– A fact checker for Vanity Fair sent me the following e-mail yesterday:
I can’t get a line on this quote by H.L. Mencken, if indeed that’s what it is. In referring to Dixie, Mencken apparently said it was “the hook-worm and incest belt of Anglo-Saxondom.” Have you heard this? If not, do you have any suggestions on where next I should look?
As I mentioned last month, I’ve been getting queries like this ever since The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken was published. The funny thing is that the quotes in question always turn out to be phony, usually obviously so. This one looked phony, too, but it did have a slightly cracked ring of plausibility, as if it were an imperfectly remembered version of something Mencken had really said. What made me suspicious was that Mencken’s verbal humor usually arises from elegant variation: I had no trouble imagining his having coined the phrase “hook-worm belt,” but I couldn’t see him settling for so commonplace a word as incest. (His preferred euphemism for homosexuality, for instance, was “non-Euclidean sex.”)
I rolled up my sleeves and started Googling, and within a matter of seconds I’d found the answer, courtesy of Michael D. Goldhaber, a religion columnist for the Dallas Morning News:
The first use of “belt” to describe a region, identified by the Oxford English Dictionary, was by the poet Robert Southey in 1810: “A level belt of ice which bound…the waters of the sleeping Ocean round.” By Mencken’s time, the phrases Cotton Belt and Corn Belt were so widely spoken on this side of the Atlantic that he thought the locution was American.
“I began experimenting with various Belts in 1924 or thereabout,” Mencken later wrote, “the Hookworm Belt, the Hog-and-Hominy Belt, the Total Immersion Belt, and so on.” Also the “Mail-order Belt.” “Finally,” Mencken continued, “I settled on the Bible Belt.”
Of course I knew he’d coined the phrase “Bible Belt,” but I didn’t know that “Hookworm Belt” had been an earlier version of that indelible expression. And incest, as I’d suspected, had nothing to do with it.
Once a scholar, always a scholar….
– A reader writes:
On a topic related to a music recommendation you made to me, I bought Jim Hall and Ron Carter’s Alone Together some time ago. It is as good as you said. Hall’s lines are beautiful, flowing, yet genuinely inventive and surprising. However, the only reason I know that is that I sat myself down in a dark room and really listened carefully. I don’t know what it is with me, but unless I concentrate, jazz guitar seems to reach into my brain and trip the “no critical thinking allowed” switch. I took a car trip the other day–pleasant country driving, usually ideal for listening carefully to music. I had on a mix of Hall, Grant Green, Kenny Burrell. Beautiful music, nice drive, no distractions. But I went for long stretches with no awareness of who was playing, no memory of what the songs were. Wouldn’t happen to me with piano or sax players. With guitar it’s just pure pleasure, non-cognitive. Don’t understand it, really.
I’m fascinated by this problem, though I’m not entirely sure it is a problem. (What’s wrong with pure pleasure?) Nevertheless, I thought it interesting enough to pass on to all of you out there in the ‘sphere for further reflection.
By the way, Alone Together is one of the most beautiful records ever made. If you’ve never heard it, go here (or download it from iMusic). You won’t be even slightly sorry.