« السابقةمتابعة »
~ing may recommend itself in other quarters.
standard in the selection of individuals for separate biographies, and for the briefer treatment, the attempt has been made to carry even a step forward the ideals of the Dictionary in regard to accuracy of detail and critical judgment. This has largely been made possible by the existence of the Dictionary, but the original work done in the Eleventh Edition of the Ericyclopwdia Britannica in the same field—drawing as it can upon a number of biographical articles, already classics, in its earlier editions—gives ' it an independent authority even in the sphere of British national biography. Moreover, the inclusion of biographies of eminent persons who died after the Dictionary was supplemented in 1901, and of others still living in 1910, results in a considerable extension of the biographical area, even as regards individuals of British nationality in the narrowest sense. The articles in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, however, are of course not limited to personages of the British Islands. Not only are biographies here included of the great men and women of French, German, Italian, Belgian, Dutch, Russian, Scandinavian, Japanese, and other foreign nationalities, as well as of those of the ancient world, but the same standard of selection has been applied to American and British Colonial biography as to English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Indeed the Encyclopa'dia Britannica may now claim for- the first time to supply a really adequate Dictionary of American National Biography, covering all those with whom the citizens of the United States are nationally concernedIt thus completes its representation of the English-speaking peoples, to all of whom English history, even in its narrower sense, is -a common heritage, and in its evolution a common example.
Another form of the terminological problem, to which reference was made above, is found in the transliteration of foreign names, and the conversion of the names of foreign places and countries into English equivalents. As regards the latter, there is no English standard which can be said to be universal, though in particular cases there is a convention which it would be absurd to attempt to displace for any reason of supposed superior accuracy. It would be pragrnatical in the extreme to force upon the English-speaking world a system of calling all foreign places by their local names, even though it might be thought that each nationality had a right to settle the nomenclature of its country and the towns or districts within it. In general the English conventions must stand. One of these days the world may agree that an international nomenclature is desirable and feasible, but not yet; and the country which its own citizens call Dcutschland and the French l’Allemagne still remains Germany to those who use the English language. Similarly Cologne (Kain), Florence (Firenzc), or Vienna (Wien) are bound to retain their English names in an English book. But all cases are not so simple. The world abounds in less important places, for which the English names have no standardized spelling; different English newspapers on a single day, or a single newspaper at intervals of a few weeks or months, give them several varieties of form; and in Asia or Africa the latest explorer always seems to have a preference for a new one which is unlike that adopted by rival geographers. When the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopeedia Britannica was started, the suggestion was made that the Royal Geographical Society of London—the premier geographical society of the world—might co-operate in an attempt to secure the adoption of a standard English geographical and topographical nomenclature. The Society, indeed, has a system of its own which to some extent aims at fulfilling this requirement, though it has failed to impose it upon general use; but unfortunately the Society’s system breaks down by admitting a considerable number of exceptions and by failing to settle a very large number of cases which really themselves constitute the difficulty. The co-operation of the Royal Geographical Society for the purpose of enabling the Encyclopa'dia Britannica to give prominent literary expression to an authoritative spelling for every place-name included within its articles or maps was found to be impracticable; and it was therefore necessary for the Eleventh Edition to adopt a consistent spelling which would represent its own judgment and authority. It is hoped that by degrees this spellWhere reasonably possible, the local spelling popularized by the usage of post-offices or railways has been preferred to any purely philological system of transliteration, but there are numerous cases where even this test of public convenience breaks down and some form of Anglicization becomes essential to an English gazetteer having an organic unity of its own. Apart from the continuance of English conventions which appeared sufficiently crystallized, the most authori
In clusive character.
English rendering of foreign names.
Difficulty of the problem.
Geography in particular.
tative spelling of the foreign name has been given its simplest English transliteration, preference being given, in cases of doubt, to the form, for instance in African countries, adopted by the European nation in possession or control. In the absence of any central authority or international agreement, the result is occasionally different in some slight degree from any common English variant, but this cannot well be helped when English variants are so capricious, and none persistent; and the names selected are those which for purposes of reference combine the most accuracy with the least disturbance of familiar usage. Thus the German African colony of Kamerun is here called Cameroon, an English form which follows the common practice of English transliteration in regard to its initial letter, but departs, in deference to the German official nomenclature, from the older English Cameroons, a plural no longer justifiable, although most English newspapers and maps still perpetuate it.
In the case of personal names, wherever an English spelling has become sufficiently established both in literature and in popular usage it has been retained, irrespectively of any strict linguistic value. Foreign names in English shape really become English words, and they are so treated here; e.g. Alcibiades (not Alkibiades), Juggernaut (not Jagganath). But discrimination imaggzsws as to where convenience rather than philological correctness should rule has been made languages all the more difficult, especially with names representing Arabic or other Oriental originals, by the strong views of individual scholars, who from time to time attempt in their own writings to impose their own transliterations upon others, in the face of well-established convention. In the course of the preparation of the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclondia Britannica, various eminent Arabic scholars have given strong expression to their view as to the English form of the name of the Prophet of Islam, preference being given to that of Muhammad. But the old form Mahomet is a wellestablished English equivalent; and it is here retained for convenience in identification where the Prophet himself is referred to, the form Mahommed being generally used in distinction for other persons of this name. Purists may be dissatisfied with this concession to popular usage; our choice is, we believe, in the interest of the general public. If only the “correct” forms of many Oriental names had been employed, they would be unrecognizable except to scholars. On the other hand, while the retention of Mahomet is a typical instance of the preference given to a vernacular spelling when there is one, and customary forms are adopted for Arabic and other names in the headings and for ordinary use throughout the work, in every case the more accurate scientific spelling is also given in the appropriate article. While deference has naturally been paid to the opinion of individual scholars, as far as possible, in connexion with articles contributed by them, uniformity throughout the work (a necessity for the purpose of Index-making, if for no other) has been secured by transliterating on the basis of schemes which have been specially prepared for each language; for this purpose the best linguistic opinions have been consulted, but due weight has been given to intelligibility on the part of a public already more or less accustomed to a stereotyped spelling. In the case of Babylonian names, a section of the general article BABYLONIA is specially devoted to an elucidation of the divergences between the renderings given by individual Assyriologists.
While the Encyclopedia Britannica has aimed, in this matter of local and personal nomenclature, at conciliating the opinion of scholars with public usage and convenience, and the present edition makes an attempt to solve the problem on reasonable lines, it should be understood that the whole question of the uniform representation in English of foreign place and personal names is still in ‘a highly unsatisfactory condition. Scholars will never get the public to adopt the very peculiar renderings, obscured by complicated accents, which do service in purely learned circles and have a scientific justification as part of a quasi-mathematical device for accurate pronunciation. Any attempt to transliterate into English on a phonetic basis has, moreover, a radical weakness which is too often ignored. So long as pronunciation is not itself standardized, and so long as the human ear does not uniformly carry to a standardized human brain the sound that is uniformly pronounced—and it will be long before these conditions can be fulfilled—even a phonetic system of spell— ing must adopt some convention; and in that case it is surely best, if a well-recognized convention already exists and is in use among the public at large, to adopt it rather than to invent a new one. The point is, indeed, of more than formal importance. So long as scholars and the public are at issue on the very
essentials of the comprehension of scholarly books, which are made unreadable by the use of diacritical signs and unpronounceable spellings, culture cannot advance except within the narrowest of sects. This incompatibility is bad for the public, but it is also had for scholarship. While the general reader is repelled, the Orientalist is neglected,—to the loss of both. This criticism, which substantially applies to many other formal aspects of modern learning, may be unwelcome to the professors, but it is the result of an extended experience in the attempt to bring accurate knowledge into digestible shape for the wide public for whom the EncycloPchia Britannica is intended. It is indeed partly because of the tendency of modern science and modern scholarship to put the artificial obstacles of a technical jargon in the path of people even of fairly high education, that it becomes imperative to bring both parties upon a common ground, where the world at large may discover the meaning of the learned research to which otherwise it is apt to be a stranger.
,, ,With regard to the various departments of natural science, there was a tendency in previous editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica to make inclusive treatises of the longer articles, and to incorporate under the one general heading of the science itself matter which would more naturally form a separate, if subordinate, subject. An attempt has now been made to arrange the material rather according to the heading under which, in an encyclopmdia, students would expect to find it. In any text-book on Light, for instance, the technical aspects of aberration, refraction, reflection, interference, phosphorescence, &c., would be discussed concurrently as part of the whole science, in so many chapters of a continuous treatise. But each such chapter or subdivision in a treatise becomes in an encyclopzedia arranged on the
dictionary plan, matter to be explained where the appropriate word occurs in the alphavalue 0’ the b t' l d r f h d' . Und r the n m of the ommon sub'ect of the science as a encyclopwdla e ica pr e. 0 ea ings e a e. c j. _ mammt whole, its history and general aspects are discussed, but the details concerned With the 7 separate scientific questions which fall within its subject-matter—on each of which often a single specialist has unique authority—~are relegated to distinct articles, to the headings of which the general account becomes, if required, a key or pointer. This arrangement of the scientific material—a genera] article acting as pointer to subsidiary articles, and the latter relieving the general account of details which would overload it—has been adopted throughout the Eleventh Edition; and in the result it is believed that a more complete and at the same time more authoritative survey has been attained, within the limits possible to such a work, than ever before. The single-treatise plan, which was characteristic of the Ninth Edition, is not only cumbrous in a work of reference, but lent itself to the omission altogether, under the general
heading, of specific issues which consequently received no proper treatment at all Compared with . . . . . . that ofasingle anywhere in the book; whereas the dictionary plan, by automatically proViding treatisa headings throughout the work, under which, where appropriate, articles of more or
less length may be put, enables every subject to be treated, comprehensively or in detail, yet as part of an organic whole, by means of careful articulation adapted to the requirements of an intelligent reader.
In preparing the Eleventh Edition a useful check on the possibility of such accidental omissions as are apt to occur when the treatise plan is pursued, was provided by the decision, arrived at independently of any question of subdivision, to revert more closely to the original form of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and to make separate headings of any words which, purely as words, had any substantial interest either for historical or philological reasons, or as requiring explanation even for English-speaking readers.1 The labours of Sir James Murray and his colleagues on the Oxford New English Dictionary, which has only become accessible since the Ninth Edition of the Encycloptedia Britannica was published, have enabled a precise examination to be made of all the possible headings of this kind. Such words, or groups of words, together with proper names, personal, geographical, zoological, etc., obviously exhaust the headings
lTliough, in pursuance of the ideal of making the whole book self-explanatory, a great many purely technical terms have been given their interpretation only in the course of the article on the science or art in which they are used, even these are included, with the correct references, among the headings in the Index. Similarly, biographical accounts are given of far more persons than have separate biographies. The Index in all such cases must be consulted, whether for word or name.
Need of common ground.
Sclen tific articles.
under which the subject matter of an encyclopaedia can be subdivided; and thus the dictionary plan, combined with a complete logical analysis of the contents of the various arts and sciences, forms a comprehensiVe basis for ensuring that noquestion of any substantial interest can be omitted. As a rule the headings suggested by a logical subdivision of subject, as approved by the professional or scientific expert, follow the usage of words which is natural to any one speaking the
English language; but where, owing to the existence of some accepted terminology in 1:23:3222: any particular line of inquiry, it departs from this ordinary usage, the dictionary plan accuracy. still enables a cross-reference to guide the reader, and at the same time to impart instruc
tion in the history or technical niceties of a vocabulary which is daily outgrowing the range even of the educated classes; It is highly and increasingly important that mere words should be correctly evaluated, and connected with the facts for which properly they stand.
In considering the substance, rather than the form, of the Eleventh Edition, it may be remarked first that, as a work of reference no less than as a work for reading and study, .its preparation has been dominated throughout by the historical point of view. Any account which
. , . . . The spirit of purports to describe what actually goes on to-day, whether in the realm of mind or in the historian that of matter, is inevitably subject to change as years or even months pass by; but what has been, if accurately recOrded, remains permanently true as such. In the larger sense the historian has here to deal not only with ancient and modern political history, as ordinarily understood, but with past doings in every field, and thus with the steps by which existing conditions have been reached. Geography and exploration, religion and philosophy, pure and applied science, art and literature, commerce and industry, law and economics, war and peace, sport and games,——all subjects are treated in these volumes not only on their merits, but as in continual evolution, the successive stages-in which are of intrinsic interest on their own account, but also throw light on what goes before and after. The whole range of history, thus considered, has, however, been immensely widened in the Eleventh Edition as compared with'the Ninth. The record of the past, thrown farther and farther back by the triumphs of modern archaeology, is limited on its nearer confines only by the date at which the Encyclopedia Britannica is published. Any contemporary description is indeed liable to become inadequate almost as soon as it is in the hands of the reader; but the available resources have been utilized here to the utmost, so that the salient facts up to the autumn of the year 1910 might be included throughout, not merely as isolated events, but as part of a consistent whole, conceived in the spirit of the historian. Thus only can the fleeting present be true to its relation with later developments, which it is no part of the task of an encycloptedia to prophesy.
In this connexion it is advisable to explain that while the most recent statistics have been incorporated when they really represented conditions of historic value, the notion that economic development can be truly shown merely by giving statistics for the last year available The use of is entirely false, and for this reason in many cases there has been no attempt merely statistics. to be “up-to-date” by inserting them. Statistics are used here as an illustration of the substantial existing conditions and of real progress. For the statistics of one year, and especially for those of the latest year, the inquirer must necessarily go to annual publications, not to an encyclopwdia which attempts to show the representative conditions of abiding importance. In such a work statistics are only one useful method of expressing historic evolution; their value varies considerably according to the nature of the subject dealt with; and the figures of the year which by accident is the last before publication would often be entirely misleading, owing to their being subject to some purely temporary influence. In general, far less tabular matter has been included in the Eleventh Edition than in the Ninth. Where it is used, -it is not as a substitute for descriptive accounts, which can put the facts in readable form much better, but more appropriately as showing concisely and clearly the difierences between the conditions at diflerent periods. As years pass by, and new statistics on all subjects become accessible, those which have been given here for their historical value are, as such, unaffected by the lapse of time; but if they had been slavishly inserted simply because they were the latest in the series of years immediately preceding publication, their precarious connexion with any continuous evolution would soon have made them futile. So much has been done in the Eleventh Edition to bring the record of events, whether in political history or in other articles, down to the latest available date, and thus to complete the picture of the world as it was in 1910, that it is necessary to deprecate any misconception which might otherwise arise from the fact that statistics are inserted not as events in themselves—this they may or may not be, according to .the subject-matter—but as a method of expressing the substantial results of human activity; for that purpose they must be given comparatively, selected as representative, and weighed in the balance of the judicious historian.
While every individual article in an encyclopzedia which aims at authoritative exposition must be informed by the spirit of history, it is no less essential that the spirit of science should move over The spirit of the construction of the work as a whole. Whatever may be the deficiencies of its sclence_ execution, the Eleventh Edition has at any rate this advantage to those who use it,
that the method of simultaneous preparation, already referred to, has enabled every subject to be treated systematically. Not only in the case of “science” itself, but in history, law, or any other kind of knowledge, its contributors were all assisting to carry out a preconcerted scheme, each aware of the relation of his or her contribution to others in the same field; and the interdependence of the related parts must be remembered by any reader who desires to do justice to the treatment of any large subject. Cross-references and other indications in the text are guides to the system employed, which are supplemented in greater detail by the elaborate Index. But the scientific spirit not only affects the scheme of construction as a whole: it has modified the individual treatment. Attention may perhaps be drawn to two particular points in this connexion,—the increased employment of the comparative method, and the attempt to treat opinion and controversy objectively, without partisanship or sectarianism.
The title of the Encycloflwdia Britannica has never meant that it is restricted in its accounts of natural science, law, religion, art, or other subjects, to what goes on in the British dominions; but a The commrb considerable extension has been given in the Eleventh Edition to the amount of the method. information it contains concerning the corresponding activities in other countries. By
approaching each subject, as far as possible, on its merits, the contributors in every department aim at appraising the achievements of civilization from whatever source they have arisen, and at the same time, by inserting special sections on different countries when this course is appropriate, they show the variations in practice under difierent systems of government or custom. But the subjects are not only arranged comparatively in this sense: new branches of study have arisen which are of chief importance mainly for the results attained by the comparative method. The impetus given to comparative sociology by Herbert Spencer, the modern interest in comparative law, religion, folklore, anthropology, psychology and philology, have resulted in the accumulation of a mass of detail which it becomes the task of an encyclopaedia produced on the plan of organized co-operation to reduce to manageable proportions and intelligible perspective. Comparative bibliography, so much fostered of late years by the growth of great library organizations, undergoes in its turn the same process; and expert selection makes the references to the best books a guide to the student without overwhelming him. To deal here with all the lines of new research which have benefited by the comparative method in recent years would trench unnecessarily upon the scope of the contents of the work, where sufficient is already written. One illustration must sufiice of a science in which the new treatment affects both the substance and the form of the articles in the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopcedia Britannica. Comparative Anatomy, as a branch of Zoology, can no longer be scientifically separated from Human Anatomy. The various parts of the human body are therefore systematically treated under separate headings, in connexion not only with the arts of medicine and surgery, which depend on a knowledge of each particular structure, but with the corresponding features in the rest of the animal kingdom, the study of which continually leads to a better understanding of the human organism. Thus comparative anatomy and human anatomy take their places, with physiology and pathology, as interdependent and inter