.[3RARY "IIYERSITY OP ^ SMi»A Li-. 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 ESTHETIC FORM AND ORGANIZATION Jylisinforming a iSation by Willard Huntington Wright New York B. W. Huebsch MCMXVII COPYRIGHT, 1917. BY B. W. HUEBSCH FUIKTED IN THE UNITTD STATES OF AMERICA CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I Colonizing America i 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, ^Esthetics . 160 X Philosophy 174 XI Religion 195 XII Two Hundred Omissions 218 MISINFORMING A NATION COLONIZING AMERICA The intellectual colonization of America by Eng- land has been going on for generations. Taking advantage of her position of authority — a posi- tion built on centuries of aesthetic tradition — Eng- land 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 institu- tions would give them, have been influenced by the insular judgments of England, and, in an ef- fort 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 2 MISINFORMING A NATION with fuel ; and in our slavish imitation of England — the only country in Europe of which we have any intimate knowledge — we have de-American- ized 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 bar- rier exists between us and the Continental coun- tries. But no such barrier exists between America and England; and consequently there is a con- stant 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 impedi- ment of translation. Add to this lingual rap- prochement 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 COLONIZING AMERICA 3 disquieting jealousy, which is tinctured not a lit- tle by resentment, has resulted in an open con- tempt for all things American. And it is not un- natural 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 op- portunity for foisting her own artists and artisans on this country. She it is who sets the standard which at once demolishes our individual expres- sion and glorifies the efforts of Englishmen. Our publishers, falling in line with this campaign, im- port 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 distinc- tion is that they assiduously play the parrot to British opinion, fill their publications with the 4 MISINFORMING A NATION work of English mediocrities and ignore the more deserving contributions of their fellow-country- men. Even our educational institutions disseminate the English superstition and neglect the great men of ^\merica; for nowhere in the United States will you find the spirit of narrow snobbery so highly developed as in our colleges and universi- ties. 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 shrewd- ness. What is more, this cultural extension pol- icy 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 high- COLONIZING AMERICA ^ est English culture — that is, the genuinely signifi- cant scholarship of the few great modem British creators — which was forced upon America, there would be no cause for complaint. But the gov- erning influences in English criticism are aggres- sively middle-class and chauvinistic, with the re- sult 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 Amer- ica has of French attainments. French genius has always been depreciated and traduced by the British; and no more subtle and disgraceful cam- paign of derogation has been launched in modern times than the consistent method pursued by the English in misinterpreting French ideals and ac- complishments to Americans. To England is due largely, if not entirely, the uncomplimentary opin- ion 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 periodi- cals are looked upon as collections of prurient an- ecdotes and licentious pictures. And the average French painting is conceived as a realistic presen- tation of feminine nakedness. So deeply rooted are these conceptions that the very word "French" 6 MISINFORMING A NATION has become, in the American's vocabulary, an ad- jective signifying all manner of sexual abnormali- ties, 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 litera- ture ; 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 Con- tinental nations that is the most serious result of English misrepresentation; in time we will come to realize how deceived we were in accepting Eng- land's insinuations that France is indecent, Ger- many stupid, Italy decadent, and Russia barbar- ous. The great harm done by England's contemptuous critics is in belittling American achievement. Too long has bourgeois British cul- ture been forced upon the United States; and we have been too gullible in our acceptance of it with- out question. English critics and English periodi- cals have consistently attempted to discourage the growth of any national individualism in America, by ridiculing or ignoring our best aesthetic efforts and by imposing upon us their own insular criteria. To such an extent have they succeeded that an COLONIZING AMERICA ^ 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 coun- try. Upon his arrival he is interviewed by the newspapers; his picture appears in the "supple- ments"; 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 com- mercial, 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 prac- tice, so they explain, is that the books may be ready for an English edition without resetting. The English, however, do not use American spell- ing 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. 8 MISINFORMING A NATION The evidences of the American's enforced be- lief 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 cer- tain 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 Eng- lishmen. 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 Encyclopedia Brit- annica which, by a colossal campaign of flamboy- ant advertising, has been scattered broadcast over every state in the union. No more vicious and dangerous educational in- fluence on America can readily be conceived than the articles in this encyclopsedia. They distort the truth and disseminate false standards. Amer- COLONIZING AMERICA g ica is now far enough behind the rest of the civ- ilized world in its knowledge of art, without hav- ing added to that ignorance the erroneous impres- sions created by this partial and disproportioned English work; for, in its treatment of the world's progress, it possesses neither universality of out- look 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 to- ward the achievements of other nations, and es- pecially toward those of America. The distinguishing feature of the Encyclopdidia Britannica is its petty national prejudice. This prejudice appears constantly and in many dis- guises through the Encyclopaedia's pages. It manifests itself in the most wanton carelessness in dealing with historical facts; in glaring inad- equacies when discussing the accomplishments of nations other than England; in a host of inex- cusable omissions of great men who do not happen to be blessed with English nationality; in venom and denunciation of viewpoints which do not hap- pen to coincide with "English ways of thinking"; and especially in neglect of American endeavor. Furthermore, the Britannica shows unmistakable lo MISINFORMING A NATION signs of haste or carelessness in preparation. In- formation 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 'Encyclopedia Britannica^ if accepted un- questioningly 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 arc 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 eulogis- tic attention paid English endeavor in general is out of all proportion to its deserts. In the fol- lowing chapters I shall show specifically how Brit- ish 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 Encyclopaedia to fulfill its claim of being a "universal" and "objective" reference library. To the contrary, it will be seen that the Britannica COLONIZING AMERICA ii is a narrow, parochial, opinionated work of dubi- ous scholarship and striking unreliability. With the somewhat obscure history of the birth of the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Bntannica^ or with the part played in that his- tory by Cambridge University and the London Times, I am not concerned. Nor shall I review the unethical record of the two issues of the En- cyclopgedia. To those interested in this side of the question I suggest that they read the follow- ing contributions in Reedy's Mirror: The Same Old Slippery Trick (March 24, 1916). The Encyclopedia Britannica Swindle (April 7, 1916). The Encyclopedia 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 for- giveness if the contents of the Britannica were what were claimed for them. But that which does concern me is the palpable discrepancies be- tween the statements contained in the advertising, and the truth as revealed by a perusal of the arti- cles 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 12 MISINFORMING A NATION constantly, that Americans bought the work. The truth is that the Encyclopedia 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 inde- fensible methods in advertising as those adopted by the Britannica's exploiters. The "copy" has fairly screamed with extravagant and fabulous ex- aggerations. The vocabulary of hyperbole has been practically exhausted in setting forth the du- bious 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 irrespec- tive of any consideration save that of making a sale ; for there is an abundance of evidence to show that the Encyclopsedia was not what was claimed for it. With the true facts regarding this encyclo- psedia it is difficult to reconcile the encomiums of many eminent Americans who, by writing eulogis- tic letters to the Britannica's editor concerning the exalted merits of his enterprise, revealed either their unfamiliarity with the books in question or COLONIZING AMERICA 13 their ignorance of what constituted an educational reference work. These letters were duly photo- graphed 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 recom- mended must have sufficiently mortified those of the enthusiastic correspondents who were educated and had consciences ; and the others would be un- moved by any revelations of mine. Mention, however, should be made of the re- marks of the American Ambassador to Great Brit- ain at the banquet given in London to celebrate the Encyclopedia'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 Encyclopcsdia Britannica^ This is certainly an astonishing bit of eulog}'. 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 14 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 move- ment 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 Dread- nought building is hardly mentioned; the menace of M. Delcasse'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 pub- lication, criticising the article on Europe, says: "There is nothing but a dry and summarized gen- COLONIZING AMERICA i? eral 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 char- acter, which competently refutes the amazing an- nouncement 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 man- ner in which Carlyle is treated in the Encyclo- paedia. "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 pane- gyric 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 Encyclopedia Britannica can blunder when handling such an approachable and easy British subject as Carlyle, it can be reason- i6 MISINFORMING A NATION ably expected to do worse on other matters which are not only absolutely foreign, but intensely dis- tasteful to the uninformed and prejudiced scribes to whom they seem to be so frequently, if not systematically, assigned." The expectation embodied in the above com- ment is more fully realized perhaps than the writer of those words imagined; and the purpose of this book is to reveal the blundering and mis- leading 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 "in- tensely distasteful" to the "uninformed and prejudiced" British critics as is American achieve- ment. 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 coun- try; for in their unconquerable arrogance, their unveiled contempt for this nation — the outgrowth of generations of assumed superiority — they sur- pass even the London critical articles dealing with our contemporary literary efforts. Several of our more courageous and pro-Amer- ican scholars have called attention to the inade- quacies and insularities in the Britannica^ but their voices have not been sufficiently far-reaching COLONIZING AMERICA 17 to counteract either the mass or the unsavory character of the advertising by which this un- worthy and anti-American encyclopaedia was foisted upon the United States. Conspicuous among those publications which protested was the Twentieth Century Magazine. That period- ical, to refer to but one of its several criticisms, pointed out that the article on Democracy is "con- fined 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, Ore- gon 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 Amer- ican 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 in- cludes reference to Mr. Chamberlain," although i8 MISINFORMING A NATION the names of Henry George, Karl Marx, Fried- rich 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 con- tributors to the Ninth Edition, and the con- tributors 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 edi- tor is inflexibly reactionary, provincial, and un- just to an almost incredible degree. The foregoing quotations are not isolated ob- jections: there were others of similar nature. And these few specimens are put down here merely to show that there appeared sufficient evi- dence, both in England and America, to establish the purely imaginary nature of the Britannica's claims of completeness and inerrancy, and to re- veal the absurdity of the American Ambassador's amazing pronouncement. Had the sale of the Encyclopedia Britannica been confined to that nation whose culture it so persistently and dog- matically glorifies at the expense of the culture COLONIZING AMERICA 19 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 astonish- ing 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 in- fluence as the present edition of the Encycloptzdia 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 mis- fortune to possess; for they bid fair to remain, in large measure, the source of America's informa- tion for many years to come. The regrettable part of England's intellectual intrigues in the United States is the subservient 20 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 con- tempt for Americans is due to our inordinate capacity for taking insults. Year after year English animus grows; and to-day it is the un- common thing to find an English publication which, in discussing the United States and its cul- ture, does not contain some affront to our in- telligence. 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 ignor- ance is England herself. And the Encyclopedia Britannica^ if accepted as authoritative, will go far toward emphasizing and extending that ignor- ance. 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 per- sistently discriminated against all American en- deavor, 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 COLONIZING AMERICA 21 it must be remembered that broad and unpreju- diced bibliographies are essential to any worthy encyclopaedia: 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 Britannic a! s attitude. However, as I have said, America, if the prin- cipal, is not the only country discriminated against. France has fallen a victim to the En- cyclopaedia's suburban patriotism, and scant jus- tice is done her true greatness. Russia, perhaps even more than France, is culturally neglected; and modern Italy's aesthetic 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 ef- forts of several other nations; but Germany, too, suffers from neglect in the field of modern en- deavor. Even Ireland does not escape English preju- dice. 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 22 MISINFORMING A NATION those conspicuous, and in one or two instances world-renowned, figures who do not receive bio- graphies 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 vic- timizing an Irishman and not an Englishman, is perfectly in keeping with the deliberate omissions of the Britannzca.) Furthermore, there are many famous Irish writers whose names are not so much as men- tioned in the entire Encyclopaedia — for instance, Standish O'Grady, James H. Cousins, John Tod- hunter, Katherine Tynan, T. W. RoUeston, 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 liter- ature is treated with a brevity and an injustice which are nothing short of contemptible; and what little there is concerning the new Irish re- naissance is scattered here and there in the arti- cles 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 COLONIZING AMERICA 23 of European art would form a sufficient basis for protest, the really serious grounds for our indigna- tion are those which have to do with the Britan- nica's neglect of America. That is why I have laid such emphasis on this phase of the Encyclo- psedia. It is absolutely necessary that this coun- try 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 Encyclopdsdia BritaU' nka 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. THE NOVEL Let us inspect first the manner in which the world's great modern novelists and story-tellers are treated in the Encyclopedia Brztannica. No better department could be selected for the pur- pose; 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 inter- preted and criticised in an encyclopaedia. It is disappointing, therefore, to discover the distorted and unjust viewpoint of the Brztannica. 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 in- cluded in the Encyclopaedia far overweighs the biographical material accorded the writers of other nations. And superlatives of the most 24 THE NOVEL 2? 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 writ- ers 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 en- tirely. In the Encyclopsedia'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 pro- vincialism 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 encyclopedia adequate and unprejudiced informa- tion 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 in- formation 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 26 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 char- acter, or if its standard of judgment was a purely literary one. But the criteria of the Encyclo- paedia's editors are, in the main, moral and puri- tanical. 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 Encyclopsedia's critiques, finds in literature a fertile field for operation. Because of the limitations of space, I shall con- fine myself in this chapter to modern literature. I have, however, inspected the manner in which the older literature is set forth in the Encyclo' padia Britannica; and there, as elsewhere, is dis- cernible the same provincialism, the same theolog- ical point of view, the same flamboyant exag- geration of English writers, the same neglect of foreign genius. As a reference book the Britaw nica is chauvinistic, distorted, inadequate, dispro- THE NOVEL 27 portioned, and woefully behind the times. De- spite the fact that the Eleventh Edition is sup- posed 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 writ- ers of France and Germany combined. Sir Walter Scott is given no less than thirteen col- umns, whereas Balzac has only seven columns, Victor Hugo only a little over four columns, and Turgueniev only a little over one column. Sam- uel Richardson is given nearly four columns, whereas Flaubert has only two columns, Dos- toievsky less than two columns, and Daudet only a column and a third I Mrs. Oliphant is given over a column, more space than is allotted to Ana- tole France, Coppee, or the Goncourts. George Meredith is given six columns, more space than is accorded Flaubert, de Maupassant and Zola put together I Bulwer-Lytton has two columns, more space than is given Dostoievsky. Dickens is given two and a half times as much space as Vic- tor Hugo; and George Eliot, Trollope, and Stev- enson each has considerably more space than de 28 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 in- justice 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 Cr an ford "is unanimously accepted as a classic" ; and she is given an equal amount of space with Dostoievsky and Flaubert I 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 speci- men of criticism: No right estimate of her as THE NOVEL 29 an artist or a philosopher "can be formed without a steady recollection of her infinite capacity for mental suffering, and her need of human sup- port." Just what these conditions have to do with an aesthetic or philosophic judgment of her is not made clear; but the critic finally brings him- self 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 Barres. Here we learn that Macdonald's "moral enthusiasm exercised great influence upon thought- ful 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 Barres; and we are told that he wrote tales which, despite all their shortcomings, were "invariably instruc- tive, clean and manly." Mrs. Ewing, too, profited by her pious proclivities, for her biogra- phy takes up almost as much space as that of the "moral" Macdonald and the "manly" Ainsworth. Her stories are "sound and wholesome in mat- 30 MISINFORMING A NATION ter," 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 com- parison of James with Dumas, though it is frankly admitted that as an artist James was in- ferior. His plots were poor, his descriptions were weak, and his dialogue was bad. Therefore "his very best books fall far below Les Trois Mous- quetairesT But, it is added, "James never re- sorted to illegitimate methods to attract readers, and deserves such credit as may be due to a pur- veyor 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 I 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 tender- THE NOVEL 31 ness and grace." Great, indeed, are the rewards of virtue, if not in life, at least in the Encyclo- padia Britannica. On the other hand, several English authors are condemned for their lack of nicety and respec- tability. Trollope, for instance, lacked that ele- gance and delicacy of sentiment so dear to the En- cyclopaedia 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 in- formed that "on grounds of morality of taste Ouida's novels may be condemned" as they are "frequently unwholesome." 32 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 nov- elists, the greatest modem authors which England has produced, are dismissed peremptorily. Con- rad'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 super- ficial 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 Encyclopedia which is supposed to have been brought up to date and to be adequate for purposes of reference I 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. THE NOVEL 33 Wells; half of the space given to Anthony Hope; and only a fourth of the space given to Mrs. Gas- kell and to Mrs. Humphry Ward! A Mum- trier'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 Encyclopedia 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 modem literature. To him it is an anti-gambling tract I 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 im- portant modems, 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 in- tellectual English writer who has apparently been 34 MISINFORMING A NATION sacrificed on the altar of Presbyterian respectabil- ity. 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, an- other highly enlightened English writer, is ac- corded 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 Audlefs 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 Ma- dame Bovary." Mrs. Braddon and Flaubert I Truly a staggering alliance I 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 THE NOVEL 3^ over Julia Kavanagh. This latter lady, we dis- cover, draws equal space with Marcel Prevost; and she "handles her French themes with fidelity and skill." Judging from this praise and the fact that Prevost 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 Prevost. 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, pes- 36 MISINFORMING A NATION sessed "high earnestness of purpose, a luxuriant style and a genuinely spiritual quality." Though lacking dramatic facility and a workmanlike con- duct of narrative, "he had almost every other quality of the bom novelist." After this remark it is obviously necessary to revise our aesthetic judgment in regard to the religious author of John Ingle sunt. Grant Allen, alas I lacked the benevolent qual- ities 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 succes de scandale "on ac- count 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 bio- graphy, is praised for her "sympathetic touch"; and we learn furthermore that she was long and "honorably" connected with the firm of Black- wood. 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 THE NOVEL 37 praise in a biography almost as long as that of Turgueniev I In the treatment of Mrs. Humphry Ward, however, we have the key to the literary attitude of the Encyclopaedia. 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 sub- urban culture which colors the Encyclopaedia'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 I 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 intel- lectual 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 38 MISINFORMING A NATION biography of Oscar Wilde. The latter is giveiv 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 contempor- aries." (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 en- counter such words and phrases as "masterpieces" and "wonderful books." No books of his sur- passed 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 THE NOVEL 39 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 cre- ator of Lucien de Rubempre, Goriot, and Eugenie Grander. ) 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 encyclopsedia, even Dickens's rival in in- tensity 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, situ- ations in literature." Alas, poor Balzac! — the 40 MISINFORMING A NATION inferior of both Dickens and Thackeray — the writer who, if the judgment of the Encyclopedia Britannica is to be accepted, created no book, scene, character or situation which is among the greatest I Thus are the world's true geniuses dis- paraged 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 man- ner 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 "un- fitted by its subject, and in parts by its treatment, for general perusal." Dumas pere is praised, largely we infer, be- cause 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 content- ment of mind, and Robert Louis Stevenson and Andrew Lang have paid tribute to the band." THE NOVEL 41 Pierre Loti, however, in a short biography, hardly meets with British approval. "Many of his best books are long sobs of remorseful memory, so per- sonal, so intimate, that an English reader is amazed to find such depth of feeling compatible with the power of minutely and publicly record- ing what is felt." Loti, like de Musset, lacked that prudish restraint which is so admirable a vir- tue 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. 2^1a is treated with greater unfairness than per- haps any other French author. Zola has always been disliked in England, and his English pub- lisher 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 Encyclopaedia 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 be- cause he did not idealize "the nobler elements in human nature," although, it is said, "his later books show improvement." Such scant treat- ment of Zola reveals the unfairness of extreme 42 MISINFORMING A NATION prejudice, for no matter what the nationality, re- ligion, or taste of the critic, he must, in all fair- ness, 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] su- perior; her knowledge is more profound, and her psychological analysis subtler and more scien- tific." Almost nothing is said of Constant's writ- ings; and in the mere half-column sketch of Huys- mans there are only a few biographical facts with a list of his books. Of Stendhal there is prac- tically no criticism; and Coppee "exhibits all the defects of his qualities." Rene Bazin draws only seventeen lines — a bare record of facts; and Edouard Rod is given a third of a column with no criticism. Despite the praise given Victor Hugo, his biography, from a critical standpoint, is prac- tically worthless. In it there is no sense of crit- ical proportion : it is a mere panegyric which defi- nitely states that Hugo was greater than Balzac. This astonishing and incompetent praise is ac- counted 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 THE NOVEL 43 valuation of Swinburne as critic: "The very qualities which gave his poetr}^ 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 Encyclopsedia's own con- demnation of some of its material — a personal and frank confession of its own gross inadequacy and bias I And Swinburne, let it be noted, con- tributes no less than ten articles on some of the most important literary men in history! If the Encyclopedia Britannica was as nai'f 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 ref- erence book on modern French letters can best be judged by the fact that there appears no bio- graphical mention whatever of Romain Rolland, 44 MISINFORMING A NATION Pierre de Coulevain, Tinayre, Rene Boylesve, Jean and Jerome 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 Coule- vain 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 contempor- ary 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 Encyclopaedia I 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 THE NOVEL 45 on the recent activities in French letters — activ- ities of vital importance and including several of the greatest names in contemporary literature — you need not seek it in the Britannica^ that "su- preme" 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 in- flamed 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, how- ever, is that of Turgueniev. Turgueniev, almost universally conceded to be the greatest, and cer- tainly the most artistic, of the Russian writers, is accorded little over a column, less space than is 46 MISINFORMING A NATION devoted to the biography of Thomas Love Pea- cock, Kipling, or Thomas Hardy; and only a half or a third of the space given to a dozen other in- ferior English writers. And in this brief bio- graphy 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 Encyclopcsdia 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, Artzybash- eff, Korolenko, Veressayeff, NekrasofF, or Tchek- hoff. And yet the work of nearly all these Rus- sian writers had actually appeared in English translation before the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopadia 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 THE NOVEL 47 lines; and Giovanni Verga, only twelve. Fogaz- zaro draws twenty-six lines; and in the biography we leam that his "deeply religious spirit" ani- mates his literary productions, and that he con- tributed to modem 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 re- spectively; but there are no biographies of Emilio de Marchi, the prominent historical novelist; En- rico Butti, one of the foremost respresentatives of the psychological novel in modem Italy; and Grazia Deledda. The neglect of modem German writers in the Encyclopedia Britannica is more glaring than that of any other European nation, not excluding Rus- sia. So little information can one get from this encyclopaedia concerning the really important German authors that it would hardly repay one to go to the Bntannica. Eckstein — five of whose novels were issued in English before 1890 — is de- nied a biography. So is Meinhold; so is Luise Miihlbach; so is Wachenroder ; — all well known in England long before the Britannica went to press. Even Gabriele Reuter, whose far-reach- ing success came as long ago as 1895, i^ with- out a biography. And — what is less excusable — 48 MISINFORMING A NATION Max Kretzer, the first of Germany's naturalistic novelists, has no biographical mention in this great English encyclopaedia I 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 Ger- man 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 with- out 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 de- serving as these three Germans ; and yet numerous comparatively insignificant English writers are given long critical biographies in the Brztannica while Viebig, Frenssen and Mann receive no biographies whatever! Such unjust discrimina- tion 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 THE NOVEL 49 space in an international encyclopedia than many of the Englishmen who receive biographies in the Britannica — for instance, Heinz Tovote, Her- mann Hesse, Ricarda Huch, Helene Bohlau, and Eduard von Keyserling — not one of whom is given biographical consideration! When we come to the American literary di- vision of the Britannica^ however, prejudice and neglect reach their highest point. Never have I seen a better example of the contemptuous atti- tude of England toward American literature than in the Encyclopaedia'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 condescen- sion. 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 I 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 Heam, two-thirds of a column each ; H. C. Bunner, twen- ty-one lines; and Thomas Nelson Page less than half a column. 50 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 Encyclopaedia 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 'En- cyclopedia: 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 men- tion, 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. THE NOVEL 51 C. Russell, and still others of less consequence than many of the American authors omitted. If the "Encyclopdidia 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 Brit- ish prejudice and a narrow contempt for Ameri- can culture scarcely become an encyclopaedia whose chief profits are derived from the United States. So inadequate is the treatment of Amer- ican 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 re- ceive no mention whatever. As a reference book on modem fiction, the Encyclopedia 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. Ill THE DRAMA Particular importance attaches to the manner in which the modern drama is treated in the En- cyclopedia Britannica^ for to-day there exists a deep and intimate interest in this branch of litera- ture — an interest which is greater and more far- reaching than during any other period of modem 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 litera- ture. Dramatic and stage societies have been formed everywhere, and there is an increasing de- mand 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 52 THE DRAMA 53 been fused into this art. In Germany, France, England, and Russia many significant drama- tists 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 capa- ble 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 ex- pect to find in the Encydop^zdia Britannica — that "supreme book of knowledge," that "com- plete library" of information — a full and com- prehensive 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 modem intellectual life; and, in an educa- tional work of the alleged scope and completeness of this encyclopaedia, it should be accorded care- ful and liberal consideration. But in this department, as in others equally im- portant, the Encyclopisdia Britannica fails inex- cusably. I have carefully inspected its dramatic 54 MISINFORMING A NATION information, and its inadequacy left me with a feeling which fell little short of amazement. Not only is the modern drama given scant considera- tion, but those comparatively few articles which deal with it are so inept and desultory that no cor- rect idea of the development of modern dramatic literature can be obtained. As in the Encyclo- paedia's other departments of modern aesthetic cul- ture, the work of Great Britain is accorded an abnormally large amount of space, while the work of other nations is — if mentioned at all — dis- missed with comparatively few words. The Brit- ish 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 English- men; 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 ninutely specific articles. Furthermore, the Encyclopaedia 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 ex- clusive British circle whose activities dominate THE DRAMA 5$ the assthetic 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 ex- igencies 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 con- freres from other countries. Consequently, the dramatic material is not only biased but is in- adequate from the British standpoint as well. As a reference book on the modern drama, either for students or the casual reader, the Encyclo- p(zdia Britannica is practically worthless. Its in- formation 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 sub- ject-matter, and of vastly superior educational value. The limited information which has actu- ally found its way into this encyclopedia 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 56 MISINFORMING A NATION a key to the entire treatment of the subject throughout the Encyclopaedia's twenty-seven vol- umes. The English drama is given forty-one col- umns. The French drama is given fifteen col- umns ; 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 Eng- lish 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, Strind- berg's name is not mentioned; and the reader is supplied with the antiquated, early- Victorian in- formation 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 drama- tist born later than 1808 is mentioned! When we consider the wealth of the modem 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 THE DRAMA 57 Drama" with the heading: "Influences of For- eign Drama I" Regard this distribution of space for a moment. The obvious implication is that the more modem 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, evi- dently, only as it had an influence on the English drama. Could self-complacent insularity go fur- ther? Even in its capacity as a mere contribu- tion to British genius, the recent German drama, it seems, is of little moment; and Sudermann counts for naught. In the entire article on Dra?na his name is not so much as mentioned I Such is the transcendent and superlative culture of the Encyclopedia 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 com- ment 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. 58 MISINFORMING A NATION 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, how- ever, might have had more space had the Ency- clopaedia's editor gone to the simple trouble of ex- tending 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 encyclopaedia 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 objec- tive view of Oscar Wilde's work," — that is to say, literary judgment cannot be passed without re- course to morality! THE DRAMA 59 Here is an actual confession by the editor him- self (for he contributed the article on Wilde) of the accusation I have made against the Britannica. A great artist, according to this encyclopedia'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 Encyclopedia Britannica, along with other less prudish and less delicate critics, can re- gard 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 Britan- nica! Nor has Hankin. Nor Granville Barker. Nor Lady Gregory. Nor Galsworthy. The bio- graphical 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 genera- tion are given liberal space. The fact that these writers do not appear can be attributed only to the fact that the Encyclopedia 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 6o MISINFORMING A NATION in the modem drama is a reference library which contains no biographical mention of such sig- nificant figures as these? The French drama suffers even more from in- completeness 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 clap- trap, Lights (?' London. Hervieu draws half a column of biography, in which his two important dramas, Modestie and Connais-Toi (both out be- fore the Britannic a went to press), are not men- tioned. 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) ; Lemai- tre, 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 Frangaise (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 men- tioned is dated 1903, since which time the article THE DRAMA 61 has apparently not been revised I Therefore, if you depend for information on this biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find no record of Sceur Beatrice, Ariane et Barbe-Bleu, UOiseau Bleu, or Maria Magdalene. 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 Gia- cosa or Gerolamo Rovetta, the leaders of the new school, any biographical mention. And in d'An- nunzio's biography only seventeen lines are de- voted to his dramas. What sort of an idea of the modem Italian drama can one get from an encyclopaedia 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 ma- jority of readers know him*? Joseph Conrad might almost as well be listed under "Korzeniow- ski." There are few enough non-British writers 62 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 maj^ look in vain for any indication of the wealth of dramatic material and the great number of im- portant 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 brev- ity of space. In Sudermann's biography, which apparently ends in 1905, no mention whatever is made of such important works as Das Blumen- hoot^ Rosen, Strandkinder^ and Das Hoke Lied THE DRAMA 63 {The Song of Songs) ^ all of which appeared be- fore the Britannic a 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 un- necessary to mention Schluck und Jau, Michael Kramer, Der Arme Heinrich, Elga, Die Jungfern votn Bischofsberg^ Kaiser Karls Geisel, and Gri- selda! 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 circumstan- tial 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 uni- versally 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 64 MISINFORMING A NATION treatment of giants like Sudermann and Haupt- mann, it is not at all surprising that not one other figure in German and Austrian recent dramatic literature should have a biography. For in- stance, there is no biography of Schnitzler, Arno Holz, Max Halbe, Ludwig Fulda, O. E. Hartle- ben, Max Dreyer, Ernst Hardt, Hirschfeld, Ernst Rosmer, Karl Schdnherr, Hermann Bahr, Thoma, Beer-Hoffmann, Johannes Schlaf, or Wedekindl Although every one of these names should be in- cluded in some informative manner in an encyclo- paedia as large as the Brilannica, and one which makes so lavish a claim for its educational com- pleteness, the omission of several of them may be excused on the grounds that, in the haste of the Encyclopaedia's editors to commercialize their cul- tural wares, they did not have sufficient time to take cognizance of the more recent of these dra- matists. 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 THE DRAMA 65 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 Vberbrettl movement is given only- seven lines, it would, under the circumstances, hardly be worth one's while to consult the Ency- clopczdia Britannica for information on the mod- em 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 encyclopaedia is being foisted upon us and we are asked to buy it in preference to all others, it would have been well within the prov- ince of its editors to give the hundred of thou- sands 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 consist- ently refuse to attribute either competency or im- portance to our writers. They would prefer that we accept their provincial and mediocre culture and ignore entirely our own aesthetic struggles toward an individual expression. But all Amer- icans do not find intellectual contentment in this 66 MISINFORMING A NATION 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 Encyclopaedia of an American dramatist! James A. Heme re- ceives eight lines — a note so meagre that for pur- poses 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 in- formation 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 Encyclopaedia Britannica. By way of explaining this neglect of all Amer- ican culture I will quote from a recent advertise- THE DRAMA 67 ment of the Britannica. "We Americans," it says, in a most intimate and condescending man- ner, "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 Encyclopedia Britannica that it has done all in its power to dis- courage us in this self-sufficiency. IV POETRY In the field of poetry the Encyclopedia Bntan- nica 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 Encyclopsedia*s edi- tors so much as to the actual superiority of Eng- lish poetry. In this field England has led the world. It is the one branch of culture in which modern England stands highest. France sur- passes 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 Encyclopaedia 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 prej- udice which distorts the Britannica's treatment of arts and letters. But even granting this superiority, the En- cyclopaedia is neglectful of the poets of other nations; and while it comes nearer the truth in 68 POETRY 69 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 pre- dominates, 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 encyclopaedia as large as the Brilannica, 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 Encyclopaedia'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. Wil- fred Scawen Blunt is accorded half a column; 70 MISINFORMING A NATION John Davidson, over a column of high praise; Henley, more than an entire page; Stephen Phillips, three-fourths of a column; Henry Clar- ence Kendall, eighteen lines; Roden Noel, twenty- eight lines; Alexander Smith, twenty-five lines; Lawrence Binyon, nineteen lines ; Laurence Hous- man, twenty- three lines; Ebenezer Jones, twenty- four lines; Richard Le Gallienne, twenty lines; Henry Newbolt, fifteen lines; and Arthur Wil- liam 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 some- times sublime. . . . Spirituality informs his in- spiration." Here we have an excellent example of the Encyclopaedia's combination of the uplift and hyperbole. More of the same moral encom- ium 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: POETRY 71 "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 I Saintliness — that cardinal re- quisite in British aesthetics. 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 ex- hortation. Consequently his work does not com- ply 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 tradi- tions in an age of prosodic lawlessness. The sentimental and inoffensive Austin Dobson ap- parently is a high favorite with the editors of the Encyclopsedia, for he is given a column and three- 72 MISINFORMING A NATION fourths — more space than is given John David- son, 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 Encyclopedia Britannica' s prodigal generosity to British poets, it might be well to mention that Thomas Chatter- ton 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 statistic- ians 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 treat- ment which the former receive. Baudelaire, for instance, is given less space than Christina Ros- setti, William Watson, Henley, Coventry Pat- more, John Davidson, or Austin Dobson. Ca- tulle Mendes 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 ! Stephane Mallarme re- ceives only half the space given to John David- son, Christina Rossetti, or William Watson. POETRY 73 Jean Moreas receives only half the space given to Sydney Dobell or Christina Rossetti. Viele- Griffin draws a shorter biography than Kendall, the Australian poet; and Regnier and Bouchor arc dismissed in fewer words than is the Scotch poet, Alexander Smith. Furthermore, these biog- raphies 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 emi- nent Frenchmen, Germans, or Americans. Evi- dently the editors are of the opinion that if one is cognizant of British culture one can easily dis- pense with all other culture as inferior and un- necessary. Otherwise how, except on the ground of deliberate falsification, can one explain the lib- eral treatment accorded English poets as com- pared with the meagre treatment given French poets? 74 MISINFORMING A NATION Since the important French poets mentioned re- ceive 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 encyclopsedia — should receive no biographical mention. If you wish information concerning Adolphe Rette, Rene de Ghil, Stuart Merrill, Emmanuel Signoret, Jehan Rictus, Al- bert Samain, Paul Fort, who is the leading bal- ladist of young France, Herold, Quillard, or Francis Jammes, you will have to go to a source even more "supreme" than the Encyclop(zdia 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 Eek- houd, Rodenbach, Elskamp, Severin and Cam- maerts. Turning to Italy we find even grosser injustice and an even more woeful inadequacy in the treat- ment accorded her modern poets. To be sure, there are biographies of Carducci, Ferrari, Mar- radi, Mazzoni, and Arturo Graf. But Alfredo POETRY 7? Baccelli, Domenico Gnoli, Giovanni Pascoli, Mario Rapisardi, Chiarini, Panzacchi and Annie Vivanti are omitted. There should be biographies of these writers in an international encyclopffidia 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 sec- ond only to the very greatest Italian poets of mod- ern 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 Eng- land in Ave Albion.) But these names represent only part of the in- justice and neglect accorded modem 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 be- ing 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" 76 MISINFORMING A NATION (Eveline Cattermole), whose Vers? gave her a foremost place among the poets of her day ; Pitteri, who was famous as long ago as 1890; and Nenci- oni, 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 Swin- burne to his countrymen. Then there are such poets as Fontana, Bicci and Arnaboldi, who should at least be mentioned in connection with modem 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 com- parison is made between the way the Encyclo' p