Volume 25 / Part 1 — SIX SUNNY MONTHS. BY THE AUTHOR OF “THE HOUSE OF YORKE,” “GRAPES AND THORNS,” ETC. CHAPTER XIV. THE RAVEN AND THE DOVE. CONCLUSION. (continued 4)

“We shall insist upon knowing,” said he, “whether the government accept the responsibility for the campaign that is being waged by means of impure calumnies against the Catholics of France. The patriotism of French Catholics cannot be called in question; it is above suspicion. In what we are doing—in what we wish to do—we are claiming but our rights. We demand, however, that the government, to which we give our support, should free itself from the responsibility for the attacks made upon us, which render our position intolerable.”

M. Simon seems to have perceived that matters were growing serious, and that he could not much longer continue to pretend to serve two masters; but he resolved to struggle still to maintain his position. On the following day, after M. Leblond had put his question and supported it by a harangue in which he urged that the government should at once proceed to repress by the most stringent means “the Ultramontane intrigues,” M. Simon addressed the Chamber in a speech highly disingenuous and full of double meanings. It was virtually an appeal to the Gambetta faction to permit him to remain in power in order that he might do their work; while at the same time it was an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the Catholics by hypocritical professions of respect for religion and its rights. The government had been blamed, he said, for permitting Catholic newspapers to assail Italy; but the government could not prevent this; the law would punish the writers, if what they wrote was punishable under the law. On the other hand, the government would not tolerate any attack upon the Catholic religion—“which it sincerely respected”—and would protect the rights and liberties of Catholics. In fact, the church in France enjoyed to-day more freedom than at any previous time. But it was necessary to limit this freedom. For instance, the government “tolerates” the existence of Catholic societies so long as they are used only for the purposes set forth in their statutes, but it had interdicted the Catholic committees which were employed in political undertakings and which had “formidable ramifications.” Having gone thus far, M. Simon thought he might as well go a little further, and he proceeded to make a statement which was a direct insult to the intelligence of the whole Catholic world. “The Catholic petitions and the demonstration made by the Bishop of Nevers,” said he, “were based upon a fiction—namely, that the Pope is a prisoner in the Vatican”; “the law of guarantees has taken every care of the spiritual independence of the Holy Father”! And he then went on to 566condemn the petitions as “an interference in the internal affairs of a neighboring country,” and to remind the Chamber that the government had done all in its power to suppress these lawful manifestations of Catholic feeling. The government, he added, would continue to protect the clergy as long as they confined themselves to their spiritual duties, but would in the future punish them severely “if they encroached upon the civil power”—that is, if they continued to exercise their freedom and to discharge their duty by protesting against the acts of the Sardinian robbers, and by seeking to enlighten the public mind and conscience as to the real condition of the head of the universal church.

This speech of the President of the Council was a virtual surrender to the Extreme Left; but M. Gambetta was determined to force a more formal and complete capitulation. On the following day, May 4, he resumed the debate in a speech which he had carefully prepared, and which he delivered with great eloquence and animation. Its spirit is expressed in the sentence which was received with the loudest applause by the Extreme Left: “It is time that lay society should drive back the church to that subordinate rank which belongs to her in the state.” M. Gambetta, our readers will perceive, is very far in advance of M. Cavour. The Italian statesman dreamed of “a free church in a free state”; the French revolutionist demands an enslaved church in an atheistic and communistic state. Listen to him:

“The church has set citizens by the ears, alarmed France, and troubled Europe. It is always thus: the monarchy was often compelled to resist the encroachments of the church, but the republic must do more, for now the state is assaulted on all sides in the name of religion and her very existence is threatened. The Catholic leaders—ex-ministers, senators, and members of this Chamber—have exalted the Pope as the supreme ruler of France and of the world; when the Pope has issued an order they exclaim: 'Rome has spoken and must be obeyed.’ The Pope on the 12th of March commanded that an agitation in his favor should be everywhere set on foot; immediately we behold deputations of Catholic royalists calling upon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, convocations being held, and petitions circulated in spite of the feeble pretences of the government to suppress them. It will not do to say that the church in France must have the liberty which she enjoys elsewhere; she shall not have it, for the reason, among others, that here the church is bound to the state, and the state is responsible for the language and the acts of the bishops. No longer must it be permitted that the Pope may address himself directly to France, without having first obtained the sanction of the civil power, and without first submitting to it his bulls, briefs, and allocutions. No longer must the bishops be allowed to address themselves to mayors and prefects, conveying to the civil functionaries of the republic orders received from Rome. It is useless to say that only a few of the bishops have done these things; for these bishops represent the whole hierarchy, the church is unanimous, and its submission to Rome is complete. There is no such thing as resistance or opposition in the church; the old Gallican liberties have been swept away by the Syllabus and by the Vatican Council. The Pope must not be permitted again to usurp the rights of the state, as he has recently done in appointing one of his bishops chancellor of a French university and giving him the right of conferring degrees. I cannot understand how it happened that the papal instrument making this appointment was ever permitted to enter France! We must no longer endure these things; we must drive back the church to the place where she belongs. We need not fear that the people will not be on our side; if there is one thing more than another that is repugnant to France, it is the yoke of clericalism; and it cannot be too strongly 567said that clericalism is the enemy of the country.”

To this bitter harangue M. Jules Simon had no reply; he contented himself with declaring that he and the cabinet were not subject to the dictation of any power behind the throne, and that perfect harmony existed between the marshal and himself. He hastened to add that he would accept, in the name of the government, the order of the day proposed by M. Leblond, which was in these words:

“The Chamber of Deputies, considering that the recrudescence of Ultramontane manifestations constitutes a danger to the domestic and foreign peace of the country, calls upon the government to make use of the lawful means which it has at its disposal.”

This was adopted by a vote of 361 against 121; thus M. Gambetta won his victory, and, so far as M. Simon could pledge it, the government was pledged to carry out the demands of the foes of the church. This was on the 4th of May. Marshal MacMahon, it appears, hesitated as to his future course; but it appears also that he was conscious he had been betrayed into an intolerable position. He seems to have determined, from that moment, to dismiss M. Simon, and to appeal to the country to sustain him in his refusal to comply with the unconstitutional and tyrannical demands of the revolutionists; but, with what may seem to some an unwise timidity, he resolved to wait for some other act on the part of M. Simon which might be made the immediate ground for his dismissal.

He had not long to wait. During the next few days the sittings of the Chamber were characterized by great excitement and tumult. M. Simon was made the target of continual attacks; he was accused of having formerly belonged to the International Society, and of having been morally in league with the Communists who assassinated the Archbishop of Paris. He defended himself with vehemence, but his affiliation with the Gambetta faction became daily more apparent. He promised to draw up and send to the bishops a stringent circular, warning them that they would be held to a strict responsibility for all their future acts. The Committee of the Budget, on the 12th of May, reported in favor of according the sum annually paid for the support of the church, $10,626,199; but it accompanied this recommendation with the remark that it was now the duty of the government to revive and enforce a number of obsolete and almost forgotten laws which had been enacted, from time to time, by various governments which had desired to enslave the church. If these obsolete enactments should now be enforced, no French bishop could visit Rome without the consent of the government; no subscriptions for the Pope could be raised in France; no papal brief or bull could enter France, and no council or diocesan synod could assemble, without the consent of the government; and the ecclesiastical seminaries would be compelled to teach that the civil government is supreme in all things. M. Simon, it was understood, was about to enforce these unjust and virtually abrogated restrictions, and the Gambettists were in high feather. But their exultation was soon to be changed into disappointment and rage.

The Chamber of Deputies had before it a bill modifying the organization of municipalities, and another measure for the repeal of 568the law on the restrictions of the press which had been passed two years ago to secure social order. The cabinet had consulted upon these measures and had agreed upon the line which the ministers should take in opposing them. To this agreement M. Simon was a consenting party; it was well understood between him and the marshal that when these measures came up for decision M. Simon should explain that the government could not consent to them. But the new masters of M. Simon held him to the engagement he had made with them; and when these measures were brought forward M. Simon found it convenient to be absent from the Chamber, and the government was again betrayed. The patience of Marshal MacMahon was now exhausted; he was perhaps glad that M. Simon had so soon furnished him with a sufficient reason for his dismissal. Early on the morning of May 16 the marshal, having, it is said, passed a sleepless night, addressed the following note to M. Simon, and sent it to him without consulting with any of the other members of the government:

“I have read in the Journal Officiel the report of last night’s proceedings in the Chamber of Deputies. I observed with surprise that neither you nor the Keeper of the Seals put forward from the tribune the reasons which might have prevented the repeal of a press law, passed less than two years ago on the motion of M. Dufaure, and which you yourself quite recently wished to see applied in the courts of law. And yet it had been decided in several meetings of the cabinet, and indeed in the council held yesterday morning, that you and the Keeper of the Seals should undertake to oppose the motion for the repeal of the law.... In view of such an attitude on the part of the chief of the cabinet, the question naturally arises whether he retains sufficient influence to assert his views successfully, An explanation on this point is indispensable; for I myself, although not, like you, answerable to Parliament, have a responsibility towards France which to-day more than ever must engross my attention.”

M. Simon, upon receiving this note, saw that between his two stools he had fallen to the ground; but he made one more effort to again deceive the marshal. He repaired to the Elysée with a letter of resignation in his pocket; but before presenting it he asked the marshal if it were not possible that they should continue to act together. “No,” was the reply. “I have gone as far as I can possibly go in the wake of you and your allies; I shall go no further.” M. Simon then presented his letter of resignation, which was composed mainly of rather lame excuses for his absence from the Chamber on the two occasions complained of by the marshal. Immediately afterwards the other members of the cabinet resigned, in order to leave the marshal full liberty of action; and by the time the Gambettists had eaten their breakfasts they learned that they had overshot the mark, and that, instead of forcing Marshal MacMahon to accept their revolutionary programme, they had driven him to dismiss from his councils the man on whom they most relied, and in all probability to surround himself with men whom they could neither frighten nor purchase.

The excitement among all the members of the Assembly was great as the news spread; and a meeting of the Gambettists was called for the same evening, at which a line of action was laid down. One of the first things to be done, it was agreed, was to use the machinery at their disposal “in order properly to inspire foreign public opinion,” 569so that it might react upon France; and during the night “the republican leaders sent to foreign journals instructions to insert opinions upon the crisis” which would have the effect of alarming the marshal by holding up before him the threat of the displeasure of Germany and Italy. The London journals were especially inspired in this sense; and it was thus that our own journals, re-echoing this echo of the Gambetta caucus, gave their readers the idea that Marshal MacMahon had dismissed his cabinet in order to destroy the republic and to engage at once in a war against Italy for the restoration of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. The session of the Chamber of Deputies on the 17th was excited; and M. Gambetta once more demonstrated the foolishness of those who, deceived by his affected moderation and calmness during the last two years, had believed that this fou furieux had become a decent and practical statesman. He moved the resolution which had been adopted at the caucus the preceding night, and supported it in a speech full of fire and venom. The resolution, which the Chamber accepted by a vote of 355 against 154, simply declared that “the confidence of the majority can only be enjoyed by a cabinet which is free in its action and resolved to govern in accordance with republican principles, which can alone secure order and prosperity at home and abroad”—words with which no one can find fault. But M. Gambetta, giving full vent to his rage at finding himself foiled at the very moment when he was dreaming of victory, declared that the dismissal of M. Simon had been brought about by the intrigues of “a secret influence with which no ministry could cope.”

“It is not true,” he cried, “that the President of the republic bears a responsibility over and above that of the ministry. We must recall him to an exact observance of the constitution, and deliver him from perfidious counsels. The country wishes to be rid of the nightmare of those men of reaction who show their livid faces at all moments of uncertainty. If the Chambers are dissolved we have no fear of the result, but the country may see in it a prelude to war. Criminals are those who would provoke it.”

No one thinks of provoking war save M. Gambetta and his friends, and they are the only criminals. Marshal MacMahon was not at all dismayed by this loud talk; on the same evening the new cabinet was announced. The Duke Decazes and General Berthaut, Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of War in the former cabinet, retained their portfolios; the Duke de Broglie was made President of the Council and Minister of Justice; M. de Fourtou, Minister of the Interior; M. Caillaux, Minister of Finance; M. Paris, Minister of Public Works; M. de Meaux, Minister of Agriculture; and M. Brunet, Minister of Public Instruction. The cabinet is a homogeneous and a respectable one; as long as it remains in office the country may be certain, at least, that order will be maintained and that the plots of the Reds will be frustrated. During the morning of the 18th the Gambettists were very busy in preparing to give battle to the new cabinet. But they found themselves again disconcerted by the firmness of the President, who, exercising his constitutional right, sent a message to both houses, adjourning their session until the 16th of June. In this message Marshal MacMahon explains that he has scrupulously conformed to the constitution. He appointed the cabinets of M. 570Dufaure and of M. Simon with the object of placing himself in accord with the majority in the Chamber; but neither of these cabinets were able to unite in the Chamber a majority capable of causing constitutional and proper ideas to prevail.

“I could not,” the marshal went on to say, “take a further step on the same path without making an appeal to the republican fraction which desires a radical modification of all our institutions. My conscience and my patriotism do not permit me to associate myself even distantly with the triumph of these ideas, which can only engender disorder and the humiliation of France; and so long as I hold power I shall use it within legal limits to prevent that consummation, for it would be the ruin of the country. But I am convinced the country thinks as I do. It was not the triumph of these theories which the country desired at the last elections, when all the candidates availed themselves of my name. If it were to be again interrogated it would repudiate such a confusion of ideas. I am firmly resolved to respect and maintain the existing institutions of the country. Until 1880 I can propose no modification, and contemplate nothing of the kind. In order to allow the excitement to calm down, I invite you to suspend your sittings for one month. You will then be able to discuss the Budget. In the meantime we will watch over the maintenance of public peace. We will suffer nothing at home tending to compromise it; and it will be maintained abroad, I am confident, notwithstanding the agitations which disturb a portion of Europe, thanks to our good relations with all the powers and our policy of neutrality and abstention. On this point all parties are agreed, and the new cabinet holds the same views as the old. If any imprudence in the language of the press compromises the concord which we all desire, I shall repress it by legal means. To prevent this I appeal to that patriotism which is wanting in no class in France.”

Violent were the scenes in both Chambers when this message was read, but they were cut short by the firmness of the new ministers. M. Gambetta attempted to speak; his voice was drowned by shouts of “Down with the Dictator!” In the Senate M. Simon essayed to deliver an oration, but the Duke de Broglie announced that no one could speak, as the President had adjourned the session. The houses separated in confusion, and the Gambettists occupied themselves during the next few days in issuing inflammatory appeals to the country. The new government began without delay the task of strengthening itself by the removal of disaffected prefects, sub-prefects, and other department officials, and this work has been carried out with the same thoroughness that is displayed in our own country after a radical administrative change.

All this is the prelude to an appeal to the country in the shape of a general election for a new Assembly. The people will be summoned to decide, not whether they wish a republic or a monarchy, but whether the republic shall be entrusted to the extreme radical party or to those who can and will save France from the ruin into which Gambetta and his crew would engulf it. The decision will be waited for with anxiety, but without fear on our part. The French people, we believe, are sound at heart, and have no wish to resign themselves into the hands of men who fear not God nor regard man save as a convenient tool for their own ends. Meanwhile, however, the utmost circumspection should be exercised by the new government. Prince Bismarck is enraged when he sees France strengthening herself; he is delighted when he beholds her weakening herself by internal dissensions. Thus growls of displeasure at the check given 571to the Gambetta party have already been heard from Berlin, and the German press has been instructed to represent that the new French administration intends “to restore the Papacy through the humiliation of Germany.” The Italian government, troubled with a bad conscience, indulges in similar anticipations; and the first duty of the Duke Decazes has been to reassure these cabinets and to point out that the French government wishes simply to devote itself to the domestic interests and safety of France. We believe that this is the plain truth. If Marshal MacMahon and his present advisers are sustained, France will be saved from domestic ruin, and her salvation will go far towards checking the revolution in other countries.

The time will come, no doubt, when France will again assert herself in European affairs, but with a wisdom gathered from her terrible reverses and humiliation. For those reverses she had no one but herself to blame. They were the bitter fruit of an overweening pride, and of the desertion of those eternal principles of justice and right, and of the faith that embodies them, close adherence to which alone makes nations truly great. France is coming back to her faith, and with her faith will return her greatness, her nationality, her life. Before, however, she can make her voice heard in Europe she must speak in clear, calm, and not discordant tones. She must be united in herself, one nation, one people, with one heart and one soul. It is this that Germany dreads of all things, and consequently the threats and intrigues of Germany and Italy will be exerted to the utmost in aid of Gambetta and his faction, who, indeed, have much strength of their own. While we are far from thinking that the contest will be an easy one, we have little doubt as to the final issue. The republic of order in France is the Catholic republic. The French nation is Catholic. All the real glories of France are indissolubly linked with the Catholic name. Her greatest disasters are as fatally linked with the party of which Gambetta is to-day the ostensible leader. It is time for Catholic France to gather herself together and arise in a strength that she never before had the opportunity of possessing. The way is open. She stands now quite untrammelled from alliances with any dynasty or name. Her fate lies in her own hands, and the honest soldier who has guarded so well her truest interests will not betray the trust placed in him by his countrymen.

572

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

Life of the Ven. Clement Mary Hofbauer, C.SS.R. By the Author of the Life of Catharine McAuley, etc. New York: The Catholic Publication Society. 1877.

Father Hofbauer was a second St. Alphonsus in the Congregation of the Redemptorist fathers, and the founder of the institute as existing outside of Italy. He will probably be canonized; and it would not be a matter of surprise if the veneration for his memory in Austria and the neighboring countries, in case this solemn recognition is accorded to his sanctity by the Holy See, should equal that for St. Vincent de Paul in France. He was a plain, simple man, of humble origin, moderate parts and learning, but truly angelic purity and miraculous sanctity. The influence he obtained and the good he accomplished are simply wonderful. The history of his life is graphically portrayed by the religious lady who has written his biography. We could wish that every priest and every ecclesiastical student in the United States might read it. The scandal and mischief wrought by perverse men of brilliant intellectual gifts, like Gioberti and Döllinger, by apostate princes, faithless prelates, and unworthy or careless priests, are best repaired by such worthy successors of the apostles as the Venerable Father Hofbauer. The study of their characters and actions is better than the most thorough course of polemics, as an antidote to every kind of pseudo-Catholic liberalism.

The Life of Christopher Columbus. By Arthur George Knight, of the Society of Jesus. New York: The Catholic Publication Society. 1877.

Christopher Columbus is, and always will remain, one of the greatest figures in history and one of the grandest of Catholic heroes. He may be said to have passed through all human experience. He was born in poverty and schooled in poverty. His days were cast in one of those eventful periods in the world’s history when “the old order changeth, yielding to the new.” With ideas in his mind just beyond his time, and convinced himself of their truth and power, he had to struggle hopelessly for years under the most adverse circumstances before he could imbue other minds with the ideas that possessed him. He could only think and talk and plan. He was powerless to act, for lack of means. He had the satisfaction of being regarded as a dreamer by the enlightened men of his time. At last his ideas prevailed, and resulted in the discovery of a new world.

Then came his hour of triumph—a triumph unparalleled in history; and after it, more bitter than his early struggles upwards, ingratitude, contempt, chains, and misery. There is nothing more romantic than this story, nothing fraught with more solemn lessons. Through all, through triumph as through adversity, through poverty as through greatness, stands out the true Catholic, who cherished his faith above all things, who in all things looked first to the greater glory of God, and who from first to last lived the life of a practical Catholic. Indeed he was truly a holy man, and strong efforts are now being made for his canonization.

It seems strange that this great Catholic figure should have fallen so completely into Protestant hands. There are admirable histories of him in English, works that have won deserved fame for their authors, but they are all written by Protestants, who, however well disposed they may be, must in the nature of things make mistakes when treating of Catholic subjects. Grave mistakes have been made, not by Protestants alone, but by Catholics also, in the story of Columbus’ life. It is with a view to rectify these mistakes, and to present to the Catholic reader the true story of a most important, edifying, and interesting life that Father Knight has written the present volume. He has done his work thoroughly well, and we have no doubt that the book will become a favorite with all classes of Catholic readers.

573Biographical Sketches of Distinguished Marylanders. By Esmeralda Boyle, author of Thistledown, Felice, etc. Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co. 1877.

This little volume is replete with interest. It recalls in graceful language the memory of men who have honored by their upright lives and heroic actions the gallant State that gave them birth. It is no small boast for Maryland that no State in the Union has produced more men distinguished for their ability, patriotism, and, above all, a high-toned chivalry which could never stoop to aught having the flavor of dishonor about it. These were the men who first won for our country the recognition of European scholars and statesmen. Their lofty principles, their graceful accomplishments, their scholarly attainments, and their dauntless courage drew on them the eyes of the world, and earned for their mother State the proud reputation she now enjoys. From the time that Lord Baltimore landed on her shores to the present day no public man has disgraced the fair record or blurred a page of the history of Maryland. And, indeed, the beginning of her civilized days was an eminently fit prelude to her whole subsequent career. From out of the first colony established on the banks of the Chesapeake flowed the doctrines of religious toleration and equal religious rights to all men irrespective of clime and color, at a moment when witch-burning fires lighted up the settlements of Massachusetts. The Indians of those times for once felt that Christianity and civilization were blessings and not a cloak to avarice and tyranny. “From the records left to us,” says Miss Boyle, “it is evident that these teachers endeavored by all mild and lawful means to elevate the hearts of the Indians to a knowledge of the true God. The Indian of the present day, dwelling on the border-lands of civilization, deems the white man a traitor to his word, an enemy to the Indian race, and a breaker of compacts, whose perfidy must be retaliated upon the innocent by fire and tomahawks. This is rather a sad commentary upon the savage or the Christian of our times. Which is it?”

Miss Boyle appropriately begins her series of biographical sketches with a notice of that truly grand historic figure, Daniel Dulany, the Nestor of the Maryland bar. The unflinching advocate of probity and truth, and a strong friend of freedom, he distinguished himself fitly for the first time by counselling opposition to the famous Stamp Act. His eloquence and fearlessness greatly helped the cause of the Revolution; for although he opposed immediate separation from England, his burning words kindled the fires of opposition to British rule. The name parce detortum is the same as Delany and indicates the Irish stock whence he sprang.

The paper on Charles Carroll of Carrollton is extremely interesting. It presents a very life-like picture of that great patriot, statesman, and devout Catholic. We behold the courtly and polished gentleman, tinged with the airs and manners of an education acquired in the gay capital of France. And though fashionable Paris was at that time the hotbed of infidelity, and Voltaire ruled supreme, young Carroll never became so imbued with the madness of the hour as to abandon the strong Catholic principles and spirit pious parents and teachers had early implanted in his heart. His name will ever remain an honor to his native State, and his virtues and loftiness of character an incentive to her children to cling to the highest standard of a true gentleman’s life.

It is evident that Miss Boyle had abundant materials at hand, for she is constrained at times to sacrifice method to condensation; and this, perhaps, is the worst that can be said of her interesting volume. The sketch of the Most Reverend John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore, is illustrative of this defect. The writer labored under an embarras de richesses, and passes too brusquely from one incident to another.

It is not generally known, nor does Miss Boyle make mention of the fact, which has been already announced in this magazine, that at the time when John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was supplicating George III. to send more troops to America for the purpose of suppressing the unholy rebellion against his majesty’s benign sway, Father John Carroll, the Jesuit priest, was on a mission to Canada, seeking the non-intervention of that colony in the efforts of the States to free themselves from the yoke of British tyranny. And yet it is almost a Methodist article of faith that the Jesuits have ever been the enemies 574of the republic, and the sons of John Wesley its warmest friends.

William Pinkney, one of Maryland’s most gifted sons, whose eloquence ranks him with Pitt, Fox, and Burke, receives a most fitting tribute from the pen of Miss Boyle. The history of this wonderful man should be known and closely studied by the young men of our time; for few lives exhibit a more perfect pattern of true manliness. His struggles against early poverty and the numerous difficulties attending the efforts to acquire knowledge in those times gave earnest of his future success in life. The late venerable Chief-Justice Taney spoke of him in these words: “I have heard almost all the great advocates of the United States, both of the past and present generation, but I have seen none equal to Pinkney.” Rufus King, having once listened to him exclaimed in a burst of enthusiasm “that the speech of Pinkney had enlarged his admiration of the capacity of the human mind.” Of such men is Maryland justly proud, and Miss Boyle has performed a timely and praiseworthy task in having brought us face to face with the heroes of a past generation, whose memory their native State should ever delight to honor.

Sidonie. (Fromont Jeune et Risler Aîné.) From the French of Alphonse Daudet. Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1877.

We understand that this story has had an enormous circulation in France. This circulation we are inclined to attribute rather to the author’s name than to any special excellence in the book itself. Alphonse Daudet is one of the pet French novelists of the day, and it takes much to destroy a well-earned reputation. Sidonie is a repulsive story, told with great skill, and embellished throughout by those thousand and one delicate artistic touches, lights and shades, of which French writers alone seem to possess the secret. M. Daudet is actuated by the very laudable design of punishing vice, and showing in a very strong and real light the awful, the tragic misery it brings upon the vicious and the good alike. All very well. Novelists, however, who take up this kind of theme—and many are very fond of it—have an unpleasant and untrue habit of making their good people fools or simpletons. It seems to us that, as a rule, good people, particularly good women, are remarkably keen in detecting falsehood and scenting rascality. In Sidonie it is all the other way. One detestable little wretch of a woman, who has not half an ounce of good in her whole system, sets all the good people by the ears, destroys the peace of happy families, ruins a great business-house, causes the suicide of several excellent and very charming characters, and ends by retiring to that kingdom from which she should never have been called—Bohemia.

It seems to us a pity that an author of such real power and skill in delineation of character and plot as M. Daudet should waste himself on the unutterably mean. We are not of the opinion that this world is given over to the dominion of the devil and his servants. It is not heaven to any of us; yet as between the good and the bad, all things considered, we believe that the good have the best of the battle even in this life. Of course novel-readers must have their villain, male or female; and the female villain must, of course, be very, very bad. Their viciousness, however, could be shown sufficiently, and the lesson it entails inculcated, without making them the pivots on which the world turns. It is the noble, not the ignoble, who really move the world; and until the race of the noble is exhausted, novelists may as well draw their heroes and heroines from that class. At least we object to their being for ever depicted as fools.

The translation of Sidonie is admirable. It is from the graceful and cultivated pen of Mrs. Mary Neale Sherwood.

Legends of the Blessed Sacrament. Gathered from the History of the Church and the Lives of the Saints. By Emily Mary Shapcote. London: Burns & Oates. 1877. (For sale by The Catholic Publication Society.)

This is in every sense a most beautiful and attractive volume. The author has collected a large number of legends connected with the Blessed Sacrament. These are abundantly and very handsomely illustrated, and the letter-press itself is admirable. There is much more, however, than legends in the volume. The devotion of the church to the Blessed Sacrament is traced down to the very days of the apostles, verified by ample quotations, and illustrated by pictures taken from the Catacombs and 575the earlier monuments of Christian art. This is indeed an excellent and most valuable feature of the work. The whole is in keeping. The devotion is brought up to our own days, and its wonderful growth and development brought out in a clear and most interesting manner. The author has done her work skilfully, gracefully, and reverently. The admirable preface shows how much she is inspired by real love for and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. The last picture in the volume is a large and admirably-executed portrait of our Holy Father Pope Pius IX.

The Discipline of Drink: An Historical Inquiry into the principles and practice of the Catholic Church regarding the use, abuse, and disuse of alcoholic liquors, especially in England, Ireland, and Scotland, from the sixth to the sixteenth century. By the Rev. T. E. Bridgett, of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. With an introductory letter to the author by His Eminence Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster. London: Burns & Oates. 1877.

The best notice we can give of this valuable work will be to make a few extracts from Cardinal Manning’s letter. His Eminence says it is “the first attempt to collect the counsels and judgments of Catholic pastors and writers on the use of wine and on the sin of drunkenness.” He believes the book will be “of signal use in clearing away a multitude of prejudices, and perhaps some more reasonable censures, which have impeded the efforts we are making to check the spread of intoxication.” These “more reasonable censures” have been called forth by the words and acts of associations not in the unity of the Catholic Church, and particularly by Catholics having joined such societies and adopted their “wild talk, worthy of the Manichees.” Father Bridgett’s book, then, “will show how broadly the Catholic Church has always taught the lawfulness of using all things that God has made, in all their manifold combinations, so long as we use them in conformity to the law of God. Drunkenness is not the sin of drink, but of the drunkard.” On the other hand, “in every utterance of the church, and in every page of Holy Scripture, wine is surrounded with warnings,” says his Eminence, and adds that our author has “done well to point out that a new and more formidable agent of intoxication even than wine has in the last three centuries confirmed its grasp, chiefly upon the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races.” So that “no exact precedents can be found in the past action of the church as to the way of dealing with an evil new in its kind, and so far more formidable both in its spread and in its intensity”; while at the same time “the principles of the church are always the same, and, in bringing forth things new and old, forms may vary, but the mind and action are immutable.” The cardinal then proceeds to give his own views of what should be done. He is in favor of “a widely-extended organization,” and advocates total abstinence as the only hope for multitudes, and a specially meritorious act of self-denial in those who do not need it themselves, but embrace it for the sake of others. But—and to this we would call particular attention—the “widely-extended organization” should comprise, in his opinion, those who are not total abstainers. He expresses satisfaction at Father Bridgett having quoted in the appendix some words of his own. We quote them, too, because we most heartily agree with them: “Now, my dear friends, listen! I will go to my grave without tasting intoxicating liquors; but I repeat distinctly that any man who should say that the use of wine or any other like thing is sinful when it does not lead to drunkenness, that man is a heretic condemned by the Catholic Church. With that man I will never work. Now, I desire to promote total abstinence in every way that I can. I will encourage all societies of total abstainers. But the moment I see men not charitable attempting to trample down those who do not belong to the total abstainers, from that moment I will not work with those men. I would have two kinds of pledge: one for the mortified who never taste drink, and the other for the temperate who never abuse it. If I can make these two classes work together, I will work in the midst of them. If I cannot get them to work together, I will work with both of them separately.”

Father Bridgett has given in his appendix “a summary of the principal Catholic organizations which have lately been set on foot in these countries” (England, 576Ireland, and Scotland). Some of these organizations include partial abstinence in their rules. Another society is mentioned as existing in some parts of Germany, and approved by His Holiness Pius IX. and enriched with indulgences. The members of this last promise total abstinence from distilled liquors, and sobriety in the use of fermented drinks.

We hope this labor of love from the pen of Father Bridgett will have the circulation it deserves.

Spirit Invocations; or, Prayers and Praises publicly offered at the Banner of Light circle-room free meetings by more than one hundred different spirits, of various nationalities and religions, through the vocal organs of the late Mrs. J. H. Conant. Compiled by Allen Putnam, A.M., author of Bible Marvel-Workers, Natty: a Spirit, etc. Boston: Colby & Rich. 1876.

Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat would be an appropriate motto for this hodge-podge of nonsense and lunacy. Imagine a sane man being called on to believe that he is listening to prayers offered by the spirits of Tom Paine and Cardinal Cheverus through the same set of “vocal organs”! It is evident that the “prayers” were all ground from one mill, as there is the utmost sameness pervading them. Tom Paine condescending to come down from the pedestal of his celestial greatness, and praying with unctuous fervor to the God he blasphemed on earth, is a spectacle highly refreshing; but more astonishing still is it to find him surpass Father de Smet and Cardinal Cheverus in the ecstatic intensity of a mystical devotion. “We pray not for more blessings,” exclaims the pious Thomas; “we only pray that we may appreciate those already received; and when we lift up our souls in prayer, asking that thy kingdom may come on the earth, we do but ask that thy children in mortal may know themselves and their relations to thee.”

It is evident that the author of the Age of Reason has materially changed his “spirit” since he exuviated his mortal coil, or perhaps he has deftly substituted that of Mr. Putnam, A.M., for his own. This, we rather suspect, is the case. Theodore Parker, too, has been to camp-meeting up above; for a great change has come over the “spirit” of the frigid founder of New England transcendentalism. He prays with a vim that no leader of a revival at Sea Cliff or Sing Sing could ever hope to emulate, and appears shamefully unlike the Rev. O. B. Frothingham’s ideal of a hero. Some of the prayers are quite touching, and sound as if they had been pilfered from Catholic books of devotion.

Known too Late. By the author of Tyborne, Irish Homes and Irish Hearts, etc., etc. Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co. 1877.

This little volume bears the impress of patient and painstaking care. The author is the happy possessor of a pure and pleasant style, and yet throws off nothing carelessly, as too many with facile pens are disposed to do. The narrative is done in subdued colors, and nowhere is good taste shocked by the utterance of extravagant or whimsical sentiments.

The plot of the story unfolds itself quite naturally, and, though the dénoûment is a hard one to bring about, it is done so ingeniously as not to appear at all violent. We can conscientiously say of this little book that it is a shade in advance of Catholic stories generally and is well deserving a perusal.

The Paradise of the Christian Soul. By James Merlo Herstius, of the Church of the B. Virgin Mary in Pasculo Pastoris, at Cologne. A new and complete translation. By lawful authority. London: Burns & Oates. (For sale by The Catholic Publication Society.)

A most complete manual of prayer for ordinary use. One cannot tire of it. The present edition is illustrated; but the illustrations might easily have been improved.

577