Particular importance attaches to the manner in which the modern drama is treated in theEncyclopædia Britannica, for to-day there exists a deep and intimate interest in this branch of literature—an interest which is greater and more far-reaching than during any other period of modern times. Especially is this true in the United States. During the past fifteen years study in the history, art and technique of the stage has spread into almost every quarter of the country. The printed play has come back into favor; and there is scarcely a publisher of any note on whose lists do not appear many works of dramatic literature. Dramatic and stage societies have been formed everywhere, and there is an increasing demand for productions of the better-class plays. Perhaps no other one branch of letters holds so conspicuous a place in our culture.
The drama itself during the last quarter of a century has taken enormous strides. After a period of stagnant mediocrity, a new vitality hasbeen fused into this art. In Germany, France, England, and Russia many significant dramatists have sprung into existence. The literature of the stage has taken a new lease on life, and in its ranks are numbered many of the finest creative minds of our day. Furthermore, a school of capable and serious critics has developed to meet the demands of the new work; and already there is a large and increasing library of books dealing with the subject from almost every angle.
Therefore, because of this renaissance and the widespread interest attaching to it, we should expect to find in theEncyclopædia Britannica—that “supreme book of knowledge,” that “complete library” of information—a full and comprehensive treatment of the modern drama. The claims made in the advertising of theBritannicawould lead one immediately to assume that so important and universally absorbing a subject would be set forth adequately. The drama has played, and will continue to play, a large part in our modern intellectual life; and, in an educational work of the alleged scope and completeness of this encyclopædia, it should be accorded careful and liberal consideration.
But in this department, as in others equally important, theEncyclopædia Britannicafails inexcusably. I have carefully inspected its dramaticinformation, and its inadequacy left me with a feeling which fell little short of amazement. Not only is the modern drama given scant consideration, but those comparatively few articles which deal with it are so inept and desultory that no correct idea of the development of modern dramatic literature can be obtained. As in the Encyclopædia’s other departments of modern æsthetic culture, the work of Great Britain is accorded an abnormally large amount of space, while the work of other nations is—if mentioned at all—dismissed with comparatively few words. The British drama, like the British novel, is exaggerated, both through implication and direct statement, out of all proportion to its inherent significance. Many of the truly great and important dramatists of foreign countries are omitted entirely in order to make way for minor and inconsequent Englishmen; and the few towering figures from abroad who are given space draw only a few lines of biographical mention, whereas second-rate British writers are accorded long and minutely specific articles.
Furthermore, the Encyclopædia reveals the fact that in a great many instances it has not been brought up to date. As a result, even when an alien dramatist has found his way into the exclusive British circle whose activities dominatethe æsthetic departments of theBritannica, one does not have a complete record of his work. This failure to revise adequately old material and to make the information as recent as the physical exigencies of book-making would permit, results no doubt in the fact that even the more recent and important English dramatists have suffered the fate of omission along with their less favored confrères from other countries. Consequently, the dramatic material is not only biased but is inadequate from the British standpoint as well.
As a reference book on the modern drama, either for students or the casual reader, theEncyclopædia Britannicais practically worthless. Its information is old and prejudiced, besides being flagrantly incomplete. I could name a dozen books on the modern drama which do not pretend to possess the comprehensiveness and authenticity claimed by theBritannica, and yet are far more adequate, both in extent and modernity of subject-matter, and of vastly superior educational value. The limited information which has actually found its way into this encyclopædia is marked by incompetency, prejudice, and carelessness; and its large number of indefensible omissions renders it almost useless as a reference work on modern dramatic literature.
In the general article on theDramawe havea key to the entire treatment of the subject throughout the Encyclopædia’s twenty-seven volumes. The English drama is given forty-one columns. The French drama is given fifteen columns; the German drama, nine; the Scandinavian drama one; and the Russian drama, one-third of a column! The American drama is not even given a separate division but is included under the English drama, and occupies less than one column! The Irish drama also is without a separate division, and receives only twelve lines of exposition! In the division on the Scandinavian drama, Strindberg’s name is not mentioned; and the reader is supplied with the antiquated, early-Victorian information that Ibsen’sGhostsis “repellent.” In the brief passage on the Russian drama almost no idea is given of its subject; in fact, no dramatist born later than 1808 is mentioned! When we consider the wealth of the modern Russian drama and its influence on the theater of other nations, even of England, we can only marvel at such utter inadequacy and neglect.
In the sub-headings of “recent” drama underDrama, “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 “EnglishDrama” with the heading: “Influences of Foreign Drama!”
Regard this distribution of space for a moment. The obvious implication is that the more modern English drama is four times as important as the French; and yet for years the entire inspiration of the English stage came from France, and certain English “dramatists” made their reputations by adapting French plays. And what of the more modern German drama? It is of importance, evidently, only as it had an influence on the English drama. Could self-complacent insularity go further? Even in its capacity as a mere contribution to British genius, the recent German drama, it seems, is of little moment; and Sudermann counts for naught. In the entire article onDramahis name is not so much as mentioned! Such is the transcendent and superlative culture of theEncyclopædia Britannica!
Turning to the biographies, we find that British dramatists, when mentioned at all, are treated with cordial liberality. T. W. Robertson is given nearly three-fourths of a column with the comment that “his work is notable for its masterly stage-craft, wholesome and generous humor, bright and unstrained dialogue, and high dramatic sense of human character in its theatrical aspects.” H. J. Byron is given over half a column. W. S.Gilbert draws no less than a column and three-fourths. G. R. Sims gets twenty-two lines. Sydney Grundy is accorded half a column. James M. Barrie is given a column and a half, and George Bernard Shaw an equal amount of space. Pinero is given two-thirds of a column; and Henry Arthur Jones half a column. Jones, however, might have had more space had the Encyclopædia’s editor gone to the simple trouble of extending that playwright’s biography beyond 1904; but on this date it ends, with the result that there appears no mention ofThe Heroic Stubbs,The Hypocrites,The Evangelist,Dolly Reforms Himself, orThe Knife—all of which were produced before this supreme, up-to-date and informative encyclopædia went to press.
Oscar Wilde, a man who revolutionized the English drama and who was unquestionably one of the important figures in modern English letters, is given a little over a column, less space than Shaw, Barrie, or Gilbert. In much of his writing there was, we learn, “an undertone of rather nasty suggestion”; and after leaving prison “he was necessarily an outcast from decent circles.” Also, “it is still impossible to take a purely objective view of Oscar Wilde’s work,”—that is to say, literary judgment cannot be passed without recourse to morality!
Here is an actual confessionby the editor himself(for he contributed the article on Wilde) of the accusation I have made against theBritannica. A great artist, according to this encyclopædia’s criterion, is a respectable artist, one who preaches and practises an inoffensive suburbanism. But when the day comes—if it ever does—when the editor of theEncyclopædia Britannica, along with other less prudish and less delicate critics, can regard Wilde’s work apart from personal prejudice, perhaps Wilde will be given the consideration he deserves—a consideration far greater, we hope, than that accorded Barrie and Gilbert.
Greater inadequacy than that revealed in Wilde’s biography is to be found in the fact that Synge has no biography whatever in theBritannica! Nor has Hankin. Nor Granville Barker. Nor Lady Gregory. Nor Galsworthy. The biographical omission of such important names as these can hardly be due to the editor’s opinion that they are not deserving of mention, for lesser English dramatic names of the preceding generation are given liberal space. The fact that these writers do not appear can be attributed only to the fact that theEncyclopædia Britannicahas 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 interestedin the modern drama is a reference library which contains no biographical mention of such significant figures as these?
The French drama suffers even more from incompleteness and scantiness of material. Becque draws just eleven lines, exactly half the space given to the British playwright whose reputation largely depends on that piece of sentimental claptrap,Lights o’ London. Hervieu draws half a column of biography, in which his two important dramas,ModestieandConnais-Toi(both out before theBritannicawent to press), are not mentioned. Curel is given sixteen lines; Lavedan, fourteen lines, in which not all of even his best work is noted; Maurice Donnay, twenty lines, with no mention ofLa Patronne(1908); Lemaître, a third of a column; Rostand, half a column, less space than is accorded the cheap, slap-stick humorist from Manchester, H. J. Byron; Capus, a third of a column; Porto-Riche, thirteen lines; and Brieux twenty-six lines. In Brieux’s very brief biography there is no record ofLa Française(1807),Simone(1908), orSuzette(1909). Henri Bernstein does not have even a biographical mention.
Maeterlinck’s biography runs only to a column and a third, and the last work of his to be mentioned is dated 1903, since which time the articlehas apparently not been revised! Therefore, if you depend for information on this biography in theEncyclopædia Britannica, you will find no record ofSœur Béatrice,Ariane et Barbe-Bleu,L’Oiseau Bleu, orMaria Magdaléne.
The modern Italian drama also receives very brief and inadequate treatment. Of the modern Italian dramatists only two of importance have biographies—Pietro Cossa and Paolo Ferrari. Cossa is given twenty-four lines, and Ferrari only seven lines! The two eminent comedy writers, Gherardi del Testa and Ferdinando Martini, have no biographies. Nor has either Giuseppe Giacosa or Gerolamo Rovetta, the leaders of the new school, any biographical mention. And in d’Annunzio’s biography only seventeen lines are devoted to his dramas. What sort of an idea of the modern Italian drama can one get from an encyclopædia which contains such indefensible omissions and such scant accounts of prominent writers? And why should the writer who is as commonly known by the name of Stecchetti as Samuel Clemens is by the name of Mark Twain be listed under “Guerrini” without even a cross reference under the only name by which the majority of readers know him? Joseph Conrad might almost as well be listed under “Korzeniowski.” There are few enough non-British writersincluded in theBritannicawithout deliberately or ignorantly hiding those who have been lucky enough to be admitted.
Crossing over into Germany and Austria one may look in vain for any indication of the wealth of dramatic material and the great number of important dramatic figures which have come from these two countries. Of all the recent German and Austrian dramatists of note,only twoare so much as given biographical mention, and these two—Sudermann and Hauptmann—are treated with a brevity and inadequacy which, to my knowledge, are without a parallel in any modern reference work on the subject. Hauptmann and Sudermann receive just twenty-five lines each, less space than is given to Sydney Grundy, Pinero, Henry Arthur Jones, T. W. Robertson, H. J. Byron; and less than a third of the space given to Shaw and W. S. Gilbert! Even Sims is given nearly as much space!
In these comparisons alone is discernible a chauvinism of almost incredible narrowness. But the biographies themselves emphasize this patriotic prejudice even more than does the brevity of space. In Sudermann’s biography, which apparently ends in 1905, no mention whatever is made of such important works asDas Blumenboot,Rosen,Strandkinder, andDas Hohe Lied(The Song of Songs), all of which appeared before theBritannicawas printed.
And what of Hauptmann, perhaps the greatest and most important figure in dramatic literature of this and the last generation? After a brief record of the facts in Hauptmann’s life we read: “Of Hauptmann’s subsequent work mention may be made of”—and then the names of a few of his plays are set down. In the phrase, “mention may be made of,” is summed up the critic’s narrow viewpoint. And in that list it was thought unnecessary to mentionSchluck und Jau,Michael Kramer,Der Arme Heinrich,Elga,Die Jungfern vom Bischofsberg,Kaiser Karls Geisel, andGriselda! Since all of these appeared in ample time to be included, it would, I believe, have occurred to an unprejudiced critic that mentionmighthave been made of them. In fact, all the circumstantial evidence points to the supposition that had Hauptmann been an Englishman, not only would they have been mentioned, but they would have been praised as well. As it is, there is no criticism of Hauptmann’s work and no indication of his greatness, despite the fact that he is almost universally conceded to be a more important figure than any of the modern English playwrights who are given greater space and favorably criticised.
With such insufficient and glaringly prejudicedtreatment of giants like Sudermann and Hauptmann, it is not at all surprising that not one other figure in German and Austrian recent dramatic literature should have a biography. For instance, there is no biography of Schnitzler, Arno Holz, Max Halbe, Ludwig Fulda, O. E. Hartleben, Max Dreyer, Ernst Hardt, Hirschfeld, Ernst Rosmer, Karl Schönherr, Hermann Bahr, Thoma, Beer-Hoffmann, Johannes Schlaf, or Wedekind! Although every one of these names should be included in some informative manner in an encyclopædia as large as theBritannica, and one which makes so lavish a claim for its educational completeness, the omission of several of them may be excused on the grounds that, in the haste of the Encyclopædia’s editors to commercialize their cultural wares, they did not have sufficient time to take cognizance of the more recent of these dramatists. Since the editors have overlooked men like Galsworthy from their own country, we can at least acquit them of the charge of snobbish patriotism in several of the present instances of wanton oversight.
In the cases of Schnitzler, Hartleben and Wedekind, however, no excuse can be offered. The work of these men, though recent, had gained for itself so important a place in the modern world before theBritannicawent to press, that toignore them biographically was an act of either wanton carelessness or extreme ignorance. The former would appear to furnish the explanation, for underDramathere is evidence that the editors knew of Schnitzler’s and Wedekind’s existence. But, since theÜberbrettlmovement is given only seven lines, it would, under the circumstances, hardly be worth one’s while to consult theEncyclopædia Britannicafor information on the modern drama in Germany and Austria.
Even so, one would learn more of the drama in those countries than one could possibly learn of the drama of the United States. To be sure, no great significance attaches to our stage literature, but since this encyclopædia is being foisted upon us and we are asked to buy it in preference to all others, it would have been well within the province of its editors to give the hundred of thousands of American readers a little enlightenment concerning their own drama.
The English, of course, have no interest in our institutions—save only our banks—and consistently refuse to attribute either competency or importance to our writers. They would prefer that we accepttheirprovincial and mediocre culture and ignore entirely our own æsthetic struggles toward an individual expression. But all Americans do not find intellectual contentment in thispaternal and protecting British attitude; and those who are interested in our native drama and who have paid money for theBritannicaon 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 theEnglish Drama, and is given less space than a column. UnderAmerican Literaturethere is nothing concerning the American stage and its writers; nor is there a single biography in the entire Encyclopædia of an American dramatist! James A. Herne receives eight lines—a note so meagre that for purposes of reference it might almost as well have been omitted entirely. And Augustin Daly, the most conspicuous figure in our theatrical history, is dismissed with twenty lines, about half the space given H. J. Byron! If you desire any information concerning the development of the American theater, or wish to know any details about David Belasco, Bronson Howard, Charles Hoyt, Steele MacKaye, Augustus Thomas, Clyde Fitch, or Charles Klein, you will have to go to a source other than theEncyclopædia Britannica.
By way of explaining this neglect of all American culture I will quote from a recent advertisementof theBritannica. “We Americans,” it says, in a most intimate and condescending manner, “have had a deep sense of self-sufficiency. We haven’t had time or inclination to know how the rest of the world lived. But now wemustknow.” And let it be said for theEncyclopædia Britannicathat it has done all in its power to discourage us in this self-sufficiency.
In the field of poetry theEncyclopædia Britannicacomes nearer being a competent reference library than in the field of painting, fiction, or drama. This fact, however, is not due to a spirit of fairness on the part of the Encyclopædia’s editors so much as to the actual superiority of English poetry. In this field England has led the world. It is the one branch of culture in which modern England stands highest. France surpasses her in painting and in fiction, and Germany in music and the drama. But Great Britain is without a rival in poetry. Therefore, despite the fact that the Encyclopædia is just as biased in dealing with this subject as it is in dealing with other cultural subjects, England’s pre-eminence tends to reduce in this instance that insular prejudice which distorts theBritannica’streatment of arts and letters.
But even granting this superiority, the Encyclopædia is neglectful of the poets of other nations; and while it comes nearer the truth insetting forth the glories of English prosody, it fails here as elsewhere in being an international reference book of any marked value. There is considerable and unnecessary exaggeration of the merits of British poets, even of second- and third-rate British poets. Evangelical criticism predominates, and respectability is the measure of merit. Furthermore, the true value of poetry in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United States is minimized, and many writers of these countries who unquestionably should have a place in an encyclopædia as large as theBritannica, are omitted. Especially is this true in the case of the United States, which stands second only to Great Britain in the quantity and quality of its modern poetry.
Let us first review briefly the complete and eulogistic manner in which English poets are dealt with. Then let us compare, while making all allowances for alien inferiority, this treatment of British poetry with the Encyclopædia’s treatment of the poetry of other nations. To begin with, I find but very few British poets of even minor importance who are not given a biography more than equal to their deserts. Coventry Patmore receives a biography of a column and a half. Sydney Dobell’s runs to nearly a column. Wilfred Scawen Blunt is accorded half a column;John Davidson, over a column of high praise; Henley, more than an entire page; Stephen Phillips, three-fourths of a column; Henry Clarence Kendall, eighteen lines; Roden Noel, twenty-eight lines; Alexander Smith, twenty-five lines; Lawrence Binyon, nineteen lines; Laurence Housman, twenty-three lines; Ebenezer Jones, twenty-four lines; Richard Le Gallienne, twenty lines; Henry Newbolt, fifteen lines; and Arthur William Edgar O’Shaughnessy, twenty-nine lines. These names, together with the amount of space devoted to them, will give an indication of the thoroughness and liberality accorded British poets.
But these by no means complete the list. Robert Bridges receives half a column, in which we learn that “his work has had great influence in a select circle, by its restraint, purity, precision, and delicacy yet strength of expression.” And in his higher flights “he is always noble and sometimes sublime.... Spirituality informs his inspiration.” Here we have an excellent example of the Encyclopædia’s combination of the uplift and hyperbole. More of the same moral encomium is to be found in the biography of Christina Rossetti, which is a column in length. Her “sanctity” and “religious faith” are highly praised; and the article ends with the words:“All that we really need to know about her, save that she was a great saint, is that she was a great poet.” Ah, yes! Saintliness—that cardinal requisite in British æsthetics.
An example of how theBritannica’sprovincial puritanism of judgment works against a poet is to be found in the nearly-two-page biography of Swinburne, wherein we read that “it is impossible to acquit his poetry of the charge of animalism which wars against the higher issues of the spirit.” No, Swinburne was not a pious uplifter; he did not use his art as a medium for evangelical exhortation. Consequently his work does not comply with theBritannica’sparochial standard. And although Swinburne was contemporary with Francis Thompson, it is said in the latter’s two-thirds-of-a-column biography that “for glory of inspiration and natural magnificence of utterance he is unique among the poets of his time.” Watts-Dunton also, in his three-fourths-of-a-column biography, is praised lavishly and set down as a “unique figure in the world of letters.”
William Watson receives over a column of biography, and is eulogized for his classic traditions in an age of prosodic lawlessness. The sentimental and inoffensive Austin Dobson apparently is a high favorite with the editors of the Encyclopædia, for he is given a column andthree-fourths—more space than is given John Davidson, Francis Thompson, William Watson, Watts-Dunton, or Oscar Wilde—an allowance out of all proportion to his importance.
In closing this brief record of theEncyclopædia Britannica’sprodigal generosity to British poets, it might be well to mention that Thomas Chatterton receives a biography of five and a half columns—a space considerably longer than that given to Heine. Since Thomas Chatterton died at the age of eighteen and Heinrich Heine did not die until he was fifty-nine, I leave it to statisticians to figure out how much more space than Heine Chatterton would have received had he lived to the age of the German poet.
On turning to the French poets and bearing in mind the long biographies accorded British poets, one cannot help feeling amazed at the scant treatment which the former receive. Baudelaire, for instance, is given less space than Christina Rossetti, William Watson, Henley, Coventry Patmore, John Davidson, or Austin Dobson. Catulle Mendès receives considerably less space than Stephen Phillips. Verlaine is given equal space with Watts-Dunton, and less than half the space given to Austin Dobson! Stéphane Mallarmé receives only half the space given to John Davidson, Christina Rossetti, or William Watson.Jean Moréas receives only half the space given to Sydney Dobell or Christina Rossetti. Viélé-Griffin draws a shorter biography than Kendall, the Australian poet; and Régnier and Bouchor are dismissed in fewer words than is the Scotch poet, Alexander Smith. Furthermore, these biographies are rarely critical, being in the majority of instances a cursory record of incomplete data.
Here attention should be called to the fact that only in the cases of the very inconsequent British poets is criticism omitted: if the poet is even fairly well known there is a discussion of his work and an indication of the place he is supposed to hold in his particular field. But with foreign writers—even the very prominent ones—little or nothing concerning them is vouchsafed save historical facts, and these, as a general rule, fall far short of completeness. The impression given is that obscure Englishmen are more important than eminent Frenchmen, Germans, or Americans. Evidently the editors are of the opinion that if one is cognizant of British culture one can easily dispense with all other culture as inferior and unnecessary. Otherwise how, except on the ground of deliberate falsification, can one explain the liberal treatment accorded English poets as compared with the meagre treatment given French poets?
Since the important French poets mentioned receive such niggardly and grudging treatment, it is not to be wondered at that many other lesser poets—yet poets who are of sufficient importance to be included in an encyclopædia—should receive no biographical mention. If you wish information concerning Adolphe Retté, René de Ghil, Stuart Merrill, Emmanuel Signoret, Jehan Rictus, Albert Samain, Paul Fort, who is the leading balladist of young France, Hérold, Quillard, or Francis Jammes, you will have to go to a source even more “supreme” than theEncyclopædia 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 theBritannica, information concerning the principal poets of the Belgian Renaissance. But of the eight leading modern poets of Belgium only three have biographies—Lemonnier, Maeterlinck, and Verhaeren. There are no biographies of Eekhoud, Rodenbach, Elskamp, Severin and Cammaerts.
Turning to Italy we find even grosser injustice and an even more woeful inadequacy in the treatment accorded her modern poets. To be sure, there are biographies of Carducci, Ferrari, Marradi, Mazzoni, and Arturo Graf. But AlfredoBaccelli, Domenico Gnoli, Giovanni Pascoli, Mario Rapisardi, Chiarini, Panzacchi and Annie Vivanti are omitted. There should be biographies of these writers in an international encyclopædia one-fourth the size of theBritannica. Baccelli and Rapisardi are perhaps the two most important epic poets of modern Italy. Gnoli is one of the leaders of the classical school. Chiarini is not only a leading poet but is one of the first critics of Italy as well. Panzacchi, the romantic, is second only to the very greatest Italian poets of modern times, and as far back as 1898 British critics were praising him and regretting that he was not better known in England. Annie Vivanti, born in London, is a poet known and esteemed all over Italy. (It may be noted here that Vivanti wrote a vehement denunciation and repudiation of England inAve Albion.)
But these names represent only part of the injustice and neglect accorded modern Italian poetry by theBritannica. There is not even so much as a mention in the entire twenty-nine volumes of the names of Alinda Bonacchi, the most widely known woman poet in Italy; Capuano, who, besides being a notable poet, is also a novelist, dramatist and critic of distinction; Funcini (Tanfucio Neri), a household word in Tuscany and one held in high esteem all over Italy; “Countess Lara”(Eveline Cattermole), whoseVersigave her a foremost place among the poets of her day; Pitteri, who was famous as long ago as 1890; and Nencioni, not only a fine poet but one of Italy’s great critics. Nencioni has earned the reputation of being the Sainte-Beuve of Italy, and it was he who introduced Browning, Tennyson and Swinburne to his countrymen. Then there are such poets as Fontana, Bicci and Arnaboldi, who should at least be mentioned in connection with modern Italian literature, but whose names do not appear in “this complete library of information.”
But France, Belgium, and Italy, nevertheless, have great cause for feeling honored when comparison is made between the way theEncyclopædia Britannicadeals with their modern poetry and the way it deals with modern German and Austrian poetry. Of all the important recent lyricists of Germany and Austriaonly oneis given a biography, and that biography is so brief and inadequate as to be practically worthless for purposes of enlightenment. The one favored poet is Detlev von Liliencron. Liliencron is perhaps the most commanding lyrical figure in all recent German literature, and he receives just twenty-seven lines, or about one-fifth of the space given to Austin Dobson! But there are no biographies of Richard Dehmel, Carl Busse, Stefan George, J. H.Mackay, Rainer Maria Rilke, Gustav Falke, Ernst von Wolzogen, Karl Henckell, Dörmann, Otto Julius Bierbaum, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal.
There can be no excuse for many of these omissions. Several of these names are of international eminence. Their works have not been confined to Germany, but have appeared in English translation. They stand in the foremost rank of modern literature, and both in England and America there are critical books which accord them extensive consideration. Without a knowledge of them no one—not even a Britisher—can lay claim to an understanding of modern letters. Yet theEncyclopædia Britannicadenies them space and still poses as an adequate reference work.
One may hope to find some adequate treatment of the German lyric to recent years with its “remarkable variety of new tones and pregnant ideas,” in the article onGerman Literature. But that hope will straightway be blasted when one turns to the article in question. The entire new renaissance in German poetry is dismissed in a brief paragraph of thirty-one lines! It would have been better to omit it altogether, for such a cursory and inadequate survey of a significant subject can result only in disseminating a most unjust and distorted impression. And the bibliographyat the end of this article on modern German literature reveals nothing so much as the lack of knowledge on the part of the critic who compiled it. Not only is theBritannicadeficient in its information, but it does not reveal the best sources from which this omitted information might be gained.
An even more absurdly inadequate treatment is accorded the poets of modern Sweden. Despite the fact that Swedish literature is little known to Americans, the poetry of that country ranks very high—higher (according to some eminent critics) than the poetry of France or Germany. But theBritannicamakes no effort to disturb our ignorance; and so the great lyric poetry of Sweden since 1870 is barely touched upon. However, Mr. Edmund Gosse, a copious contributor to the Encyclopædia, has let the cat out of the bag. In one of his books he has pronounced Fröding, Levertin and Heidenstam “three very great lyrical artists,” and has called Snoilsky a poet of “unquestioned force and fire.” Turning to theBritannicawe find that Snoilsky is dismissed with half the space given Sydney Dobell and a third of the space given Patmore. Levertin receives only a third of a column; and Fröding is denied any biography whatever. He is thrown in with a batch of minor writers underSweden. Heidenstam, the newNobel prize-winner, a poet who, according to Charles Wharton Stork, “stands head and shoulders above any now writing in England,” receives only eight lines in the general notice! And Karlfeldt, another important lyrist, who is the Secretary of the Swedish Academy, is considered unworthy of even a word in the “supreme”Encyclopædia Britannica.
It would seem that unfair and scant treatment of a country’s poetry could go no further. But if you will seek for information concerning American poetry you will find a deficiency which is even greater than that which marks the treatment of modern Swedish poetry.
Here again it might be in place to call attention to the hyperbolical claims on which theEncyclopædia Britannicahas been sold in America. In the flamboyant and unsubstantiable advertising of this reference work you will no doubt recall the claim: “It will tell you more about everything than you can get from any other source.” And perhaps you will also remember the statement: “TheBritannicais a completelibraryof knowledge on every subject appealing to intelligent persons.” It may be, of course, that the editors believe that the subject of American literature does not, or at least should not, appeal to any but ignorant persons, and that, in fact, onlymiddle-class English culture can possibly interest the intelligent. But unless such a belief can be proved to be correct, the American buyers of this Encyclopædia have a grave and legitimate complaint against the editors for the manner in which the books were foisted upon them. TheEncyclopædia Britannica, as I have pointed out, isnota complete library of knowledge on the subject of literature; and in the following pages I shall show that its gross inadequacy extends to many other very important fields of endeavor. Moreover, its incompleteness is most glaringly obvious in the field of American æsthetic effort—a field which, under the circumstances, should be the last to be neglected.
On the subject of American poetry it is deficient almost to the extreme of worthlessness. In the article,American Literature, written by George E. Woodberry, we discover that truly British spirit and viewpoint which regards nothing as worth while unless it is old or eminently respectable and accepted. The result is that, in the paragraph on our poetry, such men as Aldrich, Stedman, Richard Watson Gilder, Julia Ward Howe, H. H. Brownell and Henry Van Dyke are mentioned; but very few others. As a supreme surrender to modernity the names of Walt Whitman, Eugene Field, James Whitcomb Riley and Joaquin Millerare included. The great wealth of American poetry, which is second only to that of England, is not even suggested.
Turning to the biography of Edgar Allan Poe, we find that this writer receives only a column and a half, less space than is given Austin Dobson, Coventry Patmore, or W. E. Henley! And the biography itself is so inept that it is an affront to American taste and an insult to American intelligence. One is immediately interested in learning what critic the Encyclopædia’s editors chose to represent this American who has long since become a world figure in literature. Turning to the index we discover that one David Hannay is the authority—a gentleman who was formerly the British Vice-Consul at Barcelona. Mr. Hannay (apparently he holds no academic degree of any kind) lays claim to fame chiefly, it seems, as the author ofShort History of the Royal Navy; but in just what way his research in naval matters qualifies him to write on Poe is not indicated. This is not, however, the only intimation we had that in the minds of the Encyclopædia’s editors there exists some esoteric and recondite relationship between art and British sea-power. In theBritannica’scriticism of J. M. W. Turner’s paintings, that artist’s work is said to be “like the British fleet among the navies of the world.” In thepresent instance, however, we can only trust that the other articles in this encyclopædia, by Mr. Hannay—to-wit:Admiral PennandPirate and Piracy—are more competent than his critique on Poe.
Walt Whitman gets scarcely better treatment. His biography is no longer than Poe’s and contains little criticism and no suggestion of his true place in American letters. This is all the more astonishing when we recall the high tribute paid Whitman by eminent English critics. Surely theBritannica’seditors are not ignorant of Whitman’s place in modern letters or of the generous manner in which he had been received abroad. Whatever one’s opinion of him, he was a towering figure in our literature—a pioneer who had more influence on our later writers than any other American. And yet his biography in this great British cultural work is shorter than that of Mrs. Humphry Ward!
With such obviously inadequate and contemptuous treatment as that accorded Poe and Whitman, it is not surprising that all other American poets should be treated peremptorily or neglected entirely. There are very short biographical notes on Stedman, Louise Chandler Moulton, Sill, Gilder, Eugene Field, Sidney Lanier and Riley—but they are scant records of facts and most insufficientwhen compared to the biographies of second-rate poets of England.
But let us be grateful that theEncyclopædia Britannicawas generous enough to record them at all; for one can look in vain through its entire twenty-nine volumes, no matter under what heading, for even a mention of Emily Dickinson, John Bannister Tabb, Florence Earle Coates, Edwin Markham, Lizette Woodworth Reese, Clinton Scollard, Louise Imogen Guiney, Richard Hovey, Madison Cawein, Edwin Arlington Robinson, George Sylvester Viereck, Ridgeley Torrence, Arthur Upson, Santayana, and many others who hold an important place in our literature. And the names of William Vaughn Moody, Percy MacKaye and Bliss Carman are merely mentioned casually, the first two underDramaand the last underCanadian Literature.
The palpable injustice in the complete omission of many of the above American names is rendered all the more glaring by the fact that theEncyclopædia Britannicapays high tribute to such minor British poets and versifiers as W. H. Davies, Sturge Moore, Locker Lampson, C. M. Doughty, Walter de la Mare, Alfred Noyes, Herbert Trench, Ernest Dowson, Mrs. Meynell, A. E. Housman and Owen Seaman.
This is the culture disseminated by theEncyclopædiaBritannica, which “is a completelibraryof knowledge on every subject appealing to intelligent persons,” and which “will tell you more about everything than you can get from any other source!” This is the “supreme book of knowledge” which Americans are asked to buy in preference to all others. What pettier insult could one nation offer to another?
If one hopes to find in the Eleventh Edition of theEncyclopædia Britannicaan unprejudiced critical and biographical survey of the world’s painters, he will be sorely disappointed. Not only is the Encyclopædia not comprehensive and up-to-date, but the manner in which British art and artists are constantly forced to the front rank is so grossly biased that a false impression of æsthetic history and art values is almost an inevitable result, unless one is already equipped with a wide understanding of the subject. If one were to form an opinion of art on theBritannica’sarticles, the opinion would be that English painting leads the modern world in both amount and quality. The Encyclopædia raises English academicians to the ranks of exalted greatness, and at the same time tends to tear down the pedestals whereon rest the truly towering geniuses of alien nationality.
So consistently does Britishbourgeoisprejudice and complacency characterize the material on painting contained in this Encyclopædia, that anyattempt to get from it an æsthetic point of view which would be judicious and universal, would fail utterly. Certain French, German, and American artists of admitted importance are considered unworthy of space, or, if indeed deserving of mention, are unworthy of the amount of space, or the praise, which is conferred on a large number of lesser English painters. Both by implication and direct statement the editors have belittled the æsthetic endeavor of foreign nations, and have exaggerated, to an almost unbelievable degree, the art of their own country. The manner in which the subject of painting is dealt with reveals the full-blown flower of British insularity, and apotheosizes the narrow, aggressive culture of British middle-class respectability. In the world’s art from 1700 on, comparatively little merit is recognized beyond the English Channel.
The number of English painters whose biographies appear in theBritannicawould, I believe, astonish even certain English art critics; and the large amount of space devoted to them—even to inconsequent and obscure academicians—when compared with the brief notices given to greater painters of other nations, leaves the un-British searcher with a feeling of bewilderment. But not only with the large number of English painters mentioned or even with the obviouslydisproportionate amount of space devoted to them does the Encyclopædia’s chauvinistic campaign for England’s æsthetic supremacy cease. The criticisms which accompany these biographies are as a rule generously favorable; and, in many cases, the praise reaches a degree of extravagance which borders on the absurd.
Did this optimism of outlook, this hot desire to ferret out greatness where only mediocrity exists, this ambition to drag the obscure and inept into the glare of prominence, extend to all painters, regardless of nationality, one might forgive the superlative eulogies heaped upon British art, and attribute them to that mellow spirit of sentimental tolerance which sees good in everything. But, alas! such impartiality does not exist. It would seem that the moment the biographers of theBritannicaput foot on foreign ground, their spirit of generosity deserts them. And if space is any indication of importance, it must be noted that English painters are, in the editors’ estimation, of considerably more importance than painters from abroad.
Of William Etty, to whom three-fourths of a page is devoted, we are told that “in feeling and skill as a colorist he has few equals.” The implication here that Etty, as a colorist, has never been surpassed scarcely needs refutation. It isunfortunate, however, that Mr. Etty is not with us at present to read this exorbitant testimony to his greatness, for it would astonish him, no doubt, as much as it would those other few unnamed painters who are regarded as his equals in colorsensibilité. J. S. Cotman, we discover, was “a remarkable painter both in oil and water-color.” This criticism is characteristic, for, even when there are no specific qualities to praise in an English painter’s work, we find this type of vague recommendation.
No points, though, it would seem, are overlooked. Regard the manner in which J. D. Harding’s questionable gifts are recorded. “Harding,” you will find, “was noted for facility, sureness of hand, nicety of touch, and the various qualities which go to make up an elegant, highly-trained and accomplished sketcher from nature, and composer of picturesque landscape material; he was particularly skillful in the treatment of foliage.” Turning from Mr. Harding, the “elegant” and “accomplished” depicter of foliage, to Birket Foster, we find that his work “is memorable for its delicacy and minute finish, and for its daintiness and pleasantness of sentiment.” Dainty and pleasant sentiment is not without weight with the art critics of this encyclopædia. In one form oranother it is mentioned very often in connection with British painters.
Landseer offers an excellent example of the middle-class attitude which theBritannicatakes toward art. To judge from the page-and-a-half biography of this indifferent portraitist of animals one would imagine that Landseer was a great painter, for we are told that hisFighting Dogs Getting Windis “perfectly drawn, solidly and minutely finished, and carefully composed.” Of what possible educational value is an art article which would thus criticise a Landseer picture?
An English painter who, were we to accept the Encyclopædia’s valuation, combines the qualities of several great painters is Charles Holroyd. “In all his work,” we learn, “Holroyd displays an impressive sincerity, with a fine sense of composition, and of style, allied to independent and modern thinking.” Truly a giant! It would be difficult to recall any other painter in history “all” of whose work displayed a “fine sense of composition.” Not even could this be said of Michelangelo. But when it comes to composition, Arthur Melville apparently soars above his fellows. Besides, “several striking portraits in oil,” he did a picture calledThe Return From the Crucifixion,which, so we are told, is a “powerful, colossal composition.” To have achieved only a “powerful” composition should have been a sufficiently remarkable feat for a painter of Mr. Melville’s standing; for only of a very few masters in the world’s history can it be said that their compositions were both powerful and colossal. El Greco, Giotto, Giorgione, Veronese, Titian, Michelangelo and Rubens rarely soared to such heights.
But Melville, it appears, had a contemporary who, if anything, was greater than he—to-wit: W. Q. Orchardson, to whose glories nearly a page is devoted. “By the time he was twenty,” says his biographer, “Orchardson had mastered the essentials of his art.” In short, at twenty he had accomplished what few painters accomplished in a lifetime. A truly staggering feat! We are not therefore surprised to learn that “as a portrait painter Orchardson must be placed in the first class.” Does this not imply that he ranked with Titian, Velazquez, Rubens and Rembrandt? What sort of an idea of the relative values in art will the uninformed person get from such loose and ill-considered rhetoric, especially when the critic goes on to say thatMaster Babyis “a masterpiece of design, color and broad execution”? There is much more eulogy of a similar careless variety, but enough has been quoted here to showthat the world must entirely revise its opinions of art if theEncyclopædia Britannica’sstatements are to be accepted.
Even the pictures of Paul Wilson Steer are criticised favorably: “His figure subjects and landscapes show great originality and technical skill.” And John Pettie was “in his best days a colorist of a high order and a brilliant executant.” George Reid, the Scottish artist, is accorded over half a column with detailed criticism and praise. Frederick Walker is given no less than an entire column which ends with a paragraph of fulsome eulogy. Even E. A. Waterlow painted landscapes which were “admirable” and “handled with grace and distinction”—more gaudy generalizations. When the Encyclopædia’s critics can find no specific point to praise in the work of their countrymen, grace, distinction, elegance and sentiment are turned into æsthetic virtues.
Turning to Hogarth, we find no less than three and one-half pages devoted to him, more space than is given to Rubens’s biography, and three times the space accorded Veronese! It was once thought that Hogarth was only an “ingenious humorist,” but “time has reversed that unjust sentence.” We then read that Hogarth’s composition leaves “little or nothing to be desired.” If such were the case, he would unquestionablyrank with Rubens, Michelangelo and Titian; for, if indeed his composition leaves little or nothing to be desired, he is as great as, or even greater than, the masters of all time. But even with this eulogy the Encyclopædia’s critic does not rest content. As a humorist and a satirist upon canvas, “he has never been equalled.” If we regard Hogarth as an “author” rather than artist, “his place is with the great masters of literature—with the Thackerays and Fieldings, the Cervantes and Molières.” (Note that of these four “great masters” two are English.)
Mastery in one form or another, if theBritannicais to be believed, was common among English painters. The pictures of Richard Wilson are “skilled and learned compositions ... the work of a painter who was thoroughly master of his materials.” In this latter respect Mr. Wilson perhaps stands alone among the painters of the world; and yet, through some conspiracy of silence no doubt, the leading critics of other nations rarely mention him when speaking of those artists who thoroughly mastered their materials. In regard to Raeburn, the Encyclopædia is less fulsome, despite the fact that over a page is allotted him. We are distinctly given to understand that he had his faults. Velazquez, however, constantly reminded Wilkie of Raeburn; yet, after all, Raeburn wasnot quite so great as Velazquez. This is frankly admitted.
It was left to Reynolds to equal if not to surpass Velazquez as well as Rubens and Rembrandt. In a two-page glorification of this English painter we come upon the following panegyric: “There can be no question of placing him by the side of the greatest Venetians or of the triumvirate of the seventeenth century, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velazquez.” If by placing him beside these giants is meant that he in any wise approached their stature, there can be, and has been, outside of England, a very great question of putting him in such company. In fact, his right to such a place has been very definitely denied him. But the unprejudiced opinion of the world matters not to the patriots who edited theEncyclopædia Britannica. That “supreme” English reference work goes on to say that in portraits, such asMrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse, Reynolds “holds the field.... No portrait painter has been more happy in his poses for single figures.” Then, as if such enthusiasm were not enough, we are told that “nature had singled out Sir Joshua to endow him with certain gifts in which he has hardly an equal.”
Nature, it seems, in her singling out process, was particularly partial to Englishmen, for among those other painters who just barely equalledReynolds’s transcendent genius was Gainsborough. Says theBritannica: “Gainsborough and Reynolds rank side by side.... It is difficult to say which stands the higher of the two.” Consequently hereafter we must place Gainsborough, too, along with Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and Velazquez! Such a complete revision of æsthetic judgment will, no doubt, be difficult at first, but, by living with theEncyclopædia Britannicaand absorbing its British culture, we may in time be able to bracket Michelangelo, Reynolds, Rubens, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, Hogarth and Velazquez without the slightest hesitation.
It is difficult to conceive how, in an encyclopædia with lofty educational pretences, extravagance of statement could attain so high a point as that reached in the biographies of Reynolds and Gainsborough. So obviously indefensible are these valuations that I would hesitate to accuse theBritannica’seditors of deliberate falsification—that is, of purposely distorting æsthetic values for the benefit of English artists. Their total lack of discretion indicates an honest, if blind, belief in British æsthetic supremacy. But this fact does not lessen the danger of such judgments to the American public. As a nation we are ignorant of painting and therefore are apt to acceptstatements of this kind which have the impact of seeming authority behind them.
The same insular and extravagant point of view is discoverable in the article on Turner. To this painter nearly five pages are devoted—a space out of all proportion to the biographies of the other painters of the world. Titian has only three and one-half pages; Rubens has only a little over three pages; and El Greco has less than two-thirds of a page! Of course, it is not altogether fair to base a judgment on space alone; but such startling discrepancies are the rule and not the exception.
In the case of Turner the discrepancy is not only of space, however. In diction, as well, all relative values are thrown to the winds. In the criticism of Turner we find English patriotism at its high-water mark. We read that “the range of his powers was so vast that he covered the whole field of nature and united in his own person the classical and naturalistic schools.” Even this palpable overstatement could be forgiven, since it has a basis of truth, if a little further we did not discover that Turner’sCrossing the Brookin the London National Academy is “probably the most perfect landscape in the world.” In this final and irrevocable judgment is manifest the supreme insular egotism which characterizes nearly all the art articles in theEncyclopædia Britannica. Thiscriticism, to take merely one example, means thatCrossing the Brookis more perfect than Rubens’sLandscape with Château de Stein! But the Encyclopædia’s summary of Turner’s genius surpasses in flamboyant chauvinism anything which I have yet seen in print. It is said that, despite any exception we may take to his pictures, “there will still remain a body of work which for extent, variety, truth and artistic taste is like the British fleet among the navies of the world.” Here patriotic fervor has entirely swallowed all restraint.
Over a page is devoted to Constable, in which we are informed that his “vivid tones and fresh color are grafted upon the formulæ of Claude and Rubens.” This type of criticism is not rare. One frequently finds second-rate English artists compared not unfavorably with the great artists of other nations; and it would seem that the English painters add a little touch of their own, the imputation being that they not seldom improve upon their models. Thus Constable adds “vivid tones and fresh colors” to Rubens’s formula. Another instance of this kind is to be found in the case of Alfred Stevens, the British sculptor, not the Belgian painter. (The latter, by the way, though more important and better-known, receives less space than the Englishman.) The vigorousstrength of his groups “recalls the style of Michelangelo, but Stevens’s work throughout is original and has a character of its own.” I do not deny that Stevens imitated Michelangelo, but, where English artists are concerned, these relationships are indicated in deceptive phraseology. In the case of French artists, whose biographies are sometimes written by unbiased critics, the truth is not hidden in dictional suavities. Imitation is not made a virtue.
Let us now turn to Watts. Over two pages are accorded him, one page being devoted largely to eulogy, a passage of which reads: “It was the rare combination of supreme handicraft with a great imaginative intellect which secured to Watts his undisputed place in the public estimation of his day.” Furthermore, we hear of “the grandeur and dignity of his style, the ease and purposefulness of his brushwork, the richness and harmoniousness of his coloring.” But those “to whom his exceptional artistic attainment is a sealed book have gathered courage or consolation from the grave moral purpose and deep human sympathy of his teaching.” Here we have a perfect example of the parochial moral uplift which permeates theBritannica’sart criticism. The great Presbyterian complex is found constantly in the judgments of this encyclopædia.
So important a consideration to theBritannica’scritico-moralists is this puritan motif that the fact is actually set down that Millais was devoted to his family! One wonders how much influence this domestic devotion had on the critic who spends a page and a half to tell us of Millais, for not only is this space far in excess of Millais’ importance, but the statement is made that he was “one of the greatest painters of his time,” and that “he could paint what he saw with a force which has seldom been excelled.” Unfortunately the few who excelled him are not mentioned. Perhaps he stood second only to Turner, that super-dreadnought. Surely he was not excelled by Renoir, or Courbet, or Pissarro, or Monet, or Manet, or Cézanne; for these latter are given very little space (the greatest of them having no biography whatever in the Encyclopædia!); and there is no evidence to show that they are considered of more than minor importance.
Perhaps it was Rossetti, a fellow Pre-Raphaelite, who excelled Millais in painting what he saw. Rossetti’sThe Song of Solomon, as regards brilliance, finish and the splendor of its lighting, “occupies a great place in the highest grade of modern art of all the world.” Even Holman Hunt, one of the lesser Pre-Raphaelites, is givenover a full page, and is spoken of in glowing terms. “Perhaps no painter of the nineteenth century,” we read, “produced so great an impression by a few pictures” as did Hunt; and during the course of the eulogy the critic speaks of Hunt’s “greatness.” Can it be that the naïf gentleman who wrote Hunt’s biography has never heard of Courbet, or Manet, or of the Impressionists, or Cézanne? After so sweeping and unreasoned a statement as the one concerning the great impression made by Hunt’s pictures, such an extreme conclusion is almost inevitable. Or is this critic’s patriotic vanity such that he considers an impression made in England as representative of the world? Even to intimate that the impression made by Hunt’s pictures was comparable to that made byL’Enterrement à OrnansorLe Déjeuner sur l’Herbe, or that the Pre-Raphaelites possessed even half the importance of Courbet and Manet, is to carry undeserved laudation to preposterous lengths.
Here as elsewhere, superlatives are used in such a way in describing unimportant English painters that no adequate adjectives are left for the truly great men of other nationality. It would be difficult to find a better example of undeserving eulogy as applied to an inconsequent British painter than that furnished by Brangwyn, whosecompositions, we are astonished to learn, have “a nobly impressive and universal character.” Such a statement might justly sum up the greatness of a Michelangelo statue; but here it is attached to the works of a man who at best is no more than a capable and clever illustrator.
The foregoing examples by no means include all the instances of how English painters, as a result of the liberal space allotted them and the lavish encomiums heaped upon them by theEncyclopædia Britannica’seditors, are unduly expanded into great and important figures. A score of other names could be mentioned. From beginning to end, English art is emphasized and lauded until it is out of all proportion to the rest of the world.
Turn to the article onPaintingand look at the sub-title, “Recent Schools.” Under “British” you will find twelve columns, with inset headings. Under “French” you will find only seven columns, without insets. Practically all the advances made in modern art have come out of France; and practically all important modern painters have been Frenchmen. England has contributed little or nothing to modern painting. And yet, recent British schools are given nearly twice the space that is devoted to recent French schools! Again regard the article,Sculpture.Even a greater and more astonishing disproportionment exists here. Modern British sculpture is given no less than thirteen and a half columns, while modern French sculpture, of vastly greater æsthetic importance, is given only seven and a half columns!