Chapter III: Science and the Press (1)

In the Belgian congress the section of science and the press does not treat of the same subjects that occupy the attention of that section in the Catholic conventions in Germany. At Malines Christian instruction and education are the principal questions debated; in Germany, on the other hand, the university question is the chief subject of discussion; at Malines it is slimly attended; at Würzburg, Frankfort, etc., on the contrary, there was a crowded attendance, and the proceedings were of the most interesting character. At Malines forty-five Catholic journalists met and passed important resolutions; at Würzburg, more than sixty representatives of German science held a separate conference and drew up an address to the Holy Father. Even the meeting of literati held at Munich may be called the offspring of the Catholic general conventions. At Munich, in 1861, Professor Michaelis proposed a scheme planned by Döllinger for a meeting of the German savans, which was rejected. Hereupon the project was somewhat changed and a separate meeting held at Munich. Its results are well known.

The principal debaters in this section of the Malines congress were the genial and venerable Count de Villeneuve, Lenormant the daring traveller, Lecheoni, Soudan, Léger, du Clisieux, Ducpetiaux, Chopinet, Soenens, Baeten, and Decoster. The presiding officer was Namèche, of Louvain, who, together with de Ram, Lanny, Delcour, Laforêt, and Perin worthily represented the university at Louvain. His neighbor was van der Haeghen, of Brussels, a writer whose name is well known, not only in Belgium but in foreign countries. Though an excellent linguist, he deems it his first duty to refute historical misstatements and to expose without mercy the errors of modern Protestant historians. As Onno Klopp unsparingly demolishes German scribblers, so van der Haeghen puts down the Belgian dabblers in history. He is intimately acquainted with German literature.

The subjects that occupied the attention of the section were popular instruction, the classics as a means of mental training, the establishment of professorships on social questions and discipline.

On popular instruction Monseigneur Dupanloup delivered a discourse, which was the event of the congress, and which has since been read by all Europe. Count Desbassayns de Richemout, of Paris, an orator favorably known in Germany as the spirited advocate of a Catholic university, spoke on the mental activity of society. In the Romanic world the name of Dupanloup acts like a charm. If a charity sermon is to be held, which is to move and electrify Paris and all France, the Bishop of Orleans is called upon. In 1862, when it became necessary to give a new impetus to the Catholic cause in the East, Dupanloup was summoned to Rome to {333} call the nations of the earth to a sense of their duties; thousands rushed to hear him preach at the church of St. Andrea del Galle. At Malines he met with the same success. When Dupanloup speaks every listener glows with Catholic zeal, that becomes more and more intense as he proceeds and finally bursts forth in a fiery enthusiasm, whose influence reaches far and wide. Such was the spectacle witnessed at Rome, and repeated at Paris and Malines. One of the brightest ornaments of the French hierarchy, Dupanloup on every occasion expresses the opinions of Catholic France with irresistible force. No wonder, then, that even the emperor fears the bishop's eloquence. His writings are read by all, and admired for their classic style. As an orator, he enchants the French and Belgians; on the Germans, however, he exerts a less powerful influence; they prefer Montalembert, F. Hermann, or F. Felix. His discourse at Malines was not, properly speaking, a discourse, but a familiar conversation, grand and splendid in diction, and full of brilliant turns and telling _jeux de mots_. The remarks made by Dupanloup on August 30, when returning thanks for his enthusiastic reception, were a masterpiece of eloquence, which will never be forgotten by those who listened to him. The Bishop of Orleans is a man of the people. "I do not know much; but what I know best and love best is the people." If Dupanloup's speech was the brightest gem of the congress in 1864, Montalembert, in his speech on "Religious Liberty," eclipsed all his competitors in 1863. Montalembert's discourse lasted five hours, two hours longer than Dupanloup's speech. Montalembert and Dupanloup are the most prominent representatives of Catholic France. Called by God to battle for his Church, both are leading millions of soldiers arrayed under the banner of Christ to victory and triumphs. Montalembert, the athlete of the tribune, hailed by Pius IX. himself as one of the bravest of the Christian host, cherishes for the Church an ardent, pure, and holy love. This love may sometimes carry him too far. At Malines, in 1863, he laid down many propositions not approved by the congress. The Cardinal of Malines, however, and the Bishop of Orleans, charitably threw a veil over every thing objectionable, thus resolving into perfect harmony everything discordant. Dupanloup evidently thought of his friend Montalembert when, in his remarks on August 30, 1864, he uttered the words: "Let us not confound opinions and principles, vital questions and domestic difficulties; among us let there be no differences, no disunion, no imprudence."

Count Richemont, of Paris, is a true nobleman in appearance and bearing; his black beard adds new beauty to his handsome face and sparkling eyes. His gestures are appropriate and graceful. He speaks very rapidly, however, swallowing many words, so that we Germans did not understand him well; in fact, we read his speech with more pleasure than we listened to it. A more favorable impression was made by Viscount Anatole Lemercier, of Paris, a man of agreeable manners, a true Parisian, full of wit and humor, a graceful speaker, who will be heard with pleasure by any assembly. But, great as are Lemercier's merits, he has a dangerous rival in Henry de Riancey, who unites in himself every quality required to become a general favorite. Among the French journalists he is one of the ablest. In his opinions he steers a middle course between the extreme views of Montalembert and Veuillot, or Barrier, Faconet and Chantrel, the oracles of the "Monde;" and "L'Union," the journal of which he is the editor, occupies an intermediate position between "Le Monde" and "Le Correspondant" But de Riancey's labors are not confined to his editorial sanctum; he cherishes holy poverty, is untiring in the practice of Christian charity, and justly deserves {334} the title of "Father of the Poor." These holy practices give an unction to his words, and throw a halo around his person which he does not even suspect, but which gains for him the hearts of all that see or hear of him. His speeches in the section of Christian economy excited great interest, and when speaking on matters connected with the Catholic faith he reminded us of the fathers of the Church. His discourse before the general meeting of the congress, Sept. 12, 1864, was a gem. He spoke as a soldier of Christ, as an heroic defender of the Church, showing at once that he was a veteran, who had often struggled for the triumph of principle. The future does not inspire de Riancey with anxiety or fear; he is full of hope and confidence, believing that he lives in an age destined to accomplish great things. He is not discouraged by the superior power of his opponents, for he bears in mind Christ's promise to his Church.

When speaking, a pleasant smile rests on de Riancey's lips, and his features reflect the cheerful calmness of his soul. His friendly eyes charm his listeners, who regret to see them fixed on his manuscript, for de Riancey reads his speeches. If the applause of the assembly become too long and noisy, the speaker's face beams with satisfaction, and he gracefully passes his hand through his hair. De Riancey fascinates the hearts of all his hearers.

It is hard to say which of the many eminent French orators at Malines possesses most claims to our preference. Who is the greatest orator, Count Montalembert or Bishop Dupanloup, de Riancey or Père Felix, Viscount Lemercier, Count Richemont, Viscount de Melan, Lasserée, or Lenormant? Each of them has excellences peculiar to himself that claim our admiration. In like manner, among the great Italian masters, Michael Angelo is first in grandeur of style and conception; Titian is distinguished for the grace of his figures; Correggio for their angelic purity; whilst Raphael merits the palm for fertility of invention, correctness of expression, and variety. Père Felix, we have already stated, pleased the Germans more than Bishop Dupanloup. His concluding discourse, delivered in St Rombaut's cathedral at Malines, Sept 3, 1864, was a philosophical review of ecclesiastical history; the grandeur of its conception well befitted the importance of the occasion. In appearance, F. Felix is not so majestic as F. de Ravignan, nor has he so powerful and sonorous a voice as his predecessor. His discourses betray less enthusiastic love of liberty than those of F. Lacordaire, but still he is at present _the_ orator of the day, no less than de Ravignan and Lacordaire were some years ago. F. Lacordaire, the Dominican, addressed his words to thousands of young men, who, carried away by the political and literary revolutions of 1830, were frantic with ideas of liberty, who were attracted and tormented by the "infinite," and panting for vague, undefined ideals. This yearning Lacordaire strove to satisfy, by pointing out to them that Christ and his Church were the realization of their indefinite ideals, and by teaching them to sanctify liberty by devotion and sacrifice. The vast schemes of 1830 were not carried out, and their ideals were not realized. French society felt the vanity of its aspirations, and was seized by a deadly lethargy, a kind of despair, as if it had suffered shipwreck. Like so many flaming meteors F. de Ravignan's conferences suddenly shed a stream of light on the universal gloom. How majestic was his appearance, how sublime his language, how ardent his faith, and how holy his life! All France listened to the Jesuit, and seemed spell-bound. Irreligion was banished from thousands of hearts, and thousands returned to the practice of their religious duties and were saved. The spirit of the age took another direction; men busied themselves exclusively with their {335} material interests, and they thought only of money, of steam, of machinery and other branches of industry. For many years progress has been the watchword--material progress--which has brought about all these wonders of modern times, which is due to human energy alone, and which, for this very reason, deifies itself in its pride and threatens Christianity with destruction. To combat these false notions, God raised up F. Felix. He devoted his attention to the popular idol, progress, but he dealt with it in his own way. In Lent, 1856, he began, in the church of Notre Dame, in Paris, his famous conferences on "Progress by Means of Christianity." Archbishop Sibour had blessed the orator and his subject. His success was astounding, and henceforth F. Felix will hold an honorable place among French pulpit orators. F. Felix is about fifty-five years of age; he has an intelligent countenance, a noble, manly brow, betokening a deep, penetrating mind, and a firm will. Since 1856 his voice has improved, having gained both in compass and in sweetness. It is clear and piercing, completely filling the immense church of Our Lady at Paris. The two discourses delivered by F. Felix at Malines (Sept. 2 and 3, 1864) are perhaps his most finished productions. He did not call forth any momentary burst of enthusiasm, but produced a lasting impression, that will console and strengthen us in the struggle of life.

The university question, which has been so prominent in Germany, was not discussed at Malines. The Belgians have had for thirty years a Catholic university at Louvain, which they support at a great expense, and for the maintenance of which they constantly struggle. The English speak of establishing a Catholic college at Oxford. Canon Oakley, a learned English convert, is working zealously to realize the plan, and if Newman will agree to take the helm, the enterprise will prosper. We hope the project will succeed, for English Catholics will not send their sons to the Catholic university at Dublin, which does not flourish, and numbers only some two hundred students. In Holland a Catholic university is not even thought of.

The interests of the Catholic press were not neglected at Malines. Belgium has done much to raise its character, as was shown by Count de Theux. Since the congress of 1863 the Belgian journals--especially the "Journal de Bruxelles"--have steadily progressed. In Belgium, small as it is, there are fifty Catholic periodicals, some French and some Flemish. The "Journal de Bruxelles" already rivals the Paris "Monde," and both are far in advance of any German journal. At Malines the members of the press form a section of their own, in which the principal papers are represented by their directors, editors, or correspondents. The staff of the "Correspondant" was represented by Count Francis de Champagny, Viscount Anatole Lemercier, and by Francis Lenormant, the favorite of the Parisians. "Le Monde," too, had sent its delegates; prominent among these was Hermann Kuhn, the Berlin correspondent, who contributes valuable articles on Catholic Germany. He appeared for the "Mayence Journal" also. We are already acquainted with de Riancey, the editor of "L'Union." The director of "La Patrie," published in Bruges, Neut, was president of the section. Although I earnestly desired to form the personal acquaintance of M. Neut, circumstances prevented it; but he appeared to be the leading spirit of the section. Affable and obliging, lively and ardent, he is a flowing speaker, well fitted to take the lead, and a bold, uncompromising Catholic, without a trace of fogyism. To see him is to love him. He is a man of great practical ability, and writes a popular style resembling that of Ernest Zander, of Munich. Like Zander he has grown grey in journalism. The vice-presidents of the section were Count Celestinè de Martini, {336} director of the "Journal de Bruxelles;" Leon Lavedan, who writes for the "Gazette de France;" and Lasserre, editor of the "Contemporain," well known in Germany as a controversial writer. Lebrocquoi, editor of "La Voix du Luxembourg," acted as secretary. Digard of Paris took an active part in the discussions of the section. Spain was represented by Enrique de Villaroya and Eduardo Maria de Villarrazza; Portugal by Don Almeida. The Abbé de Chelen and F. Terwecoren also deserve mention. Verspeyen, editor of "Le Bien Public," at Ghent, is one of the youngest and most spirited journalists in Belgium. He is a good speaker, very sarcastic and impressive. On his recommendation Casoni, of Bologna, who has been shamefully persecuted by the Sardinians, received a heavy subsidy from the Malines congress. Lemmens, a very clever man, is associated with Verspeyen in the editorship of "Le Bien Public," which compares with the "Journal de Bruxelles" in the same way as "Le Monde" and the "Weekly Register" compare with "Le Correspondant" and "The Home and Foreign Review." De Haulleville, formerly editor of the "Universel," and at present connected with the "Correspondant," is one of the best Belgian writers. He is not only a journalist, but also a thorough historian, well versed in German literature. I must not forget to mention Demarteau, the editor of the "Liege Journal;" A. Coomans, an able speaker, who represented the "Antwerp Journal," and Frappier, the editor of "L'Ami de l'Ordre." Among the English journalists the most prominent were Simpson, a friend of Sir John Acton, who wrote for the "Rambler" and "Home and Foreign Review," and Wigley, editor of the "Weekly Register," who writes for the "Monde" also, a worthy rival of Coquille, Faconet, Leon Pagès, Kuhn, La Tour, d'Aignan, and H. Vrignault. Among the periodicals that had sent representatives to Malines were: "L'Ouvrier," "Le Messager de la Charité," "La Revue Chrétiénne," "Le Journal des Villes et des Campagnes," "El Diario" of Barcelona, "La Regeneracion" of Madrid, "L'Union" of Valencia, "El Register Catolico" of Barcelona, "La Belgique," "La Paix," "Les Précis Historiques," "Le Courrier de Bruxelles," "Le Moniteur de Louvain," "L'Escaut," "Le Courrier de la Sambre," "L'Union de Charleroy," "Le Nouvelliste de Verviers," "Le Journal de Hainaut," "L'Impartial de Soignies," "La Gazette de Vivelles," and several others.

The assembly consisted of forty-five journalists, and their proceedings made a favorable impression. The gentlemen of the press knew why they had met. It was resolved to hold every year a general convention of Catholic journalists and to establish at Brussels an international telegraphic bureau for Catholic journals, because most of the bureaus now existing are in the hands of Jews, who frequently forge untruthful telegrams. The meeting tended to foster mutual good feeling among the representatives of the different journals, and resolutions were passed to secure unity of action in the Catholic press.

The managers of the "Correspondant" strove to obtain the patronage of the Malines congress by distributing a list of contributors. In fact, its staff comprises some of the most able Catholic journalists, and we deem it proper to give, the names of Bishop Dupanloup, the Duke d'Ayen, the Prince de Broglie, the Count Montalembert, the Count Falloux, the Count de Carné, the Count de Champagny, Viscount Lemercier, Viscount de Melun, Vicar-General Meignan, Prof. Perreyve, F. Gratry, Villemain, de Laprade, Augustine Cochin, Foisset, Leonce de Lavergne, Wallon, N. de Pontmartin, Lenormant, de Chaillard, Amedée Achard, Marmier, and de Haulleville. No doubt it would be difficult to find a greater array of talent. The "Correspondant" appears once a month, making six large volumes per year.

{337}

I had been present at a meeting of journalists connected with the second general congress of the larger German states held at Frankfort in October, 1864. Twenty-seven representatives of the German press attended. Many resolutions were passed, but not one of them was carried out; nay, the third general congress of the larger German states never convened.

The journalists of the minor German states, also, met at Eisenach on May 22, 1864. Thirty-four members were present, and resolved to meet at stated periods in order to consult about the interests of the German press. A committee of delegates from seven journals was appointed, whose headquarters was to be at Frankfort-on-the-Main until the next general meeting in 1865. From the transaction of these assemblies, it has become evident that journalism in Germany is still in its infancy. The German journalists cannot compare with those of other countries. They form no class of their own; they lack self-respect and _esprit de corps_; in short, they are, without exception, in a lamentable state of dependence, for they are not wealthy nor do they receive becoming remuneration.

In Belgium the press is better organized; it is not oppressed by taxation, and this is the reason why Brussels alone can boast of sixty-seven periodicals. In Belgium 10 to 12 francs will procure a well-written daily paper, far surpassing our German journals.

The Belgian journalists whom I met at Malines despise the Catholic press in Germany. They reproach us with not doing our duty, and sneer at us for being duped by Jewish writers.

Journalism is an important profession, whose members should be conscientious and honorable men. The journalist addresses his language to an audience far more numerous than the professor's, and at present his influence is, so to say, unlimited; he reaches every part of educated society and sways public opinion. He is called to be the standard-bearer of liberty and truth. He must, therefore, implant sound principles in the popular mind, and, standing above the reach of paltry prejudice, unite in himself a high degree of intelligence and true devotion to the eternal laws of the Church. Such are the qualities which a journalist should possess. Without independence, dignity, and moral freedom he cannot do justice to the task imposed on him by God. "_Impavidum ferient ruinae_."

In England, America, and Belgium, the press wields a powerful influence; it has become sovereign, and is necessary to the nation's life. Science feels that unless it is diffused it is powerless, and that the school-room is too narrow a field; hence it is that men of learning make use of the press. In Catholic Germany, on the contrary, there are still districts where the journalist is looked upon with a jealous eye, and where it is deemed preferable to read papers written by Jews and literary gipsies.

"Let the Church be free, let her unfold fully her immense power, let her extend her influence to every grade and station of society, and things will assume a more promising aspect. Let the Church be again respected, let her word be heeded in the palace no less than in the hut, let homage be paid to her in the courts of justice and in institutions of learning, at the university no less than at the village school, and a new and golden era will dawn upon us." These words, first addressed to the German nation by its bishops, have been repeated again and again by the Catholic general conventions. The Church has a right to watch over popular education and schools, but, as Moufang says, she has an equally undeniable title to direct the education of those who are destined to be the leaders of the people. The Church is the mother of universities, but, alas! most of her daughters have forsaken her. Germany possesses eighteen Protestant universities, but she cannot boast {338} of an equal number of Catholic institutions. The Church has been robbed of her educational establishments in the same way in which she has been deprived of her monasteries and other possessions. Of the twenty-two German universities six only are Catholic. At the mixed universities Catholics are by no means on a footing of equality with Protestants, and a professor or a fellow who is a staunch Catholic will almost certainly fall into disgrace. The Protestant professors number ten to one; a great grievance, no doubt.

Even previous to 1848, far-sighted men were penetrated with the necessity of establishing a purely Catholic university. But since the emphatic approval of the scheme by the episcopal council of Würzburg, in 1848, the Catholic conventions have displayed a lively interest in the plan and have done all in their power to further its realization. At Regensburg (1849), Mayence (1851), Münster (1852), Vienna (1853), and Linz (1856), it received the fullest consideration. The convention of Linz recommended in the warmest terms the restoration of the university of Salzburg. This recommendation was repeated by the Salzburg convention in 1857, which requested the prince-archbishop of Salzburg, Baron von Farnoczky, to undertake this affair, so important to Germany. At Salzburg the debates on this question were very stormy, because Innsbruck claimed the preference. In fact, the university of Innsbruck has been much better attended of late years.

But the most decisive steps in this regard were taken by the convention of Aix-la-Chapelle. Prof. Möller, of Louvain, delivered an eloquent discourse on the establishment of the Louvain university! In glowing words he represented to the assembly how, on the opening of the first course of lectures at Malines, in 1834, but eighty-six students followed the course, how the number of students increased in 1885 to 261 and the following year to 360, whilst at the present day the three state universities together number 800 students less than Louvain alone! He spoke of the generosity of the Belgians, of their yearly subscriptions, and of their collections, to which even the poorest contribute their mite. He reminded them that the Louvain professors are among the most distinguished for mental activity, and that they form men of principle, who honorably fulfil the designs of God upon them. "And is it impossible for the great Catholic German nation to do what four millions of Belgians have accomplished? Follow the example thus set you; German laymen, raise your voices, and shrink not before difficulties or obstacles. Impossible--the word is unworthy of Germans!" By this speech of the noble Möller the assembly was aroused, and its members were ready to undergo every sacrifice in order to realize their plans. On the following day, when the convention had met in secret session, Theising, of Warendorf, brought up the university question, and a debate followed, in which Baron von Andlaw, of Freiburg, Schulte, of Prague, Count Brandis, of Austria, Thissen, of Frankfort, Möller, of Louvain, and Heinrich, of Mayence, participated. It was at first proposed to appoint a committee, which was to exert itself energetically in favor of the project. Councillor Phillips, Baron Felix von Loe, Count Brandis, Baron Henry von Andlaw, Chevalier Joseph von Buss, and Baron Wilderich von Ketteler, were appointed members of the committee and their nomination received with applause. The motion also provided for the collection of the money necessary to establish the university. A wordy discourse followed, but no definite conclusion was arrived at, when Baron von Andlaw struck the right chord. "I will give $500 for the establishment of a Catholic university," he exclaimed. "I will give $500 more," cried Councillor Phillips of Vienna, "I subscribe $300," said {339} Zander, of Munich. Count Richemont, of Paris, next ascended the tribune, addressed a few enthusiastic words to the assembly, and subscribed $500. He was rapidly followed by Counts Spee, Loe, Schaasberg, Stolberg, Hoensbroich, Brandis, and many other nobles from the Rhenish provinces and Westphalia, who came forward with generous contributions. Prof. Schulte, of Prague, and Canon Moufang each subscribed a thousand florins. Dumortier, of Brussels, Prisac, of Aix-la-Chapelle, Martens, of Pelplin, Thymus, Bachem, and Pastor Becker also gave solid proofs of their interest in the enterprise. In a short time the subscriptions amounted to $7,000, and at Würzburg, in 1864, $30,000 had already been subscribed.

The scene at Aix-la-Chapelle was more imposing than any other that marked the sixteen general conventions of the Catholic societies in Germany. Joy and enthusiasm were depicted on every countenance, and hope filled every breast. The whole of Catholic Germany shared in these feelings; for there was now substantial reason for believing in the ultimate success of the university scheme. True, subscriptions did not continue to pour in so rapidly as at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the nobility of southern Germany, in particular, were very remiss in performing their duty. To collect $7,000,000 is no easy task, especially as the German clergy have been deprived of almost all their possessions, whilst the mass of the people show little zeal for the undertaking. Still the agitation of this question has been productive of great good to Catholicity in Germany, for it has inspired all of us with redoubled zeal and energy. The Catholics have begun to claim their just rights and to insist upon them till they are granted. As the Rhenish Westphalian nobility have demanded the restoration of the old Catholic university of Münster, so in Bavaria, where there is a purely Protestant university, the Catholics should urge the establishment of a Catholic one, for it is our first duty, as was remarked by Schulte at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1862, and by Moufang at Würzburg in 1864, to insist that universities which were founded by Catholics should retain their original character. In mixed universities, the Catholic professors will, henceforth, strain every nerve to secure true equality. Where this equality is trampled under foot, they will protest and demand their rights. The professors will be supported by the Catholic students, who were ably represented at Frankfort and Würzburg by Anschütz and Baron Dr. von Hertling. Do not the Catholics outnumber the Protestants in Germany? No one knew Germany and its tribes better than Frederick Böhmer, of Frankfort, and he always maintained that the Catholics can boast of as many able men as the Protestants, and that southern Germany, far from being inferior, surpasses the northern races in mental abilities. To carry out the programme laid down above will require our best energies, but we must, moreover, found a _new university_ a purely Catholic and free institution, untrammelled by state dictation, and entirely under the direction of the Church. To do this the bishops, the nobles, and the clergy must use their best endeavors; but the professors, too, must do their share, and not look on with cold indifference, as is the case with most of them. If the state encroaches unceasingly on the rights of the Church in the realms of science, and if its tyranny persistently oppresses the most able votaries of science because they are Catholics, why should we not rely on ourselves, and seek strength in union? There is neither truce nor rest for us until we are not only equal but superior to our opponents in every branch of science.

Since its organization, two years ago, the university committee has done all in its power to promote the good cause. One of the most zealous members is the young Prince Charles, of {340} Löwenstein-Werthheim, who has been substituted for the deceased Count Brandis.

Canon Moufang, of Mayence, spoke on the university question at Würzburg in 1864. Of all the members of the convention he was best fitted to do justice to the subject. Since 1848 Dr. Moufang has been present at almost every one of the sixteen general conventions, and whatever good has been accomplished by them he has promoted and encouraged. Connected with most of the Catholic movements of our age, he understands the feelings of his Catholic countrymen and knows how to give forcible and opportune expression to them; at times his words are irresistible, like the mountain torrent. At Munich he delivered a discourse on the Holy Father and his difficulties; in Aix-la-Chapelle he thundered against the want of principle and of true manliness which distinguishes our times; at Frankfort he ridiculed anti-Catholic prejudices, and at Würzburg he convinced his hearers of the necessity of a Catholic university. But the school question, also, and the relations between capital and labor, he has lately treated in an admirable manner. "_Il faut être de son temps_," is Moufang's motto, and hence he is one of the representative men of public opinion in Catholic Germany, and when he combats the enemies of the Church the advantage is always on his side. On the nineteenth of December, 1864, Dr. Moufang celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his ordination. Hundreds of priests from the dioceses of Mayence, Limburg, and Freiburg were present on this solemn occasion, which they will cherish for ever in their memory. Dr. Moufang's name immediately suggests that of Canon Heinrich. They are a "_par nobile fratrum_" in literature as well as in public life, emulating the example of Raess and Weiss and of Augustus and Peter Reichensperger. At the age of thirty, after promoting the organization of the first general convention at Mayence, Dr. Heinrich was appointed secretary of the national council held at Würzburg in 1848. Since 1848 he distinguished himself at almost all the general conventions by his activity and the zeal he displayed in furthering every Catholic enterprise. He is equally active in the committees, in the secret and in the open sessions. He is not only a favorite speaker, but also a skilful controversialist and a journalist of no mean ability. He published the best reply to Renan, and as a theologian and jurist he is able to cope with any adversary.

Prof. Haffner is the worthy colleague of Moufang and Heinrich. He cultivates the science which Aristotle and Plato pronounced the sublimest of all sciences--philosophy. But Haffner is a philosopher who is intelligible even to ordinary mortals; he makes a practical use of his knowledge, and is a favorite at the Rhenish clubs. In fact, there is no reason why he should not be so. His speeches are instructive, sublime in conception, and well written. The details are well arranged and he has due regard for literary perspective. His incomparable humor is unmixed with biting sarcasm, and his figures are exquisitely beautiful. Haffner's speeches are perfect gems. Long may you live, noble son of Suabia!

The Mayence delegates form an attractive group, and they all work right earnestly for the success of the conventions. Beside those already noticed, I shall mention Dr. Hirschel, canon of the cathedral, who presided at the first general meeting of the Christian art unions at Cologne in 1856; Monsignore Count Max von Galen, who delivered an elegant discourse on the Blessed Virgin at Aix-la-Chapelle; Professors Holzammer and Hundhausen, profound scholars; Frederic Schneidier, president of the young men's associations in the diocese of Mayence; and Falk, president of the social clubs or casinos.

{341}

Councillor Phillips, of Vienna, is generally chosen chairman of the section of science and the press. Richly does he deserve this distinction, for Phillips is an ornament to German literature, and his work on canon law is a "_monumentum aere perennius_" which will be numbered among the German classics. On the Catholic press, too, Phillips has conferred a great benefit, for, in conjunction with Jareke and Joseph von Görres, he founded the "Historico-Political Journal," of Munich, which he edited for a long time, assisted by Guido Görres. Being sent as a delegate to the Frankfort Parliament, Phillips was numbered among the men of "the stone house;" that is to say, he belonged to the Catholic party, and became the associate of Döllinger, Lasaulx, Sepp, Förser, Geritz, Dieringer, Von Bally, and others who took an active part in the debate on the relations between church and state. Since 1862 Phillips has been chairman of the committee on the establishment of the Catholic university. The speeches of the learned professor were remarkable for the force of their arguments and the clearness of their ideas. His committee reports are to the point, and he presides with tact and ability.

Privy Councillor Ringseis delivered telling speeches at Aix-la-Chapelle and Munich; at Frankfort and Würzburg he did not make his appearance, being already too much bowed down by age. Ringseis was born in 1785. In the literary world he occupies a prominent position; but he has always been more successful as an orator than as a writer. His appearance is inspiring, his words enthusiastic. The simplicity of his heart, his pleasing cordiality, and the unchanging freshness of his intellect, endear him to all with whom he comes in contact; yet he is one of the men who have bravely weathered all the storms of our age. He resembles an oak that proudly withstands every hurricane.

Baron von Moy was president of the Würzburg convention. From 1832 to 1837 he lectured on constitutional and international laws, and from 1837 he was for ten years professor at Munich, at a time when the fame of the Munich university attracted hundreds of young men to the Bavarian capital, when all Germany knew that there was a great Catholic university at Munich, and when, in the words of Moufang, "Görres, Ringseis, Döllinger, Möhler, Slee, Phillips, Moy, Windischmann, and their colleagues, formed the central group of Catholic Munich." Baron von Moy presided at Würzburg with much tact and success. Age has already made its inroads, but his voice is still rich and agreeable. He is untainted by the ungenial formality of our German professors. In him solid piety is coupled with affability, cordiality, and benevolence, and adorned by true Catholic cheerfulness.

The Catholic professors, on the whole, have taken little interest in these conventions, because the majority of them are unacquainted with real life. There are exceptions, however, such as those mentioned above. Schulte, of Prague, also, has displayed a laudable zeal in every convention until 1862. He favors true progress, and earnestly wishes the Catholics not only to rival but surpass the Protestants in every respect. Sometimes he is a little too exacting in his demands; his expressions are rather strong, and his strictures on abuses are not sufficiently tempered with moderation. Schulte is no visionary, for he is thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Church, but he is carried away by a burning zeal, a kind of holy anger. Hermann Müller, professor at the Würzburg university, a jurist and philologer, and formerly well known as a journalist, was the most handsome member of the Würzburg convention, and his magnificent beard attracted universal attention. The university was likewise represented by Professors Contzen and Ludwig and by Dr. Wirsing. Long continued study has left its traces on the features of Prof. Vering, of Heidelberg, but it has not {342} hardened his heart against the claims of the Catholic cause.

At Würzburg sixty-three professors and authors signed an address and sent it to the Holy Father. In it they declare their readiness to submit unconditionally to the decision of the Holy See regarding the meeting of the German _literati_. I cannot refrain from saying a few words on this meeting, especially as it may be said to have originated in the general conventions. In fact, the sensation caused by the Würzburg meeting has by no means subsided. I have lying before me Döllinger's "Discourse on the Past and Present of Catholic Theology," and criticisms on it by the Mayence "Katholik," the Paris "Monde," and the "Civiltà Cattolica;" also Prof. Hergenröther's speech at Würzburg on meetings of European scholars, the pamphlet of Prof. Michelis, of Braunsberg, and a cutting reply in the November number of "Der Katholik." To these I may add the papal brief to the Archbishop of Munich (December 21, 1863), the despatch of Cardinal Antonelli to the nuncio at Munich (July 5, 1864), and the letter of the Holy Father to Professors Hergenröther and Denzinger, dated October 20, 1864. I fear the matter will take a disagreeable turn, and that our learned professors will bring themselves into difficulty. No doubt there is much truth in Hergenröther's reflections on his colleagues: "All our learned men are not as prudent as they should be; they have not sufficient tact, and are wanting in knowledge of the actual state of things; many a professor in his sanctum acquires ideas wholly at variance with real life."

The Catholic general conventions will not alter their character in order to busy themselves with purely scientific concerns; in short, it cannot become a congress of learned men, nor a substitute for such a congress. Fully persuaded of this fact, Prof. Denzinger declared, in the most explicit terms, that the meeting of the German _literati_ was independent of the sixteenth general convention, which was nowise responsible for its doings.

Moreover, it is a fact to be borne in mind, that the Holy See has not forbidden such meetings, that the German bishops do not wish them to be interfered with, and that no Catholic party, as Michelis says, has intrigued to prevent them.

If, in spite of all this, the matter does not prosper, the learned men alone are to blame. It seems to be extremely difficult to prevent dissensions among men who devote themselves to different branches of science, to unite in the bonds of friendship and concord the disciples of the speculative, the historical, and the practical sciences. If I belonged to the class of men of which I am speaking, I would express my opinions more fully. Why did not the illustrious theologians of Tübingen deign to come to Munich in 1863? Why is there so slim an attendance of German professors at the Catholic congresses? Why do the representatives of sciences so intimately connected remain estranged from each other? A closer union would bring about renewed activity, prejudices would be dispelled, the jealous reserve with which we now meet on every side would give way to a more healthy state of things, and youthful genius would be encouraged by the conviction that they are stayed and supported by men of experience and acknowledged merit.

Will the congress of 1863 remain a fragment, as the general meeting of the art unions in 1857? We hope not. The best rejoinder to all that has been said on such meetings would be a general European congress of all learned Catholics, at Brussels, Greneva, or Frankfort--attended by Döllinger, Phillips, and Alzog, as the representatives of Germany; by Perin, Delcour, and de Ram; by Newman, Oakley, Acton, and Robertson; by Meignan, Montalembert, and Rio, and by the Italians Nardi, Cantu, and Casoni. The union between the civilized nations of Europe is becoming {343} closer day by day; will our scholars alone remain stationary and isolated? If they follow this course, the day of retribution will soon arrive.

Foremost among the promoters of scientific progress, during the second half of the nineteenth century, stands a Catholic prince, King Maximilian II. of Bavaria. History tells of few princes who have so liberally patronized men of science. With royal munificence he has founded and endowed institutions of learning and fostered scientific enterprise. He will always be praised as one of the most generous patrons of German science, and in the history of literature and science will occupy an honorable position. Unfortunately, however, the ideas of the noble prince were not realized by the men he protected. He lived to be sorely disappointed, and to discover that he had bestowed his benefits on men unworthy of his confidence. Döllinger, without mentioning the king's mistakes, has done full justice to his merits. Döllinger himself holds a princely rank in the European republic of letters. With skilful hand he is rearing the immense edifice of a universal Church history. The corner-stone is already laid and the foundation completed. May God give life and vigor to the architect, that he may finish his vast undertaking. Since his famous lectures at the Odeon at Munich, delivered before a mixed audience in April, 1861, Döllinger has fixed the attention of men holding the most contrary opinions both in and out of the Church. Of late, many have been disappointed in Döllinger, though without any reason; they have given a false meaning to his words--misinterpreted his intentions. True, he speaks with a boldness to which all cannot immediately accustom themselves, for he is a thorough enemy of all mental reservation in theology. He stands on an eminence, surveying not only our own times but the whole extent of sacred and profane history, and combines a correct estimate of the necessities of the age with a fervent love of Christ and his Church.

Hergenröther, our revered professor, is in many respects the scientific complement of Döllinger. If Döllinger at times goes too far, Hergenröther knows how to explain, to correct, and to limit his expressions; this he has done several times of late. Hergenröther is a man of great learning, acquired by continued mental activity; but he is likewise well acquainted with the ideas of the present age. His speech at the Würzburg convention was a masterpiece, full of clear and well-defined ideas.

His most active colleague in the Würzburg committee was Professor Hettinger. He is perhaps the most eminent of living controversialists. He teaches apologetics, which forms the transition from philosophy to theology. Hettinger takes a large and philosophical, but at the same time truly Christian and Catholic, view of the world. Every grand and beautiful idea, both ancient and modern, he has made his own; he has analyzed every philosophical system, separating truth from falsehood, and has gathered every sound principle scattered over the wide range of philosophical literature. His controversial works deserve to be ranked among the classics of the nineteenth century. His discourses are listened to with pleasure, whether he speaks from the pulpit, the professor's desk, or the tribune. At Frankfort and Würzburg he spoke in a masterly style.

Denzinger presided at the Würzburg conference which sent an address to the Holy Father. He is a deep theologian, well versed in all philosophical systems. His mind is admirably trained, his character settled and determined, and in learning, notwithstanding the frailty of his body, he has attained an eminence to which few can aspire. Self-possessed in debate, sure and cautious in his remarks, a deep thinker, he exhorted all to forbearance, and gave universal satisfaction.

{344}

The Würzburg professors do honor to every assembly of scholars and to every Catholic convention.

Abbot Haneberg, of Munich, perhaps the most venerable of our German monks, bishop elect of Treves, a linguist who speaks fifteen languages, a first-rate teacher, who will ever be remembered by his many disciples as one of the best pulpit orators in Germany, was a zealous advocate of the Munich congress of literati. The circular was signed by Haneberg, Döllinger, and Prof. Alzog, of Freiburg. Alzog's manual of ecclesiastical history is the text-book, not only in Hildesheim and Freiburg, but in almost every seminary in Europe. The work resembles one of the beautiful mosaics so much admired in St. Peter's at Rome, and has been of great use. Alzog was present at the Frankfort conventions.

Prof. Reusch, of Bonn, is one of our best commentators. He has rendered the Catholics of Germany a great service in translating the works of the English cardinal, for Wiseman's writings are read by the whole Church. About a hundred years ago all Germany perused the productions of the English free-thinking deists, Shaftesbury, Locke, Morgan, Woolston, and Toland; at present all read the works of Wiseman, Faber, Newman, Marshall, Dalgairn, and Manning. Toward the close of the last century, Voltaire, Rousseau, d'Alembert, Diderot, and the other infamous encyclopaedists furnished the educated portion of Germany with intellectual food; now we eagerly study the writings of Dupanloup, Montalembert, L. Veuillot, Ségur, F. Gratry, and Nicolas. True, Renan too and "Le Maudit" have their admirers, but the admirable replies of Dupanloup, Felix, Freppel, Lasserre, Veuillot, Ségur, Pressensé, Parisis, Scherer, Coquerel, Lamy, and Nicolas, have likewise found an extensive circle of readers. Catholic controversy has never flourished more than at present, when hundreds of able writers plead the cause of Christ and of his vicar on earth.

Professor Vosen, of Cologne, is another eminent controversialist; he is a skilful debater, and possesses a thorough knowledge of parliamentary rules and of the social condition of Germany. His utterance is rapid, but he uses no superfluous verbiage, and every sentence is clear and well brought out.

Prof. Reinkens, of Breslau, and Floss, of Bonn, were members of the executive committee at the Munich convention of scholars. Not long ago he dedicated to us his biography of "Hilary of Poitiers," a work that may be classed with Möhler's "Athanasius."

Prof. Reischl, of Regensburg, repeatedly a member of different committees at the general conventions, and an excellent teacher, whose memory will ever be cherished by his students, is on the point of finishing, in the course of the present year, his laborious translation of the Holy Scriptures. For twelve years he has labored unceasingly, and the work is the golden fruit of his labors, and will outlive many generations. We may justly place Reischl's translation of the Bible among our Catholic classics, such as Möhler's "Symbolism," Döllinger's "Paganism and Judaism," Hefele's "History of the Councils," Phillips' "Canon Law," Hettinger's "Apologetics," Amberger's "Pastoral Theology," Dieringer's "Book of Epistles," Lasaulx's "Philosophy of the Fine Arts," Stöckl's "Philosophy of the Middle Ages," Kleutgen's "Theology of the Past," "The Legends of Alban Stolz," etc. Most of these have appeared since 1848, or rather within the last twelve years, and are the precursors of a great Catholic literary period, for which every preparation seems to be already made. That our writers are improving in beauty of style no observer can fail to notice; as a proof, I need only mention the names of Haffner, Molitor, Redwitz, and Hahn-Hahn. I cannot pass unnoticed {345} Stolberg's "History of the Church," Danberger's "History of the Middle Ages," Gfrörer's great work on Gregory VII. and his times, and the works of Frederick von Hurter. "Sepp's Jerusalem," also, is a work of undoubted merit. Professor Sepp delivered some brilliant speeches at the first Catholic general conventions. His last book is a telling refutation of Renan and other modern infidels who deny the divinity of Christ, and deserves to be ranked with the writings of Heinrich, Haneberg, Deutinger, S. Brunner, Wriesinger, Michelis, Daumer, and Hahn-Hahn on the same subject.

Michelis, of Braunsberg, shows some of Tertullian's violence; nay, sometimes he becomes personal in debate, owing to his passionate temper and his somewhat peevish character. These qualities are coupled with an ardent love of his religion and his country, and manly honor and straightforwardness. His speech at Frankfort, in 1862, was well-timed and called forth immense enthusiasm. Michelis bears a close resemblance to Prof. Remirding, of Fulda, who has lately acquired a great reputation as a dogmatic theologian. Remirding has for a long time been a teacher in England, and is thoroughly acquainted with English affairs. To him we may apply the adage: "Still waters run deep." He is silent, uncommunicative, and fond of thought. His bright eyes beam with intelligence, gentleness, and benevolence. Prof. Janssen held his maiden speech at the convention of Frankfort, in 1863; it was very successful. Janssen is a disciple of Böhmer, and he, as well as Ficker, of Innsbruck, and Arnold, of Marburg, is a worthy successor of that great historian. He is well fitted to write a satisfactory history of Germany, for Giesebrecht's "History of the German Emperors" fails to do justice to the Church during the middle ages. There is no longer any lack of Catholic historians in Germany, and the labors of Protestant writers have rendered the task easy for them. Among our Catholic historians I shall mention Onno Klopp, of Hanover; Hoefler, of Prague; Bader, Huber, Hergenröther, of Würzburg; Marx, of Treves; Dudik, Gindely, Kampfschulte, of Bonn; Niehus, Rump, and Hülskamp, of Münster; C. Will, of Nuremberg; Lämmer, of Breslau, who has lately been appointed professor of theology; Remkens, of Breslau; Alexander Kaufmann, of Werthheim; Cornelius, Friedrich, and Pichlcr, of Munich; Roth von Schreckenstein, Watterich, Dominicus, Ossenbeck, Ennen, Remling, Junckmann, Kiesel, Bumüller, Weiss, Kerker, and Alberdingk-Thijm.

These gentlemen should try to meet very often, for by seeing ourselves reflected in others we learn to know ourselves. Böhmer, Pertz, Chmel, and Theiner have laid the foundations of historical research; on their disciples devolves the task of continuing the building, and of completing it according to the intentions of their masters.

My subject is carrying me away, and I am passing the limits I had marked for myself. How many other names connected with the Munich reunion of scholars, or the last Catholic congress, should I notice in order to do justice to all! Professors Reithmayer, Reitter, and Stadlbauer, of Munich; Mayer, of Würzburg; the learned Benedictines, Rupert Mettermüller, of Metten, Gallus Morel, of Einsiedeln, Boniface Gams, of Munich; Professors Schegg, of Freising, Hähnlein, of Würzburg; Zobl, of Brixen, Uhrig and Schmid, of Dillingen, Engermann, of Regensburg, Scheeben, of Cologne, Oischinger and Strodl, of Munich, Hagemann, of Hildesheim, Pfahler, of Eichstadt, Kraus, of Regensburg, Brandner and Schoepf, of Salzburg, Nirschl and Greil, of Passau; among our rising scholars, Messrs. Constantine von Schaetzler, of Freiburg, Langen, of Bonn, Wongerath, Silbernagel, Friedrich, Pichler, and Wirthmüller, of Munich, Hitz, Kaiser, Kagerer, J. {346} M. Schneider, J. Danziger, Bach, H. Hayd, Pfeifer, Kaufmann, of Munich, and Thinnel, of Neisse; among the clergy, Dr. Westermayer, a celebrated preacher; Schmid, of Amberg, Dr. Gmelch, of Lichtenstein, Dr. Clos, of Feldaffing, Dr. Zinler, of Gablingen, Wick, of Breslau, Dr. Zailler; and finally, Canons Rampf and Herb, of Munich, W. Mayer, of Regensburg, Düx, of Würzburg, Freund, of Passau, Werner, of St. Pölten, Provost Ernst, of Eichstädt, Canon Eberhard, of Regensburg, Lierheimer, of Munich, and a host of others.

Truly Providence has blessed Germany with many great intellects, and a glorious period seems to have begun for Catholic literature. Our leading men should be animated with a fervent love of their faith, and true patriotism; thus they will be enabled to take a truly Christian view of the world.

I cannot refrain from saying a few words on the representatives of the German press.

Dr. Ernest Zander, of Munich, is the spokesman of the German journalists at the general conventions.

Zander has now been connected for twenty-seven years with the press, but he is still quite hearty and ready to do battle, and the subscribers of "Der Volksbote" read his spicy articles with undiminished pleasure.

Although a poor speaker, his appearance is always greeted with applause, and at the close of his remarks there is no end of cheering.

He calls things by their proper names, spares nobody, and has an inexhaustible fund of wit and humor.

His numerous decorations, his bushy eyebrows, his twinkling eyes, and his sarcastic smile, make his remarks doubly interesting.

On matters connected with the Catholic press, there are no authorities more reliable than Zander and Jörg, of Munich, Sausen, of Mayence, and Sebastian Brunner, of Vienna.

J. B. von Pfeilschifter, of Darmstadt, is older than the gentlemen above mentioned; in fact, he is the oldest Catholic journalist in Germany.

Pfeilschifter, says Maurice Brühl, combines varied learning and extensive reading with the experience of many years.

Since 1815 he has been actively engaged as a journalist, and for a long time he was the only champion of lawful authority and political order, and for this reason he was continually scoffed at and slandered by his revolutionary colleagues. Zander has a worthy rival in Bachem, of Cologne. Properly speaking, Bachem is a publisher, but he is likewise a very able editor. At the conventions he is the most business-like representative of the press, and seems to know more about journalism than the editors. In 1865 Bachem's paper will probably number 6,000 subscribers, which is a very respectable circulation. His journal is one of the most influential Rhenish papers, and very ably edited. If papers of equal merit were published at Mayence, Carlsruhe, Stuttgart, Augsburg, Munich, Innsbruck, Vienna, Prague, Breslau, and Münster, our political press would satisfy every reasonable demand.