788 



SCIENCE 



[N. a Vol. XXXVI. No. 936 



understands little of the Chinese, and his lack 

 of respect for China and things Chinese is so 

 great as to place him quite beyond the pale of 

 scientists. 



Professor de Groot made his maiden speech 

 in Germany at the July meeting of the Berlin 

 Academy this year. His address is to be 

 found on pages 607-612 of the Sitzungsherichte 

 der Eoniglich Preussischen Ahademie der 

 Wissenschaften of this year. In the address 

 occur these words: 



Sinology without a knowledge of Chinese thrives 

 particularly well also in the United States. It is 

 strong in the magazines, but abounds especially 

 in the daily press. Information is imparted with 

 the rapidity of the telegraph on the most compli- 

 cated and profound secrets of the political, eco- 

 nomic and social life of the Middle Kingdom — 

 but the sources of this omniscience unfortunately, 

 as a rule, are only from the bars of the foreign 

 clubs in Shanghai, Tientsin and Hongkong. 



The harshness and the undignified form of 

 this assertion might be ignored did it not ap- 

 pear in such an important place as the Reports 

 of the Royal Prussian Academy, a serious pub- 

 lication of one of the highest scientific institu- 

 tions of Prussia. It is to be feared that this 

 transplanted Dutch professor has little compre- 

 hension of what is really going on in the world ; 

 certainly he fails utterly to catch the spirit 

 of modern journalism. What student of the 

 Romance languages would cavil with his news- 

 paper correspondent in Paris, who sends home 

 each week his causerie of the goings on at the 

 French capital, thus fulfilling a duty to his 

 community? Or who demands of the Associ- 

 ated Press correspondent in Cairo or Constan- 

 tinople, or even of the correspondent of the 

 London Times, a knowledge of Arabic ; or that 

 the correspondent of the daily press in Bom- 

 bay or Calcutta shall have a knowledge of 

 Hindustani or be a Sanskrit scholar? 



It has been my good fortune and my pleas- 

 ure to become personally acquainted with 

 many American, British, French and German 

 correspondents in China. These men are con- 

 fronted by an exceedingly difficult task. 

 Without exception they do their best to per- 

 form this in accordance with the demand of 



the public and the present course of historical 

 events. Our Associated Press for years has 

 maintained in Peking an able, enthusiastic 

 and well-trained man, who does most excel- 

 lent work in educating the American public 

 to a better appreciation of China. The work 

 done by the Associated Press representative 

 during the busy and stirring days of the revo- 

 lution is excellent in the highest degree. He 

 made no pretense of being a sinologue, but he 

 worked day and night through interpreters to 

 find out what was going on. He and his 

 other fellow journalists, like the representa- 

 tive of the Chicago Daily News and the very 

 able correspondent of the New York Herald — 

 an old hand in the newspaper game — and the 

 very able representative of the New Yorh 

 Tribune, all attempted and succeeded with 

 eminent success in obtaining solid and reliable 

 information from first-hand sources. In this 

 work they were assisted by the Chinese For- 

 eign Ofiice and the whole body of Chinese offi- 

 cials who have for years made it a rule to 

 supply the representatives of the press with 

 news. Professor de Groot's bold statement that 

 the information of the American press on 

 China originates in clubs is a gross distortion 

 of the facts and an utter violation of the truth. 

 Professor de Groot's logic is at fault if he is 

 unable to discriminate between this legiti- 

 mate, honest, and most praiseworthy work of 

 the newspaper correspondents and that which 

 is expected of a sinologue or an ethnologist. 

 Apparently, he is not able to understand that 

 there are men in the world who see things at 

 an angle different from that of the sinologue, 

 and more is the pity that he should hold all 

 in contempt that is not done according to his 

 own one-sided way. 



Professor de Groot's harsh criticism is all 

 the more surprising in view of the fact that he 

 was the guest of this country two years ago, 

 having been invited by the Hartford Theolog- 

 ical Seminary to lecture on the Chinese. It 

 would seem that during this visit he should 

 have gained some knowledge of the many- 

 sided work done in America on Chinese re- 

 search; but no evidence of this is to be found 

 in his Berlin speech. This omission is so 



