WHY AMERICAN LITERATURE IS NOT BETTER.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 478, 10 April 1909, Page 9

WHY AMERICAN LITERATURE IS NOT BETTER.

On what may be called the neutral. ground of "Tho University Magazine," which is published at Montreal, Mr. Stephon Leacock, a Canadian, writes on "Literature and Education in America," and tho burden of his discourse is the backwardness, of American literature, with tho possible causes for tho blighting or enfecblement of its genius. The facts (says, an English exchange) are taken for granted, though wo aro flattered again with thoso familiar comparative' lists in which Whittier fails to'hold his own with Tennyson or Longfellow with Shelley, and it seems that a few enthusiasts ,in the States have not given in yet. __ Mr. Leacock once met a gentleman from Kentucky in a railway train, to whom he broached what is perhaps bis favourite theme, and this gentleman said, "I' am afraid, sir, you are imperfectly acquainted with the work of our Kentucky poets"; a friend of Mr. Leacock's from Maryland has assured.him that before the North and South War that Stato had seen the, most remarkable literary development since Plato's time; and it is asserted that the' theological essays which ire put together in Prince Edward Island challenge comparison with thoso of any age or country. We may sympathise with what seem like local vanities, remembering, that some of us might say things—about tho Irish plays, for instance —which would sound queerly to those who live exclusively in tho world of great reputations. However,-Mr. Leacock does not take refuge in tho suggestion of choice indigenous literatures' that have not got into the magazines, but agrees that, with many sources of inspiration and fine educational advantages, America does -not, as Chicago would say, make culture hum. Indeed;-he thinks that what he calls a microscopic activity in education has .something to do.with the matter, and that extreme specialisation cuts people off from literature. His' indictment of American scholarship is fortified with tho example of a learned person who was asked a "harmless question" about'a book of general interest, and. considered it an adequate reply to say: "I ■ don't know anything about that; I'm in sociology." But specialisation, it appears, is moro commonly in commercialism than in. anything else.. We are not, sure that the attempt to differentiate between tho United -States "and England'oh these lines brings us much nearer, to an explanation, and Mr. Leacock presently'finds what ho thinks may be a deeper cause in "progress—happiness—and—equality." Ho suggests that literary inspiration may .he., lost in "the $ra ill which -humanity 'is" fed to satiety anU- housed and -warmed;to the point of somnolence," v '.'and : .if 'tho:: are really approaching ,this era they will have something to show on the other side when the hiatus in literary accomplishment is brought against-them.'' - ' .