Part 3
[We will take this opportunity of answering all those who have verbally or in letters expressed the fear that _The Little Review_ will entirely change its nature and be influenced in the future by its Foreign Editor. I do not want to be flippant, but indeed little faith is shown in us by all those who have known our struggle to be what we believe, and our financial struggle to be at all. Fear not, dear ones. We have learned to be penny wise; we will not be Pound foolish. We agree with Pound in the spirit; if we don’t always agree with him in the letter be sure we will mention it. And Pound didn’t slip up on us unaware. A mutual misery over the situation brought us together.
And you, dear Mrs. O. D. J., what made you think that Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot were “cultured” English? Because geese are white and float upon water they are not necessarily swans. Pound too seems to have enough faith in “good letters” to spare a little for America and share “cultured” English with her. Healthy? The unhealth is in the artistic life of America; and whatever the ailment, bitter and acid medicine seems necessary to cure it. America must not be content for a great while with the stuff produced here—jejune flows of words about popularizing art, home-town poets and great American novelists, and never-been-abroad painters. This seems to content it well enough now.
But I congratulate you on being able to read _The Smart Set_ as literature. Maybe the audience will after all produce the art. I wonder....]
A Poet’s Opinion
Maxwell Bodenheim, New York:
Ezra Pound writes in his editorial which headed your last number that “the two novels by Joyce and Lewis, and Mr. Eliot’s poems, are not only the most important contributions to English literature of the past three years, but are practically the only works of the time in which the creative element is present, which in any way show invention, or a progress beyond precedent work.”
It is easy to make statements of this kind, but, having made them, a critic should tell us on what he bases his dictum. The trouble with criticism of art, today, is that it isn’t criticism. The critic writes statements of untempered liking or disliking, and does not trouble to support them with detailed reasons. We are simply supposed to take the critic’s word for the matter. I haven’t sufficient belief in the infallibility of Ezra Pound’s mind to require no substantiation of his statements. I have several faults to find with his methods of criticising poetry. He’s a bit too easily swayed by his personal emotions, in that regard. I happen to know that in an article of his, which appeared in _Poetry_, some time ago he omitted the name of a very good modern American poet, from the “American-Team” he was mentioning, merely because he has a personal dislike for that poet.
He has also, too great a longing to separate poets into arbitrary teams, of best and worst. Poets are either black or white to him—never grey.
In speaking of Harriet Monroe he says that she has conducted her magazine in a spirited manner, considering the fact that she is faced with the practical problem of circulating a magazine in a certain peculiar milieu. But he does not add that those are not the colors in which Miss Monroe, herself, comes forth. If she admitted that she was a practical woman, trying to print as much good poetry as she can, and still gain readers, there would only be the question of whether one believed that compromise is always the only method of assuring the existence of a magazine. But she refuses to admit that she is a serious compromiser. She stands upon a pedestal of utter idealism. Mr. Pound did not mention this aspect.
His claim that Eliot is the only really creative poet brought forth during recent times is absurd. H. D., Fletcher, Marianne Moore, Williams, Michelson at his best, Carl Sandburg, and Wallace Stevens are certainly not inevitably below Eliot in quality of work. Eliot’s work is utterly original, attains moments of delicate satire, and digs into the tangled inner dishonesties of men. But many of the poets I have mentioned are as good in their own way as Eliot is in his, in addition to their being just as original as he. I have not Mr. Pound’s fondness for making lists, so I’m afraid I may have omitted the names of some American poets entitled to mention, even from my own limited view point. But I will say that at least the number of poets I have mentioned are fully the equals of Mr. Pound’s nominee for supreme honors—T. S. Eliot.
[I get very tired of the talk about the establishment of two autocracies of opinion, and the claim that since each is the opinion of a capable brain each has therefore the right to serious artistic consideration. Now it is a fact that one particular kind of brain can put forward this claim and establish its legitimate autocracy. It is the brain that functions aesthetically rather than emotionally. Most artists haven’t this kind. Their work drains their aesthetic reserve—and they usually talk rot about art. There are thousands of examples—such as Beethoven treasuring the worst poetry he could find. There are notable exceptions, such as Leonardo, such as Gaudier-Brzeska. Ezra Pound seems to have this kind of brain. I am not familiar with all his judgments, but those I have read have always been characterized by an aesthetic synthesis which means that he can rightly be called a “critic.”
To this kind of brain things _are_ black and white—which means good or bad of their kind. If by grey you mean that a poet is almost good, then the critic will have to call him black, meaning that he is a bad poet. There is no middle ground. If by grey you mean that he is a grey poet doing good grey work, then the critic will call him white—meaning that he is a good poet—_M. C. A._]
Complaint
New York Subscribers:
We have read the first installment of the much-advertised London stuff and our comment is that unless “And ...” and “The Reader Critic” are restored, and at once, we withdraw our moral and financial support.
For the Archeologist
That great journal, _The New Republic_—I cannot say that great contemporary journal: it is here with us in the flesh, but in the spirit it abides with the Bible, the Koran, the Books of Maroni, and all great and ancient works of prophecy, truth and revelation—that great journal, mentioning even the least of us, spoke thus: “There was _The Little Review_ which began in high spirits, published some interesting experiments and a few achievements, and in the course of three years has sunk to pink covers with purple labels and an issue ecstatically dedicated to Mary Garden.”
When these quaverings of senility reached us we were laid waste and brought to silence. We knew not whether Isaiah or Hosea or Mohamet had spoken.
But now from the archives of _The New Republic_ comes this fragment in the form of a rejection of some Chinese poetry: “Our expert on Chinese poetry does not think that these translations are ... etc.” We feel that we have come upon something of great interest to archeologists and to all our readers who are excited over the Mysteries of History. Is it possible that Li Po himself may be on the staff of _The New Republic_, now too old to create but still retained on its board of experts?
Mary MacLane’s Criticism
Mary MacLane, Butte, Montana:
All your bits of criticism of my book are true—but didn’t I say them first? Don’t I say I have a conscience? Don’t I say it’s an exasperating book—don’t I say it’s all incongruous? Don’t I tacitly tell you fifty times it is not creative but photographic? I call it a diary of human days: just that. Not artist days nor poet days. Human days must include the teakettle, the smoking chimney and the word Refined. Refined is not my word at all. In my bright lexicon there’s no such word. I use it because I am living human days and perforce encountering such words now and again. Have you the courage, jh, to tell me I am too subtle, too sub-analytic, for you? I set apart the word Refined to show it’s “their” word, not mine. Yet you solemnly take me to task for questioning the “refinement”, the “sincerity,” of my mountain shower-bath emotions. I don’t question anything. I’m saying what “they” do: In “someway the Lesbian” chapter I maintain I doubly prove, not “refute,” my analytic freedom. The book being human days includes the domestic thing. I live in a house and like it. I write as a human being not as an artist. You can’t get away from your tooth-brush. “Human days” includes satyrs and sisters looked at from exactly the same vantage—unless you’re a Christian Endeavor. You write justly, jh, but why label me with that “sexual”? I wrote also of my shoes: I contributed also the theory of Shoes.
[Dear “I Mary MacLane”: All you have to say about my “criticism” of your book sounds just to me. Yes, you said them first and fifty times at least; that’s why I mentioned them at all. I thought perhaps the reason you said them so often was because you hoped it otherwise. Perhaps you are too “subtle,” too “sub-analytic,” too educated for me. I am just a painter. While I know, from the aching of the heart to the sickness of the stomach, what human days must include, I haven’t yet got to the point where I am willing to believe that writing a book doesn’t come under the same laws as painting a picture, sculping, or making music. If subject is not transformed into design by some inevitable quality in the artist then you have not made a book; you have merely helped to clutter up the place. I may be narrow-minded but I can’t quite see any art as a common activity or a household duty, indulged in or performed as an either=or. “I will clean off the snow or paint a picture; I will milk the cow or do a little modelling.” I haven’t been about enough to have found it so in any families; nor have I read enough to have found it so in many families, except perhaps the Da Vinci family.
“Refined is not my word,” you say. I think the book exonerates you; but why your concern with it at all was my point, not my criticism.
As to the label “sexual,” I meant shoes and all,—the whole hereditary attitude, in your case intriguing because neurasthenic.
Sorry: but I did not solemnly take you to task. One must even criticize with joy.—_jh._]
From “The Dial”
“A quaint manifestation of editorial ethics crops out in the April issue of _The Little Review_. It is in connection with a vers libre contest, this being the issue in which the awards are made. There was a regularly constituted board of judges—three people sufficiently competent and sufficiently well known in their field; but the editor has chosen to indulge in some disclosures as to the lack of unanimity amongst her aides and even in some pointed animadversions on their tastes and preferences. Of the first choice of one of them, she says: What is there in the ‘subtle depth of thought’? Almost every kind of person in the world has had this thought. And what is there in the ‘treatment to make it poetry?’ And the poem itself follows. Of the two chosen for prizes by another judge, she observes: ‘These two poems are pretty awful’—and she prints them, with the authors’ names, as before. The third judge plumped for a pair of others—‘provided Richard Aldington wrote them; otherwise not.... If he wrote them they are authentic as well as lovely; but if he did not, so flagrant an imitation ought not to be encouraged.’ A perfectly sound position to take. Here again the poems follow—and they are under a name not Aldington’s. Query: has the judge, whose name is given too, exactly made a friend? Then comes, of course, a succession of poems approved by the editor but ignored by her helpers.... If such a system spreads, the embarrassments and even perils of judgeship will grow. Hereafter few may care to serve as judges, except under stipulations designed to afford some protection. And as for the poor poets themselves, such treatment should act to keep them out of ‘contests’ altogether.”
[Here is the old _Dial_ showing them all up. So there is an American editorial association just like the American Medical Association with all its criminology of professional ethics!
We thought that the idea of that verse libre contest (it wasn’t our idea) was to stimulate interest in and more understanding of free verse, not to offer an operation for judges nor a fee for poets. Taking it simply as a free verse contest, the editor thought the only concern was with free verse. Since when has Art to do with ethics or with taste? If the poets and judges in the contest were as impersonal, direct, and sincere in their attitude toward poetry as the editor, the fussy anxiety of _The Dial_ over their plight is needless. But of course if to serve poetry is to serve yourself there isn’t much point to a contest except the money. On the other hand, if a contest is to be run on the “tastes and preferences” or sensitiveness of the judges then it is clear that the neatest poem chosen by the touchiest judge should win, provided the poet who wrote it was also easily offended and needed the money badly.
“And as for the _poor_ poets” there should be _something_ to keep them out of contests—and also out of any other literary activity.—_jh._]
You Do Us Too Much Honor
Louis Puteklis, Cambridge, Mass:
... You see it is a fact that your “art for art’s sake” cannot exist without supporters: nothing is free from economic conditions which are the creators and destroyers of people’s tendencies and deeds.
Although I appreciate your surprising efforts, I must confess that I cannot yet agree with your dictum as to “the two most important radical organs of contemporary literature.” Until you strike your roots deeper you cannot soar so high. As for me, I am in touch already with many other radical magazines in English and in other languages. Radicalism does not consist in vers libre which murmurs about green grass, soft kisses, clinging limbs, ecstasy and faintness, the surprises of passionate intercourse. There is too much of such sensual poetry: Solomon long ago played the changes on that theme. Such poems come perilously near the emanations of diseased sexual appetites. There is neither life nor originality in them. When I read “green grass,” I know that I am close upon “clinging limbs.” Drink deeper of the Pierian fount; don’t disturb the grasshoppers!
I think that _The Little Review_ must scatter more sensible seed in the future and throw away the tares. It will do better, I believe, to take for its province: Literature, Life, Science; all the fine arts are too much for its scope; each has its own organs.
Still _The Little Review_ is doing good. Long life to it and may it do better!
[You see, we said that _The Egoist_ and _The Little Review_ are radical organs of contemporary literature. That’s all: not economic, social, or religious. As we have stated a number of times: since all the arts are from the same source we are not getting out of our province or making our scope too wide by keeping to Art. Your advice about reducing to Literature, Life, Science, is a great compliment to our scope, but—well, for the present we can’t take up such limited and special subjects as Life, or such obvious and untaxing ones as Science.—_jh._]
The Little Review Book Shop
You may order any book you want from us and we have the facilities for delivering or mailing it to you at whatever time you specify.
You may come in and look over our stock and take your selections with you.
Some of the books you will want are these:
James Joyce’s _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_. $1.50
Nexo’s _Pelle the Conqueror_. Four volumes, $5.00
Gilbert Cannan’s _Mendel_. $1.50
Romain Rolland’s _Jean Christophe_. Three volumes, $5.00
D. H. Lawrence’s _Prussian Officer_ and _Twilight in Italy_, $1.50 each.
Ethel Sidgwick’s _Promise_ and _Succession_. Each $1.50
Ezra Pound’s _Memoir of Gaudier-Brzeska_. $3.50
_The Imagist Anthology, 1917._ 75 cents
_Verharen’s Love Poems_, translated by Flint, Arthur Symons, etc. $1.50
Willard Huntington Wright’s _Modern Painting_ and _The Creative Will_. $2.50 and $1.50
Tagore’s _Reminiscences_ and _Personality_. Each $1.50
The complete works of Anatole France. Per volume, $1.25
The Works of Henri Fabre. 6 volumes. Each $1.50
The Works of Mark Twain. 25 volumes, $25.00
_Creative Intelligence_, by John Dewey and others. $2.00
Carl Sandburg’s _Chicago Poems_. $1.25
Joseph Conrad’s _The Shadow Line_. $1.35
Maurice Hewlett’s _Thorgils_. $1.35
Andreyev’s _The Little Angel_, _The Crushed Flower_, etc. $1.35 and $1.50
Kuprin’s _A Slave Soul_. $1.50
Tchekoff’s _The Kiss_, _The Darling_, _The Duel_, _The Black Monk_. Each $1.25
Gorky’s _Confession_ and _Twenty-Six Men and a Girl_. $1.35
Dostoevsky’s _The Eternal Husband_. $1.50
Gogol’s _Dead Souls_, _Taras Bulba_, _The Mantle_. $1.40, $1.35
Sologub’s _The Sweet-Scented Name_. $1.50
Artzibashef’s _Sanine_, _The Millionaire_, _The Breaking-Point_. Each $1.50
The Works of Freud and Jung
Max Eastman’s _Journalism versus Art_, _Understanding Germany_. $1.00 and $1.25
John Cowper Powy’s _Confessions_, _Suspended Judgments_. $1.50 and $2.00
Paul Géraldy’s _The War, Madame_. 75 cents
Amy Lowell’s _Men, Women and Ghosts_. $1.25
H. D.’s _Sea Garden_. 75 cents
D. H. Lawrence’s _Amores_. $1.25
W. W. Gibson’s _Livelihood_. $1.25
The Stories of A. Neil Lyons. Each $1.25
Sherwood Anderson’s _Windy McPherson’s Son_. $1.40
_I, Mary MacLane._ $1.40
The Little Review
THE JULY NUMBER will have poems by T. S. Eliot; a Dialogue by Ezra Pound: “Aux Etuves de Wiesbaden”; and several other things of interest.
THE AUGUST NUMBER will have at least seven more poems by Mr. Yeats, an Editorial and Notes on Books by Mr. Pound, etc., etc.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE and help us to make The Little Review a power.
Subscription Form
Please send me _The Little Review_ for the twelve-month beginning ......................, for which I enclose $1.50
Name ......................................... Address ...................................... ............................................... ...............................................
THE LITTLE REVIEW 31 West 14th Street NEW YORK CITY
Eugene Hutchinson
Photographs
FINE ARTS BUILDING, CHICAGO, ILL.
Mason & Hamlin
The Stradivarius of Pianos
Mason & Hamlin Co.
313 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK
COLONY ART SHOP
Artists’ Materials
Oil and Water Colors Brushes and Canvass Smocks to Order
Interior and Exterior Decorating Paper Hanging Polishing and Refinishing of Wood Work
ADOLPH KLAFF
132 Sixth Ave., NEW YORK CITY Chelsea 1285
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, CIRCULATION, ETC., REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS, OF AUGUST 24, 1912.
Of THE LITTLE REVIEW, published monthly at New York, N. Y., for April 1st, 1917. State of New York, County of New York—ss.
Before me, a Notary Public in and for the State and county aforesaid, personally appeared Margaret C. Anderson, who having been duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that she is the Publisher, Editor, Owner, Business Manager of THE LITTLE REVIEW, and that the following is, to the best of her knowledge and belief, a true statement of the ownership, management (and if a daily paper, the circulation), etc., of the aforesaid publication for the date shown in the above caption, required by the Act of August 24, 1912, embodied in section 443, Postal Laws and Regulations, printed on the reverse of this form; to wit:
1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing editor, and business managers are:
Publisher, Margaret C. Anderson, 31 W. Fourteenth St., New York; Editor, Margaret C. Anderson, 31 W. Fourteenth St., New York; Managing Editor, Margaret C. Anderson, 31 W. Fourteenth St., New York; Business Manager, Margaret C. Anderson, 31 W. Fourteenth St., New York.
2. That the owner is, Margaret C. Anderson.
3. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 per cent, or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: None.
4. That the two paragraphs next above, giving the names of owners, stockholders, and security holders, if any, contain not only the list of stockholders and security holders as they appear upon the books of the company but also, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, is given; also that the said two paragraphs contain statements embracing affiant’s full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner; and this affiant has no reason to believe that any other person, association or corporation, has any interest direct or indirect in the said stock, bonds, or other securities than as so stated by her.
MARGARET C. ANDERSON.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of April 1917.
WALTER HEARN, Notary Public. (My commission expires March 30th, 1918.)
THE ARTISTS’ GUILD
A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION INCORPORATED ON A “NOT FOR PROFIT BASIS.”
Paintings, Sculpture AND Handwrought Objects
As security for the purchaser and to ensure merit, all works are approved by a jury.
Exquisite and Rare Gifts
The Artists’ and Craft Workers’ own organization
GALLERIES, EXHIBITION AND SALESROOMS FINE ARTS BUILDING CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
THE PAGAN
is something like _The Masses_ and _The Little Review_ because it contains original stories, plays, essays, also translation from the Europeans; as well as drawings and etchings.
But how is it different?
_Buy a copy and see. $1.50 a year; 15 cents a copy_
THE PAGAN PUBLISHING COMPANY 174 CENTER STREET NEW YORK CITY
TINY TIM MAKES CANDY. TINY TIM MAKES _GOOD_ CANDY. TINY TIM MAKES _PURE_ CANDY. TINY TIM _ORIGINATES_ EVERY VARIETY. VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE.
_P. S._ Mary Elizabeth, Martha Washington, Park & Tilford, Huylers, and the Mirror Stores make good candy, but they haven’t any thing on TINY TIM for originality.
_P. S._ (_2nd._) TIM’S place is small and hard to find. It is hiding out on Sixth Avenue, on the corner of Milligan Place, between 10th and 11th Streets. If you ever find the place remember the _special directions_ for opening the door. Grasp the handle firmly—push to your right steadily. NOTE: The door slides North.
_P. S._ (_3rd._) TIM or Mrs. TIM and the candy will probably be there. If not, call again.
“Hello Huck!”
Recall that golden day when you first read “Huck Finn”? How your mother said, “For goodness’ sake, stop laughing aloud over that book. You sound so silly.” But you couldn’t stop laughing.
Today when you read “Huckleberry Finn” you will not laugh so much. You will chuckle often, but you will also want to weep. The deep humanity of it—the pathos, that you never saw, as a boy, will appeal to you now. You were too busy laughing to notice the limpid purity of the master’s style.
MARK TWAIN
When Mark Twain first wrote “Huckleberry Finn” this land was swept with a gale of laughter. When he wrote “The Innocents Abroad” even Europe laughed at it itself.