h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm just finishing up Arthur Machen's 'The Hill of Dreams' (I'm sure you've all read it) and in his Chapter V I was struck by this bit:

'Guided by the self-evident axiom that humanity is to be judged by literature, and not literature by humanity . . . '

It strikes me as obviously parallel to the old joke about the American ladies in the Louvre saying of the Mona Lisa 'well, it doesn't look like much to me' and being put in their place by the guard who remarked 'Mesdemoiselles, we do not judge the Mona Lisa: the Mona Lisa judges us!'

Can anyone think of an earlier version of this idea, perhaps Classical, to which Machen may have been referring? 'The Hill of Dreams' is a piece of work very much nostalgic for Rome, so I wouldn't be surprised (although I would be embarrassed) if it were something Latin. But there's also a strong Welsh strain in Machan (being as he was Welsh) so something Celtic might also be a source.

Or did he just make it up himself?

Anyone?

But, I should mention, he also jumps in reference from Poe to Cervantes, from Coleridge to Rabelais, and from Hawthorne back to Coleridge.

And through it all there is an undercurrent of 'Confessions of an English Opium Eater.'

What about, ' All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players:'?


For some reason it also makes me think of the myth of Narcissus..but can't quite work out how that fits though.

But never heard of that bloke or book before.

Would you complete the quote? I'm finding it a bit ambiguous.

Since you mention Celtic, though, in terms of passing judgment on humanity you can't get much more judgemental than some bardic poetry & satire. They could ruin your life or livelihood as much as a prison sentence today can.

I was thinking more about the Narcissus myth..and that he fades away because he's in love with his own reflection..so he's not inventing himself creatively through relationships with others.

And ROTP where Proust is inventing his own story of his life..

Mmm interesting musings for New Year's Eve.

See yer later anhaga. I quite like these ambiguous, sort of thready threads..that could get really tangled, and off on..oh never mind.

I'll give you the whole sentence, KB, but I'm not sure it will clear the ambiguity.

'Guided by the self-evident axiom that humanity is to be judged by literature, and not literature by humanity, he detected the analogy between "Lycidas" and Annie.'

As an unreconstructed old cynic,
'Guided by the self-evident axiom'
has, to me, a hint of
'Oh, I like the feel of that, how can I use it?'

Indeed, Rod.


But this 'Art judges man, man doesn't judge art' sort of thing strikes me as the sort of epigram which some Greek or Roman might have uttered at a party one night only to be quoted and debated for generations until it finally ended up on a t-shirt or lapel button in the '60s and then faded out of memory.

Like 'Ars longa, vita brevis'.

When I google for 'Art judges man' I get a whole lot of Judge Dredd hits.

'Ars longa, vita brevis' shows up on google and this one doesn't, yet does have a ring to it suggesting that it would have become quoted and debated.
So not Greek/Roman?


Judge Dredd - who? (no, don't tell me). Google's not what it was in My Day.

I've tried googling various forms of it in Latin and all I've come up with is a catholic thing about a man judging maturely who doesn't judge hastily.

I expect I'll just have to keep an eye out as I read, or maybe just assume that Machen made it up.

Am I missing the point by seeing a close relation to the
notion that Life imitates Art which began life as a (then)
shocking corruption of the accepted wisdom that good
Art must imitate (reflect) Life.


~jwf~

Yes the idea of art imitating life is bizarre. It is always one step removed because it is 'artful' a parody, a metaphor, a change of language..

Life is always beset by the annoying randomness of events, uncertainties. Art can be made into glorious poetical patterns by a creator...

But,,

'Guided by the self-evident axiom that humanity is to be judged by literature, and not literature by humanity, he detected the analogy between "Lycidas" and Annie.'

strikes me as an extremely pompous and dreary piece of prose.

And why on earth does he say, *judged* ?

right. Here's the whole thing from Google books. If this link works correctly, it will come to page 77 and the word 'axiom' will be highlighted: http://books.google.ca/books?id=094hm1IqOPoC&lpg=PP1&ots=BZNAjE9CyB&dq=hill%20of%20dreams&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q=axiom&f=false


I don't really think it's the 'art imitates life or life imitates art' thing. It's more the 'the quality of our taste is determined by great art, great art is not determined by common taste' thing. It's the 'the Mona Lisa isn't on trial here -- it's your taste which is judged by the Mona Lisa' thing. To paraphrase Dawkins 'Great Art is Great, if you don't think so, you can off.'

Well it all seems a bit stupidly black and white to me. Of course if you study 'great art' it will affect your understanding and develop your appreciation..just as decent food and drink does..but its always a two way thing because artists learn from so called great art and make more art, which itself is then put into the never ending mix.

I don't see the comparison with the paraphrased Dawkins' quote though..because science is something entirely different from art. I'm more of a non overlapping magisteria type.

My point was that the meaning of the 'Literature judges . . .' thing was similar to the Dawkins bit: If one thinks Lycidas is valueless doggerel, one's opinion is worth little; if one thinks a quasi-limerick which doesn't scan and is written on a bathroom wall in crayon is high art, one's opinion is worth little; and, if one thinks science isn't interesting, one can off.

In any case, I'm more looking for a source for the statement rather than a determination of the accuracy of the sentiment.

Yep I was just taking the OP as a starting point to play around with.

In terms of a source I have nothing to offer. And I am quite confused about what you are really driving at anhaga

But I'll stay subscribed and see how things pan out.

(Happy New Year... Nothing changes on New year's Day have just been out to fill up the bird feeder )

One more nightcap I think now before beddy byes.

I was about to post the addendum 'which doesn't mean I'm not interested in the line of discussion you're working on, Effers.' when I saw that you had replied.

I expect the pursuit of the source will be a dead end, in fact. The sentiment seems to be a commonplace that has merely been restated by Machen.


What I'm 'driving at' in the other part of the discussion, Effers, and what I think the statement in question is driving at, is that Great Art is Great whatever an individual may think of it and that just because one individual thinks a work of art is Great does not necessarily imply that the work of art is, in fact Great. And I think when Machen goes on about Lycidas and Milton, he is saying that, in fact, Great Art is Greater than the artist who produces it.

I can't say I disagree.

> Great Art is Greater than the artist who produces it.<

I agree in the sense that art is put out to millions of people...who digest it in various ways..and of course also influenced by the shakers and movers opinions.

But HISTORY is the ultimate judge.

If a piece of art goes through the centuries and gets chewed up and viewed and is still considered 'great' that is much bigger than the artist who produced it, who could never have predicted all those view points. Art does have a life of its own IMO.