BY RICHARD T. ELY, _Director School of Economics, University of
Wisconsin_.
It is my purpose to speak plainly and, if possible, forcibly, concerning
what seems to me a grave menace to the progress of science, but in all
that I shall say, I would have it understood that I have only the
friendliest feelings personally for the gentleman who has brought
forward what seem to me dangerous proposals. I appreciate his zeal for
progress and his self-sacrificing efforts for human advancement in
various directions, but I think that in this particular case--namely,
the evaluation of literature, or the establishment of a judicature of
letters, my friend is working against his own ideals.
I admit freely that the readers in our public libraries very generally
need help in the selection of books, and that great assistance may be
rendered them by judicious advice. Much time is wasted by those who read
scientific and serious works which do not present the results of recent
investigations: furthermore, as another consequence effort is
misdirected and instead of producing beneficial results may do positive
damage. The question may be asked: "Shall I read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of
nations?' I hear it mentioned as one of the great works in the world's
history." Probably many a librarian has had this precise question asked
him. In giving an affirmative answer it will be most helpful to offer a
few words explaining the circumstances under which it appeared one
hundred and twenty-five years ago, and its relation to the subsequent
development of economic schools and tendencies. Doubtless this work is
frequently perused as if it were fresh from the press and were to be
judged as a work appearing in 1901.
I further admit the harm which has come to individuals from the study of
the so-called "crank" literature in economics and sociology, as well as
in other branches of learning. Doubtless many a man is working
vigorously in a wrong way and attempting to force society into false
channels who might be doing a good work had his reading been well
directed in a formative period.
But the magnitude of the interests involved in the proposal which greets
us requires caution and conservatism in action. We must take a long, not
a short, view of the matter, inquiring into remote and permanent
results.
It is proposed, as I understand it, to have so-called expert opinions
expressed concerning books, new and old; to secure as precise and
definite estimates of their value as possible, and then by means of
printed guides, and even card catalogs, to bring these opinions and
evaluations before the readers in our libraries.
Let us reflect for a moment on what this implies. It means, first of all
a judicial body of men from whom these estimates are to proceed. Have we
such a body? Is it in the nature of things possible that we should have
such a body? I say that so far as contemporary literature is concerned,
the history of knowledge gives us a positive and conclusive negative
answer--a most emphatic "No." Let anyone who knows the circumstances and
conditions under which reviews are prepared and published reflect on
what the attempt to secure this evaluation of literature implies. Many
of us know a great deal about these circumstances and conditions. We
have written reviews, we have asked others to write reviews, and we have
for years been in contact with a host of reviewers. We may in this
connection first direct out attention to the general character of the
periodicals from which quotations are frequently made in the evaluation
of literature. I say nothing about my own view, but I simply express an
opinion of many men whose judgment should have great weight when I say
that one of the most brilliant of these periodicals has been marked by a
narrow policy, having severe tests of orthodoxy along economic, social
and political lines, and displaying a bitterness and vindictiveness
reaching beyond the grave. I mention no names, and the opinion may or
may not be a just one; but it should be carefully weighed whether or
not, or to what extent, the evaluations of such a periodical ought to be
crystallized as it were: that is, taken from the periodical press and
made part of a working library apparatus, to last for years.
Another periodical, an able magazine, which makes much of reviews is
under the control of a strong body of men, but they stand for scarcely
more than one line of thought among many lines. And sometimes very sharp
and very hard things are said about those who believe that scientific
truth is moving along one of these other lines. Indeed, the discreet
person, knowing personally the reviewer and the reviewed, will not be
convinced that there is always in the reviews, here as elsewhere, an
absence of personal animosity. Let us for a moment reflect on this
personal element in reviews, as it has surely fallen under the notice of
every man with wide experience in these matters. As a rule, the
reviewers are comparatively young and inexperienced men, frequently
zealous for some sect or faction. Sometimes great leaders of thought
write reviews, but generally they are unable to find the time to do so.
As a result in our reviews in the best periodicals it will frequently be
found that an inferior is passing judgment on a superior, and
furthermore, reviewers share in our common human nature, and the amount
of personal bias and even at times personal malignity found in reviews
and estimates of books is something sad to contemplate. An unsuccessful
candidate for a position held by an author has been known to initiate a
scandalous and altogether malicious attack in a review.
In the next place, I would call your attention to the absence of
objective standards. Necessarily are the standards personal and
subjective; particularly and above all in economics, but in high degree
in sociology, ethics and philosophy in general, and religion. Biological
reviews have displayed in marked degree the subjective personal element.
Chemistry, physics, astronomy and mathematics probably are best of all
fitted for evaluations free from personal bias.
It may be asked what damage will result from evaluation. Passing over
grave injustice to individuals, we observe that they must lead to the
formation of what Bagehot aptly called a crust, preventing the free
development of science. We have been laboring for years to obtain
scientific freedom, freedom in teaching, freedom in learning, freedom in
expression. For this end many a battle has been fought by noble leaders
of thought. Indeed, every new movement of thought has to struggle to
make itself felt, and to struggle precisely against those who control
the most respectable avenues of publication; against the very ones who
would be selected to give expert opinions and make evaluations of
literature. Call to mind the opposition to Darwin and Huxley--although
they were especially and particularly fortunate in early gaining the
adherence of scientific men--also the opposition to Adam Smith, Malthus,
Ricardo and John Stuart Mill--and to the last named, even now, some
would on a scale of 100 give an evaluation perhaps of 50, others of
65--still others 80 and 90. Recently an economic book appeared of which
one widely quoted periodical said that it illustrated a _reductio ad
absurdum_ of false tendencies, while another expert opinion inclined to
place it among the great works of the age. It would seem to me that if
we are to have formal evaluations, they should at least be restricted to
works which have been before the public for a period of fifty years.
We have in this proposal, as I take it, an attack on liberty, proceeding
from one who would not willingly attack it, but illustrating the truth
of the saying "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It is
proposed to publish virtually an _index librorum prohibitorum_ and an
_index expurgatorius_. And of all efforts ever conceived along this
line, this is precisely the worst because of its apparently impersonal
character. Let the ordinary reader go to a guide and find a book
described as unscientific and superficial, and what weight can it have
for him. The authority has spoken. It is well enough for librarians
personally to guide and direct their constituencies, and one review may
be weighed against another review. The old methods even must be used by
librarians cautiously, and they are ample for the purpose to be
attained. The great point is that there should be a fluid current of
opinion, and every facility for a revision of judgment should be
maintained. Reviewers themselves change their views. I, myself, remember
reviews which I wrote of works by two distinguished American authors,
which I now regret, as my estimates were, I believe, not altogether
sound and did an injustice to the authors, namely John Fiske and Lester
F. Ward. But after all, I suppose no special harm was done, but if
extracts from these reviews had been made part of a system of evaluation
it would have been different.
Librarians as librarians must watch with impartiality the struggles
among tendencies and schools of thought, and above all things, endeavor
to keep open a free way for new truth.