The Egoist, March 16 1914

This issue opens with the editors responding to their overt dialogic partner, Benjamin Tucker. Because I'm going back in time a little to catch this one, I would like to hazard that the manifesto in the March 19 issue of The New Age (see above post) is, at least obliquely, a response to the thesis of the opening "Views and Comments" here. Compare this paragraph, for example:

"The hypothesis upon which the rebel leaders—the agitators—press their propaganda is that "some­ thing" is amiss: therefore that it is a "duty" for those of us who are not pleased with things, to be prepared to attack persons and institutions. An egoist would say that such an hypothesis is erroneous and that hopes built on working it out will end in failure and disappointment." (104)

Going on to explain that the egoist would suggest that the poor gain power by whatever means they can. Pre-echoes of the "if you don't like being poor, get a job" argument, modified somewhat by The Egoist's lack of moral scruples. I didn't think I'd ever start siding with The New Age over The Egoist, and it is probably foolish to set myself into a false binary from a century ago, but there you have it.

The current installment of Portrait of the Artist is the smugging incident, right at home among The Egoist's discussions of Ireland, authority, education, homosexuality, etc. A perfect fit.

Pound reviews a show by Epstein and Gaudier-Brzeska, inaugurating the use of "snuggly" as an art-critical term:

"Brzeska is in a formative stage, he is abundant and pleasing. His animals have what one can only call a 'snuggly,' comfortable feeling, that might appeal to a child. A very young child would like them to play with if they were not stone and too heavy" (109).

William Carlos Williams contributes a sequence called The Wanderer: A Rococo Study. It leaps Whitmanically through the air with birds, attended by a mysterious goddess-shifting being, meets the Passaic. Is this part of Paterson? I run to the living room. I cannot find these passages. Perhaps they are presages.

Lastly, not leastly, a piece from the correspondence section. In reply to Benjamin Tucker's futile attempts to deal with/apprehend/converse with The Egoist, the editors attach this self-description:

 Perhaps if we made a few statements we might help matters somewhat.
(1) We refuse to answer to "Rebel."
(2) We prefer not to be called "Pragmatist."
(3) We may not—according to Mr. Tucker—be called "Anarchist"—wherein we are quite willing to acquiesce.
(4) We respond readily to "Egoist," and beg it to be observed that throughout this battle about nomenclature, the "voice" remains the same: and that a well-meaning person could distinguish it anywhere.—ED.