to explain him, are numerous. If the ordinary Roman Catholic layman is reduced to reading about Bergson indirectly through the medium of some one else who explains him, but is forbidden to read directly what the man himself has written, is he not at a serious disadvantage in discussing with other men perplexities of the modern mind? Does not this privation place the members of the Roman obedience in another world from that which actually exists? How under such conditions can mutual understanding between the Roman and the nonRoman be promoted?

Whatever judgment may be ultimately pronounced on Bergson's reaction from intellectualism and strong insistence on the value of intuition, it is a curious comment on this Roman prohibition of his writings that attendance at his Lectures in Paris was one of the influences which helped to convert Renan's grandson, Psichari, to the Catholic Faith. It was precisely this theory that man arrives at reality by intuition, rather than by argument, which lies at the basis of Psichari's conversion. If he had not attended Bergson's Lectures, he might, humanly speaking, never have escaped the dogmatic rationalism of his contemporaries. Is it not rather strange that a man should find his way to the Church promoted by an author whom the Church condemns?

Four years ago, there were also placed on the Index 'all the writings of Anatole France.' Every product of his pen up to January 1922 is shut out of all Catholic libraries and Catholic reading. With this condemnation many outside the Roman Communion agree. The late Father Rawlinson, of St Barnabas', Pimlico, said of Anatole France that it is not his fault if the youth of his country did not become entirely degenerate and corrupt. Some of his books give one the impression of an elderly satyr trampling on a crucifix.' He loses no opportunity to depreciate religion. The whole tendency of his books is to destroy belief in religion, and to leave nothing in its place except an arid scepticism and a disbelief in everything.' 'If his influence has been bad for religion, it has been no less evil for patriotism.' However true all this may be, it still remains a question whether, to circulate a public prohibition of all his

writings through Christendom is likely, from a practical point of view, to secure its object. Here before me as I write is one work of Anatole France in the 38th edition, another in the 49th, another in the 97th, and another in the 122nd edition. I do not know what number of copies this actually indicates, but facts like these do not make the condemnations of the Index appear very effective. Is it possible they may even increase the evil which they justly deplore? One of the most effective advertisements of recent years was a sandwich-man with the warning written on the board carried before him, 'Do not look upon my back.' This prohibition proved an irresistible temptation. Everybody read what they were requested not to read. No doubt the well-disciplined obedience of the Roman Communion may conquer the tendencies of the natural man. But it is still a question whether it is wise to impose this strain upon it. We have to reckon with the fact that prohibition increases desire.

It must, of course, be remembered that permission to read and to keep prohibited books can be granted by the Roman Congregations, of the Index, of the Holy Office, or of the Propaganda. The uncompromising and wholesale character of the prohibition is therefore, to that extent, mitigated. To what extent such indulgence is permitted can only be a matter of conjecture. In the nature of the case such exceptions must be a private matter.

If the question be asked, What is the penalty for disobedience to this regulation? Catholics are not left in the smallest doubt about that. Leo XIII, in 1897, in a Constitution addressed to the Catholic world, declared that the penalty for reading prohibited books is ipso facto excommunication, the removal of which is expressly reserved to the Holy See. This particular exercise of ecclesiastical authority is, of course, intended to promote edification, by protecting the faithful against erroneous ideas, but it is very questionable whether it is in the interest of truth. It imposes a restraint which is hardly calculated to promote an impartial statement of the facts. It is not only Anglicans who think that a different treatment ought to have been given to such writers as Turmel, Batiffol, and Duchesne. Who can wonder that Vol. 247.-No. 489.

B

it has been said that Roman historians write with the Damocles sword of the Index suspended over their heads? We cannot forget the effect which the prospect of delation to Rome had on such a writer as John Henry Newman.

'I know, anyhow, that, however honest are my thoughts, and earnest my endeavours to keep rigidly within the lines of Catholic doctrine, every word I publish will be malevolently scrutinised, and every expression which can possibly be perverted sent straight to Rome-that I shall be fighting under the lash, which does not tend to produce vigorous efforts in the battle, or to inspire either courage or presence of mind.'

There are undeniably many cases when the advice should be given to an individual not to read this or that. A parent will say it to a child, a priest to a penitent, an educated person to the ignorant. The mischief done to a half-instructed person by a volume of criticism which he is incompetent to estimate aright is incalculable. Nevertheless, the system of protecting whole nations from the dangers of literature is surely more applicable to the childhood of the race than to its maturity. To many it will seem that Europe of the 20th century has outgrown the stage in which it can be trained by restricting its liberty to read the products of contemporary thought under penalty of excommunication.

It is right that Authority should indicate definite errors, and warn the faithful against lines of thought which are incompatible with the Christian revelation; but it is quite another matter when Authority condemns a book, or the writings of an author wholesale, without any indication what his errors are, and where their incompatibility with the Faith may lie. Authority, if it is to discharge this delicate function aright, must surely name the errors which prompt it to condemn. ✓ There is something, I will not say merely un-English, nor merely contrary to modern ideals of frankness and fairness, in this vague and general prohibition, but something contrary to the purpose which any literary condemnation must presumably have in view, namely, that of enabling the faithful to distinguish intelligently between falsehood and truth. The action of the Roman

Index is too vague to serve the true purpose of a warning.

We may be also haunted by a serious misgiving whether the methods of the Index do not tend to alienate the educated in all the great European cities. There are certainly many thinking people outside the Roman enclosure who feel acutely that it is not only particular dogmas concerning the papal authority which are obstructions to Reunion, but also practical methods of procedure which appear painfully ill-adapted to secure the allegiance of the modern world, and are admitted sorrowfully to be so by some of the most faithful and devoted adherents of the Roman Church.

We English people, conscious of the reduction of authority among ourselves to a shadow and a name, may well look with wonder on an authority which excommunicates a man if he dares to read a book; but, in spite of the disorders which the absence of authority can and does produce, we may still have misgivings whether this imperious despotic rule is after all the better state. If it is possible, as it is, to err by defect of authority, it is equally possible to err by excess. And painfully aware, as we all must be, of the troubles of our English condition, we may still be entirely convinced that the system of the Roman Index complicates the position by introducing troubles of another kind; producing dangers and evils from which, with all our inconsistencies, the Anglican Communion is exempt. Few of us, if any, would welcome among ourselves, were it possible, a reproduction of the Roman post-tridentine method of prohibition.

W. J. SPARROW-SIMPSON.

V

Art. 2.-BRITISH AIR POWER.

SINCE the days of the legend of mythical Icarus and his fatal attempt to fly the Ægean Sea, man has dreamed of being able to ride the air. Having at length conquered the immutable laws of gravity, and made himself machines in which he can fly, he finds that he has created a new peril to humanity-the peril of war from the air. Certain romantic writers, ever on the alert for some new subject with which to fire popular imagination, have of late been harrowing the simple-minded with the bogie of an omnipotent power for evil which, they suggest, can obliterate not only navies and armies, but even whole cities and large sections of nations. Having conjured up this awesome spectacle, it is easy for them to argue that there is but one outstanding danger against which we should arm ourselves, and that any other forms of defence are, if not wasted effort, at least of very secondary importance.

From time to time there have been nervous statesmen in this country who have been haunted with the fear of invasion. Instead of realising that the true defence against invasion for an Island Power is sea security, they have been wont to waste effort on land forces and coast defences, while they sought to fetter the free movement of the fleet. So to-day it behoves us to examine critically and dispassionately this new menace of air attack and the powers of aircraft, and then see whether our system of defence against a new danger is adequate, and whether it attunes with defences which must still be maintained against older, but none the less real, dangers. Only so can we guard against a false policy promoted by fictitious arguments and popular clamour.

We must first study the development of aircraft, especially with regard to their radius of action and weight-carrying capabilities. The former limits their striking range, and the latter the power of their attacks. Having obtained some working data on these two points, we can pass on to geographical considerations combined with a review of foreign air forces. We shall then be able to form a fair appreciation of what should be the scope of British Air Power. It will remain to examine