admirable and full of interest. In vigorous and picturesque language you
have presented the other side.
JOHN A. KASSON,
“_Washington._ _Senator and Diplomat_.”
“I find no words to express the historic breadth of your political
summary, and the deep and genuine philosophy and truth of your treatment
of this great drama.
CASSIUS MARCELLUS CLAY,
_Ten years Minister of the U.S. at St. Petersburg_.”
“I have read _Slav and Moslem_ with much interest, as it contains many
suggestions to fruitful thought regarding this great empire.
ANDREW D. WHITE.
_Legation of the U.S., St. Petersburg._”
“_Slav and Moslem_ is written with justice, clairvoyance, and talent.
JULIETTE ADAM.”
“I have read many books on Russia, but none met with my approval to such
an extent as _Slav and Moslem_.... The statements and descriptions of
the Russians are so correct.... During the years of my official stay I
studied the people, their history and language, and know what I am
talking about.
JOHN KAREL,
_U.S. Consul at St. Petersburg_.”
“For the chapter on the Crimea alone your book deserves the thanks of
all who would study the present century.
GEO. J. LEMMON,
_Lecturer and Publicist_.”
SOME PRESS NOTICES
“Vivid historical sketches.... Eminently worthy of careful
perusal.”--_The Press_ (Philadelphia).
“The author shows an intelligent mastery of his subject.”
_Herald_ (Boston).
“Its every sentence is clear-cut and positive.... The subjects are all
treated with a vigour and boldness that rivet the attention from first
to last.”
_The American_ (Baltimore).
“The author has a surprisingly firm grasp on his subject.... Vivid,
thorough, original.”
_The Tribune_ (Salt Lake City, Utah).
“Intensely readable.... It is one of the notable books of the
day.”--_Commercial Gazette_ (Cincinnati).
“From first to last the book is one of unusual interest.”
_The Chronicle_ (Augusta, Ga.).
“A sober and trenchant defence of Russia.”
_Times Star_ (Cincinnati)
“Mr. Brodhead writes lucidly and discriminatingly.... Interesting and
suggestive throughout.”
_The Churchman_ (New York).
“J. Brodhead’s work on the Eastern is creating a more and more favorable
impression throughout the country.”
_The Press_ (New York).
PLYMOUTH
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I transcribe the following from _Le Lyon Republicain_ (ministerial
anti-clerical), 1905:--“The criminality of youths from sixteen to
twenty-five is increasing in shameful and overwhelming proportions. This
collection of beardless scoundrels, cynically vicious, murderers,
thieves, _souteneurs_, is the curse of our large cities.... It is only
since fifteen or eighteen years at most that criminalists notice this
remarkable depravation of youths almost children.... May we not ask if
the State that has done the most for instruction has not done the least
for education? Truly this frightful development of youthful criminality,
of alcoholism, and anti-socialism must make us reflect.”
“_Fifteen years or eighteen at most._” The scholar anti-Christian laws
of Jules Ferry, Goblet, Paul Bert, date from 1882 to 1895, and by their
fruits they are judged.
[2] In January, 1906, M. Poincaré, minister of finance, in reply to M.
Grousseau, admitted that up to February, 1905, the State had advanced
the sum of 4,551,319 frs. to the liquidators of the Congregations.
[3] “Vel Judam non videtis, quomodo non dormit, sed festinat tradere me
Judæis?” (Feria V in Cœna Domini--“See ye not Judas, how he sleeps not,
but makes haste to betray me into the hands of the Jews?”)
[4] According to a recent article in the _Figaro_, 8th October, 1906,
among the conscripts sent this month to the army by Paris, ninety could
neither read nor write; seventy-nine could read only.
[5] It was only at the annual September Convent of the Grand Orient,
1904, that it was decided to rush the assault on the Church itself by
the law of alleged separation. “Il nous reste un rude coup de collier à
donner ... la separation figurera en Janvier prochain a l’ordre du jour
de la chambre.”
[6] At the Free-Thought Congress.
[7] His native city recently hoisted the French flag and proclaimed its
annexation to the Third Republic, 1906. Of course it was only a platonic
demonstration on the part of Sicilian Freemasons.
[8] M. Rouvier had obtained a law obliging every one without exception
who distilled anything to pay the usual tax on alcohol. This law was
made and repealed by the same Parliament, so that now every one who has
a peach or a plum tree can manufacture any kind of alcohol of poor
quality, and retail it in the _buvettes_ or drink-stands which are found
at every step almost; in every little vegetable and grocery shop, even
in Government tobacco stores where stamps are sold. These _buvettes_ are
the curse of France to-day. They have caused far greater ravages than
the Franco-Prussian war.
[9] “We do not wish to see the secular arm placed at the service of
free-thought,” said a deputy of the “bloc” not long since. “Meanwhile
the secular arm in the service of free-thought has closed all our
schools and colleges,” retorted a deputy of the Right.
[10] On November 17th, 1906, the Bishop of Nancy wrote as follows to M.
Briand, Minister of Cults, regarding the sad plight of the Sisters du
Saint Cœur de Marie at Nancy: “In 1902, 56 of them were huddled together
in a small house situated at the extremity of their grounds.... Their
spacious chapel was razed to the ground and in its place three private
houses have been built. The property was sold for 527,000 francs. The
liquidator promised that in conformity with the law the sisters should
receive pensions. Out of the 56 there remain to-day but 44. Of these 10
are over seventy, and 22 of them are over sixty.... In these last four
years they have received out of the 527,000 francs only 12,000 in three
instalments.... They owe 17,800 to their baker, butcher, etc., and are
threatened with starvation if further credit be denied them.... Are
these aged women, who have devoted their lives to the instruction of the
poor, to die of cold and hunger, M. le Ministre?” And these things
happen in the twentieth century under a Government that proclaims the
rights of man and of the poor!
[11] There is no such thing as proportional representation in France,
and the whole electoral machinery is manipulated to give the Government
a majority.
[12] Recently in the Chambers (November 13th, 1906), M. Lassies
criticized that part of M. Clemenceau’s declaration in which he referred
to the Holy See “as a foreigner subject to foreign influences.” “Foreign
influences,” said M. Lassies, turning pointedly to M. Delcassé, “we find
them here in the person of the ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who fell
from power without our knowing why. Whence came the gust which caused
his fall? From which frontier?”
[13] The Bill was adopted by the French Senate early in December.
[14] Everything except the _encyclique_ of August 15th, 1906.
[15] M. Lefas, deputy of the Right, maintained in the Chambers (Nov.
9th, 1906, _Journal Officiel_, p. 2448) that “the churches could not
form part of the Communal domain when Communes did not exist in France.
Communal domain only began with the existence of the Communes; that is
to say, a hundred years ago.” Therefore these Church edifices cannot be
said to belong to the Communes to-day. Formerly France was divided into
parishes, and each parish had its parish church.
As to the cathedrals, if kings and nobles, like other Catholics,
contributed to their embellishment or construction, they did so as
Catholics. All the guilds and corporations, too, contributed, not only
money, but personal labour. Would this entitle the syndicates of masons,
goldsmiths, etc., of to-day to claim these cathedrals? But the chief
factor in the construction of these noble edifices were the freely given
toil and humble labours of the multitudes of Catholics who raised these
monuments of faith. It is well known that a Catholic church cannot be
dedicated as long as any one has a lien on it, that is, not until the
Church’s proprietorship of the building is undisputed. Therefore the
assumption that these edifices belong to the State and the Communes can
only be justified on the theory of the men who, seeing a trunk lying in
the hall of a hotel, said, “This trunk belongs to no one; let us say it
belongs to us.”
The recent judgment of the highest court of England in the case of the
“wees and the frees” of the Scotch Presbyterian Kirk is eminently
applicable in this question of Jacobin appropriations and spoliations.
[16] These inventories, left incomplete after the fall of the Rouvier
Ministry (February), are being completed now (November, 1906).
[17] When the daily Press is constantly recording the exploits of
_cambrioleurs_ picking locks and bursting open _coffres forts_ with
dynamite, it is very piquant to see the Government doing the same thing,
flanked by _gens d’armes_ and the regular army. Yesterday at Nantes 1500
soldiers, with two generals and one colonel, surrounded the cathedral at
5 a.m. Forty locks were picked before noon! In _cambrioleur_ slang this
would be called a “record haul.” Thanks to the injunctions of Pius X,
there was no bloodshed, and M. Clemenceau and his friends proclaim that
these inventories are made _sans incident_.
[18] This Protestant senator seems to have been inspired by an eloquent
passage in Bossuet, “Une voix nous crie, _Marche, Marche_.”
[19] The founder and owner of _La Lanterne_ is said to be a Frankfort
Jew, and it is an open secret that all the advanced Socialist and
anti-clerical dailies are owned or controlled by the princes of Israel.
And it is from these that English and American papers seem to derive all
their information regarding the Church in France.
[20] LES CAISSES D’ÉPARGNE.
Voici le relevé des opérations des Caisses d’épargne ordinaires avec la
Caisse des dépôts et consignations du 1er au 10 octobre, 1906:--
Dépôts de fonds 2.830.949 fr. 72. Retraits de fonds 6.576.856 fr. 30.
Excédent des retraits 3.745.906 fr. 58.
Excédent des retraits du 1er janvier au 10 octobre, 1906, 26.784.318
fr. 60.
[21] Thus Notre Dame might witness a Catholic Mass in the morning, a
theosophical reunion at noon, and a positivist conference in the
evening. The Swiss Catholics, 1872-6, had some such experiences: a
venerable priest died recently at Berne who had refused to give up the
keys of his church for other uses, and was imprisoned for many years;
while the last prisoner of Chillon was the Catholic Bishop of Fribourg,
another victim of the Swiss Kulturkampf.
[22] When public men and editors in France and elsewhere descant on
German _Associations cultuelles_ accepted by the Holy See that rejects
them in France, they stand accused of ignorance or malevolence. M.
Briand basely insinuated (Chambers, 9th November) that the Church in
Germany was being ransomed by France: “Notre situation à nous est-elle
la rançon de la situation d’un pays voisin? Je me borne à poser la
question.” The fact is there is no such thing as _German Associations
cultuelles_, each State of the Confederation has its own regulations.
Bavaria has a concordat and a papal nuncio at Munich. The Governments of
Würtemberg and the Grand Duchy of Baden made special conventions with
the Holy See, 1857 and 1859. Alsace-Lorraine is still under the French
Concordat of 1801 between Pius VII and the First Republic. Prussia and
Hesse in 1873 and 1875 made special conventions with the Vatican.
Prussia has a Legation to the Holy See at Rome. Moreover, in none of the
German states is there separation of Church and State. They all
recognize and subsidize the Catholic Church and one form of
Protestantism. In Prussia several bishops are appointed senators by the
King. In Alsace-Lorraine the Bishop of Strasburg is member of the
Council of State. In Bavaria, Baden, Würtemberg, the prelates are
members of the Upper House.
[23] What would Philippe de Commines have said had he heard of the
little _coup de main_ (November 20th, 1906), by which deputies and
senators in _quasi huis clos_ voted themselves an increase of 6000
francs without any “_octroi or consentement_” of the sovereign people,
delivered from tyranny and servitude by the Revolution?
[24] There is in the Palace of the Doges at Venice an immense picture
commemorating this Congress, where the Peace of Constance was prepared.
[25] In refreshing contrast with this record of persecution is the
proclamation of religious liberty in Maryland, 1650. “The Catholics took
quiet possession [of Maryland], and religious liberty obtained a home,
its only home in the wide world ... every other country had persecuting
laws.... Protestants were sheltered against Protestant intolerance. The
disfranchized friends of Prelacy in Massachusetts and the Puritans from
Virginia were welcomed to equal liberty of conscience and political
rights as Roman Catholics in the province of Maryland.... In 1649 the
General Assembly of Maryland passed an Act to this effect, yet five
years later, when the Puritans obtained the ascendency there, they
rewarded their benefactors by passing an Act forbidding that liberty of
conscience be extended to ‘popery,’ ‘prelacy,’ and ‘licentiousness of
opinion’” (Bancroft’s _History of the United States_, I, VII.).
Lecky corroborates this statement: “Hôpital and Lord Baltimore were the
two first legislators who uniformly maintained liberty of conscience,
and Maryland continues the one solitary home for the oppressed of every
sect till Puritans succeeded in subverting Catholic rule, when they
basely enacted the whole penal code against those who had so nobly and
so generously received them” (_History of Rationalism_, II, 58).
An abridged copy of the Act of 1650, the first Act of religious
toleration, will be found in the Appendix. The original from which I
copied is in the archives of the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.
[26] On November 9th, 1906, the Socialist minister Viviani, after
“putting out the lights in heaven,” exclaimed, “What shall we say to
these sovereigns who are slaves economically speaking, to these men who
enjoy universal suffrage yet suffer in servitude? How shall we appease
them?”
[27] Hall Caine, explaining the title of his book, _The Eternal City_,
expressed himself as follows: “In the new methods of settling
international disputes, the old mother of the Pagan and the Christian
worlds will have her rightful rank.... Her religious and historical
interest, her artistic charm, above all the mystery of eternal life seem
to point to Rome as the seat of the great court of appeal which the
future will see established.”
[28] _Paradise Lost_, Book IV.
* * * * *
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
their precedessors=> their predecessors {pg 97}
evacute Rome=> evacuate Rome {pg 111}
public shools=> public schools {pg 206}