mental Pyrenees, made her a part of Europe. The omission of the Scandinavians, for example, has not been due merely to space considerations. These literatures have, in fact, been less affected by the War, and are more inclined to continue along traditional lines. Where they have diverged they have not taken any direction not already indicated in the literature with which this volume deals. It was decided, therefore, that it would be of greater interest and value to present a view of those countries in which the spirit and mode of writing has been obviously altered by the events of 1914-1918; while Spain at the same time, notwithstanding what has just a neutral but contiguous nation.
·····
A reproof that no compiler of anthologies can hope to escape is one on the score of his inclusions and omissions, but more especially the latter; and when his collection has what most anthologies do not possess, a very specific and limiting, not always highly tangible direction, he finds his problems increased. A glimpse of the nature of these problems may tend to make the reader more lenient.
In dealing, for instance, with the after-War period, with the object of bringing out the essential, animating spirit of the period, is one to attempt to give a view of all the writing which has been done during the twelve years that have elapsed since the signing of the armistice; or should one, rather, confine one's attention to those writers who more truly express the newer and younger spirit of the overlapping decade? That spirit is not always an easy one upon which to lay a finger. There are certain writers with established reputations of one sort or another who are writing as they might have written if the War had never occurred; and these, obviously, what ever their individual significance, do not belong. This will explain certain omissions which, otherwise, might seem inexplicable. On the other hand, those whose mode of writing or whose content is clearly a product of a post-bellum state of intellection and of feeling, one which sometimes borders on anarchy, are evidently to be included. It is the ones in a hazy middle-ground that present the difficulty.
Take the MM. Gide and Valéry, in the French section. Are they to be included or not? Chronology, in such cases, may be of some little assistance. Inspection reveals the fact that the creative Gide, for the greater part, falls without the period, while M. Valéry practically has "come up" within it. The thing to do, from the point of chronology, would seem to be to include Valery, while treating Gide
