"Charge of the Irish Bishops"

Considering my search term: "pernicious books", and the periodical in which it appears, United States Catholic Miscellany (1822-1835), I was fairly sure of what to expect from this article before even opening it. The title of the article struck my attention, "Charge of the Irish Bishops", but I was surprised to find that the article wasn't written originally for the US Catholic Miscellany, but rather from the London Truthteller. "Charge of the Irish Bishops" appears in the March 30, 1825 edition of the American periodical, as a reprint of a "pastoral charge" that had been issued by the Irish Catholic Bishops, so the piece is literally a charge sent down from Catholic higher ups to the people of the Catholic church, and it's purpose is to reaffirm the church's position on "pernicious books" and to forbid "the use, the perusal, the reading, or retaining of them".

Several things struck me about this article, the first being the way that it was framed by the US Catholic Miscellany by a brief introduction which serves to inform the reader of the periodical's position on the following charge:

• " 'A pastoral charge has been issued by the Irish Catholic Bishops, couched in the most impressive, admonitory, and eloquent language. Indeed it reminds us of the primitive times of Christianity, and reflects a lustre on the illustrious Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland. Our limits will not allow us to copy the whole, but we cannot refrain from laying the following extract before our readers, as it has been the subject of much animadversion and gross misrepresentation in the prints in the interest of the Biblicals."

It was around here that I decided to look up the United States Catholic Miscellany, and I discovered that it, apparently, was the first Catholic newspaper in the US, and that the founder, Bishop John England (who likely wrote the preface to the charge, above) was kind of a big deal. The more you know!

This, however, lead me to all sorts of other questions about the article, in particular the motivations Bishop England may have had in reprinting the charge (he was a native of Ireland himself), how the readership may have responded to the charge and what kind of value they placed on the publication, and most importantly, if there had ever been anything printed in the United States Catholic Miscellany, which would've been deemed inappropriate by those leaders issuing the strongly-worded charge.

Another aspect I found interesting was the transatlantic connection between the US Catholic Miscellany and the London Truthteller. Because the majority of the article is a reprint of what appeared in the Truthteller, there isn't a lot of opportunity to observe the interplay between the charge and the American publication reprinting it. The most we have is the introduction, which reads enthusiastically, but offers no other information.

This is a bit of a tangent, but out of curiosity I managed to track down the US Catholic Miscellany's prospectus from the original publication. In describing the goals of the publication, Bishop England includes: "The correct statement of occurrences regarding the Catholic religion: for the purpose of better discharging which duty, communications and periodical publications from Rome, Paris, London, Dublin, Canada, South-America, the various parts of the United States, and other portions of the world will be obtained, and are, solicited." Clearly this article reflects this, and it would be interesting to see how often Bishop England ran these types of stories.

Finally, I have to point out some of the highlights of The Charge itself. There are so many excerpts that surprised me by the strong wording, but I've plucked out one in particular. Here, the Irish Bishops are urging their followers not only to avoid pernicious books, those that "are not sanctioned by us, or by any competent authority in the Catholic church", but also to avoid incorrect interpretations of the scriptures:

• " 'In reading, therefore, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, seek only to become wise to salvation, and avoid that most perverse of all errors, that source of numberless evils, that pride and presumption which has desolated the church, and which would tempt you to set up your own weak and fallible judgment against the judgment of the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH, which is THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and directed and governed in all her decisions by the son of God.' "

Okay, so I was not surprised to find that the Irish Bishops weren't terribly fond of books which contained blasphemy, criticisms of the church, or something crazy like witchcraft, but I have to say that I was surprised that they seem to be offering very little alternatives, and even discourage reading the Bible for fear of "good scriptures" being "badly understood". The charge continues on to focus more and more on pernicious books and describes several heartbreaking historical instances of book burnings as shining examples of the power of the church, but I am trying to keep in mind that this is an excerpt, and that there may have been a lot more in the original London Trtuthteller publication.

Though reading Starr's introduction and first chapter had me somewhat prepared, the idea of censorship has never been so clear to me as it is after reading this piece. It exhibits a real fear of the literacy and intellect of the people, and does so in an authoritative tone that is not afraid to use words like "suppression" and "prohibited", and is also not afraid to insinuate a bit of hellfire to drive its point home:

• " 'Hence, dearest brethren, such books have been, and ever will be, execrated by the Catholic church; and hence also those salutary laws and ordinances, whereby she has at all times prohibited her children to read or retain them; nay, why she has frequently ordered them to be committed to the flames.' "

Yikes.

- Charge of the Irish Bishops. United States Catholic Miscellany (1822-1835); March 30, 1825; 4, 13; American Periodicals pg.204
- Prospectus. United States Catholic Miscellany (1822-1835); June 5, 1822; 1, 1; American Periodicals pg.1

creation of the media: pgs. 1-46

There are a few, specific points that I took from the introduction and first chapter of Paul Starr's The Creation of the Media, and rather than attempt to string them together in any logical way, I intend to present them individually, and then try to pinpoint some connections in my thought processes.

First and foremost, I have to address my fascination with the depth and scope that this book takes on its subject, and my surprise when I discovered just how much I didn't know about the creation of the media. Perhaps typical for someone born in the late 80s, I tend to take the media for granted, in that I had never bothered to consider how it had developed into what we now encounter on a daily basis. Having immediately noticed my shameful lack of historical knowledge on this topic, I powered through the first 46 pages with more pleasure than I'd expected to experience. :)

From the Introduction:

I find it interesting that Starr notes the way that changes in communication were presented to the public as they were made: "All these deviations from the society's ideal standards led to political struggles, and these political struggles changed the practical working of communications, though the changes were often presented and understood as reaffirmations of founding principles" (14, my italics). This is sneaky and quite clever, a way of avoiding a confession of wrongdoing by reaffirming that our intentions always were to provide what we'd been advertising all along: freedom of speech.

I'm also intrigued by problems that the American media managed to create by avoiding such regimented governmental control. On page 16, Starr mentions the monopolies of Western Union and the Associated Press, and remarks that "Americans confronted a new form of centralized power for which they at first had no institutional response". This is immediately followed by a mention that "advertising achieved earlier and wider acceptance in America than in Europe", a subject that I hope will receive more attention elsewhere in the book (16).

Finally, I have to comment on the curious reaction I had to a particular clarification that Starr makes in the introduction when he states that "Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American newspapers gave primacy to reporting the news, while French newspapers gave primacy to literary essays" (18). Honestly, I had to read this sentence several times over, because never have I felt more absolutely American than I did in that moment. Of course newspapers should give primacy to the news, literary essays are for literary journals, you silly French! This must be a reflection of the way we've developed and come to rely on the newspaper in modern times, but can also be seen as an impulse to separate journalistic endeavors from academic or literary ones. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or even if we're "right" in favoring news rather than literature in newspapers-- but I found my reaction as a reader surprising and possibly in need of a greater analysis.

From Chapter One: Early Modern Origins:

Throughout this chapter, I found myself drawing connections between early print circulation and the ever-expanding information overload of the internet. In particular, I was interested in the implications of the "invisible threads of connection" that are mentioned early in the chapter, and how they impact the way we do research in this field as modern scholars.

"Publications weave invisible threads of connection among their readers. Once a newspaper circulate, for example, no one ever truly reads it alone. Readers know that others are also seeing it at roughly the same time, and they read it differently as a result, conscious that the information is now out in the open, spread before a public that may talk about the news and act on it" (24).

What strikes me about this passage is the way that we as researchers must be contextualizing every piece of media that we come across, no matter in what century it originally appeared. If it isn't interesting enough to consider how readers read private and public communications differently, we also have to take into account how we are reading the periodicals that we find now in our current place and time. Not only are we charged with the responsibility of interpreting contextual information about the artifact's original circulation, but we also must be paying careful attention to our own context, and how interpretation may be shaped by these contexts.

Finally, because I'm finding myself beginning to ramble, I couldn't help but wonder what subscribing to eighteenth century British periodicals meant to those who subscribed to them. What was the subscription list like? What was the motivation for investing in a subscription? And, most interestingly, was the motivation always about reading or about appearing to read?

A highlighter lost its life due to my enthusiastic reading of these first 46 pages. I have bought more highlighters in preparation for the coming weeks. There is little doubt in my mind that I'll be needing them. :)

first post! the post that hurts the most

Okay, so I'm from Oklahoma. Feel free to hold that against me, God knows I do. :) All kidding aside, my hometown was a lovely shade of normal. Edmond, Oklahoma, if we want to get all specific about it. It's the kind of place you think you'll finally appreciate once you've moved on, but….well, I don't know how long these things take, but I've been in Fort Worth for 5 years now, and I've yet to catch myself pining for Edmond. My parents and their ever-growing number of furry replacement babies (cats & dogs, not literal furry babies) - well, that's a whole different story all together. So pretty much my hometown was nothing special, but my family and friends were and remain to be the most awesome on the planet. Just sayin'.

Anyway, I've always loved to read and to write, but mostly to write. I think that might have to do with some control freakitude; I've always been more interested in creating text than consuming it. This also explains my fascination with fandom, fanfiction and adaptation studies. As a kid, I always found myself continuing and adapting my favorite stories in my head. As a teenager, I started to write these stories down, and soon discovered that I wasn't alone. As an undergrad, I shamefully participated in several fandoms, producing fanfiction under the table in between seminar papers and projects. And finally, as a graduate student, I've chosen to focus on this type of writing for my thesis in an apparent attempt to point out how incredibly influential it all was in my development as a writer.

But, I digress.

Oh, books. I tend to be very annoyingly "low brow" when it comes to "my favorites". It's unfair, really. I'd love to be able to tout my intelligence by rattling off a list of writers that I enjoy, but it seems phony and hey, I can't help that my taste for crappy chick lit has prevailed! I've given it very little attention these past few years, it's quite persistent. So yes, I love Bridget Jones' Diary and Douglas Adams. But! I tend to enjoy just about everything.

Three Books That Have Deeply Touched My Life:

• Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien (if not only for the fandom, sweet fandom)
• Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare (plays count!)
• Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard (plays have to count!)
  

It may be of interest that my BA (also from TCU) is in Radio/TV/Film. I'm very interested in the connections between film and television (poor radio!) in particular, with literature and the study of rhetoric. This may help explain my terrible taste and penchant for media-related topics of study. But hey, at least I'm upfront about it, yeah?

My goals for the semester are pretty straightforward: thesis, thesis, thesis. And I'm very excited to see the past three semesters of work really coming together and finally making sense. I'm realizing how much I really took away from each class, and I suspect that this course will be no different. I'm looking forward to finding connections between subjects in this course, and what I'm researching for my own work. And I think it may be appropriate to give a shout out here to Dr. Sarah Robbins, whose course on Authorship back in Spring '10 really sparked my interest in periodical culture in early America. I'm excited for this semester because I find all this stuff just so incredibly interesting, and it's so nice for genuine interest to be the overwhelming feeling going in (rather than fear, anxiety or certain death).

I've got to be vague with this next question, because I've been at TCU for the past five and a half years, so….let's just say that communication is the cornerstone to a healthy classroom environment….and that lack of communication will, more often than not, bring out Emilee the Anxious. It's not pretty. But hey, as long as everybody is on relatively the same page, I'm comfy with tons of different teaching styles. I just like to know what is going on…you know, usually. :) :)

Three Things I Know About the US During 1770-1830:
-Frank Leslie (publisher of periodicals! pretty good, eh?) was born (1821)
-American Revolutionary War
-And I'm a fraud, I know nothing of history….

Three Things You Ought to Know About Me:
I'm a cat lady, but I've only got one cat, so it's one of those situations where all of my cat lady tendencies are focused on one very spoiled cat. This, is Binx.


Also! I've been blogging for a long time. My livejournal account has been active since 2005, but I had another (incredibly embarrassing) one years before that. But I've deleted it. Because it was absurd.

And finally, although I'm currently trying my best to focus all of my love and attention on this wonderful degree, I am hoping that one day I will be able to focus anything at all on writing a novel. I'm about 83% sure I'm not bad. I'd also like to finish the screenplay I started back in undergrad. So, lastly and somewhat obviously, Creative Writing: I dig it. :)