SUNDAY, JANUARY 22 1922 1HE MICHIGAN DAILY MAGAZINE
"The Hand of the Potter"-and Criticis
"WHAT, DID THEN THE HAND OF THE CRITIC SHAKEI"
(By G. D. E.) but that they are, in this case, so ence, not only fail to see anything and support.
It is only a few weeks since the brazen about it. smacking of immorality, but applaud But aside from this, gentle friends,
What is a rather amusmng side of the business as a fine bit of artistry. can you imagine anything debasing
Provincetown players presented Thes- the affair is that the chief characters I have always respected the Jews far the American stage? Had Nietzsche
dore Dreiser's "The Hand of the Pot- in "The Hand of the Potter" are Jews, above the average American franke- lived in this country, he would have,
ter," a play in four acts. Glancing and that the Jewish papers were about lyns. Now I go further; I say that in all likelihood, put aside his "Anti-
over the New York dailies, I was the only ones in New York to laud if this country is ever to have any christ" and turned his words, "It has
the play. If you doubt what they sort of culture, the Jews will be left nothing uncontaminated by its
somewhat taken back at the paucity think of it, drop a note to Abraham shouldering half of the load. They depravity," to our theater.
of criticism, which I read regarding Cahan, editor of The Jewish Daily may not-being oppressed with silly "As wis God helpe me," I am no
it. What little I found was mostly Forward. If some Jew will procure racial prejudice, beset by predaceous moralist. I have an utter contempt
derogatory. It rather surprised me Cahan's three-column review of the lurden, and environed amid a people for morals, for religions, for lofty
that one or two men who wrote slight play, and translate it into English for far more money-grubbing than they ideals; they are all born of fear, of
me I'll be in his debt forevermore. themselves-become very creative, envy, and inferiority. But I stop this
and, piffling notices had, a couple of In brief, the players who are so "de- but our sincere artists will have to side of swinishness, and the American
years back, praised it rather lavishly basing" the stage are taking the-roles depend largely upon the innate ar- theater does not. I am not condemn-
when it was first published. of Jews, while the Jews in the audi- tistry of the Jews for appreciation (Continued on Page 7)

t

At first, as I am a timid individual
with scarcely an opinion that I will
fight for, I was extremely worried.
I too had praised the play in lavish
fashion. Indeed, I had held, some-
what bashfully and uncertainly of
course, that, with the exception of the
last scene, "The Hand of the Potter"
was the best play since the social
dramas of Ibsen.
Naturally, when I saw what scant
and derisory mention the thing was
getting, I was ready to weep. Here
I had gone and committed a blunder!
And I had tried so hard, as I always
do, not to be overweening about it,
only to be marked as a coxcomb for
my pains.
You can well imagine what hap-
pened. I went to pieces, I chewed
my fingernails for three days; I must
have taken a pound, avoirdupois, of
sodium bromide; I had hysteria and
became violently neurotic. Just 'as
I was about to pass away, a sympa-
thetic friend brought me a wad of
violets and a copy of "The Nation."
And lo! As I sniffed the violets and
glanced with glazed eyes over the
pages of the periodical, I chanced up-
on Lewisohn's article reviewing the
play. In forty seconds I was dressed.
I took a hooker of gin, a piece of
mince pie, black coffee, and a Cuban
cigarette.,
Lewisohn, whom I have sorely ne-
glected in my hymns and damniads
of critics, had praised the play in
forthright fashion. Respecting Lewis-
ohn and reading him widely, I re-
gained a little of my mild mental
gaudery and again pronounced the
play as the best thing of its kind in
this land and century, but of course,
with all my afore-mentioned pristine
modesty.
But there the matter dropped for
a week or two. Next I saw praise in
"Town Topics." Gradually for all my
restraint, I nearly developed arro-
gance., As time went on, I saw more
and more favorable notices, and I be-
came downright haughty. But the
New York papers were strangely si-
lent. Then, like an avalanche from
the roof of the Law building, the
truth came home to me. I found a
belated copy of the New York World,
in which the dramatic critic, De Foe,
admitted that various critics 'of New
York had agreed to ignore the play
on MORAL grounds! No doubt they
were handsomely, if somewhat mun-
danely rewarded, for this altitude of
spirit. The Provincetown playhouse,
my friends, is not on Broadway. These
frocked critics had, moreover, rolled
their eyes in pious fashion and said
that the Provincetown players had no
right to DEBASE the stage!
And here, if I am not mistaken,
you'have one of the best examples of
skullduggery from the stage and press
that has occurred in many a long day.
It recalls to me the jusstified, though
somewhat overheated, indignation of
Upton Sinclair's "The Brass Check."
Not that many worse things have not
been done by these rammucky knaves,


n
4
r
'5

Seginan Palltt
E n w2 t
t9
Pi ttard, ubi,,lmconfoeradhei.Tes hrin7on
ar dsgndfrmSeumaiasassotPannllvet, lnigGorete~
9
4
' '2
ar dsgndfrmseuc mai asadsotPann lete lnin ergte
crisptyfftavand ran toneesdo h oteso fl pnfl ftle

v g w