consideration in the _Britannica_, it would not compensate for the above
omissions. But these omissions are by no means all: they are merely the
beginning. The chief names in modern operative gynecology are American.
But of the nine men who are the leaders in this field, only one (Emmet)
has a biography, and only one (McDowell) receives casual mention.
Marion Sims who invented his speculum and introduced the operation for
vesicovaginal fistula, Nathan Bozeman, J. C. Nott (previously mentioned),
Theodore Gaillard Thomas, Robert Battey, E. C. Dudley, and Howard A.
Kelly do not exist for the _Britannica_.
Furthermore, of the four chief pioneers in anæsthesia—the practical
discovery and use of which was an American achievement—only two are
mentioned. The other two—C. W. Long, of Georgia, and the chemist,
Charles T. Jackson—are apparently unknown to the British editors of this
encyclopædia. And although in the history of pediatrics there is no
more memorable name than that of Joseph O’Dwyer, of Ohio, whose work in
intubation has saved countless numbers of infants, you will fail to find
any reference to him in this “unbiased” English reference work.
One must not imagine that even here ends the _Britannica’s_ almost
unbelievable injustice to American scientists. John J. Abel is
not mentioned either, yet Professor Abel is among the greatest
pharmacologists of the world. His researches in animal tissues and fluids
have definitely set forward the science of medicine; and it was Abel who,
besides his great work with the artificial kidney, first discovered the
uses of epinephrin. R. G. Harrison, one of the greatest biologists of
history, whose researches in the growth of tissue were epoch-making, and
on whose investigations other scientists also have made international
reputations, is omitted entirely from the _Britannica_. S. J. Meltzer,
the physiologist, who has been the head of the department of physiology
and pharmacology at Rockefeller Institute since 1906, is not in the
_Britannica_. T. H. Morgan, the zoölogist, whose many books on the
subject have long been standard works, is without a biography. E. B.
Wilson, one of the great pathfinders in zoölogy and a man who stands in
the front rank of that science, is also without a biography. And Abraham
Jacobi, who is the father of pediatrics in America, is not mentioned.
The list of wanton omissions is not yet complete! C. S. Minot, the great
American embryologist, is ignored. Theobald Smith, the pathologist,
is also thought unworthy of note. And among those renowned American
scientists who, though mentioned, failed to impress the Encyclopædia’s
English editor sufficiently to be given biographies are: John Kerasley
Mitchell, who was the first to describe certain neurological conditions,
and was one of the advocates of the germ theory of disease before
bacteriology; William Beaumont, the first to study digestion _in situ_;
Jacques Loeb, whose works on heliotropism, morphology, psychology, etc.,
have placed him among the world’s foremost imaginative researchers; H.
S. Jennings, another great American biologist; W. H. Welch, one of the
greatest of modern pathologists and bacteriologists; and Simon Flexner,
whose work is too well known to the world to need any description here.
These men unquestionably deserve biographies in any encyclopædia which
makes even a slight pretence of completeness, and to have omitted them
from the _Britannica_ was an indefensible oversight—or worse.
The editors of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ cannot explain away
these amazing omissions on the ground that the men mentioned are
not of sufficient importance to have come within the range of their
consideration; for, when we look down the list of _British_ medical
scientists who are given biographies, we can find at least a score of
far less important ones. For instance, Elizabeth G. Anderson, whose
claim to glory lies in her advocacy of admitting women into the medical
profession, is given considerably over half a column. Gilbert Blane, the
introducer of lime-juice into the English navy, also has a biography.
So has Richard Brocklesby, an eighteenth-century army physician; and
Andrew Clark, a fashionable London practitioner; and T. B. Curling; and
John Elliotson, the English mesmerist; and Joseph Fayrer, known chiefly
for his studies in the poisonous snakes of India; and J. C. Forster; and
James Clark, an army surgeon and physician in ordinary to Queen Victoria;
and P. G. Hewett, another surgeon to Queen Victoria; and many others of
no more prominence or importance.
In order to realize the astounding lengths of injustice to which the
_Britannica_ has gone in its petty neglect of America, compare these
English names which are given detailed biographical consideration, with
the American names which are left out. The editors of this encyclopædia
must either plead guilty to the most flagrant kind of prejudicial
discrimination against this country, or else confess to an abysmal
ignorance of the history and achievements of modern science.
It might be well to note here that Luther Burbank’s name is mentioned
only once in the _Britannica_, under _Santa Rosa_, the comment being that
Santa Rosa was his home. Not to have given Burbank a biography containing
an account of his important work is nothing short of preposterous. Is
it possible that Americans are not supposed to be interested in this
great scientist? And are we to assume that Marianne North, the English
naturalist and flower painter—who is given a detailed biography—is of
more importance than Burbank? The list of _English_ naturalists and
botanists who receive biographies in the _Britannica_ includes such
names as William Aiton, Charles Alston, James Anderson, W. J. Broderip,
and Robert Fortune; and yet there is no biography or even discussion of
Luther Burbank, the American!
Thus far in this chapter I have called attention only to the neglect
of American scientists. It must not be implied, however, that America
alone suffers from the _Britannica’s_ insular prejudice. No nation, save
England, is treated with that justice and comprehensiveness upon which
the Encyclopædia’s advertising has so constantly insisted. For instance,
although Jonathan Hutchinson, the English authority on syphilis, receives
(and rightly so) nearly half a column biography, Ehrlich, the world’s
truly great figure in that field, is not considered of sufficient
importance to be given biographical mention. It is true that Ehrlich’s
salvarsan did not become known until 1910, but he had done much immortal
work before then. Even Metchnikoff, surely one of the world’s greatest
modern scientists, has no biography! And although British biologists of
even minor importance receive biographical consideration, Lyonet, the
Hollander, who did the first structural work after Swammerdam, is without
a biography.
Nor are there biographies of Franz Leydig, through whose extensive
investigations all structural studies upon insects assumed a new aspect;
Rudolph Leuckart, another conspicuous figure in zoölogical progress;
Meckel, who stands at the beginning of the school of comparative anatomy
in Germany; Rathke, who made a significant advance in comparative
anatomy; Ramón y Cajal, whose histological research is of world-wide
renown; Kowalevsky, whose work in embryology had enormous influence
on all subsequent investigations; Wilhelm His, whose embryological
investigations, especially in the development of the nervous system and
the origin of nerve fibres, are of very marked importance; Dujardin,
the discoverer of sarcode; Lacaze-Duthiers, one of France’s foremost
zoölogical researchers; and Pouchet, who created a sensation with his
experimentations in spontaneous generation.
Even suppose the _Britannica’s_ editor should argue that the foregoing
biologists are not of the very highest significance and therefore are
not deserving of separate biographies, how then can he explain the fact
that such _British_ biologists as Alfred Newton, William Yarrell, John
G. Wood, G. J. Allman, F. T. Buckland, and T. S. Cobbold, are given
individual biographies with a detailed discussion of their work? What
becomes of that universality of outlook on which he so prides himself? Or
does he consider Great Britain as the universe?
As I have said, the foregoing notes do not aim at being exhaustive. To
set down, even from an American point of view, a complete record of
the inadequacies which are to be found in the _Britannica’s_ account
of modern science would require much more space than I can devote to
it here. I have tried merely to indicate, by a few names and a few
comparisons, the insular nature of this Encyclopædia’s expositions, and
thereby to call attention to the very obvious fact that the _Britannica_
is _not_ “an international dictionary of biography,” but a prejudiced
work in which English endeavor, through undue emphasis and exaggeration,
is given the first consideration. Should this Encyclopædia be depended
upon for information, one would get but the meagrest idea of the splendid
advances which America has made in modern science. And, although I have
here touched only on medicine and biology, the same narrow and provincial
British viewpoint can be found in the _Britannica’s_ treatment of the
other sciences as well.
IX
INVENTIONS, PHOTOGRAPHY, ÆSTHETICS
In the matter of American inventions the _Encyclopædia Britannica_
would appear to have said as little as possible, and to have minimized
our importance in that field as much as it dared. And yet American
inventors, to quote H. Addington Bruce, “have not simply astonished
mankind; they have enhanced the prestige, power, and prosperity of their
country.” The _Britannica’s_ editors apparently do not agree with this;
and when we think of the wonderful romance of American inventions, and
the possibilities in the subject for full and interesting writing, and
then read the brief, and not infrequently disdainful, accounts that are
presented, we are conscious at once not only of an inadequacy in the
matter of facts, but of a niggardliness of spirit.
Let us regard the Encyclopædia’s treatment of steam navigation. Under
_Steamboat_ we read: “The first practical steamboat was the tug
‘Charlotte Dundas,’ built by William Symington (Scotch), and tried in
the Forth and Clyde Canal in 1802.... The trial was successful, but
steam towing was abandoned for fear of injuring the banks of the canal.
Ten years later Henry Bell built the ‘Comet,’ with side-paddle wheels,
which ran as a passenger steamer on the Clyde; but an earlier inventor to
follow up Symington’s success was the American, Robert Fulton....”
This practically sums up the history of that notable achievement. Note
the method of presentation, with the mention of Fulton as a kind of
afterthought. While the data may technically come within the truth, the
impression given is a false one, or at least a British one. Even English
authorities admit that Fulton established definitely the value of the
steamboat as a medium for passenger and freight traffic; but here the
credit, through implication, is given to Symington and Bell. And yet, if
Symington is to be given so much credit for pioneer work, why are not
William Henry, of Pennsylvania, John Stevens, of New Jersey, Nathan Read,
of Massachusetts, and John Fitch, of Connecticut, mentioned also? Surely
each of these other Americans was important in the development of the
idea of steam as motive power in water.
Eli Whitney receives a biography of only two-thirds of a column; Morse,
less than a column; and Elias Howe, only a little over half a column.
Even Thomas Edison receives only thirty-three lines of biography—a
mere statement of facts. Such a biography is an obvious injustice;
and the American buyers of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ have just
cause for complaining against such inadequacy. Edison admittedly is a
towering figure in modern science, and an encyclopædia the size of the
_Britannica_ should have a full and interesting account of his life,
especially since obscure English scientists are accorded far more liberal
biographies.
Alexander Graham Bell, however, receives the scantiest biography of all.
It runs to just fifteen lines! And the name of Daniel Drawbaugh is not
mentioned. He and Bell filed their papers for a telephone on the same
day; and it was only after eight years’ litigation that the Supreme Court
decided in Bell’s favor—four judges favoring him and three favoring
Drawbaugh. No reference is made of this interesting fact. Would the
omission have occurred had Drawbaugh been an Englishman instead of a
Pennsylvanian, or had not Bell been a native Scotchman?
The name of Charles Tellier, the Frenchman, does not appear in the
_Britannica_. Not even under _Refrigerating and Ice Making_ is he
mentioned. And yet back in 1868 he began experiments which culminated in
the refrigerating plant as used on ocean vessels to-day. Tellier, more
than any other man, can be called the inventor of cold storage, one of
the most important of modern discoveries, for it has revolutionized the
food question and had far-reaching effects on commerce. Again we are
prompted to ask if his name would have been omitted from the _Britannica_
had he been an Englishman.
Another unaccountable omission occurs in the case of Rudolph Diesel.
Diesel, the inventor of the Diesel engine, is comparable only to Watts
in the development of power; but he is not considered of sufficient
importance by the editors of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ to be given
a biography. And under _Oil Engine_ we read: “Mr. Diesel has produced a
very interesting engine which departs considerably from other types.”
Then follows a brief technical description of it. This is the entire
consideration given to Diesel, with his “interesting” engine, despite
the fact that the British Government sent to Germany for him in order to
investigate his invention!
Few names in the history of modern invention stand as high as Wilbur and
Orville Wright. To them can be attributed the birth of the airplane. In
1908, to use the words of an eminent authority, “the Wrights brought
out their biplanes and practically taught the world to fly.” The
story of how these two brothers developed aviation is, according to
the same critic, “one of the most inspiring chronicles of the age.”
The _Britannica’s_ editors, if we are to judge their viewpoint by the
treatment accorded the Wright brothers in this encyclopædia, held no such
opinion. Not only is neither of these men given a biography, but under
_Flight and Flying_—the only place in the whole twenty-nine volumes where
their names appear—they are accorded much less consideration than they
deserve. Sir Hiram S. Maxim’s flying adventures receive more space.
* * * * *
A subject which unfortunately is too little known in this country and yet
one in the development of which America has played a very important part,
is pictorial photography. A double interest therefore attaches to the
manner in which this subject is treated in the _Britannica_. Since the
writer of the article was thoroughly familiar with the true conditions,
an adequate record might have been looked for. But no such record was
forthcoming. In the discussion of photography in this Encyclopædia
the same bias is displayed as in other departments—the same petty
insularity, the same discrimination against America, the same suppression
of vital truth, and the same exaggerated glorification of England. In
this instance, however, there is documentary proof showing deliberate
misrepresentation, and therefore we need not attribute the shortcomings
to chauvinistic stupidity, as we have so charitably done in similar
causes.
In the article on _Pictorial Photography_ in this aggressibly British
reference work we find the following: “It is interesting to note that
as a distinct movement pictorial photography is essentially of British
origin, and this is shown by the manner in which organized photographic
bodies in Vienna, Brussels, Paris, St. Petersburg, Florence, and other
European cities, as well as in Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., following the
example of London, held exhibitions on exactly similar lines to those
of the London Photographic Salon, and invited known British exhibitors
to contribute.” Then it is noted that the interchange of works between
British and foreign exhibitors led, in the year 1900, “to a very
remarkable cult calling itself ‘The New American School,’ which had a
powerful influence on contemporaries in Great Britain.”
The foregoing brief and inadequate statements contain all the credit that
is given America in this field. New York, where much of the foremost
and important work was done, is not mentioned; and the name of Alfred
Stieglitz, who is undeniably the towering figure in American photography
as well as one of the foremost figures in the world’s photography,
is omitted entirely. Furthermore, slight indication is given of the
“powerful influence” which America has had; and the significant part
she has played in photography, together with the names of the American
leaders, is completely ignored, although there is quite a lengthy
discussion concerning English photographic history, including credit to
those who participated in it.
For instance, the American, Steichen, a world figure in photography and,
of a type, perhaps the greatest who ever lived, is not mentioned. Nor are
Gertrude Käsebier and Frank Eugene, both of whom especially the former,
has had an enormous international influence in pictorial photography.
And although there is a history of the formation of the “Linked Ring” in
London, no credit is given to Stieglitz whose work, during twenty-five
years in Germany and Vienna, was one of the prime influences in the
crystallization of this brotherhood. Nor is there so much as a passing
reference to _Camera Work_ (published in New York) which stands at the
head of photographic publications.
As I have said, there exists documentary evidence which proves the
deliberate unfairness of this article. It is therefore not necessary to
accept my judgment on the importance of Stieglitz and the work done in
America. A. Horsley Hinton, who is responsible for the prejudiced article
in the Encyclopædia, was the editor of _The Amateur Photographer_,
a London publication; and in that magazine, as long ago as 1904, we
have, in Mr. Hinton’s own words, a refutation of what he wrote for the
_Britannica_. In the May 19 (1904) issue he writes: “We believe every one
who is interested in the advance of photography generally, will learn
with pleasure that Mr. Alfred Stieglitz, whose life-long and wholly
disinterested devotion to pictorial photography should secure him a
unique position, will be present at the opening of the next Exhibition
of the Photographic Salon in London. Mr. Stieglitz was zealous in all
good photographic causes long before the Salon, and indeed long before
pictorial photography was discussed—with Dr. Vogel in Germany, for
instance, twenty-five years ago.”
Elsewhere in this same magazine we read: “American photography is
going to be the ruling note throughout the world unless others bestir
themselves; indeed, the Photo-Secession (American) pictures have already
captured the highest places in the esteem of the civilized world. Hardly
an exhibition of first importance is anywhere held without a striking
collection of American work, brought together and sent by Mr. Alfred
Stieglitz. For the last two or three years in the European exhibitions
these collections have secured the premier awards, or distinctions.” And
again we find high praise of Steichen, “than whom America possesses no
more brilliant genius among her sons who have taken up photography.”
These quotations—and many similar ones appeared over a decade ago in Mr.
Hinton’s magazine—give evidence that Mr. Hinton was not unaware of the
extreme importance of American photographic work or of the eminent men
who took part in it; and yet in writing his article for the _Britannica_
he has apparently carefully forgotten what he himself had previously
written.
But this is not the only evidence we have of deliberate injustice in
the Encyclopædia’s disgraceful neglect of our efforts in this line.
In 1913, in the same English magazine, we find not only an indirect
confession of the _Britannica’s_ bias, but also the personal reason
for that bias. Speaking of Stieglitz’s connection with that phase of
photographic history to which Mr. Hinton was most intimately connected,
this publication says: “At that era, and for long afterwards, Stieglitz
was, in fact, a thorn in our sides. ‘Who’s Boss of the Show?’ inquires
a poster, now placarded in London. Had that question been asked of
the (London) Salon, an irritated whisper of honesty would have replied
‘Stieglitz.’ And ... we didn’t like it. We couldn’t do without him; but
these torrential doctrines of his were, to be candid, a nuisance.... He
is an influence; an influence for which, even if photography were not
concerned, we should be grateful, but which, as it is, we photographers
can never perhaps justly estimate.” After this frank admission the
magazine adds: “Stieglitz—too big a man to need any ‘defense’—has been
considerably misunderstood and misrepresented, and, in so far as this is
so, photographers and photography itself are the losers.”
What better direct evidence could one desire than this naïf confession?
Yes, Stieglitz, who, according to Mr. Hinton’s own former publication,
was a thorn in that critic’s side, has indeed been “misrepresented”; but
nowhere has he been neglected with so little excuse as in Mr. Hinton’s
own article in the _Britannica_. And though—again according to this
magazine—Stieglitz is “too big a man to need any ‘defense,’” I cannot
resist defending him here; for the whole, petty, personal and degrading
affair is characteristic of the _Encyclopædia Britannica’s_ contemptible
treatment of America and Americans.
Such flagrant political intriguing, such an obvious attempt to use the
Encyclopædia to destroy America’s high place in the world of modern
achievement, can only arouse disgust in the unprejudiced reader. The
great light-bearer in the photographic field, _Camera Work_, if generally
known and appreciated, would have put Mr. Hinton’s own inferior magazine
out of existence as a power; and his omitting to mention it in his
article and even in his bibliography, is a flagrant example of the
_Britannica’s_ refusal to tell the whole truth whenever that truth would
harm England or benefit America.
* * * * *
In view of the wide and growing interest in æsthetics and of the immense
progress which has been made recently in æsthetic research, one would
expect to find an adequate and comprehensive treatment of that subject in
a work like the _Britannica_. But here again one will be disappointed.
The article on æsthetics reveals a _parti pris_ which illy becomes a work
which should be, as it claims to be, objective and purely informative.
The author of the article is critical and not seldom argumentative;
and, as a result, full justice is not done the theories and research
of many eminent modern æstheticians. Twenty-two lines are all that are
occupied in setting forth the æsthetic writers in Germany since Goethe
and Schiller, and in this brief paragraph, many of the most significant
contributors to the subject are not even given passing mention. And,
incredible as it may seem, that division of the article which deals with
the German writers is shorter than the division dealing with English
writers!
One might forgive scantiness of material in this general article if it
were possible to find the leading modern æsthetic theories set forth in
the biographies of the men who conceived them. But—what is even more
astonishing in the Encyclopædia’s treatment of æsthetics—there are
no biographies of many of the scientists whose names and discoveries
are familiar to any one even superficially interested in the subject.
Several of these men, whose contributions have marked a new epoch in
psychological and æsthetic research, are not even mentioned in the text
of the Encyclopædia; and the only indication we have that they lived
and worked is in an occasional foot-note. Their names do not so much as
appear in the Index!