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.

Barbarism and Civilization in the Letters of REH and HPL (Part 4), by David Piske

Three years into their written correspondence, and nearly one year into their debate on barbarism and civilization, the proportions of the "controversy" between Robert E. Howard (REH) and H.P. Lovecraft (HPL) expands with each exchange of letters. As the controversy advances, and at times intensifies, secondary topics that began without any intended connection to the debate become more and more directed toward this one issue, to the point that sometimes in discussing them, either the criticism or the defense of civilization is explicitly mentioned by one or the other. This is especially the case in their conversations about the relative value of the mind vs. the body, of art and intellect vs. other human endeavors (especially contrasting creativity and commerce), and the extent of human freedom and the degree to which different types of societies allow for it.

Letter 82: REH to HPL (June 15, 1933)

REH opens the current letter expressing happiness that they have come to terms with their apparently merely semantic argument about the value of the mental and the physic. Though with regard to the value of art, REH yet has much to argue, taking a decidedly commercial stand. He claims that the reason he writes as a profession is not out of a desire to create, but because of the money, and the freedom writing affords him. He respects that the joy of creativity can be "the breath of life" for artists, but denies a special status for creativity for its own sake, or to recognize special privileges for those engaged in it. Further, while he denies being an anti-intellectual, he refuses to "indiscriminately worship" intellectuals (592). And he admits to resenting the "sneers of the sophisticated" and hating anything that reflects a "supercilious viewpoint" (594). He denies special privilege and judges men on their merits alone:

"A man is only a man, regardless of how many books he has read, or written. Neither wealth nor erudition gives him any more fundamental rights than is due any man. That’s why I love the memory of the frontier; there a man was not judged by what he had or what he knew, but by what he was" (594).

Here, perhaps, REH demonstrates some vulnerability. The detestation and hatred which he admits to feeling seems to be born out of the sting of some slight, whether real or perceived. As he says, "I’ll be damned if I can see any reason why they should be loved and worshiped by the people they flay as boobs, morons and fools" (592). It seems only natural, then, that REH would long to return to a state in which his qualities would be recognized and valued, rather than criticized and depreciated.