The Egoist, June 15 1914

I’m curious how this issue will appear in retrospect: the last printed before the beginning of World War One. It is full of significant writing, full of confidence. It’s also the end of another era: it is Dora Marsden’s last as editor, though she will continue to contribute columns. Harriet Shaw-Weaver will take the helm now. There’s a lot to cover.

I'll start with Marsden, though, because she's departing. Here's her explanation of the changes in title, from The Freewoman to The New Freewoman to The Egoist: 

"The exposition of "The New Morality" turned into a study of the words Morality and Moral; the New Freedom, into an inquiry as to what one meant by being "Free." Far from being erratic the development of the FREEWOMAN-EGOIST has been in one unbroken line: a line of inquiry which has gnawed its way straight through difficulties where the "faithful," the "loyal" would have broken down or turned back. It is not a "new" morality which is required, but an understanding of the "moral" in order to put it in its proper place."

The overall effect of this editorial is twofold: Marsden is looking back on her time as a suffragette, explaining why she (and others) join the movement, and blaming the movement's shortcomings on the Pankhursts. The Pankhurst lust for power, backed by their charisma, formed an illusion of importance that was transferable to young women around England. Ultimately they were duped by this enthusiasm, believing that they were fighting for a cause but actually fighting for an abstraction. 

Moving along too quickly: 

Henri Gaudier-Brzeska reviews the Allied Artists' Association show of modern art. He goes down through the catalog, commenting on many of the artists by name, including himself--he gives his own work conditioned praise, distancing himself from Pound's earlier adulation by declaring himself superior to ancient Chinese sculpture. He points to unusual techniques like carved brass adding to his completely abstract design. This comes up again later when he's explaining why he doesn't like Nevinson (futurism: "impressionism using false weapons"). Here he describes an important difference among the painters:

"Though I am not wholly in sympathy with the other painters, I feel it my duty to point out that the rest of the hall is shared by two sections—one com­posed of able, convinced men admiring natural forms only—and the other of poor academic imitators whose efforts cannot be classified as art even. There is a transitional body—men starting from nature and getting on the verge of the abstract."

This issue also includes Ezra Pound’s essay “Wyndham Lewis,” which is ragged and fantastic. 

In context, this piece is another declaration of independence for the modernists represented by The Egoist and Blast (which is being published just about now -100 years). I won't go in-depth on it here (there will be time)--I do want to point out that along with Gaudier-Brzeska and this essay with its anti-Futurist bias, in the correspondence page is a more literal declaration. Apparently in response to an article in The Observer, this group wrote in to declare that they are not part of Marinetti's movement:

This seems suitable in the context of the ramp-up to Blast and Vorticism in general. 

Quick Notes:

The issue opens with Aldington on French poetry—in general, he follows the method of criticism used by Pound in his French columns in The New Age: briefest introduction followed by extensive quotation.

And though I haven't mentioned it for a few posts, Portrait of the Artist is continuing in its brilliance, in its deep resonance with The Egoist's philosophy.