Visit https://testbankmall.

com to download the full version and

explore more testbank or solution manual

Solution Manual for Accounting, 25th Edition

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-
accounting-25th-edition/

Explore and download more testbank at testbankmall

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Payroll Accounting 2015 Bieg 25th Edition Solutions Manual

https://testbankmall.com/product/payroll-accounting-2015-bieg-25th-
edition-solutions-manual/

testbankmall.com

Test Bank for Accounting, 25th Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-accounting-25th-
edition/

testbankmall.com

Payroll Accounting 2015 Bieg 25th Edition Test Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/payroll-accounting-2015-bieg-25th-
edition-test-bank/

testbankmall.com

Introduction to Information Systems 6th Edition Rainer

Test Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/introduction-to-information-
systems-6th-edition-rainer-test-bank/

testbankmall.com
Test Bank for Voyages in World History, Volume 1 to 1600,
2nd Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-voyages-in-world-
history-volume-1-to-1600-2nd-edition/

testbankmall.com

Marketing Research Burns 7th Edition Solutions Manual

https://testbankmall.com/product/marketing-research-burns-7th-edition-
solutions-manual/

testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Probability, Statistics, and Random

Processes For Electrical Engineering, 3/E 3rd Edition
Alberto Leon-Garcia
https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-probability-
statistics-and-random-processes-for-electrical-engineering-3-e-3rd-
edition-alberto-leon-garcia/
testbankmall.com

Test Bank for What’s That Sound?: An Introduction to Rock

and Its History (Fifth Edition) Fifth Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-whats-that-sound-an-
introduction-to-rock-and-its-history-fifth-edition-fifth-edition/

testbankmall.com

Solution Manual for Principles of Supply Chain Management

5th Edition Wisner

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-principles-of-
supply-chain-management-5th-edition-wisner/

testbankmall.com
Solution Manual for Introduction to Learning and Behavior,
5th Edition

https://testbankmall.com/product/solution-manual-for-introduction-to-
learning-and-behavior-5th-edition/

testbankmall.com
 b. On the income statement, total operating expenses (salary expense) would be overstated by
$7,500, and net income would be understated by $7,500. On the statement of owner’s equity,
the beginning and ending capital would be correct. However, net income and withdrawals
would be understated by $7,500. These understatements offset one another, and, thus, ending
owner’s equity is correct. The balance sheet is not affected by the error.
9. a. The equality of the trial balance would not be affected.
b. On the income statement, revenues (fees earned) would be overstated by $300,000, and
net income would be overstated by $300,000. On the statement of owner’s equity, the
beginning capital would be correct. However, net income and ending capital would be
overstated by
$300,000. The balance sheet total assets is correct. However, liabilities (notes payable) is
understated by $300,000, and owner’s equity is overstated by $300,000. The understatement
of liabilities is offset by the overstatement of owner’s equity, and, thus, total liabilities and
10. a. owner’s
From theequity is correct.
viewpoint of Surety Storage, the balance of the checking account represents an asset.
b. From the viewpoint of Ada Savings Bank, the balance of the checking account
represents a liability.

2-2
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
PRACTICE EXERCISES
PE 2–1A
1. Debit and credit entries, normal debit balance
2. Credit entries only, normal credit balance
3. Debit and credit entries, normal credit balance
4. Credit entries only, normal credit balance
5. Credit entries only, normal credit balance
6. Debit entries only, normal debit balance

PE 2–1B
1. Debit and credit entries, normal credit balance
2. Debit and credit entries, normal debit balance
3. Debit entries only, normal debit balance
4. Debit entries only, normal debit balance
5. Debit entries only, normal debit balance
6. Credit entries only, normal credit balance

PE 2–2A
Feb. 12 Office Equipment 18,000
Cash 7,000
Accounts Payable 11,000

PE 2–2B
Sept. 30 Office Supplies 2,500
Cash 800
Accounts Payable 1,700

2-3
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
PE 2–3A
July 9 Accounts Receivable 12,000
Fees Earned 12,000

PE 2–3B
Aug. 13 Cash 9,000
Fees Earned 9,000

PE 2–4A
Jan. 25 Jay Nolan, Drawing 16,000
Cash 16,000

PE 2–4B
June 30 Dawn Pierce, Drawing 11,500
Cash 11,500

PE 2–5A
Using the following T account, solve for the amount of cash receipts
(indicated by ? below).
Cash
Feb. 1 Bal. 14,750 93,400 Cash payments
Cash receipts ?
Feb. 28 Bal. 15,200

$15,200 = $14,750 + Cash receipts – $93,400

Cash receipts = $15,200 + $93,400 – $14,750 = $93,850

PE 2–5B
Using the following T account, solve for the amount of supplies expense
(indicated by ? below).
Supplies
Aug. 1 Bal. 1,025 ? Supplies expense
Supplies purchased 3,110
Aug. 31 Bal. 1,324

$1,324 = $1,025 + $3,110 – Supplies expense

Supplies expense = $1,025 + $3,110 – $1,324 = $2,811

2-4
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
PE 2–6A
a. The totals are unequal. The credit total is lower by $900 ($5,400 – $4,500).
b. The totals are equal since both the debit and credit entries were
journalized and posted for $720.
c. The totals are unequal. The debit total is higher by $3,200 ($1,600 + $1,600).

PE 2–6B
a. The totals are equal since both the debit and credit entries were
journalized and posted for $12,900.
b. The totals are unequal. The credit total is higher by $1,656 ($1,840 –
$184). c. The totals are unequal. The debit total is higher by $4,500 ($8,300
– $3,800).

PE 2–7A
a. Utilities Expense 7,300
Miscellaneous Expense 7,300

Utilities Expense 7,300

Cash 7,300

Note: The first entry in (a) reverses the incorrect entry, and the second
entry records the correct entry. These two entries could also be combined
into one entry as shown below; however, preparing two entries would
make it easier for someone to understand later what happened and why
the entries were
necessary.

Utilities Expense 14,600

Miscellaneous Expense 7,300
Cash 7,300

b. Accounts Payable 6,100

Accounts Receivable 6,100

2-5
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
PE 2–7B
a. Cash 8,400
Accounts Receivable 8,400

b. Supplies 2,500
Office Equipment 2,500

Supplies 2,500
Accounts Payable 2,500

Note: The first entry in (b) reverses the incorrect entry, and the second entry
records the correct entry. These two entries could also be combined into one
entry as shown below; however, preparing two entries would make it easier
for someone to understand later what happened and why the entries were
necessary.

Supplies 5,000
Office Equipment 2,500
Accounts Payable 2,500

PE 2–8A
Fuller Company
Income Statements
For Years Ended December 31
Increase/(Decrease)
2014 2013 Amount Percent
Fees earned $680,000 $850,000 $(170,000) –20.0%
Operating expenses 541,875 637,500 (95,625) –15.0%
Net income $138,125 $212,500 $ (74,375) –35.0%

PE 2–8B
Paragon Company
Income Statements
For Years Ended December 31
Increase/(Decrease)
2014 2013 Amount Percent
Fees earned $1,416,000 $1,200,000 $216,000 18.0%
Operating expenses 1,044,000 900,000 144,000 16.0%
Net income $ 372,000 $ 300,000 $ 72,000 24.0%

2-6
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
EXERCISES
Ex. 2–1
Balance Sheet Accounts Income Statement
Accounts
Assets
Revenue
Flight Equipment Cargo and Mail
a
Revenue Purchase Deposits for Flight Equipment Passenger
Revenue Spare Parts and Supplies
Liabilities Expenses

Accounts Payable Aircraft Fuel Expense

b c
Air Traffic Liability Commissions (Expense)
Landing Fees (Expense)d
Owner’s Equity
None

a
Advance payments (deposits) on aircraft to be delivered in the future
b
Passenger ticket sales not yet recognized as revenue
c
Commissions paid to travel agents
d
Fees paid to airports for landing rights

Ex. 2–2
Account
Account Number

Accounts Payable 21
Accounts Receivable 12
Cash 11
Fees Earned 41
Gina Kissel, Capital 31
Gina Kissel, Drawing 32
Land 13
Miscellaneous Expense 53
Supplies Expense 52
Wages Expense 51

Note: Expense accounts are normally listed in order of magnitude from largest
to smallest with Miscellaneous Expense always listed last. Since Wages
Expense is normally larger than Supplies Expense, Wages Expense is listed as
account number 51 and Supplies Expense as account number 52.

2-7
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–3
Balance Sheet Accounts Income Statement
Accounts
1. Assets 4.
Revenue
11 Cash 41 Fees Earned
12 Accounts Receivable
13 Supplies 5. Expenses

14
Prepaid Insurance 51 Wages Expense
15 Equipment 52 Rent Expense
53 Supplies Expense
2. Liabilities 59 Miscellaneous
21 Accounts Payable Expense
22 Unearned Rent

3. Owner’s Equity
31 Ivy Bishop, Capital
32 Ivy Bishop, Drawing

Note: The order of some of the accounts within the major classifications is
somewhat arbitrary, as in accounts 13–14, accounts 21–22, and accounts 51–
53. In a new business, the order of magnitude of balances in such accounts
is not determinable in advance. The magnitude may also vary from period to
period.

Ex. 2–4
a. debit g. debit
b. credit h. credit
c. credit i. debit
d. credit j. credit
e. debit k. debit
f. credit l. debit

Ex. 2–5
1. debit and credit entries (c)
2. debit and credit entries (c)
3. debit and credit entries (c)
4. credit entries only (b)
5. debit entries only (a)
6. debit entries only (a)
7. debit entries only (a)

2-8
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–6
a. Liability—credit e. Asset—debit
b. Asset—debit f. Revenue—
c. Owner’s equity g. credit
Asset—debit
(Amanda Whitmore, Capital)—credit h. Expense—debit
d. Owner’s equity i. Asset—debit
(Amanda Whitmore, Drawing)—debit j. Expense—debit

Ex. 2–7
2014
July 1 Rent Expense 3,200
Cash 3,200

3 Advertising Expense 750

Cash 750

5 Supplies 1,300
Cash 1,300

6 Office Equipment 12,500

Accounts Payable 12,500

10 Cash 11,400
Accounts Receivable 11,400

15 Accounts Payable 1,175

Cash 1,175

27 Miscellaneous Expense 600

Cash 600

30 Utilities Expense 180

Cash 180

31 Accounts Receivable 33,760

Fees Earned 33,760

31 Utilities Expense 1,300

Cash 1,300

31 Dennis Isberg, Drawing 4,000

Cash 4,000

2-9
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–8
a.
JOURNAL Page 19

Post.
Date Description Ref. Debit Credit
2014 Adjusting Entries
May 22 Supplies 15 6,180
Accounts Payable 21 6,180
Purchased supplies on account.
b., c., d.
Account: Supplies Account No. 15

Post. Balance
Date Item Ref. Debit Credit Debit Credit
2014
May 1 Balance 9 1,500
22 19 6,180 7,680

Account: Accounts Account No. 21

Payable

Post. Balance
Date Item Ref. Debit Credit Debit Credit
2014
May 1 Balance 9 16,750
22 19 6,180 22,930

e. Yes, the rules of debit and credit apply to all companies.

Ex. 2–9
a. (1) Accounts Receivable 48,600
Fees Earned 48,600

(2) Supplies 1,975

Accounts Payable 1,975
(3) Cash 31,400
Accounts Receivable 31,400

(4) Accounts Payable 1,350

Cash 1,350

2-10
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions

Ex. 2–9 (Concluded)

b.
Cash Accounts Payable
(3) 31,400 (4) 1,350 (4) 1,350 (2) 1,975

Supplies Fees Earned

(2) 1,975 (1) 48,600

Accounts
Receivable
(1) 48,600 (3)
31,400

c. No. A credit balance in Accounts Receivable could occur if a

customer overpaid his or her account. Regardless, the credit
balance should be investigated to verify that an error has not
occurred.

Ex. 2–10
a. The increase of $140,000 ($515,000 – $375,000) in the cash account does
not indicate net income of that amount. Net income is the net change in all
assets and liabilities from operating (revenue and expense) transactions.

b. $60,000 ($200,000 – $140,000)

or

Cash
X 375,000
515,000
200,000

X + $515,000 – $375,000 = $200,000

X = $200,000 – $515,000 + $375,000
X = $60,000

2-11
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Visit https://testbankmall.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–11
a. Accounts Payable

Mar. 1 X
276,500 261,000
Mar. 31 76,000

X + $261,000 – $276,500 = $76,000

X = $76,000 + $276,500 – $261,000
X = $91,500

b. Accounts
July 1 Receivable
49,000 525,000
X
July 31 61,500

$49,000 + X – $525,000 = $61,500

X = $61,500 + $525,000 – $49,000
X = $537,500

c. Cash
Sept. 1 28,440 X
112,100
Sept. 30 33,200

$28,440 + $112,100 – X = $33,200

X = $28,440 + $112,100 – $33,200
X = $107,340

Ex. 2–12
a. Debit (negative) balance of $16,000 ($314,000 – $10,000 – $320,000).
This negative balance means that the liabilities of Waters' business
exceed the assets.
b. Yes. The balance sheet prepared at December 31 will balance, with Terrace
Waters, Capital, being reported in the owner’s equity section as a negative
$16,000.

2-12
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–13
a. and b.
Account Debited Account Credited
Transaction Type Effect Type Effect

(1) asset + owner’s equity +

(2) asset + asset –
(3) asset + asset –
liability +
(4) expense + asset –
(5) asset + revenue +
(6) liability – asset –
(7) asset + asset –
(8) expense + asset –
(9) drawing + asset –

Ex. 2–14
(1) Cash 75,000
Luis Chavez, Capital 75,000

(2) Supplies 4,000

Cash 4,000
(3) Equipment 25,000
Accounts Payable 22,000
Cash 3,000
(4) Operating Expenses 2,700
Cash 2,700
(5) Accounts Receivable 19,500
Service Revenue 19,500
(6) Accounts Payable 9,000
Cash 9,000
(7) Cash 11,000
Accounts Receivable 11,000
(8) Operating Expenses 2,000
Supplies 2,000

(9) Luis Chavez, Drawing 5,000

Cash 5,000

2-13
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–15
a. GRAND CANYON TOURS
CO.
Unadjusted Trial
Balance Debit Credit
April 30, 2014 Balances Balances
Cash 62,300
Accounts Receivable 8,500
Supplies 2,000
Equipment 25,000
Accounts Payable 13,000
Luis Chavez, Capital 75,000
Luis Chavez, Drawing 5,000
Service Revenue 19,500
Operating Expenses 4,700
107,500 107,500

b. Net income, $14,800 ($19,500 – $4,700)

2-14
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–16
LEAF CO. Unadjusted
Trial Balance December
31, 2014
Debit Credit
Balances Balances
Cash 13,500 *
Accounts Receivable 38,100
Supplies 3,200
Prepaid insurance 6,400
Land 40,000
Accounts Payable 23,500
Unearned Rent 13,500
Notes Payable 50,000
Dan Leafdale, Capital 50,000
Dan Leafdale, Drawing 16,000
Fees Earned 538,000
Wages Expense 476,800
Rent Expense 36,000
Utilities Expense 18,000
Supplies Expense 9,000
Insurance Expense 6,000
Miscellaneous Expense 12,000
675,000 675,000

*$13,500 = $675,000 – $12,000 – $6,000 – $9,000 – $18,000 – $36,000 – $476,800 – $16,000

– $40,000 – $6,400 – 3,200 – $38,100

Ex. 2–17
Inequality of trial balance totals would be caused by errors described in (c) and
(e). For (c), the debit total would exceed the credit total by $9,900 ($4,950 +
$4,950). For (e), the credit total would exceed the debit total by $17,100 ($19,000 –
$1,900).

Errors (b), (d), and (e) would require correcting entries. Although it is not a correcting
entry, the entry that was not made in (a) should also be entered in the journal.

2-15
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–18
RANGER CO.
Unadjusted Trial
Balance August 31,
2014
Debit Credit
Cash 15,500
Balances Balances
Accounts Receivable 46,750
Prepaid Insurance 12,000
Equipment 190,000
Accounts Payable 24,600
Unearned Rent 5,400
Carmen Meeks, Capital 110,000
Carmen Meeks, Drawing 13,000
Service Revenue 385,000
Wages Expense 213,000
Advertising Expense 16,350
Miscellaneous Expense 18,400
525,000 525,000

Ex. 2–19
(a) (b) (c)
Error Out of Balance Difference Larger Total
1. yes $6,000 debit
2. no — —
3. yes 5,400 credit
4. yes 480 debit
5. no — —
6. yes 90 credit
7. yes 360 credit

2-16
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–20
1. The Debit column total is added incorrectly. The sum is $890,700 rather than
$1,189,300.
2. The trial balance should be dated “July 31, 2014,” not “For the Month
Ending July 31, 2014.”
3. The Accounts Receivable balance should be in the Debit column.
4. The Accounts Payable balance should be in the Credit column.
5. The Samuel Parson, Drawing, balance should be in the Debit column.
6. The Advertising Expense balance should be in the Debit column.

A corrected trial balance would be as follows:

MASCOT CO.
Unadjusted Trial
Balance July 31, 2014
Debit Credit
Balances Balances
Cash 36,000
Accounts Receivable 112,600
Prepaid Insurance 18,000
Equipment 375,000
Accounts Payable 53,300
Salaries Payable 7,500
Samuel Parson, Capital 297,200
Samuel Parson, Drawing 17,000
Service Revenue 682,000
Salary Expense 396,800
Advertising Expense 73,000
Miscellaneous Expense 11,600
1,040,000 1,040,000

Ex. 2–21
a. Prepaid Rent 13,550
Cash 13,550

b. Ron Sutin, Drawing 14,000

Wages Expense 14,000

2-17
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–22
a. Cash 17,600
Fees Earned 8,800
Accounts Receivable 8,800

b. Accounts Payable* 1,760

Supplies Expense 1,760

Supplies 1,760
Cash 1,760

* The first entry reverses the original entry. The second entry is the entry that should
have been made initially.

Ex. 2–23
a. 1. Revenue:
$2,033 million increase ($67,390 – $65,357)
3.1% increase ($2,033 ÷ $65,357)
2. Operating expenses:
$1,454 million increase ($62,138 – $60,684)
2.4% increase ($1,454 ÷ $60,684)
3. Operating income:
$579 million increase ($5,252 – $4,673)
12.4% increase ($579 ÷ $4,673)

b. During the recent year, revenue increased by 3.1%, while operating

expenses increased by only 2.4%. As a result, operating income increased
by 12.4%, a favorable trend from the prior year.

2-18
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Ex. 2–24
a. 1. Revenue:
$13,764 million increase ($421,849 – $408,085)
3.4% increase ($13,764 ÷ $408,085)
2. Operating expenses:
$12,224 million increase ($396,307 – $384,083)
3.2% increase ($12,224 ÷ $384,083)
3. Operating expenses:
$1,540 million increase ($25,542 – $24,002)
6.4% increase ($1,540 ÷ $24,002)

b. During the recent year, revenue increased by 3.4%, while operating expenses
increased by 3.2%. As a result, operating income increased by 6.4%, a
favorable trend from the prior year.

c. Because of the size differences between Target and Walmart (Walmart has
over 6 times the revenue), it is best to compare the two companies on the
basis of percent changes. Target and Walmart increased their revenue
from the prior year by approximately the same percent (3.1% for Target
and 3.4% for Walmart). However, Target's operating expenses increased
by only 2.4% compared to Walmart's 3.2% increase. As a result, Target's
operating income increased by 12.4% compared to Walmart's 6.4%
increase. Based upon this analysis, it appears that Target was better able
to control its operating expenses as its revenue increased than was
Walmart.

2-19
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
PROBLEMS
Prob. 2–1A
1. and 2.
Cash Equipment
(a) 25,000 (b) 2,750 (d) 9,000
(g) 11,150 (c) 4,000
(e) 1,600 Notes Payable
(f) 2,400 (j) 550 (c) 26,000
(h) 300 Bal. 25,450
(i) 3,500
(j) 550 Accounts
(m) 2,200 (i) Payable
3,500 (d) 9,000
(n) 815 (k) 1,500
Bal. 18,035 Bal. 7,000

Accounts Receivable Lynn Cantwell, Capital

(l) 17,300 (a) 25,000

Supplies Professional Fees

(e) 1,600 (g)

11,150 (l) 17,300
Bal. 28,450

Prepaid Insurance Rent Expense

(f) 2,400 (b) 2,750

Automobiles Salary Expense

(c) 30,000 (m) 2,200

Blueprint Expense
(k) 1,500

Automobile Expense
(n) 815

Miscellaneous Expense
(h) 300

2-20
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 CHAPTER 2 Analyzing
Transactions
Prob. 2–1A (Concluded)
3. LYNN CANTWELL,
ARCHITECT Unadjusted Trial
Balance July 31, 2014
Debit Credit
Balances Balances
Cash 18,035
Accounts Receivable 17,300
Supplies 1,600
Prepaid Insurance 2,400
Automobiles 30,000
Equipment 9,000
Notes Payable 25,450
Accounts Payable 7,000
Lynn Cantwell, Capital 25,000
Professional Fees 28,450
Rent Expense 2,750
Salary Expense 2,200
Blueprint Expense 1,500
Automobile Expense 815
Miscellaneous Expense 300
85,900 85,900

4. Net income, $20,885 ($28,450 – $2,750 – $2,200 – $1,500 – $815 – $300)

2-21
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Visit https://testbankmall.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
Other documents randomly have
different content
novelists arises from her high conception of the art of fiction and her
strong grasp on intellectual and social problems, her descriptive
power ... and her command of a broad and vigorous prose style.”
(The same enthusiastic gentleman who wrote Mrs. Ward’s biography
also wrote the biography of Oscar Wilde. The latter is given much
less space, and the article on him is a petty, contemptible attack
written from the standpoint of a self-conscious puritan.)
Thackeray is given equal space with Balzac, and in the course of
his biography it is said that some have wanted to compare him with
Dickens but that such a comparison would be unprofitable. “It is
better to recognize simply that the two novelists stood, each in his
own way, distinctly above even their most distinguished
contemporaries.” (Both Balzac and Victor Hugo were their
contemporaries, and to say that Thackeray stood “distinctly above”
them is to butcher French genius to make an English holiday.)
In Dickens’s biography, which is nearly half again as long as that
of Balzac and nearly two and a half times as long as that of Hugo,
we encounter such words and phrases as “masterpieces” and
“wonderful books.” No books of his surpassed the early chapters of
Great Expectations in “perfection of technique or in the mastery of
all the resources of the novelist’s art.” Here, as in many other places,
patriotic license has obviously been permitted to run wild. Where,
outside of provincial England, will you find another critic, no matter
how appreciative of Dickens’s talent, who will agree that he
possessed “perfection of technique” and a “mastery of all the
resources of the novelist’s art”? But, as if this perfervid rhetoric were
not sufficiently extreme, Swinburne is quoted as saying that to have
created Abel Magwitch alone is to be a god indeed among the
creators of deathless men. (This means that Dickens was a god
beside the mere mundane creator of Lucien de Rubempré, Goriot,
and Eugénie Grandet.) And, again, on top of this unreasoned
enthusiasm, it is added that in “intensity and range of creative
genius he can hardly be said to have any modern rival.”
 Let us turn to Balzac who was not, according to this
encyclopædia, even Dickens’s rival in intensity and range of creative
genius. Here we find derogatory criticism which indeed bears out the
contention of Dickens’s biographer that the author of David
Copperfield was superior to the author of Lost Illusions. Balzac, we
read, “is never quite real.” His style “lacks force and adequacy to his
own purpose.” And then we are given this final bit of insular
criticism: “It is idle to claim for Balzac an absolute supremacy in the
novel, while it may be questioned whether any single book of his, or
any scene of a book, or even any single character or situation, is
among the very greatest books, scenes, characters, situations in
literature.” Alas, poor Balzac!—the inferior of both Dickens and
Thackeray—the writer who, if the judgment of the Encyclopædia
Britannica is to be accepted, created no book, scene, character or
situation which is among the greatest! Thus are the world’s true
geniuses disparaged for the benefit of moral English culture.
De Vigny receives adverse criticism. He is compared unfavorably
to Sir Walter Scott, and is attacked for his “pessimistic” philosophy.
De Musset “had genius, though not genius of that strongest kind
which its possessor can always keep in check”—after the elegant
and repressed manner of English writers, no doubt. De Musset’s own
character worked “against his success as a writer,” and his break
with George Sand “brought out the weakest side of his moral
character.” (Again the church-bell motif.) Gautier, that sensuous and
un-English Frenchman, wrote a book called Mademoiselle de Maupin
which was “unfitted by its subject, and in parts by its treatment, for
general perusal.”
Dumas père is praised, largely we infer, because his work was
sanctioned by Englishmen: “The three musketeers are as famous in
England as in France. Thackeray could read about Athos from
sunrise to sunset with the utmost contentment of mind, and Robert
Louis Stevenson and Andrew Lang have paid tribute to the band.”
Pierre Loti, however, in a short biography, hardly meets with British
approval. “Many of his best books are long sobs of remorseful
memory, so personal, so intimate, that an English reader is amazed
to find such depth of feeling compatible with the power of minutely
and publicly recording what is felt.” Loti, like de Musset, lacked that
prudish restraint which is so admirable a virtue in English writers.
Daudet, in a short and very inadequate biography, is written down
as an imitator of Dickens; and in Anatole France’s biography, which
is shorter than Marryat’s or Mrs. Oliphant’s, no adequate indication
of his genius is given.
Zola is treated with greater unfairness than perhaps any other
French author. Zola has always been disliked in England, and his
English publisher was jailed by the guardians of British morals. But it
is somewhat astonishing to find to what lengths this insular
prejudice has gone in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Zola’s biography,
which is shorter than Mrs. Humphry Ward’s, is written by a former
Accountant General of the English army, and contains adverse
comment because he did not idealize “the nobler elements in human
nature,” although, it is said, “his later books show improvement.”
Such scant treatment of Zola reveals the unfairness of extreme
prejudice, for no matter what the nationality, religion, or taste of the
critic, he must, in all fairness, admit that Zola is a more important
and influential figure in modern letters than Mrs. Humphry Ward.
In the biography of George Sand we learn that “as a thinker,
George Eliot is vastly [sic] superior; her knowledge is more
profound, and her psychological analysis subtler and more scientific.”
Almost nothing is said of Constant’s writings; and in the mere half-
column sketch of Huysmans there are only a few biographical facts
with a list of his books. Of Stendhal there is practically no criticism;
and Coppée “exhibits all the defects of his qualities.” René Bazin
draws only seventeen lines—a bare record of facts; and Édouard Rod
is given a third of a column with no criticism.
Despite the praise given Victor Hugo, his biography, from a critical
standpoint, is practically worthless. In it there is no sense of critical
proportion: it is a mere panegyric which definitely states that Hugo
was greater than Balzac. This astonishing and incompetent praise is
accounted for when we discover that it was written by Swinburne
who, as is generally admitted, was a better poet than critic. In fact,
turning to Swinburne’s biography, we find the following valuation of
Swinburne as critic: “The very qualities which gave his poetry its
unique charm and character were antipathetic to his success as a
critic. He had very little capacity for cool and reasoned judgment,
and his criticism is often a tangled thicket of prejudices and
predilections.... Not one of his studies is satisfactory as a whole; the
faculty for the sustained exercise of the judgment was denied him,
and even his best appreciations are disfigured by error in taste and
proportion.”
Here we have the Encyclopædia’s own condemnation of some of
its material—a personal and frank confession of its own gross
inadequacy and bias! And Swinburne, let it be noted, contributes no
less than ten articles on some of the most important literary men in
history! If the Encyclopædia Britannica was as naïf and honest about
revealing the incapacity of all of its critics as it is in the case of
Swinburne, there would be no need for me to call attention to those
other tangled thickets of prejudices and predilections which have
enmeshed so many of the gentlemen who write for it.
But the inadequacy of the Britannica as a reference book on
modern French letters can best be judged by the fact that there
appears no biographical mention whatever of Romain Rolland, Pierre
de Coulevain, Tinayre, René Boylesve, Jean and Jérôme Tharaud,
Henry Bordeaux, or Pierre Mille. Rolland is the most gifted and
conspicuous figure of the new school of writers in France to-day, and
the chief representative of a new phase of French literature. Pierre
de Coulevain stands at the head of the women novelists in modern
France; and her books are widely known in both England and
America. Madame Tinayre’s art, to quote an eminent English critic,
“reflects the dawn of the new French spirit.” Boylesve stands for the
classic revival in French letters, and ranks in the forefront of
contemporary European writers. The Tharauds became famous as
novelists as far back as 1902, and hold a high place among the
writers of Young France. Bordeaux’s novels have long been familiar
in translation even to American readers; and Pierre Mille holds very
much the same place in France that Kipling does in England. Yet not
only does not one of these noteworthy authors have a biography,
but their names do not appear throughout the entire Encyclopædia!
In the article on French Literature the literary renaissance of
Young France is not mentioned. There apparently has been no effort
at making the account modern or up-to-date in either its critical or
historical side; and if you desire information on the recent activities
in French letters—activities of vital importance and including several
of the greatest names in contemporary literature—you need not seek
it in the Britannica, that “supreme” book of knowledge; for
apparently only modern English achievement is judged worthy of
consideration.
Modern Russian literature suffers even more from neglect.
Dostoievsky has less than two columns, less space than Charles
Reade, George Borrow, Mrs. Gaskell, or Charles Kingsley. Gogol has
a column and a quarter, far less space than that given Felicia
Hemans, James M. Barrie, of Mrs. Humphry Ward. Gorky is allotted
little over half a column, one-third of the space given Kipling, and
equal space with Ouida and Gilbert Parker. Tolstoi, however, seems
to have inflamed the British imagination. His sentimental philosophy,
his socialistic godliness, his capacity to “warm the heart” and
“improve the conduct” has resulted in a biography which runs to
nearly sixteen columns!
The most inept and inadequate biography in the whole Russian
literature department, however, is that of Turgueniev. Turgueniev,
almost universally conceded to be the greatest, and certainly the
most artistic, of the Russian writers, is accorded little over a column,
less space than is devoted to the biography of Thomas Love
Peacock, Kipling, or Thomas Hardy; and only a half or a third of the
space given to a dozen other inferior English writers. And in this
brief biography we encounter the following valuation: “Undoubtedly
Turgueniev may be considered one of the great novelists, worthy to
be ranked with Thackeray, Dickens and George Eliot; with the genius
of the last of these he has many affinities.” It will amuse, rather than
amaze, the students of Slavonic literature to learn that Turgueniev
was the George Eliot of Russia.
But those thousands of people who have bought the Encyclopædia
Britannica, believing it to be an adequate literary reference work,
should perhaps be thankful that Turgueniev is mentioned at all, for
many other important modern Russians are without biographies. For
instance, there is no biographical mention of Andreiev, Garshin,
Kuprin, Tchernyshevsky, Grigorovich, Artzybasheff, Korolenko,
Veressayeff, Nekrasoff, or Tchekhoff. And yet the work of nearly all
these Russian writers had actually appeared in English translation
before the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica went to
press!
Italian fiction also suffers from neglect at the hands of the
Britannica’s critics. Giulio Barrili receives only thirteen lines; Farina,
only nine lines; and Giovanni Verga, only twelve. Fogazzaro draws
twenty-six lines; and in the biography we learn that his “deeply
religious spirit” animates his literary productions, and that he
contributed to modern Italian literature “wholesome elements of
which it would otherwise be nearly destitute.” He also was
“Wordsworthian” in his simplicity and pathos. Amicis and Serao draw
twenty-nine lines and half a column respectively; but there are no
biographies of Emilio de Marchi, the prominent historical novelist;
Enrico Butti, one of the foremost representatives of the psychological
novel in modern Italy; and Grazia Deledda.
The neglect of modern German writers in the Encyclopædia
Britannica is more glaring than that of any other European nation,
not excluding Russia. So little information can one get from this
encyclopædia concerning the really important German authors that it
would hardly repay one to go to the Britannica. Eckstein—five of
whose novels were issued in English before 1890—is denied a
biography. So is Meinhold; so is Luise Mühlbach; so is Wachenroder;
—all well known in England long before the Britannica went to press.
Even Gabriele Reuter, whose far-reaching success came as long ago
as 1895, is without a biography. And—what is less excusable—Max
Kretzer, the first of Germany’s naturalistic novelists, has no
biographical mention in this great English encyclopædia!
But the omission of even these important names do not represent
the Britannica’s greatest injustice to Germany’s literature; for one will
seek in vain for biographies of Wilhelm von Polenz and Ompteda,
two of the foremost German novelists, whose work marked a distinct
step in the development of their nation’s letters. Furthermore, Clara
Viebig, Gustav Frenssen, and Thomas Mann, who are among the
truly great figures in modern imaginative literature, are without
biographies. These writers have carried the German novel to
extraordinary heights. Mann’s Buddenbrooks (1901) represents the
culmination of the naturalistic novel in Germany; and Viebig and
Frenssen are of scarcely less importance. There are few modern
English novelists as deserving as these three Germans; and yet
numerous comparatively insignificant English writers are given long
critical biographies in the Britannica while Viebig, Frenssen and Mann
receive no biographies whatever! Such unjust discrimination against
non-British authors would hardly be compatible with even the
narrowest scholarship.
And there are other important and eminent German novelists who
are far more deserving of space in an international encyclopædia
than many of the Englishmen who receive biographies in the
Britannica—for instance, Heinz Tovote, Hermann Hesse, Ricarda
Huch, Helene Böhlau, and Eduard von Keyserling—not one of whom
is given biographical consideration!
When we come to the American literary division of the Britannica,
however, prejudice and neglect reach their highest point. Never have
I seen a better example of the contemptuous attitude of England
toward American literature than in the Encyclopædia’s treatment of
the novelists of the United States. William Dean Howells, in a three-
quarters-of-a-column biography, gets scant praise and is criticised
with not a little condescension. F. Marion Crawford, in an even
shorter biography, receives only lukewarm and apologetic praise.
Frank Norris is accorded only twenty lines, less space than is given
the English hack, G. A. Henty! McTeague is “a story of the San
Francisco slums”; and The Octopus and The Pit are “powerful
stories.” This is the extent of the criticism. Stephen Crane is given
twelve lines; Bret Harte, half a column with little criticism; Charles
Brockden Brown and Lafcadio Hearn, two-thirds of a column each;
H. C. Bunner, twenty-one lines; and Thomas Nelson Page less than
half a column.
What there is in Mark Twain’s biography is written by Brander
Matthews and is fair as far as it goes. The one recent American
novelist who is given adequate praise is Henry James; and this may
be accounted for by the fact of James’s adoption of England as his
home. The only other adequate biography of an American author is
that of Nathaniel Hawthorne. But the few biographies of other
United States writers who are included in the Encyclopædia are very
brief and insufficient.
In the omissions of American writers, British prejudice has
overstepped all bounds of common justice. In the following list of
names only one (Churchill’s) is even mentioned in the entire
Encyclopædia: Edith Wharton, David Graham Phillips, Gertrude
Atherton, Winston Churchill, Owen Wister, Ambrose Bierce, Theodore
Dreiser, Margaret Deland, Jack London, Robert Grant, Ellen Glasgow,
Booth Tarkington, Alice Brown and Robert Herrick. And yet there is
abundant space in the Britannica, not only for critical mention, but
for detailed biographies, of such English writers as Hall Caine, Rider
Haggard, Maurice Hewlett, Stanley Weyman, Flora Annie Steel, Edna
Lyall, Elizabeth Charles, Annie Keary, Eliza Linton, Mrs. Henry Wood,
Pett Ridge, W. C. Russell, and still others of less consequence than
many of the American authors omitted.
If the Encyclopædia Britannica was a work whose sale was
confined to England, there could be little complaint of the neglect of
the writers of other nationalities. But unjust pandering to British
prejudice and a narrow contempt for American culture scarcely
become an encyclopædia whose chief profits are derived from the
United States. So inadequate is the treatment of American fiction
that almost any modern text-book on our literature is of more value;
for, as I have shown, all manner of inferior and little-known English
authors are given eulogistic biographies, while many of the foremost
American authors receive no mention whatever.
As a reference book on modern fiction, the Encyclopædia
Britannica is hopelessly inadequate and behind the times, filled with
long eulogies of bourgeois English authors, lacking all sense of
proportion, containing many glaring omissions, and compiled and
written in a spirit of insular prejudice. And this is the kind of culture
that America is exhorted, not merely to accept, but to pay a large
price for.
 III
THE DRAMA

Particular importance attaches to the manner in which the modern

drama is treated in the Encyclopædia Britannica, for to-day there
exists a deep and intimate interest in this branch of literature—an
interest which is greater and more far-reaching than during any
other period of modern times. Especially is this true in the United
States. During the past fifteen years study in the history, art and
technique of the stage has spread into almost every quarter of the
country. The printed play has come back into favor; and there is
scarcely a publisher of any note on whose lists do not appear many
works of dramatic literature. Dramatic and stage societies have been
formed everywhere, and there is an increasing demand for
productions of the better-class plays. Perhaps no other one branch
of letters holds so conspicuous a place in our culture.
The drama itself during the last quarter of a century has taken
enormous strides. After a period of stagnant mediocrity, a new
vitality has 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 dealing with the subject from almost
every angle.
Therefore, because of this renaissance and the widespread
interest attaching to it, we should expect to find in the Encyclopædia
Britannica—that “supreme book of knowledge,” that “complete
library” of information—a full and comprehensive treatment of the
modern drama. The claims made in the advertising of the Britannica
would lead one immediately to assume that so important and
universally absorbing a subject would be set forth 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 alleged
scope and completeness of this encyclopædia, it should be accorded
careful and liberal consideration.
But in this department, as in others equally important, the
Encyclopædia Britannica fails inexcusably. I have carefully inspected
its dramatic information, and its inadequacy left me with a feeling
which fell little short of amazement. Not only is the modern drama
given scant consideration, but those comparatively few articles which
deal with it are so inept and desultory that no correct idea of the
development of modern dramatic literature can be obtained. As in
the Encyclopædia’s other departments of modern æsthetic 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 entirely in order to make way for minor 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 Encyclopædia 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 the æsthetic 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 exigencies 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 omission along with
their less favored confrères from other countries. Consequently, the
dramatic material is not only biased but is inadequate from the
British standpoint as well.
As a reference book on the modern drama, either for students or
the casual reader, the Encyclopædia 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
authenticity 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 encyclopædia is marked by
incompetency, prejudice, and carelessness; and its large number of
indefensible omissions renders it almost useless as a reference work
on modern dramatic literature.
In the general article on the Drama we have a key to the entire
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.)
But these names represent only part of the injustice and neglect
accorded modern Italian poetry by the Britannica. There is not even
so much as a mention in the entire twenty-nine volumes of the
names of Alinda Bonacchi, the most widely known woman poet in
Italy; Capuano, who, besides being a notable poet, is also a novelist,
dramatist and critic of distinction; Funcini (Tanfucio Neri), a
household word in Tuscany and one held in high esteem all over
Italy; “Countess Lara” (Eveline Cattermole), whose Versi gave her a
foremost place among the poets of her day; Pitteri, who was famous
as long ago as 1890; and Nencioni, not only a fine poet but one of
Italy’s great critics. Nencioni has earned the reputation of being the
Sainte-Beuve of Italy, and it was he who introduced Browning,
Tennyson and Swinburne to his countrymen. Then there are such
poets as Fontana, Bicci and Arnaboldi, who should at least be
mentioned in connection with modern Italian literature, but whose
names do not appear in “this complete library of information.”
But France, Belgium, and Italy, nevertheless, have great cause for
feeling honored when comparison is made between the way the
Encyclopædia Britannica deals with their modern poetry and the way
it deals with modern German and Austrian poetry. Of all the
important recent lyricists of Germany and Austria only one is given a
biography, and that biography is so brief and inadequate as to be
practically worthless for purposes of enlightenment. The one favored
poet is Detlev von Liliencron. Liliencron is perhaps the most
commanding lyrical figure in all recent German literature, and he
receives just twenty-seven lines, or about one-fifth of the space
given to Austin Dobson! But there are no biographies of Richard
Dehmel, Carl Busse, Stefan George, J. H. Mackay, Rainer Maria Rilke,
Gustav Falke, Ernst von Wolzogen, Karl Henckell, Dörmann, Otto
Julius Bierbaum, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal.
There can be no excuse for many of these omissions. Several of
these names are of international eminence. Their works have not
been confined to Germany, but have appeared in English translation.
They stand in the foremost rank of modern literature, and both in
England and America there are critical books which accord them
extensive consideration. Without a knowledge of them no one—not
even a Britisher—can lay claim to an understanding of modern
letters. Yet the Encyclopædia Britannica denies them space and still
poses as an adequate reference work.
One may hope to find some adequate treatment of the German
lyric to recent years with its “remarkable variety of new tones and
pregnant ideas,” in the article on German Literature. But that hope
will straightway be blasted when one turns to the article in question.
The entire new renaissance in German poetry is dismissed in a brief
paragraph of thirty-one lines! It would have been better to omit it
altogether, for such a cursory and inadequate survey of a significant
subject can result only in disseminating a most unjust and distorted
impression. And the bibliography at the end of this article on modern
German literature reveals nothing so much as the lack of knowledge
on the part of the critic who compiled it. Not only is the Britannica
deficient in its information, but it does not reveal the best sources
from which this omitted information might be gained.
 An even more absurdly inadequate treatment is accorded the
poets of modern Sweden. Despite the fact that Swedish literature is
little known to Americans, the poetry of that country ranks very high
—higher (according to some eminent critics) than the poetry of
France or Germany. But the Britannica makes no effort to disturb our
ignorance; and so the great lyric poetry of Sweden since 1870 is
barely touched upon. However, Mr. Edmund Gosse, a copious
contributor to the Encyclopædia, has let the cat out of the bag. In
one of his books he has pronounced Fröding, Levertin and
Heidenstam “three very great lyrical artists,” and has called Snoilsky
a poet of “unquestioned force and fire.” Turning to the Britannica we
find that Snoilsky is dismissed with half the space given Sydney
Dobell and a third of the space given Patmore. Levertin receives only
a third of a column; and Fröding is denied any biography whatever.
He is thrown in with a batch of minor writers under Sweden.
Heidenstam, the new Nobel prize-winner, a poet who, according to
Charles Wharton Stork, “stands head and shoulders above any now
writing in England,” receives only eight lines in the general notice!
And Karlfeldt, another important lyrist, who is the Secretary of the
Swedish Academy, is considered unworthy of even a word in the
“supreme” Encyclopædia Britannica.
It would seem that unfair and scant treatment of a country’s
poetry could go no further. But if you will seek for information
concerning American poetry you will find a deficiency which is even
greater than that which marks the treatment of modern Swedish
poetry.
Here again it might be in place to call attention to the hyperbolical
claims on which the Encyclopædia Britannica has been sold in
America. In the flamboyant and unsubstantiable advertising of this
reference work you will no doubt recall the claim: “It will tell you
more about everything than you can get from any other source.” And
perhaps you will also remember the statement: “The Britannica is a
complete library of knowledge on every subject appealing to
intelligent persons.” It may be, of course, that the editors believe
that the subject of American literature does not, or at least should
not, appeal to any but ignorant persons, and that, in fact, only
middle-class English culture can possibly interest the intelligent. But
unless such a belief can be proved to be correct, the American
buyers of this Encyclopædia have a grave and legitimate complaint
against the editors for the manner in which the books were foisted
upon them. The Encyclopædia Britannica, as I have pointed out, is
not a complete library of knowledge on the subject of literature; and
in the following pages I shall show that its gross inadequacy extends
to many other very important fields of endeavor. Moreover, its
incompleteness is most glaringly obvious in the field of American
æsthetic effort—a field which, under the circumstances, should be
the last to be neglected.
On the subject of American poetry it is deficient almost to the
extreme of worthlessness. In the article, American Literature, written
by George E. Woodberry, we discover that truly British spirit and
viewpoint which regards nothing as worth while unless it is old or
eminently respectable and accepted. The result is that, in the
paragraph on our poetry, such men as Aldrich, Stedman, Richard
Watson Gilder, Julia Ward Howe, H. H. Brownell and Henry Van Dyke
are mentioned; but very few others. As a supreme surrender to
modernity the names of Walt Whitman, Eugene Field, James
Whitcomb Riley and Joaquin Miller are included. The great wealth of
American poetry, which is second only to that of England, is not
even suggested.
Turning to the biography of Edgar Allan Poe, we find that this
writer receives only a column and a half, less space than is given
Austin Dobson, Coventry Patmore, or W. E. Henley! And the
biography itself is so inept that it is an affront to American taste and
an insult to American intelligence. One is immediately interested in
learning what critic the Encyclopædia’s editors chose to represent
this American who has long since become a world figure in
literature. Turning to the index we discover that one David Hannay is
the authority—a gentleman who was formerly the British Vice-Consul
at Barcelona. Mr. Hannay (apparently he holds no academic degree
of any kind) lays claim to fame chiefly, it seems, as the author of
Short History of the Royal Navy; but in just what way his research in
naval matters qualifies him to write on Poe is not indicated. This is
not, however, the only intimation we had that in the minds of the
Encyclopædia’s editors there exists some esoteric and recondite
relationship between art and British sea-power. In the Britannica’s
criticism of J. M. W. Turner’s paintings, that artist’s work is said to be
“like the British fleet among the navies of the world.” In the present
instance, however, we can only trust that the other articles in this
encyclopædia, by Mr. Hannay—to-wit: Admiral Penn and Pirate and
Piracy—are more competent than his critique on Poe.
Walt Whitman gets scarcely better treatment. His biography is no
longer than Poe’s and contains little criticism and no suggestion of
his true place in American letters. This is all the more astonishing
when we recall the high tribute paid Whitman by eminent English
critics. Surely the Britannica’s editors are not ignorant of Whitman’s
place in modern letters or of the generous manner in which he had
been received abroad. Whatever one’s opinion of him, he was a
towering figure in our literature—a pioneer who had more influence
on our later writers than any other American. And yet his biography
in this great British cultural work is shorter than that of Mrs.
Humphry Ward!
With such obviously inadequate and contemptuous treatment as
that accorded Poe and Whitman, it is not surprising that all other
American poets should be treated peremptorily or neglected entirely.
There are very short biographical notes on Stedman, Louise
Chandler Moulton, Sill, Gilder, Eugene Field, Sidney Lanier and Riley
—but they are scant records of facts and most insufficient when
compared to the biographies of second-rate poets of England.
But let us be grateful that the Encyclopædia Britannica was
generous enough to record them at all; for one can look in vain
through its entire twenty-nine volumes, no matter under what
heading, for even a mention of Emily Dickinson, John Bannister
Tabb, Florence Earle Coates, Edwin Markham, Lizette Woodworth
Reese, Clinton Scollard, Louise Imogen Guiney, Richard Hovey,
Madison Cawein, Edwin Arlington Robinson, George Sylvester
Viereck, Ridgeley Torrence, Arthur Upson, Santayana, and many
others who hold an important place in our literature. And the names
of William Vaughn Moody, Percy MacKaye and Bliss Carman are
merely mentioned casually, the first two under Drama and the last
under Canadian Literature.
The palpable injustice in the complete omission of many of the
above American names is rendered all the more glaring by the fact
that the Encyclopædia Britannica pays high tribute to such minor
British poets and versifiers as W. H. Davies, Sturge Moore, Locker
Lampson, C. M. Doughty, Walter de la Mare, Alfred Noyes, Herbert
Trench, Ernest Dowson, Mrs. Meynell, A. E. Housman and Owen
Seaman.
This is the culture disseminated by the Encyclopædia Britannica,
which “is a complete library of knowledge on every subject appealing
to intelligent persons,” and which “will tell you more about
everything than you can get from any other source!” This is the
“supreme book of knowledge” which Americans are asked to buy in
preference to all others. What pettier insult could one nation offer to
another?
 V
BRITISH PAINTING

If one hopes to find in the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopædia

Britannica an unprejudiced critical and biographical survey of the
world’s painters, he will be sorely disappointed. Not only is the
Encyclopædia not comprehensive and up-to-date, but the manner in
which British art and artists are constantly forced to the front rank is
so grossly biased that a false impression of æsthetic history and art
values is almost an inevitable result, unless one is already equipped
with a wide understanding of the subject. If one were to form an
opinion of art on the Britannica’s articles, the opinion would be that
English painting leads the modern world in both amount and quality.
The Encyclopædia raises English academicians to the ranks of
exalted greatness, and at the same time tends to tear down the
pedestals whereon rest the truly towering geniuses of alien
nationality.
So consistently does British bourgeois prejudice and complacency
characterize the material on painting contained in this Encyclopædia,
that any attempt to get from it an æsthetic point of view which
would be judicious and universal, would fail utterly. Certain French,
German, and American artists of admitted importance are considered
unworthy of space, or, if indeed deserving of mention, are unworthy
of the amount of space, or the praise, which is conferred on a large
number of lesser English painters. Both by implication and direct
statement the editors have belittled the æsthetic endeavor of foreign
nations, and have exaggerated, to an almost unbelievable degree,
the art of their own country. The manner in which the subject of
painting is dealt with reveals the full-blown flower of British
insularity, and apotheosizes the narrow, aggressive culture of British
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

testbankmall.com