905; Fasc. II: Liber primus communium naturalium Fratris Rogeri, partes I et II", Oxford, 1909. Another writing of Bacon, "Compendium studii philosophiæ", was composed during the pontificate of Gregory X who succeeded Clement IV (1271-76), as Bacon speaks of this last-named pope as the "predecessor istius Papæ" (chap. iii). It has been published, as far as it is extant, by Brewer in the above-mentioned work. He repeats there the ideas already touched upon in his former works, as for instance the causes of human ignorance, necessity of learning foreign languages, especially Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek; as a specimen are given the elements of Greek grammar. About the same time (1277) Bacon wrote the fatal "Speculum Astronomiæ" mentioned above. And two years before his death he composed his "compendium studii theologiæ" (in our days published for the first time in "British Society of Franciscan Studies", III, Aberdeen, 1911), where he set forth as in a last scientific confession of faith the ideas and principles which had animated him during his long life; he had nothing to revoke, nothing to change. Other works and pamphlets cannot be attributed with certainty to any definite period of his life. To this category belong the "Epistola de laude Scripturarum", published in part by Henry Wharton in the appendix (auctarium) of "Jacobi Usserii Armachani Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis et sacris vernaculis" (London, 1689), 420 sq. In addition there is both a Greek and a Hebrew grammar, the last of which is known only in some fragments: "The Greek grammar of Roger Bacon and a fragment of his Hebrew Grammar, edited from the MSS., with an introduction and notes", Cambridge, 1902. Some specimens of the Greek Grammar, as preserved in a MS. of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, had been published two years before by J. L. Heiberg in "Byzantinische Zeitschrift", IX, 1900, 479-91. The above-mentioned edition of the two grammars cannot be considered very critical (see the severe criticism by Heiberg, ibid., XII, 1903, 343-47). Here we may add Bacon's "Speculum Alchemiæ", Nuremberg, 1614 (Libellus do alchimia cui titulus : Spec. Alchem.); it was translated into French by Jacques Girard de Tournus, under the title "Miroir d'alquimie", Lyons, 1557. Some treatises dealing with chemistry were printed in 1620 together in one volume containing: (1) "Breve Breviarium de dono Dei"; (2) "Verbum abbreviatum de Leone viridi"; (3) "Secretum secretorum naturæ de laude lapidis philosophorum"; (4) "Tractatus trium verborum"; (5) "Alchimia major". But it is possible that some of these and several other treatises attributed to Bacon are parts of works already mentioned, as are essays "De situ orbis", "De regionibus mundi", "De situ Palæstinæ", "De locis sacris", "Descriptiones locorum mundi", "Summa grammaticalis" (see Golubovich, "Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente Francescano", Quaracchi, 1906, I, 268 sq.). If we now examine Bacon's scientific systems and leading principles, his aims and his hobby, so to say, we find that the burden not only of the writings sent to the pope, but also of all his writings was: ecclesiastical study must be reformed. All his ideas and principles must be considered in the light of this thesis. He openly exposes the "sins" of his time in the study of theology, which are seven, as he had proved, in the "Opus Majus". Though this part has been lost, we can reconstruct his arrangement with the aid of the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". The first sin is the preponderance of (speculative) philosophy. Theology is a Divine science, hence it must be based on Divine principles and treat questions touching Divinity, and not exhaust itself in philosophical cavils and distinctions. The second sin is ignorance of the sciences most suitable and necessary to theologians; they study only Latin grammar, logic, natural philosophy (very superficially!) and a part of metaphysics: four sciences very unimportant, scientiæ viles. Other sciences more necessary, foreign (Oriental) languages, mathematics, alchemy, chemistry, physics, experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, they neglect. A third sin is the defective knowledge of even the four sciences which they cultivate: their ideas are full of errors and misconceptions, because they have no means to get at the real understanding of the authors from whom they draw all their knowledge, since their writings abound in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic expressions. Even the greatest and most highly-esteemed theologians show in their works to what an extent the evil has spread. Another sin is the preference for the "Liber Sententiarum" and the disregard of other theological matters, especially Holy Scriptures; he complains: "The one who explains the 'Book of the Sentences' is honoured by all, whereas the lector of Holy Scripture is neglected; for to the expounder of the Sentences there is granted a commodious hour for lecturing at his own will, and if he belongs to an order, a companion and a special room; whilst the lector of Holy Scripture is denied all this and must beg the hour for his lecture to be given at the pleasure of the expounder of the Sentences. Elsewhere the lector of the Sentences holds disputations and is called master, whereas the lector of the [Biblical] test is not allowed to dispute" ("Opus Minus", ed. Brewer, 328 sq.). Such a method, he continues, is inexplicable and very injurious to the Sacred Text which contains the word of God, and the exposition of which would offer many occasions to speak about matters now treated in the several "Summæ Sententiarum". Still more disastrous is the fifth sin: the text of Holy Writ is horribly corrupted, especially in the "exemplar Parisiense", that is to say the Biblical text used at the University of Paris and spread by its students over the whole world. Confusion has been increased by many scholars or religious orders, who in their endeavours to correct the Sacred Text, in default of a sound method, have in reality only augmented the divergences; as every one presumes to change anything "he does not understand, a thing he would not dare to do with the books of the classical poets", the world is full of "correctors or rather corruptors". The worst of all sins is the consequence of the foregoing: the falsity or doubtfulness of the literal sense (sensus litteralis) and consequently of the spiritual meaning (sensus spiritualis); for when the literal sense is wrong, the spiritual sense cannot be right, since it is necessarily based upon the literal sense. The reasons of this false exposition are the corruption of the sacred text and ignorance of the Biblical languages. For how can they get the real meaning of Holy Writ without this knowledge, as the Latin versions are full of Greek and Hebrew idioms? The seventh sin is the radically false method of preaching: instead of breaking to the faithful the Bread of Life by expounding the commandments of God and inculcating their duties, the preachers content themselves with divisions of the arbor Porphyriana, with the jingle of words and quibbles. They are even ignorant of the rules of eloquence, and often prelates who during their course of study were not instructed in preaching, when obliged to speak in church, beg the copy-books of the younger men, which are full of bombast and ridiculous divisions, serving only to "stimulate the hearers to all curiosity of mind, but do not elevate the affection towards good" ("Opus Tertium", Brewer, 309 sq.). Exceptions are very few, as for instance Friar Bertholdus Alemannus (Ratisbon) who alone has more effect than all the friars of both orders combined (Friars Minor and Preachers). Eloquence ought to be accompanied by science, and science by eloquence; for "science without eloquence is like a sharp sword in the hands of a paralytic, whilst eloquence without science is a sharp sword in the hands of a furious man" ("Sapientia sine eloquentia est quasi gladius acutus in manu paralytici, sicut eloquentia expers sapientiæ est quasi gladius acutus in manu furiosi"; "Opus Tertium, I, Brewer, 4). But far from being an idle fault-finder who only demolished without being able to build up, Bacon makes proposals extremely fit and efficacious, the only failure of which was that they were never put into general practice, by reason of the premature death of the pope. Bacon himself and his pupils, such as John of Paris, whom he praises highly, William of Mara, Gerard Huy, and others are a striking argument that his proposals were no Utopian fancies: they showed in their own persons what in their idea a theologian should be. First of all, if one wishes to get wisdom, he must take care not to fall into the four errors which usually prevent even learned men from attaining the summit of wisdom, viz. "the example of weak and unreliable authority, continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one's own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom" ("Fragilis et indignæ autoritatis exemplum, consuetudinis diuturnitas, vulgi sensus imperiti, et propriæ ignorantiæ occultatio cum ostentatione sapientiæ apparentis"; "Opus Majus", I, Bridges, 1, 2). Thus having eliminated "the four general causes of all human ignorance", one must be convinced that all science has its source in revelation both oral and written. Holy Scripture especially is an inexhaustible fountain of truth from which all human philosophers, even the heathen, drew their knowledge, immediately or mediately; therefore no science, whether profane or sacred, can be true if contrary to Holy Writ (see "English Hist. Rev.", 1897, 508 sq.; "Opus Tertium", XXIV, Brewer, 87 sq.). This conviction having taken root, we must consider the means of attaining wisdom. Among those which lead to the summit are to be mentioned in the first place the languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. Latin does not suffice, as there are many useful works written in other languages and not yet translated, or badly translated, into Latin. Even in the best versions of scientific works, as for instance of Greek and Arabic philosophers, or of the Scriptures, as also in the Liturgy, there are still some foreign expressions retained purposely or by necessity, it being impossible to express in Latin all nuances of foreign texts. It would be very interesting to review all the other reasons adduced by Bacon proving the advantage or even necessity of foreign languages for ecclesiastical, social, and political purposes, or to follow his investigations into the physiological conditions of language or into what might have been the original one spoken by man. He distinguishes three degrees of linguistic knowledge; theologians are not obliged to reach the second degree, which would enable them to translate a foreign text into their own language, or the third one which is still more difficult of attainment and which would enable them to speak this language as their own. Nevertheless the difficulties of reaching even the highest degree are not as insurmountable as is commonly supposed; it depends only on the method followed by the master, and as there are very few scholars who follow a sound method, it is not to be wondered at that perfect knowledge of foreign languages is so rarely found among theologians (see "Opus Tertium", XX, Brewer, 64 sq.; "Compendium Studii phil.", VI, Brewer, 433 sq.). On this point, and in general of Roger's attitude towards Biblical studies, see the present author's article "De Fr. Roger Bacon ejusque sententia de rebus biblicis" in "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum", III, Quaracchi, 1910, 3-22; 185-213. Besides the languages there are other means, e.g., mathematics, optics, the experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, the study of which is absolutely necessary for every priest, as Bacon shows at length. He takes special pains in applying these sciences to Holy Scripture and the dogmas of faith. These are pages so wonderful and evincing by their train of thought and the drawings inserted here and there such a knowledge of the subject matter, that we can easily understand modern scholars saying that Bacon was born out of due time, or, with regard to the asserted imprisonment, that he belonged to that class of men who were crushed by the wheel of their time as they endeavoured to set it going more quickly. It is in these treatises (and other works of the same kind) that Bacon speaks of the reflection of light, mirages, and burning- mirrors, of the diameters of the celestial bodies and their distances from one another, of their conjunction and eclipses; that he explains the laws of ebb and flow, proves the Julian calendar to be wrong; he explains the composition and effects of gunpowder, discusses and affirms the possibility of steam- vessels and aerostats, of microscopes and telescopes, and some other inventions made many centuries later. Subsequent ages have done him more justice in recognizing his merits in the field of natural science. John Dee, for instance, who addressed (1582) a memorial on the reformation of the calendar to Queen Elizabeth, speaking of those who had advocated this change, says: "None hath done it more earnestly, neither with better reason and skill, than hath a subject of this British Sceptre Royal done, named as some think David Dee of Radik, but otherwise and most commonly (upon his name altered at the alteration of state into friarly profession) called Roger Bacon: who at large wrote thereof divers treatises and discourses to Pope Clement the Fifth [sic ] about the year of our Lord, 1267. To whom he wrote and sent also great volumes exquisitely compiled of all sciences and singularities, philosophical and mathematical, as they might be available to the state of Christ his Catholic Church". Dee then remarks that Paul of Middleburg, in "Paulina de recta Paschæ celebratione", had made great use of Bacon's work: "His great volume is more than half thereof written (though not acknowledged) by such order and method generally and particularly as our Roger Bacon laid out for the handling of the matter" (cited by Bridges, "Opus Majus", I, p. xxxiv). Longer time was needed before Bacon's merits in the field of theological and philosophical sciences were acknowledged. Nowadays it is impossible to speak or write about the methods and course of lectures in ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Ages, or on the efforts of revision and correction of the Latin Bible made before the Council of Trent, or on the study of Oriental languages urged by some scholars before the Council of Vienne, without referring to the efforts made by Bacon. In our own day, more thoroughly than at the Council of Trent, measures are taken in accordance with Bacon's demand that the further corruption of the Latin text of Holy Scripture should be prevented by the pope's authority, and that the most scientific method should be applied to the restoration of St. Jerome's version of the Vulgate. Much may be accomplished even now by applying Bacon's principles, viz.: (1) unity of action under authority; (2) a thorough consultation of the most ancient manuscripts; (3) the study of Hebrew and Greek to help where the best Latin manuscripts left room for doubt; (4) a thorough knowledge of Latin grammar and construction; (5) great care in distinguishing between St. Jerome's readings and those of the more ancient version (see "Opus Tertium", XXV, Brewer, 93 sq.; Gasquet, "English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century" in "The Dublin Review", CXX, 1898, 15). But there are still some prejudices among learned men, especially with regard to Bacon's orthodoxy and his attitude towards Scholastic philosophy. It is true that he speaks in terms not very flattering of the Scholastics, and even of their leaders. His style is not the ordinary Scholastic style proceeding by inductions and syllogisms in the strictest form; he speaks and writes fluently, clearly expressing his thoughts as a modern scholar treating the same subject might write. But no one who studies his works can deny that Bacon was thoroughly trained in Scholastic philosophy. Like the other Scholastics, he esteems Aristotle highly, while blaming the defective Latin versions of his works and some of his views on natural philosophy. Bacon is familiar with the subjects under discussion, and it may be of interest to note that in many cases he agrees with Duns Scotus against other Scholastics, particularly regarding matter and form and the intellectus agens which he proves not to be distinct substantially from the intellectus possibilis ("Opus Majus", II, V; "Opus Tertium", XXIII). It would be difficult to find any other scholar who shows such a profound knowledge of the Arabic philosophers as Bacon does. Here appears the aim of his philosophical works, to make Christian philosophy acquainted with the Arabic philosophers. He is an enemy only of the extravagances of Scholasticism, the subtleties and fruitless quarrels, to the neglect of matters much more useful or necessary and the exaltation of philosophy over theology. Far from being hostile to true philosophy, he bestows a lavish praise on it. None could delineate more clearly and convincingly than he, what ought to be the relation between theology and philosophy, what profit they yield and what services they render to each other, how true philosophy is the best apology of Christian faith (see especially "Opus Majus", II and VII; "Compend. studii philos."). Bacon is sometimes not very correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that are dangerous or open to suspicion (e.g. his conviction that a real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.). But there is no real error in matters of faith, and Bacon repeatedly asks the reader not to confound his physics with divination, his chemistry with alchemy, his astronomy with astrology; and certainly he submitted with all willingness his writings to the judgment of the Church. It is moving to note the reverence he displayed for the pope. Likewise he shows always the highest veneration towards the Fathers of the Church; and whilst his criticism often becomes violent when he blames the most eminent of his contemporaries, he never speaks or writes any word of disregard of the Fathers or ancient Doctors of the Church, even when not approving their opinion; he esteemed them highly and had acquired such a knowledge of their writings that he was no way surpassed by any of his great rivals. Bacon was a faithful scholar of open character who frankly uttered what he thought, who was not afraid to blame whatsoever and whomsoever he believed to deserve censure, a scholar who was in advance of his age by centuries. His iron will surmounted all difficulties and enabled him to acquire a knowledge so far surpassing the average science of his age, that he must be reckoned among the most eminent scholars of all times. Of the vast Baconian bibliography we can mention only the most important books and articles in so far as we have made use of them. Besides those already cited we must mention: BALÆUS, Script. illustr. maiorus Brytann. Catalogus (Basle, 1577); Anecdota Oxon. Index Britannicæ SS. quos . . . collegit Joan. Balæus, ed. POOLE AND BATESON (OXFORD, 1902----); WOOD, Hist. et antiq. Univers. Oxon., I (Oxford, 1674); IDEM, Athenæ Oxon. (London, 1721), new ed. by BLISS (4 vols., London, 1813-20); WHARTON, Anglia sacra (London, 1691); HODY, De Bibliorum text. original., versionibus græc. et latina Vulgata, III (Oxford, 1705); LELANDUS, Comment. de Scriptor. Brittanicis, ed. HALL (Oxford, 1709); OUDIN, Comment. de Script. Ecclesiæ antiq., I (Frankfort, 1722), II-III (Leipzig, 1722); WADDING-FONSECA, Annales Ord. Min., IV-V; WADDING, Scriptores O. M. (Rome, 1650, 1806, 1906); TANNER, Bibl. Britann.-Hibern. (London, 1748); SBARALEA, Supplement. ad SS. O. M. (Rome, 1806); BERGER, De l'hist. de la Vulgate en France (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Quam notitiam linguæ hebr. habuerunt christiani med. ævi (Paris, 1893); cf. the criticism of this book by SOURY in Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes, LIV (1893), 733-38; DENIFLE, Die Handschr. der Bibel-Corrector. des 13. Jahrh. in Archiv f. Lit.- u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, IV, 263 sqq.; 471 sqq.; DÖRING, Die beiden Bacon in Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos., XVII, (1904), 3 sqq.; FERET, Les emprisonnements de R. Bacon in Revue des quest. histor., L (1891), 119-42; IDEM, La faculté de théol. de Paris (4 vols., Paris, 1894-96); FLÜGEL, R. Bacons Stellung in d. Gesch. d. Philologie in Philos. Studien, XIX (1902), 164 sqq.; HEITZ, Essai histor. sur les rapports entre la philos. et la foi, de Bérenger de Tours à St. Thomas (Paris, 1909), 117 sqq.; HIRSCH, Early English Hebraists: R. Bacon and his Predecessors in The Jewish Quarterly Review (Oct., 1890), reprinted in IDEM, A Book of Essays (London, 1905), 1-72; Hist. de la France, XX (Paris, 1842), 227 sqq.; HOFFMANS, La synthèse doctrinale de R. B. in Archiv f.Gesch. d. Philos. (Berne, 1907); IDEM, L'intuition mystique de la science in Revue Néo-Scholastuque (1909), 370 sqq. (cf. 1906, 371 sqq.; 1908, 474 sqq.; 1909, 33 sqq.); JARRETT, A Thirteenth-Century Revision Committee of the Bible in Irish Theological Quarterly, IV (Maynooth, 1910), 56 sqq.; JOURDAIN, Discussion de quelques points de la biogr. de R. B. in Comptes rendus Acad. Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, I (1873), 309 sqq.; KREMBS, R. B.'s Optik in Natur u. Offenbarung (1900); LANGEN, R. Bacon in Histor. Zeitschr., LI (1883), 434-50; MARTIN, La Vulgate latine au XIIIe siècle d'après R. B. (Paris, 1888); Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., XXVIII, 569 sqq.; NARBEY, Le moine R. B. et le mouvement scientifque au XIIIe siècle in Revue des quest. histor., XXXV (1894), 115 sqq.; PARROT, R. B., sa personne, son génie, etc. (Paris, 1894); PESCH, De inspiratione S. Scripturæ (Freiburg, 1906), 163 sq.; PICAVET, Les éditions de R. B. in Journal des Savants (1905), 362-69; IDEM, Deux directions de la théol. et de l'exégèse au XIIIe siècle. Thomas et Bacon in Revue de l'hist. des religions (1905), 172, or printed separately (Paris, 1905); POHL, Das Verhältnis der Philos. zur Theol. bei R. B. (Neustrelitz, 1893); SAISSET, R. B., sa vie et son oeuvre in Revue des deux mondes, XXXIV, (1861), 361-91; IDEM, Précurseurs et disciples de Descartes (Paris, 1862); SALEMBIER, Une page inédite de l'hist. de la Vulgate (Amiens, 1890); SCHNEIDER, R. B., eine Monographie als Beitrag zur Gesch der Philos. des 13. Jahr. aus den Quellen (Augsburg, 1873); SIEBERT, R. B., sein Leben u. seine Philos. (Marburg, 1861); STARHAHN, Das opus maius des R. B. nach seinem Inhalt u. seiner Bebeutung f. d. Wissenschaft betrachtet in Kirchl. Monatsschr., XII (1893), 276-86; STRUNZ, Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1910), 93-99; UBALD, Franciscan England in the Past in Franciscan Annals, XXXIII (1908), 369-71; XXXIV, (1909), 11-14; VALDARNINI, Esperienza e ragionamento in R. B. (Rome, 1896); VERCELLONE, Dissertazioni accademiche di vario argumento (Rome, 1864); VOGL, Die Physik R. B.'s (Erlangen, 1906); WERNER, Kosmologie u. allgem. Naturlehre R. B.'s Psychol., Erkenntniss- u. Wissenschaftslehre des R. B. in Sitzungsber. der k. k. Akad. d. W., XCIII (Vienna), 467-576; XCIV, 489-612; WITHEFORD, Bacon as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture inExpositor (1897), 349-60; WULF, (DE), Hist. de la philos. médiévale (2nd ed., Louvain, 1905), 419-27. THEOPHILUS WITZEL Ven. Roger Cadwallador 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-Müller, also expatriated. Here he stayed until 1849. A professorship of dogmatics at Louvain only lasted a year. When the missions for the common people were opened in Germany in 1850 his real labors began; as he said himself, "Praise God, I now come into my element." Both friend and foe acknowledge that the success of these missions was largely due to Roh, and his powerful and homely eloquence received the highest praise. He was an extemporaneous speaker; the writing of sermons and addresses was, as he himself confessed, "simply impossible" to him; yet, thoroughly trained in philosophy and theology, he could also write when necessary, as several articles from him in the "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach" prove. His pamphlet "Das alte Lied: der Zweck heiligt die Mittel, im Texte verbessert und auf neue Melodie gesetzt" has preserved a certain reputation until the present day, as Father Roh declared he would give a thousand gulden to the person who could show to the faculty of law of Bonn or Heidelberg a book written by a Jesuit which taught the principle that the end justifies the means. The prize is still unclaimed. Some of his sermons have also been preserved; they were printed against his will from stenographic notes. Father Roh's greatest strength lay in his power of speech and "he was the most powerful and effective preacher of the German tongue that the Jesuits have had in this century". KNABENBAUER, Erinnerungen an P. Peter Roh S. J., reprint of the biography in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1872). N. SCHEID Rohault de Fleury Rohault de Fleury A family of French architects and archaeologists of the nineteenth century, of which the most distinguished member was Charles Rohault de Fleury, b. in Paris 23 July, 1801; d. there 11 August, 1875. After a scientific course pursued at the Ecole Polytechnique at Paris, he studied sculpture, but abandoned this study for architecture in 1825. He designed several public and private buildings which adorn one of the most artistic sections of the present Paris and was the author of the first edition of the "Manuel des lois du batiment" published by the Central Society of Architects (Paris, 1862). The last years of his life he devoted to religious archaeology and published the important results of his studies in the following magnificently illustrated works: "Les instruments de la Passion", Paris, 1870 (see CROSS, IV, 531); "L'évangile, études iconographiques et archéologiques", Tours, 1874; "La Sainte Vièrge", Paris, 1878; "Un Tabernacle chrétien du Ve siècle", Arras, 1880; "La Messe, études archéologiques sur ses monuments", Paris, 1883-98. Some of these works were published after his death by his son George (1835-1905) who was himself a prominent archaeological writer. The latter's works treat of Italian art-monuments: "Monuments de Pise au moyen âge", Paris, 1866; "La Toscane au moyen âge, lettres sur l'architecture civile et militaire en 1400", Paris 1874; "Le Latran au moyen âge", Paris 1877. Oeuvres de Charles Rohault de Fleury, architecte (Paris, 1884). N.A. WEBER Rene Francois Rohrbacher Réné François Rohrbacher Ecclesiastical historian, b. at Langatte (Langd) in the present Diocese of Metz, 27 September, 1789; d. in Paris, 17 January, 1856. He studied for several months at Sarrebourg and Phalsebourg (Pfalzburg) and at the age of seventeen had completed his Classical studies. He taught for three years at the college of Phalsebourg; entered in 1810 the ecclesiastical seminary at Nancy, and was ordained priest in 1812. Appointed assistant priest at Insming, he was transferred after six months to Lunéville. A mission which he preached in 1821 at Flavigny led to the organization of a diocesan mission band. Several years later he became a member of the Congregation of St. Peter founded by Félicité and Jean de La Mennais, and from 1827 to 1835 directed the philosophical and theological studies of young ecclesiastics who wished to become the assistants of the two brothers in their religious undertakings. When Felicite de La Mennais refused to submit to the condemnation pronounced against him by Rome, Rohrbacher separated from him and became professor of Church history at the ecclesiastical seminary of Nancy. Later he retired to Paris where he spent the last years of his life. His principal work is his monumental "Histoire Universelle de l'Église Catholique" (Nancy, 1842-49; 2nd ed., Paris, 1849-53). Several other editions were subsequently published and continuations added by Chantrel and Guillaume. Written from an apologetic point of view, the work contributed enormously to the extirpation of Gallicanism in the Church of France. Though at times uncritical and devoid of literary grace, it is of considerable usefulness to the student of history. It was translated into German and partially recast by Hülskamp, Rump, and numerous other writers. (For the other works of Rohrbacher, see Hurter, "Nomenclator Lit.", III [Innsbruck, 1895], 1069-71.) ROHRBACHER, Hist. Univ. de l'Eglise Cath., ed. by GUILLAUME XII, (Paris, 1885), 122-33; MCCAFFREY, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the XIX Century, II (Dublin, 1909), I, 60, II, 448, 475. N.A. WEBER Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla Spanish dramatic poet, b. at Toledo, 4 Oct., 1607; d. 1680. Authentic information regarding the events of his life is rather fragmentary, but he probably studied at the Universities of Toledo and Salamanca, and for a time followed a military career. When only twenty-five he was well known as a poet, for he is highly spoken of in Montalban's "Para todos" (1632), a fact which shows that he enjoyed popularity, when Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, and Calderon were in the height of their fame. The announcement published in 1638 of the assassination of Francisco de Rojas did not refer to the poet, for the first and second parts of his comedies, published by himself at Madrid, bear the dates of 1640 and 1645 respectively. A third part was promised but it never appeared. He was given the mantle of the Order of Santiago in 1644. The writings of Rojas consist of plays and autos sacramentales written alone and in collaboration with Calderon, Coello, Velez, Montalbán, and others. No complete edition of his plays is available, but Mesonero gives a very good selection with biographical notes. Among the best of them are "Del Rey abajo ninguno", "Entre bobos anda el juego", "Donde hay agravio no hay celos", and "Casarse por vengarse", the last of which is claimed to have been the basis of Le Sage's novel, "Gil Blas de Santillane". TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (Boston, 1866); MESONERO, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, LIV (Madrid, 1866). VENTURA FUENTES John Gage Rokewode John Gage Rokewode Born 13 Sept., 1786; died at Claughton Hall, Lancashire, 14 Oct., 1842. He was the fourth son of Sir Thomas Gage of Hengrave, and took the name Rokewode in 1838 when he succeeded to the Rokewode estates. He was educated at Stonyhurst, and having studied law under Charles Butler he was called to the bar, but never practiced, preferring to devote himself to antiquarian pursuits. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1818, and was director from 1829 till 1842. He also became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1822 he published "The History and Antiquities of Hengrave in Suffolk" and in 1838 " The History and Antiquities of Suffolk ". His edition of Jocelin de Brakelond's chronicle published by the Camden Society in 1840 furnished Carlyle with much of his materials for "Past and Present" (1843). Many papers by him appeared in "Archaeologia", many of these being republished as separate pamphlets, including the description of the Benedictionals of St. Æthelwold and of Robert of Jumieges; he also printed the genealogy of the Rokewode family with charters relating thereto in "Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica", II. He contributed to the "Orthodox Journal" and the "Catholic Gentleman's Magazine". Many of his MSS. were sold after his death with his valuable library. The Society of Antiquaries possess a bust of him by R.C. Lucas. He died suddenly while out shooting. Orthodox Journal, XV, 276; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Caths. EDWIN BURTON Rolduc Rolduc (RODA DUCIS, also Roda, Closterroda or Hertogenrade). Located in S. E. Limburg, Netherlands. It became an Augustinian abbey in 1104 under Ven. Ailbertus, a priest, son of Ammoricus, a nobleman of Antoing, Flanders. Ailbertus is said to have been guided by a vision towards this chosen spot, which was in the domain of Count Adelbert of Saffenberch, who, before Bishop Othert of Liège, turned over the property destined for abbey and church in 1108. Ailbertus was the first abbot (1104-11). Later he went to France where he founded the Abbey of Clairfontaine. Desiring once more to see Rolduc, he died on the way, at Sechtem, near Bonn, 19 Sep., 1122 (Acta SS.). Thirty-eight abbots succeeded Ailbertus, the last one being Peter Joseph Chaineux (1779-1800). The abbey acquired many possessions in the Netherlands, and became the last resting-place of the Dukes of Limburg. It possesses the famous "Catalogue Librorum", made A.D. 1230, containing one hundred and forty theological and eighty-six philosophical and classical works. The beautiful crypt, built by Ailbertus, was blessed 13 Dec., 1106, and in 1108 the church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and St Gabriel. In 1122 Pope Calixtus II confirmed by a Bull, preserved in the archives of Rolduc, the donation of the property. The church, completed in 1209, was then solemnly dedicated by Philip, Bishop of Ratzeburg. Dr. R. Corten completed the restoration of the churoh in 1893, and transferred the relics of Ven. Ailbertus into a richly sculptured sarcophagus in the crypt, 1897. The church possesses a particle of the Holy Cross, five inches long, reputed to be authentic and miraculous (Archives of Rolduc, by Abbot Mathias Amezaga); also the body of St. Daphne, virgin and martyr, brought over from the Catacombs of Praetextatus in 1847. Rolduc became the seminary of Liège in 1831, under Right Rev. Cornelius Van Bommel, and the little seminary of Roermond, and academy in 1841. The present institution has an attendance of 420 pupils. HEYENDAL, Annales Rodenses usque ad annum 1700; Diarium rerum memorabilium abbatiae Rodensis in the archives of Aix-la-Chapelle; Acta SS.; HABETS, Geschiedenis van het Bisdom Roermond, III (1875-92); ERNST, Histoire du Limbourg, (Liège, 1837-52); DARIS, Notice Historique sur les eglises du diocese de Liège, XV (Liège, 1894); NEUJEAN, Notice historique sur l'abbaye de Rolduc (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1868); HELYOT, Histoire des ordres monastiques, religieux et militaires, II (Paris, 1714-19); CUYPERS, Revue de l'art chretien (1892); LENNARTZ, Die Augustiner Abtei Klosterrath; KERSTEN, Journal Historique et Litteraire, XIV (Liège); CORTEN, Rolduc in Woord en Beeld (Utrecht, 1902). THEOPHILE STENMANS Hermann Rolfus Hermann Rolfus Catholic educationist, b. at Freiburg, 24 May, 1821; d. at Buhl, near Offenburg, 27 October, 1896. After attending the gymnasium at Freiburg, he studied theology and philology at the university there from 1840 to 1843, and was ordained priest on 31 August, 1844. After he had served for brief periods at various places, he was appointed curate at Thiengen in 1851, curate-in-charge at Reiselfingen in 1855, parish priest at the last named place in 1861, parish priest at Reuthe near Freiburg in 1867 at Sasbach in 1875, and at Buhl in 1892. In 1867 the theological faculty at Freiburg gave him the degree of Doctor of Theology. Rolfus did much for practical Catholic pedagogics, especially in southern Germany, by the work which he edited in conjunction with Adolf Pfister, "Real-Encyclopädie des Erziehungsund Unterrichtswesens nach katholischen Principien" (4 vols., Mainz, 1863-1866; 2nd. ed. 1872-74). A fifth volume ("Ergänzungsband", 1884) was issued by Rolfus alone; a new edition is in course of preparation. Another influential publication was the "Suddeutsches katholisches Schulwochenblatt", which he edited, also jointly with Pfister, from 1861 to 1867. Of his other literary works, the following may be mentioned: "Der Grund des katholischen Glaubens" (Mainz, 1862); "Leitfaden der allgemeinen Weltgeschichte" (Freiburg, 1870; 4th ed., 1896); "Die Galubens- und Sittenlehre der katholischen Kirche" (Einsiedeln, 1875; frequently re-edited), jointly with F. J. Brändle; "Kirchengeschichtliches in chronologischer Reihenfolge von der Zeit des letzten Vaticanischen Concils bis auf unsere Tage" (2 vols., Mainz, 1877-82; 3rd vol. by Sickinger, 1882); "Geschichte des Reiches Gottes auf Erden" (Freiburg, 1878-80; 3rd. ed., 1894-95); "Katholischer Hauskatechismus" (Emsiedeln, 1891-92). In addition to the works mentioned, he also wrote a large number of pedagogic, political, apologetic, and polemical brochures, ascetic treatises, and works for the young. KELLER, Festschrift zum funfzigjahrigen Priesterjubilaum, des hochw. Herrn. Pfarrers u. Geistl. Rats Dr. Hermann Rolfus (Freiburg, im Br., 1894), with prortrait; KNECHT in Badische Biographien, V (Heidelberg, 1906), 670 sq. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Richard Rolle de Hampole 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 f