« PreviousContinue »
feld. He was brave and popular; the revolution was general; he had been proclaimed Voievode of Transylvania and chief of the Hungarian nation; he had organized a government which ruled the greater part of the countries belonging to the crown of St. Stephen, and a diet had voted the deposition of Joseph as king of Hungary. When approached by the Russian agents, Rákóczy at first held off and hesitated. He was supported by France, and France was friendly to Sweden, and he had to find out how an alliance with Russia would be considered at Versailles. Finally, he yielded to what he called "the threats of the Tsar," and in August sent an embassy to Peter. His envoys, at the head of whom was Bereseny, and among whom was an Andrassy, first offered the crown of Hungary to the Tsarévitch Alexis, but the Tsar refused it. After some negotiation, in the name of Rákóczy and of the kingdom of Hungary, they concluded a treaty at War
saw September 15th. By this instrument, Rákóczy accepted the crown of Poland in case of his election, but it was agreed that if the Swedes should invade Poland, the election should be postponed for four months, in order to allow France and Bavaria to mediate between Russia and Sweden. After that time, without further delay, Rákóczy was to be declared king, and the Tsar was to publish his alliance with Hungary. In Peter's absence Rákóczy was to command the allied forces, and in case of disaster, and the loss of the Polish throne, he was to be given a refuge in Russia. The liberties of Hungary and Transylvania were to be secured, free trade was to be established between those countries and Russia, and the two parties were to maintain residents at each other's
Many Poles were unfavorable to this project, and the invasion of Russia by the Swedes prevented any attempt to carry it out.
And the world goes round and round,
And whether I'm on or under the ground, The world cares little for me.
But if life awake, and will never cease
And the rose of love and the lily of peace
Let the world go round and round,
And the sun sink into the sea! For whether I'm on or under the ground, Oh, what will it matter to me?
TOPICS OF THE TIME.
Prophecy and Science.
PROFESSOR SEELEY, in an essay entitled "Political Somnambulism," published in “ Macmillan's Magazine not long before the death of Carlyle, deprecates the writing of history by “purely literary men," -notably by such men as Macaulay and Carlyle; but of Carlyle he says: "I admire as much as others this striking re-appearance of the Hebrew prophet in the modern world. No mere echo or literary imitation of Hebrew prophecy, but the thing itself: the faculty of seeing moral evils which others are too drowsy to see, and of seeing them as distinctly as if they were material objects, the sublime impatience, the overwhelming denunciation: in fact, ancient prophecy revived and effective as of old: this is what I see in his best writings,-in 'Past and Present,' and some of the Latter-Day Pamphlets.""
It has long been customary to speak of Carlyle as a seer, or prophet, but this view of him is particularly interesting, occurring, as it does, in an essay conceived in the scientific spirit, and containing little of the sentimental, unless the passage we quote be considered sentimental, and unless we take into account a suspicion of an underlying tendency toward conservatism. We wish Professor Seeley had explained more fully what he means by the term "prophet." If a true Biblical prophet has died and left no one of equal gifts among the sons of men, this is a vital matter, and one that men of science, as well as preachers of religion, may well inquire into. The explanation that Carlyle himself has given of prophecy in his book "On Heroes," is to the point; but until Carlyle's right to testify has been established, his testimony, of course, cannot be accepted. It is a matter of interest and importance to know whether science acknowledges that there is any such thing as prophecy at all, in the sense either of the Bible or of Carlyle's "Heroes." It is to be hoped that still more pronounced apostles of the new philosophy than the author of "Political Somnambulism" will give their views on a question which involves, to such large extent, the welfare and hap. piness of the race. Men of science should bring to
bear upon a question as momentous as this all the new light which the world supposes them to possess. Some of the most "advanced" and eminent among them have taken pains to turn aside from severer | employment to pay their compliments to the gift and office of imagination. Would these men in any way distinguish seership and prophecy from imagination, or grant to adepts in the former the dignity and the usefulness so freely accorded to poets and artists of every kind?
The world has always believed that there were men of special gifts of insight; men of so-called spiritual perception; men who see truth, who "see God." In that poem of Bryant in which he wishes to set forth the general hope of humanity in a life beyond the grave, his only argument is an appeal to the testimony of "the wise and good." The appeal of mankind, on all spiritual questions, has always been to its seers, its prophets.
Yet, with the unveiling of superstitions in modern times, and with the growth of the so-called “scientific spirit," it is notorious that faith in theological systems has greatly weakened,-as well as faith in "inspiration” and “revelation." The world, at the same time, is becoming daily more accustomed to look to, and to confide in, "experts" in every branch of investigation. The question arises whether minds imbued with the scientific spirit can have any confi. dence in the testimony of what may be called spiritual experts; or will such minds rest satisfied when they have merely explained the means which have produced an Isaiah, a Newman, or a Carlyle. We wish to know what the prophet means after he has been produced; and what credence is to be given to his prophecy.
Science, it may be, will pronounce the prophecy vague and uncertain, sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. It will say: If the prophet really and clearly sees, why is not his utterance more exact and comprehensible? He prophesies of Truth, but what is Truth? of the Soul, but what is the Soul? of God, but what is God? But in dealing with "the spirit of prophecy," science must be no less fair
than in dealing, let us say, with "the spirit of art." | replies to an accusation, from an English journal, of There is in the form of the "Theseus" of Phidias, or the marble "Dawn" of Michael Angelo, an artistic spirit and force as real and lasting as the substance of a planet. We say that "the whole world" feels the force of such gigantic works of art; but in reality the world depends upon what may well be called its art-prophets to point out their supersensual qualities, their artistic value and preeminence. If the critical estimate of a marble were to be fixed by the popular vote, without the guidance of special minds of peculiar sensibility and training, it is more than likely that the greatest works of art would be quickly dethroned. Yet if a skeptic stands before some Greek masterpiece,-one who does not recognize its beauty, its informing spirit,-Michael Angelo himself will fail to be explicit or convincing; he can deal only in what to the skeptical, that is, the scientific mind, will be regarded as vague and egotistic assertion.
the selfishness of the American policy of non-intervention. The discussion of these incidents proves that public opinion in this country is firm as to the wisdom of our adherence to the non-intervention policy, in the very interests of that cause of freedom of which we claim to be the champions. The House of Representatives has passed no vote of sympathy with the Norwegian patriots, nor is it proposed that American men-of-war should be sent into Scandinavian waters in the event of "Norway's Constitutional Struggle" becoming an appeal to Yet the patriot Björnson declares * that they should not have had the present struggle at all if America's free constitution had not been given them as a pattern in 1814, "if the glorious development of America under this, her constitutional ægis, had not given the Norseman the initiative, * and
if the great emigration from Norway had not in many ways maintained a steady aggressive propagation of republican rules and ideas.”
In these days of confusion of doctrine and lessening of faith, many are turning for something stable and indisputable, not to science, but to art. The infinite and the divine, though inexplicable as terms, are as real to the human mind as water and air are to the human body; and in the pursuit or the appreciation of art the craving of humanity for these is, at least partly, satisfied. Science, hitherto, has not pointed the finger of scorn at the refugees from the Church to Art; it may be said that it looks with complacency upon one worship, but withdraws its sympathy from the other. It requires from religion a scientific account of itself, yet puts no such burden of exact definition upon art. The infinities of art it does not profess to comprehend, yet it does not ask of them scientific demonstration and analysis. The infinities of religion are no less beyond its comprehension,-but here its demands are strict.
But what if it should finally appear (as many believe) that the inexorable questionings and tests of science are leading by slow and painful steps to a more vivid realization than the world has for centuries possessed of things spiritual, infinite, eternal, and divine!
The Influence of Congress.
THE question as to whether the resolution of sympathy with Ireland, adopted by the House of Representatives of the United States, should have been adopted at all, is one which has been fully discussed, and with a great deal of common sense, in American newspapers. It was, of course, nothing more than an appeal by politicians to the voters of that "Irish nation in America" to which Mr. Parnell referred in a recent manifesto. It came with a particularly bad grace from a Congress which for some time past had been shaking the "Monroe doctrine" menacingly in the faces of the enterprising capitalists of the Old World, and was meant to be a kind of interference with our neighbors such as these same politicians would themselves be the quickest to resent. The newspaper
criticism which the action of the House called forth was nearly contemporaneous with the newspaper
But leaving one side the question of propriety, it is a fact worthy of thought that the popular branch of the legislature of a nation possessing such enormous physical and moral force as the United States should express its opinion with regard to affairs in Ireland with so little effect. The passage of a similar resolution of sympathy by a branch of the legislature of any first-class European power would have been considered an event of serious importance; but it is perfectly well understood at home, and pretty well understood abroad, that the American "resolution" amounted to nothing; that it was a piece of harmless buncombe; that it was not an affair of responsible government, but simply a sort of electioneering document sent out by an assembly of second-rate politicians. There was some astonishment in England when on a former occasion the House of Representatives ostentatiously offered its hospitalities to a partisan leader, under circumstances which might fairly imply unfriendliness toward the British Government; but the authorities were well enough informed not to lay undue stress upon the occurrence, and the prompt and vigorously expressed disapproval, on the part of American newspapers, of Mr. Parnell's subsequent unseemly personalities and dubious tactics,—accompanied as this disapproval was by the most generous and practical sympathy for the suffering poor of Ireland, -soon made the English people understand the true relation of Congress to public opinion and executive action.
And yet when, later, Mr. Raymond played Col. Sellers in London, the joke of the farce most successful in America was the one that fell flattest upon a cockney audience. To resent an accusation of a desire to become a member of Parliament would not be considered amusing in England; why, then, should a similar thing be ludicrous when the scene is shifted to America? The mass of the English people are, no doubt, aware that Congress is not a body very greatly revered at home, yet they do not
* In SCRIBNER for February, 1881.
know just how low it has fallen in the estimation of thinking men in our own country, and of the instructed in other countries. They do not know that there is uneasiness in the community so long as it is in session, and a feeling of relief when it adjourns; and that, though what it does is a matter of importance, what it says is of so little consequence that the daily papers of New York, "the most enterprising in the world," find it worth while, except on rare occasions, to print only the thinnest reports of its debates.
The Congress of the United States is, then, a body possessing a great deal of power, but very little influence. While, in the matter of manners, it is probably more comely than it has been for a long time past, and while there are members of both Houses not lacking in education and native force, still he who mourns the dearth of "great men cannot be justly accused of croaking. The men who unite a good equipment with commanding abilities and a zeal for public affairs have pretty nearly disappeared from view. The exceptions are few, and not very conspicuous. Nearly all the zeal that comes to the surface nowadays is expended in partisan industries. If a prominent senator or representative does make "a superb effort" on some occasion where a question is mooted of importance to the whole country, the public are apt to look upon the demonstration as a diversion from the usual course of his thoughts and energies; whether justly so or not, they suspect behind what is apparent some motive of thrifty friendliness or of personal political gain.
It is something of a pleasure to turn from the reports of Congressional speeches to those of such a gathering as was held lately in New York to do honor to a citizen whose individual efforts, it appears, were the chief element in deciding the destinies of fifty millions of people at the epoch of our recent general election. "The Greatest Captain of his Age" presided on this august occasion; the pulpit, the bar, and the press were ably represented. The occasion was none the less remarkable-let us add, none the less instructive-because the decisive efforts commemorated had not been made on the floor of Congress, nor on the platform, nor in the press. Mr. S. W. Dorsey had not come before the country with any new arguments, nor old ones expressed with unusual eloquence. His "achievements," described by Mr. Beecher as "little less than sublime," consisted in going down to Indiana (with a good deal of money about him, as Mr. Arthur hinted) and running the Republican campaign, thereby bringing about "the redemption of that State,”— thereby changing "the aspect of this whole continent for the next ten or fifteen years." But the interesting point in the report of this dinner was the fact that here our public men, ex-senators and others, were speaking from intimate knowledge and with full hearts. Here was shown familiarity with the subject, absorbing interest therein, and unfeigned enthusiasm. The newly elected Vice-President of the United States,-a gentleman long known to the political world, though not as yet favorably identified
with any public measures of consequence, though speaking with humorous evasions, revealed an esot. eric knowledge of the machinery of politics which doubtless stood him in good stead during that perilous time when Mr. Dorsey was absent in Indiana. His speech was admirable of its kind, and, we should say, showed him to be a man of parts. Mr. Arthur very possibly is a man of parts. His letter of acceptance was, certainly, better reading than Mr. Garfield's happened to be. It remains to be fully proved, however, just how much there is in such politicians as Mr. Arthur and Mr. Conkling; after all, they have not had "half a chance." What the country needs is that men of their caliber should be relieved as much as possible from the minute and ignoble details of partisan politics. As things now are, these are the main concern of public men. As
a rule, the member of Congress is either a "boss" himself or the tool of a "boss." Some of the early American statesmen, doubtless, were not any too squeamish in their political maneuverings; but the duties of a manager in those days were child's-play compared with what is now required, with the present extension of territory and multiplication of offices.
Now the reform of the Civil Service is no more truly a panacea for the ills of the body politic than medical panaceas are for those of the physical system; but it is the one medicine, at present, most needed. No one doubts that it will bring a better class of men into the public service, and that it will help to elevate the tone of Congress; and when Congress is more respectable, it will be more respected; its sympathies will be expressed not only with greater dignity but with greater power.
Copyright at Home and Abroad.
THERE is no doubt that one good result of the now inevitable international copyright will be an awakened interest in the general subject of copyright. When American publishers all have to respect the rights of foreign authors, as many have always manifested a disposition to do, American authors will, perhaps, begin to think it worth while to see that their own rights are respected, not only abroad, but at home as well. As it is, hardly any class of proprietors is so careless of proprietary rights as American authors; this fact alone will explain, to a large extent, the contradictions and uncertainties of the law. If authors do not pay proper attention to their own interests, why should the legislature and the courts show any great solicitude in the matter? Publishers are almost the only ones who litigate, or who act with any energy to procure legislation; so indifferent are authors that they, in many cases, neglect to comply with the extremely simple methods prescribed by Congress for securing copyright.
Among the matters that need attention is the extension of copyright terms, so that an author may be in no danger of losing, in his old age, the fruits of his youthful energy, and so, too, that his children may not be beggars while others are profiting from
the labor of his brains. Again, questions as to the respective rights of publishers and authors in articles accepted by and printed first in periodicals, should be definitely understood. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the publishers, as it stands, are considered to be owners of the copyright for the first term; though they are very apt not to insist strenuously upon their rights. But to show how uncertain are the workings of courtesy in these matters, we might mention the case of a well-known and perfectly reputable English author, who sold a story, at a fair and good price, in manuscript, to an American magazine, and, without the slightest notification to the editor, printed it in a foreign journal before it had made its appearance in the United States. Courtesy is a good thing, but is apt to be variously interpreted by different minds. Even after there is law, however, there will still be ample room for courtesy.
In England, copyright of all kinds is more prized and guarded than in America. There the courts are remorseless in dealing with infractions. But in America, where "protection" is a mania as well as a policy, literary piracy has been well-nigh confounded with patriotism, and in the haste to discriminate against the non-native, the native himself has been left without proper protection either abroad or at home. It is the American “protectionist" who compels our authors to expatriate themselves for a time if they wish to obtain copyright abroad in their writings; and it is the laxity of the public conscience induced by the refusal to protect the rights of others that inclines our judges to be lenient toward those who offend at home against the rights even of American-born authors.
In advocating lately the abolition of the tariff upon works of art, we said something about the awkwardness and ignorance of Congress in dealing with questions having any æsthetic bearings. But our legislators can hardly be blamed for their attention in the past to the interests of printers and paper-makers rather than to those of authors, while the former have been constantly and clamorously present in the "lobby," and the latter have, with notable exceptions, contented themselves with grumbling in the distance. In America, as all the world knows, it is the lobby, rather than the Congress, that legislates.
Let us say, by the way, that our English friends, who have so often brought home to us "the national disgrace" of our refusal hitherto of international copyright, would do well to bear in mind certain sometimes forgotten facts. The "lobby" of which we speak, and which has so long successfully opposed the granting of copyright to foreign authors, has been, though a small, still a most powerful one, for this reason, that it worked in a line with the prejudices and policy of Congress and the country in favor of universal protection. Of course an Englishman can say that the whole system of protection is selfish and immoral as well as false and mistaken, and should be forthwith abandoned. But if the United States ever abandons this system from a conviction of its selfishness and immorality, she will be acting in such a matter as England has seldom VOL. XXII.-13.
acted. The adoption of free-trade by Great Britain was not a question of virtue, but of life. The cornlaws were not abolished in a season of general prosperity, nor as a matter of sentiment. If any radical remedies are adopted with relation to Ireland at the present crisis, it will, of course, be because there is a crisis, and not because Parliament is spontaneously moved to action simply by a sense of justice. All legislatures are, as a rule, moved to radical action by their understanding of the selfish, practical interests of their constituents. It has come to be a matter of interest to some publishers, who have hitherto opposed international copyright, to now push in its favor. When a man who represents a gigantic book-making establishment tells his "Member" that unless Congress does something about it his presses will have to stand still, the Member sees before him a manufacturer who must be "protected."
In addition to these things, our English friends should take into consideration the uncounted thousands that have gone from America in payment of unprotected copyrights; and they should remember, too, that about as soon as American books were worth stealing by English pirates they were stolen, and that in proportion to the amount of valuable production there has been as much "stealing" on one side as on the other.
American Magazines in England.
THE recent introduction of still another American magazine into England has evidently brought a new surprise to the writers of magazine notices on the English press, and that America possesses three such illustrated monthly periodicals as "Scribner's," "St. Nicholas," and " Harper's," is an astonishment to the English public. The success of such American periodicals in a foreign market is something which we have not seen satisfactorily accounted for, either at home or abroad. This success is generally attributed almost solely to the superiority of American engraving and the prodigality of illustration. But we doubt whether this is the only At least there are other causes at work; one of these is the interest taken by the people of Great Britain in American affairs,-another, and an important one, is what may be called the cosmopolitanism of American taste.
There is a prevailing opinion in England (and in fact throughout Europe) that America is very big, very rich, and "tremendously successful." But those who hold in common this opinion are divided into two principal classes. One class is forever exalting the example of America, in all matters except that of the tariff; the other class regards us not only with anxious jealousy, but socially as a nation of upstarts whose mission it is to "vulgarize the world." Not long ago an English journal gave frank expression to the disdain in certain quarters regarding the public affairs of America. The editor said that these matters did not "interest" the English people. We are inclined to think, however, that this lack of interest is rather assumed than