truth it is. But all truths, necessary for mankind, have originally been revealed by God, preserved by tradition, and also surrounded by the authority which this general consent of mankind furnishes. Finally, they have developed themselves in Christianity, and in the Catholic Church, and embodied themselves in the Pope, its head, who therefore is, as it were, the Divine intelligence become objective. To him, as the infallible bearer and guardian of the universal knowledge, this itself witnesses, and from him alone the reason of the individual receives truth. All authority and sovereignty are in the last instance founded upon his. He decides upon the problems of science and over the destinies of nations, and is the living tradition of mankind.

The older generation among the French clergy-which at the time when the first volumes appeared still reckoned amongst its members two of its brightest ornaments, Cardinals Bausset and De la Luzernewas at first so little suspicious, that Frayssinous himself recommended the book, and made use of the expression, that a dead man would be raised again by it.' Scruples began first to arise when Lamennais came forward with his entire system. Already, however, in 1820, Joubert wrote to his old friend Chateaubriand: Lamennais is very much blamed in Saint-Sulpice, where they rightly think that as he shakes the foundations of all human knowledge in order to let authority stand alone, authority itself will in the end be destroyed.' These opinions were shared by a great number of bishops. It was Lamennais, however, who commenced hostilities, when in 1823 he attacked the University in the Drapeau Blanc. He did this in a letter to Frayssinous, in which he described the whole institution as godless, and demanded its suppression, and that the entire education of the country should be given over to the clergy. A year later, 1824, he went to Rome, in order to appeal directly to the Pope against the hostile dispositions of the French episcopate in his regard. The Pope offered him the purple, and greeted him as the last of the Fathers.' When he returned to France, he broke at the same time with both Legitimists and Liberals, began an open war against the Government, which neither could nor would adopt his extreme ideas, and by his attacks provoked the episcopate to the Declaration of the 7th of April, 1826, in which for the last time eighty-four French bishops adopted as their own, in a more or less precise form, the principles of the Gallican Church. The prosecution of theological war against Lamennais was principally carried on from Saint-Sulpice, whence Frayssinous, who, since 1825, was created Grand Master of the University, made a last effort by means of his book, Les vrais principes de l'Eglise Gallicane sur la puissance ecclésiastique,' to mediate between the parties. When in 1830 the monarchy of Charles the Tenth was overturned, in no slight degree because its position, as regards the Church, seemed to endanger the 11 Joubert, Pensées et Correspondance, vol. ii.

6

liberties of the nation, Lamennais descended into the arena with a programme, which for years had been ripening in his mind. The sympathies of the majority of the young clergy were enlisted by the names of the priests Lacordaire, Combalot, Gerbet, de Salinis, and Rohrbacher, who helped to edit his newspaper l'Avenir. The daring programme of Lamennais; the abolition of the Concordat and of the Budget du Culte, administrative decentralisation, the freedom of conscience and of the Press, and the unlimited right of association, seemed to contain the promise of a new future. Young aspiring intellects could not withstand that strong mind, which had a command of diction, capable of passing with equal facility from the most tender of pathetic tones to the highest expression of passion, and which for its clear beauty or tempestuous power will live as long as French prose. It is most important to remember, that with the exception of Ravignan, who, being a Jesuit, did not come in his way, Gratry and Dupanloup were almost the only remarkable priests of that generation, whom we miss in the circle of the disciples of Lamennais. And here we cannot omit to observe, that it has become a habit to regard Dupanloup as the personification of the militant element of the Church, and, because he struggled much, to conclude that he loved strife. This judgment takes only into account the years during which the responsibilities of his position determined his entrance on the scene, and not those early years when he, from free choice, passed by the man, who was called the Prince of Invective, and of whom it was said that he carried a sword in his mouth. Dupanloup's name is wanting in the controversies of the Avenir. Yet two short years, and the tempestuous part of this journal was played out, and, in his inmost soul, Lamennais had as completely broken with the Papacy, as he had with the Monarchy in 1825. It is the inevitable consequence of his system that it, in the last resort, must do homage to the sovereign people, as a true bearer of that unlimited authority, which Gregory the Sixteenth refused with alarm to accept. At an audience in the Vatican, which Montalembert had in the year 1836, Gregory the Sixteenth, speaking of Lamennais, said: "Questo abbate voleva darmi un potere,' and lifting up both his hands continued, un potere col quale io non avrei saputo che fare.' What subsequently took place, and how the intellectual heir of De Maistre has become an authority for social democrats in Germany, is not here the question, but it cannot be enough insisted upon, that long after he lost Christianity with the Church, and our Saviour with the Pope, the spirit of the Lamennais of 1830 remained with those whom he repelled, and who now, on their part, denied him. The ground which he prepared has been cultivated beyond expectation, the arms which he threw away have been again brightly polished, and the spirits which he evoked have not yet been laid. In the completeness of the victory he would, indeed, now see his hardest punishment. To hinder or stem the tide

of this victory was the endeavour of Dupanloup during the thirty years of his episcopate, and at last he sank under it. This struggle is the real history of his life. But in the meantime, a peaceful period was granted him, upon which he always looked back with predilec

tion.

After the Revolution of 1830, he changed the position of Almoner to Mme la Dauphine, which he had hardly entered upon, for that of a Prefect of Studies in a Parisian petit séminaire, and became besides, in 1835, curate in the parish of Saint Roch, where he preached the Lents of 1836 and 1837, and founded his reputation as an orator. During these years he lived with his mother, whom he loved with exceptional fondness, and devoted himself to the study of the Fathers of the Church, of Bossuet, and particularly of Fénelon, who was his favourite author, and from whose works he published a series of writings.12

He was obliged to accept, in 1837, the position of Superior of the seminary which he had formerly declined, and at the same time Mgr de Quélen appointed him his Vicar-General. He did not, however, hold this position long, for De Quélen died in 1839. The choice of his successor was most important for the Government, who had never been able to reconcile the legitimist Archbishop. There were two candidates: one was the Archbishop Mathieu of Besançon, who was supported by Dupanloup with all his might, in the name of the Legitimists; the other, a former Vicar-General of Quélen, Abbé Denis Affre, was favoured by Montalembert, who introduced him to the minister, M. Thiers. When Affre became Archbishop, he wished to retain Dupanloup, whom he highly respected, as his Vicar-General. The latter, however, retained only the title, and in 1845 resigned all his positions, except an honorary canonry of Notre-Dame. Many of his writings on education date from this time, among which the most remarkable, his book De l'Education, was his literary title to enter the Académie. If everything was collected which Dupanloup wrote upon education up to the day of his death, these writings would form not less than twenty-five volumes; and yet he is distinguished from so many others in this, that his books did not originate in the closet, but in lively intercourse with youth and with the world in general. It was his special characteristic as a teacher, as it was his privilege as a priest, that he addressed his advice not less to the great than to the small, in harmony with the words of Goethe,

Man könnte erzogene Kinder gebären

Wenn nur die Eltern selber erzogen wären.

His model and countryman, Francis of Sales, once ordered Madame de Chantal, when he called upon her to enter a convent, to walk over 12 Amongst others, Le Christianisme présenté aux hommes du Monde; La vraie e solide piété sacerdotale, 1837; La vraie et solide piété recueillie de Fénelon, 1845

the body of her son, who had fallen at her feet in order by his supplications to hinder her project. Whether Dupanloup would have called for a similar sacrifice we know not, but it expresses the demands upon others of a peculiar and energetic nature, which would tolerate in its neighbourhood no comfortable dilettantism. He required from men definite work and strong discipline in life. He directed that women, even married women, should earnestly employ themselves for several hours a day, and whoever followed his advice ran no danger of wasting time in empty dissipation. What he required was work, no matter whether the success was proportionate to the labour, for he rightly deemed the negative result of the exclusion of idleness a gain in life. Dupanloup had quite exceptional success with his youth at Saint-Nicolas. M. Thiers and others pronounced the education there given a model one, and it was considered a distinction to be received there. The Superior was indefatigable, he overlooked nothing, and was accustomed to say that the educator must look after everything, 'depuis l'âme de l'enfant jusqu'aux cordons de ses souliers.' The system which he followed rested principally on exciting the ambition. He rewarded much, and seldom punished. The sober-minded and sedate Archbishop Affre had other ideas. The method of Port Royal floated before his eyes. What he desired was not excitement, but severe simplicity, so that, above all, the love of truth should be strengthened in the children. This difference in their views induced Dupanloup to resign, but yet he did not in consequence cease to work at the side of the Archbishop, whom he earnestly revered. Later, when he became a bishop himself, he was able, in one of those educational establishments founded by him-La Chapelle Saint-Mesmin, on the Loire-to carry out his plans unhindered. Under the direction of a German, M. Hetsch, formerly a physician, who had become a Catholic and a priest, the youth were educated as much as possible on the English system, and here also particular importance was attached to classical studies. Representations of Greek dramas, which even Parisian authorities came to see, were given in Saint-Mesmin; and the still more singular spectacle was afforded of aquatic sports on the Loire, and games after the English fashion. It was also a question of education and instruction which at last brought Dupanloup into the political arena which he had so long avoided.

The revised Charter of 1830 admitted, in Article 69, the necessity of a speedy reform in the educational system. This question occupied all the Cabinets formed under Louis Philippe, and every minister of education-Guizot, Thiers, Broglie, Cousin, Villemain, Salvandy—who succeeded each other during his reign. Each of these men saw that the monopoly of instruction which Napoleon had bestowed upon his own creation, the Université de France,' must give way to competition. Their activity in the way of reform, however, was limited to the primary schools, and intermediate

education in the lyceums and colleges. Guizot's law of June 28, 1833, left indeed the primary schools under the supreme direction of the University, but, with this restriction, the communes had the power of handing them over to religious orders, the local clergyman became a member of the school council, whose privileges were extended, and whenever local means were insufficient, the State gave material aid. Catholics, like other people, acknowledged the just and equitable spirit of this legislation.13 It was Guizot's intention to bring forward similar proposals for intermediate education, and to establish open competition between clergy and laity, individuals and corporations. The same idea was destined to lead to an understanding in 1850, but years of contest and of the most embittered passions lays between,-one ministerial measure after another was sacrificed to them, and from 1842 this question acquired the significance of a political programme, and led to the formation of the Catholic party.

It was under this banner, again brought forth from the armoury of the Avenir, that Count Montalembert, now thirty-three years old, began his parliamentary career. Carrying the bishops along with him in the contest, he got up a perfect storm of petitions throughout France, obtained for his purpose the Correspondant as a monthly periodical, and as a newspaper l'Univers, and for the space of ten years, in the Chamber of Peers, devoted to the furtherance of his cause an eloquence often vehement and not always just, but never ignoble or devoid of dignity. The demand for freedom of education was intimately connected with the desire for liberty of association, because by this means alone the Jesuits-an order that was really only tolerated-the Dominicans-who just at that time were being adorned by Lacordaire-and with them so many other religious communities, could be utilised for the purposes of education.

It seemed the more imperative, that the ecclesiastical champions should proceed with moderation, because, by the mere fact of the Church obtaining those equal rights to which she was entitled, such enormous advantages would accrue to her from resources, of which she alone had the power to dispose. Unfortunately these expectations were not fulfilled. After a few years, the cry for open competition was drowned in invectives against the whole University, to which Quinet and Michelet replied, by most violent attacks upon the Jesuits. Louis Veuillot, who had shortly before been converted from a disciple of Voltaire into a Catholic, wrote in the Univers, addressing himself to the Government: You fear the Church, but you will be forced to will what she wills, for the fact is, you only exist because she permits it.' The episcopate was already divided: at Lyons that was supported which at Paris was condemned. But still, a large majority of the bishops were on the side of moderation and fairness The two best works written in this spirit were, the one by the Jesuit 1 See, amongst others, Carné, in the Correspondant, 1843, p. 297.