diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60985-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60985-0.txt | 5132 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 5132 deletions
diff --git a/old/60985-0.txt b/old/60985-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 15da123..0000000 --- a/old/60985-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5132 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's Misinforming a Nation, by Willard Huntington Wright - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Misinforming a Nation - -Author: Willard Huntington Wright - -Release Date: December 20, 2019 [EBook #60985] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MISINFORMING A NATION *** - - - - -Produced by WebRover, MWS and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - -MISINFORMING A NATION - - - - -BOOKS BY MR. WRIGHT - - MISINFORMING A NATION - MODERN PAINTING: Its Tendency and Meaning - WHAT NIETZSCHE TAUGHT - THE MAN OF PROMISE - THE CREATIVE WILL - -IN PREPARATION - - MODERN LITERATURE - PRINCIPLES OF ÆSTHETIC FORM AND ORGANIZATION - - - - - _Misinforming a Nation_ - - _by Willard Huntington Wright_ - - [Illustration] - - _New York_ _B. W. Huebsch_ _MCMXVII_ - - COPYRIGHT, 1917, BY - B. W. HUEBSCH - - PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - - - - -CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER PAGE - - I COLONIZING AMERICA 1 - - II THE NOVEL 24 - - III THE DRAMA 52 - - IV POETRY 68 - - V BRITISH PAINTING 85 - - VI NON-BRITISH PAINTING 102 - - VII MUSIC 122 - - VIII SCIENCE 148 - - IX INVENTIONS, PHOTOGRAPHY, ÆSTHETICS 160 - - X PHILOSOPHY 174 - - XI RELIGION 195 - - XII TWO HUNDRED OMISSIONS 218 - - - - -MISINFORMING A NATION - - - - -I - -COLONIZING AMERICA - - -The intellectual colonization of America by England has been going -on for generations. Taking advantage of her position of authority—a -position built on centuries of æsthetic tradition—England has let -pass few opportunities to ridicule and disparage our activities in -all lines of creative effort, and to impress upon us her own assumed -cultural superiority. Americans, lacking that sense of security which -long-established institutions would give them, have been influenced -by the insular judgments of England, and, in an effort to pose as _au -courant_ of the achievements of the older world, have adopted in large -degree the viewpoint of Great Britain. The result has been that for -decades the superstition of England’s pre-eminence in the world of art -and letters has spread and gained power in this country. Our native -snobbery, both social and intellectual, has kept the fires of this -superstition well supplied with fuel; and in our slavish imitation -of England—the only country in Europe of which we have any intimate -knowledge—we have de-Americanized ourselves to such an extent that -there has grown up in us a typical British contempt for our own native -achievements. - -One of the cardinal factors in this Briticization of our intellectual -outlook is the common language of England and America. Of all the -civilized nations of the world, we are most deficient as linguists. -Because of our inability to speak fluently any language save our own, -a great barrier exists between us and the Continental countries. But -no such barrier exists between America and England; and consequently -there is a constant exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions. English -literature is at our command; English criticism is familiar to us; and -English standards are disseminated among us without the impediment -of translation. Add to this lingual _rapprochement_ the traditional -authority of Great Britain, together with the social aspirations -of moneyed Americans, and you will have both the material and the -psychological foundation on which the great edifice of English culture -has been reared in this country. - -The English themselves have made constant and liberal use of these -conditions. An old and disquieting jealousy, which is tinctured not a -little by resentment, has resulted in an open contempt for all things -American. And it is not unnatural that this attitude should manifest -itself in a condescending patronage which is far from being good-natured. -Our literature is derided; our artists are ridiculed; and in nearly -every field of our intellectual endeavor England has found grounds for -disparagement. It is necessary only to look through British newspapers -and critical journals to discover the contemptuous and not infrequently -venomous tone which characterizes the discussion of American culture. - -At the same time, England grasps every opportunity for foisting her own -artists and artisans on this country. She it is who sets the standard -which at once demolishes our individual expression and glorifies the -efforts of Englishmen. Our publishers, falling in line with this -campaign, import all manner of English authors, eulogize them with the -aid of biased English critics, and neglect better writers of America -simply because they have displeased those gentlemen in London who sit in -judgment upon our creative accomplishments. Our magazines, edited for the -most part by timid nobodies whose one claim to intellectual distinction -is that they assiduously play the parrot to British opinion, fill their -publications with the work of English mediocrities and ignore the more -deserving contributions of their fellow-countrymen. - -Even our educational institutions disseminate the English superstition -and neglect the great men of America; for nowhere in the United States -will you find the spirit of narrow snobbery so highly developed as in our -colleges and universities. Recently an inferior British poet came here, -and, for no other reason apparently save that he was English, he was made -a professor in one of our large universities! Certainly his talents did -not warrant this appointment, for there are at least a score of American -poets who are undeniably superior to this young Englishman. Nor has he -shown any evidences of scholarship which would justify the honor paid -him. But an Englishman, if he seek favors, needs little more than proof -of his nationality, whereas an American must give evidence of his worth. - -England has shown the same ruthlessness and unscrupulousness in her -intellectual colonization of America as in her territorial colonizations; -and she has also exhibited the same persistent shrewdness. What is more, -this cultural extension policy has paid her lavishly. English authors, to -take but one example, regard the United States as their chief source of -income. If it were the highest English culture—that is, the genuinely -significant scholarship of the few great modern British creators—which -was forced upon America, there would be no cause for complaint. But the -governing influences in English criticism are aggressively middle-class -and chauvinistic, with the result that it is the British _bourgeois_ who -has stifled our individual expression, and misinformed us on the subject -of European culture. - -No better instance of this fact can be pointed to than the utterly false -impression which America has of French attainments. French genius has -always been depreciated and traduced by the British; and no more subtle -and disgraceful campaign of derogation has been launched in modern times -than the consistent method pursued by the English in misinterpreting -French ideals and accomplishments to Americans. To England is due -largely, if not entirely, the uncomplimentary opinion that Americans -have of France—an opinion at once distorted and indecent. To the average -American a French novel is regarded merely as a salacious record of -adulteries. French periodicals are looked upon as collections of prurient -anecdotes and licentious pictures. And the average French painting is -conceived as a realistic presentation of feminine nakedness. So deeply -rooted are these conceptions that the very word “French” has become, in -the American’s vocabulary, an adjective signifying all manner of sexual -abnormalities, and when applied to a play, a story, or an illustration, -it is synonymous with “dirty” and “immoral.” This country has yet -to understand the true fineness of French life and character, or to -appreciate the glories of French art and literature; and the reason for -our distorted ideas is that French culture, in coming to America, has -been filtered through the nasty minds of middle-class English critics. - -But it is not our biased judgment of the Continental nations that is -the most serious result of English misrepresentation; in time we will -come to realize how deceived we were in accepting England’s insinuations -that France is indecent, Germany stupid, Italy decadent, and Russia -barbarous. The great harm done by England’s contemptuous critics is -in belittling American achievement. Too long has _bourgeois_ British -culture been forced upon the United States; and we have been too gullible -in our acceptance of it without question. English critics and English -periodicals have consistently attempted to discourage the growth of any -national individualism in America, by ridiculing or ignoring our best -æsthetic efforts and by imposing upon us their own insular criteria. -To such an extent have they succeeded that an American author often -must go to England before he will be accepted by his own countrymen. -Thus purified by contact with English culture, he finds a way into our -appreciation. - -But on the other hand, almost any English author—even one that England -herself has little use for—can acquire fame by visiting this country. -Upon his arrival he is interviewed by the newspapers; his picture appears -in the “supplements”; his opinions emblazon the headlines and are -discussed in editorials; and our publishers scramble for the distinction -of bringing out his wares. In this the publishers, primarily commercial, -reveal their business acumen, for they are not unaware of the fact that -the “literary” sections of our newspapers are devoted largely to British -authors and British letters. So firmly has the English superstition taken -hold of our publishers that many of them print their books with English -spelling. The reason for this un-American practice, so they explain, is -that the books may be ready for an English edition without resetting. The -English, however, do not use American spelling at all, though, as a rule, -the American editions of English books are much larger than the English -edition of American books. But the English do not like our spelling; -therefore we gladly arrange matters to their complete satisfaction. - -The evidences of the American’s enforced belief in English superiority -are almost numberless. Apartment houses and suburban sub-divisions are -named after English hotels and localities. The belief extends even to the -manufacturers of certain brands of cigarettes which, for sale purposes, -are advertised as English, although it would be difficult to find a -box of them abroad. The American actor, in order to gain distinction, -apes the dress, customs, intonation and accent of Englishmen. His great -ambition is to be mistaken for a Londoner. This pose, however, is not all -snobbery: it is the outcome of an earnest desire to appear superior; and -so long has England insisted upon her superiority that many Americans -have come to adopt it as a cultural fetish. - -Hitherto this exalted intellectual guidance has been charitably given us: -never before, as now, has a large fortune been spent to make America pay -handsomely for the adoption of England’s provincialism. I refer to the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ which, by a colossal campaign of flamboyant -advertising, has been scattered broadcast over every state in the union. - -No more vicious and dangerous educational influence on America can -readily be conceived than the articles in this encyclopædia. They distort -the truth and disseminate false standards. America is now far enough -behind the rest of the civilized world in its knowledge of art, without -having added to that ignorance the erroneous impressions created by -this partial and disproportioned English work; for, in its treatment of -the world’s progress, it possesses neither universality of outlook nor -freedom from prejudice in its judgments—the two primary requisites for -any work which lays claim to educational merit. Taken as a whole, the -_Britannica’s_ divisions on culture are little more than a brief for -British art and science—a brief fraught with the rankest injustice toward -the achievements of other nations, and especially toward those of America. - -The distinguishing feature of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ is its -petty national prejudice. This prejudice appears constantly and in many -disguises through the Encyclopædia’s pages. It manifests itself in the -most wanton carelessness in dealing with historical facts; in glaring -inadequacies when discussing the accomplishments of nations other than -England; in a host of inexcusable omissions of great men who do not -happen to be blessed with English nationality; in venom and denunciation -of viewpoints which do not happen to coincide with “English ways of -thinking”; and especially in neglect of American endeavor. Furthermore, -the _Britannica_ shows unmistakable signs of haste or carelessness -in preparation. Information is not always brought up to date. Common -proper names are inexcusably misspelled. Old errors remain uncorrected. -Inaccuracies abound. Important subjects are ignored. And only in the -field of English activity does there seem to be even an attempt at -completeness. - -The _Encyclopædia Britannica_, if accepted unquestioningly throughout -this country as an authoritative source of knowledge, would retard our -intellectual development fully twenty years; for so one-sided is its -information, so distorted are its opinions, so far removed is it from -being an international and impartial reference work, that not only does -it give inadequate advice on vital topics, but it positively creates -false impressions. Second- and third-rate Englishmen are given space and -praise much greater than that accorded truly great men of other nations; -and the eulogistic attention paid English endeavor in general is out -of all proportion to its deserts. In the following chapters I shall -show specifically how British culture is glorified and exaggerated, and -with what injustice the culture of other countries is treated. And I -shall also show the utter failure of this Encyclopædia to fulfill its -claim of being a “universal” and “objective” reference library. To the -contrary, it will be seen that the _Britannica_ is a narrow, parochial, -opinionated work of dubious scholarship and striking unreliability. - -With the somewhat obscure history of the birth of the Eleventh Edition of -the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, or with the part played in that history -by Cambridge University and the London _Times_, I am not concerned. -Nor shall I review the unethical record of the two issues of the -Encyclopædia. To those interested in this side of the question I suggest -that they read the following contributions in Reedy’s _Mirror_: _The -Same Old Slippery Trick_ (March 24, 1916). _The Encyclopædia Britannica -Swindle_ (April 7, 1916). _The Encyclopædia Britannica Fake_ (April 14, -1916); and also the article in the March 18 (1916) _Bellman_, _Once More -the Same Old Game_. - -Such matters might be within the range of forgiveness if the contents -of the _Britannica_ were what were claimed for them. But that which -does concern me is the palpable discrepancies between the statements -contained in the advertising, and the truth as revealed by a perusal -of the articles and biographies contained in the work itself. The -statements insisted that the _Britannica_ was a _supreme_, _unbiased_, -and _international_ reference library—an impartial and objective review -of the world; and it was on these statements, repeated constantly, -that Americans bought the work. The truth is that the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_, in its main departments of culture, is characterized by -misstatements, inexcusable omissions, rabid and patriotic prejudices, -personal animosities, blatant errors of fact, scholastic ignorance, gross -neglect of non-British culture, an astounding egotism, and an undisguised -contempt for American progress. - -Rarely has this country witnessed such indefensible methods in -advertising as those adopted by the _Britannica’s_ exploiters. The “copy” -has fairly screamed with extravagant and fabulous exaggerations. The -vocabulary of hyperbole has been practically exhausted in setting forth -the dubious merits of this reference work. The ethics and decencies of -ordinary honest commerce have been thrown to the wind. The statements -made day after day were apparently concocted irrespective of any -consideration save that of making a sale; for there is an abundance of -evidence to show that the Encyclopædia was not what was claimed for it. - -With the true facts regarding this encyclopædia it is difficult to -reconcile the encomiums of many eminent Americans who, by writing -eulogistic letters to the _Britannica’s_ editor concerning the exalted -merits of his enterprise, revealed either their unfamiliarity with the -books in question or their ignorance of what constituted an educational -reference work. These letters were duly photographed and reproduced in -the advertisements, and they now make interesting, if disconcerting, -reading for the non-British student who put his faith in them and bought -the _Britannica_. There is no need here to quote from these letters; -for a subsequent inspection of the work thus recommended must have -sufficiently mortified those of the enthusiastic correspondents who were -educated and had consciences; and the others would be unmoved by any -revelations of mine. - -Mention, however, should be made of the remarks of the American -Ambassador to Great Britain at the banquet given in London to celebrate -the Encyclopædia’s birth. This gentleman, in an amazing burst of -unrestrained laudation, said he believed that “it is the general judgment -of the scholars and the investigators of the world that the one book -to which they can go for the most complete, comprehensive, thorough, -and absolutely precise statements of fact upon every subject of human -interest is the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.” This is certainly an -astonishing bit of eulogy. Its dogmatic positiveness and its assumption -of infallibility caused one critic (who is also a great scholar) to -write: “With all due respect for our illustrious fellow-countryman, -the utterance is a most superlative absurdity, unless it was intended -to be an exercise of that playful and elusive American humor which the -apperceptions of our English cousins so often fail to seize, much less -appreciate.” But there were other remarks of similar looseness at the -banquet, and the dinner evidently was a greater success than the books -under discussion. - -Even the English critics themselves could not accept the _Britannica_ -as a source for “the most comprehensive, thorough and absolutely -precise statements on every subject of human interest.” Many legitimate -objections began appearing. There is space here to quote only a few. The -London _Nation_ complains that “the particularly interesting history -of the French Socialist movement is hardly even sketched.” And again -it says: “The naval question is handled on the basis of the assumption -which prevailed during our recent scare; the challenge of our Dreadnought -building is hardly mentioned; the menace of M. Delcassé’s policy of -encirclement is ignored, and both in the article on Germany and in -the articles on Europe, Mr. McKenna’s panic figures and charges of -accelerated building are treated as the last word of historical fact.” -The same publication, criticising the article on Europe, says: “There -is nothing but a dry and summarized general history, ending with a -paragraph or two on the Anglo-German struggle with the moral that ‘Might -is Right.’ It is history of Europe which denies the idea of Europe.” - -Again, we find evidence of a more direct character, which competently -refutes the amazing announcement of our voluble Ambassador to Great -Britain. In a letter to the London _Times_, an indignant representative -of Thomas Carlyle’s family objects to the inaccurate and biased manner -in which Carlyle is treated in the Encyclopædia. “The article,” he says, -“was evidently written many years ago, before the comparatively recent -publication of new and authentic material, and nothing has been done to -bring it up to date.... As far as I know, none of the original errors -have been corrected, and many others of a worse nature have been added. -The list of authorities on Carlyle’s life affords evidence of ignorance -or partisanship.” - -“Evidently,” comments a shrewd critic who is not impressed either by the -Ambassador’s panegyric or the photographed letters, “the great man’s -family, and the public in general, have a reasonable cause of offense, -and they may also conclude that if the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ can -blunder when handling such an approachable and easy British subject as -Carlyle, it can be reasonably expected to do worse on other matters -which are not only absolutely foreign, but intensely distasteful to the -uninformed and prejudiced scribes to whom they seem to be so frequently, -if not systematically, assigned.” - -The expectation embodied in the above comment is more fully realized -perhaps than the writer of those words imagined; and the purpose of -this book is to reveal the blundering and misleading information which -would appear to be the distinguishing quality of the _Britannica’s_ -articles on culture. Moreover, as I have said, and as I shall show -later, few subjects are as “intensely distasteful” to the “uninformed -and prejudiced” British critics as is American achievement. One finds -it difficult to understand how any body of foreigners would dare offer -America the brazen insult which is implied in the prodigal distribution -of these books throughout the country; for in their unconquerable -arrogance, their unveiled contempt for this nation—the outgrowth of -generations of assumed superiority—they surpass even the London critical -articles dealing with our contemporary literary efforts. - -Several of our more courageous and pro-American scholars have called -attention to the inadequacies and insularities in the _Britannica_, but -their voices have not been sufficiently far-reaching to counteract -either the mass or the unsavory character of the advertising by which -this unworthy and anti-American encyclopædia was foisted upon the United -States. Conspicuous among those publications which protested was the -_Twentieth Century Magazine_. That periodical, to refer to but one of -its several criticisms, pointed out that the article on _Democracy_ is -“confined to the alleged democracies of Greece and their distinguished, -if some time dead, advocates. Walt Whitman, Mazzini, Abraham Lincoln, -Edward Carpenter, Lyof Tolstoi, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, -Finland, Iceland, Oregon are unknown quantities to this anonymous -classicist.” - -It is also noted that the author of the articles on _Sociology_ “is -not very familiar with the American sociologists, still less with the -German, and not at all with the French.” The article is “a curious -evidence of editorial insulation,” and the one on _Economics_ “betrays -freshened British capitalistic insularity.” In this latter article, -which was substituted for Professor Ingram’s masterly and superb history -of political economy in the _Britannica’s_ Ninth Edition, “instead of -a catholic, scientific survey of economic thought, we have a ‘fair -trade’ pamphlet, which actually includes reference to Mr. Chamberlain,” -although the names of Henry George, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, John A. -Hobson, and William Smart are omitted. - -The Eleventh Edition, concludes the _Twentieth Century_, after recording -many other specimens of ignorance and inefficiency, “is not only insular; -it betrays its class-conscious limitation in being woefully defective in -that prophetic instinct which guided Robertson Smith in his choice of -contributors to the Ninth Edition, and the contributors themselves in -their treatment of rapidly changing subjects.” Robertson Smith, let it be -noted, stood for fairness, progressiveness, and modernity; whereas the -_Britannica’s_ present editor is inflexibly reactionary, provincial, and -unjust to an almost incredible degree. - -The foregoing quotations are not isolated objections: there were others -of similar nature. And these few specimens are put down here merely -to show that there appeared sufficient evidence, both in England and -America, to establish the purely imaginary nature of the _Britannica’s_ -claims of completeness and inerrancy, and to reveal the absurdity of -the American Ambassador’s amazing pronouncement. Had the sale of the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ been confined to that nation whose culture it -so persistently and dogmatically glorifies at the expense of the culture -of other nations, its parochial egotism would not be America’s concern. -But since this reference work has become an American institution and -has forced its provincial mediocrity into over 100,000 American homes, -schools and offices, the astonishing truth concerning its insulting -ineptitude has become of vital importance to this country. Its menace to -American educational progress can no longer be ignored. - -England’s cultural campaign in the United States during past decades -has been sufficiently insidious and pernicious to work havoc with our -creative effort, and to retard us in the growth of that self-confidence -and self-appreciation which alone make the highest achievement possible. -But never before has there been so concentrated and virulently inimical a -medium for British influence as the present edition of the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_. These books, taken in conjunction with the methods by which -they have been foisted upon us, constitute one of the most subtle and -malign dangers to our national enlightenment and development which it has -yet been our misfortune to possess; for they bid fair to remain, in large -measure, the source of America’s information for many years to come. - -The regrettable part of England’s intellectual intrigues in the United -States is the subservient and docile acquiescence of Americans -themselves. Either they are impervious to England’s sneers and deaf to -her insults, or else their snobbery is stronger than their self-respect. -I have learned from Britishers themselves, during an extended residence -in London, that not a little of their contempt for Americans is due to -our inordinate capacity for taking insults. Year after year English -animus grows; and to-day it is the uncommon thing to find an English -publication which, in discussing the United States and its culture, does -not contain some affront to our intelligence. - -It is quite true, as the English insist, that we are painfully ignorant -of Europe; but it must not be forgotten that the chief source of that -ignorance is England herself. And the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, if -accepted as authoritative, will go far toward emphasizing and extending -that ignorance. Furthermore, it will lessen even the meagre esteem in -which we now hold our own accomplishments and potentialities; for, -as the following pages will show, the _Britannica_ has persistently -discriminated against all American endeavor, not only in the brevity -of the articles and biographies relating to this country and in the -omissions of many of our leading artists and scientists, but in the -bibliographies as well. And it must be remembered that broad and -unprejudiced bibliographies are essential to any worthy encyclopædia: -they are the key to the entire tone of the work. The conspicuous -absence of many high American authorities, and the inclusion of -numerous reactionary and often dubious English authorities, sum up the -_Britannica’s_ attitude. - -However, as I have said, America, if the principal, is not the only -country discriminated against. France has fallen a victim to the -Encyclopædia’s suburban patriotism, and scant justice is done her -true greatness. Russia, perhaps even more than France, is culturally -neglected; and modern Italy’s æsthetic achievements are given slight -consideration. Germany’s science and her older culture fare much better -at the hands of the _Britannica’s_ editors than do the efforts of several -other nations; but Germany, too, suffers from neglect in the field of -modern endeavor. - -Even Ireland does not escape English prejudice. In fact, it can be only -on grounds of national, political, and personal animosity that one can -account for the grossly biased manner in which Ireland, her history -and her culture, is dealt with. To take but one example, regard the -_Britannica’s_ treatment of what has come to be known as the Irish -Literary Revival. Among those conspicuous, and in one or two instances -world-renowned, figures who do not receive biographies are J. M. Synge, -Lady Gregory, Lionel Johnson, Douglas Hyde, and William Larminie. -(Although Lionel Johnson’s name appears in the article on _English_ -literature, it does not appear in the Index—a careless omission which, in -victimizing an Irishman and not an Englishman, is perfectly in keeping -with the deliberate omissions of the _Britannica_.) - -Furthermore, there are many famous Irish writers whose names are not -so much as mentioned in the entire Encyclopædia—for instance, Standish -O’Grady, James H. Cousins, John Todhunter, Katherine Tynan, T. W. -Rolleston, Nora Hopper, Jane Barlow, Emily Lawless, “A. E.” (George W. -Russell), John Eglinton, Charles Kickam, Dora Sigerson Shorter, Shan -Bullock, and Seumas MacManus. Modern Irish literature is treated with a -brevity and an injustice which are nothing short of contemptible; and -what little there is concerning the new Irish renaissance is scattered -here and there in the articles on _English_ literature! Elsewhere I -have indicated other signs of petty anti-Irish bias, especially in the -niggardly and stupid treatment accorded George Moore. - -Although such flagrant inadequacies in the case of European art would -form a sufficient basis for protest, the really serious grounds for our -indignation are those which have to do with the _Britannica’s_ neglect -of America. That is why I have laid such emphasis on this phase of the -Encyclopædia. It is absolutely necessary that this country throw off the -yoke of England’s intellectual despotism before it can have a free field -for an individual and national cultural evolution. America has already -accomplished much. She has contributed many great figures to the world’s -progress. And she is teeming with tremendous and splendid possibilities. -To-day she stands in need of no other nation’s paternal guidance. In -view of her great powers, of her fine intellectual strength, of her -wide imagination, of her already brilliant past, and of her boundless -and exalted future, such a work as the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ should -be resented by every American to whom the welfare of his country is of -foremost concern, and in whom there exists one atom of national pride. - - - - -II - -THE NOVEL - - -Let us inspect first the manner in which the world’s great modern -novelists and story-tellers are treated in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. -No better department could be selected for the purpose; for literature is -the most universal and popular art. The world’s great figures in fiction -are far more widely known than those in painting or music; and since it -is largely through literature that a nation absorbs its cultural ideas, -especial interest attaches to the way that writers are interpreted and -criticised in an encyclopædia. - -It is disappointing, therefore, to discover the distorted and unjust -viewpoint of the _Britannica_. An aggressive insular spirit is shown in -both the general literary articles and in the biographies. The importance -of English writers is constantly exaggerated at the expense of foreign -authors. The number of biographies of British writers included in the -Encyclopædia far overweighs the biographical material accorded the -writers of other nations. And superlatives of the most sweeping kind are -commonly used in describing the genius of these British authors, whereas -in the majority of cases outside of England, criticism, when offered at -all, is cool and circumscribed and not seldom adverse. There are few -British writers of any note whatever who are not taken into account; -but many authors of very considerable importance belonging to France, -Germany, Italy, Russia, and the United States are omitted entirely. - -In the Encyclopædia’s department of literature, as in other departments -of the arts, the pious middle-class culture of England is carefully and -consistently forced to the front. English provincialism and patriotism -not only dominate the criticism of this department, but dictate the -amount of space which is allotted the different nations. The result -is that one seeking in this encyclopædia adequate and unprejudiced -information concerning literature will fail completely in his quest. -No mention whatever is made of many of the world’s great novelists -(provided, of course, they do not happen to be British); and the -information given concerning the foreign authors who are included is, on -the whole, meagre and biased. If, as is natural, one should judge the -relative importance of the world’s novelists by the space devoted to -them, one could not escape the impression that the literary genius of -the world resides almost exclusively in British writers. - -This prejudiced and disproportionate treatment of literature would not -be so regrettable if the _Britannica’s_ criticisms were cosmopolitan in -character, or if its standard of judgment was a purely literary one. -But the criteria of the Encyclopædia’s editors are, in the main, moral -and puritanical. Authors are judged not so much by their literary and -artistic merits as by their _bourgeois_ virtue, their respectability -and inoffensiveness. Consequently it is not even the truly great -writers of Great Britain who are recommended the most highly, but those -middle-class literary idols who teach moral lessons and whose purpose it -is to uplift mankind. The Presbyterian complex, so evident throughout -the Encyclopædia’s critiques, finds in literature a fertile field for -operation. - -Because of the limitations of space, I shall confine myself in this -chapter to modern literature. I have, however, inspected the manner in -which the older literature is set forth in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; -and there, as elsewhere, is discernible the same provincialism, the same -theological point of view, the same flamboyant exaggeration of English -writers, the same neglect of foreign genius. As a reference book the -_Britannica_ is chauvinistic, distorted, inadequate, disproportioned, -and woefully behind the times. Despite the fact that the Eleventh Edition -is supposed to have been brought up to date, few recent writers are -included, and those few are largely second-rate writers of Great Britain. - -Let us first regard the gross discrepancies in space between the -biographies of English authors and those of the authors of other -nations. To begin with, the number of biographies of English writers -is nearly as many as is given all the writers of France and Germany -combined. Sir Walter Scott is given no less than thirteen columns, -whereas Balzac has only seven columns, Victor Hugo only a little over -four columns, and Turgueniev only a little over one column. Samuel -Richardson is given nearly four columns, whereas Flaubert has only two -columns, Dostoievsky less than two columns, and Daudet only a column -and a third! Mrs. Oliphant is given over a column, more space than is -allotted to Anatole France, Coppée, or the Goncourts. George Meredith is -given six columns, more space than is accorded Flaubert, de Maupassant -and Zola put together! Bulwer-Lytton has two columns, more space than -is given Dostoievsky. Dickens is given two and a half times as much -space as Victor Hugo; and George Eliot, Trollope, and Stevenson each has -considerably more space than de Maupassant, and nearly twice as much -space as Flaubert. Anthony Hope has almost an equal amount of space with -Turgueniev, nearly twice as much as Gorky, and more than William Dean -Howells. Kipling, Barrie, Mrs. Gaskell, Mrs. Humphry Ward, and Felicia -Hemans are each accorded more space than either Zola or Mark Twain.... -Many more similar examples of injustice could be given, but enough -have been set down to indicate the manner in which British authors are -accorded an importance far beyond their deserts. - -Of Jane Austen, to whom is given more space than to either Daudet or -Turgueniev, we read that “it is generally agreed by the best critics -that Miss Austen has never been approached in her own domain.” What, one -wonders, of Balzac’s stories of provincial life? Did he, after all, not -even approach Miss Austen? Mrs. Gaskell’s _Cranford_ “is unanimously -accepted as a classic”; and she is given an equal amount of space with -Dostoievsky and Flaubert! - -George Eliot’s biography draws three and a half columns, twice as much -space as Stendhal’s, and half again as much as de Maupassant’s. In it -we encounter the following astonishing specimen of criticism: No right -estimate of her as an artist or a philosopher “can be formed without a -steady recollection of her infinite capacity for mental suffering, and -her need of human support.” Just what these conditions have to do with an -æsthetic or philosophic judgment of her is not made clear; but the critic -finally brings himself to add that “one has only to compare _Romola_ or -_Daniel Deronda_ with the compositions of any author except herself to -realize the greatness of her designs and the astonishing gifts brought to -their final accomplishment.” - -The evangelical _motif_ enters more strongly in the biography of George -Macdonald, who draws about equal space with Gorky, Huysmans, and Barrès. -Here we learn that Macdonald’s “moral enthusiasm exercised great -influence upon thoughtful minds.” Ainsworth, the author of those shoddy -historical melodramas, _Jack Sheppard_ and _Guy Fawkes_, is also given a -biography equal in length to that of Gorky, Huysmans, and Barrès; and we -are told that he wrote tales which, despite all their shortcomings, were -“invariably instructive, clean and manly.” Mrs. Ewing, too, profited by -her pious proclivities, for her biography takes up almost as much space -as that of the “moral” Macdonald and the “manly” Ainsworth. Her stories -are “sound and wholesome in matter,” and besides, her best tales “have -never been surpassed in the style of literature to which they belong.” - -Respectability and moral refinement were qualities also possessed by G. -P. R. James, whose biography is equal in length to that of William Dean -Howells. In it there is quite a long comparison of James with Dumas, -though it is frankly admitted that as an artist James was inferior. His -plots were poor, his descriptions were weak, and his dialogue was bad. -Therefore “his very best books fall far below _Les Trois Mousquetaires_.” -But, it is added, “James never resorted to illegitimate methods to -attract readers, and deserves such credit as may be due to a purveyor of -amusement who never caters to the less creditable tastes of his guests.” -In other words, say what you will about James’s technique, he was, at any -rate, an upright and impeccable gentleman! - -Even Mrs. Sarah Norton’s lofty moral nature is rewarded with biographical -space greater than that of Huysmans or Gorky. Mrs. Norton, we learn, “was -not a mere writer of elegant trifles, but was one of the priestesses -of the ‘reforming’ spirit.” One of her books was “a most eloquent and -rousing condemnation of child labor”; and her poems were “written with -charming tenderness and grace.” Great, indeed, are the rewards of -virtue, if not in life, at least in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. - -On the other hand, several English authors are condemned for their -lack of nicety and respectability. Trollope, for instance, lacked that -elegance and delicacy of sentiment so dear to the Encyclopædia editor’s -heart. “He is,” we read, “sometimes absolutely vulgar—that is to say, he -does not deal with low life, but shows, though always robust and pure in -morality, a certain coarseness of taste.” - -Turning from the vulgar but pure Trollope to Charles Reade, we find more -of this same kind of criticism: “His view of human life, especially of -the life of women, is almost brutal ... and he cannot, with all his skill -as a story-teller, be numbered among the great artists who warm the heart -and help to improve the conduct.” (Here we have the _Britannica’s_ true -attitude toward literature. That art, in order to be great, must warm -the heart, improve the conduct, and show one the way to righteousness.) -Nor is Ouida to be numbered among the great uplifters. In her derogatory -half-column biography we are informed that “on grounds of morality -of taste Ouida’s novels may be condemned” as they are “frequently -unwholesome.” - -Two typical examples of the manner in which truly great English writers, -representative of the best English culture, are neglected in favor of -those writers who epitomize England’s provincial piety, are to be found -in the biographies of George Moore and Joseph Conrad, neither of whom -is concerned with improving the readers’ conduct or even with warming -their hearts. These two novelists, the greatest modern authors which -England has produced, are dismissed peremptorily. Conrad’s biography -draws but eighteen lines, about one-third of the space given to Marie -Corelli; and the only praise accorded him is for his vigorous style and -brilliant descriptions. In this superficial criticism we have an example -of ineptitude, if not of downright stupidity, rarely equaled even by -newspaper reviewers. Not half of Conrad’s books are mentioned, the last -one to be recorded being dated 1906, nearly eleven years ago! Yet this is -the Encyclopædia which is supposed to have been brought up to date and to -be adequate for purposes of reference! - -In the case of George Moore there is less excuse for such gross injustice -(save that he is Irish), for Moore has long been recognized as one of -the great moderns. Yet his biography draws less space than that of Jane -Porter, Gilbert Parker, Maurice Hewlett, Rider Haggard, or H. G. Wells; -half of the space given to Anthony Hope; and only a fourth of the space -given to Mrs. Gaskell and to Mrs. Humphry Ward! _A Mummer’s Wife_, we -learn, has “decidedly repulsive elements”; and the entire criticism -of _Esther Waters_, admittedly one of the greatest of modern English -novels, is that it is “a strong story with an anti-gambling motive.” It -would seem almost incredible that even the tin-pot evangelism of the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ would be stretched to such a length,—but there -you have the criticism of _Esther Waters_ set down word for word. The -impelling art of this novel means nothing to the Encyclopedia’s critic; -he cannot see the book’s significance; nor does he recognize its admitted -importance to modern literature. To him it is an anti-gambling tract! And -because, perhaps, he can find no uplift theme in _A Mummer’s Wife_, that -book is repulsive to him. Such is the culture America is being fed on—at -a price. - -Thomas Hardy, another one of England’s important moderns, is condemned -for his attitude toward women: his is a “man’s point of view” and “more -French than English.” (We wonder if this accounts for the fact that the -sentimental James M. Barrie is accorded more space and greater praise.) -Samuel Butler is another intellectual English writer who has apparently -been sacrificed on the altar of Presbyterian respectability. He is -given less than a column, a little more than half the space given the -patriotic, tub-thumping Kipling, and less than half the space given -Felicia Hemans. Nor is there any criticism of his work. _The Way of all -Flesh_ is merely mentioned in the list of his books. Gissing, another -highly enlightened English writer, is accorded less space than Jane -Porter, only about half the space given Anthony Hope, and less space than -is drawn by Marie Corelli! There is almost no criticism of his work—a -mere record of facts. - -Mrs. M. E. Braddon, however, author of _The Trail of the Serpent_ and -_Lady Audley’s Secret_, is criticised in flattering terms. The biography -speaks of her “large and appreciative public,” and apology is made for -her by the statement that her works give “the great body of readers of -fiction exactly what they require.” But why an apology is necessary one -is unable to say since _Aurora Floyd_ is “a novel with a strong affinity -to _Madame Bovary_.” Mrs. Braddon and Flaubert! Truly a staggering -alliance! - -Mrs. Henry Wood, the author of _East Lynne_, is given more space than -Conrad; and her _Johnny Ludlow_ tales are “the most artistic” of her -works. But the “artistic” Mrs. Wood has no preference over Julia -Kavanagh. This latter lady, we discover, draws equal space with Marcel -Prévost; and she “handles her French themes with fidelity and skill.” -Judging from this praise and the fact that Prévost gets no praise but is -accused of having written an “exaggerated” and “revolting” book, we can -only conclude that the English authoress handles her French themes better -than does Prévost. - -George Meredith is accorded almost as much biographical space as Balzac; -and in the article there appears such qualifying words as “seer,” -“greatness,” and “master.” The impression given is that he was greater -than Balzac. In Jane Porter’s biography, which is longer than that of -Huysmans, we read of her “picturesque power of narration.” Even of -Samuel Warren, to whom three-fourths of a column is allotted (more space -than is given to Bret Harte, Lafcadio Hearn, or Gorky), it is said that -the interest in _Ten Thousand a Year_ “is made to run with a powerful -current.” - -Power also is discovered in the works of Lucas Malet. _The Wages of Sin_ -was “a powerful story” which “attracted great attention”; and her next -book “had an even greater success.” Joseph Henry Shorthouse, who is given -more space than Frank Norris and Stephen Crane combined, possessed “high -earnestness of purpose, a luxuriant style and a genuinely spiritual -quality.” Though lacking dramatic facility and a workmanlike conduct of -narrative, “he had almost every other quality of the born novelist.” -After this remark it is obviously necessary to revise our æsthetic -judgment in regard to the religious author of _John Inglesant_. - -Grant Allen, alas! lacked the benevolent qualities of the “spiritual” -Mr. Shorthouse, and—as a result, no doubt—he is given less space, and -his work and vogue are spoken of disparagingly. One of his books was -a _succès de scandale_ “on account of its treatment of the sexual -problem.” Mr. Allen apparently neither “warmed the heart” nor “improved -the conduct” of his audience. On the other hand, Mrs. Oliphant, in a -long biography, is praised for her “sympathetic touch”; and we learn -furthermore that she was long and “honorably” connected with the firm -of Blackwood. Maurice Hewlett has nearly a half-column biography full -of praise. Conan Doyle, also, is spoken of highly. Kipling’s biography, -longer than Mark Twain’s, Bourget’s, Daudet’s, or Gogol’s, also contains -praise. In H. G. Wells’s biography, which is longer than that of George -Moore, “his very high place” as a novelist is spoken of; and Anthony -Hope draws abundant praise in a biography almost as long as that of -Turgueniev! - -In the treatment of Mrs. Humphry Ward, however, we have the key to the -literary attitude of the Encyclopædia. Here is an author who epitomizes -that middle-class respectability which forms the _Britannica’s_ editors’ -standard of artistic judgment, and who represents that virtuous suburban -culture which colors the Encyclopædia’s art departments. It is not -surprising therefore that, of all recent novelists, she should be given -the place of honor. Her biography extends to a column and two-thirds, -much longer than the biography of Turgueniev, Zola, Daudet, Mark Twain, -or Henry James; and over twice the length of William Dean Howells’s -biography. Even more space is devoted to her than is given to the -biography of Poe! - -Nor in this disproportionate amount of space alone is Mrs. Ward’s -superiority indicated. The article contains the most fulsome praise, and -we are told that her “eminence among latter-day women novelists arises -from her high conception of the art of fiction and her strong grasp on -intellectual and social problems, her descriptive power ... and her -command of a broad and vigorous prose style.” (The same enthusiastic -gentleman who wrote Mrs. Ward’s biography also wrote the biography of -Oscar Wilde. The latter is given much less space, and the article on -him is a petty, contemptible attack written from the standpoint of a -self-conscious puritan.) - -Thackeray is given equal space with Balzac, and in the course of his -biography it is said that some have wanted to compare him with Dickens -but that such a comparison would be unprofitable. “It is better to -recognize simply that the two novelists stood, each in his own way, -distinctly above even their most distinguished contemporaries.” (Both -Balzac and Victor Hugo were their contemporaries, and to say that -Thackeray stood “distinctly above” them is to butcher French genius to -make an English holiday.) - -In Dickens’s biography, which is nearly half again as long as that of -Balzac and nearly two and a half times as long as that of Hugo, we -encounter such words and phrases as “masterpieces” and “wonderful books.” -No books of his surpassed the early chapters of _Great Expectations_ -in “perfection of technique or in the mastery of all the resources of -the novelist’s art.” Here, as in many other places, patriotic license -has obviously been permitted to run wild. Where, outside of provincial -England, will you find another critic, no matter how appreciative of -Dickens’s talent, who will agree that he possessed “perfection of -technique” and a “mastery of all the resources of the novelist’s art”? -But, as if this perfervid rhetoric were not sufficiently extreme, -Swinburne is quoted as saying that to have created Abel Magwitch alone is -to be a god indeed among the creators of deathless men. (This means that -Dickens was a god beside the mere mundane creator of Lucien de Rubempré, -Goriot, and Eugénie Grandet.) And, again, on top of this unreasoned -enthusiasm, it is added that in “intensity and range of creative genius -he can hardly be said to have any modern rival.” - -Let us turn to Balzac who was not, according to this encyclopædia, even -Dickens’s rival in intensity and range of creative genius. Here we find -derogatory criticism which indeed bears out the contention of Dickens’s -biographer that the author of _David Copperfield_ was superior to the -author of _Lost Illusions_. Balzac, we read, “is never quite real.” His -style “lacks force and adequacy to his own purpose.” And then we are -given this final bit of insular criticism: “It is idle to claim for -Balzac an absolute supremacy in the novel, while it may be questioned -whether any single book of his, or any scene of a book, or even any -single character or situation, is among the very greatest books, scenes, -characters, situations in literature.” Alas, poor Balzac!—the inferior -of both Dickens and Thackeray—the writer who, if the judgment of the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ is to be accepted, created no book, scene, -character or situation which is among the greatest! Thus are the world’s -true geniuses disparaged for the benefit of moral English culture. - -De Vigny receives adverse criticism. He is compared unfavorably to Sir -Walter Scott, and is attacked for his “pessimistic” philosophy. De Musset -“had genius, though not genius of that strongest kind which its possessor -can always keep in check”—after the elegant and repressed manner of -English writers, no doubt. De Musset’s own character worked “against his -success as a writer,” and his break with George Sand “brought out the -weakest side of his moral character.” (Again the church-bell _motif_.) -Gautier, that sensuous and un-English Frenchman, wrote a book called -_Mademoiselle de Maupin_ which was “unfitted by its subject, and in parts -by its treatment, for general perusal.” - -Dumas _père_ is praised, largely we infer, because his work was -sanctioned by Englishmen: “The three musketeers are as famous in England -as in France. Thackeray could read about Athos from sunrise to sunset -with the utmost contentment of mind, and Robert Louis Stevenson and -Andrew Lang have paid tribute to the band.” Pierre Loti, however, in a -short biography, hardly meets with British approval. “Many of his best -books are long sobs of remorseful memory, so personal, so intimate, that -an English reader is amazed to find such depth of feeling compatible -with the power of minutely and publicly recording what is felt.” Loti, -like de Musset, lacked that prudish restraint which is so admirable -a virtue in English writers. Daudet, in a short and very inadequate -biography, is written down as an imitator of Dickens; and in Anatole -France’s biography, which is shorter than Marryat’s or Mrs. Oliphant’s, -no adequate indication of his genius is given. - -Zola is treated with greater unfairness than perhaps any other French -author. Zola has always been disliked in England, and his English -publisher was jailed by the guardians of British morals. But it is -somewhat astonishing to find to what lengths this insular prejudice has -gone in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. Zola’s biography, which is shorter -than Mrs. Humphry Ward’s, is written by a former Accountant General -of the English army, and contains adverse comment because he did not -idealize “the nobler elements in human nature,” although, it is said, -“his later books show improvement.” Such scant treatment of Zola reveals -the unfairness of extreme prejudice, for no matter what the nationality, -religion, or taste of the critic, he must, in all fairness, admit that -Zola is a more important and influential figure in modern letters than -Mrs. Humphry Ward. - -In the biography of George Sand we learn that “as a thinker, George -Eliot is vastly [_sic_] superior; her knowledge is more profound, and -her psychological analysis subtler and more scientific.” Almost nothing -is said of Constant’s writings; and in the mere half-column sketch -of Huysmans there are only a few biographical facts with a list of -his books. Of Stendhal there is practically no criticism; and Coppée -“exhibits all the defects of his qualities.” René Bazin draws only -seventeen lines—a bare record of facts; and Édouard Rod is given a third -of a column with no criticism. - -Despite the praise given Victor Hugo, his biography, from a critical -standpoint, is practically worthless. In it there is no sense of critical -proportion: it is a mere panegyric which definitely states that Hugo -was greater than Balzac. This astonishing and incompetent praise is -accounted for when we discover that it was written by Swinburne who, as -is generally admitted, was a better poet than critic. In fact, turning -to Swinburne’s biography, we find the following valuation of Swinburne -as critic: “The very qualities which gave his poetry its unique charm -and character were antipathetic to his success as a critic. He had very -little capacity for cool and reasoned judgment, and his criticism is -often a tangled thicket of prejudices and predilections.... Not one of -his studies is satisfactory as a whole; the faculty for the sustained -exercise of the judgment was denied him, and even his best appreciations -are disfigured by error in taste and proportion.” - -Here we have the Encyclopædia’s own condemnation of some of its -material—a personal and frank confession of its own gross inadequacy -and bias! And Swinburne, let it be noted, contributes no less than ten -articles on some of the most important literary men in history! If the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ was as naïf and honest about revealing the -incapacity of all of its critics as it is in the case of Swinburne, -there would be no need for me to call attention to those other tangled -thickets of prejudices and predilections which have enmeshed so many of -the gentlemen who write for it. - -But the inadequacy of the _Britannica_ as a reference book on modern -French letters can best be judged by the fact that there appears no -biographical mention whatever of Romain Rolland, Pierre de Coulevain, -Tinayre, René Boylesve, Jean and Jérôme Tharaud, Henry Bordeaux, or -Pierre Mille. Rolland is the most gifted and conspicuous figure of the -new school of writers in France to-day, and the chief representative of -a new phase of French literature. Pierre de Coulevain stands at the head -of the women novelists in modern France; and her books are widely known -in both England and America. Madame Tinayre’s art, to quote an eminent -English critic, “reflects the dawn of the new French spirit.” Boylesve -stands for the classic revival in French letters, and ranks in the -forefront of contemporary European writers. The Tharauds became famous as -novelists as far back as 1902, and hold a high place among the writers of -Young France. Bordeaux’s novels have long been familiar in translation -even to American readers; and Pierre Mille holds very much the same place -in France that Kipling does in England. Yet not only does not one of -these noteworthy authors have a biography, but their names do not appear -throughout the entire Encyclopædia! - -In the article on _French Literature_ the literary renaissance of Young -France is not mentioned. There apparently has been no effort at making -the account modern or up-to-date in either its critical or historical -side; and if you desire information on the recent activities in French -letters—activities of vital importance and including several of the -greatest names in contemporary literature—you need not seek it in the -_Britannica_, that “supreme” book of knowledge; for apparently only -modern English achievement is judged worthy of consideration. - -Modern Russian literature suffers even more from neglect. Dostoievsky has -less than two columns, less space than Charles Reade, George Borrow, Mrs. -Gaskell, or Charles Kingsley. Gogol has a column and a quarter, far less -space than that given Felicia Hemans, James M. Barrie, of Mrs. Humphry -Ward. Gorky is allotted little over half a column, one-third of the space -given Kipling, and equal space with Ouida and Gilbert Parker. Tolstoi, -however, seems to have inflamed the British imagination. His sentimental -philosophy, his socialistic godliness, his capacity to “warm the heart” -and “improve the conduct” has resulted in a biography which runs to -nearly sixteen columns! - -The most inept and inadequate biography in the whole Russian literature -department, however, is that of Turgueniev. Turgueniev, almost -universally conceded to be the greatest, and certainly the most artistic, -of the Russian writers, is accorded little over a column, less space than -is devoted to the biography of Thomas Love Peacock, Kipling, or Thomas -Hardy; and only a half or a third of the space given to a dozen other -inferior English writers. And in this brief biography we encounter the -following valuation: “Undoubtedly Turgueniev may be considered one of the -great novelists, worthy to be ranked with Thackeray, Dickens and George -Eliot; with the genius of the last of these he has many affinities.” It -will amuse, rather than amaze, the students of Slavonic literature to -learn that Turgueniev was the George Eliot of Russia. - -But those thousands of people who have bought the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_, believing it to be an adequate literary reference work, -should perhaps be thankful that Turgueniev is mentioned at all, for -many other important modern Russians are without biographies. For -instance, there is no biographical mention of Andreiev, Garshin, Kuprin, -Tchernyshevsky, Grigorovich, Artzybasheff, Korolenko, Veressayeff, -Nekrasoff, or Tchekhoff. And yet the work of nearly all these Russian -writers had actually appeared in English translation before the Eleventh -Edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ went to press! - -Italian fiction also suffers from neglect at the hands of the -_Britannica’s_ critics. Giulio Barrili receives only thirteen lines; -Farina, only nine lines; and Giovanni Verga, only twelve. Fogazzaro -draws twenty-six lines; and in the biography we learn that his “deeply -religious spirit” animates his literary productions, and that he -contributed to modern Italian literature “wholesome elements of which it -would otherwise be nearly destitute.” He also was “Wordsworthian” in his -simplicity and pathos. Amicis and Serao draw twenty-nine lines and half -a column respectively; but there are no biographies of Emilio de Marchi, -the prominent historical novelist; Enrico Butti, one of the foremost -representatives of the psychological novel in modern Italy; and Grazia -Deledda. - -The neglect of modern German writers in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ -is more glaring than that of any other European nation, not excluding -Russia. So little information can one get from this encyclopædia -concerning the really important German authors that it would hardly repay -one to go to the _Britannica_. Eckstein—five of whose novels were issued -in English before 1890—is denied a biography. So is Meinhold; so is Luise -Mühlbach; so is Wachenroder;—all well known in England long before the -_Britannica_ went to press. Even Gabriele Reuter, whose far-reaching -success came as long ago as 1895, is without a biography. And—what -is less excusable—Max Kretzer, the first of Germany’s naturalistic -novelists, has no biographical mention in this great English encyclopædia! - -But the omission of even these important names do not represent the -_Britannica’s_ greatest injustice to Germany’s literature; for one -will seek in vain for biographies of Wilhelm von Polenz and Ompteda, -two of the foremost German novelists, whose work marked a distinct -step in the development of their nation’s letters. Furthermore, Clara -Viebig, Gustav Frenssen, and Thomas Mann, who are among the truly great -figures in modern imaginative literature, are without biographies. These -writers have carried the German novel to extraordinary heights. Mann’s -_Buddenbrooks_ (1901) represents the culmination of the naturalistic -novel in Germany; and Viebig and Frenssen are of scarcely less -importance. There are few modern English novelists as deserving as these -three Germans; and yet numerous comparatively insignificant English -writers are given long critical biographies in the _Britannica_ while -Viebig, Frenssen and Mann receive no biographies whatever! Such unjust -discrimination against non-British authors would hardly be compatible -with even the narrowest scholarship. - -And there are other important and eminent German novelists who are far -more deserving of space in an international encyclopædia than many of -the Englishmen who receive biographies in the _Britannica_—for instance, -Heinz Tovote, Hermann Hesse, Ricarda Huch, Helene Böhlau, and Eduard von -Keyserling—not one of whom is given biographical consideration! - -When we come to the American literary division of the _Britannica_, -however, prejudice and neglect reach their highest point. Never have -I seen a better example of the contemptuous attitude of England -toward American literature than in the Encyclopædia’s treatment -of the novelists of the United States. William Dean Howells, in a -three-quarters-of-a-column biography, gets scant praise and is criticised -with not a little condescension. F. Marion Crawford, in an even shorter -biography, receives only lukewarm and apologetic praise. Frank Norris is -accorded only twenty lines, less space than is given the English hack, G. -A. Henty! _McTeague_ is “a story of the San Francisco slums”; and _The -Octopus_ and _The Pit_ are “powerful stories.” This is the extent of -the criticism. Stephen Crane is given twelve lines; Bret Harte, half a -column with little criticism; Charles Brockden Brown and Lafcadio Hearn, -two-thirds of a column each; H. C. Bunner, twenty-one lines; and Thomas -Nelson Page less than half a column. - -What there is in Mark Twain’s biography is written by Brander Matthews -and is fair as far as it goes. The one recent American novelist who is -given adequate praise is Henry James; and this may be accounted for by -the fact of James’s adoption of England as his home. The only other -adequate biography of an American author is that of Nathaniel Hawthorne. -But the few biographies of other United States writers who are included -in the Encyclopædia are very brief and insufficient. - -In the omissions of American writers, British prejudice has overstepped -all bounds of common justice. In the following list of names _only one_ -(Churchill’s) _is even mentioned in the entire Encyclopædia_: Edith -Wharton, David Graham Phillips, Gertrude Atherton, Winston Churchill, -Owen Wister, Ambrose Bierce, Theodore Dreiser, Margaret Deland, Jack -London, Robert Grant, Ellen Glasgow, Booth Tarkington, Alice Brown and -Robert Herrick. And yet there is abundant space in the _Britannica_, -not only for critical mention, but for _detailed biographies_, of such -English writers as Hall Caine, Rider Haggard, Maurice Hewlett, Stanley -Weyman, Flora Annie Steel, Edna Lyall, Elizabeth Charles, Annie Keary, -Eliza Linton, Mrs. Henry Wood, Pett Ridge, W. C. Russell, and still -others of less consequence than many of the American authors omitted. - -If the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ was a work whose sale was confined to -England, there could be little complaint of the neglect of the writers -of other nationalities. But unjust pandering to British prejudice and -a narrow contempt for American culture scarcely become an encyclopædia -whose chief profits are derived from the United States. So inadequate is -the treatment of American fiction that almost any modern text-book on our -literature is of more value; for, as I have shown, all manner of inferior -and little-known English authors are given eulogistic biographies, while -many of the foremost American authors receive no mention whatever. - -As a reference book on modern fiction, the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ is -hopelessly inadequate and behind the times, filled with long eulogies of -_bourgeois_ English authors, lacking all sense of proportion, containing -many glaring omissions, and compiled and written in a spirit of insular -prejudice. And this is the kind of culture that America is exhorted, not -merely to accept, but to pay a large price for. - - - - -III - -THE DRAMA - - -Particular importance attaches to the manner in which the modern drama -is treated in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, for to-day there exists a -deep and intimate interest in this branch of literature—an interest which -is greater and more far-reaching than during any other period of modern -times. Especially is this true in the United States. During the past -fifteen years study in the history, art and technique of the stage has -spread into almost every quarter of the country. The printed play has -come back into favor; and there is scarcely a publisher of any note on -whose lists do not appear many works of dramatic literature. Dramatic and -stage societies have been formed everywhere, and there is an increasing -demand for productions of the better-class plays. Perhaps no other one -branch of letters holds so conspicuous a place in our culture. - -The drama itself during the last quarter of a century has taken enormous -strides. After a period of stagnant mediocrity, a new vitality has -been fused into this art. In Germany, France, England, and Russia many -significant dramatists have sprung into existence. The literature of the -stage has taken a new lease on life, and in its ranks are numbered many -of the finest creative minds of our day. Furthermore, a school of capable -and serious critics has developed to meet the demands of the new work; -and already there is a large and increasing library of books dealing with -the subject from almost every angle. - -Therefore, because of this renaissance and the widespread interest -attaching to it, we should expect to find in the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_—that “supreme book of knowledge,” that “complete library” -of information—a full and comprehensive treatment of the modern drama. -The claims made in the advertising of the _Britannica_ would lead one -immediately to assume that so important and universally absorbing a -subject would be set forth adequately. The drama has played, and will -continue to play, a large part in our modern intellectual life; and, -in an educational work of the alleged scope and completeness of this -encyclopædia, it should be accorded careful and liberal consideration. - -But in this department, as in others equally important, the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ fails inexcusably. I have carefully inspected its dramatic -information, and its inadequacy left me with a feeling which fell -little short of amazement. Not only is the modern drama given scant -consideration, but those comparatively few articles which deal with it -are so inept and desultory that no correct idea of the development of -modern dramatic literature can be obtained. As in the Encyclopædia’s -other departments of modern æsthetic culture, the work of Great Britain -is accorded an abnormally large amount of space, while the work of -other nations is—if mentioned at all—dismissed with comparatively few -words. The British drama, like the British novel, is exaggerated, both -through implication and direct statement, out of all proportion to its -inherent significance. Many of the truly great and important dramatists -of foreign countries are omitted entirely in order to make way for minor -and inconsequent Englishmen; and the few towering figures from abroad who -are given space draw only a few lines of biographical mention, whereas -second-rate British writers are accorded long and minutely specific -articles. - -Furthermore, the Encyclopædia reveals the fact that in a great many -instances it has not been brought up to date. As a result, even when -an alien dramatist has found his way into the exclusive British circle -whose activities dominate the æsthetic departments of the _Britannica_, -one does not have a complete record of his work. This failure to revise -adequately old material and to make the information as recent as the -physical exigencies of book-making would permit, results no doubt in the -fact that even the more recent and important English dramatists have -suffered the fate of omission along with their less favored confrères -from other countries. Consequently, the dramatic material is not only -biased but is inadequate from the British standpoint as well. - -As a reference book on the modern drama, either for students or the -casual reader, the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ is practically worthless. -Its information is old and prejudiced, besides being flagrantly -incomplete. I could name a dozen books on the modern drama which do not -pretend to possess the comprehensiveness and authenticity claimed by the -_Britannica_, and yet are far more adequate, both in extent and modernity -of subject-matter, and of vastly superior educational value. The limited -information which has actually found its way into this encyclopædia is -marked by incompetency, prejudice, and carelessness; and its large number -of indefensible omissions renders it almost useless as a reference work -on modern dramatic literature. - -In the general article on the _Drama_ we have a key to the entire -treatment of the subject throughout the Encyclopædia’s twenty-seven -volumes. The English drama is given forty-one columns. The French drama -is given fifteen columns; the German drama, nine; the Scandinavian drama -one; and the Russian drama, one-third of a column! The American drama -is not even given a separate division but is included under the English -drama, and occupies less than one column! The Irish drama also is without -a separate division, and receives only twelve lines of exposition! In the -division on the Scandinavian drama, Strindberg’s name is not mentioned; -and the reader is supplied with the antiquated, early-Victorian -information that Ibsen’s _Ghosts_ is “repellent.” In the brief passage -on the Russian drama almost no idea is given of its subject; in fact, no -dramatist born later than 1808 is mentioned! When we consider the wealth -of the modern Russian drama and its influence on the theater of other -nations, even of England, we can only marvel at such utter inadequacy and -neglect. - -In the sub-headings of “recent” drama under _Drama_, “Recent English -Drama” is given over twelve columns, while “Recent French Drama” is given -but a little over three. There is no sub-division for recent German -drama, but mention is made of it in a short paragraph under “English -Drama” with the heading: “Influences of Foreign Drama!” - -Regard this distribution of space for a moment. The obvious implication -is that the more modern English drama is four times as important as the -French; and yet for years the entire inspiration of the English stage -came from France, and certain English “dramatists” made their reputations -by adapting French plays. And what of the more modern German drama? It -is of importance, evidently, only as it had an influence on the English -drama. Could self-complacent insularity go further? Even in its capacity -as a mere contribution to British genius, the recent German drama, it -seems, is of little moment; and Sudermann counts for naught. In the -entire article on _Drama_ his name is not so much as mentioned! Such is -the transcendent and superlative culture of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_! - -Turning to the biographies, we find that British dramatists, when -mentioned at all, are treated with cordial liberality. T. W. Robertson -is given nearly three-fourths of a column with the comment that “his -work is notable for its masterly stage-craft, wholesome and generous -humor, bright and unstrained dialogue, and high dramatic sense of human -character in its theatrical aspects.” H. J. Byron is given over half a -column. W. S. Gilbert draws no less than a column and three-fourths. G. -R. Sims gets twenty-two lines. Sydney Grundy is accorded half a column. -James M. Barrie is given a column and a half, and George Bernard Shaw an -equal amount of space. Pinero is given two-thirds of a column; and Henry -Arthur Jones half a column. Jones, however, might have had more space -had the Encyclopædia’s editor gone to the simple trouble of extending -that playwright’s biography beyond 1904; but on this date it ends, -with the result that there appears no mention of _The Heroic Stubbs_, -_The Hypocrites_, _The Evangelist_, _Dolly Reforms Himself_, or _The -Knife_—all of which were produced before this supreme, up-to-date and -informative encyclopædia went to press. - -Oscar Wilde, a man who revolutionized the English drama and who was -unquestionably one of the important figures in modern English letters, is -given a little over a column, less space than Shaw, Barrie, or Gilbert. -In much of his writing there was, we learn, “an undertone of rather nasty -suggestion”; and after leaving prison “he was necessarily an outcast from -decent circles.” Also, “it is still impossible to take a purely objective -view of Oscar Wilde’s work,”—that is to say, literary judgment cannot be -passed without recourse to morality! - -Here is an actual confession _by the editor himself_ (for he contributed -the article on Wilde) of the accusation I have made against the -_Britannica_. A great artist, according to this encyclopædia’s criterion, -is a respectable artist, one who preaches and practises an inoffensive -suburbanism. But when the day comes—if it ever does—when the editor of -the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, along with other less prudish and less -delicate critics, can regard Wilde’s work apart from personal prejudice, -perhaps Wilde will be given the consideration he deserves—a consideration -far greater, we hope, than that accorded Barrie and Gilbert. - -Greater inadequacy than that revealed in Wilde’s biography is to be found -in the fact that Synge has no biography whatever in the _Britannica_! -Nor has Hankin. Nor Granville Barker. Nor Lady Gregory. Nor Galsworthy. -The biographical omission of such important names as these can hardly -be due to the editor’s opinion that they are not deserving of mention, -for lesser English dramatic names of the preceding generation are -given liberal space. The fact that these writers do not appear can be -attributed only to the fact that the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ has not -been properly brought up to date—a fact substantiated by an abundance -of evidence throughout the entire work. Of what possible value to one -interested in the modern drama is a reference library which contains no -biographical mention of such significant figures as these? - -The French drama suffers even more from incompleteness and scantiness -of material. Becque draws just eleven lines, exactly half the space -given to the British playwright whose reputation largely depends on that -piece of sentimental claptrap, _Lights o’ London_. Hervieu draws half -a column of biography, in which his two important dramas, _Modestie_ -and _Connais-Toi_ (both out before the _Britannica_ went to press), are -not mentioned. Curel is given sixteen lines; Lavedan, fourteen lines, -in which not all of even his best work is noted; Maurice Donnay, twenty -lines, with no mention of _La Patronne_ (1908); Lemaître, a third of a -column; Rostand, half a column, less space than is accorded the cheap, -slap-stick humorist from Manchester, H. J. Byron; Capus, a third of -a column; Porto-Riche, thirteen lines; and Brieux twenty-six lines. -In Brieux’s very brief biography there is no record of _La Française_ -(1807), _Simone_ (1908), or _Suzette_ (1909). Henri Bernstein does not -have even a biographical mention. - -Maeterlinck’s biography runs only to a column and a third, and the last -work of his to be mentioned is dated 1903, since which time the article -has apparently not been revised! Therefore, if you depend for information -on this biography in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, you will find no -record of _Sœur Béatrice_, _Ariane et Barbe-Bleu_, _L’Oiseau Bleu_, or -_Maria Magdaléne_. - -The modern Italian drama also receives very brief and inadequate -treatment. Of the modern Italian dramatists only two of importance have -biographies—Pietro Cossa and Paolo Ferrari. Cossa is given twenty-four -lines, and Ferrari only seven lines! The two eminent comedy writers, -Gherardi del Testa and Ferdinando Martini, have no biographies. Nor has -either Giuseppe Giacosa or Gerolamo Rovetta, the leaders of the new -school, any biographical mention. And in d’Annunzio’s biography only -seventeen lines are devoted to his dramas. What sort of an idea of the -modern Italian drama can one get from an encyclopædia which contains such -indefensible omissions and such scant accounts of prominent writers? And -why should the writer who is as commonly known by the name of Stecchetti -as Samuel Clemens is by the name of Mark Twain be listed under “Guerrini” -without even a cross reference under the only name by which the majority -of readers know him? Joseph Conrad might almost as well be listed under -“Korzeniowski.” There are few enough non-British writers included in the -_Britannica_ without deliberately or ignorantly hiding those who have -been lucky enough to be admitted. - -Crossing over into Germany and Austria one may look in vain for any -indication of the wealth of dramatic material and the great number of -important dramatic figures which have come from these two countries. -Of all the recent German and Austrian dramatists of note, _only two_ -are so much as given biographical mention, and these two—Sudermann -and Hauptmann—are treated with a brevity and inadequacy which, to my -knowledge, are without a parallel in any modern reference work on the -subject. Hauptmann and Sudermann receive just twenty-five lines each, -less space than is given to Sydney Grundy, Pinero, Henry Arthur Jones, T. -W. Robertson, H. J. Byron; and less than a third of the space given to -Shaw and W. S. Gilbert! Even Sims is given nearly as much space! - -In these comparisons alone is discernible a chauvinism of almost -incredible narrowness. But the biographies themselves emphasize -this patriotic prejudice even more than does the brevity of space. -In Sudermann’s biography, which apparently ends in 1905, no mention -whatever is made of such important works as _Das Blumenboot_, _Rosen_, -_Strandkinder_, and _Das Hohe Lied_ (_The Song of Songs_), all of which -appeared before the _Britannica_ was printed. - -And what of Hauptmann, perhaps the greatest and most important figure in -dramatic literature of this and the last generation? After a brief record -of the facts in Hauptmann’s life we read: “Of Hauptmann’s subsequent work -mention may be made of”—and then the names of a few of his plays are set -down. In the phrase, “mention may be made of,” is summed up the critic’s -narrow viewpoint. And in that list it was thought unnecessary to mention -_Schluck und Jau_, _Michael Kramer_, _Der Arme Heinrich_, _Elga_, _Die -Jungfern vom Bischofsberg_, _Kaiser Karls Geisel_, and _Griselda_! Since -all of these appeared in ample time to be included, it would, I believe, -have occurred to an unprejudiced critic that mention _might_ have been -made of them. In fact, all the circumstantial evidence points to the -supposition that had Hauptmann been an Englishman, not only would they -have been mentioned, but they would have been praised as well. As it -is, there is no criticism of Hauptmann’s work and no indication of his -greatness, despite the fact that he is almost universally conceded to be -a more important figure than any of the modern English playwrights who -are given greater space and favorably criticised. - -With such insufficient and glaringly prejudiced treatment of giants -like Sudermann and Hauptmann, it is not at all surprising that not one -other figure in German and Austrian recent dramatic literature should -have a biography. For instance, there is no biography of Schnitzler, -Arno Holz, Max Halbe, Ludwig Fulda, O. E. Hartleben, Max Dreyer, Ernst -Hardt, Hirschfeld, Ernst Rosmer, Karl Schönherr, Hermann Bahr, Thoma, -Beer-Hoffmann, Johannes Schlaf, or Wedekind! Although every one of these -names should be included in some informative manner in an encyclopædia as -large as the _Britannica_, and one which makes so lavish a claim for its -educational completeness, the omission of several of them may be excused -on the grounds that, in the haste of the Encyclopædia’s editors to -commercialize their cultural wares, they did not have sufficient time to -take cognizance of the more recent of these dramatists. Since the editors -have overlooked men like Galsworthy from their own country, we can at -least acquit them of the charge of snobbish patriotism in several of the -present instances of wanton oversight. - -In the cases of Schnitzler, Hartleben and Wedekind, however, no excuse -can be offered. The work of these men, though recent, had gained for -itself so important a place in the modern world before the _Britannica_ -went to press, that to ignore them biographically was an act of either -wanton carelessness or extreme ignorance. The former would appear to -furnish the explanation, for under _Drama_ there is evidence that the -editors knew of Schnitzler’s and Wedekind’s existence. But, since the -_Überbrettl_ movement is given only seven lines, it would, under the -circumstances, hardly be worth one’s while to consult the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ for information on the modern drama in Germany and Austria. - -Even so, one would learn more of the drama in those countries than one -could possibly learn of the drama of the United States. To be sure, no -great significance attaches to our stage literature, but since this -encyclopædia is being foisted upon us and we are asked to buy it in -preference to all others, it would have been well within the province of -its editors to give the hundred of thousands of American readers a little -enlightenment concerning their own drama. - -The English, of course, have no interest in our institutions—save only -our banks—and consistently refuse to attribute either competency or -importance to our writers. They would prefer that we accept _their_ -provincial and mediocre culture and ignore entirely our own æsthetic -struggles toward an individual expression. But all Americans do not -find intellectual contentment in this paternal and protecting British -attitude; and those who are interested in our native drama and who have -paid money for the _Britannica_ on the strength of its exorbitant and -unsustainable claims, have just cause for complaint in the scanty and -contemptuous way in which American letters are treated. - -As I have already noted, the American drama is embodied in the article -on the _English Drama_, and is given less space than a column. Under -_American Literature_ there is nothing concerning the American stage and -its writers; nor is there a single biography in the entire Encyclopædia -of an American dramatist! James A. Herne receives eight lines—a note -so meagre that for purposes of reference it might almost as well have -been omitted entirely. And Augustin Daly, the most conspicuous figure in -our theatrical history, is dismissed with twenty lines, about half the -space given H. J. Byron! If you desire any information concerning the -development of the American theater, or wish to know any details about -David Belasco, Bronson Howard, Charles Hoyt, Steele MacKaye, Augustus -Thomas, Clyde Fitch, or Charles Klein, you will have to go to a source -other than the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. - -By way of explaining this neglect of all American culture I will quote -from a recent advertisement of the _Britannica_. “We Americans,” it -says, in a most intimate and condescending manner, “have had a deep sense -of self-sufficiency. We haven’t had time or inclination to know how the -rest of the world lived. But now we _must_ know.” And let it be said -for the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ that it has done all in its power to -discourage us in this self-sufficiency. - - - - -IV - -POETRY - - -In the field of poetry the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ comes nearer being -a competent reference library than in the field of painting, fiction, -or drama. This fact, however, is not due to a spirit of fairness on the -part of the Encyclopædia’s editors so much as to the actual superiority -of English poetry. In this field England has led the world. It is the -one branch of culture in which modern England stands highest. France -surpasses her in painting and in fiction, and Germany in music and the -drama. But Great Britain is without a rival in poetry. Therefore, despite -the fact that the Encyclopædia is just as biased in dealing with this -subject as it is in dealing with other cultural subjects, England’s -pre-eminence tends to reduce in this instance that insular prejudice -which distorts the _Britannica’s_ treatment of arts and letters. - -But even granting this superiority, the Encyclopædia is neglectful of -the poets of other nations; and while it comes nearer the truth in -setting forth the glories of English prosody, it fails here as elsewhere -in being an international reference book of any marked value. There is -considerable and unnecessary exaggeration of the merits of British poets, -even of second- and third-rate British poets. Evangelical criticism -predominates, and respectability is the measure of merit. Furthermore, -the true value of poetry in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the -United States is minimized, and many writers of these countries who -unquestionably should have a place in an encyclopædia as large as the -_Britannica_, are omitted. Especially is this true in the case of the -United States, which stands second only to Great Britain in the quantity -and quality of its modern poetry. - -Let us first review briefly the complete and eulogistic manner in which -English poets are dealt with. Then let us compare, while making all -allowances for alien inferiority, this treatment of British poetry with -the Encyclopædia’s treatment of the poetry of other nations. To begin -with, I find but very few British poets of even minor importance who are -not given a biography more than equal to their deserts. Coventry Patmore -receives a biography of a column and a half. Sydney Dobell’s runs to -nearly a column. Wilfred Scawen Blunt is accorded half a column; John -Davidson, over a column of high praise; Henley, more than an entire -page; Stephen Phillips, three-fourths of a column; Henry Clarence -Kendall, eighteen lines; Roden Noel, twenty-eight lines; Alexander -Smith, twenty-five lines; Lawrence Binyon, nineteen lines; Laurence -Housman, twenty-three lines; Ebenezer Jones, twenty-four lines; Richard -Le Gallienne, twenty lines; Henry Newbolt, fifteen lines; and Arthur -William Edgar O’Shaughnessy, twenty-nine lines. These names, together -with the amount of space devoted to them, will give an indication of the -thoroughness and liberality accorded British poets. - -But these by no means complete the list. Robert Bridges receives half -a column, in which we learn that “his work has had great influence in -a select circle, by its restraint, purity, precision, and delicacy yet -strength of expression.” And in his higher flights “he is always noble -and sometimes sublime.... Spirituality informs his inspiration.” Here -we have an excellent example of the Encyclopædia’s combination of the -uplift and hyperbole. More of the same moral encomium is to be found in -the biography of Christina Rossetti, which is a column in length. Her -“sanctity” and “religious faith” are highly praised; and the article -ends with the words: “All that we really need to know about her, save -that she was a great saint, is that she was a great poet.” Ah, yes! -Saintliness—that cardinal requisite in British æsthetics. - -An example of how the _Britannica’s_ provincial puritanism of judgment -works against a poet is to be found in the nearly-two-page biography of -Swinburne, wherein we read that “it is impossible to acquit his poetry -of the charge of animalism which wars against the higher issues of the -spirit.” No, Swinburne was not a pious uplifter; he did not use his art -as a medium for evangelical exhortation. Consequently his work does not -comply with the _Britannica’s_ parochial standard. And although Swinburne -was contemporary with Francis Thompson, it is said in the latter’s -two-thirds-of-a-column biography that “for glory of inspiration and -natural magnificence of utterance he is unique among the poets of his -time.” Watts-Dunton also, in his three-fourths-of-a-column biography, -is praised lavishly and set down as a “unique figure in the world of -letters.” - -William Watson receives over a column of biography, and is eulogized -for his classic traditions in an age of prosodic lawlessness. The -sentimental and inoffensive Austin Dobson apparently is a high favorite -with the editors of the Encyclopædia, for he is given a column and -three-fourths—more space than is given John Davidson, Francis Thompson, -William Watson, Watts-Dunton, or Oscar Wilde—an allowance out of all -proportion to his importance. - -In closing this brief record of the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ prodigal -generosity to British poets, it might be well to mention that Thomas -Chatterton receives a biography of five and a half columns—a space -considerably longer than that given to Heine. Since Thomas Chatterton -died at the age of eighteen and Heinrich Heine did not die until he was -fifty-nine, I leave it to statisticians to figure out how much more space -than Heine Chatterton would have received had he lived to the age of the -German poet. - -On turning to the French poets and bearing in mind the long biographies -accorded British poets, one cannot help feeling amazed at the scant -treatment which the former receive. Baudelaire, for instance, is given -less space than Christina Rossetti, William Watson, Henley, Coventry -Patmore, John Davidson, or Austin Dobson. Catulle Mendès receives -considerably less space than Stephen Phillips. Verlaine is given equal -space with Watts-Dunton, and less than half the space given to Austin -Dobson! Stéphane Mallarmé receives only half the space given to John -Davidson, Christina Rossetti, or William Watson. Jean Moréas receives -only half the space given to Sydney Dobell or Christina Rossetti. -Viélé-Griffin draws a shorter biography than Kendall, the Australian -poet; and Régnier and Bouchor are dismissed in fewer words than is -the Scotch poet, Alexander Smith. Furthermore, these biographies are -rarely critical, being in the majority of instances a cursory record of -incomplete data. - -Here attention should be called to the fact that only in the cases of -the very inconsequent British poets is criticism omitted: if the poet -is even fairly well known there is a discussion of his work and an -indication of the place he is supposed to hold in his particular field. -But with foreign writers—even the very prominent ones—little or nothing -concerning them is vouchsafed save historical facts, and these, as a -general rule, fall far short of completeness. The impression given is -that obscure Englishmen are more important than eminent Frenchmen, -Germans, or Americans. Evidently the editors are of the opinion that if -one is cognizant of British culture one can easily dispense with all -other culture as inferior and unnecessary. Otherwise how, except on the -ground of deliberate falsification, can one explain the liberal treatment -accorded English poets as compared with the meagre treatment given French -poets? - -Since the important French poets mentioned receive such niggardly and -grudging treatment, it is not to be wondered at that many other lesser -poets—yet poets who are of sufficient importance to be included in -an encyclopædia—should receive no biographical mention. If you wish -information concerning Adolphe Retté, René de Ghil, Stuart Merrill, -Emmanuel Signoret, Jehan Rictus, Albert Samain, Paul Fort, who is -the leading balladist of young France, Hérold, Quillard, or Francis -Jammes, you will have to go to a source even more “supreme” than the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_. These poets were famous in 1900, and even in -America there had appeared at that time critical considerations of their -work. Again, one ought to find, in so “complete” a “library” as the -_Britannica_, information concerning the principal poets of the Belgian -Renaissance. But of the eight leading modern poets of Belgium only three -have biographies—Lemonnier, Maeterlinck, and Verhaeren. There are no -biographies of Eekhoud, Rodenbach, Elskamp, Severin and Cammaerts. - -Turning to Italy we find even grosser injustice and an even more woeful -inadequacy in the treatment accorded her modern poets. To be sure, there -are biographies of Carducci, Ferrari, Marradi, Mazzoni, and Arturo Graf. -But Alfredo Baccelli, Domenico Gnoli, Giovanni Pascoli, Mario Rapisardi, -Chiarini, Panzacchi and Annie Vivanti are omitted. There should be -biographies of these writers in an international encyclopædia one-fourth -the size of the _Britannica_. Baccelli and Rapisardi are perhaps the two -most important epic poets of modern Italy. Gnoli is one of the leaders of -the classical school. Chiarini is not only a leading poet but is one of -the first critics of Italy as well. Panzacchi, the romantic, is second -only to the very greatest Italian poets of modern times, and as far back -as 1898 British critics were praising him and regretting that he was not -better known in England. Annie Vivanti, born in London, is a poet known -and esteemed all over Italy. (It may be noted here that Vivanti wrote a -vehement denunciation and repudiation of England in _Ave Albion_.) - -But these names represent only part of the injustice and neglect accorded -modern Italian poetry by the _Britannica_. There is not even so much -as a mention in the entire twenty-nine volumes of the names of Alinda -Bonacchi, the most widely known woman poet in Italy; Capuano, who, -besides being a notable poet, is also a novelist, dramatist and critic -of distinction; Funcini (Tanfucio Neri), a household word in Tuscany -and one held in high esteem all over Italy; “Countess Lara” (Eveline -Cattermole), whose _Versi_ gave her a foremost place among the poets of -her day; Pitteri, who was famous as long ago as 1890; and Nencioni, not -only a fine poet but one of Italy’s great critics. Nencioni has earned -the reputation of being the Sainte-Beuve of Italy, and it was he who -introduced Browning, Tennyson and Swinburne to his countrymen. Then there -are such poets as Fontana, Bicci and Arnaboldi, who should at least be -mentioned in connection with modern Italian literature, but whose names -do not appear in “this complete library of information.” - -But France, Belgium, and Italy, nevertheless, have great cause for -feeling honored when comparison is made between the way the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ deals with their modern poetry and the way it deals with -modern German and Austrian poetry. Of all the important recent lyricists -of Germany and Austria _only one_ is given a biography, and that -biography is so brief and inadequate as to be practically worthless -for purposes of enlightenment. The one favored poet is Detlev von -Liliencron. Liliencron is perhaps the most commanding lyrical figure in -all recent German literature, and he receives just twenty-seven lines, -or about one-fifth of the space given to Austin Dobson! But there are no -biographies of Richard Dehmel, Carl Busse, Stefan George, J. H. Mackay, -Rainer Maria Rilke, Gustav Falke, Ernst von Wolzogen, Karl Henckell, -Dörmann, Otto Julius Bierbaum, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal. - -There can be no excuse for many of these omissions. Several of these -names are of international eminence. Their works have not been confined -to Germany, but have appeared in English translation. They stand in the -foremost rank of modern literature, and both in England and America there -are critical books which accord them extensive consideration. Without -a knowledge of them no one—not even a Britisher—can lay claim to an -understanding of modern letters. Yet the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ denies -them space and still poses as an adequate reference work. - -One may hope to find some adequate treatment of the German lyric to -recent years with its “remarkable variety of new tones and pregnant -ideas,” in the article on _German Literature_. But that hope will -straightway be blasted when one turns to the article in question. The -entire new renaissance in German poetry is dismissed in a brief paragraph -of thirty-one lines! It would have been better to omit it altogether, -for such a cursory and inadequate survey of a significant subject can -result only in disseminating a most unjust and distorted impression. And -the bibliography at the end of this article on modern German literature -reveals nothing so much as the lack of knowledge on the part of the -critic who compiled it. Not only is the _Britannica_ deficient in its -information, but it does not reveal the best sources from which this -omitted information might be gained. - -An even more absurdly inadequate treatment is accorded the poets of -modern Sweden. Despite the fact that Swedish literature is little -known to Americans, the poetry of that country ranks very high—higher -(according to some eminent critics) than the poetry of France or Germany. -But the _Britannica_ makes no effort to disturb our ignorance; and so -the great lyric poetry of Sweden since 1870 is barely touched upon. -However, Mr. Edmund Gosse, a copious contributor to the Encyclopædia, -has let the cat out of the bag. In one of his books he has pronounced -Fröding, Levertin and Heidenstam “three very great lyrical artists,” and -has called Snoilsky a poet of “unquestioned force and fire.” Turning to -the _Britannica_ we find that Snoilsky is dismissed with half the space -given Sydney Dobell and a third of the space given Patmore. Levertin -receives only a third of a column; and Fröding is denied any biography -whatever. He is thrown in with a batch of minor writers under _Sweden_. -Heidenstam, the new Nobel prize-winner, a poet who, according to Charles -Wharton Stork, “stands head and shoulders above any now writing in -England,” receives only eight lines in the general notice! And Karlfeldt, -another important lyrist, who is the Secretary of the Swedish Academy, -is considered unworthy of even a word in the “supreme” _Encyclopædia -Britannica_. - -It would seem that unfair and scant treatment of a country’s poetry could -go no further. But if you will seek for information concerning American -poetry you will find a deficiency which is even greater than that which -marks the treatment of modern Swedish poetry. - -Here again it might be in place to call attention to the hyperbolical -claims on which the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ has been sold in America. -In the flamboyant and unsubstantiable advertising of this reference -work you will no doubt recall the claim: “It will tell you more about -everything than you can get from any other source.” And perhaps you will -also remember the statement: “The _Britannica_ is a complete _library_ -of knowledge on every subject appealing to intelligent persons.” It may -be, of course, that the editors believe that the subject of American -literature does not, or at least should not, appeal to any but ignorant -persons, and that, in fact, only middle-class English culture can -possibly interest the intelligent. But unless such a belief can be proved -to be correct, the American buyers of this Encyclopædia have a grave and -legitimate complaint against the editors for the manner in which the -books were foisted upon them. The _Encyclopædia Britannica_, as I have -pointed out, is _not_ a complete library of knowledge on the subject -of literature; and in the following pages I shall show that its gross -inadequacy extends to many other very important fields of endeavor. -Moreover, its incompleteness is most glaringly obvious in the field of -American æsthetic effort—a field which, under the circumstances, should -be the last to be neglected. - -On the subject of American poetry it is deficient almost to the extreme -of worthlessness. In the article, _American Literature_, written by -George E. Woodberry, we discover that truly British spirit and viewpoint -which regards nothing as worth while unless it is old or eminently -respectable and accepted. The result is that, in the paragraph on our -poetry, such men as Aldrich, Stedman, Richard Watson Gilder, Julia Ward -Howe, H. H. Brownell and Henry Van Dyke are mentioned; but very few -others. As a supreme surrender to modernity the names of Walt Whitman, -Eugene Field, James Whitcomb Riley and Joaquin Miller are included. The -great wealth of American poetry, which is second only to that of England, -is not even suggested. - -Turning to the biography of Edgar Allan Poe, we find that this writer -receives only a column and a half, less space than is given Austin -Dobson, Coventry Patmore, or W. E. Henley! And the biography itself -is so inept that it is an affront to American taste and an insult to -American intelligence. One is immediately interested in learning what -critic the Encyclopædia’s editors chose to represent this American who -has long since become a world figure in literature. Turning to the index -we discover that one David Hannay is the authority—a gentleman who was -formerly the British Vice-Consul at Barcelona. Mr. Hannay (apparently -he holds no academic degree of any kind) lays claim to fame chiefly, it -seems, as the author of _Short History of the Royal Navy_; but in just -what way his research in naval matters qualifies him to write on Poe is -not indicated. This is not, however, the only intimation we had that -in the minds of the Encyclopædia’s editors there exists some esoteric -and recondite relationship between art and British sea-power. In the -_Britannica’s_ criticism of J. M. W. Turner’s paintings, that artist’s -work is said to be “like the British fleet among the navies of the -world.” In the present instance, however, we can only trust that the -other articles in this encyclopædia, by Mr. Hannay—to-wit: _Admiral Penn_ -and _Pirate and Piracy_—are more competent than his critique on Poe. - -Walt Whitman gets scarcely better treatment. His biography is no longer -than Poe’s and contains little criticism and no suggestion of his true -place in American letters. This is all the more astonishing when we -recall the high tribute paid Whitman by eminent English critics. Surely -the _Britannica’s_ editors are not ignorant of Whitman’s place in -modern letters or of the generous manner in which he had been received -abroad. Whatever one’s opinion of him, he was a towering figure in our -literature—a pioneer who had more influence on our later writers than any -other American. And yet his biography in this great British cultural work -is shorter than that of Mrs. Humphry Ward! - -With such obviously inadequate and contemptuous treatment as that -accorded Poe and Whitman, it is not surprising that all other American -poets should be treated peremptorily or neglected entirely. There are -very short biographical notes on Stedman, Louise Chandler Moulton, Sill, -Gilder, Eugene Field, Sidney Lanier and Riley—but they are scant records -of facts and most insufficient when compared to the biographies of -second-rate poets of England. - -But let us be grateful that the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ was generous -enough to record them at all; for one can look in vain through its -entire twenty-nine volumes, no matter under what heading, for even a -mention of Emily Dickinson, John Bannister Tabb, Florence Earle Coates, -Edwin Markham, Lizette Woodworth Reese, Clinton Scollard, Louise Imogen -Guiney, Richard Hovey, Madison Cawein, Edwin Arlington Robinson, George -Sylvester Viereck, Ridgeley Torrence, Arthur Upson, Santayana, and many -others who hold an important place in our literature. And the names of -William Vaughn Moody, Percy MacKaye and Bliss Carman are merely mentioned -casually, the first two under _Drama_ and the last under _Canadian -Literature_. - -The palpable injustice in the complete omission of many of the above -American names is rendered all the more glaring by the fact that the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ pays high tribute to such minor British poets -and versifiers as W. H. Davies, Sturge Moore, Locker Lampson, C. M. -Doughty, Walter de la Mare, Alfred Noyes, Herbert Trench, Ernest Dowson, -Mrs. Meynell, A. E. Housman and Owen Seaman. - -This is the culture disseminated by the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, -which “is a complete _library_ of knowledge on every subject appealing -to intelligent persons,” and which “will tell you more about everything -than you can get from any other source!” This is the “supreme book of -knowledge” which Americans are asked to buy in preference to all others. -What pettier insult could one nation offer to another? - - - - -V - -BRITISH PAINTING - - -If one hopes to find in the Eleventh Edition of the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ an unprejudiced critical and biographical survey of the -world’s painters, he will be sorely disappointed. Not only is the -Encyclopædia not comprehensive and up-to-date, but the manner in which -British art and artists are constantly forced to the front rank is so -grossly biased that a false impression of æsthetic history and art -values is almost an inevitable result, unless one is already equipped -with a wide understanding of the subject. If one were to form an opinion -of art on the _Britannica’s_ articles, the opinion would be that -English painting leads the modern world in both amount and quality. -The Encyclopædia raises English academicians to the ranks of exalted -greatness, and at the same time tends to tear down the pedestals whereon -rest the truly towering geniuses of alien nationality. - -So consistently does British _bourgeois_ prejudice and complacency -characterize the material on painting contained in this Encyclopædia, -that any attempt to get from it an æsthetic point of view which would be -judicious and universal, would fail utterly. Certain French, German, and -American artists of admitted importance are considered unworthy of space, -or, if indeed deserving of mention, are unworthy of the amount of space, -or the praise, which is conferred on a large number of lesser English -painters. Both by implication and direct statement the editors have -belittled the æsthetic endeavor of foreign nations, and have exaggerated, -to an almost unbelievable degree, the art of their own country. The -manner in which the subject of painting is dealt with reveals the -full-blown flower of British insularity, and apotheosizes the narrow, -aggressive culture of British middle-class respectability. In the world’s -art from 1700 on, comparatively little merit is recognized beyond the -English Channel. - -The number of English painters whose biographies appear in the -_Britannica_ would, I believe, astonish even certain English art critics; -and the large amount of space devoted to them—even to inconsequent and -obscure academicians—when compared with the brief notices given to -greater painters of other nations, leaves the un-British searcher with a -feeling of bewilderment. But not only with the large number of English -painters mentioned or even with the obviously disproportionate amount of -space devoted to them does the Encyclopædia’s chauvinistic campaign for -England’s æsthetic supremacy cease. The criticisms which accompany these -biographies are as a rule generously favorable; and, in many cases, the -praise reaches a degree of extravagance which borders on the absurd. - -Did this optimism of outlook, this hot desire to ferret out greatness -where only mediocrity exists, this ambition to drag the obscure and -inept into the glare of prominence, extend to all painters, regardless -of nationality, one might forgive the superlative eulogies heaped upon -British art, and attribute them to that mellow spirit of sentimental -tolerance which sees good in everything. But, alas! such impartiality -does not exist. It would seem that the moment the biographers of the -_Britannica_ put foot on foreign ground, their spirit of generosity -deserts them. And if space is any indication of importance, it must -be noted that English painters are, in the editors’ estimation, of -considerably more importance than painters from abroad. - -Of William Etty, to whom three-fourths of a page is devoted, we are -told that “in feeling and skill as a colorist he has few equals.” The -implication here that Etty, as a colorist, has never been surpassed -scarcely needs refutation. It is unfortunate, however, that Mr. Etty -is not with us at present to read this exorbitant testimony to his -greatness, for it would astonish him, no doubt, as much as it would -those other few unnamed painters who are regarded as his equals in color -_sensibilité_. J. S. Cotman, we discover, was “a remarkable painter both -in oil and water-color.” This criticism is characteristic, for, even when -there are no specific qualities to praise in an English painter’s work, -we find this type of vague recommendation. - -No points, though, it would seem, are overlooked. Regard the manner in -which J. D. Harding’s questionable gifts are recorded. “Harding,” you -will find, “was noted for facility, sureness of hand, nicety of touch, -and the various qualities which go to make up an elegant, highly-trained -and accomplished sketcher from nature, and composer of picturesque -landscape material; he was particularly skillful in the treatment of -foliage.” Turning from Mr. Harding, the “elegant” and “accomplished” -depicter of foliage, to Birket Foster, we find that his work “is -memorable for its delicacy and minute finish, and for its daintiness and -pleasantness of sentiment.” Dainty and pleasant sentiment is not without -weight with the art critics of this encyclopædia. In one form or another -it is mentioned very often in connection with British painters. - -Landseer offers an excellent example of the middle-class attitude which -the _Britannica_ takes toward art. To judge from the page-and-a-half -biography of this indifferent portraitist of animals one would imagine -that Landseer was a great painter, for we are told that his _Fighting -Dogs Getting Wind_ is “perfectly drawn, solidly and minutely finished, -and carefully composed.” Of what possible educational value is an art -article which would thus criticise a Landseer picture? - -An English painter who, were we to accept the Encyclopædia’s valuation, -combines the qualities of several great painters is Charles Holroyd. -“In all his work,” we learn, “Holroyd displays an impressive sincerity, -with a fine sense of composition, and of style, allied to independent -and modern thinking.” Truly a giant! It would be difficult to recall any -other painter in history “all” of whose work displayed a “fine sense -of composition.” Not even could this be said of Michelangelo. But when -it comes to composition, Arthur Melville apparently soars above his -fellows. Besides, “several striking portraits in oil,” he did a picture -called _The Return From the Crucifixion_, which, so we are told, is a -“powerful, colossal composition.” To have achieved only a “powerful” -composition should have been a sufficiently remarkable feat for a painter -of Mr. Melville’s standing; for only of a very few masters in the world’s -history can it be said that their compositions were both powerful and -colossal. El Greco, Giotto, Giorgione, Veronese, Titian, Michelangelo and -Rubens rarely soared to such heights. - -But Melville, it appears, had a contemporary who, if anything, was -greater than he—to-wit: W. Q. Orchardson, to whose glories nearly a page -is devoted. “By the time he was twenty,” says his biographer, “Orchardson -had mastered the essentials of his art.” In short, at twenty he had -accomplished what few painters accomplished in a lifetime. A truly -staggering feat! We are not therefore surprised to learn that “as a -portrait painter Orchardson must be placed in the first class.” Does this -not imply that he ranked with Titian, Velazquez, Rubens and Rembrandt? -What sort of an idea of the relative values in art will the uninformed -person get from such loose and ill-considered rhetoric, especially -when the critic goes on to say that _Master Baby_ is “a masterpiece -of design, color and broad execution”? There is much more eulogy of a -similar careless variety, but enough has been quoted here to show that -the world must entirely revise its opinions of art if the _Encyclopædia -Britannica’s_ statements are to be accepted. - -Even the pictures of Paul Wilson Steer are criticised favorably: “His -figure subjects and landscapes show great originality and technical -skill.” And John Pettie was “in his best days a colorist of a high -order and a brilliant executant.” George Reid, the Scottish artist, -is accorded over half a column with detailed criticism and praise. -Frederick Walker is given no less than an entire column which ends with a -paragraph of fulsome eulogy. Even E. A. Waterlow painted landscapes which -were “admirable” and “handled with grace and distinction”—more gaudy -generalizations. When the Encyclopædia’s critics can find no specific -point to praise in the work of their countrymen, grace, distinction, -elegance and sentiment are turned into æsthetic virtues. - -Turning to Hogarth, we find no less than three and one-half pages devoted -to him, more space than is given to Rubens’s biography, and three times -the space accorded Veronese! It was once thought that Hogarth was only -an “ingenious humorist,” but “time has reversed that unjust sentence.” -We then read that Hogarth’s composition leaves “little or nothing to -be desired.” If such were the case, he would unquestionably rank with -Rubens, Michelangelo and Titian; for, if indeed his composition leaves -little or nothing to be desired, he is as great as, or even greater than, -the masters of all time. But even with this eulogy the Encyclopædia’s -critic does not rest content. As a humorist and a satirist upon canvas, -“he has never been equalled.” If we regard Hogarth as an “author” rather -than artist, “his place is with the great masters of literature—with the -Thackerays and Fieldings, the Cervantes and Molières.” (Note that of -these four “great masters” two are English.) - -Mastery in one form or another, if the _Britannica_ is to be believed, -was common among English painters. The pictures of Richard Wilson are -“skilled and learned compositions ... the work of a painter who was -thoroughly master of his materials.” In this latter respect Mr. Wilson -perhaps stands alone among the painters of the world; and yet, through -some conspiracy of silence no doubt, the leading critics of other nations -rarely mention him when speaking of those artists who thoroughly mastered -their materials. In regard to Raeburn, the Encyclopædia is less fulsome, -despite the fact that over a page is allotted him. We are distinctly -given to understand that he had his faults. Velazquez, however, -constantly reminded Wilkie of Raeburn; yet, after all, Raeburn was not -quite so great as Velazquez. This is frankly admitted. - -It was left to Reynolds to equal if not to surpass Velazquez as well as -Rubens and Rembrandt. In a two-page glorification of this English painter -we come upon the following panegyric: “There can be no question of -placing him by the side of the greatest Venetians or of the triumvirate -of the seventeenth century, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velazquez.” If by placing -him beside these giants is meant that he in any wise approached their -stature, there can be, and has been, outside of England, a very great -question of putting him in such company. In fact, his right to such a -place has been very definitely denied him. But the unprejudiced opinion -of the world matters not to the patriots who edited the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_. That “supreme” English reference work goes on to say that in -portraits, such as _Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse_, Reynolds “holds the -field.... No portrait painter has been more happy in his poses for single -figures.” Then, as if such enthusiasm were not enough, we are told that -“nature had singled out Sir Joshua to endow him with certain gifts in -which he has hardly an equal.” - -Nature, it seems, in her singling out process, was particularly partial -to Englishmen, for among those other painters who just barely equalled -Reynolds’s transcendent genius was Gainsborough. Says the _Britannica_: -“Gainsborough and Reynolds rank side by side.... It is difficult to say -which stands the higher of the two.” Consequently hereafter we must -place Gainsborough, too, along with Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and -Velazquez! Such a complete revision of æsthetic judgment will, no doubt, -be difficult at first, but, by living with the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ -and absorbing its British culture, we may in time be able to bracket -Michelangelo, Reynolds, Rubens, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, Hogarth and -Velazquez without the slightest hesitation. - -It is difficult to conceive how, in an encyclopædia with lofty -educational pretences, extravagance of statement could attain so high a -point as that reached in the biographies of Reynolds and Gainsborough. -So obviously indefensible are these valuations that I would hesitate to -accuse the _Britannica’s_ editors of deliberate falsification—that is, of -purposely distorting æsthetic values for the benefit of English artists. -Their total lack of discretion indicates an honest, if blind, belief in -British æsthetic supremacy. But this fact does not lessen the danger of -such judgments to the American public. As a nation we are ignorant of -painting and therefore are apt to accept statements of this kind which -have the impact of seeming authority behind them. - -The same insular and extravagant point of view is discoverable in the -article on Turner. To this painter nearly five pages are devoted—a space -out of all proportion to the biographies of the other painters of the -world. Titian has only three and one-half pages; Rubens has only a little -over three pages; and El Greco has less than two-thirds of a page! Of -course, it is not altogether fair to base a judgment on space alone; but -such startling discrepancies are the rule and not the exception. - -In the case of Turner the discrepancy is not only of space, however. -In diction, as well, all relative values are thrown to the winds. In -the criticism of Turner we find English patriotism at its high-water -mark. We read that “the range of his powers was so vast that he covered -the whole field of nature and united in his own person the classical -and naturalistic schools.” Even this palpable overstatement could be -forgiven, since it has a basis of truth, if a little further we did -not discover that Turner’s _Crossing the Brook_ in the London National -Academy is “probably the most perfect landscape in the world.” In this -final and irrevocable judgment is manifest the supreme insular egotism -which characterizes nearly all the art articles in the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_. This criticism, to take merely one example, means that -_Crossing the Brook_ is more perfect than Rubens’s _Landscape with -Château de Stein_! But the Encyclopædia’s summary of Turner’s genius -surpasses in flamboyant chauvinism anything which I have yet seen -in print. It is said that, despite any exception we may take to his -pictures, “there will still remain a body of work which for extent, -variety, truth and artistic taste is like the British fleet among the -navies of the world.” Here patriotic fervor has entirely swallowed all -restraint. - -Over a page is devoted to Constable, in which we are informed that his -“vivid tones and fresh color are grafted upon the formulæ of Claude -and Rubens.” This type of criticism is not rare. One frequently finds -second-rate English artists compared not unfavorably with the great -artists of other nations; and it would seem that the English painters add -a little touch of their own, the imputation being that they not seldom -improve upon their models. Thus Constable adds “vivid tones and fresh -colors” to Rubens’s formula. Another instance of this kind is to be found -in the case of Alfred Stevens, the British sculptor, not the Belgian -painter. (The latter, by the way, though more important and better-known, -receives less space than the Englishman.) The vigorous strength of his -groups “recalls the style of Michelangelo, but Stevens’s work throughout -is original and has a character of its own.” I do not deny that Stevens -imitated Michelangelo, but, where English artists are concerned, these -relationships are indicated in deceptive phraseology. In the case of -French artists, whose biographies are sometimes written by unbiased -critics, the truth is not hidden in dictional suavities. Imitation is not -made a virtue. - -Let us now turn to Watts. Over two pages are accorded him, one page being -devoted largely to eulogy, a passage of which reads: “It was the rare -combination of supreme handicraft with a great imaginative intellect -which secured to Watts his undisputed place in the public estimation -of his day.” Furthermore, we hear of “the grandeur and dignity of his -style, the ease and purposefulness of his brushwork, the richness and -harmoniousness of his coloring.” But those “to whom his exceptional -artistic attainment is a sealed book have gathered courage or consolation -from the grave moral purpose and deep human sympathy of his teaching.” -Here we have a perfect example of the parochial moral uplift which -permeates the _Britannica’s_ art criticism. The great Presbyterian -complex is found constantly in the judgments of this encyclopædia. - -So important a consideration to the _Britannica’s_ critico-moralists -is this puritan motif that the fact is actually set down that Millais -was devoted to his family! One wonders how much influence this domestic -devotion had on the critic who spends a page and a half to tell us -of Millais, for not only is this space far in excess of Millais’ -importance, but the statement is made that he was “one of the greatest -painters of his time,” and that “he could paint what he saw with a force -which has seldom been excelled.” Unfortunately the few who excelled -him are not mentioned. Perhaps he stood second only to Turner, that -super-dreadnought. Surely he was not excelled by Renoir, or Courbet, or -Pissarro, or Monet, or Manet, or Cézanne; for these latter are given very -little space (the greatest of them having no biography whatever in the -Encyclopædia!); and there is no evidence to show that they are considered -of more than minor importance. - -Perhaps it was Rossetti, a fellow Pre-Raphaelite, who excelled Millais -in painting what he saw. Rossetti’s _The Song of Solomon_, as regards -brilliance, finish and the splendor of its lighting, “occupies a great -place in the highest grade of modern art of all the world.” Even Holman -Hunt, one of the lesser Pre-Raphaelites, is given over a full page, and -is spoken of in glowing terms. “Perhaps no painter of the nineteenth -century,” we read, “produced so great an impression by a few pictures” -as did Hunt; and during the course of the eulogy the critic speaks of -Hunt’s “greatness.” Can it be that the naïf gentleman who wrote Hunt’s -biography has never heard of Courbet, or Manet, or of the Impressionists, -or Cézanne? After so sweeping and unreasoned a statement as the one -concerning the great impression made by Hunt’s pictures, such an extreme -conclusion is almost inevitable. Or is this critic’s patriotic vanity -such that he considers an impression made in England as representative -of the world? Even to intimate that the impression made by Hunt’s -pictures was comparable to that made by _L’Enterrement à Ornans_ or _Le -Déjeuner sur l’Herbe_, or that the Pre-Raphaelites possessed even half -the importance of Courbet and Manet, is to carry undeserved laudation to -preposterous lengths. - -Here as elsewhere, superlatives are used in such a way in describing -unimportant English painters that no adequate adjectives are left for -the truly great men of other nationality. It would be difficult to find -a better example of undeserving eulogy as applied to an inconsequent -British painter than that furnished by Brangwyn, whose compositions, -we are astonished to learn, have “a nobly impressive and universal -character.” Such a statement might justly sum up the greatness of a -Michelangelo statue; but here it is attached to the works of a man who at -best is no more than a capable and clever illustrator. - -The foregoing examples by no means include all the instances of how -English painters, as a result of the liberal space allotted them and the -lavish encomiums heaped upon them by the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ -editors, are unduly expanded into great and important figures. A score -of other names could be mentioned. From beginning to end, English art is -emphasized and lauded until it is out of all proportion to the rest of -the world. - -Turn to the article on _Painting_ and look at the sub-title, “Recent -Schools.” Under “British” you will find twelve columns, with inset -headings. Under “French” you will find only seven columns, without -insets. Practically all the advances made in modern art have come out -of France; and practically all important modern painters have been -Frenchmen. England has contributed little or nothing to modern painting. -And yet, recent British schools are given nearly twice the space that is -devoted to recent French schools! Again regard the article, _Sculpture_. -Even a greater and more astonishing disproportionment exists here. Modern -British sculpture is given no less than thirteen and a half columns, -while modern French sculpture, of vastly greater æsthetic importance, is -given only seven and a half columns! - - - - -VI - -NON-BRITISH PAINTING - - -If the same kind of panegyrics which characterize the biographies of -the British painters in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ were used in -dealing with the painters of all nationalities, there could be made -no charge of either unconscious or deliberate injustice. But once we -leave Great Britain’s shores, prodigal laudation ceases. As if worn -out by the effort of proving that Englishmen are pre-eminent among the -world’s painters, the editors devote comparatively little space to those -non-British artists who, we have always believed and been taught, were -the truly significant men in painting. Therefore, if the _Britannica’s_ -implications are to be believed, England alone, among all modern -countries, is the home of genius. And it would be difficult for one not -well informed to escape the impression that not only Turner, but English -painting in general, is “like the British fleet among the navies of the -world.” - -A comparison, for instance, between English and French painters, as -they are presented in this encyclopædia, would leave the neophyte with -the conviction that France was considerably inferior in regard to -graphic ability, as inferior, in fact—if we may read the minds of the -_Britannica’s_ editors—as the French fleet is to the British fleet. In -its ignorant and un-English way the world for years has been laboring -under the superstition that the glories of modern painting had been -largely the property of France. But such a notion is now corrected. - -For instance, we had always believed that Chardin was one of the -greatest of still-life painters. We had thought him to be of exceeding -importance, a man with tremendous influence, deserving of no little -consideration. But when we turn to his biography in the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ we are, to say the least, astonished at the extent of our -over-valuation. He is dismissed with six lines! And the only critical -comment concerning him is: “He became famous for his still-life pictures -and domestic interiors.” And yet Thomas Stothard, an English painter who -for twenty-five years was Chardin’s contemporary, is given over a column; -James Northcote, another English contemporary of Chardin’s, is given half -a column; and many other British painters, whose names are little known -outside of England, have long biographies and favorable criticisms. - -Watteau, one of the greatest of French painters, has a biography of only -a page and a quarter; Largillière, half a column; Rigaud, less than half -a column; Lancret, a third of a column; and Boucher has only fifteen -lines—a mere note with no criticism. (Jonathan Boucher, an English -divine, whose name follows that of Boucher, is accorded three times the -space!) La Tour and Nattier have half a column each. Greuze, another one -of France’s great eighteenth-century painters, is given only a column and -a half with unfavorable comment. Greuze’s brilliant reputation seemed -to have been due, “not to his requirements as a painter” but to the -subjects of his pictures; and he is then adversely accused of possessing -that very quality which in an English painter, as we have seen, is a -mark of supreme glory—namely, “_bourgeois_ morality.” Half a column only -is required to comment on Horace Vernet and to tell us that his most -representative picture “begins and ends nowhere, and the composition -is all to pieces; but it has good qualities of faithful and exact -representation.” - -Fragonard, another French painter whom we had always thought possessed -of at least a minor greatness, is accorded no more than a column, -less than half the space given to B. R. Haydon, the eighteenth-century -English historical painter, and only one-third of the space devoted -to David Wilkie, the Scotch painter. Fragonard’s “scenes of love and -voluptuousness,” comments that art critic of the London _Daily Mail_, who -has been chosen to represent this French painter in the Encyclopædia, -“are only made acceptable by the tender beauty of his color and the -virtuosity of his facile brushwork.” Alas! that Fragonard did not possess -the “grave moral purpose” of Watts! Had his work been less voluptuous he -might have been given more than a fourth of the space devoted to that -moral Englishman, for surely Fragonard was the greater painter. - -Géricault, one of the very important innovators of French realism, is -given half a column, about an equal amount of space with such English -painters as W. E. Frost, T. S. Cooper, Thomas Creswick, Francis Danby -and David Scott; only about half the amount of space given to John -Gilbert, C. L. Eastlake, and William Mulready; and only one-third of the -space given to David Cox. One or two such disparities in space might be -overlooked, but when to almost any kind of an English painter is imputed -an importance equal to, if not greater than, truly significant painters -from France, bias, whether conscious or unconscious, has been established. - -Again regard Poussin. This artist, the most representative painter of his -epoch and a man who marked a distinct step in the evolution of graphic -art, is given less than half a page, about equal to the space devoted to -W. P. Frith, J. W. Gordon, Samuel Cousins, John Crome, William Strang, -and Thornhill; and only half the space given to Holman Hunt, and only -one-third the space given to Millais! There is almost no criticism of -Poussin’s art; merely a statement of the type of work he did; and of -Géricault there is no criticism whatever. Herein lies another means by -which, through implication, a greater relative significance is conferred -on English art. Generally British painters—even minor ones—are criticised -favorably, from one standpoint or another; but only now and then is a -Frenchman given specific complimentary criticism. And often a Frenchman -is condemned for the very quality which is lauded in a British artist. - -Of David it is written: “His style is severely academic, his color -lacking in richness and warmth, his execution hard and uninteresting in -its very perfection,” and more in the same derogatory strain. Although -this criticism may be strictly accurate, the same qualities in certain -English painters of far less importance than David are made the basis for -praise. The severely academic style in the case of Harding, for instance, -becomes an “elegant, highly-trained” characteristic. And perfection of -execution makes Birket Foster’s work “memorable for its delicacy and -minute finish,” and becomes, in Paul Wilson Steer’s pictures, “great -technical skill.” - -Ingres, truly one of the giants of his day, is given little or no -criticism and his biography draws only a little over half the space which -is given to Watts (with his “grave, moral purpose”), and only a trifle -more space than is given Millais, the Pre-Raphaelite who was “devoted to -his family.” In Guerin’s short biography we read of his “strained and -pompous dignity.” Girodet’s biography contains very adverse criticism: -his style “harmonized ill” with his subjects, and his work was full of -“incongruity” even to the point sometimes of being “ludicrous.” Gros, -exasperated by criticism, “sought refuge in the grosser pleasures of -life.” Flandrin also is tagged with a moral criticism. - -Coming down to the more modern painters we find even less consideration -given them by the _Britannica’s_ editors. Delacroix, who ushered in -a new age of painting and brought composition back to art after a -period of stagnation and quiescence, is nailed to France as follows: -“As a colorist and a romantic painter he now ranks among the greatest -of French artists.” Certainly not among the greatest English painters, -for Constable is given more space than Delacroix; and Turner, the other -precursor of the new era, is “like the British fleet among the navies of -the world.” - -Courbet, the father of modern painting and the artist who revolutionized -æsthetics, is given half a column, equal space with those contemporaries -of his from across the Channel, Francis Grant, Thomas Creswick and George -Harvey. Perhaps this neglect of the great Frenchman is explained by -the following early-Victorian complaint: “Sometimes, it must be owned, -his realism is rather coarse and brutal.” And we learn that “he died -of a disease of the liver aggravated by intemperance.” Courbet, unable -to benefit by the pious and elegant _esthétique_ of the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_, was never deeply impressed by the artistic value of -“daintiness and pleasantness of sentiment,” and as a result, perhaps, he -is not held in as high esteem as is Birket Foster, who possessed those -delicate and pleasing qualities. - -The palpable, insular injustice dealt Courbet in point of space finds -another victim in Daumier whose biography is almost as brief as that -of Courbet. Most of it, however, is devoted to Daumier’s caricature. -Although this type of work was but a phase of his development, the -article says that, despite his caricatures, “he found time for flight -in the higher sphere of painting.” Not only does this create a false -impression of Daumier’s tremendous importance to modern painting, but it -gives the erroneous idea that his principal _métier_ was caricature. The -entire criticism of his truly great work is summed up in the sentence: -“As a painter, Daumier, one of the pioneers of naturalism, was before his -time.” Likewise, the half-page biography of Manet is, from the standpoint -of space, inadequate, and from the critical standpoint, incompetent. To -say that he is “regarded as the most important master of Impressionism” -is a false statement. Manet, strictly speaking, was not an Impressionist -at all; and the high place that he holds in modern art is not even -touched upon. - -Such biographies as the foregoing are sufficiently inept to disqualify -the Encyclopædia as a source for accurate æsthetic information; but when -Renoir, who is indeed recognized as the great master of Impressionism, -is dismissed with one-fifth of a page, the height of injustice has been -reached. Renoir, even in academic circles, is admittedly one of the great -painters of all time. Not only did he sum up the Impressionists, close -up an experimental cycle, and introduce compositional form into the -realistic painting of his day, but by his colossal vision and technical -mastery he placed himself in the very front rank of all modern painters, -if not of ancient painters as well. Yet he is accorded just twenty-seven -lines and dismissed with this remark: “Though he is perhaps the most -unequal of the great Impressionists, his finest works rank among the -masterpieces of the modern French school.” Critical incompetency could -scarcely go further. We can only excuse such inadequacy and ignorance -on the ground that the Encyclopædia’s English critic has seen none of -Renoir’s greatest work; and color is lent this theory when we note that -in the given list of his paintings no mention is made of his truly -masterful canvases. - -Turning to the other lesser moderns in French painting but those who -surpass the contemporaneous British painters who are given liberal -biographies, we find them very decidedly neglected as to both space and -comment. Such painters as Cazin, Harpignies, Ziem, Cormon, Bésnard, -Cottet and Bonnot are dismissed with brief mention, whereas sometimes -twice and three times the attention is paid to English painters like -Alfred East, Harry Furniss (a caricaturist and illustrator), Francis -Lathrop, E. J. Poynter, and W. B. Richmond. Even Meissonier and Puvis de -Chavannes draw only three-fourths of a page. Pissarro and Monet, surely -important painters in the modern evolution, are given short shrift. A few -brief facts concerning Pissarro extend to twenty lines; and Monet gets -a quarter of a page without any criticism save that “he became a _plein -air_ painter.” Examples of this kind of incompetent and insufficient -comment could be multiplied. - -The most astonishing omission, however, in the entire art division -of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ is that of Cézanne. Here is a -painter who, whether one appreciates his work or not, has admittedly -had more influence than any man of modern times. Not only in France -has his tremendous power been felt, but in practically every other -civilized country. Yet the name of this great Frenchman is not even -given biographical mention in the great English Encyclopædia with its -twenty-nine volumes, its 30,000 pages, its 500,000 references, and its -44,000,000 words. Deliberately to omit Cézanne’s biography, in view of -his importance and (in the opinion of many) his genuine greatness, is -an act of almost unbelievable narrow-mindedness. To omit his biography -unconsciously is an act of almost unbelievable ignorance. Especially is -this true when we find biographies of such British contemporaries of -Cézanne as Edward John Gregory, James Guthrie, Luke Fildes, H. W. B. -Davis, John Buxton Knight, George Reid, and J. W. Waterhouse. Nor can the -editors offer the excuse that Cézanne was not known when the Encyclopædia -was compiled. Not only was he known, but books and criticisms had -appeared on him in more than one language, and his greatness had been -recognized. True, he had not reached England; but is it not the duty of -the editor of an “international” encyclopædia to be aware of what is -going on outside of his own narrow province? - -Any encyclopædia, no matter what the nationality, prejudices or tastes -of its editors, which omits Cézanne has forfeited its claim to universal -educational value. But when in addition there is no biographical mention -of such conspicuous French painters as Maurice Denis, Vollatton, Lucien -Simon, Vuillard, Louis Le Grand, Toulouse-Lautrec, Steinlen, Jean Paul -Laurens, Redon, René Ménard, Gauguin, and Carrière, although a score of -lesser painters of British birth are included, petty national prejudice, -whether through conscious intent or lack of information, has been carried -to an extreme; and the editors of such a biased work have something -to answer for to those readers who are not English, and who do not -therefore believe that British middle-class culture should be exaggerated -and glorified at the expense of the genuine intellectual culture of other -nations. - -Modern German painting fares even worse than French painting in the -pages of the _Britannica_; and while it does not hold the high place -that French painting does, it is certainly deserving of far more -liberal treatment than that which is accorded it. The comparatively few -biographies of German artists are inadequate; but it is not in them -that we find the greatest neglect of German achievements in this branch -of æsthetics: it is in the long list of conspicuous painters who are -omitted entirely. The _Britannica’s_ meagre information on German art -is particularly regrettable from the standpoint of American readers; -for the subject is little known in this country, and as a nation we are -woefully ignorant of the wealth of nineteenth-century German painting. -The causes for this ignorance need not be gone into here. Suffice it to -say that the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, far from fulfilling its function -as a truly educational work, is calculated to perpetuate and cement -our lack of knowledge in this field. It would appear that England also -is unacquainted with the merits of German graphic expression; for the -lapses in the _Britannica_ would seem even too great to be accounted for -on the grounds of British chauvinism. And they are too obvious to have -been deliberate. - -Among the important German painters of modern times who have failed to be -given biographies are Wilhelm Leibl, the greatest German painter since -Holbein; Charles Schuch, one of Germany’s foremost still-life artists; -Trübner, who ranks directly in line with Leibl; Karl Spitzweg, the -forerunner and classic exponent of German _genre_ painting as well as the -leading artist in that field; Heinrich von Zügel, one of the foremost -animal painters of modern times; and Ludwig Knaus who, though inferior, -is a painter of world-wide fame. Furthermore, there are no biographies -of Franz Krüger, Müller, Von Marées, Habermann, and Louis Corinth. When -we recall the extensive list of inferior British painters who are not -only given biographies but praised, we wonder on just what grounds the -_Britannica_ was advertised and sold as an “_international_ dictionary of -biography.” - -It might be well to note here that Van Gogh, the great Hollander, does -not appear once in the entire Encyclopædia: there is not so much as a -passing reference to him! Nor has Zorn or Hodler a biography. And Sorolla -draws just twenty lines in his biography, and Zuloaga less than half a -column. - -Despite, however, the curtailed and inferior consideration given -Continental art, it does not suffer from prejudicial neglect nearly so -much as does American art. This is not wholly surprising in view of -the contempt in which England holds the cultural achievements of this -country—a contempt which is constantly being encountered in British -critical journals. But in the case of an encyclopædia whose stated aim -is to review impartially the world’s activities, this contempt should be -suppressed temporarily at least, especially as it is from America that -the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ is reaping its monetary harvest. There is, -though, no indication that England’s contemptuous attitude toward our art -has even been diminished. Our artists are either disposed of with cursory -mention or ignored completely; and whenever it is possible for England to -claim any credit for the accomplishments of our artists, the opportunity -is immediately grasped. - -It is true, of course, that the United States does not rank æsthetically -with certain of the older nations of Europe, but, considering America’s -youth, she has contributed many important names to the history of -painting, and among her artists there are many who greatly surpass the -inconsequent English academicians who are accorded generous treatment. - -The editors of the Encyclopædia may contend that the work was compiled -for England and that therefore they were justified in placing emphasis -on a horde of obscure English painters and in neglecting significant -French and German artists. But they can offer no such excuse in regard -to America. The recent Eleventh Edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ -was printed with the very definite purpose of selling in the United -States; and the fact that they have sold many thousand copies of it -here precludes any reason why American artists should be neglected or -disposed of in a brief and perfunctory fashion. An American desiring -adequate information concerning the painters or sculptors of his own -country will seek through the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ in vain. If he is -entirely ignorant of æsthetic conditions in America and depends on the -Encyclopædia for his knowledge, he will be led to inaccurate conclusions. -The ideas of relative values established in his mind will be the reverse -of the truth, for he cannot fail but be affected by the meagre and -indifferent biographies of his native painters, as compared with the -lengthy and meticulous concern with which British painters are regarded. - -And yet this is the encyclopædia which has been foisted upon the -American people by means of a P. T. Barnum advertising campaign almost -unprecedented in book history. And this also is the encyclopædia -which, in that campaign, called itself “a history of all nations, an -international dictionary of biography, an exhaustive gazetteer of the -world, a hand-book to all the arts”; and which announced that “every -artist or sculptor of note of any period, and of any land is the subject -of an interesting biography.” This last statement is true only in the -case of Great Britain. It is, as we have seen, not true of France or -Germany; and especially is it not true of America. Not only are many -American artists and sculptors of note omitted entirely, but many of -those who have been awarded mention are the victims of English insular -prejudice. - -Looking up Benjamin West, who, by historians and critics has always been -regarded as an American artist, we find him designated as an “English” -painter. The designation is indeed astonishing, since not only does the -world know him as an American, but West himself thought that he was an -American. Perhaps the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, by some obscure process -of logic, considers nationality from the standpoint of one’s sentimental -adoption. This being the case, Richard Le Gallienne would be an -“American” poet. But when we turn to Le Gallienne’s biography we discover -that, after all, he is “English.” Apparently the rule does not work with -Englishmen. It is true that West went to London and lived there; but he -was born in the United States, gained a reputation for painting here, and -did not go to England until he was twenty-five. It is noteworthy that -West, the “English” painter, is accorded considerable space. - -Whistler, who also chose England in preference to America, is given -nearly a page and a half with not unfavorable criticism. We cannot -refrain from wondering what would have been Whistler’s fate at the hands -of the Encyclopædia’s editors had he remained in his native country. -Sargent, surely a painter of considerable importance and one who is -regarded in many enlightened quarters as a great artist, is dismissed -with less than half a column! Even this comparatively long biography -for an American painter may be accounted for by the following comment: -“Though of the French school, and American by birth, it is as a British -artist that he won fame.” Again, Abbey receives high praise and quite -a long biography, comparatively speaking. Once more we wonder if this -painter’s adoption of England as his home does not account for his -liberal treatment. Albert F. Bellows, too, gets fourteen lines, in which -it is noted that “he painted much in England.” - -Compare the following record with the amounts of space accorded British -second-rate painters: William Chase, sixteen lines; Vedder, a third of -a column; de Forest Brush, fifteen lines; T. W. Dewing, twelve lines; -A. H. Wyant, ten lines; A. P. Ryder, eight lines; Tryon, fifteen lines; -John W. Alexander, sixteen lines; Gari Melchers, eighteen lines; Childe -Hassam, fifteen lines; Blashfield, ten lines; J. Francis Murphy, fifteen -lines; Blakelock, eight lines. Among these names are painters of a high -and important order—painters who stand in the foremost rank of American -art, and who unquestionably are greater than a score of English painters -who receive very special critical biographies, some of which extend over -columns. And yet—apparently for no other discernible reason than that -they are Americans—they are given the briefest mention with no specific -criticism. Only the barest biographical details are set down. - -But if many of the American painters who have made our art history are -dismissed peremptorily in biographies which, I assure you, are not -“interesting,” and which obviously are far from adequate or even fair -when compared with the consideration given lesser English painters, -what answer have the editors of the _Britannica_ to offer their American -customers when many of our noteworthy and important artists are omitted -altogether? On what grounds is a biography of J. Alden Weir omitted -entirely? For what reason does the name of Robert Henri not appear? Henri -is one of the very important figures in modern American painting. - -Furthermore, inspection reveals the fact that among those American -“painters of note” who, so far as biographical mention in the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ is concerned, do not exist, are Mary Cassatt, -George Bellows, Twachtman, C. W. Hawthorne, Glackens, Jerome Meyers, -George Luks, Sergeant Kendall, Paul Dougherty, Allen Talcott, Thomas -Doughty, Richard Miller and Charles L. Elliott. - -I could add more American painters to the list of those who are omitted -and who are of equal importance with certain British painters who are -included; but enough have been mentioned to prove the gross inadequacy of -the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ as an educational record of American art. - -Outside of certain glaring omissions, what we read in the Encyclopædia -concerning the painters of France and Germany may be fair, from a -purely impartial standard, if taken alone: in some instances, I believe, -judicial critics of these other nations have performed the service. But -when these unprejudiced accounts are interspersed with the patriotic -and enthusiastic glorifications of British art, the only conclusion -which the uninformed man can draw from the combination is that the chief -beauties of modern painting have sprung from England—a conclusion which -illy accords both with the facts and with the judgment of the world’s -impartial critics. But in the case of American art, not even the strictly -impartial treatment occasionally accorded French and German painters is -to be found, with the result that, for the most part, our art suffers -more than that of any other nation when compared, in the pages of the -_Britannica_, with British art. - - - - -VII - -MUSIC - - -There is one field of culture—namely, music—in which Great Britain has -played so small and negligible a part that it would seem impossible, even -for the passionately patriotic editors of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, -to find any basis on which an impressive monument to England could -be erected. Great Britain, admittedly, possesses but slight musical -significance when compared with other nations. The organisms of her -environment, the temper of her intellect, her very intellectual fibre, -are opposed to the creation of musical composition. - -This art in England, save during the Elizabethan era, has been largely a -by-product. No great musical genius has come out of Great Britain; and -in modern times she has not produced even a great second-rate composer. -So evident is England’s deficiency in this field, that any one insisting -upon it runs the risk of being set down a platitudinarian. Even British -critics of the better class have not been backward in admitting the -musical poverty of their nation; and many good histories of music have -come out of England: indeed, one of the very best encyclopædias on this -subject was written by Sir George Grove. - -To attempt to place England on an equal footing with other nations in -the realm of music is to alter obvious facts. Name all the truly great -composers since 1700, and not one of them will be an Englishman. In fact, -it is possible to write an extensive history of music from that date to -the present time without once referring to Great Britain. England, as the -world knows, is not a musical nation. Her temperament is not suited to -subtle complexities of plastic harmonic expression. Her modern composers -are without importance; and for every one of her foremost musical -creators there can be named a dozen from other nations who are equally -inspired, and yet who hold no place in the world’s musical evolution -because of contemporary fellow-countrymen who overshadow them. - -As I have said, it would seem impossible, even for so narrowly provincial -and chauvinistic a work as the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, to find any -plausible basis for the glorification of English musical genius. But -where others fail to achieve the impossible, the _Britannica_ succeeds. -In the present instance, however, the task has been difficult, for -there is a certain limit to the undeserved praise which even a blatant -partisan can confer on English composers; and there is such a paucity -of conspicuous names in the British musical field that an encyclopædia -editor finds it difficult to gather enough of them together to make an -extensive patriotic showing. He can, however, omit or neglect truly -significant names of other nations while giving undue prominence to -second- and third-rate English composers. - -And this is exactly the method followed by the editors of the -_Britannica_. But the disproportionments are so obvious, the omissions -so glaring, and the biographies and articles so distorted, both as to -space and comment, that almost any one with a knowledge of music will -be immediately struck by their absurdity and injustice. Modern musical -culture, as set forth in this encyclopædia, is more biased than any -other branch of culture. In this field the limits of the _Britannica’s_ -insularity would seem to have been reached. - -I have yet to see even a short history of modern music which is not more -informative and complete, and from which a far better idea of musical -evolution could not be gained. And I know of no recent book of composers, -no matter how brief, which does not give more comprehensive information -concerning musical writers than does that “supreme book of knowledge,” -the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. So deficient is it in its data, and so -many great and significant modern composers are denied biographical -mention in it, that one is led to the conclusion that little or no effort -was made to bring it up-to-date. - -It would be impossible in this short chapter to set down anywhere near -all the inadequacies, omissions and disproportions which inform the -_Britannica’s_ treatment of music. Therefore I shall confine myself -largely to modern music, since this subject is of foremost, vital concern -at present; and I shall merely indicate the more glaring instances -of incompleteness and neglect. Furthermore, I shall make only enough -comparisons between the way in which British music is treated and -the way in which the music of other nations is treated, to indicate -the partisanship which underlies the outlook of this self-styled -“international” and “universal” reference work. - -Let us first regard the general article _Music_. In that division of the -article entitled, _Recent Music_—that is, music during the last sixty or -seventy-five years—we find the following astonishing division of space: -recent German music receives just eleven lines; recent French music, -thirty-eight lines, or less than half a column; recent Italian music, -nineteen lines; recent Russian music, thirteen lines; and recent British -music, _nearly four columns, or two full pages_! - -Regard these figures a moment. That period of German musical composition -which embraced such men as Humperdinck, Richard Strauss, Karl Goldmark, -Hugo Wolf, Gustav Mahler, Bruch, Reinecke, and von Bülow, is allotted -only eleven lines, and only two of the above names are even mentioned! -And yet modern British music, which is of vastly lesser importance, is -given _thirty-five times_ as much space as modern German music, and _ten -times_ as much space as modern French music! In these figures we have an -example of prejudice and discrimination which it would be hard to match -in any other book or music in existence. It is unnecessary to criticise -such bias: the figures themselves are more eloquently condemning than any -comment could possibly be. And it is to this article on recent music, -with its almost unbelievable distortions of relative importance, that -thousands of Americans will apply for information. Furthermore, in the -article _Opera_ there is no discussion of modern realistic developments, -and the names of Puccini and Charpentier are not even included! - -In the biographies of English composers is to be encountered the same -sort of prejudice and exaggeration. Sterndale Bennett, the inferior -British Mendelssohn, is given nearly a column, and in the criticism -of him we read: “The principal charm of Bennett’s compositions (not -to mention his absolute mastery of the musical form) consists in the -tenderness of their conception, rising occasionally to sweetest musical -intensity.” Turning from Bennett, the absolute master of form, to William -Thomas Best, the English organist, we find nearly a half-column biography -of fulsome praise, in which Best is written down as an “all-round -musician.” Henry Bishop receives two-thirds of a column. “His melodies -are clear, flowing, appropriate and often charming; and his harmony is -always pure, simple and sweet.” - -Alfred Cellier is accorded nearly half a column, in which we are told -that his music was “invariably distinguished by elegance and refinement.” -Frederick Cowen also wrote music which was “refined”; and in his -three-fourths-of-a-column biography it is stated that “he succeeds -wonderfully in finding graceful expression for the poetical idea.” John -Field infused “elegance” into his music. His biography is over half -a column in length, and we learn that his nocturnes “remain all but -unrivaled for their tenderness and dreaminess of conception, combined -with a continuous flow of beautiful melody.” - -Edward Elgar receives no less than two-thirds of a column, in which are -such phrases as “fine work,” “important compositions,” and “stirring -melody.” Furthermore, his first orchestral symphony was “a work of marked -power and beauty, developing the symphonic form with the originality -of a real master of his art.” The world outside of England will be -somewhat astonished to know that Elgar took part in the development of -the symphonic form and that he was a real master of music. John Hatton, -in a two-thirds-of-a-column biography, is praised, but not without -reservation. He might, says the article, have gained a place of higher -distinction among English composers “had it not been for his irresistible -animal spirits and a want of artistic reverence.” He was, no doubt, -without the “elegance” and “refinement” which seem to characterize so -many English composers. - -But Charles Parry evidently had no shortcomings to detract from his -colossal and heaven-kissing genius. He is given a biography of nearly -a column, and it is packed with praise. In some of his compositions to -sacred words “are revealed the highest qualities of music.” He has “skill -in piling up climax after climax, and command of every choral resource.” -But this is not all. In some of his works “he shows himself master of the -orchestra”; and his “exquisite” chamber music and part-songs “maintain -the high standard of his greater works.” Not even here does his genius -expire. _Agamemnon_ “is among the most impressive compositions of the -kind.” Furthermore, _The Frogs_ is a “striking example of humor in -music.” All this would seem to be enough glory for any man, but Parry -has not only piled Pelion on Ossa but has scaled Olympus. Outside his -creative music, “his work for music was of the greatest importance”; his -_Art of Music_ is a “splendid monument of musical literature.” ... There -is even more of this kind of eulogy—too much of it to quote here; but, -once you read it, you cannot help feeling that the famous triumvirate, -Brahms, Bach and Beethoven, has now become the quartet, Brahms, Bach, -Beethoven, and Parry. - -The vein of William Shield’s melody “was conceived in the purest and most -delicate taste”; and his biography is half a column in length. Goring -Thomas is accorded two-thirds of a column; and it is stated that not only -does his music reveal “a great talent for dramatic composition and a -real gift of refined and beautiful melody,” but that he was “personally -the most admirable of men.” Michael Costa, on the other hand, was -evidently not personally admirable, for in his half-column biography we -read: “He was the great conductor of his day, but both his musical and -his human sympathies were somewhat limited.” (Costa was a Spaniard by -birth.) Samuel Wesley, Jr.’s, anthems are “masterly in design, fine in -inspiration and expression, and noble in character.” His biography runs -to half a column. Even Wesley, Sr., has a third of a column biography. - -The most amazing biography from the standpoint of length, however, is -that of Sir Arthur Sullivan. It runs to three and a third columns (being -much longer than Haydn’s!) and is full of high praise of a narrowly -provincial character. Thomas Attwood receives a half-column biography; -Balfe, the composer of _The Bohemian Girl_, receives nearly a column; -Julius Benedict, two-thirds of a column; William Jackson, nearly -two-thirds of a column; Mackenzie, over three-fourths of a column; John -Stainer, two-thirds of a column; Charles Stanford, nearly a column; -Macfarren, over half a column; Henry Hugo Pierson, half a column; John -Hullah, considerably over half a column; William Crotch, over half a -column; Joseph Barnby, nearly half a column; John Braham, two-thirds -of a column. And many others of no greater importance receive liberal -biographies—for instance, Frederic Clay, John Barnett, George Elvey, John -Goss, MacCunn, James Turle, and William Vincent Wallace. - -Bearing all this in mind, we will now glance at the biographies of modern -German composers in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. Johann Strauss, -perhaps the greatest of all waltz writers, is given only half a column, -less space than that given to John Field or William Crotch; and the -only criticism of his music is contained in the sentence: “In Paris he -associated himself with Musard, whose quadrilles became not much less -popular than his own waltzes; but his greatest successes were achieved in -London.” Hummel, the most brilliant virtuoso of his day, whose concertos -and masses are still popular, receives less space than John Hatton. - -But what of Brahms, one of the three great composers of the world? -Incredible as it may seem, he is given a biography even shorter than that -of Sir Arthur Sullivan! And Robert Franz, perhaps the greatest lyrical -writer since Schubert, receives considerably less space than William -Jackson. Richard Strauss is allotted only a column and two-thirds, about -equal space with Charles Burney, the musical historian, and William Byrd; -and in it we are given little idea of his greatness. In fact, the critic -definitely says that it remains to be seen for what Strauss’s name will -live! When one thinks of the tremendous influence which Strauss has had, -and of the way in which he has altered the musical conceptions of the -world, one can only wonder, astounded, why, in an encyclopædia as lengthy -as the _Britannica_, he should be dismissed with so inadequate and inept -a biography. - -After such injustice in the case of Strauss, it does not astonish one to -find that Max Bruch, one of the most noteworthy figures in modern German -music, and Reinecke, an important composer and long a professor at the -Leipsic Conservatory, should receive only thirty lines each. But the -neglect of Strauss hardly prepared us for the brief and incomplete record -which passes for Humperdinck’s biography—a biography shorter than that of -Cramer, William Hawes, Henry Lazarus, the English clarinettist, and Henry -Smart! - -Mendelssohn, the great English idol, receives a biography out of all -proportion to his importance—a biography twice as long as that of Brahms, -and considerably longer than either Schumann’s or Schubert’s! And it -is full of effulgent praise and more than intimates that Mendelssohn’s -counterpoint was like Bach’s, that his sonata-form resembled Beethoven’s, -and that he invented a new style no less original than Schubert’s! -Remembering the parochial criterion by which the Encyclopædia’s editors -judge art, we may perhaps account for this amazing partiality to -Mendelssohn by the following ludicrous quotation from his biography: “His -earnestness as a Christian needs no stronger testimony than that afforded -by his own delineation of the character of St. Paul; but it is not too -much to say that his heart and life were pure as those of a little child.” - -Although Hugo Wolf’s biography is a column and a half in length, Konradin -Kreutzer gets only eighteen lines; Nicolai, who wrote _The Merry Wives -of Windsor_, only ten lines; Suppé, only fifteen; Nessler, only twelve; -Franz Abt, only ten; Henselt, only twenty-six; Heller, only twenty-two; -Lortzing, only twenty; and Thalberg, only twenty-eight. In order to -realize how much prejudice, either conscious or unconscious, entered into -these biographies, compare the amounts of space with those given to the -English composers above mentioned. Even Raff receives a shorter biography -than Mackenzie; and von Bülow’s and Goldmark’s biographies are briefer -than Cowen’s. - -But where the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ shows its utter inadequacy as -a guide to modern music is in the long list of omission. For instance, -there is no biography of Marschner, whose _Hans Heiling_ still survives -in Germany; of Friedrich Silcher, who wrote most of the famous German -“folk-songs”; of Gustav Mahler, one of the truly important symphonists of -modern times; of the Scharwenka brothers; or of Georg Alfred Schumann—all -sufficiently important to have a place in an encyclopædia like the -_Britannica_. - -But—what is even more inexcusable—Max Reger, one of the most famous -German composers of the day, has no biography. Nor has Eugen d’Albert, -renowned for both his chamber music and operas. (D’Albert repudiated his -English antecedents and settled in Germany.) Kreisler also is omitted, -although Kubelik, five years Kreisler’s junior, draws a biography. In -view of the obvious contempt which the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ has for -America, it may be noted in this connection that Kreisler’s first great -success was achieved in America, whereas Kubelik made his success in -London before coming to this country. - -Among the German and Austrian composers who are without biographical -mention in the _Britannica_, are several of the most significant musical -creators of modern times—men who are world figures and whose music is -known on every concert stage in the civilized world. On what possible -grounds are Mahler, Reger and Eugen d’Albert denied biographies in an -encyclopædia which dares advertise itself as a “complete library of -knowledge” and as an “international dictionary of biography”? And how is -it possible for one to get any adequate idea of the wealth or importance -of modern German music from so biased and incomplete a source? Would the -Encyclopædia’s editors dare state that such a subject would not appeal to -“intelligent” persons? And how will the Encyclopædia’s editors explain -away the omission of Hanslick, the most influential musical critic that -ever lived, when liberal biographies are given to several English critics? - -Despite the incomplete and unjust treatment accorded German and Austrian -music in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, modern French music receives -scarcely better consideration. Chopin is given space only equal to that -of Purcell. Berlioz and Gounod, who are allotted longer biographies than -any other modern French composers, receive, nevertheless, considerably -less space than Sir Arthur Sullivan. Saint-Saëns and Debussy receive -less than half the space given to Sullivan, while Auber and César Franck -are given only about equal space with Samuel Arnold, Balfe, Sterndale -Bennett, and Charles Stanford! Massenet has less space than William -Thomas Best or Joseph Barnby, and three-fourths of it is taken up with a -list of his works. The remainder of the biographies are proportionately -brief. There is not one of them of such length that you cannot find -several longer biographies of much less important English composers. - -Furthermore, one finds unexplainable errors and omissions in them. For -instance, although Ernest Reyer died January 15, 1909, there is no -mention of it in his biography; but there is, however, the statement that -his _Quarante Ans de Musique_ “was published in 1909.” This careless -oversight in not noting Reyer’s death while at the same time recording -a still later biographical fact is without any excuse, especially as -the death of Dudley Buck, who died much later than Reyer, is included. -Furthermore, the biography omits stating that Reyer became Inspector -General of the Paris Conservatoire in 1908. Nor is his full name given, -nor the fact recorded that his correct name was Rey. - -Again, although Théodore Dubois relinquished his Directorship of the -Conservatory in 1905, his biography in the _Britannica_ merely mentions -that he began his Directorship in 1896, showing that apparently no effort -was made to complete the material. Still again, although Fauré was made -Director of the Conservatory in 1905, the fact is not set down in his -biography. And once more, although d’Indy visited America in 1905 and -conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the fact is omitted from his -biography.... These are only a few of the many indications to be found -throughout the _Britannica_ that this encyclopædia is untrustworthy and -that its editors have not, as they claim, taken pains to bring it up to -date. - -Among the important French composers who should have biographies, but -who are omitted from the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, are Guilmant, -perhaps the greatest modern organist and an important classico-modern -composer; Charpentier, who with Puccini, stands at the head of the modern -realistic opera, and whose _Louise_ is to-day in every standard operatic -repertoire; and Ravel, the elaborate harmonist of the moderns. - -Even greater inadequacy—an inadequacy which could not be reconciled with -an encyclopædia one-fourth the size of the _Britannica_—exists in the -treatment of modern Russian music. So brief, so inept, so negligent is -the material on this subject that, as a reference book, the _Britannica_ -is practically worthless. The most charitable way of explaining this -woeful deficiency is to attribute it to wanton carelessness. Anton -Rubinstein, for instance, is given a biography about equal with Balfe -and Charles Stanford; while his brother Nikolaus, one of the greatest -pianists and music teachers of his day, and the founder of the -Conservatorium of Music at Moscow, has no biography whatever! Glinka, -one of the greatest of Russian composers and the founder of a new school -of music, is dismissed with a biography no longer than those of John -Braham, the English singer, John Hatton, the Liverpool genius with the -“irresistible animal spirits,” and William Jackson; and shorter than that -of Charles Dibdin, the British song-writer! - -Tschaikowsky receives less than two columns, a little over half the space -given to Sullivan. The criticism of his work is brief and inadequate, and -in it there is no mention of his liberal use of folk-songs which form -the basis of so many of his important compositions, such as the second -movement of his Fourth and the first movement of his First Symphonies. -Borodin, another of the important musical leaders of modern Russia, has -a biography which is no longer than that of Frederic Clay, the English -light-opera writer and whist expert; and which is considerably shorter -than the biography of Alfred Cellier. Balakirev, the leader of the “New -Russian” school, has even a shorter biography, shorter in fact than the -biography of Henry Hugo Pierson, the weak English oratorio writer. - -The biography of Moussorgsky—a composer whose importance needs no -indication here—is only fifteen lines in length, shorter even than -William Hawes’s, Henry Lazarus’s, George Elvey’s, or Henry Smart’s! And -yet Moussorgsky was “one of the finest creative composers in the ranks of -the modern Russian school.” Rimsky-Korsakov, another of the famous modern -Russians, whose work has long been familiar both in England and America, -draws less space than Michael Costa, the English conductor of Spanish -origin, or than Joseph Barnby, the English composer-conductor of _Sweet -and Low_ fame. - -Glazunov is given a biography only equal in length to that of John -Goss, the unimportant English writer of church music. And although -the biography tells us that he became Professor of the St. Petersburg -Conservatory in 1900, it fails to mention that he was made Director -in 1908—a bit of inexcusable carelessness which, though of no great -importance, reveals the slip-shod incompleteness of the _Britannica’s_ -Eleventh Edition. Furthermore, many important works of Glazunov are not -noted at all. - -Here ends the _Encyclopædia’s_ record of modern Russian composers! César -Cui, one of the very important modern Russians, has no biography whatever -in this great English cultural work, although we find liberal accounts of -such British composers as Turle, Walmisley, Potter, Richards (whose one -bid to fame is having written _God Bless the Prince of Wales_) and George -Alexander Lee, the song-writer whose great popular success was _Come -Where the Aspens Quiver_. Nor will you find any biographical information -of Arensky, another of the leading Russian composers of the new school; -nor of Taneiev or Grechaninov—both of whom have acquired national and -international fame. Even Scriabine, a significant Russian composer who -has exploited new theories of scales and harmonies of far-reaching -influence, is not considered of sufficient importance to be given a -place (along with insignificant Englishmen like Lacy and Smart) in the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_. - -The most astonishing omission, however, is that of Rachmaninov. Next to -omitting César Cui, the complete ignoring of so important and universally -accepted a composer as Rachmaninov, whose symphonic poem, _The Island -of the Dead_, is one of the greatest Russian works since Tschaikowsky, -is the most indefensible of all. On what possible grounds can the -_Encyclopædia Britannica_ defend its extravagant claims to completeness -when the name of so significant and well-known a composer as Rachmaninov -does not appear in the entire twenty-nine volumes? - -In the list of the important modern Italian musicians included in the -_Britannica_ one will seek in vain for information of Busoni, who has not -only written much fine instrumental music, but who is held by many to be -the greatest living virtuoso of the piano; or of Wolf-Ferrari, one of the -important leaders of the new Italian school. And though Tosti, whose name -is also omitted, is of slight significance, he is of far greater popular -importance than several English song-writers who are accorded biographies. - -Even Puccini, who has revolutionized the modern opera and who stands -at the head of living operatic composers, is given only eleven lines -of biography, less space than is given to George Alexander Lee or John -Barnett, and only equal space with Lacy, the Irish actor with musical -inclinations, and Walmisley, the anthem writer and organist at Trinity -College. It is needless to say that no biography of eleven lines, even -if written in shorthand, would be adequate as a source of information -for such a composer as Puccini. The fact that he visited America in 1907 -is not even mentioned, and although at that time he selected his theme -for _The Girl of the Golden West_ and began work on it in 1908, you will -have to go to some other work more “supreme” than the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ for this knowledge. - -Leoncavallo’s biography is of the same brevity as Puccini’s; and the -last work of his that is mentioned is dated 1904. His opera, _Songe d’Une -Nuit d’Été_, his symphonic poem, _Serafita_, and his ballet, _La Vita -d’Una Marionetta_—though all completed before 1908—are not recorded in -this revised and up-to-date library of culture. Mascagni, apparently, -is something of a favorite with the editors of the _Britannica_, for -his biography runs to twenty-three lines, nearly as long as that of -the English operatic composer, William Vincent Wallace, and of Alfred -Cellier, the infra-Sullivan. But even with this great partiality shown -him there is no record of his return from America to Italy in 1903 or of -the honor of Commander of the Crown of Italy which was conferred upon him. - -Of important Northern composers there are not many, but the _Britannica_ -has succeeded in minimizing even their small importance. Gade has a -biography only as long as Pierson’s; and Kjerulf, who did so much for -Norwegian music, is given less space than William Hawes, with no critical -indication of his importance. Even Grieg receives but a little more space -than Charles Stanford or Sterndale Bennett! Nordraak, who was Grieg’s -chief co-worker in the development of a national school of music, has -no biography whatever. Nor has Sinding, whose fine orchestral and -chamber music is heard everywhere. Not even Sibelius, whose very notable -compositions brought Finland into musical prominence, is considered -worthy of biographical mention. - -But the most astonishing omission is that of Buxtehude, one of the great -and important figures in the early development of music. Not only was he -the greatest organist of his age, but he was a great teacher as well. -He made Lübeck famous for its music, and established the “Abendmusiken” -which Bach walked fifty miles to hear. To the _Britannica’s_ editor, -however, he is of less importance than Henry Smart, the English organist! - -In Dvorák’s biography we learn that English sympathy was entirely won by -the _Stabat Mater_; but no special mention is made of his famous E-minor -(American) Symphony. Smetana, the first great Bohemian musician, receives -less space than Henry Bishop, who is remembered principally as the -composer of _Home, Sweet Home_. - -But when we pass over into Poland we find inadequacy and omissions of -even graver character. Moszkowski receives just eight lines of biography, -the same amount that is given to _God-Bless-the-Prince-of-Wales_ -Richards. Paderewski is accorded equal space with the English pianist, -Cipriani Potter; and no mention is made of his famous $10,000 fund -for the best American compositions. This is a characteristic omission, -however, for, as I have pointed out before, a composer’s activities in -America are apparently considered too trivial to mention, whereas, if it -is at all possible to connect England, even in a remote and far-fetched -way, with the genius of the world, it is done. Josef Hofmann, the other -noted Polish pianist, is too insignificant to be given even passing -mention in the _Britannica_. But such an inclusion could hardly be -expected of a reference work which contains no biography of Leschetizky, -the greatest and most famous piano teacher the world has ever known. - -We come now to the most prejudiced and inexcusably inadequate musical -section in the whole _Britannica_—namely, to American composers. -Again we find that narrow patronage, that provincial condescension -and that contemptuous neglect which so conspicuously characterize the -_Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ treatment of all American institutions and -culture. We have already beheld how this neglect and contempt have worked -against our painters, our novelists, our poets and our dramatists; we -have seen what rank injustice has been dealt our artists and writers; we -have reviewed the record of omissions contained in this Encyclopædia’s -account of our intellectual activities. But in no other instance has -British scorn allowed itself so extreme and indefensible an expression as -in the peremptory manner in which our musical composers are dismissed. -The negligence with which American musical compositions and composers are -reviewed is greater than in the case of any other nation. - -As I have said before, if the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ had been -compiled to sell only in suburban England, we would have no complaint -against the petty contempt shown our artists; but when an encyclopædia -is put together largely for the purpose of American distribution, the -sweeping neglect of our native creative effort resolves itself into an -insult which every American should hotly resent. And especially should -such neglect be resented when the advertising campaign with which the -_Britannica_ was foisted upon the public claimed for that work an exalted -supremacy as a library of international education, and definitely -stated that it contained an adequate discussion of every subject which -would appeal to intelligent persons. As I write this the _Britannica_ -advertises itself as containing “an exhaustive account of all human -achievement.” But I think I have shown with pretty fair conclusiveness -that it does not contain anywhere near an exhaustive account of American -achievement; and yet I doubt if even an Englishman would deny that we -were “human.” - -Let us see how “exhaustive” the _Britannica_ is in its record of American -musical achievement. To begin with, there are just thirty-seven lines -in the article on American composers; and for our other information we -must depend on the biographies. But what do we find? Dudley Buck is given -an incomplete biography of fourteen lines; and MacDowell draws thirty -lines of inadequate data. Gottschalk, the most celebrated of American -piano virtuosi, who toured Europe with great success and wrote much music -which survives even to-day, is surely of enough historical importance -to be given a biography; but his name does not so much as appear in the -_Britannica_. John Knowles Paine has no biography; nor has William Mason; -nor Arthur Foote; nor Chadwick; nor Edgar Stillman Kelly; nor Ethelbert -Nevin; nor Charles Loeffler; nor Mrs. Beach; nor Henry K. Hadley; nor -Cadman; nor Horatio Parker; nor Frederick Converse. - -To be sure, these composers do not rank among the great world figures; -but they do stand for the highest achievement in American music, and it -is quite probable that many “intelligent” Americans would be interested -in knowing about them. In fact, from the standpoint of intelligent -interest, they are of far more importance than many lesser English -composers who are given biographies. And although Sousa has had the -greatest popular success of any composer since Johann Strauss, you will -hunt the _Britannica_ through in vain for even so much as a mention -of him. And while I do not demand the inclusion of Victor Herbert, -nevertheless if Alfred Cellier is given a place, Herbert, who is -Cellier’s superior in the same field, should not be discriminated against -simply because he is not an Englishman. - -It will be seen that there is practically no record whatever of the -makers of American music; and while, to the world at large, our musical -accomplishments may not be of vital importance, yet to Americans -themselves—even “intelligent” Americans (if the English will admit that -such an adjective may occasionally be applied to us)—they are not only of -importance but of significance. It is not as if second-rate and greatly -inferior composers of Great Britain were omitted also; but when Ethelbert -Nevin is given no biography while many lesser British composers are not -only given biographies but praised as well, Americans have a complaint -which the _Britannica’s_ exploiters (who chummily advertise themselves as -“we Americans”) will find it difficult to meet. - - - - -VIII - -SCIENCE - - -In the field of medicine and biology the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ -reveals so narrow and obvious a partisanship that there has already been -no little resentment on the part of American scientists. This country is -surpassed by none in biological chemistry; and our fame in surgery and -medical experimentation is world-wide. Among the ranks of our scientists -stand men of such great importance and high achievement that no adequate -history of biology or medicine could be written without giving vital -consideration to them. Yet the _Britannica_ fails almost completely in -revealing their significance. Many of our great experimenters—men who -have made important original contributions to science and who have pushed -forward the boundaries of human knowledge—receive no mention whatever; -and many of our surgeons and physicians whose researches have marked -epochs in the history of medicine meet with a similar fate. On the other -hand you will find scores of biographies of comparatively little known -and unimportant English scientists, some of whom have contributed nothing -to medical and biological advancement. - -It is not my intention to go into any great detail in this matter. I -shall not attempt to make a complete list of the glaring omissions -of our scientists or to set down anywhere near all of the lesser -British scientists who are discussed liberally and _con amore_ in the -_Britannica_. Such a record were unnecessary. But I shall indicate a -sufficient number of discrepancies between the treatment of American -scientists and the treatment of English scientists, to reveal the utter -inadequacy of the _Britannica_ as a guide to the history and development -of our science. If America did not stand so high in this field the -Encyclopædia’s editors would have some basis on which to explain away -their wanton discrimination against our scientific activities. But when, -as I say, America stands foremost among the nations of the world in -biological chemistry and also holds high rank in surgery and medicine, -there can be no excuse for such wilful neglect, especially as minor -British scientists are accorded liberal space and generous consideration. - -First we shall set down those three earlier pathfinders in American -medicine whose names do not so much as appear in the _Britannica’s_ -Index:—John Morgan, who in 1765, published his _Discourse Upon the -Institution of Medical Schools in America_, thus becoming the father of -medical education in the United States; William Shippen, Jr., who aided -John Morgan in founding our first medical school, the medical department -of the University of Pennsylvania, and gave the first public lectures -in obstetrics in this country, and who may be regarded as the father -of American obstetrics; and Thomas Cadwalader, the first Philadelphian -(at this time Philadelphia was the medical center of America) to teach -anatomy by dissections, and the author of one of the best pamphlets on -lead poisoning. - -Among the somewhat later important American medical scientists who are -denied any mention in the _Britannica_ are; John Conrad Otto, the first -who described hemophilia (an abnormal tendency to bleeding); James -Jackson, author of one of the first accounts of alcoholic neuritis; James -Jackson, Jr., who left his mark in physical diagnosis; Elisha North, who -as early as 1811 advocated the use of the clinical thermometer in his -original description of cerebrospinal meningitis (the first book on the -subject); John Ware, who wrote one of the chief accounts of delirium -tremens; Jacob Bigelow, one of the very great names in American medicine, -whose essay, _On Self-Limited Diseases_, according to Holmes, “did more -than any other work or essay in our language to rescue the practice of -medicine from the slavery to the drugging system which was a part of the -inheritance of the profession”; W. W. Gerhard, who distinguished between -typhoid and typhus; Daniel Drake, known as the greatest physician of the -West, who as the result of thirty years of labor wrote the masterpiece, -_Diseases of the Interior Valley of North America_; Caspar Wistar, who -wrote the first American treatise on anatomy; and William Edmonds Horner, -who discovered the tensor tarsi muscle, known as Horner’s muscle.... -Not only are these men not accorded biographies in the “universal” and -“complete” _Encyclopædia Britannica_, but their names do not appear! - -The father of American surgery was Philip Syng Physick, who invented the -tonsillotome and introduced various surgical operations; but you must -look elsewhere than in the _Britannica_ for so much as a mention of him. -And although the history of American surgery is especially glorious and -includes such great names as: the Warrens; Wright Post; J. C. Nott, who -excised the coccyx and was the first who suggested the mosquito theory -of yellow fever; Henry J. Bigelow, the first to describe the Y-ligament; -Samuel David Gross, one of the chief surgeons of the nineteenth century; -Nicholas Senn, one of the masters of modern surgery; Harvey Cushing, -perhaps the greatest brain surgeon in the world to-day; George Crile, -whose revolutionary work in surgical shock was made long before the -_Britannica_ went to press; and William S. Halsted, among the greatest -surgeons of the world,—as I have said, although America has produced -these important men, the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ ignores the fact -entirely, and does not so much as record one of their names! - -Were all the rest of American medical scientists given liberal -consideration in the _Britannica_, it would not compensate for the above -omissions. But these omissions are by no means all: they are merely the -beginning. The chief names in modern operative gynecology are American. -But of the nine men who are the leaders in this field, only one (Emmet) -has a biography, and only one (McDowell) receives casual mention. -Marion Sims who invented his speculum and introduced the operation for -vesicovaginal fistula, Nathan Bozeman, J. C. Nott (previously mentioned), -Theodore Gaillard Thomas, Robert Battey, E. C. Dudley, and Howard A. -Kelly do not exist for the _Britannica_. - -Furthermore, of the four chief pioneers in anæsthesia—the practical -discovery and use of which was an American achievement—only two are -mentioned. The other two—C. W. Long, of Georgia, and the chemist, -Charles T. Jackson—are apparently unknown to the British editors of this -encyclopædia. And although in the history of pediatrics there is no -more memorable name than that of Joseph O’Dwyer, of Ohio, whose work in -intubation has saved countless numbers of infants, you will fail to find -any reference to him in this “unbiased” English reference work. - -One must not imagine that even here ends the _Britannica’s_ almost -unbelievable injustice to American scientists. John J. Abel is -not mentioned either, yet Professor Abel is among the greatest -pharmacologists of the world. His researches in animal tissues and fluids -have definitely set forward the science of medicine; and it was Abel who, -besides his great work with the artificial kidney, first discovered the -uses of epinephrin. R. G. Harrison, one of the greatest biologists of -history, whose researches in the growth of tissue were epoch-making, and -on whose investigations other scientists also have made international -reputations, is omitted entirely from the _Britannica_. S. J. Meltzer, -the physiologist, who has been the head of the department of physiology -and pharmacology at Rockefeller Institute since 1906, is not in the -_Britannica_. T. H. Morgan, the zoölogist, whose many books on the -subject have long been standard works, is without a biography. E. B. -Wilson, one of the great pathfinders in zoölogy and a man who stands in -the front rank of that science, is also without a biography. And Abraham -Jacobi, who is the father of pediatrics in America, is not mentioned. - -The list of wanton omissions is not yet complete! C. S. Minot, the great -American embryologist, is ignored. Theobald Smith, the pathologist, -is also thought unworthy of note. And among those renowned American -scientists who, though mentioned, failed to impress the Encyclopædia’s -English editor sufficiently to be given biographies are: John Kerasley -Mitchell, who was the first to describe certain neurological conditions, -and was one of the advocates of the germ theory of disease before -bacteriology; William Beaumont, the first to study digestion _in situ_; -Jacques Loeb, whose works on heliotropism, morphology, psychology, etc., -have placed him among the world’s foremost imaginative researchers; H. -S. Jennings, another great American biologist; W. H. Welch, one of the -greatest of modern pathologists and bacteriologists; and Simon Flexner, -whose work is too well known to the world to need any description here. -These men unquestionably deserve biographies in any encyclopædia which -makes even a slight pretence of completeness, and to have omitted them -from the _Britannica_ was an indefensible oversight—or worse. - -The editors of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ cannot explain away -these amazing omissions on the ground that the men mentioned are -not of sufficient importance to have come within the range of their -consideration; for, when we look down the list of _British_ medical -scientists who are given biographies, we can find at least a score of -far less important ones. For instance, Elizabeth G. Anderson, whose -claim to glory lies in her advocacy of admitting women into the medical -profession, is given considerably over half a column. Gilbert Blane, the -introducer of lime-juice into the English navy, also has a biography. -So has Richard Brocklesby, an eighteenth-century army physician; and -Andrew Clark, a fashionable London practitioner; and T. B. Curling; and -John Elliotson, the English mesmerist; and Joseph Fayrer, known chiefly -for his studies in the poisonous snakes of India; and J. C. Forster; and -James Clark, an army surgeon and physician in ordinary to Queen Victoria; -and P. G. Hewett, another surgeon to Queen Victoria; and many others of -no more prominence or importance. - -In order to realize the astounding lengths of injustice to which the -_Britannica_ has gone in its petty neglect of America, compare these -English names which are given detailed biographical consideration, with -the American names which are left out. The editors of this encyclopædia -must either plead guilty to the most flagrant kind of prejudicial -discrimination against this country, or else confess to an abysmal -ignorance of the history and achievements of modern science. - -It might be well to note here that Luther Burbank’s name is mentioned -only once in the _Britannica_, under _Santa Rosa_, the comment being that -Santa Rosa was his home. Not to have given Burbank a biography containing -an account of his important work is nothing short of preposterous. Is -it possible that Americans are not supposed to be interested in this -great scientist? And are we to assume that Marianne North, the English -naturalist and flower painter—who is given a detailed biography—is of -more importance than Burbank? The list of _English_ naturalists and -botanists who receive biographies in the _Britannica_ includes such -names as William Aiton, Charles Alston, James Anderson, W. J. Broderip, -and Robert Fortune; and yet there is no biography or even discussion of -Luther Burbank, the American! - -Thus far in this chapter I have called attention only to the neglect -of American scientists. It must not be implied, however, that America -alone suffers from the _Britannica’s_ insular prejudice. No nation, save -England, is treated with that justice and comprehensiveness upon which -the Encyclopædia’s advertising has so constantly insisted. For instance, -although Jonathan Hutchinson, the English authority on syphilis, receives -(and rightly so) nearly half a column biography, Ehrlich, the world’s -truly great figure in that field, is not considered of sufficient -importance to be given biographical mention. It is true that Ehrlich’s -salvarsan did not become known until 1910, but he had done much immortal -work before then. Even Metchnikoff, surely one of the world’s greatest -modern scientists, has no biography! And although British biologists of -even minor importance receive biographical consideration, Lyonet, the -Hollander, who did the first structural work after Swammerdam, is without -a biography. - -Nor are there biographies of Franz Leydig, through whose extensive -investigations all structural studies upon insects assumed a new aspect; -Rudolph Leuckart, another conspicuous figure in zoölogical progress; -Meckel, who stands at the beginning of the school of comparative anatomy -in Germany; Rathke, who made a significant advance in comparative -anatomy; Ramón y Cajal, whose histological research is of world-wide -renown; Kowalevsky, whose work in embryology had enormous influence -on all subsequent investigations; Wilhelm His, whose embryological -investigations, especially in the development of the nervous system and -the origin of nerve fibres, are of very marked importance; Dujardin, -the discoverer of sarcode; Lacaze-Duthiers, one of France’s foremost -zoölogical researchers; and Pouchet, who created a sensation with his -experimentations in spontaneous generation. - -Even suppose the _Britannica’s_ editor should argue that the foregoing -biologists are not of the very highest significance and therefore are -not deserving of separate biographies, how then can he explain the fact -that such _British_ biologists as Alfred Newton, William Yarrell, John -G. Wood, G. J. Allman, F. T. Buckland, and T. S. Cobbold, are given -individual biographies with a detailed discussion of their work? What -becomes of that universality of outlook on which he so prides himself? Or -does he consider Great Britain as the universe? - -As I have said, the foregoing notes do not aim at being exhaustive. To -set down, even from an American point of view, a complete record of -the inadequacies which are to be found in the _Britannica’s_ account -of modern science would require much more space than I can devote to -it here. I have tried merely to indicate, by a few names and a few -comparisons, the insular nature of this Encyclopædia’s expositions, and -thereby to call attention to the very obvious fact that the _Britannica_ -is _not_ “an international dictionary of biography,” but a prejudiced -work in which English endeavor, through undue emphasis and exaggeration, -is given the first consideration. Should this Encyclopædia be depended -upon for information, one would get but the meagrest idea of the splendid -advances which America has made in modern science. And, although I have -here touched only on medicine and biology, the same narrow and provincial -British viewpoint can be found in the _Britannica’s_ treatment of the -other sciences as well. - - - - -IX - -INVENTIONS, PHOTOGRAPHY, ÆSTHETICS - - -In the matter of American inventions the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ -would appear to have said as little as possible, and to have minimized -our importance in that field as much as it dared. And yet American -inventors, to quote H. Addington Bruce, “have not simply astonished -mankind; they have enhanced the prestige, power, and prosperity of their -country.” The _Britannica’s_ editors apparently do not agree with this; -and when we think of the wonderful romance of American inventions, and -the possibilities in the subject for full and interesting writing, and -then read the brief, and not infrequently disdainful, accounts that are -presented, we are conscious at once not only of an inadequacy in the -matter of facts, but of a niggardliness of spirit. - -Let us regard the Encyclopædia’s treatment of steam navigation. Under -_Steamboat_ we read: “The first practical steamboat was the tug -‘Charlotte Dundas,’ built by William Symington (Scotch), and tried in -the Forth and Clyde Canal in 1802.... The trial was successful, but -steam towing was abandoned for fear of injuring the banks of the canal. -Ten years later Henry Bell built the ‘Comet,’ with side-paddle wheels, -which ran as a passenger steamer on the Clyde; but an earlier inventor to -follow up Symington’s success was the American, Robert Fulton....” - -This practically sums up the history of that notable achievement. Note -the method of presentation, with the mention of Fulton as a kind of -afterthought. While the data may technically come within the truth, the -impression given is a false one, or at least a British one. Even English -authorities admit that Fulton established definitely the value of the -steamboat as a medium for passenger and freight traffic; but here the -credit, through implication, is given to Symington and Bell. And yet, if -Symington is to be given so much credit for pioneer work, why are not -William Henry, of Pennsylvania, John Stevens, of New Jersey, Nathan Read, -of Massachusetts, and John Fitch, of Connecticut, mentioned also? Surely -each of these other Americans was important in the development of the -idea of steam as motive power in water. - -Eli Whitney receives a biography of only two-thirds of a column; Morse, -less than a column; and Elias Howe, only a little over half a column. -Even Thomas Edison receives only thirty-three lines of biography—a -mere statement of facts. Such a biography is an obvious injustice; -and the American buyers of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ have just -cause for complaining against such inadequacy. Edison admittedly is a -towering figure in modern science, and an encyclopædia the size of the -_Britannica_ should have a full and interesting account of his life, -especially since obscure English scientists are accorded far more liberal -biographies. - -Alexander Graham Bell, however, receives the scantiest biography of all. -It runs to just fifteen lines! And the name of Daniel Drawbaugh is not -mentioned. He and Bell filed their papers for a telephone on the same -day; and it was only after eight years’ litigation that the Supreme Court -decided in Bell’s favor—four judges favoring him and three favoring -Drawbaugh. No reference is made of this interesting fact. Would the -omission have occurred had Drawbaugh been an Englishman instead of a -Pennsylvanian, or had not Bell been a native Scotchman? - -The name of Charles Tellier, the Frenchman, does not appear in the -_Britannica_. Not even under _Refrigerating and Ice Making_ is he -mentioned. And yet back in 1868 he began experiments which culminated in -the refrigerating plant as used on ocean vessels to-day. Tellier, more -than any other man, can be called the inventor of cold storage, one of -the most important of modern discoveries, for it has revolutionized the -food question and had far-reaching effects on commerce. Again we are -prompted to ask if his name would have been omitted from the _Britannica_ -had he been an Englishman. - -Another unaccountable omission occurs in the case of Rudolph Diesel. -Diesel, the inventor of the Diesel engine, is comparable only to Watts -in the development of power; but he is not considered of sufficient -importance by the editors of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ to be given -a biography. And under _Oil Engine_ we read: “Mr. Diesel has produced a -very interesting engine which departs considerably from other types.” -Then follows a brief technical description of it. This is the entire -consideration given to Diesel, with his “interesting” engine, despite -the fact that the British Government sent to Germany for him in order to -investigate his invention! - -Few names in the history of modern invention stand as high as Wilbur and -Orville Wright. To them can be attributed the birth of the airplane. In -1908, to use the words of an eminent authority, “the Wrights brought -out their biplanes and practically taught the world to fly.” The -story of how these two brothers developed aviation is, according to -the same critic, “one of the most inspiring chronicles of the age.” -The _Britannica’s_ editors, if we are to judge their viewpoint by the -treatment accorded the Wright brothers in this encyclopædia, held no such -opinion. Not only is neither of these men given a biography, but under -_Flight and Flying_—the only place in the whole twenty-nine volumes where -their names appear—they are accorded much less consideration than they -deserve. Sir Hiram S. Maxim’s flying adventures receive more space. - - * * * * * - -A subject which unfortunately is too little known in this country and yet -one in the development of which America has played a very important part, -is pictorial photography. A double interest therefore attaches to the -manner in which this subject is treated in the _Britannica_. Since the -writer of the article was thoroughly familiar with the true conditions, -an adequate record might have been looked for. But no such record was -forthcoming. In the discussion of photography in this Encyclopædia -the same bias is displayed as in other departments—the same petty -insularity, the same discrimination against America, the same suppression -of vital truth, and the same exaggerated glorification of England. In -this instance, however, there is documentary proof showing deliberate -misrepresentation, and therefore we need not attribute the shortcomings -to chauvinistic stupidity, as we have so charitably done in similar -causes. - -In the article on _Pictorial Photography_ in this aggressibly British -reference work we find the following: “It is interesting to note that -as a distinct movement pictorial photography is essentially of British -origin, and this is shown by the manner in which organized photographic -bodies in Vienna, Brussels, Paris, St. Petersburg, Florence, and other -European cities, as well as in Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., following the -example of London, held exhibitions on exactly similar lines to those -of the London Photographic Salon, and invited known British exhibitors -to contribute.” Then it is noted that the interchange of works between -British and foreign exhibitors led, in the year 1900, “to a very -remarkable cult calling itself ‘The New American School,’ which had a -powerful influence on contemporaries in Great Britain.” - -The foregoing brief and inadequate statements contain all the credit that -is given America in this field. New York, where much of the foremost -and important work was done, is not mentioned; and the name of Alfred -Stieglitz, who is undeniably the towering figure in American photography -as well as one of the foremost figures in the world’s photography, -is omitted entirely. Furthermore, slight indication is given of the -“powerful influence” which America has had; and the significant part -she has played in photography, together with the names of the American -leaders, is completely ignored, although there is quite a lengthy -discussion concerning English photographic history, including credit to -those who participated in it. - -For instance, the American, Steichen, a world figure in photography and, -of a type, perhaps the greatest who ever lived, is not mentioned. Nor are -Gertrude Käsebier and Frank Eugene, both of whom especially the former, -has had an enormous international influence in pictorial photography. -And although there is a history of the formation of the “Linked Ring” in -London, no credit is given to Stieglitz whose work, during twenty-five -years in Germany and Vienna, was one of the prime influences in the -crystallization of this brotherhood. Nor is there so much as a passing -reference to _Camera Work_ (published in New York) which stands at the -head of photographic publications. - -As I have said, there exists documentary evidence which proves the -deliberate unfairness of this article. It is therefore not necessary to -accept my judgment on the importance of Stieglitz and the work done in -America. A. Horsley Hinton, who is responsible for the prejudiced article -in the Encyclopædia, was the editor of _The Amateur Photographer_, -a London publication; and in that magazine, as long ago as 1904, we -have, in Mr. Hinton’s own words, a refutation of what he wrote for the -_Britannica_. In the May 19 (1904) issue he writes: “We believe every one -who is interested in the advance of photography generally, will learn -with pleasure that Mr. Alfred Stieglitz, whose life-long and wholly -disinterested devotion to pictorial photography should secure him a -unique position, will be present at the opening of the next Exhibition -of the Photographic Salon in London. Mr. Stieglitz was zealous in all -good photographic causes long before the Salon, and indeed long before -pictorial photography was discussed—with Dr. Vogel in Germany, for -instance, twenty-five years ago.” - -Elsewhere in this same magazine we read: “American photography is -going to be the ruling note throughout the world unless others bestir -themselves; indeed, the Photo-Secession (American) pictures have already -captured the highest places in the esteem of the civilized world. Hardly -an exhibition of first importance is anywhere held without a striking -collection of American work, brought together and sent by Mr. Alfred -Stieglitz. For the last two or three years in the European exhibitions -these collections have secured the premier awards, or distinctions.” And -again we find high praise of Steichen, “than whom America possesses no -more brilliant genius among her sons who have taken up photography.” - -These quotations—and many similar ones appeared over a decade ago in Mr. -Hinton’s magazine—give evidence that Mr. Hinton was not unaware of the -extreme importance of American photographic work or of the eminent men -who took part in it; and yet in writing his article for the _Britannica_ -he has apparently carefully forgotten what he himself had previously -written. - -But this is not the only evidence we have of deliberate injustice in -the Encyclopædia’s disgraceful neglect of our efforts in this line. -In 1913, in the same English magazine, we find not only an indirect -confession of the _Britannica’s_ bias, but also the personal reason -for that bias. Speaking of Stieglitz’s connection with that phase of -photographic history to which Mr. Hinton was most intimately connected, -this publication says: “At that era, and for long afterwards, Stieglitz -was, in fact, a thorn in our sides. ‘Who’s Boss of the Show?’ inquires -a poster, now placarded in London. Had that question been asked of -the (London) Salon, an irritated whisper of honesty would have replied -‘Stieglitz.’ And ... we didn’t like it. We couldn’t do without him; but -these torrential doctrines of his were, to be candid, a nuisance.... He -is an influence; an influence for which, even if photography were not -concerned, we should be grateful, but which, as it is, we photographers -can never perhaps justly estimate.” After this frank admission the -magazine adds: “Stieglitz—too big a man to need any ‘defense’—has been -considerably misunderstood and misrepresented, and, in so far as this is -so, photographers and photography itself are the losers.” - -What better direct evidence could one desire than this naïf confession? -Yes, Stieglitz, who, according to Mr. Hinton’s own former publication, -was a thorn in that critic’s side, has indeed been “misrepresented”; but -nowhere has he been neglected with so little excuse as in Mr. Hinton’s -own article in the _Britannica_. And though—again according to this -magazine—Stieglitz is “too big a man to need any ‘defense,’” I cannot -resist defending him here; for the whole, petty, personal and degrading -affair is characteristic of the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ contemptible -treatment of America and Americans. - -Such flagrant political intriguing, such an obvious attempt to use the -Encyclopædia to destroy America’s high place in the world of modern -achievement, can only arouse disgust in the unprejudiced reader. The -great light-bearer in the photographic field, _Camera Work_, if generally -known and appreciated, would have put Mr. Hinton’s own inferior magazine -out of existence as a power; and his omitting to mention it in his -article and even in his bibliography, is a flagrant example of the -_Britannica’s_ refusal to tell the whole truth whenever that truth would -harm England or benefit America. - - * * * * * - -In view of the wide and growing interest in æsthetics and of the immense -progress which has been made recently in æsthetic research, one would -expect to find an adequate and comprehensive treatment of that subject in -a work like the _Britannica_. But here again one will be disappointed. -The article on æsthetics reveals a _parti pris_ which illy becomes a work -which should be, as it claims to be, objective and purely informative. -The author of the article is critical and not seldom argumentative; -and, as a result, full justice is not done the theories and research -of many eminent modern æstheticians. Twenty-two lines are all that are -occupied in setting forth the æsthetic writers in Germany since Goethe -and Schiller, and in this brief paragraph, many of the most significant -contributors to the subject are not even given passing mention. And, -incredible as it may seem, that division of the article which deals with -the German writers is shorter than the division dealing with English -writers! - -One might forgive scantiness of material in this general article if it -were possible to find the leading modern æsthetic theories set forth in -the biographies of the men who conceived them. But—what is even more -astonishing in the Encyclopædia’s treatment of æsthetics—there are -no biographies of many of the scientists whose names and discoveries -are familiar to any one even superficially interested in the subject. -Several of these men, whose contributions have marked a new epoch in -psychological and æsthetic research, are not even mentioned in the text -of the Encyclopædia; and the only indication we have that they lived -and worked is in an occasional foot-note. Their names do not so much as -appear in the Index! - -Külpe, one of the foremost psychologists and æstheticians, has no -biography, and he is merely mentioned in a foot-note as being an -advocate of the principle of association. Lipps, who laid the foundation -of the new philosophy of æsthetics and formulated the hypothesis -of _Einfühlung_, has no biography. His name appears once—under -_Æsthetics_—and his theory is actually disputed by the critic who -wrote the article. Groos, another important æsthetic leader, is also -without a biography; and his name is not in the _Britannica’s_ Index. -Nor is Hildebrand, whose solutions to the problem of form are of grave -importance, thought worthy of mention. - -There is no excuse for such inadequacy, especially as England possesses -in Vernon Lee a most capable interpreter of æsthetics—a writer thoroughly -familiar with the subject, and one whose articles and books along this -line of research have long been conspicuous for their brilliancy and -thoroughness. - -Furthermore, in this article we have another example of the -_Britannica’s_ contempt for American achievement. This country has made -important contributions to æsthetics; and only an Englishman could -have written a modern exposition of the subject without referring to -the researches of William James and Hugo Münsterberg. The Lange-James -hypothesis has had an important influence on æsthetic theory; and -Münsterberg’s observations on æsthetic preference, form-perception and -projection of feelings, play a vital rôle in the history of modern -æsthetic science; but you will look in vain for any mention of these -Americans’ work. Münsterberg’s _Principles of Art Education_ is not even -included in the bibliography. - - - - -X - -PHILOSOPHY - - -One going to the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ for critical information -concerning philosophy will encounter the very essence of that spirit -which is merely reflected in the other departments of the Encyclopædia’s -culture. In this field the English editors and contributors of the -_Britannica_ are dealing with the sources of thought, and as a result -British prejudice finds a direct outlet. - -To be sure, it is difficult for a critic possessing the mental -characteristics and the ethical and religious predispositions of his -nation, to reveal the entire field of philosophy without bias. He has -certain temperamental affinities which will draw him toward his own -country’s philosophical systems, and certain antipathies which will -turn him against contrary systems of other nations. But in the higher -realms of criticism it is possible to find that intellectual detachment -which can review impersonally the development of thought, no matter what -tangential directions it may take. There have been several adequate -histories of philosophy written by British critics, proving that it is -not necessary for an Englishman to regard the evolution of thinking only -through distorted and prejudiced eyes. - -The _Encyclopædia Britannica_, however, evidently holds to no such just -ideal in its exposition of philosophical research. Only in a very few -of the biographies do we find evidences of an attempt to set forth this -difficult subject with impartiality. As in its other departments, the -Encyclopædia places undue stress on British thinkers: it accords them -space out of all proportion to their relative importance, and includes -obscure and inconsequent British moralists while omitting biographies of -far more important thinkers of other nations. - -This obvious discrepancy in space might be overlooked did the actual -material of the biographies indicate the comparative importance of the -thinkers dealt with. But when British critics consider the entire history -of thought from the postulates of their own writers, and emphasize only -those philosophers of foreign nationality who appeal to “English ways -of thinking,” then it is impossible to gain any adequate idea of the -philosophical teachings of the world as a whole. And this is precisely -the method pursued by the _Britannica_ in dealing with the history -and development of modern thought. In nearly every instance, and in -every important instance, it has been an English didactician who has -interpreted for this Encyclopædia the teachings of the world’s leading -philosophers; and there are few biographies which do not reveal British -prejudice. - -The modern English critical mind, being in the main both insular and -middle-class, is dominated by a suburban moral instinct. And even among -the few more scholarly critics there is a residue of puritanism which -tinctures the syllogisms and dictates the deductions. In bringing their -minds to bear on creative works these critics are filled with a sense of -moral disquietude. At bottom they are Churchmen. They mistake the tastes -and antipathies which have been bred in them by a narrow religious and -ethical culture, for pure critical criteria. They regard the great men of -other nations through the miasma of their tribal taboos. - -This rigid and self-satisfied provincialism of outlook, as applied to -philosophers in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, is not, I am inclined to -believe, the result of a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the importance -of British thinkers and to underrate the importance of non-British -thinkers. To the contrary, it is, I believe, the result of an unconscious -ethical prejudice coupled with a blind and self-contented patriotism. -But whatever the cause, the result is the same. Consequently, any one -who wishes an unbiased exposition of philosophical history must go to -a source less insular, and less distorted than the _Britannica_. Only -a British moralist, or one encrusted with British morality, will be -wholly satisfied with the manner in which philosophy is here treated; and -since there are a great many Americans who have not, as yet, succumbed -to English _bourgeois_ theology and who do not believe, for instance, -that Isaac Newton is of greater philosophic importance than Kant, this -Encyclopædia will be of far more value to an Englishman than to an -American. - -The first distortion which will impress one who seeks information in -the _Britannica_ is to be found in the treatment of English empirical -philosophers—that is, of John Locke, Isaac Newton, George Berkeley, -Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, Joseph Butler, Mandeville, Hume, Adam -Smith and David Hartley. Locke receives fifteen columns of detailed -exposition, with inset headings. “He was,” we are told, “typically -English in his reverence for facts” and “a signal example in the -Anglo-Saxon world of the love of attainable truth for the sake of truth -and goodness.” Then we are given the quotation: “If Locke made few -discoveries, Socrates made none.” Furthermore, he was “memorable in the -record of human progress.” - -Isaac Newton receives no less than nineteen columns filled with specific -and unstinted praise; and in the three-and-a-half column biography of -George Berkeley we learn that Berkeley’s “new conception marks a distinct -stage of progress in human thought”; that “he once for all lifted the -problem of metaphysics to a higher level,” and, with Hume, “determined -the form into which later metaphysical questions have been thrown.” -Shaftesbury, whose main philosophical importance was due to his ethical -and moral speculations in refutation of Hobbes’ egoism, is represented by -a biography of four and a half columns! - -Hume receives over fourteen columns, with inset headings; Adam Smith, -nearly nine columns, five and a half of which are devoted to a detailed -consideration of his _Wealth of Nations_. Hutcheson, the ethical moralist -who drew the analogy between beauty and virtue—the doctrinaire of the -moral sense and the benevolent feelings—is given no less than five -columns; while Joseph Butler, the philosophic divine who, we are told, -is a “typical instance of the English philosophical mind” and whose two -basic premises were the existence of a theological god and the limitation -of human knowledge, is given six and a half columns! - -On the other hand, Mandeville receives only a column and two-thirds. To -begin with, he was of French parentage, and his philosophy (according -to the _Britannica_) “has always been stigmatized as false, cynical and -degrading.” He did not believe in the higher Presbyterian virtues, and -read hypocrisy into the vaunted goodness of the English. Although in a -history of modern philosophy he is deserving of nearly equal space with -Butler, in the _Britannica_ he is given only a little over one-fifth of -the space! Even David Hartley, the English physician who supplemented -Hume’s theory of knowledge, is given nearly as much consideration as the -“degrading” Mandeville. And Joseph Priestley, who merely popularized -these theories, is given no less than two columns. - -Let us turn now to what has been called the “philosophy of the -enlightenment” in France and Germany, and we shall see the exquisite -workings of British moral prejudice in all its purity. Voltaire, we -learn, “was one of the most astonishing, if not exactly one of the more -admirable, figures of letters.” He had “cleverness,” but not “genius”; -and his great fault was an “inveterate superficiality.” Again: “Not the -most elaborate work of Voltaire is of much value for matter.” (The -biography, a derogatory and condescending one, is written by the eminent -moralist, George Saintsbury.) - -Condillac, who is given far less space than either Berkeley or -Shaftesbury, only half of the space given Hutcheson, and only a little -over one-third of the space given Joseph Butler, is set down as important -for “having established systematically in France the principles of -Locke.” But his “genius was not of the highest order”; and in his -analysis of the mind “he missed out the active and spiritual side of -human experience.” James Mill did not like him, and his method of -imaginative reconstruction “was by no means suited to English ways of -thinking.” This latter shortcoming no doubt accounts for the meagre -and uncomplimentary treatment Condillac receives in the great British -reference work which is devoted so earnestly to “English ways of -thinking.” - -Helvétius, whose theory of equality is closely related to Condillac’s -doctrine of psychic passivity, is given even shorter shrift, receiving -only a column and a third; and it is noted that “there is no doubt that -his thinking was unsystematic.” Diderot, however, fares much better, -receiving five columns of biography. But then, more and more “did Diderot -turn for the hope of the race to virtue; in other words, to such a -regulation of conduct and motive as shall make us tender, pitiful, -simple, contented,”—an attitude eminently fitted to “English ways of -thinking”! And Diderot’s one great literary passion, we learn, was -Richardson, the English novelist. - -La Mettrie, the atheist, who held no brief for the pious virtues or -for the theological soul so beloved by the British, receives just half -a column of biography in which the facts of his doctrine are set down -more in sorrow than in anger. Von Holbach, the German-Parisian prophet -of earthly happiness, who denied the existence of a deity and believed -that the soul became extinct at physical death, receives only a little -more space than La Mettrie—less than a column. But then, the uprightness -of Von Holbach’s character “won the friendship of many to whom his -philosophy was repugnant.” - -Montesquieu, however, is given five columns with liberal praise—both -space and eulogy being beyond his deserts. Perhaps an explanation of such -generosity lies in this sentence which we quote from his biography: “It -is not only that he is an Anglo-maniac, but that he is rather English -than French in style and thought.” - -Rousseau, on the other hand, possessed no such exalted qualities; and -the biography of this great Frenchman is shorter than Adam Smith’s and -only a little longer than that of the English divine, Joseph Butler! -The _Britannica_ informs us that Rousseau’s moral character was weak -and that he did not stand very high as a man. Furthermore, he was not a -philosopher; the essence of his religion was sentimentalism; and during -the last ten or fifteen years of his life he was not sane. If you wish to -see how unjust and biased is this moral denunciation of Rousseau, turn -to any unprejudiced history of philosophy, and compare the serious and -lengthy consideration given him, with the consideration given the English -moral thinkers who prove such great favorites with the _Britannica’s_ -editors. - -The German “philosophers of the enlightenment” are given even less -consideration. Christian Wolff, whose philosophy admittedly held almost -undisputed sway in Germany till eclipsed by Kantianism, receives only a -column-and-a-half biography, only half the space given to Samuel Clarke, -the English theological writer, and equal space with John Norris, the -English philosophical divine, and with Arthur Collier, the English High -Church theologian. Even Anthony Collins, the English deist, receives -nearly as long a biography. Moses Mendelssohn draws only two and a half -columns; Crusius, only half a column; Lambert, only a little over -three-fourths of a column; Reimarus, only a column and a third, in which -he is considered from the standpoint of the English deists; and Edelmann -and Tetens have no biographies whatever! - -Kant, as I have noted, receives less biographical space than Isaac -Newton, and only about a fifth more space than does either John Locke or -Hume. It is unnecessary to indicate here the prejudice shown by these -comparisons. Every one is cognizant of Kant’s tremendous importance in -the history of thought, and knows what relative consideration should -be given him in a work like the _Britannica_. Hamann, “the wise man of -the North,” who was the foremost of Kant’s opponents, receives only a -column-and-a-quarter biography, in which he is denounced. His writings, -to one not acquainted with the man, must be “entirely unintelligible -and, from their peculiar, pietistic tone and scriptural jargon, probably -offensive.” And he expressed himself in “uncouth, barbarous fashion.” -Herder, however, another and lesser opponent of Kantianism, receives -four and a half columns. Jacobi receives three; Reinhold, half a column; -Maimon, two-thirds of a column; and Schiller, four and a half columns. -Compare these allotments of space with: Thomas Hill Green, the English -neo-Kantian, two and two-thirds columns; Richard Price, a column and -three-fourths; Martineau, the English philosophic divine, five columns; -Ralph Cudworth, two columns; and Joseph Butler, six and a half columns! - -In the treatment of German philosophic romanticism the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ is curiously prejudiced. The particular philosophers of -this school—especially the ones with speculative systems—who had a -deep and wide influence on English thought, are treated with adequate -liberality. But the later idealistic thinkers, who substituted criticism -for speculation, receive scant attention, and in several instances are -omitted entirely. For English readers such a disproportioned and purely -national attitude may be adequate, since England’s intellectualism is, -in the main, insular. But, it must be remembered, the _Britannica_ has -assumed the character of an American institution; and, to date, this -country has not quite reached that state of British complacency where it -chooses to ignore _all_ information save that which is narrowly relative -to English culture. Some of us are still un-British enough to want an -encyclopædia of universal information. The _Britannica_ is not such -a reference work, and the manner in which it deals with the romantic -philosophers furnishes ample substantiation of this fact. - -Fichte, for instance, whose philosophy embodies a moral idealism -eminently acceptable to “English ways of thinking,” receives seven -columns of biography. Schelling, whose ideas were tainted with mythical -mysticism, but who was not an evolutionist in the modern sense of the -word, receives five columns. Hegel, who was, in a sense, the great -English philosophical idol and whose doctrines had a greater influence -in Great Britain than those of any other thinker, is given no less -than fifteen columns, twice the space that is given to Rousseau, and -five-sixths of the space that is given to Kant! Even Schleiermacher is -given almost equal space with Rousseau, and his philosophy is interpreted -as an effort “to reconcile science and philosophy with religion and -theology, and the modern world with the Christian church.” Also, the -focus of his thought, culture and life, we are told, “was religion and -theology.” - -Schopenhauer is one of the few foreign philosophers who receive adequate -treatment in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. But Boström, in whose works -the romantic school attained its systematic culmination, receives just -twenty-four lines, less space than is devoted to Abraham Tucker, the -English moralist, or to Garth Wilkinson, the English Swedenborgian; -and about the same amount of space as is given to John Morell, the -English Congregationalist minister who turned philosopher. And Frederick -Christian Sibbern receives no biography whatever! - -Kierkegaard, whose influence in the North has been profound, receives -only half a column, equal space with Andrew Baxter, the feeble Scottish -metaphysician; and only half the space given to Thomas Brown, another -Scotch “philosopher.” Fries who, with Herbart, was the forerunner of -modern psychology and one of the leading representatives of the critical -philosophy, is given just one column; but Beneke, a follower of Fries, -who approached more closely to the English school, is allotted twice the -amount of space that Fries receives. - -The four men who marked the dissolution of the Hegelian school—Krause, -Weisse, I. H. Fichte and Feuerbach—receive as the sum total of all -their biographies less space than is given to the English divine, James -Martineau, or to Francis Hutcheson. (In combating Hegelianism these -four thinkers invaded the precincts of British admiration.) In the -one-column biography of Krause we are told that the spirit of his thought -is difficult to follow and that his terminology is artificial. Weisse -receives only twenty-three lines; and I. H. Fichte, the son of J. G. -Fichte, receives only two-thirds of a column. Feuerbach, who marked the -transition between romanticism and positivism and who accordingly holds -an important position in the evolution of modern thought, is accorded a -biography of a column and a half, shorter than that of Richard Price. -Feuerbach, however, unlike Price, was an anti-theological philosopher, -and is severely criticised for his spiritual shortcomings. - -Let us glance quickly at the important philosophers of positivism -as represented in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. At the end of the -seventeenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth centuries the -principal French philosophers representative of schools were de Maistre, -Maine de Biran, Ampère, Saint-Simon and Victor Cousin. De Maistre, -the most important philosopher of the principle of authority, is -given a biography of a column and a third, is highly praised for his -ecclesiasticism, and is permitted to be ranked with Hobbes. Maine de -Biran receives a little over a column; Ampère, less than a column; and -Saint-Simon, two and a third columns. - -Victor Cousin is given the astonishing amount of space of eleven columns; -but just why he should have been treated in this extravagant manner -is not clear, for we are told that his search for principles was not -profound and that he “left no distinctive, permanent principles of -philosophy.” Nor does it seem possible that he should draw nearly as -much space as Rousseau and Montesquieu combined simply because he left -behind interesting analyses and expositions of the work of Locke and the -Scottish philosophers. Even Comte is given only four and a half columns -more. - -The English philosophers of the nineteenth century before John Stuart -Mill are awarded space far in excess of their importance, comparatively -speaking. For instance, James Mill receives two columns of biography; -Coleridge, who “did much to deepen and liberalize Christian thought in -England,” five and three-fourths columns; Carlyle, nine and two-thirds -columns; William Hamilton, two and three-fourths columns; Henry Mansel, a -disciple of Hamilton’s, two-thirds of a column; Whewell, over a column; -and Bentham, over three and a half columns. - -Bentham’s doctrines “have become so far part of the common thought of -the time, that there is hardly an educated man who does not accept as -too clear for argument truths which were invisible till Bentham pointed -them out.... The services rendered by Bentham to the world would not, -however, be exhausted even by the practical adoption of every one of -his recommendations. There are no limits to the good results of his -introduction of a true method of reasoning into the moral and political -sciences.” John Stuart Mill, whose philosophy is “generally spoken of -as being typically English,” receives nine and a half columns; Charles -Darwin, seven columns; and Herbert Spencer, over five. - -Positivism in Germany is represented by Dühring in a biography which -is only three-fourths of a column in length—an article which is merely -an attack, both personal and general. “His patriotism,” we learn, “is -fervent, but narrow and exclusive.” (Dühring idolized Frederick the -Great.) Ardigò, the important Italian positivist, receives no mention -whatever in the Encyclopædia, although in almost any adequate history of -modern philosophy, even a brief one, you will find a discussion of his -work. - -With the exception of Lotze, the philosophers of the new idealism receive -scant treatment in the _Britannica_. Hartmann and Fechner are accorded -only one column each; and Wilhelm Wundt, whose æsthetic and psychological -researches outstrip even his significant philosophical work, is accorded -only half a column! Francis Herbert Bradley has no biography—a curious -oversight, since he is English; and Fouillée receives only a little over -half a column. - -The most inadequate and prejudiced treatment in the _Britannica_ of any -modern philosopher is to be found in the biography of Nietzsche, which -is briefer than Mrs. Humphry Ward’s! Not only is Nietzsche accorded -less space than is given to such British philosophical writers as -Dugald Stewart, Henry Sidgwick, Richard Price, John Norris, Thomas Hill -Green, James Frederick Ferrier, Adam Ferguson, Ralph Cudworth, Anthony -Collins, Arthur Collier, Samuel Clarke and Alexander Bain—an absurd and -stupid piece of narrow provincial prejudice—but the biography itself is -superficial and inaccurate. The supposed doctrine of Nietzsche is here -used to expose the personal opinions of the tutor of Corpus Christi -College who was assigned the task of interpreting Nietzsche to the -readers of the _Britannica_. It would be impossible to gather any clear -or adequate idea of Nietzsche and his work from this biased and moral -source. Here middle-class British insularity reaches its high-water mark. - -Other important modern thinkers, however, are given but little better -treatment. Lange receives only three-fourths of a column; Paulsen, less -than half a column; Ernst Mach, only seventeen lines; Eucken, only -twenty-eight lines, with a list of his works; and Renouvier, two-thirds -of a column. J. C. Maxwell, though, the Cambridge professor, gets two -columns—twice the space given Nietzsche! - -In the biography of William James we discern once more the contempt -which England has for this country. Here is a man whose importance is -unquestioned even in Europe, and who stands out as one of the significant -figures in modern thought; yet the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, that -“supreme book of knowledge,” gives him a biography of just twenty-eight -lines! And it is Americans who are furnishing the profits for this -English reference work! - -Perhaps the British editors of this encyclopædia think that we should -feel greatly complimented at having William James admitted at all when -so many other important moderns of Germany and France and America are -excluded. But so long as unimportant English philosophical writers are -given biographies, we have a right to expect, in a work which calls -itself an “international dictionary of biography,” the adequate inclusion -of the more deserving philosophers of other nations. - -But what do we actually find? You may hunt the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ -through, yet you will not see the names of John Dewey and Stanley Hall -mentioned! John Dewey, an American, is perhaps the world’s leading -authority on the philosophy of education; but the British editors of -the Encyclopædia do not consider him worth noting, even in a casual way. -Furthermore, Stanley Hall, another American, who stands in the front -rank of the world’s genetic psychologists, is not so much as mentioned. -And yet Hall’s great work, _Adolescence_, appeared five years before the -_Britannica_ went to press! Nor has Josiah Royce a biography, despite -the fact that he was one of the leaders in the philosophical thought of -America, and was even made an LL.D. by Aberdeen University in 1900. These -omissions furnish excellent examples of the kind of broad and universal -culture which is supposed to be embodied in the _Britannica_. - -But these are by no means all the omissions of the world’s important -modern thinkers. Incredible as it may seem, there is no biography of -Hermann Cohen, who elaborated the rationalistic elements in Kant’s -philosophy; of Alois Riehl, the positivist neo-Kantian; of Windelband -and Rickert, whose contributions to the theory of eternal values in -criticism are of decided significance to-day; of Freud, a man who has -revolutionized modern psychology and philosophic determinism; of Amiel -Boutroux, the modern French philosopher of discontinuity; of Henri -Bergson, whose influence and popularity need no exposition here; of -Guyau, one of the most effective critics of English utilitarianism and -evolutionism; or of Jung. - -When we add Roberto Ardigò, Weininger, Edelmann, Tetans, and Sibbern -to this list of philosophic and psychologic writers who are not -considered of sufficient importance to receive biographical mention in -the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, we have, at a glance, the prejudicial -inadequacy and incompleteness of this “great” English reference work. -Nor can any excuse be offered that the works of these men appeared after -the _Britannica_ was printed. At the time it went to press even the most -modern of these writers held a position of sufficient significance or -note to have been included. - -In closing, and by way of contrast, let me set down some of the modern -British philosophical writers who are given liberal biographies; Robert -Adamson, the Scottish critical historian of philosophy; Alexander Bain; -Edward and John Caird, Scottish philosophic divines; Harry Calderwood, -whose work was based on the contention that fate implies knowledge and -on the doctrine of divine sanction; David George Ritchie, an unimportant -Scotch thinker; Henry Sidgwick, an orthodox religionist and one of the -founders of the Society for Psychical Research; James H. Stirling, an -expounder of Hegel and Kant; William Wallace, an interpreter of Hegel; -and Garth Wilkinson, the Swedenborgian homeopath. - -Such is the brief record of the manner in which the world’s modern -philosophers are treated in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. From this work -hundreds of thousands of Americans are garnering their educational ideas. - - - - -XI - -RELIGION - - -Throughout several of the foregoing chapters I have laid considerable -emphasis on the narrow parochial attitude of the _Britannica’s_ editors -and on the constant intrusion of England’s middle-class Presbyterianism -into nearly every branch of æsthetics. The _Britannica_, far from being -the objective and unbiased work it claims to be, assumes a personal -and prejudiced attitude, and the culture of the world is colored and -tinctured by that viewpoint. It would appear self-obvious to say -that the subject of religion in any encyclopædia whose aim is to be -universal, should be limited to the articles on religious matters. But -in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ this is not the case. As I have shown, -those great artists and thinkers who do not fall within the range of -_bourgeois_ England’s suburban morality, are neglected, disparaged, or -omitted entirely. - -Not only patriotic prejudice, but evangelical prejudice as well, -characterizes this encyclopædia’s treatment of the world’s great -achievements; and nowhere does this latter bias exhibit itself more -unmistakably than in the articles relating to Catholicism. The trickery, -the manifest ignorance, the contemptuous arrogance, the inaccuracies, the -venom, and the half-truths which are encountered in the discussion of the -Catholic Church and its history almost pass the bounds of credibility. -The wanton prejudice exhibited in this department of the _Britannica_ -cannot fail to find resentment even in non-Catholics, like myself; and -for scholars, either in or out of the Church, this encyclopædia, as a -source of information, is not only worthless but grossly misleading. - -The true facts relating to the inclusion of this encyclopædia’s article -on Catholicism, as showing the arrogant and unscholarly attitude of -the editors, are as interesting to those outside of the Church as to -Catholics themselves. And it is for the reason that these articles are -typical of a great many of the Encyclopædia’s discussions of culture in -general that I call attention both to the misinformation contained in -them and to the amazing refusal of the _Britannica’s_ editors to correct -the errors when called to their attention at a time when correction -was possible. The treatment of the Catholic Church by the _Britannica_ -is quite in keeping with its treatment of other important subjects, -and it emphasizes, perhaps better than any other topic, not only the -Encyclopædia’s petty bias and incompleteness, but the indefensible and -mendacious advertising by which this set of books was foisted upon the -American public. And it also gives direct and irrefutable substantiation -to my accusation that the spirit of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ is -closely allied to the provincial religious doctrines of the British -_bourgeoisie_; and that therefore it is a work of the most questionable -value. - -Over five years ago T. J. Campbell, S. J., in _The Catholic Mind_, wrote -an article entitled _The Truth About the Encyclopædia Britannica_—an -article which, from the standpoint of an authority, exposed the utter -unreliability of this Encyclopædia’s discussion of Catholicism. The -article is too long to quote here, but enough of it will be given to -reveal the inadequacy of the _Britannica_ as a source of accurate -information. “The _Encyclopædia Britannica_,” the article begins, “has -taken an unfair advantage of the public. By issuing all its volumes -simultaneously it prevented any protests against misstatements until the -whole harm was done. Henceforth prudent people will be less eager to put -faith in prospectuses and promises. The volumes were delivered in two -installments a couple of months apart. The article _Catholic Church_, -in which the animus of the Encyclopædia might have been detected, should -naturally have been in the first set. It was adroitly relegated to the -end of the second set, under the caption _Roman Catholic Church_. - -“It had been intimated to us that the Encyclopædia’s account of the -Jesuits was particularly offensive. That is our excuse for considering it -first. Turning to it we found that the same old battered scarecrow had -been set up. The article covers ten and a half large, double-columned, -closely-printed pages, and requires more than an hour in its perusal. -After reading it two or three times we closed the book with amazement, -not at the calumnies with which the article teems and to which custom -has made us callous, but at the lack of good judgment, of accurate -scholarship, of common information, and business tact which it reveals in -those who are responsible for its publication. - -“It ought to be supposed that the subscribers to this costly encyclopædia -had a right to expect in the discussion of all the questions presented -an absolute or quasi-absolute freedom from partisan bias, a sincere and -genuine presentation of all the results of the most modern research, a -positive exclusion of all second-hand and discredited matter, and a -scrupulous adherence to historical truth. In the article in question all -these essential conditions are woefully lacking. - -“Encyclopædias of any pretence take especial pride in the perfection and -completeness of their bibliographies. It is a stamp of scholarship and -a guarantee of the thoroughness and reliability of the article, which -is supposed to be an extract and a digest of all that has been said or -written on the subject. The bibliography annexed to the article on the -_Jesuits_, is not only deplorably meagre, but hopelessly antiquated. -Thus, for instance, only three works of the present century are quoted; -one of them apparently for no reason whatever, viz.: _The History of -the Jesuits of North America_, in three volumes, by Thomas Hughes, S. -J., for, as far as we are able to see, the Encyclopædia article makes -no mention of their being with Lord Baltimore in Maryland, or of the -preceding troubles of the Jesuits in England, which were considered -important enough for a monumental work, but evidently not for a compiler -of the Encyclopædia. Again, the nine words, ‘laboring amongst the Hurons -and Iroquois of North America,’ form the sum total of all the information -vouchsafed us about the great missions of the seventeenth and eighteenth -centuries, though we are referred to the seventy-three volumes of -Thwaites’ edition of the _Jesuits Relations_. Had the author or editor -even glanced at these books he might have seen that besides the Huron -and Iroquois missions, which were very brief in point of time and very -restricted in their territorial limitations, the Jesuit missions with the -Algonquins extended from Newfoundland to Alaska, and are still continued; -he would have found that most of the ethnological, religious, linguistic -and geographical knowledge we have of aboriginal North America comes -from those _Jesuit Relations_; and possibly without much research the -sluggish reader would have met with a certain inconspicuous Marquette; -but as Englishmen, up to the Civil War, are said to have imagined that -the Mississippi was the dividing line between the North and South, the -value of the epoch-making discovery of the great river never entered this -slow foreigner’s mind. Nor is there any reference to the gigantic labors -of the Jesuits in Mexico; but perhaps Mexico is not considered to be in -North America. - -“Nor is there in this bibliography any mention of the _Monumenta -Historica Societatis Jesu_, nor of the _Monumenta Pædagogica_, -nor is there any allusion to the great and learned works of Duhr, -Tacchi-Venturi, Fouqueray, and Kroes, which have just been published -and are mines of information on the history of the Society in Spain, -Germany, Italy and France; and although we are told of the _Historia -Societatis Jesu_ by Orlandini, which bears the very remote imprint of -1620, is very difficult to obtain, and covers a very restricted period, -there is apparently no knowledge of the classic work of Jouvency, nor -is Sacchini cited, nor Polanco. The _Bibliothèque des écrivains de la -Compagnie de Jésus_, by De Backer, not ‘Backer,’ as the Encyclopædia -has it, is listed; but it is simply shocking to find that there was no -knowledge of Sommervogel, who is the continuator of De Backer, and who -has left us a most scholarly and splendid work which is brought down to -our own times, and for which De Backer’s, notable though it be, was only -a preparation. In brief, the bibliography is absolutely worthless, not -only for a scholar, but even for the average reader. - -“On the other hand it is quite in keeping with the character of the -writers who were chosen for the article. The New York _Evening Post_ -informs us that before 1880, when a search for a suitable scribe for the -Jesuit article was instituted, some one started on a hunt for Cardinal -Newman, but the great man had no time. Then he thought of Manning, who, -of course, declined, and finally knowing no other ‘Jesuit’ he gave the -work to Littledale. Littledale, as everyone knows, was an Anglican -minister, notorious not only for his antagonism to the Jesuits, but also -to the Catholic Church. He gladly addressed himself to the task, and -forthwith informed the world that ‘the Jesuits controlled the policy of -Spain’; that ‘it was a matter of common knowledge that they kindled the -Franco-Prussian war of 1870’; that ‘Pope Julius II dispensed the Father -General from his vow of poverty,’ though that warrior Pope expired eight -years before Ignatius sought the solitude of Manresa, and had as yet no -idea of a Society of Jesus; again, that ‘the Jesuits from the beginning -never obeyed the Pope’; that ‘in their moral teaching they can attenuate -and even defend any kind of sin’; and, finally, not to be too prolix in -this list of absurdities, that, prior to the Vatican Council, ‘they had -filled up all the sees of Latin Christendom with bishops of their own -selection.’ - -“It is true that only the last mentioned charge appears in the present -edition, and it is a fortunate concession for Littledale’s suffering -victims; for if ‘there are no great intellects among the Jesuits,’ and -if they are only a set of ‘respectable mediocrities,’ as this ‘revised’ -article tells us, they can point with pride to this feat which makes a -dozen Franco-Prussian wars pale into insignificance alongside it. We -doubt, however, if the 700 prelates who sat in the Vatican Council would -accept that explanation of their promotion in the prelacy; and we feel -certain that Cardinal Manning, who was one of the great figures in that -assembly, would resent it, at least if it be true, as the Encyclopædia -assures us, that he considered the suppression of the Society in 1773 to -be the work of God, and was sure that another 1773 was coming. - -“The wonder is that a writer who can be guilty of such absurdities -should, after twenty years, be summoned from the dead as a witness to -anything at all. But on the other hand it is not surprising when we see -that the Rev. Ethelred Taunton, who is also dead and buried, should be -made his yoke-fellow in ploughing over this old field, to sow again these -poisonous weeds. There are many post-mortems in the Encyclopædia. Had the -careless editors of the Encyclopædia consulted Usher’s _Reconstruction -of the English Church_, they would have found Taunton described as an -author ‘who makes considerable parade of the amount of his research, but -has not gone very far and has added little, if anything, to what we knew -before. As a whole, his book on _The History of the Jesuits in England_ -is uncritical and prejudiced.’ - -“Such is the authority the Encyclopædia appeals to for information. That -is bad enough, but in the list of authors Taunton is actually described -as a ‘Jesuit.’ Possibly it is one of the punishments the Almighty has -meted out to him for his misuse of the pen while on earth. But he never -did half the harm to the Jesuits by his ill-natured assaults as he has -to the Encyclopædia in being mistaken for an ‘S. J.’; for although there -are some people who will believe anything an encyclopædia tells them, -there are others who are not so meek and who will be moved to inquire -how, if the editor of this publication is so lamentably ignorant of the -personality and antecedents of his contributors, he can vouch for the -reliability of what newspaper men very properly call the stuff that comes -into the office. We are not told who revised the writings of those two -dead men, one of whom departed this life twenty, the other four years -ago; and we have to be satisfied with a posthumous and prejudiced and -partly anonymous account of a great Order, about which many important -books have been written since the demise of the original calumniators, -and with which apparently the unknown reviser is unacquainted. - -“It may interest the public to know that many of these errors were -pointed out to the managers of the Encyclopædia at their New York office -when the matter was still in page proof and could have been corrected. -Evidently it was not thought worth while to pay any attention to the -protest. - -“It is true that in the minds of some of their enemies, especially in -certain parts of the habitable globe, Catholics have no right to resent -anything that is said of their practices and beliefs, no matter how -false or grotesque such statements may be; and, consequently, we are -not surprised at the assumption by the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ of -its usual contemptuous attitude. Thus, for instance, on turning to the -articles _Casuistry_ and _Roman Catholic Church_ we find them signed -‘St. C.’ Naturally and supernaturally to be under the guidance of a -Saint C. or a Saint D. always inspires confidence in a Catholic; but -this ‘St. C.’ turns out to be only the Viscount St. Cyres, a scion of -the noble house of Sir Stafford Northcote, the one time leader of the -House of Commons, who died in 1887. In the Viscount’s ancestral tree we -notice that Sir Henry Stafford Northcote, first Baronet, has appended -to his name the title ‘Prov. Master of Devonshire Freemasons.’ What -‘Prov.’ means we do not know, but we are satisfied with the remaining -part of the description. The Viscount was educated at Eton, and Merton -College, Oxford. He is a layman and a clubman, and as far as we know is -not suspected of being a Catholic. A search in the ‘Who’s Who?’ failed to -reveal anything on that point, though a glance at the articles over his -name will dispense us from any worry about his religious status. - -“We naturally ask why he should have been chosen to enlighten the world -on Catholic topics? ‘Because,’ says the editor of the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_, ‘the Viscount St. Cyres has probably more knowledge of the -development of theology in the Roman Catholic Church than any other -person in that Church.’ - -“The Church was unaware that it had at its disposal such a source of -information. It will be news to many, but we are inclined to ask how the -Viscount acquired that marvelous knowledge. It would require a life-long -absorption in the study of divinity quite incompatible with the social -duties of one of his station. Furthermore, we should like to know whence -comes the competency of the editor to decide on the ability of the -Viscount, and to pass judgment on the correctness of his contribution? -That also supposes an adequate knowledge of all that the dogmatic, moral -and mystic theologians ever wrote, a life-long training in the language -and methods of the science, and a special intellectual aptitude to -comprehend the sublime speculations of the Church’s divines. - -“It will not be unkind to deny him such qualifications, especially now, -for did he not tell his friends at the London banquet: ‘During all these -(seven) years I have been busy in the blacksmith’s shop (of the editor’s -room) and I do not hear the noise that is made by the hammers all around -me’—nor, it might be added, does he hear what is going on outside the -_Britannica’s_ forge. - -“Meantime, we bespeak the attention of all the Catholic theologians in -every part of the world to the preposterous invitation to come to hear -the last word about ‘the development of theology’ in the Catholic Church -from a scholar whose claim to theological distinction is that ‘he has -written about Fénélon and Pascal.’ The _Britannica_ shows scant respect -to Catholic scholarship and Catholic intelligence.” - -Father Campbell then devotes several pages to a specific indictment of -the misstatements and the glaring errors to be found in several of the -articles relating to the Catholic Church. He quotes eight instances of -St. Cyres’ inaccurate and personal accusations, and also many passages -from the articles on _Papacy_, _Celibacy_ and _St. Catherine of -Siena_—passages which show the low and biased standard of scholarship by -which they were written. The injustice contained in them is obvious even -to a superficial student of history. At the close of these quotations -he accuses the _Britannica_ of being neither up-to-date, fair, nor -well-informed. “It repeats old calumnies that have been a thousand times -refuted, and it persistently selects the Church’s enemies who hold her -up to ridicule and contempt. We are sorry for those who have been lavish -in their praises of a book which is so defective, so prejudiced, so -misleading and so insulting.” - -It seems that while the _Britannica’s_ contributions to the general -misinformation of the world were being discussed, the editor wrote to one -of his subscribers saying that the Catholics were very much vexed because -the article on the Jesuits was not “sufficiently eulogistic.” - -“He is evidently unaware,” Father Campbell goes on to comment, “that the -Society of Jesus is sufficiently known both in the Church and the world -not to need a monument in the graveyard of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. -Not the humblest Brother in the Order expected anything but calumny and -abuse when he saw appended to the article the initials of the well-known -assassins of the Society’s reputation. Not one was surprised, much less -displeased, at the absence of eulogy, sufficient or otherwise; but, -on the contrary, they were all amazed to find the loudly trumpeted -commercial enterprise, which had been so persistently clamorous of its -possession of the most recent results of research in every department of -learning, endeavoring to palm off on the public such shopworn travesties -of historical and religious truth. The editor is mistaken if he thinks -they pouted. Old and scarred veterans are averse to being patted on the -back by their enemies. - -“It is not, however, the ill-judged gibe that compels us to revert to the -Society, as much as the suspicion that the editor of the _Encyclopædia -Britannica_ seems to fancy that we had nothing to say beyond calling -attention to his dilapidated bibliography, which he labels with the very -offensive title of ‘the bibliography of _Jesuitism_’—a term which is as -incorrect as it is insulting—or that we merely objected to the employment -of two dead and discredited witnesses to tell the world what kind of an -organization the Society is. - -“It may be, moreover, that we misjudged a certain portion of the reading -public in treating the subject so lightly, and as the Encyclopædia is -continually reiterating the assertion that it has no ‘bias’ and that its -statement of facts is purely ‘objective,’ a few concrete examples of the -opposite kind of treatment—the one commonly employed—may not be out of -place. - -“We are told, for instance, that ‘the Jesuits had their share, direct or -indirect, in the embroiling of States, in concocting conspiracies and in -kindling wars. They were responsible by their theoretical teachings in -theological schools for not a few assassinations’ (340). ‘They powerfully -aided the revolution which placed the Duke of Braganza on the throne of -Portugal, and their services were rewarded with the practical control of -ecclesiastical and almost civil affairs in that kingdom for nearly one -hundred years’ (344). ‘Their war against the Jansenists did not cease -till the very walls of Port Royal were demolished in 1710, even to the -very abbey church itself, and the bodies of the dead taken with every -mark of insult from their graves and literally flung to the dogs to -devour’ (345). ‘In Japan the Jesuits died with their converts bravely -as martyrs to the Faith, yet it is impossible to acquit them of a large -share of the causes of that overthrow’ (345). ‘It was about the same time -that the grave scandal of the Chinese and Malabar rites began to attract -attention in Europe and to make thinking men ask seriously whether the -Jesuit missionaries in those parts taught anything which could fairly be -called Christianity at all’ (348). ‘The political schemings of Parsons -in England was an object lesson to the rest of Europe of a restless -ambition and a lust of domination which were to find many imitators’ -(348). ‘The General of the Order drove away six thousand exiled Jesuit -priests from the coast of Italy, and made them pass several months of -suffering on crowded vessels at sea to increase public sympathy, but the -actual result was blame for the cruelty with which he had enhanced their -misfortunes’ (346). ‘Clement XIV, who suppressed them, is said to have -died of poison, but Tanucci and two others entirely acquit the Jesuits.’ -‘They are accountable in no small degree in France, as in England, for -alienating the minds of men from the religion for which they professed to -work’ (345). - -“Very little of this can be characterized as ‘eulogistic,’ especially -as interwoven in the story are malignant insinuations, incomplete and -distorted statements, suppressions of truth, gross errors of fact, and -a continual injection of personal venom which makes the argument not -an ‘unbiased and objective presentment’ of the case, but the plea of a -prejudiced prosecuting and persecuting attorney endeavoring by false -testimony to convict before the bar of public opinion an alleged culprit, -whose destruction he is trying to accomplish with an uncanny sort of -delight.” - -After having adduced a long list of instances which “reveal the rancor -and ignorance of many of the writers hired by the Encyclopædia,” the -article then points out “the fundamental untruthfulness” on which the -_Britannica_ is built. In a letter written by the Encyclopædia’s editor -appears the following specious explanation: “Extreme care was taken by -the editors, and especially by the editor responsible for the theological -side of the work, that every subject, either directly or indirectly -concerned with religion, should as far as possible be objective and not -subjective in _their_ presentation. The majority of the articles on the -various Churches and their beliefs were written by members within the -several communions, and, if not so written, were submitted to those most -competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, correction.” - -Father Campbell in his answer to this letter says: “Without animadverting -on the peculiar use of the English language by the learned English editor -who tells us that ‘_every_ subject’ should be ‘objective’ in _their_ -presentation, we do not hesitate to challenge absolutely the assertion -that ‘the majority of the articles on the various Churches were written -by members within the several communions, and if not so written were -submitted to those most competent to judge, for criticism and, if need -be, for correction.’ Such a pretence is simply amazing, and thoroughly -perplexed, we asked: What are we supposed to understand when we are -informed that ‘the _majority_ of the articles on the various Churches and -their beliefs were written by members within the several communions’? - -“Was the article on _The Roman Catholic Church_ written by a Catholic? -Was the individual who accumulated and put into print all those vile -aspersions on the Popes, the saints, the sacraments, the doctrines of the -Church, a Catholic? Were the other articles on _Casuistry_, _Celibacy_, -_St. Catherine of Siena_, and _Mary_, the mother of Jesus, written by a -Catholic? The supposition is simply inconceivable, and it calls for more -than the unlimited assurance of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ to compel -us to accept it. - -“But ‘they were submitted to the most competent judge for criticism and, -if need be, correction.’ Were they submitted to any judge at all, or to -any man of sense, before they were sent off to be printed and scattered -throughout the English speaking world? Is it permissible to imagine for -a moment that any Catholic could have read some of those pages and not -have been filled with horror at the multiplied and studied insults to -everything he holds most sacred in his religion? Or did ‘the editor -responsible for the theological side of the work’ reserve for himself the -right to reject or accept whatever recommended itself to his superior -judgment?” - -The article then points out that “far from being just to Catholics, the -_Britannica_ pointedly 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 the _Christian 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. - -The _Britannica’s_ editor also apologized for his encyclopædia by -stating that “Father Braun, S. J., has _assisted_ us in our article on -_Vestments_, and that Father Delehaye, S. J., has contributed, among -other articles, those on _The 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 new _Britannica_ has 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, _assist_ -the editors in the very safe article on _Vestments_, 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 the -_Papacy_ is 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 what they must have known better than even the erudite Benedictine? -Nor will it avail to tell us that His Eminence of Baltimore wrote -_The 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 a _History -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, the _Encyclopædia 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 the -_Britannica_ for 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. - - - - -XII - -TWO HUNDRED OMISSIONS - - -The following list contains two hundred of the many hundreds of -writers, painters, musicians and scientists who are denied biographies -in the _Britannica_. There is not a name here which should not be in -an encyclopædia which claims for itself the completeness which the -_Britannica_ claims. 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 the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ -advertising, glance down this list. Then decide for yourself whether or -not the statements are accurate. - -Objection may be raised to some of the following names 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 -the _Britannica_. 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. - - -LITERATURE - - “A. E.” (George W. Russell) - Andreiev - Artzibashef - Hermann Bahr - Henri Bernstein - Otto Julius Bierbaum - Ambrose Bierce - Helene Böhlau - Henry Bordeaux - René Boylesve - Enrico Butti - Cammaerts - Capuana - Bliss Carman - Winston Churchill - Pierre de Coulevain - Richard Dehmel - Margaret Deland - Grazia Deledda - Theodore Dreiser - Eekhoud - Clyde Fitch - Paul Fort - Gustav Frenssen - Fröding - Fucini (Tanfucio Neri) - Garshin - Stefan George - René de Ghil - Giacosa - Ellen Glasgow - Rémy de Gourmont - Robert Grant - Lady Gregory - Grigorovich - Hartleben - Heidenstam - Hirschfeld - Hugo von Hofmannsthal - Arno Holz - Richard Hovey - Bronson Howard - Ricarda Huch - James Huneker - Douglas Hyde - Lionel Johnson - Karlfeldt - Charles Klein - Korolenko - Kuprin - Percy MacKaye - Emilio de Marchi - Ferdinando Martini - Stuart Merrill - William Vaughn Moody - Nencioni - Standish O’Grady - Ompteda - Panzacchi - Giovanni Pascoli - David Graham Phillips - Wilhelm von Polenz - Rapisardi - Edwin Arlington Robinson - Romain Rolland - T. W. Rolleston - Rovetta - Albert Samain - George Santayana - Johannes Schlaf - Schnitzler - Severin - Signoret - Synge - John Bannister Tabb - Tchekhoff - Gherardi del Testa - Jérôme and Jean Tharaud - Ludwig Thoma - Augustus Thomas - Tinayre - Katherine Tynan - Veressayeff - Clara Viebig - Annie Vivanti - Wackenroder - Wedekind - Edith Wharton - Owen Wister - Ernst von Wolzogen - - -PAINTING - - George Bellows - Carrière - Mary Cassatt - Cézanne - Louis Corinth - Maurice Denis - Gauguin - Habermann - C. W. Hawthorne - Robert Henri - Hodler - Sergeant Kendall - Ludwig Knaus - Krüger - Jean Paul Laurens - Leibl - Von Marées - René Ménard - Redon - Charles Shuch - Lucien Simon - Steinlen - Toulouse-Lautrec - Trübner - Twachtman - Van Gogh - Vallotton - Zorn - - -MUSIC - - d’Albert - Arensky - Mrs. Beach - Busoni - Buxtehude - Charpentier - Frederick Converse - Cui - Arthur Foote - Grechaninov - Guilmant - Henry K. Hadley - Josef Hofmann - Edgar Stillman Kelly - Kreisler - Leschetitzky - Gustav Mahler - Marschner - Nevin - Nordraak - John Knowles Paine - Horatio Parker - Rachmaninov - Ravel - Max Reger - Nikolaus Rubinstein - Scharwenka brothers - Georg Alfred Schumann - Scriabine - Sibelius - Friedrich Silcher - Sinding - Taneiev - Wolf-Ferrari - - -SCIENCE AND INVENTION - - William Beaumont - John Shaw Billings - Luther Burbank - George W. Crile - Harvey Cushing - Rudolph Diesel - Daniel Drake - Ehrlich - Simon Flexner - W. W. Gerhard - Samuel David Gross - William S. Halsted - Wilhelm His - Abraham Jacobi - Rudolph Leuckart - Franz Leydig - Jacques Loeb - Percival Lowell - Lyonet (Lyonnet) - S. J. Meltzer - Metchnikoff - T. H. Morgan - Joseph O’Dwyer - Ramón y Cajal - Nicholas Senn - Marion Sims - Theobald Smith - W. H. Welch - Orville Wright - Wilbur Wright - - -PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY - - Ardigò - Bergson - Boutroux - Hermann Cohen - John Dewey - Edelmann - Freud - Guyau - G. Stanley Hall - Hildebrand - Jung - Külpe - Lipps - Josiah Royce - Alois Riehl - Sibbern - Soloviov - Tetans - Windelband - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Misinforming a Nation, by Willard Huntington Wright - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MISINFORMING A NATION *** - -***** This file should be named 60985-0.txt or 60985-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/9/8/60985/ - -Produced by WebRover, MWS and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |