English modernism, its origin, methods, aims

Front matter

ese

Division op i e ee Section ¢ a

And He that sat on the throne said: “‘ Behold I make all things new.’ St. Fohn the Divine.

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION II. Tue Larcer Mopernism III. Enciish MopernismM AND ITs’ IMMEDIATE PREDECESSORS .,.

IV. Tue Anciican’s Ricut to BE A MopDERNIST V. Tue CaAusES WHICH CONVERT THE TRADITION- ALIST INTO A MODERNIST VI. Mopernism anD New TrutTH VII. Posrutates or Mopernist APOLOGETIC. VIII. Mopernism anp Docma IX. Mopernist RECONSTRUCTION X. Mopernism AND MIRACLES XI. Mopernism anpD Jesus CHRIST XII. Mopernism AND THE CREEDS XIII. THe Mopernist’s Task AND HIS ALLIES . XIV. MoperNnisM AND THE FuTuURE PLE DN DECOR OU vn REO Sr St) Ri hr A Woh ru WTR AD BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

Introduction

My subject is English Modernism. In thinking it over, I had first to ask myself how best to treat it in these lectures. Ought I to treat it from the outside or from the inside? Should I treat it historically and critically, or didactically and apologetically, as an interpreter rather than asa critic? There is no diffculty about treating it historically and critically. Such a method of treatment would certainly be appropriate to a series of lectures delivered on an academic foundation. There seemed, however, from my point of view to be a serious objection to this method. To treat English Modernism in a purely historical and critical way would necessitate a certain aloofness from the theme which would give a false impression of my real attitude towards it. An ardent believer in English Modernism is no more justified in posing as its impartial critic, than is the counsel for the defence in a law court justified in usurping the seat of the judge. I am a protagonist for English Modernism. I have been connected with its activities and endeavours for some twenty years. It would be hypocrisy for me, in the presence of this audience, to pretend to take a strictly impartial view of its merits and demerits, and to predict its prospects of success with scientific coldness.

4 ENGLISH MODERNISM You have had of: late a number of able English

Churchmen coming to America and talking about Modernism. Not one of them was an avowed Modernist. You will in my case, at least, have the advantage or disadvantage of listening to one talking about Modernism who is an avowed, even though he be a misguided, Modernist. If convention should require me to appear in the academic robes of the University lecturer, let it be clearly understood that ] roam my native heath in the hairy garment of a Modernist prophet, and that I am even now wearing the adereth beneath the gown.

/ Although I speak as a prophet of Modernism, — and it should be remembered that interpretation, not prediction, is the prophet’s real function, — I shall not ignore the need for historic treatment and scientific accuracy, nor,I hope, that sense of proportion which is the basis not only of humour, but of all sound judgment. After the example of Goethe, who strove to view the events of everyday life against the background of the universal tendency, my desire is to see our English Modernism against that tremendous background; and although that vision does not_make me believe less in English Modernism, it(does prohibit me from being such a fool as to believe in nothing else} _ Modernism is a movement — one of a long series

in the history of the Christian Religion. Like each of them, it has its contribution to make — a necessary and valuable contribution {towards the presentation of that religion to the men of this age; but it must not be supposed that it is the last movement

INTRODUCTION 5 that Christianity will require to give it that universal form which will enable it to make an irresistible appeal to every human being just in proportion as he is spiritual, moral, and rational. ) That transformation is the ideal of the Modernist, his ultimate objective, but he can hardly hope to achieve it just at once. I suppose that, in order to be quite honest, I ought to admit that every enthusiastic Modernist expects Modernism to make the Christian Religion universal. He expects it to make the Christian Church able to realize that great ideal for humanity expressed in the tremendous phrase in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, “all one in Christ’; but every intelligent Modernist is aware that the history of humanity discloses the successive emergence in human nature of higher and still higher needs, and that as a consequence there has been in the past a constant reformation and re-presentation of religion to meet those needs. Christianity, in the light of its nature and history, so it seems to the Modernist, is the religion, or the form of religion, supremely capable of such adaptation; but though he feels that the adaptation of traditional Christianity, which Modernism can and will achieve, will render it capable of meeting the religious needs of this age, he cannot as a student of human history feel convinced that future ages may not see the emergence of higher needs, to meet which present-day Modernist Christianity will have to undergo still further adaptations — adaptations which have not even been visualized by the Modernist of to-day.

I am not a climber of mountains, but years ago in Syria I had it in my mind to climb Mount Hermon. My companion and I — it was late in the spring— soon got above the snow-line and hastened on —up and over the fields of snow. The view as we looked back over the Syrian plain seemed immense; we had a growing sense of height and loneliness; small clouds were drifting past; the summit appeared in sight. Now, at last, we had reached it. But what did we find? A great valley and a higher peak in front; we had only surmounted a ridge. That experience is a parable.

English Modernism, as I hope it will appear, has a close affinity to the purpose of this Lectureship. William Belden Noble, while he took what will seem to some a very comprehensive view of the Christian Religion, was himself a profound believer in that religion, and it was to contribute to the presentation of that religion as an essential factor in human progress and an indispensable element in human culture, that the Lectureship was founded. The deed of gift states that the Lectures are intended to extend the influence of Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life, and to make known the meaning of the words of Jesus, ““I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” ~ By the English Modernist true Christianity 1s seen as the product of the operation in human history of the Spirit that was in Jesus Christ; and the ~ aim of the English Modernist is to set free that Spirit from those archaic dogmatic shackles and ecclesiastical burdens, great and grievous to be

INTRODUCTION ey borne, which are hindering it from exerting its full and proper influence in the modern world.

I feel therefore that in using the privilege of this Lectureship to speak on behalf of Modernism, especially English Modernism, I am acting in accordance with the spirit of the foundation.

II The Larger Modernism

Entre une religion inintelligente et un matérialisme brutal, ame poétique et pure, or serait ta place? — RENAN.

Wuart is Modernism? Modernism consists in the claim of the modern mind to determine what is true, right, and beautiful in the light of its own experience, even though its conclusions be in contradiction to those of tradition. It is this which in practice constitutes Modernism, whether in religion, ethics, or art. |The intellectual task of Modernism is the criticism of tradition in the light of research and enlarging experience, with the purpose of reformulating and reinterpreting it to serve the needs of the present age. / Murray’s New English Dictionary (in the section issued in July, 1907) defines Modernism in a less radical manner, as the following of modern methods. It uses a citation from the Westminster Gazette of 1887 to illustrate this use of the term:

The Roman Church and the American Republic. . . one typifying Medizvalism, the other illustrating with tolerable fidelity the spirit of Modernism.

In Murray’s Dictionary there is no indication of the word Modernist having a particular religious use, although the word itself goes back to Tudor times, and its Latin equivalent, modernista, was used by

Luther.

THE LARGER MODERNISM 9

In the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1910-11) there is no article on Modernism, nor is there in the more recent appendix to the Encyclopedia.

In Hastings’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1915), there is an article on Modernism, but it is confined to a religious movement in the Roman Catholic Church. This indicates conclusively that the religious and ecclesiastical use of the terms Modernism and Modernist is Romanist in its origin. ~ Romanist Modernism 1s both like and unlike English Modernism. Later on, I shall deal with this point; meanwhile I propose, by means of a series of quotations, Romanist, Protestant, English, French, and American, to illustrate my definition of Modernism as it bears upon religion.

Father George Tyrrell, a brilliant Jesuit, and the leading Romanist Modernist in the English-speaking world, thus defines its objective:

I think that the best description of Modernism is that it is|the desire and effort to find a new theological synthesis, consistent with the data of historico-critical research. .. . By a Modernist I mean a churchman of any sort who believes in the possibility of a synthesis between the essential truth of his religion and the essential truth of modernity.

Professor Percy Gardner, the classical archeologist, writes:

Modernism is based upon evolution in science and the critical method in history; and it demands, not that the great truths of the Christian religion shall be given ite) ENGLISH MODERNISM up, but that they shall be considered afresh in the light of growing knowledge, and restated in a way suitable to the intellectual conditions of the age.

Mrs. Humphry Ward, the novelist, thus described its aim:

Modernism is the attempt of the modern spirit, acting religiously, to refashion Christianity, ot outside, but inside the warm limits of the ancient churches, to secure not a reduced, but a transformed Christianity.

Dr. Sanday, the New Testament scholar, thus defined his aim:as a Modernist:

I do not disclaim the term Modernist. The name describes justly what I aim at being. I aim at thinking the thoughts and speaking the language of my own day, and yet, at the same time, keeping all that is essential in the religion of the past.

Dr. Newman Smyth, the American moralist, defined Modernism thus:

Modernism is a certain attitude of mind corresponding to our times: it is a tendency of thought rather than a body of doctrine: a vitalizing spirit making all things new rather than a full-grown and completed theology: an intellectual method rather than a formulated creed.

Professor Paul Sabatier (the biographer of St. Francis) supports this definition:

Dr. MacBride Sterrett’s definition of it, in his useful book, Modernism in Religion, is as follows:

THE LARGER MODERNISM II

Modernism stands for a new spirit and for modern methods in the study and teaching of religion and ethics. Surely it does not stand for a set of negations, unless modern learning negatives some of the older learning. It accepts the results of modern methods, and asks that they be incorporated with older views. It does not offer a new set of dogmas, but it does ask for a modern interpretation of the older ones. It insists that religion is more vital than theology and must be distinguished from it. It alters our scientific, historical, and theological outlook, but leaves our personal relation to Christ untouched. It j is a yitalizing spirit making all things new, and an intellectual method rather than a formulated creed.

But I like this definition of Dr. Sterrett’s better. It is shorter and simpler, and it shows Modernism as an essentially educational movement:

Modernists are simply Christians who are trying to live, and to get others to live, in better harmony with our universe of thought. And we wish to get the teaching church to be a church learning the new learning.

Archdeacon Lilley in his book on Modernism defines it thus:

Modernism is the attempt to reach a new theological synthesis.

This synthesis, Professor Percy Gardner describes as combining in a higher unity the two ways of looking at Christian history, the evolutional and the inspirational.

Dr. R. W. Macan, late Master of University College, Oxford, regards Modernism as a new apologetic. He writes:

Modernism is not a religion, it is a defence of religion, and of the Christian Religion.

The foregoing descriptions or definitions of Modernism are sympathetic. Here are two which are hostile: the first from the Catholic Encyclopedia and the second from the Encyclical of Pope Pius X.

Modernism aims at a radical transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life here and hereafter.

Modernism is the compendium and poisonous essence of all heresies. 7

Mr. G. B. Shaw, in his Preface to Back to Methuselah, brings home the aim of Modernism more forcibly than it appears in the citations I have given:

We desire to extricate the eternal spirit of religion from the sludgy residue of temporalities and legends that are making belief impossible, though they are the stock-in-trade of all the Churches.

All these citations refer to a Modernism which is Christian, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Anglican. But even if Modernism originated in Christianity, we should be wrong in regarding it as limited to Christianity. The Zimes (London) of September 15, 1925, in a leading article, speaks of the Egyptian Sheikh Abdel Razek’s relation to the “Modernist movement in Islam, with its corollaries, the greater social freedom of women, the progressive laicization of the theocratic Mohammedan state, and the reform of Moslem education.” This Egyptian Modernism, although it threatens a

THE LARGER MODERNISM 13 political crisis in Egypt, is but the pale reflection of the Turkish Modernism of Kemal Pasha. Some would claim that Russian Bolshevism in some of its aspects is a form of religious Modernism, although it regards religion as the opiate of the people. If it be Modernism, and not reaction, which I strongly suspect, it is a kind of Modernism that I have no desire to commend. Jewish Modernism, under the leadership of Mr. Claude Montefiore, is firmly established in England, and it has its zealous representatives in other countries, especially America. Hindu Modernism, in the form of the Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj, is well known; but Indian Modernism is far more widely spread than these organized efforts suggest, and far older. The Laws of Manu (about 300 B.c.) condemn modernist’ departures from the teaching of the Veda (dated at least 1000 B.c.). The passage, which I owe to Professor Hume of the Union Seminary of New York, runs as follows:

All those traditions and all those despicable systems of philosophy which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death: for they are declared to be founded on darkness. All those doctrines differing from the Veda which spring up and soon perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date.

Much of the present ferment in China, although it takes a political form, is essentially a product of religious Modernism, which has penetrated into Chinese society through the great Christian educational missions in that country.

te ENGLISH MODERNISM

In September, 1924, Mr. Victor Branford, in a book entitled Living Religions: A Plea for the Larger Modernism * directs attention to a scientific modernist movement running parallel with religious modernism and promising to unite with it. The opening words of Mr. Branford’s preface present with admirable lucidity the Larger Modernism for which he pleads. He writes (page vii):

Modernism has to be conceived not merely, nor even mainly, as a movement of critical scholarship. There is an underlying issue of pervasive readaptation between old and new. Viewed in this wider way, Modernism is by no means confined to the Catholic religion. Kindred endeavours towards readjustment have long been stirring in Hebraism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and other venerable religions. All these movements are infused by a common purpose. It is to renew, in the light of current knowledge, yet also of contemporary aspiration, the eternal verities enshrined in ancient faiths. So viewed, Modernism in religion comes into relation with Modernism in science. The latter is concerned with endeavours, now widely beginning, towards putting our whole body of verified knowledge to better use and finer purpose than hitherto. The aim is no less than to unify, spiritualise, and thus consecrate our sciences, at present too isolated, and often profaned by their outcome in practice. These two movements, which seek, one of them to modernise the religions, and the other to consecrate the sciences by integrating them in the service of life, will be the more fruitful the closer their union.

* Published by Williams and Norgate.

THE LARGER MODERNISM 15

This agrees with Dr. Sanday’s conception of the ultimate aim of Modernism. Some words of his uttered towards the end of his life and published in 1920 bring this out clearly:

The ultimate goal is the unification of thought, the fusion of all secular and all religious thinking in one comprehensive and harmonious system. If I am not mistaken, that unification is nearer than it has been for a very long time.

Although my subject is English Modernism, I do not think that to have glanced, at the outset, for a few minutes at this larger Modernism is to have strayed. We ought all the time to be conscious of its existence and endeavours. Within a few decades it will have assumed enormous proportions. In comparison with it English Modernism may seem a very small thing, but that will not mean that it is necessarily an insignificant thing. Ancient Athens was a small city of some ten thousand citizens, but it was not insignificant. It was the head of a civilization for which humanity is infinitely the richer. Great Britain is a small island — but it is not therefore insignificant; and I dare to think that, if English Modernism can solve its problems aright, it will not be solving them for itself alone: it will in some measure be solving them for humanity as well. It was Guizot, the French statesman and historian, who prophesied that, if Christendom were ever to be united, it would be through the agency of the English Church.

How to turn to good account the impact of modern knowledge on our inherited religion and ethics;

how, without injuring its influence and lowering public morality, to relieve our ancient religion from the incubus of traditions which research has shown to be false; how “‘to combine, as in binocular vision, the religious and scientific aspects of life,” or the inspirational and evolutional; how in the face of secularist scepticism and materialistic naturalism to preserve what Wordsworth has described as —

Plain living and high thinking .. . The homely beauty of the good old cause, . our peace, our fearful innocence, And pure religion breathing household laws — these and other such are the problems which to-day are facing religious and moral leaders all the world over, and which many of them most unwillingly are being compelled to solve. These are a very important class of problem,— more important by far than many which occupy public attention at present, — and if English Churchmen can solve them satisfactorily for themselves, other communions will benefit by it. Not that actual codperation in Modernist endeavour between different religious communions is, I think, possible, or indeed proftable at this stage. Intervention of any kind would be harmful because resented. Each religious communion must settle the preliminary stages at least of its own Modernist problems. The Modernist problems of each communion are alike in the main, but differ in numerous important particulars. It is the intelligent and loyal members of each communion who can best guide it through the earlier stages of its Modernist transition; those who are not

THE LARGER MODERNISM L7 members of the communion can do little, save in one direction. There is the influence of example. We can receive inspiration from it, and we can receive warning. \We sometimes hardly realize how much we help other people to cultivate their gardens, by letting them see us cultivating our own.)

Ii]

ENGLISH MODERNISM AND ITS IMME- DIATE PREDECESSORS

Christianity is at the cross-roads to-day, but what is often forgotten is that it has often been at the cross-roads before. The historical study of Christianity shows that the conception of a fixed, stereotyped, unchanging Christianity is a mere myth.

— Hastincs RAsHDALL.

It has to be considered whether the intellectual forms under which Christianity has been described may not be ina state of transition and resolution, in this respect contrasting with the never-changing truth of the Christian life. — Benjamin JoweErr.

TuE purpose of this section is to provide a brief account of the origin of the Modernist Movement and to indicate the characteristics of English Modernism particularly in relation to some other religious movements with which it may be and is confused.

Modernism has a somewhat different significance for Modernists in different localities. In the Roman Church Modernism is opposed to Medizyvalism; in the English Church Modernism, as in Holland, is opposed to Traditionalism; in America Modernism is opposed to Fundamentalism. German Modernism, notwithstanding the voluminous character of Heiler’s book, is not sufficiently developed to reveal what is its exact antithesis. The endeavour of its opponents everywhere is to show that Modernism is opposed to Christianity; but that charge the Modernist denies.

MODERNISM AND ITS PREDECESSORS Ig

The term Modernism in its religious or ecclesiastical sense came from Roman Catholicism. In his treatise on Modernism in Italy, published in 1909, L. H. Jordan writes:

Modernism as it is known in Italy to-day began about

the year 1850. Its representatives at that time were not called catholict modernisti but catholict riformisti. . . Its paternity is traceable to Rosmini and Gioberti. . Of the representatives of Modernism in Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, France, England, and the United States, . . . it should not be overlooked that all these leaders owe their inspiration, indirectly if not directly, to Italy.

Mazzini’s speeches and writings, although he broke — with the Vatican, were as great a liberating influence in the ecclesiastical and theological spheres as in the political world of Italy.

The word Modernisti began to be used ecclesiastically during the pontificate ‘of Pope Leo XIII, whose policy encouraged it if it did not actually originate it. Aware of the great advances in knowledge which were being made in the second half of the nineteenth century, Leo XIII initiated an educational policy in the Roman Catholic seminaries for raising the intellectual standard of the clergy, so as to enable them to contend successfully for the Faith against its opponents. This policy was highly successful and produced a brilliant band of Roman Catholic scholars, chief of whom were Loisy and Duchesne. These men and many others trained t Oxford University Press.

specially to defend Roman Catholicism seemed to the Roman authorities to be using their knowledge to sap its very foundations. Leo XIII was disquieted, but left the problem to be dealt with by his successor Pius X, the Peasant Pope, who took drastic steps to stamp the movement out, and on September 8, 1907, condemned it in his famous Encyclical Letter entitled Pascendi Gregis. His methods were highly successful: the movement was crushed, and its adherents excommunicated and driven underground. They owed their defeat to a number of causes.

(1) The uncompromising, tireless, and skilfully organized opposition of the Roman authorities.

(2) The general indifference to religion of the educated classes in Roman Catholic countries. There was practically no lay support for the movement. A few highly educated and religious laymen, like Don Romolo Murri, Professor Salvatore Minocchi, Signor Antonio Fogazzaro, supported it, but such men were very few.

(3) The Modernist position was an impossible one within the Roman Communion. Notwithstanding all the Modernist protestations of love, loyalty, and devotion to the Roman Catholic Church, the Modernists were asking the Papacy to grant what it could not grant without consenting to a religious revolution. The Modernists demanded a right to think for themselves, a right of research, a right of freedom of speech, which the Roman Church has never permitted since the Council of Trent.

For these three causes of failure the Modernists were not to blame. They cannot however be exempted from blame in connection with two other causes of failure.

(1) Their persistent recourse to anonymous publication. “Personality,” as Jordan remarks, “‘is a factor which counts tremendously in a struggle of this character”’; but the method of anonymous publication, which they used widely, gave the impression that the exponents of Modernist opinions were afraid to face the penalties. A cause which triumphs may not demand martyrs, but at least it demands the martyr-spirit. ‘Private Conferences, furtive correspondence, anonymous books and pamphlets,”’ and methods of invisibility generally, suggest cowardice — although let me hasten to add that many of those who used them were not cowards. They used them because they thought it sound tactics. It made their movement look bigger than it was. It was not cowardice but camouflage.

(2) The Roman Catholic Modernist position was fundamentally unsound. It seemed, even to those who sympathized with its aims, to support a pantheistic theology, a pragmatist philosophy, and a polytheistic worship, in the name of scientific research, historical criticism, and Jesus Christ. Yet, on the other hand, though its methods were open to serious criticism, its aims were altogether admirable, It asked that Catholic dogma might be permitted to develop; that Biblical exegesis should be made conformable to the results of higher criticism; that Catholic worship should be purged of gross superstitions; that the Church should surrender its inordinate love of spiritual and temporal power; that education, not revolutionary agitation, should be the method of securing reforms.

The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church aroused much interest in English circles in the early years of the present century.

The Reverend A. L. Lilley’s able series of articles on Modernism, published in the Guardian and Commonwealth from 1902 to 1907 (before they appeared as a volume in 1908),' had many readers.

It was in the year 1902 that M. Loisy’s striking and clear-cut book, L’Fvangile et [’ Eglise, appeared, in criticism of Harnack’s Das Wesen des Christenthums. This in 1904 was attacked by Mr. Inge, then a Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford, in a sermon delivered in the University Church. He criticized scathingly the new movement, particularly as exemplified in the teaching of M. Loisy, whom he charged with separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of the Catholic Church, and then identifying the latter with the Catholic Church itself. As an auditor of that sermon I recollect quite vividly the impression produced by the delivery of the following passage:

Alas! we cannot recognise this identification. We traverse as we are bidden, with our mind’s eye, the long centuries of Church history. There rises before our imagination a figure splendid but terrible, with the light of contemplation and the fire of devoted enthusiasm in her eye, but splashed with innocent blood, like the Rider of the Apocalypse, even to the horse-bridle,

1 Modernism: A Record and Review, published by Pitman.

the cruel oppressor of liberty, the bigoted enemy of truth. Is this figure an object of Divine honours? Yes, perhaps: but that this is the historic Christ, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the germ — who can assert it?

Meanwhile, the brilliant volumes of the English (or rather Irish) Jesuit Father, George Tyrrell, were circulating widely among Anglo-Catholics early in the century. Lex Orandi was published in 1903. An Anglo-Catholic friend, now a Roman priest, presented me with several of Tyrrell’s volumes in 1904.

In 1g08 the fourth of M. Loisy’s four little red volumes, Les Petits Livres Rouges, crossed the Channel. The same year M. Paul Sabatier, at the invitation of the Jowett Committee, delivered in London his illuminating lectures on Les Modernistes.?

The same year also saw the publication by T. Fisher Unwin of The Programme of Modernism, an English translation of the Italian Modernists’ reply to the Encyclical Letter Pascendi Gregis, together with a translation of the Encyclical itself. Somewhat later there appeared in the Edinburgh Review and the Quarterly a number of brilliant articles by . Alfred Fawkes, published in 1913 by John Murray in a volume entitled Studies in Modernism. Last but not least there were the English writings and addresses of Baron Friedrich von Hiigel, of whom M. Sabatier wrote in 1908: “‘M. de Hiigel est devenu en quelque sorte l évéque laique des Modernistes.”

I have a reason for dwelling somewhat fully on the publicity given in England to the Roman Modernist Movement. It is not unusual for English * Published by Fischbacher, Paris, 1909.

MRR

Liberal Protestants to assert that there is no connection between English Modernism and Roman Catholic Modernism, and that the English Modernists are the lineal and legitimate descendants of the old Broad Churchmen and Liberal Churchmen of the nineteenth century.

The latter part of this statement is correct, but

. not the former. Roman Modernism has had an effect on English Modernism, and I am disposed to think that this influence accounts in some measure —

—not by any means altogether — for the difference between Broad or Liberal Churchmen and Eng-

, lish Modernists. That influence came in mainly

/ through the Anglo-Catholic school. To-day English ’ Modernism consists of two wings, Liberal Protes- ‘tant and Liberal Catholic, of which the former is growing weaker and the latter stronger. The existence of the Liberal Catholic wing owes much to © the writings of von Hiigel, Tyrrell, Bremond, Mignot, Paul Sabatier, Duchesne, Loisy, Houtin, Le Roy,