catch it from the women: Adam, it will be remembered, fell from grace in this way and thereby sin became epidemic."

It is a pity to spoil so clever an arraignment, but, really, one must not allow our women teachers to be blamed unjustly for their soulless condition. An artist must have freedom; he must be given a part in shaping the work of his hands; while his soul lives in him, he must give expression to the visions of beauty that haunt his imagination. Deprive the artist of this, and, whether he be teacher or painter or poet, his soul will flee from him, and the soulless body will be converted into an artisan.

What if it should be the school system that has legislated against the entrance into the school of any teacher's soul? What if the real murderer be found in the Superintendent's office? When the system undertakes to dictate the manner and the method of every item in the teacher's day's work, when it refuses to the teacher any voice in the organization of the school, in the selection of text-books, in the shaping of methods, in the succession of lessons; when, in a word, the system reduces the teachers to the condition of factory hands, when it aims at making them cogs in an industrial machine, how can the defenceless teachers, whether they be men or women, escape the dry rot? Just so long as our public schools are dominated by the one-man power, just so long as the teachers are given no opportunity for self-expression in their work, just so long will the rank and file of the teachers be soulless, and just so long will our children fly from the school in disgust at the first possible moment, preferring to labor in the streets or in the factories rather than have the souls ground out of them by the monotonous routine of the school and by the lifeless manikins that are made to do service as teachers.

The teacher's salary may, and we think should, be increased, but no salary can ever compensate her for the life which the system crushes out of her. School boards may secure fine buildings and elaborate equipment, but the school atmosphere will continue to be poisonous and soul-killing for the children until such time as the system makes room for the souls of the teachers.

THOMAS EDWARD SHIELDS.

BOOK REVIEWS.

Maryland, the Land of Sanctuary. A History of Religious Toleration in Maryland from the First Settlement until the American Revolution. By William T. Russell, S. T. L. J. H. Furst Co., Baltimore, 1907. 8vo. Pp. xxxviii and 621. $1.50.

It is significant that Maryland has not yet erected a fitting memorial to Cecilius Calvert to whom she owes not only her foundation as a colony, but the still greater glory of being the first land of religious toleration among the peoples of the earth. As a class it is true the people of the Southern States have never been over boastful; on the contrary they have been too modest or indifferent about their great deeds. But in the case of Cecilius Calvert one is forced to conclude that much of the neglect has been due precisely to religious intolerance. From the time when Maryland historians began to tell the story of the State there have existed two parallel versions of its growth. One has borne fair testimony to the debt of gratitude that Maryland owes to the Catholics who founded the colony. Writers like William Hand Browne and Clayton C. Hall are its latest and best representatives. Another school has persistently tried to minimize this debt by distorting the plain facts. Every possible fact of a controversial nature has been carefully unearthed by them for the purpose of taking away from Cecilius Calvert and his fellow Catholics the glory of inaugurating in the New World religious toleration. One such writer attempts to trace Maryland's foundation not to Calvert but to his arch-enemy Claiborne and to the trading post at Kent Island. The motives of Calvert in proclaiming toleration have been called into question, being variously put down as pecuniary or political or the result of fear; he acted it is said, from anything but a sincere love of religious freedom and the desire to extend its benefits to others. The religious sincerity of his convert father, George Calvert, has been doubted in spite of the great sacrifices he made for his new faith and the fact that he could have gained much by professing Protestantism, the only argument to the contrary being some difference of opinion he had with the Jesuit missionaries on matters that in no way

affected his faith. An attempt has been made to prove that after all the majority of the settlers were Protestants; even if this were true, it would not do away with the fact that the colony was conceived by a Catholic, organized and financed by Catholics who (even if a numerical minority) constituted its brains and culture and driving force. The Act of 1649 that made Religious Toleration a written law of the land has been impugned. An attempt has been made to prove that it was passed by a majority of Protestants, an error long ago refuted (1855) by Davis' "DayStar of American Freedom." The Act has been criticized as not granting formally full religious freedom, regardless of the fact that its apparent limitations were necessitated by English Protestant suspicion of Calvert, and of another important fact, viz., that the Act intended to and did put into written law the religious liberty which from the foundation of the colony had been the customary law of the land. Finally, all else failing, such historians have been willing to sacrifice their local patriotism for the sake of religious animosity, by holding that the glory of being the pioneers of Religious Toleration belongs, in point of time, not to the Calverts but to Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. Plain evidence to the contrary is furnished by the unvarying custom of religious freedom in Maryland under the Calverts prior to any similar provision by Roger Williams. This anti-Catholic temper, we regret to say, is largely responsible for the absence from the Monumental City of any fitting memorial to George and Cecilius Calvert, the great and good founders of Maryland. It is now proposed to erect a statue of Cecilius Calvert in front of the Court House, though some undefinable opposition seems constantly to delay the execution of the project, the last excuse being that such a statue would mar the artistic beauty of said building. It seems to be a question of ordinary gratitude and mental breadth, not of artistic whim or fancy.

In the volume before us, Father Russell has dissipated forever the cloud of doubt thrown around the name of the early Calverts. Maryland's history, chiefly from the viewpoint of her claim to be the cradle of American religious freedom, is critically examined from its earliest conception in the brain of George Calvert down to the entrance into the confederation of States. He proves beyond all cavil that under the Catholic régime, from 1634 to 1652, religious toleration was the constant, though perhaps unwritten, law of the colony; that the Calverts were genuine Catholics; that

the Act of Toleration was the work of Catholics. In 1652 a Puritan spirit of revolt resulted in the Calverts being robbed of their Proprietary rights and in the passage of an "Act Concerning Religion" by which both Catholics and Episcopalians were disfranchised. In 1658 the Calverts were restored and religious freedom again became the law of the land. But again in 1689 after the fall of the English Stuarts the Calverts were stripped of their rights, a royal governor was appointed by King William, and the Episcopalian Church was established in Maryland. Under the new régime Catholics fared no better than under the Puritans. Until about 1763 the Catholic colonists were the victims of many obnoxious laws, some merely irritating, others degrading, but all aimed at the restriction if not the extinction of their faith. For them there was no longer freedom of worship; they were hampered in the education of their children, disfranchised, over-taxed, etc. As the American Revolution drew near, there came a relaxation of these odious laws. The good will of the Catholics of Canada and France was henceforth desirable, and so religious fanaticism gave way before the growing passion of a common patriotism. With a generosity worthy of their faith, the persecuted Catholics threw in their lot with their oppressors and contributed their efforts to the formation of the United States; thereafter, by common agreement written into the Constitution of the United States, religious intolerance was forever proscribed.

Fullness of material and equity of judgment are evident even from a cursory reading of this work. It is equally safe to say that this glorious chapter of Maryland history, as told by Father Russell, will not be seriously modified by subsequent writers. Doubtless there is yet valuable manuscript evidence hidden away in unexplored domestic libraries, in collections of private letters held by old Maryland families, (when not used for kindling wood, as we know to have happened in a certain instance) in hitherto unexplored records of the Assembly and law courts, perhaps even in manuscripts of various kinds still kept in European archives. However, this evidence will not materially alter the conclusions now generally reached by standard historians. The evidence is practically all in; indeed, it has been long before the public. The special merit of this work lies in its quality of completeness and good order, and in the succinctness and point that characterize the entire narrative. The author has gone over the whole story with truly Teutonic industry. No important point, apparently,

has been overlooked. He has used well the opportunities afforded him by more than a dozen years of close contact with the best sources of information, both civil and ecclesiastical, accessible in Baltimore.

The form of the book is equally praiseworthy. A judicious arrangement of chapters renders the reader's task a pleasant one. The bibliography is exhaustive and the index is quite complete. A well-selected series of appendixes supplies first-hand evidence to those readers who may choose to give the subject a more critical attention.

The narrative is generally free from all bitterness. This is apparent not only in dealing with Protestant antagonists but also in the author's treatment of the unfortunate controversy which in the early days of the colony broke out between Lord Baltimore and the Jesuit missionaries. On this latter question the author is so dispassionate that some of his readers will be tempted to put down to ecclesiastical courtesy his statement that this controversy "is still wrapped in considerable mystery." If, on the other hand, the general temper of the book be undeniably controversial, the blame (if blame there be) belongs to the above-mentioned narrow school of historians who have given ample cause for irritation. Speaking more generally, Catholic historians are often handicapped, especially since the Protestant Reformation, by the hard needs of controversy. Incessant attacks upon every historical question affecting their religion have put them too habitually in the unenviable position of "apologists" rather than of "historians" properly speaking. Hence a distinct loss in effectiveness, if not in fullness of scholarship (not always the hand-maid of controversy). This defensive attitude when too constantly evident, is one reason why scholarly Catholic works are often refused by Protestant readers the serious attention easily accorded to writers of inferior ability, but who offer at least an appearance of unbiassed judgment, and are not suspected of writing in defence of a cause. In proof of this, we need only recall the lasting admiration accorded to Lingard by Protestant readers of a more bigoted age, a tribute well deserved by not only his vast learning but also by his elegant scholarly superiority to party-bias.

In the work of Father Russell we note occasionally this apologetic attitude, and it is the only serious criticism we feel called on to offer. A more unimpassioned tone from beginning to end is desirable and may easily be attained in future editions. Other