The charities of St. Vincent de Paul; an evaluation of his ideas, principles and methods

Front matter

THE CHARITIES OF

ST. VINCENT DE PAUL

AN EVALUATION

Chapter I. France at the Time of St. Vincent de Paul (1580-1660) 1

Bo emebuaa cial iM rane elsens. mete wat ere e wee ER en ae 6

4,. social Hrance in. ¢. sa. Re ect amar NL at eee AB at oe Nk dN ee ee 7

ome OAC ECTS iC Sig ee eee Races sabi fe acy PG Aaa es ie ee 17 SECTION I. The General Sociological and Politico-Economic Ideas

Chapter II. The Power and Duties of the State................ 50

Chapterm Wes Poverty atte sm eons ay care een ee oe Oe SE A ee 73

- SECTION II. The Principles of St. Vincent de Paul in Social Service 87

Chapters. herservice.of the Poorest... creeks a Ra eae ote 890 Pe hes Supernatural: in’Social Services. a. oe. Se eek ee 89

Qt SOG Mer ATION Tc eisysie see oO Pati ea ia sins sea ee atte 114 Chapter III. Discrimination in Charity ........ RR MINS Me Sees eta ed 119 Tepayd aC CINCCUicattee nts 5. AN care ohiety et sage cet re rh aaes sae et aia tany ak oe 119

Ze CAS CMURIMESIIAtIOMGR cc visa ce ech ene ee ee SA has aren aioe 119

ame SUCHE Welt oo a at ts eR ade ote a EA OE Ee ToT et _130

A. The Various Classes Engaged in Social Service.. 137 Paiieseraimeda Social aVOtkergniraecaee = ne clamace 139

C. Part-Time and Full-Time Workers ........°.... 144

B. The Nurse and the Physician ....,.,,...--. see, ome 151

Chaptet- VALS Relet: <..8 sete Ruse ons ei ytd ater eee 155 14 The General Nature*of Reliet&. st. tea me ee | eee eee 155 2. The Obligation of Earning One’s Livelihood.............. 157 3:. “daRehiabilit ations wc vs ents acoreine chine cata eaten ee iol toes eee 159 4. - instititional:vs» Home Careless one eer e 161

SECTION III. The Methods of St. Vincent de Paul in Social Service 163

A. The Confraternities of the Towns and Villages... 165

Gs ohesvadtes ot otel Diente ae es eee 172

E. The Priests of the Mission ACEC FIC eee er ee 183

a0 Dihie Sitisaaetns. cage seeks ee ee ee ee er Ico

Age Saint-Lazare-and=thel insatie ees aes wee a IQI

B. The Daughters of Charity and the Insane........ 192

2 \ industrial: Mvaltatt Oa crete apenas tener iepeea sin he ee ee 228

Br iirventleel elitngtentse 2a-.0s sates aca aaa ete oe ee 243

A. =-Saint-Vincent-and vas Miadeleme a. ons oo see 249

B. St. Vincent and the Daughters of Providence..... 251 C. Special Protective Worle uceaik cee. a5 ee 252°

2s i Ni emetic arecidcmp epee ieee Rae eae are) ek aU Reece Pe eae 258

6; General PReliet 2. seat Ba es ee ee ee 275

Ay PhesRelietor lorraine sasine te eee 275

B. The Relief of Picardy and Champagne ...5...... 286

CC. The Relist of Poland wx accs etree eae eee ee 301

Ds» The Relietonr' Gennevilliers: Sane. 5s eesOG

EK. The Relief of Paris and Environs Duritg the

Frondiers Soke Hr 5 ec eee oe nee ee eee 310

> Dhe Relief otsMiaconingae sane eee ene 322

T. VINCENT DE PAUL

~

~wiee

Introduction

CHAPTER I FRANCE AT THE TIME OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL (1580-1660)

The conditions of France during the first half of the seventeenth century were a potent factor in molding St. Vincent de Paul’s life of love and self-sacrifice. They occa-

-sioned his extensive and varied activities by being responsible for the miseries he strove to alleviate. In many cases, too, they suggested the means and methods of relief and dictated the policies by which his undertakings were governed. For an adequate understanding of St. Vincent’s works, therefore, at least a cursory glance at the history of France at this period is imperative’.

1. Political France

Politically France was an absolute monarchy.? The king was responsible to no earthly power in temporal affairs. .

1 For details cf., v.g., Sully, Mémoires, English trans., Charlotte Lennox, 1756; Richelieu, Testament Politique, Amsterdam, 1688; d’Avenel, La fortune privée a travers sept siécles, Paris, 1895; Idem, Paysans et ouvriers

_ depuis sept cents ans, Paris, 1899; Martin Saint-Leon, Histoire de corporations de métiers depms leurs origines jusqw a leur suppression en 1791, Paris, 1897; Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvricres et de Vindustrie en France avant 1789, vol. ii., Paris, 1901; Feillet, La misére au temps de la Fronde et de S. Vincent de Paul, Paris, 1862; Lallemand, Histoire de la charité, vol. iv., Paris, 1910, 1912; Weiss, Weltgeschichte, vols. viii., ix., Graz u. Leipzig, 1895, 1898; Ranke, Franzoesische Geschichte, vorn. im sechszehn-

_ten u. siebenzehnten Jahrhundert, 6 vols., 4te Auflage, Leipzig, 1876; Adams,

The Growth of the French Nation, N. Y., 1908; Johnson, Europe in the Sixteenth Century, 1494-1598, 5th ed., London, 1909; Lodge, Richelieu, N. Y., 1896; Schwill, A Political History of Modern Europe from the Reformation to the Present Day, N. Y., 1908; Wakeman, Ascendency of France, 1598- 1715, N. Y., 1915.

' 2 Henry III, 1574-1589; Henry IV, 1589-1610 (Duc de Sully, Prime Minister) ; Louis XIII, 1610-1643 (Marie de Medici, Regent during his minority ; Cardinal Richelieu, Prime Minister, 1624-1642); Louis XIV, 1643-1715 (Anne of Austria, Regent during his minority; Cardinal Mazarin, Prime Minister, 1643-1661). ©

The supreme legislative, judiciary, and administrative functions of government centered in him. The Parliament of Paris was never legally a legislative or administrative body in the strict sense of the word, despite its occasional pretensions to the contrary. It was merely the supreme court of justice in the realm and the guardian of its fundamental laws. The General Estates, composed of representatives of the clergy, the nobles, and the people, and convoked at irregular intervals at the pleasure of the king, were the official organ of public opinion and of the social conscience. The king took their views into consideration when framing a law. He also consulted the members of his cabinet. But neither of these bodies had a deciding vote.

The General Estates, assembled at Paris in 1614, resolved as a fundamental law of the realm, that the king held his — power from God alone, and, hence, no earthly power, lay or ecclesiastic, enjoyed the right of absolving his subjects from their oath of allegiance. The clergy and the officials of the state, before entering upon their respective offices, were to swear adherence to this principle. Any subject opposing it was to be declared guilty of high treason.? The Parliament confirmed this view by declaring that it merely expressed a principle inherently. connected with the idea of the royal power of France.

Richelieu during his ministry was primarily bent upon ' strengthening the monarchy and raising France to a commanding position among the nations of Europe. To these ends all else was subservient. The individual was practically absorbed by the egotistic state. The state tended to consider him of value only in so far as he was a political asset and was inclined to go to almost any length in its demands upon his life, services, and resources.

Coexistent with the lofty conception of the origin, dignity, and unrestricted supremacy of the royal power, we find in practice almost universal disrespect for law, order, and authority, born of personal ambitions, political intrigues, rebellions, and civil strifes. The religious wars, or

* This forceful expression of public opinion was the reaction against the recognized right of the Popes during the Middle Ages to absolve from their oath of allegiance the subjects of unworthy rulers.

e« rather political civil wars, waged under the garb and guise of religion, had devastated France almost uninterruptedly throughout the last four decades of the sixteenth century. The king, the Catholic League, and the Huguenots, each had armies recruited on French soil and reénforced with foreign mercenaries. The wars were waged with the fury and cruelty of religious fanaticism. Churches, monasteries, and schools were pillaged and burned, or turned into barracks and fortresses. Opposed by the great and influential nobles, by the clergy, the Pope, the estates, and the cities, Henry of Navarre, later Henry IV, fought his way to the throne during the last decade of the sixteenth century; he was forced to reconquer practically the whole of France. Every ambitious pretender to the royal power, every discontented noble, was assured of a following to force his claims or avenge his grievances at the point of the sword.

Individuals appointed to royal offices felt themselves independent and abused their power for the furtherance of selfish interests and ambitions. The great nobles sought to transform the provinces they governed into independent states. They claimed the right to settle their disputes by what had once been their recognized prerogative—private wars. Whenever they had occasion to quarrel with the royal court, they retreated to their provinces, which served either as a secure asylum or as a base of attack.

Henry IV curtailed their power by appointing lieutenants general to act as direct agents of the crown and by entrusting the government of the chief provincial towns to persons independent of the nobles. When Richelieu entered the ministry in 1624, he found the large provinces divided ‘ among nineteen governors, all belonging to the highest rank

of the nobility. At the time of his death, eighteen years later, but four of these had retained their positions. The others had been supplanted by officials chosen from the middle class of society, called intendants, who had neither the means nor the desire to resist the crown. The nobles retained their social dignity and their revenues but no substantial authority.

There were, too, many and flagrant abuses in the administration of justice. The king, or his prime minister, arrested persons at will, generally political offenders of social ~ prominence, and detained them in prison or condemned them to death without trial or conviction. Richelieu contends in his Testament Politique that in offences against the state one must act on subjective conviction of guilt, for such offences are usually planned in secrecy and must be prematurely frustrated. It might prove disastrous to the state if one were to await full proof.

In the provinces, especially during the early years of the seventeenth century, the weak were afforded no protection against the strong. Crime went unpunished. The nobles gave themselves with impunity to violence and rapine. The soldiers and robber bands devastated entire districts undisturbed by the civil power. The officers of justice either were without sufficient authority or lent their aid to the frustration of justice. It became a matter of self-preservation to take justice into one’s own hands. Private revenge and retaliation were of daily occurrence.

2. Religious France

The relations of the French nation with the universal! Church were weak and strained. A strong national spirit had entered into ecclesiastical affairs. In her foreign and domestic policies France was no longer guided by the interests of Catholicism at large but sought exclusively the good of the nation. The Gallican Liberties had already taken deep root in the minds of the French clergy and manifested themselves in the policies of the civil authorities. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) had been condemned by the 5th Lateran Council (1512-1517) and was rejected in the Concordat of the Holy See with Francis I (1516). But the ideas therein contained lived on. The parliaments, the jurists, the magistrates, adhered to them; the rise of Protestantism in France strengthened them; the scholars further developed them. They began, in consequence, to be looked upon, not as privileges granted by the Pope to the French nation, but as the rights of the primitive Church,. which the Church of France had conserved more intact throughout the centuries than had the other nations.

In 1274 the king was granted the privilege of receiving the revenues of certain bishoprics during their vacancies. It was now no longer considered a privilege, but demanded as a royal prerogative and extended by abuse to practically all the bishoprics of the realm. It was, therefore, to the financial interest of the king to be slow in filling episcopal vacancies. A further manifestation of the Gallican Liberties at this period which wrought much harm, was the refusal of the government to accept and promulgate the reform decrees of the Council of Trent.

The Church of France, we might say, had become in the eyes of the king a royal institution, and its offices and dignities available as pensions and rewards for his favorite friends. Moreover, many of the noble families placed their younger sons in the ranks of the clergy and claimed for them, even from their youth, and independently of their moral and intellectual fitness, the hereditary right to these responsible positions in the Church.

The people, too, had become infected by the irreligious atmosphere of the age. It is true, the great mass of the French nation had remained Catholic at heart. Their weakened faith, religious indifference, and laxity of morals, were not so much the result of false philosophic thought, though Protestantism had left its unmistakable impress, as the almost inevitable outcome of the prevailing social and ecclesiastical conditions.

The worldliness, the ambitions, and the ignorance of the hierarchy could not but react upon the flocks entrusted to their charge. Meagrely instructed by their pastors, or entirely neglected or forsaken by them, the people remained grossly ignorant of some of the most essential doctrines of their religion and of the duties of the Christian life. Their moral sense had been blunted by religious animosities, wars, and the general lawlessness of the times. Sully, the Huguenot minister of Henry IV, when speaking of the events of 1594, characterizes the age as one that had “lost all distinction between virtue and vice.’

_ Duelling is worthy of special note. It was in vogue as perhaps but seldom before. The protests of the Church

Gs THE CHARITIES

compelled the king to intervene. In 1602 a law was passéd declaring duelling and assistance thereat high treason. But its very severity hampered its enforcement. Two thousand of the nobility met their death in these combats between the years 1601 and 1609. In this latter year the rigor of the law was mitigated. Richelieu, too, was forced to adopt stringent measures against this vice.*

8. Financial France

France was on the verge of bankruptcy throughout the period of St. Vincent’s activity, with the sole exception of the latter years of the reign of Henry IV. This condition must be attributed to the expenses of the civil and foreign wars, the luxurious expenditures of the royal court for its own pleasures and for the silencing of disgruntled nobles, the notorious abuses in the financial system, and the depreciation of money brought about by the influx into “Europe of precious metals from the newly discovered Americas.

Little wonder, then, that the royal taxes were numerous aud exorbitant. They were, moreover, unevenly divided. Scarcely any of them fell on all parts of the realm. To this territorial inequality was added the inequality arising from personal privileges. Ecclesiastics, nobles, and many of the crown officials, were exempt from the heaviest imposts. The principal weight of the taxes rested, therefore, on the lower classes, and more particularly on the peasantry.

The taxes, too, were collected with great fraud and oppression. Every branch of indirect taxation was farmed out. This gave rise to a greedy host of agents, inspectors, and taxgatherers, who were bent on enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayers: The enormous expenses, for example, incurred during the Thirty Years’ War compelled the government to resort to the most extravagant expedients for the procuring of funds. Large foreign loans were made. In many cases, too, the bankers furnished the money and were to reimburse themselves from the taxes, the collection of which was placed in their hands. This they did through

5 Weiss, viii, 563; Idem, ix., 239.

OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL q their agents, who performed their task with great severity - and fabulous gain. It is estimated that only about one fifth of the amount collected ever reached the royal treasury.

Throughout this entire period, protests against excessive taxation form the refrain to all the complaints of the lower classes, only to fall on unheeding ears or to be answered with broken promises. Never was more than temporary mitigation of the burden given. In some places the people tried to evade the collectors by flight; in others, they met the armed violence of the taxgatherers with armed resistance. The year 1637 witnessed the rebellion of the Croquants (Poor Wretches) in’ Perigord and Saintonge, and of the Nupieds (Barefooted) in Normandy. We find the same open opposition, or perhaps more correctly, the same manifestation of the inability to meet the excessive demands of the state, among the inhabitants of Guienne, »Clermont, Brioudes, Aurillac, Bordeaux, and, towards the middle of the century, practically throughout all France.

4. Social France

The population of France had been steadily on the inerease since the Black Death (1348-1349, 1361-1362, 1369) and the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453). This increase is noticeable especially in the citiés and more particularly in Paris. In 1448 the king complained of the solitude of the capital. A century later, the increase caused the State much concern. The king forbade the construction of new houses in the suburbs. Henry III (1574-1589) was the first king to make Paris his permanent abode. This attracted many - to the capital. Many also sought refuge there during the _ horrors of the civil wars. The population is estimated as high as 550,000 at this time. Louis XIII, in different edicts, renewed the prohibition to build in and around Paris. He gave as his reasons that the over-population would render the necessary cleanliness impossible, new dwellings would attract undesirable persons to Paris, and building in the suburbs would destroy agriculture there.

Though feudalism lost its political significance with the firm establishment of the monarchy, still it continued to wield a double influence socially. In the first place, serfdom, though in a mitigated and less burdensome form, remained in vogue in a number of the provinces until the French Revolution. Moreover, the social classes, as molded under feudalism, continued to exist along their broad lines: the clergy, the nobles, and the third estate. The latter we may - subdivide into the rich bourgeois (merchants, landowners, and officeholders), the artisans, and the peasants. Some writers have even ventured to add the further classes of vagabonds and beggars, thieves, and prostitutes.

The clergy recruited their ranks from the other two classes. The higher ecclesiastical positions, however, were in the main reserved to the sons of nobles, while the more - obscure and less desirable offices in city and country were generally assigned to ecclesiastics of plebeian extraction.

Nobility was determined in the first place by birth (the

Nobility of the Sword). It could also be conferred by the king’s patent, though the recipient was not considered quite on a level with the old nobility of many generations. There was another class of nobles distinctive of France, not considered equal in rank to the Nobles of the Sword, and forming a class between the bourgeois and the higher nobility. These were the Nobles of the Robe, the official class of certain ranks, ennobled by their office. The growth of such a class had been made easy by the sale of offices. Many acquired their titles in this latter way during the civil wars and during the first half of the seventeenth century. Many, too, had usurped the privileges of nobility. The way was, therefore, open for the lowest citizen to take his place among the privileged classes. It was a question of winning out in the competitive struggle. The poor man, the rich bourgeois, the noble, were the three stages of the struggle. Material wealth was the determining factor. In times of peace, however, the central government endeavored to check this process and to abrogate all doubtful titles of nobility.

During the ministries of Richelieu’ and Mazarin, the state offices of finance, police and justice came to be almost. exclusively in the hands of the rich bourgeois, the merchant burghers. .This was principally due to the fact that they were better able to buy them, while, at the same time, the state was glad to employ them as a wedge between the throne and the high nobility.

We may divide the social groups of France from another point of view into two large classes: those who were an economic burden and drain on the resources of the nation, and those who by personal effort or financial support contributed to the general well-being and prosperity of the country. To the latter belonged the peasants, artisans, merchant burghers and officeholders; to the former, those whom we find at the two extremes of the social scale: the beggars, thieves, and vagabonds on the one hand, and the high nobility on the other. These nobles, as a class, have been characterized as being at this period the most dangerous and useless portion of France’s population. Their spirit of insubordination and their pretentions to lawless independence were alike inconsistent with the efficiency of the centralized government and detrimental to the prosperity of the people.

We may view the population of France at this period from still another angle and divide it into two further large classes: the rich and the poor. We find enormous wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, while the many pass through all the stages from moderate ease and comfort to extreme poverty and misery, with a preponderance towards the latter. Large numbers, whole districts, stood in need of relief.

Competition was ever the all-determining factor. The meager intervention of the state in industry and commerce did not substantially affect the situation. Unequals in natural gifts and in opportunity were compelled to compete for a livelihood. The struggle was inspired by frank selfishness and was carried on relentlessly.

Nor was this competition a respecter of persons. As the lowly could ascend to the heights of success, so, too, the mighty fell. All authors speak of the impoverished nobility at this period. The tax which the noble had formerly col-

‘lected from his lands had for some time past gone to the royal treasury, leaving him the meager rent as his only land income. This, too, had fallen in value in consequence of

‘the monetary revolution. In the meantime a class of the

10 a THE CHARITIES bourgeois had enriched themselves by commerce and trade and outclassed him.

The poverty prevalent in France at this time was, therefore, no longer the plight of the individual. It was the plight of society. Much of it was the result of violated Christian justice and charity. The Church in her councils continued to encourage charity. But immorality, freedom of thought, weakening of faith and religious animosities, contributed to the decadence of charitable institutions. The religious wars had destroyed many hospitals. The adverse conditions multiplied the poor in greater numbers and more rapidly than the existing institutions could have provided for even in their most flourishing state. Contrary to the prescriptions of the Council of Vienne, a number of hospitals were still given as benefices. The revenues of monasteries, abbeys, and priories, a part of which was intended for the poor, went into private and undeserving hands.

At the same time, and in a much higher degree, the poverty can be laid to the charge of the state. Far from bolstering up its members at their weakest points by prudent legislation, restricting industrial competition for the benefit of all and regulating the accumulation of property; far from fostering mutually helpful relations, declaring and perpetuating ideals in which the sanctities of life are recognized, it was itself directly or indirectly the cause of much of the prevailing poverty. Its civil and foreign wars, frequently unjust and unnecessary, greatly crippled agriculture and commerce. These same wars and the shameful extravagance of the court exhausted the royal treasury and made exorbitant taxes inevitable. We detect a flagrant violation of social justice also in the unequal distribution of the latter. The state failed to protect the people against the devastations of the marauding soldiery, whose pay frequently consisted, in part at least, in the booty they could gather at the point of the sword from the peasants of the neighboring territory or from the inhabitants of a captured town. It failed to protect them against the raids of the “robberknights,” against the impositions and injustices of its petty officers, financial and judiciary. It itself acted highhandedly in the administration of justice.

The state endeavored to rid the realm of beggars by prohibiting mendicancy under the severest penalties, but it failed to take adequate measures to prevent it. The very frequency with which these prohibitions were enacted and rendered more severe is evident proof of their ineffectiveness.

The poor, we might say in general, made but little effort to help themselves. This is evidenced by the vast numbers of able-bodied men and women among the beggars and vagabonds. Perhaps they saw the futility of effort. Perhaps, too, they considered begging the easier, the more secure, and the more lucrative profession. We need hardly be surprised that, for example, the peasant refrained from special effort to better his condition when he had but little assurance in many cases that he, and not a marauder, would reap the fruits of his labors.

There was no organized effort to cope with the situation systematically. Relief was given individually and through the existing institutions but both, under the circumstances, were inadequate to the task. Owing to the vast numbers of the poor, the failure of the ecclesiastical institutions to offer adequate relief, and the new ideas brought in by the Reformation, the tendency was growing to secularize charity, i. e., to place a charitable institution entirely, or at least its temporal administration, into the hands of a responsible lay committee.

There were always zealous, self-sacrificing ecclesiastics and laymen who beheld with genuine sorrow the sad condition of the Church and of the poor. They exerted their every effort to effect a change, but their endeavors proved, if not entirely, at least for the most part, futile. They were greatly hampered by the refusal of the king to permit the promulgation of the reform decrees of the Council of Trent. The restoration of comparative peace and quiet at the end of the religious wars was followed by a more general and notable religious revival. It was not, however, even then the concerted effort of the Church of France, but remained the work of a few zealous, devoted individuals.

The keynote was struck by St. Francis of Sales (1567- 1622), but the most active and influential was without doubt

St. Vincent de Paul. Intimately: associated with him we find such illustrious and saintly men as Cardinal Pierre de Bérulle (1575-1629), founder of the French Congregation of the Oratory; Adrien Bourdoise (1584- 1655), founder of the seminary and of the Community of Priests of Saint- Nicolas-du-Chardonnet; the Venerable Jean Eudes (1601- 80), missionary and founder of the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity; and Jean Jacques Olier (1608-57), founder of the seminary and the Society of Saint-Sulpice. Richelieu, too, seconded his efforts when his political interests permitted it, and took an active part in the reform of monasteries.

But perhaps the most conspicuous Paces of the movement was the immense energy and enthusiasm that were thrown into the field of active charity. The Catholic Church, always conscious of her obligations toward the poor and suffering, has seldom undertaken the task of charitable relief with greater zeal, devotion, and sacrifice than during the first half of the seventeenth century. Under the leadership of St. Vincent de Paul, or inspired by his brilliant example, or independently of his personal efforts, there sprang up a series of pious congregations, a system of relief organizations, well fitted to meet the demands of charity in all its varied aspects.

CHAPTER It ST. VINCENT DE PAUL 1. Biographical Sketch

The little village of Pouy, officially called Saint-Vincentde-Paul in honor of the Saint since 1828, in the province of Gascony, France, was the birth-place of St. Vincent de Paul. Until late years, 1576 was accepted without question as the year of his birth. Recent study, however, has established the year 1580 as the more probable.

History has recorded very little concerning his -parents apart from the fact that they were poor, simple, God-fearing peasants.2. Vincent was the third of six children, four boys and two girls, and, like his brothers and sisters, passed his early years in the fields. He was employed particularly in guarding his father’s flocks.

St. Vincent’s father was not entirely disinterested in allowing the young boy to prepare for the priesthood. He was acquainted with a certain prior of the neighborhood, the son of a family no better placed than his, who contributed much to the advancement of his brothers through the revenues of his benefice. He hoped that Vincent would one day do the same. But in this he was disappointed, for in later years St. Vincent was ever steadfast in his refusal to employ his position, or divert any of the funds that passed through his hands, for the temporal promotion or relief of his relatives.

After spending four years with the Franciscans at Dax in the study of humanities, Vincent entered the service of M. de Commet, advocate of this city and judge of the district of Pouy, as private tutor while continuing his own

_studies. His theological studies, interrupted by a short

1Coste, A quelle date saint Vincent de Paul est-il né? in Revue de Gascogne, I9It.

2 The particle de in the family name is no indication of nobility as far as is known. Cf. Lettres de S. Vincent de Paul, 1., Paris, 1880, p. II, n. 2. 13 stay at Saragossa, were made at Toulouse. Ordained to the priesthood in 1600, he was appointed to the pastorate of Tihl in his native diocese. He never took possession of this charge, but yielded his rights in favor of a competitor rather than have the dispute brought before the ecclesiastical courts. This left him free to continue his studies. He received the degree of Bachelor in Sacred Theology from the University of Toulouse, which entitled him to a chair in the university with faculties to explain and teach the Second Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard. (See pp. 26-7.)