Marco Polo’s Precursors by Leonardo Olschki (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 301 This pastoral letter is, without doubt, one of the outstanding documents on the subject of specialized Catholic Action. Throughout his letter, the Archbishop has succeeded in weaving into his text, eighty-two citations from Encyclicals and other papal documents. The practical tone maintained through­ out denotes not only assurance and determination on the part of His Excel­ lency, but also a firm conviction that the papal pronouncements on the subject of Catholic Action are wise and workable. They are definitely not mere theoretical conjectures, but the results of keen observation of Catholic Action in action. This little book is indispensable to Catholic Action students. Those who have doubts whether Catholic Action can succeed in this country, should read this letter. They should remember that specialized Catholic Action made a modest beginning in the diocese of Montreal in May, 1941, and since then has developed beyond all expectations. R e m y A. G o u d rea u , O. F. M. St. Philip’s Friary, Statesville, N. C. Editor’s Note: It will not be out of place to add that the Franciscan Minister Provincial of Canada, on February 4, 1944, issued a letter concern­ ing Catholic Action to the members of the Third Order Secular of St. Francis in the archdiocese of Montreal, where the Third Order has been declared an auxiliary of Catholic Action. It contains four regulations for "collaboration” and as many for "coordination,” to all of which the Archbishop of Montreal has agreed. The letter in question was published in La Revue Franciscaine, March, 1944, p. 97. Marco Polo’s Precursors. By Leonardo Olschki. (Baltimore: The Johns Hop­ kins Press, 1943. Pp. ix+100, with a map of Asia. $1.50.) This little book is a condensation of a course of lectures delivered at Johns Hopkins University in 1939-1940. It is not a narrative of the epochmaking overland journeys across Asia made by the first European travelers to the Far East, but "the critical interpretation of a human experience com­ parable only to the discovery of America. . . , a description of the intellectual conquest of Asia.” To interpret events is always more difficult than to narrate them. The interpretation is always colored by the interpreter’s attitude toward religion and his philosophy of life. To a Catholic, or for that matter to any convinced Christian, an interpretation which is not made from a Christian viewpoint cannot be acceptable. A Christian can no more take a neutral attitude toward pagan religions than the mathematician can be indifferent to whether two and two make four or not. The author seems to have adopted a neutral attitude toward monotheism and polytheism, Christianity and pagan­ ism; and he apparently regards the syncretism of the Mongols as superior to the Christianity of medieval Europe, because the former was characterized by "religious tolerance.” The term "tolerance” is often misapplied and mis­ understood; it is not synonymous with indifference to right and wrong. Monotheistic religions are not "essentially intolerant. . . and fanatical” (p. 26). A Catholic who condemns the religion of a pagan or a heretic, can at the same time recognize the fact that the latter is or may be in good faith. 302 FRANCISCAN STUDIES The aversion of the Franciscan friars who blazed the way to the Far East, to the pagan and immoral practices of the Tatars (this spelling is more correct than Tartars) does not imply that they were prejudiced or unfriendly to these people or that they misunderstood "things of a spiritual and re­ ligious nature” pertaining to them (pp. 43, 44, 64). The fact that they de­ nounced the vices and superstition of the Nestorians, does not mean that they were not speaking the truth (p. 29). Theological discussions with persons of a different faith, particularly in the case of Catholic missionaries who make it their task to convince their opponents of their errors if they consent to listen to them, are not "mostly idle and always unpleasant dis­ putes” (p. 25). It is not fair to Brother Bartholomew to say that he did not have the "heart to undertake the return journey” (p. 55), when it was sickness that prevented his return. After mentioning...