Let us regard the Encyclop?dia’s treatment of steam navigation. Under Steamboat we read: “The first practical steamboat was the tug4 ‘Charlotte Dundas,’ built by William Symington (Scotch), and tried in the Forth5 and Clyde Canal[161] 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 technically6 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 Jersey7, 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 motive8 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.[162] Even Thomas Edison receives only thirty-three lines of biography—a mere9 statement of facts. Such a biography is an obvious injustice10; and the American buyers of the Encyclop?dia Britannica have just cause for complaining against such inadequacy. Edison admittedly is a towering figure in modern science, and an encyclop?dia 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 scantiest11 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 Supreme12 Court decided13 in Bell’s favor—four judges favoring him and three favoring Drawbaugh. No reference is made of this interesting fact. Would the omission14 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 culminated15 in the refrigerating[163] plant as used on ocean vessels16 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 Diesel17. Diesel, the inventor of the Diesel engine, is comparable only to Watts18 in the development of power; but he is not considered of sufficient importance by the editors of the Encyclop?dia Britannica to be given a biography. And under Oil Engine we read: “Mr. Diesel has produced a very interesting engine which departs considerably19 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 eminent20 authority, “the Wrights brought out their biplanes and practically taught the world to fly.” The story[164] 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 encyclop?dia, 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 pictorial21 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 thoroughly22 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 Encyclop?dia the same bias23 is displayed as in other departments—the same petty insularity24, the same discrimination against America, the same suppression of vital truth, and the same exaggerated glorification25 of England. In this instance,[165] however, there is documentary proof showing deliberate misrepresentation, and therefore we need not attribute the shortcomings to chauvinistic26 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 essentially27 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 Salon28, and invited known British exhibitors to contribute.” Then it is noted29 that the interchange of works between British and foreign exhibitors led, in the year 1900, “to a very remarkable30 cult31 calling itself ‘The New American School,’ which had a powerful influence on contemporaries in Great Britain.”
The foregoing brief and inadequate32 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[166] undeniably the towering figure in American photography as well as one of the foremost figures in the world’s photography, is omitted entirely33. 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 lengthy34 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 K?sebier 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 brotherhood35. 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[167] this article. It is therefore not necessary to accept my judgment36 on the importance of Stieglitz and the work done in America. A. Horsley Hinton, who is responsible for the prejudiced article in the Encyclop?dia, 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 disinterested37 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 zealous38 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 esteem39 of the civilized40 world. Hardly an exhibition of first importance is anywhere[168] 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 premier41 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 unaware42 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 previously43 written.
But this is not the only evidence we have of deliberate injustice in the Encyclop?dia’s disgraceful neglect of our efforts in this line. In 1913, in the same English magazine, we find not only an indirect confession44 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[169] 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 doctrines45 of his were, to be candid46, 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 na?f 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 Encyclop?dia Britannica’s contemptible47 treatment of America and Americans.
[170]
Such flagrant political intriguing48, such an obvious attempt to use the Encyclop?dia 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 bibliography49, 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 ?sthetics and of the immense progress which has been made recently in ?sthetic 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 ?sthetics reveals a parti pris which illy becomes a work which should be, as it claims to be, objective and purely50 informative51. 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 ?stheticians. Twenty-two lines are all that are occupied in setting forth the ?sthetic[171] 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 dealing52 with English writers!
One might forgive scantiness53 of material in this general article if it were possible to find the leading modern ?sthetic theories set forth in the biographies of the men who conceived them. But—what is even more astonishing in the Encyclop?dia’s treatment of ?sthetics—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 epoch54 in psychological and ?sthetic research, are not even mentioned in the text of the Encyclop?dia; 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!
Külpe, one of the foremost psychologists and ?stheticians, has no biography, and he is merely mentioned in a foot-note as being an advocate of the principle of association. Lipps, who laid the foundation of the new philosophy of ?sthetics and[172] formulated55 the hypothesis of Einfühlung, has no biography. His name appears once—under ?sthetics—and his theory is actually disputed by the critic who wrote the article. Groos, another important ?sthetic leader, is also without a biography; and his name is not in the Britannica’s Index. Nor is Hildebrand, whose solutions to the problem of form are of grave importance, thought worthy56 of mention.
There is no excuse for such inadequacy, especially as England possesses in Vernon Lee a most capable interpreter of ?sthetics—a writer thoroughly familiar with the subject, and one whose articles and books along this line of research have long been conspicuous57 for their brilliancy and thoroughness.
Furthermore, in this article we have another example of the Britannica’s contempt for American achievement. This country has made important contributions to ?sthetics; and only an Englishman could have written a modern exposition of the subject without referring to the researches of William James and Hugo Münsterberg. The Lange-James hypothesis has had an important influence on ?sthetic theory; and Münsterberg’s observations on ?sthetic preference, form-perception and projection58 of feelings, play a vital r?le in the history of modern ?sthetic science; but you will[173] look in vain for any mention of these Americans’ work. Münsterberg’s Principles of Art Education is not even included in the bibliography.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
niggardliness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
tug
|
|
| v.用力拖(或拉)；苦干；n.拖；苦干；拖船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
technically
|
|
| adv.专门地，技术上地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
jersey
|
|
| n.运动衫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
scantiest
|
|
| adj.（大小或数量）不足的，勉强够的( scanty的最高级 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
omission
|
|
| n.省略，删节；遗漏或省略的事物，冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
culminated
|
|
| v.达到极点( culminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
diesel
|
|
| n.柴油发动机，内燃机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
watts
|
|
| （电力计量单位）瓦，瓦特( watt的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
pictorial
|
|
| adj.绘画的；图片的；n．画报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
insularity
|
|
| n.心胸狭窄；孤立；偏狭；岛国根性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
glorification
|
|
| n.赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
chauvinistic
|
|
| a.沙文主义(者)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
salon
|
|
| n.[法]沙龙；客厅；营业性的高级服务室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
lengthy
|
|
| adj.漫长的，冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
brotherhood
|
|
| n.兄弟般的关系，手中情谊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
disinterested
|
|
| adj.不关心的，不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
zealous
|
|
| adj.狂热的，热心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
premier
|
|
| adj.首要的；n.总理，首相 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
intriguing
|
|
| adj.有趣的；迷人的v.搞阴谋诡计(intrigue的现在分词)；激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
bibliography
|
|
| n.参考书目；(有关某一专题的)书目 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
informative
|
|
| adj.提供资料的，增进知识的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
scantiness
|
|
| n.缺乏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
54
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
formulated
|
|
| v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 )；规划；确切地阐述；用公式表示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
projection
|
|
| n.发射，计划，突出部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |