Christianism logo image


Subjects (abstracts): The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia [Encyclopaedia] Britannica;

Addendum A    The Great EB The Story of the Encyclopaedia Britannica

Addendum B    The Myth of the Britannica

Note: numerous references are made to the 9th, 11th, and 14th editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

9th edition: 1875—1889 ("scholar's edition")

11th edition: 1911 ("famous eleventh edition")

14th edition: 1929—(with revisions, etc.)1973

from: The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica, How Powerful and Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated a Famous Work of Reference, Joseph McCabe, Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius, Haldeman-Julius publications ("Big Blue Book", B—608, 46 pages, 21 cm [U.C.S.D. (Private collections) has "5,000" "Blue Books" (not catalogued)]), c1947. [received (reprint), and first seen, 3/18/97].

[source of reprint: The Book Tree, P.O. Box 724, Escondido, CA 92033].

[Note: much information; research to corroborate, etc.].

PAGE 375

[from #8, 215: Joseph McCabe [1867 - 1955]: former monk of the Franciscan Order ("Father Antony"); author of "30" translations, "200" books, (delivered) "2,000" lectures; etc.].

'The Pope's Eunuchs [beginning of text]

A few years ago I had occasion to refer in one of my books to the male soprani of the papel chapel at Rome. These castrated males, sexually mutilated, as every priest and every Italian knew, for soprani in the choir of the Sistine Chapel, were the amusement of Rome when it developed a large degree of skepticism but a grave scandal to the American and British Catholics who began to arrive about the middle of the last century. One of the vices which the Spaniards had brought to Italy in the 16 century along with the Borgia family and the Spanish Roman Emperors was the falsetto singer. There were artists who could sing falsetto with distinction, but as the opera gained in popularity in Italy the practice began of emasculating boys with good voices and retaining them as male soprani or, as the Italians, with their usual lack of Christian reticence about sex called them, the castrati. They were in every opera in the 18th century, but foreign visitors were never reconciled to them. The famous English weekly, The Spectator, wrote about "the shrill celestial whine of eunuchs," and by the end of the 18th century they began to fade out of the opera-house.

But, as the word "celestial" indicates, they were found also in the choir of all churches that were proud of their music, particularly in the chapel of the Vatican Palace, the Sistine Chapel, one of the greatest shrines of art as well as of virtue and piety in Rome. And the churches clung [sic] to their eunuchs when public opinion almost drove them out of opera. The plea seems to have been that there was some indelicacy, or risk of it, in having females in the church choir, so the priests chose to ignore the rather indelicate nature of the operation of emasculation. The fact was as well known as the celibacy of the clergy.' [3].

PAGE 376

'The Encyclopedia is, as its name implies, an ancient British institution inspired by the great French Encyclopedia of the 18th century [see Addendum A]. As the American reading public increased it served both countries, and by 1920 the special needs of American readers and the great development of science and technics made it necessary to prepare an entirely recast edition. It now had an American as well as a British staff and publishing house, and it was dedicated to King George and President Hoover. The last trace of the idealism of its earlier publishers disappeared. What bargains were secretly made to secure a large circulation we do not know but when the work was completed in 1928 [published 1929 (14th edition)] the Westminster Catholic Federation, which corresponds to the Catholic Welfare organization in America, made this boast in its annual report:

The revision to the Encyclopedia Britannica was undertaken with a view to eliminate matter which was objectionable from a Catholic point of view and to insert what was accurate [sic!] and unbiased [sic!]. The whole of the 28 volumes were examined, objectionable parts noted, and the reasons for their deletion or amendment given. There is every reason to hope that the new edition of the Britannica will be found very much more accurate [sic!] and impartial [sic!] than its predecessors."' [4].

"Castrating the Encyclopedia

It will be useful to give first the outcome of a somewhat cursory survey, page by page, of the first few volumes of the Encyclopedia. More importantin their bearing on the Churcharticles in later volumes commonly have the initial X at the close, which seems to be the cloak of the CATHOLIC ADULTERATOR. This will enable any reader to compare for himself passages in the 11TH [1911] AND THE 14TH EDITIONS [1929— (with revisions, etc.)1973], but the conspirator shows his hand even in large numbers of short unsigned, especially biographical, notices. It is, of course, understood that the work had to be considerably abbreviated to accommodate new developments of science and life, in the 14th edition, but when you find that the curtailing consists in suppressing an unpleasant judgment or a fact about a Pope while unimportant statements of fact are untouched, and when you find the life of a saintly man or the flattering appreciation of his work little affected while the life or work of a heretic is sacrificed, you have a just suspicion." [5-6].

'The undisputed truth is that BY 350 A.D., BEFORE CHRISTIANITY WAS ESTABLISHED BY FORCE, there were free primary and secondary schools everywhere, and by 450 A.D. they had all perished: that in 350 the majority of the workers was literate, and by 450and for centuries afterwardprobably not 1 percent of them could read. Of course it is all put down to the barbarians. "Most of the public schools disappeared, and such light of learning as there was was kept burning in the monasteries and was confined to priests and monks." The monks were, as I have repeatedly shown from Christian writers from Augustine [354 - 430 (St.)] to Benedict [c. 480 - c. 550 (St.)], mostly an idle, loose, and vagrant class, and the few regular houses later established were interested only in religious education. Pope Gregory I [c. 540 - 604] forbade the clergy to open secular schools.' [13].

PAGE 377

'The fine eight-page article on Gibbon [Edward Gibbon 1737 - 1794] by the learned Professor Bury [John Bagnell Bury 1861 - 1927] in the earlier edition could not expect to escape. Space must be saved; though one would hardly realize this when one finds 60 pages devoted to Geometry, which no one ever learns from an encyclopedia. The reviser condenses the six and a half pages of Gibbon's life and character to one page and then sublimely adds his X to Bury's initials as the joint authors of the article. You can guess how much of Gibbon's greatness is left.

On the other hand the notice of Pope "St." Gregory I [c. 540 - 604], the Pope who forbade the opening of schools and made the Papacy the richest landowner and slave-owner in Europe by persuading the rich that the end of the world was at hand and they had better pass on their property to the church, remains as fragrant as ever in the new edition [14th].' [15].

"We have several good and by no means anti-Christian histories of hospitals today. They show a fine record in India under the Buddhist King Asoka [King of India c. 264 - 223 B.C.E.] and a creditable record for the Greek-Roman world in imperialist days. They show also that the Christian record not only in the period of confusion after the fall of Roman Empire but from 450 to the 18th century is miserable....A score of articles like this which are supposed to prove by historical facts the nature of the Christian social inspiration and social record are cheap and UNTRUTHFUL RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA." [16-17].

"I cannot go phrase by phrase through this Catholic rubbish. In spite of all its sophistry and suppressions it leaves the Inquisition the most scandalous quasi-judicial procedure that ever disgraced civilization, yet it is not the full truth. It is true that it does not tell the lie that American apologists now do—that the Roman Inquisition never executed men—and it does not even mention, much less challenge, the definite figure of 341,042 victims of the Spanish Inquisition which Llorente, secretary of the Inquisition, canon of the church, and Knight of the Caroline Order, compiled from its archives...." [19-20].

'The article "Libraries" is the next on which X employs his subtle art. I have explained, I think, that X is not one encyclopedic Catholic writer who does all this marvellous work. The explanation given of the X in the first volume of the 14th edition is that it is "the initial used for anonymous writers"; just as the lady whose sins are not to be disclosed in the court is called by the police Mlle X. In all earlier encyclopedias anonymous writers, who do the great body of the hackwork of the encyclopedia, did not need any monogram. But, of course, this was a special arrangement with the Catholic body. It assumes that Committees of Catholics on both sides of the Atlantic were appointed to scrutinize all articles bearing upon Catholic myths and to cut out and modify, no matter on what authority it rested, any statement that the Catholic clergy do not like. Whether any other sort of anonymous critics were allowed to do similar work and wear the mask I do not know. I have not noticed an X anywhere except where truth has been slain or mutilated by a Catholic sword.' [23].

PAGE 378

"You may wonder why an innocent article on Libraries should excite the suspicions of the Catholic Knights Errant, but the history of libraries, like the history of literature or education generally, is even more dangerous from the Catholic viewpoint than an amorous story or picture. It tells how the Greeks and Romans had splendid libraries (and literature and schools); how during the Christian Middle Ages libraries (and schools and books of interest) were few and paltry to the 12th century; how in the meantime the Arabs and Persians again had magnificent libraries (and schools and literature) and in the course of two or three centuries succeeded in stimulating sluggish Christian countries to have a few decent libraries. This is real history and of deep sociological significance. But it is THE KIND OF HISTORY CATHOLICS HATE AS THEY HATE SCIENCE. So the historical part of the article is mercilessly but selectively cut." [23-24].

'The article "Martyrs" was in the old edition an edifying Christian sermonette, and it remains. Here, in a modern and candid encyclopedia, we should have had a useful account of the mass of historical work that has been done on the martyrs, even by Catholic scholars like the Jesuit Delehaye [Hippolyte Delehaye 1859 - 1941 (see #13, 322-323)] and Professor Ehrhard, in the last 50 years. More ancient martyrs have been martyred with the axe of historical truth than the early Christians manufactured in 200 years.' [24].

'"Mithraism" might seem an innocent and remote subject but the modern inquirer will want to know whether or no it is true that it made more progress than Christianity in the Roman world and whether it had a superior morality. The fine article by Professor Grant Showerman [1870 - 1935 (see: Nat. Cyclopaedia Am. Bio., V. 27, 318)] in the 11th edition fairly answered these questions. He said that by the middle of the 3rd century "it looked like becoming the universal religion" (which is cut out). He said that it appealed to the Romans by its strongly democratic note and its high ethic. Here his account is cut to pieces, and we now learn that it made progress by boasting of an esoteric wisdom and compromising with paganism. The substance of Showerman's article is kept but his initials are deleted. Perhaps he demanded that. Of course, nothing is said about the material borrowings of Christianity from Mithraism or how CHRISTIANITY DESTROYED ITS RIVAL BY VIOLENCE.' [25].

'The myth that Christianity "broke the fetters of the slave" is so strongly established, though it has not an atom of foundation, that even the late H.G. Wells [1866 - 1946] included it as a historical fact in the first edition—he promptly cut it out when I told him how wrong he was—of his "Outline of History." Neither St. Paul nor any Christian Father nor any Pope or great Christian leader, and certainly no Church Council, condemned slavery until modern times when THE WICKED "WORLD" WAS BUSY EXTINGUISHING IT [SLAVERY]. Even the article in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" makes this clear.' [31].

PAGE 379

'Father Taunton [11th edition)] ["Jesuit Father Taunton...more liberal than a good Jesuit ought to be" (36)]—once more in agreement with our historians—says that Torquemada [1420 - 1498 (Dominican ("The Hounds of Hell"!))] burned 10,000 victims of the Inquisition in 18 years ["while"] the reviser inserts "but modern research reduces the list of those burned to 2,000." As no signature is subjoined while Taunton's initials are suppressed, the reader is given to understand that this correction of Llorente's [(see 378) Juan Antonio Llorente 1756 - 1823, Spanish priest and historian (see: Cambridge Bio. Dict., 1990, 905)] figures is given on the authority of the Britannica. As a matter of fact, what the writer means is that one or two Catholic priests like Father Gams have been juggling with the figures so as to bring down enormously Llorente's figure of the total victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Their work is ridiculous. Llorente was not only for years in high clerical dignity and esteem in Spain, but, as its secretary, he had the archives of the Inquisition and copied from them. But this is one of the new tricks of Catholic writers. Saying that "recent research" or "recent authorities" have corrected some statement about their church they give a few names of priests, knowing that the reader never heard of them and suppressing the "Rev." or "Father." A priest can become an expert on a section of history as well as any man but he will never tell the whole truth about it and he will strain or twist the facts at any time in the interest of his church.' [36].

"any attempt to whitewash the Middle Ages is up against the notorious fact that cruelty and torture, both judicial and extra-judicial, prescribed in codes of law or practiced by individual rulers (of states or cities) or owners of serfs, knights, and even 'ladies,' were more common and more horrible, especially in what is called the brighter (later) part of the Middle Ages (to the 18th century) than in any other period of civilized history except, perhaps in China and in certain ages in Persia." [36-37].

"Keeton [("Professor G.W. Keeton") author of the article "Torture"] is a pious member of the Church of England, and he is no more willing than X to admit that Christianity kept the world at a low level of civilization. He makes the general remark that the nations of Europe borrowed the practice from ancient Rome—as if a man could excuse his crimes by pleading that he simply copied them from a civilization which he professed to regard as pagan and vicious—and he darkens the case against the Romans." [37].

PAGE 380

"Three things are today certain. [1] The Vatican and its national branches are red to the shoulders with the blood that was shed ['"World War II"']. From the outbreak of Franco's rebellion—the curtain-raiser of the war—and the trouble in Czecho-Slovakia to the year when Russia turned the tide against the Germans and an Allied victory seemed at least probable the Roman Church, in its own interest, acted in the closest co-operation with the thugs. One can quote even Catholic writers (Teeling, etc.) for that. [2] The second is, that the Japanese religion, Shinto and Buddhism alike, were similarly, in fact openly, working with the blood-drunk Japanese leaders. This was emphasized at a World Congress of Religions in Chicago several years before the war broke out. [3] Thirdly, the Protestant churches in America enfeebled the warning against Japan, in the interest of their missions, the Lutheran Church in Germany bowed servilely to the Nazis except when Hitler interfered with its doctrines, and the British churches were equally guilty in the pre-war period. This attitude of the organized religions was of vital use to the aggressors. But we couldn't tell that, the editors of the Encyclopedia will protest. And that is just one of the grounds of these criticisms. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not tell the reader facts and truths if the clergy do not like them, and that covers a considerable territory in regard to history, science, and contemporary life. The 14th edition not only does not tell them but suppresses them if earlier editions told them, and even allows untruths to be inserted." [42-43].

'Give a priest an inch and he will take an ell [sic] of a lot. He does not learn casuistry for nothing. Under cover of the need of abbreviation he has deleted whole paragraphs, even columns of facts which were offensive to him because they flatly contradicted what he said or wrote, and then, possibly fearing that he had cut out too much, he inserted sentences or paragraphs which "put the Catholic point of view." He has taken phrases or paragraphs of the original writers of the articles and, while r[e]taining their initials, he has repeatedly turned them inside out or has said that "recent research" (the gymnastic of some other Catholic apologist) has corrected his statements.

And I say that for an encyclopedia to allow this and not candidly explain it to the public but even try to prevent the Catholics disclosing it is a piece of deception. The writers who did the work had not the decency—or were they forbidden?—to give their names, as other contributors do. It is therefore possible that the plea may be urged that various groups of folk were engaged in the work of correcting errors in the 11th edition and it was thought best to lump all these little men together as Mlle. X. We are, however, intrigued by the fact that all these alterations, suppressions, and additions that I have examined uniformly SERVE THE INTERESTS OF CATHOLIC PROPAGANDA AND ARE GENERALLY CHARACTERIZED BY THE FAMILIAR CHIEF FEATURE OF THAT PROPAGANDAUNTRUTHFULNESS.' [44].

PAGE 381

'When the Catholic objects that "historians" dispute a point he generally means that it is disputed by historians of his own church: the men who say that Peter was buried at Rome and Torquemada burned only 2,000 heretics, that the Dark Age was bright with culture and virtue and the Age of Chivalry and the Crusaders irradiated the entire world, that the church was just tainted a little by a wicked world at one time but it soon purified itself by a Counter-Reformation, that there was horrible butchery at the French, Russian and Spanish Revolutions, that the Christian church abolished slavery and gave the world schools, hospitals, democracy, art, and science, and a thousand other fantastic things. If encyclopedias propose to embody these SELF-INTERESTED ANTICS OF CATHOLIC PROPAGANDISTS the public ought to know it.' [45].


I do not in the least say that it is the only work of public reference that has been so used. The new Encyclopedia Americana betrays a lamentable degree of Catholic influence, and even the more scholarly Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics has curried favor with Catholics by entrusting a number of important articles ("Inquisition," etc.) to Catholic writers, with the usual disastrous results; while manuals of European, especially medieval, history by some American professors strain or suppress evidence scandalously to suit Catholic authorities. I HAVE HERE MERELY GIVEN THE DEFINITE EVIDENCE IN ONE FIELD THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH USES ITS ENORMOUS WEALTH AND VOTING POWER TO POISON THE WELLS OF TRUTH AND TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC THE FACTS OF HISTORY WHICH MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE FANTASTIC CLAIMS IT ADVANCES TODAY.' [45].

"Who wants in a modern encyclopedia the mass of stuff about saints and martyrs, which are to a great extent pure FICTION". [45].

"I have a small Rationalist Encyclopedia [see #8, 215] presently appearing in London which I wrote six or seven years ago. It will show how different the truth, gathered from the works of experts, is from the stuff one reads in encyclopedia-articles on matters affecting one's philosophy of life; though I fear it will be issued in two expensive volumes, instead of the cheap fortnightly parts (as originally intended) of my larger American publications, and my labor will be virtually wasted; for THE CLERGY WILL SEE THAT PUBLIC LIBRARIES DO NOT GET IT. It is a lamentable situation, for FROM THE RELIGIOUS FIELD THIS MODERN MANIPULATION OF TRUTH EXTENDS TO MANY OTHERS. I hope this short investigation will help to open the eyes of the American public to its new mental slavery."

[End of text] [46].

PAGE 382

'Since the reconstruction of the Britannica in 1911 [11th edition] two things happened....One was the development of new feminist activities and organizations for which, we recognize, new space had to be found. The other was a development of a political sense which led to a vast amount of anti-clericalism amongst the women. Since the beginning of the last century a small minority of women have pointed out that the historical record of woman's position and refusal of her rights reflected bitterly on the Christian churches, especially the Roman, and their claim that "Christianity was always the great friend of woman" (and of the child, the sick, the slave, the worker, etc.). This claim was, as usual, a flagrant defiance of the facts. In the real old civilizations, Egypt and Babylonia, woman's right to equality was recognized. In the Greek-Roman civilization, which began with profound injustice to her, she had fairly won her rights before the end came [see: Women in Antiquity, Charles Seltman 1956 (1979); Women in the Classical World, Oxford, 1994]. But the establishment of Christianity thrust her back into the category of inferiority and she suffered 14 centuries of gross injustice; and the champions of her rights from the time of the French Revolution onward, both in America and Europe, were for the far greater part Skeptics, and the clergy opposed them until their cause showed promise of victory in the present century.

The article "Woman" in the 11th edition [1911] had an historical introduction which, though by no means feminist, gave a considerable knowledge of these facts. It has entirely disappeared from the 14th edition [1929—(with revisions, etc.)1973] instead of being strengthened from the large new literature that has appeared since 1914. Exigencies of space, yes. We know it. But as in the case of dozens of others articles THE CLERGY WANTED THESE HISTORICAL SKETCHES BURIED.' [41-42].

[See following article: Theology and Feminism (390-397); etc.].

PAGE 383

[Addendum A]

from: The Great EB The Story of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Herman Kogan, University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Excursus: from: The Myth of the Britannica (see Addendum B).

"The Great EB...presented an exhaustive account of the Encyclopaedia's growth and financial history. The author of this skillful exercise in public relations was Herman Kogan, a former Chicago newspaperman who was subsequently appointed Director of Company Relations for the Britannica. The early parts of his book were animated by a critical spirit, but the closing portion merely offered a glowing description of the Company's editorial and sales policies. Despite this defect, The Great EB is a useful historical work because it was compiled from the Company's private archives. It supplied a great deal of material for this chapter—and its quasi-official character was emphasized by its publication by the University of Chicago Press." [57].

'One of the earliest works designed to present information within the circle of human knowledge was the Naturalis historia of Pliny the Elder [23 - 79 A.D.] in A.D. 77, which contained some twenty thousand extracts from two thousand works by more than four hundred writers of his own and preceding ages. And through ensuing centuries there appeared scores of other works encyclopaedic in nature: compilations of philosophical or informational essays and treatises on the arts and sciences. The Chinese are commonly accorded the distinction of having published the first modern-style encyclopaedia, T'ai P'ing Yu Tan, in the tenth century. Most remarkable in the thirteenth century was the colossal Imagi mundi of Vincent of Beauvais, a Dominican friar and librarian to France's Louis IX, who gathered together the knowledge of the Middle Ages, working for twenty-four years, from 1240 to his death in 1264. First to actually use the title of "Cyclopaedia"—from the Greek words meaning "learning within the circle"—was a compiler named Ringelberg in Basel in 1541'. [6].

"The first important encyclopaedia in English—most of its predecessors were in Latin—was the Lexicon Technicum, issued in 1704 by a London clergyman named John Harris....its contents were arranged in alphabetical order....its success in scholarly circles encouraged Ephraim Chambers, a London globe-maker, to bring forth in 1728 his impressive Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, in two large folio volumes. He included such innovations as an elaborate system of cross-references by which the material, alphabetically arranged, was correlated."


PAGE 384

"Chambers' volumes were the direct inspiration for the famed and influential French EncyclopédieDenis Diderot's Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers—for which the first prospectus appeared in 1750....Ostensibly the Encyclopédie was a reference work; but its main purpose, from the very first volumes in 1751 and 1752, was to bend its readers to rational and scientific points of view rather than merely to impart knowledge and information. Rousseau [1712 - 1778] and Voltaire [1694 - 1778] were among its contributors, and throughout the thousands of pages in the twenty-eight volumes into which the encyclopaedia finally grew there were strong notes of skepticism, firm emphasis on subjects of positive knowledge, science, and technology rather than on theology and religion, and sly criticism of existing conditions in France and other parts of Europe.

The first two volumes were suppressed as injurious to royal authority and to religion, and the police tried to seize all copies and the manuscript of the next volumes....Diderot [1713 - 1784] was harassed by official interference, this time by a decree stopping the sale and an order to burn all copies. From this point on until completion of the massive work in 1765, Diderot was forced to work in secret, but he succeeded in completing his tremendous undertaking with the occasional connivance of friendly French authorities. For his important work, Diderot was said to have received a meager sum, while the publishers of the Encyclopédie amassed fortunes." [7].

"Publication of the French Encyclopédie, discussed and fought over, praised and criticized and evaluated everywhere as sections and then whole volumes became available in western Europe, directly stimulated the creation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica [published 17681771]. Three Scots, all men of Edinburgh, were responsible, two of them, Andrew Bell and Colin Macfarquhar, for the central idea and for obtaining subscribers and the third, William Smellie, a scholar brilliant and bibulous, for the editing, writing, and arrangement of articles." [8].

[William Robertson Smith 1846 - 1894]

'Of all the distinguished contributors [to the 9th edition ("scholars edition")], none aroused so much strife and controversy—and none so typified the conflicts between the old and the new—as William Robertson Smith, a short-statured, dark-haired, and dark-eyed man with a swarthy complexion and a taste for fine wines and tobacco, a scholar of profound learning and wisdom, yet "lively and merry as a grig," and at twenty-eight one of the most brilliant theologians in the British Isles.' [55].

'on December 7, 1875, appeared the volume [9th edition] with the writings on "Baal" and "Bible." Before submitting the second of these two contributions, Smith had asked several of his friends among the clergy to read it. All, orthodoxists and modernists alike, had judged it sound in concept and execution. Its major thesis was that the BIBLE could be considered not only as theology but as literature and that it HAD HISTORICAL LINKS WITH OTHER RELIGIONS. Smith's theory was that the SEMITIC RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS WERE COMMON TO ALL PRIMITIVE PEOPLES and could be deduced from the data of known popular religions.' [56].

PAGE 385

'He [William Robertson Smith] was accused, in the indictment [1877—1878], of a number of theological sins as determined by officials of the Free Church ["Free Church of Scotland"]. He had, they stated, rejected the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, thereby implying that the Scriptures were not divinely inspired. He had contradicted orthodox doctrine by "neutrality of attitude and rashness of statement tending to disparage" the divine authority and inspired character of the Scriptures. He had taught that the Levitical system was not a Mosaic institution; that Deuteronomy was not the historical record it professed to be; that the sacred writers were liable to error in questions of fact and occasionally sacrificed accuracy to party spirit; that some parts of the Scriptures had the character of fiction; that the Song of Solomon was a love poem and devoid of spiritual significance; that the prophets were merely men of spiritual insight and had no supernatural revelations of the future.' [58].

'The assembly delegates gathered at Edinburgh [1878] in an atmosphere of excitement. Thousands of pamphlets by as many as twenty-five different writers were distributed by opponents and defenders of Smith. The orthodoxists yelled "Heretic!" and the adherents of the man they admiringly called "Smith o'Aiberdeen" replied, "A second Galileo!" At the meeting, Dr. Begg warned that the eyes of all Scotland were upon the assembly: "The righteous are trembling before the Ark of God!" But Smith, eloquently and at length, made a point-by-point defense of his article and his teachings and at the meeting's end was cleared of all charges but one—that he had rejected the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. Did a professor of the Free Church College, the assembly asked, have a right to hold such a view?' [58].

"Smith went off to the Orient, where he visited the Abdullah Effendi of Jeddah and lived with the Richard Burtons [(Sir) Richard Burton and (Lady) Isabel Burton] in Arabia for several months [1880 - 1881]. He returned to face the assembly on a motion to deprive him of his teaching job because of his allegedly unorthodox views." [58-59].

"On May 24, 1881, he [Smith] was ordered removed from his job at the Free Church College." [59-60].

"The ultimate effect of this battle between traditional orthodoxy and modernist theology of the Victorian age was to vindicate the right of free historical inquiry. The immediate effect of Smith's dismissal was that he was hired, within a month, to serve with Baynes as joint editor of the ninth edition....To the first eleven volumes he had contributed some twenty articles; for the final thirteen he wrote more than two hundred." [60].

'Smith broadened the Encyclopaedia Britannica's international aspect by including the work of the eminent European scholar Julius Wellhausen [1844 - 1918], the German theologian whose ideas had formed the basis of Smith's thinking in comparative religion. Another contributor closer to home was a young don at Christ College at Cambridge, James G. Frazer [1854 - 1941], to whom Smith assigned "Totemism" and "Taboo."' [60].

PAGE 386

'In 1883 Smith was named professor of Arabic at Cambridge, and he rejoiced at being once again in academic work with a chance of escaping "the treadmill of the encyclopaedia." Actually he remained as editor until the final volume was issued in 1888, a year after Baynes's death, although for the five final years much of the editorial labor was carried on by J. Sutherland Black [with T.K. Cheyne, co-editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899 - 1903 (dedicated to William Robertson Smith)], subsequently Smith's official biographer.' [60-61].

[See: The Life of William Robertson Smith, John Sutherland Black and George Chrystal, A. and C. Black (author and publisher were not related (Beidelman, 69)), 1912].

[See: W. Robertson Smith and the Sociological Study of Religion, T.O. Beidelman, foreword by E.E. Evans-Pritchard, U. Chicago, 1974].

'Throughout 1911 [year the 11th edition was published] the Month ["A Catholic publication in London"] continued its acrid campaign. It charged that the Encyclopaedia Britannica was guilty of "unscholarly bigotry"; that the "anti-Catholic animus" of several writers on subjects involving Catholicism was well known; that all articles on the Catholic church were "thoroughly Protestant and necessarily incorrect"; that the "acme of contemptuous indifference to Catholic feeling" was reached in an account by Viscount St. Cyres, a non-Catholic, of the "Church in Europe since the Reformation." This latter article was, according to the Month, "full of bitter animus against orthodox Catholicism, bristling with misrepresentations, conveyed by phrase and epithet, by assertion and innuendo....If they let Kropotkin write on Anarchism, why not Catholics on Catholicism?" And finally, bitterly: "The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a non-Catholic production, which means practically that it is anti-Catholic, for the claims of the Church Catholic are so unique, so far-reaching and fundamental, that they cannot be ignored or misrepresented without distortion of the truth. HE THAT IS NOT WITH HER IS AGAINST HER."' [174].

[See: 173-178, etc.].

'In contrast to attacks by United States publications, the Tablet ["British Catholic magazine"] seemed a fervent defender of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. First there appeared a pamphlet titled Poisoning the Wells, issued under auspices of the American Federation of Catholic Societies and generally believed to have been written by the Rev. John S. Wynne, S.J., one of the editors of the Catholic Encyclopaedia....It labeled the new edition [11th edition] "unscholarly, sectarian, and offensive" and cited dozens of examples to prove its point. It denounced what it called a "rationalistic and anti-Catholic spirit" and called on all good Catholics to refrain from buying the set. The Jesuit monthly America mirrored these charges; its editor, the Rev. T.J. Campbell, S.J., wrote: "The frequently unveiled contempt of the usages, rituals and sacramental agencies not only of Catholicism but of Christianity, combined with the absence in many of its writers of any knowledge above material things and a deplorable dullness of vision in what pertains to the spiritual world, will always make of the Encyclopaedia Britannica a most exasperating book for Catholics of every degree."' [175].

PAGE 387

'Sometimes, in interesting contrast to the outcry of certain Catholic critics against articles in the eleventh edition, objections are heard that the articles [14th edition] on Catholic subjects have been subjected to "clerical shearing" by high-ranking members of that faith. One hasty critic [(year?) Joseph McCabe (375-383) ?] insisted that all religious articles marked "X" at the end indicated such "censorship." What he did not know—but was quickly made aware of by the editors—was that the "X" signified that a subeditor had inserted current [sic] information or had made minor [sic] revisions ["spin doctors"—at work!]. Actually, the current practice is to ask leaders of religious faiths to advise and verify factual points and, in the case of controversial issues, to ask the writer to compare opposing viewpoints. Since the 1957 printing and subsequent ones, certain articles pertaining to the New Testament, which had drawn frowns from Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy, were REWRITTEN to the satisfaction of both groups by Professor Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, a young Lutheran minister and member of the University of Chicago's Federated Theological Faculty.' [294]. [See: Joseph McCabe (375-383)].

PAGE 388

[Addendum B]

from: The Myth of the Britannica, Harvey Einbinder, Grove, 1964.

"The practice of rewriting religious material to meet the approval of different groups was sharply criticized by the Watch Tower Society, the official spokesman of Jehovah's Witnesses. It declared in its magazine Awake! (November 22, 1962) that in the conflict between Truth and "Tolerance" the Britannica has sacrificed the truth to avoid making enemies. To support this charge, it compared a number of entries in the eleventh [1911] and 1959 [14th edition] editions." [67].

"While some groups have accused the Britannica of being pro-Catholic, others have claimed it is hostile to the Church. Its chief competitor, the Encyclopedia Americana, bluntly declared that the EB was animated by an anti-Catholic bias, and it repeated this provocative charge until it was restrained by the Federal Trade Commission in July, 1948. According to the FTC, the Americana asserted in its promotional material:

The Americana is published in America by America for Americans. It has an American viewpoint and looks at the world through American eyes.

What impresses a Catholic most in the new Americana is the evident intention of the editorial staff to play fair....In this the Americana is a striking contrast to the Britannica. The editors of that encyclopedia impress one as having of set purpose picked out foes of the Church, to misrepresent her. They are as accurate in this misrepresentation as we might expect Benedict Arnold to have been, had he written on the separation of the American Colonies from England. Not so the Americana. It chooses loyal Catholics to write on Catholic subjects. The Jesuits are assigned to a Jesuit; and not, as in the Britannica, to their avowed enemy.

This broadside was not a defense of Catholic ideas, but an appeal to religious prejudice for commercial gain. It has no foundation in fact. Since 1936 [14th edition] the Britannica has carried an article on the Society of Jesus written, not by an enemy of the Jesuits, but by a member of the Society. It is such a favorable and flattering account of the order that it will be discussed in a later chapter as an example of clerical apologetics. THE PRINCIPLE THAT RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE CANONS OF HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP, RATHER THAN RELIGIOUS DOGMA, WAS ONE OF THE GREAT TRIUMPHS OF THE NINTH EDITION [18751889]—and it is distressing to find this principle impugned by a rival encyclopedia seeking to increase its sales." [67-68].

PAGE 389