THE SETTING OF THE PICTURE.
It is absolutely essential, in studying any character, that we take into
careful account the age and land in which he lived. We can not rightly
estimate his merits or demerits unless we know the circumstances under
which he was brought up, and the influences to which he was subjected.
The background of the picture has large importance for showing off in
proper light the principal figure. The setting of the gem has something
to do with our appreciation of its value. Deeds which in one century
would cover their perpetrator with infamy, in another would be regarded
as wholly excusable. The amount of light afforded strictly measures the
amount of guilt involved. Unavoidable ignorance exculpates. Fullness of
knowledge imposes responsibility. No greater mistake could be made than
to judge people irrespective of their surroundings. Moreover, it adds
immensely to our interest in any person if we can, to some degree at
least, look out upon the world with his eyes, see what he saw, and so be
helped to feel as he felt. We become the better acquainted with him in
proportion as we are able to put ourselves in his place. We can
certainly estimate him more equitably according as we reproduce to our
mind the scenes of his day.
This being so, before we go further with the personal history of Fénelon
the Saint we shall do well to spend a little while familiarizing
ourselves with the world of his day both civil and ecclesiastical. How
were matters in Church and State during the period in which this great
man flourished? What was going on among the nations in general, and in
France particularly? A brief survey seems necessary to give us the right
point of view. Since Fénelon was born in 1651, the second half of the
seventeenth century would appear to be in the main his epoch. What was
the condition of things throughout Christendom then?
In America the middle of the seventeenth century saw the English making
good their foothold on the rude Atlantic shore, in Virginia,
Massachusetts, New York, and a few other points, contending with the
Indians, the Dutch, and the home government, jealous of their liberties,
extending their trade, and inaugurating great enterprises. It was in
1656 that the Quakers arrived in Boston. A bloody persecution sprung up
against them in the few years following, and four were put to death. It
was still later in the century, 1692, that the horrible proceedings
against witchcraft took place in Salem, where many were most unjustly
hanged, and many more tortured into confession of abominable falsehoods.
It is well to remember this when we grow indignant over the persecution
of the Huguenots in France. Further north, in Acadie, or Nova Scotia,
and Canada, the French had already explored the St. Lawrence and the
great lakes, made some feeble settlements, and converted some of the
Indians. Their missionaries and adventurers were full of heroism and
zeal. Later in the century they discovered the Mississippi, and claimed
all the territory in that Western region from its source to its mouth,
calling it, after the great king, Louisiana.
In England, 1650 saw Oliver Cromwell in pretty complete possession of
power, Charles I having been beheaded the year before. In 1651 the royal
army was totally defeated at Worcester, and Charles II soon after
escaped in disguise to France to come back triumphantly in 1660, when
the Lord Protector had passed away. During the Commonwealth Roman
Catholics were deprived of the privilege of voting or holding office,
and the use of the Prayer-book was forbidden to Episcopalians. It was in
the short reign of James II (1685-88) that Judge Jeffreys wrote his name
with letters of blood in the annals of English history. When the people
turned to William of Orange, the perfidious and tyrannical James was
forced to flee with his family to France, and spent the remainder of his
days at St. Germain, a pensioner on the bounty of Louis XIV. Anne, the
younger daughter of James II, reigned over England from 1701 to 1714.
On the continent of Europe the terrible Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)
between Protestants and Catholics, memorable for the brave deeds of
Gustavus Adolphus, had just closed in the Peace of Westphalia, by which
Brandenburg--the forerunner of Prussia--was enlarged, and Saxony
strengthened, while Switzerland and the low countries, or Netherlands,
were acknowledged as independent States. The Belgic Provinces, between
the Netherlands and France, divided among themselves, remained
submissive to Spain and the Roman Catholic Church. They became involved
in the wars attending the decline of the Spanish monarchy, and during
the remainder of the century were the theater of fierce struggles
between contending armies, and were subjected to many changes of
boundaries.
Central Europe, where were the States of Bohemia, Bavaria, Moravia,
Austria, and smaller principalities, was loosely confederated into the
German Empire under the Imperial Diet at Frankfort. Ferdinand III at
this time held the imperial dignity. His death was followed by the long
reign of Leopold I (1657-1705). He attacked the Turks on the East and
the French monarch on the West. From the former he obtained a great
stretch of territory, and in the combination which kept down the
towering ambition of the latter he was one of the chief factors. In the
North was the strong kingdom of Sweden--soon to be made still stronger
by the victories of Charles X--and the weak kingdom of Denmark. On the
East were Poland and Russia and the Turk. On the South were Spain,
Portugal, and Italy. Portugal, after a most honorable history had been
annexed by Philip II to the Spanish realm; but in 1640, after a forced
union of one hundred and sixty years, it was freed by a bold and
successful conspiracy of the nobles, from all connection with Spain,
although its independence was not formally recognized till 1668. Spain
had wholly lost her former headship in European politics and was in a
bad way under the last rulers of the Hapsburg dynasty, bigoted,
intolerant, incompetent; disordered finances, impaired industries--due
largely to the barbarous expulsion of the Moors--and inferior military
forces left her in the second rank of powers.
Italy was a mere geographical expression, the territory being split up
under the rule of petty princes largely swayed by foreign influence;
much of the country indeed was under direct foreign dominion. Among the
native rulers the Dukes of Savoy were perhaps the most enterprising and
successful. Venice maintained a fair degree of prosperity. Naples was an
appanage of the Spanish crown. The popes had larger territorial
possessions, in the center of the country, than at any previous or
subsequent time. But this local importance was more than offset by loss
in the larger sphere of influence and prerogative. Convenience, indeed,
occasionally led a prominent sovereign to submit some question to the
papal judgment; in many instances his wishes were openly disregarded,
and in the leading questions of European politics no deference was paid
him.
An interesting episode occurring just at this time perhaps deserves
mention. Queen Christina of Sweden, the talented but eccentric daughter
of the great Gustavus Adolphus, in 1654 abdicated her throne in favor of
her cousin, quitted the land of her fathers, was solemnly admitted into
the Roman Catholic Church at Innspruck, and established her permanent
residence in Rome till her death in 1689. The pope, Alexander VII,
considered it the special distinction of his pontificate that he was
permitted to welcome so distinguished a convert; but she did not prove
in all things wholly satisfactory, not finding matters quite as she
expected--a frequent experience in such cases. To Gilbert Burnet, the
English Bishop of Salisbury, who paid her a visit, she said, "It was
certain that the Church was governed by the immediate care of God, for
none of the four popes that she had known since she came to Rome had
common sense." She called them "the first and the last of men."
The history of France during the period in which Fénelon flourished must
be given at somewhat greater length if we would properly comprehend the
part which he took on the stage of action. And especially must we attend
to the character of Louis XIV, with whom Fénelon was brought into such
exceeding close and fateful relations. Louis came to the throne in 1643,
but as he was then only five years old he did not assume personal charge
of the government. Cardinal Mazarin, who had succeeded the great
Richelieu at his death in 1642, was chief minister in the Council of
State which advised the Queen Mother and regent, Anne of Austria. On the
death of Mazarin in 1661, Louis took supreme direction of affairs, and
retained it until his death in 1715. It was a very long and, in some
respects, a very successful reign, the most illustrious in French
annals; a sort of Solomonic era, to be compared with the age of Pericles
in Greece, Augustus in Rome, and Elizabeth in England. It was brilliant
in many directions; an age of conquest and the extension of territory
abroad; an age of great personalities in literature and art at home.
Among the latter are the well-known names of Corneille, the tragic poet;
Moliere, the master of comedy; Racine, La Fontaine, La Rochefoucauld, La
Bruyere, Pascal, Malebranche, and Madame de Sévigné. Voltaire and
Rousseau were born during this reign, but mainly flourished later. Among
eminent painters were Poussin, Claude Lorrain, Lebrun, and Mignard. As
architects, Mansart and Perrault were famous; among sculptors, Piget;
among composers, Lulli. Celebrated in the pulpit were Bossuet,
Bourdaloue, Massillon, and Flechier; as Church historians, Natalis
Alexander, Fleury, and Tillemont. In the field the prestige of the
French armies was upheld by the genius of Turenne, Condé, Vauban,
Luxemburg, and Catinat. Under these marshals many victories were won in
an almost constant succession of wars with Spain, Holland, England, the
Empire, and other antagonists. The peace which Louis dictated to Europe
at Nimeguen, February 5, 1679, raised him to his highest point of power
and glory. The headship of the world seemed to be within his grasp, if
indeed it was not already attained. His courtiers worshiped him as a
demigod; two triumphal arches were erected to his honor in Paris;
foreign governments regarded him with keen apprehension or with servile
awe. He excited wonder and fear throughout the continent, for his
ambitious projects of still vaster dominion seemed to threaten the
safety and independence of all his neighbors. He was possessed of a
strong mind, a resolute will, considerable sagacity and penetration,
much aptitude for business, and an indefatigable industry. His powers of
application were remarkable. When he gave direction in 1661 that he
would be his own prime minister, that all business should pass through
his hands, and all questions be decided directly by himself, every one
expected that he would soon tire of the drudgery which this would
impose; but he kept it up till the end of his life, laboring regularly
in his cabinet eight hours a day. He had the most extravagant ideas of
the royal prerogative. He was an absolute, irresponsible monarch,
accustomed to say and mean, "The State: it is myself." Even the property
of the realm he considered as his. In an instruction to his son he
declared, "Kings are absolute lords and have naturally the full and free
disposal of all the goods possessed, as well by Churchmen as by laymen,
to use them at all times according to the general need of their State."
Having this conception of his power, regarding his authority as
delegated immediately from heaven, he surrounded himself with those who
would be subservient to his will, and the one avenue of advancement was
his favor; without this, virtue and merit had little or no chance of
recognition. He made his court at Versailles a very splendid one,
everywhere praised and admired as the model of taste and refinement. It
became the center of fashion for Europe, and the only place of high
attraction in the kingdom. Henri Martin, in his "History of France,"
says: "Whoever had once tasted this life so brilliant, so animated, so
varied, could no longer quit it and return to his native manor without
dying of languor and ennui. Everything seemed cold and dead away from
this place of enjoyment, which appeared, to town and province, as the
very ideal of human life." It is estimated that a sum, equal to more
than 400,000,000 francs at the present rate, was laid out on the palaces
and pleasure-grounds of Versailles, transforming an unsightly district
into fairy-land.
Was this Louis XIV, then, a really great man? Not when tried by tests
that go far and reach deep. As one has said: "His claim to renown lies
more in the diligent and tireless ambition with which he improved
favoring circumstances than in the creation of great results out of
small means by force of personal genius and energy. It is also a
limiting factor in our estimate of Louis that he exercised no care to
husband the resources of his country, and sacrificed to thirst for
personal display the chances of future prosperity. This imposing and
brilliant reign left France exhausted and harboring within herself the
germs of violent revolution." In the latter part of his reign the
coalition against him under Marlborough and Prince Eugene proved
eminently successful, and much of his ill-gotten acquisitions had to be
disgorged. Moreover, his reign was also a failure in that, for the sake
of slight and temporary gains on the continent of Europe, he threw away
the opportunity to forestall in Asia and America the progress of
England, so soon to pass France in the race for world supremacy, and
left his kingdom, at the close of his reign, exhausted and crippled, in
no condition to enter upon the decisive stage of the great conflict
whose approach he did not foresee. Before his burial the eyes of
Frenchmen had begun to be open to the shadowy side of his reign; the
glamour and the glory could no longer hide the tyranny and the shame,
and very few mourned at the death of the magnificent despot. He was far
from great also in his private life; for that was, for a long time, one
of unblushing licentiousness. Different mistresses were made
successively, and in part simultaneously, the rivals of his dishonored
queen, Maria Theresa of Spain, who died in 1683. No less than ten
children were born to him out of wedlock, and publicly acknowledged.
After the death of his queen he did somewhat better, being privately
married to Madame de Maintenon, as already noted.
The cruel persecutions of the Huguenots must also be set down against
the king, although in this, surely, we should make much allowance
because of the feeling of the age in such matters--a feeling not by any
means the same as in our day. Louis, like many others before and since,
endeavored to atone for the excesses and frailties of his private life
by his public zeal for orthodoxy, fancying that the slaughter of
heretics would offset his adulteries. His crowning crime was the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes. By this arbitrary act of unprovoked
despotism he annulled forever all the highly prized privileges granted
to the Huguenots, after their large sufferings and heroic efforts in
self-defense, by Henry IV and Louis XIII. He absolutely prohibited the
exercise of their religion throughout the kingdom, with the sole
exception of Alsace; ordered their temples to be leveled with the
ground, and their ministers to quit France within fifteen days; forbade
the people to follow their pastors into exile under pain of confiscation
and condemnation to the galleys; and required their children to be
baptized henceforth by the Catholic priests and educated as members of
the Established Church. Before this, in the earlier years of the reign,
stringent measures had been set in operation for the conversion of the
Protestants and the establishment of uniformity of faith and Church
government throughout the kingdom. Louis was intolerant of dissent,
partly from political motives. He could not brook that any of his
subjects should exercise so much independence and freedom of thought as
was involved in worshiping God or thinking about Him after a different
pattern from the one set by himself. They ought all to take their
opinions from the throne, he held, in religious as well as in secular
matters, and because they did not they were extremely objectionable and
dangerous. As early as 1656 a disposition was shown to interpret the
Edict of Nantes--given by Henry IV, April 15, 1598--in a narrow partisan
fashion, to the disadvantage of the Protestants. Numbers of the Reformed
places of worship were shut up on frivolous pretenses. The worshipers
were excluded from all public functions, from the liberal professions,
from the universities, from engaging in various branches of commerce and
industry. They were forbidden to intermarry with Catholics, and their
children were encouraged to forsake the faith of their parents by being
declared capable of choosing for themselves at the age of seven years.
Every sort of pressure was applied. A Bureau of Conversions was
established under the direction of the Minister Pelissier, who disbursed
the funds intrusted to him at the rate of six livres for every
abjuration of the Reformed religion. Milder measures not proving
sufficiently efficacious and speedy, more severe and savage means were
employed. Dragoons were sent into the disturbed districts and quartered
on the inhabitants; they were permitted, and even encouraged, to abandon
themselves to every kind of brutal license, violence, and excess,
establishing a veritable reign of terror wherever they appeared. It is
no wonder that, under these horrors, wearied and worried well-nigh to
death by such intolerable impositions, great numbers of Huguenots
recanted, nominally, although, of course, their real beliefs were not
changed. And when the protecting Edict was formally revoked, still more
fearful cruelties followed. Multitudes of the Reformed, obstinately
refusing obedience, were consigned to loathsome dungeons, racked with
exquisite tortures, and treated with every kind of outrage short of
actual murder. Numbers of females were immured for life in convents;
infants were torn from the arms of their mothers; their property was
destroyed, and whole districts were laid waste. How far the king was
strictly responsible for the whole of these horrors is a matter of some
question; but it is certain that he received with great satisfaction the
chorus of congratulations, on this memorable Catholic triumph, from the
court sycophants, who hailed him as the new Constantine, and who
included in their number such men as Bossuet, Massillon, Racine, and La
Fontaine. But Louis inflicted almost as deadly a blow upon his country
by these persecutions as the rulers of Spain had upon theirs when they
drove out the Moors and Jews. France robbed herself of her best
citizens, the most enterprising and industrious of her skilled artisans.
They fled abroad to the number of at least a quarter of a million,
escaping from France to enrich England, Holland, and other countries
with the fruits of their labors. Among them was the Duke of Schomberg,
one of the best generals of his time, who placed his sword at the
disposal of the Prince of Orange. Many also who remained were so
crippled and depressed that they could no longer render their best
service. Moreover, a bitter and profound resentment was kindled in the
Protestant States of Europe, which acted very unfavorably upon the
foreign relations of France, and strengthened the hands of the coalition
against her. So, in every sense, the policy must be adjudged a mistaken
one, counting against the greatness of the king.
It is important to inquire what was the state of the French Church at
this period. It is impossible, of course, for us to enter into extended
details, but we can hardly understand either Fénelon or his times
without knowing something about the ecclesiastical religious questions
which were then agitating the public mind. Religion was by no means in a
stagnant state, or treated with indifference and apathy; it everywhere
excited keenest attention. No subject was more eagerly discussed or
occupied a larger share of thought. Besides the general controversy
between Protestants and Romanists, there were many divisions in the
ranks of the latter. There was fierce conflict between the Jesuits and
Jansenists, also between the Gallicans and Ultramontanists. For a full
recital of the story our readers will be obliged to consult Church
histories and cyclopedias.
Of the Jesuits little need here be said; their history is very well
known. Established by Ignatius Loyola in 1540, the system was, in the
period we are considering, something over a hundred years old, and
numbering about fifteen thousand members, of whom half were priests. Its
leading purposes were the overthrow of Protestantism and the
strengthening of the papacy. It had a magnificent organization, it
largely controlled the education of the youth of the better classes of
society, and it was intensely zealous in missionary operations, Francis
Xavier, so illustrious in this matter, being one of its original
founders. In politics it often favored popular rights, especially if it
would benefit the papacy by reducing the power of the sovereign; yet it
usually secured control over the princes by obtaining their ear in the
confessional. In doctrine it was opposed to Augustinianism, and in
ethics became notorious for most dangerous looseness. It should not be
forgotten, however, that the order had at all times many members eminent
for piety and strict morality, some of the highest saints being numbered
with them. In France the important office of confessor to the king was
filled by members of this order under Henry IV, Louis XIII, XIV, XV;
and, of course, in this way an enormous influence was exercised upon the
royal policy at home and abroad. The connivance of these confessors with
the scandalous lives of the kings did more than anything else to
undermine respect for the Roman Catholic Church and for religion in
general among the educated classes. Between the Jesuits and Jansenists
there was fierce war.
The latter took their name from Bishop Cornelius Jansen, of Ypern, who
died in 1638, after devoting his whole life to the study of the works of
St. Augustine. His followers were Augustinians in the fullest sense of
the term, accepting the extreme doctrines of election and predestination
which are known among Protestants as Calvinism; but this in no way
predisposed them to favor the Huguenots. On the contrary they seemed to
hate them all the more because of this manifest approach to them in some
of their principles, partly because it exposed them to a galling
criticism from the Jesuits. The Jansenists in many ways recommend
themselves to our approval. They opposed a simply formal righteousness,
insisted on the necessity for an inward preparation to receive benefits
from the sacraments, and laid stress upon the reading of the Scriptures.
In regard to morals, they advocated rigid self-discipline, were foes of
luxury, the theater, and other doubtful or noxious pleasures. They also
had more independence than most classes of society. They were not ready
to surrender everything to the absolute sovereignty of the king; they
stood for liberty in the Church. In point of ability and culture they
furnished some of the best minds of France, and some of the best models
of literary excellence which the age could boast. Blaise Pascal, whose
"Provincial Letters" (1656) against the Jesuits inflicted upon them so
severe a blow by their scathing exposures, was of this party. So was De
Sacy, who translated the Bible into the version in general use; and
Antoine Arnauld, the celebrated scholar and Doctor of the Sorbonne, the
theological department of the University of Paris. His sister,
Jacqueline, became abbess of the convent of Port Royal near Paris, and
made it renowned for its purity and piety. Jansenism or "Calvinistic
Catholicism," as it has been called, finally went down before its
enemies, the popes deciding against it more than once. On many accounts
it deserved a better fate; but we can not regret that such a travesty of
Christianity as the sole salvation of an arbitrarily limited and
eternally selected few was as conclusively defeated in the Roman
Catholic Church as it has since been in the Protestant.
The Jesuits were Ultramontanes; that is, they did everything they could
to strengthen the authority from beyond the mountains, residing in the
city on the Tiber. The Jansenists favored Gallicanism. A few words are
necessary about this latter, for it had a large place in the discussions
of the time, and echoes of it have continued to our day, the long
conflict coming to an end in the recent rupture of the Concordat between
France and the Vatican. The quarrel is of very long standing. It is
historically certain that at a very early period the National Church of
France had a character of freedom peculiar to itself. The Frankish
Church in the time of Charlemagne gave evidence of a spirit and temper
obviously different from the Italian ideal of the Church as organized
under the popes. The French Parliaments from time to time manfully
resisted encroachments on their powers or those of their kings, from
beyond the mountains. As early as 1269, Louis IX of France issued an
edict--so it is alleged--called the Pragmatic Sanction, in which he
strove to protect the freedom of Church elections and the rights of
patrons from the interference of the popes, and forbade papal taxation
without the consent of the monarch. This conflict went on through the
centuries with various incidents and differing results, which need not
here be followed, although it is a very interesting story. In the time
of Louis XIV matters naturally came to a head through the determination
of that monarch to extend his absolute authority over the Church as well
as the State, and through the support which he received from the strong
feeling of nationality which dominated the French people during his
reign, Louis's aim was to exercise such power in ecclesiastical matters
in France as Henry VIII had taken to himself in England, but not to
effect a complete rupture with Rome. In particular he determined to
enforce the right of the crown to the revenue and the patronage
connected with vacant sees, which had long been exercised over a large
part of the realm; he insisted on extending it to all the provinces. An
assembly of the clergy was called in 1682, under the lead of Bossuet,
the chief champion of the king in these matters. Four important articles
formulating the opposition of France to the high claims of the papacy
were drawn up by Bossuet, subscribed to by this assembly, and confirmed
by the civil authorities. They contained in substance the following
specifications: (1) The pope's authority, as also that of the Church in
general, is confined to things spiritual. He has no prerogative to
depose kings and princes or to release their subjects from allegiance.
(2) The decrees promulgated at Constance respecting the authority of
Ecumenical Councils subsist in full force. (3) In the use of his power
the pope must respect the ecclesiastical canons, as also such
constitutions as are received in the kingdom and Church of France. (4)
While the pope has the principal voice in matters of faith, his judgment
is subject to amendment until it has been approved by the Church.
Bossuet, the leading spirit of this assembly, and indeed the most
powerful and commanding Churchman of his day, esteemed the boasted
infallibility of the pope a baseless fiction. He allowed that
indefectibility belongs to the chair of Peter in the sense that heresy
can not find there any continuous and stubborn support. But this, he
maintained, in no wise precluded a temporary aberration of the
individual pontiff or the competency of the universal Church to
administer correction to the pontiff. Such principles had been at home
in France ever since the era of the great Reform Councils of the
fifteenth century. The pope--Innocent XI was then in the chair--was
highly incensed, and refused confirmation to those members of the
assembly of 1682 whom the king nominated to episcopal sees. Affairs
remained in a very unsettled condition for a considerable interval, no
mode of accommodation being reached, each party standing its ground; but
in 1691 the French Church found itself with thirty-five bishoprics
vacant, and the king allowed the twelve signers of the declaration whom
he had nominated as bishops, but whom the pope had thus far refused to
recognize as such, to retract all that had displeased the pontiff. The
pope also gained some advantage from the bitter partisan conflicts
within the Gallican Church during the closing years of Louis XIV.
As to the amount of spiritual life in the Church during these years it
is not so easy to acquire reliable information as it is concerning the
more outward events. But there are many indications that it was very
considerable, that the Roman Catholic Church at that period was in a
very much better state than it is at present. There was an evident
desire among a large number of its clergy to rid it of its gross
superstitions. They opposed some of its absurdities, omitted many of its
ridiculous ceremonies, endeavored to render Catholicism more rational
and intelligent, more Scriptural and pious. There are tokens that France
had then a very large number of true followers of the Savior; some in
elevated stations whose virtues shine afar, but many more in obscure
positions, God's hidden ones, known only to Him and to those immediately
around them. Among the more prominent of the writers on spiritual
subjects flourishing at this time in France may be mentioned Antoinette
Bourignon (died 1680), whose published works amount to twenty-five
volumes: one of her hymns, "Come, Savior, Jesus, from above," translated
by John Wesley, is in our Hymnal, No. 379. Peter Poiret (died in 1719),
court preacher of the Palatine, was an admirer of Madame Bourignon,
whose works he published; he also brought out the works of Madame Guyon
in thirty-nine volumes; he was both a philosopher and a deeply pious
man. The Baron de Renty (1611-1649) was a man of the profoundest
spirituality, greatly admired by Wesley, who spoke of him in the highest
terms, and published his life. Alphonsus de Sarasa (died in 1666) gave
to the world "The Art of Always Rejoicing," a beautiful book, filled
with the deepest Christian philosophy. The Abbé Guilloré, also a
contemporary of Fénelon and belonging to the same school of piety, left
to the world as his monument a treatise on "Self-Renunciation," or the
"Art of Dying to Self and Living for the Love of Jesus." And Nicholas
Herman, better known as Brother Lawrence, admitted, in 1666, as a lay
brother among the barefooted Carmelites at Paris, is still known in the
realm of pure and undefiled religion by his letters on "The Practice of
the Presence of God," published at the instance of the Cardinal de
Noailles. St. Vincent de Paul (died 1660), to mention but one more of
these illustrious names, founder of the order of Sisters of Charity, was
a philanthropist of the first rank. Neglected children, condemned
criminals, prisoners of the cell and the galley, all classes of the poor
and the unfortunate, received from him a sympathy as practical as it was
warm and persevering. Consecrated activity he regarded as the essence of
religion. The spirit of his life is well expressed in his own words:
"The genuine mark of loving God is a good and perfect action. It is only
our works which accompany us into the other life." From all this it is
seen that the age and land which produced Fénelon had many other sons
and daughters of very similar excellence.