Billeder på siden


Bishop of Cremona, who was for many years the champion of this new tendency within the Church. Surely the question of temporal power is settled forever. The suppression of political domination by the Catholic Church is a permanent acquisition of United Italy, and no agitation for the purpose of reexamining the momentous decision of 1870 either inside or outside of Italy will ever engage the serious attention of the world. With regard to the other question of securing for the Law of Guarantees the sanction of other Powers besides Italy, it is quite certain that efforts to attain this end will also fail. As was pointed out by Mr. Speranza in a recent number of The Outlook, the law could scarcely be made more binding than it is at present, and Minister Orlando was eminently right in saying that, "while in other gigantic struggles the sacred character of the Head of the Church had not saved him as a temporal sovereign from suffering persecution and violence, imprisonment and exile-from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII and Pius VII-nevertheless in the present conflict the supreme Pontiff, under the safeguard of the Italian law, maintained unaltered and applied in a spirit of broad interpretation of its fundamental principle, has been able to govern his Church and to exercise his great ministry with a fulness of rights, with a freedom, safety and prestige, such as befit the truly sovereign authority which is his, and incontestable in the spiritual world.”’

We have seen, however, that reliable Catholic opinion is committed to the acceptance of existing conditions. This unequivocal attitude is indeed significant. Whether it is the forerunner of a similar attitude on the part of the Vatican is hard to say, but this much is certain: the Vatican is under no illusion concerning the two questions of temporal power and international sanction of the Law of Guarantees; it is rather safe to assume that it thoroughly realizes the position Italy has irrevocably taken and the impossibility of ever turning back. If our assumption is correct, a satisfactory basis for agreement between the Italian government and the Papacy may be easily found.

The liberal ideas of this eminent prelate were disapproved by the Vatican as imprudent and untimely, but it was not many years before they were tacitly adopted. The non expedit, for instance, is now practically a dead letter.

In my opinion, the two leading aspects of the whole controversy are as follows: (1) The Pope cannot expect to be invited to any international congress as long as Italy objects. (2) Italy's objection to papal representation will continue as long as the government is uncertain regarding the true attitude and intentions of the Vatican.

If we should base our forecast of future arrangements upon the cumulative experience of the past, a reconciliation between the Holy See and the Italian government would hardly be reckoned as a probable occurrence; but the war has so profoundly changed the whole texture of the civilized world that a single day is now likely to usher in the result of many years of patient evolution.

Since moral principles are so important in this war as to offset all other considerations, there are many who maintain that the Pope, the most conspicuous champion of peace, cannot without injury to the world be excluded from a conference of belligerents. His claim is in their opinion a compelling one: he is the spiritual head of a church which is in many ways the greatest institution in the world. It is useless to say that the Pope has lost the prerogatives of a sovereign, that he is no longer an agency of international relations, that he is a dispossessed monarch to be placed on a par with other heads of religious communities. It is held, and the contention is doubtless convincing, that political rule over a few square miles of territory would not give the Pope the necessary element of acceptance by the Powers. Such rule might perhaps satisfy formal requirements of international law, but substantially the claim of papal intervention at a peace conference would rest upon firmer ground.

Those who are opposed to papal representation at a peace conference naturally feel that equally powerful arguments may be advanced in support of the position they take. The future will decide which of the two contending parties is to prevail.

The fact remains, however, that although the recent effort of the Vatican in behalf of peace has failed, the Pope is still the most powerful advocate of peace living, and further appeals from him may be expected. It is quite likely that the Central Powers will yield long before a military collapse stares them in the face,

and in such a contingency the Pope might become their authorized spokesman for peace. Whether this would be a sufficient title for admission to the peace council remains to be seen.

However that may be, the Vatican has already intimated in unmistakable terms that the question of temporal power, the revision of the Law of Guarantees, the rescue of dynasties, including the Catholic crown of Austria, are all matters of passing import as compared with the tremendous duty of the Church to save the world from utter annihilation.

A. M.


No doubt the advertising policies of periodicals have sins of their own to answer for, for the power of the advertiser is the power of patronage and can be easily abused. But those who complain of the bad reaction of advertising upon writers, especially upon radical writers, may get a certain consolation, whatever it amounts to, from remembering that advertising originally liberated the profession of writing and made it respectable and attractive. It took the writer off his patron's staircase and invested him with a larger independence and self-respect, insured his maintenance and got him better wages for his work. It was the radical writer, too, who reaped the largest advantage; in fact, one might fairly say that advertising has been the most important single factor in the promotion of liberal literature.

The pursuit of this clew is interesting. As far as I know, the first advertisement ever printed was a book-ad that appeared in 1647. But the real history of advertising begins for our purposes eighteen years later with the establishment of the Oxford Gazette on November 7, 1665.

This was an official paper, the mouthpiece of the court of King Charles II. It was published twice a week on a single sheet about seven inches by ten, or approximately the size of a standard magazine page; printed on both sides in two columns, carrying about five hundred words to the column or two thousand words to the issue. Being published under royal auspices, it had, of course, the most pronounced editorial "slant" on all the news of those parlous times. It is doubtful whether anything in our day can match the industrious twisting and garbling and straightaway lying by which this newspaper bolstered the royalist cause.

Fox Bourne says that this was "almost the only newspaper allowed to King Charles's subjects till near the end of his reign." Hence, obviously, the publisher did not need to worry about circulation. He had all there was. Between the Licensing Act and the censorship, he had easy going. Furthermore, as he operated under patronage, he was independent of advertising; and, in

fact, as long as he had the field to himself, he carried practically no advertising except court-notices. In early issues I saw only a few book-ads, some advertisements of runaway apprentices and one for a lost dog. When the court moved from Oxford to London, the paper took the name of the London Gazette with the issue of Feb. 4, 1669. A couple of years later a few more miscellaneous ads appear, and by 1680 they occasionally amount to as much as a column; but one may fairly say that this paper ran a dozen years without any general advertising business worth mentioning.

At this time the people of England were getting more or less uncertain and captious about the Stuart regime, and by 1682 some publisher seems to have thought that the insurgent spirit was strong enough to support a newspaper; so in that year, after the Gazette had enjoyed a clear field for seventeen years, a privately owned competitor called the Mercury appeared. Its policy was radical and progressive; its method a fine monochrome study in pure yellow. The editor-some carlier and nameless Hearstdid his work in a style that must remain the delight and the despair of imitators. In his earlier issues he set forth a declaration asserting his independence of court politics and influential persons. He laid down this challenge in the language of eighteencarat insurgency, and seasoned it with urbane and salty innuendoes against the policy of the court paper. He closed his prospectus with the promise to stick by his insurgent programme and get out his paper as long as his undertaking was supported or "until stopt by Authority."

Now what enabled him to do this? Advertising. There is no doubt of it, the analysis of his columns shows it. He ran more advertising in his first month than his subsidized contemporary ran in three years. His first issue carried long advertisements. of two books that were a direct appeal to the insurgent spirit. One of these books was a work on religious philosophy, espousing the Puritan or Presbyterian doctrine and antagonizing the political alliance of church and State which was fostered by the Stuarts and Archbishop Laud. It does not seem any great piece of radicalism in these days, but it was tremendous for its time. The

« ForrigeFortsæt »