The New York herald., 1922-05-07
By EDNA KENTON.

infantry assault In mud and mire
against nursery bogies. 1t has been,
with the rarest exceptions, a matter
of purely personal and emotional in
stead Of aesthetic reactions, and so
our alleged critical literature is
packed with moral announcements
that can be source Of pleasure only
to cynic, IA psychologist or the Vice
Society. !
I wish that on every critics desk
might lie for constant reference a
cool blue reprint of those immortal
catalogues drawn up by William
Archer of the London critics of 1891
their judgments-which Mr.. Archer
has most devilishly made as i'm
mortal as Ibsen-on Ghosts" and
"Rosmersholm," first presented to
English audiences in that marvellous
year of passionate critical activity.
Nothing more satisfactory, alike to
cynic or the Menckenesque smut
hound" was ever compiled and moth
ing likewise was ever compiled so
calculated to reduce or to heighten
the moral fever of a critic in pres
ence Of what is, to his immediate
sense. an immoral work.
The Archer documents need not
and should not be pushed aside by
the most irradicably moral" critic,
for here he would find Mr.. Archer's
"Schimpfiexikon-A Dictionary of
Abuse" as priceless aid and abet-
ment to his pen. With the "Schimp-
nexikon" propped open before him
as he writes. he will need no thesau-
rus. All the synonyms and antinyms
are there: nauseating. revolving. alb
horrent, degrading; foul. filthy, NAL
odorous. noisome: coarseness, nasti-
ness. carrion. vulgarity; loathsome,
putrid. crapulous. blasphemous;
morbid. tainted. bestial, fetid. Better
still. all the phrases which the
thesauruses so scantly supply: open
drain" "a loathsome sore unban-
daged," "a dirty act done publicly"
"a lazar house with all its doors and
windows open." gross and almost
putrid indecorum."
All this and all but unprintably
more but a generation ago of Henri
iosen- We can only say, 'Oh, his
tory! Oh. mysteryi" and pick up the
latest announcement Of the latest
immoral" fiction. filed with a deep
unrest before what we have so truN-
ingly called criticism. For the sist
of all the "Schimpfiexikon" and the
other long quotations snatched from
the boiling press OF that excited
January and February of 1891,
amounts to this:
Il. X, z Of the Daily or the
Monthly Whatever, for reasons I
Will not or cannot discuss, and per-
haps do not know, do not agree with
Mr.. Ibsen's ideas of marriage, ma
ternity. heredity, paternity, love
values or civic morality. and there
fore condemn utterly his work and
hereby pronounce it immoral, foul.
maladorous and bestiaI."
For these Archer documents.
which should have revealed the great
Norwegian. reveal only the critics
and their muddled state. Thanks to
Mr.. Archer's invaluable contribution
to the History Of Criticism. We see
these distinguished critics of only
generation ago caught in the very
act of judgment and pinned under
glass like hapless gnats of a day to
live in all the nakedness of their
moral reactions as long as Ibsen
lives. We see them gone hysterical
under the powerful impact of
Ghosts" and "Rosmersholm." and
lost in the ecstasy of that moral
hysteria. raving. Like all Mysteries
who foolishly write under the spell
they have left behind them autobi-
ography of a fantastic and inval-
uable sort, but never can it be called
criticism.
And from all over the land, this
land and England, critics will rise to
say: But that was in 1891; we
have advanced. Look at what. only