indirect, in the embroiling of States, in concocting conspiracies and in
kindling wars. They were responsible by their theoretical teachings in
theological schools for not a few assassinations’ (340). ‘They powerfully
aided the revolution which placed the Duke of Braganza on the throne of
Portugal, and their services were rewarded with the practical control of
ecclesiastical and almost civil affairs in that kingdom for nearly one
hundred years’ (344). ‘Their war against the Jansenists did not cease
till the very walls of Port Royal were demolished in 1710, even to the
very abbey church itself, and the bodies of the dead taken with every
mark of insult from their graves and literally flung to the dogs to
devour’ (345). ‘In Japan the Jesuits died with their converts bravely
as martyrs to the Faith, yet it is impossible to acquit them of a large
share of the causes of that overthrow’ (345). ‘It was about the same time
that the grave scandal of the Chinese and Malabar rites began to attract
attention in Europe and to make thinking men ask seriously whether the
Jesuit missionaries in those parts taught anything which could fairly be
called Christianity at all’ (348). ‘The political schemings of Parsons
in England was an object lesson to the rest of Europe of a restless
ambition and a lust of domination which were to find many imitators’
(348). ‘The General of the Order drove away six thousand exiled Jesuit
priests from the coast of Italy, and made them pass several months of
suffering on crowded vessels at sea to increase public sympathy, but the
actual result was blame for the cruelty with which he had enhanced their
misfortunes’ (346). ‘Clement XIV, who suppressed them, is said to have
died of poison, but Tanucci and two others entirely acquit the Jesuits.’
‘They are accountable in no small degree in France, as in England, for
alienating the minds of men from the religion for which they professed to
work’ (345).
“Very little of this can be characterized as ‘eulogistic,’ especially
as interwoven in the story are malignant insinuations, incomplete and
distorted statements, suppressions of truth, gross errors of fact, and
a continual injection of personal venom which makes the argument not
an ‘unbiased and objective presentment’ of the case, but the plea of a
prejudiced prosecuting and persecuting attorney endeavoring by false
testimony to convict before the bar of public opinion an alleged culprit,
whose destruction he is trying to accomplish with an uncanny sort of
delight.”
After having adduced a long list of instances which “reveal the rancor
and ignorance of many of the writers hired by the Encyclopædia,” the
article then points out “the fundamental untruthfulness” on which the
_Britannica_ is built. In a letter written by the Encyclopædia’s editor
appears the following specious explanation: “Extreme care was taken by
the editors, and especially by the editor responsible for the theological
side of the work, that every subject, either directly or indirectly
concerned with religion, should as far as possible be objective and not
subjective in _their_ presentation. The majority of the articles on the
various Churches and their beliefs were written by members within the
several communions, and, if not so written, were submitted to those most
competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, correction.”
Father Campbell in his answer to this letter says: “Without animadverting
on the peculiar use of the English language by the learned English editor
who tells us that ‘_every_ subject’ should be ‘objective’ in _their_
presentation, we do not hesitate to challenge absolutely the assertion
that ‘the majority of the articles on the various Churches were written
by members within the several communions, and if not so written were
submitted to those most competent to judge, for criticism and, if need
be, for correction.’ Such a pretence is simply amazing, and thoroughly
perplexed, we asked: What are we supposed to understand when we are
informed that ‘the _majority_ of the articles on the various Churches and
their beliefs were written by members within the several communions’?
“Was the article on _The Roman Catholic Church_ written by a Catholic?
Was the individual who accumulated and put into print all those vile
aspersions on the Popes, the saints, the sacraments, the doctrines of the
Church, a Catholic? Were the other articles on _Casuistry_, _Celibacy_,
_St. Catherine of Siena_, and _Mary_, the mother of Jesus, written by a
Catholic? The supposition is simply inconceivable, and it calls for more
than the unlimited assurance of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ to compel
us to accept it.
“But ‘they were submitted to the most competent judge for criticism and,
if need be, correction.’ Were they submitted to any judge at all, or to
any man of sense, before they were sent off to be printed and scattered
throughout the English speaking world? Is it permissible to imagine for
a moment that any Catholic could have read some of those pages and not
have been filled with horror at the multiplied and studied insults to
everything he holds most sacred in his religion? Or did ‘the editor
responsible for the theological side of the work’ reserve for himself the
right to reject or accept whatever recommended itself to his superior
judgment?”
The article then points out that “far from being just to Catholics, the
_Britannica_ pointedly and persistently discriminated against them.”
The article on the Episcopalians was assigned to the Rev. Dr. D. D.
Addison, Rector of All Saints, Brookline, Mass.; that on Methodists to
the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, Editor of the _Christian Advocate_, New
York; that on the Baptists to the Rev. Newton Herbert Marshall, Baptist
Church, Hampstead, England; that on the Jews to Israel Abrahams, formerly
President of the Jewish Historical Society and now Reader on Talmudic
and Rabbinic Literature in Cambridge, and so on for the Presbyterians,
Unitarians, Lutherans, etc. But in the case of the Catholic Church not
only its history but its theology was given to a critic who was neither
a theologian, nor a cleric, nor even a Catholic, and who, as Father
Campbell notes, is not known outside of his little London coterie.
The _Britannica’s_ editor also apologized for his encyclopædia by
stating that “Father Braun, S. J., has _assisted_ us in our article on
_Vestments_, and that Father Delehaye, S. J., has contributed, among
other articles, those on _The Bollandists and Canonization_. Abbé
Boudinhon and Mgr. Duchesne, and Luchaire and Ludwig von Pastor and Dr.
Kraus have also contributed, and Abbot Butler, O. S. B., has written on
the Augustinians, Benedictines, Carthusians, Cistercians, Dominicans and
Franciscans”; and, finally: “The new _Britannica_ has had the honor of
having as a contributor His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop
of Baltimore, who has written of the Roman Catholic Church in America.”
“But, after all,” answers Father Campbell, “it was not a very generous
concession to let Father Joseph Braun, S. J., _Staatsexamen als
Religionsoberlehren für Gymnasien_, University of Bonn, _assist_
the editors in the very safe article on _Vestments_, nor to let the
Bollandists write a column on their publication, which has been going
on for three or four hundred years. The list of those who wrote on the
_Papacy_ is no doubt respectable in ability if not in number, but we note
that the editor is careful to say that the writers of that article were
‘_principally_’ Roman Catholics.
“Again we are moved to ask why should a Benedictine, distinguished though
he be, have assigned to him the history of the Augustinians, Franciscans,
Dominicans, etc.? Were there no men in those great and learned orders to
tell what they must have known better than even the erudite Benedictine?
Nor will it avail to tell us that His Eminence of Baltimore wrote
_The History of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States_, when
that article comprises only a column of statistics, preceded by two
paragraphs, one on the early missions, and the other on the settlement of
Lord Baltimore. No one more than the illustrious and learned churchman
would have resented calling such a mere compilation of figures a _History
of the Catholic Church in the United States_, and no one would be more
shocked than he by the propinquity of his restricted article to the
prolix and shameless one to which it is annexed.”
Here in brief is an account of the “impartial” manner in which
Catholicism is recorded and described in that “supreme” book of
knowledge, the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. And I set down this record
here not because it is exceptional but, to the contrary, because it
is representative of the way in which the world’s culture (outside of
England), and especially the culture of America, is treated.
The intellectual prejudice and contempt of England for America is even
greater if anything than England’s religious prejudice and contempt for
Catholicism; and this fact should be borne in mind when you consult the
_Britannica_ for knowledge. It will not give you even scholarly or
objective information: it will advise you, by constant insinuation and
intimation, as well as by direct statement, that English culture and
achievement represent the transcendent glories of the world, and that
the great men and great accomplishments of other nations are of minor
importance. No more fatal intellectual danger to America can be readily
conceived than this distorted, insular, incomplete, and aggressively
British reference work.
XII
TWO HUNDRED OMISSIONS
The following list contains two hundred of the many hundreds of
writers, painters, musicians and scientists who are denied biographies
in the _Britannica_. There is not a name here which should not be in
an encyclopædia which claims for itself the completeness which the
_Britannica_ claims. Many of the names stand in the forefront of modern
culture. Their omission is nothing short of preposterous, and can be
accounted for only on the grounds of ignorance or prejudice. In either
case, they render the encyclopædia inadequate as an up-to-date and
comprehensive reference work.
It will be noted that not one of these names is English, and that America
has suffered from neglect in a most outrageous fashion. After reading
the flamboyant statements made in the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_
advertising, glance down this list. Then decide for yourself whether or
not the statements are accurate.
Objection may be raised to some of the following names on the ground
that they are not of sufficient importance to be included in an
encyclopædia, and that their omission cannot be held to the discredit of
the _Britannica_. In answer let me state that for every name listed here
as being denied a biography, there are one or two, and, in the majority
of cases, many, Englishmen in the same field who are admittedly inferior
and yet who are given detailed and generally laudatory biographies.
LITERATURE
“A. E.” (George W. Russell)
Andreiev
Artzibashef
Hermann Bahr
Henri Bernstein
Otto Julius Bierbaum
Ambrose Bierce
Helene Böhlau
Henry Bordeaux
René Boylesve
Enrico Butti
Cammaerts
Capuana
Bliss Carman
Winston Churchill
Pierre de Coulevain
Richard Dehmel
Margaret Deland
Grazia Deledda
Theodore Dreiser
Eekhoud
Clyde Fitch
Paul Fort
Gustav Frenssen
Fröding
Fucini (Tanfucio Neri)
Garshin
Stefan George
René de Ghil
Giacosa
Ellen Glasgow
Rémy de Gourmont
Robert Grant
Lady Gregory
Grigorovich
Hartleben
Heidenstam
Hirschfeld
Hugo von Hofmannsthal
Arno Holz
Richard Hovey
Bronson Howard
Ricarda Huch
James Huneker
Douglas Hyde
Lionel Johnson
Karlfeldt
Charles Klein
Korolenko
Kuprin
Percy MacKaye
Emilio de Marchi
Ferdinando Martini
Stuart Merrill
William Vaughn Moody
Nencioni
Standish O’Grady
Ompteda
Panzacchi
Giovanni Pascoli
David Graham Phillips
Wilhelm von Polenz
Rapisardi
Edwin Arlington Robinson
Romain Rolland
T. W. Rolleston
Rovetta
Albert Samain
George Santayana
Johannes Schlaf
Schnitzler
Severin
Signoret
Synge
John Bannister Tabb
Tchekhoff
Gherardi del Testa
Jérôme and Jean Tharaud
Ludwig Thoma
Augustus Thomas
Tinayre
Katherine Tynan
Veressayeff
Clara Viebig
Annie Vivanti
Wackenroder
Wedekind
Edith Wharton
Owen Wister
Ernst von Wolzogen
PAINTING
George Bellows
Carrière
Mary Cassatt
Cézanne
Louis Corinth
Maurice Denis
Gauguin
Habermann
C. W. Hawthorne
Robert Henri
Hodler
Sergeant Kendall
Ludwig Knaus
Krüger
Jean Paul Laurens
Leibl
Von Marées
René Ménard
Redon
Charles Shuch
Lucien Simon
Steinlen
Toulouse-Lautrec
Trübner
Twachtman
Van Gogh
Vallotton
Zorn
MUSIC
d’Albert
Arensky
Mrs. Beach
Busoni
Buxtehude
Charpentier
Frederick Converse
Cui
Arthur Foote
Grechaninov
Guilmant
Henry K. Hadley
Josef Hofmann
Edgar Stillman Kelly
Kreisler
Leschetitzky
Gustav Mahler
Marschner
Nevin
Nordraak
John Knowles Paine
Horatio Parker
Rachmaninov
Ravel
Max Reger
Nikolaus Rubinstein
Scharwenka brothers
Georg Alfred Schumann
Scriabine
Sibelius
Friedrich Silcher
Sinding
Taneiev
Wolf-Ferrari
SCIENCE AND INVENTION
William Beaumont
John Shaw Billings
Luther Burbank
George W. Crile
Harvey Cushing
Rudolph Diesel
Daniel Drake
Ehrlich
Simon Flexner
W. W. Gerhard
Samuel David Gross
William S. Halsted
Wilhelm His
Abraham Jacobi
Rudolph Leuckart
Franz Leydig
Jacques Loeb
Percival Lowell
Lyonet (Lyonnet)
S. J. Meltzer
Metchnikoff
T. H. Morgan
Joseph O’Dwyer
Ramón y Cajal
Nicholas Senn
Marion Sims
Theobald Smith
W. H. Welch
Orville Wright
Wilbur Wright
PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY
Ardigò
Bergson
Boutroux
Hermann Cohen
John Dewey
Edelmann
Freud
Guyau
G. Stanley Hall
Hildebrand
Jung
Külpe
Lipps
Josiah Royce
Alois Riehl
Sibbern
Soloviov
Tetans
Windelband
End of Project Gutenberg's Misinforming a Nation, by Willard Huntington Wright