did. On the way down through Kansas for two days, we heard him on the

back platform of the private coach, at every station where two or three would gather together—pouring the most terrific physical energy into political bickerings and half-truths, the same at each station—until we drew the press table as far as possible forward, and bore the oppressive heat with shut windows rather than that repeated clamor of words. He would come in conqueringly, the black coat damp with sweat.... I remember the ruffian exhibition with the cattle—steer-torturing, the brand, the snap of bone, the tightened noose, thud of poor beasts to the ground—all in a frame for him—the hat with the pinned-back brim, waving over all....

No other man has been so mighty to keep the pestiferousness of America alive in the minds of medieval Europe. As our representative citizen, he has romped our yankeeisms and cutenesses from Queenstown to Port Said and around. And so it has been for seventeen years since that Tampan camp, from party to group, from fame to notoriety, from brute-shooting and affidavits, to cocktails and new African rivers furnished with sworn statements, from woman’s suffrage back to bayonetism,—always in the sweat and heft of flesh, unvaryingly the animal man.

They say that if a child is bred and born right, his earlier years passed in hands that start him straight—such a child will return to the beauty of his inception, if time and the world are permitted to work sufficient misery upon him; misery being the great corrective. These States of America were bred of a fair dream and born of a singular beauty. The hope of the world today is that as a nation, we restore the old dream, the old inspiration; not a turning back, for that is against the law, but turning to a finer dimension of that old passion which made us a refuge and a brotherhood.

There has been fine living virtue in two recent actions of this government—two bits of high behavior. Through one of these, it seemed that a shaft of light poured down from the fatherland of the future—if day is ahead and not doom. I refer to the return of the Boxer indemnity to China.... It was like a fine moment in a busy life, and there was poetry in the answer from old Mother China.... There are men who love these States well enough to hate her many moments of unworthiness. The other figment of true national character is the determination of the part of Washington to keep her promise to Colombia.... I perceived that T. R. has risen against that, even since his book setting forth the needs of a new predatory impetus for our national life.... To anyone who asks a law to go by, for the good of the country and the rectitude of self, I would say, “Take the side that this man does not, and it will be impossible for you to lose.”

[1] _America and the World-War, by Theodore Roosevelt._ [_Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York._]

Maurice Browne and The Little Theatre

JOHN COWPER POWYS

Sick of war and discussion of war; sick of “first and last things” and discussion of them; deafened by the raucous howling of the preachers, and dumb before the fathomless stupidity of the mob, one may totter into the cool quietness of The Little Theatre just as Heine, scarcely a century ago, escaped from the madness of the crowd, and in that gallery on the Seine fell at the feet of the armless Goddess! And she smiles at us too—poor unknown strangers—just as she smiled at that famous Wanderer; and though “she has no arms to help,” it is enough if for a little while one can rest at her feet and forget “the voices of hate.” It was by the incantation she has never been known to resist that she was drawn here; to rest, after her long pilgrimage: for here she has found the altar they had lost the secret of building, and the incense they had forgotten how to burn! O the heavenly quietness of this place, and the absence, even round about the purlieus of it, of the voices that grate and jar and harrow and murder!

Favete Linguis! Keep the holy silence, good stranger; till thou knowest completely on what ground thou standest. “Numen inest!” There is Deity in this sanctuary. Do the children of Gath howl with laughter, and the daughters of Askalon shake with spleen, that one should speak of Deity in the Fine Arts Building, and of Altars on Michigan Avenue? Let them put out their tongues—let them spit forth their venom—the stone which they have rejected has already become the head-stone of the temple of the Future!

Visit other so-called “Little Theatres,” my friends, and you will understand why the Uranian had to make so long a journey. For there is none like this. They are either—those others—too gaudy and “artistic”; or they are too shoddy, ramshackle, littered, patchy and “bohemian.” This is the place; the place where one can draw large even breaths; the place where one can cool one’s fever; the place where one can drink, as Shelley says, “of deep and liquid rest, forgetful of all ill.”

And it matters not what they are “playing,” this gracious company of Our Lady’s Servants, or whose liturgical “Use” they honor with their acceptance. Many are such “hours,” such “offices.” It makes no difference. One Gregorian Harmony brings them into the circle of One Rhythm. Many and diverse are the offerings they offer up to that great Goddess. Some are wanton and capricious, some grave and solemn, some foreign and exotic, some native-born and natural, some from the market-places of this very city, some from the far-off land of the Goddess’s own engendering; some light as gossamer-seed, from no land at all, but from the kingdom of airy nothings, sans habitation, sans name, sans purpose!

Yes, whatever the words of the “local breviary” we persuade them to adopt to their music, the effect of it upon the listeners is the same. “Razed out” at last are those “written troubles”; “cleansed” at last, of “that perilous stuff,” is the poor “stuff’d bosom”!

Chicago’s Little Theatre is the real “Alsatia”—the authentic “Arcanum”—the true “Hesperidean Grove”! And do you ask how it rose, “like an eschalation,” into being—what hands built it—what genius, what magic, still sustains it? What, do you suppose, questioner at the gate, worked this miracle? What, do you surmise, wrought this spell? Have you really no inkling, in this sphere of the raising of Altars, how such things are done?

Only in one way! There is only one kind of occult adventure—Goethe tells us that—by means of which these Euphorions of Beauty grow into life! There must be the creative spirit of Man, giving the thing “Form”; and the creative spirit of Woman, giving the thing “Color.” Thus we understand. Thus we unravel the mystery. Thus we learn how the impossible happens! Look, inquisitive Stranger, at the Inscription over the entrance to this enchanted retreat. Read the names written upon the door. Do you catch the trick of it now—do you glimpse the clue? _Two_ names are there—our Faust’s and our Helen’s—and behind those two names lurk the creative genius that _wills_, and the creative genius that gives color to what is _willed_. Thus the miracle is accomplished. And behold—Euphorion! For English “Maurice” and American “Nelly” have that inestimable bond, between the links of which alone can the true Parnassian Hyacinths put forth their “hushed, cool-rooted flowers” for the delight of gods and men;—I mean agreement of “opinion,” with diversity of “temperament.”

The supremely happy “chance” of the coming together of these two—why not believe the legend that gives to the very Land of the Muses the spell that achieved it?—resulted in nothing less than that indescribable synthesis of Man’s Intellect and Woman’s Instinct which is the desire of the ages! So ought human beings to be united. So ought their poor mortal “love,” radiating from Zenith to Nadir, to provoke the return of Saturn, the unbinding of Prometheus, the Vita Nuova for which we all pine!

It is in fact the presence of our “New Helen” as the guiding, balancing, mellowing, sweetening influence, in this enterprise, which has enabled the austere “Formula” of the Founder to take to itself flesh and blood. For the director of the Little Theatre of Chicago is no Dilettante—no Petit-Maître of a pompous coterie—no bric-à-brac Virtuoso. Stern and high and cold is his Ideal; clear and clean-cut the lines that limit it! To reproduce in the heart of the great mad City—the City of the “Middle-West”—the City of America—that Rhythm and Harmony which Plato felt as the secret of the ultimate spheres, is not such a thing worthy of the gift of a man’s life?

And it is nothing less than a man’s life, and a woman’s too, which is being given for this. For such temples are not built without the shedding of blood. Those who have ears to hear let them hear! As the wise Lady says, who comes from the Isle of the Saints, “The Bridge to the World’s Future hides within its arches the bodies of the World’s First-Born!” It is not for any “strayed reveller,” however sensitive to what he has seen, to give the word of Initiation to these devoted ones’ long-labored Mystery. Maurice Browne’s methods may be seen, and the passionate irritability of his over-tasked nerves may be teased and rung upon; but the high invisible walls of the Citadel he is raising—the “topless towers” of his Ilium—are not for the searching of the profane. And yet a modest guess may be hazarded as to where, in our horizon, those towers will grow. They will grow, as all true classical ramparts have grown, protecting us from the hordes of vulgarity, out of the ground and soil of inveterate tradition. They will not grow to the tune of the idealization that spurns “reality,” they will grow to the tune of the idealization that sifts, selects, winnows, purifies, and heightens “reality.” They will not be built, they are not being built, according to the fierce fanaticism of any particular School or Cult or Pass-word. The sub-soil of their tradition has been watered by no tears but those of Humanity, and will be sown with no harvest but the harvest of Humanity. If they are more Greek, or more Hebraic, than anything else, that is only because to the Greeks and the Jews rather than to the rest it has been allowed to sweep the unessential absolutely aside and return with clear-eyed innocence to the main facts. Maurice Browne is not the slave of Euripides—though, by God! some might think so—nor is he the slave of the Bible. It is only that he knows too well—too well for his peace and the peace of his friends!—that only from the depths of that one tragic fountain—the naked human heart, my friends—spring the little opal-tinted bubbles that reflect the World!

What has been revealed to our modern Faust in those queer “absences from the Body,”—what has been revealed to him in those hours, when his nerves find us so hard to bear—what “the Mothers” have really whispered to him—who were bold enough even to guess? But this much a poor Satyr of the Outer Court may without impertinence divine. For Maurice Browne the whole world resolves itself into an act of worship. The thing worshiped we know nothing of, save in the eternal rhythm of life; and the “other worshippers” we know nothing of, save in the music which responds to that rhythm; but the whole drama—down the long desperate centuries—resolves itself into nothing less than an attempt to attune to reciprocity those two cadences—the voice of the Unknown World-Priest, intoning through the ages, and the voice of the innumerable generations answering! Have I been able in the remotest degree to indicate why to the good sneering philistines who mock at all this and ask “what is a Little Theatre but—a Little Theatre”? there may come some day a somewhat ghastly awakening, a somewhat damning remorse? In that hour—in that “Judgment”—happy will those citizens of Chicago be who have prepared the way, and not laid themselves down in the way, of the builders of the Abbey of Thelema!

What The Little Theatre is doing is nothing less than a restoration to the worship of the Eternal Gods of an Institution which has been bastardized, perverted and profaned! Think what the Drama in our days has become! Think what “buyers and sellers” have set up their “tables” in the Lord’s House! The Theatre, in our generation, is no more that sacred stage where Life is purged and winnowed and heightened; and where, out of the Tragedy and Comedy of it, clear triumphant music is made audible. Poetic Drama is extinct. And yet can Life be said to be even approximately mimicked by anything less than poetry? _Emotions_ we have enough of and to spare—emotions and sensations! But these are not poetry. These are but the heavy, raw, crude, chemical protoplasm of poetry. Thus the only plays of our time which are beautiful and successful and true to the life-instinct are _Farces_. Farces need not be poetical. They represent the kicking up of satyr-heels round the outer circle of the Dionysian grove. They represent the insurgent rebellion of the humorous mob against all law or rule. And as such they are admirable. As such they have their place. Indeed they are all that is left of admirable in our modern Theatre. They are our only contribution to this world-old act of worship—the contribution of beautifully kicking up our heels! Putting aside Wagner and Strauss and half-a-dozen Latin Opera-Makers, what has our stage got which really answers to the religious exigency of which I am speaking? Nothing but Farce, nothing but Satyr-heels! Devoted revivals of Gilbert and Sullivan restore to us our youth once in a long season and _Fanny’s First Play_ and _Pygmalion_ hit our tired heathen fancy. But for the rest—! Hyperborean morbidities technically adjusted to bourgeois drawing-rooms with snow-avalanches muttering at the window, are indeed enough to make unlaid troublesome ghosts of the great psychological names of Ibsen and Strindberg. But psychology, whether it dissect the old Bourgeois Family or the New Feminist Lure, is, after all, only a transitory analysis of ephemeral situations. It does not spring from what, in the relations between Man and Woman, is eternal and unchangeable. It does not turn into dramatic poetry the long cry of our common fate. The pathological “macabrism” of Ibsen and Strindberg dissolves like mephitic scum when the eternal constellations, under which Job and David and Sophocles wrote, mount up through the deep hushed air. Mr. Browne has an artist’s and an Irishman’s passion for Synge—but he knows better than we could tell him that gaelic Mythology is not classical Mythology and gaelic poetry is not Universal poetry. And so we return to the one old Path—the one undying Tradition. We _literally_ return to it. For, after all their lovely and alluring experiments in a hundred directions, the great work of The Little Theatre—until Mr. Browne writes his own epoch-making Poetic Play—is, as we all confess, the revival of Euripides. It is here and only here that The Little Theatre of Chicago rouses itself, through every nerve and vein of its corporate body, to grand and undistracted reciprocity. And here we are in the presence of a true Renaissance: a Renaissance as authentic and deep as that which the fifteenth century stumbled upon. The truth of what I am saying will be sealed, for the few who understand this “open secret,” by the fact of the instinctive preference displayed, not only by the director but by the whole company, for _The Trojan Women_, over the less universal, the less classical, the more modern _Medea_.

No one who has a real insight into what Poetic Drama means—Poetic Drama the highest of all human Arts—can hesitate for a moment as to where The Little Theatre rises to a permanent and tradition-making height. It rises to such a height in its performance of _The Trojan Women_. And it does so because here and here alone, by reason of the universal nature of the subject—nothing less in fact than the incarnation of World’s Sorrow—every member of the company is touched and attuned and compelled and transfigured to the same ultimate Pity.

It is not only of “Ilion” we think, it is not only for “Ilion” we weep, in those world-deep choruses; we weep for all the sons and daughters of men, doomed by the same doom, who “must endure”—with Argive Helen—“their going hence, even as their coming hither.” The magical Irish “plummet” of Synge does not, cannot, sound much depth;—and before the bowed figures of those world-mourners, carved as if by the chisel of Pheidias, our pathological Hyperborean Phantoms go squeaking, bat-like, to oblivion.

When, in the future, Poetic Drama once more attains the position to which the self-preservative instincts of humanity entitle it, it will be recognized for what it is—the true religious focussing of man’s permanent protest against Fate—lifted above the dust of all ephemeral questioning. It will then be seen that in Poetic Drama, rather than in the noblest sacraments of Religion, the race must find its orchestral unity, the rhythm of its natural and Tragic breathing. And when this is seen, and the history of the thing written, The Chicago Little Theatre, its directors and its company, will receive (too late, as always, for personal relief) their delayed appreciation.

It would be unjust, in any such tentative anticipation of Time’s verdict as these pages suggest, to praise Maurice Browne at the expense of those who so wonderfully work with him. We may have our European blood, our European Formalism; but, after all, our stage is an American stage, our company an American company. In estimating the actual contribution of individual members of the company, to the Idea behind it, it were wise to be cautious and discreet. Any praise of a particular performer must needs fall a little discordantly when a certain impersonal rhythmic orchestration is the note of the whole matter. No such faux-pas is risked in the mention of three names. This “Chicago Renaissance” in which Maurice Browne plays the part of the golden-mouthed Mirandola hath also its young Angelo, “seeking the soul” of light and form and color. The work that has been done is so much, after all, a matter of technical inspiration, that to omit the name of Raymond Johnson from its annals were to write the history of Florence without alluding to Michele. Chicago may indeed regard itself, for all its chaotic tumult, as the Tuscan City of America; for nowhere else is so pure a flame, of single-hearted devotion to Beauty, burning on this side of the Atlantic! And with the name of Raymond Johnson, the artist of the company, it is necessary to link that of Edward Moseman, its greater actor. It is strange that it should have been left to a wandering European—and yet perhaps not strange!—to make audible the prediction, which all discerning dramatic critics must inevitably be making in their hearts, that in not so very many years Mr. Moseman will be recognized, from shore to shore, as the most interesting and most personally-arresting player that this country has produced since Booth.

That a genius of his peculiarly _idiosyncratic_ type should have been magnetized—against his will—into the “formalism” of the One Tradition, is about as good an evidence as could be found of the power and conviction of Maurice Browne’s impersonal Ideal!

The third name I may be allowed to mention, without impertinent intrusion into orchestral harmonies, is the name of Miss Vera White. I am not now referring to Miss White’s untiring constructive labor upon what one might call “the architectural scaffolding” of The Little Theatre’s productions. I am referring to her personal genius as an actress. Nothing more natural, nothing more _inevitable_, nothing more winning and seductive, than this gentle actress’s rendering of the wronged mother in Mrs. Ellis’s Cornish Play could be possibly imagined. And the same enchanting qualities of direct self-effacing emotion will no doubt be even more irresistible when, in a classic role, she comes to play the Nurse in Medea. Of Ellen Van Volkenburg’s own acting in this classic Renaissance which she is helping her husband to summon from “the vasty deep,” I cannot speak; for I have only seen her in those charming “genre” plays where she loves, mischievously enough, to transform herself, like a witch-fairy, into every mortal kind of dream-person! But I know enough of her to know at least one aspect of her October-shadowy moods, which will make us tremble before her Medea!

Well! The Euphorion—the child of this encounter of Past and Present has yet to grow his full wings. He is still a “Ge-Uranic,” a Child-Angel. But those who have had the fortune of being present at the scene of his high engendering will never forget their privilege. “It is a long way” to the shores of Troas from the shores of our Chicago Lake; but for one wanderer at least the great goddess of the Gallery of the Louvre has not worked her spells in vain. Still, with the Elizabethan, we can cry aloud to her through the mists of many journeyings: “Her lips suck forth my soul. See where it flies.”

Winter’s Pride

GEORGE SOULE

Intolerant wind, cold, swift over the sand, An icy-silver sun upon the sea, Back-spraying plumes of molten white Wind-lifted from the curling breakers’ tips That proudly charge the shore with steady roll And crisping plunge, The soft advance of foam— Its million breaking bubbles, Its elfin rush and tingle;

A thousand gulls awing, Startled to dipping flight and curving glide, Their flashing arabesques against the sun Twisting a thousand beauties never still Until they rest, fearless, lifted and falling Upon the surging surf;

And you and I Striding the flat, resilient sand, Seeking the distance tirelessly, Our faces burning, Our speech of silence made, In equal freedom joined perfectly, And our uplifted spirits Plumed like the waves, exulting with the gulls;

These things are potent To cleanse us through the years And to redeem All dull and sluggard hours; These things are proof Of all bright beauty, all swift ecstacy.

Two Points of View

Mrs. Ellis’s Gift to Chicago

MARY ADAMS STEARNS

Love, eugenics, marriage, are not three questions, but merely different aspects of the one great sex problem, which, according to Mrs. Havelock Ellis, must be solved within the hearts and souls of men and women and not by the acts of any legislative body. Those who braved the wind and the rain to hear this well known writer and thinker talk about “Sex and Eugenics” were filled with sharp expectancy as she stepped forward to speak—a short woman about fifty years old, with iron gray hair cut close to her head, piercing blue eyes, eloquent hands and a low voice, wonderfully modulated and seemingly as tireless as her poised, vigorous body; yet expectation seldom fulfills the bright dreams it dangles before our eyes. We let ourselves be carried away with enthusiasm, and then are hurt because our visions lack fulfillment. Some expected too much.

Chicago has welcomed Mrs. Ellis warmly, yet within this cordiality there have been hidden germs of fear, unreasonable hopes, slavish admiration, mental indifference and misunderstanding—it is always so. She is without question in the foremost ranks of women thinkers, and behind her, trying more or less sincerely to gain an understanding of the great truths that she teaches and upholds, are hordes of women—curious, broad-minded, bigoted, desperate, frightened, sane thinkers, and sentimentalists; women who are economic slaves and others who are financially independent. What does Mrs. Ellis mean to each one of them? What message, if any, has she brought? Has she added anything vital and new to our store of sex and eugenic knowledge which is already burdened with much mediocre and even valueless information?

Nothing but death could have kept me away from her lecture in Orchestra Hall February 4th—to which after considerable unnecessary hesitation men were admitted. Although I knew that I was approaching a burning bush I felt it was doomed to be hidden in a cloud of misapprehension, disappointment, and disapproval, and I walked gingerly with my mind open and unprejudiced and alert. I was fully as eager to catch the atmosphere of the audience, to fathom the thoughts of the thousand odd brains that listened, as I was to see and hear Mrs. Ellis herself.

The lecture was an event. The dignity, the lack of sensationalism, the quiet earnestness of what was said revealed a force at work in the world as steady and inevitable as the glacier’s erosion of the Swiss hills. Yet this quality of Mrs. Ellis’s mind is shown in all she writes and is shared by all who read her pages. _Her great gift to Chicago was her personality._ It gleamed through every word she spoke and blazed into a pure white flame, that seemed by its very intensity to create a new heaven and a new earth where love shall rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of souls and bodies consumed by a misunderstood and misused passion.

There were well-known and influential women who stayed away from the lecture because they were afraid—afraid of the truth. Because in their blindness they could not see behind the cheap sensationalism of certain newspapers and understand the spiritual purity for which Mrs. Ellis has always stood. Yet their absence showed them not so much cowards as women incapable of reaching the great white lights of life.

Then there were women who came to the lecture expecting to be shocked; and they went away disappointed. There were women who came laughing and gossiping; and they went away still laughing and wondering what all the fuss was about anyway. They could not see anything extraordinary; it was all rather commonplace and not altogether new.

And a few came quietly, knowing that they were to contact a great earnest and wonderful personality; who above all her broad wisdom stands for the highest ideals that humanity knows—a little woman with a big mind. These went away thoughtfully, and were satisfied, for they understood.

They felt as well as did Mrs. Ellis herself what could and what could not be said on a public platform to a gathering of more than a thousand prejudiced and in some cases antagonistic listeners. They had in their minds, as of course she had also, knowledge of the many scientific volumes that her husband has written. Those familiar with Havelock Ellis were better prepared to listen than the others. They were grounded in the facts and science of sex which has never been disclosed as he has done it, and those who have read his pages know that in them he is the complete scientist, weighing, comparing, crediting, and discrediting the facts that have come to him. In no way are his sex studies propagandic—they are a tremendous reservoir of static power. It has been for his wife and co-worker, she of independent mind and high purpose, to take all this vast collection of scientific information in her small hands, crush out the sordidness, the misery, the heart-sickening perversions and distortions of human lives and holding up the bright ideals, fling them out to her listeners in phrases burning with hope for both men and women and faith that true love will make everything whole.

She did not pose as a righter of personal grievances or a solver of private woes. The individual was lost in the group; details were submerged in generalities; isolated examples made way for guiding principles. When Mrs. Ellis said “We must improve our knowledge if we would improve our morals” and that there can be no guide to right living except that which comes from within, she gave us the key to happiness.

If one might guess, she is a little impatient with laws and quite out of sympathy with those who, knowing but little themselves, try to bind others by rules and regulations which often defeat the very ends for which they were made. “What we want is more eugenics by education, and less eugenics by legislation” she cried; and what she implied many times was that when we come to regard sex love as one of the greatest manifestations of the soul—not one of the offensive expressions of the body—then and then only shall we have eugenic babies and happy men and women.

Mrs. Ellis referred to the sex function as a “great spiritual enterprise” and said that only through the conflict of ideals can progress be made. With “courage, sanity, and cleanliness” in our hearts we must “cease to regard sex as mere animalism,” and must “forge passion into power.” “The sex function is divine fire,” it is “as much an affair of the soul as of the body” and “it is no more disgraceful to function on the sex plane than on the hunger plane or on the thirst plane.” She sees that only in the economic independence of women can sex relations be righted—love and money must be completely divorced. Any form of barter, whether lawfully within marriage or unlawfully outside of marriage, is fatal to the free giving of love. Sex love must exist only where there is affinity—never where there is question of possession. Only by being economically free can a woman raise herself above the rank of a prostitute.

Mrs. Ellis spoke of our changing ideals; that what is normal for the ape is gross for the average man and woman, and that what has been accepted as inevitable by ordinary men and women will be utterly intolerable to the super men and women of the near future. “The woman of the future will be the high priestess of sense, not the victim of sensuality as she now is.” “She will learn to love beautifully and live joyfully.” She referred to the way our bodies have sunk into disrepute ever since Greek times until to the Puritans everything was impure and emphasized the fact that “our bodies and our souls are not enemies, but mates.”

Mrs. Ellis could not in a lecture of this sort have touched upon special sexual situations. She was raising the standards of purity, right living, and sanity; she was creating ideals, she was destroying sordidness, she was upholding the sanctity of knowledge and holiness of a love that is free to give or withhold. She was showing women their weakness and pointing out where men have been tyrannical; she was creating a divine dissatisfaction in every soul that heard her. She was the angel fearing to tread where legislative and police fools rush in and slash about with the sword of reform.

“Create in us clean hearts and our bodies will take care of themselves,” seemed to be her prayer. She showed the goals of happiness and right living; revealed that her own life had proved these things and found them good. Those who went away disappointed were those who expected her to lay down rules and say “This shall you do and that, but not the other thing.” But that is not Mrs. Ellis’s way. She shows us what it is possible to do, but she distinctly leaves it to every individual to find his or her own way, unhampered by law, and free to make mistakes if unavoidable. She points out that some of the world’s greatest geniuses have been neurotics, as Oscar Wilde, Michael Angelo, Chopin, Rosa Bonheur, Nietszche. We must make our own paths by looking within, not trusting to man-made laws and customs.

Those who found the lecture vague and unsatisfactory must increase their knowledge, not expect a woman to tell in thirty-five minutes all she has learned in thirty-five years. Was it not enough for her to confess that we must engage in the sex relation with a “fine passionateness and spiritual deviltry”? Was it not enough for her to set up the ideal that the sex function is the “great spiritual enterprise”? Was it not enough for her to set before men and women the highest ideals that the human mind had yet conceived? And was it not enough to look at and to listen to a woman who knows whereof she speaks and who has lived all that she teaches?

She has found her way through the same clouds of prejudice and prudery that surround us, and to us of Chicago she has given the great privilege of sharing with her what she called the proudest moment of her life and of listening to what, for the first time in her life, she could freely say. Those looking for cheap sensations will not find them in Mrs. Ellis. Those trying to limit human action by passing laws will receive no help from her words. Those hampered by conventions and shackled by fear of the truth must be born again into the beauty and holiness of every side of human life before they can even see the heights whereon Mrs. Ellis stands. Let those who would find happiness for themselves and a happy issue out of the sufferings of the men and women and children and unborn babes, look into their own hearts and bravely face what is there.

Women have always run away from anything sexual as unwomanly. She must face her own nature; she must learn that to most women “the sex impulse is the hunger of her soul”; she must study men and find a way to raise them from the errors into which they have fallen. She must cease to be a prude, and learn to be brave, patient, wise; she must study, read and think. Nothing is unwomanly save dishonesty, and until women are honest enough and fearless enough to face what is within themselves, neither Mrs. Ellis nor anyone else can help them. Mrs. Ellis is a leader, not a driver, and because she has found life good she is an inspiration which no woman can afford to disregard.

Mrs. Ellis’s Failure

MARGARET C. ANDERSON

There was one great fault to be found with Mrs. Ellis’s lecture: it was not illuminating. It might have failed in any number of other ways and still have been a real contribution; but it should not have dared to fall short in that respect, because Mrs. Ellis came forward in the role of one who has a message and because she chose a subject upon which one must have a message or not talk at all. What Mrs. Ellis did is the kind of thing against which our generation has its deepest grudge, and it constitutes a very special case of what we mean when we talk so heatedly about Truth. We mean nothing startling by that:—simply that quality which some one has had the good sense to call “releasing.”

A few days before the lecture Mrs. Ellis said that she might as well call her talk anything except merely “Sex and Eugenics,” because she meant to discuss love, spiritually, sex abnormalities, and many other matters. “I have read all my husband’s manuscripts before they were published and I know he has never told anything but the truth about sex,” she said. “I have waited some thirty years to talk about these things, and I shall tell the truth as I know it, if I am sent to jail or put out of Chicago for it.” On another occasion she said that she meant to talk of those people who, through perverted or inverted sexual tendencies, faced the problem of having to turn their abnormality—perhaps their gift of genius, if we understood these things better—into creative channels. Because of all this it was only natural to expect a message from Mrs. Ellis.

But what actually happened was this: Dr. W. A. Evans opened the meeting by reading a short paper on Havelock Ellis—a paper full of pompous phrases and of real interest in its utter lack of thought. He gave some biographical data which everyone knew, told the dates of Mr. Ellis’s various publications, repeated the chapter titles of one of his less important works, and really said nothing at all. Then Mrs. Ellis read a paper which her husband had written especially for the occasion—the most uninteresting thing that wonderful man has ever written, I am sure. It had a lot of abstractions about masculinism and feminism, and really said nothing at all. (I use the word “nothing” on a basis of Ideas.) Then Mrs. Ellis read her own paper, which was beautifully written and charmingly delivered, and which said nothing at all. She said in brief that there should be no war between body and soul, and that Oscar Wilde should have been understood rather than sent to jail. These things are not ideas; they are common sense. They are all quite simply recognized by thinking people; and most of Mrs. Ellis’s audience was composed of thinking people who wanted her individual philosophy on these matters. They were not asking her for art but for thought—not for expression but for meaning. Her failure was of the sort of which prophets are never guilty.

Of course, Mrs. Ellis may not wish to be considered a prophet or a philosopher. Then there should not have been so much talk of offering a completely new view of sex. She may regard herself as a poet, an interpreter. Very well; then she should have given a substantial vision of a future state when love in all its aspects is valued and understood. Mrs. Ellis cannot be blamed for the sensational stories in the paper. Her suggestion that men be admitted to the lecture because they need education in this field as much as women need it, was made simply and without any thought of sensation. Everybody knows what the press will make of such material as that. And everybody knows how an organization managed exclusively by women is likely to be twisted into silly, sentimental, or malicious issues. But Mrs. Ellis _can_ be blamed for that attitude which promises more than it has to give, and very seriously blamed for that spirit which hints that there may be cause for shame where there is no cause. There has been something altogether too suggestive of “Did my lecture shock you?” in Mrs. Ellis’s attitude. These things are not _shocking_; they are beautiful or terrible, according as they are understood or misrepresented, but so long as the truth about them is faced squarely they should carry no hint of shock. The only test of an “emerged personality” is its arrival at a point where it is not shocked by anything human beings may do or be. You may be deeply moved or terribly hurt, but you are not merely offended or embarrassed or startled. All that brings things down to such a little scale. I don’t know just why, but Mrs. Ellis’s attitude has reminded me of the man who advised me not to read Havelock Ellis’s volumes on the psychology of sex, because after such an experience I could never respect human beings again. If he had been ignorant or puritanical his remark wouldn’t have mattered; but he was a rather well-known sexologist and he believed those books to be very valuable! What he meant was that it is “so disillusioning” to know the truth. If Mrs. Ellis were that sort of person these things I object to wouldn’t matter in the least. As it is, they matter hugely. Her failure to assume that knowledge is too important a thing to concern itself with people’s pruderies is on a par with the man’s failure to recognize that truth is never disastrous.

Nearly all the people in Orchestra Hall that night had read Ellis and Carpenter and Weininger and other scientists, and they expected to hear how far Mrs. Ellis’s personal views coincided or disagreed with these authorities. But she had no intention of such elucidation, it seems. She didn’t say what she thought about free love, free divorce, social motherhood, birth-control, the sex “morality” of the future, or any of these things. On the other side of the question, in her reference to intermediate types, she didn’t mention homosexuality; she had nothing to say about the differences between perversion and inversion, nor did she even hint at Carpenter’s social efforts in behalf of the homosexualist. What does Mrs. Ellis think about Weininger’s statement that intermediate sexual forms are “normal, not pathological phenomena, in all classes of organisms, and their appearance is no proof of physical decadence?” Does she agree with him, in his reference to the idea that inversion is an acquired character and one that has superseded normal sexual impulses, when he says, “It might equally be sought to prove that the sexual inclination of a normal man for a normal woman was an unnatural, acquired habit. In the abstract there is no difference between the normal and the inverted type. In my view all organisms have both homosexuality and heterosexuality.... In spite of all present-day clamor about the existence of different rights for different individualities, there is only one law that governs mankind just as there is only one logic and not several logics. It is in opposition to that law as well as to the theory of punishment according to which the legal offense, not the moral offense, is punished, that we forbid the homosexualist to carry on his practices whilst we allow the heterosexualist full play, so long as both avoid open scandal. Speaking from the standpoint of a purer state of humanity and of a criminal law untainted by the pedagogic idea of punishment as a deterrent, the only logical and rational method of treatment for sexual inverts would be to allow them to seek and obtain what they require where they can, that is to say, among other inverts.” It is not enough to repeat that Shakespeare and Michael Angelo and Alexander The Great and Rosa Bonheur and Sappho were intermediates: how is this science of the future to meet these issues? They move into the realm of the world’s sublime tragedies when one reads the manifesto of a community of such people in Germany:—“The rays of sunshine in the night of our existence are so rare that we are responsive and deeply grateful for the least movement, for every single voice that speaks in our favor in the forum of mankind.” Mrs. Ellis may have thought her audience entirely too unsophisticated, too untutored in these matters, to admit of specific treatment. But that is all the greater reason to talk plainly. When you reflect how difficult it is for the mass to become educated about sex it becomes rather appalling. It is worth your life to get Havelock Ellis’s six volumes from a bookstore or a library. You can only do it with a doctor’s certificate or something of that sort. Even if you ask for Weininger you are taken behind locked doors, forced to swear that you want it out of no “morbid curiosity,” that you will keep it only a week, and above all that you won’t let anyone else read it. Of course, it is practically impossible to do work of this sort under the auspices of women’s medical leagues or similar organizations. But Mrs. Ellis had dared the impossible. I can’t help comparing her with another woman whose lecture on such a subject would be big, brave, beautiful.... I am criticised for having too much about this other woman in THE LITTLE REVIEW; so “not to mention any names,” as the story goes, I will merely say that Emma Goldman could never fail in this way.

It is not a question of what could or could not be said on a public platform; it is a question of what _should_ be said. If the findings of science are not to be made accessible, we must all find ourselves in the position of Rousseau when he said that the renascence of the arts and sciences had not ennobled morals. Isn’t that almost as true now as then? A week ago, as I write, a young man named Roswell Smith was hanged in Chicago for having strangled a four-year-old girl. He had no recollection of the murder, and his father’s testimony brought out the fact that the boy had always been epileptic. Since he must die for his “crime”—oh, the heart-breaking tragedy of his quiet acceptance of that hellish law!—Smith begged that he be allowed to die under the knife, so that at least humanity might benefit by an examination of his brain. But, no—he must be _hanged_: Justice must be done, the public wrath appeased, the penalty held up to other criminals, prevention enforced again by methods which don’t prevent! The governor, unwilling to risk public indignation, salved his conscience by the testimony of one alienist who pronounced Smith “sane.” And so the boy paid the penalty, to the accompaniment of Psalms and readings from the Word—the “_Light_ of the world!” ... And sixty people watched the murder and not a voice was raised in protest. Think of it!—or rather don’t think of it unless you are willing to lose your mind with horror and shame.

How far have we _advanced_ when things like this can still happen among us? With us love is just as punishable as murder or robbery. Mrs. Ellis knows the workings of our courts; she knows of boys and girls, men and women, tortured or crucified every day _for their love_—because it is not expressed according to conventional morality. All this was part of her responsibility on February 4th; and this is why I say she failed.

The Acrobat

ELOISE BRITON

Poised like a panther on a bough He swings and leaps. His taut body flashes clear, And in a long blue arc cuts the hushed air Tense as a cry. The keen, sharp wind of Death Blows after like his shadow, and I feel A strange beast stir in me. I almost wish That which I cannot think, A scream, a falling body ... A new thrill!

But he shoots onward, arms outstretched To clutch at life as it speeds past. His hands grip vise-like; With a wrench That half uproots his fingers, he has caught, And airily He twists about the bar And comes to rest.

Sidewise he sits, and carelessly High up among the winds, His taut body Grown lax and restful. He smiles— As a vain child, pleased with himself, he smiles, While our applause comes up Like incense. He breathes a moment deeply. Then again the supple form grows tense, All wire, all vibrant, Poised for one tingling breath Before another flight.

I watch him And a quick desire comes over me Of those slim hips, Those long! clean! slender limbs That stand for health, and for the sheer Keen beauty of the body. I desire him. And I desire the spirit of the man, The bodily fearlessness, The reckless courage in a swaddled age. I desire him. How lithe and firm would be the child Of such a man....

A Young American Poet

RICHARD ALDINGTON

It is the defect of English, and in a lesser degree of American, criticism that such criticisms as are not merely commercial are doctrinaire. The critic, that is to say, comes to judge a work of art not with an open mind but with a whole horde of prejudices, ignorances, and eruditions which he terms “critical standards.” “A work of art,” you can hear him say, “must be this, must be that, must be the other,” when indeed a work of art may well be no such thing. Just now the cry is all for “modernity,” for lyrical outbursts in praise of machinery, of locomotion, and of violence. And the “critics” obediently fill their minds with these prejudices until at length you discover them solemnly declaring that a work of art has no value except it treat of machinery, of locomotion or of kindred subjects! I have yet to find the critic who approaches his job in the right spirit; who asks himself first, What has the artist attempted to do?, and then, Has he succeeded? The commercial critic is of course the more reprehensible; the doctrinaire critic is nevertheless a serious menace to that liberty of the arts of which one cannot be too jealous. In England especially the doctrinaire critic reigns. Yesterday it was all Nietzsche; then Bergson; now there is a wild fight between a dozen “isms,” combats between traditional imbeciles and revolutionary imbeciles. So that one spends half one’s time becoming an “ist” and the rest of the time in getting rid of the title.

The neglect of the poems of the young American poet—H. D.—who is the subject of this article, is due, I think to the following facts. The author, who apparently possesses a great degree of self-criticism, produces a very small bulk of work and most of it is lost in magazines; such work as attained publicity was judged, before being read, from its surroundings; the work being original, seemed obscure and wantonly destructive of classic English models (you must remember that there are very, very few people in England who have the faintest idea of what is meant by vers libre); the use of initials rather frightened people; and the author had no friends among the professional critics.

Now America has this advantage over most European countries that its inhabitants are mostly willing to accept a fresh view of things. The lack of a “tradition” has advantages as well as disadvantages. An American author, then, is less likely to see things in a conventional way, and is less likely to be deterred from any novel and personal method of expression. (For in 1911, when H. D. began to write the poems I am considering, vers libre was practically unheard of outside France.)

If I were asked to define the chief quality of H. D.’s work I should say: “I can only explain it by a paradox; it is a kind of accurate mystery.” And I should go on to quote the ballad of Sir Patric Spens in which from a cloudy, vague, obscure atmosphere, where nothing is precise, where there is no “story,” no obvious relation between the ideas, certain objects stand out very sharply and clearly with a very keen effect, objects like “the bluid-red wine,” “the braid letter,” the young moon in the old moon’s arms, and the ladies with “their fans intil their hands.” And then I should go on to say that this “accurate mystery” came from the author’s brooding over—not locomotives and machinery—but little corners of gardens, a bit of a stream in some Pennsylvanian meadow, from memories of afternoons along the New Jersey coast, or of a bowl of flowers. Curious, mysterious, rather obscure sort of broodings with startling and very accurate renderings of detail. And then I should explain the author’s use of Hellenic terms and of the rough unaccented metres of Attic choruses and Melic lyrics—like those fragments of Alcaeus and Ibycus and Erinna—by pointing out that it is in those poems—the choruses in the Bacchae, for example—that this particular kind of brooding over nature found its best expression.

Let me quote a portion of a poem to illustrate these qualities: the quality which I have called “accurate mystery,” the quality of brooding over nature and the quality of spontaneous kinship with certain aspects of Hellenic poetry. I take it that, if one liked to be specifically modern the poem could be called “Wind on the New Jersey Coast.” But the author’s innate sense of mystery, of aloofness, just like that of the anonymous author of Sir Patric Spens, makes her place the action in some vague, distant place and time. Though it be contrary to current opinion I hold that the poem gains by this.

HERMES OF THE WAYS

The hard sand breaks, And the grains of it are clear as wine.

Far off over the leagues of it, The wind, Playing on the wide shore, Piles little ridges, And the great waves break over it.

But more than the many-foamed ways Of the sea, I know him Of the triple path-ways, Hermes, Who awaiteth.

Dubious, Facing three ways, Welcoming wayfarers, He whom the sea-orchard shelters from the west, From the east Weathers sea-wind; Fronts the great dunes.

Wind rushes Over the dunes, And the coarse, salt-crusted grass Answers.

Heu, It whips round my ankles!—etc., etc.

I am not willing to have that poem read quickly and cursorarily, as one reads a column of newspaper print. It must be read with some of the close, intense attention with which it was written. Each word and phrase were most carefully considered and arranged. The reader must remember that the object of such writing is not to convey information but to create in the reader a mood, an emotion, a sense of atmosphere. Mr. Yeats is right when he complains that newspapers have spoiled our sense of poetry; we expect poetry to tell us some piece of news, and indeed poetry has no news to tell anyone. Its object is simply to arouse an emotion, and no emotion is ever aroused in a person who skims through a piece of poetry as he skims through a journal.

When I read that poem I have evoked in me a picture—like a picture of Courbet or Boudin—of a white sea roaring on to yellow sands under a bright sky, with the wind sweeping and whistling in the dunes. And I have a feeling that it is a magic sort of picture, of somewhere a great way off, where it would not surprise me to find the image of a god at the cross-roads, with the offerings of simple people about the pedestal. And at the same time I always remember bathing from some sand-dunes near Rye, in Sussex, on a very windy afternoon, when the sand blinded me and the sharp grass cut my ankles as I ran down to the water.

I cannot, of course, tell what sort of an effect such writing has on other people. It may be that I am especially sensitive to it. But let me quote another of the author’s poems, conveying a totally different mood.

SITALKAS

Thou art come at length More beautiful than any cool god In a chamber under Lycia’s far coast, Than any high god who touches us not Here in the seeded grass. Aye, than Argestes, Scattering the broken leaves.

If you ask me to say precisely what that “means” I could only explain it in this way. When I read that poem I experience the emotions I should expect to receive if I were lying in a sunny meadow on some hot late September afternoon—somewhere far inland, where there would be a great silence broken very gently by the rustle of the heavy headed grass and by the stir of falling beech leaves—somewhere so far inland, somewhere so hot, that it would come as a shock of delighted surprise to think of a “cool god in a chamber under Lycia’s far coast.” It does not annoy me that I have never been to Lycia, that I have no more idea who Sitalkas and Argestes were than who Sir Patric Spens was; it is all one; I get my impression just the same, which, I take it, is what the author aimed at. And indeed the odd unknown names give it a very agreeable sense of mystery and of aloofness.

Such are some of the qualities of the work of the young American who hides her identity under the initials H. D. I believe her work is quite unknown in America, though, before the war, I remember seeing some comment on it in a French literary paper. It was in another French review that a critic complained that this author was not interested in aeroplanes and factory chimneys. Somehow I feel quite coldly about factory chimneys when I read sudden intense outbursts of poetry like those I have quoted and like this:

The light of her face falls from its flower As a hyacinth, Hidden in a far valley, Perishes upon burnt grass.

Editorials and Announcements

_On Criticism_

There is something particularly delightful to me in reviewing John Cowper Powys’s book, _Visions and Revisions_, in THE LITTLE REVIEW. For Mr. Powys, though quite unconscious of it, was one of the main inspirations behind the coming-to-be of this magazine. Two years ago we heard him lecture on Pater and Arnold and came from that rite determined, if possible, to reflect something of his attitude, his critical appreciation, in a magazine. I remember the thrill of it very vividly: “_That is criticism!_” we said. And so I am going to let Mr. Powys speak for us by quoting almost the entire preface from his new volume with its critical essays on Rabelais, Dante, Shakespeare, El Greco, Milton, Lamb, Arnold, Shelley, Keats, Nietzsche, Hardy, Dostoevsky, Poe, and others. I am sure that, as THE LITTLE REVIEW’S godfather, he will not mind being quoted so at length:

“Most books of critical essays take upon themselves with unpardonable effrontery, to weigh and judge from their own petty suburban pedestal, the great Shadows they review. It is an insolence! How should Professor This, or Doctor That, whose furthest adventures of ‘dangerous living’ have been squalid philanderings with their neighbors’ wives, bring an Ethical Synthesis to bear that shall put Shakespeare and Hardy, Milton and Rabelais, into appropriate niches?

“Every critic has a right to his own Aesthetic Principles, to his own Ethical Convictions; but when it comes to applying these in tiresome, pedantic agitation, to Edgar Allan Poe and Charles Lamb, we must beg leave to cry off! What we want is not the formulating of new Critical Standards, and the dragging in of the great masters before our last miserable Theory of Art. What we want is an honest, downright and quite _personal_ articulation, as to how these great things in literature really hit us when they find us for the moment natural and off our guard—when they find us as men and women, and not as ethical gramophones....

“There is an absurd notion going about, among those half-educated people who frequent Ethical Platforms, that Literary Criticism must be ‘constructive.’ O that word ‘constructive’! How, in the name of the mystery of genius, can criticism be anything else than an idolatry, a worship, a metamorphosis, a love affair! The pathetic mistake these people make is to fancy that the great artists only lived and wrote in order to buttress up such poor wretches as they are upon the particular little, thin, cardboard platform which is at present their moral security and refuge.

“No one has a right to be a critic whose mind cannot, with Protean receptivity, take first one form and then another, as the great Spells, one by one, are thrown and withdrawn.

“Who wants to know what Professor So-and-So’s view of life may be? We want to use Professor So-and-so as a Mirror, as a Medium, as a Go-Between, as a Sensitive Plate, so that we may once more get the thrill of contact with this or that dead Spirit. He must keep his temperament, our Critic; his peculiar angle of receptivity, his capacity for personal reaction. But it is the reaction of his own natural nerves that we require, not the pallid, second-hand reaction of his tedious, formulated opinions. Why cannot he see that, as a natural man, physiologically, nervously, temperamentally, pathologically different from other men, he is an interesting spectacle, as he comes under the influence first of one great artist and then another, while as a silly, little, preaching school-master, he is only a blot upon the world-mirror!...

“It is because so many of us are so limited in our capacity for ‘variable reaction’ that there are so few good critics. But we are all, I think, more multiple-souled than we care to admit. It is our foolish pride of consistency, our absurd desire to be ‘constructive’ that makes us so dull. A critic need not necessarily approach the world from the ‘pluralistic’ angle; but there must be something of such ‘pluralism’ in his natural temper, or the writers he can respond to will be very few!

“Let it be plainly understood. It is impossible to respond to a great genius half way. It must be all or nothing. If you lack the courage, or the variability, to _go all the way_ with very different masters, and to let your constructive consistency take care of itself, you may become, perhaps, an admirable moralist; you will never be a Clairvoyant critic. All this having been admitted, it still remains that one has a right to draw out from the great writers one loves certain universal aesthetic tests, with which to discriminate between modern productions.

“But even such tests are personal and relative. They are not to be foisted on one’s readers as anything ‘ex cathedra’. One such test is the test of what has been called ‘the grand style’—that grand style against which, as Arnold says, the peculiar vulgarity of our race beats in vain! I do not suppose I shall be accused of perverting my devotion to the ‘grand style’ into an academic ‘narrow way,’ through which I would force every writer I approach. Some most winning and irresistible artists never come near it.

“And yet—what a thing it is! And with what relief do we return to it, after the ‘wallowings’ and ‘rhapsodies,’ the agitations and prostitutions, of those who have it not.

“And what are the elements, the qualities, that go to make up this ‘grand style’?

“Let me first approach the matter negatively. There are certain things that _cannot_—because of something essentially ephemeral in them—be dealt with in the grand style.

“Such are, for instance, our modern controversies about the problem of Sex. We may be Feminists or Anti-Feminists—what you will—and we may be able to throw interesting light on these complicated relations, but we cannot write of them, either in prose or poetry, in the grand style, because the whole discussion is ephemeral; because, with all its gravity, it is irrelevant to the things that ultimately matter!

“Such, to take another example, are our elaborate arguments about the interpretation, ethical or otherwise, of Christian Doctrine. We can be very entertaining, very moral, very eloquent, very subtle, in this particular sphere; but we cannot deal with it in the ‘great style,’ because the permanent issues that really count lie out of reach of such discussion and remain unaffected by it.

“Let me make myself quite clear. Hector and Andromache can talk to one another of their love, of their eternal parting, of their child, and they can do this in the great style; but if they fell into dispute over the particular sex conventions that existed in their age, they might be attractive still, but they would not be uttering words in the ‘great style’....

“The test is always that of Permanence, and of immemorial human association. It is, at bottom, nothing but human association that makes the great style what it is. Things that have, for centuries upon centuries, been associated with human pleasures, human sorrows, and the great recurrent dramatic moments of our lives, can be expressed in this style; and only such things. The great style is a sort of organic, self-evolving work of art, to which the innumerable units of the great human family have all put their hands. That is why so large a portion of what is written in the great style is anonymous—like Homer and much of the Bible and certain old ballads and songs. It is for this reason that Walter Pater is right when he says that the important thing in Religion is the Ceremony, the Litany, the Ritual, the Liturgical Chants, and not the Creeds or the Commandments, or discussion upon Creed or Commandment.... Why, of all the religious books in the world, have ‘the Psalms of David,’ whether in Hebrew or Latin or English, touched men’s souls and melted and consoled them? They are not philosophical. They are not logical. They are not argumentative. They are not moral. And yet they break our hearts with their beauty and appeal!

“It is the same with certain well-known _words_. Is it understood, for instance, why the word ‘Sword’ is always poetical and in ‘the grand style,’ while the word ‘Zeppelin’ or ‘Submarine’ or ‘Gatling gun’ or ‘Howitzer’ can only be introduced by Free Versifiers, who let the ‘grand style’ go to the Devil? The word ‘Sword,’ like the word ‘Plough,’ has gathered about it the human associations of innumerable centuries, and it is impossible to utter it without feeling something of their pressure and their strain. The very existence of the ‘grand style’ is a protest against any false views of ‘progress’ and ‘evolution.’ Man may alleviate his lot in a thousand directions; he may build up one Utopia after another; but the grand style will remain; will remain as the ultimate expression of those aspects of his life that _cannot change_—while he remains Man....

“There are a certain number of solitary spirits moving among us who have a way of troubling us by their aloofness from our controversies, our disputes, our arguments, our ‘great problems.’ We call them Epicures, Pagans, Heathen, Egoists, Hedonists, and Virtuosos. And yet not one of these words exactly fits them. What they are really doing is living in the atmosphere and the temper of ‘the grand style’—and that is why they are so irritating and so provocative! To them the most important thing in the world is to realize to the fullest limit of their consciousness what it means to be born a Man. The actual drama of our mortal existence, reduced to the simplest terms, is not enough to occupy their consciousness and their passion. In this sphere—in the sphere of the ‘inevitable things’ of human life—everything becomes to them a sacrament. Not a Symbol—be it noted—but a Sacrament! The food they eat; the wine they drink; their waking and sleeping; the hesitancies and reluctancies of their devotions; the swift anger of their recoils and retreats; their long loyalties; their savage reversions; their sudden ‘lashings out’; their hate and their love and their affection; the simplicities of these everlasting moods are in all of us—become, every one of them, matters of sacramental efficiency. To regard each day, as it dawns, as a ‘last day,’ and to make of its sunrise, of its noon, of its sun-setting, a rhythmic antiphony to the eternal gods—this is to live in the spirit of the ‘grand style.’ It has nothing to do with ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Saints may practise it, and sometimes do. Sinners often practise it. The whole thing consists in growing vividly conscious of those moods and events which are permanent and human, as compared with those other moods and events which are transitory and unimportant.

“When a man or woman experiences desire, lust, hate, jealousy, devotion, admiration, passion, they are victims of the eternal forces, that can speak, if they will, in ‘the great style.’ When a man or woman ‘argues’ or ‘explains’ or ‘moralizes’ or ‘preaches,’ they are the victims of accidental dust-storms, which rise from futility and return to vanity. That is why Rhetoric, as Rhetoric, can never be in the great style. That is why certain great revolutionary Anarchists, those who have the genius to express in words their heroic defiance of ‘the something rotten in Denmark,’ move us more, and assume a grander outline, than the equally admirable, and possibly more practical, arguments of the Scientific Socialists. It is the eternal appeal we want, to what is basic and primitive and undying in our tempestuous human nature!

“The grand style announces and commands. It weeps and it pleads. It utters oracles and it wrestles with angels. It never apologizes; it never rationalizes; and it never explains. That is why the great ineffable passages in the supreme masters take us by the throat and strike us dumb. Deep calls unto Deep in them, and our heart listens and is silent. To ‘do good scientific thinking’ in the cause of humanity has its well-earned reward; but the gods ‘throw incense’ on a different temper. The ‘fine issues’ that reach them, in their remoteness and disdain, are the ‘fine issues’ of an antagonist worthy of their own swift wrath, their own swift vengeance, and their own swift love....

“Beauty! That is what we all, even the grossest of us, in our heart of hearts is seeking. Lust seeks it; Love creates it; the miracle of Faith finds it—but nothing less, neither truth nor wisdom nor morality nor knowledge, neither progress nor reaction, can quench the thirst we feel.”

_A Benefit Recital_

The sonata recital of Josephine Gerwing and Carol Robinson on March 7 is to be a benefit for THE LITTLE REVIEW. Our gratitude is so deep that we can’t even begin to express it. But you will not be so interested in our gratitude as in our taste: we know both these musicians and we know that whoever comes to them for _music_ will not go away empty. It will be beautiful. The program is on page 59. Tickets are on sale at 917 Fine Arts Building.

_More Nietzsche_

Dr. Foster’s series of Nietzsche articles will be continued in the next issue.

Ten Grotesques

ARTHUR DAVISON FICKE

I. WHY WOMEN HATE ARTISTS

Thanks, belovèd; here’s your pay. Now get you quickly out of the way. For there are many more things to do; And all my pictures can’t image you.

II. THE PRUDENT LOVER

I dreamed a song of a wild, wild love And purposed to follow her flying hair, Singing my music, through vale and grove, Till dusk met the hills—and I clasped her there.

But—mumbling ancient I have become!— I sang two staves, and then gave o’er; And carried my song with prudence home; And nailed it as motto above my door.

Now, the angels in heaven will crown me with bays; And give me a golden trumpet to blow When at last I die, full of virtuous days ... But my wild, wild love—will she ever know?

III. A POETRY-PARTY

Fronting a Dear Child and an Infamy You sat; and watched, with dusk-on-the-mountain eyes, The marching river of the beer go by, Alert in vain for a band-crash of surprise. I also! Dawn, that in respectful way Entered a-liveried, could no lightnings rouse For which I watched; the calling-card of day Flushed with no guilt your Hebridean brows. Wherefore the Infamy and I went down Into a street of windows high and blind. His face, his tongue, his words, his soul, were brown. But from a window lofty and left behind, Like a silver trumpet over the gutter-dirt, You waved!—(I know not what; perhaps a shirt.)

IV. PORTRAIT OF A SPIRITUALLY DISTURBED GENTLEMAN

O piece of garbage rotting on a rug,— To what a final ending hast thou come! Art thou predestined fodder of a bug? Shalt thou no more behold thy Dresden home? When green disintegration works its last Ruin, and all thy atoms writhe and start, Shall no frilled-paper memories from the past Drift spectral down the gravy of thy heart? Can the cold grease from off the dirty plate Make thee forget the ice-box of thy prime, And soon, among the refuse-cans, thy fate Blot out the gay fork-music of old time? Ah well! all music has its awkward flats— And after all, there are the alley-cats!

V. PORTRAIT OF THE INCOMPARABLE JOHN COWPER POWYS, ESQ.

When first the rebel hosts were hurled From heaven,—and as they downward sped Flashed by them world on glimmering world Like mileposts on that road of dread,—

One ruined angel by strange chance On earth lit stranded with spent wing. There, when revived, he took his stance In slightly battered triumphing.

And still he stands; though lightning-riven, More riotous than ere he fell,— Upon his brow the lights of heaven Mixed with a foregleam out of hell.

VI. TO AN OUTRAGEOUS PERSON

God forgive you, O my friend! For, be sure, men never will. Their most righteous wrath shall bend Toward you all the strokes of ill.

You are outcast—Who could bear, Laboring dully, to behold That glad carelessness you wear, Dancing down the sunlight’s gold?

Who, a self-discovered slave, As the burdens on him press, Could but curse you, arrant knave, For your crime of happiness?

All the dogmas of our life Are confuted by your fling,— Taking dullness not to wife, But with wonder wantoning.

All the good and great of earth, Prophecying your bad end, Sourly watch you dance in mirth Up the rainbow, O my friend!

VII. IN A BAR ROOM

Across the polished board, wet and ashine, Appalling incantations late have passed.— For some, the mercy of dull anodyne; For others, hope destined an hour to last. Here has been sold courage to lift the weak That they embrace a great and noble doom. Here some have bought a clue they did not seek Into the wastes of an engulfing gloom. And amorous tears, and high indignant hate, Laughter, desires, passions, and hopes, and rest,— The drunkard’s sleep, the poet’s shout to fate,— All from these bottles filled a human breast! Magician of the apron! Let us see— What is that draught you are shaking now for me?

VIII. THE DEVIL AMONG THE TAILORS

They groaned—“His aims are not as ours.” He mused—“What end to mortal powers?”

They urged—“Your fair ideals have fled.” He smiled.—“The living tramp the dead!”

They told him—“You have done a wrong!” He asked—“Which is my faulty song?”

They cried—“Your life lies wrecked and vain!” He laughed.—“That shell? Pray, look again!”

They shrieked—“Go forth! An outcast be!” He answered—“Thanks. You make me free!”

IX. THE NEWEST BELIEVER

Through his sick brain the shrieking bullet stormed, Wrecking the chambers of his spirit’s state. The gleam that brightened and the glow that warmed Those arrassed halls sank quenched and desolate. Out of the balefully enfolding mesh, Life he would free from dominance of evil; And purpose deeper than the weak-willed flesh Bade him renounce the world, the flesh, the devil. And as I looked upon his shattered face Hideously fronting me in that dark room, I saw the Prophets of the Church take place Beside him,—they who dared the nether gloom For worlds of life or silence far away, So hated they the evil of their day.

X. SONG OF A VERY SMALL DEVIL

He who looks in golden state Down from ramparts of high heaven, Knows he any turn of fate, It must be of evil given— He perhaps shall wander late Downward through the luminous gate.

He who makes himself a gay Dear familiar of things evil,— In some deepest tarn astray, Close-companioned of the Devil,— He can nowhere turn his way Save up brighter slopes of day.

Plight it is, yet clear to see. Hence take solace of your sinning. As ye sink unfathomably, Heaven grows ever easier winning. Therefore ye who saved would be, Come and shake a leg with me!

A New Standard of Art Criticism and a Significant Artist

HUNTLEY CARTER

It has been clear to me for some time that a new standard of art criticism is needed to assist the present-day revaluation of Art. A constant examination of advanced pictures has shown me that the key to revaluation resides in the ultimate effect attained by the new “masters.” In studying this effect I have become aware of certain facts. (1) The effect is one of solid motion at a greater intensity than is found in actuality. It is solid motion actually exaggerated. (By solid motion, I mean motion expressed by actual forms.) (2) The greater the intensity the more it tends to obliterate actuality. (3) There is a fluid motion behind phenomena. This motion informs phenomena but loses its intensity when it becomes phenomenalized. It changes its character from fluid motion to solid motion, as though undergoing a process of conversion similar to that by which water is frozen into ice. (4) The meaning of the attainment of the said effect would therefore seem to be that solid motion, as expressed by artists, is being melted into fluid motion, as ice is melted into water, and water is, in turn, converted into steam. Moreover, the solid motion is being melted by the higher intensity of the fluid motion. In other words fluid motion is converting solid motion into its own flow, or that from whence solid motion came. The conclusion is that the quest for intensity is a sign that artists are awakening to a feeling for fluid motion behind solids.

Perhaps artists are becoming purer mediums. It is conceivable that the revolt against academic formulae and the consequent movement towards neo-primitivism, have had a refining influence. In ridding artists of certain forms of culture and convention, they have removed inner obstacles to the intense stream-line flow or fluid motion, and have made them accessible to the motion itself. Hence the present-day pursuit of abstraction in painting and the tendency of representative forms (i. e.: solids) to disappear from the canvas and to be replaced by non-representative forms (i. e.: fluids). As an example I may point to the shadowy forms pursued by Kandinsky. It is true that many of Kandinsky’s studies do not contain evidence of fluid motion working freely through the artist and tracing its own designs on his canvas. In his earlier studies he certainly expresses solids. He puts down forms which the conventional memory recognizes as having a relation to the known, and thereby defeats his own object. But his recent studies exhibit a refining away of solids and a larger feeling for fluidity, that leads one to believe the artist is striving for a true dream-like state in which the fluid motion is left to express itself at its own degree of intensity. Whether he will ever attain this state is uncertain as yet, especially in view of the intellectual attitude of his writings. In _Spiritual Harmony_, for instance, he is seen working out a scheme of color thus showing he hopes to produce an effect upon the spectator by the use of a mathematical formula. He has evidently conceived the theory that certain colors are equivalent to certain emotions and by adding or subtracting color he can add or subtract an emotion to or from the spectator. Thus yellow equals joy, but add red to the yellow and the effect will be joy tinged with passion. In this way the fluid motion actuating Kandinsky is bound to be subjected to theoretical treatment instead of being left free to do its own work. The emotion of joy in passing through the painter on its way to the spectator will be subjected to mental checks, with the result that it will be deprived of its greatest value in its original intensity.

The study of the aforementioned facts led me in turn to new views on Art, (a) as to the origin and nature of Art, (b) as to the order, intelligibility, and coherence that exist in the natural manifestations of Art, (c) as to the law of growth and progression to be applied to art forms, (d) as to the illumination of this law by a proper standard of criticism. Accordingly I came to see that Art is a potential creative movement in space. It first exists in the fluid motions of the universe and ultimately in a work of art only as the inevitable and efficient expression of itself through a specially adapted medium called the artist. In a metaphysical sense, Art may be said to be a spiritual experience capable of assuming visibility. But it becomes visible only by a process of debasement. Apparently, as I have said, the fluid motion in which Art expresses itself loses its intensity and becomes solid motion in the process of conversion into a work of art, as applied by all civilized artists (as far as we know) up to the present day. In fact, it is only recent years that have witnessed the discovery by the artist of the fluid motion potential in solid motion. Cezanne, Gauguin, and Van Gogh were among the first of the moderns to arrive at the point of realizing this potential character. All three were actively engaged in the refining of solids and suggesting their potential ultimate fluidity. What they actually did was this. They demonstrated that Art is a fluid motion seeking to produce an ultimate creative effect upon the spectator through efficient application, and that fluid motion can only produce its creative effect as fluid motion. Now, largely owing to blindness or wrong direction, artists, with rare exceptions, have hitherto concerned themselves with converting fluid motion into various forms of solid motion. They have in fact stopped at the expression of representative forms of nature and human life, apparently unconscious that in doing so they were not completing the expression of the art flow, but were stopping at a half-way house, so to speak, where of course the maximum creative effect could not be produced. Before this effect can be produced it is necessary to complete the journey by reconverting the solids into fluid motion. It cannot be said that either Cezanne, Van Gogh, or Gauguin completed the magic journey. But if they did not refine away the solids in their canvases and set them going as fluid motion, if they put down forms recognizable as houses, men, trees, and so on, they certainly exhibited such forms undergoing a process of melting. In Van Gogh’s canvases the forms are simply being melted by the fierce internal intensity to which the artist is subjecting them. Van Gogh, perhaps more than any of his contemporaries, shows us known forms in the act of being converted into their original fluid motion. And it is for this reason, I think, Van Gogh’s pictures produce a greater creative effect upon the spectator than any merely representative forms of art. We experience in them a rush of liberated energy due to the change from solidity to fluidity.

So much for the new conception of the origin and nature of Art. With regard to the principles by which Art moves towards its ultimate effect, I believe they are analogous to those by which an unseen agency assumes visibility in natural forms. There is the same order, intelligibility, and coherence throughout. Corresponding to the invariable order of growth and progression in a plant as represented by the seed (enclosing the life and unifying principle) stem, branches, leaves and fruit, is the order of ascent, or perhaps it should be descent, by which Art takes concrete form. First there is the initial flow, then the root-point answering to the seed or unifying principle, then follow in turn, lines, planes, and solids. The fruit and the solids appear to be the culmination of the initial flow, but really they contain a potential power of growth in a realizable fluid motion. This abstract motion has ever since the start been descending and slackening into solid motion, and its forms have become more and more concrete as they attained actuality. Behind these actual forms, it is clear, there is the potentiality of further movement and growth which in our limited state of intelligence we conceive of as realisable only on the original lines. If there is an infinite growth and development inherent in actual forms very few persons are aware of it. Indeed most persons are aware only of particular growth. To them growth begins with the seed and stops with the fruit or its art expression as fruit, and the only form of continuation is to be found in repetition. The old process must be repeated from seed to fruit. According to this view the phenomena of growth as expressed by art-forms is manifested in a succession of parallel movements and not in one continuous and ever-expanding movement. Generally speaking, things are transferred to canvas as they appear, particular solids, not infinite fluids as they are. If they have a life principle in them it is carefully concealed, for they suggest no power of infinite growth. It would seem indeed as though art-expression, during civilized times, has reached a deadlock. For it is noticeable that throughout all the great periods of art-expression, artists have expressed the same things. In the canvases of the old masters a flow of solids manifests itself with depressing regularity. Time, one might think, would have lifted the soul of the artist out of solid space. But, as we know, the feverish desire to express a too solid world has not grown less till of recent years. It may be due to this deadlock that art criticism has seldom risen above mediocrity. How indeed could it reach the highest creative achievement of the critical mind if works of art lack the creative principle to be judged? The creative critic cannot possibly build his house of illumination without the essential fundamental materials. And these the artist must provide. He cannot illuminate the non-existent. And if there are no creative elements to work upon criticism is bound to fall and remain far below the creative standard. It will be uncertain and chaotic in its judgments. History says it is so, and not without proof. It shows us that the art judgment of one age has been sufficient to reverse the art judgment of a previous age. Yet Art itself does not change. If it is badly expressed at any time it is badly expressed for all time. Therefore the said fluctuating judgment has but one interpretation. It means that the judgment itself is at fault, and much of the art criticism to which art critics have given utterance is worthless. The reason is apparent. Art criticism is not based upon a fundamental principle. There is no established law of art criticism.

Of course I shall be told there is no such law to establish, because it does not exist and never will exist. The art critic has been and will continue to be guided by his conscious experience. And as such experience varies from age to age, so judgment founded upon it varies also. But a statement so independent of common sense is plainly nonsense. The law to which I refer is within the critic just as it is within the artist. It does not always operate because it is not allowed to do so. It is hindered by conscious experience. Actually the law is the artist, and if left to itself it would make an efficient application of itself to produce the highest creative effect of which fluid motion is capable. Such is the unconscious method of using the law. The artist uses it not because he can or will but because he must. His picture producing is a work that can only be done in one way, not by thought and reason, not by compulsions and restraints, but through the livingness of free energies left free to find their own expressions through their own channels. His starting point, representing the seed of unity, is sensibility, and feeling if left alone will do everything to unite all parts of his vision, to bind and cement them together. The result would remain as an example of organic growth not limited to solid space but extended to a higher space as far as the emotional impulse in the artist can be expressed by the limited means at his disposal. The question of how far the artist can use solid (that is, dead) materials, paint brushes, and canvas, to reach a transcendental effect (effect of livingness) is one that I must leave for future consideration.

In such a result would be found evidence not only that there is a great principle or law by which art operates and reaches its highest mark humanly possible, but that it remains constant and true in the sensible artist and can be traced running through all he does. If further evidence of the existence of the law is needed I can point to the conscious use of it today by painters who are seeking to give the facts of ordinary experience a non-representative character, as though belonging to a world of abstraction. We know that Picasso is busy converting everyday forms of his own contemporary surroundings into rhythmic shape from which all clichés have been carefully eliminated. We know too that other painters following the epoch-making example of John D. Fergusson are boldly rhythmising the people and affairs of everyday life as though convinced that the big unified rhythmic design is symbolic of the intense movement by which Art moves and expresses itself. We see in their canvases an obvious attempt to give the widest expansion to the fundamental rhythm of each subject treated. At first sight it appears to be a step in the right direction, one leading away from the fallacy or blindness, which led the old masters to turn out wonderful patchworks by giving each object in their canvases a structural unity of its own. Indeed it looks as though these painters have mastered the secret of binding a composition together by a unified design springing from a central note that expands by spontaneous motion till it not only fills the canvas but passes out of it on a very wide sweep, and having order, intelligibility, and coherence in all its parts. It looks as though they have discovered the great law of creative organic unity of which I speak. Closer examination of their work, however, reveals it is not so. For one thing their pictures are not growths from small beginnings to great ends, each the successive sweep of one curve expanding in oneness from a root-point. It is true that the starting point in them may be feeling, as with the work of the unconscious artist. But as soon as feeling has decided the start, knowledge and reason decide the rest. They decide what shapes and colors are to be selected and carefully related to the central shape and color. If the character of the subject is zigzag then the composition will take a zigzag course. If a sharp curve, then sharp curves will be gathered from objects surrounding the central one and related to it. In fact the law of association is called in and kept busy throughout. Everything in a picture is consciously associated just as a builder associates the materials of a house. Intuition is checked by reason.

So we find one principle being applied alike by conscious and unconscious methods. With this difference, that whereas the movement, growth and unity attained by the unconscious method is organic that reached by the conscious method is mechanical. It is the difference between the natural growth of a plant and the artificial manufacture of one. The first is a process whereby the life flow organizes itself. The second a process of eliminating the life flow. The one is mediumistic and spontaneous, the other is volitional and mechanical.

What, it may be asked, is this principle or law? Briefly it is the law of spiral growth and progression traceable in all natural phenomena. It is a law which actuates human nature at its best and which shapes all work done in the finer way. If we wish to see how it operates we cannot do better than symbolize it in the form of a motion-curve starting from a point in space and expanding in ever-widening curves. Thus:

This law may be found completely applied to one picture or it may be traced running through a succession of pictures, each a part of a creative unity, the whole manifesting the growth and development curve of the artist. In the first case the picture would have an organic unity of its own. In it the fluid motion would be seen coming to fruition from the initial point of feeling to its fullest statement as vision at the highest pressure of fluid expression. Thus:

In the second case, each period of the artist’s work represent a section of the development-curve. By placing the sections together it is possible to view his work as a whole and to construct the course of development which he has undergone. And we can tell by the widest sweep of the curve precisely where he stands and how much he has detached himself from the world of solids. Thus:

Needless to say, this motion-curve may be applied as a standard of art-criticism. Indeed it is the business of art critics to experience this curve in themselves and to apply it to all works of art. So far as I know it has never been applied. When it is it will transform art criticism. For it will enable the critic to judge whether a work is an inevitable growth of a movement inherent in the artist,—and to value it rightly and fully in its relation to this movement,—or whether it is merely a bit of clever brain juggling.

I have not time nor space to illustrate in minute detail the truth and importance of the application of this law to art-forms. But I may take one concrete instance of its existence and inevitableness, and of the growth and progress that result whenever the artist happens to work under its guidance. I have within recent months seen the existence of this law and traced the course of its working in the studies of a new and comparatively unknown comer in the world of painting. Here is a painter, Clarence E. King by name, who is undoubtedly working out his high destiny in terms of Art, at the bidding of a force to whose direction he is willing to surrender himself. And he surrenders himself not because he has no judgment, no discriminating sense of his own, but because he believes that the true artist works without volition. I know very little about Mr. King’s first experiences, but I can quite imagine that art-expression came to him as a bewildered dream. Perhaps he felt instinctively it was but an imaginary magician’s wand and the effect it ever sought to produce was far above the limited measure of the artist’s dead materials. It was an effect that could only be attained in one way, not by stone, wood, or canvas, but by direct surrender to its livingness. I remember once receiving a letter from Mr. King in which he hinted at some such transcendental vision of Art and indicated its difficulties—both aesthetic and economic. The latter will be seen to be very real when I say that Mr. King is a poor man, that he has to engage in a mechanical form of occupation which constantly opposes him with the dread of losing guidance and his real purpose, and of falling under the subjection of aims and methods entirely opposed to his own. From the