{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37613/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37613","id":"gutenberg_37613","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37613","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Idealism","United States -- Social life and customs"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Bethanne M. Simms and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSearch-Light Letters\n\n\nBY\n\n_Robert Grant_\n\n\nNew York\n_Charles Scribner's Sons_\nMDCCCXCIX\n\n_Copyright, 1899, by Charles Scribner's Sons_\n\n\n\n\n_Contents_\n\n\nTo _A Young Man or Woman_ in Search of the Ideal\n\nLetter I                                                1\nLetter II                                              15\nLetter III                                             32\nLetter IV                                              45\n\nTo _A Modern Woman_ with Social Ambitions\n\nLetter I                                               59\nLetter II                                              72\nLetter III                                             89\nLetter IV                                             105\n\nTo _A Young Man_ wishing to be an American\n\nLetter I                                              125\nLetter II                                             135\nLetter III                                            152\nLetter IV                                             169\n\nTo _A Political Optimist_\n\nLetter I                                              173\nLetter II                                             191\nLetter III                                            214\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man or Woman_ in Search of the Ideal. I.\n\n\nI shall assume certain things to begin with. If a young man, that the\ndividing-line between mine and thine is so clearly defined to your own\nconsciousness that you are never tempted to cross it. For instance,\nthat it is your invariable practice to keep the funds of others in a\nseparate bank-account from the money which belongs to you, and not to\nmix them. That you will not lie to escape the consequences of your own\nor others' actions. That you are not afraid to stand up and be shot at\nif necessary. That you do not use your knife to carry food to your\nmouth; say \"How?\" for \"What?\" or hold the young lady whom you are\ncourting or to whom you are engaged by the crook of her elbow and\nshove her along the street as though she were a perambulator. If a\nyoung woman, that you are so pure in thought that you do not feel\nobliged to read diseased fiction in order to enlighten yourself as to\nwhat is immorality. That you do not bear false witness against your\nneighbor by telling every unpleasant story you hear to the next person\nyou meet. That you do not repeat to an acquaintance, on the plea of\nduty, the disagreeable remarks or criticisms which others have made to\nyou regarding her. That you try to be unselfish, sympathetic, and\namiable in spite of everything. That you neither chew gum nor use\npigments. And that you do not treat young men as demigods, before whom\nyou must abase yourself in order to be exalted.\n\nI take it for granted that you have reached the moral and social plane\nwhich this assumption implies. Manners are, indeed, a secondary\nconsideration as compared with ethics. A man who eats with his knife\nmay, nevertheless, be a hero. And yet, it is not always easy to fix\nwhere manners and ethics begin. Many a finished young woman who\nstealthily heightens the hue of her complexion and blackens her\neyebrows with paint probably regards the girl who chews gum with\nsuperior scorn. Yet tradition associates paint rather than gum with\nthe scarlet woman. To avoid introducing the subtleties of discussion\nwhere all is so clear, it is simpler to exclude the use of either as a\npossible characteristic of fine womanhood. The homely adage that you\ncannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is full of meaning for\ndemocracy. Manners must go hand in hand with morals, or character will\nshow no more lustre than the uncut and unpolished diamond, whose\nlatent brilliancy is marred by uncouthness, so that it may readily be\nmistaken for a vulgar stone.\n\nI assume, then, that you possess honesty, purity, and courage, the\nintention to be unselfish and sympathetic, and an appreciation of the\nstigma of vulgarity. If you are seeking the ideal, you will try to be,\nin the first place, an uncommon person. A common person is one who is\ncontent to be just like every one else in his or her own walk of life.\nThe laws on our statute-books are made for the benefit of common\npeople; that is to say, they are tempered to the necessities of the\nweak and erring. If you stop short there you will keep out of jail,\nbut you will be a very ordinary member of society. This sounds trite,\nbut the application of the principle involved is progressive. It is\neasy to be ordinary in the higher walks of civilization and yet pass\nfor a rather superior person. It is only necessary to be content to\n\"do as every one else does,\" and accept the bare limit of the social\ncode under which you live as the guide of conduct.\n\n[_Note_.--I am reminded here by my wife, Josephine, that, though the\nstatute-laws are broken by few of our friends, there is one law which\nwomen who claim to be highly civilized and exceedingly superior are\nconstantly breaking--the statute which forbids them to smuggle.]\n\n\u00b6 _Scene: An Ocean Steamship._ Two sea-chairs side by side.\n\n\u00b6 _Dramatis Personae: A Refined and Gifted Instructress of Youth on the\nhome passage from a summer's vacation abroad, and your Philosopher. A\nperfect sea and sky, which beget confidences._\n\n_Refined and Gifted Instructress of Youth._ It's rather a bother to\nhave friends ask you to bring in things.\n\n_The Philosopher._ I always say \"Certainly; but I shall be obliged to\ndeclare them.\" That ends it.\n\n_Refined and Gifted._ My friends wouldn't like that at all. It would\noffend them. You mustn't tell, but I have as commissions a dress, two\npackages of gloves, and a large French doll, in my trunk.\n\n_The Philosopher._ Yet you will be obliged to sign a paper that you\nhave nothing dutiable and that everything you have is yours.\n\n_Refined and Gifted._ If I were to declare the things, the duties\nwould all have to come out of my own pocket. I shouldn't have the face\nto collect it from my friends.\n\n_The Philosopher._ They expect you to fib, of course. You prefer,\nthen, to cheat the Government rather than disappoint persons who made\nuse of you in order to accomplish that very thing?\n\n_Refined and Gifted._ You don't put it nicely at all, Mr. Philosopher.\nBesides, the things are mine. I paid for them with my own money; and,\nuntil I am paid back, the things belong to me. There, now, why\nshouldn't I sign the paper?\n\n_The Philosopher._ A shallow sophistry. A merchant who acted on that\ntheory would be sent to jail. Will a refined and gifted instructress\nof youth, whose mission in life it is to lead the young in the paths\nof virtue, evade the law by a subterfuge?\n\n_Refined and Gifted._ It's an odious law. My family all believe in\nfree trade.\n\n_The Philosopher._ Very possibly. But it is the law.\n\n_Refined and Gifted (after a pause)._ I don't care. If I declare the\nthings they would never forgive me, and I can't afford to pay charges\non their things myself. I've only just enough money to get home,\nanyway. Perhaps no one will ask me to sign it. By the way, how much\nought I to give the man if he passes everything nicely?\n\n_The Philosopher._ Nothing. That would be bribery.\n\n_Refined and Gifted._ Why, I thought all men did that.\n\n_The Philosopher._ Chiefly women who try to smuggle. (_Silence of five\nminutes._)\n\n_Refined and Gifted._ I don't care. I shall sign it.\n\nAnd she did.\n\n\nThose whose office it is to utter the last word over the dead rarely\nyield to the temptation to raise the mantle of charity and show the\nman or woman in all his or her imperfections. Society prefers to err\non the side of mercy and forbearance, and to consign dust to dust with\nbeautiful generalizations of hope and congratulation, even though the\nsubject of the obsequies be a widely known sinner. However fitting it\nmay be to ignore the truth in the presence of death, there can be no\ngreater peril for one in your predicament than to cherish the\neasy-going doctrine that you are willing to take your chance with the\nrest of the world. The democratic proposition that every one is as\ngood as his neighbor is readily amended so as to read that, if you\nare as good as your neighbor, everybody ought to be satisfied. A\nphilosopher has a right to take liberties with the dead which a\nclergyman must deny himself. \"Died at his late residence on the 5th\ninst., Solomon Grundy, in the sixty-seventh year of his age. Friends\nare kindly requested not to send flowers.\" Perhaps you saw it? Very\nlikely you knew him. If so, you may have attended the funeral and\nheard read over his bier the beautiful words, \"I heard a voice from\nHeaven which said, write Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord,\"\nand the hymn, which the family had requested, \"Nearer, my God, to\nThee.\" The officiating clergyman was not to blame. Solomon Grundy had\nworshipped at his church with regularity for twenty years, and had\nbeen a fairly generous contributor to foreign and domestic missions,\nin spite of the fact that he had the reputation down-town of being\nclose as the bark of a tree. The obituary notices in the newspapers\nreferred to him as \"a leading merchant\" and \"a gentleman of the old\nschool.\" No wonder that the Rev. Peter Tyson, who is a brave man and\nhas been known to rear on occasions, felt that he could let himself go\nwithout injury to his conscience. Besides, even so discriminating a\nperson as your Philosopher saw fit to attend the funeral, and\nremembering that the old gentleman had given him a wedding present,\nwould probably have ordered a wreath but for the wishes of the family.\nAnd yet the facts of Solomon Grundy's life, when examined in a\nphilosophic spirit, serve chiefly to point a moral for one who is in\nsearch of the ideal. Read the itinerary of his earthly pilgrimage and\njudge for yourself:\n\n_Infancy (first six years)._--No reliable data except a cherubic\nminiature, and the family tradition that he once threw into the fire\na necklace belonging to his grandmother. People who know all about\nsuch matters will tell you that during these first six years the\nfoundations of character are laid. The miniature was always said to\nbear a striking resemblance to his maternal grandfather, who was a man\nof--nay, nay, this will never do. Those same people to whom I have\njust referred will tell you that we inherit everything we are, and, if\nI proceed on that theory, we are done with Solomon Grundy as soon as\nhe was born. Decidedly a young man or woman in search of the ideal\ncannot afford to palm off on ancestors the responsibility for his or\nher own conduct.\n\n_Boyhood (six to sixteen)._--So-called highly respectable surroundings\nand good educational advantages. Here we are brought face to face\nagain with those same persons whom I have already instanced. _They_\nwill assure you that Solomon's father and mother and his \"environment\"\nwere the responsible agents during this period, and that whatever\nSolomon did not inherit or have settled for him before his sixth year\nwas settled for him by them without the knowledge of said Solomon.\nThis is rather discouraging as a study of Solomon as a conscious,\nactive _ego_, but it affords you an opportunity, if you are not in\nsearch of the ideal, to make your parents and that comfortable phrase\nyour \"environment\" bear the burden of all your shortcomings until you\nare sixteen, and serve as an excuse for your shortcomings in the\nfuture.\n\n_Youth (sixteen to twenty-one)._--Now we at least make progress.\nSolomon enters college. Gets one or two conditions, but works them off\nand stands erect. High spirits and corresponding consequences. Becomes\npopular and idle. Subscribes to the faith that the object of going to\ncollege is to study human nature, and is fascinated by his own acumen.\nSudden revulsion at beginning of senior year. The aims and\nresponsibilities of life unfold themselves in absorbing panorama, and\nhis soul is full of high resolve. The world is his oyster. Studies\nhard for six months and graduates somewhat higher than had been\nanticipated. (Curtain descends to inspiring music.) Solomon stands on\nthe threshold of life the image of virile youth, shading his brow and\nlooking at the promised land.\n\n_Early Manhood (twenty-one to thirty)._--Solomon decides to go into\nbusiness. Reasons chiefly pecuniary. No special aptitude for anything\nelse. Is sent abroad to study more human nature, acquire breadth of\nview and learn French. Does so in Paris. Returns with some of his high\nresolve tarnished, and with only a smattering of the language in\nquestion. Goes into the employ of a wholesale dry-goods merchant, and\nbegins at the lowest round of the ladder. Works hard and absorbedly.\nVery little leisure. Devotes what he has to social diversion. Develops\na pleasing talent for private theatricals, in the exercise of which\nfalls in love with a pretty but impecunious young woman. (Slow and\nsentimental music.) Yearns to marry, but is advised by elderly\nbusiness friends that he cannot afford it. Dejected winter in bachelor\napartments. Takes up with Schopenhauer. Spirits slightly restored by\nfirst rise on ladder. Eschews society and private theatricals. Forms\nrelations, which recall Paris, with sympathetic, nomadic young person.\nGets another rise on the ladder, and is spoken of among his\ncontemporaries as doing well.\n\n_Manhood (thirty-one to forty)._--Works steadily and makes several\nfortunate investments. Joins one or two clubs, and gains eight pounds\nin weight. Grows side-whiskers or a goatee. Gets another rise, and the\nfollowing year is taken into the firm. Complains of dyspepsia, and at\nadvice of physician buys saddle-horse. Contributes fifty dollars to\ncharity, joins a book-club and attends two political caucuses. Thinks\nof taking an active interest in politics, but is advised by elderly\nbusiness friends that it would interfere with his business prospects.\nOwing to the death of a member of the firm, becomes second in command.\nThinks of changing bachelor rooms and wonders why he shouldn't marry\ninstead. Goes into society a little and looks about. Gains five extra\npounds and makes more fortunate investments. Picks out good-looking,\nsensible girl eight years younger than himself, with a tidy property\nin her own right. Is conscious of being enraptured in her presence,\nand deems himself very much in love. (Orchestra plays waltz by\nStrauss.) Offers himself and is accepted. Burns everything in his\nbachelor rooms and sells out all his speculative investments. Regrets\nto observe that he is growing bald. Impressive ceremony and large\nwedding-cake.\n\n_Manhood--Middle Age (forty to fifty-five)._--Conservative attitude\ntoward domestic expenses. Works hard from what he calls \"new\nincentive.\" Delights in the peacefulness of the domestic hearth.\nBlissful mental condition. (Religious music.) Buys pew in Rev. Peter\nTyson's church. Buys baby-wagon. Increasing profits in dry-goods\nbusiness. Almost bald. Gives two hundred dollars to foreign missions.\nIs proud of his wife's appearance and entertains in moderation.\nBecomes head of firm. Buys gold-headed cane and gains five more\npounds. Goes to Europe for six months, with his wife, and conducts\nhimself with propriety, visiting cathedrals and historical monuments.\nShows her Paris. Foresees financial complications and turns ship\naccordingly. Increasing family expenses and depressing conditions in\ndry-goods trade. Completely bald. First attack of gout. Absorbed in\nbusiness and in real-estate investments. On return of commercial\nprosperity, reaps the reward of foresight and sagacity. Is chosen\ndirector of two railroads and a trust company. Is elected president of\nhis club. Gives five hundred dollars to domestic missions. Buys new\nhouse and a barouche for his wife. Gives large evening entertainment.\nSecond attack of gout. Goes to Carlsbad for treatment. (Toccata by\nGaluppi.)\n\n_Old Age--(fifty-five to sixty-seven)._--Addresses Christian\nassociation on \"How to Succeed in Life.\" Is appointed trustee of a\nhospital and an art museum. Votes conservatively on every question. Is\nreferred to in newspapers as \"Hon. Solomon Grundy.\" Slight attack of\nparalysis. Becomes somewhat venerable in appearance. Deplores\ndegeneracy of modern ideas. Retires from active business. More\nvenerable in appearance. Second attack of paralysis and death.\n\nAnd that was the end of Solomon Grundy. A highly respectable\nrepresentative of a second-class man. The term suggests an idea. We\nhave here no first, second, and third-class railway carriages, as are\nfound in England and other countries. But it would be interesting,\nfrom a philosophical point of view, to invent such a train for the\noccasion, and bestow our friends and acquaintances, and, indeed,\nsociety at large, according to their qualifications. You, of course,\nare desirous to know who are the persons entitled to travel\nfirst-class, in order that you may be introduced to them and avoid\nintimacy with the others, so far as is consistent with Christian\ncharity and the mutual obligations of social beings. But let me first\ndip my pen in the ink again.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man or Woman_ in Search of the Ideal. II.\n\n\nAbracadabra. Presto! Behold the train. The gates are opened and the\npeople press in. There will not be much trouble with the third-class\npassengers. See how they take their proper places of their own accord.\nSome of them deserve to ride second-class quite as much as many who\nwill be affronted at not being allowed to go first-class. Do you see\nthat man? He is a commercial traveller, or drummer, and, naturally,\nearly on the ground. He doesn't hesitate or examine his ticket, but\ngets directly into a second-class smoking-car, settles himself, and\nputs on a silk cap. He knows that it is useless to ask for a\nfirst-class seat, and he is going to make the best of it (which is\ngood philosophy). Very likely if you were sitting next to him he would\nutter some such cheery remark as, \"It will be all the same a hundred\nyears hence,\" and tell you a pat story to illustrate the situation.\nDid you happen to notice, though, the longing look he cast at the\nfirst-class coaches as he went by? I feel sure that down in his heart\nhe is ready to admit that there are such things as ideals, after all,\nand he is making resolutions as to what he would do if he could live\nhis life over again.\n\nDid you notice that stout, fashionably dressed man who stopped and\nlooked at me with a grin? He was trying it on, so to speak. He knew\njust as well as Tom Johnson, the drummer, that he had no right to\ntravel first-class, but he thought I might admit him on the score of\nsocial prestige. He is one of the kindest-hearted of fellows--just the\nman to whom a friend would apply in a tight place, and I rather think\nhe would be apt to help an enemy, unless it happened that something he\nhad eaten for supper the night before had disagreed with him. He has\nthe digestion of an ostrich, and he needs it, for his skin is full of\noil, and whiskey, and tortured goose-liver, and canvas-back ducks, and\npepper-sauce, and ripe Camembert cheese, and truffles, and Burgundy,\nand many other rich and kindred delicacies. He could tell four\ndifferent vintages of champagne apart with his eyes shut, and he has\nhonor at his club on account of it. His name is Howard Vincent. An\nillustrious-sounding name, isn't it? He inherits gout from both sides\nof the family. He does not know Tom Johnson, the drummer. They have\nmoved in different social strata. But they belong to the same order of\nhuman beings. There! you notice, he asks Tom for a light, and they\nhave begun to talk together. They are laughing now, and Tom is\nwinking. I shouldn't wonder if they were making fun of the first-class\npassengers. Vincent has read more or less in his day, and he rather\nprides himself on what he calls keeping abreast of the times in the\nline of thought. See, they have opened the window, and are beckoning\nto me. Let us hear what they have to say.\n\n_Drummer._ Ah, there, philosopher! You wouldn't let us in, and I guess\nyou know your business. We've had a good time in life, anyhow. If the\nreligious folk are right, we shall be in it up to our necks. If\nthey're wrong, they've been wasting a lot of valuable time.\n\n_Howard Vincent._ We've ridden straight, at all events. (Vincent is an\nauthority on sporting matters.) We haven't pretended to be something\nwe were not. We've never cheated anybody, and we've never lied to\nanybody, and each, according to his light (this last qualification was\nfor Tom's benefit), has been a gentleman. We've been men of the world,\nand we have found the world a reasonably satisfactory place. We're in\nno haste to leave it.\n\n_The Philosopher._ And may I add, gentlemen, that each of you has a\nkind and generous heart?\n\nDid you observe how pleased they looked when I said that? It was a\nlittle weak of me to say it, but I could not help it. Somehow, it is\nvery difficult to be sufficiently severe to such easy-going,\npleasant-natured fellows, who are content to take the world as they\nfind it, laugh and grow fat. Moreover, Tom Johnson has for twenty\nyears supported his old mother and invalid sister, and remained single\nas a consequence; and Howard Vincent has a habit of giving away\ndelightful sums on Christmas Day without advertising the fact. How\noften, on the occasion of death, do we hear the aphorism that\neverything counts for nothing save the kindly deeds of the deceased,\nuntil one is tempted to believe that a genial commercial traveller,\nlike our friend, with a benignant soul is more admirable and inspiring\nthan a highly sensitive gentleman and scholar. Indisputably this is so\nif the gentleman and scholar lacks the humanity for which the other is\nconspicuous; but, nevertheless, it behooves the soul in search of the\nideal to beware of the slough of mere warm-heartedness. It is an\nattribute which, if relied on too exclusively as a leavening force, is\nreadily made to subserve very ordinary purposes. The two Falstaffian\nmen in the second-class car belong there, even though you might find\ntheir kindly ways and their stories attractive up to a certain point.\nThey are of the class of men who, more signally perhaps than any\nother, bar the path of the world's progress toward the stars by means\nof the argument that what has been must be, and that what is is good\nenough. They are of the men who shrug their shoulders when the hope is\nexpressed that the abuse of liquor may be lessened and finally\ncontrolled; who sneer at the efforts of the police authorities to shut\nup all the houses of ill-repute, on the ground that prostitution has\nalways existed and must always exist. (That it will never become\n\"unpopular,\" as the drummer would tell you in his breezy way.)\nAssuredly, you need to be on your guard against infatuation with those\nbig, genial and (usually) pot-bellied personages whose large hearts\nand abundant charity and splendid appetites allow them to discard as\nunworthy of a sensible man's regard everything but honesty, reading,\nspelling and arithmetic (add, in the case of Howard Vincent, a dash of\naccomplishments and agnostic philosophy), Worcestershire sauce and\njests of custom-made humor. Blessed be humor. The man or woman without\nit is like a loaf of stale bread or a cup of brackish water. But to be\ncontent with the mere workaday world and its ways is like travelling\nperpetually with a grip-sack. When we open the grip-sack, what do we\nfind? The barest necessaries of life, without a trace of anything\nwhich inspires or refines. I have no desire to betray the private\naffairs of any commercial traveller, or to imply that the Bible and\nShakespeare are not occasionally to be found both in the kit of the\ntravelling man and the English leather trunk of the more elegant man\nof fashion. I am simply cautioning you, my male correspondents, to\nbeware of accepting as final your world as you find it. Nothing is\nmore sure to make you a second-class person. Mere good-natured\ncommon-sense (\"horse-sense,\" as our drummer would call it) is a useful\nvirtue, but it would keep civilization ordinary to the crack of doom.\n\nAh! now we are likely to have trouble. Notice, please, the lady coming\nthis way. How graceful and elegant she is. A delicate, refined face\nand bearing. See how she sidles off from the third and second-class\npassengers with an expression of distaste for them which suggests\npain. She cannot bear coarse people. She believes herself to be an\nintellectual woman with serious tastes. She aims to be a spiritual\nperson and she reads many essays--by Emerson, Matthew Arnold, Pater,\nand others. She is fond of history and politics; not of this country,\nbecause she claims that it is vulgar and lacks picturesqueness. But\nshe can tell you all about the governments of Europe, and who is prime\nminister of or in authority in each of them. Democracy does not\ninterest her. It seems to her to concern the affairs of dirty or\ncommon people; and she cares nothing for the great social questions of\nthe age. They appear to her to clash with personal spirituality and\nculture. She is very sensitive. She has made a study of music,\nespecially Wagner. She is very particular as to what she has to eat,\nbut the grossness of men, as she calls it, offends her seriously. She\nbelieves herself to be not very strong physically, and she is nervous\non the subject of arsenic in wall-papers and germs in drinking-water.\nShe has retained her maidenly instincts to the last.\n\nWhat is that you ask, madam? A seat in a first-class carriage. Excuse\nme, you cannot go in there. You belong in the second-class section of\nthe train. Mistake? There is no mistake. I understand perfectly. I'm\nready to take your word for it that you have read Dante in the\noriginal, and I know that you are\n\n                  _Chaste as the icicle\n    That's curded by the frost from purest snow,\n    And hangs on Dian's temple._\n\n(Doubtless you recall the quotation.) But you must stay out. Your\nticket reads \"Personal culture and individual salvation,\" and it\nentitles you to ride in any of those second-class cars. You don't like\nthe passengers? I am very sorry, I'm sure, but my instructions are\nexplicit. I was told to keep out all ladies of your kind, who think\nthat the ideal is to be attained by hugging themselves to themselves\n(excuse the coarseness of the metaphor, madam) all their days in a\nhot-house atmosphere, and playing bo-peep with their own souls. You\nintend to write a letter about it to the Boston _Evening_----? Oh,\nvery well. You will have to ride second-class, all the same.\n\nEnter a clergyman. This seems more promising.\n\n_Clergyman._ Is this the first-class section? I think my seat must be\nin here.\n\n_Philosopher._ First-class here, sir. Tickets, please. (_Aside to\ncorrespondent._) A modest gentleman, forsooth.\n\n_Clergyman_ (_stops fumbling in his pocket for his tickets and sniffs\nsuspiciously_). I smell tobacco. Is there a smoking-car on the\nfirst-class train?\n\n_Philosopher._ There is for those who smoke.\n\n_Clergyman._ An outrage, sir. An unchristian outrage. I suppose next\nthat you will tell me that intoxicating fluids are sold there.\n\n_Philosopher._ Yes, sir, to those who use them. All the first-class\npassengers understand the use of such things in moderation. They are\nnot injured by them.\n\n_Clergyman._ A flimsy argument, sir. Think of the example. I repeat\nit, sir; think of the example. I protest against it, sir, as a crime\nagainst our highest civilization. I--I will have you removed from\noffice. You are not fit to hold your position. I will see the governor\nabout it immediately. I--I----\n\n_Philosopher_ (_to correspondent_). He fancies that he is arguing on\nthe liquor question before a board of police commissioners. (_To\nclergyman._) The gentleman will come to order.\n\n_Clergyman._ I insist on having the smoking and drinking car detached,\nor I will not ride on the train.\n\n_Philosopher._ You will not ride in the first-class portion of it, in\nany event. Your ticket reads \"Well-intentioned but overbearing\nvisionary enthusiast.\" Come, sir, pass on, or, in spite of your cloth,\nI shall be obliged to put you in charge of an officer for disturbing\nthe peace.\n\n\nI was interrupted here by my wife, Josephine. \"Of course I\nunderstand,\" said she, \"that he was very overbearing, and I have heard\nyou say before that clergymen are more apt to lose their temper before\ncommittees than most other people. But the poor man was desperately in\nearnest. The whole thing means so much to him. He believes that the\nworld will never be redeemed until liquor and tobacco are no longer\nused in it. Do you mean that you really think this will never come to\npass?\"\n\n\"Never is a long time, my dear,\" said I.\n\n\"But you were discussing the ideal.\"\n\n\"To be sure. Have you ever considered the matter from the\nmoderate-drinker and smoker's point of view? Brain-weary, muscle-tired\nmen have, from generation to generation, found a glass of wine or\nspirit and a cigar a refreshment and a comfort. Neither agrees with\nsome, and many abuse the use of both. Drunkenness among the poor and\ntippling among the rich are, perhaps, the greatest enemies of\ncivilization; and, consequently, there is a corps of many women and\nsome men who cry out upon the use of alcohol as incompatible with the\nworld's progress. This sentiment at the polls expresses itself chiefly\nin very small minorities, unless the voters are reasonably near to\nsome large city or town. The failure of the movement to make important\nheadway might be ascribed to the fact that the mass of people are\nstill unenlightened, were there any signs that the intelligent workers\nof the world are disposed to side with the wearers of the white\nribbon. The use of champagne, claret, brandy, and whiskey continues\nunabated over the civilized world, if one is to judge by economic\nstatistics and trade circulars. They are quaffed on state and festal\noccasions, generally with moderation, by lords and ladies, statesmen,\nlawyers, doctors, bankers, soldiers, poets, artists, and often by\nbishops and clergymen. At ninety-nine out of every hundred formal\ndinner-parties in London, Paris, Berlin, or New York, alcohol is\noffered in some form to the guests as a stimulus to conversation, and,\nwere it not so, there would be ninety-nine grumblers to every one man\nor woman who, at present, turns his or her glasses down with an\nill-bred, virtuous air.\"\n\n\"And yet,\" said Josephine, \"I have heard you say constantly that it\nwould be no particular deprivation to you to give up wine.\"\n\n\"No more it would. In this country, with its stimulating climate, most\nnervous people are better for a very little if any alcohol, and many\nmen are apt to find that it is simpler not to drink at all. But,\nremember, we are considering the question whether there is any reason\nwhy the man or woman in perfect health, and in search of the ideal,\nshould be a teetotaler, and if there is any probability that the world\nwill banish alcohol and cigars from the dignified occasions of the\nfuture. In other words, when the world has learned not to drink and\nsmoke too much, will it cease to drink and smoke altogether? I know\nthat the advocates of total-abstinence argue about the serenity and\nsane joy of a cold-water banquet, and it may be that we are a trifle\nhysterical in our declarations that conversation must lag until one\nhas had a glass of champagne; but is not much of the light, masculine\nlaughter of life associated with the fruit of the grape and the aroma\nof tobacco? Have you ever tried to picture to yourself a world as it\nwould be if there were well-enforced, rigid prohibition everywhere,\nand the tobacco-plant were no more?\"\n\nJosephine gave a little laugh. \"You say the masculine laughter of the\nworld. I assure you that much of the masculine laughter which you\nassociate with the fruit of the grape is associated in the feminine\nmind with conjugal or maternal tears. I quite understand your appeal\nto the imagination from the masculine point of view. That is, I\nsuppose the words wine and tobacco bring in their train for man many\npleasing and even inspiriting images; that under their influence the\nsoldier believes himself more brave and wins battles in anticipation;\nthat the artist gets a glimpse of his great picture, and that the\ntired husband and father sees evolve from the bottom of his beer-mug a\ntransfigured reflection of his wife and children. But we women, who,\nas a sex, have always done without wine and tobacco, know from\nexperience that, however lofty and delightful your visions at such\ntimes, there is always a reaction after alcohol, and that we generally\nget the full benefit of the reaction. If, now, inspiring visions never\ncame to us and other total-abstainers, there would seem to be some\nreason why we should be willing to bear the brunt of man's inebrieties\na little longer; but really, my dear philosopher, is there any reason\nto believe that we do not entertain visions quite as inspiring and\ndelightful as yours? We drink only tea--too much of it for our nerves,\nI dare say--but we will gladly give that up if you will abjure alcohol\nand cigars. There certainly is no poetry in the aroma of tobacco in\nthe curtains, next day, and we pass the morning with it when you have\ngone down-town. Don't you think there is a great deal of humbug in the\nnotion that in order to laugh lightly and remember gladly men need to\nbe titillated either by wine or tobacco? I'm glad you wouldn't allow\nthat bumptious clergyman to ride in a first-class car, but I don't see\nwhy the world should not be just as gay, and many women twice as\nhappy, if there were no wine or tobacco. Only think how light-hearted\nwoman would be if the incubus of man's drunkenness, under which she\nhas staggered for hundreds of years, should be lifted off forever! She\nwould be so bubbling over with happiness that, even though as a\nconsequence man were in the dumps and without visions, she would make\nhim merry in spite of himself.\"\n\n\"Very likely, Josephine. I am disposed to agree with you that the jest\nand merriment of masculine youth would not be entirely and hopelessly\nrepressed. But you do not take sufficiently into consideration--and in\nthis you imitate the bumptious clergyman who was going to have me\nremoved--the world's cravings and necessities as a world. If, pardon\nme, men were all women in their appetites, and life were one grand\npastoral _a la_ Puvis de Chavannes--if, in short, the world were\nnot the bustling, feverish, perplexing, exhausting, crushing, cruel\nworld, men would not crave stimulants to help them to do their work or\nto forget it. If there were no alcohol or cigars, would not those who\nnow use either to excess have recourse to some other form of stimulant\nor fatigue and pain disguiser instead? Why should those who have\nlearned the great lesson of life, self-control, renounce the enjoyment\nof being artificially strengthened or cheered because others let their\nappetites run away with them and make beasts of them? I have, indeed,\nalready suggested that it is a dangerous argument to instance an\nexisting state of affairs as a reason against change; but I beg to\ncall your attention to the fact that the world seems to pay very\nlittle heed to the lamentations of the teetotalers, so far as\ntotal-abstinence is concerned. There has been a change of temper among\nall classes in the direction of moderation in the use of liquor and\nwine, and legislation regulating and restricting licenses is becoming\npopular. But if the wearers of the white ribbon were to make inquiries\nof the dealers in glass-ware, they would find that no fewer newly\nmarried couples, among the educated and well-to-do in every country,\nbuy wine-glasses as a necessary table article, in order to provide\nwine or beer for those whom they expect to entertain. There are\ncertainly no signs that society, in the best sense, has any intention\nof adopting prohibition as a cardinal virtue, but many signs that it\nis seriously determined to make warfare on inebriety, and no longer to\nproffer it the cloak of social protection when the offenders happen to\nbe what the world used to call gentlemen. One's ideal should not be\ntoo remote from probable human conclusions, and it does not seem\nlikely, from present indications, that man, unless he be persuaded\nthat the moderate use of stimulants is seriously injurious to his\nhealth, will ever be willing to banish them from the markets of the\nworld because a certain portion of the community has not the necessary\nintelligence or self-control to use them with discretion. As for\ntobacco, it is a long cry from now to the millennium, but a\nphilosopher cannot afford, at this stage of the itinerary, to cut off\nthe smoking-car from the first-class portion of the train, for by so\ndoing he might confound even archbishops and other exemplary\npersonages.\"\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man or Woman_ in Search of the Ideal. III.\n\n\nI was interrupted at this point in my letter by the loud ringing of\nthe front door bell. Glancing at the clock, I observed that it was\neleven. Consequently, the servants must have gone to bed. Under\nthese circumstances, a philosopher has to open the front door\nhimself, or submit to a prolonged tintinnabulation. \"Ting-a-ling-a,\nling-a-ling-a-ling\" went the bell again.\n\n\"It must be a telegram,\" said Josephine. \"I wonder what has happened?\"\n\n\"Or a dinner-invitation which the servant was told to deliver this\nmorning,\" I answered. \"One would suppose that, after turning out the\ngas in the hall, one could work without callers.\"\n\nHaving lighted up, and having unbolted the inner door, I beheld,\nthrough the glass window of the outer, a young man in a slouch hat.\nEvidently he was not a telegraph-messenger or a domestic. Nor did he\nhave exactly the aspect of a midnight marauder. Nevertheless, I opened\nthe door merely a crack and inquired, gruffly:\n\n\"What do you wish?\"\n\nSaid a blithe, friendly voice: \"I saw your light, and I took the\nliberty of ringing. Can't you give me three thousand words on the\ndeath of the Czar of Russia?\"\n\nBefore he had finished this sentence, he had backed me, by his\npersuasive manner, from the vestibule into the hall, and I remembered\nvaguely that I had seen him somewhere.\n\n\"I'm the local correspondent of the New York _Despatch_,\" he said, to\nrefresh my memory.\n\nI recollected then that he had tried to interview me six months before\non my domestic interior, and that I had politely declined the honor.\nHe was a lean, alert, bright-eyed man of thirty-five with a pleasant\nsmile.\n\n\"Isn't it rather late to ring my door-bell?\" I inquired, with dignity.\n(My mental language was, \"What do you mean, you infernal young\nreprobate, by ringing my door-bell at this hour of the night on such\nan impudent errand?\" But, in the presence of the press, even a\nphilosopher is disposed to be diplomatic.)\n\n\"I needed you, badly,\" was the reply. \"I've got to wire to New York\nto-night three thousand words on the death of the Czar.\"\n\n\"What do I know about the Czar of Russia? Why don't you go to the\nhistorians or politicians? There are several in the neighborhood. I'm\na philosopher.\"\n\n\"I've tried them,\" he said, with a patient smile. \"They were out or in\nbed. Then I thought of you. Anything you would say on the subject\nwould be read with great interest.\"\n\n\"Pshaw!\" I answered.\n\nBy this time he had backed me into the dining-room, and, under the\ninfluence of diplomacy, I searched for a box of cigars. I had no\nintention of giving him a single word on the deceased ruler of all the\nRussias, but I wished to let myself down easy, so to speak, and retain\nhis good-will.\n\n\"Ah!\" he said, settling in a chair, with a Cabana, \"this is the first\nrestful moment I have had to-day.\" He was pensive during a few puffs,\nthen he added: \"A reporter's life is not all strawberry ice-cream. Do\nyou suppose I enjoy rousing a man at this hour of the night? It makes\nme shiver whenever I do it.\"\n\n\"I should think it might,\" I answered, in spite of myself. \"Some men\nwould be apt to resent it.\"\n\n\"You misunderstand me. I do not shiver from physical fear, but because\nmy sense of propriety is wounded. I dare say,\" he continued, looking\nat me narrowly, \"that you think I take no interest in the ideal; that\nyou suppose me to be a materialistic Philistine.\"\n\nYou will appreciate that this was startling and especially interesting\nto me under the circumstances. I, in my turn, examined my visitor more\ncarefully. There were evidences in his countenance of a sensitive\nsoul, and of refined intelligence. The thought occurred to me that\nhere was an opportunity to obtain testimony. \"I think that every\nthoughtful man must take an interest in the ideal,\" I answered, \"and,\nin spite of the lateness of the hour, I had not set you down as an\nexception to the rule. Curiously enough, however, I was busy when the\nbell rang answering a letter from several correspondents in search of\nthe ideal. I will read it to you, if you like, as far as I have got.\"\n\nPerhaps I hoped that in submitting he would appear slightly\ncrest-fallen. But, on the contrary, he showed obvious enthusiasm at\nthe suggestion, and begged me to fetch my manuscript at once.\nJosephine met me at the top of the stairs, and whispered that she had\nbeen dying with curiosity to know who it was.\n\n\"A reporter,\" I whispered, in reply.\n\n\"What does he wish for?\"\n\n\"Three thousand words on the death of the Czar of Russia,\" I said,\nmysteriously; then I picked up my letter and glided away with my\nfinger on my lips. \"If he stays too long, dear, you may come down, as\na gentle hint.\"\n\nI began to read, and, as I read, my heart warmed toward my visitor on\naccount of the absorbed attention he paid to my philosophy. \"And now,\"\nsaid I, when I had finished, \"pray tell what is your ideal? You have\ntold me that you were interested in one.\"\n\nHe shook his head sadly. \"No matter about me. It's too late. I can\nonly shiver and go on. But I'm interested in what you're trying to do,\nand, if you like, I'm willing to throw in a word now and then while\nyou work it out. I'm glad,\" he added, \"that you hit the back numbers a\nrap.\"\n\nI told him that he was not exactly intelligible.\n\n\"I mean the old familiar aspirants; in particular the lady interested\nin culture and personal salvation. There was no question about the man\nof the world and the drummer; one might feel kindly toward them, but\nof course they must ride second-class, and most newspaper men would\nride with them--and some of the editors would have to go third.\nEasy-going commonness is the curse of democracy, even if I, who am a\ndemocrat of the democrats, do say it. But what I like most--and it's\nthe nub of the whole matter--is that you knew enough to throw out that\nwoman; she might equally well have been a man, for there are plenty of\nthe same sort. If you'll excuse my saying so,\" he said, biting his\ncigar fiercely, \"I shouldn't have expected it of a philosopher like\nyou, and I honor your intelligence because of it. The man or woman of\nto-day in search of the ideal comes plumb up against sweating,\nbleeding, yearning democracy, and whoever funks, or shirks the\nsituation has no first-class soul--be he or she ever so delicate, or\ncultured, or learned.\"\n\nI could not but feel gratified at his fervor, nor did I mind his\nbringing his hand down on the table with the last word by way of\nemphasis, for he had grasped my meaning precisely. Evidently, too, he\nhad taken the bit between his teeth and meant to have his say, for, as\nhe lighted another cigar, his nostrils dilated with suppressed\nearnestness and his eye gleamed significantly.\n\n\"I'm not a man of culture,\" he continued. \"I have the effrontery, from\nthe necessities of my trade, to ring at your door-bell at midnight,\nand I know my own limitations, but I know what culture is. When I\nstand on the cliff and watch the waves hurl themselves against the\nshore--when on a peaceful summer's night I view the heavens in their\nglory, I realize in my own behalf something of what those who have had\nmore opportunities than I are able to feel, and I know that I am\nilliterate and common as compared with many. But, Mr. Philosopher,\nwhat has been the philosophy of beauty and art and intellect and\nelegance through all the centuries until lately? Individual seclusion,\nappropriation, and arrogance. The admirable soul, the admirable\ngenius, the admirable refinement was that which gloried in its\nsuperiority to the rest of the world and claimed the right of\naloofness. The monk and the nun lived apart from the common life, and\nwere thought to walk nearer heaven because of it. That idea of the\npriesthood has nearly passed away, but aloofness and arrogance are\nstill too typical of the mental and the social aristocrats. They glory\nin their own superiority and delicacy, lift their skirts if they're\nwomen, hold their noses if they're men, and thank heaven they are not\nas the masses are. They are charitable, they are sometimes generous,\nand invariably didactic, but they hold aloof from the common herd.\nThey refuse to open the gates of sympathy, and sometimes it seems as\nthough the gates will never be opened until they are broken down by\nthe masses.\"\n\nMy visitor suddenly stopped, and started to rise from his chair.\nTurning to investigate the cause of the interruption, I encountered my\nwife, Josephine, armed with a tray containing a brazier and the\nessentials for a midnight repast.\n\n\"You will be able to talk better if you have something to eat,\" she\nexclaimed, affably.\n\nThe ceremony of introduction having been performed successfully\nwithout causing our guest to notice that we did not know his name, I\nbegged him to continue his address.\n\n\"Yes, do,\" said Josephine, \"while I cook the oysters. I could not help\noverhearing a little of your conversation, so I know the general\ndrift.\"\n\n[_Note._--That means she had been leaning over the banisters,\nlistening.]\n\n\"A lunch will taste very good,\" said the reporter.\n\n[_Note._--Here he ran up against one of my pet prejudices, and for a\nmoment I almost forgot that I was doing the honors of my own house. I\nalmost said: \"Speaking of democracy and culture, my dear sir, I should\nlike to inquire if you have any authority for your use of the word\n'lunch'? As employed by the appropriating and the arrogant it has long\nmeant a meal or a bite between breakfast and dinner; but, as used by\ndemocracy, it seems to apply to afternoon tea or late supper equally\nwell.\"]\n\n\"We were speaking of the ideal,\" he continued, addressing my wife,\n\"and I was just saying that only recently had the world of noblest\nthought and aims begun to recognize that an ideal life must\nnecessarily include interest in and sympathy for common humanity, and\nthat the mere aristocrat of religion, of culture, or of manners, has\nceased to be the Sir Galahad of civilization.\"\n\n\"Indeed it must be so,\" said Josephine, \"and the idea is rapidly\ngaining ground. People used to be satisfied with making charitable\ndonations; now they investigate facts and conditions and give\nthemselves. But it isn't always easy for those who love beauty to\navoid shrinking from people and things not beautiful. There is nothing\nwhich freezes a sensitive, artistic nature more quickly than dirt and\nugliness, and yet the ideal modern soul does not turn away, but seeks\nto sympathize and to share. Might you not, dear (Josephine was now\naddressing me, not the reporter), say that the key-note of the ideal\nlife is refined sympathy?\"\n\n\"It certainly is an indispensable attribute of it,\" I answered.\n\n\"How much easier it is,\" mused Josephine, as she stirred the oysters\nin the melting butter, \"to wrap one's self in one's own aesthetic\naspirations and to let the common world shift for itself. It was\npossible, once, to do that and believe one's self a saint, but that\nday has passed forever. It's very hard, though, sometimes, Mr.\nReporter. Constant contact with the common world is liable to make one\nterribly discouraged unless one has abiding faith in the future of\ndemocracy.\"\n\n\"I know it; I know it,\" he replied, eagerly. \"We're a depressing\nlot--many of us. Don't you suppose I understand how the sensitive soul\nmust suffer when it has to deal with some of us? Take the cheap,\nignorant, mercenary, city politician, such as disgraces the aldermanic\nchair of our large cities--there's a discouraging monster for you.\nThere is a host of others; the shallow, self-sufficient, impertinent\ntype of shop-girl, whose sole concern is her finery and her 'fellow';\nthe small dealer of a certain sort, who adulterates his wares, lies to\nmaintain his cause, and will not hesitate to burn his stock in order\nto obtain the insurance money; the sordid number who seek to break the\nwills of their relations who have devised the property to others; the\nmany, too, who make a mess of marriage, and leave wife or husband on\nthe paltriest pleas. I know them well; they are the people, they are\nhumanity, and they can no longer be ignored and loftily set aside as\n'the uneducated mass' by those whose finer instincts cause them to\nlive free from these sins. Hard? Of course it's hard, but the best\nhope for the improvement of society lies in the education and\nenlightenment of that mass; and this can be compassed only through the\nefforts and sympathy of the intelligent and refined.\"\n\nJust then the clock struck midnight. \"Bless me!\" he exclaimed, every\none will be in bed, and what will become of my telegram on the Czar of\nRussia? Instead of getting three thousand words from you, I have been\ngiving you that number on your own topic.\"\n\n\"For once, then, I have got the better of a reporter,\" said I.\n\n\"But before I give you any supper, Mr. Reporter,\" said Josephine, \"you\nmust acknowledge, too, that the movement _is_ gaining ground, and that\nthe refined and educated _are_ changing their point of view. Think of\nthe hospitals, think of the museums, think of the colleges, think of\nthe model tenements, the schools for manual training and cooking.\"\n\n\"I do acknowledge it; it is grand and inspiring. I have been merely\ncalling attention to the fact that in the search for the ideal their\nnew point of view must become permanent and extend still farther. To\ncounterbalance your facts I could cite others. Think of the doings of\nthe multi-millionaires, their modern palaces, their extravagant\nentertainments, their steam-yachts, their home-desecrating wives--a\nlot of third-class passengers, with no more claim to be considered\nfirst-class than the alderman and the shop-girl and the other\ndemocrats of whom we were speaking a moment ago. Nothing of the ideal\nthere, and they had such a grand chance! Yes, yes, I do admit, madam,\nthat the efforts and progress of the refined and intelligent during\nthe last quarter of a century have been notable and stirring, but\ndemocracy has been neglected for so many centuries that it may prove a\nlittle ungrateful at first. And here am I, Mr. Philosopher, keeping\nyour train in three sections waiting all this time.\"\n\n\"The oysters are cooked,\" said Josephine.\n\n\"Five minutes for lunch!\" cried the reporter.\n\n[_Note._--Confound the man! Why should he call my supper a lunch?]\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man or Woman_ in Search of the Ideal. IV.\n\n\nThat beatific mental condition associated by my midnight visitor, the\nreporter, with people of alleged cultivation and aesthetic tastes, when\nin the presence of the beauties or marvels of nature, like sunset,\nmountain scenery, ocean calm and ocean storm, is doubtless a familiar\nexperience to you. The wonder book of nature is constantly being held\nup by poet and painter as the source of human ideality, and all the\ntraditions of civilization urge you to attain that degree of artistic\ndevelopment under the white light of which the seals of that book\nbecome loosened, and you are able to read in the evening star and the\nmountain torrent lessons of inspiration and truth. Next to nature in\ntheir aesthetic potency are her hand-maids, music, sculpture, letters\nand painting--briefly, the civilized arts, the medium by which mortals\nseek to woo and hold fast to beauty. We listen to the gorgeous anthems\nof the world's most famous composers, and our souls thrill and vibrate\nwith emotion; life seems grand and everything possible. We stand\nbefore the greatest marbles and canvasses, and we seem to have truth\nwithin our grasp and nature almost subjugated. How exquisitely falls\non the senses the sublimity of the lines\n\n    _Fair as a star, when only one\n      Is shining in the sky._\n\nWe catch a glimpse there of what we call heaven. Is there any more\nsatisfactory occupation for a thirsty soul than to scan the fairness\nof the twilight heavens when the evening star shines alone and the\nsaffron or purple glories of the departing day irradiate the west?\n\n    _Noi andavam per lo vespero attenti\n      Oltre, quanto potean gli occhi allungarsi,\n      Contro i raggi serotini e lucenti._\n\nSo wrote Dante in immortal verse, to portray the aesthetic value of a\nkindred experience.\n\nI selected those lines of Wordsworth because he, of all the poets,\nsuggests more ostensibly in his verse deliberate pursuit of the ideal.\nShelley, indeed, reveals a bolder purpose to unmask the infinite, but\nhis mood is oftener that of an audacious stormer of heaven than of a\nreverent seeker for perfect truth. We feel in Wordsworth a conscious\nintent to distill from the study of nature and of man a spiritual\nexhalation, which would enlighten him and enable him, by force of his\npoetic gifts, to enlighten us as to how best to live. When we think of\nhim, we see him amid the exquisite scenery of his favorite lakes,\nwalking in close communion with God; discerning the manifestations of\nthe infinite in the mountain and the wild flower, in the splendor of\nthe storm and the faithful doings of the humblest lives.\n\nEver since he wrote Wordsworth has been the patron saint of\nintrospective souls. In his poetry they have found not merely\nsuggestion but a creed. The poet himself was at heart an enthusiast\nand a revolutionary, and his worship of quiet beauty and subjective\nrefinement was the expression of a design broader and deeper in its\nscope than many of his followers have been willing to adopt. He\nrevealed not merely the aesthetic significance of the contemplative\nlife which substitutes soul analysis, with God in nature as a guide,\nfor the grosser interests of the flesh, but also the unholiness of\nclass distinctions and of the indifference of man to his fellow-man as\ndistinguished from himself. The followers of Wordsworth were, for the\nmost part, prompt to accept the first without including the second and\nequally fundamental tenet of his philosophy. What, a quarter of a\ncentury ago, was the ordinary practice of the cultivated and refined,\nwho had been stirred either directly or indirectly by the teaching of\nthe great poet to adopt contemplation as the key-note of their daily\nlives? Their greatest number was in beautiful, rural England; but the\nspiritual atmosphere breathed by them soon found its way across the\nAtlantic, and served to exalt and modify the ever moral inclinations\nof New England.\n\nPicture, if you will, the model country house of the English country\ngentleman of comfortable means and refined tastes. To begin with, the\nstructure itself is charming; time has bestowed upon it\npicturesqueness, and art has made it beautiful with the simple but\neffective arrangement of vines and flowers. There is nothing of the\nvileness of earth at hand to mar or offend. The proprietor himself, an\nelder son, has been left with a competence; no riches, but sufficient\nto enable him to pursue his literary or other refined interests\nwithout molestation from pecuniary cares. The interior is tasteful and\naesthetically satisfying; the spacious, comfortable rooms contain all\nthat is desirable in the way of upholstery, ornaments, books, and\npictures. The large drawing-room windows command a fair expanse of\nvelvet lawn, flanked by stately trees. Beyond lies an undulating\nacreage of ancestral metes and bounds, rich in verdure and precious\nwith associations. Here lives our gentleman the greater portion of the\nyear; lives aspiringly according to his Wordsworthian creed. He\neschews or uses with admirable moderation the coarser pleasures and\nvanities of life. Unselfishness, gentleness, and nicety of thought and\nspeech are the custom of his household. He himself finds congenial\noccupation in literary or scientific research, in the hope of adding\nsome book or monograph to the world's store of art or knowledge. His\nwife, in co-operation with the church, plays a gracious part among\ntheir tenants or among the village sick and poor, teaching her\ndaughters to dispense charity in the form of soup, coals, jellies, and\nblankets. Parents and children alike, jealously intending to attain\nholiness and culture, continuously take an account of their individual\nspiritual successes and failures, and though they hold these auditings\nwith God in the church, they renew them often under the inspiring\ninfluence of nature.\n\n    _The Curfew tolls the knell of parting day,_\n\nor, as Dante expressed a similar conception,\n\n    _'Twas now the hour that turneth back desire\n    In those who sail the sea, and melts the heart\n    The day they've said to their sweet friends farewell,\n    And the new pilgrim penetrates with love,\n    If he doth hear from far away a bell\n    That seemeth to deplore the dying day._\n\nThis is the hour when the Wordsworthian spirit, refined,\nconscientious, aspiring, beauty and duty loving, sees through the\nsplendor of the lucent, saffron sky, heaven open, and the angels of\nGod ascending and descending. Not always is the vision so adorable.\nOften enough the gazer knows the bitterness of divine discontent, and\nfinds the golden glory but a bar, shutting out God. In the favorable\nhour, though, comes the rapture, and the transfiguration; the\nexquisite, refined feelings seem to find communion with the infinite,\nand a voice from heaven to say:\n\n    _Well done, good and faithful servant._\n\nI have selected this experience of the cultivated English household\nrather than that of the purely religious life as an example, for the\nreason that in it the aesthetic side is represented in the soul-hunger,\nand that the existing conditions of earth are, to a certain extent,\ntaken into account. In the purely religious life, the emotions of the\nexalted soul have, in the past at least, been prone to exclude the\nactual conditions of human life from consideration. The thought has\nbeen that the earthly existence is travail, and at best a discipline;\nthat the joys of life are vanity, and the mundane problems of life\nunworthy of the interested attention of the heaven-seeking soul.\nModern religious theories have modified this point of view, but\ncertainly in some sects still the aesthetic value of existence is\nalmost contemptuously discarded by religion. I have taken the\nbeautiful lives of the Wordsworthians as an example, also because the\nreligious element is so manifestly cherished and cultivated in them.\nIt is intended in them that art and God should work together, or, more\naccurately, the precept is that the aesthetic side of humanity is one\nof the noblest manifestations of the infinite within us. It is\nsignificant in this connection that though art has often reached its\napogee in periods of moral decay, the ruin of the nation, thus robbed\nof spiritual vitality, has soon followed, in spite of the glory of its\nsculpture and canvasses. But that is a mere interjection. The point I\nwish to suggest is this: The sane soul recognizes, when face to face\nwith truth, that what we see in the glory of the sunset, when we think\nwe walk with God, must be, in order to be of value, an inspiration\nbased on the conditions of mundane life. Without this, prayer and\nadoration become a mere nervous exhalation, reaching out for something\nwhich has no more substance than an _ignus fatuus_. The old saints who\nlived and died in prayer, ignoring human relations, seem to us to-day\nto have been wofully deluded. They yearned to be translated from a\nworld to which they had contributed nothing but the desire to be holy.\nThis desire is of the essence of the matter; and so we consent to give\ntheir reverences the benison of our distinguished consideration. But\naspiring souls, as evidenced by the aesthetic man and woman of culture,\npresently perceived the error. They recognized that aspiration, to be\nvital, must start with a conception of the world as it was, and seek a\nrealization of the world as it might be, and that in this seeking lay\nservice to God and preparation for heaven. Proceeding they fixed on\nunselfish human love and on beauty as the motive of their creed, and\nendeavored to live lives animated by these principles. This creed has\nbeen the real creed of aspiring humanity during the past century and a\nhalf, and it still seems sufficient to many. There have been diverse\ndifferences of application and administration in connection with it,\naccording as the pendulum swung more or less near to one or the other\nof the two cardinal points of faith, unselfish love, or exquisite\nbeauty. There have been some who, in their desire to make the\nrelations of man toward those with whom he lived and whom he loved\nmore ideal, have been disposed to ignore the claims of color and\nelegance; and there have been others so eager in their allegiance to\nthe cause of beauty that they have exalted sense and emotion at the\nexpense of unselfishness and purity. Essentially, however, the ideal\nlife of the modern centuries has sought to develop the individual soul\nby stimulating its faculties to cherish self-sacrificing devotion to\nfamiliar friends, aesthetic appreciation of form, color and sound, and\nexquisite personal refinement. The Christian life, in its highest\nform, from this amalgamation of human traits, has constructed an ideal\nfor the soul founded on something tangible and substantial in human\nconsciousness. When the Christian said, \"O God, make me pure and\nnoble,\" it has been no longer necessary to rhapsodize on a heaven\nconcerning which he knew nothing, and to disclaim all interest in this\nearth. On the contrary, he has appreciated that conceptions of the\nideal must be based on human conditions or they cease to be\nintelligible, and that the soul which seeks God can reach him only\nthrough faithfulness to a method of life, the aim of which is to make\nthe best use of earth and its possibilities.\n\nBeautiful as have been the lives which have resulted from this\naesthetic spirituality, the world has been beginning to realize, during\nthe last twenty-five years, that this is a creed partially outworn,\nor, rather, a creed hampered by its limitations. In taking its\nsuggestion for the ideal from the world, noble society chose to accept\neconomic conditions as they were, and to fashion an ideal which\nnecessarily shut out the larger portion of humanity from the\npossibility of attaining it. The aesthetic satisfaction which we draw\nfrom the sunset is due to the pleasure which conscience feels in its\nallegiance to an ideal of its own devising, and seeing God is only\nanother term for the solemn identification of man's aspirations. The\nWordsworthian soul, as interpreted by his followers, assumed that the\npolitical conditions of society were always to remain the same, or,\nmore accurately speaking, it accepted those conditions as permanent\nand continuously inevitable. In other words, it did not foresee\ndemocracy. In short, its ideal was essentially aristocratic and\nexclusive, and it continues so stubbornly in the present day in many\ncircles. To be sure, it has included and continues to include in its\nformula the carrying of soups, jellies, coals, and blankets to the\npoor, and the proffering of educational advantages to the ignorant,\nbut it never has predicated, as essential to the world's true\nprogress, such fundamental changes in the social status of society as\nwould involve the annihilation of class distinctions and a greater\ngeneral happiness for the mass of humanity. To be sure, there have\nalways been individual philanthropists, who insisted upon these\nchanges as vital, but they have been ignored by the leaders of ideal\nthought as visionary enthusiasts, or maligned as disturbers of\npermanent society. It has been the struggle of democracy itself that\nhas been the chief revealer of a new vision in the sunset, until now,\nat last, the soul in search of the ideal appreciates that it does not\nwalk with God unless it sees in the saffron glory its own sympathy\nwith these new conditions.\n\nThe development of this recognition has been tolerably swift in\ncertain directions. New hospitals, new colleges, college settlements\namong the poor, are concrete evidences of the modern spirit, and\nequally significant, if less heralded, are the faithful, zealous\nlabors of physicians, teachers, clergymen, and the host of workers in\nvarious lines of industry, where the earnest, self-sacrificing work\ndone is rarely if ever paid for, in dollars and cents, commensurate\nwith its value. The serious energy of the best humanity, instead of\npluming itself in the seductive contemplation of aesthetic beauty,\nseems rather to be celebrating the apotheosis of dirt. It feels that\nthe cleansing of the physical and moral filth from our slums, the\nrelief of appalling ignorance and superstition, the combating of\npolitical dishonesty and the checking of private greed are more to be\ndesired at this time than great marbles and a great literature. Or,\nrather, perhaps, it seems probable that great marbles and a great\nliterature will not come to us until the leaven of this new ideal\nexpresses itself in the truths of art. The sane, aspiring soul can no\nlonger be satisfied unless it recognizes the inevitableness and the\npathos of democracy and adjusts its human perspective accordingly.\n\nThe world of vested rights and wealth is still reluctant to accept\nthis new aestheticism, and the soul in search of the ideal will find\nthe allurements of aristocratic culture still insisted on as the\nsecret of noble living. Social arrogance and the exclusive tendencies\nof class are slow in yielding to the hostility even of republican\nforms of government. In this country parents who profess to be\nAmericans still choose to send their children to private instead of to\nthe public schools, in order to separate them from the mass of the\npeople. The doctrine of social caste, thus early impressed upon the\nyouth of both sexes, serves to produce a class of citizens who are not\nreally in sympathy with popular government. If one questions sometimes\nthe depth of purpose of highly evolved man, and doubts the existence\nof God, it is because of the lavish wantonness of living of some of\nthe very rich in the presence of the thousands of miserable and\nwretched creatures who still degrade our large cities. But there is\nthis to be said in this connection: This new aesthetic ideal is at\nleast partially the fruit of the awakening of humanity to a keener\nappreciation of the conditions of human life; but its progress is made\ncertain by the coming evolution of democracy, which slowly but surely\nwill overwhelm the aristocratic spirit forever, even though\naestheticism, as realized by the arrogant and exclusive, perish in the\nprocess. The ideal life to-day is that which maintains the noblest\naims of the aspiring past, cherishing unselfishness, purity, courage,\ntruth, joy, existence, fineness of sentiment and aesthetic beauty; but\ncherishes these in the spirit and for the purposes of a broader\nhumanity than the melting soul has hitherto discerned in the sunset,\nthe ocean, or the starry heavens. There are among us men and women\nliving in this spirit of idealism, and they, O, my correspondents! are\nthe first-class passengers.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Modern Woman_ with Social Ambitions. I.\n\n\nIn the first place let me assure you that I am in sympathy with you. I\nam not one of those unreasonable philosophers who would have every\nwife merge her identity in that of her husband, and every spinster who\nhas decided not to marry relegated to obscure lodgings with a parrot\nand a dog. My sentiments recognize the justice and the value of the\nemancipation movement by means of which woman has obtained freedom to\narrange her life conformably to her own ideas as to what is salutary\nand entertaining for her as an individual, whether she be married or\nsingle, beautiful or plain. In homely phrase the world has become\nwoman's oyster, and, save for the little matter of the ballot, a\nrestriction concerning which the subject-matter of this letter does\nnot require me to agitate you, every woman is at liberty to open her\noyster according to her own sweet will. Filial limitations and the\nother circumstances of her environment must prohibit this and make\ndesirable that manner of living, just as in the case of man; but to\nall intents and purposes, if she be clear-headed and ambitious, she is\nfree to do what she chooses in the way she chooses, whether it be to\npreside over a drawing-room exquisitely, to guide a woman's club to\ngrace and glory, to renounce the world for the sake of art and a\nstudio, or, it may be, to combine all these occupations in one\nseething round of tense existence which, according to the constitution\nof the subject, is liable to terminate abruptly in nervous prostration\nor, baffling the predictions of the doctors, to continue indefinitely\nunto hale and bright-eyed longevity. In brief, I make my best bow to\nthe modern woman; I admire her and am stimulated by her. Indeed, I\ntake her so seriously in her endeavor to be independent that I am\nalmost ready to let her stand up in an electric-car or other\novercrowded conveyance. I have on occasions even made so free as to\nbend forward in the theatre and, lacking an introduction, ask her to\ntake off the high hat which obscured my view of the stage. Verily,\nthese are piping times of progress for woman, as every one knows, and\nI am glad to put on record as a philosopher that I approve of and am\nedified by them.\n\nSo much, my dear correspondents, to assure you of my sympathy and my\ndistinguished consideration. There are five of you, but three out of\nthe five--a maid almost hoping always to remain one, a wife almost\nsorry that she is one, and a widow almost certain that she never will\nbe anything else--have written to me as the result of what is known\ncolloquially as the dumps. That is to say, you have become socially\nambitious from stress of circumstances, because your dolls are stuffed\nwith sawdust. But for the letters of Numbers 4 and 5 I should be\ntempted to adopt the manner of a French philosopher and dismiss you\nwith this piece of counsel: Love some one else. Numbers 4 and 5,\nrespectively, a wife thoroughly happy in the wedded state, and a\nradiant, able-bodied spinster haughtily unconcerned about love and\nlovers, are not to be answered by such a simple gallicism. The frame\nof mind of these two last-mentioned ladies was evidently not induced\nby disappointment; they are not seeking social activity as an antidote\nto care or as a mere occupation to consume time. Their letters clearly\nindicate to me a consciousness of stored-up capabilities and an\nambition to display them. Devoted as Number 4 obviously is to her\nhusband, it is no less clear that she is not content to be regarded\nmerely as his wife. Similarly, Number 5, though serene at the prospect\nof living without a mate, still cherishes the intention of preserving\nher identity. In other words, each is imbued with the desire to make\nher individuality felt in the world. It is in the interest of this\njustifiable and laudable ambition that I take my pen in hand to\ncompose an answer. The constituency to which Numbers 4 and 5 belong is\nlarge and constantly increasing. There are thousands of women without\na grievance against Cupid whose bosoms are aching with the desire for\nidentity, and it is to them, as represented by you, that I address\nmyself.\n\nYour photographs, furnished as evidence of good faith in accordance\nwith my requirements, lie before me as I write. Yours, Number 4 (the\nwife thoroughly happy in the wedded state), is suggestively typical of\nAmerican womanhood. I have merely to utilize my mind's eye in order to\nbehold you in the living flesh, tall, graceful, spare, and willowy;\nearnest and piquant in expression, with an air which suggests both the\ndesire and the determination to accomplish great things, including no\nless a range than the probing of the secrets of the infinite, and the\nsupplying of an ideal domestic dinner. Though willowy still, you have\na plumper person than before you were married, and your face has lost\nthe Amazonian tense look which it sometimes wore when you were a maid.\nYour eyes are bright with happiness, and a shrewd humor plays about\nthe corners of your mouth; humor indicating, perhaps, that you find\nthe world less sorry and more alluring than you did in the days when,\ngrandly aspiring, but a little ignorant, cynical, and severe, you were\nwaiting for an ideal lover to come and lift you from this humdrum,\nvulgar sphere to the stars. In other words, you have a drawing-room,\nsuch as it is, and a baby such as never was, and a husband whose\nfaults (all of which you know) are more than balanced by his virtues,\nso that you are able to love him devotedly with your eyes open, and\nthus preserve your self-respect as an intelligent modern, and yet\nsatisfy that primal need of your nature, the capacity for adoring\naffection. I see you thus in the living flesh, and I see you presently\nlost in engaging thought. You are saying to yourself some such words\nas these: \"Everything is running smoothly. Alexander's (husband's\nname) affairs are on a satisfactory financial basis; baby is well, and\nhas cut all her first teeth; the servants seem to be satisfied with\nus; and now is my chance to do something. What shall it be?\"\n\n[_Note._--\"Give an afternoon tea,\" ejaculated Josephine, to whom I was\nreading what I had written.]\n\nI have no doubt that my wife is right. That is the first thing you\nwould be likely to do. It is the never-failing resource of the young\nbride and the aged matron alike when pricked by the spur of social\nactivity. Out go the cards of invitation, thin bread and butter is\ncut, and presently, on the appointed day, a file or a throng,\naccording to weather and circumstances, of petticoats goes into and\nfrom the house, and when the last skirt has disappeared you breathe a\nsigh of relief and self-congratulation. \"Thank heaven, that is over,\nand I can start afresh with a clear conscience and an erect head.\"\nMarvellous are the ways of the modern woman. It is thus that she\nsettles with her social creditors and wins a tranquil soul. What costs\nless subtle man canvas-back ducks and cases of wine is accomplished by\nthe aid of a few tea-leaves and slices of thin bread and butter. And\nthen her slate is clear, and she can afford to sink back for a decade\ninto social greediness or inactivity, as the case may be, proud and\nself-satisfied as a peacock.\n\nHer slate, not yours, Number 4. Mrs. Alexander Sherman let me call you\nby way of convenience, for a mere number suggests convict life. As\nJosephine has intimated, you would probably begin with the tea, but\nthe last visitor would leave you only temporarily exhilarated. Within\na week carking, though praiseworthy, care would return, and you would\nbe asking yourself, \"What shall it be next?\"\n\nI hear some bluff and old-fashioned man exclaim, \"Let her look after\nher husband and children, and attend to her domestic duties.\" Do not\nbe concerned by this superficial jibe, dear madam. I am here to defend\nyou, and I would be the last person in the world to aid and abet your\naspirations if I were not confident that you are a thoroughly devoted\nwife and mother. Let me silence this stuffy censor at once by\ninforming him that in the interest of your baby you have familiarized\nyourself with the laws of hygiene and the latest theories of\neducation, and that in no establishment among your contemporaries of\nequal means is a better or more punctual dinner served. If I did not\nbelieve this to be the case, I would have nothing more to do with you,\nphilosophically speaking.\n\nI am taking for granted, too, that you are not nursing your social\nambitions in the same nest with a faith in your own artistic genius.\nIf you believe yourself to be an undiscovered queen of tragedy or an\nundeveloped poet or sculptor, or feel yourself inspired to write a\nnovel or a play, please consider our correspondence at an end. In such\na case, the rest of this letter is not for you. Not because I doubt\nyour genius, but because I am certain that though artistic talent may\ncontinue to flourish in spite of a husband and a baby, it must\ninevitably languish and grow feeble when coupled as a running mate to\na career of general, elegant, social usefulness such as I know you\naspire to. If you possess artistic genius, or feel that you cannot be\nhappy without testing your own talent in this respect, be satisfied to\ngive one afternoon tea, and then practically renounce social\ninitiative, unless you are prepared to alienate your husband, neglect\nyour baby, or go to an asylum as a victim of triple-distilled nervous\nprostration. Assuming, then, that you are simply eager to help in\nworking out the problems and fulfilling the destinies of your native\ncivilization with benefit to society and credit to yourself, I see you\nagain in your drawing-room a few days after your preliminary tea,\ninquiring what you are to do next. I see, too, disporting themselves\nin your thought, the images of the brilliant women of France of a\ncentury ago--such women as Madame de Stael, Madame Recamier, Madame\nRoland, and others, who influenced affairs of state by their\nintelligence and social graces. It may be that they have been alike\nyour inspiration and your despair. You would fain follow in their\nfootsteps, but feel a washerwoman as compared with them. Your ambition\ndoes you credit, Mrs. Alexander Sherman, and also, begging your\npardon, your humble-mindedness. But there is no occasion for you to\npush either frame of mind to an extreme. Indeed, whether you be a\nwasherwoman or not as compared with these ladies, they were not\naltogether admirable. I am writing to you as a woman thoroughly happy\nin the wedded state. You will recollect that of no one of those\ncharming creatures could a similar statement be truthfully made.\nMadame Recamier's husband was three times her age. He offered, poor\nman, to consent to a divorce in order to allow his cherished wife to\nmarry another; but she, out of pity for him in his adversity, for he\nhad lost both royal favor and his estate, refused to take advantage of\nhis magnanimity. Madame Roland told her husband, who was some twenty\nyears her senior, her love for Buzot in order to protect herself from\nherself, and did not allow her feelings an outlet until, every\npossibility of meeting her lover having been removed by her\ndeath-sentence, she could express her passion without violation of\nduty. Very pretty behavior, but not exactly ideal marital relations,\nMrs. Alexander Sherman. They should be taken into account in any\ncomparison which you feel disposed to make between yourself and the\nladies in question.\n\nAnd yet I would not have you fail to appreciate at their full worth\nthe exquisiteness of the heroines of the French salons; the grace and\nnicety of their manners, the brilliancy of their intelligence, and the\nthoroughness of their accomplishments. I have given you credit for\nrecurring to them instinctively as models of form, and I should grieve\nto think that my reference to your superior domestic happiness should\nlead you to think your humility amiss. Do you know the President of\nany woman's club who reminds you, by her grace, her nicety, her\nbrilliancy, and her thoroughness of what you imagine Madame de Stael,\nor Madame Recamier, or Madame Roland to have been? Possibly your\npatriotism, or even your sincere convictions, would induce you to\nanswer this inquiry in the affirmative; and, indeed, I am ready to\nadmit that we may have their counterparts among us; but certainly the\ncountry is not overrun with them, and I have no doubt that so\ndiscriminating a person as I imagine you to be will agree that the\nmodern woman is often tempted to seek leadership on the strength of\nbumptiousness, smart ignorance, and that bustling spirit which those\nwho possess it like to hear described as executive ability, instead of\nby virtue of the talents and graces of old aristocratic society.\n\nI quite realize, on the other hand, that the conditions under which\nyou live are very different from those which existed when the\nbrilliant and fascinating women whom I have specified, and others\nresembling them, flourished. They were, of course, the quintessence of\ncivilized society, a small coterie living in the atmosphere of courts,\nseeking to control events by the force of their engaging\npersonalities. I am writing to you, not as a member of a choice and\nselect organization, from which most women were excluded by reason of\ntheir nothingness, but as the representative of a large and growing\nconstituency which is open, in theory at least, if not practically, to\nthe whole world of womanhood. For us, certainly, courts and their\natmosphere exist no longer, and the opportunities afforded women by\nrepublican institutions to influence the course of political events\nare slight; but in many respects the outlook of modern woman upon life\nis essentially broader and no less interesting than the horizon of the\nmistress of the French salon. Of necessity it is less exclusive and\nmore humanitarian, and by reason of the emancipation of woman as a\nsocial factor it includes consideration of the whole range of\neducational, philanthropic, and aesthetic interests in which democratic\ncivilization is concerned. It seems indeed a long cry from the\npicturesque experience of a clever and fascinating Madame de Stael,\nbraving the enmity of a Napoleon, or a Madame Roland reading her\nTacitus and her Plutarch in the prison of St. Pelagie, to the nervous,\nbustling, afternoon-tea-frequenting, problem-hunting modern woman of\nworkaday, social proclivities. And yet, I would not have you despair\nmerely because your surroundings lack the color which irradiates their\ncareers. To be different is not necessarily to be inferior. The\ninfluence of a noble and beautiful woman may be no less real and no\nless worthy of emulation in these days of comparatively humdrum\nworld-stage effects and common conditions. But it will be just as well\nfor you, whenever you are tempted to swell with conscious pride and to\nfancy yourself abnormally illustrious as a consequence--for instance,\nof being the President of a woman's club, or the triumphant promoter\nof some reform movement--to stop and whisper to yourself \"Madame de\nStael,\" \"Madame Recamier.\"\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Modern Woman_ with Social Ambitions. II.\n\n\n_Note._--My wife, Josephine, interposed again at this point. \"I have\nbeen trying to make up my mind while you were writing,\" said she,\n\"what she would do next. I mean this Mrs. Alexander Sherman of yours,\nor whatever her real name is. That is, supposing she had never written\nto you and sent you her photograph, and she were left to her own\ndevices. I can't blame her exactly for sending the photograph, because\nyou make it a condition of the correspondence; but I can see from her\nface that she was glad of the opportunity, and that she hopes you will\nadmire it.\"\n\n\"Well, I have,\" said I.\n\n\"Yes, and I agree with you in your enthusiasm. She is handsome, and\ninteresting looking, and ladylike. I was merely considering what she\nwould be apt to do if she had no philosopher to advise her. She has a\nglad air as you have stated, indicating that she has no domestic or\nfinancial grievances, and I don't believe she thinks herself an\nartistic genius or intends to write a novel. I think, though, that her\nfirst tea would elate her a little. She would be glad it was over, but\nsurprised that so many people came. It would set her thinking, and\npresently she would give a dinner or two and a luncheon or so, and she\nwould go to other teas and dinners and luncheons, and would gradually\nbecome the fashion, so that when her friends and acquaintances wished\nto entertain they would think instinctively of Mr. and Mrs. Alexander\nSherman. I am assuming, of course, that her husband is an amiable\nbeing and does not thwart her, and is willing to go to a reasonable\nnumber of entertainments. She would be punctilious about her calls,\nand make a point of appearing to remember people, even if she didn't\nhave the least conception who they were, and would be generally\nblithe, tactful, and gracious. What is the matter, Mr. Philosopher?\nWhat would you have her do?\" I had said nothing to induce this\ninquiry, but I suppose I must have writhed involuntarily.\n\n\"I dare say it's all right. I don't see that she could help it; but it\nsounds conventional,\" I answered.\n\n\"Of course it is conventional; yet, pray, how is she to avoid\nconventions? I know you are thinking to yourself that the calls are a\nwaste of time--all men, whether they are philosophers or not, think\nthat. I agree with you that if she were content to shut herself up and\nbe an artistic genius, or merely an every-day wife and mother without\nsocial ambitions, she could lead a sane and sufficiently exemplary\nlife without ever owning a visiting card. Remember, though, that this\nMrs. Sherman of yours _has_ social ambitions, and does not intend\nto hide her light under a bushel. I assume that she is too sensible to\nmake herself a mere slave to her visiting list, but if you intend to\nadvise her not to call on people who have asked her to dinner, and not\nto practise the polite observances of civilized society all over the\nworld, I wash my hands of her at the start, and hand her right over to\nyou. Besides, I'm only saying what I think from her face she'd be\nlikely to do. You can give her any instructions you please, and--and\nwe'll see if she follows them.\"\n\n\"I have no doubt it's necessary, if you say so,\" I answered, meekly.\n\"I shall not venture to offer any radical advice on this point\ncontrary to your judgment. I was merely surmising that the modern\nwoman would find a way to free herself from the manacles of\nconventional call-paying, which I have heard you yourself declare eat\ninto the flesh and poison the joy of life.\"\n\n\"I have said it in my weary moments,\" said Josephine, stoutly. \"The\nmodern woman uses her common-sense and does not let the manacles\nhamper her movements; but she knows that she cannot reap social\nrewards without performing social duties. The modern woman is free, if\nshe sees fit, to disdain social life and all its concomitants and shut\nherself up in a studio or a college settlement; it is her affair to\ndecide what she wishes to do. But if she decides to be a social\npromoter and leader, she must continue to call on the people who\ninvite her to dinner, or she is not likely to be asked again.\"\n\n\"I am ready to accept the programme which you have laid out for my\ncorrespondent,\" I replied; \"but I should like to know what you mean by\nsocial rewards.\"\n\n\"I perceive from your tone, my dear philosopher, that you think I have\nin mind for your Mrs. Sherman merely a career of social frivolity.\nNothing of the kind. I assure you that I appreciate the seriousness of\nher intention no less clearly than you do. I desire to help the poor\nthing, not to pull her down. I was simply amusing myself by letting\nher do the things she would be likely to do if deprived of the benefit\nof your wisdom. But you need not be afraid that I underestimate her.\nHer teas, her dinners, and her luncheons are merely a stepping-stone\ntoward higher usefulness. Of course, if she comes to grief without\naccomplishing anything, it will be her fault, not mine. I am giving\nher her head, and I trust to her not to lose her mental balance. Shall\nI go on?\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" said I. \"I am all attention.\"\n\n\"She is pretty well-known as a social figure by this time. She has\nmore invitations than she can accept, and her name appears frequently\nin the newspapers as a guest at this and at that entertainment. She is\ninvited to be a patroness of a series of subscription parties, which\nflatters her, and presently to be a patroness of college theatricals,\nand of a fair in aid of proletarian infants. It has been her intention\nto become earnestly interested in something worthy--the education of\nthe blind, for instance--and she is trying to make up her mind what it\nshall be when she begins to be deluged with applications to take an\ninterest in all sorts of things, educational, literary, and\nphilanthropic. She receives by the same mail a request to be present\nat a meeting to promote the moral and hygienic welfare of prisoners,\nand a notice that she has been elected a Vice-President of the\nAmerican Mothers' Kindergarten Association. The next day an author\nasks for the use of her name for a reading to be given 'under the\nauspices of leading society women.' One evening the servant brings up\na card inscribed Miss Madeline Pollard. 'Who is Miss Madeline\nPollard?' she asks herself perplexedly. She concludes that it must be\none of the educational or philanthropic people she has met of late;\nthen a sudden flush rises to her cheeks, a flush of half-amused,\nhalf-indignant excitement. 'Nonsense, it can't be,' she murmurs; then\nwith a stealthy glance at her husband, but without a word to him, she\ngoes down to meet the visitor. She finds a free-spoken and insinuating\nyoung woman with an air of pathos. I will give you their conversation,\nphilosopher.\" (Here is the dialogue as detailed to me by Josephine.)\n\n\n_Visitor._ Mrs. Alexander Sherman, I believe?\n\n_Mrs. Sherman (with dignity)._ That is my name.\n\n_Visitor._ Though we have never met, your person is so familiar to me,\nthat I have taken the liberty of calling. I have admired you at a\ndistance for nearly two years, and I feel sure that you will not\nrefuse me the privilege of knowing you in your home and among your\ndomestic associations. May I sit down?\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ Certainly. You have come--er--I don't understand\nexactly.\n\n_Visitor._ With your permission to ask you a few questions--to obtain\nan interview.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman (with a manifestation of alarm)._ You are a reporter? An\ninterview for a newspaper? Oh, I couldn't consent on any account. I\nshouldn't like anything of the kind at all. You must excuse me.\n\n_Visitor (saccharinely)._ I should not think of publishing anything\ncontrary to your wishes.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ It would be quite impossible. My husband would be very\nmuch annoyed. Besides, it would be so ridiculous. I have nothing to\nsay.\n\n_Visitor._ Mr. Sherman is such a distinguished-looking man. I admire\niron-gray hair and mustaches. Indeed, every one would be very much\ninterested in anything you were to say. You are a woman of ideas--a\nprogressive woman. The public is interested in progressive women, and\nI think such women owe it to the public to let them understand and\nappreciate them.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ But I'm only a private individual. It might be\ndifferent if I were an author or other public character; though I\ndon't approve at all of people who parade themselves and their ideas\nin the newspapers. There! I have hurt your feelings.\n\n_Visitor (with her air of pathos)._ No, dear lady. I'm only a little\ndiscouraged. If the public wish to know and progressive people refuse\nto tell them, what becomes of the reporter who is obliged to furnish\ncopy and to obey orders?\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ It is a hard life, I'm sure. But--but, if I'm not\nimpertinent----\n\n_Visitor (interrupting)._ You're going to ask how I came to take it up\nas a profession. Yes, it is hard; but I glory in it _(proudly)._ I'm\nnot ashamed of it. It's a progressive life, too. But it is a little\ndiscouraging at times _(sadly)._ You have such a lovely home, Mrs.\nSherman; elegance without ostentatious display; taste everywhere\nwithout extravagance. I should so like to describe it.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ Oh, but you mustn't. Were you ordered to--er--write\nabout me?\n\n_Visitor._ Yes, dear lady. You are to be one of a series--\"Half-hour\nChats with our Progressive Women,\" that's the title.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ Have you--er--been to see any one else?\n\n_Visitor._ Yes, and they all felt as you did at first (she enumerates\nthe names of three or four other modern women with social ambitions).\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ And did they all consent to talk to you?\n\n_Visitor._ Every one, and they all gave me their photographs.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman (faintly)._ Photographs? You don't mean that you wish a\nphotograph? That would be too dreadful.\n\n_Visitor (soothingly)._ You wouldn't wish to mar the completeness of\nthe series. People like to see those who talk to them.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ But I have nothing to say to them.\n\n_Visitor._ Leave that to me. You have spoken already. Everything about\nyou speaks--your face, your personal belongings, your household\nusages. While I have been sitting here I have observed a host of\nthings which talk eloquently of your ideas, your principles, and your\ntastes. Just the things the public thirst to know about a woman like\nyou. Leave it all to me. I will write it out and send you the proof,\nand, if it isn't just right, you can alter it to suit yourself\n(_blithely_). And the photograph?\n\n_Mrs. Sherman_. Must I?\n\n_Visitor (firmly and boldly)._ Public people think nothing of that\nnowadays. It's a matter of course. You would have had a right to feel\noffended if I hadn't included you in my article. You wouldn't have\nbeen pleased, would you now, to see interviews with other progressive\nwomen, and your face and personality excluded? Just look at it in that\nlight. It is disagreeable to me to intrude and force my way, and\ninvade privacy, but I have a duty to the public to perform, and from\nthat point of view I count on you to help me.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ Perhaps I ought. Er--would you like it now?\n\n_Visitor._ If you please.\n\n(_Mrs. Sherman goes upstairs and returns presently with a choice of\nphotographs._)\n\n_Visitor._ They are both exquisite. I choose this one for my article,\nand, if you don't object, I should like so much to keep the other for\nmyself as a memento of this delightful interview. May I, dear lady?\n\n_Mrs. Sherman._ If you wish it.\n\n_Visitor._ Thank you. And there is one thing more. Please write your\nname on both. An autograph adds so much to the value of a photograph\nwhether it be for the public eye or the album of a friend.\n\n_Mrs. Sherman (resignedly)._ What shall I write?\n\n_Visitor._ Oh, anything. \"Yours faithfully,\" or \"Very cordially\nyours,\" are very popular just at present. Thank you so much. And I do\nhope to meet you soon again. If I should happen to give a little tea\nat my rooms for Mr. Hartney Collier, the actor, later in the winter, I\nshall take the liberty of sending you a card. You would like him so\nmuch. And now, goodby, dear lady. _Exit._\n\n\nI have given this conversation without the various comments and\ninterjections made either by myself or Josephine during the course of\nit. To have set them forth would merely have served to mar the\nsequence of the dialogue. After announcing the departure of the\nvisitor, there was a little pause and my wife regarded me almost\npathetically.\n\n\"Poor thing!\" she murmured, brushing away the semblance of a tear with\nher pocket-handkerchief. \"I am sorry for her. I can understand just\nhow it happened.\"\n\n\"For which of the two are you sorry?\" I asked.\n\n\"I meant for your woman. But I'm sorry for them both. It almost seems\nlike fate. The whole thing is disgusting, but the times are to blame.\nThe public encourages the reporter and the interview, and when a woman\nis told that she is progressive, and that it is her duty to make\nherself felt still more, I can imagine her being goaded into it if she\nis the sort of woman your woman is. I suppose you think I've ruined\nher. I didn't mean to; I merely gave her her head, and that's what she\ndid. I will hand her over to you now, and you can do what you like\nwith her.\"\n\n\"Excuse me, Josephine. She is your creation. I shouldn't think of\ninterfering at this stage. You have taken her in hand and you must\nwork out her destiny for her.\"\n\n\"You mean let her work out her own destiny. That's all I was doing. I\nsee your point; and, if you won't take her back, I'm willing to give\nher her head to the end. I'm interested in her, and I don't despair of\nher at all, in spite of the fact that you have washed your hands of\nher. I shall have to think a little before I give her her head again.\"\n\nHereupon Josephine assumed an attitude of reflection. When she began\nto speak presently, her words and manner suggested the demeanor of a\ntrance medium, or seer--as though she were peering into the abyss of\nthe future.\n\n\"The interview appears, and her husband is less disturbed than she\nexpects. He declares that the press portrait is an abomination and\nlibellous, but he admits that the text is considerately done for a\nnewspaper interview, and that, barring a few inaccuracies and a little\nexaggeration due to poetic license, she is made to appear less of a\nfool than she had a right to expect. This cheers and encourages her,\nand helps to allay the consciousness that the publication of her face\nand doings was purely a gratuitous advertisement. She firmly resolves\nthat she will reform and live up to the description of her, and she\nresolves to devote herself to a more definite field of action.\nAccordingly, after deliberation, she rejects the case of the blind,\nand decides to take up the problem of how to make humble homes\nattractive by simple art. She buys a complete edition of Ruskin, and\nwrites to a half-dozen prominent men and as many women for the use of\ntheir names as a nucleus for a club to be known as \"The Home\nBeautifying Society.\" A meeting is held, and she is elected President\nand a member of the Executive Committee, facts of which the public is\nduly informed by her pathetic newspaper admirer. There, philosopher,\nyou see she is doing something serious already.\"\n\n\"You are incorrigible, Josephine,\" I asserted.\n\n\"She means so well, poor dear,\" my wife continued with a genuinely\nworried air. \"She fully intends to devote herself to that society and\nmake it a success, and she does so for a few weeks. Indeed, she raises\nmoney enough to employ a superintendent, and through him to give an\nexhibition of a poor man's house as it ought to be furnished, and by\nway of speaking contrast a poor man's house as it is too apt to be\nfurnished when he has money enough to furnish it gaudily. And then she\nhelps get out the annual report, which mentions progress, and shows a\nbalance of $1.42 in the treasury, which leads her to make the\nannouncement that in order to insure the successful continuation of a\nmovement calculated to serve as a potent aesthetic influence among the\nunenlightened, the liberal contributions made by friends must be\nrenewed in the fall. And then, there are so many other things she has\nto do. Just listen, philosopher, to what the poor thing has become in\nless than a year since her life appeared in the newspaper, and tell me\nwhat she is to do.\n\nSec.  1. Second Vice-President of the American Cremation Society.\n\nSec.  2. Member of Text Committee of the Society to Improve the Morals of\nPersons Undergoing Sentence.\n\nSec.  3. Chairman of the Inspecting Committee of the Sterilized Milk\nAssociation.\n\nSec.  4. Vice-President of the American Mothers' Kindergarten Association.\n\nSec.  5. Life member of Society to Protect the Indians.\n\nSec.  6. Honorary member of the Press Women's Social and Beneficent Club.\n\nSec.  7. Member of the Forty Associates Sewing Bee (luncheon club).\n\nSec.  8. Third Vice-President of the Woman's Club, and active participator\nin the following courses of original work arranged by the members of\nthe Club:\n\n    (_a_) Literary Course for 1897-98. Shakespeare's Women. The\n    Dramatists of the Elizabethan Period.\n\n    (_b_) Scientific Course for 1897-98. Darwin's Theory of\n    Earth-worms. The present Status of the Conflict between Science\n    and Religion. Recent Polar Expeditions.\n\n    (_c_) Political Course for 1897-98. The Tariff Bills of American\n    History. The Theory of Bimetallism.\n\nSec.  9. Member of The Moliere Club. (Class to read French plays one\nevening a fortnight.)\n\nSec. 10. President of the Home Beautifying Society. (Her pet interest.)\n\nSec. 11. To say nothing of dinner-parties, receptions, ladies' luncheons,\nthe opera, concerts, authors' readings, and other more or less\nengrossing social diversions and distractions.\n\n\"There!\" continued Josephine. \"And this does not include the thought\nand worry she spends upon Mrs. J. Webb Johnston.\"\n\n\"And who, pray, is Mrs. J. Webb Johnston?\" I asked.\n\n\"Her fascinating, deadly, and demoralizing rival,\" answered Josephine,\nwith a mournful wag of the head. \"I am really very sorry, my dear\nphilosopher, that this fresh complication has appeared, for I really\nthink your Mrs. Sherman had all she could attend to already. But I\nmust be faithful to the truth, even though our cherished hopes are\nthereby frustrated. Mustn't I, philosopher?\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" said I; \"but since you instead of me seem to be writing\nthis letter, I suggest that it is time to give our correspondents time\nto breathe by beginning a fresh paragraph.\"\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Modern Woman_ with Social Ambitions. III.\n\n\n\"Just as you men--merchants, lawyers, or doctors--\" pursued Josephine,\nreflectively, \"deliberately or unconsciously contrast yourselves with\nyour fellows in the same calling and become friendly rivals yet\ncompetitors for success and renown, it seems to be inevitable that the\nmodern woman with social ambitions should keep her eye on other modern\nwomen with social ambitions and try to make sure that they do not get\nahead of her. Your Mrs. Sherman, at the time the newspaper woman\nvisited her, had reached the point where it would naturally occur to\nher to scan the horizon to observe how the other feminine celebrities\nof her environment were progressing, and her attention was especially\ncalled to the matter by the article on 'Progressive Women.' There she\nhad the opportunity to behold them in their respective glories, and to\nbe jealous of or indifferent to them, according to her judgment as to\nwhat each amounted to. It was an interesting list, and she experienced\nin perusing it, in conjunction with the portraits, some qualms of mild\nenvy on account of several of the progressionists, but the only face\nand career which really discouraged her were the face and career of\nthe woman I have referred to, Mrs. J. Webb Johnston, or, as every one\ncalls her, Mrs. Webb Johnston.\n\n\"When she had finished she felt herself essentially on a par with the\nothers; but in the case of Mrs. Webb Johnston she experienced a frog\nin her throat, and she looked into distance with a harassed air for\nmore than five minutes. Mrs. Webb Johnston was not a stranger to her,\nbut she was comparatively a novelty. That is, she had appeared on the\nsocial stage since Mrs. Sherman herself had become prominent, and had\nbeen making mushroom-like progress; such rapid progress in fact that\nit was only when she read the text of the article that she realized\nthe extent of it. Then it came over her with a rush that she was in\nperil of being distanced on her own ground. For, to all intents and\npurposes, they were rivals. Their visiting lists were practically the\nsame; they represented and appealed to the same constituency. In\npersonal appearance she could not justly claim any superiority to Mrs.\nWebb, who was at least three years her junior in age, and who\npossessed a certain luscious, Juno-like beauty which was calculated,\nwithout question, to dazzle undiscriminating eyes, and which would not\nbe regarded except by the very subtle as inferior in type to her own\nrefined effectiveness. Yes, there was no doubt about Mrs. Webb's\nphysical charms, or her great executive ability, or her enthusiastic\ndevotion to the entire range of interests over which she herself was\naiming to hold undisputed sway. Her own ambition was to be the guiding\nspirit, the modern, original social force above all other modern\nsocial forces in her constituency; yet here was another with an\nevidently similar ambition, and a war-cry or shibboleth which was\ndisconcertingly fetching. I trust you have appreciated, philosopher,\nthat our Mrs. Sherman (I am really sorry for her now, so I call her\n'our'), from the very first, has been decorously conservative in her\npoint of view, eschewing cheap and vagabond devices and adhering to\nelegant and appropriately conventional usages, such as seemed to befit\na conscientious woman eager to lead public opinion. If dignified\nconservatism has been her ruling motive, you will readily appreciate\nthat it would disturb her to find that a Bohemian looseness of social\nvision distinguished her rival, who had been working her way to the\nfront by the specious cry of 'liberty,' and a seductively expressed\nintention of freeing the community from the manacles of old fogy\nconventions. I am sure you will agree, philosopher, that it is natural\nshe should have been worried, or, at least, distracted from settling\ndown to her 'Art in Humble Homes' by this discovery. And investigation\nand reflection only serve to agitate her still further; for, as the\nweeks go by, it becomes more and more obvious that the things\nindicated in the article are true--that Mrs. Webb Johnston is hand in\nglove with authors, actors, opera-singers, and other celebrities, and\nthat the entertainments which she gives and the conversation heard\nthere lack the dull, cut-and-dried, mechanical flavor observable at\nordinary social gatherings. You see the situation, don't you, dear?\"\n\n(As Josephine's prophecy has assumed an essay-like or argumentative\nform, it does not seem to me advisable to interrupt its flow for my\ncorrespondents by reciting our side observations, unless they would be\nmaterial or elucidating. Although her appropriation of my Mrs. Sherman\nhas proved to be a kidnapping of a very serious character, and her\nconversation is bracketed as a \"note,\" still her remarks seem to me so\npertinent that I am prepared to adopt them as a part of my letter.)\n\n\"The most perplexing thing, philosopher, for a modern woman with\nsocial ambitions who wishes to emulate Madame Recamier or Madame de\nStael, is that we have no standards in this country. Public opinion is\nthe only test of conduct. The progressive woman is expected on the one\nhand to be original, and yet on the other to guide correctly, and\npublic opinion reserves the right to follow blindly and to applaud\negregiously and afterward to condemn the leaders whom it has flattered\ninto folly. An ambitious woman (or a man, for the matter of that)\nneeds to-day a clear head, a high sense of responsibility, and a sense\nof humor if she or he would avoid being led astray by the\nwill-o'-the-wisp crew of surface society livers which pursues talent\nand originality only to be amused, and who, provided it is amused,\nforgives everything else, and eggs the performer on to believe that\nits shallow approval is the real verdict of society. This crew,\nbrought into being by mere wealth, lacking purpose and sneering at it\nif it threatens to interfere with the progress of the merry-go-round,\nand backed by the army of society reporters and tittle-tattlers, is a\ngrowing factor in our large cities and serves to debauch public\nsentiment by more and more audacious or frivolous ventures concerning\nthe orthodoxy of which it claims to be the only intelligent judge. We\nare accustomed to sneer at the formal and confining conventions of\nolder civilizations on the ground that liberty of action is thereby\nchecked and life made artificial, but are we not beginning to discover\nthat there are advantages in a definite prescription as to what\ngentlemen and ladies can do as compared with a happy-go-lucky system\nof individual competition in social experiments which, however vulgar\nand demoralizing, are invariably puffed and glorified by the social\ngossip editors of a host of newspapers? The subsequent course of Mrs.\nSherman's career is an illustration of the plight in which a modern\nwoman with social ambitions is liable to find herself as a result of\nthe democratic habit of constituting the half-educated and often\nmorally obtuse society reporter, her successors and assigns, the sole\narbiter of what is socially elegant and invigorating.\n\n\"Setting aside the matter of the ethics of her egotism, our lady in\nquestion is animated by a conscientious desire to be a refining and\nadmirable influence. It is her ambition to lead, but to lead nobly and\nunimpeachably. Her entertainments and her posture in and toward\nsociety have been pursued on this principle, and she has believed the\neffect produced by her to be irreproachable intellectual elegance,\nredeemed from formalism or dullness by scintillating vivacity. The\nsuggestion, therefore, that she is behind the times gives her a\ngenuine shock. She has hitherto prided herself on her mental acumen\nand on her knowingness. She has considered that she knew life to the\ndregs, so to speak, for she had passed through a course of French, and\ntranslated Russian novels, and acquired thereby a knowledge of things\nevil, which she kept stored in her inner consciousness as a source of\npride and an antidote against undue primness in matters sexual and\nsocial. She begins to ask herself if it can possibly be true that she\nis an old fogy, and lacks breadth of view, and that society in its\ndemands for liberty of conduct and agreeable entertainment is prepared\nto discard, as outworn and futile, conventions and limitations which\nshe has been disposed to consider essential to civilized and decent\ndeportment. As the result of this reasoning she resolves to cap her\nrival's next venture with something of her own. So it happens that not\nlong after Mrs. Webb Johnston has summoned a few select spirits to sup\nand witness Miss Almira Wing, a visiting coryphee, do a skirt dance,\nMrs. Sherman issues notes of invitation to what is mysteriously\nspecified as 'An Eclipse Smoke Talk.' This proves to be a small\ngathering of choice souls to observe a total eclipse of the moon due\nat two o'clock in the morning from her own roof, and to listen to\nremarks by a leading astronomer secured for the occasion. This\nentertainment is a success, and serves to give her new heart. It was\nbold, still decent. She has preserved her self-respect, yet shown\nherself alive to the necessity of being original. She is prompt to\nreinforce it by an evening with a Russian Nihilist, a young woman\nreputed to have been prominent in plots to assassinate the Czar, and\nwho makes a specialty of narrating her experiences after a Welsh\nrabbit, cigarette in mouth. Naturally, these enterprises spur Mrs.\nWebb Johnston to fresh efforts of the imagination. Her guests are\nbeguiled at her next evening by a paper on 'Life among the Mormons,'\ndelivered by one of the early female disciples of that community. No\nmen are invited on this occasion. A fortnight later a very small and\nsecretly invited company are bidden to behold an exhibition of the\nvagaries of a hypnotic patient.\n\n\"This enlargement of her horizon, though stimulating, puts Mrs.\nSherman on tenter-hooks. It becomes necessary for her to keep\naccurately posted as to the comings of celebrities in order to get the\nfirst 'go' at them, so to speak, before they fall into the clutches of\nher rival. As a consequence, aspirants in every line of art or\naccomplishment who desire to win the patronage of the public ask for\nthe use of her name and receive it. She had been nervous and\nover-occupied before, but now her days are passed in a ferment. She\nhas recourse to tonics and to sleeping draughts. She feels elated at\nthe success of her enfranchisement, but a feverish interest as to what\nMrs. Webb Johnston will do next keeps her uneasy. Nor has she\nforgotten her serious intentions. She tries to assure herself that her\nprogressiveness is for the benefit of society, and that she is leading\nit in noble directions. She still retains her scruples. She draws the\nline on women celebrities of unchaste life. In this she refuses to be\nled astray by her rival's practices. Mrs. Webb Johnston's openly\navowed theory had been that where art was concerned, she chose to ask\nno questions. Accordingly, she took to her bosom, socially, any one\nwho was brilliant or attractive; and every notoriously erotic actress,\nsinger, dancer, or other artist whose talent had caught the public\nfancy was invited to her house, and became privileged on very short\nacquaintance to kiss her and call her by her first name.\n\n\"Mrs. Sherman's conscience obliges her to draw this line, but she is\nconscious that it is an inconvenience to do so, which puts her at a\ndisadvantage. Mrs. Webb Johnston has merely to swoop down on the\nhotel, or insinuate herself behind the scenes, and offer her visiting\ncard, and presently her cheek, in order to carry off the prize. She\ncannot but feel that there are advantages in the Bohemian democratic\npoint of view which asks no questions, but takes the good without\nheeding the ill.\n\n\"By refusing social recognition to women whose private characters are\ndisreputable, she is shutting herself off from alluring friendships\nwith sopranos, contraltos, tragediennes, skirt-dancers, music-hall\nsingers, and many other brilliant and fascinating creatures whose\npresence at her house could not fail to make her entertainments\ninteresting to her guests. All these women are sought out and\ncherished by Mrs. Webb Johnston.\n\n\"The old adage that there are other ways of killing a cat than choking\nher with cream, comes pertinently to mind in this connection.\nConscience is apt to be a tyrant if deliberately overridden, but it\nmay be hoodwinked with comparative complacency. Mrs. Sherman remains\ntrue to her principle of excluding meretricious characters from social\nintercourse with her guests, but she reserves to herself the right of\npassing on the evidence. Seeing that she had read Madame Bovary and\nAnna Karenina, was she not amply qualified to detect immorality at\nfirst blush? That seemed to be almost an essential attribute of a\nmodern woman with social ambitions.\n\n\"The occasion for putting into practice this prerogative was not far\nto seek. The arrival from Europe of one of the most brilliant of the\ngalaxy of foreign actresses brings her heart into her mouth. She reads\neagerly everything which the newspapers have to say about her, and\nnaturally finds nothing there suggestive of impropriety. She buys and\nscans photographs, and these merely serve to heighten the ideal\nestimate which has shaped itself in her mind. She refuses to entertain\nsundry rumors which have reached her to the effect that the lady in\nquestion has been successively maintained by a French marquis, and a\nRussian banker, and was at present reputed to be on unduly intimate\nterms with the famous leading man of her own troupe. To the person who\nhas confided to her these whisperings she answers, 'I don't believe a\nword of it,' and then adds, significantly, 'Wait.' The person is a\nman, and he shrugs his shoulders. But her soul is jubilant in its\nfaith and in the hope that at last she has found a way to compete with\nMrs. Webb Johnston.\n\n\"On the day when the actress arrives in town Mrs. Sherman goes to see\nher. The meeting is by appointment at ten o'clock in the morning, and\nlasts more than two hours. They come down-stairs together with the\nmien of happy sisters. Mrs. Sherman's face wears a seraphic smile. Her\ncarriage is in waiting, and in it they are driven to her home for\nluncheon, and on the same evening cards are issued for an\nafter-theatre supper-party as a preliminary announcement of impending\nfestivities. She sends for the man who told her the rumors, and in a\ntriumphant tone says, 'My friend, your stories are untrue; I have been\nto headquarters. I have seen her and asked her, and she has assured\nme, with tears in her eyes, that they are a wicked falsehood--a\nmalicious, baseless slander.'\n\n\"'Surely,' says the man, 'she ought to know,' and then he shrugs his\nshoulders again, a caustic act which, though done as a friend,\nprovokes Mrs. Sherman to anger, and puts a chasm between them.\n\n\"On this day the cat is killed, and yet the cream is saved. True to\nher principles, Mrs. Sherman still bars her doors against the wanton,\nyet never fails to convince herself that she is an infallible judge of\nvirtue. If there are rumors and whisperings in advance, she invariably\ntakes the bull, or, more accurately speaking, the heifer, by the horns\nand puts the inquiry. The answer settles the matter. It becomes a\nveritable 'open sesame' to her entertainments and her friendship. She\nshows herself in public with her arm, metaphorically and literally,\naround the waist of women whom all men know to be unchaste and living\nin violation of social laws. They kiss and talk poetry and art and\nphilosophy, and her face gleams with the consciousness of new\nimportance and the realization of her ambition.\n\n\"Mrs. Sherman has now reached the point where she feels that she can\nfairly regard herself as the most busily progressive woman of her\ncommunity. She has a finger in every pie, literary, artistic,\nphilanthropic, educational, and what not. She is always in a hurry,\nand she does nothing thoroughly. Her ideas jostle against each other\nin their promiscuity, and become all jumbled together in her\nconsciousness. Her time is so occupied that when she is doing one\nthing and talking to one person, some other thing or person is in her\nmind, though her social skill often enables her to conceal the fact.\nHer life is one continuous series of kaleidoscopic sensations and\nemotions without system or result. She is ostensibly a leader, but her\nleadership suggests only ceaseless activity and indiscriminate,\nsuperficial posings and vanities. Her nerves are kept in a constant\nstate of tension by breathless comings and goings, her digestion\nperpetually tried by the viands of festivities. Nor is her conscience\nsatisfied. A vague unrest pursues her still, torturing her by\ninsinuations of her own utter futility, yet goading her on to fresh\nefforts. She presently becomes a wreck morally, mentally, and\nphysically, though she preserves a bold front to the world, until one\nday the news is flashed upon a busy public that she has died suddenly\nfrom 'heart failure' following an attack of pneumonia. The physician\nin attendance shakes his head when asked to give assurance of her\nrecovery. He possesses an instinctive knowledge that she has kept her\nvitality keyed up to concert pitch by antipyrine, phenacetine, and the\nother drugs to the use of which modern progressive women are addicted.\nAnd so no more of Mrs. Alexander Sherman.\n\n\"Of course,\" continued Josephine, \"it was not strictly necessary to\nkill her. The constitutions of some progressive women seem to be proof\nagainst anything. But the chances were in favor of her death. And if\nthe poor thing had lived, what hope was there for anything but a vapid\nold age, haunted by visions of her decreasing notoriety? And the\nstrangest part of all is that when I began with her I felt hopeful\nthat she would amount to something. The laws of evolution are not to\nbe trifled with, however, even by the wives of philosophers.\"\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Modern Woman_ with Social Ambitions. IV.\n\n\nI feel confident that my correspondent, Number 4, a wife thoroughly\nhappy in the wedded state, will appreciate that there was nothing\npersonal in Josephine's portrayal of Mrs. Alexander Sherman's career.\nIt seems to me that it presents, more clearly than any arguments or\nwords of mine could do, the perils of egotism and superficiality, and\nthat I need not further indicate to my correspondents that to do a\nlittle of everything and nothing thoroughly, to be so eager for\nindividuality or notoriety that one is ready to be led instead of to\nlead, and to discard social canons on the plea of liberty or superior\nfeminine acuteness, will produce a nervous, emotional, gibbering type\nof character adapted to cause Madame de Stael or Madame Recamier to\nturn in her grave. Neither you, Number 4, nor Number 5, the radiant,\nable-bodied spinster, haughtily unconcerned about love and lovers,\nneed fear any detriment to your souls or to your social progress as a\nconsequence of doing some one or two things well, and of refusing to\nsacrifice your self-respect to the urgency of cheap substitutes for\nrefinement and elegance. Certainly, thoroughness and delicacy of\nthought and sentiment are essential to the modern woman who would be\nsocially effective in the best sense.\n\nLet me here state that I am entirely conscious that it is not a\nprerequisite to earnest living to be socially effective at all. One\ncan pursue one's occupation, be it house-keeping, school teaching,\nscientific philanthropy, or novel writing without taking any part in\nwhat is known as society, and still be respectable and worthy in\ncharacter. Yet if every woman were simply to eat her three meals a\nday, sleep, be affectionate to her family, reasonably charitable, and\ndo her daily task, the world would lose much of its vivacity, color,\nand aesthetic interest. As the world is at present constituted the\ngreater mass of human beings, both male and female, are shut off from\nparticipation in society in its narrower sense. Their means, their\nmanner of living, and their tastes confine them to very simple or else\nto very coarse social diversions. Hence we are accustomed to read in\nthe newspapers of \"society people,\" as a term of reproach indicating\nthat portion of the population which cultivates the social or\naeesthetic side of nature in its leisure hours. The demagogic force of\nthe term is derived from the undeniable existence of a surface element\nof society, which has been and is still apt to conduct itself in such\na manner as to subject itself justly to the charge of frivolity and\nextravagance. But the unthinking extend its application to the\ncultivated and intelligent many, who in all countries constitute the\nbest force of the community. Society in this better sense must always\nexist, and, although the woman who holds herself aloof from it may not\nbe distinctly culpable, there can be no question that those who\nsucceed in participating in the social interests open to them, without\nneglecting or allowing them to obscure sterner pursuits, live finer\nand more serviceable lives than those who pass all their hours of\nrelaxation by the chimney-corner, either because they fancy that\nessential to comfort or because they choose to despise what they call,\nwith a virtuous inflection, \"society.\"\n\nThis may sound elementary, but I present it as a premise to which is\nto follow. You, my correspondents, are ambitious to progress socially,\nyet doubtless you are not altogether impervious to the seductive\nsuggestion that social interests are hollow and unprofitable. For\ninstance, I feel sure that you, Number 5, the radiant, able-bodied\nspinster, haughtily unconcerned about love and lovers, feels the\npressure of the times, and would regard the life of a Madame de Stael\nor a Madame Recamier, however brilliant or picturesque, as at variance\nwith modern theories of social utility. I hear you making some such\nrepresentation as this, which is merely an enlargement of the letter\nyou wrote me: \"Here am I, a young woman of some means, without family\nresponsibilities or other demands upon my time. I have no prejudice\nagainst marriage; indeed, I earnestly hope to meet some day, some man\nwho will love me and whom I may love, and whose wife I may become; but\nas I am no longer so young as I was once, being nearly thirty, I have\nno intention of bothering my head about the subject further, and so\nput it aside as a contingency. I have no special talent; that is, I\nnever could accomplish anything unusual with my voice, my pen, or a\nbrush. I have taken, and I do take, a strong interest in charitable\nenterprise and investigation. I belong to philanthropic societies, and\nit has more than once occurred to me to join a college settlement and\nlive among the poor. I have friends who do that; but I do not feel a\nspecial fitness for the work. Nor am I sure that, however valuable\nthat experience may be as a form of loving service to the people one\nhopes to influence, it can be other than episodic and limited to the\nindividuals who are conscious of the need or of the inspiration. I am\npainfully aware of the dissipations and vanities of fashionable\npeople, in many of which I have taken part myself, and have no desire\nto be merely a frivolous devotee of social amusements. And yet I feel\nsure that the social side is no less genuine in its claims upon us\nthan any other. It seems to me that I might interest myself socially,\nbut I am puzzled by the intricacies of the situation. It is so\ndifficult to be democratic in one's sympathies and yet maintain the\nold standards of elegance and refinement. To be socially effective one\nought to be in touch with modern social tendencies and yet be true to\nthe finest instincts of aspiring womanhood. What can one do to realize\nthis?\"\n\nThat is, I believe, a clear presentation of your state of mind and its\ndilemma. Having read of the vicissitudes of Mrs. Alexander Sherman,\nyou have probably a more distinct idea of what you ought not to do;\nbut would have a right to argue that a mere warning loses half its\nforce unless a substitute be supplied. To begin with, you are correct\nin your assumption--you see I credit you with a considerable\nintelligence--that if you hope to be effective you must not be content\nwith mere aristocratic elegance. That is a requisite which will gain\nyou a standing within certain narrow limits, and if cleverly\ncherished, may bring you a surface reputation which the society\nnewspapers will vie with each other to enhance. The acquirement of\nmere fine ladyism is going on actively in our society, and though it\nhas not turned the heads of so many American women as its opposite,\nsuperficial democratic smartness, it seems too apt to fill the breasts\nof its votaries with a pleasing self-satisfaction, which no suggestion\nthat the gift is not original serves to disturb. It is a product of\nand inheritance from the older civilizations, and in its most precious\nbut not its exaggerated form, is absolutely essential to the most\nhighly evolved womanhood. A fringe of our people in the North and in\nthe South, and latterly in the West, has always insisted on and\ncultivated it, generally with much credit, and has thereby evoked the\ntaunt that they were out of sympathy with the institutions of the\ncountry. That has been far less true than demagogues would have us\nbelieve, but there has been enough truth in it, and there is still\nenough truth in it to put our well-bred class--\"society people,\" as\nthey are called--on their guard against themselves. There is certainly\nnothing essentially American in conventional fine manners and in the\nconventional social tone which people of breeding the world over\ncultivate, and where these are the possessor's chief or only title to\nsuperiority, and are worn as such, there is room for the sneer that he\nor she is not an American at heart.\n\nDuring the last twenty years our population has been passing through a\nperiod of awakening in regard to the usages of civilized countries,\nwith the result that the public point of view has been astonishingly\nreadjusted. The people are, so to speak, tumbling over each other in\ntheir haste to adopt Old World social customs, and the paragrapher who\ntells us that the wife of the Chief Magistrate wears blue novelty silk\nwaists to the theatre, made by one of her familiar friends, makes a\npoint of assuring us that the dressmaker in question is herself \"a\nleading society woman.\" Our public press is rife with society cant and\nsociety gossip, and justifies the practice on the plea that the plain\npeople are absorbed in the contemplation of the doings and the dresses\nof those whom they know only by hearsay, even as an Englishwoman will\nrun the risk of apoplexy in order to catch a passing glimpse of her\nsovereign. Of this appetite for social tittle-tattle, the wealthy\nclass seems disposed to take every advantage, pluming itself on its\nnew importance to the point where it is constantly trying to devise\nsome new extravagance or inanity.\n\nBut this is not the spirit of the United States, nor are these the\nbest Americans. Our nation is strange in this respect. We wear our\nfaults upon our sleeves, or rather we suffer a surface population to\nbelie us in various walks of life. That is the reason why the\nforeigners who come over here and try to amass the materials for a\nbook in a few months fail to understand us as we really are. They are\nled by superficially prominent indications to believe many things\nwhich are true only of a limited portion of the population, and they\nfail to perceive the sturdiness of character, the independence of\nview, and the social charm which distinguishes a large and constantly\nincreasing portion of the American people, who are neither extravagant\nplutocrats nor vulgar republican braggarts and despisers of civilized\npractices.\n\nDuring the early years of our history as an independent nation, the\nimitators of foreign and civilized usages, the well-bred people of our\ncountry were, as I have indicated, regarded as out of sympathy with\nthe population at large, and there was a certain justification in the\ncharge; for though there was no conscious slur on the part of these\nstudents of manners, they were at fault in that they failed to\nmanifest or to take an interest in that energy, originality, and\nfreshness of mental vision which was known as Americanism. Blatant and\nmortifying as this national tendency was in its exaggerated forms, it\nwas a genuine indigenous product typical of the native character.\nChastened and subdued in New England, and assuming outrageous\nexpression on the prairies, it was the real manifestation of our\nentity as a new departure from the peoples of Europe. Hence it was\nnatural that those who were shocked by or felt no kinship for this\ntrick of the blood should be looked at askance. Among those who\nclaimed in their own hearts social prestige it was long the fashion to\nshrug their shoulders over the raw eccentricities of their\nfellow-countrymen, which, as revealed both in public affairs and\nduring European travel, were often startling to precise taste and\nwofully suggestive of the boaster. Yet those very traits in their\ntruer expression have been the vital force of the people, and give us\nour savor as a nation. Not to possess them is to be without the\ncharacteristics of an American.\n\nThe experience and events of fifty years have served to soften the\neccentricities and tone down the unconventional manifestations of the\nnational spirit. Although the prairies and the halls of Congress still\nafford occasional rampant types, the great body of the people is\neager, as I have indicated, to adopt cosmopolitan usages. But the salt\nof the native character remains undiluted in the blood of the people,\nand marks them as genuinely as ever, though they have learned to avoid\nsome of the exuberance of language and look which made foreigners\nsmile, and their sensitive countrymen blush when they met them in the\npicture galleries of Europe.\n\nMost significant among the changes which experience and time have\nbrought to pass has been the development on the educational and social\nside. Always alive to the importance of general education, but\nunfortunately so proud of the maintenance of public schools that it\nwas disposed to sneer at any learning not to be acquired at them, the\nAmerican people--that portion of it which foreigners are so apt to\noverlook when they attempt to characterize us--is seeking to foster in\na variety of ways the opportunities for higher learning, and wider\nintellectual intelligence. Within the last twenty-five years not\nmerely an array of colleges and other educational institutions have\nsprung into existence, but with them an army of disciples whose clubs\nand classes and associations for the investigation and study of all\nthe forms of learning from English literature to Sanscrit have given a\nnew tone and stimulus to the social side of American life. An\nindependent, but now generally respectful eagerness to learn has taken\nthe place of an independent ignorance relying upon its own\ninfallibility, which was often worn as a chip upon the shoulder. With\nit all has been manifest the same originality, independence, and\nenergy of spirit which has been conspicuous from the first. This still\nserves to handicap as well as to promote progress, for it is apt to\nbeget undue self-confidence and lead our new women and eager youth of\nboth sexes to ignore the accumulated wisdom of older civilizations,\nand claim a special clearness of vision, the only basis for which is\noften half-digested superficial knowledge. But educational and\nprofessional life all over the country is being constantly enriched by\nmore and more competent students and practitioners who stand not\nmerely for what is best and most earnest in American life, but who\ntypify the true American spirit. While the omniscient class in the\npopulation has become less assertive and more humble-minded, the class\nwhich was once politically proscribed in some sections of the country\nbecause it was cultivated and because it shrugged its shoulders in\nspite of its breeding, has undergone a transformation also. A large\nportion of it, always patriotic at heart so far as dying was\nconcerned, has learned to recognize that it must live in sympathy with\nour republican institutions if it would not be regarded as an exotic,\nand that aloofness is akin to lack of patriotism. A fringe of vain and\nmore and more extravagant and self-indulgent society exists in our\nlarge cities, especially in New York, which affects to claim social\nsuperiority to the rest of the population, and is indifferent to\nnational progress and to the best public interests; but it is\nnumerically small, and, except in the newspapers, a very unimportant\nfactor of influence as compared with the already large and growing\nbody of citizens over the country which is eager to live nobly and\nwisely. This right-minded and aspiring class represents the drawing\ntogether and amalgamation of the once seemingly hostile poles of\nopinion typified by the conservative, civilized, sedate, social\naristocrats of the nation, and the independent, assertive, ignorant\nbut truth-seeking sons and daughters of the soil. Each has recognized\nthe justice of the other's criticisms, and as the outcome of a\nmutually amended point of view we have an earnest, intelligent, and\ninteresting alliance, which insists on both fineness and strength of\nfibre as essential to progressive national character. The confines of\nthis belt of good citizenship shade away into stiff or heartless\nconventionalism on the one side, and smart, obtuse, social perceptions\non the other, but it is constantly widening and undergoing the\nrefining process which results from the increasing intelligence of the\ncontracting parties. By way of exemplification in matters feminine may\nbe instanced the more and more frequent requirement by those in\nauthority in women's colleges that applicants for the position of\nteacher should possess those evidences of gentle nurture which the\nworld is accustomed to associate with the word \"lady.\" Conversely one\nmay point to the fact that originality, independence, and\nsuggestiveness are no longer repulsed by the conservative, but\nwelcomed as a leavening grace necessary to the development of a finer\nwomanhood.\n\nTo the existence of this alliance I would call the attention of the\nmodern woman with social ambitions--you, in particular, Numbers 4 and\n5. For it seems to me that in its perpetuation and extension lies the\nbest hope of society. It represents, of course, an involuntary\napproximation of contrary opinions, and has no definite corporate\nexistence, like a woman's club, for instance. But the alliance is\nreal, nevertheless, whether it be deliberate or not. Certainly the\nAmerican woman who wishes to lead effectively and aspiringly can no\nlonger be either of the insipidly fashionable or the smart, assertive,\nschoolma'am type. In her composition that eager, star-investigating\nspirit, which through all the phases of her brilliant but often\nnerve-harrowing evolution has distinguished her, must curb itself to\nthe yoke of social refinement. On the other hand, the day has passed\nwhen the charms of mere convention, of graceful elegance fortified by\nnothing deeper than wit, or suppleness of mind, would rank the\npossessor among the leaders of society.\n\nImitation, therefore, of the witchery worn by the women of the French\nsalons will, however successful, if it be limited to mere manners and\nmental accomplishments--the pyrotechnics of social adroitness--gain\nfor the modern woman of ambition, be she discerning and honest with\nherself, only a sore conscience. First of all, let her be a\nlady--elegant, gracious, pure, and tender; but, last of all, let her\nbe merely that and stop there, looking down with amiable\nsuperciliousness on the world outside the narrow limit hedged by the\nconventions of those who play at living, and fancy themselves the real\nworld. It is becoming more and more easy in this country to be a\nfashionable fine lady, without audible reproach, for the class of mere\nsociety people is a growing one. Yet to those who are content thus to\nwaste their lives, the difficulty of being recognized as anything but\nsociety persons is just as great as ever, for though the ranks of the\nalliance may seem to terminate on one side in their direction, there\nis a dividing chasm between them broad as is the difference between\ncareless aristocracy and sympathizing humanity. On one side of this\nchasm live those whose vital interest is to be exquisite and to be\nentertained; on the other, those whose souls are bent upon the finest\naspirations and hopes of the race. In the heart of this alliance\nbetween conventional culture and humanity the reforms, the\nenterprises, and the safeguards projected for the advancement of\nmodern society are born, and here they find their truest champions.\n\nIt is not easy, however, my correspondents, to decide whether there\nlies greater danger for the modern woman with social ambitions in the\nallurements of mere fashionable society, or in the temptations to be\nsmart, superficial, and common, which confront her at the point where\nthe alliance shades toward the camp of democratic individuality. Here\nthere is a second chasm; yet, like the sunken road into which the\ncuirassiers of Napoleon fell at Waterloo, it is not evident at first\nglance to those who, fired by the ardor of youth, but socially\nunenlightened, tilt at fame and world progress. The evolution of\ndemocracy having in the case of woman been supplemented by the\nenfranchisement of her sex, present conditions afford extraordinary\nopportunities for the exercise of her new-found liberty. So secure is\nher position, so welcome is her announced determination to readjust\nand regenerate the world, that humanity is prepared to give her her\nhead and to applaud every sign of advancement.\n\nBut man, though thus encouraging and at heart keenly appreciative, is\nwatching her closely, and there can be no question that if he has to\nchoose between the old-time woman of convention--the exquisite,\npicturesque doll of society--and a monster who revolts at sex, sneers\nat sentiment, and administers the affairs of life on a dull,\nutilitarian basis enlivened only by knowing, mundane humor, he will\nprefer the doll, or, if she be out of the question, he will fight the\nmonster. It would be St. George and the dragon again! Long has the\nidea which the poet put into words,\n\n    _Man's love is of man's life a thing apart,\n    'Tis woman's whole existence,_\n\nbeen uttered with a sigh by our wives and mothers; yet with pride,\ntoo, and a secret joy in spite of the melancholy inflection. There\nare some women to-day who would throw off the yoke of this adage and\nenter the lists of life on the footing of a second-class man, proud\nof their swagger, and with the instincts of the wife and mother\nsternly repressed. Fortunately, to the woman of the alliance this new\nwoman of democratic individuality is as abhorrent as she is to men.\nBut it is not in her extreme type that she is as yet most dangerous,\nfor admiration comes only by degrees. The danger lies in the failure\nto recognize the species in the bustling, chirping, metallic,\nsuperficial class of women which in some numbers, and with the wiry\nwhirr of grasshoppers, infests the cities and towns of the republic\nto-day--women who have no reverence and no sentiment, no desire to\nlearn for the sake of knowledge, but merely for ostentation--women\nwho have not progressed as souls, but who have substituted coarseness\nfor aspiration, and material \"cuteness\" for unsophisticated purity of\nthought and sentiment.\n\nThe modern woman with social ambitions must be essentially a modern\nwoman. That is, she must recognize the justice of and sympathize with\nthe aspirations of society for a broader humanity, and she must\nrecognize and be a party to the responsibilities placed upon her own\nsex by the process of emancipation. Now, if ever, is the opportunity\nfor woman to show what she is made of. If she is made simply of sugar\nand spice and all that is nice, as we are informed in the nursery\nrhyme, we shall have to accept her as she is, and put up with her\ndelightful volatility and tender but unintellectual limitations. If,\non the other hand, as the world is ready to believe, she is a\nstar-seeking creature, who has been kept down, she will soon be able\nto give manifest signs of her ability to soar; and it is equitable to\nremind her that the burden of proof is on her. She cannot afford,\ndistinctly, to be superficial. She must be thorough both in her\ninvestigations and her intuitions or she will amount to nothing, for\nit must be remembered that though man may be slow at intuition, he is\ncapable in investigation. Every woman of the present day who becomes\neither an elegant voluptuary or an egotistical, metallic\nflibbertigibbet, furnishes one more piece of evidence for the\nedification of those who maintain that the mental constitution of her\nsex, save in its capacity for affection, is shallow. That is probably\nnot the truth, but she should make the demonstration of the calumny\nmore complete. Woman's authority over matters social is far greater\nthan it has ever been. Not only as regards the social manifestations\nof society, but in the matter of the deeper problems of social living\nupon which the progress of society depends, her influence is becoming\nmore and more a vital factor and force. If she is sincere, society\nwill become both more earnest and more attractive; if she is simply\nseeking liberty at the expense of religion, purity, sentiment, and the\nfine things of the spirit, it were almost better she were again a\ncredulous, beautiful doll, and remained so to the end of time.\nClearly, the modern woman with social ambitions must not neglect to\nhold fast to the old and everlasting truths of life in her struggle\ntoward the stars. Sympathy with and capacity to promote new ideas are\nessential to her progress, but only by allegiance to the eternal\nfeminine, to the behests of love and motherhood and beauty of\nimagination, can the development of society on the lines of a broader\nand wiser humanity be effectually established.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man_ wishing to be an American. I.\n\n\nI wrote this once as a definition of Americanism: \"It seems to me to\nbe, first of all, a consciousness of unfettered individuality coupled\nwith a determination to make the most of self.\" In short, a compound\nof independence and energy. To you, in the earnest temper of mind\nwhich your letter of inquiry suggests, this definition may seem a\ngenerality of not much practical value; declarative of essential\ntruth, yet only vaguely helpful to the individual. Yet I offer it as a\nstarting-point of doctrine, for to my thinking the people of the\nUnited States who have impressed themselves most notably on the world\nhave possessed these two traits, independence and energy, in marked\ndegree. And to you, whatever your condition in life, if you consider,\nit must be apparent that manly self-respect and enterprising force are\nessential to character and good citizenship, and that the prominence\naccorded to these qualities by those who have analyzed the component\nparts of our nationality is a distinction which should be perpetuated\nand reinforced by succeeding generations.\n\nNevertheless, the counsel seems to approximate a glittering generality\nfor the reason that the opportunities for acting upon it no longer\nsprout on every bush as in the forties, fifties, sixties, and\nseventies of the present century when we were a budding nation and\nmuch of our territory was still virgin soil. I write \"seems to\napproximate\" advisedly, for the opportunities are just as plenty,\nmerely less obvious. Yet here again I must make this qualification--one\nwhich recalls doubtless the favorite aphorism employed to meet the plea\nthat the legal profession is overcrowded--that there is always an\nabundance of room on the top benches. Indisputably the day has passed\nwhen the ambitious and enterprising American youth could have fruit\nfrom the tree of material fortune almost by stretching out his hand.\nNow he has to climb far, and the process is likely to be slow and\ndiscouraging. The conditions peculiar to a sparse population in a new\ncountry rich in resources have almost ceased to exist, and, though a\nyoung nation still, we are face to face with the problems which concern\na seething civilization where almost every calling seems full. Now\nand again some lucky seeker for fortune still finds it in a brief\ntwelve-month, but for the mass of American young men the opportunities\nfor speedy, dazzling prosperity have ceased to exist. Those who win the\nprizes of life among us nowadays owe their success, in all but sporadic\ncases, to unusual talents, tireless zeal and unremitting labor, almost\nas in England, and France, and Germany. So also, with the passing of\nthe period when enterprise and ambition were whetted by the promise of\nsudden and vast rewards, have disappeared many of the traits, both\nexternal and psychological, which were characteristic of our early\nnationality. The buffalo is nearly extinct, and with him is vanishing\nmuch of the bluff, graceless assertiveness of demeanor which was\nonce deemed essential by most citizens to the display of native\nindependence. Our point of view has changed, broadened, evolved in so\nmany ways that it were futile to do more than indicate by a general\ndescription what is so obvious. Partly by the engrafting and adoption\nof foreign ideas and customs, partly by the growth among us of new\nconditions beyond the simple ken of our forefathers, our national\nlife has become both complex and cosmopolitan. If we, who were once\nprone to believe our knowledge, our manners, and our customs to be\nall-sufficient, have been borrowing from others, so we in our turn have\nbeen imitated by the older nations of Europe, and the result is an\napproximation in sympathies and a blurring of distinctions. Political\ndifferences and race superficialities of expression seem a larger\nbarrier than they really are, for in its broader faiths and vision the\ncivilized world is becoming homogeneous. The ocean cable and the\nfacilities for travel have palsied insular prejudice and lifted the\nembargo on the free interchange of ideas. The educated American sees no\nresemblance to himself in the caricatures of twenty-five years ago, and\nrejoices in the consciousness that the best men the world over are\nessentially alike. This, perhaps, is only another way of reasserting\nthat human nature is always human nature, but this old apothegm has a\nclearer significance to-day than ever before.\n\nYet the opportunities for the display of enterprise and independence\nremain none the less distinct because we are becoming a cosmopolitan\ncommunity and the old spectacular flavor has been kneaded out of the\nnational life. Much of our free soil has been appropriated by an army\nof emigrants from Europe, and in connection with this fact the saying\nis rife that every foreigner seems infused with a new dignity from the\nmoment that he becomes an American. This may be bathos in individual\ncases, yet it is the offspring of truth. Still it remains equally true\nthat we have an enormous foreign population whose ideas and standards\nare those which they brought with them. Proud as these men and women\nmay be of their new nationality, and eager as they may be to aid in\nthe promotion of good citizenship, their very existence here in large\nnumbers has altered the conditions of the problem of Americanism. The\nproblem involved is no longer that of the winning of a new land by a\nfree, spirited people under a republican form of government, but the\nlarger equation of the evolution of the human race. Americanism to-day\nstands in a sense more accurate than before as the experiment of\ngovernment of the people, for the people, and by the people, and for\nthe most complete amalgamation of the blood of Christendom which the\nhuman race has ever known. We have lately been celebrating our\ncentennial anniversaries. Already the great figures of our early\nhistory seem remote. The struggle in which we are engaged is intenser\nand broader than theirs: It concerns the progress of human society.\nYou, whom I am addressing, find yourself a unit in a vast,\nheterogeneous population and a complex civilization. You live in the\nmidst of the most modern aspirations and appliances, and cheek by jowl\nwith the joy and sorrow, the comfort and distress, the virtue and vice\nof a great democracy. Your birthright of independence and energy finds\nitself facing essentially the same perplexities as those which\nconfront the inhabitants of other civilizations where the tide of\nexistence runs strong and exuberant. If our nationality is to be of\nvalue to the world, Americanism must stand henceforth for a\nrectification of old theories concerning, and an application of fresh\nvitality to the entire problem of human living.\n\nLove of country should be a part of the creed both of him who counsels\nand him who listens, yet I deem it my duty, considering the nature of\nour topic, to suggest that there are not a few in the world,\nforeigners chiefly, who would be disposed to answer your inquiry how\nbest to be an American, by citing _Punch's_ advice to persons about to\nmarry, \"don't!\" It does credit to your love of country that you have\nassumed a true American to be a consummation devoutly to be emulated.\nHumility on this subject has certainly never been a national trait,\nand I cannot subscribe to any such doubt myself. But yet again let me\nindicate that across the water the point is at lest mooted whether the\nseeker for perfect truth would not be nearer success if incarnated\nunder almost any other civilized name. Let me hasten to add that I\nbelieve this to be due to national prejudice, envy, and lack of\nintelligent discrimination, especially the latter, in that the\nforeigner is mistaken as to the identity of the true American. It\nbehooves you therefore to ascertain carefully who the true American\nis, for even my defence seems to hint at the suggestion that all\nAmericans are not equally admirable. Forty years ago an intimation\nthat all Americans were not the moral and intellectual, to say nothing\nof the physical, superiors of any Englishman, Frenchman, German or\nItalian alive would have subjected a writer to beetling criticism;\nbut, as I have already intimated, we have learned a thing or two since\nthen. And it is not a little thing to have discovered that, though\ntheir hearts were right and their intentions good, our forefathers\nwere not so abnormally virtuous and wise as to entitle them or us to\nan exclusive and proscriptive patent of superiority. We glory in them,\nbut while we revere them as the fosterers and perpetuators of that\nfine, energetic, high-minded, probing spirit which we call the\ntouch-stone of Americanism, we are prepared, with some reluctance, yet\nfrankly, when cornered, to admit that they did not possess a monopoly\nof righteousness or knowledge.\n\nI shall assume, then, that you, in common with other citizens, have\nreached this rationally patriotic point of view and are willing to\nagree that we are not, as a nation, above criticism. If you are still\ninclined to regard us, the plain people of these United States, as a\nmighty phalanx of Sir Galahads in search of the Holy Grail, the\ncitation of a few facts may act aperiently on your mind and wash away\nthe cobwebs of hallucination. For instance, to begin from the\npolitical standpoint, our acquirement of Texas and other territory\nonce belonging to Mexico suggests the predatory methods of the Middle\nAges rather than an aspiring and sensitive national public temper. The\ngovernment of our large cities has from time to time been so\nnotoriously corrupt as to indicate at least an easy-going, shiftless,\ncivic spirit in the average free-born municipal voter. It is a matter\nof common knowledge that in the legislative bodies of all our States\nthere is a certain number of members whose action in support of or\nagainst measures is controlled by money bribes. From the point of view\nof morals, statistics show that poverty and crime, drunkenness and\nlicentiousness in our large cities are little less rife than in the\ngreat capitals of Europe; and you have merely to read the newspapers\nto satisfy yourself that individuals from the population of the small\ntowns and of the country districts from the eastern limit of Maine to\nthe southwestern coast of California are capable of monstrous murders,\nrank thefts, and a sensational variety of ordinary human vices. It\nwere easy to illustrate further, but this should convince you that the\npatriotic enthusiast who would prove the people of the United States\nto be a cohort of angels of light has verily a task compared with\nwhich the labors of Sisyphus and other victims of impossibility fade\ninto ease. Even our public schools, that favorite emblem of our\nomniscience, have been declared by authority to merit interest but by\nno means grovelling admiration on the part of the effete peoples of\nEurope.\n\nWe will proceed then on the understanding that, whatever its past, the\npresent civilization of the United States reveals the every-day human\nbeing in his or her infinite variety, and that the true American must\ngrasp this fact in order to fulfil his destiny. If our nation is to be\na lamp to the civilized world, it will be because we prove with time\nthat poor human nature, by virtue of the leaven called Americanism,\nhas reached a higher plane of intelligent virtue and happiness than\nthe world has hitherto attained. Who then is the true American? And\nwhat are the signs which give us hope that the people of the United\nStates are capable of accomplishing this result? What, too, are the\nsigns which induce our censors and critics to shake their heads and\nrefuse to acknowledge the probability of it?\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man_ wishing to be an American. II.\n\n\nI will begin with the inverse process and indicate a list of those who\nare not true Americans, and yet who are so familiar types in our\nnational community that the burden of proof is on the patriot to show\nthat they are not essentially representative.\n\nNo. 1. _The Plutocratic Gentleman of Leisure who Amuses\nHimself._--Here we have a deliberate imitation of a well-known figure\nof the older civilizations. The grandfather by superior ability,\nindustry, and enterprise has accumulated a vast fortune. His\ngrandchildren, nurtured with care, spend their golden youth in mere\nextravagant amusement and often in dissipation. There are many\nindividuals in our so-called leisure class who devote their lives to\nintelligent and useful occupation, but there is every reason for\nasserting that the point of view of the child of fortune in this\ncountry is significantly that of the idler--and a more deplorable\nidler than he of the aristocracies of Europe on whom he models himself\nfor the reason that the foreigner is less indifferent than he to\nintellectual interests. Is there any body of people in the world more\ncontemptible, and any body among us more useless as an inspiring\nproduct of Americanism, than the pleasure-seeking, unpatriotic element\nof the very rich who, under the caption of our best society, arrogate\nsocial distinction by reason of their vulgar ostentation of wealth,\ntheir extravagant methods of entertainment and their aimless\npleasure-loving lives? To vie with each other in lavish outlay, to\nvisit Europe with frequency, to possess steam-yachts, to bribe\ncustom-house officers, to sneer at our institutions and, save by an\noccasional check, to ignore all the duties of citizenship, is an\noff-handed epitome of their existence. And in it all they are merely\ncopy-cats--servile followers of the aristocratic creed, but without\nthe genuine prestige of the old-time nobilities. And in the same\nbreath let me not forget the women.\n\n[_Note._--\"I was afraid you were going to,\" said my wife, Josephine.\n\"Women count for so much here, and yet their heads seem to become\nhopelessly turned as soon as they are multi-millionaires.\"]\n\nWomen indeed count for much here, and yet it is they even more than\nthe men who are responsible for and encourage the mere pleasure-loving\nlife among the leisure class. A ceaseless round of every variety of\nmoney-consuming, vapid amusement occupies their days and nights from\nJanuary to January, and for what purpose? To marry their daughters to\nforeign noblemen? To breed scandal by pursuing intimacies with other\nmen than their husbands? To demonstrate that the American woman, when\nshe has all the opportunities which health, wealth, and leisure can\nbestow, is content to become a mere quick-witted, shallow voluptuary?\n\nYou will be told that these people are very inconsiderable in number,\nthat they really exercise a small influence, and that one is not to\njudge the men and women of the United States by them. It is true that\nthey are not very numerous, though their number seems to be\nincreasing, and I am fain to believe that they are not merely out of\nsympathy with, but alien in character to, the American people as a\nwhole; and yet I cannot see why an unfriendly critic should not claim\nthat they are representative, for they are the lineal descendants of\nthe men from every part of the land who have been the most successful\nin the accumulation of wealth. Their grandfathers were the pioneers\nwhose brains and sinews were stronger than their fellows in the\nstruggle of nation-building; their fathers were the keenest and not\npresumptively the most dishonest men of affairs in the country. Though\nthe plain people of the nation affect to reprobate this class as\nun-American and evil, yet the newspapers, who aim to be the exponents\nof the opinions of the general mass and to cater to their preferences,\nare constantly setting forth the doings of the so-called\nmulti-millionaires and their associates with a journalistic gusto and\nredundancy which reveals an absorbing interest and satisfaction in\ntheir concerns on the part of the every-day public.\n\nUndeniably there are no laws which prohibit the wealthy from\nsquandering their riches in futile extravagance and wasting their time\nin empty frivolities, nor is our leisure class peculiar in this when\ncompared with the corresponding class in other countries, unless it be\nin a more manifest bent toward civic imbecility. But, from the point\nof view of human progress, is it not rather discouraging that the most\nfinancially prosperous should aspire merely to mimic and outdo the\nfollies of courts, the heartless levity and extravagance of which have\nbeen among the instigators of popular revolution? Surely, if this is\nthe best Americanism, if this is what democracy proffers as the flower\nof its crown of success, it were more satisfactory to the sensitive\ncitizen to owe allegiance to some country where the pretensions to\nomniscient soul superiority were more commensurate with the results\nproduced.\n\nNo. 2. _The Easy-going Hypocrite._--Here is another slip from the tree\nof human nature, which flourishes on this soil with a sturdy growth. A\nlarge section of the American people has been talking for buncombe, not\nmerely since years ago the member of Congress from North Carolina\nnaively admitted that his remarks were uttered solely for the\nedification of the county of that name, and so supplied a descriptive\nphrase for the habit, but from the outset of our national responsibilities.\nTo talk for effect with the thinly concealed purpose of deceiving a\npart of the American people all of the time has been and continues to\nbe a favorite practice with many of the politicians of the country. Yet\nthis public trick of proclaiming sentiments and opinions with the\ntongue in the cheek is the conspicuous surface-symptom of a larger vice\nwhich is fitly described as hypocrisy. There is a way of looking at\nthis accusation which deprives it of part of its sting, yet leaves us\nin a predicament not very complimentary to our boasted sense of humor.\nIt is that the free-born American citizen means so well that he is\nhabitually dazzled by his own predilections toward righteousness into\nutterances which he as a frail mortal cannot hope to live up to, and\nconsequently that he is prone to express himself in terms which none\nbut the unsophisticated are expected to believe. In other words, that\nhe is an unconscious hypocrite. However harmless this idiosyncrasy may\nhave been as a preliminary trick of expression, there is no room for\ndoubt that the plea of unconsciousness must cease to satisfy the most\nindulgent moral philosopher after a very short time. Yet we have\npersevered in the practice astonishingly, until it may be said that\nhyperbole is the favorite form of public utterance on almost any\nsubject among a large class of individuals, in the expectation that\nonly a certain percentage will not understand that the speaker or\nwriter is not strictly in earnest. In this manner the virtuous and the\npatriotic are enabled to give free vent to their emotions and to set\ntheir fellow-citizens and themselves highest among the people of the\nearth without other expenditure than words, resolutions, or empty laws.\nThe process gently titillates the self-esteem of the performer so that\nhe almost persuades himself for the time being that he believes what he\nis saying: He appreciates that his hearers like better to have their\nhopes rehearsed as realities at the expense of veracity than to be\nreminded of imperfections at the expense of pride: And he rejoices in\nthose whom he has fooled into believing that their hopes have been\nrealized, and that all the virtue which he tremendously stands for is\npart and parcel of the national equipment. Under the insidious\ninfluence of this mode of enlightenment the every-day keen American\ncitizen goes about with his head in the air, knowing in his secret\nheart that one-half of what he hears from the lips of those who\nrepresent him in public is buncombe, but content with the shadow for\nthe substance, and wearing a chip on his shoulder as a warning to those\nwho would assert that we are not really as virtuous and as noble as our\nspokesmen have declared.\n\nFor instance, to return to the concrete, consider the plight of a\npolice commissioner in most of our large cities. Those interested in\nthe suppression of vice appear before the legislature and urge the\nmaintenance of a vigorous policy. Acts are passed by the law-makers\nmanifesting the intention of the community to wage vigorous war\nagainst the social evil and the sale of liquor, and prescribing\nunequivocal regulations. The appointing power is urged to select a\nstrong man to enforce these laws. Supposing he does, what follows?\nMurmurs and contemptuous abuse. Murmurs from what is known as the\nhard-headed, common-sense portion of the community, who complain that\nthe strong man entrusted with authority does not show tact; that what\nwas expected of him was judicious surface enforcement of the law\nsufficient to beguile reformers and cranks, and give a semblance of\nimprovement, not strict, literal compliance. They will tell you that\nthe social evil can no more be suppressed than water can be prevented\nfrom running down hill, and that the explicit language of the statutes\nwas framed for the benefit of clergymen, and that no one else with\ncommon-sense supposed it would be enforced to the letter by any\nintelligent official. The very legislators who voted to pass the laws\nwill shrug their shoulders rancorously and confide to you the same\nthing; yet in another breath assert to their constituents that they\nhave fought the fight in defence of white-robed chastity and the\nsacred sanctity of the home.\n\nNow, is this Americanism, the very best Americanism? Surely not. It\nhas an Anglo-Saxon flavor about it which it is easy to recognize as\nforeign and imported. Englishmen have been asserting for centuries\nthat they were fighting the fight in defence of white-robed chastity\nand the sanctity of the home, to the amusement of the rest of the\nworld, for in spite of the fact that the laws demand a vigorous policy\nand the British matron and the Sunday-school Unions declare that the\nhome is safe, those familiar with facts know that London is one of the\nmost disgustingly impure cities in the world, and that the youth let\nloose upon its streets is in very much the same predicament as Daniel\nin the den of lions, without the same certainty of rescue. And why?\nBecause the hard-headed, common-sense British public sanctions\nhypocrisy. They tell you that they are doing their utmost to crush the\nevil. This is for the marines, the British matron, and the\nSunday-school Unions. But let a strong man attempt to banish from the\nstreets the shoals of women of loose character, and what an\nunmistakable murmur would arise. How long would he remain in office?\n\nIt may be that the social evil can no more be suppressed than water\ncan be prevented from running down hill. That is neither here nor\nthere for the purposes of this illustration. But to demand the passage\nof laws, and then to abuse and undermine the influence of those who\ntry to enforce them is a vice more subversive to national character\nthan the fault of Mary Magdalene and her unpenitent successors, both\nmale and female.\n\nTake, again, our custom-house regulations concerning persons returning\nhome from abroad. The law demands a certain tariff, yet it is\nnotorious that a large number of so-called respectable people are able\nto procure free entry for their effects by bribes to the subordinates.\nAnd why? Because those who passed the law devised it to cajole a\ncertain portion of the community; but those charged with the\nenforcement of it, in deference to its unpopularity, are expected to\nmake matters at the port smooth for travellers with easy-going\nconsciences. Hence the continued existence at the New York\nCustom-house of the shameless bribe-taker in all his disgusting\nvariety. Authority from time to time puts on a semblance of integrity\nand discipline, but the home-comer continues to gloat over the old\nstory of double deceit, his own and another's. Is this the best\nAmericanism? Yet these are American citizens who offer the bribe, who\npocket it, and who allow the abuse to exist by solemnly or\ngood-naturedly ignoring it. Consider the diversity of our divorce\nlaws. It is indeed true that opinions differ as to what are and what\nare not suitable grounds for divorce, so that uniformity of\nlegislation in the different States is difficult of attainment; yet\nthere is reason to believe that progress toward this would be swifter\nwere it not for the convenience of the present system which allows men\nand women who profess orthodoxy a loop-hole of escape to a less\nrigorous jurisdiction when the occasion arises. Similarly, in the case\nof corporation laws, it is noticeable that not far removed from those\ncommunities where paid-up capital stock and other assurances of good\nfaith are required from incorporators, some State is to be found where\nnone of these restrictions exist. Thus an appearance of virtue is\npreserved, self-consciousness of virtue flattered, a certain number\ndeluded, and yet all the conveniences and privileges of a hard-headed,\neasy-going civilization are kept within reaching distance.\n\nNo. 3. _The Worshipper of False Gods._--It is a commonplace of foreign\ncriticism that the free-born American is insatiate for money, and that\neverything else pales into insignificance before the diameter of the\nmighty dollar. That is the favorite taunt of those who do not admire\nour institutions and behavior, and the favorite note of warning of\nthose who would fain think well of us. No one can deny that the\ninfluence and power of money in this country during the last thirty\nyears have been enormous. One reason for this is obvious. The\nmagnificent resources of a huge territory have been developed during\nthat period. Men have grown rich in a night, and huge fortunes have\nbeen accumulated with a rapidity adapted not merely to dazzle and stir\nto envy other nations, but to turn the heads of our own people. We have\nbecome one of the wealthiest civilizations, and our multi-millionaires\nare among the money magnates of the world. Yet popular sentiment in\npublic utterance affects to despise money, and inclines to abuse those\nwho possess it. I write \"affects,\" for here again the point of\nhypocrisy recurs to mind, and even you very likely would be prompt to\nremind me that, according to our vernacular, to make one's pile and\nmake it quickly is a widespread touch-stone of ambition. True enough it\nis that there has been, and is, room for reproach in the aggressiveness\nof this tendency, and yet the seeming hypocrisy is once more\nunconscious in that the popular point of view intends to be sincere,\nbut the situation has been too dazzling for sober brains and high\nresolves. For let it be said that keenness of vision and a capacity for\nescaping from the trammels of conventional and inveterate delusions are\nessentially American traits, and as a consequence no one more clearly\nthan the American citizen appreciates the importance of material\nresources as a factor of happy living, and none so definitely as he\nrefuses to be discouraged by the priestly creed that only a few can be\ncomfortable and happy in this life and that the poor and miserable will\nbe recompensed hereafter for their earthly travails. His doctrine is\nthat he desires, if possible, to be one of that comfortable and happy\nfew, and in the exuberance of his consciousness that human life is\nabsorbing, he fortifies the capacity to make the most of it by the\nquaint, convincing statement that we shall be a long time dead. His\nquick-witted, intelligent repugnance to the old theory that the mass\nshould be cajoled into dispensing with earthly comforts has helped to\ngive a humorous, material twist to his words; and yet, I venture to\nassert, has left his finer instincts unperverted, except in the case of\nthe individual. This combination of an extraordinary opportunity and a\nshrewd intelligence has, however, it must be admitted, produced a\nconsiderable and sorry crop of individuals guided by the principle that\nwealth is the highest good, and should be sought at the expense of\nevery scruple. Their many successes in the accomplishment of this\nsingle purpose have served to create the impression that the whole\nnation is thus diseased, and have done the greater harm of dwarfing\nmany an aspiring nature, spell-bound by the cloud-capped towers and\ngorgeous palaces which sheer money-making has established. As a result\nthe best Americanism is menaced both by the example of accumulation\nwithout conscience, and the dangerous public atmosphere which this\ngenerates, in that the common eye is caught by the brilliance of the\nspectacle, and the common mind lured to meditate imitation at every\nsacrifice. So they say of us that the American hero is the man of\nmaterial successes, \"the smart man\" who \"gets there\" by hook or crook,\nand that we are content to ask no embarrassing questions as to ways and\nmeans, provided the pecuniary evidences of attainment are indisputable.\nThe patriotic American resents this as a libel, and maintains that this\ntype of hero-worship is but a surface indication of the public soul,\njust as the horrors of the divorce court are but a surface indication\nof the general conditions of married life. Yet the patriot must admit\nthat there is danger to the noble aspirations which we claim to cherish\nas Americans from the bright, keen, easy-going, metallic, practical,\nhard-headed, humorous citizen, male and female, whose aim is simply to\npush ahead, at any cost, and who in the process does not hesitate to\npart with his spiritual properties as being cumbersome, unremunerative\nand somewhat ridiculous. The materialist is no new figure in human\ncivilization. \"Eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die,\" is but\nthe ancient synonyme for \"we shall be a long time dead.\" A deep,\nabiding faith in the serious purposes of humanity has ever been obvious\nto us Americans as a national possession, however foreigners may deny\nit to us, but the American nature is at the same time, as I have\nsuggested, essentially practical, level-headed, and inquiring, and is\never ready with a shrewd jest to dispute the sway of traditions founded\non cant or outworn ideas. It behooves you then, if you would be a true\nAmerican, to beware overstepping the limit which separates aspiring,\nintelligent, winsome common-sense from the philosophy of mere\nmaterialism. There lies one of the great perils of democracy; and\nunless the development of democracy be toward higher spiritual\nexperiences, Americanism must prove a failure. Keen enjoyment of living\nis a noble thing, so too is the ambition to overcome material\ncircumstances, and to command the fruits of the earth. A realization of\nthe possibility of this, and an emancipation from dogmas which\nforeordained him to despair, has evolved the alert, independent,\nprogressive American citizen, and side by side with him the individual\nwhom the less enlightened portion of the community have enshrined in\ntheir hearts under the caption of a smart man. This popular hero, with\nhis taking guise of easy-going good nature, assuring his admirers by\nway of flippant disposition of the claims of conscience and aspiration\nthat \"it will be all the same a hundred years hence\" is the kind of\nAmerican whom every patriot should seek to discredit and avoid\nimitating.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man_ wishing to be an American. III.\n\n\nThe foregoing suggestions will suffice, I think, to demonstrate to you\nthat we are not uniformly a nation of Sir Galahads, and that certain\ntypes of Americanism, if encouraged and perpetuated, are likely to\nimpair the value and force of our civilization. But having dispelled\nthe hallucination that we are uniformly irreproachable, I would remind\nyou that, in order to be a good American, it is even more necessary\nfor you to appreciate the fine traits of your countrymen than to be\nkeenly alive to their shortcomings. There are two ways of looking at\nany community, as there are two ways of looking at life. The same\nlandscape may appear to the same gaze brilliant, inspiring, and\ninteresting, or flat, homely, and unsuggestive, according as the eye\nof the onlooker be healthy or jaundiced. It is easy to fix one's\nattention on the vulgar and heartless ostentation of the rich, on the\ncheapness and venality of some of our legislators, on the evidences of\nhypocrisy and false hero-worship, materialism, and superficiality of a\nportion of our population, and in doing so to forget and overlook the\nefficacy and finer manifestations of the people whose lives are the\nforce and bulwark of the state. It is easy to go through the streets\nof a large city and note only the noise and smoke and stir, coarse\ncircumstance and coarser crime, neglecting to remember that beneath\nthis kernel of hard, real life the human heart is beating high and\nwarm with the hopes and desires of the spirit. It is not necessary for\na human being, it is essentially not necessary for an American, to\nlook at life from the point of view of what the eye beholds in the\nhours of soul-torpor. True is it that Americanism stands to-day as\nalmost synonymous with the struggle of democracy, and that the equal\ndevelopment of the life of the whole people for the common good is\nwhat most deeply concerns us; but this does not mean that it is right\nor American to adhere to what is ordinary and low, because it is still\ninevitable that the ideals and standards of the mass should not be\nthose of the finest spirits. It was an American who bade you hitch\nyour wagon to a star, and you have only to reflect in order to recall\nthe spiritual vigor, the righteous force of will, the strength of\naspiring mind, the patriotic courage, the tireless soul-struggle of\nthe early generations of choicely educated, simply nurtured Americans.\nTheir thought and conscience, true and star-seeking even in its\nlimitations, laid the foundations of law and order, of civic liberty\nand private welfare, of national honor and domestic repute. Their\nenterprise and perseverance, their grit and suppleness of intelligence\nwrested our broad Western acreage from the savage and--\n\n[_Note._--I was here interrupted in the fervor of this genuine\nperoration by my wife Josephine's exclamation, \"Oh, how atrociously\nthey abused and persecuted those poor Indians, shunting them off from\nreservation to reservation, cheating them out of their lands and furs!\"\n\nIt is not agreeable to be held up in this highwayman fashion when one\nis warming to a subject, but there is a melancholy truth in\nJosephine's statement which cannot be utterly contradicted. Still this\nis what I said to her: \"My dear, I had hoped you understood that I had\nreferred sufficiently to our national delinquencies, and that I was\ntrying to depict to my correspondent the other side of the case.\nHowever just and appropriate your criticism might be under other\ncircumstances, I can only regard it now as misplaced and unfortunate.\"\nI spoke with appropriate dignity. \"Hoity, toity, toity me!\" she\nresponded. \"I won't say another word.\"]\n\n--wrested our broad Western acreage from the savage, and in less than\nhalf a century transformed it into a thriving, bustling, forceful\ncivilization. Their ingenuity, their restless spirit of inquiry, their\npractical skill, their impatience of delay and love of swift decisive\naction have erected countless monuments in huge new cities founded in\nthe twinkling of an eye, in the marvellous useful inventions which\nhave revolutionized the methods of the world, the cotton-gin, the\nsteamboat, the telegraph, the telephone, the palace-car--in the eager\nresponse made to the call of patriotism when danger threatened the\nexistence of their country, and in the strong, original,\nclear-thinking, shrewdly acting, quaint personalities which have\nsprung from time to time from the very soil, as it were, in full\nmental panoply like the warriors of the Cadmean seed. Their stern\nsense of responsibility, their earnest desire for self-improvement,\ntheir ambitious zeal to acquire and to diffuse knowledge have founded,\nfostered, and supported the system of public schools and\nwell-organized colleges which exist to-day in almost every portion of\nthe country. The possessors of these qualities were Americans--the\nbest Americans. Their plan of life was neither cheap nor shallow, but\nsteadfast, aspiring, strong, and patient. From small beginnings, by\nindustry and fortitude, they fought their way to success, and produced\nthe powerful and vital nation whose career the world is watching with\nan interest born of the knowledge that it is humanity's latest and\nmost important experiment. The development of the democratic principle\nis at the root of Americanism, but whoever, out of deference to what\nmay be called practical considerations, abates one jot the fervor of\nhis or her desire to escape from the commonplace, or who, in other\nwords, forsakes his ideals and is content with a lower aim and a lower\noutlook, in order to suit the average temper, is false to his\nbirthright and to the best Americanism.\n\nIt has been one of the grievances of those, whose material\nsurroundings have been more favorable and who have possessed more\nostensible social refinement than the mass of the population, that\nthey were regarded askance and excluded from public service and\ninfluence. There used to be some foundation for this charge, but the\ncounter plea of lack of sympathy and distrust of country was still\nmore true, and an explanation and, in a large measure, a justification\nof the prejudice. True strength and refinement of character has always\nin the end commanded the respect and admiration of our people, but\nthey have been roughly suspicious of any class isolation or assumption\nof superiority. It has been difficult accordingly for that type of\nAmericans who arrogated tacitly, but nevertheless plainly, the\nprerogatives of social importance, to take an active part in the\nresponsibilities of citizenship. They have been mistrusted, and\nsneered at, and not always unjustly, for they have been prone to\nbelittle our national institutions and to make sport of the social\nidiosyncrasies of their unconventional countrymen for the\nentertainment of foreigners. And yet the people have never failed to\nrecognize and to reverence the fine emanations of the spirit as\nevidenced by our poets, historians, thinkers, or statesmen. Our\nforceful humanitarian and ethical movements, our most earnest reforms\nfound their most zealous and untiring supporters among the rank and\nfile of the people. Abraham Lincoln was understood last of all by the\nsocial aristocracy of the nation. Emerson's inspiration found an\nanswering chord in every country town in New England. True it is that\non the surface the popular judgment may often seem superficial and\ncheap in tone, but the wise American is chary of accepting surface\nebullitions as the real index of the public judgment. He understands\nthat mixed in with the unthinking and the degenerate is a rank and\nfile majority of sober, self-respecting men and women, whose instincts\nare both earnest and original, and who are to be depended on in every\nserious emergency to think and act on the side of civilizing progress.\nIt is the inability to appreciate this which breeds our civic censors,\nwho are led by their lack of perspective to underestimate the\ncharacter of the people and to foretell the ultimate failure of our\nexperiment.\n\nThe increase of wealth and a wider familiarity with luxury and comfort\nthrough the country has made a considerable and more important class\nof those whose material and social surroundings are exceptional. The\nparticipation of the citizens of this class in the affairs of\ngovernment is no longer discouraged--on the contrary, it is welcomed\nby the community. Indeed, many men have secured nomination and\nelection to office solely because of their large means, which enabled\nthem to control men and caucuses in their own favor.\n\n[_Note._--An appearance of spontaneity is preserved in these cases by\nthe publication of a letter from leading citizens requesting the\ncandidate to stand for office. He thereupon yields to the overwhelming\ninvitation of the voters of the district, and his henchmen do the\nrest.]\n\nBut though the possession of wealth and social sophistication are no\nlonger regarded as un-American, the public sentiment against open or\ntacit assumption of social superiority, or a lack of sympathy with\ndemocratic principles, is as strong as ever. It is incumbent,\ntherefore, on you, if you would be an American in the best sense, to\nfix your ideal of life high, and at the same time to fix it in\nsympathy with the underlying American principle of a broad and\nprogressive common humanity, free from caste or discriminating social\nconventions. It is not necessary for you to accept the standards and\nadopt the behavior of the superficial and imperfectly educated, but it\nis indispensable that you accept and act on the faith that your\nfellow-man is your brother, and that the attainment of a freer and\nmore equal enjoyment of the privileges of life is essential to true\nhuman progress. We have, as I have intimated, passed through the\npioneer stage of national development; we have tilled our fields,\nopened our mines, built our railroads, established our large\ncities--in short, have laid the foundations of a new and masterful\ncivilization; it now remains for us to show whether we are capable of\ntreating with originality the old problems which confront complex\nsocieties, and of solving them for the welfare of the public and the\nconsequent elevation of individual character.\n\nThe originality and clearness of the American point of view has always\nbeen a salient national characteristic. Hitherto its favorite scope\nhas been commercial and utilitarian. Yankee notions have been\nsuggestive of sewing-machines, reapers, and labor-saving contrivances,\nor the mechanism of rushing trade. Now that we have caught up with the\nrest of the world in material progress and taught it many tricks, it\nremains for the true American to demonstrate equal sagacity and\nclear-headedness in dealing with subtler conditions. To be sure the\nscope of our originality has not been entirely directed to things\nmaterial, for we have ever asserted with some vehemence our devotion\nto the things of the spirit, squinting longingly at them even when\nobliged to deplore only a passing acquaintance with them because of\nlack of time. The splendid superficiality of the army of youth of both\nsexes in the department of intellectual and artistic exertion, which\nhas been one of the notable features of the last thirty years, has\nshown clearly enough the true temper and fibre of our people. To\nregard this superficiality as more than a transient symptom, and\nthereby to lose sight of the genuine intensity of nature which has\nanimated it, would indicate the shallow observer. Our youth has been\naudacious, self-confident, and lacking in thoroughness because of its\nzeal to assert and distinguish itself, and thus has justly, in one\nsense, incurred the accusation of being superficial, but it has\nincurred this partially because of its disposition to maintain the\nprivileges of individual judgments.\n\nOur young men and women have been blamed for their lack of reverence\nand their readiness to form conclusions without adequate knowledge or\nstudy in the teeth of venerable opinion and convention. Indisputably\nthey have erred in this respect, but indisputably also the fault is\nnow recognized, and is being cured in the curriculum of education.\nYet, evil as the fault is, the traits which seem to have nourished\nit--unwillingness to accept tradition and a searching, honest\nclearness of vision--are virtues of the first water, and typical of\nthe best national character. There are many persons of education and\nrefinement in our society who accept as satisfactory and indisputable\nthe old forms and symbols which illustrate the experience, and have\nbecome the final word of the older civilizations in ethics, politics,\nand art. They would be willing that we should become a mere complement\nto the most highly civilized nations of Europe, and they welcome every\nevidence that we are becoming so. As I have already suggested to you,\nthe nations of the world are all nearer akin in thought and impulse\nthan formerly, but if our civilization is to stand for anything, it\nmust be by our divergence from the conclusions of the past when they\nfail to pass the test of honest scrutiny, not by tame imitation.\nProfoundly necessary as it is that we should accept with reverence the\ntruths of experience, and much as our students and citizens may learn\nfrom the wisdom and performance of older peoples, it behooves the\nAmerican to prize and cherish his birthright of independent judgment\nand freedom from servile adherence to convention. Almost everything\nthat has been truly vital in our production has borne the stamp of\nthis birthright.\n\nThe American citizen of the finest type is essentially a man or woman\nof simple character, and the effect of our institutions and mode of\nthought, when rightly appreciated, is to produce simplicity. The\nAmerican is free from the glamour or prejudice which results from the\nconscious or unconscious influence of the lay figures of the old\npolitical, social, or religious world, from the glamour of royalty and\nvested caste, of an established or dominant church, of aristocratic,\nmonkish, or military privilege. He is neither impelled nor allured to\nsubject the liberty of conscience or opinion to the conventions\nappurtenant to these former forces of society. For him the law of the\nstate, in the making of which he has a voice, and the authority of his\nown judgment are the only arbiters of his conduct. He accords neither\nto fineness of race nor force of intellect the right of aristocratic\nexclusiveness which they have too often hitherto claimed. To the\ncloistered nun he devotes no special reverence; he sees in the haughty\nand condescending fine gentleman an object for the exercise of his\nhumor, not of servility; he is indifferent to the claim of all who by\nreason of self-congratulation or ancient custom arrogate to themselves\nspecial privileges on earth, or special privileges in heaven. This\ntemper of mind, when unalloyed by shallow conceit, begets a quiet\nself-respect and simple honesty of judgment, eminently serviceable in\nthe struggle to live wisely.\n\nTo the best citizens of every nation the most interesting and vital of\nall questions is what we are here for, what men and women are seeking\nto accomplish, what is to be the future of human development. For\nAmericans of the best type, those who have learned to be reverent\nwithout losing their independence and without sacrifice of\noriginality, the problem of living is simplified through the\nelimination of the influence of these symbols and conventions. Their\noutlook is not confused or deluded by the specious dogmas of caste.\nThey perceive that the attainment of the welfare and happiness of the\ninhabitants of earth is the purpose of human struggle, and that the\nfree choice and will of the majority as to what is best for humanity\nas a whole is to be the determining force of the future. To those who\nargue that the majority must always be wrong, and that as a corollary\nthe will of the cheap man will prevail, this drift of society is\ndepressing. The good American in the first place, recognizing the\ninevitability of this drift, declines to be depressed; and in the\nsecond, without subscribing to the doctrine that the majority must be\nwrong, exercises the privilege of his own independent judgment,\nsubject only to the statute law and his conscience.\n\nThere is a noble strength of position in this; there is a danger, too,\nin that it suggests a lack of definiteness of standard. Yet this want\nof precision is preferable to the tyranny of hard and fast\nprescription. It is clear, for instance, that if the men and women of\ncivilization are determined to modify their divorce laws so as to\nallow the annulment of marriage when either party is weary of the\ncompact, no canon or anathema of the church will restrain them. Nor,\non the other hand, will the mere whim or volition of an easy-going\nmajority force them to do so. The judgment of men and women\nuntrammelled by precedent and tradition and seeking simply to\nascertain what is best and wisest for all will settle the question.\nThough the majority will be the force that puts any law into effect,\nthe impulse must inevitably come from the higher wisdom of the few,\nand that higher wisdom in America works in the interest of a broad\nhumanity, free from the delusions of outworn culture. The wisdom of\nthe few may not seem to guide, but in the end the mass listens to true\ncounsel. Honesty toward self and toward one's fellow-man, without fear\nor favor, is the leavening force of the finest Americanism, and, if\npersevered in, will lead the many, sooner or later, with a compelling\npower far beyond that of thrones and hierarchies. The wise application\nof this doctrine of the search for the common good in the highest\nterms of earthly condition to the whole range of economic, social, and\npolitical questions is what demands to-day the interest and attention\nof earnest Americans. The problems relating to capital and labor, to\nthe restraint of the money power, to the government of our cities, to\nthe education of all classes, to the status of divorce, to the\ntreatment of paupers and criminals, to the wise control of the sale of\nliquor, to equitable taxation, and to a variety of kindred matters are\nripe for the scrutiny of independent, sagacious thought and action. To\nthe consideration of these subjects the best national intelligence is\nbeginning to turn with a fresh vigor and efficiency, but none too\nsoon. Though democracy and Americanism have become largely identical,\nthe spread of the creed of a broader humanity in the countries of\ncivilization where autocratic forms of government still obtain, has\nbeen so signal and productive of results that the American may well\nask himself or herself if our people have not been slovenly and\nvain-glorious along the paths where it seemed to be their prerogative\nto lead. Certainly in the matter of many of the civic and humanitarian\nproblems which I have cited, we may fitly borrow from the recent and\nmodern methods of those to whom we are apt to refer, in terms of\ncondescending pity, as the effete dynasties of Europe. They have in\nsome instances been more prompt than we to recognize the trend of our\nand the world's new faith.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Young Man_ wishing to be an American. IV.\n\n\nIn this same connection I suggest to you that in the domain of\nliterary art an Englishman--a colonist, it is true, and so a little\nnearer allied to us in democratic sentiment--has more clearly and\nforcibly than any one else expressed the spirit of the best\nAmericanism--of the best world-temper of to-day. I refer to Rudyard\nKipling. Human society has been fascinated by the virility and\nuncompromising force of his writings, but it has found an equal\nfascination in the deep, simple, sham-detesting sympathy with common\nhumanity which permeates them. He has been the first to adopt and\nexalt the idea of the brotherhood of man without either condescension\nor depressing materialistic realism. He has interpreted the poetry of\n\"the trivial round and common task\" without suggesting impending soup,\nblankets, and coals on earth and reward in heaven on the one hand, or\nwithout emphasizing the dirtiness of the workman's blouse on the\nother. His imagery, his symbols and his point of view are essentially\nalien to those of social convention and caste. Yet his heroes of the\nengine-room, the telegraph-station, the Newfoundland Banks, and the\ndreary ends of the earth, democratic though they are to the core,\nappeal to the imagination by their stimulating human qualities no less\nthan the bearers of titles and the aristocratic monopolists of culture\nand aspiration who have been the leading figures in the poetry and\nfiction of the past. Strength, courage, truth, simplicity and\nloving-kindness are still their salient qualities--the qualities of\nnoble manhood; he expounds them to us by the force of his sympathy,\nwhich clothes them with no impossible virtues, yet shows them, in the\nwhite light of performance, men no less entitled to our admiration\nthan the Knights of King Arthur or any of the other superhuman figures\nof traditional aesthetic culture. He recognizes the artistic value of\nthe workaday life in law courts and hospitals and libraries and mines\nand factories and camps and lighthouses and ocean steamers and\nrailroad trains, as a stimulus to and rectifier of poetic imagination,\nnegativing the theory that men and women are to seek inspiration\nsolely from what is dainty, exclusive, elegantly romantic, or\nrhapsodically star-gazing in human conditions and thought. This is of\nthe essence of the American idea, which has been, however, slow to\nsubdue imagination, which is the very electric current of art, to its\nuse by reason chiefly of the seeming discord between it and common\nlife, and partly from the reluctance of the world to renounce its diet\nof highly colored court, heaven and fairy-land imagery; partly, too,\nbecause so many of the best poets and writers of America have adopted\ntraditional symbols. The great New England writers, who have just\npassed away, were, however, the exponents of the simple life, of high\nreligious and intellectual thought amid common circumstance. They\nstood for noble ideals as the privilege of all. Yet their mental\nattitude, though scornful of pomp and materialism, was almost\naristocratic; at least it was exclusive in that it was not wholly\nhuman, savoring rather of the ascetic star-gazer than the full-blooded\nappreciator of the boon of life. Their passion was pure as snow, but\nit was thin. Yet the central tenet of their philosophy, independent\nnaturalness of soul, is the necessary complement to the broad human\nsympathy which is of the essence of modern art. The difficulty which\nimagination finds in expressing itself in the new terms is natural\nenough, for the poet and painter and musician are seemingly deprived\nof color, the color which we associate with mystic elegance and\naristocratic prestige. Yet only seemingly. Externals may have lost the\ndignity and lustre of prerogative; but the essentials for color\nremain--the human soul in all its fervor--the striving world in all\nits joy and suffering. There is no fear that the tide of existence\nwill be less intense or that the mind of man will degenerate in\naesthetic appreciation, but it must be on new lines which only a master\nimbued with the value and the pathos of the highest life in the common\nlife as a source for heroism can fitly indicate. There lies the future\nfield for the poet, the novelist, and the painter--the idealization of\nthe real world as it is in its highest terms of love and passion,\nstruggle, joy, and sorrow, free from the condescension of superior\ncastes and the mystification of the star-reaching introspective\nculture which seeks only personal exaltation, and excludes sympathy\nwith the every-day beings and things of earth from its so-called\nspiritual outlook.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Political Optimist_. I.\n\n\nI approve of you, for I am an optimist myself in regard to human\naffairs, and can conscientiously agree with many of the patriotic\nstatements concerning the greatness of the American people contained\nin your letter. Your letter interested me because it differed so\nsignally in its point of view from the others which I received at the\nsame time--the time when I ran for Congress as a Democrat in a\nhopelessly Republican district and was defeated. The other letters\nwere gloomy in tone. They deplored the degeneracy of our political\ninstitutions, and argued from the circumstance that the voters of my\ndistrict preferred \"a hack politician\" and \"blatant demagogue\" to \"an\neducated philosopher\" (the epithets are not mine) that we were going\nto the dogs as a nation. The prophecy was flattering to me in my\nindividual capacity, but it has not served to soil the limpid, sunny\nflow of my philosophy. I was gratified, but not convinced. I behold\nthe flag of my country still with moistened eyes--the eyes of pride,\nand I continue to bow affably to my successful rival.\n\nYour suggestion was much nearer the truth. You indicated with\npardonable levity that I was not elected because the other man\nreceived more votes. I smiled at that as an apt statement. You went on\nto take me to task for having given the impression in my published\naccount of the political canvass not merely that I ought to have been\nelected, but that the failure to elect me was the sign of a lack of\nmoral and intellectual fibre in the American people. If I mistake not,\nyou referred to me farther on in the style of airy persiflage as a\n\"holier than thou,\" a journalistic, scriptural phrase in current use\namong so-called patriotic Americans. And then you began to argue: You\nrequested me to give us time, and called attention to the fact that\nthe English system of rotten boroughs in vogue fifty years ago was\nworse than anything we have to-day. \"We are a young and impetuous\npeople,\" you wrote, \"but there is noble blood in our veins--the blood\nwhich inspired the greatness of Washington and Hamilton and Franklin\nand Jefferson and Webster and Abraham Lincoln. Water does not run up\nhill. Neither do the American people move backward. Their destiny is\nto progress and to grow mightier and mightier. And those who seek to\nretard our national march by cynical insinuations and sneers, by\nscholastic sophistries and philosophical wimwams, will find themselves\ninevitably under the wheels of Juggernaut, the car of republican\ninstitutions.\"\n\nPhilosophical wimwams! You sought to wound me in a tender spot. I\nforgive you for that, and I like your fervor. Those rotten boroughs\nhave done yeoman service. They are on the tongue of every American\ncitizen seeking for excuses for our national shortcomings. But for my\ndread of a mixed metaphor I would add that they are moth-eaten and\nthreadbare.\n\nYour letter becomes then a miscellaneous catalogue of our national\nprowess. You instance the cotton-gin, the telegraph, the\nsewing-machine, and the telephone, and ask me to bear witness that\nthey are the inventions of free-born Americans. You refer to the\nheroism and vigor of the nation during the Civil War, and its mighty\ngrowth in prosperity and population since; to the colleges and\nacademies of learning, to the hospitals and other monuments of\nintelligent philanthropy, to the huge railroad systems, public works,\nand private plants which have come into being with mushroom-like\ngrowth over the country. You recall the energy, independence, and\nconscientious desire for Christian progress among our citizens, young\nand old, and, as a new proof of their disinterested readiness to\nsacrifice comfort for the sake of principle, you cite the recent\nemancipation of Cuba. Your letter closes with a Fourth of July\npanegyric on the heroes on land and sea of the war with Spain,\nfollowed by an exclamation point which seems to say, \"Mr. Philosopher,\nput that in your pipe and smoke it.\"\n\nI have done so, and admit that there is a great deal to be proud of in\nthe Olla Podrida of exploits and virtues which you have set before me.\nFar be it from me to question the greatness and capacity of your and\nmy countrymen. But while my heart throbs agreeably from the thrill of\nsincere patriotism, I venture to remind you that cotton-gins,\nacademies of learning, and first-class battle-ships have little to do\nwith the matter in question. Your mode of procedure reminds me of the\nplea I have heard used to obtain partners for a homely girl--that she\nis good to her mother. I notice that you include our political\nsanctity by a few sonorous phrases in the dazzling compendium of\nnational success, but I also notice that you do not condescend to\ndetails. That is what I intend to do, philosophically yet firmly.\n\nTo begin with, I am not willing to admit that I was piqued by my\nfailure to be elected to Congress. I did not expect to succeed, and my\ntone was, it seems to me, blandly resigned and even rather grateful\nthan otherwise that such a serious honor had not been thrust upon me.\nSuccess would have postponed indefinitely the trip to Japan on which\nmy wife, Josephine, had set her heart. In short, I supposed that I had\nconcealed alike grief and jubilation, and taken the result in a purely\nphilosophic spirit. It seems though that you were able to read between\nthe lines--that is what you state--and to discern my condescending\ntone and lack of faith in the desire and intention of the plain people\nof these United States to select competent political representatives.\nI can assure you that I have arrived at no such dire state of mind,\nand I should be sorry to come to that conclusion; but, though a\nphilosopher, and hence, politically speaking, a worm, I have a proper\nspirit of my own and beg to inform you that the desire and intention\nof our fellow-countrymen, whether plain or otherwise, so to do is,\njudging by their behavior, open to grave question. So you see I stand\nat bay almost where you supposed, and there is a definite issue\nbetween us. Judging by their behavior, remember. Judging by their\nwords, butter would not melt in their mouths. I merely wish to call\nyour attention to a few notorious facts in defence of my attitude of\nsuspicion.\n\n[_Note._--\"Josephine,\" said I to my wife at this point, \"please\nenumerate the prominent elective offices in the gift of the American\npeople.\"\n\nMy wife rose and after a courtesy, which was mock deferential,\nproceeded to recite with the glib fluency of a school-girl the\nfollowing list--\"Please, sir,\n\n    President.\n    Senators of the United States (elected by the State legislatures).\n    Representatives of the United States.\n    State Senators.\n    State Assemblymen or Representatives.\n    Aldermen.\n    Members of the City Council.\n    Members of the School Committee.\"\n\n\"Correct, Josephine. I pride myself that, thanks to my prodding, you\nare beginning to acquire some rudimentary knowledge concerning the\ninstitutions of your country. Thanks to me and Professor Bryce. Before\nProfessor Bryce wrote 'The American Commonwealth,' American women\nseemed to care little to know anything about our political system.\nThey studied more or less about the systems of other countries, but\ndisplayed a profound ignorance concerning our own form of government.\nBut after an Englishman had published a book on the subject, and made\nmanifest to them that our institutions were reasonably worthy of\nattention, considerable improvement has been noticeable. But I will\nsay that few women are as well posted as you, Josephine.\"\n\nShe made another mock deferential courtesy. \"Thank you, my lord and\nmaster; and lest you have not made it sufficiently clear that my\nsuperiority in this respect is due to your--your nagging, I mention\nagain that you are chiefly responsible for it. It bores me, but I\nsubmit to it.\"\n\n\"Continue then your docility so far as to write the names which you\nhave just recited on separate slips of paper and put them in a proper\nreceptacle. Then I will draw one as a preliminary step in the\npolitical drama which I intend to present for the edification of our\ncorrespondent.\"\n\nJosephine did as she was bid, and in the process, by way of showing\nthat she was not such a martyr as she would have the world believe,\nremarked, \"If you had really been elected, Fred, I think I might have\nmade a valuable political ally. What I find tedious about politics is\nthat they're not practical--that is for me. If you were in Congress\nnow, I should make a point of having everything political at the tip\nof my tongue.\"\n\n\"Curiously enough, my dear, I am just going to give an object lesson\nin practical politics, and you as well as our young friend may be able\nto learn wisdom from it. Now for a blind choice!\" I added, putting my\nhand into the work-bag which she held out.\n\n\"Aldermen!\" I announced after scrutinizing the slip which I had drawn.\nJosephine's nose went up a trifle.\n\n\"A very fortunate and comprehensive selection,\" I asserted. \"The\nAlderman and the influences which operate upon and around him lie at\nthe root of American practical politics. And from a careful study of\nthe root you will be able to decide how genuinely healthy and free\nfrom taint must be the tree--the tree which bears such ornamental\nflowers as Presidents and United States Senators, gorgeous blooms of\napparent dignity and perfume.\"]\n\nThis being a drama, my young patriot, I wish to introduce you to the\nstage and the principal characters. The stage is any city in the\nUnited States of three hundred thousand or more inhabitants. It would\nbe invidious for me to mention names where any one would answer to the\nrequirements. Some may be worse than others, but all are bad enough. A\nbold and pessimistic beginning, is it not, my optimistic friend?\n\nAnd now for the company. This drama differs from most dramatic\nproductions in that it makes demands upon a large number of actors. To\nproduce it properly on the theatrical stage would bankrupt any manager\nunless he were subsidized heavily from the revenues of the twenty\nleading villains. The cast includes besides twenty leading villains,\ntwelve low comedians, no hero, no heroine (except, incidentally,\nJosephine); eight newspaper editors; ten thousand easy-going\nsecond-class villains; ten thousand patriotic, conscientious, and\nenlightened citizens, including a sprinkling of ardent reformers;\ntwenty-five thousand zealous, hide-bound partisans; fifty thousand\nrespectable, well-intentioned, tolerably ignorant citizens who vote\nbut are too busy with their own affairs to pay attention to politics,\nand as a consequence generally vote the party ticket, or vote to\nplease a \"friend\"; ten thousand superior, self-centred souls who\nneglect to vote and despise politics anyway, among them poets,\nartists, scientists, some men of leisure, and travellers; ten thousand\nenemies of social order such as gamblers, thieves, keepers of dives,\ndrunkards, and toughs; and your philosopher.\n\nA very large stock company. I will leave the precise arithmetic to\nyou. I wish merely to indicate the variegated composition of the\naverage political constituency, and to let you perceive that the piece\nwhich is being performed is no parlor comedy. It is written in dead\nearnest, and it seems to me that the twenty leading villains, though\nsmooth and in some instances aristocratic appearing individuals, are\namong the most dangerous characters in the history of this or any\nother stage. But before I refer to them more particularly I will make\nyou acquainted with our twelve low comedians--the Board of Aldermen.\n\nIt is probably a surprise to you and to Josephine that the Aldermen\nare not the villains. Everything is comparative in this world, and,\nthough I might have made them villains without injustice to such\nvirtues as they possess, I should have been at a loss how to\nstigmatize the real promoters of the villainy. And after all there is\nan element of grotesque comedy about the character of Aldermen in a\nlarge American city. The indecency of the situation is so unblushing,\nand the public is so helpless, that the performers remind one in their\ngood-natured antics of the thieves in Fra Diavolo; they get bolder and\nbolder and now barely take the trouble to wear the mask of\nrespectability.\n\nHave I written \"thieves?\" Patriotic Americans look askance at such\nfull-blooded expressions. They prefer ambiguity, and a less harsh\nphraseology--\"slight irregularities,\" \"business misfortunes,\"\n\"commercial usages,\" \"professional services,\" \"campaign expenses,\"\n\"lack of fine sensibilities,\" \"unauthenticated rumors.\" There are\nfifty ways of letting one's fellow-citizens down easily in the public\nprints and in private conversation. This is a charitable age, and the\nword thief has become unfamiliar except as applied to rogues who enter\nhouses as a trade. The community and the newspapers are chary of\napplying it to folk who steal covertly but steadily and largely as an\nincrement of municipal office. It is inconvenient to hurt the feelings\nof public servants, especially when one may have voted for them from\ncarelessness or ignorance.\n\nHere is a list of the twelve low comedians for your inspection:\n\n    Peter Lynch, no occupation.\n    James Griffin, stevedore.\n    William H. Bird, real-estate.\n    John S. Maloney, saloon-keeper.\n    David H. Barker, carpenter.\n    Jeremiah Dolan, no occupation.\n    Patrick K. Higgins, junk dealer.\n    Joseph Heffernan, liquors.\n    William T. Moore, apothecary.\n    James O. Frost, paints and oils.\n    Michael O'Rourke, tailor.\n    John P. Driscoll, lawyer.\n\nYou will be surprised by my first statement regarding them, I dare\nsay. Four of them, Peter Lynch, James Griffin, Jeremiah Dolan, and\nMichael O'Rourke neither drink nor smoke. Jeremiah Dolan chews, but\nthe three others do not use tobacco in any form. They are patterns of\nSunday-school virtue in these respects. This was a very surprising\ndiscovery to one of the minor characters in our drama--to two of them\nin fact--Mr. Arthur Langdon Waterhouse and his father, James Langdon\nWaterhouse, Esq. The young man, who had just returned from Europe with\nthe idea of becoming United States Senator and who expressed a\nwillingness to serve as a Reform Alderman while waiting, announced the\ndiscovery to his parent shortly before election with a mystified air.\n\n\"Do you know,\" said he to the old gentleman, who, by the way, though\nhe has denounced every person and every measure in connection with our\npolitics for forty years, was secretly pleased at his son's senatorial\naspirations, \"do you know that some one told me to-day that four of\nthe very worst of those fellows have never drunk a drop of liquor, nor\nsmoked a pipe of tobacco in their lives. Isn't it a curious\ncircumstance? I supposed they were intoxicated most of the time.\"\n\nYou will notice also that Peter Lynch and Jeremiah Dolan have no\noccupation. Each of them has been connected in some capacity with the\nCity Government for nearly twenty years, and they are persons of great\nexperience. They have more than once near election time been amiably\nreferred to in the press as \"valuable public servants,\" and it must be\nadmitted that they are efficient in their way. Certainly, they know\nthe red tape of City Hall from A to Z, and understand how to block or\nforward any measure. The salary of Alderman is not large--certainly\nnot large enough to satisfy indefinitely such capable men as they, and\nyet they continue to appear year after year at the same old stand.\nMoreover, they resist vigorously every effort to dislodge them,\nwhether proceeding from political opponents or envious rivals of their\nown party. A philosopher like myself, who is, politically speaking, a\nworm, is expected to believe that valuable public servants retain\noffice for the honor of the thing; but even a philosopher becomes\nsuspicious of a patriot who has no occupation.\n\nNext in importance are Hon. William H. Bird and Hon. John P. Driscoll.\nIt is a well-known axiom of popular government that citizens are\ncalled from the plough or counting-room to public office by the urgent\nrequest of their friends and neighbors. As a fact, this takes place\ntwo or three times in a century. Most aspirants for office go through\nthe form of having a letter from their friends and neighbors published\nin the newspapers, but only the very guileless portion of the public\ndo not understand that the candidates in these cases suggest\nthemselves. It is sometimes done delicately, as, for instance, in the\ncase of young Arthur Langdon Waterhouse of whom I was writing just\nnow. He let a close friend intimate to the ward committee that he\nwould like to run for Alderman, and that in consideration thereof his\nfather would be willing to subscribe two thousand dollars to the party\ncampaign fund. It seems to a philosopher that a patriotic people\nshould either re-edit its political axioms or live up to them.\n\nNow Hon. William H. Bird and Hon. John P. Driscoll never go through\nthe ceremony of being called from the plough--in their case the ward\nbar-room. They announce six months in advance that they wish\nsomething, and they state clearly what. They are perpetual candidates\nfor, or incumbents of, office, and to be elected or defeated annually\ncosts each of them from two to four thousand dollars according to\ncircumstances. One of them has been in the Assembly, the Governor's\nCouncil, and in both branches of the City Government; the other a\nmember of the Assembly, a State Senator, and an Alderman, and both of\nthem are now glad to be Alderman once more after a desperate Kilkenny\ncontest for the nomination. They are called Honorable by the\nreporters; and philosophers and other students of newspapers are\nconstantly informed that Hon. William H. Bird has done this, and Hon.\nJohn P. Driscoll said that.\n\nThese four are the big men of the Board. The others are smaller fry;\nambitious and imitative, but less experienced and smooth and\naudacious. Yet the four have their virtues, too. It is safe to state\nthat no one of them would take anything beyond his reach. Moreover, if\nyou, a patriot, or I, a philosopher, were to find himself alone in a\nroom with one of them and had five thousand dollars in bills in a\npocket-book and the fact were known to him, he would make no effort to\npossess himself of the money. We should be absolutely safe from\nassault or sleight of hand. Whoever would maintain the opposite does\nnot appreciate the honesty of the American people. If, on the other\nhand, under similar circumstances, the right man were to place an\nenvelope containing one thousand dollars in bills on the table and\nsaunter to the window to admire the view, the packet would disappear\nbefore he returned to his seat and neither party would be able to\nremember that it ever was there. I do not intend to intimate that this\nis the precise method of procedure; I am merely explaining that our\ncomedians have not the harsh habits of old-fashioned highwaymen.\n\nThen again, there are people so fatuous as to believe that Aldermen\nare accustomed to help themselves out of the city treasury. That is a\nfoolish fiction, for no Alderman could. The City Hall is too bulky to\nremove, and all appropriations of the public money are made by draft\nand have to be accounted for. If any member of the Board were to make\na descent on the funds in the safe, he would be arrested as a lunatic\nand sent to an insane asylum.\n\nAs for the other eight low comedians, it happens in this particular\ndrama that I would be unwilling to make an affidavit as to the\nabsolute integrity of any one of them. But there are apt to be two or\neven three completely honest members of these august bodies, and two\nor three more who are pretty honest. A pretty honest Alderman is like\na pretty good egg. A pretty honest Alderman would be incapable of\ntouching an envelope containing one thousand dollars, or charging one\nhundred in return for his support to a petition for a bay-window; but\nif he were in the paint and oil business or the lumber trade, or\ninterested in hay and oats, it would be safe to assume that any\ndepartment of the City Government which did not give his firm directly\nor indirectly a part of its trade would receive no aldermanic favors\nat his hands. Then again, a pretty honest Alderman would allow a\nfriend to sell a spavined horse to the city.\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Political Optimist_. II.\n\n\nHaving hinted gently at the leading characteristics of the twelve low\ncomedians, I am ready now to make you acquainted with the twenty\nleading villains. There is something grimly humorous in the spectacle\nof a dozen genial, able-bodied, non-alcoholic ruffians levying tribute\non a community too self-absorbed or too easy-going or too indifferent\nto rid itself of them. I find, on the other hand, something somewhat\npathetic in the spectacle of twenty otherwise reputable citizens and\ncapitalists driven to villainy by the force of circumstances. To be a\nvillain against one's will is an unnatural and pitiable situation.\n\n    _That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain!_\n\nHere is the list:\n\n  Thomas Barnstable, President of the People's Heat and Power\n    Company.\n  William B. Wilcox, General Manager of the North Circuit Traction\n    Company.\n  David J. Prendergast, Treasurer of the Underground Steam Company.\n  Porter King, President of the South Valley Railroad Company.\n  James Plugh, Treasurer of the Star Brewing Concern.\n  Ex-State Treasurer George Delaney Johnson, Manager of the United\n    Gas Company.\n  Willis O. Golightly, Treasurer of the Consolidated Electric Works.\n  Hon. Samuel Phipps, President of the Sparkling Reservoir Company.\n  P. Ashton Hall, President of the Rapid Despatch Company.\n\nEx-Congressman Henry B. Pullen, Manager of the Maguinnis Engine Works.\nAnd so on. I will not weary you with a complete category. It would\ncontain the names of twelve other gentlemen no less prominent in\nconnection with quasi-public and large private business corporations.\nWith them should be associated one thousand easy-going, second-class\nvillains, whose names are not requisite to my argument, but who from\none year to another are obliged by the exigencies of business or\nenterprise to ask for licenses from the non-alcoholic, genial\ncomedians, for permission to build a stable, to erect a bay-window, to\npeddle goods in the streets, to maintain a coal-hole, to drain into a\nsewer, to lay wires underground; in short, to do one or another of the\nmany every-day things which can be done only by permission of the City\nGovernment. And the pity of it is that they all would rather not be\nvillains.\n\n[_Note._--At the suggestion of Josephine I here enter a caveat for my\nand her protection. While I was enumerating the list of low comedians\nshe interrupted me to ask if I did not fear lest one of them might\nsand-bag me some dark night on account of wounded sensibilities. She\nlaughed, but I saw she was a little nervous.\n\n\"I have mentioned no real names,\" said I.\n\n\"That is true,\" she said, \"but somehow I feel that the real ones might\nbe suspicious that they were meant.\"\n\nI told her that this was their lookout, and that, besides, they were\nmuch too secure in the successful performance of their comedy to go\nout of their way to assassinate a philosopher. \"They would say,\nJosephine, that a philosopher cuts no ice, which is true, and is\nmoreover a serious stigma to fasten on any patriotic man or woman.\"\nBut now again she has brought me to book on the score of the feelings\nof the leading villains. She appreciates that we are on terms of\nconsiderable friendliness with some Presidents of corporations, and\nthat though my list contains no real names, I may give offence.\nPerhaps she fears a sort of social boycott. Let me satisfy her\nscruples and do justice at the same time by admitting that not every\nPresident of a quasi-public corporation is a leading villain. Nor\nevery Alderman a low comedian. That will let out all my friends. But,\non the other hand, I ask the attention even of my friends to the\npredicament of Thomas Barnstable, President of the People's Heat and\nPower Company.]\n\nThomas Barnstable, the leading villain whose case I select for\ndetailed presentation, has none of the coarser proclivities of David\nJ. Prendergast, Treasurer of the Underground Steam Company. As regards\nDavid J. Prendergast, I could almost retract my allegation of pity and\nassert that he is a villain by premeditation and without compunction.\nThat is, his method of dealing with the twelve low comedians is, I am\ntold, conducted on a cold utilitarian basis without struggle of\nconscience or effort at self-justification. He says to the modern\nhighwaymen, \"Fix your price and let my bill pass. My time is valuable\nand so is yours, and the quicker we come to terms, the better for us\nboth.\" What he says behind their backs is not fit for publication; but\nhe recognizes the existence of the tax just as he recognizes the\nexistence of the tariff, and he has no time to waste in considering\nthe effect of either on the higher destinies of the nation.\n\nThomas Barnstable belongs to another school. He is a successful\nbusiness man. In the ordinary meaning of the phrase, he is also a\ngentleman and a scholar. His word in private and in business life is\nas good as his bond; he respects the rights of the fatherless and the\nwidow, and he is known favorably in philanthropic and religious\ncircles. Having recognized the value of certain patents, he has become\na large owner of the stock of the People's Heat and Power Company, and\nis the President of the corporation. Hitherto he has had plain\nsailing, municipally speaking. That is, the original franchise of the\ncompany was obtained from the city before he became President, and\nonly this year for the first time has the necessity of asking for\nfurther privileges arisen. Moreover, he finds his corporation\nconfronted by a rival, the Underground Steam Company.\n\nNow here is a portion of the dialogue which took place five weeks\nbefore election between this highly respectable gentleman and his\nright-hand man, Mr. John Dowling, the efficient practical manager of\nthe People's Company.\n\n\"Peter Lynch was here to-day,\" said Mr. Dowling.\n\n\"And who may Peter Lynch be?\" was the dignified but unconcerned\nanswer.\n\n\"Peter Lynch is Peter Lynch. Don't you know Peter? He's the Alderman\nfrom the fifth district. He has been Alderman for ten years, and so\nfar as I can see, he is likely to continue to be Alderman for ten\nmore.\"\n\n\"Ah.\"\n\n\"Peter was in good humor. He was smiling all over.\"\n\nMr. Dowling paused, so his superior said, \"Oh!\" Then realizing that\nthe manager was still silent, as though expecting a question, he said,\n\"Why did he come?\"\n\n\"He wishes us to help him mend his fences. Some of them need\nrepairing. The wear and tear of political life is severe.\"\n\n\"I see--I see,\" responded Mr. Barnstable, reflectively, putting his\nfinger-tips together. \"What sort of a man is Peter?\"\n\nMr. Dowling hesitated a moment, merely because he was uncertain how to\ndeal with such innocence. Having concluded that frankness was the most\nbusiness-like course, he answered, bluffly, \"He's an infernal thief.\nHe's out for the stuff.\"\n\n\"The stuff? I see--I see. Very bad, very bad. It's an outrage that\nunder our free form of government such men should get a foothold in\nour cities. I hope, Dowling, you gave him the cold shoulder, and let\nhim understand that under no consideration whatever would we\ncontribute one dollar to his support.\"\n\n\"On the contrary, I gave him a cigar and pumped him.\"\n\n\"Pumped him?\"\n\n\"I wanted to find out what he knows.\"\n\n\"Dear me. And--er--what does he know?\"\n\n\"He knows all about our bill, and he says he'd like to support it.\"\n\nThis was a shock, for the bill was supposed to be a secret.\n\n\"How did he find out about it?\"\n\n\"Dreamt it in his sleep, I guess.\"\n\n\"I don't care for his support, I won't have it,\" said Mr. Barnstable,\nbringing his hand down forcibly on his desk to show his earnestness\nand indignation. \"I wish very much, Mr. Dowling, that you had told him\nto leave the office and never show his impudent face here again.\"\n\nThere was a brief silence, during which Mr. Dowling fingered his\nwatch-chain; then he said in a quiet tone, \"He says that the\nUnderground Steam Company is going to move heaven and earth to elect\nmen who will vote to give them a location.\"\n\n\"I trust you let him know that the Underground Steam Company is a\nstock jobbing, disreputable concern with no financial status.\"\n\n\"It wasn't necessary for me to tell him that. He knows it. He said he\nwould prefer to side with us and keep them out of the streets, which\nmeant of course that he knew we were able to pay the most if we chose.\nIt seems Prendergast has been at him already.\"\n\n\"Disgusting! They both ought to be in jail.\"\n\n\"Amen. He says he gave Prendergast an evasive answer, and is to see\nhim again next Tuesday. There's the situation, Mr. Barnstable. I tell\nyou frankly that Lynch is an important man to keep friendly to our\ninterests. He is very smart and well posted, and if we allow him to\noppose us, we shall have no end of trouble. He is ready to take the\nground that the streets ought not be dug up, and that a respectable\ncorporation like ours should not be interfered with. Only he expects\nto be looked after in return. I deplore the condition of affairs as\nmuch as you do, but I tell you frankly that he is certain to go over\nto the other side and oppose us tooth and nail unless we show\nourselves what he calls friendly to his 'interests.'\"\n\n\"Then we'll prevent his election. I would subscribe money toward that\nmyself.\"\n\nThe Manager coughed, by way perhaps of concealing a smile. \"That would\nnot be easy,\" he said. \"And if it could be done, how should we be\nbetter off? Peter Lynch is only one of fifteen or twenty, many of whom\nare worse than he. By worse I mean equally unscrupulous and less\nefficient. Here, Mr. Barnstable, is a list of the candidates for\nAldermen on both sides. I have been carefully over it and checked off\nthe names of those most likely to be chosen, and I find that it\ncomprises twelve out-and-out thieves, five sneak-thieves, as I call\nthem, because they pilfer only in a small way and pass as pretty\nhonest; four easy-going, broken-winded incapables, and three perfectly\nhonest men, one of them thoroughly stupid. Now, if we have to deal\nwith thieves, it is desirable to deal with those most likely to be of\nreal service. There are four men on this list who can, if they choose,\nhelp us or hurt us materially. If we get them, they will be able to\nswing enough votes to control the situation; if they're against us,\nour bill will be side-tracked or defeated, and the Underground Steam\nCompany will get its franchise. That means, as you know, serious\ninjury to our stockholders. There's the case in a nut-shell.\"\n\n\"What are their names?\" asked Mr. Barnstable, faintly.\n\n\"Peter Lynch, Jeremiah Dolan, William H. Bird, and John P. Driscoll,\npopularly known in the inner circles of City Hall politics as 'the big\nfour.' And they are--four of the biggest thieves in the community.\"\n\n\"Dear me,\" said Mr. Barnstable. \"And what is it you advise doing?\"\n\n\"Like the coon in the tree, I should say, 'Don't shoot and I'll come\ndown.' It's best to have a clear understanding from the start.\"\n\n\"What I meant to ask was--er--what is it that this Peter Lynch\nwishes?\"\n\n\"He uttered nothing but glittering generalities; that he desired to\nknow who his friends were, and whether in case he were elected he\ncould be of any service to our corporation. The English of that is, he\nexpects in the first place a liberal subscription for campaign\nexpenses--and after that retaining fees from time to time as our\nattorney or agent, which will vary in size according to the value of\nthe services rendered.\"\n\nA faint gleam of cunning hope appeared in Mr. Barnstable's eyes.\n\n\"Then anything we--er--contributed could properly be charged to\nattorney's fees?\" he said by way of thinking aloud.\n\n\"Certainly--attorney's fees, services as agent, profit and loss,\nextraordinary expenses, machinery account, bad debts--there are a\ndozen ways of explaining the outlay. And no outlay may be necessary. A\ntip on the stock will do just as well.\"\n\n\"Dear, dear,\" reiterated Mr. Barnstable. \"It's a deplorable situation;\ndeplorable and very awkward.\"\n\n\"And the awkward part is, that we're a dead cock in the pit if we\nincline to virtue's side.\"\n\nMr. Barnstable sighed deeply and drummed on his desk. Then he began to\nwalk up and down. After a few moments he stopped short and said:\n\n\"I shall have to lay it before my directors, Dowling.\"\n\n\"Certainly, sir. But in general terms, I hope. A\nsingle--er--impractical man might block the situation until it was too\nlate. Then the expense of remedying the blunder might be much\ngreater.\"\n\nMr. Barnstable inclined his head gravely. \"I shall consult some of the\nwisest heads on the Board, and if in their opinion it is advisable to\nconciliate these blackmailers, a formal expression of approval will\nscarcely be necessary.\"\n\nA few days later the President sent for the Manager and waved him to a\nchair. His expression was grave--almost sad, yet resolute. His manner\nwas dignified and cold.\n\n\"We have considered,\" said he, \"the matter of which we were speaking\nrecently, and under the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed,\nand in view of the fact that the success of our bill and the defeat of\nthe Underground Steam Company is necessary for the protection of the\nbest interests of the public and the facilitation of honest corporate\nbusiness enterprise, I am empowered to authorize you to take such\nsteps, Mr. Dowling, as seem to you desirable and requisite for the\nproper protection of our interests.\"\n\n\"Very good, sir. That is all that is necessary.\"\n\nThere was a brief silence, during which Mr. Barnstable joined his\nfinger-tips together and looked at the fire. Then he rose augustly,\nand putting out his hand with a repellant gesture said, \"There is one\nthing I insist on, which is that I shall know nothing of the details\nof this disagreeable business. I leave the matter wholly in your\nhands, Dowling.\"\n\n\"Oh, certainly, sir. And you may rely on my giving the cold shoulder\nto the rascals wherever it is possible for me to do so.\"\n\nThat is a pitiful story, isn't it? Virtue assaulted almost in its very\ntemple, and given a black eye by sheer force of cruel, overwhelming\ncircumstances. Yet a true story, and the prototype in its general\nfeatures of a host of similar episodes occurring in the different\ncities of this land of the free and the home of the brave. Each case,\nof course, has its peculiar atmosphere. Not every leading villain has\nthe sensitive and combative conscience of Thomas Barnstable; nor every\ngeneral manager the bold, frank style of Mr. Dowling. There is every\nphase of soul-struggle and method from unblushing, business-like\nbargain and sale to sphinx-like and purposely unenlightened and\nostrich-like submission. In the piteous language of a defender of\nThomas Barnstable (not Josephine), what can one do but submit? If one\nmeets a highwayman on the road, is one to be turned back if a purse\nwill secure a passage? Surely not if the journey be of moment. Then is\na corporate body (a corporation has no soul) to be starved to death by\ndelay and hostile legislation if peace and plenty are to be had for an\nattorney's fee? If so, only the rascals would thrive and honest\ncorporations would bite the dust. And so it happened that Mr. Dowling\nbefore election cast his moral influence in favor of the big four, and\na little bird flew from headquarters with a secret message, couched in\nsufficiently vague language, to the effect that the management would\nbe pleased if the employees of the People's Heat and Power Company\nwere to mark crosses on their Australian ballots against the names of\nPeter Lynch, Jeremiah Dolan, Hon. William H. Bird, and the Hon. John\nP. Driscoll.\n\nLet us allow the curtain to descend to slow music, and after a brief\npause rise on some of our other characters. Behold now the fifty\nthousand respectable, well-intentioned, tolerably ignorant citizens\nwho vote but are too busy with their own affairs to pay attention to\npolitics, and as a consequence generally vote the party ticket or vote\nto please a friend. As a sample take Mr. John Baker, amiable and\nwell-meaning physician, a practical philanthropist and an intelligent\nstudent of science by virtue of his active daily professional labors.\nFor a week before election he is apt to have a distressing,\nsoul-haunting consciousness that a City Government is shortly to be\nchosen and that he must, as a free-born and virtue-loving citizen,\nvote for somebody. He remembers that during the year there has been\nmore or less agitation in the newspapers concerning this or that\nindividual connected with the aldermanic office, but he has forgotten\nnames and is all at sea as to who is who or what is what. Two days\nbefore election he receives and puts aside a circular containing a\nlist of the most desirable candidates, as indicated by the Reform\nSociety, intending to peruse it, but he is called from home on one\nevening by professional demands, and on the other by tickets for the\ntheatre, so election morning arrives without his having looked at it.\nHe forgets that it is election day, and is reminded of the fact while\non his way to visit his patients by noticing that many of his\nacquaintances seem to be walking in the wrong direction. He turns also\nat the spur of memory, and mournfully realizes that he has left the\nlist at home. To return would spoil his professional day, so he\nproceeds to the polls, and, in the hope of wise enlightenment, joins\nthe first sagacious friend he encounters. It happens, perhaps, to be\nDowling.\n\n\"Ah,\" says Dr. Baker, genially, \"you're just the man to tell me whom\nto vote for. One vote doesn't count for much, but I like to do my duty\nas an American citizen.\"\n\n\"It's a pretty poor list,\" says Dowling, pathetically, drawing a paper\nfrom his pocket. \"I believe, however, in accomplishing the best\npossible results under existing circumstances. If I thought the Reform\ncandidates could be elected, I would vote for them and for them only;\nbut it's equally important that the very worst men should be kept out.\nI am going to vote for the Reform candidates and for Lynch, Dolan,\nBird, and Driscoll. They're capable and they have had experience. If\nthey steal, they'll steal judiciously and that is something. Some of\nthose other fellows would steal the lamp-posts and hydrants if they\ngot the chance.\"\n\n\"All right,\" says Dr. Baker. \"I'll take your word for it. Let me write\nthose names down. I suppose that some day or other we shall get a\ndecent City Government. I admit that I don't give as much\nconsideration to such matters as I ought, but the days are only\ntwenty-four hours long.\"\n\nThen from the same company there is Mr. David Jones, hay and grain\ndealer, honest and a diligent, reputable business man. He harbors the\namiable delusion that the free-born American citizen in the exercise\nof the suffrage has intuitive knowledge as to whom to vote for, and\nthat in the long run the choice of the sovereign people is wise and\nsatisfactory. He is ready to admit that political considerations\nshould not control selection for municipal office, but he has a latent\ndistrust of reformers as aristocratic self-seekers or enemies of\npopular government. For instance, the idea that he or any other\nAmerican citizen of ordinary education and good moral character is not\nfit to serve on the school committee offends his patriotism.\n\n\"What's the matter with Lynch, anyway?\" he asks on his way to the\npolls. \"I see some of his political enemies are attacking him in the\npress. If he were crooked, some one would have found it out in ten\nyears. I met him once and he talked well. He has no frills round his\nneck.\"\n\n\"Nor wheels in his head,\" answers a fellow-patriot, who wishes to get\na street developed and has put his case in Lynch's hands.\n\n\"He shall have my vote,\" says the hay and grain dealer.\n\nAs for the twenty-five thousand hide-bound partisans, I will state to\nbegin with, my optimistic correspondent, that if this drama were\nconcerned with any election but a city election, their number would be\nlarger. But these make up in unswerving fixity of purpose for any\ndiminution of their forces due to municipal considerations. They are\ncontent to have their thinking done for them in advance by a packed\ncaucus, and they go to the polls snorting like war-horses and eager to\nvindicate by their ballots the party choice of candidates, or meekly\nand reverently prepared to make a criss-cross after every R or D,\naccording to their faith, with the fatuous fealty of sheep. Bigotry\nand suspicions, ignorance and easy-going willingness to be led, keep\ntheir phalanx steady and a constant old guard for the protection of\ncomedians and villains.\n\nIn another corner of the stage stand the ten thousand superior,\nself-centred souls who neglect to vote and despise politics--the mixed\ncorps of pessimists, impractical dreamers, careless idlers, and\nhyper-cultured world-disdainers, who hold aloof, from one motive or\nanother, from contact with common life and a share in its\nresponsibilities--some on the plea that universal suffrage is a folly\nor a failure, some that earth is but a vale of travail which concerns\nlittle the wise or righteous thinker, some from sheer butterfly or\nstupid idleness. Were they to vote they would help to offset that no\nless large body of suffragists--the active enemies of order, the\nhoodlum, tobacco-spitting, woman-insulting, rum-drinking ruffian\nbrigade. There are only left the ten thousand conscientious citizens,\nreal patriots--a corporal's guard, amid the general optimistic sweep\ntoward the polls. These mark their crosses with care against the names\nof the honest men and perhaps some of the pretty honest, only to read\nin the newspapers next morning that the big four have been returned to\npower and that the confidence of the plain and sovereign people in the\ndisinterested conduct of their public servants has again been\ndemonstrated.\n\n\"Ho, ho, ho,\" laugh the low comedians. \"Mum's the word.\" The faces of\nthe big four are wreathed in self-congratulatory smiles. At the homes\nof Peter Lynch and Jeremiah Dolan, those experienced individuals\nwithout occupation, there are cakes and ale. It is a mistake to assume\nthat because a citizen is an Alderman he is not human and amiably\ndomestic in his tastes. Jeremiah loves the little Dolans and is no\nless fond of riding his children on his leg than Thomas Barnstable, or\nany of the leading villains. When their father looks happy in the late\nautumn, the children know that their Christmas stockings will be full.\nJeremiah is at peace with all the world and is ready to sit with\nslicked hair for his photograph, from which a steel (or is it steal?)\nengraving will shortly be prepared for the new City Government\nyearbook, superscribed: \"Jeremiah Dolan, Chairman of the Board of\nAldermen.\" A framed enlargement of this will hang on one side of the\nfire-place, and an embroidered motto, \"God Bless Our Home,\" on the\nother, and all will be well with the Dolans for another twelve months.\nIn his own home Jeremiah is a man of few words on public matters. Not\nunnaturally his children believe him to be of the salt of the earth,\nand he lets it go at that, attending strictly to business without\nseeking to defend himself in the bosom of his family from the\ndiatribes of reformers. Still, it is reasonable to assume that, under\nthe fillip of the large majority rolled up in his favor, he would be\nliable to give vent to his sense of humor so far as to refer in the\npresence of his wife and children to the young man who was willing to\nbecome an Alderman while waiting to be Senator, as a T. Willy.\n\nIf you have read \"The Hon. Peter Stirling,\" you will remember that the\nhero rose to political stature largely by means of attending to the\nneeds of the district, befriending the poor and the helpless and\nhaving a friendly, encouraging word for his constituents, high or low.\nThe American public welcomed the book because it was glad to see the\nboss vindicated by these human qualities, and to think that there was\na saving grace of unselfish service in the composition of the average\nsuccessful politician. It would be unjust to the big four were I not\nto acknowledge that they have been shrewd or human enough to pursue in\nsome measure this affable policy, and that the neighborhood and the\ndistrict in which they live recognize them as hustlers to obtain\noffice, privileges, and jobs for the humble citizen wishing to be\nemployed by or to sell something to the City Government. To this\nconstituency the comparatively small tax levied seems all in the day's\nwork, a natural incident of the principle that when a man does\nsomething, he ought to be paid for it. To them the distinction that\npublic service is a trust which has no right to pecuniary profit\nbeyond the salary attached, and a reasonable amount of stationery,\nseems to savor of the millennium and to suggest a lack of practical\nintelligence on the part of its advocates. They pay the lawyer and the\ndoctor; why not the Alderman?\n\n\n\n\nTo _A Political Optimist_. III.\n\n\nI am reminded by Josephine that I seem to be getting into the dumps,\nwhich does not befit one who claims to be an optimistic philosopher.\nThe drama just set before you is not, I admit, encouraging as a\nnational exhibit, and I can imagine that you are already impatient to\nretort that the municipal stage is no fair criterion of public life in\nthis country. I can hear you assert, with that confident air of\nnational righteousness peculiar to the class of blind patriots to\nwhich you belong, that the leading politicians of the nation disdain\nto soil their hands by contact with city politics. Yet there I take\nissue with you squarely, not as to the fact but as to the truth of the\nlofty postulate seething in your mind that the higher planes of\npolitical activity are free from the venal and debasing\ncharacteristics of municipal public service--from the influence of the\nmoney power operating on a low public standard of honesty.\n\nMost of us--even philosophers like myself--try to cling to the fine\ntheory that the legislators of the country represent the best morals\nand brains of the community, and that the men elected to public office\nin the councils of the land have been put forward as being peculiarly\nfitted to interpret and provide for our needs, by force of their\npredominant individual virtues and abilities. Most of us appreciate in\nour secret souls that this theory is not lived up to, and is available\nonly for Fourth of July or other rhetorical purposes. Yet we dislike\nto dismiss the ideal as unattainable, even though we know that actual\npractice is remote from it; and patriots still, we go on asserting\nthat this is our method of choice, vaguely hoping, like the\nwell-intentioned but careless voter, that some day we shall get a\ndecent government, municipal, state, national--that is decent from the\nstandpoint of our democratic ideal. And there is another theory, part\nand parcel of the other, which we try to cling to at the same time,\nthat our public representatives, though the obviously ornamental and\nfine specimens of their several constituencies, are after all only\nevery-day Americans with whom a host of citizens could change places\nwithout disparagement to either. In other words, that our theory of\ngovernment is government by the average, and that the average is\nremarkably high. This comfortable view induces many like yourself to\nwrap themselves round with the American flag and smile at destiny,\nsure that everything will result well with us sooner or later, and\nimpatient of criticism or doubts. As a people we delight in patting\nourselves on the back and dismissing our worries as mere flea-bites.\nThe hard cider of our patriotism gets readily into the brain and\ncauses us to deny fiercely or serenely, according to our dispositions,\nthat anything serious is the matter.\n\nYet whatever Fourth of July orators may say to the contrary, the fact\nremains that the sorry taint of bargain and sale, of holding up on the\npolitical highway and pacification by bribery in one form or another,\npermeates to-day the whole of our political system from the lowest\nstratum of municipal public life to the councils which make Presidents\nand United States Senators. To be sure, the Alderman in his capacity\nof low comedian dictating terms to corporations seeking civic\nprivileges is the most unblushing, and hence the most obviously\nflagrant case; but it is well recognized by all who are brought in\ncontact with legislative bodies of any sort in the country that either\ndirectly or indirectly the machinery of public life is controlled by\naggregations of capital working on the hungry, easy-going, or readily\nflattered susceptibilities of a considerable percentage of the\nmembers. Certainly our national and state assemblies contain many\nhigh-minded, honest, intellectually capable men, but they contain as\nmany more who are either dishonest or are so ignorant and easily\ncajoled that they permit themselves to be the tools of leading\nvillains. Those cognizant of what goes on behind the scenes on the\npolitical stage would perhaps deny that such men as our friend Thomas\nBarnstable or his agent, Dowling, attempt to dictate nominations to\neither branch of the legislature on the tacit understanding that a\nmember thus supported is to advocate or vote for their measures, and\nby their denial they might deceive a real simon-pure philosopher. But\nthis philosopher knows better, and so do you, my optimistic friend. It\nis the fashion, I am aware, among conservative people, lawyers looking\nfor employment, bankers and solid men of affairs, to put the finger on\nthe lips when this evil is broached and whisper, \"Hush!\" They admit\nconfidentially the truth of it, but they say \"Hush! What's the use of\nstirring things up? It can't do any good and it makes the public\ndiscontented. It excites the populists.\" So there is perpetual mystery\nand the game goes on. Men who wish things good or bad come reluctantly\nor willingly to the conclusion that the only way to get them is by\npaying for them. Not all pay cash. Some obtain that which they desire\nby working on the weaknesses of legislators; following them into banks\nwhere they borrow money, getting people who hold them in their employ\nor give them business to interfere, asking influential friends to\npress them. Every railroad corporation in the country has agents to\nlook after its affairs before the legislature of the State through\nwhich it operates, and what some of those agents have said and done in\norder to avert molestation would, if published, be among the most\ninteresting memoirs ever written. Who doubts that elections to the\nUnited States Senate and House of Representatives are constantly\nsecured by the use of money among those who have the power to bestow\nnominations and influence votes? It is notorious, yet to prove it\nwould be no less difficult than to prove that Peter Lynch, Alderman\nfor ten years without occupation, has received bribes from his\nfellow-citizens. How are the vast sums of money levied on rich men to\nsecure the success of a political party in a Presidential campaign\nexpended? For stationery, postage stamps, and campaign documents? For\ntorch-light processions, rallies, and buttons? Some of it, certainly.\nThe unwritten inside history of the political progress of many of the\nfavorite sons of the nation during the last forty years would make the\nscale of public honor kick the beam though it were weighted with the\ncherry-tree and hatchet of George Washington. In one of our cities\nwhere a deputation of city officials attended the funeral of a hero of\nthe late war with Spain, there is a record of four hundred dollars\nspent for ice-cream. Presumably this was a transcript of petty\nthievery inartistically audited. But there are no auditings of the\nreal use of the thousands of dollars contributed to keep a party in\npower or to secure the triumph of a politically ambitious millionaire.\n\n[_Note._--Josephine, who had been sitting lost in thought since the\nconclusion of the drama, and who is fond of problem plays, inquired at\nthis point whether I consider the low comedians or the leading villains\nthe most to blame for the existing state of things.\n\n\"It is a pertinent question, Josephine, and one not easily answered.\nWhat is your view of the matter?\"\n\n\"I suppose,\" she answered, \"as you have termed the bribers the leading\nvillains, they are the worst. And I do think that the temptation must\nbe very great among the class of men who are without fine\nsensibilities to let themselves become the tools of rich and powerful\npeople, who, as you have indicated, can help them immensely in return\nfor a vote. It is astonishing that those in the community who are\neducated, well-to-do citizens, should commit such sins against decency\nand patriotism.\"\n\n\"Yes, it seems astonishing, but their plea is pathetic, as I have\nalready stated, and somewhat plausible. Suppose for a minute that I am\nThomas Barnstable defending himself and see how eloquent I can be.\n'What would you have me do, Madam? I am an honest man and my directors\nare honest men; the bills we ask for are always just and reasonable. I\nhave never in my life approached a legislator with an improper offer,\nnor have I used direct or indirect bribery so long as it was\nabsolutely possible to avoid doing so. But when a gang of cheap and\ncunning tricksters block the passage of my corporation's measures, and\nwill not let them become law until we have been bled, I yield as a\nlast resort. We are at their mercy. It is a detestable thing to do, I\nadmit, but it is necessary if we are to remain in business. There is\nno alternative. The responsibility is on the dishonest and incapable\nmen whom the American public elects to office, and who under the\nspecious plea of protecting the rights of the plain people levy\nblackmail on corporate interests. Corporations do not wish to bribe,\nbut they are forced to do so in self-defence.' There! Is not that a\ntear-compelling statement?\"\n\n\"I can see your side,\" said Josephine.\n\n\"Pardon me,\" I interrupted. \"It is Mr. Barnstable's side, not mine. I\nam not a capitalist, only a philosopher.\"\n\n\"Well, his side then; and I feel sorry for him in spite of the\nweakness of his case. Only his argument does not explain the others. I\nshould not suppose that men like Mr. Prendergast could truthfully\ndeclare that all the legislation they ask for is just and reasonable.\"\n\n\"Precisely. Yet they buy their desires in the open market from the\nfree-born representatives of the people. If any one states so at the\ntime he is hushed up, if possible; if not, there is an investigation,\nnothing is proved, and the integrity of the legislative body is\nvindicated. I can shed a tear on behalf of men like Mr. Barnstable, a\ncrocodile tear, yet still a tear. But there is the larger army of\nhard-headed, dollar-hunting, practical capitalists, who are not\nforming corporations for their health, so to speak, to be reckoned\nwith. My eloquence is palsied by them. They would tell you that they\nwere obliged to bribe, but they do not waste much time in resistance\nor remorse. They seem to regard the evil as a national custom,\nunfortunate and expensive, but not altogether inconvenient.\nConfidentially over a cigar they will assure you that the French, the\nSpanish, the Turks, and the Chinese are infinitely worse and that this\nis merely a passing phase of democracy, whatever that may mean.\"\n\n\"Dreadful,\" said Josephine. \"And then there are the people with money\nwho aid and abet their own nominations for Congress. I think I could\nmention some of them.\"\n\n\"Well, you mustn't. It might hurt their feelings, for they may not\nknow exactly what was done except in a general way. After all is over\nthey ask 'how much?' draw a check and make few inquiries. That is the\ngenteel way. But in some states it is not necessary or politic to be\ngenteel. The principle is the same, but the process is less subtle and\naristocratic. But haven't you a word of extenuation to offer on behalf\nof the low comedians? Think of Jeremiah Dolan and the little Dolans.\"\n\n\"I suppose he also would say it wasn't true,\" said Josephine.\n\n\"Oh, yes. 'Lady, there isn't a word of truth in the whole story. Some\none's been stuffing you.'\"\n\n\"They must be dreadfully tempted, poor wretches.\"\n\n\"'Lady, it's all make-believe. But it's one thing to talk and another\nto sit still and have a fellow whisper in your ear that you have only\nto vote his way to get five thousand in clean bills and no questions\nasked. When a man has a mortgage on his house to pay, five thousand\nwould come in handy. I'm only supposing, Lady, and no one can prove I\ntook a cent.'\"\n\n\"Fred,\" said Josephine, after a solemn pause, \"the dreadful thought\nhas just occurred to me that the American people may not be--are not\nstrictly honest.\"\n\n\"Sh!\" I shouted eagerly and seizing a tea table-cloth I threw it over\nher head and stayed her speech.\n\n\"My dear, do you realize what you are saying?\"\n\n\"Do you realize that you are tumbling my hair?\"\n\nI paid no heed to this unimportant interjection, but said, \"If any\ntrue patriot were to hear you make such an accusation you would\nsubject yourself and me to some dreadful punishment, such as happened\nto Dreyfus, or 'The Man Without a Country.' Not honest? By the shades\nof George Washington, what are you thinking of? Why, one of the chief\nreasons of our superiority to all the other nations of the world is\nbecause of our honesty--our immunity from the low moral standards of\neffete, frivolous despotisms and unenlightened masses who are without\nthe blessings of freedom. Not strictly honest? Josephine, your lack of\ntact, if nothing else, is positively audacious. Do you expect me to\nbreak this cruel piece of news to the optimistic patriot to whom this\nletter is addressed?\"\n\n\"I think you are silly,\" said my wife, freeing herself from the tea\ntable-cloth and trying to compose her slightly disordered tresses. \"I\nonly thought aloud, and I said merely what you would have said sooner\nor later in more philosophical terms. I saw that you were tempted by\nthe fear of not seeming a patriot to dillydally with the situation and\navoid expressing yourself in perspicuous language. T-h-i-e-f spells\nthief; b-r-i-b-e-r-y spells bribery. I don't know much about politics,\nand I'm not a philosopher, but I understand the meaning of every-day\nEnglish, and I should say that we were not even pretty honest. There!\nThose are my opinions, and I think you will save time if you send them\nin your letter instead of beating about the bush for extenuating\ncircumstances. If you don't, I shall--for really, Fred, it's too\nsimple a proposition. And as for the blame, it's six of one and half a\ndozen of the other.\"\n\n\"Josephine, Josephine,\" I murmured, \"there goes my last chance of\nbeing sent to the Philippines, in my capacity as a philosopher, to\nstudy whether the people of those islands are fit for representative\ngovernment.\"]\n\nYou have read what Josephine says, my optimistic friend. She has\nstated that she would write to you her summing up of the whole matter\nif I did not, so I have inserted her deduction in all its crudity. She\ndeclares the trouble to be that the American people are dishonest. Of\ncourse, I cannot expect you to agree with any such conclusion, and I\nmust admit that the boldness of the accusation is a shock to my own\nsensibilities as a patriot. Of course, Josephine is a woman and does\nnot understand much about politics and ways and means, and it is\nnotorious that women jump at conclusions instead of approaching them\nlogically and in a dignified manner. But it is also said that their\nsudden conclusions are apt to be right. Dishonest? Dear me, what a\ndreadful suggestion. I really think that she went a little too far.\nAnd yet I am forced to agree that appearances are very much against\nus, and that if we hope to lead the world in righteousness and\nprogress we must, to recur to political phraseology, mend our moral\nfences. I do not indulge in meteoric flights, like Josephine. Let us\nargue the matter out soberly.\n\nYou and I, as men of the world, will agree that if the American people\nprefer or find it more serviceable to cherish bribery as a federal\ninstitution, no one will interfere. The fact that it is ethically\nwrong is interesting to real philosophers and to the clergy, but\nbribery will continue to flourish like a bay-tree if it is the sort of\nthing which the American people like. Now, to all outward appearances\nthey find it, if not grateful and comforting, at least endurable and\nconvenient. Certainly, except among the class of people whom you would\nbe apt to stigmatize as \"holier than thous,\" there is comparatively\nlittle interest taken in the question. The mass of the community seek\nrefuge behind the agreeable fiction that the abuse doesn't exist or\nexists only in such degree as to be unimportant. Many of these people\nknow that this is false, but they will not admit that they think so in\norder not to make such doings familiar, just as their custom is to\nspeak of legs as lower limbs in order not to bring a blush to the\ncheek of the young person. For thorough-going hypocrisy--often\nunconscious, but still hypocrisy--no one can equal a certain kind of\nAmerican. It is so much easier in this world, where patting on the\nback is the touch-stone of preferment and popularity, to think that\neverything is as serene as the surface indicates, though you are\nsecretly sure that it is not. How much more convenient to be able to\nsay truthfully, \"I have no knowledge of the facts, so don't bother\nme,\" than to be constantly wagging the head and entertaining doubts\nconcerning the purity of one's fellow-citizens, and so making enemies.\n\nAs I have indicated earlier in this letter, the ideal is dear to our\npatriotic sensibilities that we are governed by average opinion, and\nthat the average is peculiarly high. The fastidious citizen in this\ncountry has been and still is fond of the taunt that men of upright\ncharacter and fine instincts--what he calls gentlemen--will not enter\npublic life, for the reason that they will not eat dirt. The reply has\nbeen that the real bugaboo of the fastidious citizen is one of\nmanners, and that in the essentials of character, in strong moral\npurpose and solid worth, the average American voter is the peer of any\naristocracy. The issue becomes really one of fact, and mere solemn\nassertion will not serve as evidence beyond a certain point. If the\nmajority prefer dishonesty, the power is in their hands to perpetuate\nthe system; but believing as you and I do that the majority at heart\nis honest, how are we to explain the continued existence of the evil?\nHow as patriots shall we reconcile the perpetuation in power of the\nlow comedians, Peter Lynch and Jeremiah Dolan, except on the theory\nthat it is the will of the majority that they should continue to serve\nthe people? This is not a question of kid gloves, swallow-tailed\ncoats, and manners, but an indictment reflecting on the moral\ncharacter and solid worth of the nation. How are we to explain it?\nWhat are we to say? Can we continue to declare that we are the most\nhonest and aspiring people in the world and expect that portion of the\nworld which has any sense of humor not to smile? Are we, who have been\naccustomed to boast of our spotless integrity as a people, ready to\nfall back on and console ourselves with the boast, which does duty\nnowadays on lenient lips, that we are as honest as any of the nations\nof Europe except, possibly, England? That is an indirect form of\npatriotic negation under the shadow of which low comedians and leading\nvillains could ply their trade comparatively unmolested.\n\nAs a philosopher, who is not a real philosopher, I find this charge of\nJosephine's a difficult nut to crack, and I commend it respectfully to\nyour attention to mull over at your leisure, trusting that it may\ntemper the effulgence of your thoughts on Independence Day. Yet having\nhad my say as a philosopher, let me as an optimist, willing to succor\na fellow-optimist, add a few considerations indicating that the\nsituation may not be so ultimately evil as the existing state of\naffairs and Josephine would have us believe. I write \"may not be,\"\nbecause I am not altogether confident that my intelligence is not\nbeing cajoled by the natural cheeriness and buoyancy of my\ndisposition. The sole question at issue is whether the majority of the\nAmerican people are really content to have the money power of the\ncountry prey upon and be the prey of the lowest moral sense of the\ncommunity.\n\nWe have before us an every-day spectacle of eager aggregations of\ncapital putting aside scruples as visionary and impractical, and hence\n\"un-American,\" in order to compass success, and at the other side of\nthe counter the so-called representatives of the people, solemn in\ntheir verbiage but susceptible to occult and disgraceful influences.\nThe two parties to the intercourse are discreet and business-like, and\nthere is little risk of tangible disclosure. Practically aloof from\nthem, except for a few moments on election day, stand the mass of\nAmerican citizens busy with their own money-getting or problem-solving,\nand only too ready to believe that their representatives are admirable.\nThey pause to vote as they pause to snatch a sandwich at a railroad\nstation. \"Five minutes for refreshments!\" Five minutes for political\nobligations! Individually there are thousands of strictly honest and\nnoble-hearted men in the United States. Who doubts it? The originality\nand strength of the American character is being constantly manifested\nin every field of life. But there we speak of individuals; here we are\nconcerned with majorities and the question of average morality and\nchoice. For though we have an aspiring and enlightened van of citizens\nto point the way, you must remember that emigration and natural growth\nhas given us tens of thousands of ignorant, prejudiced, and sometimes\nunscrupulous citizens, each of whose votes counts one. Perhaps it is\ntrue--and here is my grain of consolation or hope--that the average\nvoter is so easy-going, so long-suffering, so indisposed to find fault,\nso selfishly busy with his own affairs, so proud of our institutions\nand himself, so afraid of hurting other people's feelings, and so\ngenerally indifferent as to public matters, provided his own are\nserene, that he chooses to wink at bribery if it be not in plain view,\nand likes to deceive himself into believing that there is nothing\nwrong. The long and short of it seems to be that the average American\ncitizen is a good fellow, and in his capacity of good fellow cannot\nafford to be too critical and particular. He leaves that to the\nreformer, the literary man, the dude, the college professor, the\nmug-wump, the philosopher, and other impractical and un-American\npeople. If so, what has become of that heritage of his forefathers, the\nstern Puritan conscience? Swept away in the great wave of material\nprogress which has centred all his energies on what he calls success,\nand given to the power of money a luring importance which is apt to\nmake the scruples of the spirit seem unsubstantial and bothersome. An\neasy-going, trouble-detesting, self-absorbed democracy between the\nbuffers of rapacity and rascality.\n\nA disagreeable conclusion for an optimist, yet less gloomy than the\nother alternative. This condition admits of cure, for it suggests a\ntorpid conscience rather than deliberate acquiescence. It indicates\nthat the representatives are betraying the people, and that there is\nroom for hope that the people eventually may rise in their might and\ncall them to account. If they do, I beg as a philosopher with humorous\nproclivities, to caution them against seizing the wrong pig by the\near. Let them fix the blame where it belongs, and not hold the\ncorporations and the money power wholly responsible. It may be\npossible in time to abolish trusts and cause rich men sleepless nights\nin the crusading name of populism, but that will avail little unless\nat the same time they go to the real root of the matter, and quicken\nthe average conscience and strengthen the moral purpose of the plain\npeople of the United States. There will be leading villains and low\ncomedians so long as society permits, and so long as the conscience of\ndemocracy is torpid. The players in the drama are, after all, only the\npeople themselves. Charles the First was beheaded because he betrayed\nthe liberties of the people. Alas! there is no such remedy for a\ncorrupt democracy, for its heads are like those of Hydra, and it would\nbe itself both the victim and the executioner.\n\n\n_THE END_\n\n\n  _D. B. Updike\n  The Merrymount Press\n  104 Chestnut Street\n  Boston_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Search-Light Letters","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":45550}