Barbarism and Civilization in the Letters of REH and HPL (Part 7) by David Piske

The 2015 Cross Plains Postal Cancellation
artwork by Mark Schultz

Almost a year and a half into the controversy between Howard and Lovecraft in their correspondence, the conversation has already taken several turns and led to flared tempers. The degree of resentment, especially on REH's part, seems to rise with every cycle of letters. As does HPL's exasperation. At the end of his last letter, HPL admitted to some misgivings about the effect of mechanization on culture, and worries about the future of civilization as mechanization progresses by the hands of an "already somewhat tainted race." Such a candid confession of doubt about the progress of civilization could be received favorably by REH, especially considering HPL's usual haughty optimism about civilization.

However it may be a matter of 'too-little, too-late,' as REH's resentment is already roused, and it seems like he may not even grasp all of HPL's arguments, even though he would never admit it. Indeed, instead REH seems to back off from arguing vigorously against civilization (perhaps seeing himself at a disadvantage on HPL's turf), and fall back onto his original statement—that his preference for barbarism is personal, not absolute. But first there are several accusations and misunderstandings that must be addressed.

Letter 95: REH to HPL (ca. January 1934)

Coming back to address their lengthy controversies, REH turns first to the topic of art and its relative place in the human scale of values. REH says that he finally understands the idea behind HPL's objections to his arguments: "You say I 'refuse to accept the basic standards of human development" (693). REH denies this charge and claims only to question HPL's ideas about what constitutes the criterion of development.From a cosmic perspective he believes all values are irrelevant:

"I am convinced that things are a meaningless jumble, that a caterpillar is as important as a man, that a baboon is as significant as an artist, and that it means absolutely nothing to the universe whether a man is an imbecile or a genius" (693).

But he does recognize a scale of values in human affairs, and claims that all of his actions reflect recognition of this scale. He speculates that HPL came to his inaccurate conclusion about him based on disparaging remarks about supposedly "superior" men in a previous letter (Letter 87). However, REH claims, he never denied the superiority of some types of men; he only questioned what he thought was HPL's narrow identification of superiority with the arts, and with the formal occupation of art, specifically.

In defense of his previous denial that art is higher than (at least) some other types of human activity, he points out that HPL has admitted as much when he said that various intellectual activities (e.g., science, statesmanship) are equal to art. REH implies that this is what he had meant in the first place, for he certainly did not mean to equate art with "the making of mud pies or the twiddling of one's thumbs" (694). But he says further that HPL too narrowly identifies superiority with intellectual pursuits. A superior man, he says, is one who, regardless of his line of work (from physician to football coach), attains the highest possible degree of development in his field. Then he says that HPL admitted as much in a previous statement when he stated that art is "merely one of the several manifestations of the highest state of development" (694).

REH concludes the matter denying that he repudiates "human values" and claims that they both agree that other things occupy the same level as art (694). REH seems to overstate the level of agreement between them here. First, HPL's argument is that certain types of human activity are higher. Excelling in one's profession is not necessarily a sign of the superiority HPL has in mind. Second, the particular kinds of activity that they each would consider on par with art has not been agreed upon.

Robert E. Howard

As noted before, human freedom has been one of the the most important topics in REH's controversy with HPL. The amount of ink spilled by REH on this topic attests to its importance to him; in A Means to Freedom this section covers over 12 pages, most of which follows a point by point rebuttal of HPL's arguments. He begins by correcting HPL's misunderstanding. Previously, HPL had stated that there is no "perfect liberty," and that the degree of man's liberty in any age is a result of social and economic conditions. REH admitted that freedom is relative, but seemed to conflate HPL's view with that of philosophical "sophists" who say that freedom is a myth, and he countered with the analogy of a philosopher forced out of his contemplative profession to work at hard labor for long hours. HPL, in turn, mistook the meaning of the analogy, taking it instead as a new angle to the argument. In his response here, REH says "there is no need to get a new slant on my conception of [freedom]—which is simply that there was more personal freedom on the frontier than there is in modern life" (697).

HPL on the shore of Magnolia, MA
in August of 1922

He acknowledges HPL's hope that mechanization will "usher in an age of leisure," but observes that it has not yet arrived. And merely "in passing" he observes that mechanization did not work out well for farmers. The tractor reduced the farmer's work, but prices for finished commodities increased while cost for the raw product did not, forcing farmers to double and triple their yields, and leaving many in debt and bankruptcy (697). Returning to the main thrust of his response, he reiterates that his previous analogy was a reply to HPL's claim that liberty is a myth (something which HPL did not say!).

He expresses resentment that his desire for freedom is considered merely romantic whim. He asserts that his motivation for writing is purely because of the freedom it gives him, and he mocks artistic aspiration. He caustically reiterates his view of philosophers theorizing away freedom, and likens his own craving for freedom with that of his forefathers who left Ireland for America: "An ideal that rules the lives of generations is no empty pose" (697).

Barbarism and Civilization in the Letters of REH and HPL (Part 6) by David Piske

Letter 89: HPL to REH (November 2, 1933)

Before turning to meatier matters of the debate, HPL addresses REH's charge of resentment. Using the third person point of view, HPL indirectly admits that he is exasperated by "his opponent" for "contravening common reason and attack the foundations of everything which makes life valuable to persons above the simian grade," but he brushes these feelings off as a "side issue" (660). To HPL, the only thing that matters is the truth of the arguments, and resentment is irrelevant and only muddies the argument with the "waste products" of emotion which should be ignored. HPL is sincerely baffled at REH's offense. He regrets the unintentional offense and insists that he does not have an arrogant attitude.

Next HPL attempts to clarify REH's misunderstanding of his point about the superior human personality and lower forms of entertainment. He reiterates his distinction between classifying things and classifying people who like those things. Indeed, HPL had labored to make this point in his original argument, and it is unclear how REH came away with the opposite impression. HPL affirms that the wisest man can gain pleasure from the trashiest sources (but on nonintellectual or nonaesthetic grounds) (662). He is unapologetic about recognizing the relative value of different things (for example, Eddie Guest's poetry is "crap"), and he cares greatly about their relation to the larger questions of political, economic, and social order; but he does not even think of judging individuals by their taste in entertainment (662-3).

In the next several pages of the letter (four pages, as they are formatted in A Means to Freedom) HPL does not directly rebut any of REH's arguments, but develops and defends his argument for the universal and quasi-absolute value of human development (being careful to distinguish this from a cosmic or sacred value). His argument is subtle and abstract, and he restates his main point numerous times in different ways until he finally arrives (halfway through his argument) at a more succinct thesis: "Human valuation of high development is universal" (664). Acknowledging his repetition, he explains that it is necessary because REH challenges the basis for evaluating everything (665).

In brief, HPL's argument is that societies possess parallel sets of values. Some of these are relative to a given set of conditions; others are more absolute, because they have to do with the physical welfare of the race. Together these values aim at the survival, welfare, and functioning of society. Through these values a universal feeling can be observed, that becomes a separate value parallel to the others: the desirability of advancement. Because of the universality of this value for advancement, national policy should encourage aesthetic and intellectual development, which is the highest expression of this development.

HPL labors to demonstrate that this position entails no elitism or depreciation of sturdier qualities that REH holds to be paramount; these sturdier virtues support the survival, welfare, and integrity of society, parallel with the ultimate value of advancement, which gives society its purpose. He draws an analogy to a Gothic cathedral. The "sturdier" values are like the foundation stones and buttresses, while intellect and aesthetic sensitivity are like its towers, traceries, and rose windows, which represent the "emotional exaltation" which was its purpose for being built (666).

Gothic Cathedral

As a final point of clarification, HPL agrees in principle with REH, that "Art is merely one of several manifestations of the highest stage of development" (666-7). Development, itself, is general and includes many different types of activities and occupations. For instance, scientists are just as exalted as artists. Also executives and administrators are essentially scientists in their own fields. Even great military leaders occupy the edges of this class (666). With this point HPL hopes to make clear to REH that he never intended to exalt art (as a profession) as the sole instance of human development, and he supports the sincere pursuit of any "line of effort."

Barbarism and Civilization in the Letters of REH and HPL (Part 5) by David Piske

At the present point of the epistolary debate between Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft (just over a year in), the direct arguments about barbarism and civilization have become dwarfed by their debates on a wide range of other issues, most of which are related to the original disagreement. This was inevitable since the concept of barbarism for Howard, and of civilization for Lovecraft represent a broader set of values and ideals. In the interest of thoroughness, our summary and analysis of the debate has broadened, taking a look at many (but by no means all) of these other topics. In addition to a debate of ideas, in these letters we also see both men's personality on display, for better and worse. Already in the last several letters, tempers have flared and seeming cooled. And in the two letters in view here, we see REH adopting the role of the iconoclast, smashing HPL's idols, while HPL labors to establish a common framework by which to determine meaning. Despite the civil and apparently genuinely friendly conversations about each other's writings and personal lives, on the topics of their controversy, resentment has crept it and seems colors many of the arguments.

Letter 87: REH to HPL (ca. September 1933)

After several pages of friendly chatting, REH returns to the debate with HPL, first addressing the value of art and intellect. Previously, the disagreement on this matter seemed resolvable. REH himself had pointed out the minimal degree of conflict between their positions. However, here REH again seems animated by HPL's haughtiness. REH begins his response regarding their multi-faceted debate by directly addressing their mutual resentment:

"In a previous discussion you quite obviously deeply resented what seemed like an attack on artistic values and other things you prized; rightly enough; yet now you denounce me as irrational, emotional and egotistical because I resent – or seem to resent – attacks on certain things I happen to prize rather highly. . . . I fail to see that it is any less my privilege to defend my tastes and ideals than it is another man's, even if I am not an artist" (634).

It is plain that REH feels just as much resentment now as HPL seems to have felt initially. He clearly objects to the way in which HPL has framed the debate. The last clause is especially revealing: "even if I am not an artist." Warranted or not, REH feels as if HPL considers him to be unqualified to hold and defend his views.

Next, REH objects to HPL's supposed attempt to "classify an entire personality according to the sources of its pleasure" (634). But HPL did not do this; actually, he explicitly denied this could be done. He maintained that certain pleasures are inferior to others, but he explained (at length) that because of uneven and compartmentalized development personality, otherwise superior men can find pleasure in inferior diversions. As a result, HPL says, it is an error to attempt "to classify men rigidly according to their pleasures" (621). REH appears occasionally not to grasp the subtlety of HPL's arguments, and now we see he completely misinterprets what is a fairly clear position.

Regarding HPL's claim that art is a sign of man's evolution (that is, his qualitative difference from amoeba), REH affirms the bare observation, but argues for its irrelevance. Art is no more characteristic of humans than other acts, like sacrifice. Or even negative qualities that humans tend to gloss over when defining themselves as a species: like treachery or sexual perversion. Man is unique among animals not merely on account of qualities he cherishes, but also by his unique faults. Humans are the only species capable of duplicity, he says, and most animals have more honesty and decency than humans. REH's point is clear, but its force is in doubt, for the very acts of duplicity and honesty, or categories of decency and indecency require consciousness, and cannot be attributed to (at least most) nonhuman species. Besides this, REH seems to miss the real gist of HPL's argument: that man's distinction from animals is not a matter of morality, but of complexity and development.

The Mirror of E’ch-Pi-El: Robert E. Howard in the Letters of H. P. Lovecraft (Part 3) by Bobby Derie

HPL

If Lovecraft balanced praise and criticism for Howard’s stories in his letters, and claimed a certain formulaic quality or a preference for adventure over weird atmosphere, he also had considerable praise for Howard’s characters, particularly the King Kull stories which “probably forms a weird peak” (SL5.278); indeed, later on he would claim they constituted “REH’s best weird tales.” (LRBO 360) At times, Lovecraft would discuss Howard’s characters at some length, showing how the knowledge of Howard’s life and interests from his letters influenced Lovecraft’s interpretation of his fiction:

About good old Two-Gun Bob’s characters—odd as it may sound, I doubt whether Conan was, in spirit & intent, a typical pulp hero. He resembled such externally, but actually I fancy he was a type or projection of the sort of lawless rover REH himself longed to be. There was more of sincere & ardent wish-fulfillment than of conventional copying in the mighty Cimmerian—& that is why he always seemed to me more alive than the jointed marionettes of Hamilton & all the other hacks. Solomon Kane reflected another side of Two-Gun—the brooding ethical sense which made him furious over injustices & oppressions. How he used to storm over the maltreatment of prisoners by policemen, the high-handed outrages of absentee oil corporations in Texas, & latterly the absorption of Abyssinia by Italy! But after all, the human characters are the least part of weird fiction. REH had a strange atmospheric power which manifested itself in more subtleties of description than even he himself realized, & which leaves in the reader’s mind a menacing, mist-wreathed image of Cyclopean walls in the jungle, smothered in unwholesome vines, & hiding hellish secrets older than mankind. (LHK 25)

The Mirror of E’ch-Pi-El: Robert E. Howard in the Letters of H. P. Lovecraft (Part 2) by Bobby Derie

Lovecraft’s esteem for Howard’s correspondence was such that he expressed the wish that “I’d like to publish all his letters with their descriptive and historical riches.” (SL5.277, cf. LJFM 389, LRS 82), much as August Derleth and Donald Wandrei would later do for Lovecraft himself, noting that “They’d need editing, since they are all replies to specific arguments of mine.” (LRBO 399)—and indeed, having both sides of the argument in A Means to Freedom makes considerably better sense than trying to collate the much-abridged contents of the Selected Letters of Robert E. Howard and the Selected Letters of H. P. Lovecraft.

For all that Lovecraft praised these letters, he quoted rather little from them—as Howard had requested they be kept private (“I don’t have to tell you that a lot of the things of which I speak are in strict confidence.” CL2.416, cf. 3.363), telling Willis Conover “About one of REH’s argumentative letters—he always used to ask me to keep them confidential” (LRBO 399) and F. Lee Baldwin “I’d show you some of his letters if he hadn’t asked me not to let anybody see them.” (SL5.108) Despite this injunction from Howard, Lovecraft did write “I’ll lend you some of his encyclopaedic letters if you think you’d enjoy a sidelight on such an unusual character.” (ES2.524) and a notation on a letter from Howard to Lovecraft ca. December 1932 includes a notation that shows it was “lent out” in this fashion. (CL2.489)

Barbarism and Civilization in the Letters of Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft: A Summary with Commentary (Part 1), by David Piske

The 2015 Cross Plains Postal Cancellation
artwork by Mark Schultz

Like most others, my first taste of Robert E. Howard’s writing was his Conan stories. A prominent theme in these works is the tension between Conan and the city. It helped define the character and fuel conflict, I thought little else of it. But during my second visit to REH Days in 2014 I learned of the debate between Howard and H.P. Lovecraft on barbarism and civilization. The topic immediately became my hook, drawing me deeper into the study of Howard.

My initial bias was against Howard. How could anyone defend barbarism? Not that I believe that our present civilization is all it is made out to be by some. But I enjoy the relative safety of my domicile provided by the rule of law. And I am happy to have access to medicines and treatments that are the result of vigorous scientific study. Neither of these, nor many other benefits, could exist without at least some degree of civilization. Though Howard never knew the mad joys of smartphones, the addictive buzz of social media, or the rush of illegally downloading the latest episode of Game of Thrones, I could not believe that he would suggest throwing away the other benefits of civilization, especially in favor of subsistence living and constant threat of physical violence. I had to know more.

My first step involved haranguing other fans and some experts at REH Days. Based on responses my impression was that everyone knew of the debate, many had actually read it, but few had anything like an analysis of it. The most memorable response I received about the written debate was, "It was all just bullshit." Unsatisfied, I resolved to read the debate and assess the merits of the arguments myself. The following reflects my attempt to do that. My primary source is A Means to Freedom: The Letters of H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, edited by S.T. Joshi, David E. Schultz, and Rusty Burke. I will attempt to provide context as I proceed through the debate, but anyone wishing to follow along would be well-served by having this two volume set handy.

It is well known that REH initially wrote to HPL in June 1930. HPL responded, and the  correspondence continued until REH’s suicide in June 1936. Many of their letters were quite long, and the topics of conversation were wide ranging, spanning months and sometimes years. My focus in this project is on the portions of the letters that specifically deal with the debate. In all but the earliest letters in the debate the subject is clearly introduced with a statement like, "as for barbarism versus civilization." Unless otherwise noted I confine my attention to these.

REH and HPL frequently discussed history, especially the fates of ancient civilizations and the circumstances around them. But not until two years after they began corresponding did these ruminations coalesce into a conversation about barbarism versus civilization. As the conversation continues the controversy intensifies. A likely cause for this is that neither of them define their primary terms. When they refer to "barbarism" they generally connote something primitive, but the specific meaning varies. In one place it refers to the animalistic or aggressive inclinations in humans. In another context it means lawlessness, either the actual absence of law, or behaving against the law. At other times they intend the term to mean a primitive social order. The term "civilization" is similarly multifaceted. Remembering this will be helpful in understanding the arguments in the debate, especially in the later letters.

Letter 60: REH to HPL (August 9, 1932)

In the letters leading up to the beginning of their specific conversation about barbarism versus civilization, HPL comments at length many times on various aspects of the classical worlds of Rome and Greece. REH repeatedly responds with polite interest, thanking HPL for the education, though admitting only minor interest. His real interests lie with the barbarians. Yet HPL persists many times in continuing to praise classical civilization, even at times expressing a plainly derogatory attitude toward the subjects of REH's interests. Two months before their "debate" begins, HPL characterized the Dark Ages, one of REH’s favorite historical periods, as "ignorant barbarism" (307). It was only a matter of time before their diverging attitudes clashed.

REH, posing as
Conan the Conqueror.
Cross Plains, TX ca. 1933
Photo by E. Hoffman Price

REH's response, in August 1932, is the point where the well-known conversation begins to solidify. The response is similar to previous ones, except this time REH is more specific and emphatic. He explains why he does not hold great interest in Roman history (with the exception of the early Republic, which REH described as a "a struggling tribal-state"):

"I am unable to rouse much interest in any highly civilized race, country or epoch, including this one. When a race – almost any race – is emerging from barbarism, or not yet emerged, they hold my interest. I can seem to understand them, and to write intelligently of them. But as they progress toward civilization, my grip on them begins to weaken, until at last it vanishes entirely, and I find their ways and thoughts and ambitions perfectly alien and baffling." (338)

At best, he can maintain interest in a race yet emerging from barbarism, but the farther they get from that primitive state, the weaker his interest becomes. Clearly this more specific explanation perturbs HPL, for after this, he finally seems to get the point.

Letter 61: HPL to REH (August 16, 1932)

HPL acknowledges his and REH's diverging historical interests, and suggests that the cause is their own early environments. For his own part, HPL states: "Greece and Rome are prime realities because they had the same general problems and attitudes which the settled nations of modernity have" (359). The similarity he refers to is developmental. Each of these societies advanced beyond the early stages by securing basic material and defensive needs, which allowed their minds to develop in new ways:

"Important brain areas – such as those connected with pure intellectual curiosity and with the finer nuances of rhythm and coordination – which had been necessarily underdeveloped in the peril-beset barbarian, began to expand and enrich life among the people who had reached a stage of relatively stable adjustment to nature and to the problem of group-defence" (359).

To HPL, the trajectory of development itself teaches us which stage is to be preferred. The "few simple motives and pleasures" of more primitive man represents "only a small fraction of his heritage as a highly evolved primate," especially compared to civilized man's "infinitely vaster variety of stimuli and rewards which accrued from a more all-around development of his capacities" (359). Indeed, HPL cannot fathom "why the half-life of barbarism is preferable to the full, mentally active, and beauty-filled life typical of the age of Pericles in Greece or . . . the age of the Antonines in Rome or . . . in pre-war England and France" (359). Though one wonders why HPL seems so affronted by REH’s merely personal preference for barbarism to mount such a crushing attack on it.

The only merit of which barbarism might boast is its "simple ruggedness" and "spirit of physical struggle." But to regard this as a primary value is only appropriate during the early stages of society's development when it is concerned primarily with survival. In a society that has advanced up the "scale of humanity" physical strength is regarded in equal proportion to other qualities (like reason). For this reason "a vigorous, intellectual, and orderly civilization at its zenith . . . is about the best system under which a man can live" (359). But HPL admits that as a society declines it may loose its esteem for "physical prowess" to such an extent that it is threatened. Only in this state of decadence might we understand the nostalgic look back to "a primal barbarian age when the lost quality was in its fullest flower" (359).

HPL at Van Wickle Gates
Providence, RI ca. 1933 (?)

At this point HPL seems like he is about to conclude his comments on this topic: "Accordingly I can't feel any great kinship with barbaric tribes, even when they happen to be my blood ancestors" (360). This echoes his introduction of the topic on the previous page in which he reports a natural interest in civilizations like Greece and Rome. It also parallel’s REH’s statement in his previous letters about how civilized societies are alien to him. Perhaps writing the next line triggered a tangential line of thinking for HPL: "As I told you once, my sense of personal identification leaves the English race when I go back to the period of early Saxon England – skipping over to Rome and causing me to view all antiquity through instinctively Roman eyes. . ." (360). 

HPL expounds on this subject for a page and a half (as they appear in the published volume). First he writes for more than twenty lines repeating, detailing, and emphasizing his identification with Rome and the "strangeness" of barbarism to him, both in general, and that of his own Germanic ancestors. Finally he distills a general principle: 

"[B]lood is thicker than water only up to a certain point. At all times, the force of cultural environment . . . is a potent competitor of biological instinct; so that when the two are opposed, it is hard to say which will win the tug-of-war." 

He mentions two possible contingencies that could interfere with the force of assimilation (one of which is a plainly racist assumption), and then illustrates the principle with the Romanization of the Gauls. A once defeated people can become so assimilated into it's host culture as to view its own history from the perspective of their adopted identity. 

This phenomenon of cultural assimilation is not directly relevant to HPL’s argument for the superiority of civilization over barbarism, and yet he writes nearly twice as much about it as he does to present his argument. As such it is unclear what HPL’s intention was in proceeding at such length. Verbosity is characteristic of his letters, so perhaps we should not be surprised. Perhaps also HPL feels the need to justify what he might otherwise consider betrayal of his own race (i.e., a descendant of Saxon England claiming identity with Rome).

When HPL finally concludes by reestablishing common ground with REH, saying that while he does not identify with barbarians personally, he does take an objective interest in them. And while he does not understand them, he admires them. And when they are contrasted with decadent societies, he actually takes the barbarians’ side (361).

Letter 65: REH to HPL (received September 22, 1932)

REH's response on the topic comprises only three paragraphs in a much longer letter. Here he doesn't directly refute anything in HPL’s letter. Rather, he seems to leverage HPL’s argument (tangential as it was) against him; he uses the idea of assimilation to an environment to subvert HPL’s boast about civilization’s superiority.

First, REH agrees with HPL on the relative strength of "cultural environment" over "blood heritage." He offers the Americanization of second and third generation immigrants as further example of the principle. Then he proposes a hypothetical scenario in which he is suddenly transported back in time with an option of living where he wished:

"I would naturally select the most civilized country possible. That would be necessary, for I have always led a peaceful, sheltered life, and would be unable to cope with conditions of barbarism. Thus, for my own safety, I would select Egypt rather than Syria, to which otherwise my instincts would lead me. . ." (377).

With this hypothetical, REH strengthens HPL’s comments about the force of cultural environment. Despite his own preference for barbarism, REH recognizes the effect of living in relatively nonbarbaric circumstances: he is ill-suited to survive in a much more primitive environment.

REH then expresses his truest preference with a more fanciful hypothetical. Given the chance to be born in an earlier time, with no memory of this life, he would choose to be a barbarian, "to grow up hard and lean and wolfish, worshiping barbarian gods and living the hard barren life of a barbarian" (377). This scenario is obviously unrealizable (and self-defeating, as HPL will imply later), but REH uses it as a springboard to his argument.

He says that primitive life is hard and barren only by comparison. Knowing no other condition, a barbarian does not suffer under his circumstances as a modern person doubtlessly would under the same situation, and actually finds contentment unknown to moderns. As evidence, REH appeals to conversations he has had with "old pioneers." They endured hardships that would kill many moderns, but REH claims that they all report that pioneering is a "fuller, more vital" and more content life, as compared to "this newer phase" (377). Therefore, "To a man of intellectual accomplishments the life of a frontiersman would be intolerable; but to a man who has never known anything else, such a life would be full of vital interest" (377).

In other words, assimilation to a particular set of conditions cuts both ways. A civilized man would not be able to adjust to barbarism, but this is not an argument against it, for a pioneer cannot adjust to civilization, either. By posing this equivalence, REH cleverly uses the concept introduced by HPL to argue against him (though the point itself makes several assumptions which could be debated). Further, REH’s argument is not formal, but it is structured. Starting with a hypothetical, he then makes a claim, offers evidence, and then concludes by roughly reiterating the claim. Despite not being highly educated, REH presents himself here as a shrewd intellect that HPL would be wise not to underestimate.

Barbarie vs. Civilisation
Hand drawn poster ca. 1900

Letter 67: HPL to REH (October 3, 1932) 

HPL’s response is briefer than both his previous entry and REH's last contribution. He introduces the topic as "the relative merits of barbarous and civilised life" (401). Clearly he has interpreted this discussion differently than the apparent intent of REH’s claims, and views this as a debate, though this letter does not represent a strong defense.

He reiterates (with some contingency) his position: "the odds may be in favour of civilisation for those who utilise its advantages to the full" (401). But he claims this description does not fit the pioneers that REH mentioned in his last letter. As they moved into a more urban way of life, the pioneers probably never experienced its full benefits:

"The transition is apt to come a trifle too late in the history of the individual to permit him to extract the most good from the intellectual and aesthetic advantages of civilisation. Therefore, the thing he weighs unfavourably against his old pioneer existence is by no means civilisation at its best" (401).

This would be a good point if REH had used the testimony of pioneers to condemn civilization. But as noted, it is more likely REH used the pioneers to demonstrate that a person can be just as content in a barbaric setting as another person can be in a civilized one. Apparently, to HPL, claiming any kind of equivalence between barbarism and civilization is an affront to the superiority of civilization, which must be rebuffed. This echoes his reaction to REH’s initial statement of personal preference for barbarism.

Even less valid is the swipe HPL takes at the pioneers: "there is always a tendency to exalt the conditions of one's own youth" (401). Here HPL is quick to identify the bias of nostalgia in the pioneers, but fails to recognize it in his own preference for civilization.

Appearing to concede somewhat to REH, HPL says that barbarism and civilization both have their merits, and that personal preference for one or the other naturally vary. But just as before, he follows by reiterating the claim from his last letter: "Yet I think certain types of civilisation add much more to life, than they subtract from it" (401). If he believes what he says about the role of personal preference, it is difficult to understand why he is so animated about proving civilization’s superiority. It seems more like a merely superficial demonstration of fair-mindedness. Also the phrase, " certain types of civilisation" qualifies his statement so much as to be almost unfalsifiable.

The last few lines do little to strengthen HPL’s already shaky case. They seem like half attempts to maintain his position without actually arguing or giving any evidence. And he  concedes to a moderated version of one of REH’s points, as if to show fairness. He notes that some literature conveys an overly flattering view of the barbaric life, concealing flaws which we might not even suspect. And yet, he agrees that some individuals would be more happy under barbarism than under the conditions of a decadent civilization past its peak (401-2). He then ends simply: "The whole question is a complex and baffling one, and perhaps no conclusive answer is possible" (402). Here it seems HPL is willing to bring this topic to an end, being at a somewhat subjective impasse, yet poorly pretending to have the upper hand. It seems that he has indeed underestimated REH and as a result come up with a weak hand.

(To be continued . . .)