Whether, then, a second Staouëli will arise in that distant land only the future can tell; if such should be the decision of the Trappist Council, we know that the splendid self-devotion, the earnest labor, the entire self-abnegation of some future founder will be as fruitful, as glorifying to his Divine Master, as were the life and work of Francis Regis in the old, yet ever new, toil-worn, yet ever stainless habit of sweet St. Bernard, under the burning southern sun.

FRANCE.

T. L. L. Teeling.

A

THE SITUATION IN ROME.

BOUT the situation in Rome, as it was during the month of September, 1895, The Saturday Review then wrote as follows: "Italy has hardly moved forward in any respect during the last twenty-five years which have elapsed since the last French zouave quitted Rome and the vanguard of the Savoyard's troops marched in by Porta Pia. New problems and changed conditions occupy the attention of the rest of Europe. The Italian Kingdom lags behind, not far from where September of 1870 found her, still engrossed in the apparently impossible task of digesting the Papacy. The national energies have been concentrated upon this solitary undertaking, to the exclusion of everything else. The abnormal outlay upon an army and navy several sizes too large for the country is only one of a number of sacrifices which the attempt has involved."

The writer of the article next proceeded to detail some of the efforts made in this connection, and then concluded his statement: "The acquisition of Rome has, in fact, sterilized the Italian Monarchy. The vehement protests of Pius IX. and the no less effective, if more suave, obstinancy of Leo XIII. have availed to keep the Roman Question alive for a quarter of a century. It is well known that the Vatican holds in reserve a great host of pious voters, who have never yet exercised the right of suffrage; its influence over the women of Italy is as powerful as ever. These elements of resistance can at a given signal be turned into an offensive force, strong enough to wreck any ministry, and perhaps a dynasty along with it. It is to nobody's interest that this stupid dead-lock should continue. Fortunately, there seem to be indica

tions that a solution, or rather a compromise, is no longer regarded by those most closely concerned as altogether out of the question."

There is much matter for profitable meditation in these paragraphs of the habitually acute not less than suggestively written periodical. That periodical, we may reasonably suppose, regarded the situation in Rome objectively, and, as we may also suppose, was at least not moved by any feeling of sympathy towards the Papacy. We, therefore, quote its judgment because this may be regarded both as impartially made and as representative of the views which candid observers in every part of the world must, some willingly, others unwillingly, some at an earlier, others at a later date, be brought to entertain about the situation in Rome and in Italy.

The statement bears witness to the fact that Italy has absorbed the Papacy without assimilating it. The conception of this fact must be the groundwork of every just conception of the situation. The statement, furthermore, bears witness to the fact that Italy has expended the best of her energies during a quarter of a century in a vain endeavor to assimilate the Papacy, and that instead of showing any promise of a better success in the future she is compelled, for the sake of internal peace, to confront the alternative of compromise or of chronic disorder. This may be taken to be the permanent condition of the Italian State in respect to the Papal Church. The desired solution has not yet come, but the "stupid dead-lock" continues.

And to set still more in relief the impartiality of the statement, regarded as an expression of unbiassed opinion, we may point out that it was made during a season when international comity or courtesy would have disposed even a Saturday Review to an expression of good-will, since at that moment Italy was ostentatiously solemnizing "the Silver Jubilee" of her "wedding with Rome," which "wedding" is here represented, under a very different figure of speech, as the swallowing of the last Papal morsel.

Consequently, we possess in this statement a high level of favor towards Italy, and a corresponding or lower level of favor, or even of indifference, towards the Papacy; favor and indifference which are duly opposed and duly combined in the forming of an estimate. Yet, this estimate is an explicit recognition of the rightfulness of the Papal demands. Catholics do not stand in need of such support, for they have been accustomed to neglect, but they may set some store by such a testimony. There have been given many such, but the present one has been quoted here simply because, within a brief and correct outline, it summarizes the existing situation and indicates the hopeless nature of the evil until a compromise shall have been sought and attained.

It has been, and is, the password among those who are averse to the Papal claims to say that there is no Roman Question. The thing has been done to death, and the insistence and obstinacy with which, in Italy especially, the denial has been bandied about are very much akin to the frantic methods of the traditional atheist who acts as though he had resolved his negation into a positive belief.

We will here take for granted that there is a Roman Question. If there is, Catholics have a duty of considering it and of approaching it with all possible courage and with the fewest possible preconceptions. Within a score of years not only the conditions but the possibilities of the case have changed. The view which appears to prevail in the Roman Curia is most likely to be the correct one, yet few Catholics are thoroughly conversant with it. It tentatively embraces, or tends towards, a solution which is offered, or strongly suggested, by the situation itself. It is, therefore, the most obvious and, at the same time, the most natural. the least difficult of effectuation.

It is also

To describe it, or rather to characterize it, in a somewhat philosophical manner, we may say that many, at least, of the best-informed regard a solution as possible, as potentially near though practically distant, and this because not visible to the vulgar eye. If it be such, and if it be entertained in such quarters, it must recommend itself even to all those non-Catholic Christians who cherish the desire of a lasting and effective peace between Church and State.

The month of January, 1890, and the same month in 1897, may be regarded as the time-limits of any description of the present moral and material situation in Italy as regards the Roman Question. From 1870 to 1875 ran one marked period; from 1879 to 1889 another not less marked. Though clearly distinguished by the characteristics proper to them, their precise limits of time are either not easily discernible or are unimportant. They were highly marked by events. To these two periods has succeeded a third, which is at present incomplete, but which shows more important, though less salient, characteristics than those possessed by either of its forerunners. It is a period of reflection.

That elapsing between 1870 and 1879 should have been, like an "era" in geology, a period of formation, adaptation and preparation. It was the first period of the Italian domination in Rome, yet it was scarcely less stagnant, as far as thought was concerned, than it was inoperative as far as commencements were concerned; a period not so much of transition as of simple inaction. The Italian Government stood-it did not even so much as sit-with its hands folded. A man to whom opportunity and conscience dictate at cross-purposes is often stimulated into feverish activity

after he has preferred to follow opportunity rather than to obey conscience. The paradox of Italian inaction from 1870 to 1875 is explained by the uncertainty of the tenure held of the Holy City. The pictures then presented survive, obsolete and grotesque, in the minds of some Catholics. It was a period not of stagnation only, but of stupefaction also, they were told; a demonstration of the folly of Victor Emanuel in hoping to rule in the Papal City, they were also told. All this was well enough, had its consequences not been come to be joined with every possible phase of the Italian occupation. Without the Pope, they also learned, grass would grow in the streets of Rome; while, on the other hand, no potentate but he could establish a secure footing in the Eternal City. The first things have changed; the others were part of a kindly superstition which Divine Providence has allowed to be falsified, and was like to the reverential pseudo-prophecy about the years of Peter in the supreme Pontificate. Indeed, the Italians did not at first seem to have come to stay. Their sovereign, or his minister, Sella, had affirmed the contrary: a Roma ci siamo e ci resteremo;' but for a spell of years the fiat was not lived up to. The new masters dwelt in furnished rooms, so to speak. Victor Emanuel might almost have been mistaken for a royal guest outstaying his welcome in the summer residence of his friend, the Pope. At the worst he resembled Charles VIII., and it was more probable that Pius IX. would have enthralled his conscience and subdued his will than that Alexander VI. should have compelled the French conqueror to cower on his knees. The Pope was in a plight only a little worse than that of Leo IX. after the battle of Civitella, and the king, in his devotion, was not altogether dissimilar to the Norman adventurer. Therefore, the native Romans were emboldened to make the most rigorous resistance of which they were capable. Their bon mots were diverted from the incidental foibles of the former Government to the natural constitution of the new. The one had been derided because paternal; the other was detested because liberal and intrusive. Their inevitable gibes and delicious pasquinades were multiplied, used as the equivocal output of some hatred and much contempt, and given a novel permanence in gusty sheets. Altogether, there was no cohesion between the old and new in Rome. There was not even adhesion. When the environs of Rome were darkened with Cadorna's host

1 This bald dictum, Here we are and here we stay, has been injudiciously compared

to the Hic manebimus optime. The comparison is unfortunate, from a literary point of view, at least.

2 Mary Lafon has been at pains to read a perfect fanaticism of rebellion into the secular ebullitions of Roman fun before 1870.

8 La Frusta, etc.

on the eve of the breach, the Pope was reported to have declared that Rome could not undergo capture. It could be invaded, but it could not, would not, be taken. His confidence was not shared by all the good, but it was accepted by very many, even of the indifferent. When the city actually fell, some of the devout believed that it would not be entered; when it had been entered, they felt sure that it could not be held. In general, the faith in a miraculous intervention was changed, in regard not so much to its object as to circumstantial details. The confidence in the benign and mysterious power of the unarmed Pontiff was nourished. Thus it was that not only the more loyal believers and adherents but many of the less disinterested waited and did not rally to the dominant power.

Then a change came. The ensuing period has been well described in a summary way by a French writer: "On s'aperçut alors que la France ayant repoussé, par la main des catholiques liberaux qui s'etaient fait ses repondants, la salut que la monarchie allait lui apporter, ne tarderait pas de renvoyer ce gouvernment bâtard, qui ne voulait pas faire le mal, mais qui était impuissant à organiser le bien. Le gouvernment français penchait à gauche, la France ne comptait plus pour la Sainte Siege, et Victor-Emmanuel pouvait jouir en paix des fruits de son usurpation. Alors on poussa activement les travaux d'assainissement et d'embellissement et on commença la transformation de Rome. En 1874, la population est de 256,000 habitants et s'elève graduellement chaque année. En 1885, elle était de 345.036 individus, avec un accroisement de 11,000 personnes. Suivant cette moyenne, nous sommes au dessus de la verité, en assignant maintenant à Rome (Mai, 1887) une population totale de 368,000 habitants. L'augmentation de la population de Rome est un fait assez facile à expliquer. Le gouvernment voulant s'établir solidement dans sa nouvelle capitale dont il connaissait bien l'attachement au Saint Siege, u'avait que le choix entre deux moyens; déporter les vaincus, ou les noyer dans la masse des vainqueurs. Le premier procédé, qui est le plus ancien etait plus radical; mais heureusement il n'est plus dans nos moeurs force était de se contenter du second."

So an aspect of stability was given to the Italian sojourn here. The huge and tasteless structures of the new Rome arose to receive, in straitness or squalor, the denizens who came to fill the city and to make it the antithesis of all that it had been in the past. We will here digress so far as to say that the Government which

1 M. Felix Grimaldi, Rome Après 1870, pp. 162-3-4. He assigns 1874 as the date of change. The difference is immaterial, both for the reason given above and for this other, that he takes 1874 as a point of starting, not as one of realization.

2 I have omitted a sentence from the quotation. The population of Rome is now of about 435,000 souls. Before 1870 it counted less than 200,000.