Make your own free website on

Crises in the History of the Papacy


IN spite of the grave condition of the Catholic world, the ill-concealed spread of liberal ideas among the educated, and the spurts of rebellion throughout Europe, the cardinals met the new danger with as little wisdom as their predecessors had confronted the Reformation. The three Conclaves which were held within eight years of the death of Pius VII. were marred by the old wrangles of parties and ambitions of individuals, and they issued in the election of entirely unsuitable Popes. The Papacy allied itself with the monarchs in an effort to stifle the growing modern spirit, and imitated their unscrupulous methods. Leo XII. and Gregory XVI., at least, left behind them records at which modern sentient shudders. Yet they showed as little appreciation as Louis XVIII. or Charles X. of the irresistible development through which Europe was passing, andthere seem to be whole centuries of evolution between their acts and announcements and those of Leo XIII.

Cardinal della Ganga, who became Leo XII. at the death of Pius, was a deeply religious and narrow-minded man who achieved much moral and social reform in his dominions, yet his death in 1829 was, says Baron Bunsen, hailed at Rome "with indecent joy." His despotic Puritan measures angered his subjects, and his gross injustice to the Jews and fierce persecution of the Carbonari and Liberals fed the growing Italian hatred of the Papacy. Pius VIII ( 1829-30) was a milder Zelante and had won--a singular distinction for a Pope in such a crisis--some repute in canon law and numismatics. He was nearly seventy years old, and his Secretary of State, the disreputable Albani, was over eighty. The revolutionary movement of 1830 completed his afflictions, and a Roman wag proposed as his epitaph: "He was born: he wept: he died." 1 Then came the longer Pontificate of Gregory XVI., the chief events of which will pass before us as we review the earlier career of Pius IX. Gregory was a pious, narrow-minded Camaldulese monk. Like his predecessor, he was well versed in canon law and as ill fitted as a man could be to rule in the nineteenth century. He left the repression of the rebels to his Secretary of State Lambruschini, and said his beads, and ate sweetmeats at merry little gatherings of cardinals, while Young Italy marched nobly to the scaffold and its brilliant writers opened the eyes of the world to the foul condition of the Papal States.

Gregory died on June 1, 1846, dimly foreseeing an age of revolution, and reform was now the great issue before the Conclave. The late Pope's supporters put forward the truculent Lambruschini, but from the first Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti was conspicuous in the voting, and on the second day of the Conclave he was elected by thirty-seven out of fifty votes. It was useless any longer to ignore that appalling indictment of abuses,

1 During his twenty-months' Pontificate, in 1829, Catholic Emancipation was carried in England. But the Quirinal's share was confined to rejoicing. Consalvi, however, had "worked incessantly" for it, and had been much aided by the Duchess of Devonshire. See his words in Artaud's Histoire du Pape Léon XII. , i., 171.

corruption, and incompetence which the Italian writers were circulating throughout Europe. The cardinals chose a reformer: a man who was at times described even as a Liberal.

Giovanni Maria Gianbattista Pietro Pellegrino Isidoro Mastai-Ferretti--the name reflects the piety of his mother--was then fifty-four years old. He had been born at Sinigaglia on May 13, 1792, of parents who belonged to the small provincial nobility. He was sent to school at Volterra, and he is variously described by fellow-pupils who took opposite sides in the fierce conflict of his later years as a pale, pure little angel of marvellous industry, and as a sickly, epileptic little idler with the reputation, Trollope says, of being "the biggest liar in the school." 1 seems to have been a delicate, handsome, undistinguished pupil of proper character. His virtuous mother wished him to become a priest, and he received the tonsure at Volterra in 1809. In October he was sent to continue his studies at Rome,

1 The contradiction is characteristic of the literature on Pius IX. Most of it was written before or just after his death and is fiercely partisan. Petruccelli della Gattina Pie IX. ( 1866) is the chief and least reliable of the hostile biographies: T. A. Trollope Story of the Life of Pius IX. ( 2 vols., 1877) is one of the most temperate of the anti-Papal works and still has some use: F. Hitchman Pius the Ninth ( 1878) is slighter but equally moderate. Such studies as those of Shea, Maguire, Dawson, Wappmannsperger (2 vols.), Stepischnegg (2 vols.), Pougeois (6 vols.), and Freiherr von Helfert are equally prejudiced on the Catholic side. The best study of the character and work of Pius is Dr. F. Nielsen's Papacy in the Nineteenth Century (2 vols., 1906), a temperate (perhaps not sufficiently critical) and scholarly work. Bishop G. S. Pelczar's Pio IX. e il suo Pontificato (3 vols., Italian translation 1909) is learned but fulsome and undiscriminating. Father R. Ballerini incomplete study (published as Les premičres pages du Pontificat du Pape Pie IX., 1909) has no distinction. For special aspects see D. Silvagni , La Corte e la Societą Romana ( 1885), and Count von Hoensbroech's Rom und alas Zentrum ( 1910), and works quoted hereafter.

and for some months he lived in the Quirinal, in charge of an uncle who was a canon of St. Peter's. They were related to Pius VII. and were favoured. The French invasion of 1810 drove them back to Sinigaglia, and Giovanni was summoned for service in the Noble Guard of the Viceroy of Italy. His epileptic tendency was successfully pleaded for exemption, and he returned to Rome in 1814. It seems, however, that he was not deeply religious, and he applied for service in the Papal Guard rather than for orders. 1 His fits closed the military service of the Pope against him, and, on the letter of the law, should equally exclude him from the clergy. He became very depressed and morose, but Pius VII. strained the regulations in favour of his young relative. He was to receive ordination on condition that he never said mass without an assistant. In 1819 he became a priest, and made the small progress which a distant relative of the Pope might expect. In 1823 he accompanied a Papal representative to Chile, and the voyage probably strengthened his constitution. Pius VII. died during his absence from Rome, but as Giovanni's protector, Cardinal della Ganga, became Pope, he returned to favour at Rome. He received a canonry, the administration of the Hospital of St. Michael, and (in 1827) the archbishopric of Spoleto.

It is clear that the young Archbishop did excellent work at Spoleto, and we must read with discretion the statements of his less temperate critics. His predecessor had been idle and worthless, and Mastai-Ferretti applied himself with zeal, judgment, and success to the reform of clergy and laity. In 1829 Leo XII., his

1 Ballerini and Helfert deny this but Pelczar and Nielsen make it clear. The graver statement of the hostile biographers--that he spent his youth in dissipation--rests on no respectable evidence. patron, died, and Pius VIII. entered upon his short and futile Pontificate. Gregory XVI., who succeeded him, at once met the blasts of the Revolution of 1830. The outbreak at Rome was suppressed, but the revolutionaries captured Bologna and brought about a dangerous agitation throughout Italy. Mastai-Ferretti is said to have been compelled to fly from Spoleto, but his actions and attitude at this time are not wholly clear. Austrian troops suppressed the Revolution, and Gregory entered upon that truculent crusade against the Liberals and their claims which diverted England from its new alliance with the Papacy and even shocked Metternich. When the Austrians compelled him to take the Secretaryship of State from Cardinal Bernetti, he bestowed it on the more intemperate Cardinal Lambruschini, and the struggle with the Carbonari and the Young Italians continued. In his Encyclical Mirari Vos ( August 15, 1832) Gregory pledged the Papacy to a stern refusal of the democratic reforms which the new Europe demanded.

Mastai-Ferretti had meantime ( February 16, 1832) been removed to the bishopric of Imola: a more profitable see and a recognized path to higher honours. His amiable and conciliatory character inclined him to meet the more moderate Liberals with ease, though he does not seem to have made any profound study of the political development of his time. When Cardinal Lambruschini condemned scientific associations, the Bishop of Imola is reported to have commented that he saw no inconsistency between science and religion. On these safe and innocuous expressions the Bishop won a repute for "Liberalism" among the more reactionary members of the Curia, and Gregory XVI. long hesitated to raise him to the cardinalate. He was an exemplary bishop, and in the reform of education and of philanthropic institutions he performed no slight social service, which may have attracted the esteem of the more moderate Liberals. He was admitted to the Sacred College on December 14, 1840, and continued for six years to direct his diocese and encourage those temperate reforms which most of his colleagues were too indolent or too prejudiced to favour. The condition of the Church was again becoming critical. The Carbonari were weakened and dispersed in Italy, but Mazzini had begun to lead "the Youth of Italy" to a more open and more heretical attack on Austria and the Papacy, while high-minded and humanitarian priests like Gioberti, Ventura, and Rosmini in Italy, and Lamennais in France, were, in varying degrees, looking to a Catholic Liberalism to ease the pressure of the growing popular revolt. Gregory XVI. and his advisers regarded the entire Liberal movement, in every shade, as a sinful and temporary aberration. They passed the most drastic laws for its suppression: the prisons of Italy were distended with their victims: yet their orthodox militia, the Sanfedisti, had to wage a perpetual and bitter struggle against the spreading revolt.

We who look back on this painful travail of the birth of democracy are at times unduly impatient with idealists who failed to recognize its promise at the time. Not merely ecclesiastical statesmen, but heterodox observers and sons of the people like Carlyle, looked upon the new movement as an emanation from the pit, a menace to society. But most biographers pass to the opposite extreme when they conceive Pius IX. as judiciously studying the demands of the age, realizing that a moderate measure of democracy and liberty was just and inevitable, and then renouncing his Liberal faith when he saw the excesses of the democrats. For this there is no documentary support. Pius was amiable, accessible, and anxious to please all: he was neither a statesman nor an economist, and had not a firm judgment of the European situation. He was disposed to see justice in the semi-Liberalism of Gioberti or Ventura, and disposed the next day to listen to the Mephistophelean counsels of Metternich. Europe was to him a world in which a large number of thoughtful people demanded reforms which were consistent with the political and religious supremacy of the Papacy, and he was disposed to favour and indulge them. He failed to realize, until 1848, that the firm and consistent demands of the new age were inconsistent with Papal supremacy. But he clearly disliked the medięval policy of the Curia and he was regarded with hope by the reformers within the fold. It was they who greeted his election in June, 1846. The more radical Italians did not want a reforming Pope, because they did not want a Papacy.

Pius was crowned on June 21st, and at once turned to what he would regard as "democratic" measures. He gave dowries to a thousand poor girls, and decreed that all pledges in the Monte di Pietą which were less in value than two lire should be returned to their owners. On July 16th he declared a general amnesty of political prisoners, and the Romans flocked to the Quirinal to cheer their handsome and courageous Pope, and demonstrations of joy resounded throughout Italy. The amnesty was in reality conditional: the released prisoners and returning exiles were to promise not again to "disturb the public order." However, there was at the time no severe application of the condition, and Pius continued in his reforming mood. That he had no serious leaning to Liberalism he made abundantly clear to the more thoughtful before the end of the year. On November 9th he issued an Encyclical in which he condemned Bible Societies, secret political societies, critics of the Church, license of the press, and so on. 1 The Radicals still mingled with the crowds below his balcony and flattered him. Some, no doubt, had the idea that he might be induced to go farther; but Mazzini and others have revealed that they astutely used these demonstrations to educate the people in larger demands and provoke a more serious revolt. Pius threw open his garden to the public on certain days, opened night schools and Sunday schools, re-opened the Accademia dei Lincei (for the promotion of science), and discussed plans of railways for Italy. He was in a patriarchal mood which came near to social idealism. Journals multiplied, and clubs became active: especially the Circolo Romano, which gradually came under the influence of a prosperous and very radical publican from the Trastevere, Angelo Brunetti, nicknamed "little Cicero" ( Ciceruacchio) for his demagogic eloquence. The dreamy Christian Liberals, Gioberti and Ventura, gave the not very penetrating Pope the idea that he was going to make a model State of Papal Italy and, through it, to lead the world on the new upward path.

The Radicals encouraged the clouds of incense which obscured the Pope's vision, and he listened gravely to the requests for representative government. On April 19, 1847, he proposed a Consulto di Stato: a council composed of laymen from the various provinces--all carefully selected by the clergy and gravely reminded that their business was merely to offer suggestions. In July he formed a Civic Guard for Rome: in Novem-

1 Lettres Apostoliques de Pie IX., p. 177.

ber he inaugurated a scheme of municipal administration for Rome: and at the close of December he formed a ministry--of cardinals and other clerical dignitaries. By this time, however, Pius had become perplexed and suspicious. Cardinal Gizzi, his Secretary of State, resigned, the Gregorian cardinals frowned, and the Austrians complained of his concessions. There was a banquet in Rome to Cobden, and there was a very noisy and triumphant banquet to Ciceruacchio. The Pope forbade popular demonstrations, yet he perceived daily that his concessions did nothing to appease the popular appetite. The Italians demanded elected, lay officers.

To make matters worse for the Pope the Austrians advanced against the Papal States. The difference was adjusted, but from the summer of 1847 hostility to Austria increased rapidly, and the people demanded an efficient Papal army to resist them. When, on February 8th, the news came of the third French Revolution, the agitators, who had now complete influence, became bolder. Ciceruacchio himself, supported by the Liberal Princes Corsini and Borghese, saw the Pope, and demanded war on Austria and democratic institutions. At sight of the massive and resolute crowds which supported them, the Pope promised a lay ministry and a more efficient army; but on the following day he, addressing the crowd in patriarchal terms, complained of the excessive demands of a "minority" among them and protested that the Papacy needed no war on Austria, as the Catholic Powers would protect it. The Radical leaders saw his weakness, and under their steady pressure he began to make his famous concessions to democracy. A new ministry, with lay nobles in most of the positions, was formed in March, the Jesuits were advised to leave Rome, the ancient walls and restrictions of the Ghetto were abolished, and a constitution was granted. The members of the Lower Chamber were to be elected, but the College of Cardinals would have a veto on the proceedings of both houses, and they could not discuss ecclesiastical or "mixed" affairs: a very grave restriction in a theocratic State.

The Radicals now concentrated the people on the cry of war with Austria, and on that issue the Pope fell. The Papal troops had crossed the frontier in support of the Sardinians, and, as Pius refused to declare war, the Austrians treated them as brigands. The meetings in Rome became more and more violent, the new ministry resigned, and, as Pius still refused to declare war, a second ministry handed in its resignation. The summer and autumn of 1848 passed in this struggle. Pius insisted that war was not consistent with his religious character, and all Rome united in opposing him. In November, at the suggestion of Rosmini, the Pope ordered Pellegrino Rossi to form a new ministry. Rossi, a friend of Napoleon III., was hated by the Radicals, and his dream of a union of Italian princes under the Pope's direction conflicted with their plan of a united and free Italy. He was assassinated on. November 15th, and on the following day a vast crowd, partly armed, marched to the Quirinal and peremptorily laid down their claims. In the confusion a prelate at one of the windows was shot, and the Pope, seeing the Roman Guard mingling with the crowd, abjectly surrendered, and retired to disavow his concession and prepare for flight. The situation was very grave, and the action of the Pope was far from heroic. It is not a maxim of the higher morality that you may evade an angry crowd by making promises that you do not intend to fulfil, or that you may afterwards discover that such promises were void.

The sequel is well-known. With the assistance of the foreign ambassadors the Pope, disguised as a simple priest, fled to Gaeta. So great was his concern that when the King of Naples, warned of his flight, came the next day and inquired for the Pope, the officials at Gaeta were quite unaware that Pius had been amongst them for twenty-four hours. The cardinals gathered about him, and he appealed to the Catholic Powers to restore his authority and suppress the rebels. It is not an entirely accurate analysis to say that the Pope's "Liberalism" now ended, and he became a reactionary. He had been duped by the Radicals and had never understood his subjects. A feeble and carefully controlled lay representation, with neither legislative nor executive power, was not a part of the Liberal creed. Pius IX. was never a Liberal. He was from the first unwilling to surrender the absolute authority of the clergy, to grant freedom of discussion, to abolish the monstrous growth of clerical officialdom, or to apply a fitting proportion of the income of the Papal States to their effective military defence. When he saw that even moderate Liberals demanded these things, he recognized that he had never been in agreement with them, and that his own half-measures were of no value. He now further recognized that the advanced Liberals had captured his people, and he turned, quite logically, to a policy of oppression. There was no material change of his political faith.

From Gaeta he appointed a "governing commission" (under a cardinal) for Rome, and, when the people refused it and set up a Republic, he placidly entrusted his case to France, Spain, Naples, and Sardinia, and devoted himself to the preparation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Rosmini was still with him, urging compromise with the democrats, but the somewhat unscrupulous Cardinal Antonelli, who now became Secretary of State, astutely destroyed the influence of the reformer, and confirmed Pius in his attitude of defiance and repression. Even when the French troops--apparently thinking that they could seduce the Romans to admit them in peace and could then compel the Pope to adopt a conciliatory policy-crushed the Roman Republic, and reopened the gates to the Pope, Pius did not hasten to return. On September 4th he left Gaeta for Portici, and it was not until April 12, 1850, that he returned to the Quirinal. The crowd ironically applauded Pio Nono Secondo.

The Pope had replied to the French appeals for a promise of reform that it was not consistent with his dignity to make promises under apparent pressure, but he had consented to the creation of new political institutions. From Portici he promised a new Consiglio di Stato, a Consiglio dei Ministri, and a Consulta di Stato. These were wholly under clerical control, and the elections for the District Councils, the only bodies which were to have free popular representatives, were soon suppressed. But there is little need to dwell on the second phase of Papal government under Pius IX. Cardinal Antonelli and the Jesuits had a paramount influence, and the dream of enlightenment and selfgovernment was roughly dissipated. Between 1850 and 1855 the Roman Council alone passed ninety sentences of death, and the prisons were again thickly populated; while the disorders of finance and administration, and the appalling illiteracy of the people in an age of advancing education, were scrupulously main- tained. The scandal which in later years followed the death of Antonelli--the spectacle of his natural daughter struggling for his vast fortune, though he was a son of the people--sufficiently disclosed the character of that able and indelicate minister, while the Jesuits were not unmindful that the first act of the revolution had been to expel them. They had sent some of their abler representatives to Gaeta, and from that time they had a deep influence on the ecclesiastical policy of the Pope, while Antonelli ruled the Papal States and offered what Lord Clarendon called a "scandal to Europe." Within little over a year of the Pope's return there were more than 8000 political prisoners in the Papal jails, while the ignorant people were oppressed by heavy taxes and an army of clerical officials.

It is probable that Pius IX. had no clearer perception of the state of Europe and Italy after the revolution of 1849 than he had had in the earlier years. He devoted his attention to spiritual matters and listened, in temporal concerns, to the suave assurances of Antonelli. This pacified Europe was to be weaned from its bad dreams by a cult of the Sacred Heart, devotion to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so on. His first important act ( September 29, 1850) was to re-establish the hierarchy in England, to the great alarm and anger of the English Protestants. England had quickly lost its passing sympathy with the Papacy, and English travellers took home dreadful accounts of the condition of the Papal States. The Pope does not seem to have been acquainted either with the disgust of the English at the state of his dominion or with the fact that the apparent restoration of the old faith in England meant little more than a vast immigration from famine-stricken Ireland.

He then applied himself to securing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. From Gaeta in 1849, while Mazzini and hig colleagues ruled Rome and Antonelli struggled with the representatives of the rival Catholic Powers for his restoration, Pius had sent out some five hundred letters to the bishops of the world, inviting their opinion on the doctrine. It had long passed the stage of being a disputed academic thesis, and most of the replies were favourable. The Jesuits, who had become the special protagonists of the doctrine, fostered the native piety of the Pope, and on December 8, 1854, it became a dogma of the Church. 1

In 1857 Pius made a tour of the Italian provinces. His chief purpose was to visit the Holy House of Loretto, but the intriguers of the Quirinal used the opportunity to enhance the Pope's illusion that only a few negligible fanatics quarrelled with the Papal government. In the previous year the diplomatists assembled at the Congress of Paris had censured that government in the most violent terms and demanded reform. It is hardly likely that their comments were put before the Pope, and care was taken that his reception in the provinces should flatter his genial love of popularity. Inconvenient petitioners were refused access to him, and the clergy and more devout laity greeted him with applause. Gregorovius, who was then in Rome, notes in his Diary that Pius returned to the Quirinal full of joy; and a few years later the inhabitants of these provinces would vote, by an overwhelming majority, for the abolition of the Papal government.

In the following year the graver development of

1 The original documents relating to the Pope's actions will be found in the Acta Pii Noni, Acta Santę Sedis, and Discorsi del Summo Pontefice Pio IX. ( 1872-8).

Italian politics began. Napoleon III., whose protection of the corrupt Papal system had infuriated the Liberals, met Cavour secretly at Plombičres and agreed, in case of attack by Austria, to help the King of Sardinia in his ambition; his reward would be the provinces of Nice and Savoy. The attempt by Orsini in the following January to assassinate Napoleon did not help the diplomatists of the Vatican, as Cavour plausibly urged that the tyranny of the Papal States was responsible for the rebels who were scattered over Europe, and the struggle for the unity of Italy went on from year to year. The war between Sardinia and Austria broke out in the spring of 1859, and Austria was defeated at Magenta and retired from the Legations. These provinces were resolutely opposed to a return of clerical government, and Cavour, whose monarch was not yet prepared for war on the Papacy, sent one representative after another to persuade the Pope to permit the appointment of lay rulers of Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and Romagna, under his suzerainty. Antonelli and Pius refused to make the least concession to the rebels, nor were the provincials disposed to assent to such a settlement. After some months of insurgence and bloody repression, a plebiscite was organized in the Legations ( March 11, 1860) and an overwhelming majority voted for incorporation in the kingdom of Sardinia. In spite of the Pope's fulminations, Sardinia accepted the vote, and Napoleon received Nice and Savoy as the price of his acquiescence.

Dismayed and perplexed by the futility of his appeals to the Catholic Powers and of the spiritual censures at his disposal, the Pope now invited volunteers, and crowds of undisciplined Irish and French Catholics came to swell the little Papal army and fall with truculent piety on the rebellious districts. Garibaldi, on the other hand, forced the halting designs of Cavour, and, with the cry of "Rome or Death," flung his irregular troops into the struggle. After a vain effort at peaceful settlement, Cavour, "in the interest of humanity," sent the Sardinian regulars into the Papal States, and the Pope's forces were destroyed in September at Castel Fidardo (in sight of the Holy House of Loretto) and Ancona. A plebiscite was organized in Umbria and the Marches, and there is no serious ground to question that the figures published express the sentiment of the provinces. In Umbria 99,075 voted for Victor Emmanuel and 380 for the Pope: in the Marches 133,783 voted for Sardinia and 1212 for Rome. A large allowance for abstentions does not alter the significance of these figures.

Pius still protected, by a conviction that the plebiscite had been fraudulent, his illusion that only a disreputable minority resented his beneficent government, and the diplomacy of the Quirinal during the next ten years was the least enlightened that could have been devised for securing the slender remaining territory. Many cardinals, and even Antonelli, came to see that a recognition of Victor Emmanuel as King of Italy would be the wiser course, but Pius, supported by the Jesuits (who had founded their Civiltą Cattolica, as an organ of Papal sentiment, in 1850), obstinately refused to temporize. He would have no negotiation with "the robbers," the excommunicated rebels against God. He retained--or the French troops still retained for him --only Rome and the Roman district, and proclaimed that he relied on Catholic Europe to restore his full rights. Years were spent in vain efforts to induce him to surrender his temporal power, or to recognize Victor Emmanuel as his "Vicar" in the kingdom of Italy, and in the meantime the Italian aspiration for Rome as a capital grew stronger, and the Pope's obstinate retention of his temporal possessions was easily represented in an unfavourable light throughout Europe. The cardinals were not indifferent to the offer of 10,000 scudi a year and seats in the Italian Senate; and Antonelli was won by a promise of 3,000,000 scudi and rich gifts for his family. There can be little doubt that the rapid development of anti-clericalism in Italy during the sixties, and the growing disdain of Rome in England and France, would have been materially checked if the Pope had been more sagacious. He dreamed that the Catholic world still shared the crusading fervour of the Middle Ages, and he was insensible of the selfish motives of France, Naples, and Austria.

In the midst of the negotiations he committed the grave blunder of issuing his Encyclical Quanta Cura ( December 8, 1864) with the famous accompanying Syllabus, or list of eighty condemned propositions. There is no need to analyze here that medięval indictment of the modern spirit. Many of the propositions are now commonplaces in the mind of every educated Catholic, and it is precisely their boast that--to use some of the condemned words--the Catholic Church may be reconciled with "progress, liberty, and the new civilization." The pages of the Civiltą Cattolica sufficiently indicate who were the Pope's unhappy inspirers. In brief, the document convinced Europe that Rome insisted on being driven off the path of progress at the point of the bayonet, and in 1866 the French evacuated Rome, leaving the Pope only 2000 mercenary soldiers, who were to don his uniform. When Garibaldi made his third impulsive inroad--the second, in 1862, had been arrested by the Piedmontese-- in October, 1867, the French arrested him, but the war of 1870 gave Italy its opportunity. On September 20, 1870, the Italian troops entered the breach in the Roman walls, and the long and romantic story of the temporal power of the Popes was over. By the Law of Guarantees ( May 15, 1871) Italy granted the Pope sovereign rights, with an annual income of 3,250,000 lire and an extension of extraterritorial rights to certain Roman palaces. By a final error Pius refused to acknowledge his position, set up the melodramatic fiction of "the Prisoner of the Vatican," and, by forbidding Catholics to take part in the elections of the new kingdom, allowed Italy to drift farther and farther away from his spiritual control. 1

Meantime the famous Vatican Council had crowned his more purely ecclesiastical work. The idea of summoning the whole Christian world to a second and greater Trent, of healing religious dissensions and uniting religious forces against modernism, had dazzled the imagination of the Pope at Gaeta. His advisers encouraged him, and in 1865 he appointed a commission to discuss the subject. In 1867, when his heart was uplifted by the great gathering at Rome for the celebration of the (supposed) eighteenth centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter, he announced the council, and in the following year ( June 28, 1868) the Bull Ęterni Patris invited all Christians--heretic and schismatic, as well as orthodox--to the Vatican Council of 1869. It was opened on December 8th, when 719 members assembled from the Catholic world.

1 In the plebiscite which was taken in the city of Rome 40,785 voted for incorporation and forty-six for the Pope: in the city and province 133,681 voted for incorporation and 1507 against. Naturally, the minority is not fully represented, as many refused to vote.

The great issue--the one issue that may be discussed here--was the question of defining the infallibility of the Pope. Here again the Jesuits ardently supported the wish of Pius IX., and a struggle had taken place in the Catholic world for some years. It was known that such devout and influential priests as Newman in England, Bishop Dupanloup and Archbishop Darboy in France, and Bishop Ketteler and Cardinal Schwarzenberg and Döllinger in Germany, opposed the definition, and the greatest care was taken in selecting members of the council whose position did not make them entitled to sit in it. When Newman was proposed from England, Manning (an enthusiastic supporter of the Papal policy) and the Jesuits defeated the project, as Purcell has since established in his life of Manning. When, however, the seven hundred members of the council had assembled, it was realized that between one hundred and fifty and two hundred voters regarded a definition of infallibility as inopportune, and the procedure and control of the council were diplomatically arranged. What Newman called "the aggressive, insolent faction" of the Infallibilists strained every nerve to destroy the opposition. They drew up a petition to the Pope, and Pius was deeply annoyed to find that little over four hundred names appeared at its foot; and of the signatories the majority were prelates who lived at Rome in dependence on the Quirinal.

But the familiar story need not be told again in detail. The debates were prolonged into the broiling summer, in spite of the remonstrances of the northerners, and the Pope's indignation at the minority was freely expressed. When, on July 13th, the vote was taken, 451 voted "Aye," 62 voted a qualified "Aye" ( Placet juxta modum ), and 88 voted in opposi- tion. Pius wavered, and was disposed to listen to counsels of compromise, but the majority pressed, and the stormy debate continued. The Inopportunists were reduced to silence, and at the final vote, on July 18th, only two voted against the project; though many abstained from voting. Time has thrown a strange light on that historic struggle. On the one hand, it has transpired that the definition was drawn up in such terms that the controversialist could plausibly accommodate it with the known blunders of earlier Popes, and few followed the spirited revolt of Döllinger: on the other hand, the Papacy has from that day to this made no use of its infallibility, in an age of perplexing doubts, and the ardour of the Infallibilists has cooled.

During the following years the Pope sank once more into depression as the situation in Italy engendered grave troubles. Bible Societies and Protestant churches appeared in Italy, even in Rome, and Pius vainly denounced the monstrosity. Bishops dare not apply to the Italian government for their appointments, and had to remain without incomes and palaces. The Jesuits were expelled, and in 1872 a law of dissolution menaced the 8151 members of religious houses in Rome and the provinces. Bavaria refused to publish the Bull Pastor Ęternus, and its struggle with the Church extended to Prussia and culminated in the long and bitter Kulturkampf ( 1872-1887). In France the anticlerical Liberals gained from year to year on the Catholic reaction which had followed the Commune of 1871, and Gambetta's battle-cry rallied the old forces in alarming numbers. In 1876 (November 6th) Antonelli died, and the grave scandal which disclosed his irregularities gave joy to the enemies of the Papacy. A last gleam of consolation came to the Pope in 1877, when the Catholic world held a magnificent celebration, on June 3d, of his episcopal jubilee. But the aged Pope saw no retreat of the disastrous forces he had encountered, and, after the longest and most calamitous rule in Papal history, he died on February 7, 1878.

Little need be added in regard to his relations with other countries than France and Italy. The record is one of both successes and failures which were misunderstood at Rome: to the modern historian it is the record of the lapse of millions from the Roman allegiance. In the United States forty-four new dioceses were established between 1847 and 1877, yet the American prelates of the time bitterly lament the loss of hundreds of thousands of scattered Catholic immigrants. In England the Romeward movement within the English Church came to an end long before the death of Pius, and the Church made no numerical progress in excess of births and immigration. In Holland the hierarchy was peacefully restored, but in Switzerland there was such tension that the Internuncio was expelled in 1874. Russia severed relations with Rome in 1860: Württemberg ( 1861) and Baden ( 1859) signed Concordats with Rome, but found it impossible to maintain them: and the new German Empire was, as I said previously, involved by Bismarck and Falk in a bitter struggle with Rome.

The relations with Catholic countries were little more satisfactory. Sardinia had mortally offended the Quirinal long before the struggle for Italian unity began: by a long series of anti-clerical measures it abolished tithes, laicised education and marriage, expelled the religious orders and confiscated their property, gave freedom of worship to Protestants, and dealt summarily with hostile bishops. Austria had signed in 1855 (August 18th) a Concordat which was favourable to the Church, but the young Francis Joseph, whose education had been carefully directed in the clerical interest, was forced by the storm of opposition to deviate from it. It was abolished in 1870, and four years later laws were passed which the Vatican regarded as anti-clerical. Spain maintained, through its various revolutions, a consistent docility, and was the only country on which the dying eyes of the Pope could dwell with satisfaction. It contracted a favourable Concordat on March 16, 1851, which was supplemented in 1859. Portugal signed a favourable Concordat in 1857. In Latin America on the other hand, the Church suffered grave reverses. Costa Rica and Guatemala ( 1852), Haiti ( 1860), Nicaragua ( 1861), and San Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, and Ecuador ( 1862) signed satisfactory Concordats, but Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Uraguay, and Argentina entered upon anti-clerical ways, and the spirit of revolt against the clergy was spreading throughout Southern and Central America. Not since the days of Leo X. had the Church suffered such grave and widespread defection.

In estimating the character of Pius IX. and his relation to these losses the modern historian has little difficulty. The exaggerations of both his critics and his panegyrists are patent. He was a sincerely religious and zealous man, but the hope once entertained of his canonization (or, at least, beatification) was as absurd as the malevolent attacks on his character from the other side. His intellectual quality must be similarly judged: he had little penetration, no breadth of mind, no power to read aright the symptoms of his age. In considering the fatal obstinacy with which he refused all accommodation in regard to his temporal power, we must carefully bear in mind his religious views, and not merely dwell on his slight capacity for diplomacy or statesmanship. So grave a surrender could not be commended by a few years of revolution except to a man of greater insight and foresight than Pius IX. In sum, he would in years of peace and piety have made an excellent and undistinguished steward of the Papal heritage, but he was very far from having the greatness of mind which the circumstances of the Church required, and the vast organization over which he so long presided emerged still further weakened from its second historical crisis. It had fought Protestantism and lost: it had fought Democracy and Progress and lost. It remained for a wiser Pope to initiate the policy of accommodation.


WHEN Leo XIII. mounted the Pontifical throne, the Papacy had had three quarters of a century of disastrous experience of the reactionary policy. The Restoration of 1815 had seemed to inaugurate for Rome a new period of prosperity. The touching experiences of Pius VII.and the widely recognized need of combating by religious influence the new spirit of revolt disposed the monarchs of Europe, and a large part of their subjects, to regard the successor of Peter with respect. He had been their ally in resisting Napoleon: he was their ally in restoring feudalism. England moderated its rude tradition of "the Scarlet Woman." The Tsar of the Russias felt that Romanism was a large element in the spiritual renaissance he contemplated. Louis XVIII. remembered how altar and throne had fallen together. Ferdinand of Spain drowned the revolt in blood. Austria reconsidered its Febronianism. Italy seemed incapable of rebellion.

But the revolutionary wave had retired only to come back with greater effect, and from 1830 to 1850 the face of Europe was transformed. The Popes almost alone defied the spirit to which monarchs bowed, and they stood almost alone amid their ruins. England returned to its disdain: Russia and Switzerland angrily broke off relations with the Vatican: Germany was engaged in what the Vatican regarded as a formidable effort to crush Catholicism in the new Empire. Austria was sullen and weakened. France was rapidly passing into its third and final revolt against Catholicism. Spain was forced into an alliance with the growing Liberals against the Carlists. Italy was overwhelmingly opposed to the Papacy on what the Papacy declared to be a sacred and vital issue, and was honeycombed with Rationalism. Belgium was almost dominated by a Liberal middle class. The South American republics were falling away in succession. The two most profoundly Catholic peoples, Ireland and Poland, were ruined, and their children were scattered and seduced. Thus would any penetrating cardinal have interpreted the situation of the Church in 1878; yet, if his penetration were great enough, he would see that there was a tendency among this Liberal middle class, which now dominated Europe, to seek once more an alliance with religion against the deeper social heresies which were appearing. Would the new Pope prove subtle enough to grasp that opportunity and save the Church? His "infallibility" would avail little: he would be unwise to emphasize it. He must be a diplomatist and a rhetorician.

The new Pope, Leo XIII., was nearly sixty-eight years old, and had had a better education in the history of the nineteenth century than most of the Italian cardinals had. Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci was born on March 2, 1810, at Carpineto. His first lesson, in the country mansion, would be to hear his father, Colonel Pecci, and his very pious mother, a Tertiary of the Franciscan Order, talk of the Napoleonic nightmare that had just passed away. From the age of eight to fourteen he was under the care of the Jesuits at Viterbo, and, as it was represented to him that the younger sons in so large a family had to look to the Church for their income, after some hesitation, he allowed them to tonsure him, at the age of eleven. 1 In 1824 his mother died, and he went to study, still under the Jesuits, at the Collegio Romano at Rome. He had conspicuous ability and high character, and besides improving his Latin--he already wrote Latin poems-he studied philosophy, mathematics, chemistry, and astronomy. He attracted attention, as clever boys attract the attention of the clergy, and was directed toward the clerical career. He must enter the "Academy for Noble Ecclesiastics," said one prelate; and, with the aid of his brothers, he drew up a genealogical tree to prove that his father, the easy-going colonel of Carpineto, was descended from the mediaeval Pecci of Siena. The Academy did not pronounce his proof valid--the connexion is probable enough--but, on his merits, and in view of his important patrons, admitted him among the nobles of Anagni ( 1831).

Joachim--he had called himself Vincenzo until 1832-took a degree in theology, and told his brothers that he

1 In a letter to his brother Charles, July 3, 1837, he remarks that he has entered the clergy "in order to carry out the wishes of his father." Catholic lives of Leo XIII., which abound, must be read with discretion. They are even more tendentious than lives of Pius IX., and the best of them--by Mgr. de T'Serclaes ( 2 vols., 1894), L. K. Goetz ( 1899), J. de Narfon ( 1899), Mgr. B. O'Reilly ( 1903), and P. J. O'Byme ( 1903)-are very unreliable. Mr. Justin McCarthy's short Pope Leo XIII. ( 1896) is a summary of these, and shares their defects. With them should be read Joachim Pecci ( 1900) by Henri des Houx, for the period before his election, and Le Conclave de Léon XIII. ( 1887) by Raphael de Cesare: both Catholic writers, but more candid and discriminating. See also Boyer d'Agen, La Jeunesse de Léon XIII. ( 1896) and Monsignor Joachim Pecci ( 1910) and works to be mentioned hereafter.

was going to illumine their ancient family. He still loved to take a flintlock musket over the hills during his holidays, but he indulged in no dissipations and became pale and thin over the books which were to help his ambition. His father died in 1836, and it is in his naive letters to his brothers that we discover the human elements ignored by his eloquent biographers. 1 He begins to follow politics, in the most ardent Papal spirit. Cardinal Pacca, the intransigeant, recommended the pale, slim young cleric to Gregory XVI., and in 1837 he was appointed domestic prelate. Cardinal Sala also befriended the young Monsignore, and he went from one small office to another. Sala pointed out that for further advancement he must become a priest, and he became a priest ( December 31, 1837); but his letters make it clear that he entered the priesthood in a mood of such exalted piety that Sala feared he was about to quit the world and become a Jesuit.

About a month after his ordination ( February 2, 1838) he was appointed Apostolic Delegate (Civil Governor) of Benevento, where the brigandage which disgraced the Papal States was particularly rabid. In three years, with the aid of a skilful chief of police, he almost suppressed brigandage and smuggling, and did much for the province. His progress was not so heroically triumphant as the biographers represent. In his letters to his brothers he complains that his predecessor has robbed the treasury and they must help him: that his ninety-seven ducats a month do not enable him to have the fine horses and carriage he needs: and, later (in 1839), that the clerics at Rome are plotting to cheat him of the higher promotion which he deserves. In 1841 the Pope transferred him to Perugia, and he

1 These are chiefly reproduced in the works of Boyer d'Agen.

did good work in reforming education, founding a bank for small traders, and so on.

In January, 1843, his real education began. He was appointed Nuncio at Brussels and was made titular Archbishop of Damietta. Able as he was, the promotion to so important an office was premature. Of French (or any languages but Latin and Italian) he knew not a syllable until he set out, and with the modern thought which was then current in Brussels he was acquainted only by means of the version of it given by Pius IX. in the Syllabus, of which he fully approved. His handsome presence and amiable ways carried him far. There is an almost boyish expression on his face at this period: on the long, thin, smiling face and bright eyes and soft sensuous mouth. King Leopold, a Protestant, liked him, and allowed the young archbishop to attract him to religious functions and persuade him of the importance of religion in appeasing social ambitions. Pecci, in turn, could not contemplate the gas-lit streets, the railways, the postal system, etc., of Belgium, without realizing that the Papal States would have to admit something of this modern thought. But he was for a safe modernism, consistent with the Quanta Cura and the Syllabus. He was suave to all: even to the rebellious Gioberti, who was then giving Italian lessons in Brussels. To this period of his career belongs the good story of a naughty Liberal marquis, who ventured to offer him a pinch of snuff from a box which was adorned with a nude Venus, and the Archbishop is said to have taken it and asked: "Madame la marquise?" Secretly, however, he urged the Catholics to organize a struggle against the Liberals. The Liberals wanted a compromise on the school-question, and, when the Nuncio assisted in defeating it, the Premier Deschamps wrote contemptuously to Rome that they would like a Nuncio who was "a statesman." As, about the same time, the bishopric of Perugia fell vacant and the Perugians asked for their former Delegate, Gregory recalled Pecci. His disappointment--which he plainly expresses in his letters--was softened only by the Pope's assurance that the transfer would be regarded as "equal to promotion to a nunciature of the first class"; in other words, he remained on the path to the cardinalate, as he desired. 1

From Brussels he brought a warm testimonial written by King Leopold, and he spent a month in London (where he had an interview with the Queen) and some weeks in Paris. He reached Rome in May ( 1846), to find Gregory dying, and he witnessed the election of Pius IX., and, at Perugia, applauded the early "liberalism" of the Pope. Perugia had a large share of the advanced thinkers who now overran Italy, and the Bishop would assuredly become more closely acquainted with their ideas. From his later encyclicals, however, one must suppose that he never made a profound study of their claims, either on the intellectual or the social side. Of philosophy he had only the medięval version given him in the Collegio Romano and the Sapienza, and of economics or sociology he knew nothing. Such science as he knew--the elements of chemistry and astronomy--was easily reconcilable with religion, and this gave him an apparently liberal attitude toward science. On the other hand, he had genuine sympathies and he felt that the new aspirations of the working class

1 See the documents in Henri des Houx, pp. 166-7, and Mgr. de T'Serclaes, vol. i., pp. 127-132. Most biographers grossly misrepresent his "promotion." Rome plainly decided that he was not suitable for a nunciature

were not to be met with a sheer rebuff. 1 The ideas of Gioberti and Ventura appealed to him. Even when Gioberti had fallen out of favour at the Quirinal, Archbishop Pecci, when he passed through Perugia in 1848, gave him hospitality in his palace. Henri des Houx affirms that he heard on good authority that for this Pius IX. suspended the Archbishop from pontifical duties for several weeks. Later, he incurred suspicion by permitting a memorial service at the death of Cavour. It is admitted by the leading Catholic biographers that he was in bad odour at the Quirinal. The promised cardinal's hat was withheld for eight years 2 and his great ability was wasted on a provincial bishopric. The slight is ascribed to the jealousy of Cardinal Antonelli, and his advance after the Secretary's death confirms the suspicion.

It is, however, plain that Pecci was a most excellent Bishop, and that he was no more "Liberal" than Pius IX. in his first year. He strictly organized the work and education of the clergy, restored the seminary and built a College of St. Thomas, founded many schools, churches, and hospitals, brought Brothers of Mercy and nuns from Belgium, and opened a branch of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. He left a fine record of religious-social work, and the orthodox poor loved him. Yet we must set aside the exaggerations of biographers. Pecci cherished the purely Papal ideal and was out of touch with the majority of his people. In 1859, when a group of rebels set up a "Provisional Government" at Perugia, he nervously shut himself in his palace for two days and, without a protest, allowed the ferocious

1 His episcopal pronouncements are given in Scelta di Atti episcopali del Cardinale G. Pecci ( 1879). 2 He was made cardinal on December 19, 1853.

Swiss Guard sent by Antonelli to wear themselves out in an orgy of slaughter and pillage. A few months later Sardinia expelled the Papal troops, and, when a plebiscite was taken, 97,000 voted for incorporation in the kingdom of Sardinia, and only 386 voted against. The Archbishop protested emphatically and consistently against the seizure of the Pope's temporal power, and, when the hated laws of Sardinia were successively applied to Perugia (on civil marriage, the suppression of the religious orders, military service for clerics, etc.), he continued to protest in the warmest language. In 1862 he suspended three priests who adopted the Italian cause, and was cited before the civil tribunal; but the case was allowed to lapse. We know that he was carefully watched from the Quirinal, and that he had an informant of his own at the Curia, 1 but his pronouncements and letters make it abundantly clear that he never swerved from the strict Papal conception of contemporary thought and politics.

Antonelli died in December, 1876, and (as is ignored by most of his biographers) Pecci very shortly went to live at Rome--long before he was appointed Chamberlain. He had an able coadjutor in the bishopric, and he pleaded his age and increasing weakness. He lived in the modest Falconieri Palace, and trusted to get a suburbicarian bishopric. To his annoyance, two which fell vacant in the next few weeks were given by Pius to others, but at length, in August, the Pope appointed him Camerlengo (Chamberlain). In that capacity he had, the following February, to tap the dead Pope on the forehead with a hammer and to arrange the

1 Mgr. Cataldi, whom he afterwards made his master of ceremonies. H. des Houx (p. 329 ) observes that, when Cataldi died, his papers were put under seal by Leo's orders and his letters have never been published.

Conclave. He was not widely known at Rome, and few foresaw his elevation to the throne. It is, in fact, probable that Pius IX. had made him Camerlengo, not in order to exclude him from the Papacy, but because he was not likely to be required for it. Since Alexander VI. no Chamberlain had been elected Pope. There were, however, shrewd observers who predicted his rise, and little surprise was expressed when, after the third scrutiny, on February 20th, he secured forty-four out of the sixty-one votes. We may set aside romantic speculations about the Conclave. A few cardinals perceived that the Church needed in its ruler just such a combination of clear intelligence, broad knowledge, and diplomatic temper as Cardinal Pecci possessed, and he was sufficiently sound on Papal politics to disarm the more conservative. It is not impossible that waverers reflected as they gazed on the worn white frame of the cardinal, that, whatever policy he adopted, Leo XIII. would not long rule the Church.

The Liberal press had recalled his friendship with Gioberti and his permission of a service in memory of Cavour, but Leo quickly reassured the more rigid cardinals. The crowd gathered in the great square to receive the blessing of the new Pope, yet hour followed hour without his making an appearance. R. de Cesare shows that the Italian Government was prepared, not only to preserve order, but to render military honours if he appeared on the balcony. The intransigeant cardinals opposed it, and four hours later he gave the blessing inside St. Peter's. Similarly with his coronation. It is untrue that the Italian Government refused to take measures to preserve order if he were, as was usual, crowned in St. Peter's. On the advice of the more conservative cardinals he chose to be crowned in semi-privacy in the Sistine Chapel on March 3d. I Indeed when, on February 22d, he had been compelled to go to his late palace for his papers, he crossed Rome in the utmost secrecy. He would, like Pius, have "no truck with the robbers." To the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Swiss President he had written on the day of his election to say that he looked forward to more friendly relations, but in his first Consistory, on March 28th, he assured the cardinals that there would be no reconciliation with Italy, and on April 28th he issued his first Encyclical, Inscrutabile, in which, besides asserting the claim of the temporal power, he described Europe, in more graceful terms than Pius, yet in the same spirit, as filled with a "pestilential virus" and nearing death unless it speedily took the antidote of Papal obedience. There was to be no truck with "the new civilization" also.

Yet Leo XIII. has passed into contemporary history as the great "reconciler of differences," in Carlyle's phrase: the man who, by a superb diplomacy and a fortunate conjunction of character and genius, rescued the Church from the dangerous position in which Pius IX. had left it and raised it to a higher level of prestige and power. The historian must make allowance for contemporary enthusiasm. Probably most rulers of ability and character have left that impression among the generation which witnessed their death. Leo, moreover, as befitted a temperate and high-minded man, excited no bitter opposition. All the current biographies of him are from Catholic pens: few of them even pretend to have the candour and balance of historical writers. Leo's story is still to be written. It suffices here to remark that the forces he most fiercely com-

I See de Cesare, pp. 138-144.

bated-Socialism and Rationalism--made during his Pontificate a progress out of all proportion to the increase of population: that the Church of Rome actually decreased, if we take account of the growth of population: and that "modernism" within the Church became the customary attitude of cultivated Catholics. Among the most potent facts of his Pontificate are the facts that France, to retain which he made grave sacrifices, was entirely lost to the Church: that Italy, which he defied, has established its position with absolute security and abandoned its creed to a remarkable extent: that Portugal, Spain, and Spanish-America have witnessed a similar spread of revolt: that in England, Germany, and America there has been no progress other than increase by births and immigration: that Leo's effort to check Socialism by a Christian social zeal failed and was almost abandoned by him in his later years: and that his attempt to impose St. Thomas of Aquin on modern thought and his design of directing modern Scriptural research have only embarrassed the scholars of his Church. He was one of the great men of his great age, the ablest Pope in three hundred years: but he failed. He made no impression whatever on what he called the "diseases" of modern thought and life, and he left his Church numerically weaker--in proportion to the increase of population--than he found it. 1

His policy in Italy is almost invariably described as being conciliatory without sacrificing the Papal claim.

1 The losses of the Church are analyzed by the author, and Catholic authority is quoted in most cases, in The Decay of the Church of Rome ( 2d ed. 1910). In France alone the loss was about 25,000,000. His Papal pronouncements are collected in Leonis XIII. P. M. Acta (17 vols., 1881-1898), SS. D. N. Leonis XIII. allocutiones, etc. (8 vols., 18871910), and Discorsi del Summo Pontefice Leone XIII. ( 1882).

We cannot regard as entirely amiable a policy of reminding the Italian monarchy and statesmen, every few years, that they are sacrilegious and excommunicated thieves, and it is surely now clear that Leo erred in maintaining the attitude of Pius and forbidding Catholics to take part in the elections. The Catholic Encyclopędia imputes to him the remarkable expectation that the revolutionary elements in Italy would, if not checked by the Catholic vote, win power at the polls and the government would seek the aid of the Vatican; and the writer describes this as a miscalculation which Pius X. was obliged to correct. 1 Indeed the one wise move on the part of Leo XIII. in regard to Italy is either suppressed or discussed with strained scepticism by Catholic writers. During the first few years after his coronation Leo continued to protest against the wickedness of the world in general and of Italy in particular. In 1881 he had a singular and unpleasant proof of the resentment of Rome. On July 13th the remains of Pius IX. were transferred to the Church of St. Lawrence, where he wished to be buried, and, the government feeling that a public ceremony would lead to disorder, the translation was to be secret and nocturnal. But the "secret" was carefully divulged before the hour, and a vast crowd of the faithful assembled to do homage to the Papa-Re. The rougher anti-clericals were thus stimulated to make an unseemly protest, and Leo took occasion again to protest to the Catholic Powers that his position was intolerable.

On April 24, 1881, the Pope urged the Catholic Associations to enter the field of municipal politics, and in the following year he, in the Encyclical Etsi nos

1 Article "Leo XIII".

(February 5th), and on the occasion of the death of Garibaldi (June 2d), again made severe attacks upon Italy. The friction increased. In July ( 1882) Leo had to protest that bishops, not recognizing the government, received no incomes or palaces, and that monks and nuns who endeavoured to evade the law of suppression were hardly treated. Then a dismissed employee of the Vatican brought an action against the Pope in the Italian court, and though the action was dismissed, the court claimed jurisdiction, and Leo made a heated protest to France and Austria. In 1884 the Propaganda was compelled to invest its money in Italian funds, and the Pope, after the customary protest, set up a number of procurators in foreign countries to whom the faithful might send their offerings. In 1886 the anti-clerical campaign became more violent; tithes were abolished, and many Italian Catholics began to desire reconciliation. Italy entered into the Triple Alliance with Austria and Germany, and henceforward appeals to the "Catholic" Powers were obviously futile. France itself had by this time an anti-clerical government and majority, and German and Austrian Catholics bitterly resented the Italian attack on the Triple Alliance.

In February, 1887, Cardinal Jacobini, the Secretary of State, died, and Cardinal Rampolla entered upon his famous career. Leo openly directed the new Secretary to insist on the restoration of the temporal power, and ordered that the Rosary be recited nightly in the churches of Rome. But in the course of that year there was a change in the Vatican policy, though, since it was unsuccessful, it is usually concealed or called into question. Crispi himself revealed, a few years later, that there were negotiations for a settlement between the Vatican and the Quirinal, and that France, irritated by the Triple Alliance, threatened to put greater pressure on its Church unless the Pope withdrew from the negotiations. 1 Mgr. de T'Serclaes virtually admits the fact, and conjectures that Crispi wanted Italy to have a share in the approaching celebration of the Pope's Jubilee. We have no right to question Crispi's assurance that France intervened, and that the Vatican was willing to hear of compromise. The Papal authorities, however, concealed the unsuccessful offer and returned to the earlier attitude. The Pope's sacerdotal Jubilee was celebrated in 1888 with immense rejoicings, and the anti-clericals retorted with fresh legislation. In 1889 a statue of Giordano Bruno was erected at Rome. It is said that Leo XIII. spent the hours of the demonstration in tears at the foot of the altar, and that he had some idea of leaving Rome. The gates of the Vatican were carefully watched, and there was great excitement in Rome when it was announced that he had actually passed over a few yards of Roman territory--to visit the studio of a sculptor near the Vatican. But the Pope clung to his theory of being imprisoned in the Vatican, and the remaining years were like the earlier: anathema on one side, disdain and defiance on the other. When he died, the laity of Rome itself had become so largely anti-clerical that Catholic Deputies to the Chamber did not care to be seen going to mass, and in the north Socialism was advancing at a remarkable pace.

In Germany, on the other hand, Leo won considerable success, though his biographers describe it inaccurately. The Kulturkampf was at its height when Leo was elected, and he at once wrote a firm and courteous

1 Comtemporary Review, 1891 (vol. lx., 161).

letter to the Emperor, trusting that peace would be restored. In his cold and ironical reply (evidently written by Bismarck) the Emperor observed that there would be peace when the Pope directed the clergy to obey the laws, and Leo retorted ( April 17, 1878) that the laws were inconsistent with the Catholic conscience. But circumstances favoured the Pope. Two attempts were made to assassinate the Emperor, and he directed Bismarck to see that rebellious impulses in the young were checked by religious education. It seems clear that the Emperor had begun to dislike the struggle with the Church, and by this time Bismarck himself must have seen that persecution had led only to the better organization and greater energy of the Catholics, while his policy was threatened from another side by the rapid advance of Social Democracy. The Papal Nuncio at Munich, Mgr. Aloisi-Masella, was invited to Berlin. He was instructed from Rome to decline the invitation, and Bismarck arranged a "wayside inn" meeting at Kissingen. As Bismarck insisted on the government retaining a veto on all ecclesiastical appointments, the negotiations broke down, and little progress was made when they were resumed by the Vienna Nuncio and Prince von Reuss.

In the following year Falk, the framer of the famous May Laws, resigned, and the Vatican resumed its efforts. On February 24, 1880, the Pope informed the Archbishop of Cologne that the government might have a restricted veto on the ordinations of priests if it would grant an amnesty--eight out of twelve bishops were still in exile or prison--and modify the laws. Bismarck refused, but there was some relaxation of the laws. In 1881 several bishops were appointed, and in 1882 Bismarck voted funds for a German representa- tive at the Vatican. It was, however, at once discovered that the bargain put the Pope in a dilemma. Bismarck demanded that Leo should direct the Alsatian clergy to submit, but, though the Pope promised that he would "see to it," he dared not interfere. In 1884 diplomatic relations were formally restored. Several bishops returned from exile, and episcopal incomes were restored; but the amnesty was not extended to the Archbishop of Cologne and the Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, and Catholic students were not allowed to go to Louvain, Rome, or Innspruck.

In 1885 Bismarck made a further step by inviting the Pope to mediate between Germany and Spain in their quarrel for the possession of the Caroline Islands. It is said that Bismarck was entrapped into this by a Catholic journalist announcing that Spain was about to make the invitation. However that may be, the invitation flattered the Vatican, and the two rebellious archbishops were "persuaded" by the Pope to resign. The German Catholics were now beginning to murmur against the Pope, and the negotiations proceeded slowly, but in 1886 Bismarck bluntly denounced the May Laws, and it was proposed to modify them. Shortly afterwards, however, it appeared that the Pope had conveyed an impression that he would pay a high price (besides the veto on priests) for the surrender. The Centre Party opposed Bismarck's new law of military service, and he appealed to Rome. Rampolla, through the Bavarian Nuncio, directed the Catholic members to desist, but, to the equal dismay of the Chancellor and the Pope, they refused to obey and caused a dissolution of the Reichstag. Their leader, Baron Frankenstein, replied to the Bavarian Nuncio that they took orders from Rome only in ecclesiastical matters. 1 Bismarck, in his anger, got copies of the letters and published them. What followed we can only gather from the sequel. The Centre withdrew its opposition, the military law was passed, and the May Laws were modified. German Liberals beheld the strange spectacle of the Iron Chancellor, in the Reichstag, indignantly denying that the Pope was a "foreign power," who ought not to intervene in German affairs.

No further concessions were won from Germany-the Jesuits are still excluded--but since 1887 the Church in that country has enjoyed comparative peace and prosperity. William II. acceded to the throne in 1888, and from the first he insisted on friendly relations with Rome. On three occasions ( 1888, 1893, and 1903) he visited Leo at the Vatican. Bismarck retired in 1890, after a final defeat by the Centre Party. The money due to the bishops (whose incomes had been suspended) now amounted to more than £400,000, and Bismarck invited the Pope to compromise in regard to it. Leo refused; the government must settle the matter with the Catholics of Germany, he said. In the later debate in the Reichstag the Minister of Worship heatedly denounced the Pope for duplicity, but the Centre had its way and the whole sum was restored to the bishops. It is further claimed, though without documentary evidence, that the Emperor's visit to the Vatican in 1893 was for the purpose of urging the Pope to order the members of the Centre to support the new military laws. In the sequel the Catholic members were divided and the laws passed. But documents on these recent events will not reach the eye of this generation, and we cannot be sure how far the Kulturkampf was abandoned

1 See the documents relating to the episode in T'Serclaes, i., 425.

as a reward for Papal support of Germany's military policy. On the other hand, the alliance in hostility to Socialism has proved a failure. The Catholic vote at the polls fell, during Leo's Pontificate, from 27.9 per cent. of the total vote to 19.7 (in 1903): the Social Democratic vote increased nearly tenfold. 1

In France the policy of the Pope was correct and particularly unsuccessful. A few years after the fall of the Papal States the number of professing Catholics in France arose to about thirty millions in a nation of thirty-six millions; and the sincerity of a very large proportion may be judged from the fact that nearly two thirds of the Papal income from Peter's Pence (which rose to nearly half a million sterling a year) came from French Catholics. Yet when Leo died, the professing Catholics had fallen to about six millions in a population of thirty-nine millions. We must beware of ascribing this failure to Leo XIII., though undoubtedly he never exhibited a sound knowledge or statesmanlike grasp of the situation in France. That country was developing along anti-clerical lines, and no Pope or prelate could have diverted it. Leo was absorbed in the superficial struggle of royalists and republicans until the serious development had proceeded too far. In the later seventies the anti-clericals began to assert their rapidly growing power and influence legislation. The Jesuits were, again expelled, and education further withdrawn from Catholic control. The Pope followed the development in helpless concern until October 22, 1880, when, at the demand of the French faithful, he passed his censure. The Rcpublican authorities

1 On the relations of Rome and the Centre compare Count von Hoensbroech's Rom und das Zentrum ( 1910). There are also curious details in the same writer's Fourteen Years a Jesuit (Engl. trans. 1911).

paid no heed and in 1883 Leo sent a protest to President Grévy. In a cold and indifferent reply the President pointed out that the Catholic clergy could expect little favour from a Republican institution which they constantly attacked, and the Pope's attention was forcibly drawn to the royalist agitation which divided the Church and fed the anti-clerical campaign against it. We must conclude that Leo, like so many Catholics, miscalculated the recuperating power of royalism, besides fearing to offend a powerful section of the clergy and laity, as he still hesitated to direct Catholics to submit to the Republic. For a time he trusted that the democratic movement headed by the Comte de Mun would bring relief, but it increased the confusion, and on February 16, 1892, Leo issued his famous Encyclical, urging the French Catholics to submit to the Republic and assail only its anti-clerical laws. The royalists sulked: in one diocese the Peter's Pence offerings fell from £60,000 to 35,000. Even the Panama Scandal in 1893 failed to yield any advantage, and the Church completed its series of blunders by adopting the crusade against Dreyfus. In his later years Leo could but helplessly look on while Waldeck-Rousseau and Combes disestablished and debilitated the Church. Even within the Church he was compelled to witness an immense advance of the "Americanism" which he detested. 1

In Belgium the political circumstances were more favourable to the plans of the Vatican. In the summer of 1879 the Liberals passed a law for the secularization of the elementary schools, and the Catholics complained that the Pope, who blamed the violence of their lan-

1 See E. Barbier, Le Progrés du libéralism Catholique en France sous le Pape Lion XIII. ( 1907) and A. Houtin, Histoire du Modernism Catholique ( 1913).

guage, failed to discharge his office with due severity. In point of fact, Leo was working so diplomatically, assuring the King that the clergy must respect the civil authority and separately encouraging the clergy to resist "iniquitous" laws, that the government at length publicly taxed him with duplicity and withdrew its representative from Rome. In 1885, however, the Catholics returned to power, and, enjoying the advantage of a division of the hostile forces (Liberals and Socials), established a lasting influence in the country.

Austria, on the other hand, proved unsatisfactory to the Vatican. From the day of its alliance with Italy the Roman officials looked with annoyance on Austria, and the consistent tone of Mgr. de T'Serclaes' references to it reflect the Vatican attitude. A letter which the Pope wrote to the bishops of Hungary in 1886, urging them to resist the new and unecclesiastical laws in regard to marriage and education, was construed as a wish to cause trouble in Austria, or between Austria and Italy, and the same murmurs arose when Leo urged the Austrian clergy to resist further Liberal laws in 1890. The laws were carried, and the protests of the Pope were disregarded. In Spain the Pope was more fortunate, as he curbed the disposition of the clergy to adopt the ill-fated Carlist cause. 1 Portugal remained outwardly faithful, and a Concordat granted by the King in 1886 permitted the Pope to effect a much needed reform in the ecclesiastical administration of India. Some advantages were won, also, in Switzerland, where the older hostility was checked, and the Church prospered.

The relations of the Vatican with Russia were singu-

1 See M. Tirado y Rojas, Leon XIII. y Espańa ( 1903), for details in regard to Spain.

lar, and gave rise to bitter complaint among the Catholic subjects of the Tsar. To the amiable letter in which Leo announced his election the Tsar gave a cold and discouraging reply. In 1879, however, the attempt on the Tsar's life gave Leo an opportunity to insinuate his belief that only Catholic influence could curb these criminal impulses; and when Alexander II. was assassinated in 1883, he approached his successor with more success. In the succeeding years of diplomatic intercourse the repression of the Catholic Poles was partly relieved; but no concession was made when the Pope presented to the Tsar the petition of the Ruthenian Catholics in 1884, or when he deprecated the exile of the Bishop of Wilna in 1885. In 1888, however, Russia approached the Vatican through Vienna, and the negotiations have given rise to acute controversy. The Poles murmured that the Pope was disposed to betray their national interests in order to please France by obliging its virtual ally, Russia. How far the Pope was preparing to enforce on the Poles the Russian demands--for a more extensive use of the Russian language in Poland and for a surrender of the offspring of mixed marriages--and to what extent he realized the true designs of Russia, cannot be confidently determined. It is clear only that he meditated concession, and the suspicion that he thus sought a political advantage in France is not implausible.

A similar complaint arose among that other shattered Catholic nation, the Irish. The Parnellite movement of the eighties, it was said, was used by him as a means of accommodating and conciliating England; and there is little room for doubt that this design influenced his policy. It was one of the general lines of his campaign in Europe to persuade rulers that the power of his Church would be their greatest guarantee of docility. In 1881 he warned Archbishop McCabe that the disturbances of public order in Ireland were not to be favoured, and he made the hint more explicit in the following year. In 1883 he gravely disturbed the Irish Catholics by issuing a drastic condemnation of the Parnell Testimonial Fund and forbidding the clergy to work for it; while Errington was amiably received at the Vatican. The disturbance became graver, and in 1885 Leo summoned the Irish bishops to Rome. Even their representations failed to disturb his policy, and on April 13, 1888 (after a Roman envoy, Mgr. Persico, had been sent on the quaint mission of studying the situation in Ireland), a decree of the Holy Office condemned the "Plan of Campaign." So loud were the murmurs at this invasion of the political rights of the Irish that an Encyclical ( Sępe Nos ) had to be dispatched on June 24 to secure the submission of the bishops. We may at least discover some penetration in the Pope's confidence that Ireland would not permanently resent the abuse of his authority.

The advantage gained in England was slight. The broad stream of immigration from Ireland since 1840, which had given the illusion of a rapid growth of Catholicism, and the more slender stream which is associated with the Oxford Movement, had materially lessened, and a period of loss had begun (in proportion to the increase of population). For nearly two decades the Pope was content with domestic measures like the regulation of the conflicts between monks and bishops ( May 8, 1881) and the establishment of an hierarchy in India. On April 20, 1895, he took a bolder step, and in the Encyclical Ad Anglos invited the English people to renew their ancient allegiance to Rome.

Undismayed by the absence of a response, he, on September 13, 1896, issued the famous Encyclical Apostolicę Curę, in which he assailed the validity of orders in the English Church. The brisk controversy which ensued does not concern us; but we may assume that, from the figures at the disposal of the Vatican, the Pope would sadly realize, when the century drew to a close, that the Catholic Church in England had not increased, beyond the natural growth by births and immigration, during his long and laborious Pontificate.

In the United States Leo had a thorny task. With his keen scent for Socialistic insurgence against constituted authority, he proposed, in 1887, to condemn the 730,000 American Catholic workers who were incorporated in the "Knights of Labour." Cardinal Gibbon defended them, and a grudging toleration was issued from Rome. In 1893 the Pope sought to improve his relations with the Republic by taking a handsome part in the fourth centenary of the discovery of America, but by that time a grave struggle had begun to rend the cosmopolitan Church in the States. Americans naturally resented the Germanism of the German Catholic schools, and in 1892 Archbishop Ireland consented to hand over to the School Board some of these elementary schools, on condition that the Catholic teachers were retained and hours were assigned for religious instruction. The Germans and the Ultramontanes raised the cry that Ireland and Gibbon were favouring the "godless schools" of the Republic, and denounced the plan to Rome. Again the Cardinal and the Archbishop won a grudging tolerari posse ("may be tolerated in the circumstances") but a fierce agitation went on in the American Church, and the Pope's representative, Mgr. Satolli, was vigorously opposed by the more American prelates.

In 1896 it was believed that Satolli was instrumental in securing the removal of Mgr. Keane from the rectorship of the Catholic University at Washington, and when an intriguing German professor was dismissed by the University authorities and Rome demanded his restoration, Cardinal Gibbon forced the Pope to withdraw the demand. The ultras then--with the persistent aid of the Jesuits and their Civiltą Cattolica at Rome--attacked a biography of Father Hecker, of which an American translation had been published with warm recommendations from Ireland and Gibbon. A Roman prelate authorized the printing of a scathing attack on the book, and, although Rampolla protested that neither he nor the Pope was involved in the authorization, the American prelates took up a menacing attitude. At this juncture Leo, whose repeated counsels to lay the strife had been disregarded, wrote his famous letter on Americanism to Cardinal Gibbon ( January 22d, 1899). Piquant stories are told of the sentiments expressed by the American prelates, but these the historian cannot as yet control. The struggle ended in a compromise. The book was not condemned, but quietly withdrawn, and the American prelates generally disavowed the principles to which the Pope gave the name of Americanism.

These are but feeble summaries of the vast diplomatic activity which absorbed the long days of the venerable Pontiff, and one must leave almost unnoticed other important actions. In 1885 he negotiated with the Chinese government for the representative of the Celestial Empire at Rome, but the French, rightly suspecting an intrigue on the part of Germany to strengthen its in- fluence in the Far East, forced him to desist. He had the satisfaction of closing a schism in the Armenian Church ( 1878), and secured favourable measures in some of the Balkan States and a few of the South American republics. He restored the Borgia Rooms in the Vatican ( 1897), created a modern observatory out of the old Gregorian observatory of the sixteenth century ( 1888), formed a Reference Library of 30,000 volumes at the Vatican, and opened the Vatican archives to scholars ( 1883). 1 Frail, worn to a pale shade of his former self, the devoted Pope maintained to the end his formidable struggle against a seceding world. Rising at six in the morning--often having summoned his secretary to the bedside during the night--he said his mass and heard a mass said by his chaplain. Then after a cup of chocolate or goat's milk, he began the long day's work with Rampolla, or impressed his innumerable visitors with his piercing dark eyes and translucent features. At two he dined--soup, eggs (rarely meat), and a little claret--and then, after a nap or a drive in the gardens, returned to work until his simple supper at ten. After that the journals of the world, carefully marked, were read to him; and the burning lamp told of his ceaseless thinking and praying until after midnight. Fortunately he did not, like so many Popes, lack financial resources. The Papal income before 1870 had been about £130,000, and the Italian government had offered to pay this. When Pius IX. refused the offer, his income was swollen by voluntary gifts to £400,000

1 We have on earlier pages seen that parts of the archives are still reserved, even from ecclesiastics. On the general question see G. Buschdell , Das Vatikanische Archiv und die Bedeutung seiner Erschliessung durch Papst Leo XIII. ( 1903).

a year, and he left nearly a million and a quarter sterling to his successor. In addition to this large income Leo received vast sums on the occasion of his Sacerdotal Jubilee in 1888 and his Episcopal Jubilee in 1893: the presents (besides Peter's Pence) in 1888 were valued at £2,000,000 by the Vatican authorities, and in 1893 the money offered amounted to £1,6000,000.

The chief means by which the Pope created in his followers the illusion of triumphant statesmanship was the Encyclical. A most assiduous student of Latin from his boyhood, he raised the ecclesiastical tongue to a level it had rarely touched and impressed the world with his literary scholarship. A Roman prelate once described to me how he would linger over the composition, toying with his pen and saying to his secretary: "What is that word that Sallust uses?" His style was an attempt to combine the graceful lucidity of Sallust and the opulence of Cicero. The literary merit of his Encyclicals was so great that even generally informed men at times overlooked the inadequacy of their content: an inadequacy which is seen at once when we reflect that the great Encyclicals which dealt with the socio-political questions of the hour are not consulted by any non-Catholic authority on such questions. The attack upon Socialism which runs through his writings provoked only the smiles of his opponents and did not check the large secessions of French, German, and Italian Catholics to Socialism. A second principal theme was the duty of submission to authority, and the Pope's analysis of authority, on the basis of St. Thomas, belongs to the pre-scientific stage of sociology. A third general theme is that Catholicism made the civilization of Europe, and that that civilization is perishing because of its apostasy. In this argument the Pope not only gravely misunderstood the age in which he lived, but betrayed an historical conception of the social evolution of Europe which belongs essentially to the more backward seminaries. 1

The chief Encyclicals, which were at one time claimed as masterly expositions of eternal principles, have already passed out of even Catholic circulation. Quod Apostolici ( December 28, 1878) is a vigorous attack on Socialism, on familiar lines. Ęterni Patris ( August 4, 1879) imposed the philosophy of St. Thomas, the opportunist character of which the Pope never perceived, on the modern Catholic world. 2 Arcanum ( February 14, 1880) asserted the strict Catholic ideal of indissoluble marriage, and had no influence on the increasing concession of divorce. Diuturnum ( June 29, 1881), written after the assassination of the Tsar, argued that these outrages naturally followed the abandonment of the true faith; it did not include an examination of the cruelties of the Russian authorities. Humanum Genus ( April 20, 1884) condemned Freemasonry. Immortale Dei ( November 19, 1885) dealt, in Scholastic vein, with the constitution of States and the foundations of authority, and is a fine exposition of medięval thought on the subject. In Plurimis ( May 8, 1888) condemned slavery in Europe. Libertas ( June 20, 1888) is another Scholastic dissertation on liberty, leading to an attack on the modern

1 An English translation of the chief Encyclicals has been issued by Wynne in America ( 1902). For other work see Poems, Charades, Inscriptions of Leo XIII. ( 1902, ed. Henry).
2 The injunction was not, of course, literally obeyed. At Louvain University, where Leo believed that he had established Thomism in its purest form, Mgr. (now Cardinal) Mercier gave us little of St. Thomas, and not one priest in a thousand ever opens the pages of Aquinas. At Rome Leo set up a Thomist Academy at a cost of £12,000 to himself.

claims of freedom of thought, worship, and expression. Rerum Novarum ( May 15, 1891) is the most famous of the Pope's utterances on social questions. The organization of the Catholic workers in Italy, France, and America, and the concern about the condition of the workers (really about the growth of Socialism) which Bismarck and William II. had hypocritically conveyed to the Pope, moved him to formulate his views on social questions. The only points of relative importance are that a Pope at last consented to bless the efforts of the workers to obtain better conditions (with strict regard to private property and submission to authority), and that he pleaded for a "sufficient wage"; but the seeming boldness of this latter truism was undone a few weeks later, when the Archbishop of Malines wrote to ask if an employer sinned against justice in giving a wage which would support the worker but not his family, and the Pope nervously directed Cardinal Zigliara to reply (anonymously) that such an employer would not sin against justice, though "possibly against charity and natural equity." 1 Providentissimus Deus ( November 18, 1893), which sought to promote biblical studies, caused Catholic scholars to groan in despair; it proclaimed the inerrancy of the Old Testament. 2 Apostolicę Curę ( September 13, 1896) condemned Anglican orders, and led to a prolonged controversy in England. Graves de communi ( January

1 See Mgr. de T'Serclaes, ii., 107-111.
2 I speak from personal recollection, being a professor in a seminary at the time. Leo went on to form a Biblical Commission, of which my liberal professor, Fr. David Fleming, became secretary. The first decision it was his duty to sign was that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch! For the later doubts and despair of Leo see the very interesting details in A. Houtin La Question Biblique au XIX. sičcle ( 2d ed., 1902) and La Question Biblique au XX. sičcle ( 2d ed., 1906).

18, 1901) shows the later enfeeblement of the Pope's social zeal. He still approves Christian democracy, and demands justice in the industrial world, but he stresses alms-giving as a social solution and urges particular concentration on religious effort. 1

The great Pope struggled on until his ninth decade of life had opened. He died on July 20, 1903, leaving his sternly contested inheritance to less skilful hands, marking, with his dying eyes, the onward progress of all the forces he had hailed as disastrous and the advance of "Americanism" (or Modernism) within the Church. His failure must not blind us to the greatness of his personality. He united intellectual breadth and penetration with a high character and a lofty devotion to his work. His weakness was the antiquated and restricted nature of his knowledge and his inheritance of an untenable position. The concessions he made to his age were too tardy, too grudging, and often too obviously opportunist. With equal readiness he wrote a letter of recommendation of a work of canon law (by Marianus de Luca) which advocated the execution of heretics, and he blessed the republics of France and America. But the great theme of his life was that civilization was perishing because it had shaken off the allegiance of Rome, and he lived to see the world "rounding onward to the light" and departing ever farther from its old traditions.

1 In the Encyclopędia Britannica ( "Leo XIII.") it is said that the Pope in 1902 advises the workers to turn aside from social zeal and concentrate on the interests of the Papacy. This seems to be inaccurate. His pronouncements of that year are of the same tenor as the Encyclical Graves de communi. See Sanctissimi D. N. Leonis XIII. Allocutiones, etc., vol. viii., pp. 65-78 and 181-2. The Americans have issued an English translation of the chief Encyclicals.

[See List of the Popes]




Accolti, Cardinal, 317
Acquaviva, Cardinal, 356, 357
Acquaviva, General, 344
Acta S. Callisti, 7, 17
Acta S. Silvestri, 87, 88
Ad Anglos, 435
Adelchis, 93
Adelperga, 94
Adriano da Corneto, 263
Ęneas, Sylvius, 241, 243
Ęterni Patris, 408, 440 Afiarta, Paul, 83, 84
African Church, Rome and the, 20, 40, 70
Agnes, the Empress, 145, 147, 150
Agnes de Meran, 188
Aistulph, 80 - 3
Albani, Cardinal, 357, 392
Alberic of Camerino, 131, 133, 139
Albert of Brandenburg, 304
Albigensians, massacre of the, 194 - 200

Alcuin, 78, 97
Alexander, II., 147, 149
Alexander, III., 173
Alexander V., 228
Alexander VI., 242 - 66
Alexander Severus, 16
Alexis, Comnenus, 193
Alfonso of Leon, 157
Alfonso II. of Naples, 254, 256, 259
Alidosi, Cardinal, 278
Allen, Cardinal, 246
Altheim, Synod of, 138
Ambrose, St., 30, 31, 35, 38
America, the Papacy and, 389, 411, 412, 436
Americanism, 432, 437
Ammianus Marcellinus, 24

Anastasius, 75, 102
Anatolius of Thessalonica, 41
Anselm of Baggio, 145
Anselm of Lucca, 147, 150, 152
Antiphonary, the, 62
Antonelli, Cardinal, 402 - 3, 407, 410
Apostolicę Curę, 436
Aretini, 275
Ariald, 145
Arianism, 19, 21, 31
Arichis, 92, 93, 94
Ariosto, 281, 301, 302
Arnold of Brescia, 174
Arnold of Citeaux, 195, 198, 199
Arnulph, 127
Arsenius, Legate, 109, 112, 126
Art in mediaeval Rome, 266, 282 4

Astrology at Rome, 274
Attila, 50 - 1
Atto of Vercelli, 133
Austria expelled from Italy, 399, 405
Auxentius, 28, 37
Auxilius, 129
Avignon, the Popes at, 203 - 22


Baglione, G., 274
Bajazet, the Sultan, 256
Baldwin of Planders, 110, 192
Baluze, S., 205
Barbarossa, Frederic, 173
Barry, Dr. W., 129
Basil, St., 32
Basilica Julii, 24, 25
Basilica Liberii, 25
Basilica Sicinini, 25
Basle, Council of, 240
Beatific Vision, John XXII. and the, 219

[ Contents | List of Popes ]