Prejudices, First Series. H. L. Mencken

tion>

       H. L. Mencken

      Prejudices, First Series

      Published by Good Press, 2019

       [email protected]

      EAN 4057664103840

Table of Contents

       I. CRITICISM OF CRITICISM OF CRITICISM

       II. THE LATE MR. WELLS

       III. ARNOLD BENNETT

       IV. THE DEAN

       V. PROFESSOR VEBLEN

       VI. THE NEW POETRY MOVEMENT

       VII. THE HEIR OF MARK TWAIN

       VIII. HERMANN SUDERMANN

       IX. GEORGE ADE

       X. THE BUTTE BASHKIRTSEFF

       XI. SIX MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE

       1 The Boudoir Balzac

       2 A Stranger on Parnassus

       3 A Merchant of Mush

       4 The Last of the Victorians

       5 A Bad Novelist

       6 A Broadway Brandes

       XII. THE GENEALOGY OF ETIQUETTE

       XIII. THE AMERICAN MAGAZINE

       XIV. THE ULSTER POLONIUS

       XV. AN UNHEEDED LAW-GIVER

       XVI. THE BLUSHFUL MYSTERY

       1 Sex Hygiene

       2 Art and Sex

       3 A Loss to Romance

       4 Sex on the Stage

       XVII. GEORGE JEAN NATHAN

       XVIII. PORTRAIT OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL

       XIX. JACK LONDON

       XX. AMONG THE AVATARS

       XXI. THREE AMERICAN IMMORTALS

       1 Aristotelean Obsequies

       2 Edgar Allan Poe

       3 Memorial Service

I. CRITICISM OF CRITICISM OF CRITICISM

       Table of Contents

      Every now and then, a sense of the futility of their daily endeavors falling suddenly upon them, the critics of Christendom turn to a somewhat sour and depressing consideration of the nature and objects of their own craft. That is to say, they turn to criticizing criticism. What is it in plain words? What is its aim, exactly stated in legal terms? How far can it go? What good can it do? What is its normal effect upon the artist and the work of art?

      Such a spell of self-searching has been in progress for several years past, and the critics of various countries have contributed theories of more or less lucidity and plausibility to the discussion. Their views of their own art, it appears, are quite as divergent as their views of the arts they more commonly deal with. One group argues, partly by direct statement and partly by attacking all other groups, that the one defensible purpose of the critic is to encourage the virtuous and oppose the sinful—in brief, to police the fine arts and so hold them in tune with the moral order of the world. Another group, repudiating this constabulary function, argues hotly that the arts have nothing to do with morality whatsoever—that their concern is solely with pure beauty. A third group holds that the chief aspect of a work of art, particularly in the field of literature, is its aspect as psychological document—that if it doesn’t help men to know themselves it is nothing. A fourth group reduces the thing to an exact science, and sets up standards that resemble algebraic formulæ—this is the group of metrists, of contrapuntists and of those who gabble of light-waves. And so, in order, follow groups five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, each with its theory and its proofs.

      Against the whole corps, moral and æsthetic, psychological and algebraic, stands Major J. E. Spingarn, U. S. A. Major Spingarn lately served formal notice upon me that he had abandoned the life of the academic grove for that of the armed array, and so I give him his military title, but at the time he wrote his “Creative Criticism” he was a professor in Columbia University, and I still find myself thinking of him, not as a soldier extraordinarily literate, but as a professor in rebellion. For his notions, whatever one may say in opposition to them, are at least magnificently un-professorial—they fly violently in the face of the principles that distinguish the largest and most influential group of campus critics. As witness: “To say that poetry is moral or immoral is as meaningless as to say that an equilateral triangle is moral and an isosceles triangle immoral.” Or, worse: “It is only conceivable in a world in which dinner-table conversation runs after this fashion: ‘This cauliflower would be good if it had only been prepared in accordance with international law.’ ” One imagines, on hearing such atheism flying