treatment of the subject throughout the Encyclopædia’s twenty-seven
volumes. The English drama is given forty-one columns. The French drama
is given fifteen columns; the German drama, nine; the Scandinavian drama
one; and the Russian drama, one-third of a column! The American drama
is not even given a separate division but is included under the English
drama, and occupies less than one column! The Irish drama also is without
a separate division, and receives only twelve lines of exposition! In the
division on the Scandinavian drama, Strindberg’s name is not mentioned;
and the reader is supplied with the antiquated, early-Victorian
information that Ibsen’s _Ghosts_ is “repellent.” In the brief passage
on the Russian drama almost no idea is given of its subject; in fact, no
dramatist born later than 1808 is mentioned! When we consider the wealth
of the modern Russian drama and its influence on the theater of other
nations, even of England, we can only marvel at such utter inadequacy and
neglect.
In the sub-headings of “recent” drama under _Drama_, “Recent English
Drama” is given over twelve columns, while “Recent French Drama” is given
but a little over three. There is no sub-division for recent German
drama, but mention is made of it in a short paragraph under “English
Drama” with the heading: “Influences of Foreign Drama!”
Regard this distribution of space for a moment. The obvious implication
is that the more modern English drama is four times as important as the
French; and yet for years the entire inspiration of the English stage
came from France, and certain English “dramatists” made their reputations
by adapting French plays. And what of the more modern German drama? It
is of importance, evidently, only as it had an influence on the English
drama. Could self-complacent insularity go further? Even in its capacity
as a mere contribution to British genius, the recent German drama, it
seems, is of little moment; and Sudermann counts for naught. In the
entire article on _Drama_ his name is not so much as mentioned! Such is
the transcendent and superlative culture of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_!
Turning to the biographies, we find that British dramatists, when
mentioned at all, are treated with cordial liberality. T. W. Robertson
is given nearly three-fourths of a column with the comment that “his
work is notable for its masterly stage-craft, wholesome and generous
humor, bright and unstrained dialogue, and high dramatic sense of human
character in its theatrical aspects.” H. J. Byron is given over half a
column. W. S. Gilbert draws no less than a column and three-fourths. G.
R. Sims gets twenty-two lines. Sydney Grundy is accorded half a column.
James M. Barrie is given a column and a half, and George Bernard Shaw an
equal amount of space. Pinero is given two-thirds of a column; and Henry
Arthur Jones half a column. Jones, however, might have had more space
had the Encyclopædia’s editor gone to the simple trouble of extending
that playwright’s biography beyond 1904; but on this date it ends,
with the result that there appears no mention of _The Heroic Stubbs_,
_The Hypocrites_, _The Evangelist_, _Dolly Reforms Himself_, or _The
Knife_—all of which were produced before this supreme, up-to-date and
informative encyclopædia went to press.
Oscar Wilde, a man who revolutionized the English drama and who was
unquestionably one of the important figures in modern English letters, is
given a little over a column, less space than Shaw, Barrie, or Gilbert.
In much of his writing there was, we learn, “an undertone of rather nasty
suggestion”; and after leaving prison “he was necessarily an outcast from
decent circles.” Also, “it is still impossible to take a purely objective
view of Oscar Wilde’s work,”—that is to say, literary judgment cannot be
passed without recourse to morality!
Here is an actual confession _by the editor himself_ (for he contributed
the article on Wilde) of the accusation I have made against the
_Britannica_. A great artist, according to this encyclopædia’s criterion,
is a respectable artist, one who preaches and practises an inoffensive
suburbanism. But when the day comes—if it ever does—when the editor of
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, along with other less prudish and less
delicate critics, can regard Wilde’s work apart from personal prejudice,
perhaps Wilde will be given the consideration he deserves—a consideration
far greater, we hope, than that accorded Barrie and Gilbert.
Greater inadequacy than that revealed in Wilde’s biography is to be found
in the fact that Synge has no biography whatever in the _Britannica_!
Nor has Hankin. Nor Granville Barker. Nor Lady Gregory. Nor Galsworthy.
The biographical omission of such important names as these can hardly
be due to the editor’s opinion that they are not deserving of mention,
for lesser English dramatic names of the preceding generation are
given liberal space. The fact that these writers do not appear can be
attributed only to the fact that the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ has not
been properly brought up to date—a fact substantiated by an abundance
of evidence throughout the entire work. Of what possible value to one
interested in the modern drama is a reference library which contains no
biographical mention of such significant figures as these?
The French drama suffers even more from incompleteness and scantiness
of material. Becque draws just eleven lines, exactly half the space
given to the British playwright whose reputation largely depends on that
piece of sentimental claptrap, _Lights o’ London_. Hervieu draws half
a column of biography, in which his two important dramas, _Modestie_
and _Connais-Toi_ (both out before the _Britannica_ went to press), are
not mentioned. Curel is given sixteen lines; Lavedan, fourteen lines,
in which not all of even his best work is noted; Maurice Donnay, twenty
lines, with no mention of _La Patronne_ (1908); Lemaître, a third of a
column; Rostand, half a column, less space than is accorded the cheap,
slap-stick humorist from Manchester, H. J. Byron; Capus, a third of
a column; Porto-Riche, thirteen lines; and Brieux twenty-six lines.
In Brieux’s very brief biography there is no record of _La Française_
(1807), _Simone_ (1908), or _Suzette_ (1909). Henri Bernstein does not
have even a biographical mention.
Maeterlinck’s biography runs only to a column and a third, and the last
work of his to be mentioned is dated 1903, since which time the article
has apparently not been revised! Therefore, if you depend for information
on this biography in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, you will find no
record of _Sœur Béatrice_, _Ariane et Barbe-Bleu_, _L’Oiseau Bleu_, or
_Maria Magdaléne_.
The modern Italian drama also receives very brief and inadequate
treatment. Of the modern Italian dramatists only two of importance have
biographies—Pietro Cossa and Paolo Ferrari. Cossa is given twenty-four
lines, and Ferrari only seven lines! The two eminent comedy writers,
Gherardi del Testa and Ferdinando Martini, have no biographies. Nor has
either Giuseppe Giacosa or Gerolamo Rovetta, the leaders of the new
school, any biographical mention. And in d’Annunzio’s biography only
seventeen lines are devoted to his dramas. What sort of an idea of the
modern Italian drama can one get from an encyclopædia which contains such
indefensible omissions and such scant accounts of prominent writers? And
why should the writer who is as commonly known by the name of Stecchetti
as Samuel Clemens is by the name of Mark Twain be listed under “Guerrini”
without even a cross reference under the only name by which the majority
of readers know him? Joseph Conrad might almost as well be listed under
“Korzeniowski.” There are few enough non-British writers included in the
_Britannica_ without deliberately or ignorantly hiding those who have
been lucky enough to be admitted.
Crossing over into Germany and Austria one may look in vain for any
indication of the wealth of dramatic material and the great number of
important dramatic figures which have come from these two countries.
Of all the recent German and Austrian dramatists of note, _only two_
are so much as given biographical mention, and these two—Sudermann
and Hauptmann—are treated with a brevity and inadequacy which, to my
knowledge, are without a parallel in any modern reference work on the
subject. Hauptmann and Sudermann receive just twenty-five lines each,
less space than is given to Sydney Grundy, Pinero, Henry Arthur Jones, T.
W. Robertson, H. J. Byron; and less than a third of the space given to
Shaw and W. S. Gilbert! Even Sims is given nearly as much space!
In these comparisons alone is discernible a chauvinism of almost
incredible narrowness. But the biographies themselves emphasize
this patriotic prejudice even more than does the brevity of space.
In Sudermann’s biography, which apparently ends in 1905, no mention
whatever is made of such important works as _Das Blumenboot_, _Rosen_,
_Strandkinder_, and _Das Hohe Lied_ (_The Song of Songs_), all of which
appeared before the _Britannica_ was printed.
And what of Hauptmann, perhaps the greatest and most important figure in
dramatic literature of this and the last generation? After a brief record
of the facts in Hauptmann’s life we read: “Of Hauptmann’s subsequent work
mention may be made of”—and then the names of a few of his plays are set
down. In the phrase, “mention may be made of,” is summed up the critic’s
narrow viewpoint. And in that list it was thought unnecessary to mention
_Schluck und Jau_, _Michael Kramer_, _Der Arme Heinrich_, _Elga_, _Die
Jungfern vom Bischofsberg_, _Kaiser Karls Geisel_, and _Griselda_! Since
all of these appeared in ample time to be included, it would, I believe,
have occurred to an unprejudiced critic that mention _might_ have been
made of them. In fact, all the circumstantial evidence points to the
supposition that had Hauptmann been an Englishman, not only would they
have been mentioned, but they would have been praised as well. As it
is, there is no criticism of Hauptmann’s work and no indication of his
greatness, despite the fact that he is almost universally conceded to be
a more important figure than any of the modern English playwrights who
are given greater space and favorably criticised.
With such insufficient and glaringly prejudiced treatment of giants
like Sudermann and Hauptmann, it is not at all surprising that not one
other figure in German and Austrian recent dramatic literature should
have a biography. For instance, there is no biography of Schnitzler,
Arno Holz, Max Halbe, Ludwig Fulda, O. E. Hartleben, Max Dreyer, Ernst
Hardt, Hirschfeld, Ernst Rosmer, Karl Schönherr, Hermann Bahr, Thoma,
Beer-Hoffmann, Johannes Schlaf, or Wedekind! Although every one of these
names should be included in some informative manner in an encyclopædia as
large as the _Britannica_, and one which makes so lavish a claim for its
educational completeness, the omission of several of them may be excused
on the grounds that, in the haste of the Encyclopædia’s editors to
commercialize their cultural wares, they did not have sufficient time to
take cognizance of the more recent of these dramatists. Since the editors
have overlooked men like Galsworthy from their own country, we can at
least acquit them of the charge of snobbish patriotism in several of the
present instances of wanton oversight.
In the cases of Schnitzler, Hartleben and Wedekind, however, no excuse
can be offered. The work of these men, though recent, had gained for
itself so important a place in the modern world before the _Britannica_
went to press, that to ignore them biographically was an act of either
wanton carelessness or extreme ignorance. The former would appear to
furnish the explanation, for under _Drama_ there is evidence that the
editors knew of Schnitzler’s and Wedekind’s existence. But, since the
_Überbrettl_ movement is given only seven lines, it would, under the
circumstances, hardly be worth one’s while to consult the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_ for information on the modern drama in Germany and Austria.
Even so, one would learn more of the drama in those countries than one
could possibly learn of the drama of the United States. To be sure, no
great significance attaches to our stage literature, but since this
encyclopædia is being foisted upon us and we are asked to buy it in
preference to all others, it would have been well within the province of
its editors to give the hundred of thousands of American readers a little
enlightenment concerning their own drama.
The English, of course, have no interest in our institutions—save only
our banks—and consistently refuse to attribute either competency or
importance to our writers. They would prefer that we accept _their_
provincial and mediocre culture and ignore entirely our own æsthetic
struggles toward an individual expression. But all Americans do not
find intellectual contentment in this paternal and protecting British
attitude; and those who are interested in our native drama and who have
paid money for the _Britannica_ on the strength of its exorbitant and
unsustainable claims, have just cause for complaint in the scanty and
contemptuous way in which American letters are treated.
As I have already noted, the American drama is embodied in the article
on the _English Drama_, and is given less space than a column. Under
_American Literature_ there is nothing concerning the American stage and
its writers; nor is there a single biography in the entire Encyclopædia
of an American dramatist! James A. Herne receives eight lines—a note
so meagre that for purposes of reference it might almost as well have
been omitted entirely. And Augustin Daly, the most conspicuous figure in
our theatrical history, is dismissed with twenty lines, about half the
space given H. J. Byron! If you desire any information concerning the
development of the American theater, or wish to know any details about
David Belasco, Bronson Howard, Charles Hoyt, Steele MacKaye, Augustus
Thomas, Clyde Fitch, or Charles Klein, you will have to go to a source
other than the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.
By way of explaining this neglect of all American culture I will quote
from a recent advertisement of the _Britannica_. “We Americans,” it
says, in a most intimate and condescending manner, “have had a deep sense
of self-sufficiency. We haven’t had time or inclination to know how the
rest of the world lived. But now we _must_ know.” And let it be said
for the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ that it has done all in its power to
discourage us in this self-sufficiency.
IV
POETRY
In the field of poetry the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ comes nearer being
a competent reference library than in the field of painting, fiction,
or drama. This fact, however, is not due to a spirit of fairness on the
part of the Encyclopædia’s editors so much as to the actual superiority
of English poetry. In this field England has led the world. It is the
one branch of culture in which modern England stands highest. France
surpasses her in painting and in fiction, and Germany in music and the
drama. But Great Britain is without a rival in poetry. Therefore, despite
the fact that the Encyclopædia is just as biased in dealing with this
subject as it is in dealing with other cultural subjects, England’s
pre-eminence tends to reduce in this instance that insular prejudice
which distorts the _Britannica’s_ treatment of arts and letters.
But even granting this superiority, the Encyclopædia is neglectful of
the poets of other nations; and while it comes nearer the truth in
setting forth the glories of English prosody, it fails here as elsewhere
in being an international reference book of any marked value. There is
considerable and unnecessary exaggeration of the merits of British poets,
even of second- and third-rate British poets. Evangelical criticism
predominates, and respectability is the measure of merit. Furthermore,
the true value of poetry in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the
United States is minimized, and many writers of these countries who
unquestionably should have a place in an encyclopædia as large as the
_Britannica_, are omitted. Especially is this true in the case of the
United States, which stands second only to Great Britain in the quantity
and quality of its modern poetry.
Let us first review briefly the complete and eulogistic manner in which
English poets are dealt with. Then let us compare, while making all
allowances for alien inferiority, this treatment of British poetry with
the Encyclopædia’s treatment of the poetry of other nations. To begin
with, I find but very few British poets of even minor importance who are
not given a biography more than equal to their deserts. Coventry Patmore
receives a biography of a column and a half. Sydney Dobell’s runs to
nearly a column. Wilfred Scawen Blunt is accorded half a column; John
Davidson, over a column of high praise; Henley, more than an entire
page; Stephen Phillips, three-fourths of a column; Henry Clarence
Kendall, eighteen lines; Roden Noel, twenty-eight lines; Alexander
Smith, twenty-five lines; Lawrence Binyon, nineteen lines; Laurence
Housman, twenty-three lines; Ebenezer Jones, twenty-four lines; Richard
Le Gallienne, twenty lines; Henry Newbolt, fifteen lines; and Arthur
William Edgar O’Shaughnessy, twenty-nine lines. These names, together
with the amount of space devoted to them, will give an indication of the
thoroughness and liberality accorded British poets.
But these by no means complete the list. Robert Bridges receives half
a column, in which we learn that “his work has had great influence in
a select circle, by its restraint, purity, precision, and delicacy yet
strength of expression.” And in his higher flights “he is always noble
and sometimes sublime.... Spirituality informs his inspiration.” Here
we have an excellent example of the Encyclopædia’s combination of the
uplift and hyperbole. More of the same moral encomium is to be found in
the biography of Christina Rossetti, which is a column in length. Her
“sanctity” and “religious faith” are highly praised; and the article
ends with the words: “All that we really need to know about her, save
that she was a great saint, is that she was a great poet.” Ah, yes!
Saintliness—that cardinal requisite in British æsthetics.
An example of how the _Britannica’s_ provincial puritanism of judgment
works against a poet is to be found in the nearly-two-page biography of
Swinburne, wherein we read that “it is impossible to acquit his poetry
of the charge of animalism which wars against the higher issues of the
spirit.” No, Swinburne was not a pious uplifter; he did not use his art
as a medium for evangelical exhortation. Consequently his work does not
comply with the _Britannica’s_ parochial standard. And although Swinburne
was contemporary with Francis Thompson, it is said in the latter’s
two-thirds-of-a-column biography that “for glory of inspiration and
natural magnificence of utterance he is unique among the poets of his
time.” Watts-Dunton also, in his three-fourths-of-a-column biography,
is praised lavishly and set down as a “unique figure in the world of
letters.”
William Watson receives over a column of biography, and is eulogized
for his classic traditions in an age of prosodic lawlessness. The
sentimental and inoffensive Austin Dobson apparently is a high favorite
with the editors of the Encyclopædia, for he is given a column and
three-fourths—more space than is given John Davidson, Francis Thompson,
William Watson, Watts-Dunton, or Oscar Wilde—an allowance out of all
proportion to his importance.
In closing this brief record of the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ prodigal
generosity to British poets, it might be well to mention that Thomas
Chatterton receives a biography of five and a half columns—a space
considerably longer than that given to Heine. Since Thomas Chatterton
died at the age of eighteen and Heinrich Heine did not die until he was
fifty-nine, I leave it to statisticians to figure out how much more space
than Heine Chatterton would have received had he lived to the age of the
German poet.
On turning to the French poets and bearing in mind the long biographies
accorded British poets, one cannot help feeling amazed at the scant
treatment which the former receive. Baudelaire, for instance, is given
less space than Christina Rossetti, William Watson, Henley, Coventry
Patmore, John Davidson, or Austin Dobson. Catulle Mendès receives
considerably less space than Stephen Phillips. Verlaine is given equal
space with Watts-Dunton, and less than half the space given to Austin
Dobson! Stéphane Mallarmé receives only half the space given to John
Davidson, Christina Rossetti, or William Watson. Jean Moréas receives
only half the space given to Sydney Dobell or Christina Rossetti.
Viélé-Griffin draws a shorter biography than Kendall, the Australian
poet; and Régnier and Bouchor are dismissed in fewer words than is
the Scotch poet, Alexander Smith. Furthermore, these biographies are
rarely critical, being in the majority of instances a cursory record of
incomplete data.
Here attention should be called to the fact that only in the cases of
the very inconsequent British poets is criticism omitted: if the poet
is even fairly well known there is a discussion of his work and an
indication of the place he is supposed to hold in his particular field.
But with foreign writers—even the very prominent ones—little or nothing
concerning them is vouchsafed save historical facts, and these, as a
general rule, fall far short of completeness. The impression given is
that obscure Englishmen are more important than eminent Frenchmen,
Germans, or Americans. Evidently the editors are of the opinion that if
one is cognizant of British culture one can easily dispense with all
other culture as inferior and unnecessary. Otherwise how, except on the
ground of deliberate falsification, can one explain the liberal treatment
accorded English poets as compared with the meagre treatment given French
poets?
Since the important French poets mentioned receive such niggardly and
grudging treatment, it is not to be wondered at that many other lesser
poets—yet poets who are of sufficient importance to be included in
an encyclopædia—should receive no biographical mention. If you wish
information concerning Adolphe Retté, René de Ghil, Stuart Merrill,
Emmanuel Signoret, Jehan Rictus, Albert Samain, Paul Fort, who is
the leading balladist of young France, Hérold, Quillard, or Francis
Jammes, you will have to go to a source even more “supreme” than the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_. These poets were famous in 1900, and even in
America there had appeared at that time critical considerations of their
work. Again, one ought to find, in so “complete” a “library” as the
_Britannica_, information concerning the principal poets of the Belgian
Renaissance. But of the eight leading modern poets of Belgium only three
have biographies—Lemonnier, Maeterlinck, and Verhaeren. There are no
biographies of Eekhoud, Rodenbach, Elskamp, Severin and Cammaerts.
Turning to Italy we find even grosser injustice and an even more woeful
inadequacy in the treatment accorded her modern poets. To be sure, there
are biographies of Carducci, Ferrari, Marradi, Mazzoni, and Arturo Graf.
But Alfredo Baccelli, Domenico Gnoli, Giovanni Pascoli, Mario Rapisardi,
Chiarini, Panzacchi and Annie Vivanti are omitted. There should be
biographies of these writers in an international encyclopædia one-fourth
the size of the _Britannica_. Baccelli and Rapisardi are perhaps the two
most important epic poets of modern Italy. Gnoli is one of the leaders of
the classical school. Chiarini is not only a leading poet but is one of
the first critics of Italy as well. Panzacchi, the romantic, is second
only to the very greatest Italian poets of modern times, and as far back
as 1898 British critics were praising him and regretting that he was not
better known in England. Annie Vivanti, born in London, is a poet known
and esteemed all over Italy. (It may be noted here that Vivanti wrote a
vehement denunciation and repudiation of England in _Ave Albion_.)