The article then points out that “far from being just to Catholics, theBritannicapointedly 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 theChristian 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.
TheBritannica’seditor also apologized for his encyclopædia by stating that “Father Braun, S. J., hasassistedus in our article onVestments, and that Father Delehaye, S. J., has contributed,among other articles, those onThe 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 newBritannicahas 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,assistthe editors in the very safe article onVestments, 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 thePapacyis 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 whatthey must have known better than even the erudite Benedictine? Nor will it avail to tell us that His Eminence of Baltimore wroteThe 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 aHistory 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, theEncyclopædia 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 theBritannicafor 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.
The following list contains two hundred of the many hundreds of writers, painters, musicians and scientists who are denied biographies in theBritannica. There is not a name here which should not be in an encyclopædia which claims for itself the completeness which theBritannicaclaims. 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 theEncyclopædia Britannica’sadvertising, glance down this list. Then decide for yourself whether or not the statements are accurate.
Objection may be raised to some of the followingnames 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 theBritannica. 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.