concludes a harangue full of the most amazingly truculent vulgarity with these impressive words: "Now I guess the folks in this man's town will quit listening to all this kyoodling from behind the fence; I guess you'll quit listening to the guys that pan and roast and kick and beef, and vomit out filthy atheism; and all of you'll come in with every grain of pep and reverence you got, and boost altogether for Jesus Christ and His everlasting mercy and tenderness." It would be vain to hope that this passage will ever be excelled. One can read Babbitt as a satire-though it is not great satire;—but a comparison of it with Tono Bungay or Mr. Britling is fatal to the American novel. Wells too is satirical, unconventional, neither to hold nor to bind. But he is also immensely human. Mr. Sinclair's humanity, as manifested by the people in his story, is in the way of throwing a brick at one's wife and afterwards being sorry. Professor Canby is right: this "literature of protest" has to be written, and it would be a mistake to suppose that it has no significance. But even the younger generation, who revel in rebellion, is rather shrewder in its appreciation of life than Mr. Lewis is in his story-it is not hard to be shrewder than a man who has a thesis. And they will remorselessly check him up with their own experience which even, when it is not large, usually begets a certain clear and non-theoretical wisdom. It will be Mr. Lewis's fate to be smiled with, and also a good deal smiled at, by youth. Yes, satire is good even in large doses, sometimes, but one cannot help feeling that when the Main Street fashion has passed, a new Dickens, sentiment and all, may be hailed as the wisest of all writing men. SIR: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND COUÉISM In an article by Joseph Collins, appearing in your August issue, the writer implies that the method of mental healing employed by M. Coué is similar in many respects to that of Christian Science. Without attempting a detailed explanation I will here briefly state that the teachings and practice of this Science, as set forth in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, its Discoverer and Founder, are the very antipodes of Couéism. Christian Science, for instance, does not heal by means of psychotherapy or autosuggestion; and no more does it require, as is the case with the French physician and hypnotist, the constant repetition of specially formulated phrases by those who turn to it for help. In fact, it specifically prohibits the use of formulas and classifies all forms of suggestion as activities of the carnal mind of which sin and its resultant states, sickness and death, are effects. Christian Science logically holds, therefore, that since the seeming cause of disease obtains in the carnal mind which, as Paul tells us, is the source of death and enmity against God, its cure must come not, as our critic implies, through a supernatural enforcement of the corporeal will, itself a product of this mind, but from the natural operation of the corrective and curative power of divine Mind in human consciousness before which all phases of sin and disease yield as readily and inevitably as darkness gives way to light. The Christian Scientist, striving to emulate the example of Christ Jesus, earnestly prays, Not my will, but Thine, be done; realizing that blessings are obtainable only by full and complete submission to the will of God. Furthermore, the primal object of treatment in Christian Science is to improve the individual morally and spiritually; while suggestive and hypnotic methods of mental healing have no religious element but look merely to the physical betterment. In drawing a distinction between the operation of Christian metaphysics, as taught and practised by her and the various systems of mental therapy based on a belief in the power of human will, Mrs. Eddy has stated the case most clearly on p. 144 of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, "Human will-power is not Science. Human will belongs to the so-called material senses, and its use is to be condemned. Willing the sick to recover is not the metaphysical practice of Christian Science." CHARLES E. HEITMAN, Christian Science Committee on Publication. New York. SIR: MR. FLINT AND "A SERIOUS GENTLEMAN” I appeal to you in behalf of Mr. Flint. In The Founding of Main Street (first paper) appearing in a recent number of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, poor Mr. Flint is carelessly charged with the literary absurdities pronounced by a certain "serious gentleman" who discussed literary subjects with that ardent critic Mrs. Trollope. To quote your contributor: "Mrs. Trollope describes an evening with an American scholar, a Mr. Flint. He was, also, the lady observes, what is called in America a serious gentleman," etc. Then follow the literary observations of the serious one, which Mrs. Trollope criticises to her heart's content. But the "serious gentleman" and Mr. Flint were totally different persons; and that is made specially plain in the original narrative. The "serious gentleman" is introduced in these words: "On one occasion, but not at the house of Mr. Flint, I passed an evening in company with a gentleman said to be a scholar and a man of reading. He was also what is called a serious gentleman, and he appeared to have pleasure in feeling that his claim to distinction was acknowledged in both capacities." During her three years' sojourn in this country, almost everybody and everything American called forth the petulant criticisms of the acidulous Mrs. Trollope. But Mr. Flint-Oh, rare Mr. Flint! he was the one glowing exception. He was the white haired boy. She actually found something in him to commend, in spite of the unpleasant circumstance that he was really an American. Nay, she was at considerable pains to set him apart from the common herd, and point out and proclaim his superior accomplishments. It seems like the irony of fate that, after taking such unusual care to immortalize Mr. Flint as the bright and particular object of her approval, his identity should now be confused with that of the solemn numskull whose literary vagaries she so heartily condemned. Mr. Flint deserves a monument and fame, rather than misrepresentation and obscurity. Bismarck, N. D. BELLE DIETRICH BYRNE. BATHTUB AND GARBAGE CAN SIR: I cannot quite follow Mr. Allen West Shaw's objections to my objection to the Garbage Can, so used, or misused, in our long-suffering country. Surely, in one short article he could not expect me to give statistics of every city, every town, every village that forms a part of this "heterogeneous mass". But had he done me the honor to read to the end of my article he would have discovered that I do not uphold all "the national habits" of the people in the countries of Europe. On the contrary, I deplore our "undesirable aliens who add their foreign methods of untidiness to our own," and refer to unfortunate customs in Italian villages and horrors of filth in South European Ghettos. But I point out that when these aliens become American citizens, they think they have the right to inflict their home methods upon us and are not disillusioned by our authorities. I have traveled far and wide in Europe, living on that side of the Atlantic for over thirty years, and never anywhere have I seen such slovenliness as we allow in our parks, in our principal streets, at our own particular doorsteps. We take our bathtub as the symbol of cleanliness, and so little understand cleanliness itself that the garbage everywhere in evidence is no offense. We are like our doughboys who in France shrank from the manure heap at the peasant's door and at home are sublimely unconscious of the garbage can at their own. It is high time for us to learn that "cleanliness and sanitation" begin and end not in the private bathtub, but really in the town or countryside we all share in common. Brooklyn, N. Y. SIR: ELIZABETH ROBINS PENNELL. THE RIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT I am interested in the controversy over the Principles of Prohibition, in which the Rev. Mr. McKim challenges the XVIII Amendment. There is a rather interesting political principle involved in that challenge that uncovers the foundation principles on which our government rests, to-wit: The right of the people to place that kind of an amendment in the Constitution. It is a well settled principle in our political science that sovereignty resides with the people. That is: they possess the power to make or to abrogate constitutions, but the power to amend may be limited by prior engagements. THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW cannot perform a more valuable and patriotic service than opening its pages to an authentic discussion of that very important question. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma H. L. TRISLER. [The interesting and important point raised by our correspondent was discussed with much detail and authority in the October number of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, pp. 573-576.-THE EDITORS.] Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW DECEMBER, 1922 "THE FREEDOM OF THE STRAITS" BY ALFRED L. P. DENNIS THE Conference on the Near East has a full docket; in close connection with its decisions is the question as to the use of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Is the United States Navy to be barred from the Straits and the Black Sea? Will precedents which may be created at Lausanne affect American interest in the fortification of the Panama Canal? Such possibilities are involved in the deliberations at which our Government is an interested observer. "The freedom of the Straits" has a simple attractive sound as though it were a victorious slogan of long pent liberty. In fact it is a term encrusted with historical importance and mouldy with international intrigue. Today, in spite of wars and of treaties, the problem of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles remains pregnant with trouble. Its solution is endangered by the variety of the issues at stake and by the venom of traditional rivalries. The blood shed by the thousands on thousands who died at Gallipoli did not wash the way clear to a just and peaceable settlement in the Near East. The result is that four years after the Armistice a definitive arrangement is only just emerging. Unless that settlement is based on sound international principles and with proper regard to the true interests of separate nations, both weak and strong, the peace of the world will remain in danger. Our American interest in the settlement is therefore clear and Copyright, 1922, by North American Review Corporation. All rights reserved. VOL, CCXVI.-No. 805 46 |