Skip to main content

Full text of "The Open Court 1887-12-22: Vol 1 Iss 22"

See other formats

The Open Court. 



Entered at the Chicago Post-Office as Second-Class Matter. 


VoL. I. No. 22. CHICAGO, DECEMBER 22, 1887. ieee eee 
The Fool in the Drama. Part 1. Translated from the German 
of Prana Meim@ig................... LIN ee ee 

The Specific Energies of the Nervous System. Part |. Trans- 

lated from the German of Ewald Hering........................ 609 
Fole-Lore Studies. L. J. VAnce.......... 2... cece ene 612 
Te, ree ee eee cee cece ees 615 
Are We Products of Mind? Edmund Montgomery, ht eb 

To the Readers of The Open Court. Edward C. Hegeler........ 621 
Gustav Freytag. Edward C. Hegeler.............................. 640 
Editorial Notes: The Lost Manuscript. It Thinks............. 640 
“ts, TG LONG... wn cre ce eee ces — 
Tributes. Lee Fairchild.................. EO CO Oe, 
The Cat. A Parable. F. A. Krummacher............... ........ 641 

The Education of Parents by their Children. Carus Sterne.... 642 

Trades-Unions and Monopoly. Harry C. Long................... 642 
a 644 
Our Heredity from God. E. P. Powell..... ...................... 645 
The Ethical Import of Darwinism. J. G. Schurman............. 646 
i aA ew nu diy wade oS a de pn con Peas 5 E46 

The Lost Manuscript. Gustav Freytag..................00.....445. 646 




Oliday # Publications, 

Prang’s Christmas and New Year Cards. 
Prang’s Satin Art Prints. 
Prang’s Christinas Novelties, with Metalline Decoration. 

Prange’s Artistic Calendars. 


THE HOME OF EVANGELINE. Illustrated by Louis K. Harlow. § tull-page illustrations in color, and 8 monotone plates with text. $2.50. 
' a HE CHRISTMAS PROCESSIONAL. 6 full-page illustrations in color, and 6 monotone plates with text, by Louis K. Harlow. $2.00.— The same. 
Sound in snakeskin. $2.50. 

ECHOES IN AQUARELLE FROM ALONG SHORE. 6 full-page illustrations in aquarelle, and 6 monotone plates with text, by Louis K. Harlow. 

$2.50.— The same. Bound in silk plush and satin. $3.50. 
THE VOICE OF THE GRASS. By Sarah Roberts. 6 full-page illustrations in color, and 7 monotone plates with text, byLouis K. Harlow. $2.50. —— The 
same. Bound in silk plush and satin, $3.50. 

A GAY DAY FOR SEVEN. By Mrs. Rose Mueller Sprague. Illustrations in aquarelle by the author, $2.00. 


Standard Linen, Commercial, Plain or Ruled. Put up (4 quires with envelopes) ina unique box, representing a fac-simile ot 


in Cambridge, Mass., since 1837, made historical by being the headquarters for eight months of Washington when he took command of the American forces in 1775. 
The house is securely packed in a wooden box, ready for shipment, making it a handsome and convenient present. The ehimneys are used for the reception 
of postage stamps, and the inside of the cover shows a likeness, in color, of Longfellow and his children, illustrative of his poem, ‘‘The Children’s Hour.” 
é For sale by all dealers. If not kept by the dealers, we will send it by express, paid on receipt of $2.25, to any place this side of the Mississippi River and 
North of Tennessee and North Carolina. ‘ 


HOMES AND HAUNTS OF THE POETS. By W. B.C Losson. Five parts (Longtellow, Emerson, Holmes, Whittier and Hawthorne), each 
: j $ 

containing six etchings of Portrait, Autograph, Birthplace, Homes, etc., of the poets. Price per part, $1.00. All fivein neat portfolio box 5-50 
SCENES IN MARBLEHEAD. By Cuas. A. WALKER. Six etchings - - - - - - - : - . 1.00 
- - - 1.50 

PICTURESQUE CAMBRIDGE. By W. Goopricu BEAL. Six etchings . - - - : - 


A Large Assortment. 

23" Lor Particulars and Full Catalogues and Price-Lists, address 


38 Bond Street. 
Fine Art Publishers, 


529 Commercial Street. 

The Open Court. 



Vout. I. No. 22. 

Single Copies, 15 cts. 

CHICAGO, DECEMBER 22, 1887. {ie Ree ee vem. 


As in life, so also on the stage, which purports to be 
a mirror of life, we frequently find seriousness and jest, 
wisdom and folly, side by side and mutually offsetting each 
other. The drama had scarcely extricated itself from 
its first beginnings, when the fool appeared on the stage. 
Folly has its part in Life as well as in Art. Exposed 
foolishness is the best friend of reason, for it guards man 
against falling into folly. 

Although Gottsched, in 1737, induced Caroline Neu- 
berin to banish the merry-maker of the German play, 
the “ Hans Wurst,” from the stage in a solemn aufo-da- 
fe, folly crept in again in all manner of disguises. This old 
German “ Hans Wurst,” the personified condensation of 
folly, was far more than a mere merry-maker. He was, 
so to speak, the suppressed popular sentiment, as Robert 
Prutz remarks in his lectures on the history of the Ger- 
man drama. “ The people could not place an independ- 
ent drama in- opposition to, or even in competition 
with, the drama of the clergy, the schoolmen, and the 
courts; so it created a dramatic representative, it origi- 
nated a mask behind which the popular sentiment, after 
it had been driven from every other position, took ref- 
uge as behind a last secure intrenchment. It is the 
intellectual weapon of wit to which he who cannot van- 
quish his powerful adversary with real weapons gladly 
resorts. Thus the merry figure of the German “ Hans 
Wurst ” may be regarded as the personification of popu- 
lar wit. 

Not only Germany, but also other literary nations, 
experienced a similar necessity of incarnating the wit In 
which the oppressed spirit found relief, in some particu- 
lar character. And it is remarkable that all these 
national fools derived their names from the favorite 
dishes of the various nations. As the German “ Brat- 
wurst” (sausage) was godfather at the christening of 
the German “Hans Wurst,” so in the Netherlands he 
was called “ Pickle-herring ” and “ Stockfish ” (codfish) ; 
in France, “Jean Pottage” (soup); in Italy, “Signor 
Maccaroni”; and in England, “Jack Pudding.” 

*Translated from the German in Westerman’s Monatshefte for August, 

There is a deep significance in this designation. It 
is a protest of the confirmed realism of the common 
people against the idealism of the educated classes, 
against the foreign learned culture and the excessively 
refined manners of the higher ranks. As Robert 
Prutz very correctly says, “These comic masks invariably 
come into existence when the popular sentiment has 
suffered a great rupture, a sudden dissension; when, in a 
word, the people feels itself estranged of its own accord, 
—when it finds itself face to face with a government, a 
culture, a literature, in which it has no part, which it 
neither knows nor understands, by which, on the con- 
trary, it feels itself grieved and oppressed as by some 
externally imposed foreign object. The people re- 
placed this unreal, visionary world by the real world, in 
which, above all, something good to eat can be found. 
They contrasted a substantial reality with the incom- 

In ancient times, there was a much greater fusion 
between idealism and realism; consequently, the ancient 
drama did not know this universal typical fool of the 
modern world. The merry personages of the old Greek 
and Roman drama are not professional fools, but indivi- 
dual concrete comic characters. On the other hand, the 
German “Hans Wurst” has a definite typical character, 
which he retains in all the various guises in which he 
appears. He is the spice of all dramatic food. Even 
the most serious and most bloody tragedy could not dis- 
pense with him; his nauseating, cynical wit and merry 
capers incessantly interrupted the majestic progress of 
the main action. He appears asa braggart of the first 
water, who constantly vaunts his courage; but he shows 
it only where he knows nodanger to exist. No matter how 
willing he may be to give occasion for a quarrel or a 
fight, if the affair becomes too serious he very seasonably 
takes to his heels. And so the fool goes through life 
unscathed, while his master, who far surpasses him in 
mind and culture, succumbs to its trials. By his predi- 
lection for good meals and high fees he parodies his 
master’s ideal endeavors, and by his chronic appetite he 
interrupts the sublime course of the former’s thought. 
If he could only have his sausage, the old “Hans Wurst” 
was indifferent to everything else. To him, eating and 


could no longer be merry. He supplies by a peculiar 
natural cunning what he lacks in culture and knowledge. 
Nor does he at times hesitate to further his object by pre- 
varication and deception. He is married, but his wed- 
lock is nothing but an endless round of drubbings and 
scoldings; at the same time he always is the henpecked 
victim of his chiding better-half. He is very good-natured, 
and if necessary has a heart full of compassion ; then, like a 
genuine humorist, he laughs through his tears. And 
thus it frequently happens that he lectures his master on 
account of his bad behavior. 

In this character-study we evidently encounter 
elements of the national character, In its “Hans Wurst,” 
the people apparently saw its own beloved Ego. In 
those times the great lords retained paid fools, whose 
duty it was, from time to time, to tell them the truth 
and to ridicule them so as to guard them against folly. 
The nobles and the rich could indulge in such a luxury; 
but for the poor people it was much too expensive. So 
they went to the theatre, there to meet folly face to face. 
Thus the German “ Hans Wurst ” was the fool for all— 
the people’s fool. 

When “ Hans Wurst ” was banished from Germany, 
the peopleevery unwillingly took leave of their beloved 
fool. Nor was it its own initiative, but the influence of 
the schoolmen, represented by Gottsched, that brought 
on the judgment prepared for him by Caroline Neuberin. 
For the latter the result was fatal; her performances 
were no longer attended, and she suffered severe financial 
embarassment. Nevertheless, the good “Hans Wurst” 
had outlived himself. The generalization of culture, 
and the regeneration of esthetic feeling arising there- 
from, fettered him in his grave. After having vanished 
from the stage he flourished only in the puppet show, 
where, even at the present day, he delights the hearts 
of.our children. On the living stage he appears only in 
the form of “ Leporello.” 

The “Hans Wurst” comedy continued longest as an 
independent comedy, which had gradually diverged 
from the serious drama, in the Vienna theatres; here, 
late in the eighteenth century, Stranitzky, Prehauser, 
and his successor, Herr von Kurz (called Bernardon), 
were famous impersonators of this rode. 

Subsequently, however, the representation of folly 
was not concentrated in a single person, but it was 
individualized in the most manifold ramifications. 

This had partially taken place already in Shakespeare. 
The great master of individualizing characteristics was 
averse to concentrating all humor in a single personage. 
In his plays we find nothing of the real typical “Hans 


drinking are the essentials, because they hold body and 
soul together. 

To the average man, everything intangible remains 
incomprehensible. Our “ Hans Wurst” deems himself 
happy for not having studied; because, if he had, he 

Wurst,” with his red jacket and yellow trunk-hose. He 
rather clothed his “ Hans Wurst” in doublet and boots, 
and called him Sir John Falstaff. 

Sir John has a great family resemblance to the 
German popular fool. Only the character is exag- 
gerated so as to be grotesque, and broadened by truly 
genial traits. Sir John, also, is impelled by the lowest 
instincts,—feasting and carousing are his favorite achieve- 
ments. In spite of his age and his immense paunch, he 
is as faint-hearted and timid as a child; nevertheless he 
abuses the others by calling them arrant cowards. Thus 
he vaunts heroic deeds which he has never committed, 
and which in his bragging mouth grow in proportion-to 
the number of those who believe them. He, the worst 
moralist, lectures Prince Henry, and offers himself as a 
mirror of the noblest virtue. When the Lord Chief- 
Justice reproaches him for having misled the young 
Prince, he asserts that it is himself who has been misled. 
The lie is his element, in which he is as much at home 
as a fish in water. He has notched his sword with his 
dagger to prove that he had fought valiantly. To 
escape being stabbed in the combat, he lies down on the 
ground in the very beginning of it, and pretends to be 
dead. To obtain the credit of Mistress Quickly, he 
gives her to understand that he has lost a seal-ring 
worth forty mark; but the ring was only copper and 
scarcely worth eight pence. When he is convicted of 
lying, he gets out of his dilemma by a jest or another 
lie. When Prince Henry reproves him for his coward- 
ice, he answers: “Instinct isa great matter; I was now 
a coward on instinct.” When the Prince, his protector, 
has become King, and contemptuously discards the 
white-haired fool and jester, “so surfeit-swelled, so old 
and so profane,” and banishes him from his company, 
the lying hero loses his footing, and the entire fraudulent 
existence collapses. It is true, he endeavors to pursuade 
Shallow, to whom he has vouchsafed his most gracious 
protection, that the King must seem thus to the world; 
that what he had heard was but a color. But already 
he perceives that his lie is no longer believed. “A 
color that I fear you will die in, Sir John,” answers 
Shallow. To which Falstaff simply replies: “ Fear no 
colors; go with me to dinner.” Thus with the lie, his 
wit, on which it depended, also failed him. ‘“ Hence- 
forth he renounces both sack and women.” He even 
entertains holy thoughts, something like a fear of the 
fires of Hell. The greatest of lying fools now becomes 
tedious and prosaic. 

Shakespeare also introduces that variety of retained 
professional fools who make their living by it, and who 
appear in the company of his great heroes. At bottom, 
these fools, although so designated, are anything but 
fools; they are, on the contrary, very clever fellows who 
make it their business to expose the folly of the wise. 
Their actions and their character cannot be better 

described than in the words of Viola in “ Twelfth 
Night,” where she says of Olivia’s clown— 
“ This fellow is wise enough to play the fool; 
And to do that well craves a kind of wit: 
He must observe their mood on whom he jests, 
The quality of persons, and the time, 
And, like the haggard, check at every feather 
That comes before his eye. This is a practice 
As full of labor as a wise man’s art: 
For folly that he wisely shows is fit; 
But wise men, folly-fall’n, quite taint their wit.” 

These so-called fools carry on a merry game of 
banter and repartee. They are sophists and word-cor- 
rupters. “I am indeed not her fool, but her corrupter 
of words,” says Olivia’s clown. In “ All’s Well that 
Ends Well,” the clown to the Countess Roussilon 
declares himself capable of giving her an answer fit for 
all questions, and answers her repeatedly with an “ O 
Lord, sir!” Again, Olivia’s clown proves to her that 
she is a fool for mourning for her brother. “I think his 
soul is in hell, Madonna,” says the fooldrily. “I know 
his soul is in heaven, fool,” angrily replies the countess. 
«The more fool, Madonna, to mourn for your brother’s 
soul being in heaven,” concludes the fool. Malvolio in 
«“ Twelfth Night,” is therefore not unjustified in calling 
“ these wise men, that crow so at these set kind of fools, 
no better than the fool’s zanies.” 

The most prominent figure in this chorus of fools is 
the fool of King Lear. With terrible irony he chastises 
the King for his folly in rendering himself poor and 
subject to the mercy of his daughters. With inexorable 
bitterness he comments upon the incongruity of these 
actions. “ Sirrah, you were best take my cox-comb,” 
he tauntingly says; and when the King wanders about 
poor and forsaken, he increases this taunt to the ut- 
most: “ Thou art an O without a figure: I am better 
than thou art now. I am a fool, thou art nothing.” 
The terrible weight of the fool’s logic contributes 
not a little toward the King’s madness; and the scene 
in which the poet has the three fools meet on the 
heath is one of the utmost pathos: King Lear, who 
has actually gone mad, the real fool ;—Edgar, Glouces- 
ter’s son, who assumes madness, the feigned fool; and 
the titular fool, who practises folly as a profession, and 
who of all three speaks and acts most rationally. 

The Shakespearean fool attained his highest develop- 
ment in the character of Goethe’s Mephistopheles. He 
also, according to Faust, is “a liar and a sophist.” He 
also comments upon the endeavors and actions of his 
lord and master, who has been possessed by conceit and 
a desire for wisdom. The ironic, sarcastic manner of 
this comment, not only toward Faust, but also toward 
others,—for instance, the pupil, the students in Auer- 
bach’s cellar, Madam Martha—is quite in the vein of the 
Shakespearean fool. These also display somewhat of 
“the Spirit that Denies.” Thus, he mocks the remorse- 



ful and tortured Faust: 

“ Already we are at the end of 
our knowledge where you poor mortals lose your 

In the old farces and carnival plays, on the other 
hand, the Devil always appears as the deceived and 
deluded fool, as the “aper of God,” as the stupid devil 
who generally at the last moment is defrauded of the 
hoped-for prize by man’s cunning. 
imitating this medieval conception, has Mephistopheles 
succumb to a similar fate in the dénouement of his 
superb poem. He who has so long fooled Faust and 
the world, is now in his turn fooled by heaven, which 
takes advantage of his being enamoured of the beautiful 

angel, to capture Faust’s soul, the pledge of his wager. 
(To be continued.) 

Goethe, evidently 


Johannes Miiller, the greatest physiologist of our 
century, in his dissertations on the senses, established a 
theory which is well known as “the theory of the spe- 
cific energies of the sensory nerves.” I cannot here 
recapitulate his doctrine in his own perspicuous ex- 
pressions, which are so worded as to be intelligible only 
to a specialist. But a few sentences will suffice to ex- 
plain the quintessence of his theory to any one whose 
occupation prevents him from bestowing more than that 
kindly interest upon physiology which this most fasci- 
nating science awakens in the mind of every educated 

From the eye and from the ear, from the mucous 
membranes of the organs of taste and of smell, and from 
the skin of the whole body——viz. the organ of touch and 
temperature— proceed thousands of most delicate nerve 
fibres. Gradually uniting, they coalesce into steadily 
enlarging bundles, which either lead directly to the brain, 
or are indirectly connected with it by the spinal cord. 
Through these nerve fibres the sensory organs com- 
municate with the brain, that most wonderful living 
structure which is both the origin and the product of 
our consciousness. 

When a vibration of ether irritates the nervous mem- 
brane of our eye (the retina), a process ensues, the real 
nature of which we do not yet understand. We only 
know that the irritation is at once transmitted to the 


* Prof, Ewald Hering delivered his lecture on ‘‘ The Specific Energies of 
the Nervous System” on some festival occasion. It was published in the 
Lotos, and he sent a copy of it with corrections in his own hand, to Mr. Hegeler, 
in order to have it translated and published in Tuk Open Court. 

The essay enlarges and justifies Johannes Milller’s theory of the specific 
energies of nerves. Professor Hering makes a broader application of this theory, 
by showing that it is a special and physiological aspect of a general biolo ical 
law, and he justifies it by thus basing it on the broader foundation of a more 
general truth. Professor Hering intended the essay to be intelligible to the 
educated public at large, and couched his ideas, so far as was possib'e, in 
popular language. 

The importance of the subject need not be commented upon. 



fibres of the optic nerve, and in its further progress acts 
upon those cerebral parts into which the optic nerve 
enters. As the life of these brain structures is in close 
connection with our consciousness, it happens that when 
a ray of light enters the eye, it causes an irritation of 
the nervous fibres and of the cerebral cells; and thus we 
become conscious of the sensations of light and of color. 

If, now, these same rays, which, when entering the 
eye, produced the sensation of light, fall upon the skin of 
the hand, and there irritate the delicate rootlets of the sen- 
sory nerves, this irritation is transmitted through the 
nerves and the spinal cord to the brain, and, instead of 
light we are conscious of warmth. How is it that the 
identical external agent in one case produces light, and 
in the other warmth? 

Moreover, the sensation of light can be produced in 
a perfectly dark room by irritating the nerves of the eye 
by an electric current; and if we pass the electric cur- 
rent through the auditory nerve, we hear sounds and 
noises, though the deepest silence surround us. If we 
apply the ‘current to the nerves of the skin, we experi- 
ence the sensation of heat or cold, although not in con- 
tact with any cold or warm object. And if, by the very 
same curregt, we excite the nerves of the tongue, gusta- 
tory sensations are produced. Accordingly, the nervous 
apparatus of each sensory organ responds to the same 
irritation with different sensations. And again we ask: 
How does precisely the same cause produce such a 
variety of effects? 

Even by the aid of a microscope the anatomist has 
not been able to discover any essential difference between 
the various sensory nerves. For instance, that part of 
the brain which produces the visual sensations does not, 
in its ultimate structure, vary noticeably from those 
cerebral regions which produce sensations of sound or 
temperature. But (and this is the answer to the problem 
in question) this sameness of form is not accompanied 
by a sameness of nature. The diverse structures of the 
nervous system, the nerve cells and the nerve fibres, are 
internally different in spite of all external similarity, and 
the diversity of the sensations produced is a manifesta- 
tion of such difference. 

It is the nature of the nervous substance in the visual 
organ to produce sensations of light, and only such. It 
is the bell which sounds, and not its tongue; and simi- 
larly it is not the vibration of ether, but the nerve, that 
produces light. No matter whether it be a ray of light, 
—whether it be pressure or a blow upon the eye, an 
electric current, or any irritation whatever,—that affects 
the nervous apparatus, it invariably manifests itself as 
light or color. In the same way, we become conscious 

of the irritations of the auditory organ in the form of 
sound or noise, no matter what their cause, which may 
be aérial vibrations or any morbid irritation of the inner 
ear, or an orgasm of the blood. 


Johannes Miiller named the inherent function of 
certain nerves to communicate certain sensations, which 
could not be produced otherwise, to our consciousness, 
the “ specific energy ” of those nerves. More than half 
a century has elapsed since this great physiologist devel- 
oped his theory in grand and magnificent proportions; 
and thus, in scientific terms, he formulated an idea, the 
original germ of which lies buried in the distant past as 
far back as Aristotle. Johannes Miiller’s doctrines were 
re-echoed in innumerable writings, but it cannot be said 
that the seed he sowed fell upon fertile soil, or that it 
was developed in any essential feature. A few par- 
tially successful attempts were made to promote Miiller’s 
theory of the sensations of color and of sound; but, aside 
from that, his doctrine bore little fruit. On the contrary 
it was suppressed, even by Johannes Miiller’s own 
disciples. It again became customary to regard all 
nerve fibres as having essentially the same nature, and to 
suppose that the same kind of irritation is transmitted in 
all fibres of the various nerves. The question as to why 
the nerves of the different sensory organs produce such 
various sensations was either entirely abandoned, or it was 
deemed sufficient to say that the cause should be sought 
in the brain, although the same causes which were sup- 
posed to prove that all nerve fibres are of the same 
nature, would hold good also in the case of the cerebral 
cells and fibres. Even in some of the numerous writ- 
ings of the present day, we meet with authors who, 
confounding philosophy and physiology, declare that 
the theory of the specific energies is one of the great 
aberrations of physiology. 

In consideration of this fact, permit me, as an 
enthusiastic follower, although no personal disciple, of the 
great scientist, to disclose and reveal the deep significance 
of the great master’s doctrine, and to show that it is the 
application of a principle which has been or surely will 
be accepted in other provinces of biology.— 

The animal kingdom comprises an inexhaustible 
multiplicity of form, and to a layman who is not initiated 
into the science of biology it seems almost incredible 
that all these creatures, so manifoldly differing in their 
forms and habits, should, as germs in the first stage of 
their development, be so homomorphous! As a rule, 
even the most experienced eye, with the assistance of 
every means of scientific analysis, would not be able to 
recognize in a germ the animal into which it is going to 
develop. The fish as well as the bird, and the insect as 
well as man, so far as we can judge according to external 
appearance, all begin their lives as most simple and 
microscopically small, spheroidal structures. Nor does 
this uniformity exist only for the eye; for chemical 
analysis resolves them all into the same ultimate 

We ask how is it possible that totally different forms 
can develop from apparently like germs, and the answer 

is, that this resemblance of the germs is merely external. 
By the aid of even the most powerful microscopes, we 
barely discern only the roughest outlines of their 

In the heavens, whole systems of suns appear only 
as nebulz, which even the most powerful telescopes 
cannot resolve into their single stars. As observation is 
impossible, we can only surmise their structure. Simi- 
larly the ultimate and most delicate frameworks in the 
architecture of the living substance of germs is with- 
drawn from the observation of even the most minute 
research. Could we approach nearer and nearer to one 
of these nebulae, one star after the other would emerge 
from the apparently homogeneous mass; we would see 
planets revolving around their suns, and satellites about 
the planets. Thus, if with our corporeal or intellectual 
eye we could penetrate into the minutest internal 
structure of the substance of germs—if we could compre- 
hend the arrangement‘and motion of the molecules and 
atoms-—we would discover that the living germ substance 
of each animal species has its specific properties, and the 
substance of each single germ has its individual proper- 
ties on account of which, in a further evolution, a special 
and peculiar type must mechanically develop. 

Whether these internal variations of the germs are 
chemical or physical, is, at present, immaterial; for the 
physical properties of a substance are conditioned by 
cheir chemical qualities, and when we inquire into the 
molecular and atomic structure of a substance, the divid- 
ing line between the domains of chemistry and physics 
disappears entirely. We cannot, in the immediate future, 
however, hope to find a chemical formula for the indi- 
vidual germ substances. To reveal the delicate secret of 
living matter by the comparatively crude methods of 
chemistry, would be like trying to explain the mechan- 
ism of a watch by melting it in a crucible, and examining 
the molten mass with regard to its ingredients. 

As we can not at present solve the problem of 
internal variation of the externally similar germ 
substances, we must be satisfied with the statement that 
the germs of each animal species possess an inherent 
and innate faculty—viz., a specific energy, which directs 
its developments in a manner characteristic to this 
animal and to no other. Again, each single germ 
possesses an individual energy which, in addition to the 
normal features of its species, secures an individual 
character to its future development. 

Let us now approach our problem from another side. 
When the naked eye is not able to discern the more 
minute organization and delicate structure of an 
organism, the anatomist employs the microscope, and 
a new world of discernible facts is revealed to him. 
The apparently homogeneous form dissolves into 
innumerable distinct structures; millions of the minutest 
separately-existing being:, different in shape and internal 



structure, compose a systematically arranged aggregate, 
thus forming the diverse organs; and these beings, in 
spite of the complicated interdependence, lead quite 
separate lives, for each single being is an animated 
centre of activity. The human body does not receive 
the impulse of life like a machine from one point, but 
each single atom of the different organs bears its 
vitalizing power in itself. The current of life does not 
emanate from one special part of the body, but all its 
minutest parts are themselves sources of life. The 
architecture of the human body which consists of these 
elementary organisms, or cells, as they are called, has 
often been explained. The harmonious interaction and the 
division of labor among these innumerable particles has 
been compared to the judiciously adapted co-operation of 
the individual members in a well regulated community. 
As in sucha community, so also in the human organism, a 
special kind of work is consigned to each group of 
individuals; and, according to the various functions, the 
elementary organisms are differently formed; but those 
elements which possess the properly so-called vital power, 
in every respect exhibit the most striking resemblance, 
although it may be hidden by and interwoven with vari- 
ous less important solid or fluid ingredients. 

In all living cells and fibres of the various organs we 
always encounter the same colorless, almost fluid, soft, 
easily changeable substance in the shape of most delicate 
threads, nets ordrops. It is the properly vital element of 
the cell. There the enigma of life lies buried, for 7¢ is 
the moving and creating power in the elementary organ- 
ism. J¢ produces the contraction of muscular fibres, and 
transmits the irritation in the nerve fibre; z¢ builds up the 
solid and strong mass of the supporting bone, and the 
tough fibre ofthe tendon. /¢ shapes the feathers of the 
bird, the scales of the fish and horns of the stag. 

Yet, it is everywhere apparently the same, and if it 
is isolated from its proper sphere and surroundings, and 
considered by itself, the most experienced eye cannot 
tell which of the different functions was performed by it. 

Again we ask, how is it possible that apparently 
equal causes produce such different effects. And here 
no one will doubt that in spite of external similarity the 
living substance in the cells of the individual organs is 
internally different; and a difference of function neces- 
sarily results from this difference of internal structure, 
It is an innate function, The specific energy of the living 
substance in the liver produces bile as the specific energy 
of the root of a hair builds up the horny mass of hair. 

All theinnumerable elementary beings or cells of an 
organism are the offspring of one single germ cell in 
which the development commenced, By division the 
first cell was split in two. Although both were inti- 

. mately connected with each other, they were neverthe- 


less to a certain extent independent cells. 

two cells divided again, and formed other 


and so on. Thus by a constantly renewed formation 
of more living substance the number of the elemen- 
tary structures increases in an almost inexhaustible 
multiplicity, But in the progress of multiplication also 
form and arrangement of the cells are changed, They 
separate into divers homogeneous groups, each of which 
differs from the others in character in so far as it per- 
forms aspecial function. The living substance is specialized 
in the process of development according to its function 
and destination. All the united different specific ener- 
gies which later on will develop to full life separately 
in its descendants, lie concealed, although only potentially, 
in the substance of a germ. 

In the light of these considerations the diversity of 
function in the nervous substance can no longer surprise 
us. Its external similarity prevents us from considering 
it as internally different, and from claiming for it specific 
energies according to the doctrine of Johannes Miiller. 

(To be concluded.) 


In a gossipy sketch of “Washington Irving at Home,” 
in the May Century, Mr. Clarence Bull notes that 
Irving has been rightly called the last of the my- 
thologists. Thus, to show how even educated people 
regarded the inimitable “ Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” 
and the happy stories of Diedrich Knickerbocker, Mr. 
Bull quotes the criticism of a well-known scholar of 
Dutch ancestry, who thought perhaps that he was 
passing an awful sentence on the genial author of the 
Sketch Book, when he said that it was painful to see a 
mind like Irving’s “ wasting the riches of its fancy on 
an ungrateful theme.” Would that Irving had squand- 
ered a still larger portion of his mental endowment and 
inheritance on this ungrateful theme,—on this Folk-Lore! 
The truth is, that Irving was the last of the mytholo- 
gists because mythology at that time did not pay; it 
was an ungrateful theme because it found no appreciative 

audience or readers. 

It is hardly necessary to say that this attitude toward 
the rich stores of a people’s legends and romances has 
Indeed, some enthusiastic students 
have not hesitated to argue that the Folk-Lore of a people 
is of more importance in the history of progress—Cul- 
ture-History, as the Germans well term it—than the 
Court or Epsom. At all events, the legendary lore and 

quite disappeared. 

popular tales, which still survive among our simple- 
minded folk, are to-day the most striking witnesses of 
the evolution of culture from those low grades of human 
thought and feeling that characterize primitive and 
uncivilized communities. 

Now, about the time that Washington Irving was 
wasting so much time with the simple legends of the 


Dutch along the Hudson, a German scholar, Jacob Grimm 
by name, was wasting many valuable years in collecting 
childish legends and popular tales so dearly treasured by 
rude and uncultivated German peasants. From that 
day until this, the by-ways and hedges of all Europe 
have been more or less ransacked by keen-eyed and 
inquiring disciples of Grimm, eagerly taking down the 
marvelous stories as they fell from the lips of the 
peasantry. What was thus taken down, not only found 
its way in print, but found thousands of readers. And 
now the lettered were willing to sit at the feet of the 
unlettered. Folk-Lore societies were quickly established 
for the purpose of collecting and preserving these fanci- 
ful legends, and its members are now numbered by the 
hundreds. But above all, when scholars came to put the 
popular stories from all over the globe side by side, a 
most astonishing similarity was at once observed. It 
seemed impossible that the Hindus and Germans, the 
Greeks and Romans, should have borrowed their tradi- 
tionary lore after they had separated and settled thou- 
sands of miles apart. There was—there could be—but 
one obvious explanation, and that was, of course, that the 
framework of the story or legend came from a common 
source. Thus a new science was born, and christened 
Comparative Mythology. Together with comparative 
philology, it established the kinship of that branch of 
the human race known as Aryan. 

The question now is, what have our American students 
of Folk-Lore done toward contributing their share to the 
History of Culture? The answer is brief, but unsatis- 
factory: With the exception of some Indian legends 
(often colored by the poetical white man), and a few negro 
tales, our scholars have done very little toward gathering 
materials for the comparative study of Folk-Lore. The 
result is, that our students of Folk-Lore have been obliged 
to seek foreign fields. Thus, Professor John Fiske, in 
his “ Myths and Myth-makers,” and Professor Crane, of 
Cornell, in his “ [talian Popular Tales,” have shown us 
what American students could do, if only the materials 
for American Folk-Lore studies were forthcoming. 

Confining, then, the subject to America, it may be 
asked, wkere shall we look for the materials of sucha 
study ?—that is to say: Where are we able to find in 
this country those items of superstition or traditionary 
lore which make up the body of a people’s Folk-Lore? 
Obviously, there are two or three classes of native 
Americans among whom we may look for striking cases 
of intellectual survival. In the first place, the North 
American Indians have furnished more or less of a 
great mass of popular legends, and the student must 
learn to distinguish between what is true and what is 
false. Then, the Southern negroes, as recent study 
leads us to believe, will also contribute their full share 
of stories to the comparative student of Folk-Lore. Then, 
again, there are one or two other sources, such as the 

superstitions current among the French Canadians, and 
the fables such as the late Professor Hartt and Mr, 
Smith have collected among the Indian tribes on the 
Amazon. There may be still other sources, but they 
need 1 ot be enumerated at this time. 

Without going further, therefore, we believe that 
the popular traditions or legends of Indians, Negroes, 
and Canadians alone form rich stores for the student of 
American Folk-Lore. All the conditions necessary for the 
development of Folk-Lore.are found among the above- 
named folk, These conditions may be broadly divided 
into two classes: (1) Those which are due to physical 
phenomena or causes, and (2) those which'spring from 
ignorance, and thus lead men to explain natural causes 
by supernatural agencies. 

Thus, under the first condition we have all those popu- 
lar tales or traditions which embody usually the sum 
total of a rude or primitive folk’s knowledge of the out- 
ward world. There is hardly an object, animate or 
inanimate, which is not used or made to play a part in 
these popular stories. Under what Mr. Buckle has 
called the “ Aspects of Nature,” the Primitive Aryans 
had a crowd of myths which were not a whit different 
from our modern popular tales. The difference between 
Folk-Lore and Mythology is simply one of degree, not 
of kind. As the Rev. Sir George Cox well says, 
«“ Folk-Lore, in short, is perpetually running into myth- 
ology.”—(ntroduction to Mythology, etc., p. Vv.) 

Under the second condition we have a host of popu- 
lar stories which are due to popular ignorance. So long 
as natural laws remain unknown, anything like a rational 
explanation of strange and wonderful phenomena will be 
wholly out of the question, “ People perfectly ignorant 
of physical laws,” says Mr. Buckle, “ will refer to super- 
natural causes all the phenomena, by which they are sur- 
rounded.”—-(History of Civilization, vol. 1, p. 265.) 

Although, happily, under the influence of physical 
science and education, many of the irrational supersti- 
tions of the past have vanished, never to bother us more, 
yet many items of superstition still linger on in remote 
districts, and these the student of Folk-Lore must indus- 
triously track out and jealously preserve. As we have 
said, there are still rich stores of popular tales, survivals 
of which may still be found among the Indians, the 
Negroes, and the Canadians, Fortunately, many of 
these traditions have already been gathered, but they 
have, so far, been turned to but little account. 

We shall briefly try to point out the uses to which 
the mass of material thus-gathered might be put; for, 
as Mr. E. B. Tylor argues, the use of Folk-Lore de- 
pends mainly on the answering of the following ques 
tion: “When similiar arts, beliefs, or legends are found 
in several distant regions, among peoples not known 
to be of the same stock, how is this similarity to be 
accounted for?” 




In attempting to account for similar beliefs or legends 
found current among distant peoples not known to be 
related, the student of Folk-Lore is very apt to be led 
into a labyrinth of inconsistencies. He will perhaps run 
across similarities so striking, so ingenious, or so circum- 
stantial, that straightway he concludes that there is some 
historical connection or relation between the folk among 
whom such similarities are found prevailing. He draws 
conclusions which, though acute and suggestive, are not 
warranted by sound methods of interpretation and of com- 
parative Folk-Lore. 

There are two methods of studying American Folk- 
Lore. One considers its origin, and the other is strictly 
a work of comparison and analysis. The first method 
is manifestly important in establishing the kinship of 
distant peoples; the second shows the individuality of 
each cultus and the workings of the primitive mind 
either under similar or dissimilar conditions. Hence, 
the question, how American Folk-Lore was manufac- 
tured is, in our present brief survey, less pertinent than 
the inquiry as to how it compares with that of the rest 
of the world. We must, in a measure, classify the 
crowd of folk-tales which have come up independently 
and those which may have a common origin. 

Major J. W. Powell, of the Bureau of Ethnology, in 
his Third Report (LN VI.) has very well pointed out 
that, independent similarities may be (1) entirely adven- 
titious or (2) may be due to concausation. That simi- 
larities of a common origin may be due (1) to cognation 
and (2) to acculturation—that is, to imitation, An 
example or two may perhaps show the above distinctions 
in a clearer light. 

The resemblances between the stories relating to 
different natural phenomena, for example, are not 
evidences that such stories have come from a common 
source. Some North American Indian tribes believe 
that the winds are the breathings of mythic animals. 
This story is found scattered all over the world. Other 
Indian tribes have legends about a gigantic bird, the 
flapping of whose wings causes thunder. This legend, 
found among the Tlinkit and Innuit tribes of Alaska, in 
the New World, was also current among several people 
of the Old World. Manifestly, the presumption is that 
such tales are independent, and are due to concausation. 

Again, very many savage tribes have explanations of 
the rain surprisingly similar even in minute details. 
Thus, in the falling rain, both the Greek and the Savage 
saw the dropping tears shed by a tender-hearted deity, 
while the electric flash, like the eyes of a Homeric hero, 
to them sent forth the dreadful ligh‘nings of an angry 
God. Ellis in his Polynesian Researches noted the same 
tale among the Tabitians, who say: 

“Thickly fall the small rain on the face of the sea. 
They are not drops of rain, but they are tears of Oro.” 


The plain truth is, that such lore is concaused, and 
has been developed independently. 

A comparison of a few well-known American 
legends with their analogues in the Old World may also 
serve to strengthen the above argument in another way 
I venture to think that we shall find that popular stories 
are more widely diffused than most persons are inclined 
to believe. 

We may take the Legend of Sleepy Hollcw. Who 
will forget the school-master, Icabod Crane! How 
many of us smile at the fearful race between Icabod and 
the headless horseman! How vivid the scene where 
Icabod gallops over the bridge of the Pocantico, scared 
out of his wits, and the horseman clattering just at his 
heels! This story has become part and parcel of our 
native lore. But the frame-work of the story is 
found in the German tale of the peasants pursued by the 
Wild Huntsman,—our Herne the Hunter. The materials 
of course are used differently; in one case the scenery 
and local coloring belong to the Catskill Mountains, 
and in the other, the descriptions and events are all 
applicable to the Hartz Mountains. In the German 
tale the He/jager (hell-hunter) hunts in the clouds all 
the year round except the twelve nights between 
Christmas and Twelfth-night. During this time he 
hunts on earth, and woe to anyone who meets him in 
the woods or leaves his door open during the night for 
the huntsman’s dogs to run in! That unfortunate person 
will meet with great trouble. 

We may take next, the familiar legend of Rip Van 
Winkle. There has been a persistent effort on the part 
of some students to make this out a sun myth; others, 
misled by Washington Irving’s note to the tale that it 
was “suggested by a little German superstition about 
the Emperor Frederick Rothbart and the Kyff- 
hauser Mountain;” others, as a well-known English 
author, have regarded the legend as a purely autochtho- 
nous myth. Indeed, the simple and very charming way 
in which Irving has told about Rip’s sleep is apt to 
throw one off of the right scent, Witness, when Rip 
woke up, “he looked around, but he could see nothing 
but a crow winging its solitary flight across the moun- 
tain.” Now, it is this home-like and artistic touch that 
gives the legend its verisimilitude, and its native flavor. 

Perhaps nearest allied to the Catskill legend is the Ger- 
man story of Peter Klaus, a goat-herd. One day Peter 
was accosted by a stranger, who beckoned him to come 
along. He was in this way led to a deep dell, where he 
found twelve courtly knights playing at skittles. Not 
a word was uttered, though a can of wine was offered 
to Klaus, who drank his fill. Thereupon he fell into a 

deep sleep, and when he awoke he found himself where 
his goats were accustomed to feed, but rubbing his eyes 
again and again he failed to see them. On descending 
to the place where the village lay, he found everything 


changed; his old friends were dead; his old acquaintances 
had disappeared, while he himself was alone and totally 
forgotten. In truth he had been asleep for twenty 

In the Seotch story of Tom-na-Hurich—the Hill of 
the Fairies—we have another version of the Catskill 
Mountain legend. It is the story of the two fiddlers of 
Strathspey. Thetwo fiddlers, one Christmas season, ar- 
rived at Inverness, and there sought to hire out to such 
as would need their services. Shortly after their ar- 
rival a gray-haired old man.called upon them, and 
offered them a good sum of money if they would play 
for him just out of thetown. They readily agreed, and 
followed him to what looked like a shed, and they 
noticed that they went through a long vestibule which 
led into the hill. They played all through the long 
night, and saw such dancing as they had never before or 
since in their lives. In the wee sma’ hours of the morn- 
ing they were dismissed with additional pay. Again 
they noticed, as they took their leave, that they went out 
of the hill. Thesleepy fiddlers soon made their way to 
town, only to find everything and everybody changed; 
the houses and streets had a strange look; while the 
towns-people had no recollection of their Christmas 
visit. At last one man said: “You are the two men who 
lodged with my grandfather, and whom Thomas the ~ 
Rimer decoyed into the Tom-na-Hurich. Your 
friends were greatly alarmed at the time; but that isa 
hundred years ago.” The story ends rather peculiarly, 
The fiddlers went to church that day, and when the first 
words of Bible were read, they vanished into thin dust. 

We may take, further, the story of the Rabbi Honi, 
or Chone Hamagel. The main incidents of this story 
are given with some detail in the Talmud. According 
to this version the Rabbi was a kind of misanthrope and 
skeptic combined. He would take long walks by 
himself, and argue and re-argue to great problems of 
existence. ‘What is life? What is life?” he would 
ask time and time again. “It is like a fleeting shadow,” 
—and that is all the conclusion he could come to. One 
day he saw an old gray-haired man planting the St. 
John’s bread, or carob-tree. The Rabbi Honi gently 
hinted to the old man that it was folly for him to waste 
his short time and energy in planting a tree whose fruit 
would only come in seventy years. ‘Dost thou hope 
to livesolong?” Said theold man: “I plant this tree 
not for myself. In my youth I gathered fruit from the 
trees planted by my grandfathers; now would I provide 
for the happiness of my descendants.” Thus a new 
train of thought quickly arose in Honi’s mind; thus a 
new set of questions sprang up to perplex him, He 
could not satisfy his own doubts. Wearied by his 
walk and troubled by his thoughts, the Rabbi falls 
into a quiet sleep on a little hill of ground. He 
sleeps on and on—for seventy years. He wakes up; 

he rubs his eyes; he gets up and wends his way home- 
ward. On his way he sees a great carob-tree flourishing 
where yesterday he saw the old man planting a slender 
twig. He asks a boy, “ Who planted this tree?” and is 
told that it was planted by his grandfather. Then Honi 
knew that he had slept seventy years. When he comes 
to his native city, behold! the streets, the houses, the 
people, are all strange. Even his own relatives have 
forgotten him; but they listen to his wondrous tale, and 
give him a home. The legend is manifestly fitted to the 
Semitic cast of mind, and its motzf betrays the workings 
of a deeply religious sentiment. 

The story of Frederich der Rothbart, alluded to by 
Irving, has very little in common with the Rip Van 
Winkle legend. The Emperor sleeps under the 
Rabensping (Raven’s Hill) with his armored knights 
around him, and ready to come forth at Germany’s hour 
of need. The legend runs that a shepherd by accident 
came upon the scene, and woke the Emperor from his 
long slumber. “Are the ravens still flying round the 
hill?” Frederich inquired. “ Yes.” “Then I must sleep 
another hundred years.” 

I venture to think that the Catskill legend of Rip 
Van Winkle, together with its different analogues in the 
Old World, are only variants of two or three very strik- 
ing incidents. These incidents are: (1) the delusion or 
enticement; (2) the retreat to a hnll; (3) the long sleep. 

In regard to the first, we see that Rip Van Winkle 
was deluded by the love of whiskey, Peter Klaus by the 
love of wine, and the two fiddlers of Strathspey were 
enticed by their love of money. In the Talmud version 
the Rabbi read that, 

‘“‘ When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, 

We were then like men that dream.” 

Thus, from this the Rabbi becomes the dupe of his 
“ all-subtilizing intellect.” 

In another large class of stories we have an account of 
men who are enticed by the love of beauty. Wagner’s 
well-known opera of Tannhaiiser is founded on this 
version of the legend. In the case of Tannhaiiser the 
Queen entices him into the Horselberg, and there keeps 
him, a not unwilling captive. Unfortunately with the 
native tale there has been mixed a good deal of Chris- 
tian sentiment and rubbish. Again, it is the Faéry 
Queen that entices Thomas the Rhymer into the Ercil- 
doune. At the end of seven years he is allowed to 
return to the earth, on the agreement that he will go 
back whenever a summons should come. One day a 
hart and a hind were seen moving up the street, and 
Thomas, who followed them into the woods and up to 
the down, was never seen afterward. 

In these two tales we have a hill, berg, or down, into 
which men are enticed. In each the framework of the 
legend is quite similar; the materials, however, are 
quite dissimilar. It should be observed, that, in some 



versions of the main legend, the long sleep is a more 
important incident than anything else. We have the 
story of the Cretan Epimenides, who, tending his flock, 
fell asleep in a cave and did not wake for half a cen- 
tury. We have again the mystic number Seven in 
connection with long sleep, —as in the different versions 
of the Seven Sages of Hellas and the Seven Sleepers of 
Ephesus. In the latter the tradition also goes that St. 
John was not dead, but only sleeping till the great 
consummation of the world should come. 

It is not necessary to show further that the American 
story is only a common form, a legend diffused through- 
out the length and breadth of Europe. These tales of 
Rip Van Winkle, of the two fiddlers of Strathspey, of 
Peter Claus, of the Rabbi Chone Hamagel are simply 

“Or such refraction of events, 
As often rises ere they rise.” 

As a study of comparative Folk-Lore, the above 
sketch brings out pretty plainly one or two things. It 
shows, first of all, that there is a good deal of human 
nature in men wherever we find them. It shows, also, 
that we mortals are “all in a tale.” From the stupid 
Peter Klaus and the hen-pecked Rip Van Winkle to 
the school-master Icabod Crane and the subtile Rabbi 
Honi, we all share coincident beliefs or delusions. 

(To be concluded.) 


I have just been reading the proceedings of “ The 
Trade and Labor Assembly,” and also the resolutions of 
“The Cigar Maker’s Progressive Union.” Both 
gatherings demand social and economic changes of great 
importance, but the Cigar Makers’ are the more “ pro- 
gressive” of the two. They have reached the 
end of rational argument, and propose to fight. 
Their program was contained “ circular,” 
the first demand of which was “Destruction of 
the existing class rule by energetic, relentless, revolu- 
tionary, and international action.” They also adopted 
some resolutions, the chief of which was “that 
the only means through which our aims, the emancipa- 
tion of all mankind, can be accomplished, is open rebel- 
lion of the despoiled of all nations against the existing 
social, economic, and political institutions.” Those 
resolutions have a flavor of Barnaby Rudge. They 
resemble the crimson doctrines proclaimed by the 
London apprentices, led by that “ relentless ” warrior of 
the thin legs and the wooden sword, Captain Sim. 
Tappertit. Still, for all that, their language is plain, 
and they express a bold purpose. A hater of “class 
rule” all my life, I am willing to fight for its destruc- 
tion. Where is the recruiting office? 

Although I am not certain that a “class rule” of 
* Progressive Cigar Makers” would be any better than 

in a 


the “class rule” we are living under now, and although 
there is no close affinity between shoveling coal and 
making cigars, still, I am willing to stand by the Cigar 
Makers as brother constituents in the great confra- 
ternity of labor. Unlike most occupations toward 
each other, there happens to be no reciprocity of bene- 
fits between the Cigar Makers and me. The favors 
conferred are all from them to me, and none from me to 
them. They are compelled to burn coal, and thus give 
me employment, but I am not compelled to burn cigars. 
I cannot help their trade to the amount of five cents a 
year. I cannot afford to smoke cigars. I have to be 
contented with a pipe of tobacco, and think myself 
lucky to get that. My son, however, the short-hand 
writer that I spoke of, gets twice as much wages for 
scribbling curious pot-hooks and hieroglyphics as I ever 
got for shoveling coal, and he can afford to smoke cigars. 
I think he smokes more of them than is good for him, but 
that’s his own affair, not mine. If I had his wealth I 
should probably smoke cigars as he does. Whether I 
smoke their cigars or not makes no difference; I am as 
ready to fight for the rights of Cigar Makers as for my 
own; but, although I have sought diligently for it, I have 
thus far been unable to find the recruiting office. Where 
can I find the headquarters of Captain Sim. Tappertit? 

Brothers, unless we are ready to open the recruiting 
office let us not talk about fighting. By doing so we 
expose our own weakness. We bring derision upon 
ourselves and contempt upon our cause. That is not 
the worst of it; we undervalue the moral forces which 
we hold in our own hands. We depreciate the strength 
we have by appealing to a strength which we have 
not. It may be rash and foolish to fight even for liberty, 
but it is brave. To talk fight without intending it 
is equally rash and foolish, but not brave. It is neither 
wise nor patriotic to persuade the working men that 
their moral resources are all exhausted, and that there is 
no reform power in the ballot, in the press, and in public 
opinion. The statement is not true; and the men who 
make it present to us a dilemma of double despair. 
Without arms, discipline, leaders, or even a plan of 
battle, fighting is clearly hopeless. If the ballotis impo- 
tent also, then we must fall back for comfort on bom- 
bast and beer. We can fill ourselves with nectar of the 
gods at five cents a glass, and boast of our intention at 
some future time to paint the universe red. It is all 
very fine to pass a string of resolutions, to “sound the 
tocsin,” whatever that is, and summon us to the fray, 
but the resolutors will not lead us. They pretend that 
they can no more set a squadron in the field than 
Michael Cassio. They invite us to go ahead and do the 
fighting. If we win, and accomplish the “ relentless ” 
revolution, they promise to step up and accept all the 
offices under the new government. This division of 
labor is not fair. 


Suppose that we do possess power enough to overturn 
one government, have we sufficient wisdom to form 
another and a better one? I have serious doubts about 
that. I think we have a great deal to unlearn before 
we shall be competent to establish and conduct a just 
government. I fear that even the “ Progressive Cigar 
Makers” are scarcely equal to the task. At the great 
Labor picnic I saw them with “ relentless ” fury destroy 
the stock in trade of a merchant on the ground. His 
offense was, that he had some cigars in stock which had 
been made by Cigar Makers who were not “ Progres- 
sive.” For this, his property was destroyed and his life 
placed in jeopardy. Men, who value liberty only so far 
as it gives them freedom to oppress their fellow-men, 
talk of building a new civilization on the ruins of the 
American political and social system. 

For instance, in the “circular” referred to above, I 
find a demand of “equal rights for all without distinc- 
tion to sex or race,” and I also read that the very meet- 
ing that adopted it “protested against the employment 
of women.” What sort of “equal rights” will be estab- 
lished by a party which refuses to women the equal 
right with men to earn an honest living? The Trade 
and Labor Assembly also appointed a committee, which 
made a report complaining of many wrongs which la- 
bor suffers in the City of Chicago, and among them this: 
“Female labor is being largely used to replace male la- 
bor in skilled occupations, such as telegraphing, book- 
keeping, etc.” The radical mistake of the labor re- 
formers is the delusion that all persons who work at the 
same trade are enemies, snatching bread from one 
another. I used to think that way, but now I believe 
that the reverse of it is the true doctrine. I believe 
now that everybody should work, that the more work- 
ers the more product, and consequently the more com- 
forts of life for us all. 

The equal right of women to work at “ skilled la- 
bor” is evidence that we are emerging from that social 
barbarism which consigned one part of them to the 
bondage of the kitchen, another to the insip‘d languor of 
the drawing room, and another to a dependence on 
man’s wickedness, so pitiful and so sad that we fear to 
look upon it lest it show us the reflection of our own 
guilt, and make our consciences rebel within us at the 
savagery of man, “ Skilled labor” is one of the blessed 
agencies that shall redeem women from poverty, from 
wash-tub slavery, and from sin. It may be said that I 
can talk this way because women don’t compete with 
me at shoveling coal or carrying the hod. That’s true; 
but I would talk the same way if I were a skilled 
mechanic. If I were a telegrapher or a book-keeper, I 
would hold myself unmanly to whine and whimper 
should a woman come along and compete with me at 
the trade. Throw open to women all the trades, all the 

offices, and all the professions, and make her independ- 

ent. I have another theory also, and it is this: That the 
elevation of woman can never degrade man nor her 
prosperity injure him. 

There are some things that we feel to be wrong, 
although we may not have sufficient ability to demon- 
strate their injustice. The principle of excluding per 
sons from learning or exercising trades I am confident 
is not sound, although I may not be able to tell why. I 
feel it because I have suffered from it. I told, ina for- 
mer article, how my four sons were forbidden to 
learn any trade in this land where they were born, 
which their forefathers fought to establish, and which 
their father fought to re-establish. They were forbid- 
den to learn by the laws of the trades. I feel that the 
exclusion was unjust, and that the principle of it is 
wrong. My daughter learned a trade in spite of the 
doctrine, and it is now proposed that she shall not exer- 
cise it. She is a book-keeper. She is competent, has a 
good situation, and, although not yet seventeen years old, 
she feels absolutely independent. A lot of social re- 
formers get themselves together in a beer saloon, and 
“resoloot” that she ought not to be guilty of earning 
her living at “skilled labor,”.on the ground that she 
works for less wages than a man would work. How 
do they know? And whose business is it but her own? 
The fact is that she is getting higher wages than some 
masculine book-keepers get, although less than some 
others. That isn’t all; there are plenty of young men 
in town who would gladly take her situation at less 
wages if they could get it. There are hundreds of 
“males” who would readily work at her desk for ten 
dollars a month less than she receives. The people who 
are so sensitive about “competition” are quite willing 
that she shall compete with,some poor girl as house- 
maid, or cook in the kitchen, but they are not willing 
that she shall “compete” with aman atadesk. The 
most curious thing about it all to me is, that those 
“ reformers” who make this fussy war on women have 
the nerve to talk about fighting men. 



A definite molecular motion of the brain substance is 
all we can ever hope of directly becoming aware of, 
while observing a brain in functional activity. This 
our visual awareness would consist of nothing but a 
definitely extended and peculiarly colored space per- 
ception, whose constituent elements were undergoing 
intricate changes of position. Such a colored percept, 
in a state of minute commotion, is indeed the utmost 
that our sight could possibly reveal of the wondrous 
functional activity emanating from the supreme organ 
of animal life. Here, as elsewhere, our objective obser- 
vation is incapable of disclosing anything more than per- 


ceptual matter in motion. All the rest is and must ever 
remain inferential. 

Our philosophical task is to render such inference as 
consistent as possible with the totality of observed phe- 
nomena. And this task devolves upon us_ because 
scientific experience of every kind has taught us that all 
parts of the universe are interdependently connected by 
definite and natural links. An organism is not in 
reality the self-rounded and occluded entity which to 
immediate perception it appears to be. All its peculiar- 
ities have reference to relations which it bears to its sur- 
roundings. Science renders in fact more and more 
obvious, that it has been built up, out and out, through 
interaction with this its natural medium. 

The question then is: What can we legitimately 
conclude concerning the nature of the brain and of its 
functional activity, beyond what may be immediately 
seen ‘or otherwise perceived by us? 

We may first of all be certain that the organ—which 
to our perception seems made up of nothing but definitely 
disposed filaments, ces and homogeneous substance, 
and the function of which seems ¢o our visual observa- 
tion to consist of nothing but a peculiar molecular stir,— 
that this organ, apparently consisting of nothing but 
grouped particles of matter, is 27 7¢s own intimate nature 
possessed of an inconceivably complex and replete con- 
stitution, the significance of whose intrinsic activities 
could not in the remotest degree be conjectured through 
objective observation, even if we came fully to under- 
stand the specific laws which govern the path of the 
moving molecules. There is a wealth of efficiency 
organically locked up in what perceptually appears to 
us as brain-substance, which is only superficially and 
vicariously disclosing itself to an outside observer in the 
form of symbolical signs consisting of nothing but per- 
ceptual motions. 

How otherwise than endowed with transcendent 
riches could the organ be, which in its essence is the 
embodiment and sum total of all the main results of 
endless vital elaboration? We are indulging in no 
vague conjectures when we are allowing ourselves to 
believe in the profound, super-sensible import of brain. 
substance. Researches in comparative anatomy and 
embryology unmistakably indicate, that the brain has to 
be looked upon as a synthetical product of vital activity. 
Its specific constitution has evidently resulted from the 
structural organization of variously blended influences, 
emanating chiefly from the surface of contact with the 
tion, has become differentiated into areas variously re- 
sponsive to sundry specific modes of outside stimulation. 
Thus the areas of sight and hearing have been differ- 
entiated from that of touch, each of them corresponding 
to a specific mode of outside stimulation. And these 
different sensory areas have themselves again become 

This surface, in the course of organic evolu- 


more and more specialized into diversely sensitive points, 
as is strikingly manifest in the skin in the organ of 
Corti, and in the retina. 

The brain has moreover been developed into a cen- 
tralizing and synthetical sphere of organic efficiencies by 
the structural fixation of definite modes and paths of 
connection, gradually establishing themselves between 
the various stages of centrally combined sensory in- 
fluences and the motor side of the organism—between 
the ingoing and the outgoing efficiencies of organic life. 
We must remember, that these developmental connec- 
tions and combinations have all originated and been 
wrought in closest proximity to one another within the 
same central nerve-substance. They are in verity in- 
timately related and interdependent organic processes. 
We, in whom they occur, become aware of them only 
when they are structurally established; realizing them 
either introspectively as complex facts of consciousness, 
or objectively through our senses as distant and-trans- 
muted motor outcomes. 

Sensory and motor efficiencies are certainly not dis- 
tinguished from each other in the central organ, as they 
are usually taken to be by outside observers, who per- 
ceive only the motor outcomes and infer therefrom cen- 
tral activities, which they at once invest in imagination 
with the character of mind, that these vital occurrences 
do not really possess as perceptible organic processes. 
Could the observer exactly perceive what is going on 
in the central substance, he would see nothing there but 
a molecular commotion, and could not possibly dis- 
tinguish which part of this activity had a sensorial or 
conscious and which a motor or unconscious significance. 
Indeed, it is obvious, that the motor character of such 
centrally started activity is not acquired until the mole- 
cular commotion reaches the specific motor organs. 
Many phenomena, and notably those of so-called “ mind- 
reading,” render it highly probable that the sensorial 
and the motor effects—the conscious and the unconscious 
outcome of the organic process—originate in one and 
the same substance; the former of these effective out- 
comes being the inner awareness of the same activity, 
which, propagated to the muscles, discloses itself as a 
motor performance of so definite a character that the 
concomitant conscious state may be conjectured by it. 

Surely it is here the organic constitution of the 
functioning substance, which determines the strict corres- 
pondence obtaining between a definite conscious state 
and a definite motor outcome;—not a free-floating con- 
scious state which sets going a definite molecular stir in 
the brain-substance so that certain muscular fibres may 
be moved in a consciously designed manner. 

I repeat again most emphatically: Mind or con- 

sciousness is only the inner awareness of certain high- 
wrought organic activities, which activities are rendered 
possible solely by structurally established synthetical 


results. We may be sure, that, whenever manifold in- 
fluences reach the central substance, their combined im- 
port becomes structurally realized in its intimate con- 
stitution. | 

In this connection it is a highly significant em- 
bryological fact, that in reproductive evolution the brain 
is developed from the ectodermic layer, or sphere of out- 
side relations, chiefly as an outgrowth of the sensory 
surface. The organ, then, which is perceptively re- 
vealed to us as a brain, is really the structurally estab- 
lished synthesis of sensori-motor efficiencies, and this 
could not possibly be the case, unless such synthetized 
efficiencies were realized in the intimate constitution of 
the substance embodying them. 

Consciousness is no synthetical chemist, much less 
the creator of the wondrous specific affinities, which 
render such consummate chemical synthesis possible as 
constitutes brain-substance. Consciousness is evidently 
impotent to bring about any kind of structural synthesis. 
The building up of higher and higher living substance 
has to be looked upon as a creative process, occurring 
during interaction of the organism with its medium, and 
accruing to it as a cosmic gift beyond all interference on 
the part of consciousness. 

Through most gradual structural elaboration the 
living substance got at last to respond specifically and 
adequately to the multifold incitements of the outside 
world. The full and wide-reaching attunement of vital 
reaction to external influences—strikingly manifest in 
highly developed organisms—rests entirely on such pre- 
established structural correspondence. Each definite 
complex of outside efficiencies, each perceptible existent, 
strikes on the surface of the developed organism attuned 
chords, which in the central nerve-substance bring into 
functional play its appropriate and pre-organized counter- 
part or neural cast. 

The inner awareness that accompanies this organic 
process is conciousness. Keeping exact pace with the 
organic development and specialization of the living 
substance, the originally dim and uniform sensibility of 
the organic individual became concurrently developed 
and specialized into corresponding modes of concious 
representation, until with us, through inner illumination 
during the functional stir, this now subtly prepared 
sensibility succeeds in picturing minutely and distinctly, 
as vital counterpart, the outside influences affecting our 

The simultaneous living preservation of all the 
gradually accumulated organic casts, thus wrought into 
the living substance by the external power-complexes 
that time after time have stimulated the organic indi- 
vidual, enables it thereafter to represent to itself the 
many forms and relations of the outside world, even 
when not in the least directly affected by them, Being 
thus capable of considerately representing in ideal 

presence the conflicting and concording influences of 
many absent contingencies, it develops the faculty of 
foresight by which it liberates itself more and more 
effectively from the exclusive tyranny of immediately 
compclling sense-impressions, and human beings by 
force of the system of abstract motor expressions, called 
language, gain at last the power of handling the entire 
wealth of their otherwise scattered experience as a 
consistent body of knowledge. 

Organized correspondences to a wide range of 
possible and successive external influences, having thus 
become established as a simultaneous possession within 
the living individual, by means of the preservation of 
results gained through gradual vital elaboration, it is 
evident, that the motor bearings and expressions of these 
same relations to the outside world have likewise become 
gradually established by the same process of vital elabo- 
ration. The execution of new variations of movement 
can be effected only where the organic region of its ideal 
forecast is already so far organically prepared as to be 
capable of energizing during functional activity the 
corresponding motor outcomes. This may take place 
with considerable difficulty at first, but could never take 
place at all where the structural possibility underlying 
the action is not pre-established in the acting substance. 
New specializations and combinations of motor outcomes 
have thus accompanied step by step, as complemental 
part of the same organic achievement, the specializations 
and combinations of sensory functions. Indeed we find 
the sensorial figurations of our relations to the outside 
world so intimately intertwined with their motor expres- 
sion that the one cannot be functionally stimulated with- 
out the other, at the same time emerging into actuality. 
This occurs even when the stimulus is artificially 
applied, as strikingly manifest in the case where an 
experimentally assumed motor attitude, expressive of 
some emotion, is followed by the corresponding emotion 

This close organic interdependence of sensorial 
meaning and motor expression is furthermore most 
subtly and conclusively displayed in the instance of 
language, where the motor mark and its mental signifi- 
cance are so intimately blended, that the thesis, “ No 
thought without language,” can be legitimately 
defended. Indeed we are quite incapable of grasping 
or of apprehending outside existence, or of conceiving 
its relations to our ownself, unless our mental representa- 
tion of such existent and its relations succeed in express- 
ing itself through appropriate motor outcomes. It is only 
through appropriate motor outcomes of correctly estab- 
lished organic—and therewith also mental—correspond- 
ences, that we are effec ively brought into intercom- 
munication with the out-ide wor'd. 

Even “ attention” and determinate space, these two 
great puzz'es of introspective psychology, are—objec- 


tively speaking—both specific motor accompaniments of 
specific sensory functions. Attention is motor tenison 
of the region attending; such tension being widely 
diffused during anticipation in keeping with the reach of 
ideal forecast, or only centrally initiated in case of more 
inner or ideal contemplation, but readily narrowed or 
peripherically irradiated in correspondence to actual 
sensory stimulation, or in more vivid and communicative 
expression. And it is with help of adjusted motor 
activity of the eyes and limbs that definite spatial rela- 
tions are apprehended. We are fundamentally and 
essentially sensorimotor beings. 

Activity in nature, of whatever kind, discloses itself 
to direct observation solely in a vicarious way through 
perceptual signs. Our senses cannot reveal to us what 
such activity may be in its own intimate nature, and 
whether or not it signifies something inwardly to the 
acting existent itself. Could we, for example, in our 
visual percept of an object realize the vibrating motion 
which we infer as actually present in its heated state—a 
state otherwise consciously realized by us through our 
skin as a peculiar, well-known sensation—even then we 
would notin the least know the intimate nature of the 
activity which was thus affecting our various modes of 
sensibility. For the perceived vibration would be a 
mental phenomenon within our own self, and the non- 
mental activity in the perceived existent could conse- 
quently nowise resemble it. Nor would we at all know 
whether or not such activity had self-significance for the 
heated object. 

With whatever inner awareness zxorganic existents 
may be endowed, we are not in a position to form 
well-grounded analogical conclusions concerning its 
characteristics. But with regard to organic individuals 
—especially such as possess nerve-centres—an observer 
is indeed in a position to know vastly more than is 
revealed to him through mere perceptual motions. The 
wealth of conscious experience accompanying in the 
observed being the organic nerve-function—a function 
perceptible as nothing but molecular motion—this con- 
scious wealth he is capable of realizing through analogy 
with his own conscious experience. Thus only through 
connaturalness of organization or similarity of bodily 
constitution are we empowered to understand the other- 
wise impenetrable inner meaning of those at least of 
nature’s outward doings that occur in beings nearest 
related to ourselves. 

This figure, formed of variegated patches, now arising 
before me as conscious percept of mine, and aroused in 
my field of vision by no other means than subtle touches 
of an etherial medium, signifies in all reality the veri- 
table presence of a genuine human fellow-creature—not 
in any way a phenomenal and ephemeral mode of some 
unknowable absolute, but, in abiding existence, itself a 
substantial incorporation of nature’s highest achieve- 


ments, endowed with the same world-containing depth 
of being as revealed to myself in the transcendent bod- 
ings of my own inner life. 

And those slight variations of mimetic expression, 
those explanatory gestures and vocal signs of communi- 
cation, in themselves only perceptual motions of that 
same variegated spectre in my field of vision, are never- 
theless wondrously intelligible to me, their inmost 
intention being strangely manifest to my awakened 
intuition through the sympathetic magic of connatural 
relationship and its inwrought wealth of conscious 

After the many considerations here brought forward 
it can remain hardly doubtful, that all the manifest 
endowments of the individual who thus perceptually 
appears to us as a most minutely organized bodily pres- 
ence, and whose wealth of inner nature is sympathetic- 
ally intelligible through affinity of constitution—it can 
remain hardly doubtful that these his manifold endow- 
ments are one and all actually and naturally inwoven in 
his own living frame;—that the same creature who 
makes his presence perceptually known to us, is also he 
who perceives, thinks, and gives motor expression and 
actuality to his intentions concerning the sensible world. 

We know for certain that the veritable being of an 
organic individual cannot possibly be of mental con- 
sistency; for whatever partakes of the nature of mind, 
besides being in its very essence fitful and evanescent, is 
utterly powerless to affect the senses of an observer so 
as to compel any perceptible revelation of itself. 

We know further that the non-mental organic 
existent which actually does affect our senses, compelling 
its perceptual or bodily revelation, cannot itself in any 
way resemble this his mere conscious representation in 
the observer. 

When we bear in mind these two incontestable and 
cardinal truths, we surely must come to the conclusion, 
that a being radically differing in its own intimate con- 
stitution from its mere perceptual appearance in our 
consciousness,—a being in fact quite impenetrable to 
objective observation as regards its wealth of inwrought 
efficiencies that such a being, in all reality endowed 
with super-sensible powers, is having as functional 
affection of its own, that wondrous inner awareness 
which goes by the name of consciousness and which is 
only sympathetically apprehended. 

During functional inactivity of the central nerve- 
substance the organic individual has no conscious states 
or inner awareness, though to an observer the central 
nerve-substance remains all the while visible. Now, as 
soon as functional activity sets in, preceptible to an 
observer only as a molecular stir of that same _ brain- 
substance which had remained all the while visible, as 
soon as such organic function sets in or is set going, the 
observed individual experiences corresponding conscious 


states. It is, consequently, altogether legitimate to con- 
clude that consciousness is an outcome of the functional 
activity of the organism. 

Mind is a product of vital organization. * 

BY * * * 
Dwell on me, O, eye of darkness 
Sweet unfathomable night. 
With thy spell of gloomy magic 
Exercise thy fullest might. 

In thy veil of melancholy 
Shroud the world out of my sight: 

And above my fate forever 
Hover blissful holy night. 


The poor wren, 
The most diminutive of birds, will fight, 
Her young ones in her nest, against the owl. 
His cares are eased with intervals of bliss: 
His little children, climbing for a kiss, 
Welcome their father’s late return at night. 
But does not nature for the child prepare 
The parent’s love, the tender nurse’s care ? 
Who, for their own forgetful, seek his good, 
Infold his limbs in bands, and fill his veins with food. 
—Srr R. BLacKMoRE. 
How sharper than:a serpent’s tooth it is 
To have a thankless child. 

Fathers that wear rags 
Do make their children blind; 
But fathers that bear bags, 
Shall see their children kind. 
Of all the joys that brighten suffering earth, 
What joy is welcomed like a new-born child? 
—Mrs. Norton. 
Children blessings seem, but torments are: 
When young, our folly, and when old, our fear. 
—Ortway: Don Carlos. 

* If, as maintained by Professor Cope in No. 19 of Tak OpEn Court, “ the 
proposition that the mind of man and animals is the essential and effective 
director of their designed movements” is indeed ‘fone of those fundamental 
facts of observation for which no proof is necessary,” then, not only 
has this entire discussion of mine been absurdly unprofitable, but all our 
philosophy since Descartes has amounted to nothing but idle talk. For it was 
exact!y the impossibility of conceiving any natural intercommunication between 
mind and body that gave rise to all the principal philosophical systems of the 
sevesteenth century (Descartes, Genliux, Melebranche, Spinoza, Leibnitz, 
etc.), and the general relation of the world in consciousness toa world outside 
of consciousness has ever constituted the main problem of philosophy from the 
dawn of speculation up to this present hour. Professor Cope is quite at 
liberty to shun philosophical speculation and to stick exclusively to objective 
observation, but then he must refrain ftom arguing’ about facts of conscious- 
ness and their relation to our bodily organization; for it is absolutely certain 
that facts of consciousness are not in any way objectively observable. 

The Open Court. 


Published every other Thursday at 169 to 175 La Salle Street, (Nixon 
Building), corner Monroe Street, by 





This Journal is devoted to the work of conciliat-— 

ing Religion with Science. The founder and editor 
have found this conciliation in Monism, to present 
and defend which will be the main object of THE 

Terms of subscription, including postage, three dollars per 
year in advance. 
All communications and business letters should be addressed to 

P. O. Drawer F, Cuicaoco, ILLINo!Is. 



In number 21 of this journal Mr. B. F. Under- 
wood published my acceptance of his and Mrs. 
Underwood’s resignation as editors of THE OPEN 
Court. The publication is made in a manner intend- 
ing to convey to the readers that he and Mrs. Under- 
wood have been wronged by me. Mr. Underwood 
says, in particular, “. . . the immediate cause of the 
editors’ resignation is Mr. Hegeler’s expressed desire 
to make a place on THE Open Court for Dr. Paul 
Carus, who never had, it should here be said, any 
editorial connection with the paper, who never wrote 
a line for it except as a contributor and as Mr. Heg- 
eler’s secretary, and who was unknown to Mr. Hegeler 
the request that Dr. Carus be accepted as an editor, 

when his contract with the editors was made. 

the present editors, for good and sufficient reasons, 
have unhesitatingly refused to accede, and although 
always willing to make concessions when required in 
the interest of the paper, a point is now reached 
where they feel compelled by self-respect to sever 
all relations with this journal rather than yield to 
Mr. Hegeler’s latest requirements.” 

I now lay before the readers of THE OPEN Court 
my correspondence with Mr. Underwood leading to 
his engagement and resignation, so far as it has ref- 
erence to the questions brought before the public by 
Mr. Underwood, and statements of what took place 
at personal meetings in regard to this. Also a transla- 



tion of those parts of my correspondence with Dr. 

arus leading to his engagement. 

Mr. Underwood's words, to make a place on THE 
Open Court for Dr. Paul Carus, refers to the fact that 
Dr. Carus is bethrothed to my daughter. Mr. Under- 
wood has expressed this more fully in his letter of 
resignation hereafter published. 

I will here state that soon after the publication 

of the first number of THE Open Court, when Dr. 

Carus first came from New York, and before he had 
ever seen me or any one of my family, Mr. Under- 
wood was already informed by him that he, Dr. 
Carus, expected to have an official connection with 
THE Open Court. This Mr. Underwood wished to 
have delayed, and I then did not insist upon Dr. 
Carus having an editorial position on the paper. 

To form an opinion whether or not Mr. Under- 
wood has taken a correct view of the motives of my 
actions, the readers of THE OPEN Court will have to 
take the trouble of going through the correspond- 
ence and memoranda. 

Those readers who have -not the time to go 

through the whole correspondence, will find in a con- 
densed form the substance of my transactions with 

Mr. Underwood in the memorandum of the meeting 
last September, when all differences were discussed. 

The nature of Mr. Underwood's letter of resigna- 
tion, together with my desire to fulfill completely my 
contract with him, have caused me to let Mr. Under- 
wood publish the last number of his editorship with- 
out any comments or interference on my part. 
Neither have I received from Mr. Underwood any 
suggestion in this regard beyond the general one in 

his letter of resignation of October 28th. 

If Mr. Underwood should notice any omissions 
which he thinks should not have been made from 
the correspondence or memoranda of the meetings 
they shall be supplemented on his application. 

From the time of the meeting at La Salle in 
September to my final acceptance of Mr. Under- 
wood’s resignation, I have been contemplating what 
in a business way my obligations to the late editors 
were under the circumstances. 
ducted by Mr. Underwood, was costing me fully $500 
per number in addition to the subscriptions received. 

The paper, as con- 

A question to me was whether it was my duty to 


continue the paper under Mr. Underwood without 
change to the close of the year, especially as he be- 
lieved that the bulk of subscriptions would come in 
during the fall and winter months. But as the num- 
ber of subscribers was much less than Mr. Underwood 
had expected and did not increase in the fall 
months, and having paid for the paper over sixteen 
thousand dollars until December Ist, considerably 
beyond Mr. Underwood's expectations, I came to the 
conclusion that I had done my share in giving 
Mr. Underwood an opportunity in the direction of 
reaching a business success. I submit the evidence 
without argument to the readers of THE OPEN 



Boston, June 22, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esg.: 

My Dear Sir—You may know that 7he Jndex from 
the time it was founded, has been compelled to 
depend partly upon financial aid from generous 
friends interested in the paper. To carry The Index 
through to Jannary 1, 1887, nearly a thousand dollars 
will be required, in addition to the estimated receipts 
from subscriptions, etc., and my colleague, Mr. +, and 
myself, are authorized and requested by the trustees 
to address such persons as we may think interested 
in the paper and able and disposed to help make up 
the deficiency of the present year. Should you 
decide to favor the paper with a donation, it would 
be greatly appreciated by us, and by none more than 
myself, who, with the business management of the 
paper in my hands, have the past year devoted a 
good part of my time, energy and ingenuity, to 
keeping down expenses and arranging the business 
so asto make two ends meet, where the time should 
have been given to the editorial department. 

Sincerely yours, 

La SALLE, IIl., July 7, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERWoopD, Esog.: 

Dear Sir—\ duly received your favor of the 22nd 
ult. . . . Could you make it possible to meet me in 
New York’s neighborhood, the forepart of next week? 
Should like to have athorough talk with you—if 
we cannot start a paper in Chicago, ... Perhaps 
you can drop mea message, stating your possibili- 
ties, Friday evening, to Hoboken. 


How much you expect me to contribute to The 
Index, you can then also tell me. 
Yours, truly, 
Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

Boston, July 9, 1886. 
Dear Mr. HEGELER—I have just received your 
letter, written at La Sallethe 7th. I should be pleas- 
ed to meet you, and since you suggest it, to talk 
over the advisability of starting a paper in Chicago. 
Very truly, 

At the meeting then arranged to take place at 
Manhattan Beach, Sunday, July 12th, I thoroughly 
explained to Mr. Underwood that I wished to start a 
Monistic paper and gave him my views in detail, as 
they have since been expressed in my articles, “ The 
Basis of Ethics,” and “The Soul,” which have appear- 
ed in THE Open Court. I also explained to Mr. 
Underwood that I consider the Agnostic ideas of 
Spencer, and others, harmful to progress. These 
views seemed plausible to Mr. Underwood, who took 
the position that they were rational and sound. Mr. 
Underwood informed me that arrangements were 
pending with .. . to move Zhe Index to New York. 

Boston, July 22, 1886. 

Dear Mr. HEGELER—I have had a talk with my 
associate editor, Mr. t, repeating substantially the con- 
versation which you and I had in regard to a paper 
in Chicago. At present the understanding with Mr. 
* * * is, that if he can arrange to take Zhe /ndex and 
continue it in New York, the transfer shall be made in 
loeey. Bet, ... 2. it is by no means -certain 
that the. arrangements will be effected. But little 
has been done as yet, so far as we know. In case 
that the New York scheme shall fail, some arrange- 
ment for the transfer of the paper to Chicago, and 
for making it the nucleus of what we talked of, is 
possible; but I think there would be some objection 
on the part of the present trustees, to having it go so 
far from Boston as Chicago, and to having it pass 
from the hands of the trustees and become an 
individual concern. 

So, if the Chicago enterprise is to be carried out, 
it will be just as well at present not to count upon 
The Index. lf circumstances should, at the com- 
mencement of the new publication, lead the present 
trustees to make a proposition in behalf of the 
Chicago project, well and good. It might be started 
independently and Mr. t agrees with me there would 
be many advantages in that. Mr. t and I talked 

over the fact that many of the Zhe Jndex readers 
would give their support to the new paper should I 
become identified with it, and we queried how far 
this might diminish the desire of the New York 


parties to accept the paper, under the circumstances. 
As the Chicago enterprise is at present but an idea, 
of course nothing will be said about it here, beyond 
the conversations between Mr. f and myself. The 
relations between us have always been of the most 
friendly and cordial nature, although we have not 
always entirely agreed in our views. But the busi- 
ness management of the paper has been entirely in 
my hands, and editerially each has expressed his 
own views, without consulting the other, over his 
own name or initials. In the five years we have been 
associated, there has never been the slightest jar, nor 
any question which we have not mutually settled 
satisfactorily to both. 

And any arrangement I may be a party to in 
regard to a new paper, will, while I am on Zhe Jndex, 
be made with Mr. }’s full knowledge, and in a way 
that shall preclude the possibility of any misunder- 
standing or ground in the futuPe for complaint. 

This much I have thought it best to write you 
now. More at another time. I have sent you a few 
of our Liberal papers that you might look through 
them and see the kind of papers that are published 
in the interests of Liberalism. 

Truly yours, 
B. F. UnpERWOob. 

La Sate, Aug. 7, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERwoop, Esg., 

My Dear Sir—I duly received your favor of the 
22nd ult... . I will repeat to-day, that my desire 
to start the paper in Chicago is no new one... , 
I broached the idea to you, I think, before you took 
hold of Zhe /Index—though it was very indefinite 
then, perhaps not even pronounced. I pronounced 
definitely then that I wished to draw you here for 
local work. 

The idea before me now is, that you and Mrs. 
Underwood move into my former home, north of my 
present one, this Fall, and that we try to start a 
fortnightly or monthly in Chicago from here. If it 
appears necessary, you to move to Chicago. Of 
course, if we should move Zhe J/ndex to Chicago, you 
may have to move there at once. That the paper 
be an independent, individual enterprise, I think 
most desirable. I believe that we would well agree 
together. The paper should have definitely and 
energetically outspoken views, and if we both find 
them sound, they will make the paper a success too. 

Yours truly, 
Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

Boston, Sept. 9, 1886. 

Dear Mr. Hegeler—\ have, since the receipt of 
your last letter, been awaiting the development of 
events which should determine the future of Zhe 

Index, that I might write you something definitely. 
Thus far, I have learned nothing in regard to the 
New York parties. I am doubtful whether any steps 
have been taken likely to result in the success of the 
new enterprise. 

In that case, the Association (F. R. A.), may 
decide to continue 7he /ndex for another year on its 
present basis, as my reports during the summer 
months have been more favorable financially than 
was anticipated. If this decision is made I will, with- 
out doubt, be requested to continue in charge of the 
paper as hitherto. There are many things that 
attach me to 7he Jndex, and to Boston; my relations 
are, without exception, pleasant, even cordial, with 
the trustees and with ...... At the same time, 
I like the West; and if I can enlarge my use- 
fulness and do a better work for liberal thought 
in Chicago, on a paper such as we have talked of, I 
shall not hesitate to make the attempt. In that case I 
will, if Ze Jndex is continued in this city, have to 
tender my resignation, or decline re-election as busi- 
ness manager and co-editor, at the end of the pres- 
ent year. If our talked-of Chicago enterprise is 
started, and the /vdex trustees can be induced to let 
us have the paper as a nucleus of our proposed 
journal—in case * * * fails in his efforts—I shall be 
glad; but knowing the wish have 7Zhe 
/ndex in the hands of a board of trustees, in which the 
Free Religious Association shall be represented, I 
am not hopeful as to this point, and do not count 
upon such a transfer. In some respects, as I wrote 
you, I believe it would be an advantage to have 7he 
Index; in some other respects it would hamper us. 

I do not know whether you still intend to come 
East this fall. If you do, it is best that we shall have 
another interview, and that we definitely decide as to 
what is best to be done. You have the capital, and 
of course you will consider—probably have already 
considered—the financial aspects of the enterprise. It 
is not probable that the receipts will, the first year, 
anywhere near equal the expenses. All that I can 
promise and guarantee is that if I join you in the pro- 
posed enterprise, I will do the best I can to make it 
a success. | came upon Zhe J/ndex with no expe- 
rience as editor of a paper, and no knowledge of the 
business management of a paper. Zhe J/ndex was 
running down rapidly, and I succeeded in turning the 
tide. I have kept the paper up for five years. In 
this time I have learned much, and all this gives me 
a confidence which I should not otherwise feel; and 
still I regard the difficulties of sustaining a radical, 
independent journal, as by no means small. Your 
own practical talent and business sagacity would be 
perhaps more valuable than my experience in journal- 
ism; both would be of account. There are features 


of The Index of course, that would not appear in the 
new journal. Zhe Jndex, when I assumed charge of 
it, was the organ of an association, and its chief con- 
stituency was composed of a class but little advanced 
beyond the radical wing of Unitarianism. I have 
been obliged to adapt the paper to some extent, 
to this class. It has been therefore less scientific 
and less a representative of modern scientific thought 
than it would have been had the paper been exclu- 
sively under my control without any of the inherited 
characteristics, and quasi-theological surroundings. 

There are some points in your letter we can con- 
sider when we meet again, or if you do not come 
East this season, we can agree upon by correspond- 
ence. Where I shall live is not a matter of much 
importance, perhaps. But the paper should be pub- 
lished in Chicago, that it may have at the start a 
metropolitan appearance and promise. Mrs. Under- 
wood’s ... . help—as on The Jndex, when she has 
been able to contribute—would be of much advantage, 
as she has abilities which supplement mine in edito- 
rial work. Much of the best work on The Jndex has 
been from her pen. 

If the new paper is started it should be, I suppose, 
with the beginning of 1887. My contract will keep 
me here till then. However, I could have all the 
contributors secured, and every thing ready so that 
the first number could be issued early in January. As 
for that matter, it could be in readiness to be printed 
as soon as my name should be dropped from Zhe 
Index. 1 suppose the next trustee meeting of Zhe 
Index will be early in October; and by that time, you 
and I should have arrived at an understanding suf- 
ficiently definite to enable me to determine what it 
is best to do. If you shall think it best to defer for 
a while the enterprise of a “new paper,” it will be 
all right, so far as I am concerned; on the other 
hand, if you have fully made up your mind to go into 
the undertaking, and the arrangements can be made 
to begin in January, it will be best to agree upon 
details as soon as practicable, and to take advantage 
of all favorable circumstances between now and that 
time. Therewill be no difficulty in getting first-class 
contributors at moderate cost, but we should decide 
as to what is needed, and give writers time to pre- 
pare the articles. 

I shall be glad to hear from you at your conven- 
ience. I have delayed writing you too long this 
time, but during the summer months I have thought 
it best to think over the subject, and to observe what 
projects and possibilities existed, before communi- 
cating further with you. Iam sorry that nothing has 
occurred to enable me to write more definitely about 
The Index. Cordially yours, 



La SALLE, Sept. 19, 1886. 
B. F. UNDERWOOD, EsgQ., Boston, Mass: 

My Dear Sir—Your favor of the goth inst. came 
duly to hand. I am glad to learn that your inclina- 
tion to take hold of the Chicago monthly has pro- 
gressed. I have carefully read your letter, which 
well informs me of the present aspect of affairs. 

The next thing now to be definitely arranged will 
be the financial basis of the erterprise. How much 
capital have I definitely to agree to give toit? How 
much thereof will have to be put in in the first year, 
and can what is to be given thereafter, be on the con- 
dition, that towards the close of the first year the 
enterprise gives a reasonable promise of success? 

What contracts do youand Mrs. Underwood have 
to ask for your personal work at the enterprise? 

The programme of the paper we should be per- 
fectly clear about. To me it is an earnest effort to 
give to the world a philosophy in harmony with all 
facts (a monistic philosophy) which will gradually 
become a new religion to it, as it has to me. 

To make you nearer acquainted with my views, I 
send you for inspection the records of my discussions 
with Mr. * * last winter, as unfinished as they are 
yet, at least. 

I hope we can be together with you and Mrs. 
Underwood for a few days, either at Newport or at 
Boston, and if you will take the trouble to make 
yourself acquainted with the writings and note your 
objections, discuss them. .... 

Yours truly, 

Boston, Sept. 28, 1886. 

Dear Mr. Hegeler—\ have read the records of 
your discussions with Mr. * * with much interest, and 
portions with entire approval. There are some re- 
marks which, as I read them, I found it necessary to 
qualify, or to supplement with additional thought 
before they seemed quite satisfactory to me, I will 
not attempt to specify here. In your naturalistic, 
monistic view of the universe, comprehensively 
speaking, I fully concur; with your terminology I am 
not always satisfied, as I am not with my own; as I 
am not, indeed, with any that I know. With your 
views of morality, as far as they are developed, and 
with your optimistic, or rather melioristic spirit, I 
am in full sympathy. I see more good than evil in 
nature; and man appears as a factor in promoting 
the former and lessening the latter; so that, he who 
continues to work for human elevation has no grounds 
for pessimism and no occasion for misanthrophy. 
Nature is the “All in all,” and we, her highest 
products—known to us—can by our efforts increase 
what to us is relatively “ good,” and lessen what is 
relatively “evil.” I will, at my earliest convenience, 


give you my creed, or a concise statement of the 
best philosophical and ethical conclusions to which 
I have been able to come. 

I think if your discussion is to be published, that 
it should first be carefully revised. Subjects were 
introduced sometimes in a way that broke the con- 
tinuity of thought, and caused to be dropped often a 
line of thought at the point of greatest interest, to 
me, at least. In verbal discussion this is very liable 
to occur; but it can be remedied afterwards. 

Upon reflection you might see the advantage of 
presenting your thought in essay form rather than as 
a discussion, which appearing as an oral debate on 
philosophical subjects would by its form repel, I 
think, more than it would attract. All you have ad- 
vanced could, without great difficulty, be systematized 
and put in a literary dress that would greatly improve 
it, and secure for it a class of readers that would 
hardly look at a verbal debate on such subjects. 
However, this is but a suggestion, made in accordance 
with your request, that I offer any remarks that 
occur. More, when I see you, as to this. 

Enclosed herewith is an estimate of the cost of 
publishing a monthly magazine of size and quality 
which I think would satisfy you and would prove 
probably the most desirable. 

The cost would not, with judicious management, 
exceed the figures I give. I would also like to have 
the privilege of doing some lecturing, when I can do 
so without neglecting the journal. I should make 
my lecturing everywhere a means of advertising and 
pushing the circulation of the publication, as I did in 
case of The Index when I was lecturing two, three 
and five years ago. 

Another idea I have worth considering. A maga- 
zine must be more or less heavy and grows into cir- 
culation slowly; and with it, it will be difficult to 
reach the masses of Liberals. I have thought it 
would help to have a weekly flyer—a little paper of 
two sheets, four pages, of the size of Jndex pages, 
to be made up of paragraphs and short letter ex- 
tracts, etc., relating to scientific, social, religious and 
industrial matters, one page to be devoted to adver- 
tising and setting forth the claims of the magazine; 
the little weekly to have the same name with the 
monthly. Thus, if the magazine should be called, 
‘The Index Magazine,” have the weekly named “The 
Index Flyer,” perhaps. The paper would enable us, by 
keeping our hands on the pulse of the Liberal move- 
ment, and by independent, vigorous and impersonal 
criticism, by suggestions and propositions, to infuse a 
wholesome influence into the active Liberalism of the 
country, and to rescue it from the anarchial and 
chaotic condition which, with so many writers, seems 
to be thought synonymous with free-thought. I believe 

the largest estimate I have given, $8,425, can be 
made, by economy and good management, to cover 
the additional expense of such a paper, or nearly so, 
and it would bring in money. Please consider this. 
If this enterprise is to be inaugurated, I want to see 
it made a success-—financially, of course, as well as 
morally—and I believe it can be; but after consider- 
ing all the circumstances, the encouragements and 
hinderances alike, you must render the final decision, 

I have given you an estimate of the money to be 
paid out. From this the amount of the receipts will 
be deducted; and how much they will be can only be 
conjectured. If the weekly is published it can be 
put at $1.00 per year, and the monthly at $3.00. 

Very truly yours, 

P. S.—The name of the journal is important. It 
should be one somehow suggestive of the general 
thought and purpose of the publication, and one, the 
meaning of which will be readily understood. About 
all the names that one can think of in the English lan- 
guage have already been used, and most of them are 
now in use. I am not satisfied with any that has yet 
come to my mind. 

Do you not think your name should appear as 
publisher of the magazine, or as publisher and 
co-editor also? It would be quite satisfactory to 
me. Perhaps Mrs. Underwood’s name might, to 
advantage, appear as associate editor, as it should 
have appeared in The Index. 

The contributions, I think, should commence on 

‘the first page, and the editorials, book reviews, etc., 

appear in the latter part..... In such a publica- 
tion there must be more or less diversity of thought; 
but we could select writers and indicate subjects that 
would secure a general unity in carrying out our 
project of advancing a scientific and naturalistic 
philosophy in distinction to theological and specu- 
lative philosophy. 

I have learned by letter that Mr. * has not 
thought best to start a paper at present; and that * * * 

will take hold of it, is yet doubtful. I wrote Mr. ¢ ° 

the other day, that if the New York project failed, 
and the trustees wished to entertain a proposition 
from you in regard to a transfer of the paper to Chi- 
cago, I thought something satisfactory could be 
done. No response has yet been made to my letter. 
The trustees met last week, but adjourned to hear 
further from certain sources, and will meet again 
next week. 

I shall await an answer to this letter from you, 
and if you decide to start the publication, with me 
as manager, and under the editorship of myself and 
Mrs. Underwood—and yourself as co-editor, if you 
choose—I shall at once address a letter to Zhe Index 

Oe Reet 


trustees, notifying them that my connection with 
The Index will terminate at the end of the present 
year. Meanwhile, I will at once proceed to make 
arrangements for the first number of the new journal 
to appear early in January; that is, if the decision 
to commence the publication is definitely and posi- 
tively made. 

If any of my conditions or suggestions are 
thought objectionable for any reason, and you have 
others to name, I shall, of course, be glad to receive 
them. B. F. U. 

At the meeting in Boston in October, 1886, the . 

records of my discussions with * * were taken up 
for discussion. Mr. Underwood stated that they 
were not in a form suited for publication. The fol- 
lowing agreement was made and signed. Mr. Under- 
wood explaining that it was necessary that he be 
untrammeled in the management of the paper, and 
that he possess independent control: 

Boston, Oct. 8, 1886. 

“The understanding between E.C. Hegeler and 
B. F. Underwood is as follows: A liberal publication 
is to be started in Chicago early in 1887, to be the 
property of E. C. Hegeler, and under the business 
and editorial management of B. F. Underwood, sub- 
ject to such conditions as the two shall mutually 
agree upon; that in consideration of B. F. Under- 
wood’s agreement to resign his position as manager 
and editor of Zhe Jndex, to take effect January 1, 
1887, he shall be guaranteed a salary of $1,800 per 

year for his services, the time not to be less than one- 

year, assisted by Mrs. Underwood from the time of 
the beginning of the work on or for the Chicago 

Mr. Underwood further said that he would do his 
best to present my views, and made no opposition 
to them, as he had also not done at Manhattan 
Beach. I am convinced that I also mentioned to 
him that I wished the name of the new journal to be 
“The Monist,” as that was the name I had long 
intended for the journal I had expected to found. 

Boston, Nov. 3rd, 1886. 


My Dear Sir—The New York movement to start 
a paper, to be under the direction of trustees, and to 
be edited by Mr. * * * has collapsed. I have of 
course, been doing what I legitimately could fairly 
and justly to get Zhe J/ndex list for our new journal. 

At the meeting of Zhe Jndex trustees held on 
Monday last, the discontinuance of 7he /ndex at the 
end of the present year was definitely agreed upon, 
and the paper herewith enclosed will show you what 
action wastaken. The discontinuance isa certainty. 
The business has been managed, since the beginning 


of the present financial year (from July, 1886), with 
rigid economy, and the receipts with some three 
hundred dollars donations, have been sufficient to 
meet expenses. The indebtedness of Zhe /ndex be- 
yond the amount on hand at this date is but a trifle 
indeed; I am not sure but that there is a balance of 
a few dollars in favor of the paper. 

I state these facts that you may understand the 
situation, for I wish to know from you whether I 
shall say to the trustees that you will accept their 
proposition. The advantage is in having the first 
year—the trying time for all newspapers—a list of 
first-class subscribers; men who will be known ina 
business way, to the new journal, and many of whom, 
by being continued as subscribers will feel an inter- 
est inthe new enterprise asa continuation of their years 
of connection with the editor and contributors. It 
is desirable that an announcement, already long de- 
ferred, be made if possible in the next /ndex. 

My own opinion is that the value of the list will 
be great, and the proposed announcement will give 
the new journal, before it starts, the moral approval 
and support of Zhe Judex—whose successor in a 
certain way, as ahigh class exponent of liberal 
thought, it will be. I have been unusually occupied 
since I sawyou last, but have been through your manu- 
script and made some notes. I will have it ready to 
return to you by next Monday sure. 

Very truly yours, 

Boston, Nov. 18th, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Eso: 

My Dear Sir— At the F. R. Festival 
in this city last evening there was frequent mention 
of the Chicago enterprise, and much interest and en- 
thusiasm shown in regard toit..... But now the 
inquiry of all who write or speak about the paper is, 
“What will be its name?” If we can decide upon 
that, so as to have it in the announcement of the ar- 
rangement which has been made, it will be to the 
advantage of the paper. People generally can be 
satisfied with nothing until a name has been given to 
it. Many names have been suggested, Mr. * * * 
suggests “Horizon,” other names that have been sug- 
gested or that have occurred to us are “Dawn,” “The 
Radical,” ‘“‘Reasoner,’ “The Reasoner and Critic,” 
“The Sounding Lead,” “The Meliorist,” “The Tribu- 
nal,” “The Contemporary.” Butthe one which seems 
the most suggestive and appropriate to us, and to those 
with whom we have talked, who are interested in the 
enterprise is the following: THE Open Court. It 
indicates that the court is open for evidence, and the 
discussion of the evidence. The name is new, never 

having been, so far as I know, given to any publication; 
and it isabout the only good name, the only name 


that is easily understood; that is suggestive and 
dignified, and at the same time popular, that we 

have been able to think of. What do you think of it? — 

You must excuse the delay in returning your 
manuscript. The extra amount of work, incident to 
closing up Zhe Index affairs, involving double the 
usual correspondence, has left me no leisure to at- 
tend to anything else. The manuscript has been 
lying on my table, needing afew more comments, 
for a week, and every day I have thought I would 
get at it. Yours truly, 

B. F. UNDERWoop. 

La SALLE, Dec. 3, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERwoop, Esoa., Boston Mass.: 

Dear Sir—I have given much time to work out a 
letter to you suitable to be published in regard to 
“The Monist.” This is the name to which I 
adhere, after going carefully over the field again. 
You may say that we intend to be an “ open court” 
for religious ideas. And the first case before the 
court is to be the “ Monistic Idea” vs. the “ Agnostic 
Idea.” fT is at copying for you part of the pro- 
jected letter, for your inspection only, and if you 
answer me at once, I may yet get the answer before 
I am through with the letter, which I hope to have 
in your hands a week from to-day. With compli- 
ments to Mrs. Underwood. Yours truly, 

Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

B. F. UNDERWOOD, Esq.: (The above mentioned copy.) 

Dear Sir—By your letter of November 18, I learn 
that the time has come when we have to publish the 
name and the programme of the new magazine we 
are about to found, and I here give you the conclu- 
sions I have come to: 

I adhere to the name, “ The Monist,” as that con- 
veys most truly the leading idea I have in regard 
to this undertaking. The name, “The Monist,” con- 
veys the idea given in the New Testament in the 
passage, “ For in Him we live and move and have 
our being,” when the meaning of the word Him or 
God, which is that of a person or individual, that is 
a limited being is enlarged in accord with our pres- 
ent knowledge to that of the continuous “ All,” which 
includes everything, also ourselves. This idea drives 
me to action, giving me that satisfaction which the 
religion taught me in my childhood, gave to me 
then, and is the definite outcome of the long contin- 
ued struggle in me between my early religion and 
science and experience. 

You suggest the name, THE OpEN Court, and 
convey by these words the view I had in regard to 
this magazine, that while it shall have a definite 
Opinion on religious subjects, it shall not only be open 
to opposing views, but especially invite them. Let 

the title be “The Monist,” an open court for those 
religious ideas that affect the building up of religion 
on the basis of science. 

Boston, Dec. 6th, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER. Eso.: 

My Dear Sir—I\n the last /rdex you will see Mr. 
t's announcement, a statement by me in regard to the 
new journal, and Unity’s Prospectus. I felt the im- 
portance of saying something definite. Whatever 
modifications may have to be made can be announced 
either in the last number of Ze /ndex or in the first 
number of the new journal. What I have done has 
been with the approval and advice of....and 
other good friends of the Chicago enterprise, who 
have concurred in the conviction, that if anything 
at all was to be said about the new paper, it would 
be not less definite than the statement I have made, 
and that any change in the plan could be duly an- 
nounced without involving any breach of faith. 

Truly yours, B. F. UNDERWOOD. 

La SALLE, Dec. 7, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERwoop, Eso., Boston, Mass.: 

My Dear Sir—The Index of December 2d, reached 
here last night. It was not quite unexpected to me 
that it would bring a preliminary announcement of 
the proposed new publication, as circumstances com- 
pelled you to act. My letter of December 3, giving 
you my conclusion in respect to the name, and the 
outlines of what was my desire to be the programme 
of the publication, will have reached you since. The 
main contents are that I adhere to the name, ‘The 
Monist.” That conveys most truly the leading idea 
I have in this undertaking. It is the idea given in 
the New Testament in the passage: “For in Him 
we live, and move, and have our being,’ where the 
meaning of the word “ Him,” or “God,” which is that 
of a person or individual being, that is, a limited 
being, is enlarged, accords with our present 
knowledge as to that of the continuous “All,” which 
includes everything, also ourselves. 

‘This idea joined with ideas on immortality, of 
which those of Gustav Freytag, which I commu- 
nicated to you a few years ago, form a principal 
part, give a solid basis to ethics; I think entirely 
that which Herbert Spencer shows us. What origin- 
ally might have been called a philosophy has gradu- 
ally become a religion to me, in its practical test in 
real life. 

What leads me in this undertaking is not somuch 
a sense of liberality, as a desire to communicate my 
ideas to others, to see them further developed, and 
also to have them contested. I feel they will be 
strengthened by contest, and look forward to it with 


I will state here that I conclude from my reading, 
which is largely in German, that the ideas I put 
forward here, or similar ones, are already held by 
many. I wish the journal to be a mediator between 
the strictly Scientific and the progressively 
inclined world. The special feature must be to 
obtain the opinions and criticisms of the ablest men 
in the various departments of Science, on the opin- 
ions advanced by the journal, as to what is estab- 
lished by Science, and also in regard to speculations 
that are presented by the journal, if and then, how, 
they are in conflict with established facts. The 
character of the journal must be such as to win the 
confidence of these specialists, and no effort or 
money be spared to secure their co-operation. 

You have suggested to me in your letter of 
November 18, to name the intended publication 
Tue Open Court, and not hearing from me, have 
preliminarily published that as its probable name. 
You convey by these words the view I had in regard 
to the journal, that while it shall have a definite 
opinion on religious subjects, it shall not only be 
open to opposing views, but especially invite them. 
I wrote you on December 3, that while adhering to 
the name, “The Monist,” I desired it to be an “ Open 
Court,” and that the first case before it be that of 
“The Monist vs. the Agnostic.” 

On reading the announcement in Zhe Jndex last 
night, I struck, however, on a name which, while 
conveying my views, will, I think, be satisfactory to 
you, and those who will contribute, and to many of 
the readers of Zhe Index, namely, “The Monist’s 
Open Court.” Let us take that. Let us hold on to 
the plan to make the journal a monthly. It is to 
deal with difficult subjects, and time for considering 
them will be desirable for both editors and readers. 
Let the price be three dollars per year. 

I write this letter to you for publication in Zhe 
Index, and therefore, while I did not wish my name 
mentioned in connection with laudatory preliminary 
notices of the intended undertaking, I gladly affix it 
to a definite announcement of the same, accompa- 
nied by a declaration of principles. 

With kind regards to Mrs. Underwood and your- 
self, I remain, Yours truly, Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

44 Boy.tston St., Boston, Dec. 7th, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, EsgQ.: 

My Dear Sir—Y ours, enclosing the first part of a 
letter... submitted to me for inspection, and re- 
marks, reached me yesterday afternoon, while I was 
having a conference with Mr. f. I give up every- 
thing else now that I may answer you at once. I 
have pondered what you have written carefully, and 
write you with the same frankness with which you 
have kindly communicated your views to me. 


I hope we shall be able to unite on a suitable 

name for the journal. “THe Open Court” (first 
thought of by Mrs. Underwood ) seemed to me a very 
fortunate name; it is praised by those who have heard 
or read it, so far as they have written us, but there 
may be a better name; but I do not think the name 
you have suggested is what is needed. 

Permit me to mention some of the objections 

which occur to me, to the name “ Monist”’ for the new 
journal. . 
1. The words Monist and Monism are unknown 
to the mass of readers, and would convey to them 
no idea whatever. The words have not yet appeared, 
I think, in our dictionaries, except in some of the 
latest editions. 

The object of language is not to conceal, but to 
communicate thought, and for this reason, as Aris- 
totle said, one who would be a wise teacher, though 
he has the thoughts of a philosopher, should use the 
language of the people. Ina philosophical treatise, 
the words Monist, Monistic and Monism are allow- 
able, although even there they would, for the majority 
of readers, require a note defining them; but the 
name Monist for a journal would defeat the very 
object of a name, which is to convey to those to 
whom it looks for patronage some idea of its char- 
acter and aims. 

2. While to general readers Monist would be a 
meaningless word—which the unfriendly religious, 
or mirth-loving secular editors would be pretty sure 
to change to Moonist—to the few thinkers acquainted 
with the word it simply implies a philosophical theory 
in distinction to the conception of Dualism. Nowa 
liberal journal cannot wisely, in my opinion, be 
pledged by its name to a particular speculative 
theory, much less should the views of the editors be 
thus labeled in advance. Let Monism be presented 
and defended (and criticized of course), but let the 
readers judge as to the result of the discussion, and 
draw their own conclusion, based upon the merits of 
the arguments, fro and con, instead of having a pre- 
judgment implied in the name of the journal. 

3. Monist and Monism are words, the precise 
philosophical meaning of which has not become so 
well established as to have the same connotation for 
all thinkers who use them. You, I notice, make 
Monism the antithesis of Agnosticism. Now ob- 
serve what Haeckel says: “I believe that my monis- 
tic convictions agree in all essential points with that 
natural philosophy which in England is represented 
by Agnosticism.” (1884). I could easily show you 
by quotations from their writings that Spencer, 
Huxley, and Tyndall, all avowed agnostics, are also 
Monistic thinkers. And Buechner, who resolves 

everything into matter, is not more monistic than the 


idealists who reduce everything to ideas. I who am 
an agnostic in the sense in which Huxley (who first 
brought the word into use) employs it, and in the 
sense in which Spencer applies it to himself, am also 
in full intellectual sympathy with the monistic phi- 
losophy, which endeavors “to derive,” as Strauss 
says, “‘the totality of phenomena from a single prin- 
ciple—to construct the universe and life from the 
same block.” I believe that all phenomena, dis- 
tinguished as mental and material, have a common 
basis, in the ultimate nature of things. But when I 
say that I do not know what this ultimate nature is, 
I am in the company with Spencer and Huxley, with 
Haeckel and Buechner, even, as well as with Kant. 

There will be sufficient opportunity for the exposi- 
tion of Monistic thought in the columns of the new 
journal, but let us not narrow it at the outset by giving 
it a name which stands for only a school or class of 
thinkers, and which would rather repel many able and 
earnest thinkers, with their adherents. Let the name 
be comprehensive enough to include in its scope the 
consideration of every school and system of philoso- 
phy, and then we can present our own views and rely 
upon the force of our arguments and the strength of 
our positions to win attention and gain assent. 

The expression, “a religious magazine,” is so 
common, and the usual meaning of the word religious 
is so strongly fixed inthe popular mind, that it would 
not, I think, give a correct conception of the charac- 
ter and purpose of the publication. My friends and 
opponents would be surprised to see my name as 
editor of a journal called “a religious magazine.” 
When liberal thinkers speak in defense of religion, 
they find it necessary to use some qualifying words, 
—such as the “ Religion of Reason and Humanity ’— 
to distinguish it from what is popularly regarded as 
religion, viz.: Theological belief and a system of 

But further; since the new journal should be de- 
voted to the consideration, not only of religion, but 
of all those philosophical ethical and social questions 
which are of current interest and importance, it does 
not seem to me wise to use the word religious in the 
way suggested. 

You observe that the first case before the Court is to 
be the “ Monistic Idea” versus the “ Agnostic Idea.” 
Of course this statement is based on the conviction 
that the two conceptions are antagonistic, wherein you 
differ with Haeckel, Spencer and the other thinkers. 
I suppose you mean that in the first number of the 
journal, you wish to present your views on this sub- 
ject. That isall right; I shall be most happy to assist 
you the best I can,‘to present your thought to ad- 
vantage. Your articles will—if I understand your 
wish—appear over your own name, or any pseudonym 

you may decide upon. But there are to be other 
articles by contributors, and a certain amount of 
editorial matter; and both should be of a character 
to attract attention to the new journal, and to secure 
for it recognition and influence. Mere philosophical 
discussion—in which personally I feel a deep interest 
—I know to my sorrow, has attractions for but a 
comparatively few; and any publication which makes 
it the main thing, is sure to fail pecuniarily, and to be 
limited to but a few readers. Even the famous 
London Quarterly, Mind—the ablest philosophical 
publication in the world, and established several 
years ago—is a continual expense to the proprietors. 
A liberal journal, to be a success, must take up and 
discuss from an advanced point of view, all the great 
questions of the day. 

And I am now led to another point of great in- 
teresttome. The work ofediting and conducting a 
first class journal is a very complex work, requiring 
not only an aptitude for writing on many subjects, 
not only tact and judgment, but that knowledge of 
detail which experience alone can give. The selec- 
tion of contributions, giving the right prominence 
and proportion to the different departments, secur- 
ing a unity of plan (amid more or less diversity of 
thought), in order to give symmetry and complete- 
ness to the result of many thinkers’ efforts, all this 
requires a certain knowledge, which only one ex- 
perienced in journalism can fully appreciate. It is 
therefore of the first importance that in editing a 
journal an editor be unhampered. Suggestions and 
advice are always welcomed by a reasonable man; 
but in conducting a journal there must be, to secure 
excellence and success, the editorial authority to 
manage the journal, according to the best editorial 

In the new enterprise you will have at stake a 
certain amount of money. I shall have at stake 
whatever reputation I have gained. If the paper 
disappoints reasonable expectations, or fails under, the result will be badforme. You 
will be unaffected by it, except pecuniarily; for it 
will be known you entrusted the management to 
another person. It isnatural, therefore, that I should 
wish to do my best to make the journal a great suc- 
cess; and to do this, I deem it important that / have 
the authority to go ahead unfalteringly, and that in 
the editorial work I shall have unhampered control. 
With the understanding, especially mentioned by us 
in our conversation in this city, that you shall express 
your views fully in the journal. I hope you will see the 

importance of authorizing #e—as is indeed implied in 

ant a EE 

Pee eee sea ne 


our agreement—to assume the uncontrolled manage- 
ment of the publication, with, of course, all the ad- 
vice and assistance you can render, if so disposed. 
If, at the end of the year you shall be dissatisfied with 
my methods or work, it will be within your power 
and wholly your right to try some other man. 

This is the only condition on which a man who 
knows anything about journalism, and who has con- 
victions of his own, would desire or agree to edit a 
journal in which his name was to appear as editor. 
If this condition is not entirely satisfactory to you, 
please say so frankly. Neither of us wish to be con- 
nected with a journal without the fullest understand- 
ing on this point. 

I am deeply interested in this project; have writ- 
‘ten far and wide in preparation for it; have secured an 
unrivalled corps of contributors; have asked some to 
have articles ready for the first number; have col- 
lected thousands of names, and have everything in 
readiness to send out circulars and trust nothing 
will prevent the realization of our wishes and hopes; 
but the condition I mention is so absolutely import- 
ant to the success of the undertaking, and to my 
going into the work with spirit and confidence, that 
I have thought it best to write thus fully and frankly. 
The arrangements with Zhe /udex you know of. But 
for the Chicago project, I am of the opinion that an 
attempt would be made to continue the paper in this 
city; but now the general feeling is one of confidence 
that the Chicaeo journal will, in a large measure, 
supply the place of 7he /ndex, and the disposition is 
to sustain the former. All the requests for transfer 
thus far, have named THE OpEN Court as the journal 
of their choice. But if the condition I have named 
is contrary to your understanding, or if there is any- 
thing in what I have written likely or liable to inter- 
fere with the arrangement made with Zhe Judea 
trustees, do not hesitate or delay to send me a tele- 
gram at once; for a change of programme would have 
to be made at once, and should be announced in the 
next issue of the journal. 

I will only add that in my opinion the journal 
the most likely to succeed at this time is a weekly; 
but that if it cannot be a weekly,the next best is a 
fortnightly. For a monthly I see small chance of 
success, and I have conferred with many clear-headed 
journalists on the subject. 

I remain very truly yours, 
Boston, Dec, 6, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Eso.: 

My Dear Sir—The enclosed letter came to me 

Saturday last... The same statements come to me 

from other sources—direct from Chicago, one of 

them. I send a copy of my hastily written reply 
to the enclosed letter. I am not able to speak defin- 
itely about the alleged negotiations, but I should like 
to be authorized to deny, as stated in this letter. 
Very truly yours, 
B. F. UNDERWoop. 

The enclosed letter contained the following 

Dec. 3, 1886. 

“DEAR Mr. UnDERWoop:—My remark was the 
mere echo of one made to me by Mr. * * * * While I 
cannot profess to quote Mr. * * * *’s words, their sub- 
stance as I gathered it, was to this effect: That he 
hoped you would find the full liberty and independ- 
ence in your new relation that you were expecting. 
To my inquiry, why you should not, he replied that 
the gentleman who was to furnish the money was an 
extreme radical, and very fond of having his own 
way; that he had been in negotiation with two other 
gentlemen besides (and I suppose before) yourself, 
who insisted on the most absolute guarantee in 
writing, of their exclusive control of the proposed 
paper—and they could not obtain satisfactory terms. 
He hoped you had everything settled and in writing.” 

Boston, Dec. 4, 1886. 

Dear Sir--Accept thanks for your kind letter, but 
I think Mr. . . . is mistaken in what he states. He 
evidently attaches to some remarks he has heard 
undue importance. I have known for some years 
the gentleman who will be the proprietor of the new 
journal; and although tenacious of his own views, | 
have never found him without proper respect for the 
convictions of others. I know not what have been 
his negotiations with others, but certainly the under- 
standing between him and myself is, that I shall have 
the business and editorial management of the new 
paper. He will doubtless wish to express his own 
views, but this he will do as an individual. He is 
too reasonable a man to wish me, on account of 
his ownership of the journal, to surrender my inde- 
pendence in the management of the enterprise. 
That is something which no_ position or salary could 
tempt me to do. 

Yours truly, 
B. F. UNpERWoop. 

La SALLE, Dec. 10, 1886. 
B. F. UNDERWOOD, Esg., Boston, Mass.: 

My Dear Sir—Y our two letters of December 6th 
arrived last evening only. Your letter of December 
7th arrived this morning. I have only a few minutes 
time now to answer and will use this to say, that I 
have not been negotiating about the starting of the 
Chicago paper, except with Mr...., whereof I be- 
lieve to have fully informed you, this is now nearly 


two years ago. Mr.... never asked me about such 
a written guarantee, whereof your friend writes, but 
after he was here in La Salle with me some time, de- 
clared that he was convinced he could not edit a paper 
satisfactory to me. He had shown to me certain 
contributions sent him for the same,—the one a very 
humorous article on the Easter services in the various 
Chicago churches from the “ Catholic” to “ Swing’s” 
—and Swing was hardest dealt with, which I told 
him were against my views in regard to the paper. 
* * # * # 

With Mr. * * I talked on the paper in a general 
way last winter,—but do not, and did not deem him 
suitable for the management of it,—though I believe 
he will make a very able, bright contributor. I have 
told you of this before. 

Regarding your independence in the editorship 
and management of the paper,—I would have noth- 
ing to do with you if you did not show the full man- 
hood which you express in your letter to your friend. 

For anything what you write, I will, however, be 
held as much responsible as yourself; even if I 
contribute the money only for the publication. I 
have to close now, expressing my fullest confidence 
in your fairness. 

Yours very truly, 


La Sate, Dec. 11th, 1886. 
B. F. UnDERWoopD, EsgQ., Boston, Mass.: 
My Dear Sir—\ wrote you yesterday hurriedly, 
closing “For anything what you write I will however 

be held as much responsible as yourself, even if I 
contribute the money only for the publication.” 
Since writing the above I have telegraphed you last 
night, ‘“‘Expect publication of my letter and your 
answer thereto in next Judex and earlier by mail. 
Will agree to fortnightly.” 

I mean here my letter of December 7th which 
perhaps has reached you this morning only,—and 
that it is satisfactory to me, and that I expect you 
will add an answer at once to my letter—and mail 
me a copy thereof at once, so that I can send an an- 
swer to the expected one of yours for the following 
Index, Last evening I then have thoroughly read 
your letter of December 7th and made pencil notes 

I expected to write some longer this morning 
than I shall be able. I will refer only to some per- 
sonal points. You say: “Much less should the 
views of the editors be thus labeled in advance.” 

1.. By the words, “The Monist’s Open Court,” 
only the person who supports the paper is intended 

to be labeled. It should be specially stated at the 
head of the paper that the editors are “ Agnostics.” 
If the Monist entrusts his case so far to the Agnostic 
—this certainly implies great faith in his fairnesss. 

2. Am willing to wat with the words, “ RELIGIOUS 
magazine.” .... 

3. Practically you will have to begin as a con- 
tinuation of Zhe Jndex—but give preference to such 
topics that together with other topics will in time 
make clear the Monistic Idea. 

4. To your remarks, ‘ You will be unaffected by 
it, except pecuniarily..... ” Much more than 
that; in what you say about my being affected, you 
are quite mistaken. Jy manhood even is at stake. 

5. I get along best with independent men who are not 
afraid of responsibility. Expect you will not dis- 
agreeably notice any restraint from me. 

6. You spoke of my being editor with you even 
—what I declined. The real position is that of a 
partnership where one is usually the silent partner, and 
does not unnecessarily annoy the other. Such 
mutual restraint as that implies, is the real relation. 

7. A telegram in answer to last part of your letter 
would only produce confusion, and so I have sent 
none—taking upon me the responsibility that in the 
real substance there is no fatal difference of opinion. 
I look for your letter with great interest in answer to 
mine of December 7th—the one to be published. 

Sincerely Yours, 
Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

Boston, Dec. 11, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esoq.: 

My Dear Sir—Y our letter of the 7th came yester- 
day, and two telegrams to-day. I send you a line to 
say that if the new journal is tobe started with you 
as proprietor and myself as editor, we ought by all 
means to avoid going into a discussion before the 
public, in regard to details on which we are not yet 
fully agreed, in advance of the first issue of the 
paper. It will make a bad impression and weaken 
confidence in the permanence of our relation, and 
the success of the enterprise. What you desire 
to say could, it seems to me, be presented without 
alluding to points as yet undecided. 

The statement in 7he /nudex under the title ofa 
“New Journal,” is, of course, preliminary, and pro- 
visional. That is not to go into the new paper; and 
as to the list of contributors, it was made with 
especial reference to /udex readers; the design being 
to carry as many with us as we fairly could. From 
these writers, who have all promised to write if 
desired, we can select such as we prefer, and add any 
other names that will strengthen the new enterprise, 
as we may come to see the needs of the paper. 

Be A HS St tT 


It has, since I last wrote you, occurred to me that 
perhaps you will be satisfied to have the word Monist 
omitted from the name, on condition that a notice 
is kept standing as a part of the prospectus (or else- 
where) something like the one I enclose* herewith. 
That would define your position comprehensively, 
and make readers interested in the expositions 
of your thought which you will present, and 
would leave the editors uncommitted and free to 
define their position in their ownterms. Does it not 
strike you as more favorably than “A Monist’s Open 
Court?” We never apply a name in the possessive 
case to a court, unless, for the sake of brevity, we say 
a judge’s court, (as Judge Gray’s Court,—the court 
over which he presides and decides as a judge). 

I have already informed you that the grounds of 
my objection are not my own opinions as to Monism 
(for I am as strongly monistic as you can be). But 
the grounds are, Ist:—The name is not understood, 
save by a very few, and asthe name of the paper 
would be an almost insurmountable obstacle to suc- 
cess from the beginning, 2d:—It would repel many 
who understand it from the paper, because of the 
committal implied, to a particular philosophical sect 
or school, in advance. Many of the writers and sup- 
porters of Zhe Jndex, (who are ready to hear all that 
can be said in favor of Monism) would feel no interest 
in the paper..... 

I hope I don’t seem unreasonable to you. 
regret I cannot now have an hour's talk with 
you—so many things are there to consider which 
cannot be written. If you could view the situation, 
as it is known to Mr. ¢ and myself, you would see 
the importance of what I write, as you cannot now. 

Yesterday I sent you a list of names, thinking 
possibly some of them might strike you favorably. 
I am not tenacious of Open Court, by any means, 
and would agree to any other which would be under- 
stood and indicate or suggest comprehensively the 
scope and spirit of the journal. 

Very truly yours, B. F. UNDERWOOD. 

Boston, Dec. 12, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esog.: 

My Dear Sir—I sent you a proposition last even- 
ing that a sentence defining your position as a 
Monist be incorporated into the prospectus of the 
new journal, or at any rate, be kept as a standing 
notice. On this condition I believe you will consent 
to omit it from the name of the paper. 

I have read your letter carefully. If you shall 
agree to compromise on the basis I have suggested, 
it will be necessary to modify some expressions in 
your letter. The modifications I have made, and 
have added for your consideration [in accordance 
~~ * Substance of this enclosure is repeated in Mr. U.’s letter of December 16. 

I only 


with letter sent yesterday] an additional sentence, 
which you will see enclosed in brackets. If the let- 
ter, as copied and slightly modified, can be made a 
basis of agreement, it will need no reply and no criti- 
cism from me in Zhe Jndex; but can appear as an 
additional part of the announcement, from the pro- 
prietor of the new journal. 

As I wrote you, the paper, (Zhe Jndez,) is made up 
and goes to press Tuesdays. But this week I shall 
hold it back till Wednesday, or until I get a dispatch 
from you. Shall I publish the letter from you as here- 
with enclosed? If any part is objectionable, indi- 

If you insist upon it, your letter shall be published 
verbatim, but first let us see if we cannot agree sub- 
stantially, so as to avoid anything in Zhe Jndex sug- 
gestive of controversy between us, as to the new 

I am glad you agree toa fortnightly. A monthly 
would mean less work, but it would not, I fear, be 
possible to make it a success. In this all journalists 
I have talked with concur. 

In haste, but truly yours, 

La SALLE, Dec. 13, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERwoop, Esg., Boston, Mass.: 

My Dear Sir—My last is dated December 11. 
After mailing it, I telegraphed you: 

My letter, expected to be published, is dated 
December 7. My answer to your letter of Decem- 
ber 7, not adapted for telegraphing, mailed partly 
yesterday, partly to-day. 

In answer to yours of the 7th, I wish to add yet, 
that in regard to /udex trustees—if any of the sub- 
scribers who have paid Zhe /ndex in advance should 
wish their money returned in consequence of disa- 
greement with my standpoint, that I shall not hesi- 
tate with repaying their unexpired subscriptions. 

In regard to our contract, which was at that time 
understood primarily, I think by both of us as a con- 
tract for a definite salary, I wish to state yet that 
by any action of yours that you may deem to be 
your duty to yourself in this enterprise, I shall not 
be released from my financial obligation specified in 
said contract. 

As it was the programme up to the time that the 

arrangement was made with the /ndex trustees, that 
you would first come to La Salle and study through 
with me in detail the matters touched in my manu- 
script, whereupon we would go at the programme 


and commencement of the journal, I took no steps 
to re-rent my former house, thinking you might 
want to occupy it some time..... 
Sincerely yours, 
Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

Boston, Dec. 16, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esgq.: 

My Dear Sir—I have already communicated to 
you some of my objections to the word Monist, as 
the name of the new journal..,.. Asan “OPEN 
Court” for the introduction and orderly discussion of 
evidence, it should not have, even in the way you 
suggest—“ The Monist’s OpEN Court’—the stamp 
of a philosophieal creed or theory. In fact, I think 
that name more objectionable than simply Zhe 

Assuming that you do not desire to commit the 
publication to Monism in advance, I suggest that 
“Monist ” be omitted from the name, and that in the 
prospectus, or in a standing notice, something like 
this be stated: ‘“The proprietor of this journal, 
whose philosophy and religion are fitly expressed by 
the’ word “Monist,” will present his views over his 
own name or initials, leaving the editors free and 
independent in all that pertains to their department.” 
By this arrangement your personal convictions will 
appear, so faras the name “Monist” can disclose 
them, and the paper can still be, as our contract says, 
‘‘under the business and editorial management” of 
myself, assisted by Mrs. Underwood. .... 

You state your leading ideas intended to be con- 
veyed by Zhe Monist, refer to your idea, on immor- 
tality, you desire to communicate your ideas to others 
and to have them contested, and to obtain the 
opinions and criticisms of the ablest scientific men 
on the views advanced. So far good. This you 
give as the “declaration of principles.” The pre- 
sentation and discussion of your own thought will, 
of course, be of prime importance to you, and I 
doubt not of interest to many readers, but there are 
other than purely philosophical and theoretical ques- 
tions which must receive prominence in a journal 
that is to obtain readers and exert an influence 
to-day,—social, industrial, educational and religious 
questions now occupying the mind of our ablest and 
most earnest thinkers. I presume that the consider- 
ation of these live questions is embraced in your idea 
of the aim and scope of the new journal. 

You have read my statement printed in the last 
two issues of Zhe Index. If it is unsatisfactory to 

you, will you please return the enclosed copy with | 

such modifications, by omission or addition, as you 
think are needed. We should come toan agreement 
sufficient to admit of a definite statement, if any 

substantial changes are to be made, before Zhe Index 
is discontinued. .... _ 
Sincerely yours, 

Boston, Dec. 16, 1886. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esg.: 

My Dear Sir—Since you did not consent to 
making your statement for 7he /ndex in a way to 
obviate the necessity of discussion in regard to our 
project in Zhe Jndex, | had your letter set up as fast 
as I could, and wrote the reply that I sent you this 
morning (with proof of your letter). . ... 

I repeat substantially only what I wrote you some 
days ago, more at length. I donot see any reason for 
discussing details of the Chicago project before the 
public, when it is we who must decide and agree; but 
I long ago learned to respect the wisdom of others, 
when I could not concur in their wisdom nor con- 
vince them of the wisdom of my own. 

I note all you have written, which I have read 
attentively, and am prevented writing you at length 
in reply, only from utter inability. 

I do not really think that my liberty or independ- 
ence would suffer in my relation with you, and I 
offer no objection to the relation as you state it (in 
one of your letters of recent date). I think we may 
safely leave this matter to be tested by experience. 

If it is thought best, instead of having my letter 
sent you to-day, follow yours, I shall be content to 
print your letter in next issue without any formal 
reply, but with simply a brief paragraph, stating 
where we differ, and how we agree. 

We are now nearing the end of the career 
of The Index. Nearly all—all but two, I think—who 
have requested transfers of .their subscriptions, have 
asked to be transferred to THE OPEN Court; many 
who have settled, wish to take the new paper, and a 
number have paid in advance. The new journal 
will have a fine list to begin with—a list which 
includes many cultivated men and women. Hundreds 
of letters in regard to it have been received, and I 
think the prospect is most auspicious. This oppor- 
tunity to start a new journal is one not likely to 
come again, and I hope nothing will occur to mar 
the prospect. I have my ideas of what is best, like 
yourself, but I am willing to yield on any point, 
which I do not regard as vital to the success of the 
undertaking. It has gone out that there is to be a 
new journal at Chicago; it has been widely adver- 
tised; money is being received for it; and if the 
enterprise is to be started, this is the opportunity. 
The nearer what we decide upon comes to satisfying 
us both, will, of course, be the best. 

Truly yours, 


Boston, Dec. 17, 1886. 

My Dear Sir—While I feel hopeful that your next 
letter will show sufficient agreement between us as 
to the projected new journal, to insure its certainty, 
the situation compels me to keep in mind the possi- 
bility of its failure by reason of my inability to 
comply with all your conditions. If, after receiving 
your final statement, I shall decide that your con- 
ception of a first-class journal and mine are near 
enough alike to make a beginning possible, I will 
telegraph you accordingly. If your final letter is 
such that I cannot accede to your requirements, 
I shall notify Zhe Jndex trustees at once, and 
announce in the next Index the failure of the 
project. Your letter of the 7th, and your reply to 
mine, to be received, which accompanied proof to 
you, shall be printed in the same number. If I shall 
be compelled by my own ideas of what is right and 
reasonable in the premises, to decide adversely, it 
will be on grounds of such radical difference, that 
it will be useless to have any further correspondence 
or negotiations in regard to a new journal. I assume 
that your letter will be final, as a statement of what 
the journal must, and must not be. 

There will be still one number more of Zhe 
/ndex after the next issue; in that only shall we have 
a chance to make any further announcement as to 
the change. In the contingency here supposed, 
our failure to agree will not, so far as I am concerned, 
in any way interrupt our pleasant friendly relations. 
You have a right to start such a journal as you prefer; if 
Z cannot agree to edit such a journal as you desire, it 
is my right to decline. My deepest regret, as to 
what has been done, will be over the announcement, 
and the influence this project has had deciding the 
action taken in regard to Zhe /nudex.—As for our 
written contract .... that need cause no trouble 
in the event of the failure of the project. My own 
plans would have to be made anew, and possibly an 
effort might be made to revive 7he /udex. All this 
would be uncertain. The trustees have made no 
provision for a possible failure. 

Although I am providing for a contingency, I 
sincerely hope and believe that we shall come to an 
understanding, and that the new journal will be 
established, and prove a great intellectual and moral 
influence in this country. Yours truly, 


La SALLE, Dec. 20, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERWwoopD, Eso., Boston, Mass.: 
My Dear Sir—| telegraph you this morning, viz: 
“T cannot mail answer to your letter of December 
16,* for next /vdex. Your standpoint is satisfactory 
to me.” I hope to mail my answer in two or three 

* Meaning Mr. Underwood’s first letter of that date. 

days. The important point will be: That I accede to 
the name, THE Open Court, and further, that in the 
declaration of principles, or rather, the programme, 
my position be definitely stated,—-stating, in a few 
words, my purposes as they are known to you from 
the beginning of our negotiations. Your letters 
of the 17th inst. have also come this morning. 
Sincerely yours, 
Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

La SALLE, ILL., Dec. 24, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERwoopD, Esg., Boston, Mass.: 

My Dear Sir—\ have carefully considered your 
remarks in your letter of Dec. 16, and have conclud- 
ed to adopt for the new journal the name you gave 
it preliminarily, namely: THE Open Court. The 
programme I request you to modify by inserting, 
“The leading object of THE Open Court will be to 
continue the work of 7he Jndex,—that is, to establish 
religion on the basis of science, and in connection 
therewith it will endeavor to present the Monistic 
philosophy. The founder of the journal believes 
this will furnish to others, as it has done to him, a 
religion that replaces that which we were taught in our 
childhood. Besides this, I accept your announce- 
ment as published in Zhe /ndex for the programme 
of THE Open Court.” 

I also adopt your suggestion of a standing notice 
at the head of the journal, “While the proprietor of 
this journal desires to spread by it the Monistic 
philosophy and the religion it brings with it, the 
editors are free and independent in all that pertains 
to their department, the proprietor reserving the 
right to express, over his own name, any difference 
of opinions from those expressed by the editors, and 
also to present, or have presented, his views over his 
own name.” 

In my letter of the 7th I say, that while adhering 
to the name, “The Monist,” I desired it to be an 
“Open Court” and that the first case before it be 
“The Monist vs. the Agnostic.” My first thought 
as to this was that the Monistic idea should not 
be excluded from having to submit to trial, but the 
contrary thereof. The further thought came with it, 
that the difference now existing between Monists 
and Agnostics was of primary importance to be 
cleared away. This difference is splitting the 
Liberal camp. The utterance of Haeckel in refer- 
ence to English Agnosticism, which you quote, I 
think does not apply to Herbert Spencer’s theory of 
the Unknowable. The new journal should endeavor 
to ascertain this. 

While the name proposed by me, “The Monist’s 
Open Court,” was, in the first place, suggested by 
the idea of a compromise, upon further reflection I 
would say that such name would make the Monists 

responsible for the justice meted out in THE OPEN 
Court, as there is always some power behind a court 
whose honor is at stake. In Prussia judgments are 
pronounced as follows: “Inthe name of the King 
it is adjudged, etc.” Here, in Illinois, the people of 
the State are understood to be those whose honor is 
pledged for the justice meted out in our courts. 
With the name, THE Open Court, as it is now 
adopted, and with our explanations, both Monists 
and Agnostics would have a right to feel aggrieved 
if justice should not be meted out in THE OPEN 

I omitted to mention in my letter of Dec. 7, that 
what I presented for a programme was meant to be 
supplemental to the programme published by you. 

Upon your suggestion I have agreed toa fort- 
nightly. I think the price should remain three 
dollars per year; single numbers, fifteen cents. Let 
me say, as it is possible that many who subscribed to 
the new journal, or changed to it from Zhe /ndex, 
may not be satisfied with the change in the pro- 
gramme, that I deem it my duty to return, if they 
desire, any advance subscription money they may 
have paid either as new subscribers or to Zhe Index. 

Sincerely Yours, 
Epwarp C, HEGELER. 

La SALLE, ILL., Dec. 24, 1886. 
B. F. UnpERwoop, Esg., Boston, Mass: 

My Dear Sir—In answer to your private letter of 
December 16th I send the following explanation and 
reply. It is my opinion that we should stand quite 
open before the public, our ideas in regard to the 
journal, our mutual relation, where we agree and 
how we differ; our independence of each other should 
be known. As I said in my telegram, “ nothing will 
demonstrate your independence better.” And so it 
will mine. The fears of some of your friends have 
caused you uneasiness; this should remove them. 

I want the readers to understand from the outset 
that it is not liberality on my part that leads me into 
this undertaking, but that a definite idea drives me 
to it. I devote the capital and personal efforts which 
I giveto the service of my leading idea. This decla- 
ration is due to the subscribers as also to myself. If 
I do not insist upon the name “ The Monist,” I want 
it definitely understood that also this I do in the 
service of my leading idea. 

In the announcement of the new journal it is said 
“whose name by his request is for the present with- 
held.” This remark surprised me, as I had never 
thought of not giving my name openly at the public 
announcement of the journal. I feel thereby in the 
position as if not daring to stand up for my convic- 
tions. For this reason alone I want this misunder- 
standing explained in Zhe Index, even if I have to 



ask that a supplemental number be issued for that 
purpose alone. : 

The business part of the announcement I request 
to read as follows: The first number of a new radi- 
cal journal to be established in Chicago, will be issued 
early in 1887, just as soon as the necessary arrange- 
ments can be completed. The new journal, the 
name of which will be “The Open Court” will be 
under the management of B. F. Underwood, with 
Mrs. Sara A. Underwood as associate editor. The 
proprietor will be Edward C. Hegeler, of La Salle, 
Ill., or a publishing company he may organize. 

The latter part of your letter, commencing with 
the words, “ By this arrangement your connection 
will appear, etc.,” to the close, I presume you will 
omit from publication, as, Ist. What you quote from 
our contract should read, ‘To be the property of E. 
C. Hegeler, and under the business and _ editorial 
management of B. F. Underwood, subject to such 
conditions as the two shall mutually agree upon.” 
2d. The paragraph you commence, “You state that 
your leading idea intended to be conveyed by the 
Monist, etc,” shows an incomplete understanding at 
the beginning. I also did not mean that the journal 
should be limited to discussing my ideas. Probably 
that will fill but a small part of thespace. 3d. Why 
the closing paragraph should be omitted, I have ex- 
pressed at the beginning of this letter. 

I call attention here to my changing the word, 
“principle” to “standpoint,” as this is the right 
word for what I meant to express. With kind re- 
gards. Yours Truly, 

Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

Boston, Dec. 23, 1886. 
My Dear Sir—Your telegram and letter of the 
20th duly received, the latter just as the Index was 
going to press. I have not thought it necessary to 
telegraph you, for your generous letter leaves 
nothing, so far as I can see, in the way of inaugurat- 
ing the Chicago enterprise. Your letter of the 7th, 
with mine in reply, will appear this week, with an 
extract from your letter of the 20th, and a statement 
that another communication will appear from you 

in the next issue. B. F. UnpERWoop. 

In February, 1887, before the publication of the 
first number of THE Oren Court, Mr. Underwood 
presented to me a proof of the standing notice there- 
for, without embracing therein the definite state- 
ment of my views as had been agreed upon by letter, 
and also had been published in Zhe Judex upon my 
repeated request, but instead gave what appeared to 
me an unclear combination of his and my published 
statements of the particular aim of the new paper. 
Mr. Underwood also presented a proof of the first 

nie ome 


page of the journal, opening the paper with small 
editorial notes as in the /mdex, instead of prominent 
contributions, as had been my repeatedly expressed 
wish, and also had been agreed to by him in his let- 
ter of September 28, 1886. 

Desiring to avoid arupture, | asked Mr. Whipple, 
who has for years been my attorney in patent mat- 
ters, and whom I know to be a clear and cool-headed 
man, to be present at a meeting between Mr. Under- 
wood and myself. At this meeting I insisted upon 
my Monistic standing-notice, as contained in my 
letter published in the Jndex, telling Mr. Under- 
wood that he might follow it with a statement of his 
own as he might see fit to make it, he alone to be 
responsible for that. This resulted in the standing 
notice as given at the head of the editorial column 
of THE Open Court in all the numbers prior to the 
present one. 


When Mr. Underwood was present at La Salle in 
September last, the agnostic character of the paper, 
which was against my intentions, was explained to 
Mr. Underwood. I called his special attention to 
Mrs. Underwood's lately published editorial poem 
“I do not know” expressing my sympathy there- 
with so far as a religious feeling is shown therein 
and an upright confession made that the writer did 
not know to answer the particular questions of re- 
ligion [ which Monism does ]. (I had reference to my 
often expressed declaration that I hold this making 
of the “What I do not know ”—that is the feature of 
the NOT KNOWING this “ what ”’—the final object of re- 
ligious emotion as detrimental to the progress. of 
knowledge and injurious to mankind in general. 
That I wanted to eradicate this idea, I had prom- 
inently pointed out to Mr. Underwood from the be- 
ginning of our negotiations. ) 

I repeated to Mr. Underwood what I had told 
him before: It had become clear to me _ that 
Agnosticism was a transitional standpoint to Monism 
of those who, having found the teachings of old 
theologies untenable, had not yet worked through to 
the clear and definite view of Monism. 

It was pointed out to Mr. Underwood that in 
order to satisfy the readers a journal must editorially 
define its position concerning the subjects brought 
forward by the contributors. 

It was further mentioned that the paper had not 
found the expected support. I statedto Mr. Under- 
wood that I contemplated Dr. Carus’ appointment 
as associate editor of the paper, together with Mrs. 
Underwood (meant of course subject to my contract 
with them in regard to time); that Dr. Carus’ work 
was to me the most important part of the paper, as 

being in harmony with my views. I could not ex- 
pect him to do this work further on without proper 
recognition and standing on the paper, and that 
such standing was necessary for him for the corres- 
pondence with European writers and savants, whose 
contributions I especially desired for the paper, (as 
already expressed in my letter published in the 

Dr. Carus had been engaged by me for the special 
purpose of presenting my views in the paper, which 
was my reserved right as specified in the Jndez, 
“to present or have presented my views over my own 
name.” If it has not been added to every contribu- 
tion that its publication was made at my demand, 
this has been meant as an act of courtesy to Mr. 
Underwood and also Dr. Carus. 

Upon mentioning my desire that a position as 
associate editor be given to Dr. Carus, Mr. Under- 
wood, with suppressed excitement stated, that could 
never be. Ina later conversation it appeared that 
his feeling against Dr. Carus arose from the latter's 
article, “‘ Monism, Dualism and Agnosticism,” which 
was published in Number 8, of THE Open Court. 
I informed Mr. Underwood that Dr. Carus’ article, 
though written by him independently, expressed my 
opinion. It was intended as an explanation in refer- 
ence to a statement Mr. Underwood had addressed 
to the Boston /nvestigator (in answer to a challenge), 
defining the nature of Monism and Agnosticism which 
was not satisfactory to me. I told Mr. Underwood 
that I had partly prepared a short article myself in 
answer to his statement, but did not send it, thinking 
the one coming from Dr. Carus more courteous to 
Mr. Underwood. I explained to Mr. Underwood 
that his definition “ Agnosticism stands for what I do 
not know in regard to the ultimate source of phe- 
nomena” was dualistic. A source implied two 
things: The earth with an orifice or opening, the 
one, (the Creator), and the water (the created) the 
other. This explanation did not satisfy Mr. Under- 
wood. He said, as I understood him, in reference to 
Dr. Carus’ contribution: “If I want to insult a man, 
I do it direct.” I think I then called Mr. Under- 
wood’s attention to the statement in my letter to the 
Index: “Let the first case before THE Open Court 
be that of the Monist versus the Agnostic. 

The difference between Monists and Agnostics is of 
primary importance to be cleared away.” 

I also communicated to Mr. Underwood that Dr. 
Carus had requested me to take into consideration 
a plan of his going to Germany for becoming profess- 
or at a university there. In this, he thought, he 
would have no difficulty, and he had taken some pre- 
liminary steps for his habilitation. This would give 
him, he suggested to me,.a more effectual standing 


in case I should wish him to assist in founding a col- 
lege for philosophy and scientific religion in Amer- 
ica, an idea which I had oftenexpressed. However, 
I objeeted to his leaving his work at THE OPEN 
Court, where he in particular represented the views 
which I intended to bring out by the journal. 

Mr. Underwood stated that it would be impossi- 
ble for him to work together with Dr. Carus, as he, 
himself, was a combative man who held to his opin- 
ions, and so was Dr. Carus; so that he had better 
withdraw. My idea had been that Mr. Under- 
wood and Dr. Carus should jointly arrange the 
contents of the paper, and that at points where they 
disagreed we would discuss the differences in a meet- 
ing, when the decision would have fallen upon me. 
Both, I thought, in this way would have found leis- 
ure for lecturing. Mr. Underwood declining this, 
I proposed an arrangement that Mr. Underwood 
should manage the paper as heretofore, but that he 
first present the proposed contents of the next issue 
to me and Dr. Carus for discussion in a meeting 
at La Salle and hear our opinions thereon, while 
Chicago remain the place of publication. | 

Mr. Underwood accepted this. 

Cuicaco, Oct. 14, 1887. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esq.: 

Dear Sir— . . . Last June I asked you to return 
to me the copy of legal transcript and form of our 
contract which Mr. ... sent me, and which I 
loaned you the day I received it. You stated you 
would have a search forit made. If you have found 
it, will you please send it to me, and if you have not 
been able to find it, will you please send me a copy 
of the one which Mr. . . . mailed to you at La Salle 
the same time he mailed mine. 

Very truly yours, B. F. UNDERWOOD. 
La SALLE, Oct. 15, 1887. 

Dear Sir—\ have not put any value on the paper 
drawn up by Mr. . . . as it was incorrect and incom- 
plete on the essential points, that is, those beyond the 
money consideration, though through no fault of Mr. 

. ’s. I recollect that when you handed me your 
copy, that I mentioned this, in substance at least. 

I now have examined the file of our correspond- 
ence and find that you asked for the above in yours 
of June 30, when I sent you the copy of our contract, 
for which you also then asked. The later sending 
of this form drawn up by Mr... . has been over- 
looked by me. Ourcontract of October last, supple- 
mented by the letters published in Zhe /ndex, is the 
real substance of our agreement. In our meeting with 
Mr. Whipple this was made fully clear to you in addi- 
tion; so much so, that in Mr. Whipple’s memoranda 
which are in my possession, there is no note of the 


final conclusion even. We proceeded in the meeting 
to important, practical business—acting under the 
contract and the agreement in the published letters. 
Respectfully yours, Epwarp C. HEGELER. 
Cnicaco, Oct. 18, 1887. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esoq.: 

Dear Sir—In reply to your letter of the 18th, I 
have to say that I quite agree with you as to the 
defectiveness of Mr. . . . ’s memorandum of agree- 
ment, owing to errors and omissions. As I have 
already told you, I had but glanced at the document 
when I handed it to you a few minutes after receiv- 
ing it, some months ago, and doubt as to its state- 
ments has made me the more curious to see it. 

If you expressed dissatisfaction with it at the 
time, or made any comments on it after reading it, I 
certainly failed to understand your remarks, for from 
that time I have wondered as to your opinion of the 
document. But this point is unimportant. We are 
agreed as to the incompleteness of the paper, not to 
mention here other errors. 

My understanding has been that our agreement 
gives you the right to express your views, or to have 
them expressed for you, over your own name, and 
the right to protest against, or criticise anything pub- 
lished in the paper; the protest or criticism to be 
presented when so desired by you, on the first page; 
and,that these reserved rights are the only limits to 
my independence and freedom in the editorial con- 
duct of the paper. These conditions from the first 
have been entirely satisfactory tome. I have always 
been as ready to make room for your thought as you 
have been to present it. If on this point you ever 
think you have the slighest reason for dissatisfaction, 
I hope you will at once make it known to me. I only 
ask when you have long papers to present, that you 
will notify me as far ahead as you conveniently can, 
that I may include their insertion in my plans as edi- 
tor, and not be compelled to break up the plan of 
any given number, by putting aside articles in type, 
designed to appear with others, to give symmetry, 
proportion and completeness to the paper. I wish 
as editor to be (as far as my position will admit of 
it) as generous and obliging as you are as proprietor. 
If, at any time, a misunderstanding arises between 
us, you will find me, I believe, in trying to remove 
it, as regardful of your rights and feelings as I am of 
my own. I remain truly yours, 


As near as I recollect, when soon after the meet- 
ing in September I met Mr. Underwood in Chicago 
he pointed out to me obstacles to his coming to 
La Salle for a meeting at that time. Then I asked 

him to send to La Salle the manuscripts on hand. 
On October 17th, a number of manuscripts were 


terday afternoon. Dr. Carus examined them all, my 
daughter about a dozen. I enclose a copy of Dr. 
Carus’ opinion thereof given to me upon my express 
desire. Yours truly, 

Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

The report contained only businesslike remarks 
(“ available,” “not available,” “subject not suited 
for THE Open Court,” etc)., in reference to the MS’S 
—such as Mr. Underwood would have heard, if he 
had come to La Salle for a meeting. 

Cuicaco, Oct. 28, 1887. 
E. C. HEGELER, Eso: 

Dear Sir—When in Boston, a year ago this 
month, we signed an agreement, in accordance with 
which I subsequently came West to take charge of the 
new journalistic enterprise, I hoped that my connec- 
tion with THE Open Court would last some years. 
But during the past few months, and especially 
since the last conversations I had with you at your 
home, it has seemed to me that the present manage- 
ment of the paper is not likely to last long. Dr. Carus 
from the time-he came West, has wished to have an 
editorial position on THE OpEN Court. This is now, 
as you told me, desired by you, and I judge from 
your remarks, by your daughter Mary, and perhaps 
by your entire family. 

In view of Dr. Carus’ present and prospective re- 
lation to you and your family, it is entirely natural 
that you should wish to give him such a position as 
Tue Open Court affords; and since you own the 
paper, its continuance beyond a few months, at least, 
except on condition that he have an editorial position, 
is extremely improbable. But the condition is one 
to which, as I said to you with equal frankness and 
kindriess, we can never agree so long as our relation 
to the paper continues. | 

Since our connection with THE OPEN Court is evi- 
dently of short duration, and since I am dependent 
upon my earnings, I must in justice to myself and those 
dependent upon me, look beyond my present posi- 
tion; and that I may do this, and remove all obstacles 
which the present management offers, to any plans 
that you and Dr. Carus may have, both Mrs. Under- 
wood and I hereby tender our resignation, to take 
effect at the end of the present financial year of the 
journal, or as much sooner as may be necessary, to 
enable you to make the changes desired, after receiv- 
ing this letter. 


received from Mr. Underwood. They were returned 
with the following letter: 
La SAL_E, Oct. 22, 1887. 
B. F. UNpERwoop Esgq., Chicago: 
Dear Sir—The whole M. S. articles sent by you 
on the 17th inst., were retured by U. S. Express yes- 

We wish however our present connection with THE 
Open Court to continue long enough to admit, in the 
last number issued under the present management, 
of a proper statement announcing our retirement, the 
statement to be such as you and we may mutually 
agree upon. 

This letter I assure you is written in no pique, 
and in no unfriendly spirit; but with a knowledge 
that certain facts have to be faced, yet at the same 
time with warm friendship for you and your family, 
which is sincerely felt by both’ Mrs. Underwood and 
myself. Truly yours, 

La SALLE, IIl., Nov. 7th, 1887. 
B. F. UNpERwoop, Esg., Chicago: 

My Dear Sir—\ should not delay any longer giv- 
ing some answer to your favor of the 28th ult., in 
duty to you; though I can make it but quite short 
now. The Anarchist question has occupied much of 
my attention, and the trial of my late gardener com- 
mences to-day. 

I have partially prepared a longer letter to you— 
the outcome of which is, that I have with regret to 
accept your and Mrs. Underwood’s resignation, as- 
suring you of my sincere interest in your further work. 

I will endeavor to free you from your work before 
the close of the year—I had thought that it might 
be possible that the number after the next one could 
be made the closing number of the present adminis- 
tration of the paper, but on account ofthe gardener’s 
trial I cannot say if Dr. Carus and I will be able to 
give time to the paper so soon. Of course your 
salary is to continue under all circumstances to the 
close of the year, leaving it to you how much help you 
will give me and Dr. Carus. With kind regards to 
you andMrs. Underwood, Yours truly, 

Epwarp C. HEGELER. 
Cuicaco, ILt., Nov. 19th, 1887. 

E. C. HEGELER, La Salle: 
Is the present management to continue beyond 
number 21? B. F. UNDERWOOD. 
La SALLE, Nov. Igth, 1887. 
B. F. UnDERWooD, Chicago: 
I was expecting and still desire to hear your 
wishes in the matter. E. C. HEGELER. 
Cuicaco, Nov. tgth, 1887. 
E. C. HEGELER, La Salle: 
Ready to be relieved after number 21. Can't get 
that out till late next week on account of strike. 
La SALLE, IIl., Nov. 19th, 1887. 
B. F. UNDERWOOD, Chicago: 
Message received. You may close with number 
21. E. C. HEGELER. 


CuicaGo, Nov. 22, 1887. 

E. C. HEGELER, Esgq.: 

Dear Sir—In reply to my letter of October 28, 
tendering my resignation with that of Mrs. Under- 
wood’s—for the reason that we were unwilling to 
accede to your proposition that Dr. Paul Carus be 
made associate editor—you wrote under date of 
November 17..... (Here follows copy of my let- 
ter, except passage relating to salary.) 

Since your letter left me in uncertainty as to wheth- 
er you would close the present management with the 
number after the next, 7. ¢., with No. 21. 1 naturally 
expect to hear more definitely from you in a few 
days. Having received no more definite word from 
you, last Saturday I telegraphed you, asking whether 
the present management was to continue after No. 
21. You replied, forgetting perhaps, that it was I 
who had been left in uncertainty, and who was wait- 
ing to hear from you. “I was expecting and still 
desire to hear your wishes in the matter.” 

I sent you a telegram in reply, saying that I was 
ready to be relieved after No. 21, but that the print- 
ers’ strike would prevent the issue of that number 
till the latter part of the next week. 

These facts I here state that you may see there 
was no neglect on my part in not writing you again 
about this matter, when I had not heard further 
from you. 

If you have decided, that No. 21 can, conven- 
iently to yourself, be made the closing number of 
the present administration of the paper, I will 
arrange accordingly. I shall be just as well satisfied 
with this as to have the change a fortnight later; at 
the same time recognizing my obligation, and assur- 
ing you of my willingness, if desired, to conduct the 
journal faithfully, according to contract to the time 
for which I am to receive salary. 

.... If desired, I can send you all the manu- 
scripts on hand, and you can send your copy direct to 
the printers, if you choose, and I will gather up the 
threads of the business so that I shall be able to 
turn over to you that department at the same time, 
or which will be better, probably, the first of the 
month—December I. Yours truly, 

B. F. UnpERwoop. 
( Translation.) 
La SALLE, Jan. 21st, 1887. 
Dr. Paut Carus, New York.: 

Dear Sir—By the kind sending of your poems 
through our mutual friend, Mr. Underwood, you have 
given me much pleasure. The poems have brought 
you much nearer tome. After I had already known 

youthrough your treatise “Monism and Meliorism,” to 
receive poems from you was quite unexpected by me. 


I should like much to have you nearer La Salle, 
in order to have your help and advice in the work 
on the new journal, and I have been thinking if 
not a suitable position could be found for you in this 
vicinity. I must also mention that recently Mr. 
Salter spoke of you as qualified to bring my religious- 
philosophical ideas into shape for publication. 

I do not know how you are situated at present; 
philosophical occupation alone would probably not 
fill your time satisfactorily; perhaps you would take 
charge of the education of older children. If so, 
there would be an opportunity for this here. You 
could also take charge of the correspondence with 
German scholars and writers which I shall wish to 
lead in the interest of the new journal. Also the 
translation of German articles into English would 
give occupation. 

Again, many thanks for your poems, also for your 
treatise “ Monism and Meliorism”’ which struck me 
very sympathetically, though I asa realist am but 
little acquainted with philosophic terms. I shall be 
glad to hear from you soon. 

Yours respectfully, 
Epwarp. C. HEGELER. 

New York, Jan. 24, 1887. 
E. C. HEGELER, Esg., La Salle, Illinois: 

Dear Sir—Y our favor of January 21, has just been 
received. In reply to it I would say that I am at 
present co-editor of Zickel’s Novellen-schatz and Famil- 
ten blatter. . . . 

In my present occupation I have had occasion to 
observe that the German periodicals contain 
immense treasures which are almost inaccessible to 
American readers. The large publishing houses in 
New York very freely appropriate much that 
appears in the English magazines—literary, as well 
as scientific. Butas a rule they pay little attention 
to the French and German periodicals, because, on 
the one hand, it involves the labor and expense of 
having articles translated into English, and on the 
other hand, scientific interests are too limited to 
insure great pecuinary results. 

It was my intention to establish a periodical to be 
called the ‘“ Transatlantic Review,’ which should 
contain a summary of the intellectual activity of 
Central Europe. I had already planned all details. 
Only the essential feature,—a publisher with the 
necessary capital, was lacking. When I consider 
that you are establishing a periodical which is to bear 
a decidedly scientific stamp, and which is to be 
devoted to the discussion of the subjects of highest 
import to mankind, it seems to me that we might 
combine our plans, and that you could assign to me 
a certain space of THE Open Court, to be called the 
Transatlantic Review. This should contain a sum- 


mary of the most important recent European 
publications, of inventions, discoveries, etc.; and in 
addition, a thorough review of the most prominent 
popular scientific journals of Europe, so that the 
reader might be spared a perusal of the original and 
still be thoroughly posted as regards current 
thought; and, finally, a translation of one or two 
articles of especial value and deserving general 

Of course, this plan could be modified according 
to necessity. I have no doubt but that, on the 
whole, Mr. Underwood will approve of it. . . . 

With such a department as a Transatlantic 
Review, THE Open Court, which, according to your 
plan, is to serve as a medium for the exchange of 
philosophical ideas in America, would also be the 
means of communicating information concerning the 
scientific work of Europe, and might thus form an 
important link between the Old and the New 

If I interpret your letter correctly, it contains an 
offer of a combined position,—partly as teacher, and 
partly as co-editor of THE Open Court, and corres- 
pondent in scientific matters. I would be very glad 
to have you make me a definite proposition. . . . 

With kind regards to Mr. and Mrs. Underwood, 
Yours, very respectfully, 

PAauL Carus. 

I am, 

La SALLE, Jan. 31, 1887. 
Dr. Paut Carus, New York: 

Dear Sir—Your favor of January 24, reached me 
on my return to La Salle. What you write has my 
full interest. To what you say in particular regard- 
ing THE Oren Court, I have to answer that Mr. and 
Mrs. Underwood are independent editors and man- 
agers of the same, though subject to such conditions 
as may be hereafter mutually agreed upon; still I 
wish to make the path of the editors as smooth as 
possible. ‘ 

* * * But what you wish to carry into effect, the 
transplanting of European (especially German) 
thought to America, is what I particularly desire. 
** * % Very respectfully yours, 

Epwarp C. HEGELER. 

I herewith close the evidence on my part—Dr. 
Carus has assumad the Editorship of THE OPEN 
Our aim is stated at the head of the Edi- 
EpwarbD C. HEGELER. 

torial department. 


In No. 1 of this journal I informed our readers that 
I consider as Gustav Freytag’s life-work the presen- 
tation of his definite view of immortality as expressed in 
the works of this leading author. 


In No. 15 of this journal, I gave more explicitly my 
view of the nature of our soul combining the ideas of 
Freytag with those of Hering, Ribot and Noiré, | 
added that living substance is able to reproduce speech 
mechanically in a similar way as the phonograph of 
Thomas Edison. It was a special satisfaction to me to 
find my position so much strengthened by Max Miiller’s 
lecture, “ The Identity of Language and Thought.” 

The present number of our journal contains the first 
part of a careful translation of that novel by Gustay 
Freytag, in which he most clearly describes the immor- 
tality of our soul in human posterity. 

Epwarp C. HEceEtrr, 



Since the founding of Tz Open Court Mr. Hegeler 
has fostered the idea of presenting to our readers Gustav 
Freytag’s novel, “ The Lost Manuscript.” Tur Oprn 
Court was not founded for the publication of novels; 
its immediate purpose is much more serious than to 
entertain with charming fiction. Gustav Freytag’s 
“ Lost Manuscript,” however, is a novel that in many 
respects answers the purpose of THE Open Court. 
Freytag has acquired a deep insight into the human soul, 
and he presents to his readers the modern psychology in 
the form of light novels. 

The monistic conception of the soul, was never pre- 
sented in a clearer and more popular manner than here. 
Whole volumes of psychological research are sometimes 
contained in a few pages. 

To the reader, the acquaintance with a character 
like that of Professor Werner, is like the acquaintance 
of a true, high-minded man whose conversation and 
mere idle talk frequently are more instructive than 
hundreds of books. 

In his Memoirs Freytag says, “ Although our judg- 
ment is at best but imperfect, we are accustomed to 
observe and to estimate how life moulds the character of 
a man and how it develops his talents. But it is much 
more difficult to understand the assistance and the limi- 
tations which a living man has received from his parents 
and ancestors; for the threads which connect his life and 
existence with the souls of past generations, are not 
always visible; and even where they can be traced, their 
strength cannot always be determined. But it is note- 
worthy that the power of their influence is not equally 
strong in every life,—sometimes it is formidable and 
overwhelming. It is fortunate that what we have 
inherited from a distant past, and what we have ourselves 
acquired, cannot always be distinguished by every ob- 
server. Our lives would be filled with anguish and care if 
we, as the descendents of former generations, were obliged 
constantly to take their blessing and their curse into con- 
sideration. On the other hand, it is pleasant to remem- 


ber that many successes of our lives became possible 
only through the qualities we inherited from our parents, 
and also through still older heirlooms which a more 
remote generation had prepared for us.” 

The grand connection, which links the individual 
soul of a man to the souls of others—to the present as 
well as to past and future generations, has been depicted 
magnificently in“ The Lost Manuscript.” The grandeur 
of the monistic view, and the religious depth of monistic 
psychology, become apparent even to those who have 
not yet or who have only imperfectly grasped the truth 
of Monism. 

The novel has not yet been presented to English 
readers, except in an inadequate translation by Mrs. 
Malcolm, often so literal as not to convey the meaning 
of the original. After a careful revision, and after a 
comparison with the original, especially of those parts 
which are of deeper and philosophical import, her trans- 
lation has been used, so far as it was acceptable. 


We call the attention of our readers to an odd but 
nevertheless very true dictum of Lichtenberg which is 
quoted by Prof. Preyer in his Matur—wissenschaftliche 
Thatsachen und Probleme. 

“ We become conscious of certain concepts or ideas 
which do not depend upon us, and of other ideas which 
as we suppose do depend upon us. But where is the 
limit between the former and the latter? We are aware 
of nothing but the existence of our sensations, percep- 
tions and ideas. We should say ‘It thinks’ just as well 
as we say ‘It lightens,’’ or ‘It rains.’ In saying cogito, 
the philosopher goes too far, if he translates it ‘7 think.’” 

The idea contained in this short passage must be 
digested, before we can hope to understand the process 
of thinking, for it is indeed the leading principle of 
modern psychology. Modern psychology looks upon 
consciousness not as a cause, but as an effect of many 
causes, Consciousness appears to be a simple and ele- 
mentary fact, but it is a very intricate and complex 
phenomenon, the ultimate constituents of which are our 
sensations, And even these sensations are not simple; 
they also in their turn are the effects of a wonderful 
complication of innumerable causes. 

We imagine we think. But thoughts arise in us 
according to irrefragable laws. We do not produce 
ideas, but ideas produced in the cerebral processes of a 
brain become conscious, and thus they produce ws. P. Cc. 


That Browning has, I must confess, 
A depth and magnitude; 

But less would be his fame, I guess, 
If he were understood. 




A touch—how delicate is his! 
His humor so refined 
Its finer shadings those shall miss 
Who, seeing, yet are blind. 


What pathos and sublimity ; 
What mystic woe and pain; 

What hopes forlorn and misery 
Make up thy sad refrain! 


They gather, in their simple songs, 
Many a common prize 

Unhidden from the thoughtful throngs; 
In this their greatness lies. 


One day two learned men, who had studied nature 
all their lives, and who had spent every day examining 
animals of all kinds, and knew how to talk about each 
one, sat together discussing beasts and worms, fishes and 
birds, and all species of plants and trees, from the cedar of 
Lebanon to the hyssop that grows on the wall. Both 
were pleased, and complimented each other. 

At length, they began to talk about the characteris- 
tics and habits of cats. Then they disagreed, and alively 
dispute ensued. For one of them said: “The cat is the 
most malicious and noisome animal, false and mischiev- 
ous, a tiger in disposition as well as in appearance, 
though fortunately not in size and strength, for which 
last-named fact we cannot thank and praise Heaven 

But the other said: ‘The cat may be compared to 
the lion; for, besides resembling him in appearance, she 
is like him noble and generous; she is cleanly and gentle, 
and therefore naturally at enmity with the dirty and 
intrusive dog. In short, she is the most useful animal, for 
which man cannot thank and praise Heaven enough.” 

Then the other flew into a passion, for he was fond 
of dogs and referred to the dogs of Ulysses, Tobit and 
Frederick the Great. 

But the other confuted his argument by alluding to 
the cats of Leibnitz, the great Philosopher, who had done 
so much to enlighten the world and to exalt others in 
wisdom and knowledge. 

Without coming to any agreement, they parted at 
enmity with each other. The one went home to his 
aviary; for he kept living birds, some of which the cats 
had eaten. The other went to his museum of stuffed 
birds and animals, which, to his great vexation, the mice 
were destroying. Such are the judgments of passion 
and egotism. 




Bret Harte, one of the profoundest psychologists 
among modern soul-painters, relates in his realistic man- 
ner, in the little tragic idyl entitled “The Luck of 
Roaring Camp,” how the birth and early rearing of 
an orphaned infant suddenly converts a set of row- 
dies and criminals into most tender and solicitous adop- 
tive fathers. These men, who have been ostracised by 
the community, and who revel in gambling, rioting and 
ruffanism, such as can only be found in such a God- 
forsaken mining camp, now harbor only the one thought 
of insuring the happiness of their “ Luck” (thus they 
have significantly christened their little legacy) by the 
toil of their hands. 

Not quite so forcibly, but in the same genial manner, 
the American poet has illustrated the paradox “How 
the old are educated by the young,” in several chapters 
of his novel Gabriel Conroy. By his love for children, 
the hero of this book is imbued with the spirit of self- 
sacrifice; and again Surgeon, Duchesne cures an unmar- 
ried actor, whose nervous system has been prostrated by 
his arduous profession, by his intercourse with children. 

“ T haven’t seen you stop and talk to a child for a 
month,” says this practical physician to the professional 
actor, Jack Hamlin. “I’ve a devilish good mind to send 
you to a foundling hospital, for the good of the babies 
and yourself. Find out some poor ranchero with a 
dozen children, and teach ’em singing. Come! Do as 
I say, and [ll stop that weariness, dissipate that giddi- 
ness, get rid of that pain, lower that pulse, and put you 
back where you were.” 

These views of a great soul interpreter give me 
courage to express an opinion which I have always 
entertained, — namely, that every child requites much 
of the love bestowed upon it by the parents, by making 
them better and more perfect beings than they were 
before its advent into the family. In fact, the highest 
polish, the finishing touches of education, are given peo- 
pie neither by home, school, nor church, but by their 
own children. 
have any, they will experience difficulties in replacing 
this lacking factor in the education of their affections. 

Let us take, for example, a young man who has 

Should they be so unfortunate as not to 

enjoyed excellent home-training and all the advantages 
of a school and university education. He enters upon 
life, and, as the poets say, nothing but the influence of 
love is lacking to perfect him. At the peril of exposing 
myself to the charge of heresy in poetical matters, I 
would say, that, according to my observation, success in 
love-affairs, far from perfecting, induces wantonness, 
vulgarity, and even indifference and insensibility to the 

sufferings arising therefrom. For, considering our 

* Translated from a volume of essays, Die Krone der Schopfung, by Carus 


social conditions, is the universal practice of trifling 
with the affections of innocent maidens, in which the 
vipers of our civilization, the libertines, daily indulge, not 
to be denounced as the acme of wickedness? These 
young men are so refined and so tender-hearted as to 
avoid crushing a worm; yet, under the mask of love and 
affection, they do not scruple to render one of their 
fellow-beings miserable for life. In eighty cases out of 
a hundred they do not even feel themselves obliged to 
repair the injury. ; 

Evidently sexual love, Jer se, does not exercise an 
ennobling influence on the mind; on the contrary, it 
hardens the disposition, engenders cruelty, and begets a 
desire for destruction, asothers besides the so-called Don 
Juans have already demonstrated. Only when a firm 
union, demanding reciprocal surrender and self-sacrifice, 
results from sexual love is it likely to be productive of 
good. Even then this bond is scarcely assured, unless off- 
spring furnish a living security. In childless wedlock the 
enthusiasm of self-sacrifice does not always last. But no 
sooner do the mediators appear on the scene than liber- 
tines become men in a nobler sense, who detest the 
evils of celibacy, and who will not be apt to palliate the 
wrongs of which they themselves have been guilty. 

Wherein does the wonderful power of an infant lie? 
Plainly more in its weakness and helplessness than in its 
appearance, which more often resembles a boiled lobster 
than a human being. The physical necessity of ridding 
herself of the excess of nutriment may contribute much 
toward making the little consumer a welcome guest to 
the mother. At all events, the parents are fascinated 
more by the anticipation of future happiness than by 
any personal charms of the little stranger. Beasts of 
prey not infrequently devour their first litter, but scarcely 
from love. When, however, these little beings have 
outgrown their first helpless state and give the first 
signs of awakening intelligence—when the first smiles 
have been half forced from them—they display an 
amiability and charming playfulness which quite fascin- 
ate their parents. The delighted mother can now practi- 
cally apply to the living toy all the knowledge derived 
from her girlish experiences with her dolls. This is the 
beginning of a life of the most unselfish devotion. The 
father (who does not stand in such close relations to the 
child) is unconsciously drawn into this magic circle by 
his instincts as well as by other circumstances. Chiefly 
it is the halo surrounding the young mother, the indes- 
cribable expression of blissful exhaustion. Rubens, in 
the cycle of pictures illustrating the life of Maria de’ 
Medicis, and also Jordan, in a genre picture of the 
Zuyder Zee, have given to this the most perfect artistic 
expression. It is this condition which produces that 
mental attitude by which the baby, from being his 
father’s rival, becomes his tyrant and absolute master of 
the household. 

Herewith begins the religious education of mankind, 
which is far more effective than that imparted by the 
catechism and the pulpit. Out of this parental and filial 
love there develops, even in immature minds, a universal 
love for humanity. The infant becomes the Saviour— 
the earthly father becomes the prototype of the all-wise, 
all-bountiful Father in heaven. 

The early endeavor to elevate the mother into the 
realm of the divine is a deeply-felt and psychologically 
well-justified factor,in the development of Christian 
dogma. Itwasthus that the mother with the infant on her 
lap was made the chief picture at the shrines. The“ Holy 
Family,” so typically portrayed by Raphael, wins all 
hearts, even at this day, in Protestant countries, as was 
very plainly demonstrated at an art exhibition in Berlin 
during the last decade. Knaus, whose genius was a 
happy combination of Correggio and Murillo, with a 
sprinkling of Rembrandt, exhibited a 
surrounded by the forms of winged and wingless chil- 
dren, which deservedly delighted. also those who only 
have sentiment instead of artistic taste. Beyond doubt, 
the “ Holy Family ” deserves the place of honor at the 
altar, for it justly makes the nursery the sanctuary which 
produces and constantly feeds the pure flame of love of 
man and of God. 

Almost all the religious doctrines which add to our 
happiness—or, rather, which support us in misfortune 

-the belief in immortality, in resurrection and a re-union 
after death, have their origin in family life, and the 
family has its origin in offspring. 

These reflections conclusively prove the great 
advance made in civilization by monogamy. For it per- 
mits the male sex to share the ennobling influence exerted 
by the education of children. Society is therefore fully 
justified in antagonizing the doctrine of so-called free- 
love, which has found such enthusiastic disciples in the 
United States, 

The blessings of monogamy are so great that I 
should not question the propriety of legislation for 
imposing a special tax upon bachelordom, such as some 
of the Roman emperors formerly levied upon obesity. 

What place, it may be asked, have these sentimental 
considerations in the writings of an advocate of the Dar- 
winian theory? Perhaps more than is at first apparent. 
It seems to me that the animal egotism in man which 
threatens to overstep all bounds, exhibits a certain centri- 
fugal tendency, and that this tendency would increase 
infinitely, were it not for a counteracting centripetal 
force, which awakens man to the necessity of voluntarily 
adjusting himself to his environment. 


In all viviparus 

and oviparus animals we see examples of this ennobling 
intercourse with their young. For instance, the domes- 
tic cat, usually decried on account of its egoism, when 
suckling her own litter will frequently also nurse the 
young of other animals, such as foxes, rabbits, hares, and 



even young rats and mice, which at other times she so 
relentlessly pursues. When suckling its young, that 
most ferocious beast of prey, the tigress, is transformed 
into a harmless, playful creature, capable of the utmost 
self-sacrifice. To be sure, there is nothing more droll 
than young animals of all kinds. The cunning pranks 
of young animals make even the most hideous ones ap- 
pear fascinating to us. 

And, in spite of whatever antipathy we may usually 
harbor toward them, the mothers also win our admira- 
tion, when we become witnesses of their self-sacrifice. 
We see the mothers tear hairs and feathers out of their 
breast in order to prepare soft and warm beds for their 
young. The viviparus scorpion, which surely is not 
credited with any very tender impulses, according to 
some accounts, permits its numerous young ones to drain 
it of its vital humors; and it visibly decreases in size in 
the midst of its rapidly growing progeny. Likewise, 
the pelican, which was supposed to feed its young with 
its heart’s blood, was selected as the symbol of Divine 
Love. We cannot but find it natural that female beasts 
of prey should courageously defend their young, even 
against attacks of the males; on the other hand, we can- 
not but be astonished at the heroism displayed by shy 
and domestic animals in the protection of their young. 
As soon as the danger has been averted, the heroic 
mother is again a child among children—she plays with 
them just as one plays with dolls. And so a child is the 
toy of toys that softens the most callous hearts and 
makes children of old people who already stand on the 

brink of eternity. 
(To be concluded.) 



To the Editor: 

I regard THe OPEN Court as the best philosophical journal 
in America, but would be better pleased (as, I presume, the major- 
ity of your readers would also) to see more discussion of social 
and economic problems in its columns. “ Wheelbarrow’s” arti- 
cles are pleasing, but, I fear, sadly wanting in many instances of 
seeing things in the light they present themselves to me. 

He condemns trade-unions because they monopolize the 
trades and restrict apprenticeship. I grant this; but in the pres- 
ent social condition there is no other way in which competition 
can be restricted. It is, at its best, purely and simply monopoly. 
Where there is no attempt at social regulation, the only natural 
remedy for monopoly is counter-monopoly and codperation. 
When skilled workmen combine to prevent competition, it is 
merely “a typical illustration of the manner in which intelligence 
ever seeks the protection of its own interests regardless of the 
interests of others.” There is no use in bewailing the “beneficent 
law of mutual assistance” when we consider that all men will 
“under all circumstances seek their; greatest gain,” and to do 
this they must pool their interests the same as monopolists. To 
all men the more wages they secure for their) labor means more 
enjoyment, more happiness. And the inequality of the distribu- 
tion of wealth will be so until the intelligence of the producer is 


equal to that of the non-producer, or until the altruistic functions 
have become so enlarged as to make the amount of pain in seeing 
our fellows in distress greater than the amount of pleasure derived 
from articles of enjoyment they have created, and which have 
been secured by mental aggrandizement. 

““Wheelbarrow” says: ‘The companies monopolize the 
profit of telegraphing ; the operators monopolize the art.” Monop- 
olizing the art is only a means employed by intelligent workmen 
to create an artificial adjustment of natural tendencies. The fun- 
damental principle is to force from the employer a greater wage 
than ifthe workmen worked in severalty and competition reduced 
wages to the lowest point that workmen would consent to live on, 

Skilled workmen are, for the most part, relatively more 
intelligent than unskilled workmen; and it is from this fact that 
they suppress competition. Competition is the enemy of codper- 
ation, and always will be; and it is on that ground that trade- 
unions restrict apprentices. But there is not always an unreason- 
able restriction. The most conservative and intelligent trade 
organization in America is the International Typographical Union 
and it restricts apprentices to one to every five journeymen, 
This is not an unreasonable restriction, 

As to the “dignity of labor,” that is simply a matter of intel. 
ligence, and will be so “as long as capital and labor remain the 
respective symbols of intelligence and ignorance.” The whole 
foundation of the inequality of the distribution of wealth is merely 
one of relative ignorance and relatrve intelligence. This is caused 
by the inequality of the distribution of knowledge. ‘“ Wheelbar- 
row ” says, truly, “we must all work together”; but dow? This 
is the rub. It is the distinction between science and art. We all 
understand that it is to the interest of producers tocombine. We 
have that knowledge; but do we know how to apply that knowl- 
edge? We must have a knowledge of ways as well as things 
Lester F. Ward says: ‘To do depends upon knowing, but in order 
to do men must know how.” 

The capitalists have been eminently successful in receiving a 
greater proportion of wealth than they are justly entitled to, because 
they knew how. ‘The capitalists have bent the inferior intelligence 
of the laborer-service because they are more intelligent, not because 
they have a greater intellectual capacity. Thisis the greatest evil 
under which society labors. “This is because it places it in the 
power of a small number,” says Lester F. Ward, “having no 
greater intellectual capacity, and no natural right or title, to seek 
their happiness at the expense of a large number. The large 
number, deprived of the means of intelligence, though born with a 
capacity for it, are really compelled by the small number, through 
the exercise of a superior intelligence, to serve them without com- 
pensation.”—(Dynamic Socioiogy, Vol. I1., p. 602.) This is the 
ultimate analysis of the unequal distribution of wealth. For itis 
not the idler but the toiler, the real producer of wealth, who has 
none; while the man who has wealth is often the man of leisure 
—enjoying wealth he never toiled to create. The toiler occupies 
his position in consequence of his vedafive intelligence, while the 
idler occupies his in consequence of his relative intelligence. 
When we consider this, we can conceive the scope of that great 
truth—* Knowledge is power.” “To prevent inequality of advan- 
tages there must be equality of power, equality of knowledge.” 

Of the thousand arts and subtle ways used by capitalists, the 
most subtle is the art of making acts appear bad and criminal 
when done by the laboring class, and proper when done by the 
employing class. They obscure their identity by different names 
and make them appear different things. To illustrate, let us take 
the case of codperation. Mr. Ward says: ‘‘ Owing to the inherent 
character of the social forces as exemplified throughout the work- 
ings of nature and of human nature, one of the means of increas- 
ing power to secure desired ends * * * was the union of 
many individuals for the joint accompiishment of a common 


object, which intelligence taught them could not be accomplished 
by action in severalty.”—(Dynamic Sociology, Vol. I1., p. 603.) 
This the basis of society, government, trade-unions, and of all the 
great industrial and commercial enterprises of the world. It is a 
true principle, as in no other way could any great results be 
achieved. The consequence has been that the intelligent class 
codperate, and by means of codperation become capitalists and 
employers; while the ignorant class work individually and inde- 
pendent, and have been and are compelled to turn over to the 
capitalists the greater part of the value they have created without 
an equivalent. 

In modern times capitalists maintain their hold upon the 
fruits of the toilers’ labor by preventing them from knowing their 
own interests. This is chiefly done by establishing influential 
organs and moulding public opinion. The laboring classes have 
few avenues of communication, and perhaps cannot use them. 
Those of the laboring classes who can read at all read the organs 
of the capitalists, and not being sufficiently intelligent to penetrate 
their sophisms, they hear only one side of the question, and gen- 
erally acquiesce in the views of capitalistic organs. So much has 
this perversion been carried on in this century that Thomas Jef- 
ferson said, in 1807: “ Nothing can now be believed which is seen 
in anewspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put in 
that polluted vehicle. * * * The man who never looks into a 
newspaper is better informed than he who reads them.” 

Codperation on the part of capitalists does not go by that 
name; it is simply recognized as the only way to do business. 
Any attempt on the part of the laboring classes, however, to 
codperate is called a crime against society! As our government 
and society coJperate on the same basis as monopolists, and care 
not for other governments or other lower societies, on the basis 
that it is a monopoly, “ Wheelbarrow” might try to abolish them. 
We must expect selfishness, and not much altruism, in the eco- 
nomic and social spheres. But that selfishness which can see its 
own interests by superior intelligence, and seeks to unite together 
all who labor for its own interests, is a great blessing to the com- 
munity. For every toiler to see his own interests we must have 
universal education. Education is the salvation of society. 

Harry C. Lona. 


To the Editor: CuicaGo, Dec. g, 1887. 

Appreciating your kindness in submitting Mr. Long’s criti- 
cism to me for any remarks upon it that I might care to make, I 
will notice a few points in his argument. Much of what he says 
must go unanswered, because it is too intricate, involved, and 
metaphysical for me. It is, no doubt, all right enough according 
to the principles of Dynamic Sociology, but as I have not the 
least idea what Dynamic Sociology is, I can only reply to so much 
of Mr. Long’s criticism as is within my sphere of knowledge. 
Mr. Long says, ‘“‘ Wheelbarrow’s articles are pleasing, but I fear 
sadly wanting, in many instances, of seeing things in the light they 
present themselvesto me.” There is a modest self-denial in that 
“fear” which reminds me of an old friend, who, whenever he 
dissented in conversation, used to say to the other man, “ Now, 
there’s where you and I differ, which, ‘I fear,’ puts you prima 
facie in the wrong.” 

Mr. Long defends the monopoly features of the trades unions, 
and the rules by which they limit the number of apprentices in 
the various trades. According to him the ethics of trades unions 
is pure selfishness and the right of tyranny; the duty of the 
“skilled” to prohibit learning. According to him the golden rule 
is, “ Do others, for they would do you.” Here is a curious distor- 

tion of moral doctrine: “When skilled workmen combine to pre- 
vent competition, it is merely a typical illustration of the manner 
in which intelligence ever seeks the protection of its own interests 


regardless of the interests of others.” This is so obviously incor- 
rect that at first I thought “intelligence” was a misprint for 
“ ignorance,” but on reading further I found that it was not. True, 
there is a grade of intelligence allied to animal cunning which 
does “seek the protection of its own interests regardless of the 
interests of others,” but this is not the intelligence of civilized man. 

Mr. Long confesses that trades unions restrict apprentices, 
but, he says, “there is not always an unreasonable restriction. 
The most conservative and intelligent trade organization in Amer- 
ica is the International Typographical Union, and it restricts 
apprentices to one to every five journeymen. This is not an 
unreasonable restriction.” A little moral intelligence would show 
the International Typographical Union that any restriction what- 
ever is not only unreasonable but barbarous. The Typographical 
Union has no more right to withhold from any boy the art of earn- 
ing bread than it has to cut off his finger and thus disable him 
from setting type. If that is the most intelligent trade organiza- 
tion in America, what must the others be? 

When the bookkeepers form themselves into a “ union,” they 
will require that only one boy to five bookkeepers shall be allowed 
to learn arithmetic. Their restriction will be quite as “ intelli- 
gent” as that of the Typographical Union. It will not be any 
more “unreasonable.” I have said before, and I repeat it here, 
that the men who would enslave others easily become slaves. This 
has been demonstrated in Chicago within the present week, and, 
curiously too, by the Typographical Union. The working print- 
ers “struck,” and the masters combined against them, After 
being “out” some time the printers yielded, and offered to go 
back to work, but the masters refused to take them back unless 
they “signed the document,” the “iron-clad ” surrender of their 
freedom. In imposing this condition the masters subjected their 
workmen to a shocking degradation. Their act was an act of des- 
potism only equalled by that other intolerance which forbids an 
honest boy to learn an honest trade. The masters offer as an excuse 
for their tyranny that they must either subjugate their workmen 
or be subjugated by them. A very small allowance of “ intelli- 
gence” would show both parties that this alternative is not nec- 
essary. But it must be that kind of intelligence which knows 
justice when it sees it, and which amounts to a moral perception 
strong enough to see that freedom to oppress others is not liberty. 

The rest of Mr. Long’s criticism appears to be aimed at some- 
thing up in the air, with which I have nothing to do. It is some- 
thing “on the wing,” for the aim is wandering and unsteady. It 
may be Dynamic Sociology of the most orthodox quality, for 
aught I know, but the argument is difficult and obscure ; while some 
of the sentences appear to be destitute of meaning, so that I can- 
not tell whether I agree with the writer or not; especially as they 
seem to have but a “relative” reference to anything I wrote. For 
example, this: “As to the ‘dignity of labor,’ that is simply a 
matter of intelligence, and will be so as long as capital and labor 
remain the respective symbols of intelligence and ignorance. The 
whole foundation of the inequality of the distribution of wealth 
is merely one of relative ignorance and relative intelligence. 
This is caused by the inequality of the distribution of knowledge.” 
That reads liké a rhetorical involution from the ponderous wis- 
dom of Jack Bunsby. Whether it means anything or not, it has 
no application to the argument, and therefore I am not called 
upon to answer it. Yours, 


On parent knees, a naked new-born child, 

Weeping thou sat’st, while all around thee smiled; 
So live, that, sinking in thy last long sleep, 

Calm thou may’st smile, while all around thee weep. 
-Sir Jones: from the Persian. 


D. Appleton & Co., 

Our Herepity From Gop.—E. P. Powell. 

New York. 

Mr. Powell’s book is attracting wide and deserved attention 
and is destined, we think, to make a place for itself next in rank 
to the works of John Fiske, as a popular, but careful and intelli- 
gent exposition of the evolution philosophy. It is, however, 
something more than a summary of Spencer; in fact is not a sum- 
mary at all, but rather the original and patiently wrought result 
of a mind working in the field of scientific philosophy, but work- 
ing always after its own individual methods, with perfect fearless- 
ness, and a frank determination to accept nothing but the truth. 
This mental independence is observed on every page, and occa- 
sionally over-reaches itself, as a man bent on preserving a per- 
fectly erect position, will sometimes tip a little backwards. Mr. 
Powell is a convert from evangelical christianity to scientific 
rationalism. His passage from one to the other was a painful one 
and signs of mental conflict appear throughout his book, especially 
n the emphatic—sometimes impatient—opposition which he shows, 
towards the older forms of faith, and which has led some of the 
critics, we think not unjustly, to accuse him of whipping a man 
of straw. With exception of this not-very-important criticism, we 
have only words of praise and welcome for Mr. Powell’s book. It 
is a work which will serve the needs both of the advanced student 
in evolution and the beginner. The first will find in it aclear and 
succinct review of principles he is already familiar with, together 
with an admirable summing up of the ethical and religious aspects 
of the questions dealt with, while the younger student will be 
equally profited by the general scheme of the book, which aims to 
present the reader with a clear outline of the leading principles of 
the Synthetic philosophy. The book speaks for itself in the table 
of contents. It is divided into three parts. The first sums up 
“the leading arguments in favor of evolution, as accounting for 
structural variety and explaining the actual condition of living 
creatures.” This part consists of eight lectures on such topics as 
“The Unity of Nature,” with three lectures following, dealing 
with the arguments from geography, geology and anatomy.—One 
of the most interesting of the succeeding chapters in this portion 
of the book is that on “The Power of Mimicry.” Speaking of the 
power of some of the lower forms of life to defend themselves 
against harmful attack by assuming a likeness to their surround- 
ings which enables them to escape observation, as the plum 
curculio rolls itself up into the shape of a dry bud and falls to the 
ground. Mr. Powell says that “Nature is charged everywhere 

Prvith the idea of escape and self-preservation,”—and man’s desire 
for salvation is an instinct fairly inherited from life’s lowest forms: 
“Among lower creatures, those that least assimilate to environ- 
ments are destroyed—but with moral beings the assimilation re- 
quired is that of character. He is most safe who becomes most 
like the Supreme Good.” In the concluding chapter of Part 1, on 
“Degeneration” we are shown how evolution is “a struggle that 
in many cases involves failure, in some, success; but in long 
reaches of time establishes a steadily increasing increment of 
gain.” Part II is employed in showing “the commonality of life 
between all creatures,” and Part III follows evolution after 
man is reached, tracing the “rise of intelligence and morals out of 
and above all preceding development, until we reach the great 
questions of God and immortality.” Mr. Powell is a believer in 
both, though in respect to the first his views partake of a fine 
abstract theism which prefers to dissociate itself from all formal 
religious exercise. Mr. Powell bases his belief in continued 
existence after death on the principle that with the appearance of 
man a new factor is introduced into evolution. The creation of 
man was not an accidental circumstance, but stands rather as the 
crowning moral event in the universe. His annihilation would 


render the entire system of things meaningless, and a cruel satire. 
Mr. Powell deprecates as much as anyone the false ideas of 
human profit and recompense attaching to the old idea of immor- 
tality, which has done more harm than good; yet having become 
a part of the world’s “moral causation,” man has demonstrated his 
right to final preservation. “If man has attained a possible 
eternal ought toward God, has not God the same ought in his 
relation toman?” Space does not permit us to give Mr. Powell’s 
argument in its full force and meaning, but enough has been 
given to indicate its general nature and direction. To us it is at 
once the most striking and persuasive presentation of the question 
we have ever read; and the chapter which deals with this difficult 
but enticing subject, full of snares and pitfalls to the unwary, isa 
fitting conclusion to a work, strong, healthful, and inspiring 
throughout. Cc. P. W. 

Tue Eruicat Import oF DARWINISM. By ¥. G. Schurman, 
Professor of Philosophy in Cornell University. 

As is so frequently the case, the adherents of a new theory 
endeavor to give it the very broadest application, until it almost 
vanishes in a misty universality. A similar fate has befallen the 
doctrine of evolution, which now is, as our author says, “a mixture 
of science and speculation, of fact and fancy.” 

In this exceedingly interesting and readable book, Professor 
Schurman endeavors to distinguish between science and specula- 
tion in the application of Darwinism to morals, In the first 
chapter an attempt is made to determine under what conditions 
alone ethics can become ascience. The second chapter is devoted 
to an exposition of the Darwinian theory and the general doctrine 
of evolution. Then follow chapters on the ethical bearing of 
Darwinism. In the rest of the book the conclusion is reached 
that a scientific study of ethics can be constructed only by adopting 
the historical method. 

This book, written in such a delightful and admirably clear style 
is the very best proof of Professor Schurman’s belief “that there 
is no theory, or criticism, or system (not even Kant’s or Hegel’s) 
that cannot be clearly expressed in a language which in Locke’s 
hands was strong and homely, in Berkeley’s rich and subtle, in 
Hume’s easy, graceful, and finished, and in all three alike plain, 
transparent, and unmistakable.” 

The Revue de Belgique for November contains, besides other 
valuable articles, an interesting essay, “ Monsieur Moi,” translated 
from the Italian by Salvatore Farina. Another essay, which 
merited more attention than we could devote to it, is the one by 
Aug. Gittée, entitled “La Rime d’Enfant,.” It seems to be full of 
fine thought and pretty examples of the poetry of the nursery; 
those in the Flemish and Walloon dialects have an additional 
philological value. 

“Seldom has a magazine met with such immediate and pro- 
nounced success as Scribner's, which has just completed its first 
year. The illustrations have steadily improved, and the publishers 
promise that during 1888 they will be better than ever. The 
series of papers which Robert Louis Stevenson will contribute 
during the coming year will, nodoubt, do much toward increasing 
the circulation of this already very popular magazine. 

The Century Magazine for December prints how a very 
timely article “The Sea of Galilee,” by Edward L. Wilson. The 
chapter in the Lincoln biography by Nicolay and Hay treats of 
Lincoln’s Inauguration. Those readers who take an intelligent 
interest in the affairs of Russia will be pleased with George Ken- 
nan’s essay, Prison Life of the Russian Revolutionists. 

In this wild world the Sondest ond thes best 
Are the most tried, most troubled and distressed. 




In the outskirts of a German university town loom 
up in the evening dusk two stately houses, in which 
dwell two landlords who are tax-payers and active 
workers. At night they cover with warm blankets; 
they are worthy men, but have their whims; and they 
estimate the value of the moon exactly in proportion 
to the amount of gas saved by her light. 

A lamp, placed close to the window, shines from 
one of the upper rooms in the house on the left hand. 
Here lives Professor Felix Werner, a learned philolo- 
gist, still a young man who has already earned a reputa- 
tion. He sits at his study table and examines old, faded 
manuscripts—an attractive looking man of medium size, 
with dark, curly hair falling over a massive head; there 
is nothing paltry about him. Clear, honest eyes shine 
from under the dark eyebrows; the nose is slightly 
arched; the muscles of the mouth are strongly devel- 
oped, as may be expected of the popular teacher of young 
students. Just now a soft smile spreads over it, and his 

cheeks redden either from his work or from inward 

The Professor suddenly left his work and paced 
restlessly up and down his room. He then approached 
a window which looked out on the neighboring house, 
placed two large books on the window sill, laid a small 
one upon them, and thus produced a figure which resem- 
bleda Greek +, and which, from the light shining behind 
became visible to the eye in the house opposite. After 
he had arranged this signal, he hastened back to the 
table and again bent over his book. 

The servant entered gently to remove the supper, 
which had been placed on a side table. Finding the 
food untouched, he looked with displeasure at the Pro- 
fessor, and for a long while remained standing behind the 
vacant chair. At length, assuming a military attitude, 
he said, “ Professor, you have forgotten your supper.” 

«“ Clear the table, Gabriel,” said the Professor. 

Gabriel showed no disposition to move. “ Pro- 
fessor, you should at least eat a bit of cold meat. Noth- 
ing can come of nothing,” he added, kindly. 

“It is not right that you should come in and dis- 
turb me.” ; 

Gabriel took the plate and carried it to his master. 
“ Pray, Professor, take at least a few mouthfuls.” 

«“ Give it to me then,” said he, and began to eat. 

Gabriel made use of the time during which his 
master unavoidably paused in his intellectual occupation, 
to make a respectful admonition. “My late Captain 
thought much of a good supper.” 

« But now you have changed into the civil service,” 
answered the Professor, laughing. 


«It is not right,” continued Gabriel, pertinaciously, 
«that I should eat the roast that I bring for you.” 

«T hope you are now satisfied,” answered the Pro- 
fessor, pushing the plate back to him. 

Gabriel shrugged hisshoulders. “ You have at least 
done your best. The Doctor was not at home.” 

“So I perceive. See to it that the front-door 
remains open.” 

Gabriel turned about and went away with the plate. 

The scholar was again alone. The golden light of 
the lamp fell on his countenance and on the books 
which lay around him; the white pages rustled under 
his hand; and his features worked with strong excite- 

There was a knock at the door; the expected visitor 

“Good evening, Fritz,” said the Professor to his 
visitor; “sit in my chair, and look here.” 

The guest, a man of slender form, with delicate 
features, and wearing spectacles, obeying, seated himself, 
and seized a little book which lay in the middle of a 
number of open volumes of every age and size. With 
the eye of a connoisseur he examined first the cover— 
discolored parchment, upon which was written old 
church hymns with the accompanying music. He cast 
a searching glance on the inside of the binding, and 
inspected the strips of parchment by which the poorly- 
preserved back of the book was joined to the cover. He 
then examined the first page of the contents, on which, 
in faded characters, was written, “ The Life of the Holy 
Hildegard.” “The handwriting is that of a writer of 
the fifteenth century,” he exclaimed, and looked inquir- 
ingly at his friend. 

“It is not on that account that I show you the old 
book. Look further. The Life is followed by prayers, 
a number of recipes and household regulations, written 
in various hands, even before the time of Luther. I 
had bought this manuscript for you, thinking you might 
perhaps find material for your legends and popular 
superstitions. But on looking through it, I met with 
the following passage on one of the last pages, and I 
cannot yet part with the book. It seems that the book 
has been used in a monastery by many generations to 
note down memoranda, for on this page there is a cata- 
logue of all the church treasures of the Monastery Ros- 
sau. It was a poverty-stricken monastery; the inven- 
tory is either small or incomplete. It was made by an 
ignorant monk, and, as the writing testifies, about the 
year 1500. See, here are entered church utensils and 
a few ecclesiastical dresses; and further on some theo- 
logical manuscripts of the monastery, of no importance 
to us, but amongst them the following title: ‘Das alt 
ungehiir puoch von ussfahri des swigers.” 

The Doctor examined the words with curiosity. 
“ That sounds like the title of a tale of chivalry. And 

what do the words themselves mean? ‘The old, 
immense book of the exit or departure of the swiger,” 

Does swiger here mean son-in-law or a tacit man?” 

“ Let us try to solve the riddle,” continued the Pro- 
fessor, with sparkling eyes, pointing with his finger to 
the same page. “A later hand has added in Latin, 
‘ This book is Latin, almost illegible; it begins with the 
words dacrimas et signa, and ends with the words—here 
concludes the history —actorum—thirtieth book.’ Now 

The Doctor looked at the excited features of his 
friend. “ Donot keep mein suspense. The first words 
sound very promising, but they are not a title; some 
pages in the beginning may be deficient.” 

“Just so,” answered the Professor, with satisfaction. 
“We may assume that one or two pages are missing. 
In the fifth chapter of the Annals Tacitus there are 
the words /acrimas et signa.” 

The Doctor sprang up, and a flush of joy overspread 
his face. 

“Sit down,” continued the Professor, forcing his 
friend back into the chair. “The old title of the Annals 
of Tacitus, when translated, appears literally ‘ Tacitus, 
beginning with the death of the divine Augustus.’ 
Well, an ignorant monk deciphered perhaps the first 

Latin words of the title, ‘ Zaczt7? ad excessu,’ and endeav- 
ored to translate it into German; he was pleased to 

know that ¢acitus meant schweigsam (silent), but had 
never heard of the Roman historian, and rendered it in 
these words, literally, as‘ From the exit of the tacit 

“Excellent!” exclaimed the Doctor. “And the 
monk, delighted with the successful translation, wrote 
the title on the manuscript? Glorious! the manuscript 
was a Tacitus.” 

“ Hear further,” proceeded the Professor. “In the 
third and fourth century A. D., both the great works of 
Tacitus, the ‘Annals’ and ‘ History,’ were united in a 
collection under the title, ‘Thirty Books of History.’ 
For this we have other ancient testimony. Look here!” 

The Professor found well-known passages, and 
placed them before his friend. “And, again, at the 
end of the manuscript record there were these words: 
‘Here ends the Thirtieth Book of the History.’ There 
remains, therefore, no doubt that this manuscript was a 
Tacitus. And looking at the thing as a whole, the 
following appears to have been the case: At the time 
of the Reformation there was a manuscript of Tacitus 
in the Monastery of Rossau, the beginning of which 
was missing. It was old and injured by time, and almost 
illegible to the eyes of the monks.” 

“There must have been something peculiar attaching 
to the book,” interrupted the Doctor, “for the monk 
designates it by the expression, ‘Ungeheuer, which 
conveys the meaning of extraordinary.” 


“Tt is true,” agreed the Professor. “We may assume 
that some monastic tradition which has attached to the 
book, or an old prohibition to read it, or, more probably, 
the unusual aspect of its cover, or its size, has given rise 
to this expression. The manuscript contains both the 
historical works of Tacitus, the books of which were 
numbered continuously. And we,” he added, in his 
excitement throwing the book which he held in his hand 
on the table, “we no longer possess this manuscript. 
Neither of the historical works of the great Roman 
have been preserved in its entirety; for the sum of all the 
gaps would fully equal one-half of what has come down 
to us.” 

The Professor’s friend paced the room hurriedly. 
«This is one of the discoveries that quicken the blood in 
one’s veins. Gone and lost forever! It is exasperating 
to think how nearly such a precious treasure of antiquity 
was preserved to us. It has escaped fire, devastation, 
and the perils of cruel war; it was still in existence when 
the dawn of a new civilization burst upon us, happily 
concealed and unheeded, in the German monastery, not 
many miles from the great high road along which the 
humanitarians wandered, with visions of Roman glory 
in their minds, seeking after every relic of the 
Roman time. Universities flourished in the immediate 
vicinity; and how easily could one of the friars of 
Rossau have informed the students of their treasure. It 
seems incomprehensible that not one of the many 
scholars of the country should have obtained information 
concerning the book, and pointed out to the monks the 
value of such a monument. But, instead of this, it is 
possible that some contemporary of Erasmus and 
Melanchthon, some poor monk, sold the manuscript to 
a book-binder, and strips of it may still adhere to some 
old book-cover. But, even in this case, the discovery is 
important. Evidently this little book has procured a 
painful pleasure for you.” 

The Professor clasped the hand of his friend, and 
each looked into the honest countenance of the other. 
“Let us assume,” concluded the Doctor, sorrowfully, 
“that the old hereditary enemy of preserved treasures, 
fire, had consumed the manuscript—is it not childish 
that we should feel the loss as if it had occurred to-day?” 

“ Who tells us that the manuscript is irretrievably 
lost?” rejoined the Professor, with suppressed emotion. 
“¢Qnce more consult the book; it can tell us also of the 
fate of the manuscript.” 

The Doctor rushed to the table, and seized the little 
book of the Holy Hildegard. 

“Here, after the catalogue,” said the Professor, show- 
ing him the last page of the book, “there is still more.” 

The Doctor fixed his eyes on the page. Latin 
characters without meaning or break were written in 
seven successive lines; under them was a name—F. 
Tobias Bachhuber. 

“Compare these letters with the Latin annotation 
under the the title of the mysterious manuscript. It is 
undoubtedly the same hand, firm characters of the 
seventeenth century; compare the ‘s,’ ‘r,’ and ¢f.’” 

“It is the same hand!” exclaimed the Doctor with 

«“ The letters without sense are a cypher, such as was 
used in the seventeenth century. In that case it is easily 
solved; each letter is exchanged with the one that 
follows. On this bit of paper I have put together the 
Latin words. The translation is, ‘On the approach of 
the ferocious Swedes, in order to withdraw the treasures 
of our monastery from the search of these roaring devils, I 
have deposited them all in a dry, hollow place in the house 
at Bielstein.” The day Quasimodogeniti 37—that is on 
the 19th April, 1637. What do you say now, Fritz? It 
appears from this that in the time of the Thirty Years’ 
War the manuscript had not been burned, for Frater 
Tobias Bachhuber—blest be his memory!—had at that 
time vouchsafed to look upon it with some consideration, 
and as in the record he had favored it with an especial 
remark, he probably did not leave it behind in his flight. 
The mysterious manuscript was thus in the Monastery 
cf Rossau till 1637, and the friar, in the April of that 
.ear, concealed it and other goods from the Swedes in a 
i.cllow and dry spot in Castle Bielstein.” 

“ Now the matter becomes serious!” cried the Doctor. 

“ Yes, it is serious, my friend; it is not impossible that 
the manuscript may still lie concealed somewhere.” 

« And Castle Bielstein? ” 

« Lies near the little town of Rossau. The monastery 
was in needy circumstances, and under ecclesiastical 
protection till the Thirty Years’ War. In 1637 the town 
and monastery were ravaged by the Swedes; the last 
monks disappeared and the monastery was never again 
re-established. That is all I have been able to learn up 
to this time; for anything further I request your help.” 

“The next question will be whether the castle 
outlasted the war,” answered the Doctor, “ and what has 
become of it now. It will be more difficult to ascertain 
where Brother Tobias Bachhuber ended his days, and 
most difficult of all to discover through what hands 
his little book has reached us.” 

« I obtained the book from an antiquary here; it was 
"a new acquisition, and not yet entered in his catalogue. 
To-morrow I will obtain any further information which 
the book-seller may be able to give. It will, perhaps, be 
worth while to investigate further,” he continued, more 
coolly, endeavoring to restrain his intense excitement by 
a little rational reflection. “More than two centuries 
have elapsed since that cypher was written by the friar; 
during that period the destructive powers were not less 
active than formerly. Just think Of the war and 
devastation of the years when the charter was destroyed. 
And so we have gained nothing.” 

« And yet the probability that the manuscript is 
preserved to the present day increases with every 
century,” interposed the Doctor; “for the number of 
men who would value such a discovery has increased so 
much since that war, that destruction from rude 
ignorance has become almost incredible.” 

«“ We must not trust too much to the knowledge of 
the present day,” said the Professor; “but if it weie so,” 
he continued, his eyes flashing, “if the imperial history 
of the first century, as written by Tacitus, were restored 
by a propitious fate, it would be a gift so great that the 
thought of the possibility of it might well, like Roman 
wine, intoxicate an honest man.” 

“Invaluable,” assented the Doctor, “for our 
knowledge of the language, for a hundred particulars 
of Roman history.” 

“For the most ancient history of Germany!” 
exclaimed the Professor. 

Both traversed the room with rapid steps, shook 
hands, and looked at each other joyfully. 

“And if a fortunate accident should put us on the 
track of this manuscript,” began Fritz, “ifthrough you 
it should be restored to the light of day, you, my friend¢ 
you are best fitted to edit it. The thought that you 
would experience such a pleasure, and that a work of 
such renown would fall to your lot, makes me happier 
than I can say.” 

“If we can find the manuscript,” answered the 
Professor, “ we must edit it together.” 

“ Together?” exclaimed Fritz, with surprise. 

“ Yes, together,” said the professor, with decision; 
“it would make your ability widely known.” 

Fritz drew back. ‘ How can you think that I can 
be so presumptuous?” 

* Do not contradict me,’ 
“you are perfectly fit for it.” 

“That I am not,” answered Fritz, firmly; “and I 
am too proud to undertake anything for which I should 
have to thank your kindness more than my own powers.” 

“That is undue modesty,” again exclaimed the 

“T shall never do it,” answered Fritz. “I could not 
for one moment think of adorning myself before the 
public with borrowed plumage.” 

“T know better than you,” said the Professor, 
indignantly, “ what you are able to do, and what is to 
your advantage.” 

“ At all events, I would never agree, that you should 
have the lion’s share of the labor and secretly be deprived 
of the reward. Not my modesty, but my self-respect 
forbids this. And this feeling you ought to respect,” 
concluded Fritz, with great energy. 

“Now,” returned the Professor, restraining his 
excited feelings, “ we are behaving like the man who 
bought a house and field with the money procured by 

> exclaimed the Professor, 



the sale of a calf which was not yet born. Be calm, 
Fritz; neither I nor you will edit the manuscript.” 

“And we shall never know how the Roman 
Emperor treated the ill-fated Thusnelda and Thum- 
elicus!” said Fritz, sympathizingly to his friend. 

“ But it is not the absence of such particulars,” said 
the Professor, “that makes the loss of the manuscript so 
greatly felt, for the main facts may be obtained from 
other sources. The most important point will always be, 
that Tacitus was the first, and in many respects is the 
only, historian who has portrayed the most striking and 
gloomy phases of human nature. His works that are 
extant are two historical tragedies, scenes in the Julian 
and Flavian imperial houses—fearful pictures of the 
enormous change which, in the course of a century, took 
place in the greatest city of antiquity, in the character of 
its emperors and the souls of their subjects—the history 
of tyrannical rule, which exterminated a noble race, 
destroyed a high and rich civilization, and degraded, with 
few exceptions, even the rulers themselves. We have, 
even up to the present day, scarcely another work whose 
author looks so searchingly into the souls of a whole 
succession of princes, and which describes so acutely and 
accurately the ruin which was wrought in different na- 
tures by the fiendish and distempered minds of the kings.” 

“It always makes me angry,” said the Doctor, “when 
I hear him reproached as having forthe most part written 


only imperial and court history. Who can expect grapes 
from a cypress, and satisfactory enjoyment in the grand 
public life of a man who, during a great portion of his 
manhood, daily saw before his eyes the dagger and 
poison-cup of a mad despot?” 

“ Yes,” agreed the Professor, “ Tacitus belonged to 
the aristocracy. Who could write the history of the 
Roman princes, but one of their own circle? The 
blackest crimes were concealed behind the stone walls of 
the palace; rumor, the low murmur of the antechamber, 
the lurking look of concealed hatred, were often the only 
sources of the historian.” 

“ All that remains for us to do is discreetly to accept 
the judgment of the man who has delivered to us 
information concerning this strange condition of things. 
Moreover, whoever studies the fragments of Tacitus that 
have been preserved, impartially and intelligently, will 
honor and admire his profound insight into the utmost 
depths of the Roman character. It is an experienced 
statesman of a powerful and truthful mind relating 
the secret history of his time so clearly that we 
understand the men and all their doings as if we our- 
selves had the opportunity of reading their hearts. He 
who can do this for later centuries is not only a great 
historian but a most invaluable man. And for such I 
always felt a deep, heartfelt reverence, and I consider it 
the duty of a true critic to clear such a character from 
the attacks of petty minds.” 


“Hardly one of his contemporaries,” said the Doc- 
tor, “has felt the poverty of the culture of his own time 
as deeply as himself.” 

“Yes,” rejoined the Professor, “he was a genuine 
man, so far as was possible in his time; and that is, after 
all, the main point. For what we must demand, is not 
the amount of knowledge for which we have to thank 
a great man, but his own personality, which, through 
what he has produced for us, becomes a portion 
of ourselves. Thus the spirit of Aristotle is some- 
thing different to us than the substance of his teaching. 
For us Sophocles signifies much more than seven trage- 
dies. His manner of thinking and feeling, his percep- 
tion of the beautiful and the good, ought to become part 
of our life. Only in this way does the study of the 
past healthily influence our actions and our aspirations. 
In this sense the sad and sorrowful soul of Tacitus is far 
more to me than his delineation of the Emperor’s mad- 
ness. And you see, Fritz, it is on this account that 
your Sanscrit and Indian languages are not satisfactory 
to me—the men are wanting in them.” 

“It is, at least, difficult for us to recognize them,” 
answered his friend. “ But one who, like you, explains 
Homer’s epics to students, should not undervalue the 
charm that lies in sounding the mysterious depths of 
human activity, when a youthful nation conceals from 
our view the work of the individual man, and when the 
people itself comes before us in poetry, traditions, and 
law, assuming the shape of a living individuality,” 

“He who only engages in such_ researches,” 
answered the Professor, eagerly, “soon becomes fan- 
tastic and visionary. The study of such ancient times 
acts like opium, and he who lingers all his life in such 
studies will hardly escape vagaries.” 

Fritz rose. ‘ That is our old quarrel. I know you 
do not wish to speak harshly to me, but I feel that you 
intend this for me.” 

«“ And am I wrong?” continued the Professor, “I 
undoubtedly have a respect for every intellectual work, 
but I desire for my friend that which will be most bene- 
ficial to him. Your investigations into Indian and Ger- 
man mythology entice you from one problem to another; 
youthful energies should not linger in the endless 
domain of indistinct contemplations and unreal shadows. 
Come to a decision for other reasons also. It does not 
behoove you to be merely a private student; such a life is 
too easy for you; you need the outward pressure of 
definite duties. You have many of the qualities requi- 
site for a professor, Do not remain in your parents’ 
house; you must become a university lecturer.” 

A heightened color spread slowly over the face of 
his friend. “Enough,” he exclaimed, vexed; “if I 
have thought too little of my future, you should not 
reproach me for it. It has perhaps been too great a 

pleasure to me to be your companion and the confidant 

of your successful labors. I also, from my intercourse 
with you, have enjoyed that pleasure which an intel- 
lectual man bestows upon all who participate in his 
creations. Good night.” 

The Professor approached him, and seizing both 
his hands, exclaimed, “Stay! Are you angry with me?” 

“ No,” answered Fritz, “but I am going;” and he 
closed the door gently. 

The Professor paced up and down excitedly, 
reproaching himself for his vehemence. At length he 
violently threw the books which had served as a signal 
back on the shelf, and again seated himself at his desk. 

Gabriel lighted the Doctor down the stairs, opened 
the door, and shook his head when he heard his “ good 
night” answered curtly. He extinguished the light and 
listened at his master’s door. When he heard the Pro- 
fessor’s steps, he determined to refresh himself by the 
mild evening air, and descended into the little garden. 
There he met Herr Hummel, who was walking under 
the Professor’s windows. Herr Hummel was a broad- 
shouldered man, with a large head and determined face, 
wealthy and well-preserved, of honest and old Franco- 
nian type. He smoked a thick-headed long pipe, on 
“which was a row of small knobs. 

“ A fine evening, Gabriel,” began Herr Hummel, 
“a good season; what a harvest we shall have!” He 
nudged the servant. “ Has anything happened up there? 
The window is open,” he concluded significantly, and 
disapprovingly shook his head. 

“He has closed the window again,” answered 
Gabriel, evasively. “The bats and the moths become 
troublesome, and when he argues with the Doctor they 
both grow so loud that people in the street stop and 

“ Circumspection is always wise,” said Herr Hum- 
mel; “but what was the matter? The Doctor is the 
son of the man over yonder, and you know my opinion 
ofthem, Gabriel—I do not trust them. I do not wish 
to injure any one, but I have my views concerning 

“ What it was about,” answered Gabriel, “I did not 
hear; but I can tell you this much, it was concerning 
the ancient Romans. Look you, Herr Hummel, if the 
old Romans were among us, much would be different. 
They were dare-devils who knew how to forage; they 
knew how to carry on war; they conquered every- 

“You speak like an incendiary,” said Herr Hum- 
mel, with displeasure. 

“ Yes, that is the way they did,” answered Gabriel, 
complacently. “They were a selfish people, and knew 
how to look out for their own interests. But what 
is most wonderful is the number of books these Romans 
wrote for all that, large and small—many also in folio. 
When I dust the library there is no end to the Romans 

of all sizes, and some are books thicker than the Bible, 
only they are all difficult to read; but one who knows 
the language may learn much.” 

“ The Romans are an extinct people,” replied Herr 
Hummel. “When they disappeared, the Germans 
came. The Romans could never exist with us. The 
only thing that can help us is the Hanse. That is 
the thing to look to. Powerful at sea, Gabriel,” he 
exclaimed, taking hold of his coat by a button, “the 
cities must form alliances, invest money, build ships, and 
hoist flags; our trade and credit are established, and men 
are not wanting.” 

« And would you venture on the mighty ocean in 
that row-boat?” asked Gabriel, pointing to a little boat 
which lay in the rear of the garden tilted over on two 
planks. “Shall I go to sea with the Professor?” 

« That is not the question,” answered Herr Hummel; 
“let the young people go first—they are useless. Many 
could do better than stay at home with their parents. 
Why should not the Doctor up there serve his country 
in the capacity of a sailor?” 

«“ What do you mean, Herr Hummel? ” cried Gabriel, 
startled; “the young gentleman is near-sighted.” 

«“ That’s nothing,” muttered Herr Hummel, “for 
they have telescopes at sea, and for aught I care he may 
become a captain. I am not the man to wish evil to my 

“He is a man of learning,” replied Gabriel, “ and 
this class is also necessary. I can assure you, Herr Hum- 
mel, I have meditated much upon the character of the 
learned. I know my Professor accurately, and some- 
thing of the Doctor, and I must say there is something 
in it—there is much in it. Sometimes I am not so sure 
of it. When the tailor brings the Professor home a 
new coat he does not remark what everybody else sees, 
whether the coat fits him or wrinkles. If he takes it 
into his head to buy a load of wood which Has very 
likely been stolen, from a peasant, he pays more in my 
absence than any one else would. And when he grows 
angry and excited about matters that you and I would 
discuss very calmly, I must say I have my doubts. But 
when I see how he acts at other times—how kind and 
merciful he is, even to the flies that buzz about his nose, 
taking them out of his coffee-cup with a spoon and set- 
ting them on the window-sill—how he wishes well to 
all the world and begrudges himself everything—how 
he sits reading and writing till late at night—when I 
see all this, I must say his life affects me powerfully. 
And I tell you I will not allow anyone to underrate 
our men of learning. They are different from us; they 
do not understand what we do, nor do we understand 
what they do.” 

“Yet we also have our culture,” replied Herr Hum- 
mel. “Gabriel, you have spoken like an honorable 
man, but I will confide this to you—that a man may 



have great knowledge, and yet be a very hard-hearted 
individual, who loans his money on usurious interest 
and deprives his friends of the honor due them. Therefore 
I think the main point is to have order and boundaries, 
and to leave something to one’s descendants. Regu- 
larity here,” he pointed to his breast, “and a boundary 
there,” pointing to his fence, “that one may be sure 
as to what belongs to one’s self and what to another, 
and asecure property for one’s children on which they 
may settle themselves. That is what I understand as 
the life of man.” 

The landlord locked the gate of the fence and the 
door of the house. Gabriel also sought his bed, but the 
lamp in the Professor’s study burned late into the night, 
and its rays intermingled on the window-sill with the 
pale moonshine. At length the learned man’s light 
was extinguished, and the room left empty; outside, 
small clouds coursed over the disc of the moon, and 
flickering lights reigned paramount in the room, over 
the writing-table, over the works of the old Romans, 
and over the little book of the defunct Brother Tobias. 


We are led to believe that in future times there will 
be nothing but love and happiness; and men will go 
about with palm branches in their hands to chase away 
the last of those birds of night, hatred and malice. In 
such a chase we would probably find the last nest of 
these monsters hanging between the walls of two 
neighboring houses. For they have nestled between 
neighbor and neighbor ever since the rain trickled from 
the roof of one house into the court of the other; ever 
since the rays of the sun were kept away from one house 
by the wall of the other; ever since the children thrust 
their hands through the hedge to steal berries; ever 
since the master of the house has been inclined to con- 
sider himself better than his fellow-men. There are in 
our days few houses in the county between which so 
much ill-will and hostile criticism exist as between the 
two houses in the great park of the town. 

Many will remember the time when the houses ot 
the town did not extend to the wooded valley. Then 
there were only a few small houses along the lanes; 
behind lay a waste place where Frau Knips, the wash- 
woman, dried the shirts, and her two naughty boys 
threw the wooden clothes-pins at each other. There 
Herr Hummel had bought a dry spot, quite at the end 
of the street, and had built his pretty house of two- 
stories, with stone steps and iron railing, and behind, a 
simple workshop for his trade; for he was a hatter, and 
carried on the business very extensively. When he 
went out of his house and surveyed the reliefs on the 
roof and the plaster arabesques under the windows, he 
congratulated himself on being surrounded by light and 


air and free nature, and felt that he was the foremost 
pillar of civilization in the primeval forest. 

Then he experienced what often happens to disturb 
the peace of pioneers of the wilderness—his example 
was imitated. On a dark morning in March, a wagon, 
loaded with old planks, came to the drying-ground which 
was opposite his house. A fence was soon built, and 
laborers with shovels and wheelbarrows began to dig 
up the ground. This was a hard blow for Herr Hum- 
mel. But his suffering became greater when, walking 
angrily across the street and inquiring the name of the 
man who was causing such injury to the light and repu- 
tation of his house, he learned that his future neighbor 
was to be a manufacturer by the name of Hahn. That 
it should of all men in the world be he, was the greatest 
vexation fate could inflict upon him. Hahn was respect- 
able; there was nothing to be said against his family; 
but he was Hummel’s natural opponent, for the busi- 
ness of the new settler was also in hats, although straw 
hats. The manufacture of this light trash was never 
considered as dignified, manly work; it was not a guild 
handicraft; it had no right to make apprentices freemen; 
it was formerly carried on only by Italian peasants; it 
has only lately, like other bad customs, spread through 
the world as a novelty; it is, in fact, not a business— 
the plait-straw is bought and sewed together by young 
girls who are engaged by the week. And there is an 
old enmity between the felt hat and straw hat. The 
felt hat is an historical power consecrated through thou- 
sands of years—it only tolerates the cap as an ordinary 
contrivance for work-days. Now the straw hat raises 
its pretensions against prescribed right, and insolently 
lays claim to half of the year. And since then appro- 
bation fluctates between these two attributes of the 
human race. When the unstable minds of mortals 
wavered toward the straw, the most beautiful felt, vel- 
veteen, silk, and pasteboard were left unnoticed and eaten 
by moths. On the other hand, when the inclinations of 
men turned to the felt, every human being—women, 
children, and nurses—wore men’s small hats; then the 
condition of the straw was lamentable—no heart beat for 
it, and the mouse nestled in its most beautiful plaits. 

This was a strong ground for indignation to Herr 
Hummel, but worse was to come. He saw the daily 
growth of the hostile house; he watched the scaffolding, 
the rising walls, the ornaments of the cornice, and the 
rows of windows—it was two windows larger than his 
house. The ground floor rose, then a second floor, and 
at last a third. All the work-rooms of the straw hat 
maufacturer were attached to the dwelling. The house 
of Herr Hummel had sunk into insignificance. He then 
went to his lawyer and demanded vengeance on account 
of the light being obscured and the view spoiled; the 
man of law naturally shrugged his shoulders. The 
privilege of building houses was one of the fundamental 


rights of man; it was the common German custom to 
live in houses, and it was obviously hopeless to propose 
that Hahn should only erect on his piece of ground a 
canvas tent. Thus there was absolutely nothing to do 
but to submit patiently, and Herr Hummel might have 
known that himself. 

Years had passed away. At the same hour the light 
of the sun gilds both houses; there they stand stately 
and inhabited, both occupied by men who daily pass 
each other. At the same hour the letter-carrier enters 
both houses, the pigeons fly from one roof to the other, 
and the sparrows hop around on the gutters of both in 
the most cordial relations. About one house there is some- 
times a little smell of sulphur, and about the other of 
singed hair; but the same summer wind wafts from the 
wood, through the doors of both dwellings, the scent of 
the pine trees and the perfumes of the lime flowers. 
And yet the intense aversion of the inhabitants has not 
diminished. The house of Hahn objects to singed hair, 
and the family of Hummel cough indignantly in their 
garden whenever they suspect sulphur in the oxygen of 
the air. 

It is true that decorous behavior to the neighborhood 
was not quite ignored; even though the felt was 
inclined to be quarrelsome, the straw was more pliant, 
and showed itself yielding in many cases. Both men 
were acquainted with a family in which they occasion- 
ally met, nay, both had once been godfathers to the 
same child, and care had been taken that one should not 
give a smaller christening gift than the other. This 
unavoidable acquaintance necessitated formal greetings 
whenever they could not avoid meeting each other. But 
there it ended. Betwixt the shopmen who cleaned the 
straw hats with sulphur, and the workmen who pre- 
sided over the hareskins, there existed an intense hatred- 
And the people who dwelt in the nearest houses in the 
street knew this, and did their best to maintain the 
existing relation. But, in fact, the character of both 
would scarcely harmonize. Their dialect was different, 
their education had been different, the favorite dishes 
and the domestic arrangements that were approved by 
one displeased the other. Hummel was of North Ger- 
man lineage; Hahn had come hither from a small town 
in the neighborhood. 

When Herr Hummel spoke of his neighbor Hahn, 
he called him a man of straw and a fantastical fellow. 
Herr Hahn was a thoughtful man, quiet and industrious 
in his business, but in his hours of recreation he devoted 
himself to some peculiar fancies. These were undoubt- 
edly intended to make a favorable impression on the 
people who passed by the two houses on their way to 
the meadow and the woods. In his little garden he 

had collected most of the contrivances of modern land- 
scape gardening. Between the three elder bushes there 
rose up a rock built of tufa, with a small, steep path to 

the top. The expedition up to the summit could be 
ventured upon without an Alpine staff by strong mount- 
ain climbers only, and even they would be in danger of 
falling on their noses on the jagged tufa. The follow- 
ing year, near the railing, poles were erected at short 
intervals, round which climbed creepers, and between 
each pole hung a colored glass lamp. When the row 
of lamps was lighted up on festive evenings they threw 
a magic splendor on the straw hats which were placed 
under the elder bushes, and which challenged the judg- 
ment of the passers-by. The following year the glass 
lamps were superseded by Chinese lanterns. Again, the 
next year the garden bore a classical aspect, for a white 
statue of a muse, surrounded by ivy and blooming wall- 
flowers, shone forth far into the wood. 

In contradistinction to such novelties Herr Hummel 
remained firm to his preference for water. In the rear 
of his house a small canal flowed to the town. Every 
year his boat was painted the same green, and in his 
leisure hours he loved to go alone in his boat and to row 
from the houses to the park. He took his rod in his 
hand, and devoted himself to the pleasure of catching 
gudgeons, minnows, and other small fish. 

Doubtless the Hummel family were more aristocratic, 
—that is, more determined, more out of the common, and 
more difficult to deal with. Of all the housewives of 
the street, Frau Hummel made the greatest pretensions 
by her silk dresses and gold watch and chain. She was 
a little lady with blonde curls, still very pretty; she had 
a seat at the theatre, was accomplished and kind-hearted, 
and very irascible. She looked as if she did not concern 
herself about anything, but she knew everything that 
happened in the street. Her husband was the only one 
who, at times, was beyond her control. Yet, although 
Herr Hummel was tyrannical to all the world, he some- 
times showed his wife great consideration. When she 
was too much for him in the house, he quietly went into 
the garden, and if she followed him there, he ensconced 
himself in the factory behind a bulwark of felt. 

But also Frau Hummel was subject to a higher 
power, and this power was exercised by her little 
daughter, Laura. This was the only surviving one of 
several children, and all the tenderness and affection of 
the mother were lavished upon her. And she was a 
splendid little girl; the whole town knew her ever since 
she wore her first red shoes; she was often detained 
when in the arms of her nurse, and had many presents 
given her. She grew up a merry, plump little maiden, 
with two large blue eyes and round cheeks, with dark, 
curly hair, and an arch countenance. When the little, 
rosy daughter of Hummel walked along the streets, her 
hands in the pockets of her apron, she was the delight 
of the whole neighborhood. Sprightly and decided, she 
knew how to behave toward all, and was never 
backward in offering her little mouth to be kissed. 



She would give the woodcutter at the door her but- 
tered roll, and join him in drinking the thin coffee 
out of his cup; she accompanied the letter-carrier all 
along the street, and her greatest pleasure was to run 
with him up the steps, to ring and deliver his letters; 
she even once slipped out of the room late in the even- 
ing, and placed herself by the watchman, on a corner- 
stone, and held his great horn in impatient expectation 
of the striking of the hour at which it was to be sounded. 
Frau Hummel lived in unceasing anxiety lest her 
daughter should be stolen; for, more than once she had 
disappeared for many hours; she had gone with chil- 
dren, who were strangers, to their homes, and had played 
with them—she was the patroness of many of the little 
urchins in the street, knew how to make them respect 
her, gave them pennies, and received as tokens of esteem 
dolls and little chimneysweeps, which were composed of 
dried plums and little wooden sticks. She was a kind- 
hearted child that rather laughed than wept, and her 
merry face contributed more toward making the house 
of Herr Hummel a pleasant abode, than the ivy screen 
of the mistress of the house, or the massive bust of Herr 
Hummel himself, which looked down stubbornly on 
Laura’s doll-house. 

“The child is becoming unbearable,” exclaimed 
Frau Hummel, angrily dragging in the troubled Laura by 
the hand. “She is running about the streets all day 
long. Just now when I came from market she 
was sitting near the bridge, on the chair of the fruit- 
woman, selling onions for her. Everyone was gather- 
ing around her, and I had to fetch my’ child out of the 

“ The little monkey will do well,” answered Herr 
Hummel, laughing; “why will you not let her enjoy 
her childhood?” 

“She must give up this low company. She lacks all 
sense of refinement; she hardly knows her alphabet, and 
She has no taste for reading. It is time, too, that she 
should begin the French vocabulary. Little Betty, the 
councillor’s daughter, is not older, and she knows how 
to call her mother chére mere, in such a pretty manner.” 

“The French are a polite people,” answered Herr 
Hummel. “If you are so anxious to train your daughter 
for market, the Turkish language would be better than 
the French. The Turk pays money if you dispose of 
your-child to him; the others wish to have something 
into the bargain.” 

“ Do not speak so inconsiderately, Henry!” exclaimed 
the wife. 

“ Be off with you with your cursed vocabularies, else 
I promise you I will teach the child all the French 
phrases I know; they are not many, but they are strong. 
Baisez-moi, Madame Hummel!” Saying this, he left 
the room with an air of defiance. 

The result, however, of this consultation was that 


Laura went to school. It was very difficult for her to 
listen and be silent, and for a long time her progress was 
not satisfactory. But at last her little soul was fired with 
ambition; she climbed the lower steps of learning with 
Fraulein Johanne, and then she was promoted to the 
renowned Institute of Fraulein Jeannette, where the 
daughters of families of pretension received education 
in higher branches. There she learned the tributaries of 
the Amazon, and much Egyptian history; she could 
touch the cover of the electrophorus, speak of the 
weather in French, and read English so ingeniously 
that even true-born Britons were obliged to acknowl- 
edge that a new language had been discovered; lastly, 
she was accomplished in all the elegancies of German 
composition. She wrote small treatises on the differ- 
ence between waking and sleeping, on the feelings of 
the famed Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, on the ter- 
rors of a shipwreck, and of the desert island on which 
she had been saved. Finally, she gained some knowl- 
edge of the composition of strophes and sonnets. It 
soon became clear that Laura’s strong point was Ger- 
man, not French; her style was the delight of the Insti- 
tute; nay, she began to write poems in honor of her 
teachers and favorite companions, in which she very 
happily imitated the difficult rhymes of the great 
Schiller’s “Song of the Bell.” She was now eighteen, 
a pretty, rosy, young lady, still plump and merry, still 
the ruling power of the house, and still loved by all the 
people on the street. 

The mother, proud of the accomplishments of her 
daughter, after her confirmation, prepared an upper 
room for her, looking out upon the trees of the park; 
and Laura fitted up her little home like a fairy castle, 
with an ivy screen, a little flower-table, and a beautiful 
ink-stand of china on which shepherds and shepherdesses 
were sitting side by side. There she passed her pleas- 
antest hours with her pen and paper, writing her 

memoirs in secret. 
( To be continued.) 

No creature smarts so little as a fool. 
—Porpre. Lpistle to Dr. Arbuthnos. 
Men may live fools, but fools they cannot die! 
—Younc. Night Thoughts. 
Fools grant whate’er ambition craves, 

And men, once ignorant, are slaves. 

The fellow’s wise enough to play the fool; 
And to do that well craves a kind of wit. 
Tis an old maxim in the schools, 
That vanity’s the food of fools; 
Yet now and then your men of wit 
Will condescend to take a bit. 



[Reprinted with a few slight alterations from The Southern Collegian.] 

Dau bist wie eine Blume. 
So sweet, so fair, so pure, love, 
Like a flower, my darling, thou art. 
As I gaze on thee a feeling 
Of sadness steals into my heart. 

My hand would I lay on thy forehead, 
As gently I breathe forth a prayer, 

That God may thus e’er preserve thee 
So pure, so sweet, so fair. 

What things so good which not some harm may bring? 
E’en to be happy is a dangerous thing. 
—Ear_ OF HERLING. Darius. 

The gods in bounty work up storms about us 

That give mankind occasion to exert 

Their hidden strength and throw out into practice 

Virtues which shun the day, 

Some souls we see 
Grow hard and stiffen with 

Happiness courts thee in her best array ; 
But like a misbehaved and sullen wench 
Thou pout’st upon thy fortune and thy love: 
Take heed, take heed! for such die miserable. 
Happiness, object of that waking dream 
Which we call life, mistaking; fugitive theme 
Of my pursuing verse, ideal shade, 
National good, by fancy only made. 
By adversity are wrought 
The greatest works of admiration, 
And all the fair examples of renown 
Out of distress and misery are grown. 
—Daniet. On the Earl of Southampton. 

We have received from Boston the prospectus 
of The Writer's Literary Bureau, which offers itself 
as a medium between authors and publishers. The 
plan of the managers is to read manuscripts, and 
then to suggest to the authors the periodicals that 
would be most likely to accept them. We have no 
doubt that this institute will be found useful by 

The Oren Court is in communication with some 
and will at once put itself in communication with other, 
prominent French and German thinkers, such as 
Wundt, Preyer, Hering, Noiré, Steinthal, Carus Sterne, 
Geiger, Haeckel, Carl Vogt, Biichner, Binet, Ribot, etc., 
in order to obtain their sanction to publish translations 
of some of their writings in its columns. 


(Tue Oren Court acknowledges the receipt of all books, but the editor 
cannot pledge himself to have all reviewed.) 
The Christ in Life. By J. L. Batchelder. Chicago. 
Science and Immortality. By Samuel J. Barrows. Boston. 
The Ethical Import of Darwinism. By F. G. Schurman. New York. 
The Story of the Psalms. By Henry van Dyke. New York. 
Italian Grammar. By C. H. Grandgent. Boston. 
A Review of the Report of the Seybert Commission, appointed by the Univer- 
sity of Pennsylvania to heserneconisd Modern Spiritualism. Boston. 


(Agate measure; 14 lines to the inch, 126 lines to the column.) 

For each insertion, without choice of position: in narrow column, 10 cents 
per line; in wide column, 15 cents per line. 

For each insertion, without choice of position: one column (narrow), $12; 
one column (wide), $16; one page, $30. 

For specified position, 20 per cent. will be added to the regular rates. 

Discounts on advertisements continuing for three months or more, or 
amounting to or exceeding $100, and rates to publishers negotiating directly 
with THE OpEN Court, can be obtained on application. 

Tue Open Court is sent free to advertisers while their advertisements 


Unity is a weekly of twelve to sixteen pages—two extra wide columns to 

the page, printed in large and handsome type. 

Unity’s motto is, “FREEDOM, FgeL_Lowsuip AND CHARACTER IN RELIG- 
ion,” and in so far as Unitarianism stands for the thought which this motto 
expresses Unity, is Unitarian, But Unity has little interest in the Unitarian 
sect, While it has great interest in the Unitarian movement j and it will continue 
to emphasize the Unitarian principles of free thought, inclusive fellowship, 
practical righteousness and progress, more than the Unitarian doctrines con 

erning the Trinity, Atonement, or interpretation of Bible texts. 

Unity is published in Chicago because its founders and present editorial 

ters for the most part have their lots cast in the West. 

inciples, spirit, love, aims, or thoughts any more than Eastern, nor Western 

(i Eastern together any more than Northern and Southern and universal. An 
Eastern reader writes: ‘I feel there is a place and need for it. I love its 
freedom from party spirit and miserable dogma. I like its manliness, its love, 
ts truth—universal truth—and its veracity also. I like its Christian courage, 
tbsence in it of any spirit of moral cowardice. I like 
vreat faith I have not found—no, not in Isarel. I like its defense of all honest 

It is not Western in 

its great faith; so 

expression of opinion, its endeavor to put the best construction on the words of 

those who differ from it. 


I like its ethics and its spirit of reverence and devo- 
ion in the presence of the Eternal Verities.” 

Che subscription price of Unity is $1.50 per annum. 
mentions this advertisement the paper will be sent six months on trial upon 
receipt of fifty cents. A variety of choice books are offered as premiums to 
those who, having subscribed for Uniry themselves, assist the publishers in 
extending its circulation. Full particulars will be sent to any one requesting 
it when sending his trial subscription. Postage stamps taken. 
UNITY, 175 Dearborn Street, Chicago. 

To any one who 


An American lady wishes for employment as secretary, or as assistant 

those engaged in literary work. Adeptations from the French, or translations 
rapidly executed. Terms moderate. Address the editor of THE OrEN Court, 
160 Lu Salle Street, Chicago. 

We condense from ‘Tne Oren Court, a fortnightly amend published in 
Chicago, an excellent paper on ‘The Positive Virtues.” We trust the article 

will be extensively read and profited by.—Manetowaning Expositor, Algona, 

Arthur H. Elliott, dealer in Rubber and Steel Stamps, Seal Presses, 
Labor-Saving Office Devices, etc., Mansfield, Tioga County, Pa., would be 

pleased to send cirewlars and prices to any one wishing goods in his line. 

A word there is, five syllables 
And means but one. 
Take away one— 
No syllable remains. 

Answer: Mo-no syllable. 


Der — 


Sreiheit, Bildung und Wobhlitand fiir Ale! 
(Organ der Freidenfer Nordamerifa’s und des Bunded der Radifaten.) 
— Die 
pemerifanijche Curnjzeitung’. 

(Turnerijche Wnisgabe des ,, Freidenter’’. — Organ des Nordamerifanijden 

Redacteur: s ‘ 6. Hermann Boppe. 
Preife per Jahr in Borausbezahlung: 
Sir Die Vercini ter Staaten und Canada: 

MAN Sa cisck cal dae ndaoenes | ,&merifaniice Turngeitung”.....33.00 
et e Sr watene: 
BL RE ES 3.00 Amerifanijche Turngeitung’.... .$3.50 

Anf Verlangen werden Brobenummern gratis verjandt. 

Der im 16. Jahrgang erjceinende ,,Freidenfer’’ wirtt im Sine der Aujflarung 
utd alljeitigen Fortidhritts auf politijcem, jocialem und reliqiaiem Gebiete. Die 
Mmerifaniide Turnjeitung~ (turnerijce Wisgabe des ,,Frewenfer”) enthalt dew 
iben Lejeftoff wie dec , Freidenker® und iberdies cine Fiille vow Wrtifeln, Beridten, 

Wittheilungen u. f.qw., die jpeciell turnerijfden Jutereifen qewidmet find, 

Man richte Be ftellungen an 

FREIDENKER PUBLISHING (0., 470 Bast Water St., Milwaukee, Wis. 

Im gleichen Verlage erfecheinen: 

. +. 665. = A 
Erjziebungs-Blatter fiir Scoute und Haus. 
Freijinnige deuticd: padagogijdhe Monatsichrijt.—OCrgan ded deutid-amerifanijhen 
Yehrerbundes. ) 
Redigirt von Marimilian Grohmann, Milwaukee, Wis. 
; Mitvedacteur: s. &. Hid, Chreago, i. 
Monatlic) 16 Seiten Grokquart, uebit 4 3 ie Umicblag. Breis: 
Man adrejiir 




alle buchhandlerijchen Bejtellungen 

Lut Das Promptejte und Gewilienhajteite aus. Freifinniqen S Schriften, naturwiijiens 
ichaitlicjen, philojophiichen und qeichichtlichen Werfen, welche auf dem Boden der 
nrodernen Ertenutnry ftehen, wird bejoudere Yutmertiamfeit geidentt. are cit 
tets ein reiches Lager turnerijder Schriften an Hand. Nataloge werden qratis 
verjandt. — Man adresfire 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

Bejonders beachtenswerthe Publicationen 

der - 


Der ,, Umerifanijde Turnerfalender fiir Das Jahr , SSS“ 

bretet nicht uur fiir Turner cite interefiante, belehrende wid anrvegende Lectiire, jou-. 
Deru fiir alle Freunde ireiheitlicher Anjcdauungen. Wile fritheren Jahrgange, deren 
Juhalt cur folder ift, dak ee midht veralter, find nod) au besiehen. 

Kreis per Cremplar: W Cente. 

Gejammelte Schriften von Sarl Peter. 

Das ftattlide Buch euthalt Gedichte und Krojaaufjage in deutider und aud in 

q $2.12 jabritd bei 
wai Verlangen werden Beobemummern gratis verjandt. 

. 410 East Water St.. Milwaukee, Wis. 

170 East Water St.. 

cnaqliider S Sprache. Uecht freifinnige Tendens; und cine trditige, marfige Sprache 
yeichnen die Schriften diefes ant D em Freiheitsdeal fener Jugend tren fejthaltenden 
Adjtundvieryigers aus, — Ereis, brochirt: $1.50. 

aie Bedeutung wahrer Yeligion. 
Von Dr. Paul Carus.—€reis, brodwt: 15 Cts 

® J 
sur Erinmering an Rarl Heinzen und an die Enthillungojeier des Heinjzen: 
denfmale amt 12. Juni 1886 berausqeqeben, enthalt Das Wert anger den am Tage der 
Cuthiillung des Dentmals AQehaltenen Reden cine photolithoqraphijche Wibildung des 
Heingendent mals und Beitrage aus der Feder befaunter deuticeamerifaniicer 
Schriftiteller und Freunde Heinjew's.—reis, eleqaut brodirt: 50 Cts 

, Gin Leben in Liederu’’. 

Gedichte cines Oeimahtlojen.— Fem brochirt: 6O Cents, 

Gedidte vou Friedrid) Karl Cajtelhun. 

Elegant gebuuden mit Goldj.: $1.75; in qleichem Cinb., marmorirter Sdhnitt : $1.50, 
Elements of Universal History. 

for Higher yy ee in Republics and for Self-Instruction. By Pror. IL. M. 
CoTTINGER, A. M.—reis; $1.00 

Bon H. M. Gottinger er i Ferner, erichienen und ven ms gu begieben: “YOUTH’S 
LIBERAL Gl * Preis: $1.10; .Leitiaden fiir den Unterricht in Sonn: 

toapitaien der iyreien Gemeinden’ , Brews: $1.10; “ROSA, TITHE EDUCATING 
MOTITIER,” Qreis: $1.25 
Serwenh’s Nene Gedichte. 

Brodirt: $1.25, qebunden mit Golpidnitt: $1.85. 

. mons . 
Die Schriften von Karl Heingen 
fol{ten in teiner Bibliothet feblen und von jedem Freigefinnten gelejen werden. Ter 
Preije wegen veriveijen wir auf dic betreffenden Angzeigen im ,, Freidenfer’ und der 
, Mmerifaniiden Turngeitung’ , jowie auf unjcre Rataloge. 
Man adrejfire 

FREIDENKER PUBLISHING CO., 470 East Water St., Milwaukee, Wis. 




Springfield Republican. 

Tue SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN, established in 1824 by Samuel Bowles, is 
universally recoy nized as one of the leading newspapers of America, It pub- 
lishes the most thorough and comprehensive reports of New England News, 
and ably represents the best New England ideas. It gathers carefully the 
important news of the whole country and of the world, and presents it in 
compact and readable form, The Weekly Republican is called by many the 
best review of American life anywhere printed. 

It is vigorous, but reasonable in the expression of its editorial opinions 
which are progressive, independent and liberal, It is devoted to the interests 
of the whole people rather than to those of any party. Recognizing the 
and condemning the evil represented in the chief political bodies as now con- 
stituted, it gives its support to the side that offers the largest measure of 
advancement toward better, purer government and happier, more equitable 
social conditions. 

It deals with all the vital issues of the day and offers its readers abundant 
and interesting examples of good literature. 

Tue DatLy REPUBLICAN is sold for $8 a year, $2 a quarter, 70 cents a 
month, 3 cents a =r 

THE SUNDAY REPUBLICAN is $2 a year, 50 cents a quarter, 5 cents a copy. 

Tre WEEKLY REPUBLICAN is $1 a year, 60 cents for six months; 10 cents 
a month for trial subscriptions. 

An Extraordinary Offer! 

FOR $1,25. 

_THE WEEKLY REPUBLICAN, 2 superior, carefully edited news and 
family journal, and THE FARM AND FIRESIDE, 2 popular story and agri- 
cultural weekly published by the ‘Toronto (Canada) Mail will both be sent 
to any address One Year for $1.25. 

ew subscriptions to The Weekly Republican for 1888 may date from 
December 1, 187. 
Send for free sample copies and clubbing list. 

Address THE REPUBLICAN, Springfield, Mass. 

“A neat little volume which is a literary curiosity.”— Book Review. 




“‘A very earnest book, religious, worshipful, A book of prayers wi 
the ‘Our Father’ or the ‘Thou.’ Full of . happy sense of ies bene 
and bounty. One unceasing aspiratio. toward the * Moral Ideal,’ the ‘ Blessed 
Best.’ And not a prayer in it which does not strengthen one’s hand-clasp 
with men and women, and those especially who sorrow, or voice the longing to 
be in some way a ‘ world-helper.’ We take it that the man who cares to 
formulate and print such prayers, devoid of pronouns as they are, must be a 
deeper worshiper than most of us.”— From a two-column review in Unity, 

“Finely named, and an inspiring book, though a most culiar one. 
While it especially asserts that it 1s addressed to earnest men and women, and 
to no deity, yet the wane of the ideal good breathes through every line. 
And the poems at the end take one by the hand and lead him up; some of them 
are lofty and oe gpa oe The Patrol, 

“On purely rational grounds it is not easy to meet the position i 
little book}, — ¥ by ro that the words and forms of our Toseall Fah vo 
must be accepted as frankly symbolic, and not amenable to the understanding. 
Still, while we by no means accept th: se ‘ Uplifts’ as a necessary or an ade- 
— substitute for the customary exercises of devotion, they are at least better 

tted than the ordinary practice to a state of mind far from uncommon, and 
a deserving of respect.”— From a seven-page notice in the Unitarian 
“The outpourings ot a soul deeply religious in the best sense, but suspicious 
of forms. This volume is one of the many assurances that the liberal church 
will fast enough gather poetry, music ~— f art, to invest its nobler thought.”— 
New Theology Herald. 

**There is much in this modest work to’help the human soul and satisfy its 
aspirations.” —Chicogo Evening Fournal. 

From a Unitarian minister: “I hail the ‘Uplifts’ as a good sign, — 
another step out into the free, where we_must be content to let all consecrated 
thinking go." nice ' 

Price of the ab: ve book, neatly bound in cloth, postpai 
sale by all booksellers, or will be sent by a eae. ar 

175 Dearborn Street, - - - Chicago. 

- Otto. Wettstein’s 

Jewelry Store, 



Devoted to the work of establishing ethics in commerce, evolution in trade 
and distributing, throughout the world, honest goods upon an economic basis— 
in giving to the public the matured experience of a life-time of practical appli 
cation to the Horologer’s Art and Jeweler’s Profession at 

Grand and Unprecedented Offer! 

In order to intro luce my exquisite and beautiful goods to the many readers 
of THE OPEN Court, I respectfully submit for their kind consideration the 
following few quotations: 

DIAMOND EARDROPS worth $409, for $280; do. $250, for $150; do 
$17 , for $125; do. $120, for $30, do. $0, for $45; do. $40, for $28; do. $30 

or $24. 

DIAMOND BROOCH worth $325, for $220; do. $180, for $135; do 
$150 for $110; do. $100, for $55; do. $65, for $45; do. $38, for $28. 

RINGS OR STUDS worth $185, for $140; do. $150, for $110; do. $y 
for $65; do. $80, for $60; do. $65, for $45; do. $50, for $35; do. $35, for $25. 

A full line of smaller Diamond Goods, same proportionate discounts. I an 
an expert and acute judge of Diamonds, have over 30 vears of experience in 
buying, have always paid a hundred cents on the dollar and buy at bottom price, 
therefore I will give a written guarante= and contract with each article that the 
goods are lower in price than elsewhere, strictly as represented, and cash in 
full will be refunded at any time during one year, if not entirely satisfactory 
No other dealer has ever made an offer so fair and so liberal! 


will be advertised in December. Same liberal discounts, Goods ranging from 
$5 to $300, embracing all the novelties of the season. Send for price-list.. 
Remember I am an expert in my line and have nearly forty years experience 
Your home jeweler must have 30 to 50 - cent. profit, [ will serve you honestly 
and give you advantage of the knowledge I possess for from 5 to 10 per cent. 



P. S.—Also Designer and Patentee of 

The New and Beautiful Freethought Badge. 

“A pin, whose torch and golden sheen 
ould grace the breast of Sheba’s queen, 
And will lend grace in coming time 
To queens of beauty more sublime.” 

(From autograph letter, written by Hon. Elizur Wright, aged 81 years 
eight days before his death.) 

OWEN pez, 

Respectfully ded - 
icated to all inde- 
pendent and 
thoughtful minds ot 
every shade of re- 
ligious, spiritual and 
scientific thought 
throughout the 

Design patented 
Feb. 24, 1885. Ex- 
act size and model. 
Warranted solid 
gold, artistic and 
beautiful, enameled 
in five colors. 

ARE TougntB 

Represents in artistically wrought gold and two shades ot blue enamel 
FREETHOUGHT and the Rising SuN oF SCIENCE. The burning ToRCH OF 
Rgason flame enameled in fire colors; and in contrasts the Ligut AND Day oF 

and gold. Symbolizes the evolution of the world from the night of superstition 
to the light of freethought, science and reason. G 

Is made in two sizes, as above, and about two-thirds size. Both in pins, 
scarf-pins, sleeve-buttons, charms, etc. Charms combined on the reverse side 
with lodge emblems, U. M. L., mon ms, lockets etc., if desired. : 

Prices:—Large pins, 10k, $3; 14k, $3.50, $4; extra heavy, $5; Small pins, 
10k, $2; 14k, $2.75; extra heavy, $3.75. For diamond in sun, add $2 and $5, 
according to size. Charms: small $3 and $5; elaborate, with ornamented top 
and diamond, $5 to $10; larger, $5, $8, $10 to $35. Special designs made to 
order. All guaranteed solid gold, and sent prepaid by mail, and cash refundec 
if not satistactory.