Shao-chow, to which was added in 1608 that of Shang-hai. In each of these there were two or three missionaries with "brothers", Chinese Christians from Macao who had been received into the Society of Jesus and who served the mission as catechists. Although as yet the number of Christians was not very great (2000 baptized in 1608), Father Ricci in his "Memoirs" has said well that considering the obstacles to the entrance of Christianity into China the result was "a very great miracle of Divine Omnipotence". To preserve and increase the success already obtained, it was necessary that the means which had already proved efficacious should continue to be employed; everywhere and always the missionaries, without neglecting the essential duties of the Christian apostolate, had to adapt their methods to the special conditions of the country, and avoid unnecessary attacks on traditional customs and habits. The application of this undeniably sound policy was often difficult. In answer to the doubts of his fellow-workers Father Ricci outlined rules, which received the approval of Father Valignano; these insured the unity and fruitful efficacy of the apostolic work throughout the mission.

Question of the Divine Names and the Chinese Rites. -The most difficult problem in the evangelization of China had to do with the rites or ceremonies, in use from time immemorial, to do honour to ancestors or deceased relatives and the particular tokens of respect which the educated felt bound to pay to their master, Confucius. Ricci's solution of this problem caused a long and heated controversy in which the Holy See finally decided against him. The discussion also dealt with the use of the Chinese terms Tien (heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) to designate God; here also the custom established by Father Ricci had to be corrected. The following is a short history of this famous controversy which was singularly complicated and embittered by passion. With regard to the designations for God, Ricci always preferred, and employed from the first, the term T'ien chu (Lord of Heaven) for the God of Christians; as has been seen, he used it in the title of his catechism. But in studying the most ancient Chinese books he considered it established that they said of T’ien (heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord) what we say of the true God, that is, they described under these two names a sovereign lord of spirits and men who knows all that takes place in the world, the source of all power and all lawful authority, the supreme regulator and defender of the moral law, rewarding those who observe and punishing those who violate it. Hence he concluded that, in the most revered monuments of China, T'ien and Shang-ti designate nothing else than the true God whom he himself preached. Ricci maintained this opinion in several passages of his "T'ien-chu-she-i"; it will be readily understood of what assistance it was to destroy Chinese prejudices against the Christian religion. It is true that, in drawing this conclusion, Ricci had to contradict the common interpretation of modern scholars who follow Chu-Hi in referring T'ien and Shang-ti to apply to the material heaven; but he showed that this material interpretation does not do justice to the texts and it is at least reasonable to see in them something better. In fact he informs us that the educated Confucianists, who did not adore idols, were grateful to him for interpreting the words of their master with such goodwill. Indeed, Ricci's opinion has been adopted and confirmed by illustrious modern Sinologists, amongst whom it suffices to mention James Legge ("The Notions of the Chinese concerning God and Spirits", 1852; "A Letter to Prof. Max Müller chiefly on the Translation of the Chinese terms Ti and Chang-ti", 1880).

Therefore it was not without serious grounds that the founder of the Chinese mission and his successors

believed themselves justified in employing the terms Tien and Shang-ti as well as Tien-chu to designate the true God. However, there were objections to this practice even among the Jesuits, the earliest arising shortly after the death of Father Ricci and being formulated by the Japanese Jesuits. In the ensuing discussion carried on in various writings for and against, which did not circulate beyond the circle of the missionaries only one of those working in China declared himself against the use of the name Shang-ti. This was Father Nicholas Longobardi, Ricci's successor as superior general of the mission, who, however, did not depart in anything from the lines laid down by its founder. After allowing the question to be discussed for some years, the superior ordered the missionaries to abide simply by the custom of Father Ricci; later this custom together with the rites was submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1704 and 1715 Clement XI, without pronouncing as to the meaning of T'ien and Shang-ti in the ancient Chinese books, forbade, as being open to misconstruction, the use of these names to indicate the true God, and permitted only the T'ien-chu. Regarding the rites and ceremonies in honour of ancestors and Confucius, Father Ricci was also of the opinion that a broad toleration was permissible without injury to the purity of the Christian religion. Moreover, the question was of the utmost importance for the progress of the apostolate. To honour their ancestors and deceased parents by traditional prostrations and sacrifices was in the eyes of the Chinese the gravest duty of filial piety, and one who neglected it was treated by all his relatives as an unworthy member of his family and nation. Similar ceremonies in honour of Confucius were an indispensable obligation for scholars, so that they could not receive any literary degree nor claim any public office without having fulfilled it. This law still remains inviolable; Kiang-hi, the emperor who showed most goodwill towards the Christians, always refused to set it aside in their favour. In modern times the Chinese Government showed no more favour to the ministers of France, who, in the name of the treaties guaranteeing the liberty of Catholicism in China, claimed for the Christians who had passed the examinations, the titles and advantages of the corresponding degrees without the necessity of going through the ceremonies; the Court of Peking invariably replied that this was a question of national tradition on which it was impossible to compromise. After having carefully studied what the Chinese classical books said regarding these rites, and after having observed for a long time the practice of them and questioned numerous scholars of every rank with whom he was associated during his eighteen years of apostolate, Ricci was convinced that these rites had no religious significance, either in their institution or in their practice by the enlightened classes. The Chinese, he said, recognized no divinity in Confucius any more than in their deceased ancestors; they prayed to neither; they made no requests nor expected any extraordinary intervention from them. In fact they only did for them what they did for the living to whom they wished to show great respect. "The honour they pay to their parents consists in serving them dead as they did living. They do not for this reason think that the dead come to eat their offerings [the flesh, fruit, etc.] or need them. They declare that they act in this manner because they know no other way of showing their love and gratitude to their ancestors. Likewise what they do [especially the educated], they do to thank Confucius for the excellent doctrine which he left them in his books, and through which they obtained their degrees and mandarinships. Thus in all this there is nothing suggestive of idolatry, and perhaps it may even be said that there is no super

stition." The "perhaps" added to the last part of this conclusion shows the conscientiousness with which the founder acted in this matter. That the vulgar and indeed even most of the Chinese pagans mingled superstition with their national rites Ricci never denied; neither did he overlook the fact that the Chinese, like infidels in general, mixed superstition with their most legitimate actions. In such cases superstition is only an accident which does not corrupt the substance of the just action itself, and Ricci thought this applied also to the rites. Consequently he allowed the new Christians to continue the practice of them, avoiding everything suggestive of superstition, and he gave them rules to assist them to discriminate. He believed, however, that this tolerance, though licit, should be limited by the necessity of the case; whenever the Chinese Christian community should enjoy sufficient liberty, its customs, notably its manner of honouring the dead, must be brought into conformity with the customs of the rest of the Christian world. These principles of Father Ricci, controlled by his fellow-workers during his lifetime and after his death, served for fifty years as the guide of all the missionaries.

In 1631 the first mission of the Dominicans was founded at Fu-kien by two Spanish religious; in 1633 two Franciscans, also Spanish, came to establish a mission of their order. The new missionaries were soon alarmed by the attacks on the purity of religion which they thought they discerned in the communities founded by their predecessors. Without taking sufficient time perhaps to become acquainted with Chinese matters and to learn exactly what was done in the Jesuit missions they sent a denunciation to the bishops of the Philippines. The bishops referred it to Pope Urban VIII (1635), and soon the public was informed. As early as 1638 a controversy began in the Philippines between the Jesuits in defence of their brethren on the one side and the Dominicans and Franciscans on the other. In 1643 one of the chief accusers, the Dominican, Jean-Baptiste Moralez, went to Rome to submit to the Holy See a series of "questions" or "doubts" which he said were controverted between the Jesuit missionaries and their rivals. Ten of these questions concerned the participation of Christians in the rites in honour of Confucius and the dead. Moralez's petition tended to show that the cases on which he requested the decision of the Holy See represented the practice authorized by the Society of Jesus; as soon as the Jesuits learned of this they declared that these cases were imaginary and that they had never allowed the Christians to take part in the rites as set forth by Moralez. In declaring the ceremonies illicit in its Decree of 12 Sept., 1645 (approved by Innocent X), the Congregation of the Propaganda gave the only possible reply to the questions referred to it.

In 1651 Father Martin Martini (author of the "Novus Atlas Sienensis") was sent from China to Rome by his brethren to give a true account of the Jesuits practices and permissions with regard to the Chinese rites. This delegate reached the Eternal City in 1654, and in 1655 submitted four questions to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. This supreme tribunal, in its Decree of 23 March, 1656, approved by Pope Alexander VII, sanctioned the practice of Ricci and his associates as set forth by Father Martini, declaring that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius and ancestors appeared to constitute "a purely civil and political cult". Did this decree annul that of 1645? Concerning this question, laid before the Holy Office by the Dominican, Father John de Polanco, the reply was (20 Nov., 1669) that both decrees should remain "in their full force" and should be observed "according to the questions, circumstances, and everything contained in the proposed doubts".

Meanwhile an understanding was reached by the hitherto divided missionaries. This reconciliation was hastened by the persecution of 1665 which assembled for nearly five years in the same house at Canton nineteen Jesuits, three Dominicans, and one Franciscan (then the sole member of his order in China). Profiting by their enforced leisure to agree on a uniform Apostolic method, the missionaries discussed all the points on which the discipline of the Church should be adapted to the exigencies of the Chinese situation. After forty days of conferences, which terminated on 26 Jan., 1668, all (with the possible exception of the Franciscan Antonio de Santa Maria, who was very zealous but extremely uncompromising) subscribed to forty-two articles, the result of the deliberations, of which the forty-first was as follows: "As to the ceremonies by which the Chinese honour their master Confucius and the dead, the replies of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition approved by our Holy Father Alexander VII, in 1656, must be followed absolutely because they are based on a very probable opinion, to which it is impossible to offset any evidence to the contrary, and, this probability assumed, the door of salvation must not be closed to the innumerable Chinese who would stray from the Christian religion if they were forbidden to do what they may do licitly and in good faith and which they cannot forego without serious injury." After the subscription, however, a new courteous discussion of this article in writing took place between Father Domingo Fernandez Navarrete, superior of the Dominicans, and the most learned of the Jesuits at Canton. Navarrete finally appeared satisfied and on 29 Sept., 1669, submitted his written acceptance of the article to the superior of the Jesuits. However, on 19 Dec. of this year he secretly left Canton for Macao whence he went to Europe. There, and especially at Rome where he was in 1673, he sought from now on only to overthrow what had been attempted in the conferences of Canton. He published the "Tratados historicos, politicos, ethicos, y religiosos de la monarchia de China" (I, Madrid, 1673; of vol. II, printed in 1679 and incomplete, only two copies are known). This work is filled with impassioned accusations against the Jesuit missionaries regarding their methods of apostolate and especially their toleration of the rites. Nevertheless, Navarrete did not succeed in inducing the Holy See to resume the question, this being reserved for Charles Maigrot, a member of the new Société des Missions Étrangères. Maigrot went to China in 1683. He was Vicar Apostolic of Fu-kien, before being as yet a bishop, when, on 26 March, 1693, he addressed to the missionaries of his vicariate a mandate proscribing the names T'ien and Shang-ti; forbidding that Christians be allowed to participate in or assist at "sacrifices or solemn oblations" in honour of Confucius or the dead; prescribing modifications of the inscriptions on the ancestral tablets; censuring and forbidding certain, according to him, too favourable references to the ancient Chinese philosophers; and, last but not least, declaring that the exposition made by Father Martini was not true and that consequently the approval which the latter had received from Rome was not to be relied on.

By order of Innocent XII, the Holy Office resumed in 1697 the study of the question on the documents furnished by the procurators of Mgr Maigrot and on those showing the opposite side brought by the representatives of the Jesuit missionaries. It is worthy of note that at this period a number of the missionaries outside the Society of Jesus, especially all the Augustinians, nearly all the Franciscans, and some Dominicans, were converted to the practice of Ricci and the Jesuit missionaries. The difficulty of grasping the truth amid such different representations of facts and

contradictory interpretations of texts prevented the Congregation from reaching a decision until towards the end of 1704 under the pontificate of Clement XI. Long before then the pope had chosen and sent to the Far East a legate to secure the execution of the Apostolic decrees and to regulate all other questions on the welfare of the missions. The prelate chosen was Charles-Thomas-Maillard de Tournon (b. at Turin) whom Clement XI had consecrated with his own hands on 27 Dec., 1701, and on whom he conferred the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Leaving Europe on 9 Feb., 1703, Mgr de Tournon stayed for a time in India (see MALABAR RITES) reaching Macao on 2 April, 1705, and Peking on 4 December of the same year. Emperor K'ang-hi accorded him a warm welcome and treated him with much honour until he learned, perhaps through the imprudence of the legate himself, that one of the objects of his embassy, if not the chief, was to abolish the rites amongst the Christians. Mgr de Tournon was already aware that the decision against the rites had been given since 20 Nov., 1704, but not yet published in Europe, as the pope wished that it should be published first in China. Forced to leave Peking, the legate had returned to Nan-king when he learned that the emperor had ordered all missionaries, under penalty of expulsion, to come to him for a piao or diploma granting permission to preach the Gospel. This diploma was to be granted only to those who promised not to oppose the national rites. On the receipt of this news the legate felt that he could no longer postpone the announcement of the Roman decisions. By a mandate of 15 January, 1707, he required all missionaries under pain of excommunication to reply to Chinese authority, if it questioned them, that "several things" in Chinese doctrine and customs did not agree with Divine law and that these were chiefly "the sacrifices to Confucius and ancestors" and "the use of ancestral tablets", moreover that Shang-ti and T'ien were not "the true God of the Christians". When the emperor learned of this Decree he ordered Mgr de Tournon to be brought to Macao and forbade him to leave there before the return of the envoys whom he himself sent to the pope to explain his objections to the interdiction of the rites. While still subject to this restraint, the legate died in 1710.

Meanwhile Mgr Maigrot and several other missionaries having refused to ask for the piao had been expelled from China. But the majority (i. e. all the Jesuits, most of the Franciscans, and other missionary religious, having at their head the Bishop of Peking, a Franciscan, and the Bishop of Ascalon, Vicar Apostolic of Kiang-si, an Augustinian) considered that, to prevent the total ruin of the mission, they might postpone obedience to the legate until the pope should have signified his will. Clement XI replied by publishing (March, 1709) the answers of the Holy Office, which he had already approved on 20 November, 1704, and then by causing the same Congregation to issue (25 Sept., 1710) a new Decree which approved the acts of the legate and ordered the observance of the mandate of Nan-king, but interpreted in the sense of the Roman replies of 1704. Finally, believing that these measures were not meeting with a sufficiently simple and full submission, Clement issued (19 March, 1715) the Apostolic Constitution, "Ex illâ die". It reproduced all that was properly a decision in the replies of 1704, omitting all the questions and most of the preambles, and concluded with a form of oath which the pope enjoined on all the missionaries and which obliged them under the severest penalties to observe and have observed fully and without reserve the decisions inserted in the pontifical act. This Constitution, which reached China in 1716, found no rebels among the missionaries, but even those who sought most zealously failed to induce the majority of their flock to observe its pro

visions. At the same time the hate of the pagans was reawakened, enkindled by the old charge that Christianity was the enemy of the national rites, and the neophytes began to be the objects of persecutions to which K'ang-hi, hitherto so well-disposed, now gave almost entire liberty. Clement XI sought to remedy this critical situation by sending to China a second legate, John-Ambrose Mezzabarba, whom he named Patriarch of Alexandria. This prelate sailed from Lisbon on 25 March, 1720, reaching Macao on 26 September, and Canton on 12 October. Admitted, not without difficulty, to Peking and to an audience with the emperor, the legate could only prevent his immediate dismissal and the expulsion of all the missionaries by making known some alleviations of the Constitution "Ex illâ die", which he was authorized to offer, and allowing K'ang-hi to hope that the pope would grant still others. Then he hastened to return to Macao, whence he addressed (4 November, 1721) a pastoral letter to the missionaries of China, communicating to them the authentic text of his eight "permissions" relating to the rites. He declared that he would permit nothing forbidden by the Constitution; in practice, however, his concessions relaxed the rigour of the pontifical interdictions, although they did not produce harmony or unity of action among the apostolic workers. To bring about this highly desirable result the pope ordered a new investigation, the chief object of which was the legitimacy and opportuneness of Mezzabarba's "permissions"; begun by the Holy Office under Clement XII a conclusion was reached only under Benedict XIV. On 11 July, 1742, this pope, by the Bull "Ex quo singulari", confirmed and reimposed in a most emphatic manner the Constitution "Ex illâ die", and condemned and annulled the "permissions" of Mezzabarba as authorizing the superstitions which that Constitution sought to destroy. This action terminated the controversy among Catholics.

The Holy See did not touch on the purely theoretical questions, as for instance what the Chinese rites were and signified according to their institution and in ancient times. In this Father Ricci may have been right; but he was mistaken in thinking that as practised in modern times they are not superstitious or can be made free from all superstition. The popes declared, after scrupulous investigations, that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius or ancestors and deceased relatives are tainted with superstition to such a degree that they cannot be purified. But the error of Ricci, as of his fellow-workers and successors, was but an error in judgment. The Holy See expressly forbade it to be said that they approved idolatry; it would indeed be an odious calumny to accuse such a man as Ricci, and so many other holy and zealous missionaries, of having approved and permitted to their neophytes practices which they knew to be superstitions and contrary to the purity of religion. Despite this error, Matteo Ricci remains a splendid type of missionary and founder, unsurpassed for his zealous intrepidity, the intelligence of the methods applied to each situation, and the unwearying tenacity with which he pursued the projects he undertook. To him belongs the glory not only of opening up a vast empire to the Gospel, but of simultaneously making the first breach in that distrust of strangers which excluded China from the general progress of the world. The establishment of the Catholic mission in the heart of this country also had its economic consequences: it laid the foundation of a better understanding between the Far East and the West, which grew with the progress of the mission. It is superfluous to detail the results from the standpoint of the material interests of the whole world. Lastly, science owes to Father Ricci the first exact scientific knowledge received in Europe concerning China, its true geographical situation, its ancient civilization, its vast

and curious literature, its social organization so different from what existed elsewhere. The method instituted by Ricci necessitated a fundamental study of this new world, and if the missionaries who have since followed him have rendered scarcely less service to science than to religion, a great part of the credit is due to Ricci. [MATTEO RICCI], Dell' entrata della Compagnia di Giesù e cristianità nella Cina (MS. of Father Ricci, extant in the archives of the Society of Jesus; cited in the foregoing article as the Memoirs of Father Ricci), a somewhat free tr. of this work is given in TRIGAULT, De christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu. Ex P. Matthæi Ricci commentariis libri, V (Augsburg, 1615); DE URSIS, P. Matheus Ricci, S.J. Relação escripta pelo seu companheiro (Rome, 1910); BARTOLI, Dell' Historia della Compagnia di Giesù. La Cina, I-II (Rome, 1663). Bartoli is the most accurate biographer of Ricci; D'ORLEANS, La vie du Père Matthieu Ricci (Paris, 1693); NATALI, Il secondo Confucio (Rome, 1900); VENTURI, L'apostolato del P. M. Ricci d. C. d. G. in Cina secondo i suoi scritti inediti (Rome, 1910); BRUCKER, Le Père Matthieu Ricci in Etudes, CXXIV (Paris, 1910), 5-27; 185-208; 751-79; DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. des écrivains de la C. de J., VI, 1792-95. Chinese Rites.BRUCKER in VACANT, Dict. de Théol. cath., s. v. Chinois (Rites) and works indicated; CORDIER, Bibl. Sinica, II, 2nd ed., 869925; IDEM, Hist. des relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales, III (Paris, 1902), xxv. JOSEPH BRUCKER.

Ricci, SCIPIO. See PISTOIA, SYNOD OF. Riccioli, GIOVANNI BATTISTA, Italian astronomer, b. at Ferrara 17 April, 1598; d. at Bologna 25 June, 1671. He entered the Society of Jesus 6 Oct., 1614. After teaching philosophy and theology for a number of years, chiefly at Parma and Bologna, he devoted himself, at the request of his superiors, entirely to the study of astronomy, which at that time, owing to the discoveries of Kepler and the new theories of Copernicus, was a subject of much discussion. Realizing the many defects of the traditional astronomy inherited from the ancients, he conceived the bold idea of undertaking a reconstruction of the science with a view to bringing it into harmony with contemporary progress. This led to his "Almagestum novum, astronomiam veterem novamque complectens" (2 vols., Bologna, 1651), considered by many the most important literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century. The author in common with many scholars of the time, notably in Italy, rejected the Copernican theory, and in this work, admittedly of great erudition, gives an elaborate refutation in justification of the Roman Decrees of 1616 and 1633. He praises, however, the genius of Copernicus and readily admits the value of his system as a simple hypothesis. His sincerity in this connexion has been called into question by some, e. g. Wolf, but a study of the work shows beyond doubt that he wrote from conviction and with the desire of making known the truth. Riccioli's project also included a comparison of the unit of length of various nations and a more exact determination of the dimensions of the earth. His topographical measurements occupied him at intervals between 1644 and 1656, but defects of method have rendered his results of but little value. His most important contribution to astronomy was perhaps his detailed telescopic study of the moon, made in collaboration with P. Grimaldi. The latter's excellent lunar map was inserted in the "Almagestum novum", and the lunar nomenclature they adopted is still in use. He also made observations on Saturn's rings, though it was reserved for Huyghens to determine the true ring-structure. He was an ardent defender of the new Gregorian calendar. Though of delicate health, Riccioli was an indefatigable worker and, in spite of his opposition to the Copernican theory, rendered valuable services to astronomy and also to geography and chronology. His chief works are: "Geographiæ et hydrographiæ reformatæ libri XII" (Bologna, 1661); "Astronomia reformata" (2 vols., Bologna, 1665); "Vindiciae calendarii gregoriani" (Bologna, 1666); "Chronologia reformata" (1669); "Tabula Latitudinum et longitudinum" (Vienna, 1689).

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895), 1795; DELAMBRE, Hist. de l'Astronomie Moderne, II (Paris, 1821), 274; WOLF, Gesch. d. Astronomie (Munich, 1877), 434; WALSH, Catholic Churchmen in Science (2nd series, Philadelphia, 1909); LINSMEIER, Natur. u. Offenbarung, XLVII, 65 sqq.

H. M. BROCK.

Rice, EDMUND IGNATIUS, founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (better known as "Irish Christian Brothers"), b. at Callan, Co. Kilkenny, 1762; d. at Waterford, 1844. He was educated in a Catholic school which, despite the provisions of the iniquitous penal laws, the authorities suffered to exist in the City of Kilkenny. In 1779 he entered the business house of his uncle, a large export and import trader in the City of Waterford, and, after the latter's death, became sole proprietor. As a citizen he was distinguished for his probity, charity, and piety; he was an active member of a society established in the city for the relief of the poor. About 1794 he meditated entering a continental convent, but his brother, an Augustinian who had but just returned from Rome, discountenanced the idea. Rice, thereupon, devoted himself to the extension of his business. Some years later, however, he again desired to become a religious. As he was discussing the matter with a friend of his, a sister of Bishop Power of Waterford, a band of ragged boys passed by. Pointing to them Miss Power exclaimed: "What! would you bury yourself in a cell on the continent rather than devote your wealth and your life to the spiritual and material interests of these poor youths?" The words were an inspiration. Rice related the incident to Dr. Lanigan, bishop of his native Diocese of Ossory, and to others, all of whom advised him to undertake the mission to which God was evidently calling him. Rice settled his worldly affairs, his last year's business (1800) being the most lucrative one he had known, and commenced the work of the Christian schools.

Assisted by two young men, whom he paid for their services, he opened his first school in Waterford in 1802. In June of this year Bishop Hussey of Waterford laid the foundation stone of a schoolhouse on a site which he named Mount Sion. The building was soon ready for occupation, but Rice's assistants had fled and could not be induced to return even when offered higher salaries. In this extremity two young men from Callan offered themselves as fellow-labourers. Other workers soon gathered round him, and by 1806 Christian schools were established in Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir, and Dungarvan. The communities adopted a modified form of the Rule of the Presentation Order of nuns, and, in 1808, pronounced their vows before Bishop Power. Houses were established in Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and elsewhere. Though the brothers, as a rule, made their novitiate in Mount Sion and regarded Rice as their father and model, he was not their superior; they were subject to the bishops of their respective dioceses. In 1817, on the advice of Bishop Murray, coadjutor to the Archbishop of Dublin, and of Father Kenny, S.J., a special

friend, Rice applied to the Holy See for approbation and a constitution for his society. In 1820 Pius VII formally confirmed the new congregation of "Fratres Monachi" by the Brief "Ad pastoralis dignitatis fastigium". This was the first confirmation by the Church of a congregation of religious men in Ireland. Brother Rice was unanimously elected superior general by the members. All the houses were united except the house in Cork, where Bishop Murphy refused his consent. Later, however, in 1826, the Brothers in Cork attained the object of their desire, but one of their number, preferring the old condition of things, offered his services to the bishop, who placed him in charge of a school on the south side of the city. This secession of Br. Austin Reardon was the origin of the teaching congregation of the Presentation Brothers. The confirmation of the new Institute attracted considerable attention, even outside of Ireland, and many presented themselves for the novitiate. The founder removed the seat of government to Dublin.

At this time the agitation for Catholic Emancipation was at its height and the people were roused to indignation by the reports of the proselytizing practices carried on in the Government schools. Brother Rice conceived the idea of establishing a "Catholic Model School". The "Liberator" entered warmly into his scheme, and procured a grant of £1500 from the Catholic Association in aid of the proposed building. On St. Columba's day, 1828, Daniel O'Connell laid the foundation stone, in North Richmond Street, Dublin, of the famous school, since known as the "O'Connell Schools". In his speech on the occasion he referred to Brother Rice as 'My old friend, Mr. Rice, the Patriarch of the Monks of the west". The founder resigned his office in 1838 and spent his remaining years in Mount Sion. Before his death he saw eleven communities of his institute in Ireland, eleven in England, and one in Sydney, Australia, while applications for foundations had been received from the Archbishop of Baltimore and from bishops in Canada, Newfoundland, and other places.

PATRICK J. HENNESSY.

Richard, a Friar Minor and preacher, appearing in history between 1428 and 1431, whose origin and nationality are unknown. He is sometimes called the disciple of St. Bernardine of Sienna and of St. Vincent Ferrer, but probably only because, like the former, he promoted the veneration of the Holy Name of Jesus and, like the latter, announced the end of the world as near. In 1428 Richard came from the Holy Land to France, preached at Troyes, next year in Paris during ten days (16-26 April) every morning from about five o'clock to ten or eleven. He had such a sway over

his numerous auditors that after his sermons the men burned their dice, and the women their vanities. Having been threatened by the Faculty of Theology on account of his doctrine-perhaps, also, because he was believed to favour Charles VII, King of France, whilst Paris was then in the hands of the Englishhe left Paris suddenly and betook himself to Orléans and Troyes. In the latter town he first met Bl. Joan of Arc. Having contributed much to the submission of Troyes to Charles VII, Richard now followed the French army and became confessor and chaplain to Bl. Joan. Some differences, however, arose between the two on account of Catherine de la Rochelle, who was protected by the friar, but scorned by Joan. Richard's name figures also in the proceedings against Bl. Joan of Arc in 1431; in the same year he preached the Lent in Orléans and shortly after was interdicted from preaching by the inquisitor of Poitiers. No trace of him is found after this.

DE KERVAL, Jeanne d'Arc et les Franciscains (Vanves, 1893); DEBOUT, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1905-07), I, 694-97 and passim; WALLON, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1883), 125, 200, 261. LIVARIUS OLIGER.

Richard I, KING OF ENGLAND, b. at Oxford, 6 Sept., 1157; d. at Chaluz, France, 6 April, 1199; was known to the minstrels of a later age, rather than to his contemporaries, as "Coeur-de-Lion". He was only the second son of Henry II, but it was part of his father's policy, holding, as he did, continental dominions of great extent and little mutual cohesion, to assign them to his children during his own lifetime and even to have his sons brought up among the people they were destined to govern. To Richard were allotted the territories in the South of France belonging to his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine, and before he was sixteen he was inducted as Duke of that province. It was a weak point in the old King's management of his sons, that, while dazzling them with brilliant prospects, he invested them with very little of the substance of power. In 1173 the young Henry, who, following a German usage, had already been crowned king in the lifetime of his father, broke out into open revolt, being instigated thereto by his father-in-law, Louis VII, King of France. Under the influence of their mother Eleanor, who bitterly resented her husband's infidelities, Geoffrey and Richard in 1173 also threw in their lot with the rebel and took up arms against their father. Allies gathered round them and the situation grew so threatening, that Henry II thought it well to propitiate heaven by doing penance at the tomb of the martyred Archbishop St. Thomas (11 July, 1174). By a remarkable coincidence, on the very next day, a victory in Northumberland over William, King of Scotland, disposed of Henry's most formidable opponent. Returning with a large force to France, the King swept all before him, and though Richard for a while held out alone he was compelled by 21 Sept. to sue for forgiveness at his father's feet.

The King dealt leniently with his rebellious children, but this first outbreak was only the harbinger of an almost uninterrupted series of disloyal intrigues, fomented by Louis VII and by his son and successor, Philip Augustus, in which Richard, who lived almost entirely in Guienne and Poitou, was engaged down to the time of his father's death. He acquired for himself a great and deserved reputation for knightly prowess, and he was often concerned in chivalrous exploits, showing much energy in particular in protecting the pilgrims who passed through his own and adjacent territories on their way to the shrine of St. James of Compostella. His elder brother Henry grew jealous of him and insisted that Richard should do him homage. On the latter's resistance war broke out between the brothers. Bertrand de Born, Count of Hautefort, who was Richard's rival in minstrelsy as well as in feats of arms, lent such powerful support to the younger Henry, that the old King had to intervene on Richard's side. The death of the younger Henry, 11 June, 1183, once more restored peace and made Richard heir to the throne. But other quarrels followed between Richard and his father, and it was in the heat of the most desperate of these, in which the astuteness of Philip Augustus had contrived to implicate Henry's favourite son John, that the old King died broken-hearted, 6 July, 1189. Despite the constant hostilities of the last few years, Richard secured the succession without difficulty. He came quickly to England and was crowned at Westminster on 3 Sept. But his object in visiting his native land was less to provide for the for the projected Crusade which now appealed to the government of the kingdom than to collect resources strongest, if not the best, instincts of his adventurous nature, and by the success of which he hoped to startle the world. Already, towards the end of 1187, when the news had reached him of Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem, Richard had taken the cross. Philip Augustus and Henry II had subsequently followed his example, but the quarrels which had supervened