participation by the Union in the work of registering Catholic voters. This is the new departure which a few of its members desire for the Catholic Union, and it is against such new departure that our correspondent very strongly protests. And we must say that the reasons which he assigns appear to us to be quite unanswerable. "As to party politics," he writes, "their exclusion from the proceedings of the Union is a fundamental rule, and, as is well known, was insisted upon, as such, by the Hierarchy when the Union was originally established." And certain it is, considering how very widely Catholics in this country differ in political questions, that the entire avoidance of them, nay, of anything that touches upon them, is an absolutely necessary condition of any common action. Repeal or weaken that rule, and you most assuredly will convert your Catholic Union into a Catholic disunion, destined, inevitably and very speedily, to succumb, with more or less scandal, to the fate of every previous Catholic association of the same kind; for all, we believe, have split upon this very rock of party politics. Then, as to registration. The position and policy of the Union on this subject have from the year 1873 been very clearly and precisely laid down. In 1875 four important Resolutions regarding it were put forth by the Council, in one of which it is declared: "That the Council of the Catholic Union, having for its objects not local interests as such, but the general interests of the Catholic community, does not act in any sense as a local registration society, not even in regard to the metropolis, where it holds its sittings." The same principle was reiterated, with much emphasis, in the Annual Report of 1877, in words stated, at the time, to be due to the Marquis of Ripon, and in consequence the most prominent Irish members of the Union, who for reasons best known to themselves were very desirous that it should engage directly in the work of registration, at once left it. It is certain, however, that any other policy would have been followed by the loss of the great bulk of its English and Scotch supporters. Religion in England is one thing, politics are quite another. And that an institution ostensibly Catholic, and Catholic only, should use its influence in favour of any political party, would be a monstrous breach of faith and a fraud upon its members. To this we may add, in words which we find in the speech of Mr. Henry Matthews, from which we just now quoted, that for the Union which has continually to appeal to public bodies-most of them hostile-to take a part in political agitation, would be to make itself impossible. Considerations such as these seem to us to be altogether conclusive, and we do not for a minute doubt that they are felt to be so by the governing body of the Catholic Union. It may be freely conceded, then, that the Catholic Union by no means corresponds with F. Amherst's ideal. The object of the late Pontiff in desiring its establishment, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has told us, "was not to form any political association, or any association of Catholics that should, in any way, dabble in politics. It was to promote the solemn union of faithful Catholics for Catholic work and Catholic interests. And I believe"-his Eminence added, turning to the President of the Union-"I believe, my Lord Duke, that you have done wisely and well in gathering together so many earnest Catholics, who should learn how to serve our common welfare, not by engaging in conflicts in the Union itself, but by studying the relations of the Catholic Church to the commonwealth in which we live, and how they can be useful to the Church and the commonwealth with the greatest intelligence and the greatest force. I look upon the Catholic Union as an unconquerable section of our army." Such is the Catholic Union as it exists and works: its ranks freely open to Conservatives, Liberals, or Home Rulers, who choose to lay aside, for the time, their Conservatism, Liberalism, and Home Rule, in common action for purely Catholic ends; its modes of operation not copied blindly from any political parties, nor from the Licensed Victuallers Association, but chosen with discretion, according to varying circumstances and exigencies. It agitates when good cause is discerned for agitation. For example, it organized the great meeting in St. James's Hall, which, with the proceedings consequent thereon, did so much to influence public opinion, both at home and abroad, in the matter of the Kulturkampf. It does not agitate where-as in the question of Primary Education -it knows that the highest ecclesiastical authority in this country considers other means of action to be more expedient. Most assuredly it does not publish to the world all its proceedings, or there would soon be an end of it and of them. But it does publish in its Gazette, from time to time, accounts of its transactions, which F. Amherst would have done well to consult before recording against it his judgment of malediction. He would then have found that it is daily engaged in doing-and doing successfully-many things which he censures it for not doing, while, on the other hand, its occupation is not in the least such as he is pleased to suppose.† Whether or no it is heroic, certainly *Speech of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster in Willis's Rooms, Feb. 10, 1885. + In his Introduction (p. 43) F. Amherst mentions a case of refusal by a Board of Guardians to provide for a Catholic priest, a room wherein to give religious instruction to the Catholic paupers of the workhouse; and adds, "As the Catholic Union was established, not merely to present addresses to the Holy Father, at particular times, but to attend to the general interests of British Catholics, such unfairness in the administration of the law as that mentioned in the text, and which, no doubt, frequently occurs, might very properly be taken up.' ." "This case," he further observes, "is mentioned merely to illustrate the action of prejudice." As a matter of fact, the Catholic Union is constantly and successfully engaged in the redress of wrongs to our workhouse poor; and has been directly instru it is not mock heroic. It does not endeavour to work upon the overwhelming Protestant majority in this nation by the motive of fear. Its attitude towards them is not in the least that of the champion in the burlesque : Whoever dares these boots displace, Must meet Bombastes face to face: Thus do I challenge all the human race. On the contrary, it ever endeavours to guide itself by the wisdom, one note of which is peaceableness. Animated by that spirit, I content myself with these gentle animadversions upon F. Amherst's volumes. οὐχ ἥδεται δήπουθεν Εἰρήνη σφαγαῖς. W. S. LILLY. ART. V.-PLATO'S "ATLANTIS" AND THE 1. The Secret of Plato's Atlantis. By Lord ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR. London: Burns & Oates. 1885. 2. Mémoire sur le Périple d'Hannon. Par AUGUSTE MER, Capitaine de Vaisseau en retraite. Paris: Perrin, 35 Quai des Augustins. 1885. SOM NOME time ago, Lord Arundell published a book in answer to Mr. Donelly on the subject of the Atlantis and the Deluge. The work was entitled "The Secret of Plato's Atlantis." We cannot at present pretend to offer any opinion on Mr. Donelly's work, which as yet we have been unable to become fully acquainted with. Judging from the quotations and from Lord Arundell's own opinions, its conclusions might be safely accepted. All that we are asked for are our own thoughts concerning Lord Arundell's theories. On this point alone does our judgment touch. Lord Arundell proposes to himself two things. He wishes, mental in vindicating their right to the use of the workhouse chapel for religious services including Mass-on equal terms with other dissidents from the Established Church. Of addresses to Leo XIII., the Catholic Union has presented exactly one-namely, upon the election of his Holiness to the Pontifical throne-if, indeed, a congratulatory telegram can be called an address. It is somewhat singular that F. Amherst should take exception to this manifestation of our loyalty to the Pope. Unquestionably his remarks serve admirably "to illustrate the action of prejudice." in the first place, to prove against Mr. Donelly that the Mosaic Deluge has no connection with the submersion of Plato's Atlantis; in the second, to prove that the universality of the biblical cataclysm is established by the universality of popular tradition. To accomplish the first task, he undertakes to show-(1) That the submersion of Atlantis, accepted by Mr. Donelly as historical, is nothing more than a pure legend; and (2) that this legend has for basis the Periplus of Hanno. To our mind, however, Lord Arundell establishes neither one nor the other of these two affirmations. As regards the first: if it is not without reason that Lord Arundell refuses to attach a serious value to the testimony of the "old original" Cosmas, who, according to Mr. Donelly, makes "the traditions of the first ages about the deluge point to the part of the world where the Atlantis was fixed," neither does he advance by any means his thesis by saying that Berosus, Josephus, Nicholas of Damascus, and St. Epiphanius pretend that in their time débris of the ark were still to be found on Mount Ararat, and in the country of the Kurds. All this is too uncritical and legendary to have any force for or against. The study of the direct arguments brought forward by Mr. Donelly and based principally on Plato's account, is of greater importance. Here the thesis presents a double aspect. After having tried to prove the reality of Atlantis, Mr. Donelly starts from this as from a firm and solid basis, and then seeks to attach on to his hypothesis a certain number of ideas, which are not wanting in importance-for instance, the appearance of man and the localization of the terrestrial Paradise in the Atlantis, and the legendary character of the Mosaic Deluge. According to the author, this is only a distant echo of the submersion of the island, which occurred at a much remoter date than that indicated by Genesis. When Lord Arundell objects to these latter affirmations, his reasoning has a value which is undeniable. He shows well enough to his opponent that the greatest number of the reasons alleged for locating the terrestrial Paradise in the midst of the submerged island, can also agree with its localization in the plains of Mesopotamia. He has good reason also in stating that the diluvian tradition is not at all a recent variation of the catastrophe handed down by Critias to Plato; but what he fails to accomplish, is to prove that the engulfing of the island can have no connection with the deluge. If we are to judge by his quotations, Mr. Donelly seems to have formed a very wrong conception of the possibility of this connection. According to Plato, we see Poseidon occupied in Atlantis, enclosing the central island with zones of earth and sea alternately; and in the description of his palace there is mention made twice of canals which he dug. These facts are necessarily prior to the subsidence of the island. If the traditions of the deluge of Cronos and Poseidon allude to these facts, says Lord Arundell, we must admit that we have traditions of the deluge anterior to the engulfing of the island. This he finds to be impossible; but perhaps he forgets that the deluge of Mr. Donelly is not universal, and that those who escaped may have been able to hand down traditions of earlier date than the deluge. However that may be, Lord Arundell seems at times to show very clearly that his opponent's proofs are weak and his deductions not in accordance with logic. But does he not likewise err as much himself, when, after having examined in detail the special arguments of Mr. Donelly, he concludes in a general manner to the absence of any relation between the sinking of the famous island and the deluge? This relation can be conceived in a very catholic manner, and quite different from Mr. Donelly's. In order that Lord Arundell might firmly establish his own solution, it was needful for him not only to destroy his opponent's arguments, but likewise every possibility of a connection between the two facts. He endeavours to do so, but does he succeed? Let us judge for ourselves. To show the account of Moses and that of Plato as contradictory one to the other, he asserts that, according to the former and to tradition, the sole cause of the deluge of Genesis was the rain, whereas the geological catastrophe is due to a geological accident, a subsidence of land. Thereupon Lord Arundell courageously launches into a strange sort of argumentation. In order to identify the two facts, he says, we must recognize a geological cause for the deluge. But how can it be supposed that for 9,000 years people were ignorant of the truth of an event, about which all men have spoken, and that at the present day we have succeeded in discovering that geology and Plato are right, in opposition to every one else? Truly, Lord Arundell astonishes us. Where then did he find either in Moses, or in the Fathers, or the ancient and modern exegetes, that the rain was the sole cause of the deluge? Moses does not speak only of the cataracta cæli, but he likewise speaks of the fontes abyssi, which burst forth. All tradition bears witness to it. If the Fathers do not read clearly beneath these words the mention of a geological displacement, the reason is that a knowledge of this kind of phenomena was not familiar to them. Instead of a subsidence of earth, produced by natural causes, they, like the exegetes of the Middle Ages, supposed the intervention of an angel or the hand of God himself; none of them, however, forgot to attribute, under some form or other, a large part of the work of a cataclysm to subterranean agencies. |