The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-23

than any other lost or existing book?
| would rather have my sons read, re-
read and memorize the few books
mention, and which DR.. Eliot omits,
than TO have them master all those In
cIuded in his list"
Joseph ID. Grant, book collector. Bo-
hemian club man and reader. was ready
to praise the list of DR.. Eliot for what
1t contained. and to condemn II for
the signal omission OF the bible and
Shakespeare Those omissions aroused
much curiosity on Grants part He
said:
II have had most of the books on
this list and have read them A man
who, UP to the age OF so. has read
and studied those books is well
equipped to talk with almost anybody.
But Shakespeare should not have
been omitted And the bible should
certainly have been included in the list
I would like 70 know DR.. Eliot's reason
for leaving out the bible and Shake
speare-thst is question OF great in
terest."
III. ". Mccartney. who has one OF the
most complete private libraries IN the
city. said that he considered that
Shakespeare and the bible were very
essential to a liberal education. As
professional engineer, Mccartney CON
sidered that works Of science should
have more place in the list-that Hux-
ley or TyndaIl should be included with
Darwin's Origin of Species"
The controversy has extended to the
Stanford campus. The claim put for
ward by the venerable educator Of ths
east that the reading OF the books
selected by him will give any one the
essentials OF a liberal education is
called In question by some members OK
the faculty and fatty denied by others,
particularly those in the department.
of English and letters. Many are un-
willing to discuss the list at all until
they have heard the explanation OF
Harvard's president, and apparently all
believe that such an explanation must
be forthcoming. The exclusion OF the
bible and OF the works of Homer and
Shakespeare Is a matter OF surprise to
all. To several IL is taken as evidences
of some mistake.
Prof. A. G. Newcomer, who heads the
department of English. and who Is well
known for his educational works. has
the following TO say: Il hardly like
to express an opinion until I have read
DR.. Eliots reasons for compiling his
list Of books. None OF his reasons
have as yet been made public. but they
must exist. The list is distinctly an
English selection, tinged with the
sentiment of New England. 1t is sur
prising in some features. notably ths
exclusion of the bible. Homer and
Shakespeare, and the inclusion OF such
a book as the Journal OF John Wool
man Any 10 well read men in the
United States. believe. would have
included the bible and the works OF
these other great men. And II Is my
opinion that these should have been
put in, that they must be put in such
a list. because they have won a place
in English literature that can not be
ignored. Naturally, some OF the books
selected by DR.. Eliot represent indi-
vidual taste and preferences. and IL IL
impossible to obtain a universal sane
ton for such works. The point I par
ticularly wish to emphasize Is that the
list represents individual taste and
that DIR. Eliot must have known IL
when he compiled it,"
Professor n. ID. Gray, a member OF
the English department, and an author
ity on the bible. believes that the ex-
clusion OF that universal work is
strong evidence that there is a mistake
somewhere.
One hesitates to criticise the opin-
ion OF DIR. Eliot OF Harvard" said DR..
Gray, but the omission OF the bible is
very curious and hardly comprehensi-
BILE. The bible Is so infused into Eng
lish literature that il makes the pub
lished list impossible and apparently
not genuine"