Authorities—The chief general authority for Benedictine history up to the middle of the 12th century is Mabillon’sAnnales, in 6 vols. folio; for the later period no such general work exists, but the various countries, congregations or even abbeys have to be taken separately. Montalembert’sMonks of the Westgives the early history very fully; the later history, to the beginning of the 18th century, may be found in Helyot,Hist. des ordres religieux, v. and vi. (1792). A useful sketch, with references to the best literature, is in Max Heimbucher,Orden und Kongregationen(1896), i. §§ 17-28; see also the article “Benedictinerorden” in Wetzer u. Welter,Kirchenlexicon(2nd ed.), and “Benedikt von Nursia und der Benediktinerorden,” in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie(3rd ed.). For England see Ethelred Taunton,English Black Monks(1897); and for the modern history (19th century) the series entitled “Succisa Virescit” in theDownside Review, 1880 onwards, by J.G. Dolan. On the inner spirit and working of the institute see F.A. Gasquet,Sketch of Monastic Constitutional History(being the preface to the 2nd ed., 1895, of the trans. of Montalembert) andEnglish Monastic Life(1904); and Newman’s two essays on the Benedictines, among theHistorical Sketches. On Benedictine nuns much will be found in the above-mentioned authorities, and also in Lina Eckenstein,Woman in Monasticism(1896). On Benedictines and the Arts see F.H. Kraus,Geschichte der christlichen Kunst(Freiburg-i-B., 1896-1897).
Authorities—The chief general authority for Benedictine history up to the middle of the 12th century is Mabillon’sAnnales, in 6 vols. folio; for the later period no such general work exists, but the various countries, congregations or even abbeys have to be taken separately. Montalembert’sMonks of the Westgives the early history very fully; the later history, to the beginning of the 18th century, may be found in Helyot,Hist. des ordres religieux, v. and vi. (1792). A useful sketch, with references to the best literature, is in Max Heimbucher,Orden und Kongregationen(1896), i. §§ 17-28; see also the article “Benedictinerorden” in Wetzer u. Welter,Kirchenlexicon(2nd ed.), and “Benedikt von Nursia und der Benediktinerorden,” in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie(3rd ed.). For England see Ethelred Taunton,English Black Monks(1897); and for the modern history (19th century) the series entitled “Succisa Virescit” in theDownside Review, 1880 onwards, by J.G. Dolan. On the inner spirit and working of the institute see F.A. Gasquet,Sketch of Monastic Constitutional History(being the preface to the 2nd ed., 1895, of the trans. of Montalembert) andEnglish Monastic Life(1904); and Newman’s two essays on the Benedictines, among theHistorical Sketches. On Benedictine nuns much will be found in the above-mentioned authorities, and also in Lina Eckenstein,Woman in Monasticism(1896). On Benedictines and the Arts see F.H. Kraus,Geschichte der christlichen Kunst(Freiburg-i-B., 1896-1897).
(E. C. B.)
BENEDICTION(Lat.benedictio, frombenedicere, to bless), generally, the utterance of a blessing or of a devout wish for the prosperity and happiness of a person or enterprise. In the usage of the Catholic Church, both East and West, though the benediction as defined above has its place as between one Christian and another, it has also a special place in the sacramental system in virtue of the special powers of blessing vested in the priesthood. Sacerdotal benedictions are not indeed sacraments—means of grace ordained by Christ himself,—but sacramentals (sacramenta minora) ordained by the authority of the Church and exercised by the priests, as the plenipotentiaries of God, in virtue of the powers conferred on them at their ordination; “that whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated.” The power to bless in this ecclesiastical sense is reserved to priests alone; the blessing of the paschal candle on Holy Saturday by the deacon being the one exception that proves the rule, for he uses for the purpose grains of incense previously blessed by the priest at the altar. But though by some the benediction has thus been brought into connexion with the supreme means of grace, the sacrifice of the Mass, the blessing does not in itself confer grace and does not act on its recipientsex opere operato. It must not be supposed, however, that the Catholic idea of a sacerdotal blessing has anything of the vague character associated with a benediction by Protestants. Both by Catholics and by Protestants blessings may be applied to things inanimate as well as animate; but while in the reformed Churches this involves no more than an appeal to God for a special blessing, or a solemn “setting apart” of persons or objects for sacred purposes, in the Catholic idea it implies a special power, conferred by God, of the priests over the invisible forces of evil. It thus stands in the closest relation to the rite of exorcism, of which it is the complement.
According to Catholic doctrine, the Fall involved the subjection, not only of man, but of all things animate and inanimate, to the influence of evil spirits; in support of which St Paul’s epistles to the Romans (viii.) and to Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 4-5) are quoted. This belief is, of course, not specifically Christian; it has been held at all times and everywhere by men of the most various races and creeds; and, if there be any validity in the contention that that is true which has been heldsemper, ubique, et ab omnibus, no fact is better established. In general it may be said, then, that whereas exorcism is practised in order to cast out devils already in possession, benediction is the formula by which they are prevented from entering in. Protestants have condemned these formulae as so much magic, and in thismodern science tends to agree with them; but to orthodox Protestants at least Catholics have a perfect right to reply that, in taking this line, they are but repeating the accusation brought by the Pharisees against Christ, viz. that he cast out devils “by Beelzebub, prince of the devils.”
Though, however, the discomfiture of malignant spirits still plays an important part in the Catholic doctrine of benedictions, this has on the whole tended to become subordinated to other benefits. This is but natural; for, though the progress of knowledge has not disproved the existence of devils, it has greatly limited the supposed range of their activities. According to Father Patrick Morrisroe, dean and professor of liturgy at Maynooth, the efficacy of benedictions is fourfold: (1) the excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart, and by their means the remission of venial sins and of the temporal punishments due for these; (2) freedom from the power of evil spirits; (3) preservation and restoration of bodily health; (4) various other benefits, temporal and spiritual. Benedictions, moreover, are twofold: (a) invocative,i.e.those invoking the divine benignity for persons and things without changing their condition,e.g.children or food; (b) constitutive,i.e.those which give to persons or things an indelible religious character,i.e.monks and nuns, or the furniture of the altar. The second of these brings the act of benediction into contact with the principle of consecration (q.v.); for by the formal blessing by the duly constituted authority persons, places and things are consecrated,i.e.reserved to sacred uses and preserved from the contaminating influence of evil spirits. Thus graveyards are consecrated,i.e.solemnly blessed in order that the powers of evil may not disturb the bodies of the faithful departed; thus, too, the blessing of bells gives them a special power against evil demons.
Though the giving of blessings as a sacerdotal function is proper to the whole order of priests, particular benedictions have, by ecclesiastical authority, been reserved for the bishops, who may, however, delegate some of them;i.e.the benediction of abbots, of priests at their ordination, of virgins taking the veil, of churches, cemeteries, oratories, and of all articles for use in connexion with the altar (chalices, patens, vestments, &c.), of military colours, of soldiers and of their arms. The holy oil is also blessed by bishops in the Roman Catholic Church; in the Greek Church, on the other hand, the oil for the chrism at baptism is blessed by the priest. To the pope alone is reserved the blessing of the pallium, the golden rose, the “Agnus-Dei” and royal swords; he alone, too, can issue blessings that involve some days’ indulgence. The ceremonies prescribed for the various benedictions are set forth in theRituale Romanum(tit. viii.). In general it is laid down (cap. i.) that the priest, in benedictions outside the Mass, shall be vested in surplice and stole, and shall give the blessing standing and bare-headed. Certain prayers are said before each benediction, after which he sprinkles the person or thing to be blessed with holy water and, where prescribed, censes them. He is attended by a minister with a vase of holy water, anaspergillumand a copy of theRitualeor missal. In all benedictions the sign of the cross is made. In the blessing of the holy water (cap. ii.), the essential instrument of all benedictions, the object is dearly to establish its potency against evil spirits. First the “creature of salt” is exorcized, “that ... thou mayest be to all who take thee health of body and soul; that wherever thou art sprinkled every phantasy and wickedness and wile of diabolic deceit may flee and leave that place, and every unclean spirit”; a prayer to God for the blessing of the salt follows; then the “creature of water” is exorcized, “that thou mayest become exorcized water for the purpose of putting to flight every power of the enemy, that thou mayest avail to uproot and expel this enemy with all his apostate angels, by the virtue of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.”; and again a prayer to God follows that the water may “become a creature in the service of His mysteries, for the driving out of demons, &c.” In the formulae of blessings that follow, the special efficacy against devils is implied by the aspersion with holy water; the benedictions themselves are usually merely invocative of the divine protection or assistance, though,e.g., in the form for blessing sick animals the priest prays that “all diabolic power in them may be destroyed, and that they may be ill no longer.” It is to be remarked that the “laying on of hands,” which in the Old and the New Testament alike is the usual “form” of blessing, is not used in liturgical benedictions, the priest being directed merely to extend his right hand towards the person to be blessed. The appendixde Benedictionibusto theRituale Romanumcontains formulae, often of much simple beauty, for blessing all manner of persons and things, from the congregation as a whole and sick men and women, to railways, ships, blast-furnaces, lime-kilns, articles of food, medicine and medical bandages and all manner of domestic animals.
TheBenediction of the Blessed Sacrament, commonly called simply “Benediction” (Fr.salut, Ger.Segen), is one of the most popular of the services of the Roman Catholic Church. It is usually held in the afternoon or evening, sometimes at the conclusion of Vespers, Compline or the Stations of the Cross, and consists in the singing of certain hymns and canticles, more particularly theO salutaris hostiaand theTantum ergo, before the host, which is exposed on the altar in a monstrance and surrounded by not less than ten lighted candles. Often litanies and hymns to the Virgin are added. At the conclusion the priest, his shoulders wrapped in the humeral veil, takes the monstrance and with it makes the sign of the cross over the kneeling congregation, whence the name Benediction. The service, the details of which vary in different countries, is of comparatively modern origin. Father Thurston traces it to a combination in the 16th and 17th centuries of customs that had their origin in the 13th,i.e.certain gild services in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and the growing habit, resulting naturally from the doctrine of transubstantiation, of ascribing a supreme virtue to the act of looking on the Holy Sacrament.
In the reformed Churches the word “benediction” is technically confined to the blessing with which the priest or minister dismisses the congregation at the close of the service.
See the article “Benediktionen,” by E.C. Achelis in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie(Leipzig, 1897);The Catholic Encyclopaedia(London and New York, 1908) s. “Blessing,” by P. Morrisroe, and “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament,” by Herbert Thurston, S.J.; in all of which further authorities are cited.
See the article “Benediktionen,” by E.C. Achelis in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie(Leipzig, 1897);The Catholic Encyclopaedia(London and New York, 1908) s. “Blessing,” by P. Morrisroe, and “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament,” by Herbert Thurston, S.J.; in all of which further authorities are cited.
BENEDICTUS,the hymn of Zacharias (Luke i. 68 sqq.), so called from the opening word of the Latin version. The hymn has been used in Christian worship since at least the 9th century, and was adopted into the Anglican Order of Morning Prayer from the Roman service of matin-lauds. In the Prayer-Book of 1549 there was no alternative to theBenedictus; it was to be used “throughout the whole year.” In 1552 theJubilatewas inserted without any restriction as to how often it should take the place of theBenedictus. Such restriction is clearly implied in the words “except when that (Benedictus) shall happen to be read in the chapter for the day, or for the Gospel on Saint John Baptist’s day,” which were inserted in 1662. The rubric of 1532 had this curious wording: “And after the Second Lesson shall be used and said, Benedictus in English, as followeth.”
The name is also given to a part of the Roman Catholic mass service beginningBenedictus qui venit.
BENEDICTUS ABBAS(d. 1194), abbot of Peterborough, whose name is accidentally connected with theGesta Henrici Regis Secundi, one of the most valuable of English 12th-century chronicles. He first makes his appearance in 1174, as the chancellor of Archbishop Richard, the successor of Becket in the primacy. In 1175 Benedictus became prior of Holy Trinity, Canterbury; in 1177 he received from Henry II. the abbacy of Peterborough, which he held until his death. As abbot he distinguished himself by his activity in building, in administering the finances of his house and in collecting a library. He is described in theChronicon Petroburgenseas “blessed both in name and deed.” He belonged to the circle of Becket’s admirers, and wrote two works dealing with the martyrdom and the miracles of his hero. Fragments of the former work have come down to us in the compilation known as theQuadrilogus, which is printed in the fourth volume of J.C. Robertson’sMaterials for the History of Thomas Becket(Rolls series); the miracles are extant in their entirety, and are printed in the second volume of the same collection. Benedictus has been credited with the authorship of theGesta Henricion the ground that his name appears in the title of the oldest manuscript. We have, however, conclusive evidence that Benedictus merely caused this work to be transcribed for the Peterborough library. It is only through the force of custom that the work is still occasionally cited under the name of Benedictus. The question of authorship has been discussed by Sir T.D. Hardy, Bishop Stubbs and Professor Liebermann; but the results of the discussion are negative. Stubbs conjecturally identified the first part of theGesta(1170-1177) with theLiber Tricolumnis, a register of contemporary events kept by Richard Fitz Neal (q.v.), the treasurer of Henry II. and author of theDialogus de Scaccario; the latter part (1177-1192) was by the same authority ascribed to Roger of Hoveden, who makes large use of theGestain his own chronicle, copying them with few alterations beyond the addition of some documents. This theory, so far as concerns theLiber Tricolumnis, is rejected by Liebermann and the most recent editors of theDialogus(A. Hughes, C.G. Crump and C. Johnson, Oxford, 1902). We can only say that theGestaare the work of a well-informed contemporary who appears to have been closely connected with the court and is inclined on all occasions to take the side of Henry II. The author confines himself to the external history of events, and his tone is strictly impersonal. He incorporates some official documents, and in many places obviously derives his information from others which he does not quote. There is a break in his work at the year 1177, where the earliest manuscript ends; but the reasons which have been given to prove that the authorship changes at this point are inconclusive. The work begins at Christmas 1169, and concludes in 1192; it is thus in form a fragment, covering portions of the reign of Henry II. and Richard I.
See W. Stubbs’Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti abbatis(2 vols., Rolls series, 1867), and particularly the preface to the first volume; F. Liebermann inEinleitung in den Dialogus de Scaccario(Göttingen, 1875); inOstenglische Geschichtsquellen(Hanover, 1892); and in Pertz’sMonumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. xxvii. pp. 82, 83; also the introduction to theDialogus de Scaccarioin the Oxford edition of 1902.
See W. Stubbs’Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti abbatis(2 vols., Rolls series, 1867), and particularly the preface to the first volume; F. Liebermann inEinleitung in den Dialogus de Scaccario(Göttingen, 1875); inOstenglische Geschichtsquellen(Hanover, 1892); and in Pertz’sMonumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. xxvii. pp. 82, 83; also the introduction to theDialogus de Scaccarioin the Oxford edition of 1902.
(H. W. C. D.)
BENEDIX, JULIUS RODERICH(1811-1873), German dramatist and librettist, was born at Leipzig on the 21st of January 1811, and was educated at the Thomasschule at Leipzig. He joined the stage in 1831, his first engagement being with the travelling company of H.E. Bethmann in Dessau, Cöthen, Bernburg and Meiningen. Subsequently he was tenor in several theatres in Westphalia and on the Rhine, and became manager of the theatre at Wesel, where he produced a comedy,Das bemooste Haupt(1841), which met with great success. After an engagement in Cologne, he managed the new theatre at Elberfeld (1844-1845) and in 1849 was appointed teacher on the staff of the Rhenish school of music in Cologne. In 1855 he was appointed intendant of the municipal theatre in Frankfort-On-Main, but retired in 1861, and died in Leipzig on the 26th of September 1873. Benedix’s comedies, the scenes of which are mostly laid in upper middle-class life, still enjoy some popularity; the best-known are:Dr Wespe; Die Hochzeitsreise; Der Vetter; Das Gefängnis; Das Lügen; Ein Lustspiel; Der Störenfried; Die Dienstboten; Aschenbrödel; Die zärtlichen Verwandten. The chief characteristics of his farces are a clear plot and bright, easy and natural dialogue. Among his more serious works are:Bilder aus dem Schauspielerleben(Leipzig, 1847);Der mündliche Vortrag(Leipzig, 1859-1860);Das Wesen des deutschen Rhythmus(Leipzig, 1862) and, posthumously,Die Shakespearomanie(1873), in which he attacks the extreme adoration of the British poet.
Benedix’sGesammelte dramatische Werkeappeared in 27 vols. (Leipzig, 1846-1875); a selection under the titleVolkstheaterin 20 vols. (Leipzig, 1882); and a collection of smaller comedies asHaustheaterin 2 vols. (both ed., Leipzig, 1891); see Benedix’s autobiography in theGartenlaubefor 1871.
Benedix’sGesammelte dramatische Werkeappeared in 27 vols. (Leipzig, 1846-1875); a selection under the titleVolkstheaterin 20 vols. (Leipzig, 1882); and a collection of smaller comedies asHaustheaterin 2 vols. (both ed., Leipzig, 1891); see Benedix’s autobiography in theGartenlaubefor 1871.
BENEFICE(Lat.beneficium, benefit), a term first applied under the Roman empire to portions of land, the usufruct of which was granted by the emperors to their soldiers or others for life, as a reward orbeneficiumfor past services, and as a retainer for future services. A list of all suchbeneficiawas recorded in theBook of Benefices(Liber Beneficiorum), which was kept by the principal registrar of benefices (Primiscrinius Beneficiorum). In imitation of the practice observed under the Roman empire, the term came to be applied under the feudal system to portions of land granted by a lord to his vassal for the maintenance of the latter on condition of his rendering military service; and such grants were originally for life only, and the land reverted to the lord on the death of the vassal. In a similar manner grants of land, or of the profits of land, appear to have been made by the bishops to their clergy for life, on the ground of some extraordinary merit on the part of the grantee. The validity of such grants was first formally recognized by the council of Orleans,A.D.511, which forbade, however, under any circumstances, the alienation from the bishoprics of any lands so granted. The next following council of Orleans, 533, broke in upon this principle, by declaring that a bishop could not reclaim from his clergy any grants made to them by his predecessor, excepting in cases of misconduct. This innovation on the ancient practice was confirmed by the subsequent council of Lyons, 566, and from this period these grants ceased to be regarded as personal, and their substance became annexed to the churches,—in other words, they were henceforth enjoyedjure tituli, and no longerjure personali. How and when the termbeneficiacame to be applied to these episcopal grants is uncertain, but they are designated by that term in a canon of the council of Mainz, 813.
The term benefice, according to the canon law, implies always an ecclesiastical office,propter quod beneficium datur, but it does not always imply a cure of souls. It has been defined to be the right which a clerk has to enjoy certain ecclesiastical revenues on condition of discharging certain services prescribed by the canons, or by usage, or by the conditions under which his office has been founded. These services might be those of a secular priest with cure of souls, or they might be those of a regular priest, a member of a religious order, without cure of souls; but in every case a benefice implied three things: (1) An obligation to discharge the duties of an office, which is altogether spiritual; (2) The right to enjoy the fruits attached to that office, which is the benefice itself; (3) The fruits themselves, which are the temporalities. By keeping these distinctions in view, the right of patronage in the case of secular benefices becomes intelligible, being in fact the right, which was originally vested in the donor of the temporalities, to present to the bishop a clerk to be admitted, if found fit by the bishop, to the office to which those temporalities are annexed. Nomination or presentation on the part of the patron of the benefice is thus the first requisite in order that a clerk should become legally entitled to a benefice. The next requisite is that he should be admitted by the bishop as a fit person for the spiritual office to which the benefice is annexed, and the bishop is the judge of the sufficiency of the clerk to be so admitted. By the early constitutions of the Church of England a bishop was allowed a space of two months to inquire and inform himself of the sufficiency of every presentee, but by the ninety-fifth of the canons of 1604 that interval has been abridged to twenty-eight days, within which the bishop must admit or reject the clerk. If the bishop rejects the clerk within that time he is liable to aduplex querelain the ecclesiastical courts, or to aquare impeditin the common law courts, and the bishop must then certify the reasons of his refusal. In cases where the patron is himself a clerk in orders, and wishes to be admitted to the benefice, he must proceed by way of petition instead of by deed of presentation, reciting that the benefice is in his own patronage, and petitioning the bishop to examine him and admit him. Upon the bishop having satisfied himself of the sufficiency of the clerk, he proceeds to institute him to the spiritual office to which the benefice is annexed, but, before such institution can take place, the clerk is required to make a declaration of assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and to the Book of Common Prayer according to a form prescribed in the Clerical Subscription Act 1865, to make a declaration againstsimony in accordance with that act, and to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance according to the form in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The bishop, by the act of institution, commits to the clerk the cure of souls attached to the office to which the benefice is annexed. In cases where the bishop himself is patron of the benefice, no presentation or petition is required to be tendered by the clerk, but the bishop having satisfied himself of the sufficiency of the clerk, collates him to the benefice and office. It is not necessary that the bishop himself should personally institute or collate a clerk; he may issue a fiat to his vicar-general, or to a special commissary for that purpose. After the bishop or his commissary has instituted the presentee, he issues a mandate under seal, addressed to the archdeacon or some other neighbouring clergyman, authorizing him to induct the clerk into his benefice,—in other words, to put him into legal possession of the temporalities, which is done by some outward form, and for the most part by delivery of the bell-rope to the clerk, who thereupon tolls the bell. This form of induction is required to give the clerk a legal title to hisbeneficium, although his admission to the office by institution is sufficient to vacate any other benefice which he may already possess.
By a decree of the Lateran council of 1215, which was enforced in England, no clerk can hold two benefices with cure of souls, and if a beneficed clerk shall take a second benefice with cure of souls, he vacatesipso factohis first benefice. Dispensations, however, could be easily obtained from Rome, before the reformation of the Church of England, to enable a clerk to hold several ecclesiastical dignities or benefices at the same time, and by the Peterpence, Dispensations, &c. Act 1534, the power to grant such dispensations, which had been exercised previously by the court of Rome, was transferred to the archbishop of Canterbury, certain ecclesiastical persons having been declared by a previous statute (1529) to be entitled to such dispensations. The system of pluralities carried with it, as a necessary consequence, systematic non-residence on the part of many incumbents, and delegation of their spiritual duties in respect of their cures of souls to assistant curates. The evils attendant on this system were found to be so great that the Pluralities Act 1838 was passed to abridge the holding of benefices in plurality, and it was enacted that no person should hold under any circumstances more than two benefices, and this privilege was made subject to the restriction that his benefices were within ten statute miles of each other. By the Pluralities Act 1850, the restriction was further narrowed, so that no spiritual person could hold two benefices except the churches of such benefices were within three miles of each other by the nearest road, and the annual value of one of such benefices did not exceed £100. By this statute the term benefice is defined to mean benefice with cure of souls and no other, and therein to comprehend all parishes, perpetual curacies, donatives, endowed public chapels, parochial chapelries and chapelries or districts belonging or reputed to belong, or annexed or reputed to be annexed, to any church or chapel. The Pluralities Acts Amendment Act 1885, however, enacted that, by dispensation from the archbishop, two benefices could be held together, the churches of which are within four miles of each other, and the annual value of one of which does not exceed £200.
All benefices except those under the clear annual value of £50 pay their first fruits (one year’s profits) and tenths (of yearly profits) to Queen Anne’s Bounty for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poorer clergy. Their profits during vacation belong to the next incumbent. Tithe rent charge attached to a benefice is relieved from payment of one-half of the agricultural rates assessed thereon. Benefices may be exchanged by agreement between incumbents with the consent of the ordinary, and they may, with the consent of the patron and ordinary, be united or dissolved after being united. They may also be charged with the repayment of money laid out for their permanent advantage, and be augmented wholly by the medium of Queen Anne’s Bounty.
A benefice is avoided or vacated—(1) by death; (2) by resignation, if the bishop is willing to accept the resignation: by the Incumbents’ Resignation Act 1871, Amendment Act 1887, any clergyman who has been an incumbent of one benefice continuously for seven years, and is incapacitated by permanent mental or bodily infirmities from fulfilling his duties, may, if the bishop thinks fit, have a commission appointed to consider the fitness of his resigning; and if the commission report in favour of his resigning, he may, with the consent of the patron (or, if that is refused, with the consent of the archbishop) resign the cure of souls into the bishop’s hands, and have assigned to him, out of the benefice, a retiring-pension not exceeding one-third of its annual value, which is recoverable as a debt from his successor; (3) by cession, upon the clerk being instituted to another benefice or some other preferment incompatible with it; (4) by deprivation and sentence of an ecclesiastical court; under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892, an incumbent who has been convicted of offences against the law of bastardy, or against whom judgment has been given in a divorce or matrimonial cause, is deprived, and on being found guilty in the consistory court of immorality or ecclesiastical offences (not in respect of doctrine or ritual), he may be deprived or suspended or declared incapable of preferment; (5) by act of law in consequence of simony; (6) by default of the clerk in neglecting to read publicly in the church the Book of Common Prayer, and to declare his assent thereto within two months after his induction, pursuant to an act of 1662.
See alsoAdvowson;Glebe;Incumbent;Vicar; also Phillimore,Eccles. Law; Cripps,Law of Church and Clergy.
See alsoAdvowson;Glebe;Incumbent;Vicar; also Phillimore,Eccles. Law; Cripps,Law of Church and Clergy.
BENEFICIARY(from Lat.beneficium, a benefit), in law, one who holds a benefice; one who is beneficially entitled to, or interested in, property,i.e.entitled to it for his own benefit, and not merely holding it for others, as does an executor or trustee. In this latter sense it is nearly equivalent tocestui que trust, a term which it is gradually superseding in modern law.
BENEKE, FRIEDRICH EDUARD(1798-1854), German psychologist, was born at Berlin on the 17th of February 1798, studied at the universities of Halle and Berlin, and served as a volunteer in the war of 1815. After studying theology under Schleiermacher and De Wette, he turned to pure philosophy, studying particularly English writers and the German modifiers of Kantianism, such as Jacobi, Fries and Schopenhauer. In 1820 he published hisErkenntnisslehre, hisErfahrungsseelenlehre als Grundlage alles Wissens, and his inaugural dissertationDe Veris Philosophiae Initiis. His marked opposition to the philosophy of Hegel, then dominant in Berlin, was shown more clearly in the short tract,Neue Grundlegung zur Metaphysik(1822), intended to be the programme for his lectures as privat-docent, and in the able treatise,Grundlegung zur Physlk der Sitten(1822), written, in direct antagonism to Kant’sMetaphysic of Ethics, to deduce ethical principles from a basis of empirical feeling. In 1822 his lectures were prohibited at Berlin, according to his own belief through the influence of Hegel with the Prussian authorities, who also prevented him from obtaining a chair from the Saxon government. He retired to Göttingen, lectured there for some years, and was then allowed to return to Berlin. In 1832 he received an appointment asprofessor extraordinariusin the university, which he continued to hold till his death. On the 1st of March 1854 he disappeared, and more than two years later his remains were found in the canal near Charlottenburg. There was some suspicion that he had committed suicide in a fit of mental depression.
The distinctive peculiarity of Beneke’s system consists, first, in the firmness with which he maintained that in empirical psychology is to be found the basis of all philosophy; and secondly, in his rigid treatment of mental phenomena by the genetic method. According to him, the perfected mind is a development from simple elements, and the first problem of philosophy is the determination of these elements and of the processes by which the development takes place. In hisNeue Psychologie, (essays iii., viii. and ix.), he defined his position with regard to his predecessors and contemporaries, and both there and in the introduction to hisLehrbuchsignalized as the two great stages in the progress of psychology the negation of innate ideas by Locke, and of faculties, in the ordinary acceptation of theterm, by Herbart. The next step was his own; he insisted that psychology must be treated as one of the natural sciences. As is the case with them, its content is given by experience alone, and differs from theirs only in being the object of the internal as opposed to the external sense. But by this Beneke in no wise meant a psychology founded on physiology. These two sciences, in his opinion, had quite distinct provinces and gave no mutual assistance. Just as little help is to be expected from the science of the body as from mathematics and metaphysics, both of which had been pressed by Herbart into the service of psychology. The true method of study is that applied with so much success in the physical sciences—critical examination of the given experience, and reference of it to ultimate causes, which may not be themselves perceived, but are nevertheless hypotheses necessary to account for the facts. (See on method,Neue Psych., essay i.)
Starting from the two assumptions that there is nothing, or at least no formed product, innate in the mind, and that definite faculties do not originally exist, and from the fact that our minds nevertheless actually have a definite content and definite modes of action, Beneke proceeds to state somewhat dogmatically his scientifically verifiable hypotheses as to the primitive condition of the soul and the laws according to which it develops. Originally the soul is possessed of or is an immense variety of powers, faculties or forces (conceptions which Beneke, in opposition to Herbart, holds to be metaphysically justifiable), differing from one another only in tenacity, vivacity, receptivity and grouping. These primitive immaterial forces, so closely united as to form but one being (essence), acquire definiteness or form through the action upon them ofstimulior excitants from the outer world. This action of external impressions which are appropriated by the internal powers is the first fundamental process in the genesis of the completed mind. If the union of impression and faculty be sufficiently strong, consciousness (notself-consciousness) arises, and definite sensations and perceptions begin to be formed. These primitive sensations, however, are not to be identified with the sensations of the special senses, for each of these senses is a system of many powers which have grown into a definite unity, have been educated by experience. From ordinary experience it must be concluded that a second fundamental process is incessantly going on, viz. the formation of new powers, which takes place principally during sleep. The third and most important process results from the fact that the combination between stimulus and power may be weak or strong; if weak, then the two elements are said to be movable, and they may flow over from one to another of the already formed psychical products. Any formed faculty does not cease to exist on the removal of its stimulus; in virtue of its fundamental property,tenacity, it sinks back as a trace (Spur) into unconsciousness, whence it may be recalled by the application to it of another stimulus, or by the attraction towards it of some of the movable elements or newly-formed original powers. These traces and the flowing over of the movable elements are the most important conceptions in Beneke’s psychology; by means of them he gives a rationale of reproduction and association, and strives to show that all the formed faculties are simply developments from traces of earlier processes. Lastly, similar forms, according to the degree of their similarity, attract one another or tend to form closer combinations.All psychical phenomena are explicable by the relation of impression and power, and by the flow of movable elements; the whole process of mental development is nothing but the result of the action and interaction of the above simple laws. In general this growth may be said to take the direction of rendering more and more definite by repetition and attraction of like to like the originally indefinite activities of the primary faculties. Thus the sensations of the special senses are gradually formed from the primary sensuous feelings (sinnliche Empfindungen); concepts are formed from intuitions of individuals by the attraction of the common elements, and the consequent flow towards them of movable forms. Judgment is the springing into consciousness of a concept alongside of an intuition, or of a higher concept alongside of a lower. Reasoning is merely a more complex judgment. Nor are there special faculties of judging or reasoning. The understanding is simply the mass of concepts lying in the background of unconsciousness, ready to be called up and to flow with force towards anything closely connected with them. Even memory is not a special faculty; it is simply the fundamental property of tenacity possessed by the original faculties. The very distinction between the great classes, Knowledge, Feeling and Will, may be referred to elementary differences in the original relations of faculty and impression.This is the groundwork of Beneke’s philosophy. It should be carefully compared with the association psychology of modern British thinkers, most of whose results and processes will be found there worked into a comprehensive system (seeAssociation of Ideas). In logic, metaphysics and ethics Beneke’s speculations are naturally dependent on his psychology.The special value of Beneke’s works, as has been already said, consists in the many specimens of acute psychological analysis scattered throughout them. As a complete explanation of psychical facts, the theory seems defective. The original hypotheses, peculiar to Beneke, on which the whole depends, are hastily assumed and rest on a clumsy mechanical metaphor. As is the case with all empirical theories of mental development, the higher categories or notions, which are apparently shown to result from the simple elements, are really presupposed at every step. Particularly unsatisfactory is the account of consciousness, which is said to arise from the union of impression and faculty. The necessity of consciousness for any mental action whatsoever is apparently granted, but the conditions involved in it are never discussed or mentioned. The same defect appears in the account of ethical judgment; no amount of empirical fact can ever yield the notion of absolute duty. His results have found acceptance mainly with practical teachers. Undoubtedly his minute analysis of temperament and careful exposition of the means whereby the young, unformed mind may be trained are of infinite value; but the truth of many of his doctrines on these points lends no support to the fundamental hypotheses, from which, indeed, they might be almost entirely severed.Beneke was a most prolific writer, and besides the works mentioned above, published large treatises in the several departments of philosophy, both pure and as applied to education and ordinary life. A complete list of his writings will be found in the appendix to Dressler’s edition of theLehrbuch der Psychologie als Naturwissenschaft(1861). The chief are:—Psychologische Skizzen(1825, 1827);Lehrbuch der Psychologie(1832);Metaphysik und Religionsphilosophie(1840);Die neue Psychologie(1845);Pragmatische Psychologie oder Seelenlehre in der Anwendung auf das Leben(1832).Among German writers, who, though not professed followers of Beneke, have been largely influenced by him, may be mentioned Ueberweg and Karl Fortlage (1806-1881). In England, perhaps, the only writer who shows traces of acquaintance with his works is J.D. Morell (Introd. to Mental Philosophy). The most eminent members of the school are J.G. Dressler (whoseBeneke oder Seelenlehre als Naturwissenschaftis an admirable exposition), Fried. Dittes and G. Raue. The compendium by the last-named author passed through four editions in Germany, and has been translated into French, Flemish and English. The English translation,Elements of Psychology(1871), gives a lucid and succinct view of the whole system.Among more recent works on Beneke are O.E. Hummel,Die Unterrichtslehre Benekes(Leipzig, 1885); on his ethical theory, C.H.Th. Kühn,Die Sittenlehre F.E. Benekes(1892); Joh. Friedrich,F.E. Beneke(Wiesbaden, 1898, with biography and list of works); Otto Gramzow,F.E. Benekes Leben und Philos.(Bern, 1899, with full bibliography); on his theory of knowledge, H. Renner,Benekes Erkenninistheorie(Halle, 1902); on his metaphysics,Die Metaphysik Benekes, by A. Wandschneider (Berlin, 1903); Brandt,Beneke, the Man and His Philosophy(New York, 1895); Falckenberg,Hist. of Phil.(Eng. trans., 1895); and H. Höffding,Hist. of Mod. Phil.vol. ii. (Eng. trans., 1900).
Starting from the two assumptions that there is nothing, or at least no formed product, innate in the mind, and that definite faculties do not originally exist, and from the fact that our minds nevertheless actually have a definite content and definite modes of action, Beneke proceeds to state somewhat dogmatically his scientifically verifiable hypotheses as to the primitive condition of the soul and the laws according to which it develops. Originally the soul is possessed of or is an immense variety of powers, faculties or forces (conceptions which Beneke, in opposition to Herbart, holds to be metaphysically justifiable), differing from one another only in tenacity, vivacity, receptivity and grouping. These primitive immaterial forces, so closely united as to form but one being (essence), acquire definiteness or form through the action upon them ofstimulior excitants from the outer world. This action of external impressions which are appropriated by the internal powers is the first fundamental process in the genesis of the completed mind. If the union of impression and faculty be sufficiently strong, consciousness (notself-consciousness) arises, and definite sensations and perceptions begin to be formed. These primitive sensations, however, are not to be identified with the sensations of the special senses, for each of these senses is a system of many powers which have grown into a definite unity, have been educated by experience. From ordinary experience it must be concluded that a second fundamental process is incessantly going on, viz. the formation of new powers, which takes place principally during sleep. The third and most important process results from the fact that the combination between stimulus and power may be weak or strong; if weak, then the two elements are said to be movable, and they may flow over from one to another of the already formed psychical products. Any formed faculty does not cease to exist on the removal of its stimulus; in virtue of its fundamental property,tenacity, it sinks back as a trace (Spur) into unconsciousness, whence it may be recalled by the application to it of another stimulus, or by the attraction towards it of some of the movable elements or newly-formed original powers. These traces and the flowing over of the movable elements are the most important conceptions in Beneke’s psychology; by means of them he gives a rationale of reproduction and association, and strives to show that all the formed faculties are simply developments from traces of earlier processes. Lastly, similar forms, according to the degree of their similarity, attract one another or tend to form closer combinations.
All psychical phenomena are explicable by the relation of impression and power, and by the flow of movable elements; the whole process of mental development is nothing but the result of the action and interaction of the above simple laws. In general this growth may be said to take the direction of rendering more and more definite by repetition and attraction of like to like the originally indefinite activities of the primary faculties. Thus the sensations of the special senses are gradually formed from the primary sensuous feelings (sinnliche Empfindungen); concepts are formed from intuitions of individuals by the attraction of the common elements, and the consequent flow towards them of movable forms. Judgment is the springing into consciousness of a concept alongside of an intuition, or of a higher concept alongside of a lower. Reasoning is merely a more complex judgment. Nor are there special faculties of judging or reasoning. The understanding is simply the mass of concepts lying in the background of unconsciousness, ready to be called up and to flow with force towards anything closely connected with them. Even memory is not a special faculty; it is simply the fundamental property of tenacity possessed by the original faculties. The very distinction between the great classes, Knowledge, Feeling and Will, may be referred to elementary differences in the original relations of faculty and impression.
This is the groundwork of Beneke’s philosophy. It should be carefully compared with the association psychology of modern British thinkers, most of whose results and processes will be found there worked into a comprehensive system (seeAssociation of Ideas). In logic, metaphysics and ethics Beneke’s speculations are naturally dependent on his psychology.
The special value of Beneke’s works, as has been already said, consists in the many specimens of acute psychological analysis scattered throughout them. As a complete explanation of psychical facts, the theory seems defective. The original hypotheses, peculiar to Beneke, on which the whole depends, are hastily assumed and rest on a clumsy mechanical metaphor. As is the case with all empirical theories of mental development, the higher categories or notions, which are apparently shown to result from the simple elements, are really presupposed at every step. Particularly unsatisfactory is the account of consciousness, which is said to arise from the union of impression and faculty. The necessity of consciousness for any mental action whatsoever is apparently granted, but the conditions involved in it are never discussed or mentioned. The same defect appears in the account of ethical judgment; no amount of empirical fact can ever yield the notion of absolute duty. His results have found acceptance mainly with practical teachers. Undoubtedly his minute analysis of temperament and careful exposition of the means whereby the young, unformed mind may be trained are of infinite value; but the truth of many of his doctrines on these points lends no support to the fundamental hypotheses, from which, indeed, they might be almost entirely severed.
Beneke was a most prolific writer, and besides the works mentioned above, published large treatises in the several departments of philosophy, both pure and as applied to education and ordinary life. A complete list of his writings will be found in the appendix to Dressler’s edition of theLehrbuch der Psychologie als Naturwissenschaft(1861). The chief are:—Psychologische Skizzen(1825, 1827);Lehrbuch der Psychologie(1832);Metaphysik und Religionsphilosophie(1840);Die neue Psychologie(1845);Pragmatische Psychologie oder Seelenlehre in der Anwendung auf das Leben(1832).
Among German writers, who, though not professed followers of Beneke, have been largely influenced by him, may be mentioned Ueberweg and Karl Fortlage (1806-1881). In England, perhaps, the only writer who shows traces of acquaintance with his works is J.D. Morell (Introd. to Mental Philosophy). The most eminent members of the school are J.G. Dressler (whoseBeneke oder Seelenlehre als Naturwissenschaftis an admirable exposition), Fried. Dittes and G. Raue. The compendium by the last-named author passed through four editions in Germany, and has been translated into French, Flemish and English. The English translation,Elements of Psychology(1871), gives a lucid and succinct view of the whole system.
Among more recent works on Beneke are O.E. Hummel,Die Unterrichtslehre Benekes(Leipzig, 1885); on his ethical theory, C.H.Th. Kühn,Die Sittenlehre F.E. Benekes(1892); Joh. Friedrich,F.E. Beneke(Wiesbaden, 1898, with biography and list of works); Otto Gramzow,F.E. Benekes Leben und Philos.(Bern, 1899, with full bibliography); on his theory of knowledge, H. Renner,Benekes Erkenninistheorie(Halle, 1902); on his metaphysics,Die Metaphysik Benekes, by A. Wandschneider (Berlin, 1903); Brandt,Beneke, the Man and His Philosophy(New York, 1895); Falckenberg,Hist. of Phil.(Eng. trans., 1895); and H. Höffding,Hist. of Mod. Phil.vol. ii. (Eng. trans., 1900).
(R. Ad.)
BENETT, ETHELDRED(1776-1845), one of the earliest of English women geologists, the second daughter of Thomas Benett, of Pyt House near Tisbury, was born in 1776. Later she resided at Norton House, near Warminster, in Wiltshire, and for more than a quarter of a century devoted herself to collecting and studying the fossils of her native county. She contributed “A Catalogue of the Organic Remains of the County of Wilts” to Sir R.C. Hoare’sCounty History, and a limited number of copies of this work were printed as a separate volume (1831) and privately distributed. She died on the 11th of January 1845.
BENEVENTO,a town and archiepiscopal see of Campania, Italy, capital of the province of Benevento, 60 m. by rail and 32 m. direct N.E. of Naples, situated on a hill 400 ft. above sea-level at the confluence of the Calore and Sabbato. Pop. (1901) town, 17,227; commune, 24,137. It occupies the site of the ancient Beneventum, originally Maleventum or Maluentum, supposed in the imperial period to have been founded by Diomedes. It was the chief town of the Samnites, who took refuge here after their defeat by the Romans in 314B.C.It appears not to have fallen into the hands of the latter until Pyrrhus’s absence in Sicily, but served them as a base of operations in the last campaign against him in 275B.C.A Latin colony was planted there in 268B.C., and it was then that the name was changed for the sake of the omen, and probably then that the Via Appia was extended from Capua to Beneventum. It remained in the hands of the Romans during both the Punic and the Social Wars, and was a fortress of importance to them. The position is strong, being protected by the two rivers mentioned, and the medieval fortifications, which are nearly 2 m. in length, probably follow the ancient line, which was razed to the ground by Totila inA.D.542. After the Social War it became amunicipiumand under Augustus a colony. Being a meeting point of six main roads,1it was much visited by travellers. Its importance is vouched for by the many remains of antiquity which it possesses, of which the most famous is the triumphal arch erected in honour of Trajan by the senate and people of Rome inA.D.114, with important reliefs relating to its history (E. Petersen inRömische Mitteilungen, 1892, 241; A. von Domaszewzki inJahreshefte des Österreich. archäologischen Instituts, ii., 1899, 173). There are also considerable remains of the ancient theatre, a largecryptoporticus197 ft. long known as the ruins of Santi Quaranta, and probably an emporium (according to Meomartini, the portion preserved is only a fraction of the whole, which once measured 1791 ft. in length) and an ancient brick arch (called the Arco del Sacramento), while below the town is the Ponte Lebroso, a bridge of the Via Appia over the Sabbato, and along the road to Avellino are remains ofthermae. Many inscriptions and ancient fragments may be seen built into the houses; in front of the Madonna delle Grazie is a bull in red Egyptian granite, and in the Piazza Papiniano the fragments of two Egyptian obelisks erected inA.D.88 in front of the temple of Isis in honour of Domitian. In 1903 the foundations of this temple were discovered close to the Arch of Trajan, and many fragments of fine sculptures in both the Egyptian and the Greco-Roman style belonging to it were found. They had apparently been used as the foundation of a portion of the city wall, reconstructed inA.D.663 under the fear of an attack by Constans, the Byzantine emperor, the temple having been destroyed under the influence of the bishop, St Barbatus, to provide the necessary material (A. Meomartini, O. Marucchi and L. Savignoni inNotizie degli Scavi, 1904, 107 sqq.). Not long after it had been sacked by Totila Benevento became the seat of a powerful Lombard duchy and continued to be independent until 1053, when the emperor Henry III. ceded it to Leo IX. in exchange for the bishopric of Bamberg; and it continued to be a papal possession until 1806, when Napoleon granted it to Talleyrand with the title of prince. In 1815 it returned to the papacy, but was united to Italy in 1860. Manfred lost his life in 1266 in battle with Charles of Anjou not far from the town. Much damage has been done by earthquakes from time to time. The church of S. Sofia, a circular edifice of about 760, now modernized, the roof of which is supported by six ancient columns, is a relic of the Lombard period; it has a fine cloister of the 12th century constructed in part of fragments of earlier buildings; while the cathedral with its fine arcaded façade and incomplete square campanile (begun in 1279) dates from the 9th century and was rebuilt in 1114. The bronze doors, adorned with bas-reliefs, are good; they may belong to the beginning of the 13th century. The interior is in the form of a basilica, the double aisles being borne by ancient columns, and containsambonesand a candelabrum of 1311, the former resting on columns supported by lions, and decorated with reliefs and coloured marble mosaic. The castle at the highest point of the town was erected in the 14th century.
Benevento is a station on the railway from Naples to Foggia, and has branch lines to Campobasso and to Avellino.
See A. Meomartini,Monumenti e opere d’Arte di Benevento(Benevento, 1899); T. Ashby,Mélanges de l’école française, 1903, 416.
See A. Meomartini,Monumenti e opere d’Arte di Benevento(Benevento, 1899); T. Ashby,Mélanges de l’école française, 1903, 416.
(T. As.)
1These were (1) the prolongation of the Via Appia from Capua, (2) its continuation to Tarentum and Brundisium, of which there were two different lines between Beneventum and Aquilonia at different dates (seeAppia, Via), (3) the Via Traiana to Brundisium by Herdoniae, (4) the road to Telesia and Aesernia, (5) the road to Aesernia by Bovianum, (6) the road to Abellinum and Salernum.
1These were (1) the prolongation of the Via Appia from Capua, (2) its continuation to Tarentum and Brundisium, of which there were two different lines between Beneventum and Aquilonia at different dates (seeAppia, Via), (3) the Via Traiana to Brundisium by Herdoniae, (4) the road to Telesia and Aesernia, (5) the road to Aesernia by Bovianum, (6) the road to Abellinum and Salernum.
BENEVOLENCE(Lat.bene, well, andvolens, wishing), a term for an act of kindness, or a gift of money, or goods, but used in a special sense to indicate sums of money, disguised as gifts, which were extorted by various English kings from their subjects, without consent of parliament. Among the numerous methods which have been adopted by sovereigns everywhere to obtain support from their people, that of demanding gifts has frequently found a place, and consequently it is the word and not the method which is peculiar to English history. Edward II. and Richard II. had obtained funds by resorting to forced loans, a practice which was probably not unusual in earlier times. Edward IV., however, discarded even the pretence of repayment, and in 1473 the wordbenevolencewas first used with reference to a royal demand for a gift. Edward was very successful in these efforts, and as they only concerned a limited number of persons he did not incur serious unpopularity. But when Richard III. sought to emulate his brother’s example, protests were made which led to the passing of an act of parliament in 1484 abolishing benevolences as “new and unlawful inventions.” About the same time the Chronicle of Croyland referred to a benevolence as a “nova et inaudita impositio muneris ut per benevolentiam quilibet daret id quod vellet, immo verius quod nollet.” In spite of this act Richard demanded a further benevolence; but it was Henry VII. who made the most extensive use of this system. In 1491 he sent out commissioners to obtain gifts of money, and in 1496 an act of parliament enforced payment of the sums promised on this occasion under penalty of imprisonment. Henry’s chancellor, Cardinal Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, was the traditional author of a method of raising money by benevolences known as “Morton’s Fork.” If a man lived economically, it was reasoned he was saving money and could afford a present for the king. If, on the contrary, he lived sumptuously, he was evidently wealthy and could likewise afford a gift. Henry VII. obtained considerable sums of money in this manner; and in 1545 Henry VIII. demanded a “loving contribution” from all who possessed lands worth not less than forty shillings a year, or chattels to the value of £15; and those who refused to make payment were summoned before the privy council and punished. Elizabeth took loans which were often repaid; and in 1614 James I. ordered the sheriffs and magistrates in each county and borough to collect a general benevolence from all persons of ability, and with some difficulty about £40,000 was collected. Four counties had, however, distinguished themselves by protests against this demand, and the act of Richard III. had been cited by various objectors. Representatives from the four counties were accordingly called before the privy council, where Sir Edward Coke defended the action of the king, quoted the Tudor precedents and urged that the act of 1484 was to prevent exactions, not voluntary gifts such as James had requested. Subsequently Oliver St John was fined and imprisoned for making a violent protest against the benevolence, and on the occasion of his trial Sir Francis Bacon defended the request for money as voluntary. In 1615 an attempt to exact a benevolence in Ireland failed, and in 1620 it was decided to demand one for the defence of the Palatinate. Circular letters were sent out, punishments were inflicted, but many excuses were made and only about £34,000 was contributed. In 1621 a further attempt was made, judges of assize and others were ordered to press for contributions, and wealthy men were called before the privy council and asked to name a sum at which to be rated. About £88,000 was thus raised, and in 1622 William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, was imprisoned for six months for protesting. This was the last time benevolences were actually collected, although in 1622 and 1625 it was proposed to raise money in this manner. In 1633 Charles I. consented to collect a benevolence for the recovery of the Palatinate for Charles Louis, the son of his sister Elizabeth, but no further steps were taken to carry out the project.