Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 8 June 1911, Page 1045

Current Topics

The Greatest Linguist Cardinal Mezzofanti is known to all the world as the man who could speak and understand more languages than any other linguist, before or since. Prof. Umberto Benigni, in his interesting article ‘Mezzofanti,’ in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, gives the following particulars regarding this remarkable man. He was a carpenter’s son, of Bologna, thus proving that linguistics are not exclusively a royal or aristocratic accomplishment. He had a prodigious ■ memory he picked up Spanish, German, Mexican, and several South American Indian languages from some exJesuits. He next studied Oriental languages, and was appointed to the Chair of Hebrew at Bologna University at the age of twenty-three. In the Napoleonic wars the hospitals were crowded with foreigners, " arid ■ Mezzofanti while ministering to them picked up several new languages. The extraordinary thing, about him was that he was never out of Italy, yet he could speak perfectly thirty-eight languages, including such remote tongues as Arabic, 'Persian, Chinese, Hindustani, Guzerati, Basque, and Californian ; he spoke thirty other languages less perfectly, and fifty dialects of the above. He also could detect the particular county from which an Englishman came by his accent. Little wonder that he was commonly known as the ‘ confessor of foreigners.’ The Delegates at Christchurch As we anticipated, the somewhat venomous opposition to the envoys’ mission which sputtered out for several days in the correspondence columns of the Christchurch Press only had the effect of giving a fillip to the. local movement; and the Christchurch meeting, by common consent, is voted to have been a magnificent and unprecedented success. The committee were fortunate in having the services, as secretary, of that splendid Irishman and veteran worker and organiser, Mr. E. O’Connor; and we cordially congratulate him and his co-workers on what we may fittingly terra their triumph. The delegates, on their part, appear to have excelled themselves, and to have won golden opinions, on every hand. His Lordship Bishop Grimeswho himself made a very happy and persuasive —referring to Mr. Hazleton’s address, said that ‘he thought the audience had heard one of the most eloquent and logical addresses ever heard in Christchurch, and he desired to congratulate Mr. Hazleton on the speech he had made.’ And his Worship the Mayor, at the conclusion of the address, said 1 he felt impelled to say, .though as chairman he should hardly do so, that he would have been very sorry indeed if any political bias of his had prevented his hearing one of the most lucid and logical speeches he had ever heard from any public man.’ A tribute such as coming from so keen a critic and so capable a judge as Mr. T. E. Taylor —is praise indeed. * The Lyttelton Times, in a cordially sympathetic leader on the morning after the meeting, also bore ready testimony to the delegates’ success. ‘No one,’ it said, ‘who listened to the eloquent speeches delivered by the Irish delegates to the great audience in the Theatre Royal last night can doubt the frankness or the loyalty of the men the Irish, people have sent to this country to plead their cause. The only serious objection that has ever been urged in New Zealand against Home Rule is that the concession of internal self-government to Ireland would lead inevitably to the disruption of the Empire and the establishment of a foreign power at the very doors of Great Britain. , This is the objection that was urged forty years ago; it is the objection that is being urged now, and Mr. Hazleton and his colleagues, without holding it up to, ridicule, as well they might have done, set themselves to expose the flimsy foundation on which it rests. The reports of their speeches, though but poorly reflecting the burning earnestness of their words, show how well they succeeded.’ Altogether, Christchurch has done itself proud over its Home Rule meeting; and all.concerned will be able to look back on the envoys’ visit with unalloyed satisfaction. Honoring the Blessed Virgin ■ A short time ago we commented on a somewhat unusual incident which took place at a Presbyterian Church service in New South Wales, in the course of which the preacher—who happened to be no other than the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Australia—protested against the singing of one of Piccolomini’s well-known compositions, in; which the Blessed Virgin is referred to as ‘ Queen of Angels.’ ‘ We esteem Mary as a good woman and mother,' he said, but we have not yet raised her to nobility among the angels, nor given her queenship over them, and I hope

we never shall.’ This low view of the Blessed Virgin 1 a good woman and mother,’ but not a whit better or higher than any other good woman and mother is the true average Presbyterian view the truth being that our Presbyterian friends do not realise, and never have fully , realised, ' the fact of the Incarnation, and, all that it implies.' Until they do that, the honor'shown by Catholics to the Blessed V irgin £ the glories of Mary for the sake of her Son,’ as Newman happily phrased it — always be to them ‘a stumbling-stone and a rock of scandal. * . That individual Protestants, however, do occasionally rise to something of the Catholic sense of the majesty and dignity of the Mother of Our Lord, is,shown by the following sympathetic reference made by a Protestant missioner at a Mother’s Day meeting held in Wellington the other day. The speaker was Mr. Oliver Burgess, Protestant missioner from China, and we take our citation from the N.Z. I tints report. ‘ The difference between the mothers of the West and South and mothers of the East,’ was the title of Mr. ? Burgess s address. ■... It was a very striking thing, and it had been said that we owed a great deal of the sin, sorrow, suffering, and death that are in the world to Eve, but it was also true that we owed our salvation to Mary. What Eve had brought on the race Mary had also practirally removed in giving birth to the'Saviour of the world. Then there was the idea that woman was a very inferior article to man, bht right down the line of time they found that God had continually shown to them some of the most wonderful heroines of the world in the mothers of history and Scripture. They blamed their Catholic friends for worshipping Mary, but he doubted if the Protestants gave her the place they should. Could they imagine what she suffered when her Son was hanging on the Cross? This was a fulfilment of Scripture where it said: ‘And a sword shall pierce thine own soul.’ This is good Catholic doctrine and sound common sense: though when Catholics speak of owing our salvation to Mary,’ there is at once a howl of ‘ Mariolatry.’ Cardinal Moran and Empire Day The .<?/< ihbp-reen Eagle had its eye on the Czar of Russia; and at similarly long and futile range the Inangahua Times has its eye on Cardinal Moran. His Eminence has in* curved the displeasure of this distant and diminutive publication by reason of his attitude towards Empire Day—which attitude the Inangahua news-sheet somehow persuades itself is calculated to foster ‘ those antipatmes that disgraced our fathers.’ Empire Day is a movement which was inaugurated in the first instance by the Earl of Meath; and which is directed from his town residence in London. In England, at least, it has taken on a distinctly political color. The English Prime Minister has refused to give his official sanction to the celebration; the London County Council, so long as it remained Liberal, refused to have it observed in its schools; and the whole movement is now discredited by the leaders of the Liberal party. The Right Hon. G. W. E. Russell, who is a member of his Majesty’s Privy Council, thus describes it: ‘Year by year that good citizen Lord Meath tries to kindle, our enthusiasm for Empire Day. I forget when it exacty falls, but I know that the school children wave banners, and I think that they are rewarded with buns. Cart-horses are decked u ith rosettes of red, white, and blue. Turgid harangues are delivered by patriotic orators, and frequent reference is made to an Empire on which the sun never sets. Jingoism in a surplice, and not seldom in lawn sleeves, gives its benison to the observance; and there is a great effusion of that particular type of ecclesiastical, pomposity which on a former occasion we have not scrupled to describe as Gas and Gaiters.’ From all this it is apparent that Empire Day is an institution which every citizen is free to observe, or not, without laying himself—in the case of non-observance-under any imputation of promoting disloyalty or disunion. As a matter of fact, it is not generally observed in New Zealand. Cardinal Moran, exercising the right freely accorded to every other citizen refrained from celebrating Empire Day; but instituted in its place an ‘Australia Day,’ in the observance of 8 which the children would learn to love their own land, His Eminence acting on the principle that patriotic affection, thus nourished at home, would radiate outwards As real patriots,’ he said, ‘we must attend to things in our midst, and help to develop 1 Australia, for" by developing Australia we arc really preparing a new phase of Splendour for the Empire, which will surpass even its former greatness. . Hie Australia Day celebrations were an unqualified success; and ‘there is every indication that the movement initiated by his Eminence will become a general and permanent institution. j; v; T * jj. As to the suggestion of disloyalty or disunion in coni nection with the Cardinal’s attitude, it is fully and unanswerably refuted by the fact that, during the week in which the Australia .Day celebrations were held, ' the fol-

lowing address, from the Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of the Commonwealth, was forwarded for presentation to the King on Coronation Day: ‘Your Majesty,—Permit me on the part , of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Australian Commonwealth, whose names are hereto attached, to offer your Majesty on your Coronation Day the loving homage and devoted loyalty of ourselves, the clergy, and the spiritual flocks entrusted to our care. The 22nd of June, 1911, will be celebrated as a day of rejoicing throughout the whole world-wide domain of your vast Empire, but nowhere will it witness greater enthusiasm or greater joy than among your faithful subjects of the Australian Commonwealth. We congratulate you in that with the sceptre of dominion you have inherited from your royal father, King Edward the Seventh, the mantle and prestige of the “Peacemaker.” The negotiations so successfully begun with the United States of America will, we are confident, initiate . a new era and secure further triumphs of peace. We trust .that it may be your privilege to bring to many , nations the blessings which characterise that crowning grace of Christian civilisation. It will be our fervent, prayer that many ; years of prosperity and peace, with every other blessing ■ that Heaven can bestow, may mark a : glorious reign of [King George the Fifth and of Queen Mary, your gracious " consort,—Your faithful and devoted subjects, PATRICK • F. CARDINAL MORAN, Archbishop of Sydney. May 24, 1911.’ (Here follow the names of all the P Bishops.) It would [require Mr. Sam Weller’s ‘pair o’ patent double million magnifyih’ gas microscopes of hextra power ’ to detect disloyalty in this pronouncement; and the Inanyahva Times need not worry its little brain, or annoy its broad-minded readers, with any further diatribes about Cardinal Moran and disunion. Settlement By Consent Some three or four years ago, a suggestion was made in the -correspondence columns of this paper to the effect that it might help to galvanise fresh life into the education question and to promote a practical settlement of the problem if accredited representatives of the leading religious denominations (including the Catholic body) were to meet in Round Table Conference. The writer of the letter referred to endeavoured to establish the following propositions; (1) That Catholics obviously have more in common,, with the upholdersin whatever degree the religious principle in education than with the secularists, and that, in the interests of both of the former parties, a junction of .forces, if it were found practicable, would be good . generalship. (2) That while Catholics could not compromise one -; iota on the Catholic fundamental principle—viz., Catholic schools for Catholic children with Catholic teachers under Catholic controlthe Catholic representatives at such a Conference would be free to discuss terms and conditions of mutual support. Thus, if Anglicans and Presbyterians wanted the introduction of the New South Wales system, and would be willing to support Catholic claims if Catholic 'support were given to their proposal, there would be no sacrifice of principlejustice being done to Catholics .'—in the Catholic representatives discussing and agreeing to such , an arrangement. (3) That so long as the Government and the politicians can play off Catholics against the New South Wales advocates, and the ‘ Bible-only ’ people ;. against both, they are furnished with a most convenient' excuse for doing nothing at all in the matter of religious education. (4) That such a conference could hardly do .any harm and' that it would at least give us an opportunity of getting the ear of the public, and of bringing • before then a clear and reasoned statement': of our position and our claims. The suggestion was debated with considerable vigor, pro and. contra y and if tho discussion did nothing else, it helped to revive interest in the subject at a time when the whole question seemed moribund. * u We refer to the matter now merely to mention that a ■ suggestion similar to that which was ventilated in the Tablet correspondencecolumns has been hinted at in very high quarters in England, in connection with this same education problem. It appears that Mr. Asquith has promised the Nonconformists to introduce —sooner or later—‘ai.new Education Bill; and the friends of denominational education are naturally not too pleased at the prospect. .We now, quote the . Liverpool Catholic Times : ‘ But Lord Hug.i Cecil, a thorough-going Churchman and an ardent defender of the Church schools, put: a question (in the House of Commons) which shows that he feels keenly the peril, under present circumstances, of the introduction of a new Education Bill. * He asked the Prime Minister whether he would take steps to promote an interchange : of opinion with a view to settling the matter by consent before any Bill is introduced To which Mr. Asquith replied: “I should be very glad if that were possible,” The answer may be read to mean that the Prime Minister would .. be glad if it were possible to take ; steps to promote: an interchange of opinion, or that he would be glad if the

controversy could •, be settled; by consent. '•'' We think ! most people would be glad if both things were possible.' On the .face of it, there is nothing ;in ,Lord Hugh , Cecil's way of putting the question to suggest "that''"'Catholics' would not be invited to participate in this ' interchange .of opinion and, assuming the possibility, of such a contingency, the Catholic- Times briefly: discusses the wisdom;,or otherwise of Catholic participation. The situation in England is so different from that obtaining here that the viewpoint of our contemporary is hardly applicable to the circumstances of this country. If we in New Zealand had the same measure of justice as is accorded to ' our coreligionists in England, and if Anglicans , here, as there, stood strongly for denominationalism, we too should . probably see little necessity .for, and little advantage in, a conference. But though not (for us) conclusive, the views of the Catholic Times are certainly interesting; and we herewith present them to our readers: 'We say the Churchmen and the Free. Churchmen, for we do not think that Catholics, even were they invited, would have anything to gain by entering a Conference. The Churchmen can compromise. The Free Churchmen can compromise... .They occupy religious ground which has so many features in common that a mutual arrangement-is conceivable, and has come very near being a fact. But no arrangement that Ave can think of will be found in any compromise between the Church and the Free Churches which will be satisfactory to them both and to us. Catholics have nothing to compromise, except at the cost of conscience. And compromise there we shall never admit or commit. We have so 'clearly and so fully stated our position, and that position is so generally understood, that we do not seem to be required to enter into a Conference for the discussion,of our principles. But might our presence in a Conference lead to a useful exposition of our principles? It is a difficult question to decide. There is much to be said for and against. Might not our consent to take a part in • such a Conference he held to be evidence that we were willing to talk of terms? Luckily, we shall be guided by the collective wisdom of our hierarchical leaders, should participation in such a Conference ever be proposed to us.'