The drama itself during the last quarter of a century has taken enormous strides. After a period of stagnant2 mediocrity, a new vitality3 has[53] been 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 dealing4 with the subject from almost every angle.
Therefore, because of this renaissance5 and the widespread interest attaching to it, we should expect to find in the Encyclop?dia Britannica—that “supreme6 book of knowledge,” that “complete library” of information—a full and comprehensive treatment of the modern drama. The claims made in the advertising7 of the Britannica would lead one immediately to assume that so important and universally absorbing a subject would be set forth8 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 alleged9 scope and completeness of this encyclop?dia, it should be accorded careful and liberal consideration.
But in this department, as in others equally important, the Encyclop?dia Britannica fails inexcusably. I have carefully inspected its dramatic[54] information, and its inadequacy10 left me with a feeling which fell little short of amazement11. Not only is the modern drama given scant12 consideration, but those comparatively few articles which deal with it are so inept13 and desultory14 that no correct idea of the development of modern dramatic literature can be obtained. As in the Encyclop?dia’s other departments of modern ?sthetic 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 entirely15 in order to make way for minor16 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 Encyclop?dia 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 dominate[55] the ?sthetic departments of the Britannica, one does not have a complete record of his work. This failure to revise adequately old material and to make the information as recent as the physical exigencies17 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 omission18 along with their less favored confrères from other countries. Consequently, the dramatic material is not only biased19 but is inadequate20 from the British standpoint as well.
As a reference book on the modern drama, either for students or the casual reader, the Encyclop?dia Britannica is 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 authenticity21 claimed by the Britannica, 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 encyclop?dia is marked by incompetency22, prejudice, and carelessness; and its large number of indefensible omissions23 renders it almost useless as a reference work on modern dramatic literature.
In the general article on the Drama we have[56] a key to the entire treatment of the subject throughout the Encyclop?dia’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 antiquated24, 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 marvel25 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[57] 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 insularity26 go further? Even in its capacity as a mere27 contribution to British genius, the recent German drama, it seems, is of little moment; and Sudermann counts for naught28. In the entire article on Drama his name is not so much as mentioned! Such is the transcendent and superlative culture of the Encyclop?dia 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, wholesome29 and generous humor, bright and unstrained dialogue, and high dramatic sense of human character in its theatrical30 aspects.” H. J. Byron is given over half a column. W. S.[58] 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 Encyclop?dia’s editor gone to the simple trouble of extending that playwright31’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 informative32 encyclop?dia 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 purely33 objective view of Oscar Wilde’s work,”—that is to say, literary judgment34 cannot be passed without recourse to morality!
[59]
Here is an actual confession35 by the editor himself (for he contributed the article on Wilde) of the accusation36 I have made against the Britannica. A great artist, according to this encyclop?dia’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 Encyclop?dia Britannica, along with other less prudish37 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 lesser38 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 Encyclop?dia Britannica has not been properly brought up to date—a fact substantiated39 by an abundance of evidence throughout the entire work. Of what possible value to one interested[60] 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 scantiness40 of material. Becque draws just eleven lines, exactly half the space given to the British playwright whose reputation largely depends on that piece of sentimental41 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 noted42; Maurice Donnay, twenty lines, with no mention of La Patronne (1908); Lema?tre, a third of a column; Rostand, half a column, less space than is accorded the cheap, slap-stick humorist from Manchester, H. J. Byron; Capus, a third of a column; Porto-Riche, thirteen lines; and Brieux twenty-six lines. In Brieux’s very brief biography there is no record of La Fran?aise (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[61] has apparently43 not been revised! Therefore, if you depend for information on this biography in the Encyclop?dia Britannica, you will find no record of S?ur 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 eminent44 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 devoted45 to his dramas. What sort of an idea of the modern Italian drama can one get from an encyclop?dia 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[62] included in the Britannica without deliberately46 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 patriotic47 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[63] (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 playwrights48 who are given greater space and favorably criticised.
With such insufficient49 and glaringly prejudiced[64] 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 Sch?nherr, Hermann Bahr, Thoma, Beer-Hoffmann, Johannes Schlaf, or Wedekind! Although every one of these names should be included in some informative manner in an encyclop?dia as large as the Britannica, and one which makes so lavish50 a claim for its educational completeness, the omission of several of them may be excused on the grounds that, in the haste of the Encyclop?dia’s editors to commercialize their cultural wares51, 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 acquit52 them of the charge of snobbish53 patriotism54 in several of the present instances of wanton oversight55.
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[65] ignore them biographically was an act of either wanton carelessness or extreme ignorance. The former would appear to furnish the explanation, for under Drama there is evidence that the editors knew of Schnitzler’s and Wedekind’s existence. But, since the überbrettl movement is given only seven lines, it would, under the circumstances, hardly be worth one’s while to consult the Encyclop?dia 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 encyclop?dia is being foisted56 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 provincial57 and mediocre58 culture and ignore entirely our own ?sthetic struggles toward an individual expression. But all Americans do not find intellectual contentment in this[66] paternal59 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 exorbitant60 and unsustainable claims, have just cause for complaint in the scanty61 and contemptuous way in which American letters are treated.
As I have already noted, the American drama is embodied62 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 Encyclop?dia 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 Encyclop?dia Britannica.
By way of explaining this neglect of all American culture I will quote from a recent advertisement[67] of the Britannica. “We Americans,” it says, in a most intimate and condescending63 manner, “have had a deep sense of self-sufficiency. We haven’t had time or inclination64 to know how the rest of the world lived. But now we must know.” And let it be said for the Encyclop?dia Britannica that it has done all in its power to discourage us in this self-sufficiency.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
stagnant
|
|
| adj.不流动的，停滞的，不景气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
vitality
|
|
| n.活力，生命力，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
renaissance
|
|
| n.复活，复兴，文艺复兴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
amazement
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊讶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
scant
|
|
| adj.不充分的，不足的；v.减缩，限制，忽略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
inept
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，荒谬的，拙劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
desultory
|
|
| adj.散漫的，无方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
exigencies
|
|
| n.急切需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
omission
|
|
| n.省略，删节；遗漏或省略的事物，冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
biased
|
|
| a.有偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
authenticity
|
|
| n.真实性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
incompetency
|
|
| n.无能力，不适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
omissions
|
|
| n.省略( omission的名词复数 )；删节；遗漏；略去或漏掉的事（或人） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
antiquated
|
|
| adj.陈旧的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
marvel
|
|
| vi.(at)惊叹vt.感到惊异；n.令人惊异的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
insularity
|
|
| n.心胸狭窄；孤立；偏狭；岛国根性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
naught
|
|
| n.无，零 [=nought] | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
wholesome
|
|
| adj.适合；卫生的；有益健康的；显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
theatrical
|
|
| adj.剧场的，演戏的；做戏似的，做作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
playwright
|
|
| n.剧作家，编写剧本的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
informative
|
|
| adj.提供资料的，增进知识的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
prudish
|
|
| adj.装淑女样子的，装规矩的，过分规矩的；adv.过分拘谨地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
substantiated
|
|
| v.用事实支持（某主张、说法等），证明，证实( substantiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
scantiness
|
|
| n.缺乏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
41
sentimental
|
|
| adj.多愁善感的，感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
playwrights
|
|
| n.剧作家( playwright的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
lavish
|
|
| adj.无节制的；浪费的；vt.慷慨地给予，挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
wares
|
|
| n. 货物, 商品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
acquit
|
|
| vt.宣判无罪；(oneself)使(自己)表现出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
snobbish
|
|
| adj.势利的，谄上欺下的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
oversight
|
|
| n.勘漏，失察，疏忽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
foisted
|
|
| 强迫接受，把…强加于( foist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
mediocre
|
|
| adj.平常的，普通的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
paternal
|
|
| adj.父亲的，像父亲的，父系的，父方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
exorbitant
|
|
| adj.过分的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
scanty
|
|
| adj.缺乏的，仅有的，节省的，狭小的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
condescending
|
|
| adj.谦逊的,故意屈尊的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |