"SPRINGHILL"
RIDERWOOD, MARYLAND

June 16, 1953

Dear Ezra,

I was glad to have your letter, and
glad that you thought the L.R.Anthology a good
job. My own feeling about it was deep dis-
appointment : first because my original concep-
tion was marred by being forced to cut 50 pages
from the final page-proofs (at a minute's notice,
and with only a day to do it in); second because
the publishers, for a reason still unknown to me,
since they refuse to explain) decided to do no
advertising at all.

Last summer, from France, I tried to withdraw the book when they backed down on using promised photographs and gave no assurances of decent publicity. They wouldn't let me, but promised "adequate advertising". You can imagine my consternation when they launched the book with just one ad (in any newspaper or magazine) - a small one in the N.Y.Times, completely invisible because of lack of spacings. Their explanation is that they advertised in trade papers such as Publishers' Weekly.

Fol.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of New York.

Margaret C. Anderson,

Complainant,
against

Thomas G. Patten, Postmaster of the
City of New York,

Defendant.

IN EQUITY
No. E-14-379

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MARGARET C. ANDERSON, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:

I am the complainant above-named. I have read
the affidavit of Frederick G. Mulker in the above action,
sworn to 24th November, 1917. With reference to the
alleged refund of the two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50)
paid for the second-class postage of the October numbers,
the facts are as follows:

The $2.50 mentioned at the end of the affidavit of
said Frederick G. Mulker was not "refunded to the publish-
er"; neither did deponent as said publisher "receive and
retain the same". The facts are that when the November
number of said magazine came to be mailed deponent's
assistant, Miss Jane Heap, caused the November numbers
to be sent by express to the Second-Class Mailing Divi-
sion of the New York Post Office Department, and Miss
Heap, without conference with deponent's attorney Mr.

2

4

Quinn, instructed the superintendent of the weighing de-
partment to apply the $2.50 that had been paid for the
mailing of the October number on the mailing charges for
the November number, and added $1.50 in addition thereto,
the cost of mailing the November number being $4. There
was never any "refund to the publisher" of said $2.50,
as claimed in the affidavit of said Frederick G. Mulker.
The receipt set forth at the end of the affidavit of
said Frederick G. Mulker was signed by deponent, but it
did not represent any "refund" or "repayment" to depon-
ent of said $2.50. Deponent never intended to waive
her rights to have the October number mailed. She
never "accepted back the postage". She never intended
to waive any rights. She never acquiesced in the rul-
ing of the Post Office Department, and when the sum of
$2.50 which had been paid to the Postmaster for the
second-class postage on the October number was applied
on the November number, it was done by deponent's
assistant, Miss Heap, in total ignorance of the fact
that it might possibly be claimed, as is now claimed
by the Government, that that was a waiver of deponent's
rights, and that complainant had "acquiesced in the rul-
ing of the Post Office Department". Deponent never
so acquiesced and never intended to waive any rights.

5

6

Referring to the item on page 39 of the October
number of said Review entitled "This Approaches Liter-
ature", deponent states that said item was received by
deponent from England and was printed by deponent in the
belief that it was a translation of a genuine German
document. As stated under the caption, the document

3

7 was printed "as showing the true nature of the forces against which we are arrayed". If it is genuine, it is of historic interest. Deponent claims to be reasonably familiar with the so-called war literature, and can truthfully state that the said document is no more indecent than ten thousand similar statements that might be culled from the daily press, from current magazines, and from books upon or relating to the war.

Sworn to before me this 28th day of November, 1917 :

(Seal)

(Signed) Ida Odes

NOTARY PUBLIC
New York County No. 123
New York County Register No. 9076
Term expires March 30, 1913

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of N.Y.

IN EQUITY
No. E-14-379

(Copy)

REPLYING AFFIDAVIT OF MARGARET C.
ANDERSON

JOHN QUINN.
Solicitor for Complainant,

31 NASSAU STREET,

BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN,

NEW YORK CITY.

January 7, 1920

THE NEW REPUBLIC

IV

THE DIAL

Announcement

WITH the publication of the January issue (now on sale) THE DIAL becomes a monthly magazine.

We intend to publish the best prose and verse we can find, and, in so doing, we shall not be influenced, at any rate consciously, by either the author's name, point-of-view, or subject-matter.

We thus hope to give our readers not only the most distinguished native work we can lay hands on, but also to collar the American rights for whatever our foreign representatives may find most worth-while in Europe. We shall publish both the work of our English contemporaries and, from time to time, translations of Continental authors. A gentleman has already sailed for England and France with sample copies to illustrate what we are doing and to help dig out the stuff we are after. As to what this may be, it is obviously difficult to make clear in so very limited a space. We shall not print free verse because it is free, neither shall we print rhymed and regular verse merely because it is not free.

It is of course notorious that American artists of every sort have had in the past to look to Europe for their first recognition. We think we know a dozen artists (writers, painters, and sculptors) doing work here in America today which is of the highest order. Less than half these men and women have yet been given the opportunity to spread their wares before the American public. We desire to be their show-window.

To buy this number and see what we and they are up to?

The Editors.

FOR SALE ON NEWSTANDS

35 cents a copy

Full Subscription $4.00

V

THE NEW REPUBLIC

January 7, 1920

Rest assured-

for Well groomed
sleep-

Faultless
SINCE 1881

Pajamas and
Night Shirts

"The NIGHTwear of a Nation!"
Exceeds Expectations

Recommended by 11,886 dealers
E. ROSENFELD CO.
Baltimore and New York

TO SUBSCRIBERS

(Confirmed and Intending)

THE mechanical cost of filling subscriptions has almost doubled in the past two years. And is still going up. In order to bring it down. The New Republic henceforth will adopt the current practice among publishers of *not sending formal acknowledgements of remittances*. For example, when you renew your subscription, you will no longer receive a post card stating that your check actually came. Instead, the wrapper on the second issue following the receipt of your renewal will bear a new expiration date, thus automatically informing you that your remittance was received and your subscription extended. If you are a new subscriber the receipt of copies and the expiration date on the wrapper will be our acknowledgement.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST, 10c. a copy; dollar a year.
622 Audubon Building, New Orleans, La.

Whatever book you want

Wanawakers

has it, or will get it.

We buy old, rare books, and sets of books
NEW YORK and PHILADELPHIA

PEOPLE'S INSTITUTE FORUM

COOPER UNION

TUESDAY, JANUARY 6th, 8 P. M.:

HARLAN EUGENE REED lectures on "Abolition of
Inheritances."

FRIDAY, JANUARY 9th:

DEAN MARTIN lectures on "A Psychologist in Utopia."

One double, and one single, furnished room to rent in a Settlement House at 257 East Broadway. There is no Social Service required. Credentials asked. For information inquire:

MADISON HOUSE,
216 Madison Street.
Orchard 4507.

Institute of Musical Art

of the City of New York

Frank Damrosch, Director. Provides comprehensive musical education in all branches. Endowed. Entrance examinations beginning September 30th. Address SECRETARY, 120 CLAREMONT AVE., N. Y.

BOB-WHITE

Boys and girls, 9-13.
A land farm. Traditional.
Freedom and joy of.
mals. Outdoor sports.
Ashland, Mass.

Position as GO
college student
terested in
book publish

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MARGARET C. ANDERSON, :

Complainant

against : In equity number E14-379
THOMAS G. PATTEN, Postmaster of
the City of New York, :

Defendant.

Brief on behalf of complainant in support of
motion for injunction pendente lite.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS.

The complainant is the owner, editor and manager
of "The Little Review", which is now in its fourth year
of publication and which is a magazine of the arts.

I will not repeat here the allegations of the
bill of complaint. As the original bill of complaint
and the order to show cause have been filed with the clerk,
I submit with this brief a copy of the bill of complaint
and a copy of the order to show cause. The Government
does not deny the allegation of the bill of complaint
that the permanent exclusion of the October 1917 number
from the mails would work great if not irreparable damage.

As shown in the bill of complaint, paragraph
fifth, folios 18 and 19, the magazine subscription season
opens about the first of October. The circulation
problem for a magazine of this class, unendowed and not
connected with or subsidized, or financed by any publishing
house or business interests, is a very difficult one.

-1-

The complainant shows in the bill of complaint, paragraph
fifth, that

"At great sacrifice the complainant sent
out over two thousand personal letters to subscribers,
book-stores, clubs and libraries, calling attention
to the increased size of the October issue and
announcing the aims and plans of "The Little Review"
for the coming year. By the action of the
defendant and his agents and representatives,
the October 1917 issue of said 'The Little Review'
is lying in The New York Post Office, a complete
loss to complainant, and complainant's whole
campaign for renewals of subscriptions and new
subscribers has been greatly interfered with and
damaged, and if the order of the Post Office De-
partment excluding said October number from the
mails be persisted in, said campaign for a renewal
of subscriptions and for new subscribers will
be almost irreparably interfered with". (Fill
of complaint, folios 18-19).

While the aim of "The Little Review" is
not primarily a money making one, it is at the same time
"the sole means of support of the complainant". (Bill
of Complaint, folio 20). Its aim is to establish a
sort of intellectual communication between London, Paris
and New York, and to print the creative work of the best
modern writers in prose and verse, both in the United
States and abroad. As shown in the bill of complaint,
it has printed "such work as that of Lady Gregory, one
of the founders of the famous Abbey Theatre of Dublin,
Ireland, of the distinguished poet and dramatist William

-2-

Butler Yeats, and of established writers like James Joyce, Ezra Pound, Arthur Symons, Wyndham Lewis, May Sinclair, John Galsworthy, Edgar Lee Masters, Amy Lowell, and others of that rank. (Bill of Complaint, folios 19-20).

The Little Review has more than fifty public libraries on its books, both in the United States and in Canada, who are holding bound volumes of it as a literary asset.

Since the holding up of the October 1917 issue complainant has received letters from a number of said libraries protesting over the loss of the October issue in their files, The Provincial Library of Victoria, British Columbia, and the Library of Congress being among those whose numbers are withheld.

As is shown by the bill of complaint and motion papers, no notice was given by the New York postal authorities that the magazine would not be sent through the mail or that the matter had been referred to Washington. The first notice that the complainant had to any such effect was when, after receiving protests from her subscribers, she went to the post-office in New York City to inquire the cause of the delay.

Upwards of three thousand copies of the October number were mailed by complainant through the New York post-office, on October 18, 1917. Said copies were properly wrapped and addressed in the regular way, and the postage thereon duly paid to the proper post-office official in the New York City post-office. (Bill of Complaint, folio 9). The fact that the Post-Office department in the City of New York did not notify

-3-

the complainant that the magazine was held up, while it
was hurtful to the business of complainant, and while she
suffered inconvenience from it, does not of course enter
into the merits of the matter before the court, and will
not be further dwelt upon here.

When complainant conferred with the postal
authorities here they advised her that they were awaiting
a decision from the Solicitor of the Post Office Depart-
ment in Washington as to whether the short story in
the magazine of Wyndham Lewis therein entitled 'Cantelman's
Spring-Mate' was lewd and indecent or not.

THERE IS NO DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT
BEFORE THE COURT ON THIS MOTION.

The answering affidavits on behalf of the
Government merely confirm the allegations in the complaint
that the matter was excluded pursuant to section 480
of the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1913. The af-
fidavit of Mr. Frederick G. Mulker merely sets forth
the correspondence which includes the following:

a. Letter of Postmaster Patten to the
Solicitor of the Post Office Department, dated
October 22, 1917, asking for advice as to whether
The Little Review is mailable in view of the character
of the story entitled "Cantelman's Spring-Mate",
particularly the portions marked on pages 12 and 13.

b. Nothing appears to have been done about
the matter until November 1st when Postmaster Patten
telegraphed to the Solicitor in Washington as follows:

"Please advise regarding mailability
October issue "Little Review" submitted
twenty second".

-4-

c. It appears from the letter of Mr. Lamar, Solicitor of the Post Office Department, dated November 7, 1917, that he advised that the issue was regarded as unmeivable under Section 211 of the Criminal Code which is Section 480 of the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1913.

d. On November 8, 1917, Postmaster Patten instructed the publisher of The Little Review that the copies of the October issue may be withdrawn "by any representative who presents authority to receive them". But they have not been withdrawn and are still in the Post Office as the bill of complaint shows.

From the affidavit of William H. Lamar, the Solicitor of the Post Office Department, sworn to November 23, 1917, it appears that he bases his claim to the exclusion of the magazine not merely upon the short story (in the affidavit it is called "the article") entitled "Cantelman's Spring-Mate", but also upon the matter found on page 39 under the heading "This Approaches Literature".

In short, no disputed question of fact is presented by either of the affidavits submitted in behalf of the Government. Mr. Lamar's two page affidavit merely embodies part of the correspondence of the Postmaster of New York and merely reiterates the claim set forth in the correspondence and finishes with this general conclusion:

"That said matter is likely to corrupt the morals of those into whose hands it is likely to fall, and that said October issue is unmeivable, et cetera".

-5-

Point 1.

The proper construction of Section 211 of the United States Criminal Code relating to obscenity and lewdness.

The only question involved in this case is Section 211 of the United States Criminal Code which is the same as Section 480 of the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1913. No question is up under the Espionage Act or any other war act or regulation. A printed copy of said Section 211 was handed to your Honor on the argument and a copy of the section is set forth in the Government's brief, pages 2 and 3.

It is undisputed that the Postmaster has acted upon the opinion of Mr. Lamar, Solicitor of the Post-Office Department in Washington. The question is not whether or not Mr. Lamar thinks that the Wyndham Lewis short story is or is not good literature or is or is not "wholesome" literature or is or is not "elevating" literature or whether he thinks it is literature or not. Mr. Lamar might consider as trash what I might regard as fine literature, and I might consider as trash what he might consider good or bad literature. That is part of the charm of literature and art, for in the house of literature and art there are many mansions. As I said upon my argument:

"Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled".

These are not my words but are the words of the New

-6-

Testament, Epistle to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15. Some-
one else, a much more modern writer, said, I believe,
that "to the pure all things are impure".

There is no question of motives in this case.
No one questions the good faith of the Solicitor of the
Post Office Department. He is a hard-working Government
official. His case, as I said upon the argument, re-
mind me somewhat of Burke's characterization of law when
he said: (I quote from memory):

"The law is the first and noblest of
human sciences, a science which does move to
quicken and invigorate the understanding than
all other kinds of human learning put together;
but it is not apt except in the cases of persons
happily born, to open and liberalize the mind
in all directions".

I fear that the devotion of Mr. Lamar to the
exacting duties of his office have prevented him from
much
giving/time or attention to literature. Doubtless
the time that he was able to give to this matter was very
brief. He is the head of a great legal department,
his time is taken up with
He is subject to constant interruptions and/conferences
with subordinates, with persons having business with the
department and with his chiefs. It is no wonder
that a man so driven and carrying so many burdens should
have little time to give to a question of "mere literature".
Nor is it any wonder if, deciding in a hurry, he comes to
a wrong conclusion. I believe that there are Govern-
ment officials who would have held this short story by
Wyndham Lewis to be real literature. Mr. Lamar's hasty
and ill-considered decision seems to me to illustrate
the fact, which is not a new fact but has often occurred
before, that books and culture are a better preparation
for statesmanship and the decision of questions involving

-7-

justice and freedom, of expediency and morality, involving
vision and imagination, than early training in subordinate
Government posts and among the permanent officials of a
Government department. I cannot help here recalling
the fact that it was a Secretary of the Interior who
dismissed Walt Whitman from a subordinate clerkship in
his department because he found a copy or the manuscript
of "Leaves Mark Gress" in his desk. But for the honor
of the legal profession I must say that it was an Attorney
General of the United States in, I think, the same
despite that dismissal,
cabinet, who, gave employment to Whitman in the Department
of Justice in a clerical position. So if members of
cabinets may fail to appreciate literature, it is not
surprising that an overworked Solicitor of the Post
Office Department in these busy days should go wrong in
deciding what is or is not literature or what is or is
not likely to corrupt the morals of the average reader.

As I said upon my argument, there are two ways
of approaching these questions. One is to consider the
aim and the spirit of the law and the other is the diction-
ary method; to make short extracts from decided cases and
then to take the extracts from the document complained of
from the document by the extracts
and test the extracts from the cases. That leads to
often/grotesque results.

In determining whether a charge of this char-
acter should be sustained we must consider the matter ob-
jeeted to solely with respect to its alleged obscenity
or lowdness. The fact that it is or may be objectionable

-8-

or improper in some other respect or respects is immaterial.
The statute under consideration relates solely to lewdness.
It does not relate to questions of impropriety or any offense against good manners or good taste.
This is the law as specifically laid down by the Court of Appeals in
1907, *People v. Eastman*, 188 N.Y. 478, op. per curiam; concurring op. Cullen, C. J.; dissenting op. O'Brien, J.

That was an appeal from a judgment of the
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which affirmed a
judgment of the Monroe County Court which sustained a demurrer to an indictment charging defendant with selling
"printed paper of an indecent character". The court
expressed the opinion that the publication was "improper, intemperate, unjustifiable and highly reprehensible".
Judge Cullen in his opinion said with respect to the
publication: "That it is 'indecent' from every consideration of propriety is entirely clear"....The court held,
however, that the indecent publications referred to in
the statute were "lewd, lascivious and salesious or obscene publications, the tendency of which is to excite lustful and lecherous desire". The extreme to which
the Court of Appeals went in this case appears from the
writing itself which was set out in the dissenting opinion in full, extracts from which are as follows:

"Here the priest asks the vilest of questions, and of course the husband could not be present. He asks the most delicate and intimate questions. But under what obligation is any one to a priest? What business has he got to go into a box and ask delicate female questions that no minister of Jesus Christ or true gentlemen on earth would ask? Right here in the confessional box many have been ruined, and many become mothers as a result; and men, you are paying your money to priests and to a church that is ruining your daughters, and stealing the

-9-

books and prints, and nawdy and other dis-
orderly houses". From the context of the
statute it is apparent that it is directed
against lewd, lascivious and salacious or
obscene publications, the tendency of which
is to excite lustful and lecherous desire".

*** I regret that the publication
should appear in the reports of this court,
not because I deem it lewd, but because I
feel that the reports of this court should
not be made the means of perpetuating a
scurrilous and wanton slander on any class
of the community. This is an example of the
extent to which sectarian religious animosities
may lead a weak and disordered mind,
for it is mere charity to consider such to
be the character of the writer of the production.
*** It may be urged that the
question whether the defendant should be prosecuted
for an indecent publication or for a
libel is a technical one. This is very
far from being the fact. So careful have
the people of the state been to secure freedom
of speech, subject only to punishment when a
jury has found that that freedom has been
mabused, that by the various Constitutions
of this State, ever since that of 1822, it
has been expressly enacted that in a prosecution
for libel the truth may be given in
evidence and the jury shall have the right to
determine the law as well as the fact".

The same result was reached and the same law
established for United States Courts by the Supreme Court
of the United States some twelve years earlier in
1895, *Swearingen v. United States*, 161 U.S. 446,
op. Shires, J.

That United States Supreme Court case was de-
cided under the Federal Statute involved upon this
motion which declares that "every obscene, lewd or
lascivious book * * * or other publication of an indecent
character" is non-mailable matter. That United States
Supreme Court case is important in another particular
bearing upon this present motion in that it definitely
decides, in addition to the fact that the statute re-
lates only to lewdness, also to two other things namely:

1. The more fact that lewd *conduct* or *lewd actions* are specifically *referred to* in the

s11s

plied various epithets which if used face to face would
be likely to result in a breach of the peace and which
might have that effect when communicated by letter".
The Court quashed the indictment on the authority of the
Swearingen case on the ground that although the letter was
offensive the matters referred to "would seem to be no
more inclined to incite immorality relating to sexual
purity than the language in the Swearingen case". The
opinion reads in part as follows:

"The letter has not been set forth in full
in the indictment, inasmuch as the District Attorney
does not consider it proper to be spread upon the
records, but on an inspection of the exhibit it is
found to be in many respects similar to the letter
forming the basis of the charge in the case of
Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 16 Sup.
 Ct. 562, 40 L.Ed. 765. Likewise, the letter also
resembles that in the Swearingen case in that
there are one or two allusions to unspeskeble prac-
tices, which the writer of the letter gives us a
reason for an alleged expulsion of the person to whom
the letter was sent from the writer's house.
But these matters would seem to be no moreinclined
to incite immorality relating to sexual impurity
than the language in the Swearingen case. On
the contrary, such language would apparently repel
even an abnormal mind".

That case therefore follows the Supreme Court case and
expressly holds that allusions to sexual immorality or
even to "unspeskeble practices" do not make the publica-
tion itself lewd or lascivious.

We have therefore here two tests laid down
by the highest authority, one the United States Supreme
Court, and the other the New York Court of Appeals, of
what is and what is not obscene or lewd within the mean-
ing of the Federal and the New York State statutes.
These tests are

1. That prescribed by the Supreme Court
of the United States in the Swearingen case,

13-

namely: whether the publication is "of a low, <u>lascivious and obscene tendency calculated to corrupt and debauch the mind and morals of those into whose hands it might fall</u>".

2. That prescribed by the New York State Court of Appeals in the Eastman case, namely: whether the publication is one <u>"the tendency of which is to excite lustful and lecherous desire"</u>.

These tests therefore we must apply to the
publication in the case at bar.

In applying these tests it is essential to bear in mind what was decided by the United States Supreme Court and what is fairly obvious to anyone whose nose is not supersensitive to suggestions of impropriety, that <u>the mention or improper sexual conduct, even of "unnatural practices"</u>, does not make the publication of which they are a part <u>low, lascivious, salacious or obscene.</u>

The question is not what are the actual verbal elements and combinations which go to make up the writing, but whether as held by the New York Court of Appeals, <u>the tendency of the writing is "to excite lustful and lecherous desire"</u>. This is the law, despite Mr. Lamar's view to the contrary expressed in his letter to Mr. Petten.

To hold as Mr. Lamar contends that a writing is <u>obscene</u> wherever improper sexual practices are directly named therein, would bring within the statute the ten commandments. Obviously the test is <u>not</u> whether the immoral sexual practices are named in it, or are the subject, or what particular words are used in referring to them, but what is the writing's <u>spirit, purport and tendencies</u>.

-14-

It is a failure to understand this plain distinction, apparent to a reasonable mind, that causes some persons to maintain that a strict enforcement of the statutes against obscenity would bar the bible. That the bible mentions many times and in great detail lustful and lecherous acts, and even "unspeakable practices" is perfectly true, but to argue from that that the bible is obscene or lewd is preposterous. Neither the bible as a whole nor the books of it in which such passages occur have a tendency to excite "lustful or lecherous desire". Part of their obvious and avowed purpose is to condemn and to attack the very practices to which they refer. It is as a part of that attack that such practices were specified.

It is difficult to express condemnation of an evil without talking about it.

By the same method of reason that Mr. Lamar condemns the article in question I could condemn Section 211 of the United States Criminal Code itself, for that section mentions and refers to many things that are immoral and indecent and unwholesome and unhealthy and criminal. But whether Section 211 of the United States Criminal Code is or is not indecent or lewd, depends upon the meaning of the section and its tendency.

And we find that it is a warning, a penal law, a prohibition, and hence although it mentions all sorts of otherwise unmentionable things and the instruments and means by which these loathsome and unmentionable/things may be carried out, it is not to be condemned as lewd or lascivious, because its tendency is not "to excite lustful or lecherous desire".

-15-

lated to excite in a spectator impure imaginations and
whether the other incidents and qualities however attractive
were merely necessary to this <u>as the primary or main purpose</u>
<u>of the representations;</u> and "whether the <u>motive</u> of the
painting or statue so to speak as <u>indicated by it</u> is pure
or impure". That is to say, we are to determine how
the matter would naturally affect the mind of the members
of the community in which it circulates; and this we de-
cide by determining what to the mind of the members of such
community is the <u>motive</u> of the writing as indicated by
the writing itself. If its motive, so determined,
is to excite "lustful and lecherous desire", then it falls
within the statute. If its motive as so determined is
not that, then it does <u>not</u> fall within the statute.

Here we must distinguish between the <u>motive</u>
of the writing or painting itself and the <u>intent</u> of the
person in <u>publishing</u> it. The intent of the publication,
that is to say, the purpose with which one person makes
sale or delivery of the writing or painting in question
is of course immaterial. Such sale or delivery may be
with the best intent, but if the writing itself is obscene
such good intent is not a defense. The <u>motive</u> of the
writing itself, however, that is, the purpose of the
writing as disclosed by it, is quite another matter.
This <u>motive</u>, Judge Andrews points out, is the <u>test</u>.
If the <u>motive</u> is obviously "to excite lustful and lecherous
desire", then the writing is obscene within the statute.
If the <u>motive</u> is not "to excite lustful and lecherous
desire", then the writing is not obscene within the
statute, whatever the acts or practices to which it

-17-

may refer, and whatever language it may use. This is a
sane and rational test meeting fully the purposes of the
statute. Let us apply it then to the writing in the
case at bar.

The only objection to the Wyndham Lewis story
is that it expresses, not sensuality and selfishness,
but the loathesomeness of both. It is a shocked and
scared soul that has written that story. The writer
himself cannot be a sensualist. The men without a
soul, or with an almost extinct soul, can write blandly
and charmingly about sensuality, soothing every alarm
and quieting all the nerves of prudence and circumspection.

"Respectability" and "social order" may not
like the kind of art that Wyndham Lewis has created in
this short story because of the shock. It is distressing
to some people to be told the naked truth. But Swift
did it in his day. Such writers seem to be without
pity, but they are of enormous value in breaking up
the strength of hypocrisy and sentimental decency. One
may not always "enjoy" them. People with a wide out-
look know their value and know their value to be immense,
and admire them, and admire more than words their courage.
Some people think with Aristotle that the end of art is
to give pleasure. Such art as that of Wyndham Lewis'
does not give pleasure in the ordinary meaning of the
word pleasure. But to those who want the truth it
will not come as either lewd or lascivious but as a
terrible lesson and warning. To expose in this manner
is to castigate.

This short story is hostile to vice and self-
ishness. To some people it may come as a shock.

-18-

That would be its only offense. It might not be good social form. But it is a thousand times more honest than the acts and words of those who have their vices but are dark about them. Let us be honest when the question is put squarely to us. Social Hypocrisy may be all in its place right/but let us not be so utterly blinded by social hypocrisy as to condemn and destroy an article like this powerful one in question which is remarkable for truth and honesty.

To the vicious and the sensual, anything may be full of provocation. To the vicious and the sensual what is so provocative as a young and lovely girl just bursting like a rose-bud into womanhood? the She is innocent at heart but/vicious may read the signs differently. Ruskin wrote that "it was not poor Miranda's fault that she was vicious to Caliban".

It is not possible and it is not desirable to remove temptation from our paths. A frank, courageous statement of the facts of life is one of the duties of literature, indeed the very foundation of all literature. The people who know and recognize these facts are the only people who can understand literature or life. Everything in the article is true, and the truth must be told for the sake of the virtuous. As to the vicious, they may go their way. But there is no chance of the vicious being interested in the truth. They are far too busy seeking for lies and hypocrites with which to cover up and hide the facts. No vicious man or vicious woman would read that story to the end. He or she would stick in the middle of it. Aolio would loathe it. It would excoriate his nerves of sensibility. I have no doubt he would express himself in language of lofty virtue and decorum in condemning it.

-19-

That is why I regard it of the highest importance that the article be defended and fought for and its propriety vindicated at the hands of this court. The truth shall make one free is a saying that is always fresh.

The Little Review is doing good work by the example it sets of courage and good sense. Sex love may anywhere or be a dangerous force/everywhere. Stripped naked, it loses much of its alluring mystery. That alluring mystery is precisely what makes it so dangerous.

The short story in question is a terrible warning instead of an inducement to vice. It is a most salient and most penetrating study of the animal selfishness of love in a coarse nature. Whoever reads it will receive a most salutary shock. He or she will watch his or her steps lest he or she fall into the horrible abyss of loathesomeness of which that short story is a revelation.

Literature is not written for babies or for young girls' seminaries. Nature itself is not for babies. The bible and Shakespeare would need expurgation if read by young girls' seminaries. To weak and debased minds, nothing is more dangerous than natural feminine charm. Literature is written for many purposes, one of its chief objects being to warn and counsel. How can it perform this function if it be not allowed to tell the truth and to reveal the real facts of sensuality and sexual passion? The official who like condemns The Little Review is people who do not like to have themselves exposed, people who believe that

-20-

every sin, that it may flourish, should have a polite name.
When one strips away that polite name, the sensual
object to it as rude or as shocking, and of course they
object to it on grounds of virtue and high policy.
Sensuality and depravity often steal the clothes of
virtue.

The question before this court is whether the
motive or tendency of the article is to excite "lustful
and lecherous desire". A mere reading of the article
is sufficient to determine that it is not. It has no
more such motive or such tendency than had the denunci-
tions by Isaiah and the other prophets of the lecherous
and dissolute Jewish judges, priests and kings. It would
be difficult to equal in any writings subject to general
perusal the wealth of reference to lecherous, sexual
practices contained in the Old Testament. But the
context in that case as in the Lewis story is such that
they excite pity, horror or indignation, but never
"lustful and lecherous desire".

THE DICTIONARY-METHOD OF CITING EXTRACTS FROM
CASES IS MISLEADING, AND THE EXTRACTS FROM CASES CONTAINED
IN POINT II OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF DO NOT MEET THE
POINT.

In Point II of the Government's brief certain
extracts are given from decided cases that are supposed
to furnish the test of obscenity or of this, that or the
other thing. Almost anything can be proved or an
assemblance of proof given to almost anything by that
method. And unfortunately that is usually the way
these cases are argued, and the way judges charge juries,

-21-

and that is why so often grotesque decisions are made.
I, for example, could meet the extracts from decided cases
and definitions contained in Point II of the Government's
brief by citing the following:

United States v. Bennett, 16 Blatchford 338:

"Lewd means having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. Passages are indecent when they tend to obscenity, that is to say, the matter having the form of indecency which is calculated to promote the general corruption of morals".

United States v. Clerk, 38 Fed. Rep. 732:

"Ordinarily the word obscene means offensive to chastity, etc., but in the Statutes obscene means "a book, etc., containing elements and introducing matter the reading whereof would have a tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds of those into whose hands the publication might fall and whose minds are open to such immoral influences".

"A lewd book is one that describes dissolute and unchaste acts, scenes or incidents, or one the reading whereof by reason of its contents is calculated to excite lustful and sensual desires in those minds open to such influences".

"Lascivious is very nearly synonymous with lewd".

-22-

United States v. Males, 51 Fed. Rep. 41:

"Obscenity is such indecency as is calculated to promote the violation of the law and the general corruption of morals. Lewdness and lasciviousness are that form of immorality which has reference to sexual impurity. The words "obscene", "lewd" and "lascivious" as used in the Statute have the same meaning as is given them by common law in prosecution for _obscene libel_".

Timmons v. United States, 85 Fed. Rep. 204:

First quotes the dictionary definition and then states that the word _obscene_ cannot be said to be a technical term of the law and is not susceptible of exact definition in juridical uses (page 205). Is the same as _indecent_. (page 208).

Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, p. 451:

"_Obscene literature is that which tends to deprave the morals in one way only, namely, by exciting sensual desires and lascivious thoughts_".

United States v. Bennett, 16 Blatchford, 362, Fed.

Cases No. 14571:

This is the leading case in the Federal Courts and lays down the following rule as a test of obscenity:

"Whether the _tendency_ of the matter charged as _obscene_ is to deprave and corrupt those minds are open to such immoral influence and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall".

-23-

But this method gets one nowhere. It is
perfectly obvious what the statute intended to prevent
and it is obvious that this short story, however one may
be inclined to rate it as literature, is something entirely
different from such gross and obscene writings as it is
the duty of the public authorities to suppress.

## Point II.

The item appearing on page 39 entitled "This Approaches Literature" does not violate the law. The answering affidavits show that this matter was raised by a letter of Postmaster Petten to the Solicitor of the Post Office Department, dated October 22, 1917, in which he submitted the October number for advice as to whether it was mailable "in view of the character of the story entitled 'Cantelman's Spring-Mate', particularly the portions marked on pages 12 and 13".

When I talked to Mr. Lamer in Washington on Thursday, November 8th, he said that he considered that that short story had "overstepped the line" and he made no allusion to the item on page 39 and personally I doubt whether he had read it at that time.

It will be observed that in Mr. Lamer's affidavit he says that the October 1917 issue of The Little Review "was examined by affiant, with particular reference to the _article_ entitled 'Cantelman's Spring-Mate', beginning on page 8 of said publication, and said article was found to be obscene, lewd or lascivious and filthy and of an indecent character, within the meaning of Section 480 of the Postal Laws and Regulations, edition of 1913,

-24-

(Section 211 of the Criminal Code of the United States); and further that the article on page 39 of said publication under the heading 'This Approaches Literature' was and is regarded as filthy and of an indecent character".

Mr. Lamar does not state that his letter of November 7th was based upon the article on page 39. I think it is a fair inference that the inclusion of the article on page 39 in the affidavit of Mr. Lamar was an afterthought, and that his original determination was based only upon the Lewis short story entitled (Centelman's Spring-Mate'. However that may be, and whatever may be thought of the article on page 39, its tendency is certainly not to corrupt the morals of those who may read it. It was believed by the editor to be genuine and she still believes it to be genuine. It purports to be a translation of a German document, dated February 20, 1916. Things equal to it in frankness have appeared over and over again in the public prints. Charges of brutality and of depravity against the Germans many times worse have appeared over and over again in newspapers, books, magazines and public prints without objection. Germany is our enemy. It surely cannot be illegal to hurl against Germany the scientifically correct insult embodied in that article. The document was sent to the editor as genuine and was believed by her to be genuine. There is nothing incredible about it as coming from that orderly and highly trained, disciplined, systematized nation where nothing is left to the natural individuals' initiative. If it is genuine it is a piece of history. If it is not genuine, the Germans may have some cause of complaint but surely

-25-

there is nothing in it that is likely to corrupt the
morals or is calculated to deprave those into whose hands
it is likely to fall.

### Point III.

A court of equity has undoubted jurisdiction to
review the action of the Solicitor of the Post Office
Department in excluding the October number of The Little
Review from the mails.

As stated before there is no question of fact
involved here. There is no question that the only sec-
tion of the law involved is Section 211 of the United
States Criminal Code. There is no question that the
duty of enforcing that provision devolves in the first
instance upon the Postmaster General through his
subordinates. There is no question that the October
number of The Little Review was submitted to the Solicitor.
There is no question as to what his decision was. There
is no disputed fact involved in the entire case. The
Solicitor's decision presents not a disputed question of
fact but a pure question of law, namely the application
of the Statute to the articles in question.

The case of Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133,141,
(1894), cited on page 3 of the Government's brief simply
does not apply to any of the facts involved in the
motion in the case at bar.

In the case of Masese Publishing Company v.
Petten, reported in New York Law Journal of Thursday,
which September 6, 1917, and may be called the first Mases
case, District Judge Learned Hand said:

-26-

"It is well settled that this court has jurisdiction to review the act of the postmaster (School of Magnet healing Co. v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 98; Post Publishing Co. v. Murrey, 230 Fed. R., 775; Bruce v. United States, 202 Fed. R., 98; United States v. Atlanta Journal, 210 Fed. R., 275). If it appears that his proposed official course is outside of the authority conferred upon him by law, the court cannot escape the duty of so deciding, just as in the case of any other administrative officer (Noble v. Union River Logging Co., 147 U.S. 165; Geglow v. Uhl, 239 U.S., 3). However, again as in the case of other such officers, the postmaster's decision is final if there be any dispute of fact upon which his decision may rest, and even where it must turn upon a point of law it has a strong presumption of validity (Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne 194 U.S., 106; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S., 497). In this case there is no dispute of fact which the plaintiff can successfully challenge except the meaning of the words and pictures in the magazine."

And hence the court held that it had jurisdiction.

So in the case at bar. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF FACT. There is no question of fact "which the defendant can successfully challenge" except, in the words of Judge Hand, "the meaning of the words in the magazine".

When the Messes case came first before Circuit Judge Hough on the motion for a stay pending an appeal by the Government, he said, subdivision II of his opinion (Messes Publishing Company v. Patten, New York Law Journal, Friday, September 7, 1917):

"This action relates only to an alleged property right, i.e., the claim of a New York corporation to have certain second class matter forwarded to destination through the United States mail. Equity is resorted to solely to prevent irreparable pecuniary damage. It remains true that the obligation to distribute this particular issue of "The Messes" has a most important bearing on any postmaster's duty to forward future or similar publications. Therefore, as long as the prayer of the bill is unfulfilled, plaintiff has a legally real subject of litigation, although it further appears that plaintiff is not now exposed to any loss not coverable by damages already liquidated or ascertainable".

-27-

Judge Hough certainly had no doubt as to the
power of a court of equity to review the finding of an
executive officer, although he added that "courts do
not interfere except in the clearest cases with the action
of executive departments".

Judge Hough cited the case of Smith v. Hitchcock,
226 U.S., 58, 59 (1912) unanimous opinion by Mr. Justice
Holmes. That case is interesting for two reasons.
While it is true that the Supreme Court held that courts
"should not interfere with the decision of the Postmaster
General unless clearly of opinion that it was wrong,"
siting Bates and Guild Company v. Payne, 194 U.S., 106,
the court held flatly that the question in that case was
and is a question of law. Now, what was the question
in that case? The bills before the court in that case
were to restrain the Postmaster General from revoking
orders according to second-class mail privileges to the
several post Offices. The grounds of the bills were
that the privileges were annulled, without granting a
hearing, and secondly that the publications were periodical
publications within the meaning of certain Acts of Congress,
and therefore must be carried as second-class matter.
The facts were not in dispute, just as the facts before
the court on this motion are not in dispute. The Court
held that the publications were weekly, that each
contained a single story complete in itself, that most
of the stories were by the same author, considered the
sequence of the details, that there was nothing else in a
number except a roll of honor or list of some of those
who have endeavored to increase the circulation,
that the publication measured about eleven by eight
inches on the outside, and was asked to contain about

-28-

thirty-two pages, including a page of advertisement and that the front cover bore a colored illustration of some incident narrated within. Then Judge Holmes said: "THUS A QUESTION OF LAW IS RAISED". And the Court decided that the magazine before it was not "a periodical publication within the meaning of the law".

So in the case at bar, "a question of law only is raised" and not a question of fact. There was much more fact involved in Smith v. Hitchcock than there is in the case at bar.

When the Messrs. Company v. Patten case came before the United States Circuit Court for Appeals (New York Law Journal, Monday, November 5, 1917), Circuit Judge Rogers, delivering the opinion of the Court, and quoting the provisions of the Espionage Act, gave a history of the legislation and decisions regarding the exclusion of certain matter from the mails, and the functions of the Postmaster General, and held that the Espionage Act was constitutional, and that it was part of the obligations of the Postmaster General to see that the provisions of the Espionage Act were carried into effect, and then, after citing the cases of United States ex rel Dunlap v. Black (128 U.S. 40, 1888), American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty (187 U.S. 94, 1902), Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock (190 U.S., 316, 1903), Bates & Guild Company v. Payne, (194 U.S. 106, 1904), Public Clearing House v. Coyne (194 U.S. 497) and Smith v. Hitchcock, speaking as to the jurisdiction of the Court, said:

"This court holds, therefore, that if the Postmaster-General has been authorized and directed by Congress not to transmit certain mail matter

-29-

by mail, and is to determine whether a particular
publication is non-mailable under the law, he
is required to use judgment and discretion in
so determining, and his decision must be regarded
as conclusive by the courts unless it appears
that it was clearly wrong".

That perhaps goes a little beyond the language
of the Supreme Court in the opinion in Smith v. Hitchcock,
where Judge Holmes said that "the courts should not
interfere with the decision of the Postmaster General
unless clearly of opinion that it was wrong", but while
Judge Rogers used the word "conclusive", I think he had
the same rule in mind that the Supreme Court laid down
in the opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in Smith v. Hitchcock.
In the concurring opinion in that case Circuit Judge
Ward held that the authority of the Postmaster General in
the premises "depends exclusively upon the statute", as
was well stated by Mr. Justice Peckham in American School
of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, (187 U.S. page 109).
Judge Ward concludes said opinion as follows:

"Conceding, arguendo, that when a question
of fact arises, which, if found in one way,
would show a violation of the statutes in question
in some particular, the decision of the Postmaster
General that such violation had occurred, based
upon some evidence to that effect, would be
conclusive and final and not the subject of re-
view by any court, yet to that assumption must be
added the statement, that if the evidence before
the Postmaster in any view of the facts, failed
to show a violation of any federal law, the
determination of that official that such
violation existed would not be the determination
of a question of fact, but a pure mistake of law
on his part, because the facts being conceded,
whether they amounted to a violation of the stat-
utes, would be a legal question and not a question
of fact".

It seems to me that this conclusively meets
the point raised by counsel for the Government that the
decision of the Postmaster and of the Solicitor in the
case at bar was "based upon a question of fact", and

-30-

hence that his ruling was not open to review by a court
of equity.

Point IV.

The decision of Judge Learned Hand in United
States v. Kennerley, 209 Fed. Rep. 119, 120, relied upon
in Point III of the Government's brief does not apply.
In that case there had been an indictment. On demurrer
to the indictment Judge Hand said:

"The jury must determine under instructions
whether the book is obscene. The court's only
power is to decide whether the book is so clearly
innocent that the jury should not pass upon it at
all. U.S. v. Clark (D.C.) 38 Fed. 500; U.S. v.
Smith (D.C.) 45 Fed. 476. The same question
arises as would arise upon motion to direct a
verdict at the close of the case".

I was trial counsel for the defendant in the
Kennerley case. Judge Learned Hand was entirely
right in holding as a matter of law that the statements
in that book were not "so clearly innocent that the jury
should not pass upon them at all". That was emphatic-
ally a case for the jury. But it is submitted,
for the reasons set forth in this brief, that the short
story in question does not present such a case. It is
a clear case of a misapplication of the law to the
facts of the case by the Solicitor of the Post Office
Department, and nothing more.

This would seem to dispose of the Government's
contention of lack of jurisdiction.

-31-

## Point V.

There is nothing in the argument contained in Point IV of the Government's brief that the complainant has waived the right to equitable relief.

As a matter of fact what happened, as I am informed, was this: That when complainant went to mail the November number of The Little Review she was told that she could apply the money paid for the mailing of the October number upon the cost of mailing the November number and that she did so. She had no intention to waive her rights. I warned her not to withdraw the three thousand copies held by the Postmaster pending the determination of this motion, and I also told her to do nothing with reference to them without consulting me. There cannot be a waiver of rights without an intention to waive the rights. She had no intention to waive her rights. I submit herewith an answering affidavit by complainant, in order that the record may be complete, showing that the money was not "refunded" or "accepted back from the Postmaster", but that that amount was applied on the postage of the November number. The answering affidavit of complainant shows that she never intended "to acquiesce in the ruling of the Post Office Department" and never intended to waive any of her rights.

## CONCLUSION.

There is nothing under the Espionage Act involved here. There is nothing disloyal in the number of the magazine in question. No question is presented here similar to that presented in the Messes case. I was and am in favor of the prosecution of

-32-

The Masses. I believed and believe that it was
use of
rightly debarred from the mails. I believe that its
editors and those responsible for its publication were
rightly indicted. But The Little Review is an
entirely different thing. No great principle is
involved in this matter, so far as the Government or the
war is concerned. But a very great principle is
involved so far as this complaint and The Little Review
are concerned. While from the point of view of the
Government this may be a little magazine, the case does
present the great question of the liberty of the press
and the rights of literature. We in this country
with all our zeal for the prosecution of the war,
should take care that, while fighting for liberty and
freedom abroad, we do not sow the seeds of arbitrary
conduct and of tyranny at home.

The decision of the Solicitor of the Post
Office Department regarding the Lewis short story was
wrong, demonstrably wrong. Homer sometimes nods,
and it is not surprising that hard-worked officials
like Mr. Lemer should have gone wrong in this matter.

For all of these reasons, it is submitted
that the motion for an injunction pendaente lite should
be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN QUINN

Counsel for complaint.

July 20

Dear Ezra,

Would you be interested in looking
at - and improving - a translation of Cocteau?

Before Georgette Leblanc died she had finished
her second volume of Souvenirs" She called
it "La Machine à Courage". Cocteau wrote
a preface for it - the book was published
in 1947. In Paris, not get over here.

Several people have had a shot at the trans-
lation, including Lewis Gallantière.

No, I didn't know about Wyndham Lewis - how
awful. Haven't seen, and would love to,
"Rotting Hill". Who publishes?
Yes, you're right about Horan. But - BEAUTY.
Ditto - the ideogram.

Dear Ezra,

I wish I could run down to see you, but
there's illness in "the family" and I can't get
away even for a moment. Perhaps later.

If you hadn't written me about Eliot and "Eeldrop" I wouldn't have known anything about his objection to reprinting this fragment. You see, when Munson asked me to do the L.R. Anthology I consented on the condition that he would attend to all the business of it - copyrights, releases, etc. The boredom of that would have been so inconceivable to me that I wouldn't have attempted the thing.

I was in France for eight months and got back here just in time to read the page proofs. Munson never mentioned any of the business arrangements, except to say that it had been a maddening experience. I wrote him the other day, telling him what you had said about Eliot's attitude toward "Eeldrop". He has just answered :

"Eliot's story is in the public domain, according to the Library of Congress copyright office, and you were therefore free to use it. We sent him a courtesy payment which he returned with a stiff note saying that if he accepted this payment it could be construed as authorization to use his story".

This is consternating to me, as I'm writing to Eliot. Had I known how he felt I would never have used the story in the Anthology. Eliot was always wonderful to the L.R. - the least I could have done for him would have been to respect his wishes. I'm sorry that Munson didn't see fit to tell me.

I haven't the least idea what you're talking about as to Judge Hand, etc. But even if I had I wouldn't do anything about it. I've no longer any connection with, or interest in (never did have), these subjective worlds. Yes, I'd love to have some "intelligent conversation", but I'm convinced that my contribution to it might hold no interest for you. I'm sending you a book of mine which shows my "subjects", but I send it with no illusion that you'll care for it. Still, it's a beautifully organized book, and some of it is well-written.

I shall hope to get down to Washington as soon as possible

Dear Ezra,

See what happened to your last letter.
No reason for it, except the usual one.

My word was need. And I must stop
my Wyndham Lewis solicitudes. Too naive of me
to assume that he's a starving man. As you say,
his inner accensio will probably keep him going.
Too bad he doesn't NEED something more.

"Exceptional" ?? I could never use the word, now,
except in relation to someone who has gone up the
scale to a higher level of being."

... with which vile and loose phrase I will close.

(Not "possible" to see you very soon. I managed somehow to wrench my back and have been in bed for a week, unable to move without screams of pain).

Is there anything you want to read that we can find
for you???

[1953]

July 14

Dear Ezra,

I've "been serious" and answered
T. H. Carter's letter; AND told him that I'd
try to help with your new project. But one
thing I've never been able to do is to raise
money. I see and know no people with money
today - in fact I see no people at all. I'm
a happy recluse, and I can't think, seriously,
of the need for any new little magazines. What
I think there's a need for can't be stated with-
out pomposity - at least by me, since I'm largely
inexpressive (except with effort). To be really
serious, I've seen one thing lately that impresses
me with beauty - published, of all places, in Har-
per's Bazaar. You may not have seen - I enclose.

However, if the new magazine prints YOU, I'll be
interested. Also I've told Munson to send Car-
ter the Anthology, which for some unholy reason he
refused to do, C. says.

Jarvis Thurston seems too unimportant to answer. He
ought to send me a tribute for having had the sense
to keep the "minor figures" out of the Anthology.
Have you seen any of the good reviews??

7

October 9

Ezra - you ARE nice - I loved your letter. Rather
expected you to answer more negatively.

I'm not "too young and inexperienced" to know - as
everyone does - that Los Angeles and London are hot-
beds of crack-pot mystics. Also know that all lit-
erate persons have read all the great general state-
ments 4000 times. All of which has nothing to do
with Gurdjieff and *autre chose*.

There IS nothing "goddam specific" anywhere. In Con-
fucius? the New Testament? Certainly not. It's
all there - all but the specific. It was Gurdjieff's
function to be specific.

But no one will realize this until he gets into the
thing, and no one gets into it without a NEED. Still
... a great shock like blindness can create a need,
and an unknown experience can begin.

Of course you're right about Joyce: Eliot a little
less nead, don't you think, because at least he
wanted *something* - even if only what can be found in
conventional religion. If Lewis has nothing but
"young Carter's efforts on his behalf" it's too bad.
> on earth
What can Carter do for him - except to publish him???

In any case, my bloke is not a man. Name is
Mme. Vera Daumal - 1, Square Delambre, Paris 14°
Widow of René Daumal, whom the N.R.F. is still
publishing. She has real intelligence, various
cultures, can present Gurdjieff's "specific"
decently, and can certainly match Lewis in ideas.
Why don't you write to her? - but in English. I
doubt whether she would understand your latest
letter-prose.

We're going to try to see you in November. If
possible?? D. C. very much wants to. She makes
most effective speeches about you from time to time.
The other day : "Ezra is one of the few people
(lately) who has shown me how large the spirit of a
man can become".

Greetings from us both, au revoir et à bientôt.

[1953-1954]

RIDERWOOD, Md., March 4

Ezra dear - What possible interest can you imagine I take in Fanny Wright (the only one I know of) ??

As for Elsa von F. L. - that must be left to Peter Whigham. I did all about her I could in the L. R.

know no

And anyhow I __ know no one __ I would take up cudgels for at the moment except myself - depicted in the London Times of February 12 as " a genius without talent". Oh of course I'd fight for you at any time - except on the damned subject of your interest in economics, which I deplore.

I never see the Penguin. Where is it published?? - or can you send me the Geoffrey Moore article? Have you seen review of L. R. Anthology in Poetry? I've not yet, but have sent for it.

I've written for your Literary Essays. Hope it comes soon. Booksellers - and publishers - make one wait 2 or 3 weeks before filling any order.

September 26

Dear Ezra - I've been swamped with mss. business, but
very much want to send you the enclosed (for Wyndham Lewis,
though I have no hope that he will want to see it). Still...

I told you how his blindness haunts me. As you know I've
always been a propagandist - as you have : you for GOOD
versus BAD writing; I too for Art, but later for some-
thing greater. Call it "higher knowledge".

Lewis's propaganda maras his "Rotting Hill" - because it's
purely topical. Why can't his mind leap to a
higher level??? Such a leap would give him the only
compensation worth having - of all those that he'll
inevitably make.

Of course he speaks only of having a dictaphone : that
is, he will continue to teach rather than to learn.

But why don't we make a stab at something else for him?
I sound like a repulsive missionary. . . But if his
interest could be caught, I know someone in London who
could give his best feature (his mind) something real to
feed on.

What do you say? YOU can present the idea to him.
Then we could send him "The Psychology of Man's Possible
Evolution". Etc.

August 11

Cher Ezra - What a master! - Lewis. Mental-center and emotional-center in absolute balance. Have ordered a copy from Methuen and will return yours soon. D. C. so crazy about it she can't put it down.

Unthinkable that a man with such an eye should be blind. Is there no hope? - an operation or something???

Did I tell you that Eliot wrote me a nice letter? No longer annoyed abouteldrop, and likes the Anthology.