stantine nearly 500 years before. For Western Europe the question was answered in regard to the relations of Church and State. It would not, perhaps, be accurate to say that Charlemagne evolved a new theory of these relations, but it is certain that as head of a State he took a position towards the Church which was in accordance with the traditional theory of the Church. The attitude of the Western Church towards the state had been clearly defined centuries before and in entering into close relations with the Church, Charlemagne tacitly, but none the less formally, accepted that attitude and that theory. As early as the fifth century, the Popes in conflict with the Emperors, had expressly formulated this theory, that in Christian society the spiritual and the temporal powers are, in the first place, entrusted to two different orders, each deriving its authority from God, each supreme in its own sphere, and independent within its own sphere of the other. In the second place, while these two authorities are each independent, and supreme in their own spheres, they are also mutually dependent and cannot avoid relations one with the other.

None knew better than Charlemagne the meaning of this relation. Writing to Leo III on the occasion of the latter's election to the Pontificate, he said: "It is our task to defend by arms from without, the Holy Church of Christ from the ravages of the pagan and the infidel, and from within by the profession of the Catholic faith. It is yours, lifting your hands to God, with Moses, to help our warlike endeavors with your prayers." Such was Charlemagne's conception of the relation of Church and State, such his answer to the problem of the Middle Ages.

All the questions as to whether Charlemagne really desired to receive the crown from the hands of the Pope, whether he was convinced that the Pope had the right to crown him, or whether he ever fully realised the significance of this act, are of little importance. What is of importance is that he approved and put into effect a manner of relation between Church and State which formed the basis of Medieval European civilization. The work of Charlemagne was the continuation. and complement of the work of Constantine. Without im

pairing in the least the monarch's usefulness or authority it imposed on him new obligations to defend the Church and the helpless.

Not only did Charlemagne give Medieval society the form and impress it retained for centuries, but he may be said to have given that society an impulse that saved it from subsequent destruction. When the unity of Empire which he had established was crumbling away in the reigns of his weak and incompetent successors, the position in which he had placed the Church made it a bond of unity when all other ties failed. The ideals of Charlemagne survived the days of Carolingian failure and decline and were brought to full realisation by Hildebrand, under whose skilful hand the forces were moulded and directed which produced the great nations of Europe, with their spirit of liberty and progress.

Thus from a difference in the manner in which two men conceived and executed a duty imposed on them by the position they occupied, have come the two main currents of civilization as represented in the two sections of Christendom. How far the failure or the achievements of these two branches of civilization are to be attributed to the two men who were so largely responsible for the direction they received it is not easy to say. Byzantium and Western Christendom represent something

different, one represents dwindling influence, suppression of popular liberties, suffocation of art and aspiration, and the very essence of state absolutism. The other stands for progress, culture, for the growth of popular sovereignty, and the widest measure of popular liberty consistent with good order.

The question of Church and State is ever old and ever new. It is the question of collectivism versus individualism, of State absolutism or popular rights, and for the world of the present seeking in so many quarters an outlet for its difficulties and its problems by enlarging social control and the powers of the State, there may be a valuable lesson in the contrast offered by the civilizations bearing respectively the imprint of Justinian and Charlemagne.

PATRICK J. HEALY.

BOOK REVIEWS.

Expositio Regulae Fratrum Minorum, Auctore Fr. Angelo Clareno. Quam nunc primum edidit notisque illustravit P. Livarius Oliger, O. F. M. Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi). Typis Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1912. 16°, pp. lxxviii-250. Price, 61⁄2 francs.

It is well known that even during the lifetime of St. Francis of Assisi a division had shown itself in the ranks of his followers as to the observance of the Rule and that this division resulted in the formation of two parties within the order of Friars Minor designated respectively by later writers the Zelanti or "Spirituals" and the Relaxati. The former insisted on the literal following of the primitive Rule "without gloss" while the latter favored a relaxation of its rigor especially as regards Poverty. These mystic disputes among the Franciscans, which lasted over a century and which were marked by revolt on the one hand and by repression. on the other, both accompanied by harshness and even cruelty,gave rise to a very considerable literature. In the mass of controversial writings which thus grew up round the Rule of the Friars Minor the works of Angelo Clareno are of special intest and importance. This remarkable man entered the Francis' order in or about 1260 and soon became the leader of the "Spiritual " Friars in the Marches of Ancona. Hunted and persecuted by his adversaries during his whole life, Angelo Clareno died in 1337. Among the works of Clareno that have come down to us the best known are undoubtedly his Chronica Septem Tribulationum Ordinis Minorum, a complete edition of which is now in course of preparation at Quaracchi, his Epistola Excusatoria ad Papam which has been edited by Fr. Ehrle, S. J., in the Archiv für Litteratur und Kirchengeschichte and his Expositio Regulae Ordinis Fratrum Minorum a work now published for the first time in the volume under review.

Students of Franciscan history have long felt the need of a critical edition of Clareno's Exposition of the Rule of his Order, not indeed that it has any great practical value nowadays but

because of the light it throws upon the complicated early history of the "Spiritual" Franciscans and because it may be regarded in some measure as an apology for the line of conduct followed by Clareno and his disciples. The present edition of Clareno's work was worth waiting for. It would have been difficult, perhaps, to find anyone more fitted for the difficult task of editing such a work than Fr. Livarius Oliger who has long made the history of the Franciscan Rule and of the "Spiritual" Friars a special study. So far as concerns knowledge of his sources-whether this be in the form of inedited мss. or of printed material-he is thoroughly equipped. The sum of his researches is embodied in the critical Introduction to the present volume (pp. i-lxxviii) which opens with a detailed description of the early мss. in which Clareno's exposition may be found and an accurate account of the fragments of the work already published. Next follows a biographical sketch of Clareno covering twelve pages which adds not a little to our knowledge of his life. This is supplemented by a list of Clareno's writings including the works he translated from the Greek. Among these writings the Expositio Regulae is, of course, dealt with at greatest length, many interesting questions being touched upon as to the date of its composition, the sources from which it derives its value and authority. After this comes the Exposition itself in twelve chapters (pp. 1-236), the text here published being taken from a XIV century codex now preserved at S. Isidore's College, Rome, which the Editor has carefully collated with several other early MSS. The value of the text before us is moreover greatly enhanced by the scholarly notes of reference and explanation which elucidate the standpoint of the author and the more important allusions contained in the Exposition. Only those who know something of the difficulty attending the editing of mediæval documents will be able to appreciate the labor involved in the preparation of the present volume. The patient and careful scholarship is a delight. Indeed Fr. Oliger's edition of Clareno is a really notable work and is in its way beyond all praise.

FR. PASCHAL ROBINSON, O. F. M.

Christ's Teaching concerning Divorce, in the New Testament. An exegetical study. By Rev. Francis E. Gigot, D. D. New York, Benziger. 1912. Pp. 282.

Most of our so-called Christian nations pretend to follow the maxims of Christ, and yet many of them legalize remarriage after separation of husband and wife. Protestant churches claim not only that Christ allowed divorce in the case of infidelity, but that this was only a model case, and that He was not opposed to divorce and subsequent wedlock for reasons of similar import. For those who believe in the divine mission of Christ, His words ought to be law, and no matter what reasons the human mind can put forward against the permanency of the marriage-tie, they must be set aside if they disagree with the Master's teaching. The teaching of Christ is for the believer, the starting point and it is compliance with it that will render any legislation on divorce Christian or un-Christian. But what is that teaching? It is this fundamental question that Dr. Gigot has undertaken to investigate, on strictly scientific lines; surely, there could not be any study more actual or more welcome to the honest seeker after truth.

The passages of the New Testament in which are recorded the sayings of Jesus on divorce, are the following: Mark, x, 2-12; Luke, xvi, 18; 1 Cor. vii, Matt. v, 31-32; xix, 3-12.

These passages are subjected to a very minute analysis by Dr. Gigot. He deals with them in a manner that reveals not only the severe dialectician but also the true historian: he sets each passage in its context, points out the insidious questions that gave rise to Christ's answers, and interprets it in the light of the historical circumstances in which it was uttered. Such a painstaking and methodical analysis shows that the author is equal to the task that he has set for himself, and reflects great credit upon him. This applies especially to the famous passages of St. Matthew in which is to be found the clause 'except for fornication.' Our Lord was well acquainted with the difference between the two schools of Hillel and Shammai with regard to the interpretation of the Eruath Dabhar,' the ground given by Deuter. xxiv, 1, for delivering a bill of divorce. Hillel maintained that the expression meant anything that would displease the husband, provided the bill of divorce be delivered; Shammai restricted it to the case of infidelity. Shammai was right, and his interpretation corresponds to the original purpose of the Mosaic legislation. Yet, as Dr.