Another contrast: Whereas Arcadie has always tried to be intelligible to all its readers, whatever the degree of science and erudition necessary to comprehend the subjects treated, certain of the authors in Homophile Studies abandon themselves to the delights of logomachy, pedantry, and pseudoscientific gibberish. "High-sounding words" abound with them quite as "dirty words" do with Jean Genêt. I shall return to this grave fault in relation to some of the articles referred to later on.

This having been said, the simplest thing to do to enlighten our readers on the Homophile Studies as a whole is to review the most notable articles appearing in the numbers 2 to 5, excepting those on law which have interest only for American readers.

The editorials, taken as a whole, have a more "abrupt" tone than those in Arcadie, being written with a more combative pen. The writers of Homophile Studies affirm intentionally, and repeat quite often, that in the domain of scientific study of homosexuality nothing of much significance has been done up to the present, but that through history, ethnology, anthropology, sociology, biology, and psychology, to believe the brave promoters of One Institute, fundamental basic principles can be established. A high goal this program, but for my part one I do not feel to be indispensable. I am persuaded that for the present it is rather a matter of making inter-disciplinary syntheses, of comparing the results of historic research with those of ethnology; those of biology with those of psychology, etc., rather than attempting to recreate the whole scientific universe. It does not seem to me accurate to say, as does James Kepner, Jr. (Editorial, Summer, 1958), that "The 'authoritative' works are more rare than they are authoritative or comprehensive," nor, as does W. Dorr

Legg (Editorial, Summer, 1959) to say that "history must be judged both shallow and perverse until it shall have been rewritten to accomodate its diverse homosexual components," however, it is true that basic works of an encyclopedic nature although the beginnings do exist, whatever the directors of ONE may believe are in general lacking.

One Institute has decided to attempt that which, here in France, would, I confess, be impossible due to lack of interest on the part of the public: an "encyclopedia of homosexuality." Dr. Merritt has enumerated (Summer, 1958), the major preliminary lines, which include just about all the scientific disciplines; Arcadie is found cited there beside the Wolfenden Report, and my Men of the Great Century beside Hirschfeld, Krafft-Ebing, and René Guyon. It is an impressive, courageous, and solidly thought-out program. If the directing group succeed in carrying it out, they will have rendered an unequalled service to all the homophiles of the world.

Meanwhile, what have been the contributions of Homophile Studies to the different branches of science?

HISTORY, ETHNOLOGY, AND HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY.

1. Henry Hay, "The moral climate of Canaan in the Time of the Judges." (Spring 1958, concluded, Summer, 1958).

The rather severe criticism (referred to above) somewhat surprised the Editors, who took exception to the severity of my judgment. However, I am not the only one to consider this text as a pedantic and heavy compilation, and, what is more, quite lacking in significance as homophile history; in fact, a reader (Miss C., San Mateo, California, Fall, 1958) judges the language impossible, confused, and pedantic without any reason, and she asks "what under the sun has all that

7