Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/458

 PALAFOX

414

PALAFOX

slupiJus, the stupid man; and finally Homo sapiens. It will not be uninteresting to examine this line of descent a little more closely. Both the I'achylc- mures and the A vcrolcmures are conceived quite indefinitely. The specially indicated forms: Archi- pnmas, Archipithecus, Prothylobates, Pithecanthropus alalus, are pure inventions, not even the smallest bone belonging to them is known, in fact there IS nothing to them but their imposing names. Never- theless, as Klaatsch assorts, it cannot be doubted that there are a sufficient number of facts to lead every thinking man to the inexorable conclusion that man has sprung from the same source of life as the animal kingdom. The only question is: whether, from the similarity of two beings in structure and function of body, in spite of what we know of the phenomena of convergence, we not only may, but, as Klaatsch says, logically must, infer their genetic connexion in the sense of a blood relationship or of descent from the same basic form? Klaatsch answers this question in the alfirmative, but we rather agree with Kathari- ncr, whose answer is: "At this point our views diverge, and all the more as it is impossible to reach a com- pletely satisfactory conclusion on the origin of man- kind if we base it solely on morphology and ignore mans spiritual side. .A. discussion of this question based on palsontologieal data is fruitless, as the de- cision is too greatly influenced by the conception which men have of creation as a whole and of its need of a first cause, of their views on the theory of cognition, and of other subjective considerations." Conse^ quently, neither paleontology nor morphology can say anything positive concerning the physical oriein of man.

When we review the facts of paltpontology, we recognize that this science, while offering probable arguments for a progressive evolution of the organic world, can only to a limited degree— even with the aid of fossil fauna and flora— explain the process of de- velopment, and that certain phenomena, such as the complete disappearance of entire large groups, cannot at present be satisfactorily explained. The question of the efficient causes of the changes in the organic world has already begotten many theories, to decide the merits of which [jahcontology sometimes assists us. Darwin s theory has exceedingly few adherents among paL-contologists. On the other hand, Lamarck's teaching, developed by Cope as neo-Lamarckism, meets with continually increasing acceptance It teaches that the development of organisms rests mainly on hereditary changes, produced by the use or non-use of the organs, as well as by correlat ion and direct transforming influences, while selection has only a slight, if any, importance. Nevertheless, we must confess, with Diener, that "in our attempts to explain the changes of the pres.-nt forms of life, which are the results of purely mechaiiic:il c-aus.s still acting before our eyes, we con.stantly i,i,rf witl, the action of factors which we cannot directly uuder.tancl with the aid of physical science alone. The knowledge of the phenom- ena of adaptation is a matter of experience, but the explanation, how such an adaptation of the cell-groups of a complicated body is possible, belongs to the do- main of metaphysics. Whether we speak of new crea- tions, in the sense of A. d'Orbigny, or of the modifica- tion of the fauna, in both cases we formulate biological phenomena which are not clear to us in their nature and the explanation of which by a mechanical method docs not satisfy our need of causality "

PariL Till ^7? S;„*' CyviER, 0»s™ct(s /om7e» (12 vols., atU' l^'lll- BRON.v-n^MER, Lttha-,, geoonosHca (6 vols, and « ami I'iR^f '• ^'"■'"■^'*0' P'tre/ada Germanic (3 vola.. 1826-

Pfrl/akllnku^lt nR2it*r'* «»!»«• 1849-84) ; Idem, IJaruibuch der //„ T I, „ ,*'^ Lnoer, UmeU f3d ed., 1864)- Zittet Bho m" 'rV"'/^'^"r"S^' '5 ^?- Munich, 187&-93); nE^ed AND i'joDEa". r.v"' 1i; PtaontolooienU„,rh. 1910): Ste,nmann AND IJoDLELliN. Elcmente der PalOontohaie (1890V FBrrn

}L*r. 't. d- "^V^""'""" "/""^ ^erla,ra!a (Chicago, 1884); iDtM, The Prtmary Factors of Organic Evolution (Chicago, 1896)' Steinmann, ElnfUhruno in die Palaonlologic Leipzig 1907 • lfi«m'"#° "'"' Lydekker, Manual of PaUrontology (London.' I „nH„„ ?^nJ,oP !«''«'"'«, Textbook o/ Pala!ontology (2 vols.. London 190(^-02) ; Schimper, Trait6 de paliontologie vigitale (3 vola with atlas Pans, 1809-74); Saporta, Monde dea plantes avayit I app del homme (Paris. 1S78): Seward, Fossil PUints (2 vols.. Cambridge 1898— ) ; Potoni^, Lehrbuch der Phytopaldon- lologie (Leipzig 1910); Zeiller, Eltm. de paliobot. (Paris, 1900)- ,^ITTEL, Oeschichte der PaUontologie (Munich, 1899) ; Scott. Stud \" f"?^- .""'a <Lo°don. 1900); Nedmatr, Erdgeschichte (2 vols., Leipzig 18S9); ed. Uhliq (Leipzig, 1895); Idem, Die Stdmrne de« 7 icrrexches (Vienna.. 1 889) ; Koken. Die Vorwelt und ihre Enlviick- lungsgesclnchte (Leipzig. 1893) ; Idem, Paldonlologie und Descen- denzlehre (Jena. 1902) ^-DtptRBT, Les trans/ormalions du monde animal (Pans. 1907); German tr. Wegener. Die Umhildung der hriie und des Lebens (Stuttgart. 1909); Walther. Gcsrhithli: der Erde und des Lebens (Leipzig. 1908); Waaoen. Vnsere Erde (Munich. 1909); DlENEH, Palaontologie und Abstammunn.Mtre (Leipzig. 1910); GuRicH. Leit/ossilien (Berlin. 1908— ) ; Stromeb VON KniCHENBACH. Lehrbuch der Paldozoologie (Leipzig 1900—) i. modKa.\s.—-Pala!onlolographica (Stuttgart, from 1840); /'«6- hcationaof the Pala:ontolographical Society of London (from 1847) ■ iMr^/" £'"'" ■'"' Mineralogie und Pala:ontologie (Stuttgart,' IMU — ); Ueitr/lge zur Oealagie und Palaontologie Oesterreicha Ungarns und des Orients (Vienna, from 1882) ; Transactions of the btnss Palcrontological Society (Basle, from 1874); Mim. de la Soc. ueol. de t ranee. Section of Palwontology (Paris, 1890—) ; Abhand- tungen der k.k. geolog. Reichsanstalt (Vienna, from 1852) ; Pala- ratta°l8l51— ) '™ ^^'^' 1^^^~>: Palwontologia Indick (Cal-

LuKAs Waagen.

Palafox y Mendoza, Juan de. Bishop of La 1 uebla lie los Angeles in Mexico, b. at Fitero in Na- varre, 24 June, 1600; d. at Osma in Spain, 1 October, 1659. He was a son of Jaime de Palafox y Mendoza' Marquess of Ariza. After studying at the University of Salamanca he was appointed member of the Coun- cil of Uar and of the Indies at the Court of Madrid. In 1629 he renounced this dignity and was ordained priest. He accompanied Princess Mary as almoner to Germany and upon his return was consecrated Bishop of Puebla de los Angeles, 27 December, 1639, and appointed "visitador general" of Mexico. He arrived there, June, 1640. He soon came in con- flict with the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustin- lans, whose many exemptions and pri^'ileges he looked upon as encroachments on his episcopaljurisdiclion. In May, 1642, he received secret advice from Madrid to take temporary charge of the Government in place of the viceroy, Villena, who had been accused of financial mismanagement and of secret sympathy with the Portuguese rebels in New Spain. At the same time he was appointed Archbishop of ]\Iexieo. From 10 June to 23 November, 1642, he was acting viceroy, but would not accept the dignity of arch- bishop. During his viceroyalty of five months he corrected many financial abuses, framed new statutes for the University of Mexico, and. to root out idolatry among the aborigines, destroyed many Aztec idols and other pagan antiquities collected by preceding viceroys.

In 1647 began his conflict with the Jesuits. The reason of the strife was the numerous exemptions and privileges which the Jesuit missionaries had en- joyed in Mexico since the beginning of the seventeenth century and which, in the opinion of Palafox, under- mined his episcopal authority. In a letter to Inno- cent X, dated 25 May, 1647, he denounced the use which the Jesuits were making of their privileges and asked the pope for redress. The p(j[)e ;iiiswcre(l with abrief, dated 14 May, 1648, in whirl, he snsl;iins the bishop in all disputed points of jurisdiilion, but ex- horts him to be more kind and lenient towards the Jesuits. A second letter to Pope Innocent X, dated 8 January, 1649, more acrimonious than the first, is often attributed to Palafox, but was probalily forgcfl by enemies of the Jesuits, as it is disavowed bj- Pal.-i- fox in a defence of his actions which he addressed to Philip IV of Spain in 16.52. In May, 1649, Palafox left for Spain. On 27 May, 16.53, Pope Innocent X issued a new brief, in which he confirmed his previous decision in favour of Palafox. The bishop was trana-