CHAPTER IX.

A BRIGHT EVENING.

Everybody knows the great sights of Rome by repute, if not by sight, and it may safely be said that no one cares to hear more of them in the way of description. Indeed, seeing them first, we almost regret having heard so much, and find it difficult to free the real object from the _débris_ of our preconceptions. There is, however, an endless number of less notable objects, little bits here and there――a stair, a street, a door-way, or garden, half rough, or almost altogether rough, but with some beautiful point, like a gem that has had one facet only cut. These, besides their own beauty, have the charm of freshness. The stale, useful guide-book, and the weary tribe of tourists, know them not.

One of these unspoilt places is to be found almost next door to _casa Ottant’Otto_. It is a chapel attached to an Augustinian convent in which the changed times have left only one _frate_ with his attendant lay brother. The chapel has a rough brick floor, and large piers of stone and mortar supporting, most unnecessarily, the white-washed roof, and the walls at either side are painted with a few large frescos of saints. There are two chapels only, one at each side of the principal altar, adorned with such poor little bravery as the _frati_ and the frequenters of their church――nearly all beggars, or very poor――could afford. The chapel has, however, one beauty――a Madonna and Child over the high altar. The Mother, of an angelic and flower-like beauty, holds the Infant forward toward the spectator, and the Infant, radiant with a sacred sweetness, extends his right hand, the two fingers open in benediction.

Mass is said here early in the morning, and a Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament given every Tuesday evening an hour before _Ave Maria_, the bells ringing always three times for each service.

The Signora had spoken at home of this little church of Sant’Antonino, and had laughingly called the attention of the family to the slipshod ringing of the Angelus, where the different divisions of strokes, the bell being swung from below, “spilled over,” as she expressed it, in a number of fainter strokes before and after the regular ones. “But it is a dear little place to go to,” she said. “There one finds the Lord as one might have found him when on earth visibly――in the midst of the poor, with but few followers, and no splendor of circumstance to take one’s eyes away from him. And sometimes, if one’s disposition be fortunate, his presence overflows the place.”

Coming homeward alone, one evening, just as the bell rang, Mr. Vane stepped into the chapel, and, after hesitating a moment inside the door, went up the side aisle and seated himself in a corner. He had been there more than once early in the morning, but this was his first evening visit, and he did not care, for several reasons, to encounter any of his family, should they come.

The congregation was, as the Signora had said, poor enough. There were a few old women, with kerchiefs on their heads; a sober, decent man, who hid himself in a retired corner, and knelt with his hands covering his face during the whole service; a lame old man, with a worn and sorrowful face; and a young mother, with an infant in her arms and two little ones clinging to her skirts.

Not one of these paid the slightest attention to the others, or showed any consciousness of being, or expecting to be, observed. All looked toward the altar, on which the Host was now exposed, and all prayed with a fervor which could not but communicate itself to the spectator; for it was the quiet fervor of faith and habit, and was not excited by beautiful sights, or music, or the presence of a crowd. They beheld the mysterious token of the Holy Presence, and the Madonna――the Lady of Health, they called her――and worshipped, as untroubled by vanity as by doubt.

The two little ones whispered and played behind their mother’s back, but no one was disturbed by them. No one ever hushes the play of children in a Roman church. The infant crowed and prattled at first, and pulled the kerchief from its mother’s head; but espying presently the candles, and hearing the organ and voices, it fell into a trance, divided between staring and listening, which held it motionless till the service was over. Rather late came a young woman dressed in an absurd travesty of the prevailing fashion, with a cheap soiled skirt trailing behind her, a hideous tunic pulled in about her and tied behind in that style that gives a woman the appearance of one trying to walk in a sack, and a bonnet made up of odds and ends of ribbon and flowers and feathers pitiable to see. But the poor thing had donned this miserable finery with no worse intention than that any lady has when assuming Worth’s last costume, and, hearing the voice of prayer as she passed, had done what the lady of fashion would not, perhaps, have done――obeyed its summons, and entered modestly and humbly the presence of God. Perhaps it was the one pleasure in a hard life, that occasional promenade in what she conceived to be a fine dress; perhaps she had been pleased, and was thankful for it, as we sometimes are for pleasures no more harmless; it may be she was disappointed and had come to find comfort. Who knows?

Mr. Vane looked intently at this girl a few minutes in a way he had, something penetrating in his scrutiny, yet nothing offensive; for it was as far removed from impertinent curiosity as from a too familiar sympathy. Then the Litany recalled him. As he listened to it, he thought that he had never heard music at once so good and so bad. The organ was like a sweet, courageous soul in an infirm body. All the wheezing and creaking of the bellows could not prevent the tones from being melodious. How many there were in the choir he could not tell. The absurd little organ-loft over the door, reached by a ladder in full view at the side, had so high a screen that the singers were quite hidden. They sounded like a host, however, for their voices echoed and reverberated from arch to arch and from end to end of the chapel, so that, without the aid of sight, it was hard to know where the sound had its origin; and when, at every fourth verse, the priest and congregation took up the song, the air literally trembled with the force of it. Mr. Vane fancied he felt his hair stir.

His heart stirred, most certainly; for the power and earnestness of the singing, which made a mere cultivated vocalism trivial and tame, and perhaps the sustained high pitch of it――all contained within four notes――touched the chord of the sublime. They sang the titles of the Virgin-Mother, calling on her, by every tender and every glorious privilege of hers, to pray for them; and their prayer was no more the part of an oft-repeated ceremony, but the cry of souls that might each or all, in an instant, be struggling in the waves of death. Life itself grew suddenly awful while he listened, and he remembered that salvation is to be “worked out in fear and trembling.”

He lifted his eyes to the picture over the altar, and it was no longer a picture. The figures floated before him in the misty golden light of many candles, as if there were blood in their veins and meaning in their faces. The Mother extended her Child, and the Child blessed them, and both listened. She was the Mystical Rose, the Morning Star; she was the Help of the weak, the Mother of divine Grace. They sang her glories, and this listener from a far land forgot the narrow walls that hemmed him in, and saw only those faces, and felt, as it were, the universe rock with acclamations. She was a queen, and under her feet, and about her, bearing her up, were angels, prophets, martyrs, confessors, and patriarchs. Their wings, wide-spread and waving; their garments of light, as varied in hue as the rainbow; their radiant faces were like the crowding clouds of sunset; and over them all, buoyant, glowing with celestial sweetness and joy, floated the woman crowned with stars, the only human being whom sin had never dared to touch. The stars swam about her head like golden bees about a flower; and as a flower curls its petals down, half hiding, half revealing, the shining heart which is its source and life, so the Mother bent above and clasped the Infant. In the centre of this vision was the Blessed Sacrament exposed, more marvellous than any vision, more real than any other tangible thing; so that Imagination was bound to Faith as wings to the shoulders of an angel.

There was a little stir in one corner of the chapel; for the strange gentleman had nearly fallen from his chair, and a lay brother, passing at the moment, supported him, and asked what he would have and what ailed him.

The gentleman replied that nothing ailed him, that he needed nothing but fresher air, and he immediately recovered so far as to go out without assistance. He had, indeed, been more self-forgetting and entranced than fainting, and even when he stood on the sidewalk, with familiar sights and sounds all about, could hardly remember where he was. He walked a little way up the hill opposite, and stood looking absently along a cross-street at the other end of which a new Gothic church was in progress.

A man who had been standing near approached him with an insinuating smile. “Our church is getting along rapidly,” he said in English, appearing to know whom he addressed. “We shall soon have divine service in it, I hope.”

“Divine service!” repeated Mr. Vane rather absently, not having looked at the meeting-house, and scarcely knowing what was being said to him. “What divine service?”

“Oh! the Protestant, of course,” the stranger answered with great suavity. “I am a minister of the Gospel.”

“What Gospel?” inquired Mr. Vane, looking at the speaker with the air of one who listens patiently to nonsense.

The man stared. “The Gospel of Christ. There is no other.” He knew who Mr. Vane was, and had expected to be himself recognized. “It is time the Gospel should be preached in this wicked and idolatrous city.”

“Is it worse than other cities?” Mr. Vane asked calmly. “Most cities are wicked, but few cities have saints in them, as this has. We are told that the wheat and the tares shall grow together till the final harvest. As for your religion”――he stretched his hand to a load of straw that was passing, and drew a handful out――“it has no more Gospel in it than there is wheat in that straw.”

The rattling bells of Sant’Antonino were ringing for the _Tantum Ergo_. He turned, without another word, and went back, kneeling just within the door till the Benediction was over.

When he went into the house the Signora was singing the “He was despised and rejected of men,” from the _Messiah_. Before her on the piano stood a picture that had just been sent her――her favorite devotional picture, which she had long been trying to get. Outside a door, overgrown with vines and weeds, and fastened by a bolt, stood the Lord, waiting sorrowfully and patiently, listening if his knock would be answered. Solitude and the damp shades of night were all about him, the stars looked cold and far away, and the lantern he held at his side, faintly lighting his face, showed through what rough, dark ways he had come to that inhospitable heart. Underneath was written: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock.”

The Signora was singing, “And we hid, as it were, our faces from him: he was despised, and we esteemed him not,” tears rolling down her face, her eyes fixed on the picture. Finishing, scarcely uttering, indeed, the last word, she started up and kissed the picture in a passion, then, hurrying across the room, flung the door wide.

“Open every door in the house!” she cried out.

Bianca, surprised but sympathizing, simply obeyed, and pushed open the door near her; Isabel exclaimed, “Dear Signora!” and seemed half frightened. Mr. Vane stood silent and looked at the picture.

“Oh! I know it is figurative and means the heart!” the Signora went on, as if some one had reproved her. “But when we do something material, we know that we have done it. When we think we have done a spiritual good, how can we know that it is worth anything for us――that the motive was not selfish? If, for example, the Lord should come here now, poor and hungry, and knock at my door, I would serve him on my knees; but if I should say I love him, who knows if it would be true?”

“_Signora mia!_” It was a thin and feeble voice, but she heard it through the passion of her talk, and, turning, saw on the threshold an old man, who stood trembling, hat in hand, and leaning against the side of the door for support. He had followed Mr. Vane home from the chapel to beg for alms, but had not been able to reach or make him hear or understand before the door was shut. He was going painfully away again, when it was flung open by the Signora.

She went to him with her hands outstretched. “Enter, in the name of the Lord,” she said joyfully, and led him to a chair. Kind as she was invariably to the poor, this one she looked on as almost a miraculous guest. He had come at the very moment when her heart was breaking to do some active good, as if her wish had called him, or as if the Lord she compassionated had taken his form to prove her.

Never was a beggar more welcomed, more tenderly questioned as to his needs. He was fed as, probably, he had never been fed before; for the Signora gave him of what had been prepared for her own table, and served him like an honored guest.

He was pleased, but did not seem to be either surprised or embarrassed. He ate and drank rather lightly, and, without being bidden, put in a leathern pocket he wore what was left of the food. There was no air of greediness in the act, but rather an intimation that no one would think of eating what he had left, and that what had been offered him must not be wasted. When Mr. Vane gave him some decent clothing in place of his faded rags, he was grateful, but by no means elated. How he looked was to him a matter of the smallest possible consequence. He could feel hunger, thirst, and cold, but pride or vanity he knew not. His body, ugly, emaciated, and diseased, obtained from him no attention, except when it could obscure and torment his mind with its own torments. He never thought for it, but waited till it called. When the sisters gave him money, he looked at them earnestly, with his dim and watery eyes, and wished that the Madonna might ever accompany them. He did not predict for them riches or happiness, but only that gracious company. When the Signora bade him come to her every day for a loaf of bread and a glass of wine, he thanked her in the same way. Evidently he understood that what he was receiving was a heavenly charity, of which God was the motive and reward, and that he had, personally, nothing to do with it, except as he profited by it. But he had, indeed, more to do with it than he believed; for it was impossible that kind hearts should remain unmoved by the sight of such forlorn poverty and suffering.

They questioned him about his life and circumstances. He was quite alone. One son he had had, who went to some foreign country years before, and had never been heard of since. He supposed that he must have died on the passage or immediately on arriving; for Filippo had promised to write and send for him, or send him money, and nothing but death would have made him break his promise to his father. His wife had died more than ten years before; and he had no one left to care for him. Where was his home? they asked. Well, he slept in the lodgings provided by the city, because they did not allow people to sleep in the street. He used to sleep on one of the steps of the church of _Ara Cœli_ and he liked it better, for he could go off by himself. Still, the government gave them straw to sleep on, and that was something. It was rather cold on the steps, even in summer.

“But where do you go in the daytime?” they pursued, finding the idea of no house or home of any description a hard one to take in.

He went into churches sometimes; at others he sat on a house-step, and stood under the eaves if it rained. He was indeed able to say, “The birds of the air have their nests, and the foxes their holes,” but he had not where to lay his head.

“I cannot listen to any more,” the Signora said. “Do you know, my friends, what seems my duty to do? Well, I will tell you. At this moment it seems to me that I should send you all to a hotel, or to any place you can find, and fill half my rooms with little beds for poor men, and the other half with beds for poor women, and spend all my time and money in taking care of them. Gloves, and a bonnet, and all sorts of luxuries look to me like sins, in the light of this man’s story; and as to having more than one room for myself, it is monstrous. Either pack your trunks at once, or send this fascinating wretch off to sleep on the municipal straw.”

“You can’t send us off; for you have promised to keep us as long as we stay in Rome,” Isabel said triumphantly. “If you should turn your house into a refuge, you would be doing evil that good may come, by breaking a promise.”

When their guest had gone and they were sitting at supper, the conversation still turned on the Roman poor and their manner of receiving charity, and Mr. Vane expressed his astonishment that so little of servility should be mingled with this constant begging.

“You must remember,” the Signora said, “that the mendicant religious orders have given a sort of dignity to poverty, and, though theirs is of a different kind, the people do not distinguish. Then among the many voluntary poor there are two who are particularly cherished in Rome――Santa Francesca Romana and Blessed Labré. The women sitting at the church-door could tell you, if you should try to shame them, that Santa Francesca once sat at a church-door and begged from early morning till _Ave Maria_; and the poor who ask you for a _centessimo_ in the street know that Labré went about begging, and in clothes as filthy and ragged as any of theirs. Of course they do not distinguish the motives, and have, many of them, made a Christian virtue an excuse for a miserable vice; but, _come si fa?_ as they would say. We cannot spend our time in arguing with them; and, if we should, it would be time thrown away. They have no comprehension of what we call independence; and they think that the blessings they bestow, and the merit we acquire in giving to them, are worth far more than the paltry copper coin they receive from us, and that we are, in reality, their debtors.”

They hurried their supper a little; for they were going out, and it was already nine o’clock. Before they had risen from the table Marion came in to accompany them, and the carriages were at the door.

This matter of the carriages, and the division of her party in them, simple as it seemed, had given the Signora some thought. She was afraid that some new complication might arise between Marion and Bianca, and wished earnestly that they should come to an understanding immediately. Nothing appeared to be easier, yet every day was a succession of little obstacles to their speaking together in that accidental privacy which they would naturally prefer. Still, she could not well put them in a carriage together. It would look too pointed. There seemed no other way, then, than to take him in the cab with her, and give the _calèche_ to Mr. Vane and his daughter. That any one should suppose that an attraction was growing up between her and this new friend had never occurred to her mind; yet both Mr. Vane and Bianca saw in every word and act of hers a new proof of it. Any one with eyes could see that Marion and Bianca liked each other particularly, the Signora believed. One had but to watch a few minutes, and it became evident that in company each was always so placed as to see and, if possible, to hear the other; and though one might not detect them looking directly, yet sometimes a glance, passing from one part of the room to another, swooped like a bird, and caught the one object it wished to seize within its ken. Yet Bianca provoked her somewhat. The girl was too serious and gentle, too discouragingly friendly. Why, thought the Signora, with that admirable good sense which we sometimes have when we think for others――why, when two persons are admirably fitted for each other, and everybody is willing, and neither of them can quite set about anything till the matter is decided; and when the gentleman, not to be too abrupt in his proposal, or expose himself to an unnecessary mortification, gives the lady that gentle, questioning glance which says so plainly, “May I speak?”――why, in the name of common sense, should she not drop her pretty head in token of assent, and allow at least a hint of a smile to encourage him? Echo answered, Why?

The upper air was silver with a late moonrise when they went out, while below the lamps burned goldenly through a velvety darkness. Their own street was quiet; but there was a crowd on Monte Cavallo. The glimpse they caught of the piazza of the Trevi fountain in passing showed it full and bright, and the Corso, when they reached it, was swarming with people and brilliant with lighted shops.

“What contrasts there are in Roman life, even in its most quiet times!” Marion said. “I wonder if any one ever was bored here? I doubt it. How well I remember one day of my last visit, three years ago now! It was a bright February afternoon, and I went out for a walk in the Campagna, and saw the ground covered with flowers, and myriads of birds flying about and singing. Coming back to town out of that verdant quiet, I went to the Corso. It was roaring with the height of the last day of Carnival. It looked as if all the world had gone mad with reckless mirth, and, by a common consent, were pressing to that one spot. It was with difficulty I got across the street, shaking a monkey from one arm, and escaping from the lasso of a huge devil on the other side. A few minutes brought me to the Gesù. There what a scene! The church all in darkness, except the tribune, where the Blessed Sacrament was exposed in the midst of a blaze of candles that shone on a crowd of faces all silent and turned toward the altar. Now and then the organ played softly; now and then a quiet figure stole in and found room to kneel where it seemed there was no room for more. It was so still that every time the heavy curtain lifted there could be heard through the whole church the rattling of the tin boxes of the beggars outside. Half an hour later I reached the Corso again, just in time to see the horses rush by like meteors between two solid walls of men and women. And, lastly, just as the stars were coming out, burst the fairy spectacle of the _moccoletti_, when the narrow street became like a strip cut out of the live sky, thick with dancing stars, and palpitating with the soft pulses of the Northern Lights, blue, green, rosy, and white. I could have said it was not ten minutes before it was all over and I was walking home through a silent, star-lit night. The next morning at six I went to a church and received the Lenten ashes on my forehead. I do not wonder that Romans are lazy, for their imaginations are so kept on the _qui vive_ that muscular action must necessarily be distasteful. They cannot help regarding life as a _festa_.”

They reached their destination, a palace close to St. Peter’s. Two servants stood bowing in the _portone_, and a little girl, the daughter of one, presented each of the ladies with a bunch of orange-blossoms. They passed into the court, where a fountain tossed its sparkling arch of water, sprinkling the greensward, which here replaced the usual pavement, and went up the grand stairs. The groined arches over their heads were glowing with color, trees, flowers, vines, birds, and butterflies――not an inch of wall was unpainted. Pots of flowering plants stood at the ends of the stairs and at the landings, and statues showed whitely through their fragrant screens. Here and there a lamp dropped from a gilt chain, and softly illumined this superb entrance. At the end of the first entry two servants held back the crimson velvet curtains of an open door, receiving the visitors into a chamber furnished in crimson, the walls of crimson and gold, the ceiling painted with sunset clouds, and a crescent of candles burning in front of crystal lustres. Reaching the next door, they looked down a vista composed of twelve or fourteen rooms, all softly lighted except the last, which was brilliant. The light struck along on door after door, all gilded, and set with mirrors at one side and paintings at the other, the curtains of silk or velvet drawn back on gilt spears or arrows. The floors were mostly uncovered, some of them of rare marbles or mosaics; a few were partially covered with thick Persian mats or carpets. One room was furnished in gold-colored satin, and profusely ornamented with the most delicate porcelain; a second was of a rich sea-green, sparkling all through with crystal ornaments, the chandelier of Venetian glass, the cornice made of large shells, and the ceiling painted in coral branches, tangled full of long grasses. Another chamber, of deep blue, was rich in old porcelain; another, hung with tapestry, bristled with old armor, and every sort of sword and knife arranged in figures, daisies of radiating daggers, and swords and shields made into mimic suns. Everywhere that gold could be it was lavished――on doors and windows and cornices; and one room had the whole panelling breast-high, and the large fireplace, heavily gilded.

In the last room they found the people they had come to see――a young couple as bright and pretty as a pair of canaries in their gilded cage.

There was no other company except a white-haired old _canonico_, who had an apartment in the palace, and who was in some way related to the family. To this clergyman Bianca, at first a little shy among strangers, took immediately, and, seated by his side, became at once on the most friendly terms with him. His sweet and dignified manner, and the pleasure he showed in her evident confidence, were very pleasant to see. She told him all her story that could be told to any one, what she had seen and what she wished to see, and answered his questions with a childlike frankness; and, in return, he showed his interest in her by the number of his questions, and promised her all sorts of favors.

There was something peculiarly attractive and beautiful in this man, in whom were united the sacredness of a holy vocation, the venerableness of age and of a pure and unstained character, and the graciousness of an accomplished gentleman.

“I think you will all like to hear of something which I saw at the Vatican this morning,” he said when the conversation became more general. “I was presenting two French ladies. The audience was small, and among the persons present were the superior of the nuns of the Trinità dei Monti, and a younger nun of her community who had come with her as companion. This young nun had for several years been afflicted with a stiffening of the right hand and arm which drew them close to the breast, rendering them of course perfectly useless as well as painful. Before starting, the superior had told her to put a black glove on this right hand, so that it should not show so much, as her black habit and veil would render it less prominent than if it were bare; but when they had gone a part of the way the nun begged permission to take the glove off. The superior objected, saying that it might be unpleasant to the Holy Father to see her hand in that position, the fingers stiffened as they were. The nun said nothing for a while, but, when they had nearly reached the Vatican, begged again, still more earnestly, to be permitted to remove the glove. This time the superior consented. Well, they went in, and the audience was about over, when, in giving his benediction, the Pope observed that the young nun blessed herself with her left hand.

“‘_Filuola mia_, why do you not bless yourself with your right hand?’ he asked.

“‘_Beato padre_,’ she replied, ‘I cannot move my right hand; but if you would do me the grace――’ She said no more, but looked at him with imploring eyes.

“He was silent a moment, then he said, ‘Pray!’ and covered his face with his hands, as if praying or recollecting himself. Looking at her again then, he told her to bless herself with her right hand.

“‘But, _santo padre_, I cannot move my right hand,’ she said.

“He persisted: ‘Nevertheless, do as I bid you.’

“The superior took the nun’s right hand, and, lifting it for her, made a sort of cross with it.

“‘Pray again,’ said the Holy Father, and hid his face a second time, and seemed to pray.

“‘Now bless yourself with your right hand, and do it without help,’ he said.

“She immediately lifted her hand and made the sign of the cross on her forehead and breast as freely as if nothing had ever ailed her. She was cured.”

The prelate told his story with simplicity and in a soft and slightly tremulous voice, affected by the sacred and tender scene he had so lately witnessed, and his audience exclaimed with delight. None of them, except the two American gentlemen and Isabel, were at all surprised. Too many such tales are known in Rome of Pius IX. to excite astonishment.

“I have seen the good nun this afternoon,” he continued, “and she is perfectly happy. She can play on the piano again, and do everything just as before.”

Finishing, he nodded toward the door, where a servant was standing, and presently rose to take leave. His evening visits never exceeded an hour, and, since he did not like to disturb the pleasure of social intercourse with the thought of going, a servant was always instructed to intimate to him when the hour was past.

“The only parting which I wish to foresee and prepare for is the final one,” he said smilingly.

“What a terrible sound that expression ‘final parting’ has!” Bianca exclaimed, seeming to be already pained at the thought of losing this new friend.

“That is because you interpret it wrongly,” he replied, with a kind glance at her. “You know it does not mean everlasting separation, but that there are to be no more partings, because after the next meeting we need never part again. It is simply the end of a long pain.”

He gave her his hand, which she kissed as naturally as an Italian would have done, though it was the first time she had rendered that homage to any one.

When he had gone, the company went up to the _loggia_, which was one of the attractions of the house.

“You see we have a private stairway,” the Contessa M―――― said, opening a narrow door hidden in the panelling of the room they had been sitting in. “But it is so very narrow, enclosed in the thickness of the wall, that I will not ask you to go by it.”

“I do wish she would let us go this way, though,” Isabel whispered to the Signora. “How romantic it is! Who knows who may have slipped up or down that stair in the wall, who may have stood listening behind the panel while people were talking in the _sala_, and what may have been revealed or hidden there? It is like a chapter out of a tragical story――one of Mrs. Radcliffe’s, for example. Do you think we might not go up?”

Their hostess had, however, already led the way to a more commodious stair, and they could but follow. Besides, it is only in very romantic stories that ladies in beautiful silk and gauze dresses can go through secret and narrow stairways, cobwebbed attics, and dusty, haunted chambers, without detriment to their toilets, and the young _contessa_ wore that evening a lace flounce which she might not care to injure even for the sake of hospitality.

They passed through room after room, each worthy of a palace, mounted stair after stair, one servant preceding them with a lamp, and another following, walked over the roof of a part of the palace, climbed another stair, and came out on the _loggia_, or highest house-top.

The scene was enchanting; for the whole city was visible, and, by one of those kaleidoscopic changes constantly seen in a town built on hills, the city looked from here lo be situated in a round basin rising evenly on all sides to the tree-fringed horizon. The grand front of St. Peter’s was scarcely a stone’s throw from them, apparently, and the two fountains of the moonlighted piazza stood wavering and white. It was not difficult to imagine them two angels standing there with garments softly waving in the night air.

Mr. Vane paused a moment at the Signora’s side. “I perceive more clearly every day why you may well be unwilling to leave Rome,” he said. “I wonder I could ever have expected it.”

“And yet it never appeared to me easier,” she replied very gently. “I have had all the happiness that can be had here, and ‘enough is as good as a feast,’ you know.”

She meant to please him, yet she fancied that he frowned slightly. He said no more, however, but stood looking about, and, after a moment, joined Isabel, with whom the young couple were having a lively conversation.

The Signora felt hurt. It seemed that Mr. Vane was losing confidence in her and becoming every day more distant. For a week or more she had felt that he was withdrawing his friendship from her, and changing in many ways. When had she heard a jest from him, or seen in him that quiet and deep contentment which he had shown at first? She had half a mind to ask him what the matter was. Perhaps she would some time, if opportunity favored. Meantime, it would be wiser not to distress herself. And just as she came to this conclusion an interpretation of his remark suggested itself to her that made the blood rush to her face painfully. Had he remembered with annoyance that half-proposal of his, and, either to remove any lingering pity she might feel for him or to save his own pride, wished her to understand that it had been the impulse of the moment, and that he no longer entertained the wish to be more than a friend to her? In such a case her reply, with its hint of a possible change in her, had been most unfortunate.

There was one moment of cruel doubt and mortification, then she put the subject resolutely away. “I have been neither unkind nor bold nor dishonorable, and I have therefore nothing to be ashamed of,” she said to herself.

Meantime, Marion had stopped near Bianca, who stood looking at her father and the Signora. “How beautiful the Signora is!” he said. “Do you see that the golden tinge in her hair is visible even in the moonlight? And her eyes are the color of the Borghese violets she loves so much. I sometimes think that a rather tall and noble-looking woman like her should always be _blonde_, and that dark eyes belong to the slight and graceful ones.”

“We have always thought her beautiful,” she replied. “But we are so fond of her that we should admire her if no one else did. You must remember how we always praised her to you.”

He had been wondering how she would like having the Signora for a step-mother, and if she saw the likelihood of it. Perceiving a slight reserve in her speech, he did not pursue the subject, but stood looking at her a moment. Since he was silent, she glanced up in his face to see what it meant――if he were dissatisfied, perhaps, with her reply, or if he had taken any notice of it. He was certainly taking notice of her, and so close a notice that her eyes dropped again under it.

A quick glance showed him that he should have another minute uninterrupted with her, and he spoke: “Dear Bianca, I came to Europe to seek you. When I found in Rome that you had gone into the country for a visit, I could not wait, but followed you. I went to your lodgings in Frascati, and learned that you had all gone up to Tusculum. I meant to watch, and meet you as you came down, and know by your first glance at me if I was as welcome as I could wish to be. I had with me the spy-glass that I always take into the country, and, as I swept the country with it, I espied a little party standing under the wall of the Cappucini villa on the Tusculan hill. One of their number had climbed the steps of the shrine there to decorate it, and, just as I recognized her, she turned and stepped down toward me. The glass was so clear and strong that she seemed stepping within my reach, and to me. I accepted it as a good omen, and returned to Rome content. I think you know me well enough to be sure that this is no trifling fancy, and that, if you can put your hand in mine, with the help of God, I will never allow you to regret it. Was my omen false?”

She listened with her lovely face lifted and lighted, and, when he ended, uttered a soft little exclamation, “O Marion!” and gave him her hand.

“How beautiful St. Peter’s is by this light!” Mr. Vane said, glancing round at them from the other side of the _loggia_, whither he had gone.

His glance became a gaze as he saw them coming toward him; for Marion held openly the hand that Bianca had given him, and led her to her father. “Are you willing, sir?” he asked in a low voice.

The others were about joining them, and Mr. Vane could only press their two hands together. He glanced sharply at the Signora as she approached, and saw her face flash out in a swift smile when she caught sight of their position.

“I have been a fool,” he muttered.

“Everything is beautiful by this light,” Marion said, with a smile that gave a double meaning to his rather tardy answer.

When they started for home, they found that, by some happy mistake, the cab had been sent away, and there was no other in sight, so that the simplest way was for them all to return in the _calèche_, crowding a little. The crowding was effected by Bianca sitting on the front seat between her father and lover. Leaning back there, she gave herself up to a delicious silence, only half-listening, except when Marion spoke, then drinking in every word. What a wonderful thing it was that here, by her side, sat her future husband, the man to whom she was to be united for ever and ever! Her life, as she thought, swung round into a harmony unknown to it for a long time, never known in its perfection till now. Looking forward, she had no fear. Nothing but death could separate them, and death must come to all. Let it come sooner or later, when God should appoint; she could bear it for him or for herself. She was full of courage and thankfulness, and ready now to live a full life, and begin to do some good in the world.

Mr. Vane spoke of the young woman he had seen that afternoon in the little church of Sant’Antonino. “She made an impression on me,” he said. “She set me thinking; or, rather, the sight of her condensed some floating impressions in my mind into thoughts. She was a figure that almost any well-dressed lady or gentleman would smile at involuntarily, if they did not pity her. But looking into her face, when she was serious and thought herself unobserved, I found it an uncommon one. I fancied there was something enthusiastic and aspiring in her, and that her ridiculous dress was an abortive expression of a fine impulse. She wanted to do or be something more and better than she had yet done or been; and having, perhaps, no sympathy from any one, and no education to assist her, knew not how to act, and thought more of getting out of the position she was in than of choosing properly what change she should make. Fancy how easily a girl of uneducated mind and tastes, and of an enthusiastic disposition, might make such an absurd attempt. She is, perhaps, disgusted with the sordidness and vulgarity of her life, and believes that the ideal life is that which appears beautiful to the eyes. She has heard, maybe has read, a little of great deeds and heroic adventures, and she associates them always with the well-dressed and the high-living. She thinks, very likely, that the noble have always noble thoughts, and that beautiful sentiments go with beautiful dresses. And so the poor thing cuts her dowdy petticoat into a train, and puts a cheap feather in her hat, and fancies that she is nearer the sublime. I don’t believe she really sees the trumpery things when she puts them on. She is looking at them through a thousand visions, and sees the velvet train of some heroine, and the jewelled cap and feather she wore. Poor thing! These visions of hers cannot, however, hide the sneering laugh from her, nor make her deaf to the scornful word; and I have an impression that to-night she took off her stage-robes with a bitter heart――unless, indeed, the Benediction consoled her.”

Isabel looked at her father with a steady and serious gaze while he was speaking, and, the moment he ended, said to him with an air of conviction: “Papa, you have the best heart in the world.”

He laughed a little, but seemed to be touched by this tribute. “I am glad you think so, my daughter,” he said. “Indeed, I am particularly glad just now, for a reason I will tell you, if you come here a moment.”

She leaned forward instantly on to his knees, and put her cheek close to his face.

“Because,” he whispered, “my other daughter thinks that there’s a certain heart worth more than mine.”

“Whose?” she demanded in an indignant whisper.

“Marion’s.”

“You don’t mean――” she exclaimed, and glanced round at her sister.

“You’re the only one of the family who didn’t know it, and I don’t want you slighted,” he replied. “It’s a settled affair.”

Isabel threw her arms around her sister’s neck and kissed her. “I never dreamed of such a thing,” she said; “but I am delighted all the same. You’re a million times welcome into the family, Marion. But I want you to understand that you are not better than papa.”

By this they had reached home, just as the soft bells of their basilica were striking midnight.

When they had said good-night to Marion and gone up-stairs, all turned with smiling faces to Bianca, and gathered about her, waiting one moment to see who should speak first, or if the congratulation was to be silent. By some slight motion or look she imposed silence, at the same time that her face expressed the sweetest happiness and gratitude.

“That dear _canonico_ has given me an invitation for us all to go next week and hear his Mass in the crypt of St. Peter’s,” she said. “Our number is just right; for only five can go at a time. We are to be there at eight o’clock.”

“Am I included?” Mr. Vane asked.

“O papa!” Bianca turned to him, and, putting her hand in his arm, leaned against his shoulder. No plan of hers could be perfect that did not include him; yet the cruel thought flashed through her mind, in spite of her love for him, that in the crypt of St. Peter, next to Calvary the most regally sacred spot on earth, a Protestant was singularly out of place, and that no one should enter there who did not bow to St. Peter as the Prince of the Apostles and the holder of the awful keys.

The question produced a momentary painful embarrassment in the others, too, by reminding them strongly of that difference of faith which they sometimes were able to quite forget.

“My little girl must not have a cloud on her sky to-night,” the father said tenderly. “What is wanting to your happiness, Bianca?”

“That you should be a Catholic,” she replied, trembling; for, with all their affection and confidence, she had never presumed to speak to him on the subject.

“You have your wish,” he answered.

She looked at him doubtfully, but did not dare to say a word.

“I am in earnest, children,” he said, feeling a hand clinging to his other arm. “I was baptized this morning at the American College.”

Not a word was said, but on either side his daughters surrounded him with their arms, and pressed their faces to his breast.

When at length they remembered to look for the Signora, she had disappeared.

TO BE CONTINUED.

DR. KNOX ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.[153]

The disjointed state of Christendom, resulting from the divisions existing among those who profess the Christian religion, whether we regard it in the light of reason or of faith, is both grievous and deplorable. Much labor has been expended on the removal of the causes which have produced these divisions, at different periods in the history of the Christian Church. In recent times――not to speak of the long past, for the evil is of remote date――several efforts have been made to bring about the return of those who, three centuries ago, went out from the sacred fold of the Catholic Church. Men of genius, learning, and virtue took a leading part in some of these movements; nevertheless, they did not meet with any notable success. The best known of these, perhaps, was the one made in the latter part of the seventeenth century, in which the celebrated Leibnitz and the great Bossuet were the principal actors engaged. If this effort was not otherwise fruitful, it at least was the occasion of their contributing two of the most valuable works on the subject――_The System of Theology_, by the German philosopher, and _The Exposition of the Catholic Faith_, by the Bishop of Meaux. In the Established Church of England, in our own day, a number of its members, especially among the clergy, profess to seek and to labor for what they call “a corporate union” with the Catholic Church. So far as one can see up to this moment, though no one can tell what may happen, there has been in this direction no promise of great results. In this country the efforts for unity have taken a more limited sphere for their activity, and ever and anon there is a stir made in public about a union among Protestants, confined, however, to those who are called “evangelicals.”

The unperverted religious sentiment naturally yearns after an all-embracing and real unity. Man’s heart has sympathies which cannot be confined to himself, or to a family, or to a nation, or to a race. Only when man is so devoted to purposes which embrace the whole human race as to raise him above all lower instincts of his nature, does he become conscious of his true dignity and of the greatness of his destiny. Humanity is a word that has a real meaning, conveying a great truth, and it is fraught with mysterious power. These aspirations of the soul are the workmanship of God, and Christianity, as a universal religion, must aim at directing them to their proper objects. For Christianity is the universal religion, or it is nothing.

The symptoms of unrest which manifest themselves among those Christians who are divided up into hostile sects are a sign of a noble life stirring within their souls――a life which cannot contemplate with joy the wranglings of hostile creeds. These aspirations after that unity which will bind all men, without distinction of race, nationality, or color, into one common brotherhood of love――these cravings of the heart to act for universal ends, for the realization of God’s kingdom upon earth――are the evidences of a Christian spirit which seeks for a clearer vision and a closer communion with the true church of Christ.

With these views and in this spirit, which are in harmony with his own, we purpose to consider the interesting and important article of Dr. Knox on “The Organic Unity of the Church.”

WHAT IS THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, ACCORDING TO DR. KNOX?

Here is his answer to this question in his own words:

“First, as to the nature of the expected church unity and the elements that compose it. We assert, in the general, that it is the highest possible unity. Christ prayed that his disciples might be made _perfect_ in one. The adjective τέλειος is defined by Robinson as something ‘complete, full, perfect, deficient in nothing.’ The word used by the Saviour is τελειωμένοι, and had an adverbial sense, so that Robinson would have us read: ‘That they may be perfected so as to be one――_i.e._, that they may be perfectly united in one.’ Tholuck says the idea of unity is expressed in a stronger way here than elsewhere――‘it is a perfect unity.’ Other authorities might be cited as showing that the unity in the divine thought, and which ought to be in our own, is a complete unity, in distinction from one that is partial, unsymmetrical, ineffective.”

That the unity which makes the church of Christ one “is the highest possible unity” there can be no manner of doubt, since its animating principle is that unity which springs from the relation subsisting between Christ and his Father. This relation which unites Christ to the Father, and the church to Christ, and the members of the church to the Father through Christ in most perfect unity, is a unity than which a higher and more perfect cannot be conceived, for it springs immediately from the divine Essence. The language of Christ’s prayer for unity makes this evident beyond all dispute. “That they,” he says, “all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee.” Again: “That they may be one, as we also are one.” Once more: “I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one.” Finally: “That the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.”[154] Once would have been doubtless sufficient to have rendered this petition of Christ effective, yet he repeats the same in almost every sentence in this memorable and most solemn prayer. What else could have been Christ’s purpose, in the reiteration of his petition for unity, than to explain clearly his meaning, to make manifest the earnestness of his desire for it, and to impress upon his disciples its transcendent importance?

But this relation subsisting between Christ and his Father, and which is the type of the essence of the church, is an essential, indivisible, and indestructible relation. The relation, therefore, existing between Christ and his church and her members, from which her unity springs, is also essential. That is, aside from this unity, the church cannot be a subject even of thought――is unthinkable. Were it possible that it should be lost for a moment, the church, at the instant her unity was lost, would no longer exist. For the unity of the church is not derived from her organism, but, on the contrary, the organism of the church is derived from her unity, which has its rise in that essential, indwelling, and abiding presence of the invisible relation which exists between Christ and his Father: “I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one.” Just as the life of the soul springs from the presence of the divine Essence, and this life pervades and sustains the whole body and its members, so, in like manner, the unity of the church, which springs from the presence of this divine relation, pervades and sustains the whole church and her members. The unity of the church is also indivisible. Multitudes may leave the church, but their absence does not break her unity. Many may lose the unity of the church, but it never can be lost from the church. Thousands may deny the unity of the church, but it will continue to exist in spite of their denial. In the nature of perfect unity, one and indivisible are correlative; for each of its parts contains and acts with the force of the whole. As God is everywhere present in the world, and the soul everywhere present in the body, so the unity of the church is everywhere present and pervades the whole body of the church. It is also an indestructible unity. For whatsoever may be the action of the lapse of time or the deeds of men, they can neither disorganize, reduce, nor overthrow it. Being divine in its nature, the hand of man may menace, but it is powerless to destroy the unity of the church. It will remain, after men have done their utmost and worst against it, as it was before.

This unity in which the Divinity dwells is the primal source of the life of the church, and, through her, of each and all of her members; is the type and exemplar of the perfect organism in which each and all of her acts proceed from one formal principle and one central point of active force. The church, therefore, may be defined, in the sense of Christ’s prayer, as that visible, organized body, in which the members are made one with God and with each other in Christ, by a participation of the invisible communion existing between Christ and his Father in the unity of the divine Essence.

In all this we have added nothing to the above passage from our author explanatory of “the expected church unity.” What we have done was to render its meaning more explicit, and this will be readily acknowledged in reading his own explanation, as follows:

“The starting-point, of course, is unity of faith, especially faith in Christ. The union of believers to one another results from their union to a common Lord and Saviour: ‘I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one.’ The second element of a true unity is love. We need not dwell here, for it is a point conceded. The third element is oneness of aim and effort. The conversations and prayer of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth of John show that faith and love in Christian hearts are with a view to definite results. In the fifteenth chapter it is said: ‘He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing.’ And in the seventeenth chapter this fruit and this doing are declared to be the glorifying of Christ, and, as contributing to that, the bringing the world to believe in him. All highest glory to God and good to man are contained in believing and loving the Lord Jesus. All the fruits of the Spirit enumerated by Paul in Galatians depend from the branch that abideth in Christ the vine. No man can be in Christ by faith without wishing all others to be――without praying the prayer of Jesus, and working the work of Jesus, that they may be. And this being the effect on all real disciples, it is clear that a union of faith and love is also a union of aim and effort.

“We are prepared to say, in the fourth place, that the one thing remaining to render this union complete――a perfect unity, such as Christ prayed for――is oneness of organization. By organization is meant, as the word imports, everything pertaining to the outward structure and furniture of the church――its government, methods of operation, ordinances, worship, etc.”

DR. KNOX ON THE NECESSITY OF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

“We can but observe,” he says, “in the first place, that most of the good we know in this world is connected with organization, and is nothing without it. It is the nature of all life to organize, and the most perfect of organisms is that which we have in the human form――Scriptural type, by the way, of the organization belonging to the spiritual life that is in Christ’s body, the church. No one thinks it necessary to depreciate the organic part of man in order to exalt that which is intellectual and moral.… It is not enough to say of human life in the general: ‘What we want is good-will, right understanding between man and man――no matter about society and government. That is merely exterior and organic; we wish to do with essentials.’ For all the ends of social welfare it has ever been found that organized society _is_ one of the essentials, and without it the public weal cannot be promoted.”

“It is the nature of all life to organize.” Precisely so. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the nature of all life is organic; for life and organism are related to each other as cause and effect, and hence are inseparable. Christianity unorganized would be a pure nonentity. Christianity is a life――specific life; it is therefore by its very nature specific, visible, organic.

“For all the ends of social welfare it has ever been found that organized society is one of the essentials, and without it the public weal cannot be promoted.” Organized society is essential to all life, and no less essential to its own defence and preservation; for what would have become of Christianity without organization when the colossal power of the Roman Empire was set to work to exterminate it? Christianity would have been strangled in its cradle. What would have become of Christianity unorganized when the barbarians from the North overthrew the Roman Empire? Christianity would have been swept from the face of the earth. What would have been the issue if Christianity had been left to individual effort when the Moslems attacked Europe and threatened to feed their horses from the altars of Christian churches? Why, Europe would be to-day Mohammedan, and, if any Christians were left, they would be at the mercy, as the Servians were, of the Grand Turk. Christianity unorganized, facing an organized, hostile, powerful force, would have been as chaff before the wind.

THE SECOND REASON FOR CHURCH UNITY.

“Especially,” says Dr. Knox, “ought we to note how this fact of exterior organization has been recognized in the provision for the general _spiritual_ well-being. If you say the elements of that well-being are primarily interior and spiritual, such as love, faith, fellowship, yet as positively are they never dispersed from the exterior and physical――that is, from the organism through which they obtain their manifestation. The church is that organism. Hence whenever, under apostolic preaching, there was in any community the beginning of Christian knowledge, faith, obedience, there was the immediate beginning of a Christian church.… In all their epistles and prayers it was the _visible_ as well as vital thing――the church at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth――which they have in their eye as an object of beauty and blessedness: ‘Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular, ye are all baptized into one body.’… Their virtual unity must become visible; their essential unity, organic unity.”

In this passage there is laid down a most important principle: “The interior and spiritual are never dispersed from the interior and physical.” That is, an invisible church is an absurdity, and a simple interior piety a dream. On this principle we would change the last sentence, and make it read thus: “Their virtual unity is always visible; their essential unity, organic unity.”

THE THIRD REASON FOR UNITY IS EXPRESSED AS FOLLOWS:

“Just in ratio that effort for a common end becomes earnest and efficient does it tend to a common organized method.” Grant it, we say, and it follows that just in ratio as the common end is important, so will the effort become earnest and efficient in producing a common organized method for its realization. But no greater or more important end than the one that Christ came upon earth to realize, which was the salvation of the world, can be imagined. Hence Christ established his church as a common organized method for the realization of his divine mission; and it follows that, so far as his power extends, he would be with it, watch over it, and protect it until it accomplished the purpose for which he had called it into existence. And those who would subvert the church established by Christ, judged by this principle, really attempt, whatever may be their profession, to overthrow Christianity.

DR. KNOX’S FOURTH REASON FOR THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

“Oneness of organization is indispensable to oneness of manifestation. The union for which Christ prayed is apparent as well as actual――‘perfect in one, that the world may know that thou hast sent me.’ Now, it is certain that the numerous church organizations are in apparent conflict with unity. They are regarded by multitudes as diverse, and even adverse, corporations. Allow that this, to a great extent, is only in appearance; yet just to that extent it is an evil. The impression is not the one Christ seeks of an impressive unity. And ecclesiastical history reveals how often the evil appearance has been identical with the actual evil. The setting up of separate church establishments tends inevitably to jealousy, strife, ambition, alienation, as the universal experiment proves.”

Every sentence almost of the above passage is a death-blow to the entire movement of Protestantism from its origin as a system of religion. As its very name signifies, it began in denial, and its fertility is not in the direction of unity and oneness of organization, but in that of breeding strifes, sowing discords, and exciting enmities. New sects are ever on the increase in its bosom, new church organizations are set up in the same sect against each other, and its main drift is plainly in the direction of mere individualism, ending in entire negation. “O Protestantism!” exclaims one of its adherents, “has it, then, at last come to this with thee, that thy disciples protest against all religion? Facts which are before the eyes of the whole world declare aloud that this signification of thy name is no idle play upon words, though I know that this confession will excite a flame of indignation against myself.”[155]

There is one point in the above extract on which we must differ from the learned doctor, and that is where he maintains that “the conflict with unity” among Protestants is “apparent” and not “adverse”; and here are some of our grounds:

This apparent unity among Protestants has its centre and source elsewhere. For every one of the revealed truths of Christianity which they maintain as fundamental, conceding for the moment that they are even agreed upon these, will be found in the last analysis to depend upon the authority of the Catholic Church. For example, the Bible is to Protestants the sole source of all revealed truth, and the only rule of faith. Now, that the Protestants received from the Catholic Church the Bible is a simple historical fact. Again, how do they know that the book called the Bible contains the whole of the inspired written word of God, and nothing else? Only from the unimpeachable witness and guardian of the Bible――the Catholic Church. Take from under the truths of Christianity, which Protestants still retain, the logical support of the Catholic Church, and Protestantism, as a system of religion, in ratio as men begin to feel the necessity of rendering to themselves a rational account of their religious convictions, will be abandoned and fall into utter ruin. And whatever fruits of Christian virtue or flowers of piety grow on the tree of Protestantism, they are parasitic; for the sap which gives life to the tree is derived from its roots, which are nourished in the soil of the garden, to their sight concealed, of the Catholic Church. In this virtual relation to the Catholic Church lies the hope of the salvation of those Protestants who are really in good faith. The unity among Protestants, therefore, is only “apparent,” while its conflicts with unity are real and “adverse.”

For the moment you enter on an examination of those doctrines in detail, regarding which, to use the language of this author, “there is throughout evangelical Christendom a substantial unity,” that instant innumerable and irreconcilable differences and contradictions arise. There exists among what are called evangelical Protestants a vague and affective desire for unity, but it is only strong enough to bring them together occasionally to display before the public their complete lack of real unity. They may even be led by it to recite the Apostles’ Creed, as though they were of accord in their belief as to the meaning of its contents; but let no further strain be put upon their bond of unity, lest it should snap into a thousand pieces, revealing, in the words of our author, “different organic bodies with features facing all ways, hands striking one against another, feet moving off in independent directions, and lips uttering the whole alphabet of shibboleths.” Grapes are not gathered of thorns.

DR. KNOX’S FIFTH REASON FOR UNITY.

“Organic unity,” he says, “is a required element in the _moral power_ the church is yet to wield. The Romish Church has borrowed untold strength from this source――one in name and form the world over.”

Dr. Knox’s evidently reluctant compliment to the Catholic Church ought not to be passed by without due recognition. It is a very high compliment: the highest possible compliment, according to his own showing. For he has laid down the principle that “the interior and spiritual are never dispersed from the exterior and physical.” Now, as the Catholic Church is “the world over one in name and form”――that is, in “the exterior and physical”――it follows she must be one in “the interior and spiritual,” as the former are never “dispersed from” the latter. The Catholic Church, therefore, is truly the church of Christ, as she alone is “perfect in one.” She alone possesses the inward and outward notes of that unity which Dr. Knox and those who agree with him are expecting to come as the ideal Christian Church. They have only to work out their premise to its logical conclusion to be landed in the bosom of the Catholic Church, which is the realization upon earth, so far as human nature will allow, of the ideal Christian Church.

“If her [the Catholic Church’s] actual unity,” he proceeds to say, “had answered to her organic, Protestantism must needs have been still heavier armed to make head against her.” This is not a reasonable supposition. Prior to the sixteenth century the actual unity of the Catholic Church did answer to her organic, and she was in a fair way to Christianize and civilize the whole world. But the religious secession started by Luther and his followers stopped the church in her course, and set Christians against Christians, broke up the fraternity of Christian nations, and sowed everywhere the seeds of dispute, enmities, and wars in the bosom of Christendom. Millions of her children, backed up by political powers, turned against the church, and concentrated their attacks chiefly in the direction of the overthrow of the Roman See, and the destruction of the centre and guardian of the unity of her organization, the Roman Pontiff. If her vital energies and vast resources were turned towards where the attacks were the fiercest, in order to meet and repel their effects, this was, in the nature of the situation, a necessity, and furnishes no ground for an accusation. But God in his providence turns the enemies of his church into instruments of her glory; for, as in repelling the errors of Arius and his adherents, the church was necessitated to define, and for ever establish beyond all dispute, her belief in the divinity of Christ, so in like manner, in her defence against the errors of Luther and his followers, she was compelled to settle beyond dispute all doubt of the authority, the rights, and prerogatives communicated by Christ to his Apostle Peter and to the successors of his see, the Roman Pontiffs. The bark of Peter has had to battle through a threatening storm which has lasted three centuries, but she has come out of the danger in perfect safety, with increased strength and renewed splendor. For her “organic unity,” thanks to the action of Protestantism, being greatly perfected, her “actual unity” now can display itself with a correspondingly-increased vigor and vitality. Her interior, spiritual beauty will be brought out more clearly to the sight of the world, attracting all souls; for whatever may be said of the power and majesty of her “name and form the world over,” the real beauty and glory of the church, like that of the king’s daughter, “is all within.” The glory of this new phase of the church, of which it seems Dr. Knox has had a glimpse, though he does not appear to recognize her features, he expresses in the following manner: “But when the day dawns that shall give us a visible springing from an interior unity, that will be a spectacle like the sign of the Son of Man in the heavens.”

After the compliment which we have already noticed, it would be unusual if the holy Church did not receive some bitter words of abuse. Here they are in the concluding lines of the paragraph under notice:

“Though Satan, in the person of Rome and Rationalism, ‘dilated stood,’ as Milton describes him in his attitude towards Gabriel,

“‘Like Teneriffe or Atlas unremoved,’

“he would know that sign, as when Gabriel showed him the golden scales aloft, and he

“‘Fled Murmuring, and with him fled the shades of night.’”

This language belongs to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the sectaries of that period universally held that the pope was Antichrist, and the Catholic Church his kingdom. It might be heard from the mouth of a ranter in Exeter Hall, or, in days gone by, in the Broadway Tabernacle, or come from the pen of the vaticinating Dr. Cummings, and not excite surprise; but we submit that such language is unworthy of the cause which Dr. Knox so ably advocates, and is in discord with the whole tenor of his article, which, we gladly acknowledge, breathes throughout a more candid and a better spirit.

THE SIXTH REASON FOR UNITY.

“This is found,” he says, “in that element of efficiency that lies in economy.” This is an important element, but we have already encroached beyond our limits, and must hasten to our close. The article proceeds to show that there is a “rapidly-increasing unity of faith, affection, and aim” among evangelical Christians, and details the grounds for the hope of a “prospective unity of organization,” explaining “the causes at work to produce it.”

ACCORDING TO DR. KNOX, THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH ONCE EXISTED.

“Furthermore,” he continues, “the church has once been in the perfect unity we are advocating. The members ‘continued steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers’ (Acts, ii. 42). The unity, according to this record, began in theological doctrine, but extended to outward organization (fellowship), to visible sacraments (breaking of bread), and forms of worship (prayers). This was what Christ had just before prayed for a making perfect in one; a unity, interior and exterior, spiritual and organic.”

In another passage he describes the discordant elements of Protestantism, and draws, without knowing it, the portrait of the actual Catholic Church, and contrasts her perfect unity with the divisions of the Protestant sects. Here it is:

“In the primitive church, when Christ would have the body constituted with diversity――not all head, or hands, or feet; not all hearing, seeing, or smelling, but a body with many members, and each member its own function――he yet did not think it necessary this diversity should be sectarian in order to be Christian. He did not give some to be Episcopalians――high, and low, and ritualistic; some to be Congregationalists――associated, and consociated, and independent; some to be Methodists――Protestant, Primitive, and Episcopal; some to be Baptists――open and close; some to be Presbyterians――old and new, Cumberland and Covenanter, Associate Reformed and Presbyterian Reformed, and others perhaps unreformed, to say nothing of Burgher and anti-Burgher, Secession, and Relief. Here was variety――a very millennium of it, such as it was. It was a variety, however, that finds no place in the New Testament, and no mention in Christ’s catalogue of particulars. This was his list of bestowments that Paul enumerates, when he ‘gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.’ Having these, the body was thought to be well furnished without the modern inventions above specified. Here was variety and here was efficiency. ‘Many members, but one body.’ ‘Diversities of gifts, but one spirit.’ ‘Differences of administration, but the same Lord.’ ‘Diversities of operations, but the same God, which worketh all in all.’ Read the whole twelfth chapter of 1st Corinthians, and the fourth of Ephesians, and see how amply diversified is the church of God: all the more beautiful and useful for the reason Paul here declares, that God has so constructed it that there should be ‘no schism in the body.’ The variety and beauty lie in the varied members and their varied functions; not, as our sectarian conservatives would have it, in there being different organic bodies with features facing all ways, hands striking one against another, feet moving off in independent directions, and lips uttering the whole alphabet of shibboleths.”

This description is not very complimentary to that movement which started with the profession of renewing the religion of the Gospel and of primitive Christianity. Judged by Dr. Knox’s standard, it is clear that Protestantism, whatever it may be, is not primitive Christianity.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS LOST.

The entire article under consideration is based on the supposition that the visible organic unity of the church that once existed, no longer exists, but is lost. “It is also,” says Dr. Knox, “universally admitted and expected that this lost unity will at some time be regained” (p. 666). Now, that scandals would come, and tares would grow with the wheat, heresies, schisms, and sects would arise――all this we are told in the New Testament; but that the unity which Christ communicated to his church should be “lost,” and, therefore, his church fail――this we read nowhere in the pages of the inspired Word. On the contrary, we read in the Gospels that Christ promised to “build his church,” and that he predicted that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And we also read: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” How one who believes in the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and that Christ built his church, and can admit, nay, assert, that she has “lost” her unity, the very essence of her being――that, consequently, the church of Christ has failed――we are at a loss to know, and look for further explanation and instruction on this subject from Dr. Knox.

But it must be remembered also, and taken into account, that when Christ offered up his prayer for unity, he not only petitioned that his disciples might be one, but he also said: “And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me.” This covers all time, and leaves no room for the supposition that the unity which was the object of his prayer should ever be “lost.”

How to meet this difficulty is the question of questions among those who, under one pretext or another, have separated themselves from the unity of the Catholic Church. Their ingenuity has been exercised not a little on this point, and the world has listened to the Greek patriarchal theory, and to the Anglican branch theory, and the invisible church theory of some of the so-called reformers, but all these theories are like clouds without rain and broken cisterns that can hold no water. For once admit that the unity of the church for which Christ prayed has ever existed, and concede that it has been lost, no matter what theory or hypothesis you may devise, at that moment, the conclusion is inevitable, Christianity is a failure.

The unity of the church of Christ was divine, and the human cannot create or give birth to the divine. This truth has been recognized and acted upon even among Protestants. The Irvingites and Mormons teach on this point their fellow-Protestants a lesson in sound logic. “We start,” they say, “as all Protestants do, in admitting that the Catholic Church was in the beginning the church of Christ, and that at some period of time afterwards she became corrupt and failed. This is our common premise. Now, to establish the church, which is a divine institution, requires a special divine mission and authority; hence our claim to this special divine inspiration and authority for the reinauguration of the church of Christ upon earth.” This reasoning on the part of the Irvingites and Mormons, as against other Protestants, is unanswerable and leaves them nowhere.

If the Christian Church ever existed, it exists now in all its vitality and force; for the divine creative act which called it into existence was as real, continuous, and immutable as the creative act which called into existence the universe. The same Almighty who said, “_Fiat Lux_,” said, “_Edificabo ecclesiam meam_”; and, considering the place she holds in the hierarchy of creation, there is less reason to suppose that the church should fail than that the whole universe should go to utter wreck and ruin.

The learned doctor has an inkling of this insurmountable difficulty, and hence he looks forward to one scarcely knows what kind of supernatural action which is to “compose” out of the existing different evangelical sects a visible organic unity. The idea of composing the unity of the church is a contradiction in terms. If lost, only a new divine creative act can restore it. To expect this after the Incarnation and the Day of Pentecost is a chimera. The only escape from this, and the only perfectly consistent one, is that this unity is still existing, clothed with “a divinely-appointed organism _jure divino_,” and open to all who really and sincerely believe in Christ. He does not deny that the church of Christ does still exist; he admits its possibility, and says:

“We do not base our argument for ultimate unity of organization on the assumption that there is a divinely appointed organism defined in the New Testament. We may believe the Scriptures contain nothing explicit on this point――no _jure divino_ model of church polity. If, however, there is such an appointed form――which is here neither affirmed nor denied――we insist that it is the best form, and our point holds good――viz., in the coming development of an earnest faith and fellowship, that form will ultimately be apprehended and accepted. In that mental condition into which the church is soon to come, it will be recognized that the end is the main thing, and the agency of no account except as it is adapted to the end. And as in the arts of ordinary life, as in politics and public education, it is at length discovered what the best way to the desired result is; and as the earnest effort for the valued result lays hold at last of the best method, which thus becomes the common one, so must it be in the great earnest religious movement of these latter days, looking to the millennial age. Mark well the process. The faith and love of the church, quickening into new life in these pre-millennial efforts, will emerge into a spiritual earnestness little short of a new experience; this earnestness will content itself with nothing short of the most effective method; the effective method will be accepted as the best, and the best method is the one method which shall complete the spiritual unity of God’s people in an organic unity.”

Agreeing with Dr. Knox in “the nature of the unity of the church,” and that the principle of “life is organic,” and also that the church with this unity and organic life has existed, the conclusion is evident: either he must yield up his premises, or enter into the fold of the Catholic Church as the only claimant to this unity and organization whose title is unimpeachable. May that day “of earnest faith and fellowship” of which he speaks be hastened, when will be apprehended and accepted “that church polity” “defined in the New Testament,”[156] and which “completes the spiritual unity of God’s people in an organic unity!” “May the generation now coming upon the stage … not pass away until these things are fulfilled!”

[153] “The Organic Unity of the Church. By Wm. E. Knox, D.D., Elmira, N. Y.” _The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review_, Oct., 18;6.

[154] St. John xvii.

[155] Dr. Jenischuber, _Gottesverehrung und Kirche_, § 210.

[156] To those of our readers who are desirous of seeing the argument drawn from the New Testament on this point, and at the same time the whole question as between the Catholic Church and the Presbyterians or evangelicals fully treated and placed in a clear light and in a masterly manner on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, we recommend the volume entitled _The King’s Highway_, by the Rev. Augustine F. Hewit. The Catholic Publication House, New York.

MONSIEUR GOMBARD’S MISTAKE.

CONCLUDED.

About a month after this memorable expedition of M. Gombard’s the town of Loisel was in a state of extraordinary commotion; the elections were going on, which meant that all men had gone mad, that the seven devils were let loose, and that no man could be sure of sleeping in his own bed from one night to another. The decree had gone forth that General Blagueur was the government candidate, which signified that every man was to vote for him, and that every man who didn’t was a dead man――every man, that is, who had anything to lose or anything to hope for from the powers that were. No one knew who this General Blagueur was, or where he came from, or anything about him, except that he was the right man whom it was their business to put into the right place. This was all it concerned them to know or to care as dutiful subjects of Napoleon III. But though there were many such at Loisel, there were many of another sort, who set their backs stiffly against the right man, and were perversely bent on having a wrong man of their own. It does not matter to our story whether this rebellious outburst was justifiable or successful. It may be mentioned, however, for the comfort of the many who are born sympathizers with rebels in every class and country, that the rebellion of Loisel did succeed, and that General Blagueur was ignominiously beaten. But what a price Loisel paid for this wicked victory! A detachment of troops was at once sent down to prey upon its vitals and hold a cocked pistol at its head. The state subsidy promised to the local municipality for rebuilding the tumble-down hospital was refused; the concession for a railway to connect it with the main line, after having been distinctly promised to an enterprising company, was withdrawn; the prefect was “promoted” to a post in a dismal, out-of-the-way town in an eastern department. It was said at one moment that the mayor was going to be dismissed, or in some way visited by the imperial displeasure. But this was one of those unreasoning panics that are common to every period of social terror; men lose their heads, and see monstrous and impossible events impending. The government, powerful as it was, never dreamed of laying a finger on M. Gombard.

The worthy mayor forbore, with his usual prudence, from taking any prominent part in the war that was raging at Loisel, and ostensibly left the prefect all the honors and perils of leadership; but it was perfectly well known, as he admitted to friends in confidence, that if M. le Préfet reigned, M. le Maire governed; and M. le Maire’s power arose in great measure from the consummate tact with which he managed to hide this fact from everybody, above all from M. le Préfet. Now, it happened that, just when the excitement of the contest was at its greatest, when the wildest stories were afloat about the sinister machinations of the government, the base and cruel means it employed to compass its ends――setting brother against brother, and wife against husband, carrying bribery and discord and all manner of corruption into the very marrow of the bones of Loisel――it happened that, when things were in this state, a young man arrived at the principal inn of the place. He did nothing to provoke the anger or suspicions of the population: he was silent, unobtrusive, speaking to no one at the _table-d’hôte_ where he took his meals; but before he had been two days at Loisel the entire town was infuriated against him. He had been seen standing before a dismantled old round tower that guarded the entrance to the town, and once had boasted of battlements and a cannon; this report had gone abroad the first day of his arrival, and the next morning it was positively stated that he had been seen by an applewoman and a milkman walking _round_ the tower, and scrambling upon a broken wall close by to get a view _into_ it. It was at an early hour, before anybody was likely to be abroad. Such facts, resting on such clear and forcible evidence, admitted only of one interpretation――the stranger was a paid miscreant sent down to examine the tower with a view to fortifying it as of yore, and so terrifying the refractory towns-people into surrendering their independence to the government. A council was called by the outraged citizens, and in ten minutes the fate of the engineer was decided. A rush was made on the inn where he lodged; he was seized, dragged forth amidst the yells of the enraged mob, and would have rendered up his mercenary soul to judgment there and then, if the prefect had not chanced to ride up at the moment to the scene of popular justice.

“What is this? Call out the soldiers! I will have every man of you shot, if you don’t release your prisoner!” he cried, charging boldly into the fray.

“He’s a spy, a traitor! We won’t have him here! He wants to murder us; to butcher our wives and children,” etc. Fifty people shouted out these and similar cries together; but they had ceased maltreating the unfortunate stranger, and were now only clutching him and threatening him with clenched fists.

“If he is guilty of any misdemeanor or crime, or intent to commit crime, he shall be made to answer for it; but it is the business of the law to see justice done, not yours. Let go your prisoner!” said the prefect in a tone of high command.

Courage and the prestige of lawful authority seldom fail to impress and subdue an excited mass of men. The mob fell back, and two _gendarmes_, at a sign from the prefect, stepped forward; the crowd made way for them. “That man is under arrest. Conduct him to the _mairie_ and lock him up,” said the prefect.

The _gendarmes_ marched off the rescued man, a crowd trooping on with them, hooting and yelling with an energy that sounded far from reassuring, though it was so in reality, being a kind of safety-valve to the excited mob. It was a great relief, nevertheless, to the object of this manifestation to find himself locked up and safe out of its reach. He was not a coward, but the bravest may be permitted to shrink from such inglorious danger as this from which he had just escaped.

He had not been many hours in captivity when a sound of steps and voices approaching the door announced that some one was about to appear――probably the magistrate. The key turned in the lock, and M. Gombard entered, accompanied by two other persons: one was a clerk who was to take down in writing the interrogatory of the mayor and the prisoner’s replies; the other was a witness who was to sign it. The moment M. Gombard beheld the prisoner his countenance changed; he felt it did, though no one present noticed it. In the hatless, muddy, battered-looking man who rose painfully to salute him the mayor recognized the lover of Mlle. Bobert. Was he still only her lover? In all probability he was her husband by this time. When M. Gombard had mastered his surprise and recovered from the shock of the discovery, he proceeded to examine the prisoner. The latter made no attempt at self-defence; he admitted, with a frankness which the reporter set down as “cynical,” that he had visited the round tower on the two occasions alleged; that he would gladly do so again, if the citizens of Loisel gave him the opportunity. He had a natural love for old monuments of every description, and was professionally interested in them――especially ancient fortifications and fortresses of every kind; this old tower was a curious specimen of the fifteenth-century style, he was anxious to take a sketch of it, and so on, with more in the same tone. The clerk wrote on with great gusto, interlarding the prisoner’s remarks with commentaries intended to complete them, and explain more fully the depth of malice every word revealed: “The accused looked boldly at M. le Maire”; “the accused here smiled with a fiendish expression”; “the accused assumed here a tone of insolent defiance”; “the countenance of the accused wore an air of cool contempt,” and so on. Meantime, the mayor was wondering at the calm, dignified manner of the prisoner, and admiring his well-bred tone and perfect self-possession; he was evidently no common kind of person, this lover, or husband, of Mlle. Bobert. At the close of the interrogatory, when the clerk had wiped his pen and was folding up his document, the mayor, with a vaguely apologetical remark, inquired whether the prisoner was a married man. The answer came with the same quiet distinctness as the preceding ones: “No, monsieur, I am not.” He bowed to M. Gombard, and M. Gombard bowed to him. The interview was at an end. “The case looks bad,” observed the reporting clerk, as the door closed behind them, M. Gombard himself locking it, and pocketing the key unnoticed by the others, who hurried on, loudly discussing the matter in hand.

“Do you not think it looks badly, M. le Maire?” inquired the reporter.

“Very badly. We shall be the laughing-stock of the whole country, if the prisoner is brought to trial; we shall pass for a community of cowardly idiots. We must do our utmost to prevent the affair getting into the local paper, at any rate. You are a friend of the editor’s; have you influence enough with him, think you, to make him sacrifice his interest for once from a patriotic motive? It would be a fine example, and you will have done the town a service which I shall take care they hear of in due time.”

The reporter held his head high and looked important. “I was thinking of this very thing, M. la Maire, while I was taking down the prisoner’s answers,” he said. “I did my best to swell the silly business into something like a charge, feeling, as you say, that we should be disgraced if the case were trumpeted over the country as it really stands; but the best way to hinder the mischief will be to keep it out of the paper. I think I can promise you that this shall be done.”

“Then my mind is at rest. The honor of Loisel will be saved!” said M. Gombard.

“It shall, it shall, M. le Maire!” said his companion. He was excited and big with a sense of patriotic responsibility.

The next day was the grand crisis in the electioneering fever――the opening of the ballot-box. All Loisel was abroad and on tiptoe with expectation; there was no buying or selling that day. No wonder the unlucky inmate of the lock-up was forgotten. M. Gombard, however, had not forgotten him.

Late on the previous night, when the town had gone to bed and the streets were silent, nobody being abroad but the night watch and a few stragglers whose business and state of life made them avoid public notice and daylight, M. Gombard might have been seen stealing out by the back door to his own stable, and thence to the corner of a neighboring street, where he fastened his horse to a lamp-post, and stole back to the _mairie_ with the quick, furtive air of a thief. He stepped softly down the stone passage that led to the lock-up room, laid his dark-lantern on the floor outside, and then turned the key slowly and with as little noise as possible. The dead silence that reigned in the place made the slight grating of the key sound like a shriek. When the mayor entered the room, the prisoner was walking up and down, trying to keep his blood in circulation; for the cold was intense, and he was famished with hunger. “I have come to release you,” M. Gombard said. “There is no time to lose. I have left a horse ready saddled at the corner of the street that leads straight to the ruined tower; you will mount him and ride for your life.”

The prisoner could hardly believe his ears.

“What does this mean?” he said. “You are a perfect stranger to me, and whoever you are, you must run a great risk in rendering me this service. May I ask why you take this interest in me?”

“I am glad to pay back a service that one whom … that was rendered to me not long since when passing through Cabicol. I will not say more; but you will learn all from the person in question most likely some day. Meantime, have no hesitation in accepting this service at my hands. It is a debt of gratitude that I am happy to be able to pay. Come, every minute is precious.”

The prisoner was not inclined to shut the door on his deliverer; whatever his motive might be, mysterious or romantic, it was a merciful chance for him. The two men left the house, stepping softly, stealthily like a couple of thieves. When they reached the entrance of a street, M. Gombard stopped, and pointed silently to where the gaslight fell upon the horse, giving him the appearance of a phantom beast amidst the surrounding gloom. The traveller held out his hand, and grasped the mayor’s in a long, strong pressure. M. Gombard returned it, and noticed now that his companion was bareheaded.

“You forgot your hat!” he said in a low voice.

“I lost it in the fray this morning.”

“Then the town of Loisel owes you another. Take this; it will serve you on the road as well as a new one.”

M. Gombard pulled off his hat and handed it to the fugitive, turned brusquely from him, and hurried home.

No one remembered the stranger who had provoked the popular fury, until two days after his arrest, when the agitation of the electioneering crisis had subsided, and the authorities had leisure to attend to ordinary business. Then it was discovered that the bird had flown, no one knew when, no one knew how. There was great consternation amongst the subordinate officials at the _mairie_ whose duty it was to have looked after him; but each declared he was not responsible, that the prisoner had not been given into his charge, that the prisoner was only put there temporarily, and ought to have been conveyed at once to the jail, etc. This did not prevent them shaking in their shoes in mortal dread of being turned out of their places. The reporter was one of the first to hear of the escape. He flew at once with the intelligence to M. Gombard. M. Gombard looked him straight in the face and burst out into an uncontrollable fit of laughter; he shook, he held his sides, he laughed till he cried again. The reporter did not at first know what to make of it; but at last the contagion of M. le Maire’s mirth was irresistible. He began to laugh also, and then M. Gombard roared, and the two kept it up until they nearly died of it. At last M. Gombard, who was the first to recover himself, took out his red cotton handkerchief and wiped his eyes, and blew his nose, and, after sundry gasps and subsiding chuckles, said: “It is the cleverest joke I ever saw performed in _my_ life, and you are the cleverest rogue I ever met with! It was bad enough to play it off unknown to me, to keep the fun of the thing to yourself; but then to walk in here with such cool impudence, and never move a muscle of your face while you announced it as the latest intelligence! Ha! ha! ha!” And off he went again, falling back in his chair, and laughing till the tears rolled down his cheeks.

The reporter was in a terrible state. He had not the faintest notion what the fun was about, and he had really joined in it till he could laugh no more. One thing was clear: somebody had done something which M. le Maire thought extremely clever and was highly diverted at, and that he――the reporter――had the credit of.

“Tell me, how did you do it?” said M. Gombard, again recovering himself and mopping his face, that was now as red as the handkerchief.

“Really, M. le Maire, I――I don’t quite understand,” said the reporter, smiling and trying to look at once confused and knowing.

“Come, come, no more of this! Tell it out like a good fellow; let me have the fag-end of the fun at any rate. How did you manage to give them all the slip?”

“Positively, monsieur, there is some mistake. I don’t see――I don’t understand――” stammered out the reporter.

M. Gombard gave a tremendous gasp, as if the laughter were still in him and it required a huge effort to keep it down.

“Well, well,” he said, “I won’t press you, but I think you _might_ have trusted me; we are old friends now. However, keep your secret and accept my best compliments. You missed your vocation, though; you ought to have been a diplomatist. I see no reason after this――after this”――here he began to shake again and brought out the cotton handkerchief――“why you should not be minister some day. _Vous irez loin, mon cher――vous irez loin!_”

There was a knock at the door. The two men stood up.

“M. le Maire, I am to understand that you are rather glad than otherwise of this――this mysterious disappearance?” said the reporter, with some hesitation.

“Glad! You deserve the Cross for it!” exclaimed the mayor. “It is the greatest service you could have rendered to the town. Some day or other they shall hear of it.”

“I really must disabuse you of a false impression,” began the reporter. “Anxious as I was to be of use, my share in this matter――”

“Tut, tut!” said M. Gombard, “none of this nonsense with me, my dear fellow. Keep your own counsel――quite right; but don’t be such an idiot as to deny your services to those who can reward them. Mark my words: _Vous irez loin!_” He tugged gently at the reporter’s ear, and, shaking hands with him, sent him away happy and elated, but utterly mystified.

The affair made some noise; a _procès verbal_ was drawn up, there was an interrogatory of the clerks, and before a week the escape of the spy was forgotten.

Just before Easter――that is, three months after this little electioneering incident――M. Gombard had occasion to go to Cabicol again. This time, however, he was not alone; he was accompanied by M. le Préfet, the new one, who was making a _tournée_ in his kingdom, and took the mayor with him by way of a moral support. He was a timid man; he knew that his appointment was unpopular, and that M. Gombard’s influence might help to reconcile people to it.

They alighted at the _Jacques Bonhomme_ to change horses and take some refreshment before officially inspecting the town of Cabicol. M. Gombard was anxious to get some news of Mlle. Bobert, when the marriage had taken place, and how it was supposed to prosper so far; but there was no opportunity of saying a word to the landlord, for the prefect was there, and M. Gombard had no plausible excuse for leaving him. He could not help remarking the strange expression of the landlord’s countenance on first beholding him; the scared, incredulous glance he cast upon him, and the mysterious manner in which, on assisting him from the chaise, he pressed his arm and whispered: “I congratulate you, monsieur; I congratulate you.”

What could the fellow mean by this extraordinary behavior! But the mayor remembered how oddly he had behaved on the occasion of his former visit, and set him down as an original, a harmless monomaniac of some sort.

Just as they were starting, and the prefect was receiving the compliments of M. le Curé at the door of the _Jacques Bonhomme_, M. Gombard seized the opportunity of a word with the landlord. Pointing his cane towards the old house opposite, he observed in a careless manner:

“Your pretty heiress is married by this, of course? What is her name now?”

“Married! Alas! no,” replied the landlord mournfully. “Monsieur has not, then, heard?”

“Good heavens! she is not dead?” cried M. Gombard, dropping his feigned indifference in an instant.

“She is blind, monsieur――stone blind! It was a terrible accident; she was thrown from a carriage, and the shock and injuries she sustained destroyed her sight. They say she may recover it after a while; but I doubt it, monsieur, I doubt it.”

“And her _fiancé_――has he given up――”

The mayor was here cut short by the prefect, who called out from the post-chaise, where he had already seated himself.

“Come, M. Gombard, we had better be starting.”

M. Gombard left Cabicol with a sad heart. He looked wistfully up at the latticed window under the grand old escutcheon where he had last caught a glimpse of the beautiful young creature, now so heavily stricken. It made his heart ache to think of her in that lonely house, her bright eyes sightless, dwelling in perpetual night. Why had not his rival insisted on marrying her in spite, nay, because, of this catastrophe? He could fancy how her brave and generous nature would refuse to accept what she considered a sacrifice; but what sort of a love was his that could not overcome such reluctance? Poor child! How gladly _he_ would have devoted himself to soothing and cheering her darkened life! But perhaps he was wronging his rival; it might be that she had merely postponed their marriage, that they both believed in her ultimate recovery, and that she preferred waiting, until it had taken place, until her brown eyes had been restored, until the spirit which once animated them should awake and vivify them as of old.

M. Gombard did not return to Cabicol for many a long year after this. He left Loisel, and went to live in Normandy, where an uncle had died and left him some property――a rambling old house, surrounded by some wooded fields and a fruit-garden; the house was called the Château, and the fields were called “the Park.” M. Gombard had not been long in possession of this ancestral estate before he was elected mayor of the village. He was the kind of man to be elected mayor wherever he resided. Some men, we hear said, are born actors, doctors, ambassadors, etc.; M. Gombard was born a mayor.

Life went smoothly with him amongst his fields and fruit-trees for nearly ten years. Then friends took it into their heads, and put it into his, that he ought to become a deputy; the elections were at hand, and they put up his name as opposition candidate for the department of X――――, whose _chef-lieu_ was Loisel. The proposal took M. Gombard’s fancy mightily. To go back to the place where he had left such a good name and exercised such undisputed influence; to go back as representative of the department――this was a triumph that even in perspective made him purr like a stroked cat. He started off one morning in high spirits for Loisel. His most direct road lay through Cabicol. The railroad landed him within a mile of the quaint old town at eight o’clock in the morning. He was in the mood for a walk, so he set out on foot. It was within a few days of Christmas; the weather was intensely cold, but the sky was as blue as a field of sapphire, and the sun shone out as brightly as in spring. He remembered the first time he had been to Cabicol; it was about this season of the year, but what miserable weather it was! Snow deep on the ground, and then the heavy rains coming before it melted, and turning the roads and streets into canals of mud and slush. This bracing cold, with the sun cheering up the landscape, was delightful. M. Gombard walked on with a brisk step, whistling snatches of one tune or another, till he came within sight of the church. The first glimpse of the strong, graceful spire, pricking the blue sky, so high, so high it rose, brought a flood of soft and tender memories to the hard-headed, embryo legislator; he smiled, and yet he heaved a little sigh as the recollection of his first and his last visit to that fine old church came back upon him. He wondered how life had gone with the fair enchantress who had spirited away his heart from him in the brown twilight of the Gothic temple; whether she had ever cast a thought on him from that day to the present. And her sight――had she recovered it? M. Gombard had often thought of this, and breathed a hearty wish that it might be so. And was she married? In all probability, yes. The chances were that she was now the happy mother of a blooming little family, of which the man he had for a moment so vigorously detested was the proud protector. If so, M. Gombard would call upon him and pay his respects to madame. This was the proper thing for an opposition candidate to do, and it would be an opportunity for Mlle. Bobert’s husband to show his gratitude for former services.

He entered the town, now a busy, thriving place, and, crossing the market-place, made straight for the _Jacques Bonhomme_. There it was, not a whit changed, just as dingy-looking, with its stunted laurels before the door, that stood wide open as in the midst of summer. There, too, was the picturesque old manor-house opposite, just as he had first seen it, only that the roof was not covered with snow nor fringed with icicles. The ivy was thicker; it had grown quite over the front wall, but had been roughly clipped away from a space over the balcony, leaving the escutcheon visible――a gray patch amidst the glistening green of the ruin-loving parasite. Two persons were coming out of the house as M. Gombard drew near. A group of poor people stood at the lodge, evidently awaiting them, with eager, questioning faces. One of these persons was the doctor, the other was the _curé_. The doctor walked on in silence. The _curé_ spoke: “Alas! my friends, she is gone from us. We must be resigned; for the loss is all ours, the gain all hers.”

M. Gombard felt a great pang go through him. He stood near the group, and heard the tearful cries that answered the _curé’s_ words: “Ah, _la bonne demoiselle_! Yes, it is a happy deliverance for her; but what a loss for us, for the sick, for all Cabicol!” And they dispersed, lamenting, and repeating through their tears: “_Pauvre Mlle. Bobert!_ Our good friend! She is gone! The funeral is to be to-morrow!”

So she had died, as she had lived, “Mlle. Bobert.” M. Gombard lingered a moment, looking up at the deep, latticed window where the slight figure would never be seen looking forth again. She was to be buried to-morrow, they had said. He resolved to wait and attend the funeral. He remained gazing up at the picturesque old edifice, which had arrested his curiosity and admiration for its own sake before he had become interested in its mistress. Whom would it go to now? he wondered.

A step on the pathway outside made him turn and look in that direction. He was startled, but not much astonished to see the _fiancé_ of Mlle. Bobert approaching. Poor man! He looked much older than M. Gombard had expected to find him. Evidently he had suffered during these eleven years; his life had been blighted as well as hers. The manly heart of the mayor went out to him in sympathy. He was preparing to hold out his hand, when, to his consternation, the gentleman raised his hat with the old courtly bow that M. Gombard so well remembered. How was this? The unhappy man was ignorant of his sorrow! He was saluting the dead, and he knew it not.

“Monsieur, pardon me,” said M. Gombard, meeting him with an outstretched hand and a face full of genuine compassion. “You have evidently not heard the sad news?”

“Concerning whom?” inquired the gentleman, giving his hand, but looking very blank.

“Who? Why … Mlle. Bobert!”

“What has happened to Mlle. Bobert, monsieur?” asked the gentleman.

“What has happened? Good heavens! Can it be possible.… The worst has happened: she is dead!”

“Ah!” exclaimed the gentleman. Was this man some near relation of hers, or did he mistake _him_ for one?

“I tell you she is dead!” repeated M. Gombard, his surprise rising rapidly to indignation. “She died only a few minutes ago, and she is to be buried to-morrow!”

“Naturally; that is the law. A person who dies this morning _must_ be buried to-morrow, unless,” the speaker continued, fancying he had here a clue to M. Gombard’s excitement――“unless good reason can be shown for obtaining a delay, in which case, as a resident, I may be of some use to you; you seem to be a stranger here.”

M. Gombard could not credit his senses. Was he dreaming, or was this man gone mad? He stared at him for a moment in dumb amazement. At last he said:

“Perhaps I am under a mistake.… I may be taking you for a person who resembles you strongly. Who are you, monsieur?”

“I am an archæologist by profession; my name is De Valbranchart.” He drew out his pocket-book and handed a card to M. Gombard.

“_Henri, Comte de Valbranchart_,” repeated M. Gombard absently. He had heard the name before; but where? “The name is not unknown to me,” he added.

“It can hardly be unknown to any one who has read history,” replied the count, with quiet _hauteur_. “The De Valbrancharts played a stirring part in the history of France as early as the twelfth century. But their day is over; they have no existence in the present. I am the last of the name.”

“Where have I heard it before?” said M. Gombard musingly.

“Perhaps at Cabicol,” returned the count. “This old house was the home of my family for three hundred years. Those are our arms carved upon its front; for twenty years I have saluted them daily as I pass. It is foolish, perhaps; but I feel as if the spirit of my ancestors haunted the old roof-tree, and that they are not insensible to the filial homage.”

As he said this he looked up at the stone shield, where a lion passant, on gule, was still visible, surmounted by a fleur-de-lis argent, en chef. Raising his hat deferentially to the worn and partly-obliterated symbols of a glory that lived only in his faithful memory, the Comte de Valbranchart bowed to M. Gombard and passed on.

“And so this was the lady-love he worshipped,” said M. Gombard to himself, as the tall, pensive man disappeared down the street. “He never loved _her_, perhaps he never knew her; and if I had only known, I might have.… But it is no use regretting the irreparable. I should have been a more miserable man at this hour, if I had won her and loved her all these years.”

THE HOME-LIFE OF SOME EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY POETS.

“The happiest lives,” says Southey, speaking of his own, “are those which have the least variety.” There never was a truer saying. All the knowledge of the world involved in a stormy life, whether of vice, adventure, poverty, or political prominence, is not worth the half of the quiet happiness of a home-life and of what people lightly and mistakenly call monotony. And not only in such a life does the soul grow and the higher part of man gradually and calmly ripen, but his mind grows, his art grows, his genius widens and deepens. There are no shocks to arrest the creations of his mind; no periods of untrue, feverish, excited joy, followed by a ghastly reaction and a sad blank, to disturb the rest that alone produces lasting works. Not all poets and artists understood this, because very few were perfect men; not all common men understand it, because if their inborn propensities do not (and they do in only exceptional cases) lead them to this quiet haven, it requires severe experiences and much repentance before they can enter such a state. It is true that the works universally reckoned the greatest have been accomplished by men whose lives were spent among storms; but since the men who wrote them could so heroically overcome this inner obstacle, what magnificent things might they not have done if their lives had been differently ordained! The _Divina Commedia_, _Paradise Lost_, _King Lear_ were the offspring of volcanic natures and volcanic circumstances: Dante and Milton were both lone men, soured and discontented, unfortunate in their domestic, and uneasy in their political, life; Shakspere was poor and despised, long a wanderer and an adventurer, and not too well mated either. And this brings us to the consideration of the more accessible and human side of their nature, one which is intensely interesting to us; for the more we read, the more we think, the more do we see how alike mankind is at all stages of its career, how little difference there is in human relations between us and our forefathers――nay, our remotest ancestors, whether in other climes or in a totally different civilization. Modes of thought have grown antiquated, systems of philosophy have crumbled, faiths have disappeared, customs have changed, but man and his passions remain the same as when he was first made. And the men who are but names to us, whose record is in forgotten tablets and antique parchments, even those whose works and sayings are known to us in part, all lived the same common life to the eye of their contemporaries, shared the same lowly necessities and the same agitating feelings, and went through the same kind of outward, prescribed life as the rind of their inner and individual one, as our modern poets, artists, _savants_, discoverers, and even our single selves. For ourselves, we almost invariably care more for the life of a man than for his works; and as this century has developed a peculiar turn for biography, even that of ordinary and obscure persons――which is often none the less interesting――it has been a liking easy to satisfy. If, however, readers of poets prefer to see their ideal with their own eyes and look upon him as a demigod, biography is not a thing likely to be pleasant to them. It is often disenchanting, and many people shrink from the true if it be not likewise in accordance with their preconceived notions. The English poets of the last century were emphatically _men_, good specimens of their time and surroundings, by no means souls stranded on a foreign world and accidentally fitted with clogging bodies whose necessities were a vexation to the spirit.

The earliest of the rising generation of that time who came prominently before the public, and has never since lost his place, is Dean Swift. He was “of the earth, earthy,” yet not a type of very common humanity. His life was full of strange incidents and extraordinary contradictions. He was, like Milton, by inclination rather a politician than a writer, and yet his poems have outlived his pamphlets. Sometimes he was coarse in language and brutal in manner――a fashion of his age, itself a contrast to the other extreme affected by society, that of a finical and artificial delicacy. Yet he won the almost unsolicited affection of pure-minded, sensitive, well-educated women. Now he was a miser, now a prodigal; now he entered a state which so many other poets conscientiously eschewed, himself worse fitted for it than they were; and now he showed a tenderness of feeling and a nobleness of soul which seemed inconsistent with this one life-act of defiant recklessness. For it was not hypocrisy; to that lowest of depths he, at least, did not sink. His education was desultory and his early circumstances narrow. His first situation was a poor one, though in a refined home and with a great statesman――Sir William Temple, whose reader and secretary he was. He got only twenty pounds a year, but had the chance of a troop of horse which King William offered him when he came to visit the youth’s patron at Moor Park. His mind was inflamed by the stirring scenes during which his poor mother had fled from Ireland――the times following the Revolution and the Boyne――and he vindicated and abused his native country by turns, like an indignant lover, always ready fiercely to defend her if attacked by others, yet conscious of the unhappy state into which civilization and literature had fallen, consequent on the civil troubles since Elizabeth’s Reformation. At Richmond he owed an illness to his gluttony, as he boldly if exaggeratedly confesses: “About two hours before you were born,” he writes to a lady, “I got my giddiness by eating a hundred golden pippins at a time; and when you were four years and a quarter old, bating two days, having made a fine seat about twenty miles further in Surrey, where I used to read, there I got my deafness; and these two friends have visited me, one or other, every year since, and, being old acquaintance, have now thought fit to come together.” Dryden did not recognize the young poet as a brother, and wrote him his opinion most bluntly, which Swift never forgave or forgot, and for which once or twice he revenged himself on other hapless and obscure poets who better deserved the same criticism. One of the good deeds of his youth was his giving up an appointment in the National Church, worth £100 a year, in favor of a poor struggling curate with less than half that income and eight children to support; but some of his friends thought that the loss of congenial society which this small preferment involved somewhat moved him to this renunciation. Going back to Moor Park, he made acquaintance with “Stella”――Esther Johnson――a ward of his patron, a girl of fifteen, who loved him devotedly, and whose heart he broke. He became her tutor, and his genius, his appearance, and his manner captivated the child-woman. Engaged at the time to a Miss Waryng, whom he fancifully styled “Varina,” he broke his promise to her, and in the details of their quarrel showed himself as insolent as dishonorable. At this time of his life he was, if not a handsome, at least a very striking man. He was tall and well made, with deep-blue eyes and black hair and eyebrows, the last very bushy, and his expression stern and haughty――the very hero of a young girl’s dreams. After Sir William’s death he removed Stella to the neighborhood of his own parsonage, where she lived in a little cottage with an elderly companion, and never saw Swift except in the presence of a third person. Sir Walter Scott charitably attributes his avoidance of marriage with her to prudential reasons, and in this anomalous relation to the woman he loved he sees an attempt “in the pride of talent and of wisdom … to frame a new path to happiness”; and the consequences, he continues, were such as to render him “a warning, where the various virtues with which he was endowed ought to have made him a pattern.” In one of his visits to London he met “Vanessa”――Esther Vanhomrigh――to whom he offered the same Platonic friendship, with nearly the same results. The girl died of grief and “hope deferred.” Another version of his luckless love-affairs asserts that he ultimately married Stella, but refused to live with her, and visited her formally the same as before.

Swift’s fits of avarice were great sources of amusement to his visitors. It is said that he occasionally allowed some guests of his, ladies of high rank, a shilling each to provide for themselves when asked to dine with him. Another such droll tale, but rather illustrating the contrary disposition, is told of him by Pope: “One evening Gay and I went to see him. On our coming in, ‘Heyday, gentlemen,’ says the doctor, ‘what’s the meaning of this visit? How came you to leave all the great lords you are so fond of, to come hither and see a poor dean?’ ‘Because we would rather see you than any of them!’ ‘Ay, any one that did not know so well might believe you. But since you are come, I must get some supper for you, I suppose?’ ‘No, doctor, we have supped already.’ ‘Supped already? That’s impossible! Why, it is not eight o’clock yet. That’s very strange; but if you had not supped, I must have got something for you. Let me see; what should I have had? A couple of lobsters; ay, that would have done very well――two shillings; tarts, a shilling. But you will drink a glass of wine with me, though you supped so much before your usual time only to spare my pocket.’ ‘No; we had rather talk with you than drink with you.’ ‘But if you had supped with me, as, in all reason, you ought to have done, you must then have drunk with me. A bottle of wine, two shillings. Two and two is four, and one is five――just two and sixpence apiece. There, Pope, there’s half a crown for you, and there’s another for you sir; for I won’t save by you, I am determined.’ In spite of everything we could say to the contrary, he actually obliged us to take the money.”

Among the literary practical jokes he sometimes played was a book of prophecies he published in ridicule of a yearly almanac of predictions by one Partridge. The chief event foretold was the astrologer’s own death on the 29th of March, 1708. As soon as the date was past an elaborate account of Partridge’s last moments and sayings came out in “a letter to a person of honor.” Partridge found it hard to persuade people of his continued existence, and, having once complained to a Doctor Yalden, was repaid by the latter by an additional account of his sufferings and end by his supposed attendant physician. The poor man was driven frantic; he says the undertaker and the sexton came to him “on business”; people taunted him in the streets with not having paid his funeral expenses; his wife was distracted by being persistently addressed as Widow Partridge, and was “cited once a term into court to take out letters of administration”; while “the very reader of our parish, a good, sober, discreet person, has two or three times sent for me to come and be buried decently, or, if I have been interred in any other parish, to produce my certificate, as the act requires.” Sir Walter Scott remarks, as an odd coincidence, that in 1709 the Company of Stationers obtained an injunction against any almanac published under the name of John Partridge, as if the poor man had been dead in sad earnest.

Unsatisfactory as was the homelife of Dean Swift, Alexander Pope’s is scarcely more pleasant to look back upon. He was never married, and his best associations with home were through his mother, whom he loved dearly. But his continual ill-health and misshapen body made him miserable, and he himself calls his life “one long disease.” Fame he won early, but it did not sweeten his spirit. His early life was spent near Windsor Forest, at the village of Binfield, where his father, a prosperous tradesman, retired with his fortune of £20,000 when the boy was twelve years old. Instead of putting this money in the bank, he kept it in the house in a strong chest, and drew upon the sum for all he wanted for many years, by which method it was considerably lessened before his son inherited it. Many of the despicable traits or foolish weaknesses of Pope’s character were due to his sufferings. He was deformed in person, and so feeble that he had to be dressed and tended like a child. He was laced in stays to keep him erect, and was so small that at table it was necessary to place him in a high chair. Dr. Johnson says that “his legs were so slender that he enlarged their bulk with three pair of stockings, which were drawn on and off by the maid; for he was not able to dress or undress himself, and neither went to bed nor rose without help.” He wanted help even in the night, and would often call up a servant for coffee or for pen and paper; but he was lavish of money to compensate for the trouble he gave, and a servant in Lord Oxford’s house once declared that so long as it was her business to answer the poet’s bell she would not ask for wages. In other respects, however, Pope was absurdly miserly, and one of his habits――that of writing his verses on the backs of letters and other loose leaves and scraps――got him the nickname of “paper-sparing Pope.” It was his friend Swift who originated this saying. He was hardly thirty when his _Homer_ had gained him an independence, and he set up his own house at Twickenham, though he still passed half his time at his parents’ home at Binfield. Twickenham had the charm of society, which to Pope was a great solace. Here he gathered a circle of admiring friends; for the place was a kind of centre of literature and fashion. Lady Mary Montagu, with whom he fell in love and then quarrelled, was his neighbor; Bolingbroke lived at Dawley, and Lord Burlington at Chiswick. Fine court people and “elegant company,” as he writes, flocked to visit him, and, though he enjoyed it, he seems to have been partly discontented with it. It was the weak protest of the higher nature, dwarfed but not crushed by the lower. His filial piety shines out as a redeeming point in his selfish, narrow, loveless life, and it never wearied of its prolonged task; for his mother died at ninety-three (in 1733), at his house, and he mourned her deeply and tenderly. Another good and innocent trait was his love of gardening, though it was but the formal, lifeless gardening of his day, when the taste prevailed for grottoes and masonry and clipped trees. He writes to Swift: “The gardens extend and flourish.… I have more fruit-trees and kitchen-garden than you have any thought of; nay, I have melons and pineapples of my own growth.” To another friend he writes: “I am now as busy planting for myself as I was lately in planting for another [his mother], and I thank God for every wet day and for every fog that gives me the headache, but prospers my works. They will, indeed, outlive me, but I am pleased to think my trees will afford fruit and shade to others when I shall want them no more.” It is said that Pope introduced the weeping willow into England. The story runs that he discovered some twigs wrapped round an article sent from abroad, and planted one of them in his garden. A willow sprang up, from which numberless slips were taken, some to be planted in England, others to be sent abroad. The old tree died in 1801. Its life seems to have been but a short one. Pope’s grotto still remains, but the rest of the garden has been sadly changed and disfigured by partition and building. He also made a tunnel under the public road, on each side of which his property lay. This reminds us of a peculiar tunnel diving under the Parade at Ramsgate, on the Channel, and leading to a grotte or series of catacomb-like passages in the chalk cliff overlooking the sea. This is on the Pugin property, and there are like galleries, we believe, a little further, leading from the gardens of Sir Moses Montefiore.

Richmond, adjoining Twickenham, is as classic ground in its literary associations. Here Thomson, the author of _The Seasons_, lived for the twelve last years of his life, at a pretty cottage called Rosedale House, now much altered and enlarged. But the summer-house in the garden remains the same as it was in the poet’s time. “It is,” says Mr. Howitt, “a simple wooden construction, with a plain back and two outward-sloping sides, a bench running round it within, a roof and boarded floor, so as to be readily removable all together. It is kept well painted of a dark green, and in it stands an old, small walnut table, with a drawer, which belonged to Thomson.” A tablet let into the front of the alcove above bears the following inaccurate inscription:

HERE THOMSON SANG “THE SEASONS” AND THEIR CHANGE.

His famous poem was composed several years before, and begun when he had scarcely a roof over his head. The first part, “Winter,” was written in a lodging over a bookseller’s shop, to whose master he sold the poem for three guineas. It was neglected until a clergyman, “happening to turn his eye upon it, was so delighted that he ran from place to place celebrating its excellence.” Would such simple means be enough now to herald a new author, although literature is supposed nowadays to be so much more respected and lucrative a calling than in the last century? Before this stroke of luck Thomson had been drudging as a tutor, teaching his patron’s little boy of five years old his alphabet, and wasting his Scotch university education in such dreary pursuits. He had been brought up for the Presbyterian ministry, being himself a Scotch minister’s son; but he found himself unfit for that calling, and set out from Edinburgh for London “to seek his fortune,” with a little money and some letters of recommendation tied up in his pocket-handkerchief. He had no sooner reached London than both were stolen, and this misfortune was soon followed by a worse――the death of his widowed mother. After the happy hit of his “Winter,” however, he had no more trouble; the patrons of literature took him up, his poems sold fast, and he completed his _Seasons_, while also throwing off minor works, all equally admired by his contemporaries, though not equally deserving. His writings were always moral and just; he never flatters or plays with vice, and it has been said of him with truth that he never wrote a line which, dying, he would wish to blot. We think the same could be said of Wordsworth. But if private morality did not suffer through him, public laxity in the sphere of politics did; that is, he was innocently part and parcel of a corrupt system of place-giving, irrespective of fitness for the office. It was the vice of the age, alike in church and state. He held at different times two sinecureships in the gift of government――one the Secretaryship of Briefs in the Court of Chancery, the other the general surveyorship of the Leeward Islands. In his private life he was fortunate; he travelled abroad with Sir Charles Talbot’s eldest son, he visited all the people worth knowing, and was flatteringly received by all, his means were ample, yet he was not altogether happy. He was crossed in love by a Miss Young, whom he addresses in his poems as Amanda, and who cast him off for an admiral. His love, to judge by his letters, was earnest and true; writing to her during their short engagement, he says: “If I am so happy as to have your heart, I know you have spirit to maintain your choice; and it shall be the most earnest study and pursuit of my life not only to justify but to do you credit by it.… Without you there is a blank in my happiness which nothing can fill up.” His disappointment increased his melancholy, and, indeed, made his faults come into worse relief; but he lived only five years after it. Like many whose struggles have not been very hard or lengthened, he believed too much in luck and grew careless and indolent; his ambition was to live in peace, in luxurious dreams, in easy, social fellowship. He was kind but apathetic, and as careless of himself as of others, so that, though he had money enough to live more than comfortably, he was once arrested for a debt of seventy pounds. The actor Quin, as was often the case with friends of those detained in a “sponging-house” in those rollicking days when such confinement was not supposed to entail any disgrace, went to see him and ordered supper from a tavern close by. When they had done, Quin said seriously: “It is time now, Jemmy Thomson, we should balance our accounts.” The poet, with the instinct of a debtor, supposed that here was some further demand he had forgotten; but Quin went on to say “that he owed Thomson at least £100――the lowest estimate he could put upon the pleasure he had derived from reading his works; and that, instead of leaving it to him in his will, he insisted on taking _this_ opportunity of discharging his debt. Then, putting the money on the table, he hastily left the room.”

A ludicrous anecdote is told of Thomson, which, if not true, is typical of his undoubted indolence――namely, that he would wander about his garden with his hands in his pockets, biting off the sunny side of the peaches that grew upon the wall. He was fond of walking, however. Laziness often brings dirt in its train, and Johnson, himself no Rhadamanthus on this score, calls Thomson slovenly in his dress, while other biographers aver that he took care only of his wig. His barber at Richmond said he was very extravagant about it, and had as many as a dozen wigs. One other fault is hinted at: his love of drink, so that the moral poet was not so exemplary in his life as in his works; but he was honest, truth-telling, a good friend and master, as well as a clever, imaginative, and cultivated writer.

It is curious to note how many poets have been bachelors. Gray, too, was one. The son of a well-to-do London citizen, he was sent to Eton and Cambridge, and at the latter place spent many years of his later life. He was emphatically a student, rather cold and fastidious in manner, but a devoted son and a true friend. His mother “cheerfully maintained him [at college] on the scanty produce of her separate industry.” He travelled with Horace Walpole, and learned modern languages in his wanderings, and was one of the first English sight-seers at Herculaneum. On his return to England his father died, and he and his mother lived at West Stoke, near Windsor, where he wrote his famous _Elegy_. One of his early friends, Richard West, son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a kindred spirit, learned, young, and poetical, but indolent, writes affectionately to Gray: “Next to seeing you is the pleasure of seeing your handwriting; next to hearing you is the pleasure of hearing from you.” Soon after the premature death of his young friend Gray went to live at Cambridge, and ten years later his happy, quiet life was disturbed by the death of his mother――a blow he never recovered. Towards the close of his life, thirteen years later, he writes to a friend: “I had written to you to inform you that I had discovered a thing very little known, which is that in one’s whole life one can never have more than a single mother. You may think this obvious, and what you call a trite observation. You are a green gosling! I was, at the same age, very near as wise as you; and yet I never discovered this with full evidence and conviction――I mean till it was too late. It is thirteen years ago, and seems but as yesterday, and every day I live it sinks deeper into my heart.”

His favorite study at Cambridge――first at Peter-house College, then at Pembroke Hall, between which places he spent nearly forty years of his life――was Greek, taking, as he said, “verse and prose together, like bread and cheese”; but his only public office was the professorship of modern history, the duties of which he was, through ill-health, unable to fulfil. The stiffness of his bearing and fastidiousness of his dress made him a favorite butt of the undergraduates, and his real attainments, intellectual as well as moral, were wholly powerless to restrain within due bounds that spirit of mischief which the gravest “dons” themselves confess to in their own far-off youth and heyday. One of these jokes was the reason of his leaving Peter-house in indignation and removing to Pembroke Hall. Gray had a nervous dread of fire, and always kept a rope-ladder by him in case of danger. One night the “boys” “placed exactly under his bedroom window a large tub full of water, and some who were in the plot raised a cry of ‘fire’ at his door. Gray, terrified by the report of the calamity he most dreaded, rushed from his bed, threw himself hastily out of the window with his rope-ladder, and descended exactly into the tub.” The two bars to which he fastened his ladder are still to be seen at the window of the chambers he used. But in later years, when the fame of his scholarship was greater, the men crowded to see him when he walked out. “Intelligence ran from college to college, and the tables in the different halls, if it happened to be the hour of dinner, were thinned by the desertion of young men thronging to behold him.” He is said to have been thoroughly versed in almost every branch of knowledge then cultivated. Besides the classics, European modern history and languages, painting, architecture, and gardening occupied his thoughts, and the more modern studies of criticism, political economy, and archæology were not forgotten. Metaphysics also were familiar to him. His taste in natural scenery was of a noble kind; mountains and heaths were his favorites. When in the Scottish Highlands, he writes to a friend: “A fig for your poets, painters, gardeners, and clergymen that have not been among them; their imagination can be made up of nothing but bowling-greens, flowering shrubs, horse-ponds, Fleet-ditches, shell grottoes, and Chinese rails.”

In that age of artificiality this was a great step forward. Men affected to be appalled by the savageness of life away from the capital; they magnified the fleeting, ignoble gossip of their taverns and coffee-houses into affairs of sublime importance. A country-house to them was a doll’s house, a toy near London, tricked out with fantastic imitations of foreign curiosities; a full, healthy, natural life was their horror. But Gray, though of this age, was not of this clique; he lived outside the world of fashion and coffee-houses; his travels, and especially his studies, gave his mind a wider range. This cannot be said of poor, jovial, unlucky Goldsmith, the jest of Fortune, the Micawber among poets. There is a wonderful disparity between his miserable, shiftless life and the fame of his works, both prose and poetry. He is one of the most popular of poets and novelists, and his life was one of the most checkered, though uniformly unlucky, that ever were. Before he was twenty he wrote street ballads to earn bread, but was ready to share his pittance with any one poorer than himself. One winter night he gave the blankets off his bed to a shivering creature, and “crept into the ticking to shelter himself from the cold.” Never did avarice come near his heart; indeed, his indiscriminate charity often brought him into sore straits. He was for two or three years a sizar at Dublin University――a sad position since the old generous days when the church protected and encouraged poor students, and foundations that still remain were made for their support. _They_ indeed remain, but the spirit of charity and Christian brotherhood that inspired them has gone, and poor scholars find the universities as worldly a place as any other, and have to go through a fiery ordeal to gain knowledge. At last Goldsmith, goaded by the contempt and insults he met with, even from his tutor, who once knocked him down, ran away to Cork with one shilling in his pocket. He once told Sir Joshua Reynolds “that of all the exquisite meals he had ever tasted, the most delicious was a handful of gray peas given him by a girl, after twenty-four hours’ fasting.” Refusing to become a clergyman, for which career he felt unfitted, he studied medicine with small success, though he managed to get a degree after such a tour through Europe as reminds one of the mediæval students’ doings. He started with a guinea in his pocket, one shirt to his back, and a flute in his hand. He led village dances on the green, and beguiled the evening hours of the gossips at the village inn, a barn being often his sleeping-place. But he had also another resource――the mediæval one of supporting theses before the learned faculties of foreign universities. Having thus, as it was laughingly said by his friends, “disputed” his way through Europe, he came back to London, still a beggar, and found a wretched home among beggars in Axe Lane. How often must that tragedy of disenchantment have been played out before the eyes of those human moths who come to London and other great centres “to seek their fortune”! For one that swims a thousand sink, and each success is built upon the accumulated failures of others perhaps no less intellectually endowed. The weary tramp after situations, the timid offer of services that no one wants, the despairing hint that the lowest wages will be more than welcome, the cold dissympathy that need and shabby clothes almost always involve, and all this repeated two, three, four times a year, is enough to break the spirit of any man not endowed with the eagle’s courage. There is hardly much to choose between the miserable avocations which poor Goldsmith was driven to take up to keep himself from starving. Once he was a chemist’s assistant in Monument Yard; then a poor doctor on his own account, in the still poorer neighborhood of Southwark; then, worse than all, an usher (or under-master) in a small school. “I was up early and late; I was browbeat by the master, hated for my ugly face by the mistress, worried by the boys within, and never permitted to stir out to meet civility abroad.” Then he turned to that most uncertain yet fascinating pursuit――letters, his old love. It barely kept him alive; he was dunned and worried; lived in a wretched attic, and wore clothes too shabby to go out in, except after nightfall. In these days of brilliant gas-lit shops and streets even that comfort would have been denied him. He was a bookseller’s hack, and wrote to order, and was naturally delighted at the chance of an appointment as surgeon on the coast of Coromandel; but this fell through, unluckily for himself, though not for posterity. Goldsmith had a dog, to whom he taught simple tricks, which were as great a vexation to the poor animal as his own troubles were to the master (selfish human beings, how little we follow the lesson. ‘Put yourself in his place’!), and this faithful companion was a great solace to him.

The way in which the _Vicar of Wakefield_ was given to the world is too well known to be more than glanced at. Version and counterversion of the scene have been given by Johnson and others; it is pitiful to think that such a book should have depended upon the chance of his being able to get out to offer it to a publisher. While Goldsmith sat a prisoner in his own room (it is still shown at Islington, London) Johnson took the treasure and sold it for sixty pounds. It is to be hoped the author changed his landlady after her behavior to him in arresting him for his rent; but perhaps she had some provocation, for when he _had_ money he did not always put it to the wisest purposes. Others, too, must have been either foolishly trusting or deliberately kind; for he owed £2,000 at his death, one of the bills being the famous one at his tailor’s for the plum-colored coat made in elaborate fashion. “Was ever poet so trusted before?” exclaimed his friend Johnson. Among the friends who mourned his premature death (he was only forty-five) were some poor wretches whom out of his own poverty he had helped and befriended.

The year Goldsmith died, 1774, Robert Southey was born, a man whose life was in all respects different――shielded, domestic, happy, and uneventful. “I have lived in the sunshine,” he says of himself. He worked hard and was thoroughly happy, singularly unambitious, but imaginative and enthusiastic. He was born at Bristol, and his early school-life and holidays with an eccentric aunt were among his most cheerful reminiscences. This old lady, Miss Tyler, was one of those excruciatingly neat housekeepers who make every one about them uncomfortable. “I have seen her,” writes her nephew, “order the teakettle to be emptied and refilled because some one had passed across the hearth while it was on the fire preparing for her breakfast. She had a cup once buried for six weeks to purify it from the lips of one she accounted unclean. All who were not her favorites were included in that class. A chair in which an unclean person had sat was put out in the garden to be aired; and I never saw her more annoyed than on one occasion when a man who called on business seated himself in her own chair; how the cushion was ever again to be rendered fit for her use she knew not.” Dust was of course her pet aversion, and she took more precautions against it “than would have been needful against the plague in an infected city.” Southey was adoringly fond of his mother, from whom he inherited “that alertness of mind and quickness of apprehension without which it would have been impossible for me to have undertaken half of what I have performed. God never blessed a human creature with a more cheerful disposition, a more generous spirit, a sweeter temper, or a tenderer heart.” In all this the happy poet was her counterpart. He went to Westminster School, then to Balliol College, Oxford, but distinguished himself rather by feats of physical prowess than by hard study. He learned to row and swim, and lived a healthy out-door life, as he had done in his childhood when he roamed the country round Bristol with Shad, his aunt’s servant-boy. Vice and dissipation had no attractions for him, though there were but too many opportunities for self-indulgence at the university. At nineteen he wrote his first epic poem, “Joan of Arc.” He was an enthusiastic republican, and one of the most eager supporters of the Pantisocracy scheme――a social Utopia, to be realized by a handful of young emigrants, who were to choose some tract of virgin soil in America, and support themselves by manual labor, while their wives would undertake all domestic duties. Their earnings were to go to a common fund, and their leisure hours be spent in intellectual exercises. Of course the pleasant dream faded away, and the group of destined companions dispersed; but three of the enthusiasts married three sisters at Bath, and some bond of the old time was kept up for many years by this connection. Southey’s marriage was not made public till the return of the bridegroom from Portugal, where he had promised to accompany his uncle, on the very day his marriage took place. His bride kept her maiden name and wore her wedding-ring hung by a ribbon round her neck until her husband came back, when she went with him to London, where they bravely lived and struggled on a narrow and uncertain income. He too, like many other poets, had refused, from conscientious motives, the prospect of a comfortable provision in the National Church, and preferred to live by his own exertions. The consequence was that he too often lived from hand to mouth; yet his home circumstances were so bright that he never seems to have been in the same gloomy “circle” of the literary “Inferno” as most of his brothers. When he was thirty he settled at Greta Hall, Keswick, in the Lake country, among the mountains, and there, incessantly at work with his pen, he refused many a lucrative offer which would have drawn him from nature to the distractions of London life. He was as fond a father as he had been a son, romped and played with his children, wrote nonsense verses for them, like poor Thackeray, and yet never neglected their more serious education. “Every house,” he used to say, “should have in it a baby of six months and a kitten rising six weeks.” Once, when invited to London by some great man, he writes: “Oh! dear, oh! dear, there’s such a comfort in one’s old coat and old shoes, one’s own chair and own fireside, one’s own writing-desk and own library; with a little girl climbing up to my neck and saying, ‘Don’t go to London, papa; you must stay with Edith’; and a little boy whom I have taught to speak the language of cats, dogs, cuckoos, jackasses, etc., before he can articulate a word of his own――there is such a comfort in all these things that _transportation_ to London seems a heavier punishment than any sins of mine deserve.” During an absence in Edinburgh he writes to his wife: “What I have now to say to you is that, having been eight days from home, with as little discomfort as a man can reasonably expect, I have yet felt so little comfortable, so great a sense of solitariness, and so many homeward yearnings, that certainly I will not go to Lisbon without you――a resolution which, if your feelings be at all like mine, will not displease you.” His happy life was as regular as clock-work: drudging, money-making work, reading, _siesta_, poetry, meals, long rambles, each had its appointed time, and his days were as full as they were happy. The domestic propensities which worldly men called his ruin and the marrers of his prospects of rank and wealth, were in reality what inspired his poetry, and thus made him immortal. His poetry belongs to our century, yet such a stride have we made――we will not say forward in the sense of greater excellence, but in that of utter difference――since his time that we venture to include him in this sketch, reckoning by his birth and early struggles, which after all made the _man_, and thus moulded the poet.

Melancholy, unhappy, restless Cowper was, with all the love and care he elicited from good and devoted women, a great contrast to Southey. He was terribly sensitive, clinging, loving, but somewhat weak. The picture of the boy of six years old playing with his young mother’s dress, pricking the pattern of her gown into paper with a pin, as he describes himself in the pathetic poem on the receipt of his mother’s picture, is a touching and suggestive one; for his mother died when he was a child, and he never forgot her for the fifty remaining years of his lonely life. This portrait was sent to him by a cousin in his old age, and he writes thus in answer to the gift: “Every creature that bears any affinity to my mother is dear to me, and you, the daughter of her brother, are but one remove distant from her.… I kissed it [the picture] and hung it where it is the last object that I see at night, and of course the first on which I open my eyes in the morning.… I remember a multitude of the maternal tendernesses which I received from her, and which have endeared her memory to me beyond expression.” Cowper’s house at Olney was not a cheerful one, and his frequent fits of madness, or monomania, lasted sometimes for months, and even years. They took the shape of religious despondency about his soul; he was “only in despair,” he said, and often attempted to kill himself. His second mother, who devoted her life to him, the widow of a clergyman, Mrs. Unwin, saved his life many times over; he could not bear any other companion, yet it was part of his delusion that she disliked him. Every one has heard of his fondness for his hares, the first of which came to him as a chance gift, to save the creature from being killed by a negligent little boy; so at one time he had a large “happy family” gathered around him, whose hutches, cages, and boxes he amused himself by making. Some of these contrivances were novel and ingenious. Three hares, five rabbits, two guinea-pigs, a magpie, a starling, a jay, two gold-finches, two canaries, two dogs, a squirrel, and a number of pigeons gave him plenty to do, besides his garden, of which he was equally fond. When he had succeeded in himself making two glass frames for his pines, he playfully wrote: “A Chinese of ten times my fortune would avail himself of such an opportunity without scruple; and why should not I, who want money as much as any mandarin in China?” Cowper’s friends all had something to do with his poetry. His poem “To Mary,” in which he notes the constant clicking of her knitting-needles, was a tribute to Mrs. Unwin, and many of his early verses were suggested by her; the “Task” and “John Gilpin’s Ride” (written, he says, in the saddest mood, and as a forced antidote to that sadness) were subjects given him by Lady Austen, a warm-hearted, impulsive woman; and his cousin, Lady Hesketh, and her sister Theodora, his only love, from whom he was parted in his first youth, and who remained single for his sake, inspired some of his tenderest and most delicate verses.

Lady Hesketh, writing to Theodora from Olney, gives the following sketch of their friend’s life in its more tranquil and happy aspect: “Our friend delights in a large table and a large chair. There are two of the latter comforts in the parlor. I am sorry to say that he and I always spread ourselves out on them, leaving poor Mrs. Unwin to find all the comfort she can in a small one, half as high again as ours and considerably harder than marble.… Her constant employment is knitting stockings, which she does with the finest needles I ever saw, and very nice they are――the stockings, I mean. Our cousin has not for many years worn any others than those of her manufacture. She knits silk, cotton, and worsted. She sits knitting on one side of the table, in her spectacles, and he on the other side reading to her (when he is not employed in writing), in his. In winter his morning studies are always carried on in a room by himself; but as his evenings are spent in winter in transcribing, he usually, I find, does it _vis-à-vis_ Mrs. Unwin. At this time of the year he always writes in the garden, in what he calls his _boudoir_. This is in the garden. It has a door and a window, just holds a small table with a desk and two chairs, but, though there are two chairs, and two persons might be contained therein, it would be with a degree of difficulty. For this cause, as I make a point of not disturbing a poet in his retreat, I go not there.”

So the dreamy, strange, yet often too realistic life of Cowper passed away toward the last decade of the eighteenth century, and, like most poets, he has left behind him the immortalized memory of the pure and noble women who loved him with the love of a guardian angel. No man ever needed it more, and in this case indeed God tempered the wind to the shorn lamb.

LETTERS OF A YOUNG IRISHWOMAN TO HER SISTER

FROM THE FRENCH.

DECEMBER 12, 1868.

With the fall of the leaves of autumn the cemeteries become populous. The year 1868, as formerly 183-, will have been fatal to great men. Berryer is dead! A great voice silenced. “I shall not, then, see the happiness of France!” he said a little time before his death――this holy death which has worthily crowned the good and noble life of a man exceptionally great both as regards the intellect and the heart. How all things pass and fade away! Oh! how sad is this world, in which so many separations and farewells are the prelude to the last great separation at death. Violeau, the sweet Breton poet, in writing to his friend Pierre Javouhey, said:

Adieu, toujours adieu! C’est le cri de la terre. L’homme n’est que regrets en son cœur solitaire: Le bâton voyageur, le voile et le linceul Dans l’ennui de ses jours l’ont bientôt laissé seul!

Adieu, always adieu! It is the cry of earth. Man in his lonely heart is all regrets: The traveller’s staff, the veil, and [last] the shroud, In the weariness of his days, have left him soon alone.

Alone! It is one of the sadnesses of earth. On high is the great meeting again, and the great and eternal happiness!

It is not only the death of the great orator lamented by France which makes me write to you so sadly, dear; it is that Isa has taken the veil, and we are going away. I cannot be so selfish as to consent that my mother should spend a second 1st of January far away from her Brittany, which she loves with the same fondness that I love Ireland, and I have myself fixed our departure for the 20th――only a week hence! I should like to hold back the sun. We all go to-morrow to Gartan.

_Isa_ is already in heaven; her mother reproaches herself for not having divined her daughter’s longing, and resigns herself to this separation better than I could have believed possible. It is true that Lizzy is all that is delightful, and gives up to her the sweet little Isa almost entirely.

Sarah, the radiant Sarah, came to me yesterday in trouble; her sister writes to her distressing letters. Neither the enchantment of Spain, the brilliant position of her husband, nor the princely state in which she lives are able to satisfy this poor heart, to whom the first condition of human felicity――_visible affection_――is wanting. This was Sarah’s expression. “I understood her at once,” she said. Another disappointed life, unless, indeed, the dear young wife should courageously accept her trial. Will this ardent, simple, and perhaps too-confiding nature be altogether downcast at finding her hopes deceived, or will she cast herself on God, and serve him in his poor? We must help her to do this, must we not? The Père Charles Perraud, the Lent preacher of two years ago, is preaching the Advent at Sainte-Croix. The _Annales_ quote the following words of Père Gratry: “It was this same Charles Perraud, this being so entirely of the same nature, his equal in goodness, greatness, and intellect, who during the whole of his short life was his brother and companion-in-arms.”

Read an article by Alfred Nettement on the three La Rochejacquelein. More mourning! Mgr. Pie has presided over the last obsequies of the Comte Auguste, and Mgr. Dupanloup over those of Berryer. The Comte de Chambord thus sees those who have remained faithful to him disappear one by one. This great family of the Bourbons appears to have been predestined for the deepest sorrows. Don Carlos is at Paris; he was to have gone to hunt at Chambord, but the death of the Comte de la Rochejacquelein has made him give up his intention. Spain has had her ’93. The despoiled and exiled Jesuits are come into France. Queen Isabella is at Paris. How poor are the times we live in! It seems as if every noble enthusiasm were extinct, and the whole world eaten up with the frightful leprosy of selfishness. _Sursum corda!_ Would that I could raise them all!

Shall I tell you of the immortal festival of the Immaculate Conception, this glory of our age and of Pius IX.――become to us an _unforgetable_ day since the sacrifice of Isa?

What memories! The Mass, the hymns, the crowd that filled the chapel, the betrothed of Christ so beautiful beneath her veil, the sermon, the last kiss, the last embrace, the tears――all these things cannot be narrated.

Dear Kate, let us pray for Ireland.

DECEMBER 18, 1868.

I want to write to you once more from this room, where I have so loved you, dear Kate.

_Rorate cœli desuper et nubes pluant Justum._

Threw a rapid glance over an article in the _Union_――a sort of contrast between Berryer and Lamennais. From the first few lines I recognized the lion’s paw; it is only Alfred Nettement who can write thus. What a grievous difference between these two grand figures, and what an abyss of sadness in these lines: “The grave-digger asks, ‘Is there to be a cross?’ M. Bocher answers, ‘No; Lamennais said, ‘Nothing shall be put over my tomb.’” In the Christian world nothing is talked of but an admirable letter of Mgr. Dupanloup upon the Council. I have read the letter of thanks of the Holy Father.

Kate dearest, I am going away full of serenity and hope, since this departure is the will of God. We have seen almost everybody; these two last days are reserved for intimate friends. All our preparations are made. Most of the drawing-rooms are already closed, and this gives me an impression of mourning. Jack’s desire has been granted: he died peacefully yesterday evening while René was finishing the prayers for the dying. Thus there is nothing more to keep us. I could not bear the idea of leaving this good old man.

Margaret promises me to come from time to time to give a little life to this isolated spot and visit Edith, so sorrowful at our departure. Nothing would be easier, my dear, than to take her to Brittany, or even to Orleans; but the doctor is utterly averse to this project, and only undertakes to cure her on condition that she does not quit Ireland.

Edward at first manifested a sombre despair, but we have succeeded in calming him. The two _Australiennes_, whom we have tamed with so much difficulty, have their eyes full of tears when they look at us.

Adieu dear Kate.

DECEMBER 31, 1868.

No more of balmy Ireland! but still the family, kind hearts, pleasant society, walks and drives, concerts among ourselves, study, the poor, and that which is worth all else――prayer. Ah! my God, on the threshold of this new year I render thee thanks for the so many and great benefits with which thou hast overwhelmed me. How sweet, O Lord! is thy love. Bless the church, France, my country, my family. “When will eternity come, in which endless centuries will pass as one day?”

René wrote to you the morning of our arrival, and told you of the Christian calm of our adieux, so full of hope. Is it not a delightful and wholly unmerited happiness to have had this long sojourn in Ireland, when I had not expected to be able to remain there more than a month at the most?

Three happy things to-day. Kate, Margaret, and Isa are come to me in three letters, which I have just read over again to enjoy their charm. Margaret announces a _resurrection_. Lady R――――, the recluse, whom no one remembered ever to have met _anywhere_, has been going out for a month past. I am rejoiced to hear it. I have so much desired it, and so often asked it of God. But side by side with this unexpected news is a shade――death; but death smiling, heaven opened, and an angel taking flight from earth to return to God, and to pray for those who remain in this vale of tears, where the love of God has spared her from a lengthened sojourn: our dear little Victoria G――――, the interesting orphan, is gone to heaven. What would she have done in this world without guide or parents?

Quand on est pur comme à son âge, Le dernier jour est le plus beau![157]

Emmanuel grows, “and is determined to live.” Margaret is admirable in her goodness. It is this which I find so attractive in her; there is nothing in the world preferable to goodness. Lizzy has been in great distress for some days, her little Isa being threatened with the croup. Poor mothers!――always anxious and tormented while on earth. O the sorrows of mothers! Nothing touches me more; all my sympathy is for them. They have here below the most immense joys and the most heartrending anguish. What happiness must it be to have a child of one’s own, to pray by his cradle, to consecrate him to God from the dawn of his existence, and to see one’s self live again in him!

Kate, Kate, I do not tell you how greatly your pages touched me. What wishes shall I offer you this evening that I have not offered a hundred times before?――wishes for holiness, happiness in God, and of a blessed union in eternity. May every one of your days add a flower to your crown, my beloved!

JANUARY 3, 1869.

The year is begun; shall we see it close? Marcella was most particularly kind and sweet on the 1st of January. I sent to the nearest station an enormous package addressed to you, for your chapel and poor; have you received it? The _three graces_ put into it some bunches of violets. Our Brittany is charming, notwithstanding the winter. Edith has written a long and kind letter; she is regaining her strength. Mistress Annah, whom I asked to send me full details, tells me of the amiability of the two children, who are making real progress, and are scarcely to be recognized since the _terrible_ brother is no longer there. Adrien takes him to-morrow to a friend who has some business at Paris. You cannot imagine what this child is. René assures me that there is in him the making of a saint. God grant it! He frightens me.

Picciola grows and grows――not only in height, but also in virtue. Thérèse and Anna follow her; but, in any case, my darling advances with wonderful rapidity. I have taken up Homer again, whom I am translating from the open book. How much I prefer reading Bossuet or Joseph de Maistre!

Lizzy sends me four pages of news――many particulars respecting Isa the saint and Isa the angel, about the mothers, friends, etc.; but the flower of the basket is that Mary Wells has entered a convent. Again another who chooses the better part!

To-morrow the _Saint of the Seacoast_ is coming here; we shall try to keep her. What an enjoyable life it is in this Brittany, the sister of Ireland! We have installed with the keeper a blind old man, to whom René reads every day, and who is a model of patience. If his eyes are closed to earth, they are truly open to heaven, of which he speaks luminously.

I speak to you but seldom of Hélène. She lives but for sacrifice, and has entirely broken with the outer world since the day of which René told you. Every three months a sign of life to her mother. O Gertrude! _her_ life is a martyrdom!

God guard you, dear Kate!

JANUARY 12, 1869.

Visit to _M. le Curé_ with Picciola. This poor presbytery, close to the church and the resting-place of the dead, reminds me of Lamartine:

“Là jamais ne s’élève Bruit qui fasse penser; Jusqu’à qu’il s’achève On peut mener son rêve Et le recommencer. Paix et Mélancolie Restent là près des morts, Et l’âme recueillie Des vagues de la vie Croit y toucher les bords.”[158]

We are reading the Chronicles of Brittany for the instruction of the children. What quantities of warm knitted articles are made during our evenings! The good aunt of _M. le Curé_ often comes to our manufactory. She is a very amiable woman, most charitably indulgent, something of an artist, and enjoys an opportunity for conversation; my mother is always pleased to see her. The good _curé_ is scarcely ever in his presbytery; he is a Breton: and what need I say more?

René is unwell. He has a superb indifference about his health, and this makes me uneasy. Tell him to suffer himself to be taken care of, and to forget the outside world a little. He has a truly apostolic soul――always seeking out some good to do, and utilizing even his moments of leisure. How far I am behind him!

Our life is become an encampment; and, as Raoul says, we only want turbans and bournous to be Arabs altogether. Already there are sounds of departure, and yet it is so pleasant here! The _Saint of the Seashore_ remained with us two days. “Adieu until eternity!” These words made me start: has she had any warning of death? I have made her promise to write to me on the slightest symptom of illness. Picciola offered her some violets. “Thanks, dear child; I shall guard them carefully and lovingly. I am passionately fond of flowers, because I see in them an emblem, and because all the hearts of men are the flowers of the garden of God.”

Letter from Margaret, who is sighing after our next meeting, and complains of my silence and, what is a more serious matter, of that also of Kate. Marcella writes to you; she is perfection.

Dear Kate, here is Isa’s photograph. Is it not herself, with her gentle look, full of deep melancholy, and her graceful and dignified attitude? Every one here says that she is made to look older than she does; but to my eyes she is always charming. Her little hands, the prettiest that an artist could dream of, can only be guessed at under the well-represented folds of her wide sleeves. Lizzy has just lost her father-in-law――dead from a sudden attack. Would that I could turn aside all the sadness of a soul so worthy of happiness as hers! I have read to Picciola the _Evening Prayer on board Ship_, and feel a sort of envy at such emotions. To behold the ocean, and find one’s self a small and feeble creature between sea and sky, a mere speck in immensity; to see other skies, other shores; to contemplate the wonders of the New World, the virgin forests and unknown regions, nature in her primitive and magnificent beauty――all this must enlarge the soul. Distant voyages would indeed be enjoyable, were it not for the departures and farewells.

I salute your good angel, my very dear Kate.

JANUARY 22, 1869.

Listen to what _my brother_ is reading to me: “Learn to dwell in the Wound of the Heart of Jesus. Would you develop your desires, and bring forth good works? It is the nest of the dove. Do you love meditation? It is the retreat of the solitary sparrow. Do you love tears and sighs? It is there that the turtle-dove makes her moan. Are you hungry? You will there find the heavenly manna which fell in the desert. Are you athirst? There you will find the fountain of living water which flows out of Paradise, and sheds itself abundantly in the heart of the faithful.”

Kate dearest, my heart is always with you. We shall be at Orleans on the 1st of February. It is a great pity to leave the country, where everything is green and flourishing. My brothers wish to go to Paris, and I wished very much also to go thither with them; but René has asked me to employ the money that this journey would have cost in clothing a whole family from the South, just arrived here in a pitiable condition. To refuse would have been to show myself unworthy of him or of you. Thus our meeting again is indefinitely postponed. A saint once said: “Not to do good enough is to do a great harm.”

Anna, the attractive Anna, is feverish again, and it is partly on her account that my mother presses us to go to Orleans, where we shall consult several physicians. May not our temperature disagree with this southern flower? What a poor thing is life, in which anxiety is always at the side of happiness!

Would you like to have the following from Gertrude’s journal? It was written at the time when she was beginning to divine Hélène’s desire: “Grant, O my God! that this sacrifice may be possible to us; place my child at a distance from her cup of sorrow, take her in the morning of her life, all white, young, fair, loving, and beloved, my God――so ardently and piously beloved!”

Read _Alix_, a beautiful book by Mlle. Fleuriot. It is a book which gives one repose――a story of our Brittany: Paula, Mme. de Guenharic, two strong-minded women, the Beatitudes, so attractive, the grave Raymond, the fiery Tugdual, interested me intensely. Then this beautiful and poetic Alix, the lily of Goasgarello, too early plucked; this sweet young girl who was too well loved to die――how much her story touched me! And this book is fact. Alix personifies the lily of St. Brieuc, the beloved pupil of Mlle. Fleuriot, the chosen one of her heart. Ah! how death is everywhere snapping the purest affections.

Picciola spends part of her recreation-time with _The Children of Captain Grant_. She praised the book so much that it made me wish to read it, and truly I find it full of interest from beginning to end. What a talent for description and contrasts!

Dear Kate, pray for us and for Anna, that there may not be another violent separation. My mother is writing to you. I have news of Margaret from Lord William, who is like another brother to us.

I have made Marcella, who did not know any of Lady Georgiana Fullerton’s works, read _Ladybird_. This book has astonished our dear Italian, because she did not expect to find in it so much powerful emotion, but she considers it admirably written and only too painfully probable. The beautiful Gertrude――a noble intellect, but entirely without direction――who through so many storms preserves her purity; the father devoid of affection; the Spanish mother, consumed by suffering, but whose mind would have exercised so powerful an influence over that of her daughter; M. d’Arberg, a hero and martyr of Christian self-devotion; the angelic Mary, whose gentle character beams throughout all the narrative like a reflection of heaven――all this is interesting, perhaps far too much so. René, to whom I mentioned Marcella’s impressions, said in answer: “I do not like these exciting dramas, but rather such readings as give rest to the mind, and I can understand what St. Augustine meant by saying that he could not enjoy any book in which there was not to be found the name of Jesus. ‘The name of Jesus is a name of delight,’ says St. Bonaventure; ‘because, meditated upon, it is nourishment; uttered, it is sweetness; invoked, it is an unction; written, a reparation of our powers, and in all that we do it is a guide and support.’ St. Philip Neri also says: ‘The name of Jesus pronounced with reverence and love has a particular power of softening the heart.’” Dear and beloved sister, _pax vobis et nobis!_

JANUARY 29, 1869.

The corridors encumbered with packages, the windows without curtains――everything shows that we are going away. Anna constantly has this fever, and the poor mother a sword in her heart. The twins pray earnestly, our poor make novenas. How impatient I am to be at Orleans! The good doctor from Hyères, the devoted friend of Marcella, will be there also on the 3d, to give his opinion respecting the dear child’s state. May God be with us!

Have been out with René. Marcella never leaves her daughter. My sisters are busy with their children. Gertrude helps my mother in her correspondence. Visits to our dear neighbors who do not move about. The _Southerns_ are installed in a tolerably comfortable cottage, the father has found some work, the young daughters will be employed as needle-women by our kind neighbors and in the village; all is satisfactory with regard to them. Edward writes heartrending letters to his good friend René. He declares that he will run away, and other things of the same sort. Pray for this little volcano, dear Kate.

A letter from Karl, whose first steps in the priesthood are rewarded by joys truly celestial. Oh! what grandeur is in the sacerdotal life; but also what sacrifices. I forgot at the time to tell you of a visit we paid the old English _Homer_, whose daughter was the involuntary cause of Margaret’s trouble. Oh! how beautiful she is. Tall, _very_ tall, with black eyes full of mental vigor, luxuriant hair, remarkable purity of diction. Another flower for the cloister. Will not so many excellent souls obtain the redemption of England?

Kate dearest, with you I ask of God: _Trahe me post te_; or rather I would say. _Trahe nos._ A thousand kisses.

FEBRUARY 10, 1869.

“My son, let not thy soul give way beneath the labors which thou hast undertaken for me, neither suffer thyself to be discouraged by affliction, but at all times let my promise strengthen and comfort thee.” René has just read me these words, by way of consolation for Marcella’s departure. Alas! yes; she left us yesterday, very tearfully, with the doctor. She will again inhabit her châlet. I would willingly have offered her the one consecrated by the death of Ellen, but this association! Anna is so pale and weak, apparently undermined by the fever which never quits her. The doctor shook his head in a manner which did not augur hopefully. I questioned him apart. “You have carried away this pretty little one from us too soon, madam,” he said. “She needs the sun, the Mediterranean, the orange-trees, and the perfumes of the South. I do not conceal from you that I greatly dread for her the isolation in which she will shortly find herself.” I was dreading it also. René had an inspiration: “If Madeleine were to go as well?” “The graceful young girl who always looks at me with tears in her eyes?” “The same.” “If you will believe the testimony of my medical experience, monsieur, this child is also threatened.” I could not restrain a cry of pain: “O my God! my God!” “Pardon me, madam,” said the good doctor; “on no account whatever would I afflict the family of Mme. de Clissey, but if you love this pretty creature, do not keep her here.”

I was obliged to make a strong effort over myself to conceal the terrible impression these words had made upon me. I obtained from the doctor, who wanted to start immediately, a few days’ delay. God aided me, dear Kate. Lucy, who is just now very much indisposed, suggested that Edward should accompany Marcella, and, as Anna was inconsolable at leaving us, Berthe confided her daughter to the care of Lucy. The _four_ set out to-morrow; see how our home-party is lessened. You will perhaps wonder that we are not all going to Hyères. My generous mother had thought of it; but, besides the fatigue she feels, notwithstanding her green old age, from these frequent changes of place, her sons have important reasons for passing the winter here, and I cannot leave her, even for Marcella. Moreover, my purse is quite exhausted, and I shall find it necessary to be rigorously economical in order to provide for the needs of my poor. I have been considering what retrenchments I could make in my own expenses. What do you advise me, dear Kate? I am afraid of mistaking superfluities for necessaries.

You can understand the grief of my heart. Marcella and I were as one single soul, and this morning, in my meditation, I was considering whether I had not loved her too much, and sacrificed more useful occupations to the pleasure of being with her. I spoke about it to René, my other conscience. “I do not think so,” was his answer.

Let us pray for the travellers, dear and excellent Kate.

FEBRUARY 20, 1869.

Comme un agneau cherchant le serpolet qu’il broute Laisse un peu de sa laine aux buissons de la route, Sur le chemin des jours est-il un voyageur Qui ne laisse en passant un débris de son cœur?[159]

Margaret writes to me, regretting Marcella for my sake, and promising to spend the summer with us. Marcella sends me beautifully long letters every day, so that I am, as it were, present with her in her daily life. In order that Anna may not be fatigued, the party makes lengthened halts; the doctor is like a father to the poor little one. Lucy is installed, charmed to have Picciola. You understand that the dear and devoted Lucy is in our secret, and is going to attend carefully to this other beloved invalid. But Lucy is so lively; she has no experience, none of that sorrowful experience which gives one the habit of taking care of others, and therefore, in order to be quite at ease, I am sending Marianne, whom I have temporarily replaced by a young Bretonne. Will it not be better thus? And, then, I can count upon the doctor. Pray and get prayers for us, dear Kate! Picciola has been growing too fast. Berthe has not the shadow of a suspicion; she has seen in this an opportunity of doing good, and also of preparing the twins for the sacrifice which circumstances may demand of them later on. Teresa occupies her thoughts by study; the good _abbé_ is alarmed at her progress. Alix and Marguérite are charming; but where are the absent? I do not like empty places.

The _Annals_ publish some letters on the Catechism by Mgr. Dupanloup. They are the most delicate and beautiful revelations, and show in all its excellence this apostolic soul. He depicts in his unique style his emotions as catechist at Saint-Sulpice, and we find here that love of souls, and especially of the souls of children, which has produced his finest pages upon education. There is an admirable passage upon Albert de la Ferronays, speaking of his fervor. And then the great bishop returns to the subject of this child grown into a young man, and assisted by him in his last moments: “He had been always faithful. Possessing a mind full of vivacity, and the most tender of hearts, he kept them both in subordination, giving them only to God and to a creature angelic as himself whom he met with on his way and married in Italy. She did not then belong to the Catholic Church, but, being led onward and persuaded by the virtues and example of her husband, and perhaps also by sorrow, she made her first communion by the death-bed of Albert, who thus had the ineffable and supreme consolation of making his last communion together with her whom he had loved best upon earth.” He adds that “these two souls were like two angels, and an apparition in this world of the beauty of heaven.” The Père Meillier, Superior of the Lazarists of Angers, is preaching the station at Sainte-Croix, and the Père de Chazournes, author of the admirable life of the Père Barrelle, preaches at St. Paterne.

Benoni is charmingly beautiful. I make him pray for our invalids, and go myself daily to Notre Dame des Miracles. Oh! surely no more death, dear Kate.

FEBRUARY 27, 1869.

Our Italians have again found their beautiful sunshine, and for two days past Anna has had no fever, and Picciola is less pale. Marianne has been charged to send me every three days an exact bulletin of every hour and every minute. The devoted attention of the doctor is unequalled; he regulates everything, meals, sleep, and the times of going out. Marcella says, “This man is to me, as it were, an apparition of Providence.” Think how she must suffer, especially when she reflects that so long a sojourn in the North has been injurious to the delicate chest of her child. Oh! I cannot believe it, when she has so much loving care. Alas! what can affection do. Just now I was told about Madame de C――――, left a widow a year ago, whose husband was insane, and who has now lost her child, the only happiness of her life. The angels who take flight are not those who are to be pitied.

MARCH 5, 1869.

Tolerably good news of the _exiles_. But I have painful forebodings. René gently scolds me for my sadness. Pray for our sick ones, dear Kate.

The great poet Lamartine is just dead. Doubtless at his last hour his mother’s God, the God of his earliest years, consoled and softened his dying moments. Oh! these great minds misled, these sublime dreamers who wander out of the right way, what sorrowful pity they inspire. How everything passes away and dies! I was reading this evening that M. Guizot, writing to one of his friends, and telling him that he is teaching his little children to read, adds: “I know of only three lives here below: family life, political life, and Christian life; I am leading the first, with the memories of the second, and the hopes of the third.”

Read _Anne Séverin_, by Mrs. Craven, author of the _Récit d’une Sœur_. The style is perfect. The angelic women who appear in it, the Catholic youth of Guy, the fragrance of Christian sentiment which pervades the impassioned descriptions of these pages, combine to make them present a beautiful whole. Mme. Bourdon has reproached this work with having shown us three generations living by love alone; she recalls the answer made by Alexandrine when reminded of the happy days she had spent with Albert: “I no longer think of those days.” Alexandrine was, as it were, transfigured by the love of God, and such sacrifices as hers are not required of every soul.

Did I tell you of my happiness at again seeing Sainte-Croix? I prefer our cathedrals of stone to the most beautiful churches of Italy, always excepting Saint Peter’s at Rome. It is so calm, so solemn, so Catholic! I cannot resist the pleasure of transcribing for you a fine passage by the eloquent Abbé Bougaud, in one of his discourses, I do not now remember which: “There is in the grandeur of Christianity at Orleans, in the touching beauty of its influence, in its permanent union with the destinies of the city, a monument which speaks more than any words. Whether Orleans was reached, as formerly, by ascending the Loire by steamboat, or whether, as now, by descending upon it on the railway, the first objects which attract observation are the spires and towers of Sainte-Croix. They have changed in form and aspect, and have been by turns ogival, romanesque, perhaps Byzantine――splendid always. In the full Middle Ages they were called by a historian ‘the eighth wonder of the world,’ and still, at the present time, whoever has seen them once loves to see them again, and whithersoever our studies, our reveries, or business take us, we never fail to return to them with pleasure or to salute them with emotion. Place near to this grand basilica, like two satellites, St. Euverte on the one side, with the tombs of its ancient bishops and its triple cemetery, Gallo-Roman and Christian, and on the other St. Aignan, with its precious relics, borne at times on the shoulders of kings, and its crypt, visited by all Christendom, and you will have some idea of what Christianity has been at Orleans, or, if you like it better, what would have been wanting to this city had not Christianity been there with its mysterious beauty and its touching influence. Throughout the whole of this edifice, constructed at a period when men no longer knew how to build anything similar, in this cathedral, which must have cost efforts so prodigious, and which has been so justly called ‘the last of the Gothic cathedrals,’ appear engraven in indelible characters the two qualities which make the glory of Orleans, _Fidelity and Courage_.”

I do not talk to you about the sermons, not having been able to go and hear any at present. We have all had severe colds on the chest. My life is quite changed since I no longer have Marcella and Picciola. Perhaps I have been wrong to give up my heart in this manner. Oh! but then it is because the heart is so vast. Happy they who have asked God alone to fill it! This is what I say in my sadness, and it is wrong, since God’s goodness and mercy to me have indeed been marvellous. O dear Kate! if separation from a friend is so painful to me, what, then, would it be if Heaven were to deprive me of the sweet and strong support which it has bestowed? How much I hold to this world! Scold me, dearest, but love me.

MARCH 10, 1869.

You have _wound me up_ again, dear sister; a thousand thanks. Oh! how cowardly I was; I was afraid of suffering――that friend of the Christian, that visitor from God, that messenger from eternity!

Four letters: first, Marcella, who blesses Providence for the improvement of her child――the fever has disappeared; second, Picciola, my delicious flower, who says to me the prettiest things in the world; third, Margaret, who is counting the days by the side of Emmanuel’s cradle; fourth, Edith, who feels herself stronger. By the way, the fiery Edward is becoming reasonable; his professors entertain the best hopes in his regard. Marianne wrote to me yesterday. She is not yet reassured respecting our sick child. You may imagine what precautions are taken to be careful about her without her knowledge. Dear, sweet little soul! she spends all that her purse contains for the benefit of the indigent. The amiable colony writes to us _en masse_. Nothing can be prettier than these _gazettes_. I had thought of sending them to you, but my mother makes them her daily reading. Edouard herborizes, composes music, sings, occupies himself with history, _rocks the babies_――that is to say, he amuses and plays with the children. Marcella organizes parties of poor people, gives lessons to two young girls without fortune who have been recommended to her by the doctor. Lucy is at the head of the household affairs; arranges and regulates everything with her graceful vivacity, and heartily enjoys this pleasant life. Anna and Picciola (according to the same chronicle) study a little and amuse themselves much. Gaston is becoming a man. Then we have details, incidents, stories about birds, flowers, lambs, children. Edouard, the _editor_, assures us that our presence alone is wanting to complete the charms of the South.

Gertrude has entered the Third Order of St. Francis. The days are not long enough for the duties she has created for herself; there is not a single pious work with which she is not in some way connected; she writes and receives innumerable letters, and spends, without reckoning, her gold, her time, and her heart. With all this, she is always serene; never is there a shadow on her beautiful brow, never a sorrowful glance towards the past. Adrien is even more ardent than she, if that could be possible; there is no kind of sacrifice which they do not both make for the good of souls. A few days ago, on entering Gertrude’s room, I observed that her time-piece, which is a valuable work of art, had disappeared, and remarked upon it to her. She blushed, and turned my attention to other things. I have since learnt from René that this time-piece has been sold to a rich Englishman, and its price sent to the missions. No more expensive toilets, no more amusements, no more frivolous expenses. Gertrude does not even see any more the things of which she once was fond. I suspect that Adrien also has joined the Third Order.

The name of Johanna does not often occur in my letters, nor yet that of Paul. This is unjust, for both of them love my Kate. You will be so good as to pray especially for this sister of your sister on the 15th and the 20th. Marguérite, Alix, and Thérèse, the tall and serious Thérèse, scarcely ever leave me. And how pretty also is Jeanne when she sends kisses to Madame Kate! O youth! how sweet a thing thou art, with one’s family and country.

I wept with you for the Prince Royal of Belgium. The thought of Picciola makes me forgetful of many subjects when I write to you. “By as many languages as a person knows,” said Charles V., “so many times he is a man.” “By so many times as any one is a father,” adds some one else, “so many times over does he live.” In reading the account of this death, I thought of all the hearts who are weeping or who have wept by a cradle from whence a life has fled.

The beatification of Madame Elizabeth is under consideration. The Cathedral of Orleans possesses a treasure which may soon become a precious relic, an alb in _guipure_ which was formerly a _robe-de-fête_ worn by the pious princess. At Notre Dame des Doms at Avignon is preserved a chasuble made out of the last dress worn at the Conciergerie by Marie Antoinette. Paul and Johanna have seen this chasuble.

Could you have fifty Masses asked for at Notre Dame des Victoires, dear Kate, on behalf of my mother? We are getting some said almost everywhere.

May the blessings of Jesus and Mary be with you!

MARCH 15, 1869.

René is writing to you, and, quick! here I am, dearest. Good news from everywhere. My correspondence is inexhaustible. I attended yesterday upon a worthy man, somewhat peevish, who declared to me that I was _clumsy_. I begged his pardon for it. The fact is he suffers fearfully from a cancer in the leg. And he is poor, with a family! It was my good angel who led me thither; no one visits them, and they are so embittered by misfortune that pity is, to them, insupportable. I took Marguérite and Alix with me this morning, and they were so sweet and amiable that I obtained permission from the peevish man to do whatever I like. And plenty there is to be done! The most indispensable things have been sold. Pray for these unfortunates, dear Kate, and receive my tenderest affection.

MARCH 19, 1869.

Communion at St. Paterne, where there was a multitude. Beautiful singing. The organ, and a little exhortation by the Père de Chazournes for the closing of the Paschal retreat. On returning, great joy; a little child is born to us, and to us a son is given. Johanna is doing well. Paul is in transports. The house is upside down.

Jeanne is asking to see the angel who brought her brother. At eleven o’clock, to do honor to Saint Joseph, I took the young ones to Sainte-Croix, then to the Calvaire and Recouvrance. There was in the two latter churches exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. A profusion of flowers and lights, and an unwonted splendor, which delighted me, I had so much to ask, so much to pray for. Pray with us, dear Kate, for this pretty innocent who is just arrived, that he too may become a saint!

Gertrude’s forgetfulness of self is admirable. Berthe and Johanna wonder unceasingly at her disinterestedness and detachment from this world. Little by little she despoils herself of all worldly superfluities; sells her jewels one after another, her collections also, of which, some time ago, she was _fanatically_ fond. Kate, in her place I think I should be dead. I should never console myself, if I were a mother without children. And what a mother she is! If you could only see her by the cradle of the little new-born babe, or when she is teaching anything to the other children! What sweetness of language! What tenderness of expression! Ah! poor broken heart which has twice given up its universe. God is with her!

My cross man has consented to change his lodging; and now they are installed, eight in number, in a healthy and airy street, where I have furnished three small rooms. The new abode is bright in its cleanliness; the mother wept for joy on entering it. The poor man, who still shows some repugnance to my attentions, was carried thither. His wound is frightful. I have found work for the young daughters, and the little ones go to the Christian Brothers. The mother, worn down by grief and privations, with her sight weakened by weeping, is incapable of any employment. Thérèse helped me to install them, and we shall go and see them frequently. That which I am most anxious about is to draw them nearer to God.

Picciola is no better; Anna is very well. Let us continue to pray! All that I do, thoughts, prayers, actions, go to one end――these two cures. Shall I be heard?

Found in the _Annals_ a good article on “Eugénie de Guérin.” The flower of it is this: “There is an interior and private literature; this is as superior to the other as the soul is to the body; it is that of Eugénie de Guérin. This literature of the heart has pages which no other can ever equal. It [the _Journal_] is an attractive book, and one of the best which could be offered to the human soul. It bears a double character of mystery and of intimacy which centuples its value. What pleasure the reader finds in believing himself also regarded in the light of a confidant! To have this intimate secret is to live alone with the writer; it is to have a species of love which is charmed with what is whispered into the ear, and with what it confidentially answers itself. The soul of Eugénie de Guérin truly resembled the first created by God, a _living soul_, taking from and giving to all things around her that life whose divine fire she possessed in the highest degree. It was a soul open to heaven, a _winged soul_, which rested a moment upon all things in succession, but always to rise again towards heaven, singing like the lark, or else moaning like the dove.”

“The faith which penetrated all the faculties of Eugénie de Guérin,” says M. Nicolas, “had in it nothing romantic, nothing dreamy, nor even ideal; it was a clearly defined and positive faith, the faith of a good woman in a nature of the highest distinction; it was the nature of a child and of a bird, springing and warbling, gathering all the happiness it met with, and carrying it home to be enjoyed in its nest. The sorrow in which she was plunged by the death of Maurice was extreme. This sorrow arose, as it were, from its bed and beat upon her faith as the sea beats upon its shores. But her _Journal_ was eminently secret; she there freely poured out, in the bosom of God alone, the grief which she restrained within herself before men. This _Journal_ was to her a Garden of Olives, where she went apart to faint.”

Kate dearest, I will no longer disturb your solitude but with a joyful _Alleluia_. All here love you dearly, beloved sister of my life.

TO BE CONTINUED.

[157] When one is pure as at her age The last day is the fairest.

[158] “_There_ never stirs a sound which inspires thought. One can carry on a reverie to its end, and over again. _There_, near the dead, Peace and Melancholy make their abode, and the meditative soul, amid the waves of life, believes itself close upon the shore.”

[159] “Even as a lamb, seeking the wild-thyme on which he browses, leaves a little of his wool on the bushes along his way, so, on the pathway of life, is there a wayfarer who leaves not as he passes some fragment of his heart?”――Violeau.

MODERN MELODISTS.

SCHUBERT.

In the present day, when all musicians, from the purveyor of the _opéra bouffe_ to the composer of sacred music, rival each other in attempting the style which has immortalized Schubert, the time appears opportune for studying the works of the principal melodists. In default of other merit, we may at least lay claim to that of novelty――if, indeed, novelty can have any value when every one is making it his boast. Even Scudo,[160] the only writer who has devoted a few pages to Romance music, has contrived not to say a word about Schubert and the German masters, although, on the other hand, he has thought well to enumerate productions that have fallen into permanent oblivion.

Every people has its popular songs, its religious hymns and canticles, its ballads and romances; but of all these, three principal streams are easily distinguishable――three great melodic currents, from which flow all the rest. These are, firstly, the German _Lied_, to which belong all the Scandinavian, Hungarian, and Sclavonic ballads; then the Italian _canzona_, the primitive type of the music of Southern Europe, and which has apparently some affinity with the _seguidilla_, the _bolero_, the _jota_, and _malagueña_ of Spain――picturesque romances, on which is perceptible, in some indescribable manner, an Arabic impress; and, lastly, as the centre of the intermediate current, the French _chanson_, which, though less profound than the German _Lied_, is nevertheless more true and more emotional than the brilliant vocalizations of Italy and Spain.

How different have the destinies of these three currents proved! Whilst the German stream has flowed on from age to age, enriched in its course by genius and learning, in Italy and France the melodic current, being isolated, has been gradually dwindling to a mere thread, at last disappearing altogether. Not that the French _chanson_ was by any means without its characteristic merit; a charming simplicity, a gentle melancholy, marked its earliest beginnings, and it preserved these characters from the old melodies of Thibaut de Champagne and the _noëls_ of the middle ages to the _chansons_ of eighteenth century. But after this development of a too prolonged infancy it found an inglorious end at the hands of the vulgar songmakers of the nineteenth century. The simplicity of the past now became insipidity, and the _Amédée_ of Beauplan and the productions of Loïsa Puget obtained a success at which future times will stand amazed.

The destiny of the Italian _canzona_ was the same. Its palmy days were those of its infancy, and the innumerable romances which are now to be heard, from the Gulf of Genoa to the Lido, and from the Alps to the Bay of Naples, weary the ear of the wondering traveller. Fertile in its barcarolles of _Viva la Francia_, _Viva Garibaldi_, _Santa Lucia_, Italy has no need to envy France her Beauplan and Mlle. L. Puget.

But whilst the _romance_ and the _canzona_ were thus dwindling away, the _Lied_ was mounting to a marvellous height. “The combined work of the greatest poets――of Klopstock, Schiller, and Goethe――and of the greatest musicians――Haydn, Mozart, Gluck, Beethoven, Weber, etc.”[161]――it followed, step by step, the progress of the art, and, assimilating to itself each fresh conquest of musical science, it acquired, as years went on, increasing richness of harmony and power of rhythm.

It is this style only which merits a careful study. Leaving, therefore, to the learned the care of drawing from oblivion those rare French and Italian songs which are worthy to be rescued, we proceed at once to the consideration of the German _Lied_, and, without seeking into its beginnings or following its development, we will take it at its apogee――namely, when it attained, with Schubert, that perfection of beauty which cannot be surpassed.

Schubert is essentially a lyric genius. Great developments are foreign to his nature; with a few touches he traces the ideal which has appeared to him, but these few strokes suffice to produce a work of imperishable beauty.

Venturing little into public, Schubert, whose timidity was equal to his extreme sensibility, led a quiet and uneventful existence; but, like the Æolian harp, the soul of the lyric poet vibrates to the slightest breath. Needing no inspiration from outward events, it is moved from within by every variety of feeling. It was in the heart of Schubert that the tempests raged which make us tremble; there breathed the sighs of love, and thence arose the wailings of despair. There also he found the sweet sunbeams, the fresh wind, and all the fragrance of the spring. Accustomed to live within himself, he took pleasure in analyzing his own impressions, which he confided to a journal, the greater part of which is unfortunately lost, but the few fragments that remain abound in deep thoughts.

We will quote a few of these confidential lines, which will form the best introduction to the immortal songs which he has left us, as well as the best commentary upon them:

“Sorrow,” he writes, “quickens the understanding and strengthens the soul; joy, on the contrary, renders it frivolous and selfish.”

“My works,” he says elsewhere, “are the offspring of my intellect and my grief. The world appears to prefer those which my grief alone has created.”

If we would know what were his thoughts upon faith, we find him writing as follows: “Man comes into the world with faith. It precedes by a long distance either reason or knowledge. _To understand, we must first believe._ Faith is the ground into which we must drive our first stake――the base for every other foundation.”

He one day wrote to his father: “My ‘Hymn to the Blessed Virgin’ has moved the hearts of all: every one seemed to think my piety something wonderful. This, I think, is because I never force my devotion, nor ever write hymns and prayers unless I feel a real inspiration to do so; for then only is it true devotion.”

On another occasion he comes home greatly impressed by a magnificent quintette of Mozart’s he had just been hearing, and on a stray piece of paper writes these words: “The enchanting notes of Mozart’s music are still resounding in me. Thus do those beautiful productions, which time cannot efface, remain engraven in the depth of our souls. They show us, on beyond the darkness of this life, the certainty of a future full of glory and of love. O immortal Mozart! what imperishable instincts of a better life dost thou implant within us.”

O immortal Schubert! we in our turn may ask, Who shall express the emotions evoked by thee in our hearts?

That which chiefly characterizes the melodies of Schubert, taken as a whole, is their depth of feeling. He is never at a loss to find accents which go at once to our hearts. He makes us weep with Rosemonde and love with Marguérite; “The Erl King” (_Le Roi des Aulnes_) freezes us with terror, and hurries us on, in spite of ourselves, towards the mysterious abyss of the legend; in “The Young Nun” (_La Jeune Religieuse_) we are made in turn to experience the sufferings of the struggle and the final transports of the soul’s victory over sense.

To know Schubert well, we must see how he has expressed the different sentiments of the human heart――not love and terror simply, but infinite varieties of intermediate and moderate feeling; and in these we shall find, as his common characteristics, grace and brilliancy.

“Haud ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco.”

Who shall sing of love unless he knows its pains? Schubert has felt it all――its timid tenderness, its ardent passion, and it may be its despair. In his “Pensées d’Amour” are not these six bars the unfolding, as it were, of a heart which is opening for the first time, like a bud in the sunshine of a spring morning?――when

“Eden revives in the first kiss of love”

(thus sings yron). A happy dream; a tenderness as shy as it is deep――were these ever rendered with a more delicate charm?

After this sweet and tranquil reverie follows impassioned devotion. The “Serenade” is too well known to require that we should linger over it. Who does not recall the appeals of that supplicating voice, and the plaintive answers of the accompaniment?

How immensely inferior for the most part are the serenades to which public favor has given a celebrity! All the masters of the modern Italian school have sung under a balcony; and without going so far back as Stradella, whose lovely romance in D minor has nothing in common with the modern _Lied_, we will say a few words on the serenades of _Le Barbier_ and _Don Pasquale_, which appear to be the most extensively known.

The one addressed by Almaviva to Rosina――or, to speak more accurately, to the public――seems to us unworthy of Rossini’s reputation. A phrase, rather wanting in fulness, some passages for the voice, a few organ touches――this is all; the whole, however, very well written for giving relief to the fine notes of a tenor. But this is not enough to constitute a _chef d’œuvre_; and probably Rossini was thinking of this kind of music when he boasted before Bellini that he wrote from his mind rather than from his heart, at the same time assuring the young man’s simplicity that this was “_quite sufficient for the worthy public_.”

The serenade in _Don Pasquale_ is graceful and coquettish. If Donizetti intended this declaration of love to be taken merely as a jest, he has perfectly succeeded.

M. Gounod has written several serenades, without including his “Aubades.” To speak of the former only, the serenade of Mephistopheles “Vous qui faites l’endormie,”[162] in _Faust_, is not wanting in charm, though something more incisive would be better suited to an infernal singer. The famous serenade, “_Quand tu dors_,”[163] has less originality than the foregoing, although agreeably written for the voice. It is an excellent vocalization, which, more than once, Bordogni must have regarded with a jealous eye. It is not until the _andante amoroso_ that it expresses anything like passion. As to the serenade of the page in _Romeo and Juliet_, it is inferior again to its two elders.

To find a serenade comparable to those of Schubert, we must address ourselves to Mozart. Who that has heard _Don Juan_ does not remember the marvellous contrast, long since remarked by critics, between the melodious phrase, full of character and tenderness, and the light accompaniment which falsifies every word uttered by Don Juan? Love is on his lips, while mocking indifference is in his heart.

In the expression of suffering, desolation, and despair we shall find that Schubert is greater still; and mention as examples “Rosemonde,” “Marguérite,” and “Les Plaintes de la Jeune Fille.” The artist, following his inspiration, renders the same thought under very different forms; he finds in his soul deep and varying shades which escape the vulgar and are the marks of true genius. In all these three works Schubert has to express the grief of a forsaken maiden, but with what consummate art, and yet what truth, he has known how to vary his accents! In reading these melodies in the order already named the emotion goes on increasing up to the end.

In “Rosemonde” we hear the complaint of a soul which knows the sufferings of abandonment, but not the pangs of despair. After an introduction in F major full of sweetness and tenderness, the opening of the melody in F minor impresses us painfully; but about the middle of each of these strophes the young girl, recovering, with the A natural, the original key, lets us plainly see that she still has hope.

Marguérite hopes no more. From the very opening we feel troubled by the agitated movement of the accompaniment: it is like the sorrowful murmur of the soul preceding sobs of anguish, and is prolonged still for a moment after the unhappy girl has said for the last time, “_C’en est fait; il m’oublie――l’ingrat que j’aimais!_”[164] What accents of abandonment have we here! On the words, _Mes jours sont flétris_,[165] grief swells almost to madness. But Marguérite, presently recovering herself, retraces the past, and seems to see again her lover. Again she cries:

“Pour moi tout va finir. Un seul moment reviens encore, Un seul moment te revoir et mourir!”[166]

Her suffering has become almost insupportable. She stops, and the agitation continues only in her heart. After a few bars she resumes in a low voice: “_C’en est fait, il m’oublie_,” etc., and the melody ends on the fifth, then a very new effect, though now frequently employed.

If, after a short pause, we read the “Plaintes de la Jeune Fille,” we are soon under the influence of an entirely different emotion. The agitation of the preceding melody is changed for a more self-contained but even more poignant pain. The maiden, ripened by long suffering, confides to the tossing waves the woe which consumes her. A solemn and lugubrious phrase escapes her; her words are slow, her sorrow fearfully calm. Ten years of tears and contemplation were needed to change Marguérite to this.

To find repose from violent emotions we need not have recourse to any other than Schubert, among whose eminent characteristics are those of sweetness, gracefulness, and contrasting brilliancy and splendor. From among a multitude of admirable melodies we will mention only “La Truite,” “Le Nautonnier,” and “Le Départ” (“The Trout,” “The Sailor,” and “The Departure”).

In “La Truite” Schubert unexpectedly finds himself met by a great difficulty. If it be true that people are soon tired of descriptive poetry, it is still more incontestable that the descriptive style is ill suited to music.

We must make an exception for certain powerful physical effects, such as tempest under all its forms; and yet here again what we are most sensible of in the storms of Gluck, Beethoven, and Weber is the troubled state of the human mind in presence of the disturbance of nature.

One day, when the genius of the great and good Haydn was taking a nap, it came into his head to attempt to express in his _Creation_ the roaring of lions and tigers, the swiftness of the stag, together with other equally unmusical ideas; he consequently fell into the grotesque. Schubert had to describe the joyous sportings of the trout “in its limped crystal.” He had the good taste to trouble himself very little about it. To find a melodic phrase full of charm and feeling was his first care; and need we say that he succeeded? The light and graceful design of the accompaniment may perhaps remind us of the trout――“His graceful dartings and his rapid course” (“_Ses élans gracieux, sa course volage_”)――but it is nothing more than a detail of the description which comes merely as an addition to the dominant sentiment.

“Le Nautonnier” is the triumphal song of the mariner who, after braving the violence of the tempest, returns safely into port. Rapid as the wind which fills the sails of his bark, agitated as the waves which threaten to engulf him――such is the rhythm of the two first phrases; but soon, with the major and the E flat of the treble, the song of victory bursts forth: man has conquered the force of the elements. This is undeniably one of the most vigorous melodies ever written by Schubert.

“Le Départ” is a no less powerful production. It is not a little surprising to read, as the title of a song by the melancholy Schubert: “Le Départ: Chant de Joie.” It is, in fact, the song of one carried away by a love of change and a thirst for new pleasures――one who can say with Byron that

“I, who am of lighter mood, Will laugh to flee away.”[167]

This song is remarkable for the proud loftiness of its melodious march, and for the ardor which impregnates its rhythm. It is a wonderful intermingling of carelessness and eagerness, the more observable because it was so rarely that Schubert was called upon to express feelings too exterior and noisy for his timid and concentrated nature.

Beethoven, who had made deep acquaintance with human suffering, and in whose wondrous pages it is expressed with so much power, would nevertheless at times sing also his notes of gladness. He built the immensely grand finale of the “Symphony and Chorus” upon Schiller’s “Hymn of Joy.”

It is a wondrous hymn! After a splendid opening by the orchestra alone follows the phrase in D major, of antique nobleness and simplicity; but, alas! this moment of interior calm is cruelly expiated. The grand phrase is made to undergo successive tortures; after changing into a plaint of sorrow, it becomes a cry of despair, almost of madness.

Elsewhere again, in the incomparable finale of the Symphony in A, Beethoven has sung of joy――joy carried to its utmost limits of enthusiasm and ecstasy. To follow Beethoven in his impetuous course produces an indescribable emotion, less akin to pleasure than to pain, since violent feeling, from whatever cause it may arise, is invariably attended by suffering. Excess, whether of joy or love, is pain, very pure but very penetrating; for it is one of the conditions of our human nature to be unable to rise on high without suffering here below.

“Jamais entière allégresse: L’âme y souffre de ses plaisirs, Les cris de joie ont leur tristesse, Et les voluptés leurs soupirs.”[168]

Besides, after the mysterious nuptial march of the Symphony in A can we be surprised that the joy of Beethoven is only a delusion of the heart, and beneath this feverish ardor must not some great moral suffering be hidden?

But we must return from the digression into which we have been led by the consideration of the “Chant de Joie,” whose great author, however, would not reproach us for it, being himself a profound admirer of Beethoven. We have now to see how Schubert has rendered the sentiment of terror.

Only to name “The Erl King” and “The Young Nun” is a sufficient reminder of the greatness of this composer in the expression of dramatic feeling. These two _Lieder_ are known all over the world; “The Erl King,” more especially, popularized by Mme. Viardot, is one of those few melodies of Schubert which have crossed the Alps and become favorites in Italy.

Criticism has for so long past awarded its admiration to the strangely fascinating song of the black spectre and the terrified cries of the child that it would be superfluous to do more than allude to them; but it will be well to devote a few lines to the consideration of “The Young Nun,” which has been very little studied.

In the first part what an intermingling there is of terror and wild love! Listen to this fragment of two bars, thrice interrupted, more by the storm within the heart than the outward fury of the elements, and thrice resumed with a chromatic scale.[169] After the triple reiteration of ascendants, three new fragments descend, also chromatically, with a bass accompaniment of a lugubrious character, and a harmonic sequence expressive of acute distress:

“Partout l’ombre, Et la nuit sombre; ――Deuil et terreur.”[170]

From the depths of this abyss, with the words _souvenir de douleur_ (remembered pain), which evoke a whole past, there springs up a new thought of exquisite tenderness; and here we have a glimpse of the key of F major, but only for a moment, the melody falling back into F minor.

“_L’orage grondait ainsi en mon cœur_” (Thus rolled the storm within my heart). Here, for the moment, passion carries the day; the three cries of terror, interrupted at the opening, are uttered again, more hurriedly, at the remembrance of this distracting love “which agitated her by day and night,” then a fresh burst of despair recurs in the chromatic descent which takes us back to F minor.

“Ainsi flétrie, ma triste vie se consumait.”[171]

In this line we hear once more, but for the last time and very softly, the gloomy burden of the bass, immediately after which reappears the A natural, which victoriously restores the key of F major. Light has banished darkness, and life has vanquished death.

“_La paix est rentrée à jamais dans mon cœur_” (Peace has returned to dwell for ever in my heart), sings the young nun in an inspired voice. This time the triumph is complete. At the words, “Descend, my Saviour, from the eternal home,” the musical phrase mounts like a thanksgiving hymn. The effect is marvellous, and what is not less so is the fact that Schubert has recourse only to the most natural means to produce it. A simple change of key, the passage in the major――a form so frequently insipid――is, in his hands, invested with a surprising power.

Among the other _Lieder_ of the sombre kind is one deserving especial attention――namely, “The Young Girl and Death” (_La Jeune Fille et la Mort_). In this we are attracted not so much by the beauty of the melody as by the musical problem which it may help us to solve. How ought music to speak of supernatural beings? How is it to be made suitable to the utterances of the Divinity, of demons, or of Death? We have here a serious difficulty. Is it fitting that the musician should put a melody into the mouths of abstract beings? Whatever may be the beauty of the phrase that is _sung_, the effect does not meet the requirements of the case or answer our expectations. Is it, then, needful to have recourse to recitative? But recitative has not the depth demanded by the subject. What, then, must be done? Let us refer to Gluck; this great master has more than one secret to reveal to those who thoroughly study him.

Gluck was the first to discover the most suitable form in which to represent spiritual voices, and so well has he succeeded that no one has been able to ignore his influence. At the risk of being otherwise either cold or ridiculous, it has been necessary for all to adopt, in this particular, his manner.

“_Tremble, ton supplice s’apprête_” (Thy doom is even now prepared), says a mysterious voice to Thoas (_Iphigenia in Tauris_). The phrase, given slowly and softly by voices and trombones in unison, on _re_ penetrates us with a mysterious fear.

In _Alcestis_, listen to the lugubrious effect of the voice of the oracle, saying on a sustained note: “The king to-day must die, if in his stead none other offers up his life.”[172] It is full of a sombre beauty, and the terrible persistency of the rhythm is very expressive of the antique fatalism.

Must it be added that Gluck has proved by his own example the inevitable absurdity of a melodic phrase in the mouth of a divinity who is made to intervene in human events?

Diana appears in order to save Iphigenia and her brother; the goddess sings her _aria_, and we see with pain one of the most admirable _chefs-d’œuvre_ of dramatic music finish as miserably as the utterly forgotten _Iphigenia_ of Piccini.

Again, Mozart wishes to evoke the shade of the Commander; the statue becomes animated and speaks:

“Before the dawning thou wilt cease to smile.”[173]

This phrase, by its harmonies and rhythm, reminds us of the voice of the oracle:

“Le roi doit mourir aujourd’hui.”

Here an objection will probably be made that the statue lays aside this uniform tone, and that Mozart ventures to entrust it with a more melodic phrase. The answer is simple: the form created by Gluck is necessary when the supernatural being preserves its mysterious character, and issues not from the cloud that conceals it from our eyes. But if the statue descends from its pedestal and again becomes the Commander, if the oracle or the god takes a body, if you allow him human feelings, there can be no reason against his expressing them. It is no longer the hidden divinity who dictates an inevitable decree, but one who, having taken the form of a man, speaks in man’s language.

In the same way Wagner, when making gods and genii the personages of his dramas, gives them the accents of the human voice. Mingling among men, they too may well love and suffer, weep and sing.

After Gluck and Mozart,[174] Schubert also makes Death speak; he also accepts as necessary the form given by Gluck. To the young girl’s supplication Death answers by a phrase the rhythm and harmonies of which perhaps too much recall the voice of the oracle in _Alcestis_.

If we may venture to say so, Schubert seems to have found himself in one of those exceptional cases in which the Gluckist form was not suitable. Why this sombre coloring, when Death was doing his utmost to _charm_ the young girl?

“Give me thy hand, nor tremble thus, Enfolded in my arms, thou’lt sink Into a sleep more sweet than life.”[175]

Here a more melodic phrase would appear to us more suitable.

Having no intention of giving a catalogue of the works of Schubert,[176] we will not group together his _Lieder_, but merely observe that all his melodies belong to one of three divisions, which express either love, or splendor, joy, and triumph, or, lastly, terror. Many combine two of these divisions. In “Marguérite” the principal idea is that of love, and the secondary one the drama; on the contrary, in “La Jeune Religieuse” the drama occupies the first place, and the earthly love is subordinate.

Our notice would be too incomplete without at least a rapid survey of the other works of Schubert besides the _Lied_, in which he is unequalled, but he has also tried symphonies, operas, and oratorios. Of his operas, which are numerous, two only have obtained some reputation――namely, _Alfonso and Estrella_, chiefly famous for its reverses, and _La Guerre Domestique_ (The Domestic War), known in France by the name of _La Croisade des Dames_. This charming opera in one act was played with success a few years ago at the Théâtre des Fantaisies in Paris, and in every page could be recognized with pleasure the author of the _Lieder_. Its distinguishing qualities are the touching tenderness of the melody, the brilliancy and delicacy of the organ accompaniment, and the perfection in the manner of writing for the voices.

Schubert undertook also some more extensive works, many of which, unfortunately, were never completed, while the rest are lost in consequence of that absence of care and order which has probably cost us the loss of more than one valuable composition. Ought we to regret that Schubert has not left one great opera in which he might have displayed all his faculties? We think so, although we do not say that he would have proved himself to be a musician like Mozart, a master of tragedy like Gluck or gifted with Weber’s power of fantastic coloring, capable of the sustained passion of Meyerbeer or the powerful developments of Wagner. But tenderness and sweetness would have flowed in streams from his heart, and the work would have been so full of poetry and so rich in characteristic beauties that his place would still have been a glorious one. Who can deny that M. Gounod is a great composer? And yet it would be difficult to name a really powerful page, unless it be the church scene in _Faust_, and the finale in _Sappho_. Posterity will say of him that he was deficient in force, but that Marguérite is very enchanting, _Romeo and Juliet_ full of tenderness, and _Mireille_ of poetry; and doubtless as much as this would have been said of Schubert.

In his symphonies and drawing-room music Schubert, no longer carried on by feeling, frequently fails. The subscribers to the popular concerts of the _Cirque d’hiver_ in Paris have not forgotten the fragments of his symphonies which were at various times executed under the able direction of M. Pasdeloup. These selections were taken from the best, and there was certainly here and there a page which breathed inspiration. But praise like this is no small blame, and it is a severe criticism on a symphony to detach merely an isolated portion from it, and condemn the remainder to oblivion.

What was the reason of this inferiority in Schubert’s symphonic music? One of the most serious appears to be the fact that he had not made a very deep or advanced study of music. He was preparing to study the fugue when carried off by death. Now, it is precisely symphonic composition that demands the most extensive and thorough knowledge of the science of music. Grétry and Montigny, who were but ordinary contrapuntists, have written admirable operas, but we might seek in vain for a great symphonist who had not at the same time a deep knowledge of music as a science.

Besides, Schubert, whose inspirations, as we have already remarked, were essentially lyric, was not in the habit of working out his thoughts, and lacked the capacity for giving them the powerful developments required by the symphony. Spoiled also by his extraordinary facility, he wrote too fast. In a lyric composition like the _Lied_ the facility of the hand is no hindrance to the inspiration, which should be ardent and rapid, but the formation and unfolding, as it were, of a symphony require a powerful inspiration joined to the patient reflection and incessant labor which twenty times over modifies its work before giving its definitive form.

The symphonic music of Schubert will pass away, but he will find a place in the hearts of posterity as the inspired singer of the _Lieder_, the beautiful completeness of which, as a whole, is the result of his having known how to enshrine in these short poems rapid and living dramas, full by turns of joy and sorrow, love and triumph, or despair He was one of those men whose greatness is rather of the heart than the intellect; and if to others great conceptions are due, few like him have given expression to the deepest feelings of the heart, and the most refined and elevated accents of the soul.

[160] _Critique et Littérature Musicales_, vol. i. p. 322.

[161] _Franz Schubert: sa Vie et les Œuvres._ Par Mme. Audley. Paris: Didier.

[162] Thou who seemest to be sleeping.

[163] When thou sleepest.

[164] All is over; he forgets me――the ungrateful one whom I have loved.

[165] My days are withered.

[166] “All soon will end for me. Return again, return one moment more, that I once more may see thy face and die.” In the _Faust_ of M. Gounod we have Marguérite at the wheel. The French composer has treated this scene in a very touching and striking manner, especially on the words, “_Il ne revient pas_.” It is a beautiful page, but not so deep as Schubert.

[167] _Childe Harold._

[168] REBOUL. Not here is perfect joy: Suffering attends the soul’s delights, Our notes of gladness have their sadness, And every pleasure has its sighs.

[169] M. Gounod, in the duo of the first act of _Romeo and Juliet_, has found a chromatic ascendant which has some analogy with that of Schubert, but which, in the hands of the French composer, takes quite a different coloring. Sombre in _La Jeune Religieuse_, it is in _Roméo et Juliette_ sparkling with light. In the line “_Vois ces rayons jaloux dont l’orient se dore_” (“Behold these envious beams which gild the east”) the brilliant ground-work added by M. Gounod contributes not a little to render the effect of light.

[170] Gloom over all And the dark night; ――Terror and woe.

[171] Thus withered, my sad life consumed away.

[172] Le roi doit mourir aujourd’hui, Si quelqu’autre au trépas ne se livre pour lui.

[173] _Tu cesseras de rire avant l’aurore._

[174] Not having space to multiply examples, we say nothing of the Oracle of Spontini, which, moreover, has the form of Gluck.

[175] “_Donne ta main. Ne tremble pas. Tu vas dormir entre mes bras. D’un sommeil plus doux que la vie._”

[176] Schubert is known to have composed more than five hundred melodies, most of which are admirable. Those we mention are merely taken as examples from among numerous others of equal beauty.

NEW PUBLICATIONS

THEOLOGIA MORALIS NOVISSIMI ECCLESIæ DOCTORIS S. ALPHONSI. Auctore A. Konings, C.S.S.R. Editio Altera, Aucta et Emendata. Benziger Fratres, 1876.

We have already noticed the first edition of this work, which is certainly a valuable and excellent one in many respects. It has received the approbation of his Eminence the Cardinal, and of many others of the prelates of this country, has apparently been well received by the clergy in general, and it will not be at all surprising if it becomes the standard text-book of moral theology in the seminaries of the United States. This success it goes far to deserve. It supplies a great want in the treatises previously used, by bringing in many points relating to the laws and customs existing among us; and this alone might seem a sufficient reason for its adoption. It has also many other advantages, partly due to the ability of the author, partly to the works which he has taken (as all writers on this subject must at the present day) for his basis. Among these he has principally followed Gury, adhering more, perhaps, to his language than to that of St. Alphonsus.

But, in spite of the many advantages and excellences of the book, we must enter a protest against its use, at least as the sole authority on which the minds of theological students are to be formed. And this protest is on account of the system of equi-probabilism taught in it, which we should be very sorry to have prevail, both on the ground of its unreasonableness, and on that of its bad practical effects.

We should have no space in a notice of this kind to discuss fully this very important and much vexed question. But the point of our criticism can be sufficiently made by simply referring to the author’s definitions of the grades of probability in opinions (p. 27).

The obvious objection to these definitions, which are made the basis of his system, and which must, indeed, be made the basis of any system of equi-probabilism, is that, according to them, an opinion cannot be notably or decidedly more probable than its contradictory without making that contradictory “not solidly probable,” to use the author’s words, which are the usual technical ones.

Now, we venture to think that such a statement as this with regard to probability would hardly be made in treating of any other subject than that at present in hand. Suppose, for instance, the question to be one of physical science,――that, for example, of the solar parallax. Now, we think we are not wrong in saying that it is decidedly more probable that this parallax is greater than 8-8/10 seconds of arc than that it is less than this amount. Be that as it may, it is certain that there is some value, perfectly ascertainable by methods of computation on which astronomers would agree, for which, in the present state of science, we could say that the probability of the parallax exceeding this value is once and a half times as great as that of its falling short of it. Certainly in this case it would be decidedly more probable that it does exceed this value than that it does not. Yet who would say that the probability of its not exceeding that value was destitute of any solidity?

We may take a case in which probability is susceptible of exact numerical computation. Suppose two balls, one white and one black, to be together in a box, and that we draw twice from this box, putting back the ball drawn the first time. The probability that we shall not draw the white ball twice is three times as great as that we shall; yet would any one say that there was no solid probability of so drawing it? If it was a question of drawing it five times, then the probability of this, being only 1/31 of that of the contradictory, might, indeed, not be “solid.”

The whole case can, as it would seem, be put in the following form: It is agreed, by equi-probabilists, as well as by probabilists, that a solidly probable opinion against the law can be followed. If the former choose to call an opinion only slightly less probable than its contradictory, till its probability becomes so small that it really, in the common judgment of men, ceases to be solid, they depart from the common use of language, but the controversy between them and the latter is merely one of the use of words.

But if the equi-probabilists refuse to call an opinion solidly probable as soon as its probability becomes what men would generally call decidedly less than that of its contradictory (two-thirds of it, for instance), they depart, as seems evident from the above cases, again from the common use of words, and the statement――the complement of the former one, and on which also both parties agree――that an opinion against the law not solidly probable cannot be followed, has, in their mouths, a new meaning, which the judgment of mankind will, it seems to us, hardly accept, and which will lead to perpetual and most embarrassing changes of doctrine and practice. The author undoubtedly believes that he is following St. Alphonsus in his system; it seems to us that he has, with other equi-probabilists, not rightly apprehended the meaning of certain passages in the works of that illustrious Doctor, which seem certainly at first sight to have such a sense. But to discuss this matter would lead us too far.

THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. By Rt. Rev. James Gibbons, D.D., Bishop of Richmond and Administrator-Apostolic of North Carolina. Baltimore: Murphy & Co.; London: Washbourne. 1877.

We have rarely met with a book which pleased us so thoroughly as this little volume of the Bishop of Richmond. It is popular, and is therefore not addressed to the few who are interested in the philosophical and scientific controversies of the age, but to the people, to the multitude, as were the words of Christ. It is a thoroughly honest book, written by a man who loves the church and his country and who is deeply interested in whatever concerns the welfare of mankind. From the start we are convinced of his perfect sincerity. Not to make a book has he written; but he believes, and therefore speaks. It is this that gives value to literature――the human life, the human experience, which it contains. Bishop Gibbons has labored for several years with great zeal in North Carolina and Virginia, where there are few Catholics, where the opportunities of dispelling Protestant prejudice are rare, but where the people are generally not unwilling to be enlightened. Learned arguments are less needed than clear and accurate statements of the doctrines, practices, and aims of the church. Catholic truth is its own best evidence: is more persuasive than any logic with which the human mind is able to reinforce it.

To the right mind and pure heart it appeals with irresistible force; and therefore the great work of those who labor for God is to put away the mental and moral obstructions which shut out the view of the truth as it is in Christ. In setting forth in clear and simple style “the faith of our fathers” Bishop Gibbons is careful to meet all the objections which are likely to be made to the church. He is thoroughly acquainted with the American people; is himself an American; and his book is another proof that the purest devotion to the church is compatible with the deepest love for the freest and most democratic of governments. Sympathy gives him insight, reveals the matter and the manner that suit his purpose best. The skill with which he has compressed into a small volume such a variety of topics, giving to each satisfactory treatment, is truly admirable. He seems to have forgotten nothing, and has consequently produced a complete popular explanation and vindication of Catholic doctrine. We cannot praise too highly the tone and temper of this book.

The author is not aggressive; is never bitter, never sneers nor deals in sarcasm or ridicule; does not treat his reader as a foe to be beaten, but as a brother to be persuaded. His sense of religion is too deep to allow him to make light of any honest faith. We perceive on every page the reverend and Christian bishop who knows that charity and not hate is the divine power of the church; the fire that sets the world ablaze. It is not necessary that we should say more in commendation of this treatise. It will most certainly have a wide circulation, and its merits will be advertised by every reader. Bishop Gibbons has written chiefly for Protestants, but we hope his book will find entrance into every Catholic family in the land.

DEIRDRE. Boston: Roberts Brothers. 1876.

The poet who ventures on an epic in these days deserves well of literature. To turn from the puling, weak, or nauseous themes which form the subjects of most of the contemporary English poetry is in itself a sign of a strong and healthy temperament. Nevertheless, the venture is a bold one. Pretty and graceful lyric verse may pass easily enough and win a transient popularity without challenging any strong comparison, lost as it is in the crowd of its fellows. But when an epic is mentioned, Homer towers up with Virgil in his train; Dante sweeps along; the shade of Milton oppresses us; we are in the company of giants and breathe reverently. The men who grasp epochs of history and human life, and string them into numbers that resound through all the ages, are few indeed. So we say he is a bold man who would follow in their track; but, at least, his ambition is great, whatever be its execution.

The author of _Deirdrè_ is not a Homer or a Virgil; he is not even equal to those fine English echoes of the great masters――Dryden and Pope; and although we do not know him, and are not sure as to who he is, we have little doubt that no man would be readier to concede what we here state than the author of _Deirdrè_ himself. At least, he will consider it no dishonor that his song should wake the memory of those great singers in our mind.

_Deirdrè_ is an Irish story of pre-Christian times. Like the _Iliad_, it has its Helen, who gives her name to the poem, and around her the story centres. The beauty of Deirdrè, like that of Helen, is her curse. Wherever she goes she is a brand of discord. Heroes fight for her, wars are waged for possession of her, great deeds are done in her name, and the end is disaster for all. She is unlike her Greek prototype only in her Irish chastity, pagan though she was. There have been Irish Helens, and the disaster of her race is to be traced to one of them; but they are only remembered to be cursed. Still, the author was at liberty, if he chose, to follow the prevailing taste of the day, and add a spurious interest to his poem by making its heroine unfaithful to her spouse. He has done the contrary. It is the very fidelity of Deirdrè that adds its chief interest to the poem. From the day when first the squirrel cried to her from the tree in the garden where she had been enclosed by the king:

“Come up! come up! Come up, and see the world!”

and she obeyed the promptings of her nature and went up, and for the first time looked over the garden wall and saw “the great world spread out,” she lost her heart, for here is what she saw:

“Three youthful knights in all their martial pride, With red cloaks fluttering in the summer breeze, And gay gems flashing on their harnesses, And on the helm that guarded each proud head, And on each shield where shone the Branch of Red. And, as they passed, the eldest of the three, With great black, wistful eyes looked up at me; For he did mark this yellow head of mine Amid the green tree’s branches glint and shine. And oh! the look――the fond, bright look――he gave!…”

These were the three heroic sons of Usna, and the eldest of the three is Naisi, who finds his way into the charmed forest where Deirdrè is kept by the king until she should grow to an age ripe enough to fit her to be made his queen. The young lady objects――as young ladies will do sometimes――to be disposed of in this manner, and Naisi, having first stolen her heart, completes his theft by stealing herself. They fly from Eman, and Clan Usna accompanies them. The rest of the poem is made up of their wanderings and final luring back to Eman, when the king wreaks his vengeance upon them. With the fate of the sons of Usna and Deirdrè the poem closes.

There is much that is admirable in the whole work. The scenes are wonderfully well localized. One never strays into to-day. The author has completely mastered the difficult geographical terminology, and makes it sweet and pleasant to the ear. The men are cast in heroic mould, and a tinge of chivalry added to them that beautifies and ennobles them. Deirdrè is a sweet, pure, and loving woman; her early youth in the garden of the king is in itself an idyllic gem. The battle scenes are strong and vigorous, and not too long drawn out; a sea-fight in particular is wonderfully well described. The glimpses of natural scenery given here and there are varied and picturesque. Indeed, there is everything that is good in the poem, but nothing that can be called _great_; and greatness is the standard and measure of an epic.

We think the author, too, has been careless in the construction of his verse. It is unequal. Half-rhymes abound: “bird” and “stirred,” “house” and “carouse,” “restored” and “board,” “hum” and “room,” “jollity” and “company,” “heath” and “breath,” cannot be considered good rhymes, yet they are all found within the first three pages. They are to too great an extent characteristic of the whole. Then there is an abundance of weak and commonplace couplets, such as the following:

“The earth’s dark places, felt himself full sad, He knew not why, and sent, to make him glad.”

* * * * *

“From the bright palace straightway to his house, That they might hold therein a gay carouse.”

* * * * *

“Yet higher rose the joy and jollity Of the Great King and all that company.”

* * * * *

“Till morn’s gay star rose o’er the golden sea, And sent to slumber all that company.”

* * * * *

Now, such lines should never have passed the censorship of one who can give such other lines as these:

“Whose fierce eye o’er the margin of his shield Had gazed from war’s first ridge on many a field.”

“Many a field” is weak, but the picture is very good. Strange to say, the two lines immediately following are these:

“Unblinking at the foe that on him glared, And might be ten to one for all he cared.”

The epic spirit contained in the last line needs no comment.

Again, here is a strong picture:

“Since Mananan, the Sea-God, first upthrew _The wild isle’s stony ribs unto the blue_.”

And here a sweet one:

“… Then from her forehead fair She brushed a silken ripple of bright hair That from the flood of her rich tresses stole, _And looked with wordless love into his soul_.”

Sometimes we fall upon lines that we fancy we have heard before――as these, for instance, which anybody might claim and not be proud of:

“The merry village with its sheltering trees, The peaceful cattle browsing o’er the leas, The hardy shepherd whistling on the plain With his white flock, by fields of ripened grain,” etc., etc.

And here are lines which we fancy Mr. Tennyson might with justice claim:

“… And velvet catkins on the willow shone By lowland streams, _and on the hills the larch Scented with odorous buds the winds of March_.”

One more objection we must make, and that is to the tiresomely frequent use of the word “full.” It occurs everywhere, sometimes twice or thrice in one page. Feilimid feels himself “full sad” (p. 1). In p. 46 Caffa shakes his head “full dolefully.” In p. 49 “The east and north a strong Wind blew _full keen_.” In p. 55 Deirdrè grows “full pale”; in p. 58 she goes “to and fro” “full secretly”; in p. 59 she has thoughts “full sad”; while Naisi (p. 62) laughs to himself “full low,” his heart with love’s ardor grows “full warm” (p. 65). Maini watches Naisi “full treacherously” (p. 69), and three lines lower on the same page he is still watching him “full warily.” The loyal wife grasps her babe “full firm” (p. 164)――an expression that, allowing even for poetic license, is very doubtful grammar; “full soon” adorns p. 165; “full stern” shall be the fight (p. 166); “full many” a mile (p. 166); “full many” a festal fire (p. 167); even the very babe crows “full lustily” (p. 131).

Of course repetition is allowable and, if rightly used, a beauty. In Homer Juno is always “white-armed,” Venus “ox-eyed,” Apollo “far-darting,” Agamemnon a “king of men,” Achilles “swift-footed,” the dawn “rosy-fingered,” the sea “hoarse-resounding,” and so on. But we need not dwell on the point that this is a very different kind of repetition from that in _Deirdrè_, which is faulty and tiresome in the extreme.

The defects we have pointed out are such as might have been easily avoided by care in the supervision. As it is, they seriously mar a work of real power, much promise, and undeniable beauty.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION. By the very Rev. Thomas S. Preston, V.G. New York: Robert Coddington. 1876.

There is much matter for thought and reflection in this pamphlet of forty-six pages. It treats of what is now an old subject, yet a subject about which new issues are constantly being raised, not only in this country but all the world over. And as the subject is far from being settled, and is likely so to remain for some time to come, one cannot but welcome the observations and pronounced expression of such a mind as that of the distinguished author regarding a vital question of this and all countries and of all time. The question of education has been treated time and again in these pages. Indeed, many of the articles which have appeared in THE CATHOLIC WORLD have been collected and published in book-form (_Catholics and Education_), and combined make an excellent treatise in defence of Catholic education as opposed to the popular objections of non-Catholics. Father Preston necessarily travels over old ground here, but with a freshness, vigor, and clearness of statement and exposition that will amply repay the reader. His lecture――for such it was――bears all the marks of a strong and trained mind, fully alive to the difficulties that beset the vexed question of which he treats, yet of one who knows exactly where strength ends and extravagance begins. There is, perhaps, no question to-day more open to extravagant demands and declamation on both sides than this of education. The tendency of the times regarding it is in a radically wrong direction. Hot words will not mend matters, but calm reason, such as this pamphlet affords, will in the long run tell. To sincere and rightly-instructed Catholics there is no question at all in the matter. Education is as much a subject of religious discipline as is the guiding of a man’s life, and to banish God from the school is no more justifiable than to banish him from the church or the home. No Catholic dare say to God: We will admit you here, but not there. At the same time we must take into serious account the opinions of men who, having practically lost faith, cannot be expected to look upon everything in the same light as ourselves. More especially is this the case in a country like our own, where all things are still more or less in a state of formation. It is very certain that the Fathers of this Republic, to whom in our emergencies we often vaguely appeal, never dreamed that the whole machinery of a republic which, in its present vastness, power, and future import, could scarcely have flashed even on their happiest dreams, would be perfectly adjusted in a century. We must make the best of things as they exist, work earnestly, untiringly, and hopefully to make them still better, but not slap the whole world in the face for the poor satisfaction of the slap. Father Preston is an excellent guide in this matter. There is not a waste word in all that he says. He has a reason, and gives it, for every statement, and he strengthens his position by the testimony of honored men among those opposed to him. It is strange that this country should be behind every other civilized nation in the fair adjustment of the educational question. They do the best they can for all denominations; we seem to have one predominating idea――to wit, that Catholic children, so far as the States can prevent it without absolute force, shall not have the right of Catholic education. Education is not and never can be a purely abstract affair as regards religion. It must have some informing moral principle, which will be right or wrong according to circumstances. Catholics refuse, on their conscience, to have any doubt about the matter. Others may do as they think fit under a government which professes to respect absolute freedom of conscience. _Their_ freedom of conscience recognizes and claims education for their children in the spirit of their faith. To deny this is coercion. To make them contribute to a system of education based on its denial is coercion and extortion. To see how fully enlightened Protestants and enlightened governments uphold this view, we can recommend nothing better in a brief form than the pages of this admirable pamphlet.

WIT, HUMOR, AND SHAKSPEARE. Twelve Essays. By John Weiss. Boston: Roberts Brothers. 1876.

There could be no better proof of the large tolerance of literary charlatanism by the American public than that a shrewd Boston firm should in such times as the present consent to publish a book like this. Mr. Weiss evidently has nothing to say which can be of interest to a sensible man, and his style is as bad as his thought. His chief aim, it would appear, is to be odd, unnatural, and barbarous. Like the clown in the circus, he hopes to amuse us by his antics, if not by his wit. But fantastic and affected phraseology cannot hide poverty or barrenness of thought. If a man has nothing to say, grimaces only make him ridiculous in the eyes of the judicious. It would seem, too, that the author is under the delusion that he may succeed in making us believe that he means something by striving to render it as difficult as possible to find out what he means. Here are specimens of his style: “The life-breaths of joy and grief tend primitively to the lungs, and they voice the mother-tongue of all emotions.” “What a wide range of nature’s curious _freakery_ a forest has!” “Only those who are capable of annihilating capricious distinctions by feelings of common humanness are capable of enjoying the union of heterogeneous ideas.”

It is Mr. Weiss’ great misfortune to believe that he is witty; and the attempts which reveal this deep conviction might indeed make us laugh, if they did not make us grieve.

“What mutual impression do a dog and a duck make? He runs around with frolic transpiring in his tail, and barks to announce a wish to fraternize; or perhaps it is a short and nervous bark, and indicates unsettled views about ducks. Meantime, the duck waddles off with an inane quack, so remote from a bark that it must convince any well-informed dog of the hopelessness of proposing either business or pleasure to such a doting and toothless pate.” “But as yet no cosey couples of clever apes have been discovered in paroxysms of laughter over the last sylvan equivoque; nor have elephants been seen silently shaking at a joke too ponderous for their trunks to carry.” “We cannot imagine that a turtle’s head gets tired lying around decapitated for a week or more.”

We cannot pardon Mr. Emerson for having made such men as Mr. Weiss possible. He is a morbid product――one of the sick multitude whose disease he has himself diagnosed. “Multitudes of our American brains are badly drained in consequence of a settling of the wastage of house-grubbing and street-work into moral morasses which generate many a chimera.” This is on the twelfth page, and to this point we followed the author with a kind of interest; for it was still possible to hope that he might not be an American. The English critics, however, may find his humor capital, since they think Walt Whitman our greatest poet; and Mr. Weiss finds examples of wit and humor in this country truly Shaksperean:

“There was a man who stood on his head under a pile-driver to have a pair of tight boots driven on. He found himself shortly after in China, perfectly naked and without a cent in his pocket.” “There is a man in the West so bow-legged that his pantaloons have to be cut out with a circular saw.” “Some of the Texan cows have been lately described as so thin that it takes two men to see one of them. The men stand back to back, so that one says, ‘Here she comes!’ and the other cries, ‘There she goes!’ Thus between them both the cow is seen.”

“All these American instances”――we quote the thoughtful and profound observation of Mr. Weiss――“are conceived in the pure Shakesperean blending of the understanding and the imagination.” But one more of them, perhaps the most artistically perfect of all, must suffice. “A coachman, driving up some mountains in Vermont, was asked by an outside passenger if they were as steep on the other side also. ‘Steep! Chain lightnin’ couldn’t go down ’em witheout the breechin’ on!’”

Nothing could be finer than the epigrammatic style in which Mr. Weiss throws some of Shakspere’s characters into a crisp Emersonian sentence: “Pistol is the raw article of poltroonery done in fustian instead of a gayly-slashed doublet. Bardolph is the capaciousness for sherry, without the capacity to make it apprehensive and forgetive; it goes to his head, but, finding no brain there, is provoked to the nose, where it lights a cautionary signal. Nym is the brag stripped of resource, shivering on prosiness.” We are quite prepared, after all this, to find that Mr. Weiss belongs to the class of enlightened men who, in the name of science, sneer at religion. It is hardly worth while to attempt his conversion.

POEMS: DEVOTIONAL AND OCCASIONAL. By Benjamin Dionysius Hill, C.S.P. New York: The Catholic Publication Society. 1877.

In his last sermon on “Subjects of the Day” (“The Parting of Friends”), Dr. Newman exclaims: “O my mother, whence is this unto thee, that thou hast good things poured upon thee and canst not keep them, and bearest children, yet darest not own them? Why hast thou not the skill to use their services, nor the heart to rejoice in their love? How is it that whatever is generous in purpose, and tender or deep in devotion, thy flower and thy promise, falls from thy bosom and finds no home within thine arms?” The author of these poems gives to his Mother the whole――not a part――of a delicate poetic talent that would have found a warm welcome in the world which knows her not. The art in the poems is unaffected and genuine; there is no pretence of artistic ambition, nor any provoking involution of the thought in order to display the tricks and pretty devices of metre which would have come easily to one whose sense of poetic tune is so true. The verse, although by no means monotonous, is uniformly simple; the rhymes are never weak and are always sweet――qualities rarely combined――and the infallible poetic instinct fills the lines with melody, which, at first so subtle and fine that it almost eludes, is soon discovered to be exquisitely and permanently sweet.

The dominant thought is religious rapture. Father Hill was not always under the benign influence which has brought this guerdon to his gifts. He was outside the only church which offers man’s heart an ideal of absolute perfection.

“A barren creed had starved me.”

God called him

“to fill the place of some Ingrate who had thrown his childhood’s faith away,”

and within the consecrated precincts of the priesthood he discovered a gracious light upon his imagination――the light of Our Lady. So he has proved her poet; and the tributes that he lays at her feet are rich and warm with the full beating ardor of manhood’s love. The pure sensuousness which gives strikingly what the painters would call “fine flesh-tint” to the poems will prove a strong attraction to the fervent hearts of thousands who, like Father Hill, love the Mother of our Lord with an uncontrollable intensity of human affection, but who, unlike him, are unable fittingly to express that affection to her, or even to define it to themselves or to others. Father Hill is literally the knight of Mary, and he does more than the obligations of knighthood required; for, in addition to loving, fighting for, and seeking his reward from her, he sings her praise. He gives her at once his sword and his lyre. The beauty of this chivalry of the soul is not easily to be understood by the shallow or the thoughtless; yet even the irreverent will acknowledge its holiness, and the commonest mind will be unable to resist its singular charms. Who can be insensible to such loyalty to the religious ideal as this?

“TO BE FORGIVEN.

“I call thee ‘Love’――‘my sweet, my dearest Love’ Nor feel it bold, nor fear it a deceit. Yet I forget not that, in realms above, The thrones of Seraphs are beneath thy feet.

“If Queen of angels thou, of hearts no less: And so of mine――a poet’s, which must needs Adore to all melodious excess What cannot sate the rapture that it feeds.

“And then thou art my Mother――God’s, yet mine! Of mothers, as of virgins, first and best: And I as tenderly, intimately thine As He, my Brother, carried at the breast.

“My Mother! ’tis enough. If mine the right To call thee this, much more to muse and sigh All other honeyed names. A slave I might―― A son, I must. And both of these am I.”

This exquisite piety is entitled “Love’s Prisoner”:

* * * * *

“But is He lonely? Bend not here Adoring angels as on high? Ah yes: but yet, when we appear, A softer glory floods His eye. ’Tis earth’s frail child He longs to see; And thus He is alone――for me!

* * * * *

“Then, best of lovers, I’ll draw near Each day to minister relief. For tho’ the thought of year on year Of sin should make me die of grief, Yet day by day my God I see ‘Sick and in prison’――all for me!”

Those whose imagination is without devotion, or whose devotion lacks imagination, will look upon the author of these poems as one indeed “set apart.” Yet even Dr. Newman, the giant intellect of modern thought, looked upon Keble, as he tells us himself, with awe, simply because Keble was a true religious poet; and these two came to love each other with a tenderness that did not expire, but was rather increased, when the one passed within the gates of Mother Rome, and the other, faltering in tears, sadly loitered, then suffered himself to be led away. So many a lesser Newman will learn to love this lesser and more melodious poet within the sanctuary, and his glowing soul will distribute some of its own warmth into the hospitable recesses in which this little book will find nooks the hosts never thought of.

LIFE OF MOTHER MARIA TERESA, FOUNDRESS OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE ADORATION OF REPARATION. By the Abbé Hulst. Translated by Lady Herbert. London: Burns & Oates. (For sale by The Catholic Publication Society.)

To many people there is no reading so pleasant as a biography; but when, as in the life of a great servant of God, solid instruction and sweet devotion are found united in the details of personal history, the work becomes a hand-book in a Christian’s library. Of this kind is the present work, which, although only a small volume, contains a great deal of matter, and is written with all that ease and _naïveté_ which are so often found in French biographies. It is translated into English by Lady Herbert, who is thoroughly competent for the task.

Theodolind Dubouché was born at Montauban, in France, on the 2d of May, 1809; but her mother was of Italian origin, and it is a little singular that the daughter’s portrait prefixed to this _Life_ bears a remarkable resemblance to that of Dante. Neither of her parents was more than a nominal Catholic, and Theodolind grew up in a cold and formal atmosphere of morality which would have chilled for ever the heart of one less naturally generous, pure-minded, and energetic, and over whom God had not extended a particular protection. Her path to perfection was long and beset with many dangers――although not at any time of the grosser sort――but the Lord was her shepherd, and she was led on, step by step, to the crowning-point of her career, which was the establishment of an Order for women whose special object should be the perpetual adoration of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, and the continual reparation to his divine Majesty. Theodolind assumed the name in religion of Maria Teresa, and her congregation, which was originally engrafted on the vigorous and venerable stem of Carmel, was begun at Paris on the 6th of August, 1848. In the year 1853 it received a _Laudatine Brief_ from the Holy See. This was the first step towards the full official approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff, which was given only three years after the death of the foundress. Her death occurred at Paris on Sunday, 30th of August, 1863. The congregation or Institute of “L’Adoration Réparatrice” has already four houses in France, in each of which adorers in large numbers, consecrated by religious profession, succeed one another day and night before the Blessed Sacrament exposed, and in a spirit of deep recollection make the adoration of reparation the principle of a special vocation and the occupation of a whole life.

The Order will certainly continue to spread, and we hope to see it introduced into this country, where devotion to the Blessed Sacrament is comparatively cold and scattered. We recommend the present work to all the holy spouses of Christ and true lovers of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

GITHA OF THE FOREST; OR, THE BURNING OF CROYLAND. A Romance of early English History. By the author of _Lord Dacre of Gilsland_, _Royalists and Roundheads_, etc., etc. London: D. Stewart, 1876. (For sale by The Catholic Publication Society.)

This is just one of those books that are in every way to be commended. It illustrates an early and most interesting period of English and Catholic history with remarkable power and vividness. It is a constant wonder to us that Catholics who have a taste for the writing of fiction do not more frequently take up such epochs as this, which are full of heroic deeds and romantic episodes, instead of vainly attempting to weave a romantic interest about the commonplace subjects and persons of the day. The history of the world for the last eighteen centuries is theirs to choose from, all its interest centres around Christianity; and we are not quite so much in love with to-day that we cannot thoroughly enjoy a trip back into the past when led by so skilful and true a hand as that of the author of _Githa_.

THE CATHOLIC WORLD.

VOL. XXIV., No. 144.――MARCH, 1877.

Copyright: Rev. I. T. HECKER. 1877.

THE RUSSIAN CHANCELLOR.[177]

The attention of the world is at present fixed upon Russia and upon the aged yet still active statesman who has directed her foreign policy for twenty years with an ability certainly very considerable, though it yet remains to be seen how far it will prove itself consummate and successful. It will help to an understanding of the career of this eminent Russian Minister of State, and of the present attitude of Russia, if we premise a condensed sketch of certain of the most prominent events in the civil and ecclesiastical history of this great and singular empire. It is difficult to find out the certain truth in regard to some of these important facts, and we therefore profess to claim for such statements as we may make, unless they relate to matters of known and undisputed history, only that probability which they receive from the authority of some one or more of the writers whose names we have mentioned in the foot-note annexed to the title of this article. This remark applies especially to facts relating to the schism of the Russian Church. We have never yet met with any professedly complete and minute ecclesiastical history of Russia. Mouravieff’s work is a professed history of the Russian Church, but it is compendious, and too partial to deserve entire confidence. It is much to be desired that some ecclesiastic of profound erudition in Russian literature, such as Father Gagarin or Father Tondini, would furnish us with a thorough and trustworthy narrative of all the facts which can be known in this obscure and interesting department of ecclesiastical history. In fact, we suspect that very much which passes current in the civil history of Russia as written by foreigners needs a critical sifting, and that a perfectly impartial and trustworthy history of that empire is yet to be written.

The Russian Empire embraces one-seventh of the land-surface of the earth, or more than double the area of Europe, and European Russia is thirty times larger than England. The aggregate population is at least 75,000,000, including a hundred distinct tribes, among which more than forty languages are spoken. The ancestors of the dominant race were Scythians and Sarmatians, among whom the beginnings of civilization were to be found during the earliest part of the Christian epoch. It is a curious fact that a republic existed at Novgorod before the arrival of Rurik. The Russian dominant race is Sclavonian――that is, as ethnologists suppose, of Sarmatian origin. The present name of the country and people is not, however, indigenous. The Russian tribe was a branch of the Varangians, who were Scandinavians, and migrated into the country to which they have given their name in the ninth century. The name Russian is derived by some from Rurik, and by others from some one of various Scandinavian words signifying foreigner, wanderer, or scattered, in which case it would denote the migration of the Varangian horde from its former seat and its settlement in a foreign country.[178]

Rurik was the principal chief of these Varangians, the founder of a principality which was the germ of the future empire, and the father of the first line of the tsars. Other chiefs of the same tribe founded minor principalities, which formed together a sort of confederation, the successor of Rurik being recognized as Grand Prince. The city of Moscow was founded in the twelfth century. It was not until after centuries had passed that one united kingdom was formed and increased by degrees to the vast magnitude of its modern proportions. The absolute, autocratic authority of the tsar was likewise a later development of the primitive form of government.

The reign of Rurik continued from A.D. 861 to 879, and that of his direct line of successors until 1598, when it became extinct by the death of Feodor I., who left no issue, and is said to have had no near, surviving relatives. After fifteen years of disputed successions and bloody civil conflicts, caused by the usurpation of Boris Godounoff, which began with the accession of the imbecile Feodor, the Romanoff family was placed on the throne, which it has kept in possession to the present day.

The first Romanoff tsar was a son of Feodor Romanoff, a nobleman who had retired into a monastery and become metropolitan of Rostoff, which dignity he afterwards exchanged for the higher office of patriarch of Moscow. He was first cousin to the Tsar Feodor through an intermarriage of the Romanoffs with the reigning family. The son of Feodor who was elected tsar was a youth named Michael Feodorovitch. To him succeeded his son Alexis, then Feodor II., then Peter the Great. To Peter succeeded his widow, Catharine I., who was by birth a peasant, followed by Peter II., the grandson of Peter the Great, who died in his childhood, and was succeeded by Anne, Duchess of Courland, a niece of Peter I. After Anne, her grandnephew, Ivan VII., an infant, was proclaimed, but soon displaced by Elizabeth, a daughter of Peter I. and Catharine. Peter III., son of Anne――who was a daughter of Peter and Catharine――and of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, succeeded Elizabeth, but was dethroned by his own wife, Catharine II. Her son, Paul I., was assassinated by his nobles, and to him succeeded his son, the justly-celebrated Alexander I., who reigned from 1801 to 1825. The Emperor Nicholas, whose reign terminated in 1856, was the brother of Alexander,[179] and his son, Alexander II., is the present reigning emperor.

For more than two centuries, dating from A.D. 1238, the Russians were subject or tributary to the Mongolians, who had overrun and conquered the country. Ivan the Great shook off their yoke during the latter half of the fifteenth century. Poland was a frequent and often victorious antagonist in war of Russia until internal dissensions broke her power and left her a prey to the enemy who had once regarded her with dread. Turkey, Hungary, Persia, Sweden, and other minor powers were also frequently engaged with her in conflicts of varying success before the period in which she took part in the great European struggles. Having slowly and gradually grown to a gigantic stature and attained to solidity and strength by the long operation of various internal and external causes, this empire of the North founded by Rurik suddenly, under the powerful direction of Peter the Great, took its place among the great nations of Western Christendom. What it is yet to become we may know better than we can now vaticinate in the year 1900, when, to use Prince Bismarck’s strong figure, some more of “the iron dice of destiny falling from the hands of God” shall have made the eternal decrees manifest which are now hidden in the obscurity of the future.

It is probable that Christianity was first preached in Russia by St. Andrew the Apostle, and had some partial success during the period intervening between the apostolic age and the second mission sent from Constantinople in the ninth and tenth centuries. At this epoch some Christian communities were founded, and the way was opened for greater successes at a later period. The Princess Olga was baptized at Constantinople in 955, and in 988 her grandson, Vladimir the Great, who married the Greek emperor’s sister, became a Christian, with all his subjects. It is true that the conversion of the mass of the people was very superficial, and that it was a long time before they ceased to hanker after their ancient superstitions. Yet the foundations were laid for a future superstructure, and there is evidence that even before the Mongolian invasion sacred science flourished at Kieff. At this period, which lay between the schism of Photius and that of Michael Cerularius――whose revolt occurred in the middle of the eleventh century――Constantinople and the other Eastern patriarchates were in the communion of the Roman Church. The Russian Church was therefore Catholic at its original foundation. The higher clergy were all Byzantines, especially in Muscovy, and were under the influence of the prevailing ideas of the clergy of the Greek Empire. The imperfectly-instructed clergy and people of Russia were therefore naturally left to drift into a condition of alienation from the Roman Church and Western Christendom, when their immediate patriarch revolted from his allegiance to the Sovereign Pontiff. The irruption of the Mongols buried them in a sea of ignorance, misery, and barbarism for ages. Nevertheless, their faith and their liturgical books were always Catholic. Every now and then we meet with signs of some intercommunion with the Roman Church, especially on the part of those who were immediately subject to the see of Kieff. We can scarcely, therefore, consider that an act of overt rebellion and complete schism of the national church was committed until the rejection of the Act of Union of Florence, and the erection of the independent patriarchate of Moscow at the close of the fifteenth century.

At the opening of the Council of Florence, in 1439, Vasili III. sent Isidore, Metropolitan of Kieff and Primate of Russia, a learned Greek, as the representative of the national church, to effect a complete reconciliation with Rome. Isidore fulfilled this commission, and returned with the dignity of cardinal and legatine powers. He was well received by the tsar, who nevertheless dared not publicly ratify and proclaim his action without the consent of the Muscovite clergy and boyars. This was violently and obstinately refused. Cardinal Isidore returned to Kieff, and within the provinces immediately subject to his jurisdiction as metropolitan the Act of Union was accepted. He was afterwards banished from Russia, and after the storming of Constantinople, which he witnessed, he, like the more celebrated Cardinal Bessarion, went to reside at Rome. Vasili’s motives for seeking to place his bishops under the supremacy of the Roman pontiff were chiefly political. He wished to free himself from the ecclesiastical and political interference of Constantinople. Thwarted in his first plan, he tried another. On the pretext that the patriarch of Constantinople had separated himself from the communion of the other Eastern patriarchs, he persuaded the Muscovite clergy to abjure his authority. On the same pretext he deprived the see of Kieff of its pre-eminence, and made the metropolitan of Moscow the primate of all Russia. Thus, by flattering the ambition of the Muscovite clergy, he placed them in a position more favorable for the exercise and increase of his own authority over the church. His successor, Ivan the Great, the same who freed his dominions from the Mongolian supremacy, completed and more fully carried out these plans, and made himself the real governing head of the schismatical Russian Church. After the fall of the Greek Empire the tsars ceased to have any reason to fear the oppressed church of Constantinople, and became friendly to it in an altered relation as its protectors and as claimants of the rights of the Greek emperors. Ivan married Sophia, a Greek princess, adopted the double-headed eagle as his escutcheon, assumed the state and splendor of an emperor, and arrogated to himself the prerogatives of the secular head of the so-called Orthodox Church. Under Feodor I. the erection of a new patriarchate at Moscow was effected by Boris Goudonoff, who ruled, in fact, during the life-time of the last of the Rurik dynasty, and gained the throne, left vacant at his death, by his cunning intrigues. Under Alexis, the second Romanoff, the great patriarch Nicon, whose name is highly venerated in Russia, came into a collision with the tsars which resulted in his own downfall and in that of all spiritual independence of the Russian hierarchy. At last Peter the Great suppressed the patriarchal office, substituting for it the Holy Synod, and reducing the Russian Church to the condition of enslavement in which it has ever since languished. Notwithstanding the rigorous ecclesiastical despotism exercised by the Russian emperors, a large Catholic communion has continued to exist in the empire, a separate Episcopal Church, including several millions of adherents, has steadily maintained its independence of the state church, and great numbers of irregular dissenters are also scattered through the tsar’s dominions.

Within the state church opposite tendencies towards Rome on the one side, and Protestant or rationalistic liberalism on the other, have been continually manifesting the want of a real, internal unity in what is misnamed the orthodox religion. Ivan the Terrible appealed to the pope’s mediation in his political troubles, and received the celebrated Jesuit Possevin as the envoy of the Holy See. During the reign of Feodor II., and the regency of the Princess Sophia while Peter I. was kept under her tutelage as a minor, several prelates and nobles of the court manifested strong Roman proclivities. On the accession of Peter all these adherents of the Princess Sophia shared in her disgrace and punishment. Yet even Peter himself at one time showed a disposition toward reconciliation with the Pope. Under Peter II. the same movement was renewed, but followed by a violent reaction and persecution of the orthodox party, under Anne and her favorite, Biren. The metropolitan of Kieff was degraded, the bishop of Voronége degraded and publicly knouted, the archbishop of Rostoff and the bishop of Kolomna were expelled from the Holy Synod, the archbishop of Kazan was degraded, the bishop of Tchernigoff was confined in a monastery, and the archbishop of Tver, after being beaten with rods, tortured, and kept three years in solitary confinement, was stripped of his episcopal dignity and monastic habit, and imprisoned in a fortress, where he languished until the reign of Elizabeth. Prince Vasili Dolgoroucky was executed, with several members of his family. Catharine II. and Alexander I. both gave a temporary shelter and protection to the Jesuits. This last prince, although he dallied for a time with evangelical Protestantism, sent his submission to the pope, asking for a prelate to visit, instruct, and reconcile him to the Holy See, and died a Catholic in faith and intention, although the sudden termination of his mortal career took place before there was time for the arrival of the prelate to whom the Holy Father had confided this mission. The numerous conversions of illustrious Russians to the Catholic Church are well-known facts. That heresy and infidelity are rife among many nominal members of the Russian Church is also equally indisputable and notorious.

The whole history of the empire of Rurik has a close association with Constantinople. While the Russians were still pagans the project of subduing the Greek Empire seems to have been constantly in view. Oleg, Rurik’s immediate successor; Igor, Rurik’s son, who succeeded Oleg, and was the husband of Olga; and their son Sviatoslaf, the father of Vladimir the Great, made invasions into the Greek Empire at the head of armies ranging from eighty to four hundred thousand in number. They were either bought off from conquest by vast ransoms or defeated by Greek craft and their own disorderly conduct. After the conversion of Vladimir, Constantinople was to Russia what Rome has always been to Occidental Christendom; and when the Greek Empire fell, the Turk became in their eyes what the Moslem was to the Catholic Spaniards. The queen city of the Euxine and Mediterranean Seas, the New Rome of Constantine, with the rich provinces of Turkey in Europe depending upon it, has ever been present to the view of the emperors and the people of Russia as the objective point of perpetual crusades, as a prize to be won by their warlike valor, as the natural and destined capital whose possession is necessary to bring their empire to its acme of power and glory.[180] Always mysteriously baffled and thrown back, the colossal power of the northern empire has been incessantly pressing against this resistance, even since the power of combined Europe has backed the weakening Ottoman Empire. The Emperor Nicholas was more completely possessed by this hereditary idea than any of his predecessors since Peter the Great; he undertook and sacrificed more for it than any one of them, and seems really to have caused Russia to make a great stride towards the ulterior object. By the war of 1828 and ’29 Turkey was extremely humiliated and weakened, and immense advantages were gained by Russia. Her arms were completely and brilliantly successful from beginning to end of the campaign, and surprise has often been expressed that the Russian army did not march directly on Constantinople after Adrianople had been captured. It may be that the military strength of the empire was exhausted by its costly victories, and that Nicholas was afraid of exciting a league of the great powers against him. Whatever his reasons may have been, he concluded a peace at Adrianople, and postponed further action to a future time.

When the treaty of Adrianople was concluded (1829), the present chancellor of Russia was thirty-one years of age and employed in a subordinate position under the ministry. Prince Alexander Mikhäilovitch Gortchakoff was born in 1798, and claims descent from Rurik. He first gained the favor of the Emperor Nicholas by negotiating the marriage of his daughter, the Princess Olga, with the crown-prince of Würtemberg. He had already passed four years at the little court of Stuttgart as resident minister, and he earned the gratitude of the imperial family by remaining willingly eight years longer, in order to aid the Princess Olga as her guide and counsellor. His residence at Stuttgart fell between the years 1842 and 1854, and he was therefore fifty-six years of age before attaining anything above a minor position in the diplomatic service. After the re-establishment of the Diet at Frankfort, in 1850, he was appointed to represent Russia at its sessions, and henceforth divided his time between Stuttgart and Frankfort, and employed his abundant leisure in studying the politics of Europe. It was at this time that he first met with M. Bismarck, then a lieutenant in the Prussian Landwehr, a novice in diplomacy and his colleague at the Diet. Here also he became intimate with two remarkable and singular characters whose history and ideas illustrate the peculiar national spirit by which the genuine Russian people, which remains true to its ancient traditions without any foreign mixture, is animated.

The first of these singular personages was Vassili Joukofski, who had been in early life a poet of considerable renown, not remarkably original, but possessed of a great talent for facile versification and ingenious translation, and sufficiently cultivated as a scholar to have been selected as the private tutor of the Grand Dukes Alexander and Constantine, the present emperor and his brother. Although he had voluntarily selected a German lady as his wife and a German town as his permanent abode, he remained, nevertheless, confirmed in his belief of the hopeless corruption of Western Europe, and the destiny reserved for Russia to complete the work of the Crusades, drive “the impure beast” from Byzantium, liberate the Holy Land, and regenerate the world by “a new eruption of Christianity.” The other individual of this remarkable pair was Nicholas Gogol, a man of original and powerful genius, full of a sombre and extravagant religious enthusiasm, who haunted the drawing-rooms of Joukofski, and startled the elegant, cultivated guests of his more worldly friend like a fantastic apparition from the spiritual world. Gogol was a terrible satirist of the vices of Russian society, a prophet of wrath and judgment, in despair of civilization and of his own salvation, wandering the earth in a restless search after some relief for his disturbed soul, and reappearing at intervals among his friends at Frankfort to deliver impassioned exhortations to prayer and penance. The only remedy for modern evils, in his view, was a return to the primitive state of barbarian Muscovy, and a crusade of despotism joined with the undefiled faith of old Russia against “the heathens of the Occident.” It is an old saying in Russia that “heaven can only be reduced by famine.” Gogol acted on this maxim to such an extent by his long fasts and prayers that he was one day found dead of inanition in an attitude of prayer, prostrate before his holy images.

Prince Gortchakoff is a cultivated sceptic, intent on the aggrandizement of Russia from motives which are earthly and confined within the sphere of that materialistic philosophy which dominates in diplomatic circles. Nevertheless, mystic enthusiasm, the most enlightened and noble aspirations of religion and patriotism, great designs for a lofty end, and the lower qualities of cleverness in worldly wisdom, talent for managing the affairs of administration, and ambition to fulfil a great personal career by serving as an instrument of some grand social or political power, are often found combined together to pursue the same object from different motives. The Emperor Nicholas was undoubtedly thoroughly sincere in his adherence to the religious and political doctrines which he professed, really influenced by the mystical ideas of the “crusaders,” and convinced of the justice of his cause. His chief minister, Nesselrode, certainly did not share these ideas, yet he served his master with all the resources and ability which he possessed. So also did Gortchakoff, although personally he is of the same stamp with his predecessor. The emperor, as the whole world knows, and a great part of it well remembers, reopened the Turkish question and engaged in the memorable, for the time being to Russia unsuccessful, even disastrous, war of the Crimea. In 1855 Prince Gortchakoff was sent as resident ambassador to Vienna; there he labored strenuously, both before and after the death of Nicholas, first to detach Austria from the cause of the allies and win her cooperation with Russia, and then to gain terms which would permit his government to conclude an honorable peace on the least disadvantageous terms. Russia has been profoundly irritated against Austria ever since the latter power refused to take her part against the protectors of the Ottoman Porte; accusing her of ingratitude for the great service which Nicholas rendered to Francis Joseph in suppressing by military force and gratuitously the Hungarian rebellion. Prince Gortchakoff shared this feeling; it has always affected his diplomatic policy, and it may have yet most important results, if hostilities are renewed on a large scale. At the Congress of Paris, which settled the conditions of peace, Prince Gortchakoff was the Russian plenipotentiary. Immediately afterwards Count Nesselrode retired from the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in April, 1856, the successor upon whom the eyes of the court and the empire had been long turned with favor and hope was elevated to the office, which he has filled for twenty years, and which has become essentially more important in his person than it ever was during preceding administrations. Prince Gortchakoff is the first who has filled at the Russian court the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Western acceptation of the powers and responsibilities of that position. Heretofore the emperor had personally directed the state policy, using his minister as a mere counsellor and chief secretary. Alexander II. has devolved the actual direction upon his chief minister. The most marked feature of his administration has been the close personal and official amity and concord which has subsisted since their first meeting at Frankfort between himself and Bismarck. The delineation of the common policy of the two chancellors would require that we should take up M. Klaczko’s exposition of the career of the Prussian chancellor――a task which we cannot fulfil at present. Of course each one has had in view the aggrandizement of his own state, and given his concurrence to the designs of the other in the expectation of forwarding thereby his own plans. Bismarck cares nothing for Russia, and, after his residence at St. Petersburg as Prussian ambassador, he expressed his opinion of her by the motto which he pasted inside his watch-case: “Russia is nothingness.”[181] Gortchakoff undoubtedly cares as little for Prussia and the German Empire. Each one looks out for his own ship; for those men whose ideas are catholic are of a different class from mere clever diplomatists, and, unhappily, are rarely to be found among either kings or ministers of state.

Bismarck has always made his special accomplices in ruining the antagonist of the moment the next victims of his undermining schemes. What he has in prospect for Russia is as yet undisclosed. Nor is it certain that he will succeed in playing out his game, making Gortchakoff a mere card in his hand. The Russian is doubtless too astute and farseeing to rely on the disinterested friendship of the Prussian, or on his fidelity to any secret engagements, except so far as self-interest or fear may hold him to his word. Thus far, however, the contract of _facio ut facias_ has been well kept between the two, to their mutual advantage. Prussia has gained a great deal by it, and Russia something, although the decisive crisis is just now coming on, and still undecided, which will solve the problem how much she has gained or will gain. Nicholas died, baffled and disappointed. Alexander came to the throne sad and disheartened. Russia was crippled and exhausted by the terrible disasters of the Crimean war, her prestige and influence in Europe were diminished, and she was placed under humiliating and hampering restrictions by the treaty of Paris. Under Prince Gortchakoff’s administration she has recuperated and increased her strength by the mere force of her immense vitality. By skilful management she has regained a place in European politics almost equal to that of Germany. She has thrown off the trammels of the treaty of Paris. France, England, and Turkey have lost all they had gained by their costly victories. The allies of Turkey have been overcome by superior diplomacy together with adverse fortune, and made to play into the hands of their old antagonist; and Turkey has been driven into worse straits than any which have beset her in the most dangerous epochs of her former history. The initiative in the extraordinary political movements of this epoch has been taken by Bismarck, whom Gortchakoff has merely connived at or seconded. This secondary and mostly negative support has been, nevertheless, most important, probably even necessary, to the success of Bismarck’s schemes. It has involved, moreover, great changes in Russia’s traditional policy and considerable sacrifices. This is especially the case in regard to the minor states of Germany and Denmark, so closely allied by intermarriages with Russia, formerly so decidedly supported and aided by her influence, yet of late abandoned without remonstrance to Prussian spoliation. Russia has been avenged on France, on Austria, and to a certain extent on England, and she has had the opportunity of reviving the question of the East with a view toward ulterior results. Thus far Bismarck has seemed to act toward Gortchakoff in the same way that the latter acted towards him in reference to the war on the French Empire. Certainly, much more must be expected from him, and it does not yet appear that he can dupe and outwit his copartner in politics as he did the weak, dreamy Louis Napoleon, or make use of him as a mere subservient agent, to be discarded when his services become unnecessary. Prince Gortchakoff appears to have managed matters thus far for the advantage of Russia with consummate adroitness. Moreover, whatever may have been the influences at work within the imperial family compelling the chancellor to yield his personal opinions or wishes, it is evident that in point of fact Russian policy has not been of late subservient to Bismarck’s designs, but, on the contrary, has forced him to modify them considerably in respect to France.

In the event of war between Russia and Turkey alone it is plain that Russia will not find it an easy task to effect the conquest of Turkey and to expel the Turks from Europe. It seems probable, however, that the Ottoman power must succumb after one desperate struggle, if left unaided by all the European powers. It does not seem likely, however, that Europe will stand idly aloof; on the contrary, there is reason to apprehend that when the conflict threatens to become decisive of the fate of Turkey, all the great powers will become involved in a general war, which will make an epoch in history and determine the destinies of the world for the next ensuing age. We may conjecture, on grounds which are at least plausible, that if Russia is actively supported by any other powers, it will be Germany and Italy which will ally themselves with her, against Austria, England, and France. We can scarcely expect that a war of this kind would terminate in complete success to either of the belligerent parties. In the end all the great nations must come to some mutual agreement in a congress which shall settle the balance of power on a new basis, guarding against an absolute and dangerous preponderance of any one of the chief powers. What is to become of Constantinople we will not venture to predict. But let us suppose that Russia obtains this object of her long, patient, and persevering efforts and ardent aspirations. Must we suppose that this will necessarily be an event disastrous to the interests of the Catholic Church and civilization and to the religious, political, and social welfare of Europe and the world? The language of many most intelligent and religious men, particularly of Englishmen, and of many others, not particularly religious, who look at the matter purely in view of the temporal interests of nations, proves that a very strong and general conviction exists in the sense of the affirmative answer to this question. We think, however, that there is something to be said on the other side. As the Catholic aspect of the question is the one most important in itself, and really involving all the others, we consider this aspect alone. It is the schismatical position of the Russian Church, and its complete subjection to the autocratic power of the ruler of the state, which furnishes the only reason for regarding the Turkish dominion in the Levant as a lesser and more tolerable evil than the transfer of the capital of Russia from St. Petersburg to Constantinople. All reasons, therefore, which encourage the hope and expectation of the reconciliation of Russia with the Holy See diminish, in proportion to their weight, the dread which the prospect of such an event may awaken.

We will here quote a remarkable passage from Dr. Mivart’s late essay on _Contemporary Evolution_ having a bearing on this subject. Those who have read this work, or the review of it in our number of last December, will understand the value of the quotation we are about to make, as coming from a man who anticipates such a very different course of events from that whose possibility he here sets forth. It proves his cautious, scientific method of reasoning. He does not advance his own theory with absolute assertion as certain, and his acuteness, combined with candor, causes him to discern and bring into notice a contingency in the direction of Russia which, if it should turn out to be a future actuality, would alter most essentially the “evolution” whose probable course causes so much curious and anxious questioning of the signs of the times.

“Nevertheless, there are many who believe that a reversal will at length ensue, and some modification of the old theocracy be again generally established. At present the only power which seems to contain enough of the old material is Russia. It _may_ be that, instead of politically assimilating itself to Western Europe (like the manners of its highest class), it may come to exercise a powerfully reactionary tendency. It does not seem impossible that, availing itself of the mutually enfeebling wars and revolutionary disintegration of Western powers, it may hereafter come to play that part in Europe which was played of old by Macedon in Greece. Such a Western expansion might be greatly aided if, carrying out the idea of a former sovereign, it united itself to the Roman Church, and made itself the agent of the most powerful religious feelings and of all the theocratic reactionary tendencies latent in Western Europe. It does not even seem impossible that a Roman pontiff effectively restored to his civil princedom by such Russian agency might inaugurate, by a papal consecration in the Eternal City, yet a fresh dynasty of ‘Holy Roman emperors,’ a Sclavonic series succeeding to the suppressed German line, as the Germans succeeded in the person of Charlemagne to the first line of Cæsars.”[182]

What seems to the distinguished writer just quoted barely possible appears to us quite probable. It does not follow, however, that his hypothesis, proposed as possible, expresses precisely the necessary alternative to the opposite term of a complete revolution in Russia by pagan liberalism. The medium between Nicholas Gogol’s fanatical ideas of a reformation by Muscovite barbarism and despotism and their absolute contrary――the uttermost development and sway through the whole extent of the civilized world of Western heathenism――need not be placed exactly at the point marked out by Dr. Mivart. We can suppose that the Russian Empire may reach its ultimatum by attaining a degree of power and grandeur beyond that which it now possesses, without acquiring domination over the rest of Europe. We can suppose that its influence may be exerted successfully to arrest and turn back the tide of pagan revolution, in co-operation with the other powers acting on a more Christian policy, without being absolutely reactionary. Russia may receive as well as impart influence, undergo in herself modification as well as cause modification to be undergone by Western Europe, through mutual contact at Constantinople. It would seem that such must be the result of her coming down to the Mediterranean and emerging from her old ice-bound and land-locked isolation. She will come in contact with America as well as Europe; and, in fact, the visits of her naval squadrons and of three of her grand dukes to our shores show that the imperial court of St. Petersburg does not fear communication with the great republic of the West.

The method of administering government in Russia has actually been undergoing a great modification, in the sense of substituting regular procedures of law and definite codes for personal and arbitrary authority under the initiative and direction of the emperors themselves and their immediate ministers. The local communal government, by the system of free assemblies and elections of the people in districts and villages, exists throughout Russia. The Emperor Nicholas prosecuted actively the work of ameliorating and improving the condition of the common people, which Alexander has carried still further by the abolition of serfdom. The mitigation and attempering to the demands of an improved civilization of the autocratic principle in the empire seems to be an inevitable and certain process which must go on, and which finds its greatest impediment in the nefarious plots and insurrections of secret societies and revolutionists. It is to be hoped that when a stable equilibrium is once restored in Europe, when a solid peace succeeds to the impending storm of war, and Russia is in harmony with other Christian nations, her power, combined with theirs, will be seriously and successfully applied to the suppression of these secret societies, thus giving the hydra-head of revolution a stunning, disabling blow; though we cannot expect that any human power will be able to kill and bury the monster.

Russia cannot fulfil the mission her religious and patriotic children ascribe to her, cannot take a principal part in the redintegration of Christendom, or even attain her complete political growth and strength either in Europe or Asia, without abandoning her schismatical position, reuniting herself to the Pope, and liberating the church from its constricting thraldom to obsolete Byzantine prejudices and secular tyranny. The question of the conversion of Russia has already been treated of in our pages by the learned and zealous Father Tondini, and a number of works bearing on the whole subject are accessible to English readers. We have not space to go into this matter as it deserves. We are merely indicating what a Catholic Russian Empire, in possession of Constantinople, might accomplish for the triumph of Christianity. The long catalogue of crimes, cruelties, persecutions, internal abuses, disorders, heresies, fanatical extravagances, ravages of infidel and revolutionary opinions――in which too much that is true, we are induced by the argument from analogy, as well as in part by counter-statements worthy of credit, to believe, is mixed with some falsehood and much exaggeration――on which a wholesale denunciation of Russia is founded, proves nothing at all or too much. All great nations of Christendom can be subjected to the same oriminating process. What can an advocate say in the cause of England, France, Germany, or mediæval Europe? The same can be applied to Russia. If it is a legitimate plea, the facts cited in the indictment on sufficient evidence are true, but irrelevant. To attempt a white-washing process is in all cases foolish as well as immoral. The crimes recorded in the pages of Russian history, whether personal or political, are not to be denied or excused. Existing evils in church and state are not to be disguised. All mankind are born in original sin, and the great majority have committed actual sins. What then? Has Christ not redeemed the world? will he not triumph over sin and death, and crowd the kingdom of heaven with his elect? In none of the kingdoms of this world, in no age of human history, can we find the ideal kingdom of God and Christ, of justice, peace, and happiness, otherwise than imperfectly brought into actual existence. Does not the heavenly kingdom gradually form itself out of this confused mass of material, growing up through the ages of time to that perfection which it will attain in eternity? Let us look at Russia in a general view, as we look on the past ages of Christendom, neglecting those small particular objects which disappear or become insignificant in an extended and philosophical survey. Let us drop our petty national prejudices, and clear our minds of everything inconsistent with impartial justice to all mankind and Catholic charity. We shall find much that is admirable and hopeful in the great Russian Empire and her people, and be convinced that Russians, even after they have become Catholics and suffered expatriation, are justified in their ardent love for, and pride in, their unique and wonderful country.

The Russian people resembles a belated army, like that of Blücher at Waterloo, coming on the field to decide a doubtful battle. They are of the past, and have but just emerged from their childhood. The old patriarchal spirit lives in them; they are simple, hardy, traditional, loyal, full of reverence for parental, sacerdotal, and imperial authority, industrious and easily contented. The Russian peasantry are warmly clothed and housed; they have enough of the simple food which suffices for their wants; and pauperism scarcely exists. They are a most religious people, and religion is recognized as the basis and foundation of the entire political and social fabric of the nation, as well by the government as by the mass of the people. They only need to be vivified by the current of life from the heart, and energized by the vital force from the head, of Catholic unity, to become what the Western nations were in the times of their pristine Christian vigor. The schism in which they are involved is an unhappy legacy inherited from the corrupt Lower Empire of Byzantium and its ambitious, perfidious clergy. Christianity lacked the full amount of power necessary to accomplish a perfect work in Russia, because the source whence it was derived could not give it. The Russian Church has never had its golden age. There are many reasons why it seems fitting and probable that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit should be imparted to it at this late day in much greater fulness than they were in the beginning, making it flourish suddenly and beautifully, like its own artificial gardens, out of the long, bleak winter. The body of the Russian nation cannot be regarded as apostate, or compared with those who followed Photius, Luther, Jansenius, or Döllinger into wilful rebellion and secession. The authors of the schism were the prelates and higher clergy from Constantinople, and the boyars of Moscow, who were completely under their influence. Most of these, even, were probably, to a great extent, misled by ignorance and prejudice. We have already shown how the schism has become intertwined with state policy, so as to transform the great, severed limb of the Catholic Church into a national institution with an outward form of hierarchical organization, yet really only a department of the imperial autocracy. Nevertheless, this national Russian Church is in a condition essentially different from that of the Anglican establishment or any other Protestant communion. It retains all that is necessary to the constitution of a catholic church, and needs only to submit to the supremacy of the Pope in order to be redintegrated in unity. The body of the priests and people of Russia are undoubtedly not in formal, but merely in material, schism. They are therefore truly in their own persons members of the Catholic Church. They have the faith and the sacraments, and there is no obstacle to the grace of God in the inculpable state of external separation from the Holy See in which they have been unfortunately placed by their ecclesiastical and civil rulers. The misfortune of such a vast number of the true and pious children of the Holy Mother Church must cry to God for deliverance and restoration to the true fold. Their numerous oblations of the unbloody Sacrifice, their communions, their perpetual prayers to the Blessed Virgin and the saints, some of whom belonged in this world to their nation, the sacrifices and prayers of the noble converts from the Russian schism to Catholicity, the mercy of God, which is extended over all men, especially the baptized, must surely effect their reconciliation to their Catholic brethren and the Holy Father of all Christendom. The sufferings and the blood of the victims of Russian persecution will conduce more powerfully to this result than any other human cause. The pagan Russians slaughtered the priests and faithful of the Byzantine Empire but a short time before they fell down before the cross and submitted to the spiritual authority of the Christian patriarch. Vladimir dragged ignominiously to the river the idol he had formerly worshipped. It cannot, therefore, be impossible that God should bring his successor to the feet of the Pope in humble submission, to place himself and his empire under the gentle sway of the Vicar of Christ. Russia once reconciled with Catholic Christendom, the conversion of all the Sclavonians would undoubtedly follow. The Eastern schism would become extinct or reduced to insignificance; and to Russia would naturally fall the great work of Christianizing Asia, when the paralysis of schism was removed. Who can tell if the kingdom of Poland may not be restored to its autonomy, renovated by the severe chastisements which it has not only suffered but deserved, and purified from the foul mixture of infidel revolutionism which has been more fatal to it than any of its external disasters? The designs of God defy all human scrutiny, and the changes awaiting Europe, whose complicated, mysterious evolutions have always baffled the most sagacious foresight or previous planning of rulers or statesmen, are as much beyond philosophical calculation as the movements of three bodies are beyond the computation of mathematics. Some indications, however, precede the full disclosures of events. An eminent Catholic of Germany has recently said: “I see the finger of God, which pushes the Russians forwards and Romewards.”[183] We do not think there can be any object more worthy of the united prayers of all Catholics, next after the deliverance and triumph of the Holy See, than the reconciliation of Russia to the Catholic Church.

[177] _Two Chancellors: Prince Gortchakoff and Prince Bismarck._ By Julian Klaczko. Translated from the _Revue des Deux Mondes_ by Frank P. Ward. New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1876.

Various works on Russia by Palmer, Gagarin, Tondini, De Custine, De Maistre, Pitzipios, Tyrrell, Gurowski, Romanoff, Rabbe and Duncan, etc. The histories of Mouravieff, Leo, Rohrbacher, Darras, and Alzog.

[178] Still another derivation is from Roxolani, the name of a Scythian tribe.

[179] The older brother, Constantine, resigned his right of succession.

[180] Alexander I. said to Caulaincourt: “I must have the key which opens the gate of my house.”

[181] La Russie c’est le rien.

[182] _Contemporary Evolution_, by St. George Mivart, pp. 66, 67.

[183] Reinhold Baumstarck in the _Hist. Polit. Blätter_ for Dec. 1, 1876.

UP THE NILE.

II.

Like giant walls the Libyan and Arabian mountains bound the valley on either side, at one point close to the river bank, at another receding inland five or six miles. From Cairo to Wady Halfa, eight hundred miles, they stretch in an unbroken line. Beautiful groves of palm-trees line the banks, among which we wander for hours as the boat is tracked up the stream. This mode of progression is slow indeed, and is used when the wind fails us. A stout rope is made fast to the bow, and eight or ten men, taking hold of the other end, walk along the bank, dragging the boat after them, scarcely ever making more than five or six miles a day. We go ashore at this time. There are numbers of fine birds to shoot――over two hundred and fifty different kinds: vultures, rosy pelicans, golden orioles, pink flamingos, many geese and ducks, and innumerable flocks of aboulgerdans, the _ardetta russata_, or buff-back heron, the constant friend and companion of the buffalo. For hours we wander through palm-groves, cotton and sugar fields, and occasionally pass through a small village, to the intense amusement of the elders and the terror of the juveniles. Near midnight of the 24th of December we reached Ekhmeem, a small town on the east bank. We had been anxious to spend Christmas morning here; for there is a reunited Coptic church, and we all wished to attend Mass. The church was not very handsome nor elaborately finished. The floor was composed of bricks, with a few straw mats scattered here and there. The roof was made of rough, unfinished boards, two openings in which served to admit light and air, thus dispensing with the necessity for windows. There were a few pews. On the walls were painted pictures of saints and holy men and women. They were executed by native artists, and to the untutored eye of these simple natives seemed beautiful no doubt. They reminded us of those pictures we were wont to draw on our slates when schoolboys. After they were finished, painful doubts would arise as to whether any one would be able to tell for what they were intended; so to remove all apprehension we wrote underneath: “This is a man,” “This is a cow.” If many Western Christians are to visit this church, it would be well for them to do the same, so that we may not mistake a picture of the Blessed Virgin for a shadoof, or St. Joseph for a portion of an obelisk. There were about forty Arabs, men and boys, in the body of the church, and some women behind the lattice-work screens at the rear which separated them from the men. This separation of sex is carried on even in the Christian churches of Egypt. Father H―――― officiated, and we had the honor to be the first Latins who had ever heard Mass in the Coptic church of Ekhmeem. Afterwards we were hospitably entertained by the Coptic priest. He invited us to his reception-room on the second story; the congregation crowded in, and each one in turn shook hands with us, and then kissed their own hands in token of respect. Innumerable cups of coffee and cigarettes were forced upon us. I like coffee, and am particularly fond of a cigarette, but both in moderation. One soon tires, however, of converting himself into a movable coffee-pot and perambulating smoke-stack to afford these natives a means of showing that they are pleased with his visit. I have never seen smoking carried on to such an extent as in this country. While dressing in the morning and undressing at night they puff their cigarettes. During the day the smoke is constantly issuing from their lips.

Pococke speaks of some convents near here, one of which is called “Of the Martyrs,” and is mentioned by the Arab historian Macrizi, and another about two miles further in a wild valley, which is composed of grottoes in the rock and a brick chapel covered with Coptic inscriptions. Near this is a rude beaten path leading to what appears to have been the abode of a hermit. Ekhmeem, down to the advent of the Moslems, was considered the oldest city of all Egypt. It was supposed to have been founded by Ekhmeem, the great-grandson of Ham. This was after the Deluge; and if the generally-received date of that event be correct, then the supposition was false. Modern Egyptologists, unless wrong in their chronology, show that many cities existed at least three thousand years before Christ.

A few hours’ sail brought us to Girgeh, a small town on the left bank. Here is the oldest Roman Catholic establishment in Egypt. Girgis, or George, is the patron saint of all the Egyptian Christians, and after him the town was named. Leo Africanus says that Girgeh was formerly the largest and most opulent monastery of Christians in Egypt, called after St. George, and inhabited by upwards of two hundred monks, who possessed much land in the neighborhood. They supplied food to all travellers, and sent annually a large sum to the patriarch at Cairo to be distributed among the Christian poor. About one hundred years ago a dreadful plague afflicted Egypt and carried off all the monks of the convent. There is a small congregation now of some four hundred reunited Copts, with a few Coptic priests, presided over by a Franciscan missionary. We called on him and paid a very pleasant visit. He accepted our invitation to dinner. As it was Christmas day, and this our first dinner-party, Ahmud spared no trouble to have everything as nice as possible. The table was laid with very pretty pink and white china. Ibrahim appeared in a full suit of the purest white. The principal dish was a turkey; and such turkeys as they have in this upper country are to be found nowhere else in the world. Unfortunately, the priest could only speak Arabic and Italian; and as our knowledge of those languages was very limited, the conversation was not animated. One of our party spoke Spanish fluently; with this assistance, and what remained of the Latin of our college days, we made some progress, and were able to exchange a little information and a few ideas. The Father was an Italian of good family, and had been at Girgeh for eight years. His congregation were very much attached to him, but, being very poor, he found it difficult to get along. The only outside aid he received was from the missionary society of Lyons, who send to each mission along the Nile one napoleon (about four dollars) per month.

Further up, at Negadeh, we paid a very interesting visit to an old priest, Père Samuel, who had been thirty-seven years in Egypt, thirty-four of which he had spent at Negadeh. At first he did not seem to understand the purport of our visit. We were probably the first Catholics who had ever called on him. In the course of thirty-four years he had made but twenty converts from Moslemism. This is owing to the severe penalties prescribed by the Koran for apostasy, which but few dare brave. There are about four thousand schismatical Copts and two hundred reunited ones, mostly his own converts. It is an edifying sight to see these small but devoted bands of Christians practising their religion in the midst of fanatical enemies who ridicule and annoy them in every possible way.

On we sail, and soon the white minarets of Girgeh fade away in the distance. On the tops of the houses in almost every town pigeon-towers have been built for the shelter and accommodation of the myriads of semi-domesticated pigeons that abound here. I am informed that this care is taken of them for the sake of obtaining their manure. One would think that the owners would resist any attempts to destroy them. On the contrary, they would call to us from a distance, and, after we had trodden down their standing grain to reach them, they would point out a flock of pigeons, tell us to shoot them, and then, seemingly in great glee, run, pick them up, and bring them to us. On the 27th of December the wind was so strong that we furled the sails and were blown up-stream under bare poles at the rate of three miles an hour. The raised cabin, presenting such a broad surface to the wind, acted as a sail and enabled them to steer the boat. As we were seated at dinner that evening, Ahmud entered, appearing very nervous, and told us the sailors were about to stop to make their peace-offering to Sheik Selim. “And pray who is Sheik Selim?” we asked. “He is a very holy man,” said Ahmud――“the guardian spirit of the Nile. He is one hundred and twenty years of age, and for the last eighteen years he has not changed his position, but, seated on the bank, he rules the elements. If we passed without making an offering to him, he would send adverse winds; may be he would set fire to the boat or cause other dire calamities to befall us.” “Does he not tire of sitting there so long?” I venture to inquire. “Oh! no; when no one is with him he calls to the crocodiles, and they come out of the water and play with him. At the approach of any human being he orders them to retire, and is instantly obeyed.” “And do the sailors really believe this?” “Yes, and I do also,” replied Ahmud indignantly. “I tell you again that any one who passes without making an offering to this holy man is sure to meet with some misfortune. Some years ago, Said Pasha, the then Viceroy of Egypt, was passing here in his steamer. The sailors asked permission to stop, but the Viceroy would not permit it, and sneered at their credulity. Immediately the wheels revolved without moving the steamer, and it was not until peace-offerings had been given and accepted that the saint would allow the boat to proceed.”

After such conclusive proof of this holy man’s power we did not dare to interfere, but some suggested that we would call upon the saintly Moslem with the delegation appointed by the crew. Ali was very nervous and seemed almost afraid to go; but his childlike curiosity got the better of him, and he accompanied us. We walked up the bank in solemn procession, not a word being spoken. We found the saint seated on the top, in the centre of a circle made of the stalks of the sugar-cane. A low fire was burning before him. He must always be approached on his right hand. Reis Mohammed was the first of our party, and, saluting him most respectfully, laid at his feet a small basket filled with bread, oranges, tobacco, and money. Sheik Selim was a very old man, entirely nude, and seated on his haunches, long, matted hair flowing to his shoulders. Around him a group of his retainers watched us with eager curiosity. Our sailors, with awe-stricken countenances, gazed upon the holy monk with expressions betokening those feelings which would fill our breasts at looking upon some phantom from the spirit-world. Above us the moon was riding high in the clear blue of an Egyptian sky, lighting up the scene with an almost weird effect. It was a picture never to be forgotten. The fruitful soil of this land gives back to the industrious farmer three and four crops a year. Had Sheik Selim’s body, as it then was, been properly planted and cared for, no less than six crops could easily be realized. If cleanliness be next to godliness, infinite distance must have separated him from the Deity. Each one in turn shook hands with him. He thanked them for the presents and asked for some meat. “I will bring you some from the howadji’s table,” said Ahmud. “No, I will touch nothing which has been handled by the Christian dogs. Reis Mohammed, in return for your offering you will find a pigeon on the boat when you return. I have ordered it to go there and wait until you come to take it; I present it to you.” “He must get a number of good things from the many different boats passing,” I remarked in a side tone to Ahmud. “Yes, but he never eats anything at all; he gives all he receives to his retainers. He is not like other men: he has not eaten anything for eighteen years past.” “He must be on very bad terms with his stomach,” thought I; but, being somewhat incredulous, I concealed myself for a few moments behind a palm-tree. As soon as the party had retired he seized an orange, and, from the avidity with which he devoured it, I concluded that perhaps Ahmud’s story was partly true. When we returned to the boat, Ali told us that Reis Mohammed found a live pigeon on the deck, which suffered itself to be captured, being the one presented by the saint. Not only Ali but all the crew insisted upon the truth of this fact. Something must have displeased the old gentleman, possibly our incredulity, for immediately afterwards we ran aground and remained so for some hours.

On the 29th of December we reached Keneh, on the east bank, and the next morning crossed the river, mounted our little donkeys, and rode to the great temple of Dendera. This temple was dedicated to the goddess Athor, or Aphrodite, the name Dendera or Tentyra being taken from Tei-n-Athor, the abode of Athor. To my mind none of the temples of Egypt can be called beautiful, or even graceful. Compared with the architectural gems of Greece, or the more recent fairy-like structures of the Moguls, they are heavy, coarse, and ungainly. But their interest is derived from their solidity, their antiquity, and the records of events sculptured on them, making each temple wall a page of that immortal book which tells of the manners and customs of the mighty people who ruled the known world six thousand years ago. On the ceiling of this temple was the Zodiac, so long the subject of such earnest controversy, by some assigned to an antediluvian age, but more probably belonging to the Ptolemaic or Roman epochs. The most interesting sculpture on the walls of Dendera is the contemporary representation of the great Cleopatra. It is generally believed to resemble her somewhat, allowance being made for the conventional mode of drawing then in vogue. It is not what would now be thought a very handsome face――full, thick lips, a nose somewhat Roman in shape, large eyes, and rather a sharp profile. But many think that Cleopatra was not so very beautiful, her charm lying more in her abilities and her power to please. She spoke to ambassadors from six or seven different nations, each in his own tongue. She sang charmingly, and was said to be the only sovereign of Egypt who understood the language of all her subjects――Greek, Ethiopic, Egyptian, Troglodytic, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac.

We shot a trochilus, or spur-winged plover. We had been very anxious to obtain a specimen of this bird, called by the Arabs tic-tac, but so far had been unsuccessful. True that almost every bird we brought on board was determined to be a tic-tac by some of the sailors, but, on comparing each with the description given in Smith’s admirable work on the Nile voyage, we found it was not the veritable trochilus. Why were we so anxious to obtain this bird? Because Herodotus tells about its strange doings, its acting as a self-propelling tooth-pick for the crocodile. Says that ancient traveller: When the crocodile gets out of the water on land, and then opens its jaws, which it most commonly does towards the west, the trochilus enters its mouth and swallows the leeches. The crocodile is so well pleased with this service that it never hurts the trochilus. It is called spur-winged plover on account of the large spur which it has on the carpal joint of each wing, rendering it a formidable adversary to the crow, three times its size. These Tentyrites were professed enemies of the crocodile. They hunted them with great energy and feasted off them when captured. This persecution of a being considered god-like by the Kom-Ombites people, living further up the river, was resented by them with all the fanatical rage and hatred of the most bitter sectarian feud. “Those who considered the crocodiles as sacred trained them up and taught them to be quite tame. They put crystal and gold earrings into their ears, and bracelets on their forepaws, and they gave them appointed and sacred food, and treated them as well as possible while alive, and when dead they embalmed them and buried them in sacred vaults” (Herodotus, _Euterpe_). The latter part of this strange narrative I can vouch for, as I have now in my possession three young mummied crocodiles taken from the crocodile mummy-pits of Moabdeh, near the southern extremity of the rocks of Gebel Aboo Faydah. One afternoon, while reclining on our luxurious divan, not a cloud obscuring the sky, as the light winds bore us slowly onward, I dreamed in pleasant reveries of the lands we were about to visit. Suddenly loud cries of “Folk! folk!” are heard, and Ali rushes up on deck. “Warrene! warrene! Shoot him! kill him!” My gun hung above me, loaded with light bird-shot. In a moment I was on the forecastle, gun in hand, but without the faintest idea as to what or where a warrene was. Still, all the sailors cried “Folk! folk!” and, running along the bank, I saw what appeared to be a crocodile, about four feet long. The frightened reptile ran rapidly along, at times about to plunge into the water, but immediately the cry of “Folk!” was raised, and it ran up on the bank again. The whole charge of bird-shot entering its head cut short its career, and it was soon a captive on the deck. “Why did you cry folk?” we asked the sailors. “Why, it means ‘Go up,’ and it prevents the warrene from entering the water.” “So, then, it understands what you say, and obeys?” “Yes; and besides, if you call out ‘Folk!’ to a crocodile, it will raise its forepaw, and thus expose the only part through which a bullet can penetrate its body.” No more said, but considerable doubt raised in the minds of the howadjii, and resolutions formed to experiment upon the first crocodile met with. The warrene is a species of crocodile, brought forth, according to the sailors’ story, in this way: The crocodile lays a number of eggs on land. When these are hatched, from some come forth crocodiles, from others warrenes; but what law of nature operates to produce this change they do not understand.

Here is how we pass our time on board: We rise between six and seven, and each one, as soon as ready, takes what the Hindoos call the _Chotee Hazree_, or little breakfast――coffee, eggs, bread, and butter: canned butter brought from England, very sweet; bread baked on board which would do credit to the best _café_ in Europe; coffee far better than all Paris could make; and eggs of a correspondingly excellent quality. After this Mr. S―――― and I generally go ashore and shoot. If the wind be not strong, and the men track or pole, we can easily walk ahead of the boat. Madam reads, sews, and sometimes walks with us. Father H―――― spends several hours writing in his room, and about ten o’clock shows his bright, cheerful face on deck, ready for a walk, talk, or almost anything else. At noon we breakfast together, and the afternoons are generally spent in practising taxidermy. Many travellers complain that the long Nile voyage is somewhat tiresome. Assuredly it is to one who has no other resources than looking upon the scenes around. The scenery is monotonous, the general features of river, plain, and mountain being almost precisely alike from Cairo to Wady Haifa. To us time was short; day glided into day, week into week――no marked transition, no jarring, scarce anything to note the change, to show that to-day is not yesterday. Nor, in sooth, do we care what day, what week, what month it is. We have left the world and its regulations of time behind us, and we will have naught of the world until we return to civilization. Pleasant occupation of the mind is one of the highest worldly happinesses one can hope to attain. We were constantly employed in pleasing occupations. Add to this the cloudless sky, the sweet, delicious atmosphere, the soft calm and stillness, unknown in our own harsher clime, and one seems lifted above the dull realities of this hard world, and to live in the brightest dream-land. Truly, this is the very acme of pleasure-travelling.

We learned in an empiric manner the art of taxidermy. At first we knew nothing about it――had no books upon the subject. The first birds we prepared were sorry specimens. Each day we made new discoveries, and finally we preserved over one hundred birds in perfect order and condition. In this interesting occupation the afternoon hours glided swiftly by. At six we dined. Then one would read aloud for an hour or more. After that we played dominos or engaged in conversation until ten o’clock, when we retired.

At half-past six of the afternoon of December 30, amid the waving of flags and the firing of pistol-shots, we cast anchor off the town of Luxor. Ali Murad, our worthy consul, appeared on his house-top, and saluted us with a battery in the shape of a pair of antiquated horse-pistols, the firing of which seemed to afford him much amusement. Ali is a fine fellow, it is said. He called and spent half an hour with us. He did not talk――in fact, he could not talk much intelligibly; in short, he could not talk at all so that we could understand him. He represents the majesty and power of the great republic of the western ocean, and is not able to speak the first word of English. But he can shake hands, and tell us through Ahmud that he is glad to see us; so we stop his mouth with a nargileh, and supply him with coffee, and he squats on the divan and is happy.

That night we visited majestic Karnak. The soft light of the moon playing here and there among its ruined halls and fallen obelisks made the picture so rich and beautiful that we lingered on till late in the night. Luxor, Karnak, and the temples on the western shore mark the site of hundred-gated Thebes. The western division of the city was, in ages long since passed away, under the particular protection of Athor. For, taught the learned priests, beneath yon western mountain our holy goddess receives each evening the setting sun in her outstretched arms. We sailed on the next day, dipping our flag as we passed the _Nubia_ and _Clara_, occupied by a very pleasant party from Boston, whom we were destined to meet again at the extremity of our voyage. Passing Erment on the west bank, where there is a sugar-factory, we saw a long line of camels carrying sugar-cane. There must have been at least five hundred of these patient animals; but the load that each one carried could not have weighed fifty pounds. Soon we reach Esne. We are to stop here seventy-four hours, according to contract, for the men to bake their bread. They paid three pounds for the doora, or grain, from which the bread is made; this included the grinding. Having kneaded and prepared the dough, it was baked in a public oven at the cost of seventeen shillings. This bread is the staple food of the crew. The quantity baked on January 3 lasted the men until we returned to Sioot, the 21st of March following. The bread was then brought aboard, and for two days the little old cook was busy cutting it up into small pieces, which were strewn over the deck and exposed to the sun for a few days, until they became hard as stones. The preparation of their meals is very simple. A number of these slices of bread are put into a pot filled with water; to this is added some salt and lentils, and the whole is then boiled and stirred over a fire. This meal they have twice a day. Many a time have I joined them in their humble repast; and it was palatable indeed, this time-honored mess of red porridge for which the hungry Esau sold his birthright to his ambitious brother. These fellows, strong and hardy as they were, eat meat but four times in as many months, on which occasions we presented them with a sheep. The animal served them for two meals. It was butchered and skinned by the captain, and the only parts not used were the entrails. The body was divided into fifteen equal parts, one for each man. These parts were weighed to ensure a fair distribution, and the hoofs and head were boiled with the porridge to impart flavor to it.

Some years ago the authorities at Cairo became suddenly imbued with high ideas of morality. In a fit of virtuous indignation they banished thence the ghawázee, or dancing girls of not very reputable character. Numbers of them ascended the Nile to Esne and settled there. Many Eastern travellers, filled with those romantic feelings touching everything Oriental, have raved in wild rhapsodies about the beauty and grace of these ghawázee. Those that I saw were coarse, corpulent, and homely. They were attired in bright robes and tawdry finery, their actions were disgusting, and their movements in dancing a little more graceful than the frantic struggles of a half-boiled lobster.

What numbers of shadoofs we now see on either bank! Before the voice of God called his servant Abraham to enter the kingdom of the mighty Pharaos, these shadoofs――or more properly in the plural, shawadéef――were the common means employed to supply artificial irrigation to the parched but fruitful soil. As the Nile recedes it leaves a rich and heavy alluvial deposit; in this the first crop is sown and brought forth, but it soon becomes dry, parched, and cracked, as rain scarcely ever falls in Upper Egypt. The shadoof is then used. From the top of an upright frame placed on the river bank is swung a long pole. To one end a rope is attached, from which swings a bucket made of skin. On the other end of the pole is fastened sufficient clay, hardened as a rock by the sun, to keep the pole in a horizontal position when the bucket is filled with water. The operator pulls downward on the rope until the bucket is immersed and filled. By a very slight effort it is then raised to the top of the bank, sometimes eight or ten feet high, and emptied into a trough, from which the water is conducted through numberless little canals to a distance often of five or six miles. These canals run in every direction, and by breaking the banks any part of the soil may be covered with water.

January 5, at six in the evening, we reached Assouan, and moored alongside the island of Elephantine. Here we are at Syene; for Assouan is but the Coptic Souan or Syene with the Arabic initial Alef added, together Assouan――to the Romans the frontier of the world, as all beyond was savage barbarism and unproductive soil. Domitian could think of no more horrible place to which he might banish the great satirist, and while here Juvenal amused himself by satirizing equally the Roman and Egyptian soldiers. Under the Ptolemies Syene was thought to lie immediately beneath the tropic of Cancer; but, as is now well known, this was a mistake, as it is situated in latitude 24° 5´ 25´´, seven hundred and thirty miles from the Mediterranean. In the early ages of Christianity Syene was the seat of a bishopric, and at one time more than twenty thousand of the inhabitants were destroyed by a fearful pest. The present town is large and well built. Merchandise from the Soodan and Central Africa is here taken from the camel’s back and shipped by water to Cairo. Here for the first time we see those different specimens of the African race――Nubians, Ababdeh, Bisharee, Bedoween, and many others from the still far-off interior. We are pestered and besieged by itinerant venders with every description of wares to be sold. They squat on the bank, waiting for some of the howadjii to come out. As soon as any of us appear we are surrounded by this motley crew, spears brandished in our faces――spears that have seen actual usage in the barbarous wars of the natives of the interior――ostrich eggs are poked under our noses, and the beautiful ostrich feathers waved above our heads. Strings of beads, elephants’ tusks are offered to us. I wish to buy a chibouk. I select one――a fine bowl of red clay beautifully polished, and a stem six feet long and straight as an arrow. “Well, you miserable, sordid, grovelling, lucre-loving, half-naked wretch” (this in English), “How much?” (this in Arabic).

A shrug of the shoulders, and eyes cast upon the ground.

“Well, how much?”

In a low, moaning voice: “Ten piastres”――only five times the proper value.

“I will give you one piastre.”

“Oh! no, by no means.” This is not spoken with the mouth, but by a more expressive movement of the head and shoulders. In the course of time the bargain is concluded for two piastres. I give him a piece of ten and hold out the hand for change. A bag is produced, filled with copper coins, of which it takes an indefinite quantity to equal a silver piece of any given value. Slowly and deliberately he counts into my hand a score or two of them, stops, and looks up into my face. More! Again they are reluctantly doled out one by one. Another stoppage, another demand for more; and so it goes, until one party cries enough, or the other knows that he has given the proper change. This is carried so far that on one occasion, where silver change was to be given for a napoleon, I observed the seller count out from his money-bag the proper amount of change, conceal it in his hand, and then go through the operation above described. But the regular shop-keeper does not bother you to buy――only the outside board, as it were. The merchant is a most dignified man; if it pleases Allah for you to buy, you will do it, otherwise not――Oriental predestination――so he is perfectly indifferent.

We wanted to go shopping, and looked around for the rich merchant of the town, who had fine ostrich eggs and feathers, elephants’ tusks, and spears. We found him seated on the ground reading a letter, brought out, no doubt, to impress us with his importance. I half think the letter was upside down, and doubt very much whether he could read at all; but it gave him the air of a man engaged in extensive foreign correspondence. Ali made known what we wanted. Without raising his head, he sent a boy to open his store, and told Ali he would follow when he finished his letter. Shortly after he came up, sat down on a divan, and got at the letter again. When we complained of the price, he did not deign a reply, and finally, when we rose to leave, he did not even lift his eyes, but seemed to be still trying to decipher his correspondence. I am sure it was partly done for effect, for he could have read a dozen letters while we were in his shop. But then he wanted to show his indifference.

LONGINGS.

FROM THE FRENCH OF ALPHONSE DE LAMARTINE.

I said: O heart! what is thy goal――thy end? As the lambs follow where the mothers lead, Shall I so tread their footprints who precede, And life’s brief, death-doomed hour in folly spend?

One chases wealth across the restless wave―― Whelmed in the deep, his bark, his hopes go down; Another loves the acclaim of vain renown, And finds in glory’s bosom but a grave.

One makes men’s passions serve as steps to rise, And mounts a throne――anon behold him fall; Another dallies where soft accents call, And reads his destiny in woman’s eyes.

In hunger’s arms I see the idler faint, The laborer drive his ploughshare through the soil, The wise man’s books, the warrior’s deadly toil, The beggar by the wayside making plaint.

All pass; but whither? Whither flits the leaf Chased by the rough blast, torn by winter rime? So fade they from their various ways as time Harvests and sows the generations brief.

They strove ’gainst time――time conquers all at last. As the light sand-bank wastes down in the stream, I see them vanish. Was their life a dream? So quickly are they come, so quickly passed!

For me, I sing the Lord whom I adore, In crowded cities or in deserts dun, At rise of day or at the set of sun, Tossed on the sea or couching on the shore.

Earth cries out: Who is God? That soul divine Whose presence fills the illimitable place; Who with one step doth span the realms of space; Who lends his splendor in the sun to shine;

Who bade from nothing rise creation’s morn; Who made on nothingness the world to stand; Who held the sea in check ere yet was land; Who gazed, and light ineffable was born;

For whom no morrow and no yesterday; Who through eternity doth self sustain; To whom revealed the future lieth plain; Who can recall the past and bid it stay――

God! Let his hundred names of glory wake For ever in my song! Oh! be my tongue A golden harp before his altar hung, Until his hand shall touch me and I break.

SIMILARITIES OF PHYSICAL AND RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE.[184]

When Macaulay remarked that the Catholic Church owed its success in a great measure to the far-reaching policy of its organization, he uttered a truth of vast pregnancy; for the evidences of this far-sightedness abound on every side, and we find its latest attestation in the attitude the church holds to the questions which agitate the scientific world to-day. Had she, at any period of her existence, so far departed from a well-defined and consistent policy as to formulate theories touching the nature and course of physical phenomena, she might stand to-day condemned and branded in the light of recent scientific discoveries; but apart from the opinions of individual writers, lay and ecclesiastical, to whom she accorded full license to hold what they pleased in such matters, provided they did not contradict revealed truth, and who accordingly often touched on the border-land of the ridiculous and extravagant, not one authoritative expression of hers can be found at variance with a single scientific truth even of yesterday’s discovery. Of course she condemns materialism, because it runs counter to the belief in the immortality of the soul, which is a truth as readily demonstrable as the most undoubted fact in science; and she disbelieves in the eternity of matter, because such a monstrosity involves a violation of reason; but neither materialism nor the belief that matter is eternal is science, nor do any but the blatant fuglemen of scientism hold to them. What we insist upon is that no expression recorded in any council or authoritatively uttered by the Holy See can be adduced which is in conflict with any truth of physical science now established. This may sound strange to those whose prejudices against the church have been fanned and fostered by the terrible things told concerning Copernicus, Galileo, and Giordano Bruno; but it is as true as it stands printed, and it is a disgrace to the intelligence of the day that writers are tolerated who still retail trash in opposition to overwhelming historical evidence.

As in the past, the church to-day benignantly encourages all who devote themselves to the prosecution of the natural sciences, and welcomes their discoveries with delight. She wishes merely that scientific investigators confine themselves to their legitimate labors, and do not wildly rush to impious conclusions from insufficient data. She is ever willing to accept whatever conclusions premises really justify, and no more. Surely this attitude of the church towards science is eminently rational, and no right-thinking man can condemn it. Yet it is not alone such men as Spencer, Huxley, Tyndall, St. Hilaire, and Figuier who charge the church with being steadily reactionary and actively antagonistic to science, but the whole sectarian world has taken up the cry. We are sorry to number among these the author of the volume which affords subject-matter for this article, and which contains much that is novel, ingenious, and true, as we hope to be able to show when considering the chapter on the “Faiths of Science.”

But we will first learn from Mr. Bixby what manner of religion it is to which science is not opposed, so that we may ascertain the scope and purpose of his work. “In its most general significance,” he says, “it is _the expression of man’s spiritual nature awakening to spiritual things_” (italics by the author). After developing this definition at some length, he considers it more restrictedly as embracing the following elements:

“1. Belief in a soul within man. “2. Belief in a sovereign soul without. “3. Belief in actual or possible relations between them.”

This, then, is religion according to Mr. Bixby, and it is to the rather easy task of reconciling a few modern scientific theories to this attenuated abstraction of religious sentiment, this evanescent aroma of an emotion, that he addresses himself. The statement of those three fully sufficient conditions of religion clearly involves pantheism; and not one of the wildest scientific conjectures of the day is there which may not be made to harmonize with pantheism. The task, therefore, of reducing science and religion to a harmonious plane is quite supererogatory, since on a bare statement of religion it is reconcilable with anything. Pantheism, as taught by its most eminent exponents in Germany――Hegel, Schelling, and Fichte――consists in a sovereign soul without the τὸ non ἐγώ, from which the soul of man, the τὸ ἐγώ, is an emanation――_i.e._, a fragmentary expression of its consciousness. Beyond this these distinguished philosophers admit and recognize nothing. Do we not clearly find the same thing in the religion of Mr. Bixby?――viz., 1, soul within man; 2, sovereign soul without man; 3, actual or possible relations between the two. Now, taking the term soul as univocal in the first and second statements, is it not evident that the latter contains the former, and are we not landed high and dry on the absolute pantheism of Schelling? Or rather, going back to the parent source of pantheism, does not Mr. Bixby’s definition of religion strongly recall these words of the Vedas: “Thus the man who in his own soul recognizes the soul supreme present throughout all creation obtains the happiest lot of all――to be absorbed into Brahma”?

If this be Mr. Bixby’s meaning――or rather, whether meant or not, if this be the legitimate resultant of his views on religion――we see no way of escaping from the conclusion that matter is eternal, since his religion by no means includes the dogma of creation――indeed, it is his custom to scout dogmas――but is strictly limited to the recognition of an inner and an outer soul. It is true Mr. Bixby admits no such consequence, but he cannot help himself; he speaks most devoutly of God, condemns a “bald materialism that would make matter the sum and substance of all things, self-existent, and alone immortal, etc.,” all which is true enough, but by no means bound up in Mr. Bixby’s concept of religion. Our author consequently deprecates a conflict with a shadow, points out to scientific men the possibility of a complete reconciliation between their theories and a Bixbian fugitive tenuity, and devoutly implores them not to use language which might delay “the awakening of our spiritual nature.” Mr. Bixby says that metaphysics must not obtrude themselves on the realm of physical science; that the missions of both constantly diverge. We would, however, remind him that without metaphysics――and we mean the metaphysics he so much abhors, viz., those of the scholastics――we could find no argument as supplied by reason against the eternity of matter. It is wonderful that a man of Mr. Bixby’s respectable attainments should not perceive into what a complete _petitio principii_ he has fallen when he postulates the non-eternity of matter. He does not admit the correctness of the Mosaic cosmic genesis, and as he employs no reasoning to substantiate his postulate, we must regard it as a _petitio principii_ and nothing more.

How differently do the theologians and philosophers of the Catholic Church comport themselves in presence of this old philosophical heresy, revived to-day in full force by Draper, Tyndall, and Huxley, and which may be regarded as the arch sin of modern scientific theories! They do not beg the question as Mr. Bixby does, but, grappling it with an iron logic, dispose of it as effectually as when St. Thomas overthrew the crude systems of Leucippus and Averroës by the aid of a few well-established metaphysical principles. Mr. Bixby says: “Mediæval scholasticism especially grievously sinned in these respects. It delighted in hair-splitting disputations over frivolous puzzles, and in endless speculations about things not only transcending the possibility of human knowledge, but destitute of any practical moment. Its only criterion was the deliverances of the church on the almost equally venerated Aristotle.” Alas! we fear that the _Summa_ of St. Thomas is a sealed book for Mr. Bixby, that he has not tempted the page of Suarez with well-trimmed lamp, and that his stock of mediæval lore is borrowed from Hallam or the latest edition of the encyclopædia. To prove how immeasurably superior the “hair-splitters” are to beggars of the question we will show in what way the former hold their own against the modern eternists. Prof. Draper says that as there will be an unending succession in the future, so there has been an unbeginning series in the past; species succeed species, and genera succeed genera, in a never-beginning and a never-to-end chain; Tyndall repeats the words of Draper, whom he so much admires; and Mr. Bixby says, “Gentlemen, it may not be so”; while the scholastic clearly proves that it cannot be so. At the outset a little “hair-splitting” is necessary. We distinguish what is called an actual series, each link of which has had an actual existence, from a potential series, in which the links have not as yet been projected into existence, but will be. Now, an actual series has an end――viz., the link marking the point of transition from the actual to the potential――and is susceptible of increase, since, indeed, it constantly receives fresh accessions from the potential. If, however, it can thus acquire increase, that increase is representable by numbers, so many fresh links added to the series. But a number cannot be added except to another number; consequently, the series to which fresh increase is added must be numerical――_i.e._, representable by figures. Now, whatever can be represented by figures must have had a beginning; for there can be no number without a first unit, which is the first element of number. Moreover, the supposition that there stretches back into eternity a non-beginning succession of events contradicts the principle of causality; for it would give us one more effect than cause. Viewed in its descending aspect, every link in the chain is cause of the event which follows, till the last link is reached, the which is not cause, since it has as yet preceded no other event. But it is effect, since it depends on the previous event. Viewed now in its ascending aspect, the chain consists of a series of links which are all effects――effects more numerous than the causes by the addition of the latest link, which is effect but not cause. We must have, then, one effect without a cause, which is absurd. The same maybe said about consequent and antecedent terms in such a series; for the last term in the series being merely consequent, the chain or series which, by hypothesis, has no beginning contains more consequent than antecedent terms, which is equally absurd. We have here given but an outline of the argument. The scholastics have summed it up more fully, though far more tersely and concisely, in these words: There can be no infinite series _a parte ante_, but there can be _a parte post_. This reasoning not only conclusively disproves, but renders ridiculous, the arguments of Draper, Tyndall, and the rest. Yet from this philosophical armory Mr. Bixby would disdain to draw a single weapon in defence of his thesis, but prefers rather that the church be considered essentially inimical to the progress of true science, and constantly jealous of its encroachments.

“Mutato nomine de te Fabula narratur.”

Mr. Bixby entertains a special dislike to theology as being apt to interfere with his pet scheme of reconciling science with――shall we call it Bixbyism? Certainly we cannot consistently call it religion. He says:

“Again, theological dogmas and science have been, and still are, opposed. Theologians have formulated their dim guesses about God’s character and ways into creeds, and imagined them finalities. They have speculated upon matters of purely physical knowledge――such as the antiquity of the earth and the age of man, the condition of the primitive globe and its inhabitants, the manner and method of their appearing――and have made these speculations into dogmas held as essential to religion.”

Here we must take sharp issue with Mr. Bixby. In the first place, have not the theologians as good right to speculate on such matters as Messrs. Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall? And if they have fallen into error, it is no more than the latter gentlemen have frequently done. Surely Mr. Bixby must allow the fact that St. George Mivart is no less a sound _savant_ because he is read in theology; or would he maintain that Father Secchi is liable to additional chromatic aberration because he believes in the decrees of the Vatican Council? In the next place, no theologian deserving the name deems himself competent to erect into a religious dogma demanding the reverence and belief of his fellows his individual scientific opinions. The absurdity of such an idea is apparent to any one who has read a Catholic theological treatise, which breathes a spirit of submissiveness in every line where the author’s own views are expounded――a spirit strikingly in contrast with the arrogant dogmatism of our scientific philosophers. Moreover, the church, the only competent authority to promulgate dogmas of faith, has never yet attempted to impose on the minds of her children a purely scientific truth as an article of belief. From this it is evident that Mr. Bixby occasionally palters, and merely wishes to pave the way for an easier adaptation of his religious views to the so-called advanced scientific tendencies of the day.

He says that all theologies stand in the way of science, but that two dogmas especially exhibit this perversity――viz., 1, the assumed infallibility of the Bible; 2, the assumed intervention of God. “In consequence of the first of these dogmas,” he says, “there has been a struggle by theologians to limit modern science to the contracted circle of the ancient Hebrew knowledge of the universe, and any variation of statement from the letter of Moses or Job, David or Paul, is regarded as a dangerous loosening of another screw in the bonds of righteousness and the evidences of immortality.” Mr. Bixby is not himself a believer in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and evidently thinks that whoever does not agree with him stands on the extreme opposite line and believes the very shaping of the letters to have been divinely commanded. This is wrong. The Scriptures were never intended as a manual of science. They merely state the great facts of human and cosmic genesis in a general way, so far as those two momentous facts affect the interests of the race. It has been proved time and again that the Mosaic books, fairly interpreted, contain nothing adverse to scientific truth. Why, then, will writers be ever harping on this well-worn theme? It is not honest to advance a statement without proof, and try to clinch it with a sneer.

“In consequence of the second dogma,” he writes, “theologians have been jealous of any attempt at a natural explanation of the mysteries of the world, and have looked upon every extension of the realm of unbroken order and second causes as an invasion by science of the religious kingdom. They imagine that one must lose what the other gains; that, step by step, as the arcana of the Kosmos are penetrated, and the same laws and substances are found ruling and constituting these as rule and constitute the more familiar parts and operations of nature, the action and presence of the Deity must be denied, and the human mind landed more and more in the slough of materialism.”

These words bear their refutation with them. The accusation is serious, and yet not a word of proof to substantiate it. Too often is Mr. Bixby guilty of this illogical procedure of substituting statements for proven facts and captious deliverances for argument. When Dr. Draper denies the possibility of miracles, he does so at least logically; for he believes in the eternity, immutability, and necessity of law. With him there is no lawgiver, but with Mr. Bixby it is different. He speaks of God “pouring his will through the channels of unvaried law.” Now, it is an axiom in law that the framers thereof may derogate from it from time to time, if so it should seem good to them. Why not, therefore, God? Mr. Bixby cannot, then, deny the utter impossibility of a miracle, and yet he argues against it just as strenuously and in the same spirit as Mr. Draper or Mr. Tyndall. Should he charge that such exceptional deviations from apparently established laws would argue caprice or shortsightedness on the part of God, we beg to reply that they occur in consequence of a higher law, representing the divine will, by which those secondary laws were established, and which, with far-reaching and clear-eyed gaze, made provision for those exceptional occurrences, so that they may be said virtually to come within the scope of the law itself. Should, then, the testimony in support of a miracle be of an unimpeachable nature, we see no reason why the possibility of a miraculous event is to be denied. When Voltaire said he would more readily believe that a whole citiful of people, separated by prejudices, social position, tastes, habits of life, and mutual distrust, might conspire to deceive him than he would that a dead man had arisen from the grave, he confounded physical with metaphysical impossibility; and this is precisely what every unbeliever since his time has done. To this charge Mr. Bixby is more grievously amenable, since he admits the reason for the validity of the distinction between the two impossibilities mentioned, by admitting God to be the author of law, and yet he virtually ignores it by the position he assumes.

But this chapter on the “Causes of Actual Antagonism” is so replete with reckless assertion and inconsequent reasoning that we have only to take up a passage at hazard to be confronted by an error. On page 41 he says:

“Neither is religion based on, nor bound up with, any one book. Had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob no religion, because Moses had not yet written? Was there no Christianity in the lifetime of Jesus, or the first forty years of the apostolic generation before Matthew put his pen on to parchment? As well say that chemical affinity is based on Lavoisier’s or Dalton’s treatises, or that gravitation is ruined if Newton’s _Principia_ is shown false in a single theorem.”

We assure our readers that we have selected this passage at random, lest we may be suspected of malice in having singled it out because of its surpassing fatuity. Who ever dreamt of saying that religion is bound up in a book? As well say that an author’s thoughts are nowhere to be found but between the covers of the book which bears his name. But mark the transparent fallacy of the underlying thought. Mr. Bixby evidently supposes that because religion had an existence prior to the books mentioned, we might therefore dispense with these, and still possess religion just as our predecessors had it before those books were yet written. But suppose those books happen to contain the previous body of religious doctrine, together with developments or disclosures inseparably connected with it; might we then carelessly reject them, as Mr. Bixby implies we might? Or does it follow that, because a “spiritual awakening” is defined to be of a special sort in one instance, it can never be so in another? Yet such is the irresistible inference to be drawn from the introductory portion of the passage just quoted. The same may be said of the reference to the priority of Christianity over the Gospel of St. Matthew. No one contends that Christianity did not exist in the lifetime of Jesus, or that it would not now exist had not St. Matthew written his Gospel; but it by no means follows that we are free to reject that evangelist’s history, since it is a compendium of Christian doctrine such as our Lord had preached it in his lifetime, and in rejecting it we would thereby reject the latter. The allusion to Lavoisier and Dalton is just as unhappy; for though it is true the science of chemistry might exist without them, still we cannot reject their treatises, since these contain the essential principles of that science.

Mr. Bixby is sometimes quite happy in stating the objections which scientists urge against religion, but we regret that he also sometimes fails to make good his refutation of their views. Thus, on page 149, he presents the argument of science in these words: “Theologians may talk glibly of soul and over-soul, Creator and creation, absolute and Infinite; they may fancy that they understand them; but they are deceiving themselves, mistaking a familiarity with words for a genuine understanding of things. Their high-sounding terms are but covers to their real ignorance.” Indeed, this is a common objection made by those whose habits of mind have been formed in the laboratory, and who have never troubled themselves much about metaphysics. Still, the objection should be met in a patient and painstaking mood, and answer given according to our lights. Mr. Bixby makes his rejoinder a _retorqueo argumentum_ by showing that science, too, bristles with difficulties and is beset with mysteries; that it borrows from conjecture more even than religion does; and that it can never hope to level all the hills and fill up all the valleys which lie along its course. This is very true and very apposite, but it may be asked: Does it contain an answer to the objection as stated? We rather think not. Cannot it be proved that we do really possess some knowledge of the Infinite and the Absolute, and that the apparent unintelligibility of these terms is to be sought for and found rather in the ignorance of those who object to them? The Infinite differs for us subjectively from no other object of thought on the score of adequacy, since we can have an adequate idea of nothing. Not even of the simplest material objects that surround us can we have at the best more than an inchoate and imperfect knowledge. How, then, can we be expected to conceive the Infinite, except in a very shadowy way, “as in a glass darkly”? Still, the fact that we speak of the Infinite and assert its attributes, that we distinguish Infinite Being from finite, and that our hearts fly towards it in unappeasable longing, is open guarantee that we have some knowledge of it, which is all that the most exacting can demand. Therefore those who confound infinite knowledge of the Infinite, which appertains to the Infinite Being alone, with that subjectively finite knowledge of it which we all possess, display an unpardonable ignorance. This is our answer to those who object that Infinite, as one term, is unintelligible, and we see no necessity for classifying it with the impenetrable secrets with which science is confronted at every step. The same may be said of the term absolute; and though we do not agree with the views of the absolute taken by Mansel, Hamilton, Kant, and Spencer, we know at least that the term has a meaning, that it implies total independence, and is based on that divine attribute which the scholastics denominate Aseity. Mr. Bixby is too timorous in his utterances. He seems to write under a Damocles’ sword, fearing to offend those great men who tread in the stately van of science. But if he hesitates to be dogmatic in one direction, he does not hesitate to be aggressive in another; and when his mood inclines that way, he sets up as the target of his shafts the doctrines and definitions of the Catholic Church.

In order to prove that Bixbyism is the only religion which is at all reconcilable with science, and to brush aside any pretensions Catholicity might entertain in the same direction, he quotes the following:

“Let him be anathema――

“Who shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions even when opposed to revealed doctrines.”

This proposition does not meet the approbation of Mr. Bixby. If it does not, then its contradictory must be true, which implies that a scientific utterance _may_ be true in the face of an opposing revealed truth. It is to be borne in mind that the revealed doctrines in question are supposed to be revealed, and revealed by God, and the whole statement is resolvable into this: Notwithstanding that God (in whom Mr. Bixby is a believer) has positively affirmed that a given statement is true, Mr. Tyndall or Prof. Huxley may affirm the contrary with impunity――nay, rather with a better title to our acceptance of their views――

“At nos virtutes ipsas invertimus.”

or, as Caramuel says, “We thus sweeten poison with sugar, and color guilt with the appearance of virtue.”

But in order to place himself still more _en rapport_ with his adversaries, Mr. Bixby, seemingly forgetful that he either surrenders the gage or else resolves the conflict into a tilt with a windmill, expresses himself to the following effect: “Religion has no exclusive source of information, but such sources only as are common to all branches of human knowledge.” If this be true, there is no necessity of even the shadow of an attempt to reconcile any differences which, by a stretch of fancy, might be conceived to exist between two sciences that travel along the same plane. All along, since this controversy was begun, it has been understood that the sole possible cause of conflict between science and religion arose out of the fact that they claimed each for itself more solid ground on which to stand. Reason and revelation were always supposed to be the party words of both, and every collision between them so far has resulted from the apparent irreconcilableness of these two. Mr. Bixby, in endeavoring to shift the ground of argument, should have confined himself to just that effort, and omitted those portions of his work tending to disprove all antagonism between science and religion, since, in the estimation of most men, a religion which asserts no claim to the supernatural is no religion at all. His attempted abatement of the claims of science, though well presented and sustained, works not an iota for Mr. Bixby’s point; for in all he says he is arguing for supernatural religion, which he virtually rejects, against the untenable assumptions of science.

As if in more strenuous advocacy of this idea, he elsewhere adds: “It [religion] is not all falsehood and masquerade; nevertheless, there is much popularly set down as religion which is no more religion than it is science. Now it has been bound up with one system, now with another. When Christianity first raised its head, it was told that polytheism alone was religion.” Continuing in this strain, he condemns every system of religion which stands opposed to another, and infers from the fact of such opposition the necessary falsity of them all. He even goes to the extent of affirming that the doctrines of the Catholic Church changed age by age, according to the tone of the prevailing philosophy. He says:

“In Augustine’s day Christianity was made inseparable from the doctrines of predestination and fatalism. In Abelard’s time it was bound up with the metaphysics of realism; in Roger Bacon’s time, with the philosophy of Aristotle; in the days of Vesalius, with the medical treatises of Galen; in the lifetime of Galileo, with the astronomy of Ptolemy. To-day it is the orthodoxy of the Council of Trent or the Westminster Catechism that is cemented to religion, and any attack on the one is assumed to be undermining the very foundations of faith and morals.”

This passage is recklessly false. Any one acquainted with church history, with the rise and progress of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, understands perfectly that in St. Augustine’s time no more stringent or rigorous views concerning original sin and predestination were held than tradition and the Scriptures sanctioned and ratified. And the patient reader of the history of philosophy will also condemn the assertion that the church proper had anything to do with the long-drawn disputes between the Nominalists and the Realists. The church left those wordy disputants severely alone, though the controversy was revived by the school of the Neo-Platonists for the very purpose of embroiling the church in the quarrel. We say the controversy was revived; for in reality the dispute is as old as Plato and Aristotle.

Still more absurd is what Mr. Bixby says with reference to Vesalius and Galen. Not a single authoritative passage from father, council, or historian can be adduced to prove that the church ever committed herself to the adoption of any views concerning the structure, functions, and disorders of the human body. Indeed, Vesalius, who led the way in the great revolution which medical science underwent from the errors of Galen, was a pious Catholic, and the popular painting of the first dissection of modern times represents him with eyes piously upturned to the crucifix before entering on one of the most important steps of modern scientific inquiry in the teeth of wide-spread and violent prejudice――viz., the first dissection of the human cadaver that has led to any valuable results.

But in order to be thoroughly careful that he should allow no element of what is entitled positive religion to enter into the conception of his emotional nonentity, he discards all the known and accepted grounds of religious evidence. He says there can be no infallible authority in religious matters, since the only one which fostered the pretence has been repeatedly detected in error. His words are:

“In its unflattering mirror the oracle of Rome is exhibited as convicted of error in scientific matters again and again; compelled to retreat from position to position; forced to correct and recorrect its interpretations. It is shown vacillating to and fro in regard to the most important ecclesiastical questions, possessed of no clear or well-defined principles concerning many essential theological issues, etc., etc.”

All this rodomontade is in the nature of a negative assertion, inasmuch as it would require a full review of the history of the church to refute it. It is the author’s favorite style of logic, however, and may go for what it is worth. He next rejects the authority of the Bible on the most frivolous grounds, and coming to the value of our divine Saviour’s evidence in favor of revelation, he uses the following extraordinary language:

“I desire not to deny the existence of a divine element in Jesus. I gladly recognize him as the loftiest spiritual seer and teacher the world has seen; the best historic embodiment of spiritual perfection that we have. But we must own, if we are clear-sighted and frank, that in Christ himself we do not obtain an oracle exempt from the limitations of humanity and the conditions of earthly knowledge.”

This is a clear negation of the divinity of Christ, and an implied avowal that Mr. Bixby ranges himself with Renan and Strauss. As before stated, Mr. Bixby’s chief aim in the first chapters of his book is to simplify the conditions of the problem which he has set before him, and we see that he has striven to do this by stripping religion of all its positive attributes, and putting in its stead a bloodless and emasculated spectre. “It is a force,” he says, “anterior to all churches and hierarchies, the grand spiritual stream flowing from above through the souls of men, of which ecclesiastical organizations are but the earthly banks, the clayey reservoirs and wooden dams, by which men have thought they could better utilize the heavenly forces.” This is fine and figurative, we confess, but more marked by sound than sense. Mr. Bixby here brands all churches as purely human institutions, and yet allows that they possess religion, that they are its conduits and distributors to men, and that dogmas and codes and ethical enactments are mere accretions, the work of human minds. These must consequently be false, and, being such, should retard rather and operate against the influences of religion pure and undefiled, the embodiment of truth. How, then, can they be said to be utilizers of heavenly force and reservoirs of religion, they being false, and it true?

“Pergis pugnantia secum Frontibus adversis componere?”

The definition of religion which has passed current for centuries, making it to consist of a determinate and specified allegiance of man to his Maker, is contradicted by the views advanced in Mr. Bixby’s book, and therefore the few only, whose opinions are equally unsettled, can accept his conclusions. There is something so unreal and shadowy in his estimate of religion that one is at a loss to see thoroughly into what he means by it, and consequently incapable of appreciating all that his conclusions are intended to embody. “Religious truth,” he says, “(theologians and preachers defending the old beliefs have maintained) belongs to another realm from ordinary kinds of truth. It is not to be tried by the understanding. It is not to be brought to the bar of common sense, but it is to be discerned by the inner soul, and its evidence found in the soul’s satisfaction in it.” If this be Mr. Bixby’s estimate of the value of the evidence on which religious truth reposes, he must have had in view, as the ideal of all dogmatic religion, the utterances of some strong-lunged preacher at a camp-meeting. No theologian of the Catholic nor of the approximating sects ever thought for a moment that religion is not to be tried by the understanding nor brought to the bar of common sense. The evidences of revealed religion are based upon reason, which, closely scrutinizing these, is compelled to admit the claims of the Scriptures and the church, just as it is obliged to admit the truths of geometry. It is true that individual dogmas are not the subject-matter of purely rational investigation, but they appeal to our reason just as strongly through the evident infallibility of the authority which submits them to our belief. Mr. Bixby, we fear, either misapprehends plain things or is given to misrepresenting. Objectively, all truths resemble each other in that they are true――_i.e._, eternal, immutable, and necessary; subjectively, for us, those truths which we can discern with the eye of reason pertain to the natural order, and to the supernatural order those whose guarantee depends on the revealed word of God. It is evident that in the logical order, the natural precedes and underlies the supernatural, and that, with respect to the evidence on which both repose, it must be tried by the understanding, and that searchingly, and cannot escape the bar of common sense. “Truth,” says the author of _An Essay on a Philosophy of Literature_, “is independent of man. The power is his to discover, develop, and apply it; but he cannot create it. That belongs to the Infinite Intelligence alone. He it is who creates it and who creates the light of our reason by which to perceive it.” Truth, therefore, must be consistent with itself; and it is the province of every individual truth to borrow lustre from, and shed radiance on, each sister truth, and not to detract from and obstruct it. This is the logic of the schools――nay, it is the logic of Hamilton, Mansel, Baden Powell, and Faraday, whom Bixby charges with dividing the field of truth into two separate portions: one the province of knowledge, where science holds sway; the other the province of belief, where religion has her throne. Then truth may be divided against itself, and to this effect must we interpret the writings of the distinguished philosophers mentioned. We doubt not that, for logic’s sake, these scholars would all indignantly repudiate this charge which places them in an absurd and uncourted position. Pity ’tis Mr. Bixby did not attempt by a citation to substantiate his charge. He does not fail, however, to draw his accustomed inference. “Now,” he says, “by taking this mode of defending itself against the incursions of modern science, the church has aided much in spreading suspicion of the certainty of its cherished doctrines.” Then modern science does make incursions against the church, which is perfectly right, but the church is debarred the right of repelling them. A burglar may break into our house, and we are not at liberty to resist his ingress by means of the nearest weapon at hand, but we should preach him a homily on the impropriety of his conduct.

But he is brave enough in this: that not an inkling or a wrinkle of his too transparent sophistry disturbs him. Immediately after he says (p. 72): “Bishops like he [_sic_] of London may exhort the modern inquirer as eloquently as they please to throw away doubt as they would a bombshell; but it serves only to make the investigator more suspicious of the validity of religion.” Then is it not proper, Mr. Bixby, to throw away doubt? If not so, it must by all means be better to entertain doubt, so that a state of doubt ought to be our normal intellectual condition. Just in proportion as we entertain doubt may we be less suspicious of the validity of religion; but the moment we think of discarding it suspicions grow up in our minds! Verily, this kind of logic is perplexing. We admire the devout spirit which Mr. Bixby everywhere exhibits, but when it is paraded at the expense of true religion, and in a spirit calculated to lead astray the unwary, we must enter our protest against it. On page 222 he says:

“And religion needs not only to accept the corrections and recognize the coadjutorship of science in disclosing the ways of God, but it should engraft into itself, I believe, more of the scientific spirit. Instead of aiming to defend systems already established [!], and to bolster up foregone conclusions, it should go simply with inquiring mind to the eternal facts.”

And this passes current for reasoning! We write without bitterness of heart, but in the spirit which prompted Juvenal to say:

“Si natura negat, facit indignatio versum.”

Religion must borrow all from science, accept her criterion from science, see that she admit nothing but what the scientific plummet is capable of sounding, and reject all that does not conform to the square and compass of this arbitrary mistress. “Established systems” and “foregone conclusions” must be sacrificed at the beck of a scientific clique, and meek religion must sit awaiting crumbs from their table. Surely, had the great author of the apology for the Christian religion anticipated that an apology with such intent would be subsequently offered, he would have bestowed a different title on his famous work. But Mr. Bixby goes farther when he actually breaks down the barriers which have ever been supposed to divide science from religion. On page 223 he says:

“Thus religion is capable of being made a genuine science, and it will never, I believe, maintain the purity, attain the stability and accuracy, reach unto the depth and breadth of truth which is within the demands of its grand mission unto mankind, until it thus weds science to itself.”

This might not give offence if viewed as from the pen of a sophomore; but from a teacher――a philosopher! The passage jumbles science and religion inextricably together; it virtually identifies them, and yet pretends to hold them apart. The idea that religion is capable of being made a genuine science must sound oddly in the ears of those who have been taught to regard religion as the science of sciences, their queen, mistress, and guide. But, according to Mr. Bixby, religion is in the lowly position still of being a handmaiden to her proud sisters, with the possible prospect at some time of being elevated to their queenly plane.

In his chapters on the “Faiths of Science” and “The Claim of Science” Mr. Bixby very adroitly brings into contrast the arrogant aggressiveness of scientism with its own haltings, weaknesses, and vacillations, and we deem these two chapters to be really valuable contributions to the fast-swelling literature concerning the dispute between religion and scientism. They are inoperative of effect, so far as Mr. Bixby’s notion of religion is concerned, but they clearly prove that science is fully amenable to the charge of taking much for granted, of postulating much, of believing in the mysterious and inexplicable――the very charges it flippantly prefers against Christianity. Experience and observation have been the watchwords of science since the days of Locke, and the whole system of Scotch philosophy as taught by Reid, Stewart, Brown, and Hamilton in the past, and Bain to-day, rests on the results of those two procedures. The supersensible finds no room in this system, and is relegated to the domain of the unknowable, the unthinkable. Says Büchner: “Those who talk of a creative power which is said to have produced the world out of nothing are ignorant of the first and most simple principle founded upon experience and the contemplation of nature. How could a power have existed not manifested in material substance, but governing it arbitrarily according to individual views?” Herbert Spencer calls supersensible conceptions “pseudo-ideas,” “symbolic conceptions of the illegitimate order.” Virchow says he “knows only bodies and their qualities; what is beyond he terms transcendental, and he considers transcendentalism an aberration of the human mind.” And so with the majority of the modern school of scientism. They deem nothing demonstrable but what responds to their tests of truth, to chemical or physico-chemical modes of investigation. For this reason physiologists reject the notion of soul as a distinct substance in man, for it cannot be investigated according to the methods known to physiology; and yet, with glaring inconsistency, these men admit as the very basis of experience and observation what outlies the range and limit of the senses.

The advocates of the germ theory of disease have neither felt, seen, nor heard one of those minute spores. “We have,” says Prof. Tyndall, “particles that defy both the microscope and the balance, which do not darken the air, and which, nevertheless, exist in multitudes sufficient to reduce to insignificance the Israelitish hyperbole, the sands upon the sea-shore.” So, also, Mr. Lewes, in his _Philosophy of Aristotle_, writes: “The fundamental ideas of modern science are as transcendental as any of the axioms in ancient philosophy.” With such admissions from the leading men of the modern school, how can scientists contend that they limit their acceptance of truth to those facts which experience proves, and that, using a strict induction, they build their laws and systems on these alone? It is evident that they make freer use of hypotheses than did the scholastics. Nor does it avail them to attempt the distinction suggested by Mr. Lewes between metaphysical and metempirical knowledge. The aim of this distinction is to relieve scientism from the charges brought against metaphysical doctrines on the ground that, as they transcend the senses, they necessarily elude the grasp of the human mind. Now, the metempirical knowledge of Mr. Lewes is just as elusive of our grasp, since it does not come within the scope of the senses; and all the objections, however unfounded, which these scholars have alleged against metaphysics and the science of the immaterial, hold good against any knowledge which is not the direct outcome of the senses. Surely the new doctrine of the correlation and conservation of force pertains to the supersensible order fully as much as the doctrine of a spiritual soul. Nay, it deals in the obscure and transcendental more, a great deal, than the scholastic doctrine of first matter and substantial form. The advocates of this theory have adopted a nomenclature which repeats the very errors on account of which modern scholastics have rejected the peripatetic doctrine of matter and form. They identify all things under the title of force, and deem motion, light, heat, and electricity as so many modes of force constantly interchanging. They thus confound identity with distinction, and ignore the nature of change. Every change supposes a term from which, a term into which, and the subject of both; now, those who identify all force deny the subject of change, for that from which becomes into which in all its essentials, so that heat becomes light, and yet does not, according to the neo-terminologists, lose its identity. We have therefore the anomaly of a thing remaining the same and becoming something else at the same time. All this confusion arises from the ignorance of metaphysics in which modern men of science glory. They declare light to be a force, and no two of them are agreed as to the meaning of the word. They declare that all forces are correlated, and nowhere do we find given by them the meaning of the term relation. Now, the scholastics give no fewer than six different modes of relation, and the modern school has not given us even a definition of one. And yet these are the contemners of metaphysics and scholasticism, the men who aspire to be leaders of thought. They raise their structure on a basis of supposition, and declaim against the credulity of those who admit aught but facts of the sensible order. Their science is confused because of the vagueness of their speech and its great lack of fixity. Herbert Spencer discourses with more learning than lucidity concerning those great problems which the church solved centuries ago, and which she has so formulated by the aid of a fixed and coherent vocabulary that mere children can see her meaning. Mr. Spencer defines evolution to be “a change from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity through continuous differentiations and integrations.” This certainly pertains to the supersensible order, and in more senses than one. No wonder that such utterances are made the butt of witticisms. Thus, the Rev. Mr. Kirkman, in his _Philosophy without Assumption_, amusingly parodies the above definition of Herbert Spencer: “Evolution is a change from a nohowish untalkaboutable all-alikeness to a somehowish and in-general-talkaboutable not-all-alikeness by continuous somethingelseifications and sticktogetherations.”

And as for mistakes, commend us to science. Every new edition of Darwin contains corrections of previous errors, and Huxley has quite recently modified his views on evolution. But this is freedom of thought, just as a consistent and abiding belief which precludes the possibility of change or error is denominated by these same neoterists superstition and reaction. Mr. Bixby has well exhibited the fluctuations and errors of modern science――which is about all he has satisfactorily accomplished――in his _Similarities of Physical and Religious Knowledge_.

[184] _Similarities of Physical and Religious Knowledge._ By James Thompson Bixby. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1876.

LETTERS OF A YOUNG IRISHWOMAN TO HER SISTER.

FROM THE FRENCH.

MARCH 21, 1869.

What a day, dearest! At High Mass the Passion was sung as in the Sistine Chapel. What memories it awoke within me! It was wonderfully beautiful, and every word found an echo in my heart. O flowery Easter! the children’s festival, how I loved formerly to see its return. It was spring, bright days, verdure and flowers; but this year we have a sort of recommencement of winter instead of spring; for some days we have had snow and stormy gales, which have made it sometimes impossible to go out.

René has been reading us a beautiful fragment of the _Monks of the West_ on religious vocations; Gertrude had suggested this reading. My mother wept, and I envied the heavenly calm of the happy Gertrude.

The beautiful new-born has quite the air of a seraph; he is so fair, rosy, and silent. Adrien will be his godfather, and the honor of godmother, dear Kate, will devolve upon your Georgina. “This little last one,” Johanna said to me, “shall be quite your own, dear sister!” How good they all are! Brothers and sisters so united and happy together! The baptism is deferred, that it may take place in Brittany, and we shall have Margaret. How I love this beautiful little soul over which I shall have sacred rights!

Berthe regrets her Mad, whom Thérèse misses sadly.

22d.――The Père Meillier preaches the retreat――two sermons a day. This morning upon the retreat itself: “I will lead her into the wilderness, and there will I speak to her heart. Perfection, according to St. Bernard, is an ardent zeal always to be advancing. During this retreat God desires to _soften_, _detach_, and _fix_ our heart. We must be converted. Conversion is turning again to God. The means of conversion are time, grace, and will. The time God gives us; he himself says this: ‘Behold, now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation.’ Grace――this is given to us in superabundance. The will must come from ourselves; St. Bernard says that this will must be constant, courageous, and sometimes heroic.” He ended by exhorting us “not to resist God, who is standing at the door of our heart, who knocks and waits”; and faithfully to follow this retreat. “I know neither the day nor the hour, but there will be a moment in which God will speak to you; and beware, Christian souls, lest Jesus pass by and return no more!” At three o’clock on tepidity, its causes and its remedy, the whole very practical and very holy.

The same agreement as last year between René and me. Little Alix accompanied me on a visit to the worthy _Mr. Crossman_, as the children call him. Finding him more calm than usual while I was dressing his leg, I was inwardly congratulating myself, when an energetic oath, and a sudden movement more energetic still, repulsed and overthrew me: and a scene of anger followed, which made Alix tremble like a rose-leaf in a storm, and I tried in vain to appease the sick man. What is to be done to-morrow? God will help me.

23d.――Letters. Marianne is anxious. Picciola eats nothing and scarcely sleeps. “It is my belief that she is home-sick.” Anna is constantly improving in health, and the doctor forbids them to go away. Oh! how I fear the future. Marcella is radiant: “Dear Georgina, how grateful I am to this warm sun, and the vivifying breeze which Anna breathes in with delight! No more fever, no more pallor; not that her cheeks are rosy――my darling would need rouge for that――but her whiteness is _living_, and I like her thus. But what should we have done here without Lucy and Picciola and this kind Edouard? What gratitude my heart cherishes towards yours for this arrangement!”

Mistress Annah says that Edith will be completely cured when we see her again. Mary and Ellen are much beloved in the village.

Margaret shudders at the slightest indisposition of her baby. O these cradles, these dear cradles!

This evening at the piano I thought of Picciola, whom my love has made mine, and was singing this plaintive entreaty, which Edouard last year repeated with so much feeling:

“Reploie, enfant, tes ailes de colombe, Sous ma caresse, ange, ouvre tes beaux yeux; Si tu savais comme est froide la tombe! Va, le bonheur n’habite pas qu’aux Cieux! Pourquoi sitôt vouloir quitter la terre? Dans le Ciel même est-il rien d’aussi doux Qué les baisers dont te couvre ta mère En te berçant, le soir, sur ses genoux?”[185]

Adrien joined me, and, in a voice more thrilling, harmonious, and touching than ever, he sang the succeeding strophes. I accompanied without seeing; strange lights passed before my eyes, and when he sang:

“Mais Dieu fut sourd: la fleur était éclose. … Un ange aux rayons d’or Un soir, dit on, cueillit la frêle rose, Puis avec elle au Ciel reprit l’essor!”[186]

I burst into tears with such an explosion of despair that Adrien was alarmed. Kate, could it be possible that God would not leave us this child, almost worshipped as she is? “How susceptible you are, dear little sister!” “Oh! it is nothing”; and I went to my room. I opened a book, just at these words of M. Landriot: “You suffer; the hand of Christ alone is sufficiently light and yet powerful to heal the wounds of your soul.”

Instruction this morning on the besetting sin, which must be extirpated, and against which we must fight with a firm and determined will; at three o’clock, first on susceptibility, and then on piety. “Christian piety is a religious sentiment and a devoted zeal for everything which regards the glory of God, our own interests, and the good of our brethren.”

I had prayed so much to ask for some relief to my sick man that my visit passed off very well. I was alone, for fear of any misadventure. _Mr. Crossman_ consented to some reading, and his daughters answered to the recitation of the Rosary. This man is an enigma to me. I have sent him the doctor.

24th.――Instruction on discouragement, for which the remedies are mistrust of self and confidence in God. “Do you fear a creature?” said a saint. “Flee from him. Do you fear God? Throw yourself into his arms.” This evening, on the Sacrament of Penance――the dispositions that one ought to bring to it; the conduct requisite with regard to it: first, a great faith, a sincere humility, a spirit of reparation; secondly, to know how to pray and reflect, to speak, to listen, to be silent, to thank, and to remember. These sermons are essentially practical and such as one is glad to hear at least once in one’s life. The Père Meillier is truly a discerner of souls; he speaks of them with wonderful insight.

“Your sick man is half mad, madame!” At this agreeable announcement I hurried away to the poor man, who appeared to be touched by the constancy of my visits. I have been so happy as to get him to make his confession whilst he is still in possession of some gleams of intelligence. The mother is no longer able to leave her bed. The eldest child is sixteen years old; everything depends on her, and the dear soul loves God. My Kate will follow with pleasure the account of my week; besides, I talk confidentially to none but her. My mother never leaves Johanna, Gertrude is given to silence, Berthe is gone out; no news to-day of the exiles.

25th.――Thérèse, Marguerite, and Alix have given themselves up to me for the day. We have seen fifteen chapels; at dawn we accompanied the Blessed Sacrament to the poor family, where the two sick people received the Bread of the valiant and strong, the Bread of angels, the Bread of wayfarers, the Bread of the children of God. At three o’clock, sermon on the visit to the Blessed Sacrament. “To make this visit is a proof of faith, of understanding, and of affection.” This evening heard the magnificent singing of the _Stabat Mater_ and a sermon on the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Letters from Brittany――the _Saint of the coast_: “I believe that my departure is near, and that you must not delay, dear friends, if you would give me the consolation of hearing those whom I love pray by my bedside!” My mother is much impressed. What is to be done? René says it is for Adrien to decide. “I think it is especially Georgina whom our saint asks for.” “It is so,” replied my mother. “René and Georgina shall go on Monday.” As every one approves of this, it will be so, I suppose. Death again!

Marcella writes――kind and pleasing details. And Picciola? O my God! thou who on this day didst give to us the greatest pledge of love, thou who hast loved us even to the end, hear my prayer! What a night is this, and fraught with what memories! At this hour was that discourse uttered at the Last Supper, and the Eucharistic Passover instituted, which will be our strength and consolation even to our last day!

26th.――“Very strange are often the destinies of men and the decrees of God. With some the thread of life snaps, even though it be woven of pure gold and shining silk; with others suffering and sorrow cannot succeed in breaking the dark thread which they pass through their cruel hands.” I read this after having heard the unfortunate wife of my sick man complain that she had been “forgotten by death.”

Twice made the Way of the Cross, was present at the Offices, heard three sermons: this morning on our Lord’s sufferings; at three o’clock on the Seven Words of Jesus on the Cross; this evening the Passion, our Saviour’s sufferings in his mind, his heart, and his body.

27th.――Meditation on contrition and satisfaction; conference on the love of God. O love! This is the subject above all others which dilates the soul, illuminates and fills it. Who will grant that I may love perfectly?

Marianne mentions a slight improvement in the general state of Picciola, who does not complain, allows herself to be taken care of, and is as much as ever like an angel. I am alone in the preparation of _surprises_, or, at least, in their purchase. Berthe and Gertrude have worked with me. I am impatient for Monday. Supposing _the saint_ should fly away without waiting for us!

28th.――_Alleluia_, dear sister! Oh! what a delicious awaking. The singing of the _Alleluia_ by René long before the dawn, then all the greetings after the Mass of Communion, and the joy of the little girls, and the delight of the good _abbé_, upon whom were showered _surprises_, and Johanna’s joy at seeing me do honor to the first _Alleluia_ of my godson! O the beautiful, beautiful day! And our poor, and Benoni, and High Mass followed by the Papal Benediction, Vespers, sermon: “He is risen!” “We find proofs of our Saviour’s resurrection in our faith and in our works.” Benediction ended about six o’clock.

Long and charming _gazette_ from Edouard. The doctor has fixed the return for the 3d of May. Thus they will be on their way home in a month. May God bring them back to us! Dearest, I am sending to the post; pray, pray, pray! Send us your good angel, and have a Mass said at Notre Dame des Victoires for our saint. It seems to me that I am going to be present at the death of a sister. How I should like you to have known her. René joins me in every line I am writing; my mother sends you her blessing. All, together and individually, send you their greetings. Christ is risen. _Alleluia!_

APRIL 3, 1869.

Dear Kate, she is here still, living, smiling, always amiable, always holy, notwithstanding her weakness. “I think that at your prayer God has renewed the miracle wrought by Elias for the widow of Sarepta; for the oil of my lamp must have been exhausted long ago.” We speak of God and of the poor, her two last affections. She has not left to the last moment the disposal of her goods. Her old castle goes to a distant relation who bears her name, her whole fortune goes to relieve the distressed, and she leaves to us her works of art――a curious and remarkable collection made by her father, and which it was not her wish should pass into the hands of the indifferent. O Kate! souls like hers should live always upon earth for its edification.

René is writing to you; I enclose also a letter from Marcella.

God guard you, dearest sister!

APRIL 5, 1869.

It was true, the oil of the lamp was exhausted. What a good life and what a holy death! “Open the windows, if you please. Oh! what harmonies. What a beautiful procession! What a splendid crown! Adieu, and thank you! Jesus! Heaven!” And this was all. It was yesterday.

The day before I entreated our saint to ask of God that he would leave us Picciola. “Will he do so? There was heaven in the look of that child on the day of her First Communion! Dear Georgina, love above all the good pleasure of God!” I write to you from the side of this bed converted into a chapel. The earthly covering is there. I have shed no tears; my soul is in a state of joy such as I never before experienced. The _saint_ had said to me: “If I am happy, I will cause you to feel it!” We have written to the relative and to the other friends. I shall not send this letter until the day after to-morrow.

_April 7._――All is over. The burial vault has received the coffin, the friends are gone away again, the relation, an eccentric personage, is preparing to do the same, and so also must we. I could have almost wished to remain again to meditate, in this chapel where our saint has so often prayed, on the latest teachings which escaped her dying lips. The relative authorizes us to take away the “gallery” whenever we like to do so; even adding, with a certain politeness, that we might look upon this dwelling as our own.

They are waiting for us at home, and I am wishing for news from Hyeres. Quick! we are going to retraverse our Brittany and return to our Penates.

Adieu for a little time, dear sister!

APRIL 12, 1869.

What haste we have had to make in order to be here at Orleans in time for the golden wedding of Pius IX.! Magnificent Mass at St. Pierre du Martroi. The interior of the ancient church disappeared beneath hangings of velvet; above the altar shone the triple-crowned tiara. The Abbé La Grange said the Mass and made a beautiful address: “Believe in the church, in her divine constitution, in her divine mission, in her splendid and incontestable immortality.” Admirable and elevating singing――the _Tu es Petrus_ and some fine strophes for the occasion; then High Mass at the cathedral, also richly adorned and resplendent, with a multitude of people. There again was heavenly singing――a remarkable _Sanctus_, and, after the Mass, the _Te Deum_, that immortal hymn of thanksgiving. Sermon, procession, benediction. At six o’clock we came out of Sainte-Croix. What a day! How I love these splendors of the divine worship, this harmony of souls, these hymns, the fragrant incense, all this grand and admirable _ensemble_ which Christianity alone can offer!

You may imagine the reception we met with on reaching home, and with what interest our account was listened to. The news is encouraging from all directions, I hope, I hope! When I think of the sadnesses of this world and all the bitternesses of life, I say with St. Stanislaus Kostka: “I am not born for present things, but future.” How much there is that is consoling in this thought!

My poor old _Crossman_ is suffering greatly, and his wife is at the point of death. Tell me, dear Kate, how is it that I see so many dead? Let us rather speak of life and its expansion; let us speak of Karl, whose kind and fraternal pages reached me this morning. How he longs for the priesthood! What a thirst he has for souls! Already in desire he springs on unknown shores, and even goes so far as to dream of martyrdom. O holy ecstasies of love! What joy it must be to conquer the infidel, and to receive these disinherited ones to the table of the Lord! “The love of one alone sheds itself upon all the beings who dwell by his side, ennobles them, and gives them understanding and strength――unrivalled and precious gifts which no other power in the world would have been able to bestow.”

The Abbé Baunard has written the _Life of the Apostle St. John_. A large heart, a lively faith, and great talents are needed in order to write the life of a saint; and as the author of whom I speak has all these, his work must be admirable. The introduction appeared in the _Annals_: “It is a book of piety. I address it to Christians and to priests――the priesthood has no higher personification than this apostle; to virgins――John was a virgin; to mothers――he merited to be given as a son to the Mother of God; to the young――he was the youngest of the disciples; to the aged――this is the appellation he gives himself in his Epistles; to contemplative souls――he was on Thabor; to those in affliction――he was on Calvary; to all who desire to love their brethren in God――charity can have no fairer ideal than the friend of Jesus.”

Good-night, dearest; my eyes are closing.

APRIL 18, 1869.

Dear Kate, a _requiem_! I have just been to pray by those two death-beds――for both are dead, piously and tranquilly; he asking my pardon for his fits of anger, and she praying for her children. I have promised to take charge of the latter; so behold me the mother of six children! René always approves. But we cannot abandon these dear young creatures to take their chance in this great town, and my mother advises that they should be sent into Brittany, where the Sisters will find them useful employment. I want your opinion, dear Kate; they belong in some measure to you also, since it is to your pious lessons that I owe my love for the blessing of the poor.

Gertrude yesterday showed me a letter from a friend asking prayers: “My Uncle Amédée is dead from an attack of apoplexy. It is fearful to say and to think of. Was his soul ready? O these unforeseen strokes of death! how terrible they are. Extreme Unction was all that could be given him. My aunt was in a pitiable state, throwing herself upon the corpse, speaking to it, … finding it impossible to realize that death had come between her and her happiness, and that he whom she so loved will answer her no more! I have a feeling of trust that at the last moment a ray of mercy and love may have illuminated his soul. No, it is not possible that our God, always good, always a Father, will not open his heaven to these poor fathers of earth who have given up to him the best part of themselves, the soul of their soul――the child who should close their eyes!”

This departed father gave to God his only daughter――entered, like Hélène, into Carmel. How necessary is faith under trials such as these! The young wife who wrote these lines is the intimate friend of Hélène, and it was her marriage that I mentioned to you two years ago. Can it be? Two years ago already!

Long drive with René into the country.

Dear sister, let us love God!

APRIL 26, 1869.

Adrien has lent me Rusbrock the admirable. Thanks for pointing it out to me, dear Kate. How beautiful is this loftiness! It is like a Sinai. I read a few lines, and then close my eyes and let my mind ruminate upon this teaching. Oh! how favored is France to possess writers so great. Alas! that so many of these should be on the side of evil, and that the readers should be so numerous of the myriads of impious works which fear not to display themselves in the light of day!

What do you say of the enthusiasm of Catholics for the Jubilee of the incomparable Pius IX.? Is it not of good augury for the Council? I am thirsting for Rome, but we shall not pass the winter there, as you hoped we should; my mother could not return thither without indescribable suffering. It was in the Catholic fatherland that René’s father felt the first approach of the illness which was prematurely to carry him off, and he died at Pisa. The violence of my mother’s grief was such as to make her friends despair of consoling her, or even of preserving her life. God calmed the anguish of this broken heart, but it would be imprudent to expose her to fresh emotion. She loves Italy, and listens when I speak of it, but she never speaks of it herself. This dear mother, so affectionate and so loved, yesterday made me a present of a delightful volume: _La Maison_ (“The House”), by M. de Ségur. It is poetry――charming, Christian poetry――which makes the tears come into one’s eyes. _The House_――a title full of promise!

“Quel ciel valut jamais le ciel qui nous vit naître? Ce toit, ce nid chéri, ce paternel foyer, Qu’on aima, tout petit, avant de rien connaître, Et que jamais, au loin, rien ne fait oublier?”[187]

There are pages in this book which you would not be able to read without a certain emotion. It is the history of _Sabine_, a Nun of the Visitation. Adrien read us this exquisite little poem; my mother and I wept, Gertrude looked at the crucifix, and René at the portrait of Hélène. A poignant sorrow seemed to sigh in the voice of Adrien.

My godson is charming. The choice of his name is left to me. As he was born on the 19th of March, he has a right to the name of Joseph. I should very much like to call him Guy――a pretty Breton name. Say, Kate, if this would not be nice: Marie-Joseph-Anne-Adrien-Yves-Guy?

Adieu, beloved sister!

APRIL 30, 1869.

The exiles return to-morrow, dear Kate. What overpowering joy, and yet what dread! If this winter’s absence should not have cured our invalids! O my God! I give up my will to thee. I am just come in from Notre Dame des Miracles: I shall melt away in prayers. Thérèse smiles like the angels. Alix and Marguérite have bought flowers for their friends. A hundred times a day I enter Marcella’s room to see that nothing is wanting there. How worldly I am with my agitations!

Since you approve, my godson will be _Guy_. How beautiful the little angel is, and how I shall enjoy showing him to-morrow! My mother continues to spoil me. I have just discovered a mysterious parcel on my dressing-table; it contains the history of St. John and the life of Madame Elizabeth, by M. de Beauchesne. What a pleasant surprise!

Do you know Mgr. Dupanloup will make the panegyric? He is going to Domrémy, there to inspire himself with the memories of Joan of Arc. Several bishops will be present at the festival of the 8th of May. Nothing is said at present about our departure, but I am burning to see you, dear Kate.

My _six children_ will go with us into Brittany. I make them long and frequent visits.

Edouard’s latest _gazette_ quoted the following fragment from Alphonse Karr, which is easily to be explained by the frivolity of the times: “If a very beautiful dress were invented――a dress of fairy-like splendor, but which might only be worn in going to execution――there are women to be found who would quarrel with each other to wear this dress.” Do you believe this, dearest? Raoul declares it to be certain. Adrien and René have a better opinion of us.

Margaret wishes she were _farsighted_ enough to see as far as here――the dear, inquisitive one! She has been spending three days with Edith, and speaks to me warmly of my home――“Georgina’s house.” Ah! yes, home, home――the terrestrial Paradise, and, as a poet has said, “The urn into which the heart pours itself.”

_May 1._――It cost me something to end my letter before the arrival: they are here, dear Kate, all cured, as far as I can perceive. O the pleasure of expecting them! Then the cries of joy; the questions, crossing each other; the petulant Lucy bounding up the stairs to embrace my mother first of all; the emotion of Marcella on showing me her child well and, the doctor says, “out of danger,” and my tears on the brow of Picciola! How we had missed them!

The day has passed away like a dream. I hasten to send this to the post, that you may thank God with us. _Laus Deo_ always and for ever!

Love from all to my Kate.

MAY 4, 1869.

Have returned to my former pleasant way of life with Marcella, my true sister; but the shadow is still there. The doctor said to Marianne: “Be very careful of this beautiful child; I do not answer for her chest!” It is as if I had heard a funeral knell. She is so smiling and pretty, this “little saint of the good God,” as she was called in the south. Yesterday, as I watched her playing with Guy, Berthe said to me: “Don’t you perceive something extraordinary about Madeleine――something that is not of this world?” I turned pale; had she also a presentiment? Picciola advanced towards us, and we said no more; but this morning the dear innocent said: “Would you believe, mamma, that I have still gone on growing?” “In wisdom, I will answer for it,” declared Adrien. “O uncle! you are jesting. I mean in height.” “You are growing too much, darling,” answered Berthe; “you must let yourself be taken care of, and kiss me.” The poor mother, I fear, is aware.… Oh! pray with me, Kate. Just listen to this revelation made to me by Marianne: “For certain, madame, there is something extraordinary in this; never a complaint, and yet she must suffer, the dear darling, the doctor assured me. When I questioned her one day when she was paler than usual, she answered: ‘O Marianne! on the contrary, it is well, very well!’ and she looked up to heaven.”

What do you think about it, dear Kate? The words of the _Saint of the sea-shore_ are always sounding in my ears. Oh! that God may spare her to us, this flower of innocence and purity. She has resumed her studies. Her memory is marvellous; she is first in every branch of instruction. I love her more dearly than ever; it is settled that her hour of manual occupation shall be passed in my room. I have not yet confided my fears to Marcella; I leave her to her happiness.

“Un malheur partagé ne peut nous secourir. Car on souffre surtout dans ceux qu’on voit souffrir.”

Hélène has written to her mother. One might be reading St. Teresa. Gertrude is worthy of such a daughter. I have spoken to you of the way in which she despoils herself; this self-spoliation is now as complete as it can be. Her room has the aspect of a cell. I must appear very worldly to her, with my fondness for beautiful things. I have felt tempted to ask her this, but have resisted the temptation. Would you believe that she has made a _vow_ not to see again either her sons or her daughter? “There is too much for nature in these meetings!” What energy, and this with a so great tenderness of heart!

Let us love each other, dear Kate!

MAY 10, 1869.

What rejoicings, dearest! On the 7th the magnificent torchlight procession, the illumination with Bengal lights, which never succeeded so well; the interior of the city resplendent with lights; the assembled bishops blessing the multitudes――what a fine spectacle! Mgr. de Bonnechose, Mgr. de la Tour-d’Auvergne, Mgr. Guibert, Mgr. Meignan, Mgr. Gignoux, Mgr. Foulon, Mgr. de Las Cases, Mgr. La Carrière, Mgr. Pie, etc., etc.――it was splendid! On the 8th, the panegyric, which I send you, in order that you may judge of it better than from my account. For two hours, Monseigneur held his auditory under the charm of his words; he showed us the saint in the young girl, in the warrior-maiden, and in the victim. Then the procession. On the 9th, grand festival at Sainte-Croix――anniversary of the dedication of this cathedral. On that memorable day, when the bishop raised his hand to give the blessing, a mysterious hand appeared, blessing also, since which time the arms of the chapter have been a cross surmounted by a hand surrounded by rays. This celestial hand is also painted on the vaulted roof above the altar, and I had often wondered what it meant. I am no longer surprised at the attraction I feel towards Sainte-Croix. God loves to be worshipped there. Mgr. de Bourges officiated at High Mass, and also at Vespers. He is singularly majestic. People were crushing each other to see him. The ceremonies were too magnificent ever to be forgotten; it is impossible to imagine anything like them. Oh! what joy to be there, all together, mingled in this assembly of brethren.

What month can be more pleasing to our hearts than this month of May, gathering into itself, as it does, the most delightful festivals? It seems to me that with the passing breeze a thousand memories revive within my soul: my childhood, which devotion to the Blessed Virgin clothed in so much poetry; this beloved month, when my mother used to assemble us every evening, with the village girls, to pray and sing; the flowers which we had valiantly _conquered_ or _begged_, and whose fragrance filled the oratory; the symbolic tapers; we ourselves quiet and recollected, but so light-hearted that an unknown word in what we were singing would make us laugh to ourselves; the sun shedding floods of gold on this charming scene, playing over the white Madonna, on the lilacs and roses, on the golden locks and the brown, on the rosaries and blue ribbons. How far off is that time!

Read with the children the journeys of Captain Hatteras. Truly, there is something to be gleaned everywhere, if only one knows how to see it. Only imagine! in the midst of these adventurous men there is a worthy doctor, Clawbonny, always doing the things which are most disagreeable to himself. Why was he not a Catholic? Nothing would then have been wanting to him; while this book is cold――cold as the North Pole.

Picciola is always pale. I proposed to Berthe to take her to Paris. “Do you think there may be danger?” and her voice trembled. What was I to answer? I have a conviction that she is mortally affected, and nothing can do away with this conviction. My answer was, “I think it would be as well to consult some one there.” I am to take her with me, therefore, and you will see this angel before she departs to heaven. All about her is heavenly. She is a sunbeam, a luminous flower, a living soul; and this blessing has been lent us for a day!

Margaret will be in Brittany about the 24th of June. My mother speaks of leaving towards the end of the month. I want to give you a fortnight; I need a large provision of courage. Anna is charming, wonderfully stronger: it is like a miracle.

Let us pray, dear Kate――I do so long for her to live!

MAY 19, 1869.

One word only, after nine days, my dear! Get for me fifty Masses said at Notre Dame des Victoires. The poor have been occupying me during all this time. René has asked me to be his secretary, in order that some important business may be the more promptly despatched; and it is so great a happiness to me to oblige him.

We go to Cléry to-morrow, weather permitting.

Tell me still to hope, dear Kate!

MAY 26, 1869.

Mistress Annah is truly the most devoted soul I know. Mary and Ellen have had the measles, and she alone has nursed them. Edith has an attack on the chest――not very serious, happily――caught in the exercise of charity; and it is again our dear old friend who is at her bedside. Lizzy writes me word of all this. Little Isa is pretty and good; the _saint_ Isa is always singing her _Te Deum_.

René gave me a new book yesterday: _Elizabeth Seton, and the Beginnings of the Catholic Church in the United States_, by Mme. de Barberey. I have glanced through it, and find it admirable. I shall speak of it to you again.

We shall be in Paris on the 1st of June――René, Marcella, Picciola, Anna, and I. Rejoice, dear Kate! Moreover, there is some thought of our staying in Paris for the winter, and it is possibly an almost eternal adieu that we are about to bid Orleans. Johanna wishes to be nearer Arthur. You may well suppose that I make every effort to incline the balance in this direction; but my mother says sadly: “Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof: it is useless to plan so much beforehand.” It is an affection of youth――projects reaching out of sight, illusions, dreams, as if life were to last for ever!

Picciola is always calm. I often surprise her looking up to heaven, and lately I heard her say: “How happy it must be on high!” Oh! the _Saint of the sea-coast_ was right: there is something of heaven in this child! Hope――hope ever!

Raoul, Berthe, and Thérèse start to-morrow with arms and baggage. Johanna and her household will follow shortly after. Long live Brittany! Mme. Swetchine used to say: “What evil can happen to him who knows that God does everything, and who loves beforehand all that God does?” When, Kate, shall I attain to this? That noble woman said again: “Our tears are the beverage which, with the bread of the Word, suffices to our daily necessities: our tears shed into the bosom of God. What should we be without them? It is, at the same time, the baptismal water of sorrow and the regenerating stream. Happy they who weep; happy when the Lord looks upon them through their streaming eyes; happy when his hand dries their tears!”

Kate dearest, my soul unites itself to yours, seeking strength to support this trial, if it is to be imposed upon me. And I shall not be the only one who suffers. I read yesterday these words, which seem made for me: “Do not loosen too much the reins from this strong and yet impassioned little heart; affections are sweet, but you know what Pascal says: ‘We shall die alone.’” When men fail us, as sooner or later they surely will, what matter? God remains to us. There is truly within us a source of mysterious sadness which makes us realize, perhaps better than any other reason, our condition as exiles. When life is sad and oppressive, repose uncertain――when happiness appears impossible――we weep, were it even over the happiness of others, and love to prostrate ourselves before the cross with this admirable prayer of Mme. Swetchine on our lips: “My God, I throw myself, body and soul, blindly at thy feet!”

Dear Kate, may God and the holy angels guide us to you! My mother would like to see you, but she grows weaker in health; walking fatigues her. How I love you, my beloved sister! When, then, will heaven come for us all? How sweet it would be to go thither together! Death would lose its horror, if there were in it no more separation.

Good-by for the present, soon to embrace you, my Kate!

JUNE 18, 1869.

I am, dear Kate, in all the joy of expectation; only two days, and Margaret will arrive. O human life, full of separations and of meetings again! Dearest, I feel you present with me, and you know whether I have not need of this. The sight of Picciola tortures me. These words of the medical celebrity are ever resounding in my ears: “An inexplicable malady, strange, nameless, without remedy!” Oh! let us supplicate Heaven――so young, so fair, so beloved!

Her increasing weakness has become evident to all, and everybody attributes it to a too rapid growth. No more study, no more any exciting occupation. She lets it be so, always smiling, giving herself to all, but reserving for her mother and for me the depth of her heart――a treasure which we are never weary of contemplating. Kate, I have the conviction that in asking the health of this child I am asking a miracle; but will not the love of Mary grant it me?

The baptism is for the 24th. Unite yourself with us, dearest.

JUNE 21, 1869.

Margaret sends you a most affectionate greeting. What a delight to possess her! The baby is of dazzling freshness; Lord William is crazy about him. What a happy household! We shall keep them, I hope, all the summer. Marcella makes the delight, the joy, and the union of our interior. “Are you not afraid that she may leave you?” This question of Margaret’s greatly surprised me. “But why?” I asked. “Well, I do not know; she might marry, for instance.” What an idea! What do you say to it, dear Kate? Is this another dark speck on my horizon?

We shall make a pilgrimage to the tomb of the _Saint of the sea-coast_. Margaret almost worships Brittany. Why does she not settle here entirely? Our poor received her with rejoicings. Her generous hand is always open. She has given me fresh news of the _châlet_. Edith is well; Mistress Annah is in her element, lavish of her time and strength. Lizzy is expecting a second treasure. The saintly Isa overflows with happiness, and her pretty little namesake has truly been given by God as the angel of consolation.

Bossuet has called friendship “A covenant of two souls who unite together to love God.” What a name, dear Kate, to give to this sentiment, which binds together all our souls here, and yours with them, in one and the same affection? Nothing, alas! is more rare than terrestrial happiness, and thus at each stroke of death I bow my head; it is an expiation! Nothing could be more pure and sweet and full of enchantment than our existence, were it not that the mourning of the heart too frequently came to obscure it.

Picciola is weaving a garland of corn-flowers near my writing-table. Her waxen whiteness renders her almost transparent. How often I ask her, “Do you suffer at all?” and her answer is, “Oh! so little, so little!” We must not speak of it, for fear of alarming my mother. She does not cough, she has no fever. What has she? Gertrude shares my fears, and agrees with me that there is some mystery in this. What? Who will tell it us? Raoul and Berthe take every care of her, caress her.

Adieu, dear Kate!

JUNE 25, 1869.

A brilliant baptism――something quite fairy-like, and which our Bretons will long remember. The old _curé_ shed tears when he poured the holy water on the brow of the new Christian. Ah! my God, may he be thine for ever.

Margaret was beaming with pleasure at our all being together again. Her beauty exceeds all description, and eclipses that of all other women. Happily, our Bretonnes do not know what it is to be jealous. There was a ball, dearest――a grand ball――and the pretty feet of Thérèse and Anna still dance at the remembrance of it. Picciola was also there, whiter than her dress, with her loving gaze upon her mother. Oh! I do not deceive myself, Kate――death advances! I felt it yesterday. It was after the dinner; the guests were talking, and Mad quietly disappeared. I hastened to her room and found her kneeling on her _prie-Dieu_. “What ails you, dearest?” “Nothing, aunt; the noise wearies me; I want God.” These words moved the very depths of my soul. Why, at this tender age, such aspirations towards the infinite, so many tears at the holy altar, such love of suffering? Blind and cowardly creature that I am, I do not wish this child to be an angel! Pray, dear Kate, ask strength for me! I have finished reading _Elizabeth Seton_. She is the Saint Chantal of America. This work is at the same time, in my opinion, very superior to that of the Abbé Bougaud because of the incomparable charm of the heroine. With that, it is another Alexandrine de la Ferronays. It seems as if I had had a vision: so much youth, innocence, love, and misfortune; Providence wonderfully directing this holy soul; these astonishing conversions and vocations taking place in America; the apostolic and eminent men; the events, so varied, from the Lazaretto of Leghorn to the valley of Emmittsburg. Oh! how wonderful is God in his elect. Fancy, dear Kate: a Protestant lady goes to Leghorn with her husband, who is in a decline. They are detained for a long time at the Lazaretto. Oh! you should read these pages. Elizabeth saw her William die in sight of that land which he had trusted would cure him! And she blessed God for all! A widow with five children, she quitted Italy after having had a perception of the _truth_; arrived at New York, she became a Catholic. Her family abandoned her. She opened a school, and, after many trials heroically borne, she founded a convent of Daughters of Charity. Become a religious, two of her children died in her arms. O these deaths!――the sweet little Rebecca saying: “In heaven I shall offend God no more! I shall sin no more, mamma――I shall sin no more!” It is beautiful, all of it――beautiful! Thus will Picciola die, alas!

JULY 2, 1869.

Anniversary of the First Communion of the _Three Graces_. We have observed it as a solemn festival: general Communion, Benediction, _largesses_ to the poor.

Write to me often thus, dear Kate. Your letter set me afloat again. I was nearly stranded. Oh! yes, God is good, a thousand times good, even in those things which we unjustly call his severities. Well, and what matters life? I say this, but an hour hence what shall I say? Human misery! It is the weight of the body which holds us back; we are too material, we live too much by the senses. _Sursum corda!_ Would, Kate, that my life were a _sursum corda_ continually!

Besides, can our angelic invalid make us think of anything but heaven? Her state is really inexplicable. The doctor at Hyères thought that the chest was affected, but we are assured that this is not the case. To all her mother’s questions Mad invariably answers: “I am not quite well――that is all; don’t be uneasy, dearest mother.” But day after day she grows more transparent, more delicate; and in watching her the same idea struck Gertrude and myself: she resembles the _Angel spreading his Wings_ painted by Marcella. To console myself, I read the most beautiful of books,――the Gospel and the admirable _Imitation_. Dear Kate, tell me again to look up to heaven!

Madame Bourdon has written some noble pages upon Lamartine. Would you like to have the flower of them? “Never, perhaps, did any name of man or any human destiny, pass through more varied phases than the name of Lamartine, or than the destiny of this poet, who lived long only to see the better how inconstant is earthly glory, and how quickly fade the palms awarded by men. Forty years ago the name of Lamartine expressed an ideal of poetry, purity, and sublime aspirations; eighteen years later the name of Lamartine personified the Revolution――moderate, perhaps noble, but always alarming to thoughtful minds and believing hearts. From the date of this epoch a shadow fell on the brightness of this name; poverty with its humiliations, old age with its feebleness, isolation engendered by political enmities, overwhelmed the poet and the tribune. He drank long draughts from the cup of bitterness. Now the cloud rises, and over the tomb of Saint-Point burst forth praises and applause, the regrets so long denied to the unfortunate man, the genius broken down beneath the troubles of life. But before man had returned God was there. He had purified, pardoned, comforted, and lulled to sleep on his divine bosom that poet’s brow which never should have known affronts.” “From the past of him who was a traveller, tribune, and statesman, the poet will remain after all the rest; and when our time shall have become history, Alphonse de Lamartine will take his place among sad and noble figures, beneath Homer and Dante, side by side with Tasso and Camoëns.”

Do you remember the beautiful verses by Elise Moreau on the death of Julia?

“Moi, je sais la douleur, inconsolable père, Je suis jeune, et pourtant j’ai déjà bien pleuré.”[188]

How we shall miss this exquisite creature, too perfect for this world! O Kate! how I love her. She goes to God with so much candor, simplicity, and boldness――with the _effrontery of love_, as Father Faber expresses it. O powerlessness of affection! O weakness of that which ought to be most strong! O nothingness of all that is ourselves――to be able to do nothing, nothing, but offer barren desires and longings for those we love!

How right you are to remind me of the old proverb: _Lock the door of your heart_. I ought to open it to God alone; but this is perfection, and I am far from that.

Love me, dear Kate!

JULY 12, 1869.

The Prince de Valori has just published the _Letters of a Believer_ (_Lettres d’un Croyant_). It is admirable. The last is on St. Peter’s at Rome: “This is the sole temple worthy of the Eternal; this is the marvel of all the marvels of art; this the monumental miracle of the faith, the miracle of Christian genius, the apotheosis of the transformation of stone into a _chef-d’œuvre_, into grandeur, elevation, and harmony, at the breathing of Bramante, of Raphael, of Michael Angelo, of Carlo Maderno, and of the Bernini. This, this is St. Peter’s of Rome, Paradise in miniature, the concentration of all that one can dream of grand and sublime; the incomparable mosaic in which is found all that is worthy of admiration in the temples and museums of the universe; the New Jerusalem, made of lapis-lazuli, jasper, porphyry, gold, silver, and precious stones; a city of altars and sanctuaries, of domes and canopies; a blessed city, whose streets are of precious marbles, where streams of holy water flow, where the air one breathes is myrrh and incense, where is the King enthroned on the altars, and for his footstool the tomb of the apostles.

“St. Peter’s at Rome!――the greatest work of human architecture, before which Solomon’s Temple, Saint Sophia, Versailles, the Alhambra, Westminster, are mere nothings; monument of glory and immensity, in which there is neither fault nor defect; where Providence has willed that each of the great artists who wrought there should correct his predecessor, down to Carlo Maderno, who had the signal honor of rectifying Michael Angelo.”

Picciola is fading away, gently, gently, without one complaint. Who would have imagined that this healthy blossom would have faded away so soon? Her voice is feeble――feeble as a distant harp; but what eloquence there is in her look! Yesterday I had left her alone for a few moments with my beautiful godson; on coming back I stopped at the partly-open door. She was rocking the little darling on her knees, and saying: “Look at me well, little Cousin Guy, because soon I shall go away to the land from which you came. Before the leaves fall Madeleine will go away, but you at least, my little Guy――you will not weep for my departure. And I shall be the happiest!”

This morning I wanted to curl her beautiful hair. “You love me too much, dear aunt; but I also love you very much. When I am no longer here, you will love Alix instead, who is so pretty and sweet when she raises herself on tiptoe to try and kiss you.” She said this simply and seriously, and, as a tear fell from my eyes, she added: “Then you do not wish me to speak to you of my death, that I may console you for my going away? But remember that the good God will let me see you from Paradise, and that I shall pray to him for you and for my kind Uncle René!”

Oh! how weak I am, dear Kate. Pray for me!

JULY 18, 1869.

Adrien read to us yesterday an appreciation of the works of Rossini by a poet――Méry. Picciola had laid her head on my knee and seemed to sleep. I have mentioned to you Adrien’s talent as a reader. He was reading the following passage: “In this _Stabat_ Rossini has sung the graces of the Redemption, the joys of hope, the beams from the gate of heaven, opened by the Blood shed on Golgotha; he has scattered over this page of desolation all the flowers of the celestial garden, all the garlands of Sharon, all the vistas of the Promised Land; he has been mindful of that great Christian expression of St. Augustine, ‘Death is life’; he has written his divine elegy in the _Campo Santo_ of Pisa, where the tombs are bathed in azure, crowned with lilies, and smiling in the sun. And now, after so many works accomplished, posterity will not ask whether Rossini could have done more; it will regard that which he has done as the most marvellous work of human genius.” Here the sweet little Mad raised herself up, her eyes beaming with a deep joy. Since then she has been frequently repeating, “Death is life!” Kate, Fénelon was right when he said that “nothing is more sweet than God, when we are worthy to feel it.”

Margaret is charming in amiability. But what a difference between last summer and this! We still make parties to go on expeditions, but always with some pious end――pilgrimages, when we pray for our beloved sick one. Gertrude comforts me in the same way that you do, dear Kate. I _see_, I _know_, I understand that God wills it thus. But the time passes away. Mme. Swetchine wrote: “Time is the riches of the Christian; time is his misery, time is earth; time is heaven, since it can gain heaven. Time is the fleeting moment; time is eternity, since it can merit eternity; and it is time which endangers eternity. At once an obstacle and a means, it is in an especial manner a two-edged sword, powerless in itself, and yet the most powerful of auxiliaries, nothing is done either by it or without it.”

Picciola is like the Angel of Charity among us, it is to her that the good _curé_ addresses his requests. And how well she knows how to ask! Oh! what are not children――the treasure of the house! Our casket was so rich, so resplendent, so precious, and now the fairest pearl, the purest diamond, is about to be taken from us!

I am writing in haste, my riding-habit over my arm; the horses are snorting in the court. It is at Mad’s entreaty that we are all going to a miraculous fountain near a chapel of the Blessed Virgin, at some little distance off. This child must have extraordinary courage to struggle as she does against her suffering, and to try to make us believe that it is nothing. Dear Kate, I repeat with you the _Fiat_ of Gethsemani, and lovingly embrace you.

JULY 23, 1869.

Margaret appears to have been a prophetess, Kate. I have learnt from Edouard that the doctor of Hyères was not entirely disinterested in his devoted attention: he would fain become Anna’s father. Although the thought of a separation had never occurred to me, I now perceive from this information the possibility of another future for Marcella. It seems that she has refused him; but the doctor does not consider himself beaten, and he has just installed himself in a little manor in ruins in our neighborhood. He has himself announced this to Edouard, who finds him very intelligent and likes him much. Marcella turned pale when Lucy communicated this piece of news to us all this morning: Anna appeared overjoyed. I do not know what to think.

Our excursion of the 18th led to an unexpected result: we found near the chapel two little girls in rags, their feet bare and bleeding. Their story is touching. Being left orphans, they set out on foot from the furthest part of Cantal to seek hospitality in Brittany from an uncle, whom on arriving they found was also dead. They have thus been wandering among the fields of broom, sleeping under trees, and have not ventured to ask for alms. Picciola embraced them as if they were sisters, placed them with a farmer’s wife, and has obtained leave from _grandmother_ to bring them to the _château_. Adrien wrote the same evening to the priest of their parish. The answer is most satisfactory: the orphans belong to a great family now decayed, and are worthy of interest; their pastor was at Rome when the poor children lost their father and, with the inconsiderateness of youth, undertook so long a journey. The elder is thirteen, a graceful little fairy, with piercing eyes; the younger nine, as tall as her sister, which however, is not saying much. “God sends you them to replace me,” said Picciola to her mother. Sweet angel! The nest is large enough to shelter two more doves; stay with us too! Berthe has had the poor little girls clothed, and has also adopted them. Thérèse and Picciola undertake to _acclimatize_ them. “This is truly the house of the good God,” said Marianne.

Margaret loves France. With her, _ennui_ is impossible. And how quickly she has become attached to Marcella! How well these two natures suit each other in spite of their contrasts! Dear Kate, this meeting again is a real blessing; I would fain live always thus. It is singular that our days are so full of charm, notwithstanding the uneasiness we are in on Picciola’s account. She also――_she is too dear to die_! Why cannot we accompany her all together, and pass without transition from meetings on earth to the meeting again in heaven?

Margaret receives intensely interesting letters from Rome; I should like to copy them for you. Have I told you how much Gertrude’s saintliness excites the admiration of our fair lady? Gertrude is become the guide and adviser of all; even my mother likes to be directed by her judgment. Her magnificent wardrobe is no longer hers; robes of silk and velvet――all are made into church vestments: impossible to imagine a more complete spoliation. She is uniformly dressed in black woollen; what a contrast to our worldly vanities! Her rooms, formerly so tasteful and rich, have undergone a radical transformation. She belongs to a princely family. Her tastes and habits were in accordance with her rank; her room was hung with crimson velvet, which is now replaced by a dark-colored paper, whilst the elegant furniture and superfluities have been banished to make way for the plainest articles she has been able to find. Adrien has sold his equipages to found a hospital. “Do you know, nothing would be easier than to transform this _château_ into a monastery,” Margaret said to me. “Yes, in proceeding as Gertrude has done.”

Adieu, dear Kate!

TO BE CONTINUED.

[185] “Fold, fold again, my child, thy dove-like wings, Open thy fair eyes, sweet, ’neath my caress. Ah! knewest thou the coldness of the tomb! Nay, happiness dwells only in the skies! Yet why so soon from earth wouldst thou depart? Can there, in heav’n itself, be aught more sweet Than kisses lavished by thy mother’s lips While rocking thee at eve upon her knees?”

[186] “But God a deaf ear turned; the flower unclosed. … An angel, clad in golden rays, One eve, they say, gathered the fragile rose, And with her took his upward flight to heaven.”

[187] “What sky was ever worth the sky of our birthplace?――the roof, the cherished nest, the home, dear to us when quite little, before we knew anything, and which nothing afar off can ever make us forget?”

[188] I myself am accquainted with sorrow, inconsolable father. I am young, and yet I have already wept much.

DE VERE’S “MARY TUDOR.”[189]

There is nothing more unjust than the neglect sometimes shown to literary performances of the highest merit. But it is not always difficult to account for this. We have before us a case in point. Here is a drama on a subject of peculiar interest――a model of classic elegance, and exhibiting at once a dramatic power and a dignity of language which have not been surpassed, if equalled, since Shakspere. Yet this work has been suffered to sink into obscurity. Why? For the excellent reason, surely, that the Protestant author presents Catholic claims and personages with a very unusual fairness――a fairness, moreover, which was specially unacceptable at the date of the book’s publication, when the excitement over what is called the Oxford movement was at its height.

After the lapse of nearly thirty years, Sir Aubrey De Vere’s drama has a new field opened to it, and will not, we trust, be again ignored, but receive from critics and literary circles its full meed of praise. The occasion of its fresh appeal to public attention is Tennyson’s effort on the same subject. We read _Queen Mary_ with our wonted relish of the melodious English and faultless diction for which Tennyson stands alone, and with full appreciation of the peculiar originality, which some call affectation, but to which, as we consider, he has more than proved his right; but were conscious throughout of a very undramatic vagueness, and painfully sensible that a great poet had prostituted his genius to a most unworthy cause. When we came to _Mary Tudor_, how different our experience! We seemed to be reading the product of some erudite pen of the Elizabethan era, and even to be witnessing the play’s performance――the _personæ_ speaking in the manner of their time, and standing before us as if actually on the stage. We found, too, the author’s intent very clear――namely, to draw the characters, both Catholic and Protestant, with perfect impartiality and in accordance with his information; and this not merely with a view to show that the right was not all on one side and the wrong all on the other (which, of course, is perfectly true), but rather, as it seems to us, to represent both parties as very much the sport of circumstances, and struggling for what each thought the truth. There is a mistake here, but an amiable mistake; and whatever prejudices lie at the bottom of it, they are the prejudices of the author’s informants, not his own.

He wisely divides his drama into two distinct plays of five acts each; and we purpose to make each “Part” the subject of a separate article. Indeed, we feel that, to do the work full justice, we ought to take a single Act at a time; for every scene will bear minute analysis. As it is, we must resist the temptation of quoting largely――a necessity the more to be regretted because the merit of dramatic poetry speaks for itself far better than the critic can speak for it.