BIOGRAPHY IN THE "ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA." *
BIOGRAPHY is of necessity a most important constituent part of an encyclopasdia. It occupies a very large proportion of the space ; in general interest it is inferior to none ; and it demands incessant change and addition. It might be rash to say that there is any subject about which the last word has been said, which, therefore, may be represented in the twentieth edition of the Encyclopmdia by the same notice which represents it in the eleventh. Still, there are matters which admit of little alteration or addition. The knowledge contained in dictionaries of language is one of them. But biography must change as does the life of which it is the record. On this aspect, therefore, of the new edition of the " Encyclopasdia Britannica "there is much to be said, far more, indeed, than can be said in the space available. In the first place, a new feature has been introduced : the lives of living persons. Of the propriety of this step there may be some doubt. To Tha Encyclapadia Britannia'. Eleventh Edition. Vola.i-xvi. Cambridge the University Pres& take the very widest view of the question, it may be said that in a repertory of universal knowledge there can be no doubt that facts so interesting and important as those which con- cern great personalities still active in the world cannot possibly be omitted. On the other hand, when we come to detail there are obvious objections. There are reasons why this information should be looked for in periodical publica- tions such as Who's Who or Hazell's Annual. Such may be presumed to be always at hand, easily accessible, and easily manipulated. And then there is a very serious difficulty as to the character which such contemporary notices should have. We may take examples from the volumes now before us. The " Asquith " notice comes early. This occupies less than a page, and is just what we should expect to find in the ordinary book of reference. Those on "Arthur James Bal- four" and "Joseph Chamberlain," on the other hand, are political essays, and very good essays, too, but still suggesting the doubt whether they are not before their time. There is something in them of the calm judg- ment of a far-distant posterity. The fact is that this calmness cannot be reached or preserved without reticences and omissions which are not possible in practical life.
Next come the biographies of persons deceased since the appearance of the ninth and tenth editions. " Campbell- Bannerman, Sir Henry," is a good specimen of them. The writer is quite friendly and duly appreciative, but he does not fail to point out that Sir Henry was capable of making great mistakes, and that one of his chief assets as a political leader was a genial personality. Whatever he did or failed to do, he con- trived to win in an extraordinary way the good-will of friends and adversaries. All this is amply recognised. A little
• arther on we find "Stephen Grover Cleveland." Now the one thing which everyone on this side of the Atlantic connects with him is the Venezuela incident, with strained relations with this country which his utterance brought about. Is it enough to speak of Mr. Richard Olney "playing a some- what aggressive part " ? A contemporary statesman of his own nationality described this action as "the most inauspicious, inopportune, as well as brutal exhibition of Jingoism that ever emanated from the head of a responsible government." On the other hand, we find justice done to a service rendered to his country by Mr. Cleveland which the British reader might easily neglect—in the energy with which he set himself against the "spoils to the conqueror" system in American official life. When he entered upon office for the first time (1884) a scheme of classification for the Civil Service had become law, substituting competitive examinations for political nomina- tions. Much was left in the President's hands in determining its application. In his first term Cleveland added 11,757 places to the list ; in his second (1892-1896) he added 44,004, more than doubling the number previously attained. Another addition is "George William Frederick, Duke of Cambridge." The article is fair enough, but it might have been made a little more lively by a greater use of the biography published in 1906. That work was severely edited, and anything that passed the revision might be utilised. The Duke's abhorrence of Garibaldi was eminently characteristic of him. And is it not time that some real estimate of his service in the Crimea should be given ? This has surely now passed into the domain of history.
A more difficult task has been the modification and correc- tion of articles already occupying a place in the Encyclopmdia. It is, of course, quite impossible to review the hundreds of items which are included in this section. But we may safely affirm that wherever we have made a special examination, we find that change has been equivalent to improvement. Generally, it may be said, the scientific method of historical writing has been used, and with satisfactory results. The article on "Queen Elizabeth" may be taken as an example. It is, indeed, shorter than one might expect. It is difficult to see why three columns and a half should be considered enough for a reign of forty- five years whilst nearly twenty-four are assigned to Oliver Cromwell ; but it is a distinct improvement on that which it displaces. The initial difficulty of her position, in respect of her legitimacy, is more clearly stated. This never was, and indeed never could be, legally established, and the knowledge of this fact profoundly affected her throughout her reign. We are spared, on the other hand, all such banal enthusiasm as we find in the earlier article. "Language and sentiments like 'these," says the writer, after relating the visit to Tilbury, "reflecting the feeling of the nation, must have ensured the destruction of the forces of Parma or Spain, even if the vaunted Armada had not been wrecked by the English fire or scattered by tempests." The estimate of Cromwell is not wanting in a genuine appreciation of his great qualities. It may even be said to err in this direction. A deduction must be made from the praise given to his toleration. When the "Newcastle Propositions" were refused by the King, Cromwell consented to, if he did not support, the harsher condition which refused toleration to all members of the Church of England. The artiole on "Charles I." is from the pen of one of the three writers to whom the authorship of the " Cromwell " article is assigned. It is not less equitable ; great credit, indeed, is due to the fair- ness with which the two cases are presented. Sometimes, we cannot help thinking, the same consistency is not attained. It would not be easy, for instance, to reconcile the articles "Edmund Bonner" and "Stephen Gardiner." The two men differed much in personal character, but as public men they followed the same course. They collaborated in the " treatise " entitled "De Vera 0 bedientia," which "asserted the royal, denied the papal, supremacy." And, when the dominant personality of Henry ceased to influence them, they repudiated this teaching. It is not easy to see how, in the face of this, the writer of "Stephen Gardiner" can say that "there was not a single divine or statesman of that day whose course throughout VMS so thoroughly consistent."
A correction may be made in an item of no great importance, the notice of "John Dwight, B.C.L., Potter." This states that Dwight's pedigree is not known. As a matter of fact it has been traced to his great-grandfather, John Dwight, of Henley-on-Thames (married Oct. 1569, buried Dec. 1596). See The Genealogist, Oct, 1910.
Previous page
