REFUGE
712
REGALE
Refuge, Cities of, to-mis which according to the
Jewish law enjoyed the right of asylum and to which
anyone who had unintentionally slain another might
flee and be protected from the "avenger of blood".
The barbarous custom of blood-revenge still exists
among the Arab tribes. In virtue of it the kinsman
of anyone put to death considers it a duty to avenge
him by kilUng the intentional or even unintentional
slayer. The Biblical cities of refuge were six in num-
ber, \az., to the west, Cedes in Galilee, Sichem in
Mount Ephraim, and Hebron in the south; to the
east, beyond the Jordan, Bosor, which is in the plain
of the tribe of Ruben, Ramoth in Galaad of the tribe
of Gad, and Gaulon in Hasan of the tribe of Manasses
(Josue XX, 7-S). It appears from Deut., xix, 2, 7, and
from other considerations that three cities were
originally intended — those to the west — which were
probably established in the time of Josias, when the
boundaries and population of the Jewish state were
comparatively small. When in post-Exilic times the
Jews covered a wider area, the other three were doubt-
less added, as we find the number stated as six in
Numbers (xxx^', 6) and Josue (xx, 7-8).
The right of asylum was recognized in the Old Testament, but under conditions that are carefully laid domi in the Jewish law. One who had treacher- ously and intentionally sullied his hands with blood was allowed to find no refuge at the altar of God. Indeed he might be taken away from it to death (Ex., xxi, 14). He might even be struck down at the altar, as in the case of Joab (III Kings, ii, 30, 31, 34). Pro- tection was granted to those who had unintentionally taken the hfe of another (Deut., xix, 2-7). In order to justify his claim to immunity the fugitive had to prove to the authorities of the sanctuary or town that his deed was unpremeditated. After submitting his evidence he was allowed to remain •n-ithin tlie pre- scribed precincts. He could not return to his old home, nor could he appease the avenger by money. Thus some expiation for his imprudence was exacted, and he became virtually a prisoner within the bound- aries of the city to which he had fled. He could leave it only at the risk of his life at the hands of the avenger of blood. We are not informed by what means he was supported in the citj' of refuge, but probably he was obliged to work for his subsistence. Whether his family could join him in his exile is also a matter of mere conjecture. It is generally maintained that originally every altar or sanctuary in the land could extend its protection to anyone who had unintentionally taken the life of another. But with the suppression of the provincial high places and altars by Josiah (b. c. 621) the right of asylum naturally fell -nith them, and provision was made for a continuance of the ancient usage on a modified basis by the selection of certain cities of refuge.
GiGOT, Oullines of Jewish History (New York, 1903). 143.
James F. Dkiscoll.
Refuge, Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of THE. — The Institute of Our Lady of Charity was founded (1641) by the Venerable Pere Eudes, at Caen, Normandy, under the title of Our Lady of Refuge. Moved by pity for abandoned women living a life of sin, Pere Eudes at first attempted to unite the peni- tent among them and place them under the care of good and zealous women, but he soon became con- vinced that the only way of dealing with them was to found a congregation of hoi)' women, who would bind themselves by vow to work for the reformation of these unfortunate ones. Three Visitation nuns came to his aid temporarily, and, in 1644, a house was opened at Caen under the title of Our Lady of Charity. Other ladies joined them, and, in 10.")1, the Bishop of Bayeux gave the institute his approbation. In 1664 a Bull of approbation was obtained from Alexander VII. That same year a house was opened at Rennes,
and the institute began to spread. When the French
Revolution broke out there were seven communities
of the order in France. From this parent-tree of Our
Lady of Charity sprang the Order of the Good Shep-
herd (q. v.).
The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity do not limit their work to reclaiming the fallen; they also receive girls who are in danger of being lost or who are being brought up immoral!)'. These form what is called the class of preservation. Government reformatories are attached to some of the monasteries. All the houses of this order are independent of each other, and each has its own novitiate, but the mother-house is still at Caen. The nuns wear a white habit and a large silver cross on the breast. To the three ordinary religious vows they add a fourth, viz., to devote themselves to the reformation of the fallen. The novitiate lasts two years. These sisters came to England in 1863 and now have houses at Bartestree, Waterlooville, Mon- mouth, Southampton, Northficld (near Birmingham), and Mold; in Ireland they have two houses at Dublin; in France they have seventeen: one at Caen, St- Brieux, Rennes, La Rochelle, Paris, Versailles, Nantes, Lyons, Valence, Toulouse, Le Mans, Blois, Mon- tauban, Besangon, Valognes, and two at Marseilles; in the LTnited States they have two houses at both Buffalo and Pittsburg, and one at Green Bay (Wiscon- sin), Wheeling (W. Virginia), Hot Springs (Arkansas), San Antonio and Dallas (Texas); in Canada they have houses at Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver; in Mexico, two; in Italy, one at Loretto; in Spain, one at Bilboa, and in Austria, one at Salzburg.
PiXAS, VeiiernblePire Eude^ a7id his Works (Edinburgh, 1903); Steele, Convents of Great Britain; Heimbucher. Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907).
Francesca M. Steele.
Regale, Droit de (jus regalice, jus regale, jus de- porlus; Germ. Rcgalienrecht), originaWy denoted those rights that belonged exclusively to the king, either as essential to his sovereignty (jura majora, jura essen- tialia), such as royal authority; or accidental (jura minora, juraaccidenlalia), such as the right of the chase, of fishing, mining, etc. By abuse, many sovereigns in the Middle Ages and in later times claimed the right to seize the revenues of vacant sees or imperial abbeys, and gradually jus regalia: came to be applied almost exclusively to this assumed right. It is a matter of dispute on what ground the temporal rulers claimed these revenues. Some hold that it is an inherent right of sovereignty; others, that it is a necessarj' conse- quence of the right of investiture; others make it part of the feudal system; still others derive it from the advowson, or right which patrons or protectors had over their benefices, intimately, it had its origin in the assumption that bishoprics and imperial abbeys, with all their temporalities and privileges, were roj'al estates given as fiefs to the bishops or abbots, and sub- ject to the feudal laws of the times. At first the right was exercised only during the actual vacancy of a see or abbey, but later it was extended over the whole year following the death of the bishop or abbot. Often the temporal rulers also claimed the right to collate all the benefices that became vacant during the vacancy of a diocese, with the exception of those to which the care of souls was attached.
It is difficult to determine when and where the jus regale was first exercised. In the ^^'este^n Prank- ish Empire it made its first appearance probably towards the end of the Carlo\ingian dynasty, that is, in the course of the tenth century. The first historical mention we find of it is in connexion with King William II (Rufus) of England, who, after the death of Lanfranc in 10S9, kept the archiepiscopal See of Canterbury vacant for more than three years, during which period the king seized all the archi- episcopal revenues. During the reign of Henry II (11.54-89) it had become an cstabHshed practice for
