The Egoist, March 2 1914

This issue opens with another essay deconstructing (aware of anachronism, but it suits) the decalogue, presumably by Dora Marsden. Marsden's criticism turns to "love one another" this issue. The gist of her argument is that a commandment making love compulsory has the effect of acting as an incredibly powerful repressive tool by giving license to interfere with (love) one's neighbors. Contrasting this with real love, which is a childish (in a good way) friendship that allows for self-expression, Marsden makes a plea for an immoral life based on taste, hoping that  "men begin un­ashamedly to judge the quality of life by its flavour in actual living: by their own "taste" in regard to it, forming thereby their principle as to what they accept and what they reject in it, which is living by a "principle of taste"—a principle which is no principle. It is living according to personal desire: life according to whim: life without principle: the essentially immoral life" (83). Pretty radical. As I understand it, this fits nicely into the arc of The Egoist by attacking terminology and then redefining it. The grounds of morality are completely undermined to allow each individual to set the terms of their own existence. Cracks are taken at churchmen and feminists who promote herd-mentality. It's an attractive philosophy for an artist, though--taste as the arbiter of morality, Pound's dilettante?

The next column is the repeating "Views and Comments," and it slides in nicely, following up the ideas introduced above. In South Africa, major labor unrest is shaking the foundations of the Boer-controlled government. General Smuts is brutally repressing the strikers, winning the admiration of The Egoist: "General Smuts, who affirms frankly to an astonished world that the means which keeps men free is the necessary force to defend whatever state or condition it pleases any whatsoever to give the name of " freedom" (84). No shared basis for morality.

Ok: then the editor(s) go on to continue sparring with Benjamin Tucker, who has labeled them "Archists" rather than "Anarchists," a lovely term with its inclusion of "arch" and Archy. The editors take this opportunity to explain the difference between the anarchy they prefer and Tucker's: Tucker wants anarchy of conscience, in which everyone treats everyone well without a state because it is "right." The Egoist prefers anarchism as a resistance to state power, of space for individuals to reach a higher form of self-determination (including, presumably, space to oppress people?). Scary.

Miss Hoskyns-Abrahall is advertising a series of lectures. I'm going to try to screen-capture the ad, because it is too cool for summary. Anyone who has read Yeats' A Vision want to comment on the similarities? How effortlessly it moves from discussing biology and education to spirituality!

Aldington contributes translated dialogues from Lucan, the Pan one is particularly nice.

Madame Ciolkowska reviews drawings by Andre Rouveyre. She intro's them with (of all things) a quotation from Paraclesus and the animal nature of man (especially woman). Apparently Rouveyre's value comes from being able to show how animal we are. And then there's this terrifying Marie Curie Zombie:

On the poetry front, John Gould Fletcher's Irradiations are selected in this issue--see my discussion of them from Poetry, if you want.

The last thing I'll mention here, despite the wealth of stuff in the correspondence pages, is the next chapter of Portrait of the Artist. This is the one where Dante Riordan gets in a big fight with Simon Daedelus over Parnell and the place of the Church in Ireland. I want to point out how perfectly this chapter illustrates everything Marsden says at the beginning of the issue: the debate is the source of morality.

Ok I lied: "Auceps" satirizes Pound in the correspondence section, showing off his (Auceps') knowledge of Greek sculpture and making fun of Pound's claims to knowledge of everything. On the way he compares Pound to Ruskin, though, which is interesting. Auceps must be Richard Aldington? Not sure about that...