THE American press is very different from that of France, as is natural considering its environment. We have in France two kinds of newspapers and periodicals: one for the educated classes, including such dailies as Débats and Le Temps; and one for the masses, who expect to be guided or, still more, amused. They read such dailies as Le Matin or Le Petit Journal.

In America, conditions while apparently more simple are in reality far more complex. The distinction between the two classes of readers is less marked, or perhaps it would be better to say less observed. Newspaper writers look neither above nor below for their public, but seek them on their own level. If there is any deviation from this attitude, they look down rather than up, in deference to the strong influence which the common people have upon national policies. Let us add that even the most highly educated Americans are inclined to ignore questions of theory except so far as they apply directly to practical affairs. America is the land of pragmatism.

This characterization applies to all American literature, but more particularly to the periodical and daily press. Furthermore, two curious tendencies, directly the opposite of each other, are to be observed in the evolution of these publications. The monthlies are constantly lowering their standards in order to reach a wider public. This is the case with the North American Review and the Cen

On the other hand the dailies are unquestionably raising their standard. This may not be true from the literary standpoint - even most book reviews are printed rather to avoid appearing indifferent to such topics, than from real interest but it is true of the general tone of their political, social, and religious articles. Newspapers like the New York Times, New York Tribune, and New York Sun, are journals of first rank with a wide circulation; the New York Evening Post and the Boston Transcript are not contented with being merely antiJingo, they stand for a sort of American toryism. The Brooklyn Eagle, Philadelphia Public Ledger, Baltimore Sun, and Springfield Republican, vary somewhat in their standards, but are serious and responsible journals. There are doubtless some important newspapers whose solicitude to flatter their

*Harper's and Scribner's have never professed intellectual pretensions. Let me recite a characteristic anecdote. The author of this article has often contributed to American reviews. Early in the war he submitted an article on Péguy. Four of these periodicals returned the article saying that Péguy was not known in America, and therefore would have no interest for their readers; but as soon as Péguy became known they would be only too happy to publish information concerning him.

readers, and eagerness to increase their circulation, subordinate all other considerations. Among these we would count the New York Herald and the Chicago Tribune. During the war the latter paper was a sort of weathercock, though it always maintained a certain standard of decorum. Then we have the great yellow newspapers of former times, the New York World and the New York American, of which only the second still merits that epithet. Thanks to the pernicious power of Mr. Hearst's money there is now a chain of these nauseating sheets, the New York American, Boston American, Chicago American, San Francisco American, and so on. These pander to the lowest tastes of the public, with stories of crimes and scandals and poisonous political propaganda. Hearst put his millions at the service of the Kaiser, doubtless hoping thus to promote his personal ambition. Save for these last exceptions, the condition of the American press is, taking everything into consideration, encouraging. During periods like the present, thinking for its own sake is a luxury. A lowering in the standards of American reviews is merely a relative evil, while the efforts of the daily papers, which reach the great mass of readers, to deal seriously with the public problems of the day are a source for congratulation. There remain the weeklies, which are really the most interesting publications in America at present. Less ephemeral than the dailies, they have borrowed something of the intellectual character which should properly belong to the monthlies. Their importance has been growing for several years; and they have profited by the war. Of course they are not all of one character. There are popular weeklies, like the Saturday Evening Post with a circulation which reaches

fantastic dimensions. These are best described as monthlies printed every week. Then there are weeklies which cater to a thinking and intelligent, but not an intellectual, class such as the Outlook and the Independent. Both of these have a religious coloring which is marked but liberal. They discourage sectarianism, and are hostile to socialism. Their policies are characterized by common sense, and they are free from the snobbishness which is too frequently exhibited by another class of weeklies, which I shall presently describe.

These organs of the intellectuals' are much discussed in America just now. The world has never needed more than in its present crisis the support of men of vision; it appeals for their approval, and it therefore falls at times under the error of confusing them with the intellectuals. Here a curious phenomenon of American psychology presents itself. I must mention it in order not to seem too critical. For to judge merely by the weeklies published for intellectuals, we might ask whether the memorandum of the eighty German scholars was not typical intellectualism, instead of a monstrous insult to the world's intelligence.

Americans rate self-control above all other mental habits. It was the quality they admired among us French during the war. This feeling did as much as the atrocities of the Kaiser's army to make them despise the fanaticism and obstinacy of the pan-Germans. Now this admiration for selfcontrol, which made these weeklies pioneers in advocating America's entering the war, made them the first to turn against the Allies after the war. When America become enthusiastic for the Entente cause, they ceased to see the cause in their disapproval of the enthusiasm. As soon as the nation was carried away by its feelings, they

nte

he assumed it must be wrong; and soon their dislike for emotion turned them against the Allies themselves.

The more the spirit of America was aroused, the more solemnly these editorial sages preached and thundered against it. So since the armistice these periodicals have been filled with elegies instead of odes of victory. Professors of history and economics are afflicted with the same malady as the editors of these weeklies, and support their policy. They feel that their They feel that their dignity, as men of exceptional education and information, forbids their agreeing with the majority. With naïveté, and sometimes with profound ignorance of European affairs, they propagate the absurd legend of French imperialism.

At the time of the armistice there were three of these intellectual weeklies: The New York Nation, the venerable organ of American intellectuals; the New Republic, a much to younger paper, aspiring to be more independent than its conservative colleague, and the Dial, which had just moved from Chicago to New York to join the chorus of its confrères. None of the members of this incredible trio, inspired chiefly with a desire of not thinking like other people, has troubled to take the precaution to escape the charge of deserting the cause of the victorious Allies in order to embrace that of conquered Germany or the Bolsheviki. At times there seems a real emulation of madness among them. Their editors have forgotten entirely the violation of Belgium's neutrality, the atrocities committed by German troops in conquered countries, the Lusitania - and all they see now is the suffering of the poor Germans and the harsh terms of the Treaty.

However, there are shades of difference. Let us take the Nation first.

In 1914 its standing was undisputed. Let us say in passing, that in 1870 it was very unfriendly to France, and that for many years it trumpeted the greatness of Germany. However, some ten or twelve years before the World War it yielded to the general current of friendliness to France, which then began to manifest itself in America. Therefore it was not a matter of surprise when it took up cudgels vigorously, in August, 1914, against the aggressive policies and barbarous practices of Germany. Two or three years later, rumors became current of discord in the management. The responsible editor resigned. A few days later there was a sudden shift of scene. Mr. Villard, who is of German descent, and who, although he might conceal his real sympathies for a time, was not disposed to dissimulate his hostility to the Allies, assumed active management of the periodical, as his financial control permitted him to do. He employed as an editor a visionary Tolstoian pacifist, who served admirably to disguise his own views in the public eye with a veil of disinterested idealism. Soon after the armistice Mr. Villard secured from the Washington Foreign Office a passport

which could not well be refused without appearing to muzzle the press - and left for Europe. He wrote back articles inspired by a spirit of contemptible enmity for the diplomats of Quai d'Orsay, convened in their sumptuous over-decorated palace apartments, and chanted in contras the austere virtue and spirit of fair play which reigned in the sessions of the International Socialist Congress at Bern, with its simple quarters and democratic atmosphere.

Since then the Nation has gone from bad to worse. Is this due to sympathy for Germany, to mere blindness, or to malice? We do not attempt to answer.

It is a most unhappy situation, that's all. However, we need not get excited over this outrageous campaign against us. The bias of the paper is too evident to any intelligent man and the Nation addresses itself to the intelligent public. The government understands the case. When the Nation gets too bad it suppresses some of its issues. We might cite numbers where there is hardly a line that is not written in a spirit of malice. Perhaps we should add that far from advocating the real sentiment of America, the Nation's attacks upon the Allies prove rather that the public opinion of the country is on our side. It is the very futility of its efforts which makes the Nation froth at the mouth. The fact that its circulation has grown largely since the war is due in the first place to its vigorous campaign to secure new subscribers, and in the second place to the fact that, in addition to its political columns, it has literary and scientific sections which maintain a high standard. Furthermore, it publishes really interesting documents relating to the war. It has printed a great deal upon Russia. Many people buy the Nation to obtain original facts about Bolshevism; not because they are supporters of that movement, but often in order to combat it more intelligently.

What we cannot comprehend is, that there are Frenchmen who know the Nation's policy but still continue to contribute to its columns. Do they not see that this is a device of Mr. Villard and his satellites to disguise their real purpose? They are thus able to say: You accuse us of not loving France, but we are publishing long and excellent articles upon French literature, science, and art. Frenchmen among our collaborators.

are

Now let us take the case of the New Republic, which is quite different. It is financed by a very wealthy lady, who

desires, as do so many Americans, to see a publication in that country unhampered by financial cares, and representing the intellectual élite. Its staff embraces several writers of real talent directed by a brilliant young Jew, named Lippmann. All profess to be men of ideas, of advanced and generous thought; but they are characterized by that peculiar absence of national sentiment which we always encounter in publications dominated by Jews. At the outset the New Republic was naturally quite agreed that the monster of pan-Germanism must be crushed. Since that was the popular attitude at the moment, it favored the initial success of this journal. But when Mr. Lippmann and his friends discovered that, in addition to German patriotism, there was also a British patriotism, they reversed their attitude. In this case, too, many Americans supported their course. However, their main object of attack is French nationalism; not because they distrust it more than any other form of patriotism, but simply because America had shown more unreserved enthusiasm for France, and French patriotism has stood in better repute with them than any other excepting, of course, their native American jingoism. The efforts of this journal to combat America's enthusiasm for France commenced as early as 1917, when Messieurs Viviani and Joffre made their triumphal visit to the country. From that time onward it charged France with asking too much of America. It then took the position that the war ought not be prolonged merely for Alsace-Lorraine. After the armistice its editors were in the front rank of those who refused to understand France's position, and unblushingly rang the changes upon the charge of imperialism against Clemenceau and Foch. Possibly we are mis

SU

area

led. However, we cannot avoid suspecting that the editors had a better understanding of the real state of affairs in Europe than they allowed to be seen, but that they simulated this ignorance, so unfortunate for America's European Allies, in order to forward their own ideas more successfully.

The New Republic has at least one advantage over the Nation. It knows what it wants. To judge by what the Nation prints, it would like to see world-wide anarchy for the benefit of Germany. The New Republic is perfectly clear as to its two great articles of faith. It is definitely opposed to the thi Peace Treaty, on the theory that reconstruction is impossible until the nations of Europe renounce their naitional sentiment in favor of a neutrality, and become completely neutral in spirit, even though Germany may profit by such a course. In the second place, the New Republic is definitely in favor of the League of Nations, which it believes can be made to remedy the gross blunders in the Treaty. We may add that the New Republic has done a real service in insisting that America should understand Europe better, and in preaching the doctrine that America has as much need of Europe, particularly of European markets, as Europe has of America.

તમા

ect

ette

Just a word regarding the last member of the trio, the Dial, which has ceased publishing political articles since the beginning of the current year in order to devote its columns entirely to literary subjects. It has changed its headquarters from Chicago to New York for reasons which we do not understand; for it reigned alone in the former city while it has two rivals very similar to itself in its new home. From the first the Dial has been a vigorous opponent of American friendship for the Entente. Its chief complaint against the administration is identical

with that of the Nation and the New Republic; that Wilson promised a peace in accordance with the Fourteen Points, and did not give the country the peace he promised. The Dial is not troubled by the fact that Wilson was not the only person at the conference table in Versailles. There is a shade of difference between this paper and the two we have just mentioned. The Dial is less antagonistic to France than to England. England is the real enemy. The Peace Treaty forces America to guarantee the safety of the British Empire, but why should this be? The United States can get along without the British Empire; so let that Empire get along without the United States. We believe the editors of this journal are honest, but it seems to us quite possible that they have unconsciously fallen under the influence of pro-German propaganda.

The time arrived when many people felt that these three journals should have an antidote. Undoubtedly the very extremes to which they went were a barometer of the real sentiment of the nation. Editors do not become so excited as these editors have become when advocating a universally accepted cause. It was at least peculiar that only the opponents of the Treaty should occupy the tribune, and that the majority should have no organ to express their views. Continued silence might be misinterpreted.

So a weekly was founded to oppose these three papers. There was not much enthusiasm in the effort, because it was generally recognized that the country was already sound on the points at issue. The former editors of the Nation and the New York Evening Post set it going, in 1918, when conditions in Europe and the United States seemed to make the situation a little too easy for the opponents of the Treaty.