Apart from the self-stultifying utterances on this quotation, as for instance, that "the injustices suffered were a just retribution, or were at least regarded as necessary for the progress of light and virtue," and also that certain Fathers suffered in various places; whereas the same authors give 23,000 who suffered all over the world, it is an absolute contradiction with the facts of the case to say that "nowhere in Europe was there any serious opposition to the Brief" and that "they everywhere showed their approval and evinced no compassion for anything tragic that occurred in the fall."
In the first place, Frederick the Great in Prussia and Catherine II of Russia not only would not allow the Brief in their dominions, but forbade it under the severest penalties. Poland for a long time refused to receive it, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland sent a remonstrance to the Pope. Moreover, although, even before the document was promulgated, the Fathers had secularized themselves of their own initiative, yet, the authorities would not allow them to give up the colleges. The other side of the picture was that in Naples, Tanucci not only forbade the Brief to be read under pain of death, but forbade all mention of it. In Portugal, of course, no opposition was made for there were no Jesuits to suppress, they were either dead or in prison or exile. It was, however, an occasion of public rejoicing, and the document was received with booming of cannon and ringing of bells, as if a victory had been won, but that governmental device did not extinguish in the heart of the suffering people a deep compassion for the victims of Pombal's "atrocities."
In Spain, it was absolutely prohibited to read it or speak about the Brief, because by its eulogy of the virtues of the members of the Society, it gave thelie to the government, which insisted on the suppression of the Society precisely because of the immorality of its members. In France, its promulgation was forbidden for the very opposite reason, that is, because it praised the Institute, which the politicians had declared to be essentially vicious; though they admitted that the individual Jesuits were irreproachable. Thus, like Spain, France had been officially convicted by the Brief of calumniating, plundering and annihilating a great religious order. Voltaire, commenting on the situation, suggested that there might be a sort of national exchange by France and Spain. "Send the French Jesuits to Spain," he said, "and they will edify the people by observing the Institute, and send the Spaniards to France where they will satisfy the people by not observing it."
The most notable opposition to the Brief, occurred in France. The whole hierarchy and clergy positively refused to accept it, and the Archbishop of Paris, Christopher de Beaumont, who had been especially requested by the Pope to promulgate it, answered by a letter which is unpleasant for a Jesuit to publish on account of its tone; for the most profound affection and reverence for the Holy See is one of the ingrained and distinctive traits of the Society. However, it is a historical document and is called for in the present instance as a refutation of the statement that there was no opposition to the Brief in Europe. This famous letter was dated April 24, 1774, that is more than eight months after the Suppression. It is addressed to the Holy Father himself and runs as follows:
"This Brief is nothing else than a personal and private judgment. Among other things that are remarked in it by our clergy is the extraordinary, odious, and immoderate characterization of the Bull "Pascendi Munus" of the saintly Clement XIII, whose memorywill be forever glorious and who had invested the Bull in question with all the due and proper formalities of such documents. It is described by the Brief not only as being inexact but as having been 'extorted' rather than obtained; whereas it has all the authority of a general council; for it was not promulgated until almost the whole clergy of the Church and all the secular princes had been consulted by the Holy Father. The clergy with common accord and with one voice applauded the purpose of the Holy Father, and earnestly begged him to carry it out. It was conceived and published in a manner as general as it was solemn. And is it not precisely that, Holy Father, which really gives the efficacity, the reality and the force to a general council, rather than the material union of some persons who though physically united may be very far from one another in their judgments and their views? As for the secular princes, if there were any who did not unite with the others to give their approbation, their number was inconsiderable. Not one of them protested against it, not one opposed it, and even those who, at that very time, were laying their plans to banish the Jesuits, allowed the Bull to be published in their dominions.
"But as the spirit of the Church is one and indivisible in its teaching of truth, we have to conclude that it cannot teach error when it deals in a solemn manner with a matter of supreme importance. Yet it would have led us into error if it had not only proclaimed the Institute of the Society to be pious and holy, but had solemnly and explicitly said: 'We know of certain knowledge that it diffuses abroad and abundantly the odor of sanctity.' In saying this it put upon that Institute the seal of its approbation, and confirmed anew not only the Society itself, but the members who composed it, the functions it exercised, the doctrinesit taught, the glorious works it accomplished, all of which shed lustre upon it, in spite of the calumnies by which it was assailed and the storms of persecution which were let loose against it. Thus the Church would have deceived us most effectively on that occasion if it would now have us accept this Brief which destroys the Society; and also if we are to suppose that this Brief is on the same level in its lawfulness and its universality as the Constitution to which we refer. We abstract, Holy Father, from the individuals whom we might easily name, both secular and ecclesiastical who have meddled with this affair. Their character, condition, doctrine, sentiment, not to say more of them, are so little worthy of respect, as to justify us in expressing the formal and positive judgment that the Brief which destroys the Society of Jesus is nothing else than an isolated, private and pernicious judgment, which does no honor to the tiara and is prejudicial to the glory of the Church and the growth and conservation of the Orthodox Faith.
"In any case, Holy Father, it is impossible for me to ask the clergy to accept the Brief; for in the first place, I would not be listened to, were I unfortunate enough to lend the aid of my ministry to its acceptance. Moreover, I would dishonor my office if I did so, for the memory of the recent general assembly which I had the honor to convoke at the instance of His Majesty, to inquire into the need we have of the Society in France, its usefulness, the purity of its doctrines, etc., is too fresh in my mind to reverse my verdict. To charge myself with the task you wish me to perform would be to inflict a serious injury on religion as well as to cast an aspersion on the learning and integrity of the prelates who laid before the king their approval of the very points which are now condemned by the Brief. Moreover, if it is true that theOrder is to be condemned under the specious pretext of the impossibility of peace, as long as the Society exists, why not try it on those bodies which are jealous of the Society? Instead of condemning it you ought to canonize it. That you do not do so compels us to form a judgment of the Brief which, though just, is not in its favor.
"For what is that peace which is incompatible with this Society? The question is startling in the reflection it evokes; for we fail to understand how such a motive had the power to induce Your Holiness to adopt a measure which is so hazardous, so dangerous, and so prejudicial. Most assuredly the peace which is irreconcilable with the existence of the Society is the peace which Jesus Christ calls insidious, false, deceitful. In a word what the Brief designates as peace is not peace;Pax, pax et non erat pax. It is the peace which vice and libertinism adopt; it is the peace which cannot ally itself with virtue, but which on the contrary has always been the principal enemy of virtue.
"It is precisely that peace against which the piety of the Jesuits in the four quarters of the world have declared an active, a vigorous, a bloody warfare; which they have carried to the limit and in which they have achieved the greatest success. To put an end to that peace, they have devoted their talents; have undergone pain and suffering. By their zeal and their eloquence they have striven to block every avenue of approach, by which this false peace might enter and rend the bosom of the Church; they have set the souls of men free from its thralldom, and they have pursued it to its innermost lair, making light of the danger and expecting no other reward for their daring, than the hatred of the licentious and the persecution of the ungodly.
"An infinite number of splendid illustrations of their courage might be adduced in the long succession of memorable achievements which have never been interrupted from the first moment of the Society's existence until the fatal day when the Church saw it die. If that peace cannot co-exist with the Society, and if the re-establishment of this pernicious peace is the motive of the destruction of the Jesuits, then the victims are crowned with glory and they end their career like the Apostles and Martyrs; but honest men are dismayed by this holocaust of piety and virtue.
"A peace which is irreconcilable with the Society is not that peace which unites hearts; which is helpful to others; which each day contributes an increase in virtue, piety and Christian charity; which reflects glory on Christianity and sheds splendor on our holy religion. Nor is there need of proving this, though proof might be given, not by a few examples which this Society could furnish from the day of its birth to the fatal and ever deplorable day of its suppression, but by a countless multitude of facts which attest that the Jesuits were always and in every clime, the supporters, the promoters and the indefatigable defenders of true and solid peace. These facts are so evident that they carry conviction to every mind.
"In this letter I am not constituting myself an apologist of the Jesuits; but I am placing before the eyes of Your Holiness the reasons which, in the present case, excuse us from obeying. I will not mention place or time, as it is an easy thing for Your Holiness to convince yourself of the truth of my utterance. Your Holiness is not ignorant of them.
"Moreover, Holy Father, we have remarked with terror, that this destructive Brief eulogizes in the highest way certain persons whose conduct nevermerited praise from Clement XIII, of saintly memory. Far from doing so, he regarded it always as his duty to set them aside, and to act in their regard with the most absolute reserve.
"This difference of appreciation necessarily excites attention, in view of the fact that your predecessor did not consider worthy of the purple those whom Your Holiness seems to design for the glory of the cardinalate. The firmness on one side and the connivance on the other reveal themselves only too clearly. But perhaps an excuse might be found for the latter, were it not for the fact which has not been successfully disguised that an alien influence guided the pen that wrote the Brief.
"In a word, most Holy Father, the clergy of France, which is the most learned and most illustrious of Holy Church, and which has no other aim than to promote the glory of the Church, does now judge after deep reflection that the reception of the Brief of Your Holiness will cast a shadow on the glory of the clergy of France; and it does not propose to consent to a measure which, in ages to come, will tarnish its glory. By rejecting the Brief and by an active resistance to it our clergy will transmit to posterity a splendid example of integrity and of zeal for the Catholic Faith, for the prosperity of the Church and particularly for the honor of its Visible Head.
"These, Holy Father, are some of the reasons which determine us, myself and all the clergy of this kingdom, never to permit the publication of such a Brief, and to make known to Your Holiness, as I do by this present letter, that such is my attitude and that of all the clergy, who, however, will never cease to unite in prayer with me to our Lord for the sacred person of Your Holiness. We shall address our humble supplicationsto the Divine Father of Light that He may deign to diffuse it so abundantly that the truth may be discerned whose splendor has been obscure."
The Bishop of Quebec, Mgr. Briand, refused to promulgate the Brief, and he informed some of his intimate friends that he had no fear of excommunication in doing so, for the reason that he was in constant communication with Pope Clement XIV, who approved of his course of action. Associated with the bishop was Governor Carleton, who was interested in the matter for his own personal reasons. His rival, General Amherst, the conqueror of Quebec, was anxious to see the Jesuits driven out, so as to secure their property for himself. Carleton, on the contrary, proposed to keep it for future educational purposes. He could not seize it immediately, for the treaty at the conquest had guaranteed the protection of the Canadians in their religion. Hence he did not molest the Fathers, though he refused to allow any accession either of novices or former Jesuits to their ranks. The result was that they gradually died out. The last of all was the venerable Casot, who gave up the ghost in 1800 after having distributed all his goods to the poor. What was not available in that way he conveyed to religious communities or to churches. The relics of Brébeuf and Lalemant are now among the treasures of the Hotel-Dieu. The Jesuit College, which was opposite the present basilica cathedral, was occupied by soldiers, and was first known as the "Jesuit Barracks," and subsequently as the "Cheshire Barracks." Later it was a refuge for the poor, until at length Cardinal Taschereau ordered it to be demolished as unsafe. Thus the Brief was not executed in Canada. The Jesuits of New Orleans had been already expelled by Choiseul, and there was no one left to whom it could be read.
The suppression of the Society in what is now the United States is of special interest to Americans, though it possesses also a general value in the fact that it furnishes the only account in English, as far as we are aware, of what took place in Belgium some years before as the prelude of the general suppression. This is based on the highest authority, for it is the personal narrative of John Carroll, the founder of the American hierarchy. He had gone when a lad of fourteen to St. Omers in French Flanders, and after his college course entered the Jesuit novitiate at Watten about six miles away, where he met several of his countrymen who were to distinguish themselves later in the Jesuit mission of Maryland. They were Horne, Jenkins, Knight, Emmot and Tyrer. There also was the English Jesuit, Reeve, whose "Bible History" was once an indispensable treasure in every Catholic family.
On completing his novitiate, Carroll was sent for his theology and philosophy to Liège, and was ordained priest in 1769, after having proved his ability by a brilliant public defense in theology. He then taught at St. Omers and was subsequently made professor of philosophy and theology to the scholastics at Liège. He pronounced his four solemn vows as a Professed Father on February 2, 1771, a little more than two years before the suppression of the Society. As St. Omer was in France the Jesuits were expelled from it in 1764. That the occupants of the house were English did not matter. International comity received scant consideration in those days. Every one was driven out except Father Brown, who was then ninety-four years of age. He was left there alone to die. The others, under the guidance of Father Reeve, crossed the frontier to Bruges where they had been invited by the authorities to found a college.
Here begins a story told by Carroll of government duplicity which shows how largely the motive of plunder entered into the whole movement of the suppression. Belgium was then under the domination of Austria, and the government continually urged the Fathers to begin the erection of a college on a grand scale at that place. In all confidence that they would never be disturbed, they expended on the first set of buildings the sum of $37,000 a considerable amount of money in those days. They would have gone further but their money was exhausted.
While teaching there, Father Carroll was sent on a short tour through Europe as tutor to the young son of Lord Stourton, an English nobleman. He passed through Alsace and Lorraine, where the Jesuits were still protected; was welcomed at the University of Heidelberg, and finally reached Rome. There, though under the very eyes of the Pope, he was compelled to conceal his identity as a Jesuit and hence met none of his brethren. He saw everywhere not only infamous libels on the Society which were for sale in the streets, but books and pamphlets assailing the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and ridiculing the ceremonies of the Mass. The overthrow of the Jesuits was the common topic of conversation and word from the King of Spain was momentarily expected. Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, the last descendant of James II, was there at the time, but as he was a rancorous enemy of the Society, Father Carroll did not dare to present the young Catholic nobleman to him. He returned by the way of France and saw the ruins everywhere, and finally arrived at Bruges to take part in the tragedy as one of the victims.
The Brief was promulgated on August 16, and the superiors of the two colleges at Bruges, encouraged by the general expectation of the town that their statuswould not be effected, wrote a letter to the president of the council at Brussels, offering their services as secular clergy to continue the work of education. The rectors were invited to Brussels, and assured that they would be treated with respect, allowed to retain private property and be granted proper maintenance. Even after the reception of the Brief, the Bishop of Bruges assured them that in a few days the excitement would pass and everything would go on as usual. Austria, however, had already accepted and promulgated the Brief.
The first commissioners of the Suppression threw up the work in disgust. It was then handed over to a coarse young fellow named Marouex who was anxious to make a name for himself. He succeeded. Arriving at the college on September 20, he summoned the community to his presence and ordered the Brief and edict to be read. He then forbade anyone to leave the house, or to be allowed to enter, or to write any letters, or to direct the college, or to teach the pupils. He seized the account books and began a hunt for hidden treasures. Each member of the community was examined individually, put under oath, and ordered to produce everything he had, even family letters; "which explains," says Shea, "how there is no trace of Carroll's letters from his mother and kindred in America."
On October 14, Marouex, accompanied by a squad of soldiers, burst into the community rooms and ordered Fathers Angier, Plowden and Carroll to follow him. He would not even permit them to go to their rooms for a moment to get what they needed, but sent them under guard to wagons waiting outside, and hurried them off to the Flemish college, which had been already plundered. There they were locked up for several days without a bed to lie on. Thecommunity was still there under lock and key. Three of them were kept as hostages and the rest were ordered out of the country. Thus did Maria Theresa allow her beloved Jesuits to be treated, in return for the benefits they had heaped on her empire from the time when Faber and Le Jay and Canisius and their great associates had saved it from destruction.
Thoroughly heartbroken, Carroll turned his steps towards Protestant England. Before leaving the Continent, he wrote the following pathetic letter to his brother Daniel, who was in Maryland. Because of Carroll's own personal character and his prominence in American history, it is a precious testimonial of love and affection for the Society, as well as a splendid vindication of it for the world at large. It is dated September 11, 1773.
"I was willing to accept the vacant post of prefect of the sodality here, but now all room for deliberation is over. The enemies of the Society and, above all, the unrelenting perseverance of the Spanish and Portuguese ministries, with the passiveness of the court of Vienna have at last obtained their ends; and our so long persecuted, and, I must add, holy Society is no more. God's holy will be done and may His Name be blessed for ever and ever! This fatal blow was struck on July 21, but was kept secret at Rome till August 16, and was only made known to me on September 5. I am not, and perhaps never shall be, recovered from the shock of this dreadful intelligence. The greatest blessing which in my estimation I could receive from God would be immediate death, but if He deny me this, may His holy and adorable designs on me be wholly fulfilled.
"I find it impossible to understand that Divine Providence should permit such an end to a body,wholly devoted, and striving with the most disinterested charity to procure every comfort and advantage to their neighbors, whether by preaching, teaching, catechizing, missions, visiting hospitals, prisons and in every other function of spiritual and corporal mercy. Such have I beheld it in every part of my travels, the first of all ecclesiastical bodies in the esteem and confidence of the faithful, and certainly the most laborious. What will become of our flourishing congregations with you and those cultivated by the German Fathers? These reflections crowd so fast upon me, that I almost lose my senses. But I will endeavor to suppress them for a few moments. You see I am now my own master and left to my own direction. In returning to Maryland, I shall have the comfort of not only being with you, but of being farther out of reach of scandal and defamation, and removed from the scenes of distress of many of my dearest friends whom I shall not be able to relieve. I shall therefore most certainly sail for Maryland early next spring if I possibly can."
At the time of the Suppression there were nineteen Jesuits in Maryland and Pennsylvania; as it was then three years before the Declaration of Independence, they were still English subjects. On October 6, 1773, Bishop Challoner, the Vicar of London, though Chandlery in his "Fasti breviores" says it was Talbot, sent them the following letter:
"To Messrs the Missioners in Maryland and Pennsylvania."To obey the order which I have received from Rome, I notify to you, by this the Breve, of the total dissolution of the Society of Jesus; and send withal a form of declaration of your obedience and submission, to which you are all to subscribe, as your brethrenhave done here, and send me back the formula with the subscription of you all, as I am to send them up to Rome."Ever yours,"Richard Deboren. V. Ap."
"To Messrs the Missioners in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
"To obey the order which I have received from Rome, I notify to you, by this the Breve, of the total dissolution of the Society of Jesus; and send withal a form of declaration of your obedience and submission, to which you are all to subscribe, as your brethrenhave done here, and send me back the formula with the subscription of you all, as I am to send them up to Rome.
"Ever yours,
"Richard Deboren. V. Ap."
In passing, it may be remarked that as a missive from a Superior to a number of devoted priests against whom not a word of reproach had been ever uttered and whose lives were wrecked by this official act this communication of the vicar cannot be cited as a manifestation of excessive paternal tenderness.
The formula to which they were required to subscribe, was, in its English translation, as follows:
"We the undersigned missionary priests of the London District of Maryland and Pennsylvania, hitherto known as the Clerks of the Society of Jesus, having been informed by the declaration and publication of the Apostolic Brief issued on July 21, 1773, by our Most Holy Lord Pope Clement XIV, by which he completely suppresses and extinguishes the aforesaid Congregation and Society in the whole world, and orders the priests to be entirely subject to the rule and authority of the Bishops as part of the secular clergy, we the aforesaid, fully and sincerely, submit to the Brief, and humbly acquiescing to the complete suppression of the said Society, submit ourselves entirely as secular priests to the jurisdiction and rule of the above mentioned Bishop, the Vicar Apostolic."
In this document of the vicar there are some features which are worthy of consideration. The first is that it was not communicated personally to those interested but through the post — and it might have been a forgery. Secondly, it was not correct in saying that it was issued on July 21, 1773. It was signed on July 21 but issued or published only on August 16 of thatyear, and it was not effective or binding until that date. Thirdly, there was no mention of the renewal of faculties to the superior whose ecclesiastical character had now been completely transformed from that of a religious to a secular priest; and they were thus obliged to presume that they were not suspended and that their power of transmitting faculties was not withdrawn. Fourthly, before the Suppression, the vicar Apostolic had warned the Propaganda that he could do nothing to aid the Maryland missioners, and after the Revolution he refused absolutely to have any communication with them. Thus, there was no possibility of fulfilling the injunction of becoming secular priests, as the Brief enjoined.
As far as the Jesuit habit was concerned there was no difficulty, for there is no distinctive habit in the Society. The Jesuits are ecclesiastically in the rank of "clerici regulares," and can wear the garb of any secular priest, just as they do, at present, in many parts of the world. St. Francis Xavier once wore green silk, and in our own days, the English Jesuit dress is rather an academic gown than a cassock. Again in Maryland and Pennsylvania, there were at that time no secular priests; the missionaries were all Jesuits, and it would have been difficult to get any other ecclesiastical attire. What they wore was, as a matter of fact, used only in ecclesiastical functions. An analogous obstacle presented itself in the name. The people continued to recognize them as Jesuits, and it would have been very imprudent to publicly announce that they were no longer such. There are several letters extant, however, in which the Jesuits advise their friends to drop the S. J. in their correspondence, but that is not unusual even now. Exteriorly, the life of those old Maryland Jesuits continued to be precisely the same as it had always been.
Moreover they retained possession of their property, for unlike the Jesuits of Canada, Illinois and Louisiana, they held their estates by personal, not by corporate title; and regularly deeded their possession by will or transfer from one to another. In Maryland, it was impossible to do otherwise, for the English government did not recognize the Jesuits as constituting a legal association.
Indeed, Challoner informs Talbot that he considered the promulgation of the Brief as enjoined by the Pope would be fraught with serious danger, and hence he was convinced that the method adopted for the extinction of the Jesuits of England and her colonies was the only one possible and that the Pope would be so advised.
A lament from one of the Maryland missionaries may be of interest. Father Mosley is the writer. "I cannot think of it," he says, "without tears in my eyes. Yes, dear Sister, our Body or Factory is dissolved of which your two brothers are members; and for myself, I know I am an unworthy one when I see so many worthy, saintly, pious, learned, laborious missionaries dead and alive who were or who have been members of the same, for the last two ages. I know no fault that we are guilty of. I am convinced that our labors are pure, upright and sincere for God's honor and our neighbor's good. What our Supreme Judge on earth may think of our labors is a mystery to me. It is true he has stigmatized us through the world with infamy, and declared us unfit for our business or his service. Our dissolution is known through the whole world; it is in every newspaper, and I am ashamed to show my face. As we are judged unserviceable, we labor with little heart, and what is worse, by no Rule.
"To my great sorrow, the Society is abolished, and with it must die all the zeal that was founded andraised on it. Labor for our neighbor is a Jesuit's pleasure; destroy the Jesuit and labor is painful and disagreeable. I must allow that what was my pleasure is now irksome. Every fatigue I underwent caused a secret and inward satisfaction; it is now unpleasant and disagreeable. I disregarded this unhealthy climate, and all its agues and fevers which have really paid me to my heart's content, for the sake of my rule. The night was as agreeable as the day; frost and cold as a warm fire and a soft bed; the excessive heats as welcome as a cool shade or pleasant breezes, but now the scene is changed. The Jesuit is metamorphosed into I know not what. He is a monster; a scarecrow in my idea. With joy I impaired my health and broke my constitution in the care of my flock. It was the Jesuit's call; it was his whole aim and business. The Jesuit is no more. He now endeavors to repair his little remains of health and his shattered constitution, as he has no rule calling him to expose it.
"Joseph Mosley, S. J. forever, as I think and hope."
It must have been a very hard trial for the Jesuit vicars Apostolic in the various foreign missions to be the executioners of their own brethren in carrying out this decree. One of these sad scenes occurred in Nankin, where Mgr. Laimbeckhoven, S. J., was vicar. He did not live to see the Restoration, for he died in 1787.
Failure of the Papal Brief to give peace to the Church — Liguori and Tanucci — Joseph II destroying the Church in Austria — Voltaireanism in Portugal — Illness of Clement XIV — Death — Accusations of poisoning — Election of Pius VI — The Synod of Pistoia — Febronianism in Austria — Visit of Pius VI to Joseph II — The Punctation of Ems — Spain, Sardinia, Venice, Sicily in opposition to the Pope — Political collapse in Spain — Fall of Pombal — Liberation of his Victims — Protest of de Guzman — Death of Joseph II — Occupations of the dispersed Jesuits — TheTheologia Wiceburgensis— Feller — Beauregard's Prophecy — Zaccaria — Tiraboschi — Boscovich — Missionaries — Denunciation of the Suppression in the French Assembly — Slain in the French Revolution — Destitute Jesuits in Poland — Shelter in Russia.
Failure of the Papal Brief to give peace to the Church — Liguori and Tanucci — Joseph II destroying the Church in Austria — Voltaireanism in Portugal — Illness of Clement XIV — Death — Accusations of poisoning — Election of Pius VI — The Synod of Pistoia — Febronianism in Austria — Visit of Pius VI to Joseph II — The Punctation of Ems — Spain, Sardinia, Venice, Sicily in opposition to the Pope — Political collapse in Spain — Fall of Pombal — Liberation of his Victims — Protest of de Guzman — Death of Joseph II — Occupations of the dispersed Jesuits — TheTheologia Wiceburgensis— Feller — Beauregard's Prophecy — Zaccaria — Tiraboschi — Boscovich — Missionaries — Denunciation of the Suppression in the French Assembly — Slain in the French Revolution — Destitute Jesuits in Poland — Shelter in Russia.
Clement XIV did not give peace to the Church as he had hoped. On the contrary, distressing scandals were continually occurring in the Holy City itself under his very eyes. Infamous books and pamphlets directed against the Church were hawked about the streets, and actors and buffoons parodied the most sacred ceremonies in the public squares. Elsewhere the same conditions obtained. Tanucci who had governed Naples for over forty years was continuing his ruthless persecution of every thing holy, and enriching himself by the spoliation of ecclesiastical property. Even St. Alphonsus Liguori could not obtain from the Pope the recognition of the Redemptorists as a congregation because Tanucci opposed it. Doctrinal views leading to schism in the Church were openly advocated in the schools and universities of Austria, in spite of the entreaties and threats of the Sovereign Pontiff. Maria Theresa had proved feeble or false, and her son Joseph II wasin league with the Bourbon princes in their work of destruction. In Portugal, Pombal was still raging like a wild beast; filling the schools with the disciples of Voltaire, flouting the papal nuncio, and keeping in dark and filthy dungeons the members of the detested Order which he had exterminated. The Philosophers and Jansenists were rejoicing in their triumph, and were suppressing all religious communities and seizing their property; the morality and orthodoxy of Poland were being rapidly corrupted; Catherine of Russia was creating bishops and establishing sees as the fancy prompted her, and Freemason lodges were multiplying all over Europe. Worst of all, the Pope's own household with but few exceptions kept aloof from him and were silent about what he had done, while many bishops of various countries of Europe and the entire episcopacy of France endorsed the sentiments expressed in the terrible letter of the Archbishop of Paris, denouncing the Suppression.
Ineffably shocked by all this, the Pope began to show signs of depression, and everyone was in consternation. St. Alphonsus Liguori, especially, was anxious about him and kept continually repeating: "Pray for the Pope; he is distressed; for there is nowhere the slightest glimmer of peace for the Church. He is praying for death, so crushed is he by the sorrows that are overwhelming the Church; he remains continually in seclusion; gives audience to no one; and attends to no business. I have heard things about him from those who are at Rome that would bring tears to your eyes." His mind was unbalanced, and one of his successors, Pius VII, related later what he had been told by a prelate who was present at the signing of the fatal Brief: "As soon as he had affixed his signature to the paper he threw the pen to one side and the paper to the other. He had lost his mind."Before that, Pius had said the same thing to Cardinal Pacca at Fontainebleau, when in an agony of remorse for having signed the Concordat with Napoleon: "I cannot get the cruel thought out of my mind. I cannot sleep at night and I am haunted by the fear of going mad and ending like Clement XIV." Another writer who received his information from Gregory XVI tells the same sad story (de Ravignan, Clément XIII et Clément XIV, I, 452). St. Alphonsus Liguori was with the Pope when he died, but according to a Redemptorist writer, it was "in spirit," and not by bodily bilocation. The end came in September 22, 1774, thirteen months after the unfortunate Brief was issued.
Of course, when he died, the report went abroad that the Jesuits had poisoned him, by administering a dose ofaqua toffana, but although no one has ever found out whataqua toffanais or was, and as there were no Jesuits in Rome at the time, the story was nevertheless believed by many and was adduced as a proof of the wisdom of the Pope in suppressing the iniquitous organization. The Jansenists even made a saint of the dead Pontiff and circulated marvellous romances about the incorruption of his body and the miracles that were wrought at his tomb.
Cantù in his "Storia dei cent' anni" says that "the Pope whose health and mind were grievously affected, died in delirium, haunted by phantoms, and begging for pardon. It was claimed that he had been poisoned by the Jesuits, but the truth is that the physicians found no trace of poison in the body. Had the Jesuits possessed the power or the will to do so, one might ask why they did not do it before and not after Clement had struck them. But passion often makes light of common sense." The post-mortem which was made in the presence of a great many people showed thatthe sickness to which he had succumbed arose from scorbutic and hemorrhoidal conditions from which he had been suffering for many years, and which were aggravated by excessive work and the system he had followed of producing artificial perspiration even in the heats of summer."
The poor Pope had exclaimed before he signed the Brief: "Questa soppressione mi darà la morte" (this suppression will kill me.) "After it," says Saint-Priest in his 'Chute des Jésuites,' "he would pace his apartments in agony, crying: 'Mercy! Mercy! They forced me to do it.Compulsus feci.' However, at the last moment his reason returned. He showed his indignation at a proposal made to him even then, to raise some of the enemies of the Society to the cardinalate and drove them from his bedside with loathing.
Bernis, the French ambassador at Rome, wrote to Louis XV that "the Vicar of Christ prayed like the Redeemer for his implacable enemies," and insinuated that he was poisoned. Knowing this d'Alembert warned Frederick II to be on his guard against a similar fate, but the king replied: "There is nothing more false than the story of the poisoning; the truth is that he was profoundly hurt by the coldness manifested by the cardinals and he often reproached himself, for having sacrificed an Order like that of the Jesuits, to satisfy the whim of his rebellious children." Becantini (Storia di Pio VI, i, 31) says: "Nowadays no one believes the story of the poisoning of Clement XIV. Even Bernis who first stood for it, afterwards disavowed it." Cancelleri one of the most distinguished savants of Italy denies the fact; so does Gavani, a bitter enemy of the Church and the Society. Finally, Salcetto the physician of the Apostolic palace, and Adinolfi the Pope's own doctor, in their officialreport to the majordomo, Archinto, declare it to have been an absolutely natural death and they explain that the corruption which set in was due to the excessive heat that prevailed at the time.
It was even said that the Pope had expressed to the General of the Conventuals, Marzoni, a fear that he had been poisoned. Whereupon Marzoni caused the following statement to be published:
"I, the undersigned Minister General of the Order of the Conventuals of St. Francis, fully aware that by my oath I call the sovereign and true God to witness what I say; and being certain of what I say, I now without any constraint and in the presence of God who knows that I do not lie, do by these words, which are absolutely true, and which I write and trace with my own hand, swear and attest to the whole universe, that never in any circumstance whatever did Clement XIV ever say to me either that he had been poisoned or that he felt the slightest symptom of poison. I swear also that I never said to any one soever that the same Clement XIV assured me in confidence that he had been poisoned or had felt the effects of poison. So help me God."Given in the Convent of the Twelve Apostles at Rome July 27, 1775."I, Bro. Louis-Maria Marzoni"Minister General of the Order."
"I, the undersigned Minister General of the Order of the Conventuals of St. Francis, fully aware that by my oath I call the sovereign and true God to witness what I say; and being certain of what I say, I now without any constraint and in the presence of God who knows that I do not lie, do by these words, which are absolutely true, and which I write and trace with my own hand, swear and attest to the whole universe, that never in any circumstance whatever did Clement XIV ever say to me either that he had been poisoned or that he felt the slightest symptom of poison. I swear also that I never said to any one soever that the same Clement XIV assured me in confidence that he had been poisoned or had felt the effects of poison. So help me God.
"Given in the Convent of the Twelve Apostles at Rome July 27, 1775.
"I, Bro. Louis-Maria Marzoni"Minister General of the Order."
Thus Clement XIV, far from giving peace to the Church, left a heritage of woe to his successor, Angelo Braschi, who was elected Pope on February 15, 1775, and took the name of Pius VI. The new Pope was painfully conscious that an error had been committed by suppressing an Order without trial and without even condemnation, and that a reflection had been cast upon a great number of Pontiffs who had beenunstinted in their praise of it, no one more so than Clement's immediate predecessor. The act had also given to the Jansenists a terrific instrument in the implied approval of them by the Sovereign Pontiff. They became more aggressive than ever and organized their forces to introduce their doctrines into Italy itself.
By a curious coincidence the leader of the movement was of the same family as the General of the suppressed Jesuits: Scipio Ricci, the Bishop of Pistoia. Supporting him in the civic world was the Grand Duke of Tuscany who was the brother of Joseph II of Austria. Ricci convened the famous Synod of Pistoia, on July 31, 1786. No doubt July 31 was chosen purposely; it was the feast of St. Ignatius. There were 247 members in attendance, all exclusively Jansenists and regalists. The four Gallican Articles were endorsed and among the measures was that of conferring the right on the civil authority to create matrimonial impediments. It advocated the reduction of all religious orders to one; the abolition of perpetual vows; a vernacular liturgy; the removal of all altars but one from the church; etc. The Acts of the synod were promulgated with the royal imprimatur. Indeed Pius VI found himself compelled to condemn eighty-five of the synod's propositions.
Worse than this was the Febronianism of Austria, which went far beyond the Gallicanism of France or Italy in its rebellious aggressiveness. It maintained that the primacy of Rome had no basis in the authority of Christ; that the papacy was not restricted to Rome, but could be placed anywhere; that Rome was merely a centre with which the individual churches could be united; that the papal power was simply administrative and unifying and not jurisdictional; that the papal power of condemning heresies, confirming episcopal elections, naming coadjutors, transferring andremoving bishops, erecting primatial sees, etc., all rested on the False Decretals. It was maintained that the Pope could issue no decrees for the Universal Church, and that even the decrees of general councils were not binding until approved of by the individual churches.
In vain Clement XIV had begged Maria Theresa to check the movement. She was absolutely in the power of her son Joseph II, whose very first ordinances forbade the reception of papal decrees without the government's sanction. The bishops, he ruled, were not to apply to the Pope for faculties; they could not even issue instructions to their own flocks without permission of the civil authority. He established parishes, assigned fast days, determined the number of Masses to be said, and sermons to be preached. He even decided how many candles were to be lighted on the altar; he made marriage a civil contract and abolished ecclesiastical ceremonies.
In the hope that a personal appeal might avail, the Pope determined to make a journey to Vienna to entreat the emperor to desist. He arrived there on March 22, 1782, and was courteously received by Joseph himself, but brutally by his minister, Kaunitz, who forbade any ecclesiastic to present himself in the city while the Pope was there. Pius remained a month in the capital and succeeded only in extracting a promise that nothing would be done against the Faith or the respect due the Holy See. How far the royal word was kept may be inferred from the fact that after accompanying the Pope as far as the Monastery of Marianbrunn Joseph suppressed that establishment an hour after the Pope had resumed his journey to Rome.
In Germany the three ecclesiastical Electors of Mayence, Treves and Cologne with the Archbishop ofSalzburg met in a convention at Ems in 1786, and attempted to curtail the powers of the Pope in dealing with bishops. That assembly was also strongly Jansenistic. Thirty-one of its articles were directed against the Pope. Pacca, the papal nuncio, was not even received by the Archbishop of Cologne, and three of the Elector bishops refused to honor his credentials. The famous "Punctation of Ems," which consisted of twenty-three articles, declared that German archbishops were independent of Rome, because of the "False Decretals." They pronounced for an abolition of all direct communication with Rome; all monasteries were to be subject to the bishops; religious orders were to have no superior generals residing outside of Germany; Rome's exclusive power of granting faculties was denied; Papal Bulls were binding only after the bishop of the diocese had given hisplacet; all Apostolic nunciatures were to be abolished, etc. In brief, the synod, or "Congress" as it was called, aimed at establishing a schismatical church. But the Pope's remarkable letter to the dissidents and the progress of the French Revolution, which was then raging furiously, prevented the application anywhere of the doctrines put forth at the meeting.
Spain, Sardinia, Venice and Sicily were all in this movement against the Church, and Ferdinand IV of Sicily claimed the right of appointment to all ecclesiastical benefices, as well as the power to nullify all Papal Briefs which had not received his approval.
Nor did the Brief of Suppression contribute to the political stability of the nations. In Naples, for example, Tanucci was flung from power when the young king married an archduchess of Austria; so that he disappeared from the scene three years after the suppression of the Society. In 1798 the Bourbons fled from Naples; the city was given over to a mobdirected by an innkeeper called Michael the Madman; the Duke della Torre and his brother were burned alive in the public square; the Senate was dissolved; the palaces were pillaged; a republic was proclaimed and the whole Peninsula of Italy fell into the hands of the French.
Charles III of Spain died in 1788, and was succeeded by Charles IV, whom Arnado describes as more deficient in character and ability than his father. The rude Florida Blanca, who was so conspicuous for his brutality in terrorizing Clement XIV, was thrown out of office by the inept Godoy, who allied Spain with France against England, and brought on the disaster of Trafalgar. The king was driven from his throne and country by his rebellious son, Ferdinand, and then laid his royal crown at the feet of Napoleon Bonaparte. Since that time, the country has been in a ferment because its politics are filled with the ideas of the French Revolution and of English Liberalism.
In Portugal, retribution came at a rapid pace. Pombal fell from power in 1777 on the death of the king. He had been detected in a plot to have the young Prince of Beira succeed to the throne to the exclusion of Queen Maria. It was possibly with the same end in view that he had endeavored to start a war with Spain. He had seized Spanish posts in America, mobilized troops and fortified Lisbon, but hostilities were never declared. Queen Maria's first act at her accession was to open Pombal's dungeons. Eight hundred men of all classes issued from these sepulchres in which some of them had been for eighteen years without a trial. They were like ghosts; emaciated; hollow-eyed and ghastly; some were sightless, many were half-naked. Among them were sixty Jesuits. The populace were so infuriated at the horrible spectacle that Pombal feared to venture intothe street. He might have been torn to pieces, and he was conducted under guard to his country estates. Father Oliviera, the confessor of the queen, was installed in court, and the venerable Father de Guzman issued the following statement to the public:
"At the age of eighty-one and at the point of appearing before the tribunal of Divine Justice, John de Guzman, the last assistant of the Society of Jesus, for the provinces and dominions of Portugal, would believe himself guilty of an unpardonable sin of omission, if, in neglecting to have recourse to the throne of Your Majesty where clemency and justice reign, he did not place at your feet, this humble petition in the name of six hundred subjects of Your Majesty, the unfortunate remnants of a wrong inflicted on them.
"He entreats Your Majesty by the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, by that tender love which Your Majesty bears to the August Queen, His mother, and to the illustrious King Don Pedro, to the princes and princesses of the royal family, that you would deign and even command that the trial of so many of the faithful subjects of Your Majesty, who have been branded with infamy in the eyes of the world, be now reviewed. They are groaning under the accusation of having committed outrages and crimes which the very savages would shrink from even imagining, and which no human heart could ever conceive. They lament and moan that they were condemned without even having been brought to trial, without being heard and without being allowed to make any defense. Those who have now issued from prison are all in accord in this matter, and unanimously attest, that during all the time of their imprisonment, they have not even seen the face of any judge.
"On his part, your suppliant, who is now making this appeal, and who for many years occupied a positionwhere he could acquire an intimate knowledge of what was going on, is ready to swear in the most solemn manner, that the superiors and members of the Spanish assistancy of the Society of Jesus were without reproach. He and all the other exiles are ready to undergo sufferings more rigorous than any to which they have hitherto been subjected, if a single individual has ever been guilty of the least crime against the State.
"Moreover, your suppliant and his brethren, the chief superiors of the Society, have been examined in Rome, again and again, in the most searching manner, and have been declared innocent. Pope Pius VI, now gloriously reigning, has seen the minutes of those investigations, and Your Majesty will find in that great Pontiff an enlightened witness whose integrity nothing on earth can equal; and at the same time you will find a judge who could not commit a wrong without rendering himself guilty of an unparalleled iniquity.
"Deign, then, Your Majesty, to extend to us that clemency which belongs to you as does your throne; deign to hearken to the prayers of so many unfortunates, whose innocence has been proven, and who have never ceased in the midst of their sufferings to be the faithful subjects of Your Majesty; and who could never falter or fail an instant, in the love that they have from childhood entertained for the royal family."
This appeal had its effect. An enquiry was ordered, and in October 1780 a revision of the trial of the alleged conspirators of 1758 was begun. On April 3, 1781, the court announced that "all those, either living or dead, who had been imprisoned or executed in virtue of the sentence of January 12, 1759, were absolutely innocent." Pombal himself was put on trial, found guilty, and condemned to receive "an exemplary punishment." He escaped imprisonment on account of his age, but hedied of leprosy on May 8, 1782. His corpse lay unburied until the Society which he had crushed was restored thirty-one years later to its former place in Portugal. One of its first duties was to sing a Requiem Mass over his remains. The details of the trial were suppressed at the request of the Pope, for the reason that too many prominent personages in the Church were implicated. There was another reason. The spirit of Pombal had so thoroughly impregnated the ruling classes that the report was withheld out of fear of a revolution. Indeed, the queen was so terrified by the danger that she lost her mind. Finally, in 1807 a French army occupied Lisbon and the royal family fled to Brazil. Since then Portugal which was once so great counts for very little in the political world.
It is unnecessary to refer to France, except to note that it was Choiseul who purchased Corsica and thus gave his country which he had helped to ruin an alien ruler: Napoleon Bonaparte, who put an end to the orgies of the Revolution by deluging Europe with French blood; who imprisoned the Pope; demolished the Bourbon dynasties wherever he could find them, and bound France in fetters which, in spite of its multiplied changes of government, it has never shaken off.
When Joseph II of Austria ended his lonely and unhappy existence in 1790, he saw in France the beginning of the wreck which his friend Voltaire had helped to effect; he did not live to see the execution of his own sister, Marie Antoinette, but enough had occurred to fill him with terror especially as the existence of his own monarchy was threatened; Belgium was lost; Hungary was in wild disorder, and other parts of the empire were about to rebel. Before he died he wrote his own epitaph. It was: "Here liesJoseph II, who never succeeded in any of his undertakings."
What became of the scattered Jesuits? The scholastics and lay-brothers, of course, went back to the world, but, in France, by a refinement of cruelty they were declared by the courts to be incapable of inheriting even from their own parents, because of the vows they had pronounced on entering the Society. That the vows no longer existed made no difference to the lawmakers. As for the priests they were secularized, and in many places were welcomed by the bishops as rectors or professors in colleges and seminaries. They were in demand, also, as directors of religious communities and not a few became bishops. Thus, in America, the first two members of the hierarchy, Carroll and Neale, were old Jesuits, as was Lawrence Graessel who had been named as Carroll's successor but who died before the Bulls arrived. Crétineau-Joly has a list of twenty-one bishops in Europe alone. Others were called to episcopal sees, but in hopes of the restoration of the Society they had declined the honor.
Father Walcher was appointed imperial director of navigation and mathematics by Maria Theresa; Cabral, Lecci, and Riccati, were engaged by various governments in engineering works; Zeplichal was employed by Frederick II in exploiting mines. The Theresian College of Vienna became one of the best schools in the world under their direction; and Breslau felt the effects of their assistance, as did other colleges such as the Oriental in Vienna, the University of Buda, and the schools of Mayence, and of various cities in Italy.
They must have been often amused at some of the situations in which they found themselves. Thus, for instance in 1784 the Parliament of Languedoc,which had been one of the bitterest enemies of the Society, met to arrange for the solemn obsequies of the Jesuit Father Sesane "the friend of the poor," and the ecclesiastical authorities were busy taking juridical information for his canonization. Again, although not permitted to exist in Switzerland the Council of Soleuse erected a statue in honor of the Jesuit Father Crollanza, who all his life had shunned honor and was conspicuous for his humility. On the pedestal was the very delightful inscription: "Pauperum patrem, ægrorum matrem, omnium fratrem, virum doctum et humillimum, in vita, in morte, in feretro suavitate sibi similem amabat, admirabatur, lugebat Solodurum." In the same way, Maria Theresa in an official document dated 1776 declared that "moved by the consideration of the brilliant virtues, the science, the erudition and the regular and exemplary life of Jean-Theophile Delpini; and reflecting moreover on his apostolic labors in Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania where to our great consolation, he led a vast throng of Anabaptists back to the true Faith, we have chosen and we hereby appoint the said Theophile Delpini who has merited much from the Church and the State, and who is therefore very acceptable to us personally, to the post of Abbot of Our Lady of Kolos-Monostros."
Parhamer obtained a similar distinction in Austria and Carinthia. He was an advanced advocate of what is now called social service, and he made use of his position as confessor and friend of the Emperor Francis I to establish useful popular institutions; among which was an orphanage for the children of soldiers who had died for their country. It was a sort of child's Hôtel des Invalides. The discipline was exclusively military, with drills, camp life, etc. Joseph II wanted to make him a bishop but Parhamer askedfor two months to think it over and before the two months had expired he was dead. That was as late as 1786. Meantime, Marie Leczinska, the Queen of France, would only have these prescribed Jesuits hear her confession, and two Poles, Radomiviski and Buganski were chosen for that office. On account of their nationality they could not be exiled from France. In Austria, Father Walcher was kept busy building dykes to prevent inundations. Father Cabral, a Portuguese, had to harness the cataract of Velino, which had so long wrought havoc in the city of Terni, and then he did the same thing for his own country by confining the Tagus to its bed. In doing so he did not remember that his country had kept him in exile for eighteen years. Ximenes made roads and bridges in Tuscany and Rome. Riccati saved Venice from inundations by controlling the Po, the Adige and Brenta, and by order of Frederick II of Prussia Father Zeplichal had to locate the metal mines of Glatz, and so on. All this was over and above their ecclesiastical work for which they were called on by every one, even by the Pope who had suppressed them.
The famous astronomer, Maximilian Hell, was another of the homeless Jesuits of that period; and as it happened that from the beginning, astronomy had always been in honor in the Society, there was a great number of such men adrift in the world when their own observatories were taken away from them. The enthusiastic historian of the Society, Crétineau-Joly has an extended list of their names as well as those who were remarkable in other branches of science.
The "Theologia Wiceburgensis," which is so popular in the modern Society, was composed by dispersed Jesuits, and, according to Cardinal Pacca, "in the difficulties that arose between the Papal nuncios and the ecclesiastical Electors of Germany it was theformer Jesuits who appeared in the lists as the champions of the Holy See, to illumine and strengthen the minds of the faithful by their solid and victorious writings." François Xavier de Feller belonged to this period, and in the opinion of Gerlache, the historian of the Netherlands, "he exerted a great influence on the Belgian Congress of 1790." It was he who led the assault on Josephinism and Febronianism. With him in this fight was Francesco Antonio Zaccaria who compelled the author of the "Febronius" to acknowledge his errors. Guillaume Bertier revived the famous "Journal de Trévoux," and Fréron made a reputation for the "Journal des Débats." Girolamo Tiraboschi wrote his "History of Italian Literature," Juan Andrés, his "Origin of All Literature," Francisco Clavigero continued his "History of Mexico" and Antoine de Berault-Bercastel, François De Ligny, Jean Grou, Giulio Cordara, wrote their various well-known works. Besides writing his still popular "Bible History" Reeve translated into Latin verses much of the poetry of Pope, Dryden and Young. The list is endless. A French-Canadian, Xavier du Plessis, was famous in the pulpits of France in those days, as was Nicholas de Beauregard, who in 1775 startled all France by an utterance he made when preaching at Notre-Dame.
"These philosophers," he exclaimed, "are striking at the king and at religion. The axe and the hammer are in their hands. They are only waiting for the moment to overturn the altar and the throne. Yes Lord, Thy temples will be plundered and destroyed, Thy feasts abolished, Thy name proscribed. But what do I hear? Great God! what do I see. Instead of the holy canticles which resounded beneath these consecrated vaults till now, I hear lascivious and blasphemous songs. And thou, the infamous divinityof paganism, lascivious Venus, thou darest to come to take the place of the living God, to sit upon the throne of the Holy of Holies and receive the guilty incense of thy worshippers." The vision was realized eighteen years later.
The sermon caused a tumult in the church. The preacher was denounced as seditious, and as a calumniator of light and reason. Even Condorcet wrote him down as aligueurand a fanatic. He continued preaching, nevertheless, and his old associates followed his example. During one Lent, out of twenty of the great preachers, sixteen were Jesuits.
Three of these former Jesuits especially attracted attention at this time in the domain of letters and science: Zaccaria, Tiraboschi, and Boscovich.
Francesco Antonio Zaccaria, whose name is sometimes written Zaccheria, was a Venetian who had entered the Austrian novitiate in 1731, when he was a boy of seventeen. He taught literature at Goritz, but was subsequently sent to Rome where he became very distinguished both for his eloquence and his marvellous encyclopedic knowledge. In 1751 he was appointed to succeed Muratori as the ducal librarian at Modena, though Cardinal Quirini had asked for him and the celebrated Count Crustiani subsequently tried to bring him to Mantua. His fame was so great that the most illustrious academies of Italy claimed his name for their registers. In Rome he became the literary historiographer of the Society, and had been so excellent an aid for Clement XIII in the fight against Gallicanism that the Pope assigned him a pension. That was just before the Suppression of the Society; when that event occurred he was deprived of his pension, and after frequently running the risk of being imprisoned in the Castle Sant' Angelo, he was ordered not to attempt to leave Rome. When Pius VIbecame Pope, Zaccaria's life became a little happier. His pension was restored and even increased; he was made Rector of the College of Clerical Nobles, and regained his old chair of ecclesiastical history in the Sapienza. He died in 1795 at the age of eighty-two. The "Biographie Universelle" says that, besides innumerable manuscripts, Zaccaria left one hundred and six printed books, the most important of which is the "Literary History of Italy" in 14 octavo volumes with supplements to volumes IV and V. His method of leading his readers through the literary labyrinth deserves no less praise than the penetration of his views, and the good taste of his criticism. Besides this literary work, he wrote on moral theology, scripture, canon law, history, numismatics, etc.
Girolamo Tiraboschi, who was born in Bergamo on December 28, 1731, went to the Jesuit school at Monza, and from there entered the Society. His first characteristic work, while teaching literature in Bergamo, was to re-edit the Latin-Italian dictionary of Mandosio. He made so many corrections that it was substantially a new work. When occupied as librarian in Milan, he discovered a set of valuable manuscripts about the suppressed Order of Humiliati. The publication of these MSS. filled up a gap in the annals of the Church, and made Tiraboschi's reputation in the world of letters. The Duke of Modena made him his librarian, the post formerly held by Zaccaria. Thanks to the munificence of the princes of Este, the library was a literary treasure house, and Tiraboschi conceived the idea of gathering up the riches around him and writing a good history of Italian literature; a task that seemed to be too much for one mind. The difficulty was increased by the jealousy of the various Italian states, so that an unbiased judgment about the merits of this army of writers called for a man with courageenough to shut his ears to the clamors of local prejudice. It supposed also a profound knowledge of ancient and modern literature, a sufficient acquaintance with the arts and sciences, and skill enough not to be overwhelmed by the mass of material he had to handle. It took him eleven years to complete the work.
The Spaniards were irritated by the "History" for they were blamed for having corrupted the literary taste of Italy, and three Spanish Jesuits attacked him fiercely on that score. Nevertheless, the Academy accepted a copy of the work in the most flattering terms. The Italians regarded it as a most complete history of their literature and a monument erected to the glory of their country. He was made a knight by the Duke and appointed counsellor of the principality. While he was engaged in this work, the Society was suppressed, and like Boscovich and Zaccaria, he did not live to see its resurrection. He died in Modena on June 3, 1794.
Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich was a Dalmatian from Ragusa, where he was born on May 18, 1711. He was a boy at the Jesuit college of that town and entered the Society at the early age of fourteen. He was sent to the Roman College, where his unusual literary and philosophical as well as mathematical abilities immediately attracted attention. He was able to take the place of his professor in mathematics while he was yet in his theological studies, and subsequently occupied the chair of mathematics with great distinction for a generation. His bent, however, was chiefly for astronomy, and every year he issued a treatise on one or another subject of that science. Among them may be mentioned: the "Sun spots" (1736); "The Transit of Mercury" (1737); "The Aurora Borealis" (1738); "Application of the Telescope in Astronomical Studies" (1739); "The Figureof the Earth" (1739); "The Motion of the Heavenly Bodies in an unresisting Medium" (1740); "Various effects of Gravity" (1741); "The Aberration of the Fixed Stars" (1742); and numberless others. Foreign and Italian academies, among them Bologna, Paris and London admitted him to membership. It was he who first suggested the massive pillars of the college church of St. Ignatius as the foundation of the Observatory in Rome; but the Suppression of the Society prevented him from carrying out the plan. When the great dome of St. Peter's began to crack, he allayed the general alarm by placing iron bands around it. His advice was sought for the draining of the Pontine Marshes; he surveyed the Papal States by order of Benedict XIV and induced the Pope to withdraw the obsolete decree in the Index against the Copernican system.
When King John V of Portugal asked for ten Jesuit Fathers to make an elaborate survey of Brazil, Boscovich offered himself for the arduous task, hoping thus to make a survey in Ecuador, so as to obtain data for the final solution of the problem of the figure of the earth which was then exciting much attention in England and France, but the Pope kept him for the survey of Italy, which Boscovich did, and in 1755 he published a large quarto volume describing the work. In 1748, he had already revived Leibnitz's system of dynamism in the composition of bodies, a view which his fellow-Jesuits generally rejected. When this volume was issued, the publisher added a list of Boscovich's previous works. They amounted to sixty-six and he soon added three more quartos on "The Elements of Mathematics." He even wrote Latin poetry, mostly eulogies of the Pope and distinguished men, and published five volumes of verse on "The Defects of the Sun and the Moon."
Boscovich's advice was sought as an engineer for damming the Lakes which were threatening the city of Lucca; and he acquitted himself so well, that he was made an honorary citizen and his expenses were subsequently paid for his scientific exploration in Italy, France and England. He settled a dispute between his native town and the King of France. He journeyed with the Venetian ambassador to Constantinople to complete his archæological studies, but that journey seriously injured his health. He then accepted the appointment of professor of mathematics at the University of Pavia and helped to found the Observatory of Brera in Milan which with that of the Collegio Romano is among the most prominent in Italy. The London Academy wanted to send him to California in 1769 to observe the transit of Venus, but the opposition to the Jesuits, which was four years later to lead to their suppression, caused the invitation to be withdrawn. Louis XV then called him to France where he was made director of optics for the Navy with a salary of 8,000 francs. He retained this position until 1783, that is ten years after the Society of Jesus had gone out of existence. He then went to Italy to publish five more books, and at the age of eighty-six retired to the monastery of the monks of Vallombroso. On account of his great ability, or rather on account of his being a Jesuit, he was bitterly assailed by Condorcet and d'Alembert and other infidels of France.
Bolgeni, who died in 1811, was made penitentiary by Pius VI in recognition of his services against Jansenism and Josephinism. Unfortunately, however, he advocated the acceptance of some scheme of Napoleon, for which Pope Pius VII deposed him from his office and called Father Muzzarelli from Parma to take his place. In 1809 when Pius VII was exiled, Muzzarelliwent with him to Paris or at least followed soon after. His work on the "Right Use of Reason in Religion" ran up to eleven volumes, besides which he produced other books against Rousseau, and several pious treatises, like the "Month of May," which has been translated into many languages.
Possibly a certain number of missionaries remained with their neophytes because they were too remote to be reached. Others, who owed no allegiance to the king who ordered the expulsion, paid no attention to it, as the Englishman King, for instance, who was martyred in Siam after the Suppression; or the Irishman O'Reilly, who buried himself, in the forests of Guiana with his savages; Poirot was kept at the court of Pekin as the emperor's musician; and Benoit constructed fountains for the imperial gardens, invented a famous waterclock, which spouted water from the mouths of animals, two hours for each beast, thus running through the twenty-four hours of the day; he made astronomical observations, brought out copper-plate engravings of maps and so on, and finally died of apoplexy in 1774, one year after Clement XIV had suppressed the Society. Hallerstein, the imperial astronomer, was also there waiting for news of the coming disaster.
B. N. in "The Jesuits; their history and foundation" (II, 274) and Crétineau-Joly both declare that there were four of the proscribed Jesuits in the Etats généraux which was convened in Paris at the opening of the Revolution: Delfau, de Rozaven, San-Estavan and Allain. Of course, the Rozaven in this instance was not the John Rozaven so famous later on. In 1789 John was only eighteen years of age. In the session of February 19, 1790, the famous Abbé Grégoire, who afterwards became the Constitutional Bishop of Loir-et-Cher, startled the assembly by crying out,"Among the hundred thousand vexations of the old government, whose hand was so heavy on France, we must place the suppression of the celebrated Order of the Jesuits." The Deputy Lavie had also asked for justice in their behalf. The Protestant Barnave declared that "the first act of our new liberty should be to repair the injustices of despotism; and I, therefore, propose an amendment in favor of the Jesuits." "They have," said the next speaker, the Abbé de Montesquiou, "a right to your generosity. You will not refuse justice to that celebrated Society in whose colleges some of you have studied; whose wrongs we cannot understand, but whose sufferings were to be expected."
The sentiments of the speakers were enthusiastically applauded, but it was all forgotten as the terrible Revolution proceeded on its course. Jesuits like other priests were carried to the guillotine; but, as no records could now be kept, it is impossible to find out how many were put to death. We find out, however, from "Les martyrs" of Leclercq that in Paris alone there were eleven: DuPerron, Benoit, Bonnand, Cayx, Friteyre, du Rocher, Lanfant, Villecrohain, Le Gue, Rousseau, and Seconds. Crétineau-Joly adds to this list the two Rochefoucaulds; Dulau, who was Archbishop of Aries; Delfaux; Millou; Gagnière; Le Livec; another Du Rocher; Vourlat; Du Roure; Rouchon; Thomas; Andrieux and Verron; making in all twenty-five. In "Les crimes de la Révolution" there are two volumes of the names of the condemned in all parts of France, but as the ecclesiastical victims are merely described as "priests" it is impossible to find out how many Jesuits there were among them. The twenty-five, however, make a good showing for a single city. Probably the proportion was the same elsewhere.
The old Jesuits appear again for a moment in Spain, when in 1800 Charles IV recalled them. A pestilencewas raging in Andalusia when they arrived, and they immediately plunged into the work of caring for the sick. Twenty-seven Jesuits died in the performance of this act of charity; but the government soon forgot it and again drove into exile the men whom they had appealed to for help. In Austria they remained in the colleges as secular priests. At Fribourg, Lucerne and Soleure, the people insisted on their retaining the colleges. In China, they clung to their missions until the arrival of the Lazarists in 1783. In Portuguese India, even before the Suppression, they had been forcibly expelled, and the same thing occurred in South America wherever Portugal ruled. The Spanish missions of both South and North America had likewise been wrested from them. In Turkey the French ambassador, Saint-Priest, insisted on their staying at their posts in Constantinople, because of their success in dealing with the Moslems and schismatics. As we have seen when missionaries were needed in the deadly forests of French Guiana, the government was shameless enough to ask the Portuguese Jesuits to devote themselves to the work; and the request was acceded to. They were also entreated to remain in French India.