disgusted by the imagery evoked in this and similar passages, enough persons have not been so that there has been no serious thought of expurgating the Song of Solomon from Holy Writ. It is not always easy, especially in literature, to divide the moral from the esthetic implicatiions of writing alleged to be obscene. "Obscenity" is usually connected with sexual subjects, and sexual subjects in literature (no matter how beautifully and poetically treated) are usually suspected of having a "degrading or corrupting" effect upon public behavior, or of arousing emotions of "shock or disgust" in the public sensibilities. Fortunately, our courts have succeeded in progressively clarifying the esthetic, if not the moral, evaluations of "obscenity" to a point where erotic reference in literature and the arts escape the stigma of "obscenity" when the subject is handled, if not with beauty, then at least with richness of subjective feeling, and in a meaningful way in terms of the lives and personalities of individuals taken as a whole.

D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was the recent subject of court trials both in the United States and England, and was prosecuted for obscenity" from both moral and esthetic standpoints-as have a number of other works of modern fiction which have neither the antiquity or irreproachable standing of the Bible to protect them. In "Lady Chatterley's Lover", the frequent episodes of intimately-described sexual relations were tried for obscenity essentially on moral grounds, as tending to "deprave or corrupt" the reader, while Lawrence's uninhibited use of the Anglo-Saxon "four-letter" words was tried for obscenity essentially on esthetic grounds, as tending to "shock or disgust" persons of refined or sensitive tastes. In both trials, a verdict of "Not Guilty" was returned, it having been amply demonstrated, among

other things, that Lawrence treated the sexual theme perceptively and in depth, that he preached, through his characters, a most practical and laudable form of sexual morality, and that while his choice of certain literary forms might be offensive to some, it was nevertheless the result of sound literary and esthetic motives.

We know all too well, unfortunately, that the subjects treated in the foregoing examples are not always handled with literary or artistic skill. It is when they are not that they offend esthetic standards. But there are many offenses against esthetic standards which could not be called "obscene," or be said to "shock or disgust" the public generally. Most standards of literature and art could never become involved with "obscenity" for the obvious reason that most literature and art does not deal with erotic or related themes; and while a musician might experience "shock or disgust" from an atrocious performance of some musical masterpiece, the experience would certainly not be of the same personal kind or degree as that associated with "obscenity," nor would it be shared outside the circle of those who value artistic standards in music. Sex, on the other hand, is something upon which almost everyone places a deeply personal valuation, and "shock or disgust" in this connection could not only be an almost-universal reaction against certain displays, but also one where the psychic injury might be as unpleasant as a physical wound. The fact that a few persons are relatively shock-proof in matters of sex is irrelevant. Most persons have areas of strong emotional sensitivity on this subject, and are easily, and from their point of view justifiably outraged when sexual representations in literature and the arts violate esthetic standards.

What is the "esthetic standard" in sexual and socio-sexual matters? Sex,