up. Were we convinced that the existing order hampered the
sincere novice, we would abandon it without pride or ceremony. That we
do not, is because we are certain that retrogression and decadence would
constitute a fatal mistake. The public we serve is assumed to be a
genuinely progressive one, a group bent upon attaining some measure of
proficiency in that sincere self-expression which is art. If it were
not, it would have joined some other association of different
purposes--the defiantly crude Erford pseudo-United or the complacently
social and stationary National. What justifies the separate existence
and support of the United is its higher aesthetic and intellectual cast;
its demand for the unqualified best as a goal--which demand, by the way,
must not be construed as discriminating against even the crudest
beginner who honestly cherishes that goal. With these objects in mind,
it will be seen that the self-satisfied exultation of the superficial,
the obvious, the commonplace, and the conventional, would form the
greatest possible tactical error. The goal would be unjustifiably
obscured, and the aspiration of the membership stunted, through the
enshrining of a false and inferior goal--a literary Golden Calf. We must
envisage a genuine scale of values, and possess a model of genuine
excellence toward which to strive. It would pay better to work toward a
high standard oneself, than to seek to drag the standard down to fit
whatever particular grade of ignorance one may happen to have at a given
moment. With proper effort any member may eventually produce work of the
UNITED AMATEUR grade, and such work will be certain of a cordial welcome
in this office. The official organ is not so narrow as it seems; if more
of our capable members would favour it with their literary
contributions, the range of authors represented would not be so
restricted. It is not the editor but the body of our _literati_ who must
bear responsibility for the constant reappearance of certain names. This
issue is headed by the same poet who headed the last two--but only
because another eminent amateur, so far unrepresented during the present
regime, utterly ignored our repeated requests for a contribution.

Mr. Fritter--who, I fear, wrongs etymology in his acceptance of the word
_amateur_ as meaning a tyro rather than a genuine and disinterested
artist--forgets that a relapse to cruder standards would totally unfit
the United for serving that staunch