[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.")
you allow me to say a very few words in answer to the letters of my two antagonists in your last number.
Both of them draw off attention from the one simple purpose of my letter. I had no idea of refuting "Janus" in half a column of the Spectator ; I called attention to a specimen of gross and unpardonable misstatement, and urged it as a sufficient ground for mistrust as to the reliableness of the author's "facts," and as to- the character of impartial and "scientific investigation" to which the work lays claim. One of your correspondents speaks of the specimen which I produced as an "inaccuracy." The word is quite inadequate. This correspondent informs us in his letter that Formosus before becoming Pope was Bishop of Ostia. He is mis- taken. Formosus was Bishop not of Ostia, but of Porto. This is what I call an "inaccuracy." The statement of Janus to which I called attention is a gross and inexcusable distortion of fact, and of an important fact, and a literary offence which, whether due to recklessness, or blundering, or wilful dishonesty, equally supports my conclusion.
I have no idea of entering upon the question of infallibility in your columns, nor would you, Sir, I imagine, consider the Spectator a fit place for its discussion. My-point is that a book which loudly professes to be essentially a work of "scientific" historical investiga- tion, contains, at least, one very gross historical misrepresentation. I have purposely narrowed my remarks to a single instance, but it is not a solitary one.—! am, Sir, &c.,
A CATHOLIC READER OF "THE SPECTATOR."
Previous page
