Scholarly opinion is generally agreed that the order of Cluny reached its apogee during the abbacy of St. Hugh, who ruled from 1049 to 1109, and began its decline as a result of the misrule of his successor, Pontius of Melgueil, abbot from 1109 to 1122. The rule of Pontius' successor, Peter the Venerable (1122–1157), is generally regarded as an attempt to realize two aims: justification of Cluniac monasticism before the criticism of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and reparation of the damage done to the spiritual life at Cluny by Pontius. It is the purpose of this article to subject the accepted view of Pontius' career to scrutiny and to present an alternative interpretation of the known facts. This alternative view will be based upon the demonstration that the available evidence concerning Pontius' disgrace and condemnation can be properly understood only if it is set into the context of events which transpired in the Roman Curia from 1112 to 1130.3

It seems to me that much can be learned by comparative studies of the histories of the several European countries, and that this is particularly true of their political histories during the sixteenth century. A stimulating start in this direction was made by H. G. Koenigsberger in an article in The Journal of Modern History, titled “The Organization of Revolutionary Parties in France and the Netherlands during the Sixteenth Century.” I would like to propose a further exploration of some of the interesting leads presented by Mr. Koenigsberger. For the present, however, I shall avoid attempting to survey the whole field he opens up for us. I shall limit myself to a study of the revolutionary Calvinist parties, and devote most of my attention to the period of their formation.

Some of the comparative ideas that Mr. Kingdon has dealt with in the foregoing article are elaborations of views that he suggested in his recent monograph, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, 1555–1563. In a recent review of this book by Sir John Neale the author is praised for claiming that the “highly-organized subversive conspiracy from Geneva,” which was so important in the French wars of religion, “has a bearing on Dutch and English, not to mention Scottish, history.” What is more, Neale indicates that he “certainly finds it illuminating for an appreciation of the Puritan Classical movement in Elizabethan history.” It might be worth-while, therefore, to extend the discussion by briefly examining Mr. Kingdon's criteria for “revolutionary Calvinist parties” in connection with England in the age of Elizabeth and, later, with the period of the English civil wars of the mid-seventeenth century. Those criteria include a synodical organization, noble leadership, and a resistance theory.

It has been observed that in America the preachers act like politicians and the politicians talk like preachers. Recent developments in American politics have given renewed support to this observation. There are a number of possible explanations as to why the American public is so concerned, at this particular time in history, to appear as a godly people and nation. However, the question that immediately presents itself to the historian is why the American public so quickly responds to the religious motif in political life.

Just after the turn of the nineteenth century, the Rev. Samuel Miller, then a Presbyterian minister in New York but soon to become a professor of ecclesiastical history at the newly-founded Princeton Theological Seminary, published his ambitious Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century. He remarks in due course that “it would be improper to pass in silence the celebrated IMMANUEL KANT, Professor at Koeningsberg, in Prussia.” He then goes on to comment on the “extravagant panegyrics” of Kant's disciples, but having heard “that the acutest understanding cannot tolerably comprehend [this profound and extensive system] by less than a twelve-month's study,” he satisfied himself with a brief second-hand report. The incident might be considered an accurate commentary on the state of “Continental influence on American Christian thought” in 1803.