CULTURE

Boston has received a sad blow, or at least it might be sad to those who were inclined to take such things as statistics and reputation seriously to heart. The Rev. Charles Francis Potter, speaking at a meeting in New York, having recently made a survey of the "high and low spots on the American cultural map," apparently taking as his standard the per capita appropriation for library maintenance, disclosed the fact that Cleveland has within the last five years passed Boston as the cultural center of the country.

But the blow to Boston, if such a conclusion be one, is slight compared with the condition of Chicago which is described as "not a bit higher on the cultural level than Dayton, Tenn." One is tempted to think that Dr. Potter's inferences may have some deeper basis of judgement than contributions to the maintenance of municipal libraries. Boston may be the object of prejudice in his mind. Since Dayton and Chicago are linked together one is tempted to infer that the Dayton fear of the British have some common origin. Perhaps Boston may be taken to task for its book censorship troubles or its feeling against cracked ice in night clubs. Yet Dr. Potter confesses no personal bias. He spoke of addressing school children and Rotary clubs, and finding that his material had to be graded down from the former to the latter. He spoke of the idealism of America, and the effect the names of Lindbergh and Lincoln have in arousing it. He recounted his telling to the Chamber of Commerce of Columbus, Ohio, that they should import some foreigners to raise the cultural standards. In short he seems to have covered the cultural situation pretty thoroughly and found Cleveland on top and Pittsburgh at the bottom.

Dr. Potter's remarks are interesting and probably many valuable conclusions could be drawn from them. But his method of cultural geography would seem to be doomed to be ineffective. All it can establish or disestablish is reputation, and that is established already.