← back to the files
HD-011 Newspaper hoax · New York 1917

The Bathtub Hoax — a humorist’s invented history that outran its own retraction

fake-history-articleadmission1850-1919
The hoax
A faked "75th anniversary" history of the American bathtub
Reach
Reprinted in reference works, medical journals, and Congress
Exposed
Mencken's own 1926 confession
Status
Exposed

Summary

On December 28, 1917, the New York Evening Mail ran an essay titled "A Neglected Anniversary" by the Baltimore journalist and critic H. L. Mencken, who fabricated an entire history of the bathtub in the United States and presented it, deadpan, as sober fact. The article was an invention from start to finish. Mencken later called it "a piece of spoofing to relieve the strain of war days," written for his own amusement during the First World War. Nothing in it was true, and Mencken knew it when he wrote it.

The fiction was specific enough to be quotable. Mencken claimed the bathtub had been introduced to America on December 20, 1842, when a Cincinnati grain dealer named Adam Thompson installed the first one after encountering the device on business trips to England, where it had supposedly been invented in 1828 by one "Lord John Russell." He invented a chorus of opposition — Cincinnati doctors warning that bathing was dangerous, a near-ban in Philadelphia, an actual prohibition in Boston — and a redemption arc in which Vice President Millard Fillmore took a bath in Thompson's tub, then installed the first White House bathtub on becoming president in 1850, making the fixture respectable. None of these people, ordinances, or events existed as described. Lord John Russell was a real British prime minister with no connection to plumbing.

What distinguishes the case is not that readers believed the spoof but that the spoof kept being believed long after its author tried to kill it. The invented facts migrated into encyclopedias, medical literature, and standard reference works; they were quoted on the floor of Congress and crossed the Atlantic into European print. Mencken confessed in a front-page article, "Melancholy Reflections," in the Chicago Tribune on May 23, 1926, and confessed a second time that July. The retraction barely dented the legend. As late as the 21st century, the false bathtub chronology was still surfacing in newspapers and advertising as genuine American history.

The lasting interest of the affair is mechanical rather than comic. Mencken built a fake that was modest, plausible, and useless to dispute — a small civic story no one had reason to doubt and no easy way to check — and then watched it propagate through exactly the institutions that were supposed to filter error out. It is an early, clean demonstration of what later observers would call citogenesis: a fabrication acquires authority simply by being repeated in reputable places, until the repetitions become the evidence.

Timeline

Dec 28, 1917
The hoax is published
Mencken's "A Neglected Anniversary" appears in the New York Evening Mail, presenting a wholly invented bathtub history as fact.
1917–1918
A wartime distraction
Mencken later explains the piece as harmless fun to relieve the strain of the First World War, written purely as a jest.
1918 onward
The facts detach from the author
Newspapers reprint the chronology straight, stripped of any hint that it was satire.
Early 1920s
Migration into reference
The invented dates and names begin appearing in encyclopedias, medical and chiropractic literature, and standard works of reference.
Mid-1920s
Cited as authority
The fabricated history is alluded to on the floor of Congress and repeated in learned journals at home and in Europe.
May 23, 1926
The confession
Mencken admits the hoax on the front page of the Chicago Tribune in an article titled "Melancholy Reflections."
Jul 25, 1926
A second confession
With the first having little effect, Mencken publishes another disavowal, again to limited result.
1949
Still alive
Mencken notes that scarcely a month passes without the substance of his hoax being reprinted, not as foolishness but as fact.
1951
A presidential echo
The bathtub legend continues to circulate in print as accepted history through mid-century.
2004
Late survival
Major newspapers including the Washington Post are still repeating elements of the fabricated chronology as true.
2008
Into advertising
The invented history surfaces even in a television commercial, more than ninety years after publication.

A history built to be plausible and impossible to check

The hoax worked because Mencken designed it to be unremarkable. He did not claim a marvel; he claimed an anniversary. The subject — when Americans first started bathing indoors — was the kind of minor civic trivia that no reader felt invested in defending and few would think to verify. The essay opened by scolding the public for letting the seventy-fifth anniversary of the bathtub pass unnoticed, a framing that flattered the reader into treating the omission, not the facts, as the scandal.

Every detail was calibrated to read as research rather than wit. Mencken supplied precise dates (December 20, 1842), named individuals (Adam Thompson, Lord John Russell), specific cities (Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston), and a plausible mechanism of resistance and acceptance — doctors warning of danger, municipalities legislating against bathing, then a president lending the fixture prestige. The arc mimicked the shape of real technological histories, in which a novelty is feared, regulated, and finally normalized. A reader pattern-matching against that familiar shape had no reason to balk. And because the whole thing was small and self-contained, there was no obvious primary record to consult and find empty.

How a joke colonized the reference shelf

The fabrication did not stay in the newspaper. Stripped of context, the chronology was reprinted by other papers as straight history, and from there it climbed. It entered medical literature, where the supposed early resistance to bathing made a tidy parable of progress in public hygiene. It entered encyclopedias and standard reference works, the sources writers consult precisely so they do not have to verify a basic fact themselves. It was quoted on the floor of Congress and reproduced in Europe.

Each reprinting did a particular kind of damage. A claim that appears in an encyclopedia is no longer one man's assertion; it is a fact of record, and the next writer who cites it is citing the encyclopedia, not Mencken. The repetitions compounded into apparent corroboration. By the time the story was widespread, a skeptic checking it would find the same dates in multiple reputable places and conclude they were confirmed — when in truth every instance traced back to a single 1917 invention. The institutions meant to filter error had instead become its distribution network.

The confession that could not catch up

Mencken set out to undo his own work and largely failed. On May 23, 1926 — more than eight years after publication — he confessed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune in "Melancholy Reflections," laying out plainly that the bathtub history was a fabrication composed as a wartime lark, and marveling at how far it had traveled. He described the invented facts getting into learned journals, being alluded to in Congress, crossing the ocean, and finally turning up in standard works of reference. He confessed again on July 25, 1926.

The corrections did not propagate the way the lie had. By 1949 Mencken observed that scarcely a month went by without the substance of the hoax being reprinted as fact. The false chronology kept appearing in newspapers, books, and eventually advertising into the 21st century. The asymmetry is the lesson of the case: the fabrication had been seeded into authoritative, widely consulted sources, while the retraction lived in a single columnist's byline. A correction cannot reach every place a fact has lodged, and a reader who encounters the fabricated version in an encyclopedia will never see the confession that was printed elsewhere years earlier. The exposure was real and unambiguous; it simply arrived too late and traveled too short a distance to win.

The Five Factors

01
The unremarkable lie
Mencken did not fabricate a wonder but a trivial civic history, a subject too dull to attract scrutiny and too minor for anyone to feel they must defend the truth. Modest, low-stakes fabrications evade the skepticism that extraordinary claims invite, precisely because no one bothers to check what no one finds remarkable.
02
The shape of real research
The essay supplied exact dates, named people, and a familiar arc of fear, regulation, and acceptance. A claim that wears the form of legitimate history — specific, structured, plausible — is judged by its costume, and readers extend to it the trust they reserve for genuine scholarship.
03
Citogenesis
Each reprinting converted an assertion into a citation, and the next writer cited the citation. Repetition in reputable venues manufactures the appearance of corroboration, so that a single source, multiplied, can masquerade as independent confirmation and defeat the verification it should invite.
04
Reference works as laundering
Encyclopedias and standard references exist so writers need not verify basic facts, which means an error that reaches them is thereafter trusted automatically. Institutions built to certify facts will certify a fabrication just as readily, and confer on it the authority they were meant to guarantee.
05
The asymmetry of correction
The lie was seeded across many authoritative sources; the confession lived in one byline. A retraction cannot follow a fabrication into every place it has settled, so a false claim, once distributed, can outlive and outrun the truth indefinitely.

Aftermath

The bathtub hoax left no financial victims and caused no scandal of the ordinary kind, which is part of why it has proved so durable. It harmed nothing except the historical record, quietly and permanently. Mencken's own repeated attempts to retract it became part of the story — a writer who could create a false fact effortlessly and then prove unable to destroy it, however publicly he tried. The episode is now a standard teaching example of how misinformation persists: not through any single act of belief but through the mechanics of reprinting, citation, and the trust placed in reference works.

The case anticipated a problem that the digital era only intensified. Mencken's fabrication needed decades to spread through print; later, the same dynamic — an assertion repeated until repetition becomes evidence — would unfold in hours online. The specific mechanisms he exploited remain unchanged: a plausible, unremarkable claim, dressed as research, laundered through authoritative sources, and protected by the fact that corrections never travel as far as the errors they chase. The man-bats of 1835 sold papers; the bathtub of 1917 simply refused to die, which may be the more unsettling demonstration.

Lessons

  1. Treat reference works as starting points, not proof; an encyclopedia entry is only as reliable as the original source it silently rests on, which may be a single fabrication.
  2. Be most skeptical of facts too small to seem worth doubting — trivial, plausible claims are the ones that slip through unverified and lodge permanently.
  3. Count sources, do not just weigh them; a claim repeated in ten places may trace back to one, and repetition is corroboration only when the repetitions are independent.
  4. Follow a fact to its first appearance before passing it on, because every citation downstream inherits the error at the spring.
  5. Remember that a correction rarely catches the claim; verify before you spread, since retracting afterward almost never reaches everyone who believed.

References