Go to Page Number Go to Page Number
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The New Statesman, 32 (23 Mar 1929) 757

Sir: Like Mr. Edward Garnett, whose letter in your issue of March 16th I read with much interest, I was disturbed by the attitude which you adopted towards the Sleeveless Errandcase; and I am not reassured by your reply to Mr. Garnett. 2 I have not read the book, but your comments upon it seem to me contradictory. You say, what no one denies, that “the police must retain the power to prohibit the general publication of prurient and pornographic pictures or writings which have no artistic value.” 3 How this remark applies to Miss James’s book is not clear; for you say later that two-thirds of the book “contain a very moving and admirably related tale to which no possible objection could be taken,” and you “deny confidently that the book could possibly do any harm to anyone.” 4 If the magistrate had thought as you do, that the book could do no harm, how could he have applied the statute under which it was condemned? 5 If the book could do no harm, then surely all defence or palliation of its suppression falls to the ground.

Furthermore, your counsel is that “pending the happy day when police supervision is altogether abolished, we think it the business of authors to avoid writing in such a way as positively to invite police interference.” 6 Moses might thus have replied to the Lord: “Pending the happy day when Pharaoh will see the reasonableness of abolishing all restrictions on the freedom of movement of the children of Israel, I think it the business of my people to avoid acting in such a way as positively to invite the despatch of six hundred chariots.” If authors act with such sweet reasonableness, the happy day is still less likely to arrive, and the bondage will endure for ever. I congratulate you upon your composition of liberalism and prudence.

I am far from believing that all pieces of fiction written by enthusiastic and earnest young women are “works of art.” This obscure phrase merely confuses the issue, though doubtless the belief that a suppressed book is a work of art wins it many supporters. And the question is not what “the most broadminded of magistrates” should do when the book is arraigned before him: the point is that it should not be brought before him; the fault is not with Pilate. 7 There is a commonsense knowledge by inspection of pornographic literature of the underworld sort, which is adequate. There is another type of pornographic literature, of which I have seen specimens, and which is always written in such a way as to avoid the possibility of police action. Miss James’s book, I am sure from your own testimony, is not pornographic. Yours, etc.,

t. s. eliot 24, russell square, w. c. 1 march 19th.

Published By:   Faber & Faber logo    Johns Hopkins University Press

Access