Barlow Letters Related To Robert E. Howard by Bobby Derie

In The Two Bobs: Robert E. Howard and Robert H. Barlow it was mentioned that after the death of their mutual friend H. P. Lovecraft, Barlow became the literary executor for Lovecraft’s estate—which included the disposition of the file of letters from Robert E. Howard. Several letters pertinent to Barlow’s possession of these letters and efforts to get them to Dr. Isaac M. Howard, the late Robert E. Howard’s father, have been made available online by Brown University as part of their digitization of the Lovecraft materials, and make interesting reading concerning the posthumous afterlives of Barlow and his two literary correspondents.

R. H. Barlow to Elizabeth Spicer, 2 Apr 1937

Dear Miss Spicer, I pulled out rather abruptly & had no opportunity for farewells, but perhaps I’m forgiven. In about two weeks I’ll send you some Sterling items &c from KC. Thanks for putting up with all the bother I made while in Providence. Here is something for your files—revised, it will appear in in HAWK ON THE WIND—a book—in six or eight months. I beseech & implore you to keep the various correspondences—except R. E. Howard—under your hat & out of the catalogue. Their authors would boil me over a slow fire!—The sacrifices one makes in the interests of Literature. Regards to Prof. Damon. I’m going to write him when I settle. Yrs ever, R. H. Barlow

After Lovecraft’s death, Robert H. Barlow was made his literary executor; the young writer took steps to archive Lovecraft’s correspondence and other papers at the John Hay Library, where Elizabeth Spicer worked. The “Sterling” items were presumably related to Kenneth Sterling, one of Lovecraft’s later correspondents and his collaborator on “In the Walls of Eryx.” Barlow wrote this on his way back to Kansas City (“KC”) where he was attending the Art Institute. Hawk on the Wind” Poems (1938, Ritten House) was a collection of August Derleth’s poetry, containing “Elegy: In Providence the Spring…” regarding Lovecraft.

          Barlow’s desire to keep the correspondence from Lovecraft’s correspondents “out of the catalogue” was probably in an effort to protect their privacy; Howard was at this point already deceased, so this was less of an issue.

          By May of 1937, Dr. Isaac M. Howard had determined that Barlow was the executor of Lovecraft’s estate and was in possession of the letters from his son Robert E. Howard that Lovecraft had saved, mentioned above; Dr. Howard wrote to Barlow and to Lovecraft’s surviving aunt asking for their return, but did not receive a prompt reply, probably because Barlow’s situation was unsettled—the young writer would soon head out for California (IMH 164, 166).

As Howard letters were actually at the John Hay Library while Barlow was in Kansas City, this might explain some of the delay and confusion, but Barlow did eventually respond to Dr. Howard’s request.

R. H. Barlow to S. Foster Damon, 23 Apr 1937

Dear Professor Damon,   I am sending you a miscellany; too varied to itemise. Among the contents of the express package shipped today are a couple of pieces of sheet-music; a typescript of THE SPHINX, unpublished play by the author of THE HERMAPHRODITE & OTHER POEMS; nearly all the Ms. I have from the pen of Clark Ashton Smith, author of THE STAR-TREADER, EBONY & CRYSTAL, ODES & SONNETS, &c; a special issue of The Modern School on Whitman (1919) &c &c. Of these, I think I’d like to keep nominal ownership of the Whitman photograph, though in all probability it’s yours till Doomsday. Did you receive the Sterling letter sent in my last? The envelope turned up, and is enclosed in the Tomato Surprise. I have a few other things which I’m not quite ready to send, but will hand over later. I would appreciate it if you would send me the cardboard box containing letters from R. E. Howard, which I deposited. His father wants them to go to Howard Payne College. If you will send them Express collect, I shall be in your debt. Later, Mrs. Gamwell may want someone to look over Howard’s books for possible library donations, I believe there is not much for the Harris Collection, but other departments might find material. Yours ever, Barlow Am still typing dementedly on the “copy” for the Lovecraft collection to be published!

A Letter From Seabury Quinn by Bobby Derie

Seabury Quinn—whose longer tales I simply cannot wade through—is the perfect popular ideal—those who differ from him have just so much less chance of suiting cheap editors.
—H. P. Lovecraft to Emil Petaja, 4 Dec 1934, LWP 390

Seabury Quinn was the most popular writer at Weird Tales during his lifetime, and his sales eclipsed those of Robert E. Howard, H. P. Lovecraft, and Clark Ashton Smith. Where those later writers have gained greater respectability in death, and their work published and republished, adapted to comics, film, music, and other media, Quinn’s fiction has only partially and periodically regained the notice of the public, and the study of his life and works largely neglected. In part, this is because unlike Lovecraft, Howard, and Smith, there are very few surviving letters from Quinn’s pen or typewriter, and those are mostly in private hands, unpublished, or lingering in obscure fanzines.

This is one such letter, a relative rarity both in length and content. It was written to Weird Tales fan Emil Petaja in December 1934. Around this period, Petaja had also written to and received letters back from both H. P. Lovecraft, recently collected in Letters with Donald and Howard Wandrei and to Emil Petaja from Hippocampus Press; and Robert E. Howard, the latter incident appearing in Novalyne Price Ellis’ memoir One Who Walked Alone.

[Address - Seabury Quinn] 24 Jefferson Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. December 6, 1934. Dear Mr. Petaja: Thanks a lot for the mighty good letter you sent me November 25. I’ve been intending to get an answer off ever since I received it, but the necessity of making a trip over to Cincinnati upset all my plans, and this is my first opportunity to attend to any personal correspondence for some time. About a Ms. I’m sorry, but I haven’t got such a thing around the house.[1] You see, I’m mos casual in my work. My stuff is roughed out in longhand---and very rough it is, too, being little more than a series of notes, set down for the most part in my own private system of shorthand. Then it’s typed, and I make only one copy---no carbons. They are a damned nuisance, and when one is an inexpert typist, such as I, the necessity of doubling all corrections makes the work too heavy for a lazy man. Too, the fact that I’m pretty much a one-magazine man, writing only for W.T., and then only as occasion, inclination and pressure of work permits,[2] I have a rather small output. In 1934, for instance, I wrote only three stories.[3] “The Jest of Warburg Tantavul” was published in September, in January will be another de Grandin yarn, and the last of the year’s output comes out in February, I think. I called it the Web of Bondage, but only God and the NRA[4] know what Farnsworth Wright will decide to call it when he prints it. However, it’s a departure---for me, at any rate. Not about Jules de Grandin --- but I hope you like it. Several of my readers have been kind enough to ask for Mss. and I have suggested that they write to Editor Wright and ask him for his copy when the printers are done with them. He’s a good scout, Wright is, and will let you have a Ms. if he has one available. Then, if you’ll trouble to send me the title page of the thing, I’ll be mighty glad to put my John Hancock on it and mail it back to you and voila, as we occasionally say in Brooklyn, you’ll have the autographed Ms. though only Secretary Wallace and the AAA know what you want of the damned thing.[5] Me, I always want to get rid of ‘em as fast as I can. Just at present I’m seething to go on some more yarns, but just haven’t been able to find time to put ‘em down on paper. I’ve a notebook full of new plot situations, and if I can get around to it, I can turn out a year’s supply for W.T. in a couple of months. The job is to get started, however. I’m not a slow workman. Two thousand words a sitting is my usual stint, and generally a story takes only about a week (evening work) from inception to mailing. Typing is the hardest work of all. If I could bawl ‘em out to a stenographer it would be a lot simpler, but I’ve tried it a couple of times with disastrous results. The darn girls all think they now what I wanted to say better than I did, with the result that dictation meant double duty--- one job of making notes and dictating, a second one of revising and “restoring” the typist’s ms. No luck in that. During October I was down in New Orleans and had a great time poking around a lot of out of the way places. Tried to drink up all the licker in town, too, but failed miserably in the effort.[6] But I came back with a lot of plot suggestions, and 1935 should see some of them germinating into real stories. An afternoon spent in old St. Louis cemetery, reading and coping the French epitaphs was an inspiration in itself.[7] Yeah, I surely feel the birth-pains tearing me right now. Have you read Price’s latest?[8] That feller is surely one great writer, as is Hamilton.[9] I’m a great admirer of Greye La Spina, too. She’s a hot number, and one of my greatest pleasures is to have her over to my place for dinner and a chat. How about Lovecraft? He, personally, is a delightful chap, but I don’t go for his writing in such a big way.[10] Like Hamilton better. Or Price, or Kline.[11] If you’d really like to have one of my Mss. just drop a line to Farnsworth Wright, tell him your desire, and I know he’ll be glad to let you have one. He’s might decent and accommodating that way. And thanks again for your kind criticisms of my work. I’m going to try to merit some more from you and the other W.T. readers in the coming year. Cordially yours, Seabury Quinn [12]

[1] Petaja, like R. H. Barlow, wrote to pulp writers asking for the manuscripts of their stories that appeared in Weird Tales.

[2] While not always a “one magazine man,” Weird Tales was the main outlet for Wright’s pulp fiction in this period, as The Magic Carpet Magazine had ceased publication in 1934.

[3] Probably “The Jest of Warburg Tentavul” (Weird Tales Sep 1934), “Hands of the Dead” (WT Jan 1935), and “The Web of Living Death” (WT Feb 1935).

[4] The National Recovery Administration.

[5] Henry Agard Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture and a supporter of Roosevelt’s New Deal administration, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA).

[6] Prohibition was repealed in December 1933.

[7] New Orleans formed a backdrop to several of Quinn’s stories, the French epitaphs may have been a possible inspiration for “Pledged to the Dead” (WT Oct 1937). In a letter to Virigl Finlay in 1937 about illustrations for the story, Quinn wrote:

To walk through old St. Louis Cemetery is to turn the clock back two centuries. Even in broad daylight, ladies arrayed as Julie was [...] St. Louis Cemetery in the moonlight --- how H. P. Lovecraft would have reveled in it! (FCA 25)

[8] E. Hoffmann Price, probably “Queen of the Lilin” (WT Nov 1934) starring Pierre d’Artois, his own occult detective. This was the last of the d’Artois stories, and Price wrote in the introduction to Far Lands and Other Days:

Quinn and I conferred. Although my Pierre d’Artois was coeval with his Jules de Grandin, so that neither could be considered as having influenced the other, Quinn’s hero had won such tremendous applause, and had appeared so many times, that I told him I did not wish to be in the position of doing pastiches. I dumped d’Artois. (xvii)

In his memoir of Quinn in the Book of the Dead, Price expanded on this:

Seabury and I exchanged letters, and I said to him, “This is not a matter to debate. As a matter of self protection, I am killing the Pierre d’Artois series, lest someone fancy that I am imitating you. Not that I would not—it is that I could not do a good job of it!” (164)

[9] Edmond Hamilton, better known for his space opera stories, but a Weird Tales regular.

[10] Quinn and Lovecraft had met in 1931; neither was particularly fond of the other’s approach to fiction, though they recognized their respective talents.

[11] Otis Adelbert Kline, who had some early success with Weird Tales and by the 1930s had largely turned to being an agent, working with E. Hoffmann Price, Frank Belknap Long, and Robert E. Howard among others.

[12] Quinn had a habit of drawing a smiley face (and, less often, a frownie face) in the culminating Q of his signed letters; this is very typical of the signatures in his letters to Virgil Finlay, published in the Fantasy Collectors Annual 1975.

Works Cited

FCA     Fantasy Collectors Annual 1975

LWP    Letters with Donald and Howard Wandrei and to Emil Petaja

A Tale of Two Letters by Bobby Derie

Not every letter from every pulp writer that survives has been published; many remain on the open market and in private hands, coming up for sale from time to time...and they have stories to tell about Robert E. Howard.

The letter was posted on Facebook in Sep 2016 by Bob Meracle, who wrote of the acquisition: 

One of the "lots" August Derleth Offered to sell to me (and I gladly snapped it up) was a collection of manuscripts which included 3 signed typewritten Conan stories. I sold the 3 a couple decades ago, but held onto this cool note that was sandwiched between them.

While not explicitly stated, these typescripts were likely originally from the collection of R. H. Barlow. In 1932, Barlow solicited manuscripts and typescripts from Robert E. Howard, H. P. Lovecraft, C. L. Moore, and other pulp writers, and Howard responded by sending several early typescripts for stories. Barlow’s receipt of these typescripts is mentioned in his 1933 diary, as well as in surviving letters from Howard. (CL 2.519; 3.47, 219) After Barlow’s death, his mother sold his collection.

The identity of the recipient is unknown; the name on the letter, although effaced, is too long to be "Barlow," and we know Howard sent Barlow a letter dated the very next day (14 June 1934, CL 3.215), so it is unlikely that Barlow was the recipient. So we are left with only the internal evidence of the letter. The reference to a request for a snap-shot recalls Barlow’s correspondence with H. P. Lovecraft in late 1933, although this might be coincidental. (OFF 78, 81) The reference to turpentine camps and voodoo is thus the primary clue.

“Turpentine camps” were work camps, largely employing black labor, including leased convict labor and sometimes workers held in debt bondage (i.e. charging them for food, clothing, etc. more than their wages could supply). These workers distilled turpentine from the resiny pine forests in the southern United States; during the 1930s their geographic range extended from North Carolina to Louisiana near the Texas border, with notable operations in Georgia and Florida. Zora Neale Hurston visited such camps to collect folk songs, magical recipes, and stories, some of which were published in academic articles and her collection Mules and Men (1935).

This was part of a general trend of anthropologists and collectors of ethnic music and folklore visiting prisons, work camps, and remote communities in the 1930s to record this material before it was lost—including a friend of R. H. Barlow.

Well, well—& so a friend of yours, like William B. Seabrook, has come into first-hand contact with the horrors of Damballa & his serpents. Who knows what waddling nigger washerwoman may not be a potent & dangerous mamaloi with power to evoke nameless horrors & send hideous zombis stalking through the land!—H. P. Lovecraft to R. H. Barlow, 21 Oct 1933 (OFF 83)

Thanks tremendously for the voodoo report, which I've read with extreme interest. your friend seems to have been quite an amateur Wm. B. Seabrook—& the experience must have been powerfully moving in its way. Later on, if you ever make a copy, I certainly wouldn't mind a spare carbon. Those "geachi" blacks must be rather an interesting study.—H. P. Lovecraft to R. H. Barlow, 13 Nov 1933 (OFF 85)

That voodoo encounter surely was picturesque—I'd hardly care to get into such close quarters with a crowd of excited blacks, but anthropological zeal will carry one far. So the "geechis" owe their superiority to insular isolation! I believe that, in general, all the Carolina island negroes are called "gullahs", & that their dialect differs from that of the mainland blacks. No doubt the geechis are a variety of these.—H. P. Lovecraft to R. H. Barlow, 29 Nov 1933 (OFF 88)

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 3), by David Piske

Two years into their well-known correspondence, Robert E. Howard commented in a letter to H.P. Lovecraft about how strongly he identified with the barbarians of history, rather than with any civilizations. Lovecraft [HPL], who identified strongly with Rome, and who considered himself a civilized intellectual, evidently took this as a challenge and began to argue with Howard [REH] about this preference. While discussing the subject in three subsequent letters, REH expressed a wish to have been born into barbarism, and argued that there was contentment to be found outside of civilization, even if the latter is generally better for humanity. But by his fourth letter, prodded by HPL's insistence to argue for civilization's obvious superiority, REH started inching into debate mode, criticizing civilization and glorifying barbarism.

This entry is the third part in a project to examine this debate, letter-by-letter (see also part one and part two.), as found in the two volume set, 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. (All page numbers refer to these volumes.) The previous two parts of this series each covered four letters, two by each man. As a result of the growing intensity of their debate, the arguments grow more involved, and material from other parts of their letters becomes more relevant. As a result, this third part examines only two letters, one by REH and the response by HPL.

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 . . .)

Independence Day: Robert E. Howard's Thoughts On The 4th of July

To August Derleth, July 3rd 1933:

How are you going to celebrate the gul-orious Fourth, which is tomorrow? Of late years that occasion has been observed  a right smart in the Southwest. When I first remember,, the Fourth of July was just another day. Too hot to shoot fire-crackers; at least we considered it so then. We saved our fire-works for Christmas, and I recall with a slight shudder the homemade fire-works my pal and I used to experiment with: dynamite caps, blasting powder, and six shooters."

To Novalyne Price, July 4th, 1935:

Dear Novalyne:

I take my typewriter in hand to write you a letter on this grand and suspicious—I mean auspicious occasion—when the zoom of the horse-race and the rodeo is heard in the land, punctuated by the flap of waving flags, the rumble of patriotic speeches, and the howls of patriots getting their scalps burnt off by premature fire-crackers.

 To August Derleth, July 4th 1935:

I seem to ramble, but ignore it. It is merely a result of being too full of beer, Burgundy wine and a peculiarly potent blackberry brandy liqueur I discovered in Socorro, New Mexico. This is the glorious fourth, dear patriotic hearts from the sunny slopes of Maine to the muscle-bound coasts of San Diego, and I must do my patriotic duty.

I wanted to go to the annual rodeo of Stamford, but not enough to drive a hundred and fifty miles in this heat and my present state of finances. Will Rogers was there, and I understand there was—or is—a distinguished bevy of bronc busters, calf-ropers and bull-throwers—particularly the latter. I'll maybe get to go next year—probably won't.

[. . .]

Now that's but a poor thought on the fourth of July. But the liquor has stirred up old memories and set the ghosts of the dead walking in my mind.

Happy 4th of July from Texas!

All the above letters are from The Collected Letters of Robert E. Howard (Vols. 1-3) by Robert E. Howard, edited by Rob Roehm.

 

 

Study This, Not That!: A Suggested Bibliography for REH Studies, Part Two

REH Primary Works Continued . . .

The Boxing Stories . . .

Study This . . .

Back in 2005 Bison Books released a collection of Howard's boxing stories in a volume titled Boxing Stories edited by Chris Gruber. This was part of a series—by the same publishing company, Bison Books—called The Works Robert E. Howard. This series included two western volumes (which we'll look at shortly), an adventure tales volume and a collection of weird/horror stories called The Black Stranger and Other American Tales. I bought this boxing volume a year after it was released. This volume was my introduction to Howard's boxing stories. Until recently this was the only volume I was aware existed that contained a collection of Howard's boxing stories. It was eye-opening for me. In fact, I never knew Howard wrote boxing stories until this volume. The book has a wonderful introduction by REH scholar Chris Gruber. It gives the reader a solid background about Howard's boxing stories and their characters. Unfortunately, this volume is currently out of print. You can still find a copy but they are not cheap. But all is not lost because the Robert E. Howard Foundation is in the process of publishing the definitive collection of Howard's boxing stories. Chris Gruber joined with REH scholars Mark Finn and Patrice Louinet to compile a massive 4 volume set, the first two volumes of which are already in print and for sale at the Foundations website. This new four volume set is aptly titled Fists of Iron and each volume is designated by a nice pun—"Round 1, Round 2," etc.  Just as a boastful aside, I recently won the first volume of Fists of Iron and the 2014 REH Days auction banquet. It contains a customized special drawing on the inside first blank page by the cover artist Thomas Gianni, and is signed on the numbered titled page by Chris Gruber, Mark Finn & Patrice Louinet. This first volume contains an introduction by Chris Gruber, a couple of hundred pages of boxing stories and four appendices. The four appendices contain early tales, variants and fragments, articles, several special "odds and ends," and part one of an essay by Patrice Louinet titled The Lord of The Ring. And keep in mind this is merely volume one. If you really want to research Howard and his works, and I mean be a well rounded reader and researcher of Howard and his works, then you must read his boxing stories. And now is the best time to begin doing that with the advent of this new four volume set.

The Western Stories . . .

Another necessary set of primary works to read for a well balanced REH diet is his western stories. In the same Bison Books series mentioned above (The Works of Robert E. Howard) there are two volumes devoted to Howard's western stories: The Riot of Bucksnort and Other Western Tales edited and with an introduction by David Gentzel and The End of the Trail: Western Stories edited and with an introduction by Rusty Burke. The former title contains REH's humorous westerns, the later his weird/serious westerns. I discovered The End of the Trail: Western Stories first. Although I had run into a smaller European collection of REH's western tales in the early to mid 90s at a second hand bookstore, it was really Rusty Burke's edited Bison Books volume that turned me on to REH's western stories. More importantly was Burke's introduction. That intro is a kind of "play-by-play" commentary about each story and why it was selected for the Bison volume. I was almost more impressed with this introduction than I was the stories themselves. I'm, of course, being a bit hyperbolic, but am also attempting to stress just how well done the intro to this volume actually is. Moreover, this was my first encounter with one of Robert E. Howard's greatest works of fiction—The Vultures of Wahpeton. I can count on both hands stories by REH that without a doubt deserve a home in high school and college textbooks, Vultures of Wahpeton is one of those. In fact, some of my favorite stories by REH are his westerns. But, this is not an article to point out favorites. Additionally, The Riot at Bucksnort and Other Western Tales contains one of Howard's most endearing characters—Breckenridge Elkins (and Cap 'n Kidd, of course). The above two Bison books are no longer in print. Although, the REH House & Museum in Cross Plains, TX still has copies of The Riot at Bucksnort and Other Western Tales at a reasonable price. Along with the two volumes above is a volume published by the REH Foundation titled Robert E. Howard's Western Tales. This volume has an introduction by western writer James Reasoner. His intro is excellent for anyone researching REH's westerns. Additionally, this volume contains regular westerns, weird westerns, essays, miscellanea, juvenilia, and notes about the texts. Reading Howard's westerns is as important as reading his heroic fantasy, his boxing tales, his adventure stories, horror stories, you get the idea. These stories are important and a well rounded researcher should read them.

Robert E. Howard's Letters/Correspondence . . .

One of the easiest ways to get to know someone is simply read their mail. Reading the correspondence of famous people is a great way to research their lives, their thoughts, their ideas, etc. Fortunately for us today, the correspondence of Robert E. Howard is easily accessible. That was not always the case. Just a mere two or three decades ago, you had to track down REH's letters, or contact Glenn Lord who had done a tremendous amount of footwork to collect them. Today there are several volumes you can buy that contain these letters. There is a three volume set (the first volume is no longer in print/sold out) that the Robert E. Howard Foundation sells titled The Collected Letters of Robert E. Howard (Volume One: 1923-1929; Volume Two: 1930-1932; Volume Three: 1933-1936). These volumes are edited by Rob Roehm and have introductions by Rusty Burke. If you are going to do any type of serious research on the life of Robert E. Howard then these letters are an absolute necessity. In fact, most professional literary research that is done outside the realm of textual analysis is often times focused on the available correspondence of the person being researched due to historical and personal insights. The second set of books contain letters between Robert E. Howard and H.P. Love Craft. These volumes are titled A Means to Freedom: The Letters of H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard (Volume One 1930-1932; Volume two 1933-1936). These volumes are edited by S.T. Joshi, David Schultz and Rusty Burke. Now, while REH's letters to H.P. Lovecraft are in the three volume Collected Letters, H.P. Lovecraft's responses are not. This is what makes the two volume set doubly important—you get both sides of the correspondence. However, what makes the three volume Collected Letters so crucial is the fact that it contains letters to all of REH's friends, other writers, publishers, etc. And this is why I own both sets.


Robert E. Howard's Poetry . . .

The last of the primary material happens to be some of the hardest material to find, especially since the largest volume ever printed, an 800 plus page volume, titled The Collected Poetry of Robert E. Howard, is no longer in print. And, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding a copy of it—believe me I've been looking for that single volume on every available internet avenue for about 6 years now. But, here's some good news! At this past REH Days in Cross Plains, Texas, the REH Foundation announced that a new and updated volume of that work will be released in the near future. In the mean time there are several poetry volumes currently available to any reader/researcher to peruse. The first can be obtained at the Robert E. House and Museum. It is titled A Word from the Outer Dark by Robert E. Howard (edited by Paul Herman). It contains a brief introduction about Howard being a poet and his poetry and 100 poems. Another volume that is currently available at the REH Foundation website is titled A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems. This volume also has a brief introduction by Paul Herman and contains a little more than 100 poems. Robert E. Howard scholar Professor Frank Coffman also has an edited version of Howard's poetry titled Robert E. Howard: Selected Poems. This volume is a whopping 567 pages, has just over 700 poems, and three indexes to easily help you hunt down specific poems (by titled and first lines). But the unique thing about this volume over any other is the fact that Frank Coffman provides commentary, chapter introductions, and Coffman happens to be a first rate scholar of Howard's poetry. One of the main reasons I would certainly recommend Howard's poetry in any given research within REH studies is because they are so rich with history, humor, info about Texas, the historical West, love, self-reflective ideas/thoughts, heroism, and even horror and humor. Howard wrote sonnets, ballads, free verse, rhyme scheme, along with other various forms. So his poetry is a must for any serious researcher.

(More to Come . . .)