[Footnote 1: I should like to make one observation in this connection. People of the present day have got into the habit of putting _Monseigneur_ before a proper name, and of saying _Monseigneur Dupanloup_ or Monseigneur Affre. This is bad French; the word "Monseigneur" should only be used in the vocative case or before an official title. In speaking to M. Dupanloup or M. Affre, it would be correct to say _Monseigneur_. In speaking of them, _Monsieur Dupanloup, Monsieur Affre; Monsieur, or Monseigneur l'Évqêue d'Orleans,_ Monsieur or Monseigneur l'Archévêque de Paris.] THE ST. SULPICE SEMINARY. PART II. St. Sulpice, in short, when I went through it forty years ago, provided, despite its shortcomings, a fairly high education. My ardour for study had plenty to feed upon. Two unknown worlds unfolded themselves before me: theology, the rational exposition of the Christian dogma, and the Bible, supposed to be the depository and the source of this dogma. I plunged deeply into work. I was even more solitary than at Issy, for I did not know a soul in Paris. For two years I never went into any street except the Rue de Vaugirard, through which once a week we walked to Issy. I very rarely indulged in any conversation. The professors were always very kind to me. My gentle disposition and studious habits, my silence and modesty, gained me their favour, and I believe that several of them remarked to one another, as M. Carbon had to me, "He will make an excellent colleague for us." Upon the 29th of March, 1844, I wrote to one of my friends in Brittany, who was then at the St. Brieuc seminary: