Here certainly is a book by one who knows the Middle Ages and who loves them. Religious life (it is in this sense that the word religion is used in the title), which is the subject of this first volume of over six hundred pages, is appreciated by Mr.

G. C. Coulton and in some measure understood. But the book just misses being a great book through two defects : (i) it seems to be written in a temper, and (2) it is incomplete, for it deliberately omits the great ideals and achievements of monasticism, since the author finds that these have already been sufficiently detailed elsewhere (p. 20). His temper is understandable. He is a man of immense learning, who has read many modern works on monasticism, chiefly written in its defence, and has met in them statements not only unsupported by evidence, but the very reverse of what his reading of first-hand authorities has led him to believe. The shadows of monastic realities he finds deliberately omitted. Consequently, he is determined that this one-sided account shall not prevail, and he sets to work to prove conclusively the many failures, the general imperfections, the mediocre achievements of normal monasticism. We think that Mr. Coulton has not perhaps realised how recent is this devotion to the romance of the monks which he attacks, and how Cardinal Gasquet and his school wrote their books precisely as Mr. Coulton has written his, angry and determined to right a distorted account which had for so long done duty for history.

Joy wedded Sorrow:

Duly of the twain.

Mid Joy’s delight and Sorrow’s travail-pain, Young Love was born upon a blissful morrow.

Of one or other

Has the boy the most?

For, ‘He’s his father’s son,’ one heart will boast;

While one says sighing, ‘Nay, how like his mother.’

Sister Mary Benvenuta, O.P.

(concluded)

II. English Translations.

The four stanzas given by Wade have formed the basis of every English translation, from the earliest— which, according to Julian, is that beginning ‘Draw near, ye faithful Christians,’ in the Evening Office of the Church (1760)—to the present time. The rendering, however, upon which the version in most general use is based, and indeed which it mostly follows, is that made by the late Canon Oakeley in 1841 for Margaret Street Chapel (the forerunner of All Saints’, Margaret Street) of which he was then incumbent. According to Julian, ‘it was never published by the translator, but came into notice by being sung in his chapel.’ This began,‘Ye faithful, approach ye.’ The usual version, ‘O come, all ye faithful,’ appeared in Murray’s Hymnal (1852); Neale, in the Hymnal Noted (1854), has ‘Be present, ye faithful’—a much less singable rendering. (One sometimes wonders whether the quality of singableness appealed to Neale : it will be remembered that the first line of the hymn universally sung as ‘O come, O come, Emmanuel,’ was rendered by its translator ‘Draw nigh, draw nigh’ — almost impossible to sing with pleasure !) The general popularity of the Adeste undoubtedly dates from the publication of Hymns Ancient and Modern (1861); the second part of the Hymnal Noted in which it appeared was not as widely used as the earlier portion. A slightly altered version appeared in The Churck Psalter and Hymn Book (1854) by the Rev. W. Mercer, to whom the translation is sometimes attributed; this was at one time the most popular collection in Anglican use, and was in many respects a great advance on those—e.g. Bickersteth’s Christian Psalmody and Brady and Tate’s ‘new version’ of the Psalms appended to the Book of Common Prayer—which had previously held the field.

He found her straying in a wood Where roses bleed the wind,

And round about full many a rood Their thorns entwined.

She met him when he bore the tree,

And lilies blanched the ground.

He raised his bleeding head to see Their glory crowned.

T.McS.

I.

The Encyclical ‘ Studiorum ducem?

On the 29th day of June, 1923, the Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, published the Encyclical Studiomm ducem. After extolling the virtues and holiness of the life of St. Thomas, the Holy Father says:

‘From this slight glance at St. Thomas’s great virtues, it will not be difficult to understand the extraordinary excellence of his doctrine and the great authority it holds in the Church. Our Predecessors, as it were with unanimous utterance, have sounded its praises. ... It is not possible to recount all the innumerable documents of the Apostolic See, yet we must not omit to mention Leo XIII, who did so much to revive Thomistic studies. . . . Pius X, of holy memory, following Leo’s worthy example, declared the splendour of St. Thomas in his Motu proprio ‘ Doctoris Angelici,’ . . . Benedict XV, our beloved Predecessor, more than once repeated the same. . . . and it was reserved for him to give in the Code of Canon Law which he promulgated a unique consecration to the method, doctrine and; principles of the Angelic Doctor. We ourselves therefore, in approving these tributes to iso great a genius, consider that St. Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the Common or Universal Doctor of the Church, because his doctrine the Church has made her own.

. . . Truly and wisely did our Predecessor say: “To

desert Aquinas, especially in his metaphysical teachings, is to risk disaster.”

. . . ‘There is no doubt that Theology reached the apex of its dignity in the words of Aquinas, who combined an absolute knowledge of divine things with a force of intellect wonderfully fitted for philosophical argument. Wherefore both in our schools of philosophy and Theology, St. Thomas holds the supreme mastership.

‘ONE must never lie, of course,’ said Padre Innocento in English, ‘but there are an amount of people here in Italy we allow to deceive themselves. The gentry on the frontier, for instance, when it is a question of tobacco.; and the dazieri who sit at the receipt of custom over there,’ and he waved lavishly at the toy roofs and towers of Borgo Sant’ Ignoto, five kilometres off in the valley. ‘There is a story of old Monsignor Scalabrin and how he outwitted the customs of his own town and took in duty-free the sausage of the Countess Villani. He had no bad intention, the good Monsignor. There was no sin. It was almost, you might say, the act of Providence. Besides, the Monsignor is in Venice and the Countess at Treviso; and the dazieri, though they are still at the same barrier, do not understand English. So if you like to write the story down, there will be no harm done; and it will be a page or two more for your book.’ I hastened to assure the good Father—who had frequently enjoyed the sweets of vicarious authorship through the inadequate medium of my pen and was, between ourselves, longing to see himself at one remove in print again—that I would make it my business to write out and publish the story of Monsignor Scalabrin as soon as I got back to England. So as we swung down the vine-screened cart-track that led from the mountain where he had said and I had heard Mass at the chapel of a mutual friend, he recounted the legend in the raciest English he could muster.

The circumstances of the Epistle to the Galatians are these :—

1. St. Paul had preached to the Galatians. He had taught them that Gentile converts need not be circumcised (Jewish converts would be already circumcised); and that the neo-Christians were not bound to observe the Law. ‘Behold I Paul tell you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’ (v. 2).

2. A group of Christians, probably quoting the authority of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, took advantage of St. Paul’s absence from Galatia to teach that circumcision was necessary for the convert Gentiles. ‘. . . they will have you to be circumcised’ (vi. 13), ‘. . . a little leaven’ (v. 9), ‘. . . some that trouble you would pervert the gospel of Christ’ (i. 7).

3. It is therefore a matter of dispute between one apostle (Paul) and at least the followers of another (James).

In such a dispute the most important element is the tribunal of appeal, without which no agreement between the parties disagreeing can be found.

The appeal—explicit or implicit—seems to have been to the authority or practice of St. Peter.

4. But St. Peter was claimed by both sides. The lovScuoi from Jerusalem could claim that St Peter had allowed St. James’s view to determine his own-course of action. ‘Before that some came from James he (Peter) did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself’ (ii. 12).

St. Paul does not deny (a) the authority of St. Peter or (b) the alleged fact. He does not say ‘Peter’s action is of no authority.’