New-York tribune., 1919-09-23
Is "Modern" Turning Sour?

Take any fresh word with pep still
IN it and work it day by day, name a
magazine after it or publish a series of
books under it, and you tend to make it
limp and dull and colorless. Matthew
Arnold killed "culture' for half
century by making text Of it. The Nequ
Republlc has already converted new"
into one of the crcakicst Of adjectves
and laden this once excellent and pepful
word with a heavy cargo of intellectual
swank and classic mugwumpcry.
so we fear the worst for 'modern." :"
that admirable word with which George
Meredith accurately described one Of the
greatest of sonnet sequences as long ago
as 1862. 1t will doubtless return to its
own again in due course of the genera
tlons. All such eclipses are temporary.
But for the present the outlook is dark.
We are much struck by comment touch
ing the subject in The Nc7c Statesman,
Of London (where "new" is still the one
tavorte adjective for weekly magazines
and where, unlike our own Ne3o ReDub
lie, they are still, oddly enough, new.
The comment concerns that excellent
series of Volumes, "The Modern
Library published in this city. Judging
by its list of titles, the writer (who dis
courses regularly and admirably of
books over the pen-name of Solomon
Eagle) concludes that intellectual
America has caught d worse case of
modernism" than ever England had:
II use the word of that tendency to
think that art and thought began ycster-
Gay; that all history before yesterday
left us only a few relics worth preserving
in the shape of books which were mod
ern' before their time; that the most
1oollsh question is better than the most
sensible answer; that d thing is neces-
sarily great if nobody has ever said it,
or thought 1t worth saying, before; that
anything which is abnormal must be
good; that to be happy is crime, and
that nothing is interesting unless it is
bizarre and preferably violent. They
have just discovered in America that re
spectability is a terrible thing and they
are going for it with that rather naive
and charming enthusiasm that they
throw into all their campaigns"
Thus defined. we are glad to unite with
lAe Ne'r Statesman in damning modern
ism, though we doubt whether the criti-
cism holds good for America There has
surely been a sense in which the word
has had useful and helpful connotation
here. That is to point out little more than
.Lo f,.1
which knows the old and comedies the va
lldlty of classic matter and classic form.
but none the less gladly tastes the new
Nintages and encourages the experiment.
ers to do their best and worst Curiosity
is large item in this sort OF modern
point OF view, and we suspect the scien-
tlhc mind, that knows little and doubts
much, furnishes much of it's foundation.
AS for respect for relies, let US not forget
that 1t was Meredith and not Walt Whit
man to whom the stream of modernism
traces back.
Thanks to the distasteful tag, however.
Ihe NeU Statesman does much less
than justice to "The Modern Librarv.n
There are foolish selections in its lists. as
IN every list Of the kind; the inclusion
of Georges "A Bed of Roses" goes some
distance toward supporting the criticism
made. But the unhealthy and the
bizarre have very able antidotes, and on
the whole the modernity of the library
means little more than the open minded
ness suggested before. The difficulty is
with the tag Evidently modern" has
gone completely sour on English palates.
we doubt much whether it can be
saved here.