Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/883

Rh the verge of a revolution. The mediation of the city council of Copenhagen and others conciliated the Crown and the Socialists, and on April 5 a new Ministry, consisting chiefly of State officials, was appointed to formulate an electoral law and to order new elections. The new law was based on proportional representation in the county districts (Amlskredse), and the supplementary seats system was retained in a slightly altered form. At the Folkething elections (April 25 1920) the Left received 351,000 votes (49 seats), the Conservatives 201,000 (28)," Erhvervsparti " (trades party) 29,000 (4), against the Socialists' 300,000 (42), and the Radicals' 122,000 (17). Niels Neergaard formed the new Left Cabinet on May 5.

On July 7 1920 the international commission handed over the executive power in Zone i, awarded to Denmark by the Allies, to the Danish Government. After the constitutional amend- ments necessitated by this expansion had been adopted, the Folkething elections were held on Sept. 21 1920. In these the people of North Slesvig took part, and the voting age was 25 years for the first time. The results were 41 2,000 votes cast for the Left (52 seats), 390,000 Socialists (48), 217,000 Conservatives (27), 147,000 Radicals (18), 27,000 " Erhvervsparti " (3), and 7,000 for the German candidates (i). The Left maintained the leadership, and the Neergaard Ministry continued.

The problems relating to the constitution and to defence, which formerly were of the greatest consequence, had during later years been thrown into the shade by social problems, and the political parties were in 1920-1 developing in an increasing degree as representing economical interests, and as attached to certain classes: thus the Left was supported by the farmers, the Radicals essentially by the small holders, the Socialists by the industrial labourers, and the Conservatives by the capitalists and the middle classes in the cities.

See also: Erik Arup, Rids af Danmarks Historic (1921); Fr. N6rgaard, Danmark fra 1864 til Genforeningen med Sdnderjylland (1920); Alex. Thorsde, Grundrids af den danske Rigsdag Historic 1866-1015 (1920). (H. Lu.)

Literature. Between 1910 and 1921 Danish literature lost by death several of its representatives already famous Karl Gjellerup (1857-1919), Herman Bang (1857-1912), Peter Nansen (1861-1918), Vilhelm Bergsoe (1835-1911), Sophus Bauditz (1850-1915), Troels Frederick Lund (1840-1921), Edvard Holm (1833-1915) and A. Fredericia (1849-1912). In 1917 Henrik Pontoppidan (b. 1857), the novelist, was awarded the Nobel prize.

While the older generation was still productive, either on the old lines or, as in the case of Karl Gjellerup, taking up new themes (classical, ancient Gothic, Indian), a good many young authors came to the front. Niels Moller (b. 1859) and Ludvig Holstein (b. 1864), in their few but elaborate poems, represented the scepticism and dark views of the 'eighties; Vigo Stuckenberg (1863-1905) and his friend Sophus Clausen belong essentially to the aesthetic renaissance; and partially this may also be said of Sophus Michaelis (b. 1865) and Edvard Blaumuller (1851-1911), although they have some features in common with the younger generation. All these were mostly lyric poets, but Stuckenberg and Michaelis had also written powerful novels.

The foremost younger lyrical poets were Valdemar Rordam (b. 1872; Selected Poems, 1918) and Helge Rode (b. 1870). Thor Lange (1851-1915), as well as Rordam and Moller, made many excellent translations of English and foreign poems. To the same school belong L. C. Nielsen (b. 1871; Cantatas, Children's Songs); Kai Hoffmann (b. 1874; The Town and the Sea, 1902; Selected Poems, 1916); Olaf Hansen (b. 1870; Selected Poems, 1918; Translations from Icelandic); Thoger Larsen (b. 1875; Selected Poems, 1917); Axel Juel (b. 1883). Of a more pessimistic and satirical type is Harald Bergstedt (b. 1877; Jack and Elsie, 1916 " a modern Adam Homo ").

Powerful novels were produced by Harald Kidde (1878-1918) and Johannes Buchholtz (b. 1882). Ever since the latter half of the 'nineties the provincial note had been strong in Danish literature, as represented by writers emanating from the farm- houses and workshops. Foremost stands Jakob Knudsen (1858- 1917), son of a parson, and for a time himself a clergyman but descending from and in the closest contact with Jutland peasants, a novelist of extraordinary power, but without artistic refinement. From Jutland also came Jeppe Aakjaer (b. 1866), a peasant's son and a peasant himself; his masterpieces are short stories and lyrical poems, but he has also written novels and historical essays. Johannes V. Jensen (b. 1873, son of a Jutland veterinary surgeon) has shown himself a master in his treatment of the Danish language (Prehistoric Novels, 1909-19, translations from Frank Norris and Whitman). From Fiinen there is the novelist Morten Kerch; from Zealand, Thorkild Gravlund (b. 1879), partly novel- ist, partly folklorist; Knud Hjorto (b. 1869), a prolific novelist; and from Bornholm, Martin Andersen Nexo (b. 1869), who had given pathetic pictures of the proletarians' lives. H. Bergstedt has manifested a satirical vein of some consideration.

The outstanding name in archaeology has been Sophus Miiller (b. 1846, director of the National Museum till 1921). Ludvig Wimmer (1839-1920) was supreme as a runologist (Danish Runic Monuments, 1895-1908). Folklore has had eminent representatives in H. F. Feilberg (b. 1831; Jullandic Dictionary, Danish Peasant Life), in Evald Fang Kristensen (b. 1843) and in Axel Olrik (1864-1917; Heroic Legends of Denmark; in English 1919). Celebrated linguists are Kristoffer Nyrop (b. 1858; Grammaire historique de la langue franc.aise i.-iv.), and Otto Jespersen (b. 1860; Progress in Language, 1894; Growth and Structure of the English Language, 1905; Modern English Gram- mar, 1900-14). The domestic culture of Scandinavia about 1600 was depicted by Troels Frederick Lund (Daily Life in Scandina- via, i.-xiv.), while Danish and foreign literatures were treated by Vilhelm Andersen (b. 1864) and Valdemar Vedel (b. 1865).

See Vilh. Andersen and Carl S. Petersen, Illustreret dansk Lit- teraturhistorie (1916 seq.); Dahl and Engelstoft, Dansk biografisk Haandlexikon (1918 seq.). (M. K.)

DENTISTRY (see 8.50*). The progress of dentistry in the decade 1910-20 was more rapid and more radical than in any previous period. The cause of this progress was the general advancement in knowledge due to the accumulation of data arising from scientific investigation and the application of the knowledge thus acquired to the prevention and treatment of disease. Until comparatively recent times the extent to which abnormal mouth and teeth conditions are responsible for derangements of health was imperfectly understood. The pioneer studies of W. D. Miller, of Berlin, especially as reported (1891) in a series of communications entitled The Human Mouth as a Focus of Infection, first called attention to the fact that the oral cavity is the habitat and breeding ground for a large group of micro-organisms, many of them possessing pathogenic character which under conditions of lowered resistance invade other parts of the organism and become the direct exciters of bodily disease. Miller also showed that the mouth is the common portal of entry for most of the disease-producing organisms that infect the human body, and further demonstrated that certain mouth bacteria, when injected into the circulation of a test animal, could pass through the blood stream or lymphatic system and establish metastatic foci of inflammatory action at points and in organs remote from the seat of inoculation. These early findings were afterwards confirmed by other investigators, more particularly by Sir Kenneth Goadby, of London. Recognition of the significance and far-reaching importance of the principles under-lying these results of scientific research was only gradually accorded by the general body of the dental profession, and then merely as interesting facts without direct utility in dental practice.

In several communications on septic dentistry, notably in an address delivered in 1910 at the opening exercises of the annual session of the Medical school of McGill University, Montreal, Sir William Hunter, physician and lecturer to the Charing Cross hospital, London, criticised badly conceived and unskilfully executed dental restorative operations, especially in crown and bridge work and the treatment of pulpless teeth, which were performed without regard to surgical asepsis. In this connexion Hunter brought to bear clinical evidence to prove the soundness of his contention that operations so performed leave septic foci


 * These figures indicate the volume and page number of the previous article.