A LAST WORD ON ST. GEORGE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3677, 27 April 1883, Page 3

A LAST WORD ON ST. GEORGE.

[To the Editor of the Daily Telegraph.] tin:, —I have already shown, from Catholic and non-Catholic authorities, that the St. George whom we venerate as the tutelar saint*of England was not identical with the persecutor of St. Atbanasius. As far as I am concerned it only remains to be shown that Gibbon does not disprove my thesis. I may mention that the edition of Gibbon which lies before me is Bonn's—au edition which I expect " Quiutilianus " to accept as genuine. From pages 000 to s'>o (11. A'ol.) Gibbon gives the history of George, surnamed the Cappadocian. In page 00l the historian tells us that the Grorge of whom ho is sjiealnng "embraced, with real or affected zeal, the profession of Ariauism." Hence we are to infer that he is speaking throughout of George the Arian. Referring to the footnotes we find authorities adduced for everything which the historian attributes to the infamous George ; and we rind, moreover, that "Epiphnnius proves to the Arians that George was not a martyr," and that S.S. Eiphanius and Gregory Nazianzen inveighed against the said George, and that their invectives were endorsed by the infidel Ammianns. From this we are to infer two things fa) that infidel and Catholic are unanimous in their denunciations of George the Arian, and (hj that George the Arhni vein not unknown to Gregory Xazianzen. Gibbon concludes his history of George the Arian with the following sen-tence:—-"The odious stranger, disguising every circumstance of time and place, assumed the mask of a martyr, a saint, and a Christian hero ; and the infamous George of Cappadocia lias been trim formed into the renowned St. George of England, the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter." Up to this sentence authorities are adduced in the footnotes for the charges laid by Gibbon against George the Arian, but for the transfornintioii of the infamous George into St. 'George of England no authority whatever is adduced. Consequently the ipse dixit of Gibbon brings with it no conviction whatever to the mind of a Catholic, and only as much conviction to the mind of a nonCatholic as he places reliance _in the "oracular statements" of the historian. But there is a footnote to the word " trimsformed," which runs thus:—"This transformation is not given as absolutely certain, but as extreme)'y probable" (Longucruana torn I, page 191). If I rightly understand " Quiutilianus " he would say this is one of Gibbon's own notes —a thing which I am inclined to question, and for this reason, that Bonn's edition of Gibbon is brought out

" with variorum notes." But whether the note in quession is one of Gibbon's own, or the dictum of one of the historian's annotators, it goes to show that the transformation of George the Arian into St. George of England is after all, only a prolxthlc opinion, and probahilily deduced from such a source docs not disprove my thesis, but, on the contrary, goes to establish it. But to the passage quoted from Gibbon there occurs another footnote part but not all of which was quoted by " Quintilianus " last evening. It runs thus: —"The saints of Cappadocia, Basil and the Grcgories, were ir/norant of their holy companion. Pope Gelasius 'a.p. -1 !)■]■, the first Catholic who acknowledge- St. George, places him among the martyrs—•'Qui Deo magis _ guam hominibus noti sunt." He rejects his acts as the composition of heretics. Some, perhaps not the oldest, of the spurious Acts arc still extant; and, through a cloud of fiction, we may yet distinguish the combat which St. George of Cappadocia sustained in the presence of Queen Alexandria against the magician Athanasias." It will be home iv mind that this note forms the foundation of whatever arguments "Quiutilianus" has brought against me. AYhose note is it ?_ Is it one of Gibbon's own, or is it a note inserted by one of GUbbon's annotators. AYe are not told to whom it belongs. If it belongs to Gibbon, or to one of his annotators, to adduce it as a proof of what Gibbon says in the body of his work is that species of sophistry known in Latin as "pelitio priacipii,"' or in English as " begging the question " ; and this is a sufficient answer. However, admitting the note "causa arijumcntandV to have the force of authority, what do we find ? _ The very first sentence of it to be a contradiction of what is said on the notes at the bottom of page 550. In the notes at the bottom of page 550 we are told, as we have already seen, that Gregory Nazianzen inveighed against George the Arian, and that his investives were endorsed by Ammianus; and, in the first sentence of the note in question, wo are told that "the saints of Cappadocia, Basil and the Gregorics, were ignorant of their holy companion." AA r as not Gregory Nazianzen one of the Grcgories? And, if so, how docs it come that Gregory Nazianzen could inveigh against a man aud be ignorant of the man at the same time ? AVhat Basil and the Grcgories were ignorant of is that the scoundrel George the Arian should, in the mind of Gibbon, become so holy a companion of theirs as to be worthy to be transformed into St. George of England. If Galasius canonized a St. George, docs it follow that it was George the Arian he canonized ? If in the Roman Synod, held 404, Galasius rejected _ certain acts of St. George as the composition of heretics, does it not imply that he admitted certain other acts to be genuine ? From all I have said I think it might be fairly inferred that Gibbon does not disprove my thesis, viz., that the St. George whom we venerate was not the persecutor of St. Athanasius. The saint whom we honour is the same who was martyred in the reign of Dioclesian, and I think we ourselves ought to know best whom we honour. Thanking you, Mr Editor, for your kindness in allowing me space for so many letters, and hoping that it is not too much to expect room fortius. —I am, Sec, A. D. Mulvihill. St. Mary's, Napier, 27th April, 1883.