Life, 1884-02-21 · page 5 of 16
Life — February 21, 1884 — page 5: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
# Analysis of "Cause and Effect" Cartoon This single-panel satirical cartoon depicts two women in conversation. The caption reads: "Why, my dear Mrs. Lovelace, you seem so much thinner! Have you been ill?" The response: "Oh, no, but I have a more muscular maid." The joke plays on Victorian-era class assumptions about female thinness as a beauty standard and marker of leisure. The implication is that Mrs. Lovelace appears thinner not from illness but because she now has a stronger maid to do physical labor—previously requiring Mrs. Lovelace's own exertion. The satire critiques how wealthy women's bodies reflected their servants' labor, and how acquiring better household help signaled social status and allowed women to maintain fashionable thinness without actual hardship.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
Why did the infallible Pope, Paul the IV, in 1559 institute the Congregation of the Index ?— To ‘‘ Examine all books and manuscripts intended for publi- cation and decide whether the people be permitted to read them ; to correct those books of which the errors are not numerous, and which contain certain useful and salutary truths, so as to bring them into harmony with the doctrines of the Church ; to condemn those of which the principles are heretical and pernicious.” Why did said Congregation of Index denounce Copernicus’ book ‘De Revolutionibus,” a purely scientific treatise, and for- bid its use? Why did it prohibit Kepler's ‘‘ Epitome"? Kep- ler’s reply shows what was done to encourage him by the “! Pro- tectrice.” He said: ‘‘ Now that new testimony is discovered in proof of the truth of the doctrines of Copernicus—testimony which was not known to the spiritual judges—ye would prohibit the promulgation of the true system of the structure of the universe.” How does Monsicnor reconcile this with his above endeavor to show that Kepler was sheltered and protected by Catholicism ? Why upon the Index Expurgatorius of the Church to-day, stand the names of Darwin, Heckel, Tyndall, Huxley and Herbert Spencer—the great apostles of modern Science? Why are their works forbidden to Catholics, if the Church really wishes to extend the ‘helping hand?” Why did the Council of Salamanca condemn the views of Christopher Columbus on the rotundity of the earth as irreligious and heretical ? Why, by an infallible Pope, and by an Inquisition instituted by an infallible Pope and sanctioned by infallible Popes and in- fallible Councils for many generations, was that venerable dis- coverer and philosopher Galileo dragged to Rome, tortured, and compelled to abjure his own scientific writings, and then cast into prison—finally to die of a broken heart and be denied Christian burial? He had merely affirmed Science, not attacked Religion. Why did the infallible Pope likewise cause another great scien- tist, Giordano Bruno, to be burned at the stake in Rome, in 1600, for having ventured the opinion that the Scriptures were only intended to teach morals and not Sqjence? You yourself would have been genially toasted, MONsIGNoR, had you in those days said, as you say now with such unction, that the Church was not appointed to teach Science. The Inquisition would have fondled you, and by its simple but earnest method, might have convinced you that you were wrong. Why did the Inquisition torture 360,000 hudian beings and burn over 33,000 at the stake for exercising their reason? 6. Again we beg to differ with you, MoNsIGNoR. The more we examine into nature, the more irrational appears the revelation you interpret. How do you reconcile Genesis with geology? The testimony of the rocks sets aside the Deluge. The records of Prehistoric man, written upon adamantine pages, give the lie direct to the Septuagint. Astronomy makes your immense claim upon the regard of the Creator as absurd asit is impious. Modern investi- gation has shown that your ancient miracles were either natural phenomena or silly jugglery, which any intelligent person of the present day can explain and reproduce. You have tried, as a forlorn hope, to reconcile the two; and claim now that the Scrip- tures are “figurative.” But how does Evolution strike you? Will you answer Newton’s Principia? Can you dispose sum- marily of the facts Sciénce has revealed to us in regard to the existence and gradual development of prehistoric races? CAUSE AND EFFECT. “Wuy, My DEAR Mrs. LovELACE,’ You SEEM so much THINNER! HAVE YOU BEEN ILL?” “Ou, No, BUT I HAVE A MORE MUSCULAR MAID.” 7. Certainly. Science is in perfect harmony with fact. 8, Herein is precisely where humanity suffered. The Church held that Copernicus and Galileo, Bruno and Kepler were dis- turbing the domain of faith. They were. If you could, you would crush Darwin, Heckel, Tyndall, Huxley and Spencer, Miller and Lyell for similar reasons. Their works, purely scien- tific, have very thoroughly upset your dominion. g. A decided compliment. zo. Then the whole hierarchy of the Church may be instructed by a pope to crush Science and torture its votaries, and still you can crawl out of it and disavow responsibility? That is a quib- ble, MONSIGNoR. 11. The bulls of Leo X (infallible), referring to the Inquisition; the proceedings of the Lateran Council (infallible), against the philosophy of AVERROES, in 1512; the bull of PauL IV, above re- ferred to; the records of the Index Expurgatorius, and ef the Inqui- sition ; the action of the Council of Salamanca against Columbus; and a hundred and one other examples mev be cited of the Church denying scientific facts and truths of nature. 12. See note 5. 13. We are not defending Protestantism. 14. The Monsicnor’s address, as delivered before the nine- comichooks,cteyu)