MISS PORTER AND MISS STEIN
derision. Henry James was still writing for the "happy few." Both
Stein and Picasso were straining for new mutations in the creative
arts, and one has only to keep in mind the stale academic rigidity that
prevailed in the painting and writing of the period to acknowledge
the tremendous influence both the painter and writer exerted in their
respective fields. The question that has now arisen is whether this was
a "good" or a "bad" influence, and the argument extends far beyond
the subject of Miss Stein.
In brief, Miss Porter presents Miss Stein as a gloomy, low-pressure,
possessive slug, eating her way through a leaf, with two major obses–
sions, Money and Success. Picasso emerges as one of Miss Stein's
possessions, not as a fellow artist in an exciting, mutual venture. Miss
Toklas, her dogs, her paisley shawls, even the GI's are impaled on the
pincushion of Miss Stein's world as exclusively her own. Her life ex–
perience would appear to have been little more than the glutton dream
of a greedy egomaniac; her quarrels, personal stigmata.
Picasso's portrait obliges us to confront the actual woman and
the period. The mouth is generous, not avaricious, the whole being is
saturated with patience and eagerness, two qualities most enjoined by
Miss Stein herself. There are the Oriental head and fine eyes to which
Miss Porter also gives due admiration. The Picasso woman is vast,
solid, and egotistical, but one must ask what kind of ego is made
manifest? What goal did it serve? Fortunately, we have Gertrude Stein's
work and the evidence of the period as a corrective for any bias either
portrait contains; we have the added evidence of a recent Yale
Gazette
with a documentation of her correspondence which indicates that she
was generous not only with her mind but often with her cash. The
human frailties that Miss Porter indicates are not peculiar to Miss
Stein, even if true. Balzac never forgot the franc, Dickens may have
been a brute to his wife and Dostoevsky a reactionary. It is profitable
to examine even monstrous traits insofar as they explain a connection
between a state of being and a work of art. Does Miss Porter's Miss
Stein reveal the source of her direction or its value within the frame–
work of a period or the substance of an achievement?
Picasso brought to his subject the illumination of a great inno–
vator. Miss Porter comes with the last sad decades firmly in mind,
forgetting the significant origin of the innovation and miscalculating
the sequence of the evil. She sees only "irresponsible" chaos in Miss
Stein's prose and, by implication, places a certain moral condemnation
upon it as contributing to the prevailing disorder. Curiously enough,
Miss Porter's verdict recalls a review of Miss Stein's
Wars I Have S ecn
569
