France. The English - Norman invaders and their continental allies fol. lowed the Dauphin in his flight, and besieged Orleans, an important city about sixty miles south-west of Paris. The English troops were commanded by Talbot, who strove his utmost to capture a place that was looked upon as the last bulwark of the French monarchy. Joan and her neighbors had heard of the siege; and gave to the fugitive Dauphin the only succor they could give, their prayers for his delivery and triumph. Joan, especially, was intensely fervent in the cause, although at the time not more than fifteen years old. In her prayers she felt promptings to succor the king; she had visions of the archangel, Michael, of St. Catherine, St. Margaret urging her on; and she resolved. to hasten to the aid of the king. Said she to her judges afterwards: "As clearly as I see you, I have seen these saints with my bodily eyes. I believe as firmly as I believe in God and my Savior, that they appeared to me by God's order." She felt that she was. inspired, and her heavenly apparitions urged her to go to the rescue of the king. Her parents opposed her, and tried to have her marry a young man of the neighborhood; but she refused. At length they brought her before the overseer of the district, Count Robert of Baudricourt, to whom she told of her visions and her purpose. At first he treated her as a fool, but finally told her parents to let her have her way. On February 23rd, 1429, she donned male attire, mounted a horse, and with six companions,-of whom two were noblemen,-she rode unharmed through the enemies' lines, and after eleven days she reached Vierbois, near Charles residence. Charles residence. Here she wrote to the king a letter which, when received, was laughed at by the court; yet he received her on the third day after her arrival, at his castle in Chinon. Without any signs of royalty he mingled with his courtiers; and when she singled him out as the king, he denied it, but she insisted, saying: "In the name of God, you are the king, and no other." Then she declared her mission from heaven to be to free Orleans, and lead the king to Rheims to be crowned; and she told him a secret that only he and God knew. The king no longer hesitated, and entrusted her with a small army to raise the siege of Orleans. This she effected, driving the English before her. She was then about eighteen years old. A French cavalier of the time,-Guy de Laval,writing to his mother, says: "Joan had something divine in her countenance." Before the siege she had prophesied that she would be wounded at the sige, but not fatally; and this so happened. Victory after victory followed her flag which bore the lilies with the names of Jesus and Mary inscribed on it. Talbot, the English general, was defeated and taken prisoner; the way was clear to Rheims; and led by the Maid, the timid Charles, at last, hastened to the place of coronation. On July 17, 1429, he was consecrated in the Cathedral of Rheims. During the ceremony, Joan stood at the king's side, bearing her sacred banner. Her divinely appointed mission was now accomplished. But she continued to lead armies for the king, a weak, cowardly prince, of small wit and with no executive ability. He marched on Paris, but was defeated. Joan led a separate army to victory towards the north of France; but was finally captured by the English forces under the Bastard of Vendome, near Compiège. She was delivered into the hands of his superior officer, John of Luxemburg, who sold her for ten thousand francs to the English. She was brought by them to Rouen, and tried by her most deadly enemies on the double charge of "heresy" and "witchcraft." It was "heresy" to defeat the invaders of her country; and the vanity of the defeated invented "witchcraft" as the cause of their undoing. Her trial was a farce. A disreputable bishop, named Cauchon, (the name is not English) was her judge. She was tortured, insulted, calumniated, and at last, on May 30th, 1431, was burnt alive; bearing herself throughout the whole ordeal as a heroine, a saint, a martyr. In the midst of her tortures she asked for a cross; and a good-hearted Englishman, taking pity on her, made a cross out of two sticks, which she kissed and fastened to her bosom. "She wanted," she said, "to have the cross, on which God had hung, before her eyes so long as life lasted." She prayed so fervently that the bystanders were in tears; even the English, who specially hated her, were moved to pity. Her last word was "Jesus!" She so impressed all with her sanctity that John Tressart, private secretary to the King of England, exclaimed: "We are lost, for we have burned a saint, whose soul is with God." And her spirit, indeed, led the armies of France to further victory, until all the English were driven out of her native land. When Charles VII,-who had done nothing to save her, reached Rouen, (A. D. 1450), he determined to re-establish the character of Joan. With the consent of Pope Callixtus III, the revision of her trial took place, November 7th, 1455. Every document and fact were carefully examined. One hundred and forty-four witnesses were heard; they were of all classes and conditions. And the decision of the court was that she had been put to death unjustly, and that Cauchon's condemnation of her was scandalous and infamous. During the administration of the eloquent Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, A. D. 1888, a petition, signed by thirty-two French prelates including Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops-was sent to Leo XIII, asking that "Jeanne d'Arc should soon be placed on the altars." Pius X has done what Leo had not time to accomplish. Whoever has studied the subject knows that there is no court in the world so strict, so searching, so critical, so hard to deceive as a Roman Court in making a judicial investiga tion of the facts necessary for the Beatification and Canonization of a Saint. The ablest lawyers, canonists and theologians take part in it; and most clever and impartial judges decide the case. There is no civil court throughout the entire world so exacting as a Roman Ecclesiastical court. Yet two notorious French writers have attacked the character of Joan of Arc; one was the third-rate poet, the notoriously incompetent and lying historian, whose historical works are now absolutely discredited, the archscoffer, Voltaire, whom few now read, even in degenerate France; the other is still living, Anatole France, a second class-writer of second-class novels. Both of these men represent that element in French literature which has neither faith nor purity. Having no Christian faith, they will not believe in the supernatural, no matter how clear the proof of it; and they, therefore, try to discredit Joan's virtue and visions. Their belief is in their own infallibility and in the certitude of things universally rejected by Christianity and logic. There is no dogmatist like the sceptic. Having no purity, or love of virtue, their pens reek with the stench of adultery and impurity of every species. These two men represent the worst elements in France, possessing that which is rarely found in once gallant France, cowardice. They unite in attempting to smirch the fair name of the gallant Maid and Virgin who led the armies of France to victory. Sainted Joan, did you foresee, as you looked at the bright swords raised around you to defend your honor, in that march from Orleans to Rheims, that the day would come when two of your own countrymen would be degenerate and cowardly enough to unite with the enemies of their country in assailing the honor of its greatest heroine? Still there are men who pretend to good taste and chivalry, and yet admire Voltaire and Anatole France. HENRY A. BRANN, D.D., DO NOT SPEAK LIGHTLY OF THINGS HOLY In this present day, when the importance of the lay Apostolate is so widely preached, it is more and more brought home to the people that every man is called to the work of saving souls. Many there are who are unable to carry on an active campaign of preaching or instructing, and therefore they think there is no field for their endeavors. This is an error. There is not a moment in which a man may not be spreading the kingdom of God by the silent potent lesson of a good life. Actions speak louder than words. The value of things is judged by results, and unhappily the vast majority of our nonCatholic friends judge of the truth or falsity of the Church by the conduct. of her children. As long as we are not noted for our civic or moral virtues, as long as the word Catholic is connected in any way with what is low and corrupt in politics, so long as we remain dishonest, unclean, untruthful, the way to conversions is being made harder and harder for honest souls. We know of a woman who was kept out of the Church for years by the irreverence of a certain congregation at Mass. "These people cannot believe in the Real Presence of the Savior," she said. Another was rudely shocked by the flippant way in which some young women spoke of their rosaries, and of holy water. These are rather small things; but they go to show that none of our acts are indifferent, and that they are all sharply scrutinized. It matters not what station of life one may occupy; it may be the lowliest in the land, nevertheless the world will be the better for his virtuous conduct. The faithful in all ages have been singularly known for their virtues. The Church is justly proud of her long list of saints and martyrs. But is there no danger of dwelling too much on the past? The Church today wants virtuous men and women. Shall we fail to provide her with them? WHAT IS BEST? Once 'twas asked by Boyle O'Reilly, And the answer from the schoolmen, Others answered, "Pleasure," "Beauty," God has planted in our bosoms, That has come to human ken." Turned O'Reilly, turned and kissed her, -J. C. Monaghan. 递 The object of all true education is to make people good. Not only to teach them to know what good is, but to believe in and do what is good. To love God, to pray to Him, to meditate upon His eternal truths, to reverence authority, to prize honesty and conscience beyond all earthly gain, to be lieve in the institution that teaches such noble lessons and tries to mould such character, is the height of wisdom and the honor and safeguard of every race and nation that sustain it. HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS Habitual drunkenness is one of the largest problems with which the District Committees of the Charity Organization Society of New York have to deal. The problem of the treatment of the victims of alcoholic liquors and narcotic drugs is not only difficult, but complicated. The habitual drunkard is a menace to society, a burden to his family, and an economic loss to the community. He is the cause of the largest single item of expenditure of police departments, police courts and jails and workhouses. The cost of the care given to inebriates by municipal hospitals, simply to relieve them of acute conditions brought on by the excessive use of alcoholic liquors is very large, and charitable organizations and institutions are taxed to their utmost, in attempting to relieve families whose pauperized condition is caused by habitual drunk enness. No reprimand or threat from outsiders, even from the Judge or the courts, has any effect upon habitual drunkards. In one particular case, the wife had sufficient courage to have the husband arrested, whereupon the Judge, instead of sending him away from his family, fined him five dollars for disorderly conduct, which the wife promptly paid and accompanied her husband home, where she received a severe beating. The present law is sufficient to secure the conviction of habitual drunk. enness, but every commitment must be made to a penal institution and therefore is of little or no value, as few families, no matter how much they may be suffering, will take steps to secure the commitment of their relatives to a penal institution. It is now proposed to establish a Board which shall have general control of the problem of dealing with public intoxication and inebrity; to provide a graded series of remedies dealing appropriately with the first offender, the occasional offender, the helpable inebriate and the confirmed inebriate. It is plainly evident that the man who is arrested for the first time for public intoxication should receive very different treatment from the man who is repeatedly arrested. Our present method makes little or no distinction. As a matter of fact, there is no means of knowing who come repeatedly before the courts for this offence except as the person is recognized by the court. The plan proposed not only makes provision for a central bureau by which the number of times the person has been arrested for intoxication, can be determined, but it also provides gradual remedial measures varying from release without appearance in court, to commitment to the workhouse for a period of not less than one year. The person who is not released summarily because he has been arrested within a year, may released on probation. If he has been before the court several times the judge may release him on probation and in addition impose a fine. If he is a chronic drunkard, the judge may commit him to the Board of Inebriety on an indeterminate sentence and his stay in the institution conducted by the board, will be dependent upon his condition, attitude and general behavior. The refractory person, according to the plan proposed, would be transferred to the workhouse or to a more suitable custodial institution. be This gradual series will act as a forceful deterrent in those cases which have a degree of self respect and which wish to improve. The habitual drunkard who takes no interest in improvement, will by this method be kept away from intoxicants for a considerable length of time, as he would be detained for the maximum period of three years. Should such a per son go back to his old habits after the termination of the period for which he was committed, he would, if he fell into the hands of the police, again be brought before the court and again be committed to the board. Bartolomé Estéban Murillo was born at Seville, Spain, January 1, 1618, and died there April 3, 1682. Whenever we look at one of Murillo's wonderful pictures we are reminded of how narrowly he escaped being made a common laborer rather than an artist and of how a special Providence seemed to have aided and protected him in the terrible struggle it was necessary for him to make before he could become a painter. Murillo was born in one of the poorest and meanest houses in Seville. His parents were so poor that they could hardly get black bread and garlic enough for themselves and their little family. As for Murillo himself it seemed that he must go to work at some trade as soon as he was big enough to walk. His father did not even intend to teach him to read and write. But his mother thought she detected signs of unusual brightness in the child and she finally persuaded her brother, a poor painter of small talent, to take the boy into his employ. There for a few months Murillo worked, grinding colors, sweeping out the rooms and studying drawing in his spare moments. Then suddenly the painter moved away and left Murillo behind him. For months the boy had a hard time to keep life in his body. He painted large numbers of Madonnas and other religious subjects which he sold for a song to traders for future sale among the newly made converts of the faith in Mexico and Spanish America. this way he secured sufficient money to pay for his food while he walked. overland to Madrid, the capital of Spain, as it was the home of the great Spanish artist, Velasquez. In Velasquez Murillo at last found a friend and a patron, and all his troubles were over. He lived to the age of sixty-four, all the time turning out wonderful paintings, which have In |