" The expression "emancipation of women is ambiguous. Emancipation from the political. subordination which is woman's present legal condition is one thing; emancipation from restrictions, fixed in most instances by custom and not by law, which exclude women from certain occupations and professions, is another. They should not be confounded, and it only leads to confusion to lump them together. This paper proposes to deal with the question of women's suffrage. There is something curious about the whole controversy. The arguments of the insurgents claiming their rights are a little naive; but the arguments of their adversaries are curiosities even in the market-place. It turns out on examination that, in the first place, of the two chief objections which the opponents of the movement bring against it, one annihilates the other; that, secondly, these objections taken together suggest a persuasive-the only persuasive-argument in favor of the movement; and, in fact, one of these objections, namely, the ineffaceable distinctions of sex, which the upholders of the present dispensation always keep to the front, and which the insurgents are always inclined to minimize, is just the point which the advocates of women's emancipation ought never to be weary of repeating. ' When one is at a safe distance from the arena, it is hard not to feel a certain sympathy, the sympathy of an outsider, with the insurgents who demand recognition as independent, enfranchised citizens. One at least suspects how galling must be those fetters, however artfully gilded, which keep women continually minors, which make them, as a class, the fellows and peers of children. It must be aggravating when those who desire them to remain without political rights declare woman a far nobler creature than man, that she has a "divine mission," and that it would be a shame and a sin to degrade her by asking her to exercise the rights of citizenship-and other canting humbug. It must be irritating, though assuredly also amusing, when they find their sex divided into " women and "true women," the "true women being those who hug their chains, and the "women "-if they are not called "wild women"-being themselves, the wicked, unsexed insurgents, who are licentious enough to desire emancipation. " But it is not enough to prove that the emancipation of women is just. We may feel pretty certain about any measure that, if it be just in one way, it will work injustice in some other way. It is necessary to prove, further, that it will bring about some desirable result. The opponents of the movement seem to feel this, for they concern themselves little with the justice of the case, and address themselves chiefly to the question of results. We may consider the chief points which they -the "true women and their male champions-urge against the insurrection. These arguments seem to be of two kinds. There is, first, the old a priori argument from nature; and there are, secondly, a number of a posteriori arguments from deplorable results. Sex is externally fixed by nature. It is impossible for men and women to exchange places in the phenomenon of reproduction. The argument is that from this fundamental physical difference flow a multitude of biological differences, and from these, multitudes of psychological differences, so that there is a sexual distinction in intellect, and the female mind is different from the male. In particular, it is said, that the power of rapid intuition belongs to women and is wanting in man; that the power of ratiocination is strongly developed in men but weakly in women. Deduction: women have an entirely different sphere. But if we grant the premises, the inference does not follow. It has never been shown that the peculiar kind of intellect thus ascribed to women is ill adapted for, or incompatible with, the exercise of political rights. Nor has it been shown that the duties of a citizen possessed of political rights would tend to blunt the keen faculty of intuition said to be possessed by women, and so highly valued by their admirers. But this is quite a minor issue. As to the question of "function" and functional interruption," one gladly leaves that to the gynæcologists; merely observing that, whatever bearing the immediate physical conditions of their sex may have on women entering certain professions, it is impossible to see how these conditions can interfere with their exercising the ordinary political rights of a citizen. In the fifth book of the Republic Plato defends the position he assigns to women as governors in his ideal State against the objection that they are disqualified "by nature." He points out that women have all varieties of tastes, aptitudes, and tempers, just like men. The evil results expected to follow political equality of the sexes are of several kinds, having all a close resemblance, and all marked by an exaggeration which is grotesque. It is predicted that, if women get votes, the family will be endangered; that by entering the "masculine sphere," woman will become masculine and sexually unattractive, a false woman, and will cease to perform certain duties which naturally devolve upon her; that the political emancipation of women will lead to liberties and licenses, and emancipations of other kinds, which would endanger the social fabric. But one cannot see any basis for the supposition that the home life would be upheaved or imperiled by extending the franchise to women, and making them eligible for election to Parliament. Observing how few of the men who now possess votes in England make politics their profession, and of the others how few there are whose political rights demand more than a few hours each year, the wild absurdity of the caricature which it is the fashion to draw of a country in which women should vote, becomes apparent. There is no reason to believe that politics would tempt women to abandon domestic life any more than it tempts the majority of men to abandon their occupations. The ultimate effect of granting the franchise to women would doubtless be an enlargement, in certain ways and generally, of their horizon. But surely we have passed the stage of society when a woman's views must be entirely bounded by her nursery and her kitchen. We need not be alarmed. The domestic woman will be always with us. LABOUR AND THE HOURS OF LABOUR. Contemporary Review, London, November. HE Union Congress held at Newcastle in 1891 Tadopted a resolution instructing its Parliamentary Com mittee to introduce an Eight-Hours Bill during the following Session. In due course an Eight-Hours Bill for Miners was introduced and rejected by only 112 in a House of 432. Meantime the question, as affecting industry generally, has been widely agitated in the Press and on Platforms, and during the last General Election the number of Members of Parliament who were pledged to support the Bill next Session exceeds all that its most sanguine advocates would have anticipated. On this question my sympathies are wholly with the workers in their aspirations to obtain a livelihood while working only such hours as will remove from labour the spirit of heaviness, and render it joyous and healthy throughout a long life of toil. To arrive at such a state of things, while maintaining the industrial prosperity of the country, is obviously most desirable in the interests alike of capitalists, employers, workpeople, and the nation as a whole. The one object is not incompatible with the other. On the contrary, as time rolls on, experience teaches us that each of these objects depends upon the attainment of the other. We employers owe more than, as a body, we are inclined to admit, to the improvements in our methods of manufacture due to the firmness and independence of trade combinations. Our industrial steadiness and enterprise are the envy of the world. The energy and pertinacity of Trades Unions have caused Acts of Parliament to be passed which would not otherwise have been promoted by either employers or politicians, all of which have tended to improve British commerce. And it is worthy of note that this improvement has gone on concurrently with great and growing competition of other nations, owing to the development of their own resources. The enormous production of wealth in Great Britain during the present half-century which is due to natural resources, and the labour and skill bestowed on their development, has grown most rapidly during a period remarkable for the extension of the power of Trades Unionism. Prosperity beyond the dreams of avarice has followed in the wake of our industrial habits and customs, and these have undoubtedly been largely promoted by the great labour organizations. Some forty Acts of Parliament, affecting the rules and customs of almost every occupation have been promoted, and mainly supported and extended, by the influence of Trades Unions during the last fifty years. Some deal with the safety and health of the labouring classes as a whole, while in pursuit of their occupations. Others protect women and children from oppression, or conditions of employment unsuited to their age or sex. Many of them have tended to promote improved appliances in all industries, whereby labour is less of a drudgery. Every intelligent employer will admit that his factory or workshop, when equipped with all the comforts and conveniencies and protective appliances prescribed by Parliament for the benefit and protection of his work-people, has become a more valuable property in every sense of the word, and a profit has accrued to him owing to the improved conditions under which his work-people have pro duced. With the improvement in the condition of labourers we witness a greater concern on their part in the maintenance and permanence of the trades whereby they live. This condition of things is quite compatible with their claim to share more fully in the fruits of their labour and the employers' capital combined, in the shape of increased wages and less hours of work. The keen interest they feel in seeking to secure permanence and progress in the trade they pursue has been strikingly shown by the fact that Trades Unions have agreed to reduction of wages, advocated short time, and offered many suggestions involving sacrifice on the part of the workers, in order to stem the tide of temporary adversity. But, notwithstanding the instances of successful agitation for shorter hours in the past, it is now obvious that the most conservative of Trades Unions-those which have prided themselves on the powers, independence, organization, and full representation of the population engaged in their respective industries, have all "caught on" to the Miners' plan of campaign. The serious aspect of this movement is that Parliamentary enactments are demanded to reduce and fix the hours of adult workers in each trade, thus changing the customs of the country and compelling individual Trades Unions to bend to the will of the majority in other trades. Moreover, the State, in legislating in the required direction, would assume all the responsibility for the consequences, and, should injurious results follow, employers and workers alike would look to the State for compensation and reparation. On the grounds of simplicity, safety, expedition, and harmony, I propose to meet the demands of the workers by giving legal sanction to the usage and power which Trades Unions have hitherto employed to reduce the hours of labour. An Act of Parliament should, I submit, be framed to confer on all Trades Unions, the prerogative of determining the hours of work in their respective trades and occupations, whenever they can show that the preponderance of opinion among the workers is in favour of the change they suggest. Experiments in the direction of shortening the hours of labour might, in some cases at least, prove disastrous to those for whose benefit they are designed, especially where the reduction is a spasmodic one, and an Act of Parliament enforcing it might prove mischievous and create widespread dissatisfaction. But the alternative measure I have proposed is free from all these difficulties and dangers. My opinions have been formed and my proposals framed in the light of a wide experience and carefully acquired knowledge of the industries of all nations. I put them forward with all the sense of responsibility that attaches to one who is an employer in one of the great staple industries of our country, who is in intimate association with many other trades, and whose whole interests are involved in a right decision of this great question. SOCIAL WORK AT THE KRUPP FOUNDRIES. S. M. LINDSAY. PHIL Aunals of the American Academy, Philadelphia, November. HILANTHROPIC efforts to improve the condition of the Long Chops efforts to erous und so velition of the American sociology that further discussion of similar movements may seem at first glance unnecessary. Moreover the instances afforded are for the most part valueless, either because the number of persons affected is too small, or the time they have been in operation too short to form reliable conclusions. This objection does not, however, apply to the interesting experiments made by the firm of Friedrich Krupp in connection with the world-famed cast-steel works at Essen on the Ruhe, a tributary of the Rhine. The experiments cover a period of twenty-five years, during which period the number of employés was increased from 8.000 to 25,000. and, with their families, from 30,000 to 85,000 persons. So huge an undertaking on the part of one of the greatest industrial establishments in the world is deserving of more than passing attention. During the period 1850 to 1870, while the Krupp industry was young and growing, the steady influx of population in Essen led to high rents for wretched accommodation, and the establishment of a number of small stores, affording credit, but exacting exorbitant profits. The sanitary condition of the workingmen's quarters was wretched in the extreme, the death-rate amounting to over 5.55 per cent. of the population. These conditions, as a whole, bred discontent among the working-classes in Essen, and led to revolutionary and Socialistic meetings and outbreaks, and, finally, to a great strike in 1872, that lasted six weeks. The firm had already been building houses for its employés, and now an understanding of the conditions gave definiteness and increasing incentive to action. It has followed mainly two lines. One consisted in the erection of good and healthful dwellings, of which the firm has already over 3,700; the other in the establishment by the firm of large stores to free the workingmen of the usurious exactions of the petty shops. Closely related to these two movements have grown up a number of minor schemes, and efforts for the social, moral, and intellectual improvement of the employés. The whole scheme, as it has been carried out in its entirety, consists in: I. The building and renting of workingmen's dwellings. 2. The firm's coöperative stores, and boarding accommodation for unmarried workmen. 3. The treatment and prevention of sickness and disease. 4. Insurance against accident and sickness; pension-funds; savings-banks, etc. To these we may add: The establishment of common and industrial schools, the education of apprentices, and the training of young girls in housekeeping; humanitarian rules in factory work; assistance in maintaining religious teaching, and in charity work. The capital invested in buildings amounts to $3,500,000; the net yield from rent, without deductions for wear and tear, two and a half per cent. In reality, the Krupps have spent these revenues in other ways for the benefit of the men. A question that had to be promptly decided was whether the firm would part with their buildings to such workmen as might wish from time to time to buy their own homes. This was decided in the negative, it being feared that the houses might otherwise pass into the hands of speculators, and the old evils return. The firm in other ways has done all it can to encourage saving, and decides to administer its houses itself, and as much as possible in the interests of the occupants. In 1868, there existed already in Essen a small coöperative store, the majority of whose members were connected with the Krupp works. At the request of the officers of this society the firm took it over and enlarged its scope, making it a complete general store on a large scale. All sales are now made solely on a cash basis. Any person is entitled to buy at the stores, but employés only receive a book, on which all their purchases are entered. At the end of each business year, these books, numbering 11,000 are handed in, and the profits of the year divided among the holders of the books in the proportion of their purchases, and paid in the form of a cash rebate on or before December 15. So rapidly did this Consum Anstalt grow, that in 1890, in addition to the main store 200 feet square, it comprised fifteen retail grocery stores, nine branch stores for manufactured goods, shoe factory and stores, mill and bakery and bread stores, slaughter-house with seven retail stores, two clothing establishments, seven restaurants, one wine-store, an icecompany, a coffee-house, a brush-factory, a laundry, and vegetable-market. Among the employés of the store in 1890, were 499 persons who were either widows or daughters of the workmen in the foundry, and their wages amounted to $10,758. The "Menage" accommodates 800 bachelors with food and lodging, at a cost of twenty cents a day. In conclusion, we desire to repeat the statement of Mr. Krupp, that he devised and has maintained the projects above described, not merely, nor for the most part, as a philanthropic movement. He does not consider the money he has laid out in this way, with the exception, perhaps, of a few side issues, as in any sense a charity, but as a judicious outlay which has brought him in as good a return in monev as his outlay in any other direction. EDUCATION, LITERATURE, ART. BACON vs. SHAKESPEARE. A BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT. EDWIN REED. Arena, Boston, November. II. AVING treated of contemporaneous testimony, we come now to the second of the two foundations on which rest HA the title of William Shakespeare, the actor, to the authorship of the plays and poems popularly attributed to him. II. The unique character of the works. We assume that between 1564 and 1616 there was living but one Shakespeare. In all the ages before and since, the world has not produced another. It is certain that the plays we call Shakespeare's were substantially the product of one mind. The plaintiff in this action is Francis Bacon, a prose writer. His published writings (Spedding's edition) comprise fourteen bulky volumes, on a vast variety of subjects, but without a line of undoubtedly original verse. In the specimens that are given, we vainly search for a spark of that celestial fire which emblazons almost every page of Shakespeare. We indeed find six of the Psalms translated metrically, a little work which the author made haste to publish to the world with a dedication to George Herbert. To us it establishes one proposition incontrovertibly, viz.: Bacon was not averse to being known as a poet, It goes far also to establish another: Bacon was not a poet. We give a specimen : When we sat, all sad and disconsolate, By Babylon upon the river's side, Our harps we had brought with us to the field, Psalm cxxxvii. The philosopher had reached the age of sixty-three when these verses were published. It was one year after the first folio edition of the plays was published, and not more than three after" Timon of Athens " and "Henry VIII." had, as we are told, been written or recast by him. His habits of composition preclude the idea of his having sent anything immature from his pen to the press. Is it within the range of credibility that he concealed his authorship of "King Lear which Richard Grant White pronounces "the most wondrous work of human genius "-while parading before the public in his own name such stuff as this? " It will hardly be necessary to examine at length the two or three other poems which have been attributed by various persons and for various reasans, more or less satisfactory, to Lord Bacon; for, even if genuine, they cannot raise the standard of his poetic abilities much above that fixed by his translation of the Psalms. Clearly the plaintiff, so far as his own poetic compositions are concerned, has no standing in court. The main attack, however, comes from the point of Bacon's prose. The lambent flame that plays along the lines and around the periods in his philosophical works, leaped, we are told, into lightning flashes when he wrote the dramas. One cannot deny a theoretical possibility. Our only resource is to compare prose with prose, the materials for which are abundant. From Bacon: The stage is more beholding to love than the life of man. For asto the stage, love is ever matter of comedies, and of tragedies; but in life it doth much mischief, sometimes like a syren, sometimes like a fury. There is in man's nature a secret inclination and motion towards love of others, which, if it be not spent upon some one or a few, doth naturally spread itself towards many and maketh men become humane and charitable, as is sometimes seen in friars. Nuptial love maketh mankind; friendly love perfecteth it; but wanton love corrupteth and embaseth it.-Essay on Love. From Shakespeare: Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my cause, and be silent that you may hear. If there be any in this assembly, . any dear friend of Cæsar's, to him I say that Brutus's love to Cæsar was no less than his. Had you rather that Cæsar were living and die all slaves, than that Cæsar were dead and live all freemen? As Cæsar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but as he was ambitious, I slew him.-Julius Cæsar, III., 2. The unlikeness of type is apparent at a glance. Bacon is always reminding us of that printer of his Essays who cut them up into inch pieces with commas. The sentences move along as if they were on parade and keeping step. But Shakespeare! What a contrast. As much above rules as the hero of Austerlitz! As free from formality as a meteoric shower! OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. I. Shakespeare made no personal impress on the political or social life of his time. Professionally an actor, and therefore little better than a social outcast, he in common with all others of his class was obliged to pursue his calling under the protection of some one in authority, or, in other words, to be a nobleman's “player." It is evident that no genius, however exalted, could have broken down such a barrier. II. Shakespeare's handwriting indicates a man without cultivation and even without natural refinement. Theories based on problematical sympathy between mental and bodily powers must always yield to ascertained facts. Shakespeare stood at the head of a most exacting profession; and his success in it was phenomenal. The native strength of his character is thus clearly shown. III. The manuscripts of the plays have disappeared, a circumstance perfectly natural if Bacon were the secret author, on any other supposition, mysterious. The editors of the first folio had, as they claim, the author's true original copies, and mention certain peculiarities in the handwriting as characteristic of Shakespeare. The habits of printers at this day make it certain that the laws of mortality apply to literary remains. Had the poet been living, or had his family possessed any interest, financial or otherwise, in the undertaking, the result might have been different. THE TRUSTEESHIP OF SHAKESPEARE'S HOUSE, Leisure Hour, London, November. THE HE picturesque old house in Henley street, Stratford-onAvon, in which William Shakespeare was born, was occupied, and afterwards bought, by his father. Within its walls the poet's boyhood was passed. The property descended to him, and, after his death without male issue, to various others; and in 1847 was offered for sale at auction by the famous George Robins. A relic so remarkable necessarily attracted national attention, and the local. lovers of Shakespeare made a successful effort to secure so famous a relic of the poet's life. Even the Americans were interested, and the notorious Barnum was anxious to secure and to remove so memorable a homestead to his "unrivaled show." A London and local and practically a national committee was formed, and when the sale took place on Sept. 16, 1847, the whole block of property was secured for £3,000. The house had suffered many changes since Shakespeare's days, but the foundations and the larger part of the buildings had remained unimpaired, so that it was easy to “ restore" the house to its original form. This was accomplished afterwards, and with minute and reverent care. Wherever the old timbers had perished they were replaced with others, sufficiently clear to show what was new and what was old. The later buildings had been removed, and the area thrown open so as to mark the exact boundaries of the old house. The house as it now stands is, in fact, the house as it was three hundred years ago. A "trust" of the property was formed for the further preservation of the house, and the arrangements of the terms on which it should be open to all visitors. The members of this trust were selected from some of the most eminent men of the time, with local representatives also of Stratford, both the county and borough, who were “official” and permanent, and certain other life members, elected by the trustees as vacancies occurred. Soon afterwards the trust was enlarged to include the museum and New Place (where Shakespeare passed his later years, and where he died in 1616). The museum has now secured a very valuable collection formed by the late R. B. Wheeler, the historian of Stratford, given by his sister; and the New Place Gardens, presented by the zeal and generosity of the late J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, and now open as a public park. The trust thus became "The Amalgamated Trusts of Shakespeare's Birthplace, Museum, and New Place," and was very carefully and wisely administered by successive "boards." The late Mr. W. O. Hunt, the late Mr. E. F. Flower, and Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, especially took pains to make the trusts worthy of the fame of Shakespeare and Stratford, and the Town Council also deposited their rich and rare collection of manuscripts relating to Stratford within the walls of Shakespeare's house. In 1890 it was found to be needful to revise and extend the "trusts," as the numerous pilgrims to Stratford had enriched the funds to more than £2,000, no part of which could be expended except on the preservation of the buildings and the cost of maintenance of the various officers. A bill was therefore drafted for Parliament, and carried without opposition, thanks to Sir Theodore Martin and Mr. Frederick Haines, and the royal assent was given on March 26, 1891. This act confirmed the former power of the trustees, and empowered them to purchase the Ann Hathaway cottage at Shottery, at their discretion. The ex-officio trustees were to be the Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Warwick, the High Steward of the borough of Stratford-on-Avon, the Mayor of the borough, the Justices of the Peace, the Town Clerk, the vicar of the parish, and the head-master of the grammar school; and the elected members, Ernest Edward Baker, the Rev. Charles Evans, Charles Edward Flower, Edgar Flower, Henry Graves, Frederick Haines, Sir Arthur Hodgson, K.C. M.G., Henry Irving, Sir Theodore Martin, K. C.B., and Samuel Timmins. The trustees meet on or about May 6 every year, and an executive committee of the local members of the board manages the general business. The trustees will miss at their next meeting two familiar faces, the late Mr. Henry Graves and the late Mr. C. E. Flower, whose long-continued and generous services will ever be remembered in the history of the trust. In April this year an offer was made to the executive committee of the famous and picturesque Ann Hathaway Cottage at Shottery, at the enormous price of £3,000, and as only a few days were allowed for the decision. on the plea that other offers had been made to purchase, the executive committee had no choice but to make the purchase, as they had no doubt that their act would be confirmed at the trustees' meeting in May. This was readily and unanimously agreed to, as also the further needful expenditure in repairs and other purchases to restore the Cottage to its original form, and for which some donations will be required, as the necessary expenditure will absorb all the present funds. The number of visitors to Shakespeare's birthplace has greatly increased, and is increasing every year. The record for April 20, 1891-92 shows a total of 15.563 visitors who signed the register, but receipts and other memoranda show the grand total of 20,103, of all nationalities. The Americans may be expected to come in ever-increasing numbers, and their deep interest has already been testified in the gift of a handsome clock-tower and drinking-fountain, presented to the town of Shakespeare by a citizen of Philadelphia, G. W. Childs, in 1887, the Jubilee year of Queen Victoria. like, very little but good could be said of it as a building material, though we should be obliged to deplore the fact that it is such an excellent conductor of heat. Restricted in its use, too, and tastefully moulded, it is not altogether to be condemned for window and door posts, where the close grouping of windows and doors is deemed architecturally desirable. Then, again, the portions of the West exposed to tornadoes should be able to find in iron something that can be anchored and held down when the winds blow. Iron may have its uses, certainly, and they are many. Its conceded merits, however, are thus far mainly structural. What can be said with reference to the æsthetic utility of iron as a building material? In the first place, the temptation to copy all the vices of buildings in wood is ever present to the workman in iron, with a further temptation to magnify those vices, on account of the greater strength of the material. A post that needs to be four or six inches in diameter to sustain its load when constructed of wood, may be safely reduced one-half or two-thirds when constructed of iron, and the reduction is pecuniarily a gain to the landlord. Corresponding reflections might be made with reference to every part of a building. The great tensile strength of iron enables the builder to reserve mere figments of wall faces between his apertures. It may be said, indeed, to have almost demolished the wall as an architectural feature, in a majority of the examples to be observed along our urban thoroughfares, mere columns and pilasters offering all the support needed for the tallest façades. And such columns and pilasters! To such an excess is this reduction in material carried, that men who profess to build in iron, or to build iron fronts, are building mainly of glass and using the iron merely as a foil to cover their deception. The iron parts of the building are naught but an ugly framework to hold the windows and glass doors in place. The wall, so elaborately and lovingly designed in ancient structures, has disappeared, and in its place we have fronts composed chiefly of windows and glass doors, This might be an advantage to architecture were we building conservatories; but, as we are building nothing of the sort for mercantile purposes, our iron fronts are constructed in contempt of architecture. Even the little of iron they contain is hopelessly tasteless in design, conceived on a level with only the lowest of decorative art. Were our iron builders to study merely utility, and leave out their imitations of architectural decorations, true art would be greatly the gainer. It would no longer be caricatured, and the mischievous influence on popular taste of caricatures would be withdrawn. What has been said may be understood as a complete condemnation of iron as a building material, for anything more than structural use in places where it is entirely hidden from view. It is not intended, however, that condemnation should be so sweeping. It may be that the architect for iron buildings has not yet come. It may be that, like the architect for wooden buildings, he can never come, and bring with him a head full of grand ideas. Iron is, equally with wood, unsuitable for the expression of the highest æsthetic sentiment, and this stricture must remain valid even when it is fashioned into a mere imitation of the forms of brick and stone. Yet it is idle to make conjectures as to the possibilities of iron, when an attempt is made to fashion it in imitation of brick and stone. No conscientious architect would make the attempt, and were it made, the coarser forms only of the models could be imitated. There can be little question that iron could be made an available building material for cottages of the class now built of wood, and were it not for the greater cost, we should long since have seen iron largely made a substitute for wood in this kind of construction. The day may come when the cost will be more nearly equalized, and then, in the language of base-ball, iron may have its inning. The processes of its manufacture are much cheaper than the processes for manufacturing wood, and this would give it an advantage after the lumber forests have disappeared. It is more flexible, too, than wood, for moulding into those decorative forms which are thought pretty in cottage architecture. Before iron can enter the field as a competitor for cottagebuilding, wood must be abandoned. We know for certainty one thing only. The use of iron as a material for exterior building or for visible interiors has had a mischievous influence on architectural development in our day. We even observe a disposition among architects who draw plans for brick and stone structures, to give more space to apertures, and less to wall-face, than was thought either tasteful or prudent a few years ago, and this practice does not represent an architectural advantage. It is a sign rather of corruption and decadence. ICELANDIC LITERATURE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, JOHN STEFANSSO. Nordisk Tidskrift fór Vetenskap, Konst, och Industri, Stockholm, Femte Häftet. THE HE Icelandic mind has not been lying fallow since the glorious Edda and Saga days. Its literary productions have been many in spite of unfavorable conditions. With the exception of the fifteenth, every century can show several poets and authors of eminence. In 1889, there were published in Iceland one hundred books, eight serials, and ten newspapers, which certainly does not prove that the Icelanders belong to an archæological collection. B. Th. Melsted has lately published Synisbók islenzkra bókmennta à 19 öld (Icelandic Literature in the Nineteenth Century), in which he gives us specimens of the work of thirty-eight modern Icelandic authors. Half of these are poets, the balance scientists, novelwriters, economists, etc.-and seventeen are still alive. Neo-Icelandic poetry is bound by the same laws of alliteration and assonance as the old. Add to that end-rhymes and it may readily be seen that the Icelandic makes greater demands upon the poet as regards form than any other language. So much more remarkable is it that these difficulties encourage genius rather than discourage it. Icelandic poetry is not like wine, hot from the passion of the South, nor bittersweet; but a strong drink, brewed from Iceland's wonderful nature: Jökelcold and burning lava, the tremendous wash of the Atlantic, the melancholy snow and ice-deserts, and the short summer. In such surroundings and under such influences it is not to be expected that European ideas should prevail. Neo-Icelandic poetry dwells upon the greatness of the past in contrast to the littleness of to-day. The recollection that Iceland has been a Greece to the North causes the mod-. erns to keep the sacred flame alive in the midst of ice and snow. The Icelanders have always been bookish people, and their traditions are rooted too deeply to be torn up easily.. Neo-Icelandic poetry also describes the wild nature of the country. The hard rock-island and inhospitable stony shoreare to the Icelanders wrapped in the golden beams of the fairytale. The deep gloom which often rests upon this poetry comes from the nature of the island and the race that inhabits it. Taine would have had more success in constructing NeoIcelandic literature out of its milieu and the Icelandic race than he had with the English, for here the concurrent traits are. easily discovered and more harmonious. Of external influences, those manifested by Henrick Steffens are the most conspicuous. He gave the start to the national and romantic Renaissance in Icelandic and Danish literature. The forerunner to this Renaissance was Bjarni Thorarensen-1841-a nature-genius like Burns. Thorarensen was, like the old Icelandic poets, an improvisator, throwing off sentiments, emotional outbursts, and passionate feelings like rockets in fireworks. He always looks back to the Edda Age, but the Edda-forms burst when the fullness of his poetry fills them. Most of his poems were the common property of the people long before they were printed. Thorarensen did not renew the linguistic forms; that was reserved for Jonas Hallgrimsson and his followers. When Byron appeared, Walter Scott ceased making verses, as he said: "Byron beat me." When Bjarni Thorarensen had read one of Jonas Hallgrimsson's poems in Fjölnir, he remarked: "I think I had better stop writing verses." After the lapse of one-third of the century, when the bannerbearer, M. Stephenson, was dead in 1833, and when strong patriots had organized a successful Icelandic July revolution, then the national romanticism conquered the day in the magazine. Fjölnir, of 1835. Since then the national literature has been controlled by the linguist, Konrad Gislason, the poet, |