THE POPE AND THE COMET.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 22, 30 May 1901, Page 5

THE POPE AND THE COMET.

SOME AMUSING • AUTHORITIES.' The following letter appeared in the Otago Daily Time* in reply to a paragraph written in reply to us, in its last Saturday's issue, by a member of the staff of that paper :—: — Sir, — A contributor in your issue of May 18 informed your readers that in 1456 Hal ley's comet 'shared with Mahomet It* who had just captured Constantinople, the distinction of being excommunicated by the Pope ' (Galixtus III). In your next following issue I showed (1) that this absurd comet tale is *in hopeless opposition to the Gatholio discipline of excommunication,' which can be inflicted only on baptised persons, and not upon pagans, much leas upon inanimate objects such as a comet : and (2) that it ' has no real foundation in the realms of historical fact.' On the contrary, I pointed out that no bull of excommunication of this nature appears among any of the collections, nor was any such ever issued either by Calixtus 111. or by any other Pope ; that the story is negatived by the testimony of contemporary witnesses, such as Platina (whose Vita Calixti 111, I have read), and by the findings of distinguished historians of later date. To those already mentioned in my last letter I may add Pastor, the greatest of all authorities on the history of the Papacy. His researches among the documents in the Vatican library forced him to brush aside the late-born legend of the exoommunicatod comet as deserving only of ridicule (1) The storip of Mandeyille, Baron Munchauaen, the Cook* lane Ghost, and Sinbad the Sailor belong to ' general literature ' in the same way as, but on a much more extensive scale than, that of the excommunicated oomet, (2) Even if ' general literature ' swarmed, so to speak, with the oomet tale it would not be on that mere account necessarily true, nor would your contributor be thereby relieved from the duty of either proving or withdrawing it when called upon to do so. (3) The extent to whioh the silly story belongs to the realm of ' general literature ' may be gauged from the following fact : It is not asserted in even one of several thousand volumes in my possession, chiefly by non-Catholio writers, covering a wide range of subjects, but consisting for the most part of works of history. It is not mentioned, nor even hinted at, by writers before me so strongly biassed against the Papaoy as Sohaff

and Mosheim in their accounts of Pope Calixtus 111. And I find the story told (of course without any reference whatsoever) in only two out ot ten eucyclopnsdias that I have consulted. (4) Your coutributor's sole ' authorities ' in point consist, not of serious works of history, but of an obscure French treatise by one Bouvard, and an out-of-date pop ilar eneyclopsedia (Knight's, of 1861), which has about as much ' authority ' in this matter as an old 'almanac. Your contributor could not well have stumbled across more worthless 'authorities' than Knight and Bouvard. (1) He asserts that Pope Calixtus 'excommunicated' the comet of 1456. But Knight says he ' anathematised ' it, and that, too, with a ' famous bull.' And an anathema differs greatly in its formality, eto , from an excommunication. Again : (2) According to Knight's old publication the appearance of the 'anathematised' comet wrp 'pimnltaneous with the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.' Now Constantinople was captured by the Turks in 1453, and the comet appeared 'simultaneously' three years later in 1456. There is a ' famous bull ' here. But the person responsible for it is not Calixtus 111., but the late Charles Knight. Bouvard is almost equally slipshod in his history : he represents the comet of 1456 as having been excommunicated (not anathematised) when the Turks 'had just captured Constantinople.' (3) Moreover, Knight's Encyolopaedia (vol. iii . col. 65, cd. 1861) credits the 'famous bull' not to Calixtua the Third, but to Calixtus the Second, who died in 1124—332 years before the appearance of the comet which he is alleged by this great ' authority ' to have anathematised ! Verily, it must have been a ' famous bull.' (4) Finally, your contributor favors ' original witnesses.' And his are beyond all doubt ' original,' but not in tha Bense that he probably intended. They lived some 400 years after the event for which they give such ludicrous and inconsistent testimony ; they quote no authority whatsoever for their divergent statement?, so that, as far as this discussion is concerned, the story resti upon their absolutely unsupported assertions ; and they put themselves out of court by flying in the face of known historic fact and rating each other up like the ' famous ' Kilkenny cats. For the purpose of proving his statement your contributor might as well have quoted the multiplication table or Old Moore's Almanac, or Ali Baba and the Forty Thieve*. This absurd story of the excommunicated comet is but one of a thousand false legends and evil tales that have combined to pile up a barrier of ridicule or contempt or distrust between creed and creed. In exposing its fatuity in your columns I conceive that I am, although in a very small way, aiding in the good work of creating a better understanding among the members of different religious bodies in our midst. I have therefore urged your contributor, still urge him, and will continue to do sd; if necessary, until your editorial patience is exhausted, to pass over the merehtcondhand or tenth-hand retailers of this comet legend, and (1) to quote the exact words of this ' famous bull ' of excommunication, and (2) to give detailed referencps to Home authoritative publication in which it may be found. Proof of his statement involves all this. If he succeeds, he will jump into sudden fame in the world of letters. But he will find that he has set himself an absolutely impossible task — one in which all the genuine authorities ou the subject are hard against him. — I am, etc., Editoh N.Z. Tablet. May 25. _______^