{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52660/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52660","id":"gutenberg_52660","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52660","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Philosophy and religion -- Study and teaching (Secondary) -- United States"],"text":"THE SEEKERS\n\n\n by JESSIE E. SAMPTER\n\n\n _With an introduction by_\n PROFESSOR JOSIAH ROYCE\n\n MITCHELL KENNERLEY\n NEW YORK MCMX\n\n\n\n\n _Copyright 1910 by_\n _Mitchell Kennerley_\n\n\n\n\n _A successful experiment in non-sectarian religion, in moral and\n \u00e6sthetic enquiry, with young people in new ways, in search of\n the Meaning of Things._\n\n\n\n\n THE SEEKERS Errata\n\n_Page 37, Line 2._ _\u201cand he saw\u201d should read \u201cand we saw.\u201d_\n\n_ \" 91, Last line._ _\u201cI answered\u201d should read \u201cshe answered.\u201d_\n\n_ \" 93, Line 22._ _\u201cbut a word itself\u201d should read \u201cwork itself.\u201d_\n\n_ \" 104, Line 15._ _\u201ca sense of duty\u201d should read \u201ca sense of unity.\u201d_\n\n_ \" 236, Line 13._ _\u201cdifferent from each one\u201d should read \u201cdifferent\n for.\u201d_\n\n_ \" 266, Line 3._ _\u201coperator\u201d should read \u201cspectator.\u201d_\n\nErrata have also been incorporated into the Transcriber's Notes.\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n An Introductory Word\n The Beginning\n The Members\n First Meeting\n Second Meeting\n Third Meeting\n Fourth Meeting\n Fifth Meeting\n Sixth Meeting\n Seventh Meeting\n Eighth Meeting\n Ninth Meeting\n Tenth Meeting\n Eleventh Meeting\n Twelfth Meeting\n Thirteenth Meeting\n Fourteenth Meeting\n Fifteenth Meeting\n Sixteenth Meeting\n Seventeenth Meeting\n Appendix\n\nTable of Contents not in the original book and is added for reader\n convenience.\nTranscriber's Notes can be found at the end of this eBook.\n\n\n\n\n THE SEEKERS\n\n\n\n\n AN INTRODUCTORY WORD\n\n\n BY\n\n PROFESSOR JOSIAH ROYCE, PH.D., LL.D.\n\nI have been asked by the author to say a word by way of introduction to\nthis very interesting record of conversations and inquiries. On the\nwhole, I feel my word to be superfluous; for the book speaks for itself,\nand every reader will form his own opinion. But since the author has\nasked for my co-operation, I gladly offer what little I can.\n\nI am a teacher of philosophy at a university. For the most part my own\ncourses are technical in character. Some of my work is with graduate\nstudents. I am accustomed to discuss controverted opinions with people\nwho regard philosophy from a skeptical and more or less controversial,\nand almost always highly critical, point of view. Hence, my own first\nimpression of the work of the \u201cSeekers\u201d and of the leader of their\nalways pleasing inquiries, was mingled with a certain wonder as to the\npossibility of their accomplishing together, as well as they have done,\nwhat they undertook. This wonder has changed, as I have become better\nacquainted with them, into a delight that the tact, the caution, the\ntolerance and the earnestness of the leader, and the skill and docility\nof the pupils, could result in setting before us so fine a model of\nteaching and of learning as here appears. The book is one to encourage\nevery lover of good things, and everyone who wants to see how the minds\nof young people in this country, and living under good conditions, can\nbe turned toward great questions in such a way as to encourage\nsincerity, thoughtfulness and the beginnings of true wisdom.\n\nIn what little I have to say of this book I ought of course to abstract\naltogether from such agreement as I indeed feel with the form of\nIdealism which Miss Sampter represents. The question put to me is the\nquestion whether the method of procedure here adopted is one that\npromises to be genuinely useful as an initiation of young people into\nthe study of deeper questions. I answer that the author seems to have\nmade out her case, and to have proved her faith in her method by her\nwork. The age and the previous training of the \u201cSeekers\u201d\u2014as they are\nsketched in the author\u2019s preliminary statement\u2014once presupposed, this\nmode of procedure could only prove a help to them. The methods used are\nan important beginning. If any of the \u201cSeekers\u201d go on to a more advanced\nstudy of philosophy, in college or elsewhere, they ought to prove apt\nlearners. If they simply turn to life as their further teacher, they\nshould be ready to profit by some of its deepest lessons better than\nthey could otherwise have done. If, upon further inquiry, they incline\nto other opinions about the world and about life than the ones they have\nemphasized, they will still always remain more tolerant of the varieties\nof opinion, and more hopeful of the right and the power of the human\nmind to grapple with grave issues, than they would otherwise have been.\nThese hours of \u201cseeking\u201d will have opened their eyes to values which are\nindeed permanent, whatever will be the true solution of the problems of\nphilosophy; and the memory of these hours will prove henceforth a\nsafeguard against cynicism when they doubt, and against intolerance and\ninhumanity when they believe. And, whatever the truth may be, about God,\nor about the world, or about life, cynicism in doubt, and intolerance\nand inhumanity in belief, are great evils, against which the young\npeople of our time need to be guarded quite as much as men needed to be\nguarded against such evils in the days either of the Sophists or of the\nInquisitors. For, in one guise or another, speaking the language of old\nor of new faith or unfaith, Sophists and Inquisitors we have always with\nus, either corrupting or oppressing the youth. The methods of our\nauthor, as set forth in this book, make for liberty together with\nseriousness, for self-expression together with reverence, for\nthoughtfulness together with a sense of deeper values. And in so far the\nbook is a success as a model of the way in which our new problems must\nbe met when we have to deal with the young.\n\nIf one undertakes to consider such topics with a class as youthful and\nat the same time as enlightened as the \u201cSeekers,\u201d the dilemma is\nobvious. One must indeed be more or less dogmatic in tone about at least\nsome central interest; one must make use of the persuasive power of a\nteacher\u2019s personal influence; or else one will lead to no definite\nresults. On the other hand, if one propounds one\u2019s dogmas merely as the\ntraditional teacher of religion has always done by saying: \u201cThis is our\nfaith. This is what you should believe,\u201d\u2014one is then in no case\nteaching philosophy, and one is hardly helping the young people to\n\u201cseek.\u201d Moreover, such mere dogmas, addressed to young people in whom\nthe period of \u201cenlightenment\u201d has already begun, will tend to awaken in\ntheir minds new doubts and objections, rather than to convey to them the\npositive truth, even if one\u2019s own dogmas happen to be true. Hence arises\na problem of instruction which cannot be solved in the case of these\n\u201cSeekers\u201d as we teachers of philosophy often try nowadays to solve our\nanalogous problems in dealing with older pupils in college. Some of us\nmeet our own problems with the older students by directly disclaiming\nall authority to control their convictions, by asking them to become as\nself-critical and independent as they can, and by stating our own\nopinions with the intent _not_ to make disciples, but to enable our\nstudents to form their own personal judgments through the very sympathy\nwith our efforts to be reflective, self-critical and constructive. Thus\nwe do not try to convey a faith so much as to help our students to their\nown spiritual independence.\n\nIn strong opposition to our mode of procedure, many popular teachers of\nthis or that form of \u201cNew Thought\u201d have been trying of late to annul\nmodern doubts, and to lead men to a higher spiritual insight by means of\ncertain \u201cintuitions,\u201d for the sake of which skeptical inquiry, stern\ncriticism, elaborate reflection must be laid aside; so that the kindly\ndisposed learner, even if he indeed is not to be a believer in certain\nold-fashioned creeds, still looks to his teacher for a means of quieting\nhis doubts, and so that what is supposed to be \u201cphilosophy\u201d becomes a\nsort of \u201can\u00e6sthetic revelation,\u201d with the teacher as the assistant who\nadministers the an\u00e6sthetic whereby the pupil is prepared for the surgery\nof life.\n\nNow, whatever may be the use of such \u201cNew Thought\u201d for invalid wrecks,\nor even for more or less world-weary lovers of the good, whom sad\nexperience has turned away from their earlier religious creeds, and who\nneed to be restored to their courage in facing reality;\u2014still, these\nan\u00e6sthetic methods of the lovers of the \u201csilence\u201d and of the vague\nlight, are _not_ suited to the best needs of the enlightened young\npeople, such as these \u201cSeekers\u201d who are about to begin life, who know\ntheir little fragments of science, of socialism, and of modern problems,\nand who want unity with clearness. Nor are such young people at just\nthis age yet ready for our more technical academic procedure. Shall they\nbe left then unguided, until their interest in unifying life has been\nlost in the confusion and variety of their increasing knowledge, until\ntheir youthful idealism has been saddened and perhaps soiled by the\nworld, and until their criticism of life has become at once tragic and\ncynical?\n\nMiss Sampter has undertaken to answer these questions by dealing with\nthe need of just such people. She does so with a genuine clearness of\nvision, with a careful touch that helps and with a spirit which prepares\nthem to meet their problems, and not to lose unity by reason of the\ncomplexities of their situation. She dogmatizes a little, to be sure;\nand in fact she repeats some of her dogmas not infrequently, without\ngiving any elaborate reasons for these dogmas. They are the dogmas of a\nmetaphysical idealism which I myself in the main accept, but which no\ndirect intuition can very adequately justify, while their technical\njustification could not possibly be discussed at length in the meetings\nof the \u201cSeekers.\u201d On the other hand, our author is no mere partisan of\nintuition. Her dogmas are stated in forms that not only win her \u201cplastic\nyouth\u201d to agreement, but challenge them to a reflection which ere long,\nin some of them, will lead to new interpretations, to doubts, and so, in\ntime, to a higher insight than they at first gain. She sets her pupils\nto thinking as well as to receiving; they become inquirers rather than\npassive recipients of an intuition. They are thus prepared for a variety\nof future religious and philosophical experiences, and yet they are kept\nin touch with that love and hope of unity which alone can justify the\nexistence of our very doubts, of our philosophical disputes, and of our\nmodern complications of life.\n\nAs a means of avoiding both of the opposing extremes sketched in the\nforegoing account of the ways of teaching philosophical opinions, as a\n_via media_ in the work of beginning the philosophical instruction of\nyoung people, as a preparation for more critical study, as a\nconservation of some of the best in the spirit of faith without an undue\nappeal to mere intuition, and as a model of what can be done to awaken a\nvery notable type of young inquirers such as our modern training tends\nto produce in the homes of very many of us\u2014this book is, in my opinion,\nto be very heartily commended.\n\nThe educational problem with which it deals concerns meanwhile a very\ndeep and intensely practical interest of our American civilization. We\ncannot retain the unity of our national consciousness unless we can\nkeep, even in the midst of all the complications and doubts of the\nmodern world, our sense of the great common values of the spiritual\nworld. Without philosophy, our nation can therefore never come to its\nown. Philosophy does not mean the acceptance of any mere authority. And\nit will not lead us to universal agreement about any one form of creed.\nBut it will teach us to unite freedom, tolerance, insight, and\nspirituality. Without these, of what worth would be mere bulk and mere\nwealth to our nation? I welcome this book then because our author has\ncontributed to one of the most important of the tasks of our time\u2014the\ntask of helping our nation to regain the now much confused and\nendangered consciousness of its own unity.\n\n JOSIAH ROYCE\n\n Harvard University, August 3, 1910.\n\n\n\n\n THE SEEKERS\n\n\n\n\n THE BEGINNING\n\n\nThis is a live book. It was lived first, and written only afterwards. So\nit can lay no claim to the title of art, which is experience remoulded\nin the cast of individual genius; for this was not at all moulded, save\nas the written word reshapes the spoken. It is a philosophic adventure,\nan experiment, written down by one, but lived by seven.\n\nWhy did I write it down? may be asked. Every new book needs an excuse\nfor being. I wrote it down because it seemed an answer, perhaps a\npartial, but still a living answer, to two questions that cry aloud.\n\nAs I look about me, and observe the doings and thoughts of men and women\nin this active time, I notice two problems, related one to the other,\nand wanting but one solution.\n\nFirst of these is a lack of common purpose in the works of life. Many\nreligions are there, many creeds and anti-creeds, many purposes, from\npetty, selfish gain to reforms in government and social service.\nScientist, politician, artist, philanthropist and minister go each\ntoward a partial goal, in opposition to one another, with no one\npurpose, no end beyond all lesser ends, no larger patriotism. Morals are\neither very stiff or very lax, without any conscious reason for either\ntheir stiffness or their laxity. The only reason for moral conviction,\nthe only purpose that could unite all purposes, the only patriotism to\nhold all men together and give the union needful for great and strong\nachievement, is a common faith in the goal and meaning of life.\n\nThe second problem is a more conscious one, the problem of moral and\nreligious education for our children. For ourselves\u2014so think many among\nus\u2014we do not need a philosophy or religion; we are good enough without\nhaving any reason for being good. But we think our children need some\ninstruction and guidance, something to satisfy the blessed cravings and\ndoubts that we have long since killed within ourselves. For barely one\namong us fails to remember his fifteen-year-old questionings and\nstrivings, and his defeat, when at last he decided to think no more,\nbecause his problem was insoluble. But even these who are so well\ncontented with their own hard-won torpor want something better for their\nchildren. The question is asked again and again: \u201cShall we teach our\nchildren what we do not believe? And can we teach them what we do\nbelieve?\u201d\n\nIn this book I attempt to solve both problems at once, and through the\nchildren to speak to their parents. For many who will not admit the\nleast interest in the vital questions that have created every religion\nand philosophy throughout time, still are interested and will listen\nwhen the problem touches their own children. And only through the\ncreative, open and daring mind of youth, not yet either stiffened or\nbroken, can the spirit of a larger and a richer faith give new\ninspiration.\n\nI am convinced that to-day all thoughtful men believe the same, where\nvital questions arise, and that each man sees a different angle of the\nsame truth, which grows and grows in our vision, with the growing\nknowledge of man. All our ministers with their different churches, and\nour congregations with their sectarian prejudices, have at heart a\ncommon goal, a faith that needs only to be spoken to be believed. Let\ntheir children draw them together. Find a common religion to be taught\nin the school\u2014where this necessity is the present problem of all\neducators, and where so far ethical courses and emasculated Christianity\nhave given no solution\u2014and from that larger patriotism of a common\nfaith in childhood will spring the faith bigger than ethics and\nphilanthropics, big enough to include all churches and systems in an\nunseen brotherhood.\n\nWere I able to carry out this idea in a school, I would have classes or\nclubs, such as the Seekers, for all girls and boys of about the third or\nfourth high-school year. Then, for the younger children as well as for\nthe older ones, I would have songs and readings at the assembly, which\nwould suggest or picture forth the inmost spirit of our modern faith.\nThese songs and readings I would let the older pupils choose and discuss\nin their clubs; and I would leave in their hands, as much as possible,\nthe social and spiritual regulation of the school life. Faith and action\ngo together. Each without the other is barren.\n\nMy purpose in this book is then twofold: to record how such clubs and\nclasses work in practice, and thereby suggest a method from experience;\nalso to give, in such large and perhaps superficial aspect as the means\nnecessitate, the main outline of my thought. Not mine alone, but yours\nand every man\u2019s. I bring no news; but only an old, forgotten story, new\nand strange to our widened knowledge. Accept its large intent, if you\nreject its lesser achievement; admit that this is the only possible\ntruth in the light of our present knowledge. Though you believe more\nthan this, accept at least the Seekers\u2019 path as pointing toward the\ngoal. To these children it gave a way and a light; it satisfied a need\nand answered a question, and brought new weapons for the battle of\nthought wherein most of us fail from weariness. For them it has already\nsucceeded, whatever its coming fate.\n\nUnless one sees a glimpse of truth at fifteen, enough to recognize it,\none is not likely to discern it later, through the mist of unformed\nknowledge. And at fifteen one craves this something that can relate and\nshape all thought. So it happened that I organized the club of Seekers,\ncomposed of very different girls and boys, because of this one common\nneed.\n\nThe conditions necessary for membership were few. The first condition,\nthe one in its nature inevitable, was that each member should be\ninterested and enthusiastic in our quest, a seeker from need and desire.\nOnly such would have stayed with us. And this, perhaps, was a selective\nprocess of extreme rigor. Otherwise the conditions of membership were\nnot of the sort to put a premium on extraordinary ability. They were\nthat the members should be over fourteen, and under seventeen, and\nshould have finished their elementary school course. I also limited the\nmembership in number. Among my acquaintances were many more girls who\nwould have wished to join us, but no more than the two boys. I explain\nthis not by the fact that boys are less interested in these questions,\nbut that their interest develops later. If I had sought boys of eighteen\nor nineteen, I could have found them easily. At the time, however, I did\nnot realize this fact.\n\nI think that the children were average of their kind. The kind,\nnevertheless, may have carried with it some intellectual superiority or\nprecocity, such as the effects of environment and urban life. For these\nthings, through the chance of acquaintanceship, they had in common: they\nwere all bred in New York City, in educated families of the upper middle\nclass (though not all of well-to-do parents), and all but one, Ruth, who\nis a Christian Scientist, of homes unusually liberal in their religious\nthought. Therefore these children were free from those clogging\nsuperstitions and false perspectives which result from early training in\nany symbolic and fixed creed. Take these influences for what they were\nworth. Beyond them the children had no special advantage or\ndisadvantage.\n\nI say all this as a defence against a possible criticism: namely, that\nthe children seem, by their comprehension and original ideas, to be far\nabove the average boys and girls of the same age. This I deny, and for\ngood reasons. Naturally I have meant this experiment of a class in\nreligious philosophy for adolescent boys and girls to be general in its\napplication. And I believe it to be so. Most grown people have forgotten\nhow they felt and thought at fifteen, and are apt to underrate the\nmental processes of boys and girls. I myself at that age felt so keenly\nthe lack of sympathy in older people that I made a point of remembering\nand writing down certain experiences. I questioned several friends, and\nat last got admissions from them that they, too, had thought in the same\nway at fifteen. But no doubt they still look upon themselves as unique\nin this respect, for at fifteen we all think ourselves exceptions, and\nno matter how commonplace we may be now we are apt vaguely to keep that\nmemory.\n\nThen, too, one must not forget the effect of conscious and unconscious\nsuggestion. I had my plans carefully made, and knew exactly in what\ndirection I meant to lead our ideas, but the children knew very little\nof this foreplanning, and went of themselves where I wished them to go.\nNo doubt suggestion blazed trails for them through this wilderness, if\nit did not make a path, and, as my record will prove, my questions often\nstimulated them to answers that would not otherwise have been possible.\nBut often their answers were wholly unexpected and surprising. As our\nname tells, we are seekers, and I have found, at the very least, as much\nas they. Above all, my boundless faith in the young was justified. And\nmy critics must admit that they have not this faith themselves, and so\ncould never have put it to the test of experience, as I have done.\n\nThe children\u2019s papers show better than written words of mine exactly\nwhat the meetings meant to them, and will prove also, I think, their\naverage ability. They are printed exactly as written, save for\ncorrections in spelling and punctuation, which were by no means perfect.\n\nThe conversations were recorded as precisely as possible from memory and\nfrom notes taken immediately after the meetings. As any one with\nexperience will know, it is impossible to record the broken fragments of\nactual speech without sometimes combining mere phrases into complete\nsentences. The written is never like the spoken thought. It appears like\nit, which it would not do if it were a precise phonographic\ntranscription.\n\nI have made the children speak \u201cin character,\u201d using always their own\nwords and their own ideas, whatever those might be; even being careful\nto record characteristic phrases and expressions. And that I had\nsucceeded was proved by the children themselves, when they heard the\nmanuscript read and recognized themselves and each other, to their great\namusement. Not until all the meetings were over had they any idea that I\nwas keeping this record.\n\nWe seven, then, have made this book; and one other one, who, though\nnever present at the meetings, had his large share of influence in them.\nThis was my friend and Florence\u2019s big brother Arthur\u2014so often quoted by\nher\u2014and quoted by me without acknowledgment, especially in the meetings\non the \u00e6sthetic ideal, which would have been impossible without his\nhelp.\n\nFor all lovers of youth and individual thought, for all lovers of the\nquest, we have made this book, as a personal recognition of the bond of\nkinship that binds all free seekers, and as an answer to those vital\nquestions which all of us must ask together, and answer, at least in\nsympathy.\n\n\n\n\n THE MEMBERS\n\n\nALFRED, my cousin, not quite fifteen years old when the club was begun.\nIn his first high school year. In appearance, a young Arab chieftain,\ndark, athletic and dignified. His character fulfils the promise: he is\ntaciturn, slow to act, independent, serious for his age, and with a\ngreat thirst for knowledge. A lover of nature and the country; a hater\nof all things petty or mean. He entered the club with a good knowledge\nof evolution, and no religious training of any sort.\n\nVIRGINIA, my cousin, almost sixteen years old. She had one year of high\nschool, but as she would not study, and drew pictures instead, she was\nsent to art school a year and a half ago, where she has been working\nhard. She has read and re-read many good books. Although she is of a\nblonde, Saxon type, yet her hair and eyes are very dark. Light-hearted\nand yet earnest, self-satisfied, always sweet and lovable. Bright,\ninterested, original, humorous. She has had no definite religious\ntraining, but much sound religious philosophy at home.\n\nFLORENCE, a young friend, fifteen years old, but much older in\nappearance. In her third high school year. Large and dark, with gray\neyes. She is vacillating, and may turn out to be a fine, independent,\nintelligent and forceful woman, or a materialistic, flippant society\nlady. It depends on the influences brought to bear, and on her own will.\nSomewhat spoiled. A good student, a good thinker, but not impelled to\nthink by any great desire. She loves dancing more than anything else in\nthe world. She comes from a home of mixed and uncertain piety.\n\nHENRY, Florence\u2019s cousin, not quite sixteen years old, unknown to me\nbefore we formed the club. In his second high school year. A young\nstudent, dark, slim, shy, with much to say, but not yet able to say it\nwell. He is rather dogmatic, but open to influence, a born seeker. Often\nappearing at first to be slow, or commonplace, he suddenly reveals\nunexpected understanding and originality. He comes from a conventional\nhome.\n\nMARIAN, Florence\u2019s friend, also unknown to me before the club. Fifteen\nand a half years old. In her fourth\u2014last\u2014high school year, preparing\nfor college. A light brunette of a languid and yet intellectual type.\nVery intuitive, of quick insight, sympathetic, a lover of human nature,\nshy and quiet. A dreamer and a hero-worshiper. She expresses herself\nwell, but often in broken sentences and with hesitation. Her parents\nbelong to the Ethical Culture Society, and have given her no religious\neducation.\n\nRUTH, Marian\u2019s chum, sixteen years old, is also in her last high school\nyear, preparing to study kindergarten. A slight, blonde girl, tall, and\nwith her character written in her face: self-possessed, poise, idealism.\nHer voice, enunciation and language are those of one trained to speak\nwell. Her thought is unusually developed, but along rather narrow lines.\nShe loves children, and has chosen her work with an idealistic devotion.\nHer mother is Christian, her father Jewish, and their religion is\nChristian Science. She is a convinced Christian Scientist.\n\n\n\n\n FIRST MEETING\n\n\nWhen we were all gathered about the table at three o\u2019clock, I opened the\ndiscussion thus:\n\n\u201cDo you remember that I told you we were going to speak to-day of the\nfact that there is almost no religion at present, and the cause for\nthis? Now, are we all agreed that there is very little religion\u2014true\nreligious belief\u2014at present?\u201d\n\nAll agreed to this except Henry. He said that he thought people were as\nreligious as ever.\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Florence to Henry, \u201cthat you are confusing religion and\ncreed. People belong to churches and temples, and think they are\nreligious, but they don\u2019t know what they believe.\u201d\n\nI saw Henry was not convinced, so I said to him: \u201cI think perhaps we do\nnot mean the same thing by religion, therefore we might as well go on,\nand speak of it later, when we do understand.\n\n\u201cNow, I believe there is a definite historic reason for our religious\nlack, and I will tell it to you.\u201d\n\nThen I reviewed briefly the history of ancient religions, Brahmanism,\nthe Egyptian creed, the Greek and the early Catholic religions, to show\nthat all these for various reasons\u2014but chiefly because of the ignorance\nof the populace\u2014had been, as it were, double religions. There was an\ninitiated religion of the priests, who did indeed see truth, who were\nmonotheists of the universal vision, and were filled with the sense of\nunity in all things. Besides this was the religion of myths, the popular\nreligion. The people took literally the poetical tales told by the\nprophets; and these prophets, or priests, even went so far as to deceive\nthe people purposely, for what they considered the people\u2019s good.\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t see how the priests could have known the truth,\u201d Ruth said, \u201cif\nthey meant to deceive the populace. Those who knew the truth would not\nwish to deceive.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right,\u201d I answered; \u201cthey had not the whole truth, but in so\nfar as they saw, they saw truly.\u201d\n\nRuth seemed to doubt this historic account. I quietly proved to her and\nthe others that it was true. I read them a passage from Plato\u2019s\n\u201cRepublic,\u201d in which he recommends telling the people a myth because\nbelief in it would put them in the proper frame of mind.\n\nI went on to explain how the democratic spirit began to destroy the\nreligion of the initiated. The aristocracy of religion was as much\nresented as the aristocracy of government.\n\nThe result was that every one believed the popular, mythical religion;\nand that is what most of our churches have lived upon since then. All\nthe superstitions of creeds, the absurd stories that are believed\nliterally by some people even to-day, are the poetic symbols of prophets\nand teachers, accepted as narratives of fact.\n\nNext came the scientific spirit, and said: \u201cThe world is more than six\nthousand years old; it was not created in a week; the whale could not\nhave swallowed Jonah, and given him up again.\u201d Now people cried out:\n\u201cReligion is not true. We will believe nothing but science.\u201d\n\nWhen I spoke of the difference between mythical and true religion, I\nfound the children already understood this, that they realized Moses\u2019\ntrue meaning when he spoke of the burning bush; that they knew Jesus,\nwhen he spoke of himself as the son of God, meant to express the\ndivinity of man. I said the true religion spoke in poetry, and the\npopular made its figures of speech into gods.\n\n\u201cFor instance,\u201d I said, \u201cfrom where comes the line, \u2018The rosy fingers of\nthe dawn\u2019?\u201d\n\n\u201cFrom Homer,\u201d answered Marian, \u201cfrom the Odyssey.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d I went on, \u201ca person reading that might say, \u2018Just think, the\ndawn has fingers; then it must have a hand.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d said Virginia, \u201che would add, \u2018So the dawn is a woman.\u2019\u201d\n\nI said one might worship an image of a god, but if he kept his mind upon\nthe vast divine unity he would not be an idol worshiper.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d objected Henry, \u201cif he did it long enough, he would become an\nidol worshiper.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe might,\u201d I said, \u201cbut he need not.\u201d\n\nNow we came to the question of science. What has religion to do with\nscience?\n\nAlfred said science led in the same direction, was looking for the same\nthing.\n\nHenry said science was supposed to be in opposition to religion, because\nit destroyed her creeds.\n\nThat, I answered him, seemed to me a good thing.\n\nVirginia said she thought religion and science were almost the same. She\nmeant that her scientific knowledge of the universe led her to her\nreligious convictions.\n\nFlorence said she thought science and religion were altogether separate,\nhad nothing to do with each other.\n\nMarian said she did not see how science could help us to religious\nknowledge. But it turns out that she has read no science at all, save\nwhat she was taught in school.\n\nRuth said that science was the enemy of religion, that two things\nseeking in a different way could not possibly both reach the truth; that\nscience might tell us of material facts, but could not possibly give us\nthe divine truth.\n\nI asked: \u201cAre you sure material truth is not divine truth?\u201d\n\nThen I said that I myself thought science was the servant of religion,\nthat it was valuable only in so far as it helped us to a knowledge of\nlife\u2014divine and whole\u2014(I said aside to Ruth) and that I did think it\nhelped us so. It gave us a sense of unity, of our relation with the\nwhole world, because we knew that the same law moved us and the stars.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I went on, \u201cMarian mentioned the other day that she had heard\npeople say they were too educated to need religion. They meant they knew\ntoo much science. Can science replace religion?\u201d\n\nThey all said no.\n\nThey saw at once that behind every science was the mystery, the\nunexplained, and that every scientist must begin with a philosophy.\n\nI said: \u201cI have heard people say that science disproves immortality.\u201d\n\nVirginia answered: \u201cIt does not disprove immortality. It proves, indeed,\nthat nothing ever is destroyed.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you think,\u201d I asked, \u201cthat there is such a thing as absolute\nreligious knowledge?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cDo you think we can get it? That it is a certain knowledge?\u201d\n\nThey answered \u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cyou would want it proved.\u201d\n\nI used the word \u201cfaith,\u201d and the children rightly objected, because,\nthey said, faith could be used to express the most superstitious of\nmythical beliefs. One must _know_.\n\n\u201cI mean self-evident knowledge,\u201d I said. \u201cIf to-day the priests and the\nmyths are dead, if we are to have a democratic religion, then each one\nof us must be a prophet. We here to-day, we seven, shall find the\nunanswerable truth. Shall we?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, I believe so.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow do we know that such truth is to be reached? We do know certain\nthings in ourselves? We know the mystery is there? We know that which we\ncall God?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cIs there any other reason for believing that the truth can be known?\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cIn past times some men have known it, we feel certain.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is just what I meant, Marian. Such men, you mean, as Moses and\nJesus?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd we here shall get it. We shall know.\n\n\u201cI believe,\u201d I said, \u201cthat when we have talked everything over we shall\nknow the truth, and it shall be the same for each.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn fundamentals, perhaps,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cbut not in all things.\u201d\n\nNo religion could be the true religion, we said, if it fostered\nantagonism or bitterness toward those of another persuasion.\n\n\u201cOne would wish to teach them,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cWell, then, what is the truth? We spoke of the nature of \u2018God.\u2019 What is\nGod, the something we all know and cannot speak?\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cI could tell better what I mean by God by saying what is\nnot God.\u201d We tried to make him explain.\n\n\u201cNothing is not God,\u201d said Virginia, \u201ceverything is God, good and bad,\ntoo; and the bad only seems bad to us, but really leads to good.\u201d\n\n\u201cEverything is not God,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cfor God is perfect, and we are\nimperfect, and are striving for his perfection. Imperfection and all bad\nthings are not of God.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat are they, then?\u201d I asked. \u201cSurely you do not believe in two gods,\nlike the Zoroastrians, in a good and a bad? But the wisest of them saw\nthat the two were one.\u201d\n\nRuth answered: \u201cI have it at home in a book, how evil came into God\u2019s\nworld, although we are of him and he is perfect. I will bring it next\ntime. I don\u2019t remember it.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, do bring it. But I believe that as long as we are not perfect, God\nis not perfect.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat seems,\u201d answered Ruth, \u201cas if we were God.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo we are a part of God, who is the whole. Anything else is\nunthinkable. And unless we are perfect, how can He be perfect?\u201d\n\nThe children corrected me, for I had used the wrong word.\n\n\u201cGod must be perfect,\u201d they said, \u201cif we long for that perfection.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cIf the world is ever to be perfect, then it is perfect\nnow. Whatever shall be is here now, is here forever.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right,\u201d I answered, \u201cI should not have used that word.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cThe apple-tree might be perfect, but the apples might still\nbe unripe.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I went on, \u201cbut the apple-tree would not be perfect unless the\napples ripened.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe world is like a rose-bud,\u201d said Alfred. \u201cIt is perfect as a bud,\nand yet it must open and evolve in its perfection.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cor like a sleeper who awakens.\n\n\u201cNow, then,\u201d I asked, \u201cyou do all believe in progress; that the world\nchanges and that it changes in a certain direction?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cI believe that the world, that God, must\nalways be the same, even though it change.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is true, and it is a strange paradoxical truth, which I hope to\nmake you understand later on, that all things change and progress, yet\nare ever the same, even as the rose-bud that unfolds.\u201d\n\nWe had tacitly admitted that God and the aim of life stood for love and\nunity. Once when Henry spoke of the \u201cfear\u201d of God, the others corrected\nhim.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cif there is progress, what is it?\u201d\n\nRuth answered: \u201cThere is progress of individuals, not of the world.\nCertain men saw the truth as clearly in old times as they could now.\u201d\n\n\u201cI do not believe so,\u201d I answered her. \u201cI think the whole must evolve\nand bud forth, and that it does. Now you all admit that Moses was a\nprophet who saw the truth?\u201d\n\nThey said \u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut he felt enmities. Jesus was a greater prophet than Moses. In what\nwas he greater?\u201d\n\n\u201cIn his realization not only of the unity of God, but of the unity and\ndivinity and love of man.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf Moses were here to-day,\u201d I asked, \u201cin what might he be greater than\nhe was in his own time?\u201d\n\nFlorence said: \u201cHe would have all the advantages of culture since then.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat would not make him greater.\u201d\n\nMarian answered: \u201cYou mean the democracy of to-day, the realization of\nthe brotherhood of all men.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cthat is just what I mean. When I look at history, I can\nsee no progress but this. Automobiles, electricity, scientific\nknowledge, these are not progress except as they lead to that other\nprogress. We do understand our fellowmen better than we ever did. We\ncan\u2014some of us\u2014call every savage our brother. That is the clear\nprogress throughout history.\u201d\n\nThe children were impressed by this fact.\n\n\u201cThen you mean,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cthat universal love is the object of life?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cbut I am afraid to use the word \u2018love,\u2019 for it might\nmean blind love, and I mean understanding love.\u201d\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d said the children.\n\n\u201cYou mean love of mankind?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cbut individual love, too; and perhaps more than both of\nthese.\u201d\n\n\u201cI still believe,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cthat progress is only for the individual,\nand that it doesn\u2019t matter whether we progress here or hereafter.\nPersonal love is selfish. We want divine love.\u201d\n\nI answered her: \u201cI will not speak now of hereafter. But here and now,\nto-day, do we not want at once the thing that we want?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cThen, now and here we mean to go forward, as far as we can, and now and\nhere we will love men with our might, because that is the human way and\nthe human progress.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt does seem to me, from books,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat people are less\nmean, selfish and jealous than they were a hundred years ago.\u201d\n\nMarian smiled over to her. \u201cYou have been reading Thackeray,\u201d she said.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Virginia, \u201call people are not progressing together, for\nthough we should find the truth now, many others will not find it for a\nlong time. The world is like a bunch of roses, in which some are\nfull-blown, and others are small buds.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered her; \u201cand for the whole to evolve, each bud must be\nunfolded in beauty.\u201d\n\nNow we said many things beside these, but these were the chief trend and\nconclusions of our thought. I also told them how every moment was a\npromise and a fulfillment, a state of the endless whole.\n\nNext Sunday each is to tell me what he or she does mean by the word\n\u201cGod.\u201d\n\nThe children were enthusiastic, uplifted, whole-hearted in their\ninterest.\n\nVirginia and Alfred, who stayed some time after the others, had a long\ndiscussion on good and bad, in which I refused to join.\n\nVirginia said she thought all bad things had good results, and could be\nused for good.\n\nAlfred answered he was not sure of that, but he believed bad to be a\nnecessary part of good. He said: \u201cIf I never felt ill, I could not know\nI felt well.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cReason made evil, for when creatures became reasonable\nthey knew that the things they had done before were wrong.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n SECOND MEETING\n\n\nI spoke of the name of our club, the Seekers. I said that I thought it\nexpressed exactly what we meant to do.\n\nRuth answered that to her it seemed the only possible, natural name.\n\nThen I read aloud Virginia\u2019s account of the last meeting:\n\n\u201cA great many people think themselves too educated to believe in any of\nthe established religions, and then don\u2019t take the trouble to find out\nwhat they really think and what their true religion is. People have a\nwrong idea of the meaning of the word \u2018religious.\u2019 Consequently, as they\ndon\u2019t know what it means, they cannot _be_ it. Many people who go to\nchurch or temple every Sabbath, and sleep, or take note of the different\ncostumes of the congregation during the sermon, consider themselves\nreligious.\n\n\u201cWe decided that we all believed in the unity of God. The truth has\nalways been apparent to some, such as Moses and Jesus, and some of the\nOriental priests. The two former tried to give the true idea to the\npeople, but failed, as they were too poetical, and the people believed\ntoo literally. The latter tried to keep the people in ignorance, as it\ngave them power, and they therefore told the people what they themselves\nknew to be untruths.\n\n\u201cWe differed somewhat in our idea of God. Some thought he was all good\nand had no evil. I think he is all good, but I also think that all evil\nis his, but that every evil has a good motive and a good end.\n\n\u201cNo idea, no matter how surprising and new it may seem, is new. It has\nalways been, although it has never been thought. The world is like a\ngreat bunch of rosebuds, each perfect as a bud, but not developed. Every\nbeautiful idea, when it is thought, is a petal unfolding and revealing\n_more_ perfect petals beneath. Thus one fine idea brings forth another.\n\n\u201cI think a great many people do not know what they think. If you ask a\nperson belonging to one of the established religions what they believe,\nI think their answer would be vague. Formerly, these religions were very\nuseful, as they made people love good. Now they prevent people from\nthinking, and make them dependent. They depend on others to make their\nbeliefs and thoughts, when their brains should be, and probably are,\nfertile enough to think for themselves.\u201d\n\nI said that was just what I wanted, and I hoped to have one such paper\neach week.\n\nI said I believed that after we had spoken of God, and decided what we\nmeant, and all agreed, we would not often use the word God, because it\nwas so nearly unspeakable, so vast and holy, that we would take it as a\nnatural background to our thought.\n\n\u201cYou know,\u201d I said, \u201chow in the old Jewish temples the name of God was\nmentioned only once a year.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd then only by the priest,\u201d Henry added.\n\n\u201cBut if we want to talk of God we shall have to use his name,\u201d said\nRuth. The others seemed to agree with her.\n\n\u201cThe personal significance always clings to the name of God,\u201d Marian\nsaid; \u201cbut what other word can one use?\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps it would be better,\u201d suggested Henry, \u201cto use some such other\nword as All-powerful One.\u201d\n\nVirginia said that to her the word God had no personal significance.\n\nRuth thought we might use the impersonal word \u201cGood.\u201d I answered her\nthat every attribute, even good, was limiting, and God was limitless.\n\nI saw that they did not in the least understand what I meant, that they\ncould not until we went further. So I said:\n\n\u201cI think that after we know what we mean by the word God, you will\nunderstand why we shall not want, and not need, to use it.\u201d\n\nThen I asked them what they meant by God.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cGod is the whole, good and bad, only what seems bad is\nreally good. Or God is, rather, every feeling, every emotion.\u201d\n\nHenry said God was everything good, but that everything _was_ good, and\nbad only seemed bad to us.\n\nAlfred said: \u201cI don\u2019t think bad is good, but I think that God must be\neverything, anyway.\u201d\n\nMarian tried to say that God is the vast unknown\u2014something, which we\nknow because we feel it.\n\nFlorence said: \u201cI spoke to brother Arthur about it, and I now think that\nGod is sympathy; that is, sympathy and understanding of our fellow-men;\nand as we reach that, we get to God.\u201d\n\nThe others were surprised and startled by this explanation. I said I\nknew what Florence meant, but that she had not been able to express it\nclearly.\n\nThen Ruth said that she agreed with Henry. She called God spirit.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cif we take spirit to mean everything. For we know\nnothing except through our senses, our consciousness, our understanding;\nso that all we know is knowledge of spirit.\u201d\n\nThey all agreed to that.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cI believe God to be in each of us, to be the self within\nus, and within all others, and within the universe; to be the knowledge,\nthe light and the understanding. I can explain to you what I mean by\nreading a passage from the Indian Vedas, which seems to me so true, and\nso exactly what I want to say, that I could not explain it so well\nmyself.\u201d Then I read the following:\n\n\u201cIn the beginning was Self alone. Atman is the Self in all our\nselves\u2014the Divine Self concealed by his own qualities. This Self they\nsometimes call the Undeveloped. . . . The generation of Brahma was\nbefore all ages, unfolding himself evermore in a beautiful glory;\neverything which is highest and everything which is deepest belongs to\nhim. Being and not being are unveiled through Brahma. . . . How can any\none teach concerning Brahma? He is neither the known nor the unknown.\nThat which cannot be expressed by words, but through which all\nexpression comes, this I know to be Brahma. That which cannot be thought\nby the mind, but by which all thinking comes, this I know is Brahma.\nThat which cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eye sees, is\nBrahma.\u201d\n\nThey liked this so well, and said it expressed their feelings so truly,\nthat I offered to copy it for each one of them. Marian said she did not\nunderstand what was meant by \u201cconcealed by his own qualities.\u201d\n\nI answered: \u201cWe know God only because of the universe which we see and\nfeel.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she said.\n\n\u201cBut just that the universe,\u201d I went on, \u201cconceals God, is a mystery as\nwell as a revelation.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t quite understand,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cIt is like a great light,\u201d I said, \u201cwhich is so bright that it dazzles\nyou, and you cannot look at it.\u201d\n\n\u201cLike the sun,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cI think I see what you mean,\u201d Marian answered.\n\nI continued: \u201cMoses spoke of God in that same way, as the vast Self:\n\u2018And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am; and he said, Thus shalt thou\nsay unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.\u2019\n\n\u201cAnd so,\u201d I went on, \u201cmyself and yourself, the self of every man and the\nself of the universe, that is God.\u201d\n\nWith delightful frankness they said that they liked it better as it was\nput in \u201cthat thing on Brahma.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo do I,\u201d I answered. \u201cWe know only self. Is it not so?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t like the word \u2018self,\u2019\u201d said Ruth; \u201cit is too limited. I think\nonly of my little self.\u201d\n\nMarian agreed. Virginia said that to her it seemed the true word, that\nshe felt the whole as a vast self. \u201cBut isn\u2019t it more?\u201d she asked. \u201cGod\nis feeling. When I ride in an open trolley, and the wind blows in my\nface, and the trees blow, and the clouds move in the sky, then the\nfeeling that it gives me I call God.\u201d\n\n\u201cIsn\u2019t it self, within yourself?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cYes, it is,\u201d she answered.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cwe are little, incomplete, limited creatures, but we\nneed the whole universe to be complete. The whole universe is the rest\nof self, the rest of myself. That is what I mean by God, and in that\nsense I am a part of God.\u201d\n\nAll the children agreed at once, as if this were the thing they had\nwanted to hear said. This first definite statement that I made seemed to\nus all unanswerably true.\n\nImmediately they went on to speak of good and bad; but I stopped them,\nthus:\n\n\u201cThere is one other thing I would like to make clear first, a historic\nquestion, but one that leads to the question of good and bad. What did\nthe most illumined and inspired polytheists mean by their many gods?\u201d\n\nMarian answered: \u201cThey meant many aspects of the one God.\u201d\n\n\u201cJust so, Marian. But now do you know the inner meaning of Trinity?\u201d\n\nNone of them knew, and all seemed particularly interested and anxious to\nunderstand. \u201cI never understood,\u201d said Marian, \u201cwhat was meant by the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d\n\nI said to them: \u201cI will tell you what it has always meant to me, and to\nsome others beside me, and you can see whether it seems true to you. To\nme the three are as parts of one. They are the contrast, such as man and\nGod, good and bad, even night and day, and the understanding, the unity\nthat makes these two one.\u201d\n\nThis needed much explanation. It was all summed up thus: The three in\none\u2014the triangle with three sides, which is still one\u2014are: Myself, the\nother self, which I love and need for my completion, and the love and\nunderstanding which pass between us and make us one. Virginia said that\nshe never thought of herself and the other self, that to her they were\none. The idea was very new to them all, and did not at once convince\nthem.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cwe see, however, that opposites are really one; and so I\nbelieve that good and bad are parts of the same thing. I believe that\neverything called bad is the price of going forward, of progress, that\nbad things are made by good things. Suppose that the world were in utter\ndarkness, that no light were anywhere, then there would be no darkness,\neither. But the first flame of light would create the darkness.\u201d\n\nAs I developed this idea, the children said very little, only asking me\nquestions, until I had finished. This is how I explained it: We all\nbelieve\u2014we seven here\u2014that the good is understanding, love, the\ncomplete Divine Self, and everything which leads thereto is good. Then\neverything bad is that which does not lead thereto; or, rather, that is\ncalled bad which has not gone so far as the rest. So that the bad is not\nan actual state\u2014in this I agree with Ruth\u2014but is a condition of good.\nAll pains are growing pains. Things are bad only because we already have\nsomething better. The other day I heard Virginia saying that when reason\ncame into the world, creatures first knew the bad; because they saw that\nthe life they had lived was a bad life. So, you see, everything bad is\nsomething which we feel to be behind us, not equal to our best\nknowledge. Pain and badness are the price of progress, and we would\nrather go forward and suffer than stand still and be comfortable. We\nlong to go forward to the good, to the vast self of complete\nunderstanding. \u201cA criminal,\u201d I said, \u201cmay be a man who would have been\ngood if he had lived in savage times among savages, but at present he is\nbad because we are ahead of him.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen a bad man,\u201d said Henry, \u201cis one who is behind his times, or else\nahead of them.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, no,\u201d they protested, \u201cnot ahead of them!\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cbut the man ahead of his time, who is better than his\ntime, may appear to be a criminal. You must see that the man who\nbelieves in the eternal good, who knows that he is going toward unity\nand complete love, is in a sense above the human law, and must discover\nhis own laws. He may be a criminal in the eyes of others.\u201d\n\n\u201cGive us an example,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cJesus is one example. He was crucified as a criminal.\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d said Henry, \u201che broke the Roman law. He refused to worship\ntheir images, and he called himself King of the Jews.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd they did not know,\u201d I answered, \u201cin what sense he called himself\nKing, so they had to crucify him as a traitor. Can\u2019t you think of some\nother example? Of course, there were all the heretics of old times.\u201d\n\nAlfred and Henry said that Roosevelt was in a sense an example, because\nhe had been much blamed for exposing the truth and hurting business; but\nthat the hurt was an essential part of progress and good.\n\nRuth said: \u201cSurely it is better to expose the truth and suffer for it,\nthan to go on in falsehood.\u201d\n\nI gave as another example the Russians, with whom, a short time ago, it\nwas a crime to educate the peasants; and I told how brave men and women\nhad been sent to Siberia for breaking the law in this respect.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cthis is a dangerous subject, and truly, we ought not to\nhave mentioned it until we could probe it to the bottom. For surely in a\ndemocratic state one of the essential inner laws is that we shall obey\nthe law which our fellows have made.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf a law seems wrong to a man,\u201d said Henry, \u201che can try to change it,\nbut meantime he must obey it. For instance, a man might believe in free\ntrade, but still he would have no right to smuggle in goods.\u201d\n\n\u201cOne ought to obey school-laws, I suppose,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I answered, \u201cfor the school is an institution you enter from\nchoice, and if you don\u2019t like the laws you can protest by leaving. But\nif there were a law unjust to your fellows, you would disobey it. Still,\neven then, the best way to protest would be by a strike of the\nstudents.\u201d\n\nThey had a long discussion on the great crime of whispering in school,\nin which I scarcely joined, as I refuse to be a petty preacher to them.\nBut I tried to explain to them why it was so hard for them to obey these\nlittle laws.\n\n\u201cIt is,\u201d I said, \u201cbecause you did not help to make the laws yourselves,\nthat you are tempted to break them out of mere mischief. Still, you\nwould not lie about it, but rather do it openly, because you feel that\ntruth between individuals is an inner law, the first step toward\nunderstanding. You know I believe that, even unconsciously, we have all\nalways striven for this unity, this completeness that now we are going\nto strive for with open eyes.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd all bad leads in the same direction, and comes to good,\u201d said\nVirginia.\n\n\u201cNow I want you to understand that clearly,\u201d I said. \u201cAll bad things are\nbad only because they do not reach up to our idea of the best. But that\nbad things are turned to good, or used for good is because we use them\nso; because the desire and the striving for good is so strong within us,\nthat we use them to fulfil that desire. It is not a necessity. It is a\nmatter of choice. If we wish, we can use everything for good. And we\noften do so, even unconsciously. Everything strives toward that good,\nwhich is life itself.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen you believe,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthat even every criminal has some good\nin him?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, surely,\u201d I answered, \u201celse he would not be here, alive, at all.\nEvery living being is good; and if he is not so far as we at present, he\nmay go farther than we some day. Surely, we will take him onward with\nus, else we cannot be complete. You must see that any one who believes\nthe great good to be understanding love and unity, cannot be made whole\ntill every one is made whole with him. He needs all the world.\u201d\n\n\u201cEvery one must feel that,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cThe other day, Marian,\u201d I went on, \u201cyou said: \u2018If we can never reach\nthe goal, what is the good of anything?\u2019 Now, I, for one, believe in\ninfinite good; I believe that no matter how far we go, we shall long to\ngo farther, so that what now would seem unimaginably good to us might\none day seem bad. Can you imagine stagnant perfection?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthat a perfectly good world would be terribly\nmonotonous.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is what I think, too,\u201d I answered. \u201cWhat we love is the going\nforward, the achieving, the striving.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cIt is like travelling toward the horizon, and we think that\nis the end. But when we reach it, we see another horizon.\u201d\n\nRuth asked: \u201cHow can we strive for anything, if we don\u2019t expect to reach\nit? Is not God what we long to reach? Is not God the ideal?\u201d\n\n\u201cIs not God, the real, here, now?\u201d I answered her. \u201cI cannot understand\nInfinity or Eternity, so I say Infinity is here and Eternity is now,\nbecause I am always here and now. So I cannot understand infinite good\nand unity, but I know that here and now I must strive for it, and that\nthe constant striving, and getting more and ever more, is my greatest\njoy. Now, Ruth, do you admit that we cannot go forward alone, that all\nmust go together to be complete?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen the whole is one, and every man and creature is a part of me.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf every one believed that,\u201d said Marian, \u201chow different, how much\nbetter the world would be! People could not criticize each other.\u201d\n\n\u201c_I_ think it would,\u201d I said, \u201cand I am glad you think so, too; for if\nevery one believed that, no one could condemn another, any more than you\ncould condemn your own sore finger. You might say: \u2018My finger is sore,\u2019\nbut you wouldn\u2019t say: \u2018My finger is very wicked, and I hate it.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI believe that,\u201d said Marian. \u201cI am convinced mentally, but I don\u2019t\nfeel it. I don\u2019t think that I could live it yet.\u201d\n\nVirginia asked whether she might say for us \u201cAbou ben Adhem,\u201d which\nexpressed our idea of man and God. And she said it for us. We were all\nsilent for a few moments. Then I said: \u201cAnd the love of even more than\nman, of all creatures, of all the world.\u201d\n\nMarian admitted that she did not love animals. Ruth said she did. Marian\nseems distressed by the fact that she cannot be perfect at once. That is\nwhat she means when she says she is mentally convinced, but doesn\u2019t feel\nit yet. Alfred feels the same lack. These ambitious children!\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cI want you to feel certain and convinced of each thing\nas we go on. We all agree at present, don\u2019t we?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they answered.\n\n\u201cI feel as if something must be wrong, because we all agree,\u201d I went on,\n\u201cand yet I know you are independent thinkers. Are you sure that all bad\nis a condition of good, even all physical bad, such things as accidents\nand loss? For instance, railroads are of value\u2014why?\u201d\n\nNone knew the true reason but Ruth. She said they brought nations\ntogether.\n\n\u201cAnd the accidents on railroads,\u201d I said, \u201care the price of that\nprogress, a price we have to pay for perfecting that system. It would be\nbetter to avoid all accidents\u2014as I hope we shall do one day\u2014but,\nmeanwhile, we would rather take the risk than not have railroads. No one\ncan be convinced, however, that all bad is a condition of good, until\ntried.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have been tried,\u201d answered Virginia.\n\nThey all thought themselves convinced, except Alfred. He said: \u201cIt might\nbe true nine times, but the tenth time it might not be true.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d said Henry, \u201cyou would believe it were true the tenth time, even\nthough you didn\u2019t understand how.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201che would test it the tenth time. We will _know_ each\nthing.\u201d\n\nNow we re-examined our conviction on all these questions, and went over\neach point again. We probed the possibilities of atheism, and saw that\nno one who faced things could be an atheist, that atheism was the result\nof laziness, fear or vanity. Either a man feared to face the truth, or\ncould not bear to admit how little he knew. And we saw that an atheist\nmight be a very good man, only he would build his morality on a\nphilosophy he did not understand or examine. We might be good without\nany religious convictions, but this conviction, this belief, would give\nus a reason for goodness, and make us strong in the face of uncertainty,\ntemptation and trial. Henry said things were worth while only when they\nwere hard to do.\n\n\u201cThere,\u201d said I, \u201cyou have a proof of our instinctive feeling that pain\nis a necessary part of progress.\u201d\n\nVirginia said she wanted to believe what would make her happy; that she\nwould choose the optimistic faith. I answered her I wanted to believe\nthe truth, happy or unhappy, but I had come to the conclusion at last\nthat the truth was very good. I told them how at their age I had been in\ngreat doubt, how I had thought the truth might be very bad.\n\n\u201cPain is real,\u201d I said, \u201cbut we will not fear to face that, or anything\nbitter, when we know it to be a condition of going onward.\u201d\n\nVirginia said I was shaping her thought for her. I reminded her how she\nused to be my \u201clittle disciple.\u201d All the others, and especially Marian,\nsaid that this meeting was far more satisfying than the last; that we\nhad reached something definite. Marian said: \u201cI seem to see already what\nwe will have to say on every subject, but we shall have no end of things\nto speak of.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n THIRD MEETING\n\n\nFlorence and Henry were delayed and did not arrive until after four. But\nbefore that we had already gathered about the table, and found it hard\nto restrain ourselves from beginning the discussion. I said to the\nchildren that I thought we would not speak of immortality to-day, as\nthere was too much that came before. I asked them whether they were\nanxious to get to it. They were very anxious. Florence said: \u201cIt is such\nan important subject.\u201d Ruth said: \u201cI believe we will all agree on\nimmortality.\u201d I answered her that just there I thought we might disagree\nmost. Marian said she had definite ideas on the subject. I can see that\nHenry has indefinite and theological ideas.\n\nI then read aloud the little paper Marian had written on our talk of the\nprevious week:\n\n\u201cOn Sunday, October 18th, our club, the Seekers, held its second\nmeeting. We first discussed our ideas of God. We reached the conclusion\nthat God is our divine self, that through God we can perceive, but we\ncannot perceive God. This seems to me a very beautiful idea. I think our\ndiscussion on this subject was particularly nice, because we did not try\nto limit God by any attributes, for he is infinite. We also discussed\nprogress. I understood it much better this week than last. The aim of\nprogress is to reach a clear understanding of our fellow-beings; we hope\nthat, sometime, there will be sympathy and understanding among all men,\nfor we each have a divine self, which will not reach perfection until it\nis in perfect accord with all the other people\u2019s. We discussed good and\nevil, and decided that evil is that which we outgrow, and which might\nonce have seemed good, but which now seems bad because we have found\nsomething better. Good is the progress that we are making toward our\ngoal of common understanding. Unhappiness and accidents, etc., are\nincidental to progress, and will occur less and less frequently. I\nenjoyed this meeting of the club very much.\u201d\n\nWe now reviewed all the conclusions we had reached. Then I was glad to\nhave them speak once more of good and bad, and ask many questions. Ruth\nsaid she was not sure of being convinced. She said: \u201cI talked it over\nwith mother. It seems to me I sometimes put my thought into your words,\nand imagine you have said what I mean, when perhaps you haven\u2019t. Please\nrepeat that again, about good and bad.\u201d Ruth is always afraid she may be\nweakening in her own ideas, and tries not to be convinced. I strove to\nimpress upon her that my idea might include hers.\n\nI said: \u201cYou see now that the thought I want to give you is an\nunanswerable religion, which is not new, but larger than all the old\nbeliefs.\u201d\n\nMarian asked: \u201cLarge enough to include them all?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, just that. Did you ever think of the old word, holiness,\nh-o-l-i-n-e-s-s? I know another word that to us would mean holiness, a\ndifferent holiness.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean w-h-o-l-e?\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cYes, to be whole and complete.\u201d\n\nNow as we spoke again of good and bad, we came upon the interesting\nquestion of disease.\n\n\u201cHow can that be explained as a part of progress?\u201d asked Marian.\n\nVirginia, with her usual misconception on this subject, said that\ndisease helped us forward because through it scientists came to know and\nunderstand many things about life. Henry, still more off the track, said\nthat disease led to a knowledge of medicine.\n\n\u201cHenry\u2019s idea,\u201d I answered, \u201cwe cannot consider, because, of course, the\nonly virtue of medical skill is that it cures disease, and if there were\nnot disease we would not need medical progress. But Virginia\u2019s idea is\ntrue in a certain sense. It is quite true that disease impelled people\nto use the microscope, to discover themselves physically, to learn of\nthe infinitude of minute creatures in the universe; and so it led to a\nlarger knowledge of life, because the infinitely little makes our world\njust as vast as the infinitely big. But this only shows that we made\nprogress out of disease, as we make progress out of all things, because\nthe will of life, the will to go forward, is within us. It does not show\nhow disease itself can be the result or price of progress. That is a\ndifficult question, but I seem to see it clearly, and I will try to\nexplain it to you. None of you, except perhaps Virginia and Alfred, have\na clear idea of evolution, and I would like to spend one meeting in\nexplaining it, because it is so essential. Don\u2019t you think so?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cBut I can\u2019t go into this question of disease without explaining\nsomething of evolution to you now. I will try to make it clear: Each\nindividual is different. As animals progressed and went forward, those\nparts which were newest were also more unstable, because they were ready\nto change more. These parts were most apt to become diseased, or,\nrather, weakened, because progress might be in any direction, and had to\nfeel its way.\u201d It was difficult for me to explain this to the children,\nwho were so utterly unprepared, and I said much more. Even so, I don\u2019t\nthink Marian and Ruth understood it thoroughly, and I shall have to\nrepeat it when we speak of evolution. I said I did not believe the germs\nof disease ever entered any part unless that part were weakened or\nimperfect. I said: \u201cTake as an example the human brain. Suppose that two\nchildren were born with brains slightly different from others. One might\nturn out to be a genius, and the other to be eccentric and even insane,\nbecause progress feels its way in all directions. So disease, coming to\nthe new unstable parts, would be the necessary cost of progress.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cYoung and new things are always most delicate. I had a\npalm with many leaves, and one was new. Now, the palm was left for a day\nagainst the window pane, and the young leaf died from the pressure of\nthe glass, which did not at all hurt the old leaves.\u201d This poetical and\ndelightful little figure of speech made me wonder whether Virginia\nunderstood just what I meant.\n\nWe went over the question of good and bad, to Ruth\u2019s satisfaction. And\nthen I asked Henry, whose understanding of it I doubted, to tell me in\nwhat three ways the bad was a part of good and progress. His answer was\nclear and true:\n\n\u201cThere is the bad, which is only bad because we now possess or know\nsomething better, the old good we have left behind us. Then there is the\nbad which is the direct result of progress and growth, such as accidents\nand disease. Then there is the use of bad which we make, to turn it into\ngood, such as the knowledge we get from it, and, as Virginia said\nbefore, the sympathy and love which grow out of misfortune.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cI would like some of you to tell me what you mean by\nthose two words, matter and spirit.\u201d\n\nHenry, Virginia and Ruth were the only ones ready to answer.\n\nHenry said that spirit is the soul. He quoted from a Sunday-school\nformula: \u201cThe spirit of man is in the image of God, and immortal.\u201d\n\nI said that those words did not mean anything definite to me. They might\nbe true, but I did not understand them. Ruth said she did, and it was\nwhat she meant; that matter was, like the bad, something to be overcome\nand left behind.\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat matter is the tool of spirit; the body\nis the servant of the mind.\u201d\n\nThey began to argue, but I stopped them, saying: \u201cI will first tell you\nwhat I think. Is there any matter without form? Has not all matter form,\nand is it not, therefore, as it were, something like an idea in the\nmind?\u201d\n\nHenry wanted to deny this, but thought a moment, and admitted that all\nmatter had some form.\n\nI went on: \u201cI am a spirit, that is, a self; and I know things only in my\nspirit, because I see, hear, touch them. So I don\u2019t believe in matter,\nso called, at all. I think that our forms, our bodies, and all forms in\nthe universe are an expression of spirit or self.\u201d I said expression was\nthe means for reaching unity, that creatures could not come together\nunless they expressed themselves to each other, and that I believed all\nexpression was for this purpose. I said, what is called matter, the\nmaterial conditions of life, are the result of the action of spirit; our\nbodies, which seem so solid and material, are constantly changed, are\nnot at all the same as matter, but only in form; we are reborn each day\naccording to the spirit. I said that in this sense matter, so-called,\nwas indeed something we were constantly leaving behind us, that every\nmaterial condition was the result of a previous state of mind. This is\ntrue of all human things, and we cannot help thinking it is true of\nuniversal things. We know that fire burns, that planets whirl through\nspace, that water runs, and we cannot help feeling these expressions of\nforce to be the expression of something akin to will and spirit.\n\nVirginia said, then there must be something much more than human\nsympathy and understanding, which we long to reach. I answered, I\nbelieved so, but I had not wanted to suggest it to them.\n\nI said that all our present bodily conditions, the seemingly unalterable\nconditions called material, were the expression of will and spirit in\nthe past, either of ours or others; that our very existence here, the\nexistence of everything, was the result of will and desire.\n\nMarian said: \u201cI don\u2019t think it is just that we should suffer and be,\nbecause of another\u2019s will and spirit.\u201d\n\nVirginia answered: \u201cIt _is_ fair. We are part of the whole.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is so,\u201d said Marian. \u201cOf course.\u201d It was a full and sufficient\nanswer.\n\nI said I believed that disease could be prevented, even if not cured, by\nthought, because will and desire controlled the body. I said: \u201cWe have\nour own destiny in our hands, we are free to do as we choose with the\nfuture, because will shapes everything.\u201d I was delighted to find that\nthe children had never heard the silly discussions about free will, and\ndid not have to have that bugbear driven out. I said: \u201cWe are a part of\nthe will of life.\u201d\n\nAs another illustration of idea coming before form, I spoke of plants\nand seeds, how in the seed is the possibility, the idea of an infinity\nof trees.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cIn them spirit seems to be asleep, for it must be\nthere.\u201d She said all things slept sometimes, and while they slept the\nspirit worked in them.\n\nRuth was not in the least convinced. Indeed, the thing was not\noverclear. She said: \u201cI still think matter is something to be overcome,\nsomething that binds us. Surely we will sometime be spirits without\nmatter, altogether spiritual.\u201d\n\nI tried to show them that spirit without expression would be\nunthinkable, that though expression might not be what we call matter, it\nwould still be some expression. I said: \u201cExpression frees us.\u201d\n\nThat was puzzling, and needed more explanation.\n\nI asked Henry: \u201cWhat is the object and aim of life?\u201d\n\nHe answered vaguely: \u201cI suppose it is spirit.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, what do you mean by that?\u201d I asked.\n\nHe answered: \u201cI suppose we don\u2019t know what it is until we reach the\ntruth.\u201d Evidently he did not, but all the others did. They all spoke at\nonce to explain to him that the object of life was complete\nunderstanding and love.\n\nI said: \u201cThat is what expression is to get for us, for we express\nourselves in form and thought, so that we may understand and be\nunderstood. And that is what I meant by freedom. I meant understanding,\nlove and perfect adjustment. In one sense matter is binding, because we\nwant more freedom. Matter, so called, is the physical condition which\nour will made in the past, and which we want already to surpass. Suppose\nthat a man wrote a book in which he put all his ideas, and that when he\nfinished the book he was forbidden to write or speak again; his ideas\nwould grow afterward, and as he could not express them, he would think\nhimself limited and bound by the book he had written. So material\nconditions are binding only because we want still more freedom, though\nthey themselves were freedom at the time of their creation. In that\nsense, Ruth, you might call the body something which the spirit\nconstantly wants to leave behind, because it is creating new forms for\nitself.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cIt is as if there were a house with many rooms, and we\nthought we wanted to go only into the first; but each door made us long\nfor the next room, and the next, so that we could never be satisfied.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd if one door were locked,\u201d I said, \u201cwe would consider ourselves\nsadly bound, though we had thought we wished to go only so far. Suppose\na man made a statue, that statue would be an expression of his spirit.\nBut if the next instant he wanted to change it, to make, say, the lines\nof the arm more perfect, he could not do so by willing. He would have to\nmake a new statue.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut that is different,\u201d said Ruth. \u201cThe stuff he works in is still\nmatter.\u201d\n\nI tried to explain how all creation is an inter-change of form, a\nflowing and influence. I tried to show them how all things whatsoever,\neven thoughts, are forms, and all form an expression.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cThose who write books, or do any great work, are\nimmortal in that, because of their influence.\u201d I answered her that all\nof us were immortal in this sense, that each thing had endless\ninfluence.\n\nMarian asked the one unanswerable question, and I was delighted. She\nsaid: \u201cWhy was the Divine Self ever divided? How did we ever happen to\nneed bodies and expression? Why did it not all grow together?\u201d\n\nShe saw that contrast was needed for recognition. But why, she wondered,\nwas anything at all? I answered her: \u201cWe said the other day that it did\nnot matter whether the search for good were infinite or not. Neither\ndoes it concern us to know the unknowable, whether or how the awaking\nworld began. But we do know it is awakening, what is the direction, what\nis the aim and desire of life. To me no more seems needed. We know how\nto go forward.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is true,\u201d she said. She spoke of old age and mental decay. She\nsaid she did not see why people lost, for no reason, the progress they\nseemed to have made. I answered her that I did not think they lost it,\nunless they did not try to keep it; that it is a thing one must work for\nat each moment.\n\n\u201cBut why do they stop trying?\u201d she asked.\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think they stop,\u201d I said. \u201cI think they never did try, but in\nyouth such people merely had more stimulation from without.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, my grandfather,\u201d she said, \u201cwas an intelligent man, and he is\nlosing his memory.\u201d\n\n\u201cIs he losing the valuable thing? Does he love you less, understand you\nless? Are you sure the memory he is losing is the thing he still needs?\u201d\n\nShe saw what I meant. She was struck by it.\n\nI went on: \u201cOne might lose the ability to do mathematics, when one had\ngained all there was to be got out of mathematics.\u201d\n\nShe said: \u201cI think you are right. I understand that.\u201d\n\nNow when Ruth insisted again that matter was something binding,\nsomething to be left behind, Alfred said:\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think it is binding.\u201d\n\n\u201cNeither do I,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cNeither do I,\u201d said I, \u201cfor we can always express ourselves in a new\nway. The man who has written a book is not dumb afterward.\u201d\n\nThe meeting was very short and unsatisfactory. I believe that the\nchildren went home disappointed, for I could see that we had not got at\nanything that the children had not understood. Since then Virginia\u2019s\nmother told me that Virginia did not enjoy it as much as the other\nmeetings; that it was too deep for her. Florence\u2019s \u201cbig brother Arthur\u201d\ntold me that she, too, did not enjoy it as much, and that when he\nquestioned her she seemed to understand clearly only the fact that there\nwas no sharp distinction between mind and matter. Otherwise, as he put\nit, she \u201ctalked woolly.\u201d During the meeting she yawned once.\n\nWell, then, this meeting was a failure. As such, I want to use it. What\nwas the cause? Of course, one of the chief causes was the difficulty of\nthe subject, and yet the unavoidability of it. How could I go on to\nspeak of immortality to children with such absurd notions? I don\u2019t think\nit could be \u201cskipped.\u201d Of course, I would at first suppose that my\nmethod of tackling the subject was at fault. It may be so, but at\npresent I can think of no other method. I think that the real and\nremediable cause of the difficulty was this: That the children did not\nhave a good enough conception of the philosophy of science, actual\nknowledge of cosmic facts, to understand my point of view. I should have\nhad the talk on evolution first. To remedy this as much as possible, I\nam going to have the talk on evolution next. To speak of immortality now\nwould cause still more confusion. I await next Sunday with some\nuncertainty and doubt. For the next meeting must be good, or the club\nwill be a failure. We must learn by experience, they as well as I. I\nwill go forward with courage, if my little army does not fail me.\n\nIf I were giving again the talk on matter and spirit, I would do it\ndifferently. I would not say \u201cmatter is the expression of spirit,\u201d but\n\u201cmatter is the medium through which spirit expresses itself.\u201d For matter\nis something, though we know not what, and never know it except as form,\nwhich seems to us always an expression of will. But we know that,\nwhatever it be, it passes from one controlling will to another. (Of\ncourse, it is too difficult to be discussed in this fashion by boys and\ngirls.)\n\n\n\n\n FOURTH MEETING\n\n\nAfter all, the last meeting was not such a failure as I had supposed. I\nasked Alfred to come earlier, and questioned him before the others\narrived. He answered me with precision and common sense. He said: \u201cAll\nmatter was once spirit, is the result of spirit.\u201d When I said: \u201cWhat we\ncall matter is the medium through which spirit expresses itself,\u201d he\nanswered: \u201cYes, but spirit expresses itself in other ways, too.\u201d \u201cThink\na minute,\u201d said I, \u201cdoes it? Can the spirit express itself through any\nother medium?\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d he said, after thinking a moment, \u201cno, of course\nnot.\u201d \u201cNor,\u201d said I, \u201cdo we at all know matter except through the\nintellect.\u201d I told him that I wanted to speak to him alone because he\nwas so silent at the club. Then Henry arrived. He said he enjoyed the\nlast meeting very much, and thought he understood it all. The paper he\nwrote proved that he understood far better than I had supposed:\n\n\u201cTo-day we first went over what we had said last week. The question\narose as to which class of evil disease belongs. We came to the\nconclusion that it is the result or price of progress. We also spoke\nabout the idea of a trinity. We had said at the last meeting that God is\na divine self within us, and that when we know each other we will know\nGod. Connecting each one of us to the other, there is a feeling of\nsympathy, a third element. That is to say, there is you, and myself,\nand, making the third part, that sympathetic understanding which brings\nus closer together.\n\n\u201cThe chief topic to-day was that of Matter and Spirit. At first there\nwas a little difference of opinion, but we finally agreed that in\nreality everything is spirit, and that which we call matter is only the\nexpression of the spirit. As an example we took the sculptor, who,\ngetting an idea through the mind, expresses this spirit in a statue,\nwhich we call matter. We speak of the body as matter, but it is spirit,\nin as much as it is the medium through which the spirit manifests\nitself.\u201d\n\nWhen I told the children I had decided to take up evolution before\nimmortality, because evolution was the problem of creation, they were\nall satisfied and interested.\n\nThen I read aloud Marian\u2019s little paper:\n\n\u201cOn Sunday, October 25th, the Seekers held a regular meeting. We first\nreviewed our discussion of the last week, and then took up the subject\nof Matter and Spirit. Our discussion was long, and the conclusion we\nreached was that matter is an expression of spirit. In the first place,\nmatter is that which has form or qualities. Every material thing is the\nexpression of a thought. If a man makes a table, he does so because he\nwishes to, because it is his will to do so. If he writes a book, that\nbook is an expression of his thought, but it is what is commonly called\nmatter. Matter is, in short, a result of spirit, is an expression of\nspirit. Our bodies are the expression of our minds, and the way in which\nwe express ourselves to each other. If our bodies are not perfect, if\nthey are diseased, it is merely that our minds have not advanced far\nenough to express the perfect body. Our talk this week helped me a great\ndeal. Although we did not cover much ground, we reached a conclusion on\none of the most difficult subjects, and I think almost every one was\nconvinced.\u201d\n\nRuth said she had thought all the week of what I had told them, and that\nshe was sure she agreed with me now. The children\u2019s thoughts seem to\ndevelop during the week, as if they shaped afterward, and slowly, all\nthat had been said.\n\nVirginia disagreed with Marian, that the perfect mind would make the\nperfect body. She said: \u201cPeople with perfect bodies are often fools. And\nsickly people are often the most intelligent and fine spirited.\u201d\n\nMarian and Ruth both protested, but could not express themselves. So I\nsaid: \u201cThat is true. But still I believe the perfect mind would have the\nperfect body. Our bodies may be imperfect for several reasons: Perhaps\nwe are suffering for the wrong spirit of our ancestors, through\nheredity. Or, again, the body which may be good enough, and quite\nperfect, even, with the fool\u2019s mind, might not be strong enough for the\nactive mind. That mind would have to create for itself a more perfect\nbody. So, you see, our bodily imperfections are the price of progress.\nOur upright position, for instance, which is so great a help to the\nmind, is a strain on the body, and the cause of many of our ills.\u201d\n\nRuth said: \u201cI think our bodies will become so much better than they are\nnow, that the best we know now will seem very poor.\u201d\n\nVirginia had written a little paper, which seemed to me at the first\nreading so vague and uncomprehending, that I did not wish to read it\naloud. I was glad I did read it aloud, however, as her explanation and\ninterpretation of herself showed that she understood. This is the paper:\n\n MY IDEA OF MATTER\n\n \u201cMatter is a part of mind. Without it there would be no\n improvement of the mind. Mind, without matter, would be like a\n stunted child. It would still exist, but it would not grow. It\n seems as if matter were the medium between mind and progress.\u201d\n\nVirginia said that was her own idea, whether we agreed or not. It means,\naccording to Virginia, that matter is the medium of expression of mind,\nand that mind could not grow without this medium. Very good, it seems to\nme; and we do agree.\n\nI said, and Ruth and Henry joined me, that one must make a distinction,\nfor convenience, at least, between the words \u201cspirit\u201d and \u201cmatter.\u201d\nMarian said they had been separated so long, so completely and so\nfoolishly, that she was glad to dwell upon their sameness.\n\nNow I went on to speak of evolution.[1] I showed them how the theory of\nevolution, or descent from a common ancestor or ancestors, was a\ncreation theory, just as much as Genesis was a creation theory.\n\nI said: \u201cThere is no reason why you should believe this any more than\nany other history, or story, unless the proofs convince you.\u201d\n\nAlfred and Virginia said it was a reasonable, convincing theory. Marian\nsaw what I meant, and, not knowing so much as they, asked for the proof.\n\nI first gave them the proof of likeness of structure, and showed them\npictures of the resemblances of bone and organ structure in various\nanimals. Ruth said she was quite sure all little babies were like\nmonkeys.\n\nThen I gave the proof of the race-likeness of the young. (Examples and\nillustrations.)\n\nThen that of rudimentary organs. (Examples and illustrations.)\n\nVirginia suggested the geological proof in the finding of fossils. I\nenlarged on this, and spoke of series of living and extinct shells, etc.\n\nI traced the general progress of evolution, the division into groups and\nbranches.\n\nI told them\u2014what some knew\u2014that evolution was an ancient,\nphilosophical theory, and only the method of evolution Darwinian. Some\nof them said Darwin\u2019s name always made them think of monkeys.\n\nI now went on to explain Darwin\u2019s theory of natural selection; spoke of\nvariation in all directions as the law of life; then explained the\nstruggle for food and place, and then protective colorings, and\nconsequent elimination. The children gave as many examples and instances\nas myself. Then I went on to tell what artificial selection had been\nable to do, and showed a group of pictures of the dog, domesticated from\na wolf-like animal. The pictures included prize bulldogs, St. Bernards,\nFrench poodles, tiny Japanese dogs and great Danes.\n\nNow Florence, who has just had instruction in evolution by her helpful\nbig brother, said:\n\n\u201cBut a great many scientists no longer accept natural selection and the\nsurvival of the fittest as an explanation of development. There is the\ntheory of isolation, too.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cand I am one of those who believe in natural selection\nonly in part, but I wanted you to hear it all. Florence, explain the\neffect of isolation to us.\u201d\n\nShe explained it, and gave a very good example, that of some birds in a\nspecies having stronger wings than others, and so flying farther to\nnest.\n\nWhen I asked what any theory of the process of evolution failed to\nexplain, Ruth answered \u201cimmortality.\u201d I told her that evolutionary\ntheories did not attempt to explain that.\n\nI showed them how no theory explained change itself, explained the\ninitial variation. I showed them, too, the limits of natural selection.\nWhen I took the eye as an example of a specialized organ too complex to\nbe easily accounted for by natural selection, I found them hard to\nconvince, because they did not realize the complexity of the eye. But\nwhen I spoke of the life and death value of any organic change as\nnecessary for its selection, they saw how that limited selection in many\nways.\n\nWe spoke of the relation of evolution to our idea of life. At once they\nsaid it was a proof of progress.\n\nI insisted on its being a self-evolving, a will in life. They saw that.\nAlfred said: \u201cCould the one-celled creature will; did it know enough?\u201d\nMarian answered that it was a subconscious will.\n\nHenry said: \u201cWithin living things is the inner will. But how about the\nearth? Isn\u2019t there a will outside for other things?\u201d\n\nI answered that even the earth seemed self-impelled; that within the\nuniverse seemed to be an immense will, and we were a part of that will;\nit was our will within us.\n\nI said that creatures could change only because they wanted to be\ndifferent, because something wanted to be different. I said to change,\nand to change always in one direction, was progress; that what we wanted\nto do, and thought we had done, was to find that direction.\n\nThey saw at once how physical death was necessary to race progress, how\nthe old died to make room for the young, and how each newborn creature\nhad new possibilities of progress.\n\nBut when I spoke of all the progress of evolution, of even struggle and\nselection leading toward harmony, fitness and relationship, which is the\nthing we want, Ruth said:\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t see how the lobster killing its fellows because it had a larger\nclaw could lead to harmony and better relationship.\u201d\n\nThat was a good point. But I scarcely had a chance to answer it, for\nMarian said that creatures had to develop themselves first.\n\nThen I spoke again, in this relation, of changing standards of good and\nbad, how what was right for an animal, for the lobster, for instance,\nwas wrong for us. I showed them how all animals were selfish, and had to\nbe selfish and self-evolving alone; how we had to be unselfish only\nbecause we realized how vast we were. Marian spoke again of the\ncriminal. She said: \u201cIf he were behind us, he, from his own point of\nview, would not be bad.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut he would have to be punished,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cand made to be good.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cfor he is human, and we expect human actions of him.\nBut we would not dare to blame him.\u201d\n\nHenry said we would punish him not as a punishment to hurt him, but to\nteach him.\n\nWe spoke again of diversity as necessary to comprehension, to\nunderstanding. I told them I had a whimsical fancy that the first\none-celled creature divided because it wanted company. If creatures\nnever divided, and became different, they certainly could never\nunderstand each other. Marian said:\n\n\u201cI see now. It is like a girl who had always lived in her own family and\ndeveloped pretty well there, but the more different people she met the\nbetter she would develop.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cunlikeness gives us recognition.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cIf we were all one self, life would be uninteresting.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said I, \u201cbut we might reach a self-conscious self which is\nunthinkable to us now. There is one way, however, in which evolution\nhelps us, and that is such an obvious way that none of you has thought\nof it.\u201d\n\nFor a moment they were puzzled. Then Alfred said: \u201cIt is that we are\nreally all one self.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, I see,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cit is that we are all physically related with all\nlife.\u201d\n\nThen I went on to say that no one knew how life began, that there were\ntheories, but they might be no better than fairy tales. They wanted to\nhear some. I said:\n\n\u201cOne theory is that life is eternal in the shape of life-germs, or\norganic matter, and that these pass from planet to planet throughout the\nether forever. But it is only a theory, and a doubtful one.\u201d\n\n\u201cI like that theory,\u201d said Virginia.\n\nI said I thought beginnings concerned us no more than ends, that all\nthings, histories, science, knowledge, theories concerned us only in so\nfar as they helped us to understand, as they served the large aim of\nlife and showed us how to go. I made Henry repeat again that the aim of\nlife was complete understanding. I said: \u201cTo me it is like a measure by\nwhich I measure and value all things.\u201d We tried to measure various\nthings by it, such as the relative advancement of monkeys, birds and\nants, and the greatness of Napoleon and Shakespeare. We came to few\nconclusions, except that the love of man made man lovable, and that\nShakespeare must have been a lover of men.\n\nHenry said: \u201cI think he worked for his own sake, and not for others.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered; \u201cbut he loved and understood his fellows, so he could\nnot help serving them in serving himself. It was his joy.\u201d\n\nI said if we had that standard of understanding love, we would need no\nother morality. I quoted from St. Augustine\u2019s Confessions:\n\n\u201cLove God, and do as you please.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cmost of us do not love God, or the great good, enough to\nbe able to do as we please without thinking. We still have to stop to\nmeasure.\u201d\n\nAs they were going home, I said: \u201cNext week we will speak of\nimmortality.\u201d\n\n\u201cReally, this time?\u201d asked Ruth.\n\n\u201cNow, after this meeting,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI am afraid you may tell us,\nwhat I have sometimes heard, that we are immortal in the race. Will\nyou?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cI will not.\u201d\n\n-----\n\n[1] For examples and illustrations I used the first volume of Romanes\u2019\n\u201cDarwin and After Darwin\u201d as more convenient and compact than Darwin\nhimself.\n\n\n\n\n FIFTH MEETING\n\n\nHenry said: \u201cI told some one lately about our club and what we did, and\nhe thought we spoke of things that were too deep and philosophical.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you think so?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d he answered, \u201cof course I don\u2019t.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cWe are doing something unusual for boys and girls of your age.\nMost people would think you not able to understand and enjoy it. But I\nknow you do, and you know it.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cWhy should we not be able to talk of these things in a\nclub, when we certainly do talk of them among ourselves?\u201d\n\nI read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cTo-day we spoke on the theory of evolution. The theory tells us that we\nare descended from a single, one-celled animal. This animal grew and was\ndivided into several cells, which in turn were divided. We find that\nwhen a race of animals needs something with which to protect itself, or\nwith which to get food, that thing usually grows, as in the case of the\nmother bird, whose feathers are usually the color of the place where she\nhas her nest. In this manner the one-celled animals may have developed,\nas the increasing numbers made it harder to get food, and brought other\ndifficulties. Another way in which species may develop is that of\nisolation. For example, while a flock of birds is flying south to escape\nthe cold, some of the weaker ones are left on the way. Here the cold may\ncause many feathers to grow, and the other conditions may have such an\neffect as to develop an entirely new kind of bird. We can also take as\nan example the different colors of men, caused by the conditions in\nwhich they live.\n\n\u201cThe disappearance of certain species while others survive is, according\nto the idea of natural selection, only the survival of the fittest. We\nfind that long ago there were animals larger than any of to-day, but\nthey have completely died out, perhaps because they could not find food,\nwhile the smaller, weaker animals have survived because they were better\nfitted for the conditions. Looking back at history, we can see how at\ndifferent periods one nation would wipe out another which was weaker, or\nhow one people, more advanced than others, could better protect itself\nfrom the elements, and, therefore, lived while others died. The\nsimilarity of different animals gives a good foundation for this theory.\nA baby will often take attitudes exactly like those of a monkey, and\nwhile it is young crawl on all fours like animals. Different kinds of\nanimals have bones and all other parts of the body just alike, and also\nlike those of men.\n\n\u201cThis theory teaches progression and is therefore useful. It teaches\nthat we were once one, and we should therefore have sympathy with one\nanother.\u201d\n\nI next read Florence\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cIn our last talk we spoke of evolution and its bearing on progress. I\nshall simply try to give an idea of what we said about evolution itself.\nBy evolution we mean that we all sprang from a common ancestral source,\nand have gradually developed into higher and different forms. In\ngeneral, this change has been from the greatest simplicity, which we\nfind in the one-celled animal, to the highest complexity.\n\n\u201cDarwin, although not the first to advance the theory of evolution, was\nthe first to enlarge and further it. His deductions rest on three main\ntheories\u2014heredity, variation and natural selection. He thought that the\noffspring always inherited the parents\u2019 qualities with something new in\nits composition. By natural selection Darwin meant the survival of the\nfittest, that is, that only the most fitted for life should live. In\nthis way the offspring receiving traits from its parents, if they be to\nits advantage, will live and continue them, and those who have not got\nthem will be killed. In other words, Darwin believed that the terrible\nstruggle for existence, which usually destroys nine-tenths of each\ngeneration, must favor those who possess the best variation for their\nenvironment; and that these will in turn hand on to their successors\nthese favoring variations. In this next generation the same process will\nbe repeated, and in this way we get a steady though very gradual\nadvance.\n\n\u201cTo-day, however, looking at it broadly, we can see that all heredity\nand variation need is some way of separating those individuals having\nsome peculiar variation from those who do not possess any. This we call\nisolation, and it can easily be seen that natural selection is only a\nsubhead under this title. Another form of isolation beside natural\nselection is geographical.\n\n\u201cOur theories have advanced to this stage, and although it is quite a\nlarge move from the original ideas of Darwin, there are many questions\nstill puzzling us, which have yet to be solved.\u201d\n\nThen came Marian\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cOn Sunday, November 1st, the Seekers held a very interesting meeting.\nThe subject we discussed was Evolution. The very lowest form of life is\na one-celled animal. This divides into a two-celled one, which in turn\ncontinues to divide and differentiate until it takes the form of a plant\nor animal. All animals must have had some common ancestor. The proof of\nthis is the existence of rudimentary organs, such as the appendix in man\nand the bones in the flipper of a whale where we should expect legs.\nAnother proof is to be found in the remains and knowledge we have of\nprehistoric animals. Some of them were shaped like reptiles, and yet had\nwings. In connection with evolution, there are the theories of _natural\nselection_ and _isolation_. _Natural selection_ is the belief in the\nsurvival of the fittest. For instance, if one lobster happened to grow a\nlarge claw, which enabled it to fight better, its young were likely to\ninherit this tendency, and their young also, etc., until the\nlarger-clawed lobsters, being better able to fight, would kill off most\nof the others. This theory would not always hold good, however. The\ntheory of _isolation_ is very interesting. If, for instance, a bird of\none species was born with a longer bill than most of the others, and\nthis bird found a warmer climate was better for it, and, after mating,\nflew farther south, its young would probably inherit this longer bill,\nand would also fly farther south than most of the species. Soon they\nwould become entirely separated from the original species, and would\nbecome a new class of birds. The connection that _Evolution_ has with\nour work is that evolution is progress and that our aim is progress.\nEvolution also helps us to understand animals and plants, and to come\ninto a better understanding with nature. Disease is the price of\nprogress. As we progress, one part goes ahead, often at the expense of\nsome other part. Thus disease may be called the price of progress.\u201d\n\nMarian admitted that she was rather mixed up about the cells dividing\nand the long-billed bird going south for his health. But this is doing\nwell for the unscientific Marian, who said a while ago that she did not\nsee how science could have any effect on our view of life.\n\nThen I read Virginia\u2019s paper:\n\n THEORY OF EVOLUTION\n\n \u201cThe first life that appeared on the earth was a one-celled\n animal or plant that appeared beneath the water. The germs of\n life travel through the ether, and wherever there are conditions\n in which living things can thrive, there they settle. So that\n was the way in which life began on the earth.\n\n \u201cThis one-celled animal, after a while, divided into more cells,\n and thus became more complicated. When land appeared, land\n animals and plants came into existence. And these animals became\n higher and higher. First the animals without a spine, then a\n more complicated specimen, in the lower forms of vertebrates.\n Then the reptiles, out of which came two branches, the birds and\n the immense reptiles of which none have survived that I know of.\n But out of them came the mammals. And after many thousands of\n years, man appeared.\n\n \u201cAt first man was more like an animal, but after centuries he\n became less savage. He made implements for himself, and lived in\n tribes with his fellow men; and the more highly civilized man\n becomes, the more will he sympathize with the rest of mankind,\n so that when the highest civilization arrives, it will only mean\n complete love of all living things.\u201d\n\nI insisted that the theory of germ transmission was not a fact. I said\nshe seemed to have avoided natural selection, that I thought she did not\nlike it because it was too mathematical and too logical for her. Ruth\nthought perhaps that was why she did not like it much, either, though it\ninterested her. I said: \u201cIt seems at first so \u2018cruel\u2019 a theory; it\nrepels us until we remember that what is cruel in a man is not so in a\nbeast.\u201d Virginia answered that she did not think it cruel, because it\nwas not meant cruelly. \u201cThey had to kill each other,\u201d she said. Henry\nasked me whether I thought it cruel to eat animals. I answered it was\nnot cruel, unless they were cruelly killed. Ruth added that some time we\nwould get beyond the need of eating animals. \u201cTo hunt for fun is\nwicked,\u201d said Virginia.\n\nMarian said: \u201cPerhaps we think natural selection not so cruel among\nanimals, because we did not do the suffering.\u201d\n\nThe children all said they did not remember just what relation evolution\nhad to our idea of life. I answered that the very fact that we could not\ngo on in our thought without it proved its relation, and that we would\nconstantly come back to it, that I did not need to explain it now.\n\nThen we spoke of prayer. I asked each one in turn what and how much they\nhad thought of it.\n\nAlfred said he had never thought of it, that he had prayed as a baby,\nbut had stopped early and never felt the need. Florence said the same.\nHenry said he believed in prayer, especially in prayer for strength in\nany undertaking. \u201cOf course,\u201d he went on, \u201cI don\u2019t expect to be helped\nagainst the other fellow, but I get strength in praying for strength.\u201d\n\n\u201cI agree with you,\u201d said Ruth, \u201conly don\u2019t you pray to know whether you\nare right or not? For you might be wrong.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf I thought I might be wrong,\u201d he answered, \u201cI wouldn\u2019t be doing the\nthing I was doing.\u201d They argued it a bit. \u201cBut,\u201d he went on, \u201cI have no\nset formula for prayer, nor a definite time.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI have always prayed. When I was little I got in the\nhabit of saying a silly little German prayer, so that I could not go to\nsleep without saying something. So when the little prayer seemed too\nsilly to me, I began saying each evening the stanza of a poem.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat poem?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cThe last stanza of the \u2018Chambered Nautilus.\u2019 I could not go to sleep\nunless I said it.\u201d\n\nShe recited it for us.\n\nMarian said: \u201cIt depends on what you mean by prayer. I never learned to\nsay any, nor ever wanted to, but I do have a prayer-feeling.\u201d\n\nWe all agreed that the prayer which asked for something definite was\nfolly. I said prayer was getting into oneness with the vast Self around\nand behind us, and drawing strength from that which was ours for the\nasking, which _was_ ourself.\n\nMarian said it was getting into harmony with the world.\n\nWe thought every one had that feeling of vastness, of oneness with God,\nat times. Virginia said she got it especially when she was by the sea.\n\n\u201cI feel it most,\u201d said Marian, \u201cwhen I am out of doors, and feel my\nclose relation with nature.\u201d\n\nHenry said he felt it most in a big crowd of people.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d answered Ruth; \u201cthen you feel how little all this is, and the\nvast, big life above it all.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou don\u2019t mean, Ruth,\u201d I asked \u201cthat you feel the crowd to be a little\nthing?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, no,\u201d she answered. \u201cI feel it in the crowd.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cTo be among people always arouses that feeling of\nsympathy.\u201d\n\nThere are many ways of praying, I said; to speak certain words that\naroused in us the prayer-feeling was a good way; but that the words were\nonly to awaken the feeling in us, and were worth nothing by themselves.\nIf one could feel the prayer without any words whatever, it would be\njust as well. Florence thought it very hard not to get to repeat words\nby rote. Henry said he always made a particular effort to think of the\nmeaning of the words as he said them.\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t believe,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat it is so much thought as\nfeeling. I don\u2019t always think of the meaning of those words when I say\nthem, but I get from them the feeling that I must have, to go to sleep.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd now,\u201d I went on, \u201cit seems especially important to get into this\nframe of mind just before we go to sleep. For during sleep it seems as\nif the bigger self were working for us. And as we go to sleep, so shall\nwe be next day. I think that if, as you fall asleep, you ask\u2014your vast\nself\u2014for strength, for the power to do whatever you know you must do\nnext day, and to solve whatever problems you have to solve, and then get\nthe deep sense of prayer, you usually awaken with the strength you need,\nand your problems solved. Is it not so?\u201d\n\nVirginia said she always found that if she wanted to learn something,\nshe had only to read it over to herself at night, without learning it,\nand in the morning, when she awoke, she knew it. Ruth said she found it\nso; that she always felt next day according to the way she had fallen\nasleep at night. They had various opinions. Marian said it did not\nmatter how she fell asleep at night; if things went well in the morning,\nthe whole day went well; if ill, then the day went ill. She loves the\npower of each new day. Alfred said he thought that our brains worked for\nus in sleep, because then the mind was free from all obstructing\nthoughts.\n\nI repeated for them a little prayer I had written for a baby:\n\n \u201cGreat Lord of life, who lives in me,\n And lives in all I know,\n With happy thoughts I go to sleep;\n And while I sleep I grow.\n\n \u201cI hope to wake this coming morn\n More strong, and brave and bright;\n While you shall stay, both night and day,\n With all I love to-night.\u201d\n\nThey said it did not seem babyish to them. Henry, especially, liked it,\nand several of them wished to copy it.\n\nI said one might have the \u201cprayer-feeling,\u201d the sense of the whole, so\nconstantly that one would not need to pray, that one\u2019s whole life might\nbe a prayer.\n\nThe children objected to this, because they thought it would be\nimpossible now, in our imperfect condition. Virginia said: \u201cA person who\nlived that way would be a perfect saint.\u201d Henry thought it would make\none cold and unsympathetic.\n\n\u201cHow is that possible,\u201d I asked, \u201cwhen it would be a state of constant\nsympathy and understanding of life?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Ruth; \u201csuch a person would be too much above us. I don\u2019t\nthink one could live so, at present. It would imply a perfection\nphysical and mental that we have not yet reached.\u201d\n\nFlorence said she not only thought such a state possible, but she\nbelieved there were people who lived in this way now, and that she knew\nsuch people.\n\nSome one suggested that they must be unspeakably happy.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d answered Florence; \u201cnot necessarily happy, at all.\u201d\n\nI said that I thought such a life would be a state of happiness.\n\nThey all agreed; Florence, too, after a moment.\n\nMarian and Henry said they had never met people without limitations.\nFlorence insisted she had; whereupon Marian called her a hero-worshiper.\nI said people\u2019s limitations were where they failed to understand, and\nthat we none of us understood everything. The sense of oneness would not\nimply, however, either perfection or apartness or superiority. One might\nfeel everything in this way, whenever one thought of it.\n\nHenry answered: \u201cBut how often is one not occupied? Little things\ndistract us constantly.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cIt means having always the sense of oneness, sympathy and\nunderstanding, and always acting, thinking and judging according to\nthat.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said I, \u201cand there is another thing that seems to me a prayer.\nEvery creative action; that is, everything we do which brings us into\nrelation with the world, is a prayer because it is an expression of\noneness.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cIt seems as if there were two kinds of prayer, one\nstrength-giving and one strength-getting.\u201d\n\nI don\u2019t know how we came upon the subject of circles. I said that the\nsmallest things, as well as the largest, were prone to express\nthemselves in a universal way, that every drop of water naturally formed\nitself into a sphere.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian; \u201cand the circle seems to stand for all life.\u201d\n\nNow we spoke of immortality. I asked each to tell me what he or she\nthought.\n\nVirginia did not want to express her opinion. Ruth and Henry vaguely\nimplied that they believed in immortality. Alfred said:\n\n\u201cI think it is very good for people, if they can believe in it.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is not the question,\u201d said I. \u201cI believe nothing but the truth is\ntruly good for people. What do _you_ believe?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t believe I am immortal,\u201d he answered, \u201cbecause I see no reason\nto believe it.\u201d\n\nFlorence said: \u201cWe must be immortal, because nothing dies, but is passed\non. And there is something in us\u2014I mean that which loves and knows\nsympathy\u2014which we do not pass on. So I think it must be immortal.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cI am, so I don\u2019t see how I could not be.\u201d\n\nI answered them: \u201cMarian\u2019s and Florence\u2019s ideas seem to me very good.\nOne cannot prove immortality. I have good reasons to believe it. But my\nbest reason is not a reason at all; and if you don\u2019t understand it, I\ncannot explain it to you. If I am, I must be forever. \u2018I am\u2019 means\nimmortality. That is what Marian said, and what I believe. If I believe\nin the whole Self of the universe, and that Self is in me, and I am in\nit, then how can I die unless that Self dies? And if I believe in\nprogress, which is toward complete understanding and wholeness of the\nSelf, how can that progress be without me who am a part of it? Do you\nknow who Robert Ingersoll was? Well, he, who passed for such a\nscoffer\u2014though in reality he expressed only his own realization of his\nignorance and his contempt for dogmatic faiths\u2014once said: \u2018I am a part\nof the world. Without me the world would be incomplete. In this there is\nhope.\u2019 Hope, he meant, of eternal life with the world.\u201d\n\nThe children were much impressed.\n\nMarian said: \u201cHow can one face the horrible thought of extinction? It is\nunimaginable. What answer would you give,\u201d she asked, \u201cto those people\nwho claim that we are immortal only in our children, in the race? I\nnever know what to answer them, and yet I feel sure they are not right.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think there are two good answers,\u201d I said. \u201cFirst, it is extremely\nunlikely that the race is immortal. Even if we thought our immortality\nunlikely, it is far more likely, and much less of an act of faith, to\nbelieve in it than to believe in race-immortality. We know that every\nplanet dies and parches. We know that every race, every physical\nmanifestation comes to an end, but we know that the spirit of life lives\nforever, and forever grows. I have heard people say that when this\nplanet dries and freezes, men will have advanced so far in science that\nthey will find their way in airships to another planet. But to me it\nseems far more unlikely than that the spirit of life, the self within\nus, should go on forever. The second answer seems to me to be Florence\u2019s\nanswer, that we are not immortal in the race, that although we give our\nchildren much, we give to no one our power of love, of understanding, of\nsympathy.\u201d\n\nHenry asked: \u201cDon\u2019t we give it through example and teaching?\u201d\n\n\u201cWe give much,\u201d I said. \u201cWe can teach and train, but we give no one that\nunderstanding self, the power for love and sympathy, which is in us, and\ncannot be made.\u201d\n\nHenry did not see how one could find satisfaction in living for the\nrace, since forever and ever each successive generation would be mortal\nand would disappear.\n\nI said I did not believe that in a world which to us was all intellect,\nthe intellect could die. Then I read aloud the following passage from\n\u201cJohn Percyfield,\u201d by C. Hanford Henderson:\n\n\u201cIt is an old mistake, that of calling desires beliefs. But I think I\nhave allowed for this. I have said, if death end all, if that be the\ntruth of it, then that is what I want to believe. For no man in his\nright senses wishes to be either self-deceived, or other-deceived. I\nhave doubted immortality, even disbelieved it, but now I believe it on\nas strong warrant as I have for any of my scientific beliefs. In one\nsense, immortality cannot be experienced; it is not a fact of experience\nin the same immediate way that certain minor scientific facts are. But\nneither can the paleozoic age be experienced, nor space, nor time, nor\ncause and effect. They are inductions from experience. And so to me is\nimmortality. It is an induction from experience. In a world where every\nreality is essentially spiritual, or intellectual, whichever term you\nprefer, where even the study of nature, as soon as it passes from mere\nobservation into orderly science, becomes a mental rather than a\nphysical fact, I can only imagine the disappearance of spirit by\npicturing the annihilation of the universe itself. Without the mental\npart that we give to all of our so-called facts, they would cease to\nexist. It is possible that the universe does shrivel up in this way and\ndisappear, but it is less probable, I think, than any one of the great\npossibilities which science rejects, and feels warranted in accepting\ntheir opposite as fact.\u201d\n\nI said that to me as to him it seemed as if, were there not immortality\nfor the self, the world itself might shrivel up and disappear. A world\nwithout immortality would be a mad world, without reason; and, as\neverything else seems reasonable to me, I believe the world to be\nreasonable. I spoke, too, of the danger of believing things simply\nbecause we liked them. I told them how I had disbelieved in immortality\nat one time, because I suddenly found I had only believed what pleased\nme.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI believe things because I like them. But may not that\nliking, that feeling, in itself be a sign of truth?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201cliking is no proof or sign.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cBut it is only because we care, because we wish to\nbelieve, that we begin to think of these things.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I replied, \u201cwe must care. But then we must bravely face the\ntruth.\u201d\n\nMarian told us she had never been taught anything on this subject, but\nthat gradually her belief had grown, and that her talks with Ruth had\nhelped her from her ideas.\n\nI said many people believed in \u201cpersonal\u201d immortality; that is,\nimmortality with memory, and the meeting of those we love. I do not\npretend to know, or to have a definite opinion. But I think the results\nof life are eternal, even if not in precise memories. I asked the\nchildren for opinions. None of them seemed to believe, or care to\nbelieve, in distinct personal immortality.\n\nRuth said: \u201cWe would surely meet those we had loved, in that complete\nwhole self, even though it were not as persons.\u201d\n\nI was surprised and glad to hear her say it. I had said to the children\nthat they probably believed, and might easily believe, much beyond what\nI told them, but this was all which I believed; I would tell them no\ntheories or surmises of mine, of which I could not feel certain. They\nwere urgent in asking me please to tell them some theories, but I\nrefused.\n\nVirginia said she believed in transmigration. I think it possible, as I\ntold her; it is in every way consistent with progress and all things in\nlife, but I have no reason for feeling sure of it. She said: \u201cIt must be\ntrue, for if there is just so much spirit in the world, forever and\never, and if it must express itself through matter, how can there be\nanything but transmigration? Some time we may all live again on some\nother planet, in some other shape.\u201d I said it might be so.\n\nThe children asked me whether I believed animals were immortal. I\nanswered that as much life and self as is in them must be immortal. I\nobserved that this idea of animal-immortality was consistent with\nVirginia\u2019s belief in transmigration, that so each least creature might\nrise through successive stages toward its complete self.\n\nThen I said to the children that, of course, if we believed we had been\nnothing before we were born, we could easily believe in extinction. But\nI, for one, believed, yes, knew, that I had been forever, that I was not\n\u201cmade\u201d in these few years.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI could not have grown to be what I am, just since\nI was born.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cWe are not concerned with the past, but with the future.\u201d\n\nVirginia, and the others, brought up instances of seeming to remember\nthings from a former life, of feeling as if they had done some\nparticular thing before, in the dim past.\n\nAlfred had not spoken at all during this time. He now said he very much\nwished he could believe in immortality, but could not see any reason for\ndoing so. I said we should have to spend the next meeting in convincing\nAlfred. I went on: \u201cIf we believe in the vast Self of life, and if we\nare a part of that awakening Self, how can we die?\u201d\n\nThen I read aloud Emily Bront\u00eb\u2019s \u201cLast Lines.\u201d\n\nI was glad to leave the subject open in this fashion, to give them a\nweek for thought, and I said little more.\n\n\n\n\n SIXTH MEETING\n\n\nI began by reading the children\u2019s papers. Virginia wrote the following:\n\n\u201cSome people have the idea that to pray means to fall upon one\u2019s knees,\nfold one\u2019s hands, lift one\u2019s eyes to heaven, and mutter some words one\ndoesn\u2019t understand, sometimes in a foreign tongue. I don\u2019t agree with\nthem. Unconscious prayer is the only true prayer; at least, so I\nbelieve. In a great crisis a man does not go on his knees, or, if he\ndoes, he is not praying what he is saying, which is a mere parrot-cry.\nHis prayer is what he is thinking, and what is in his heart.\n\n\u201cMany people say a prayer every night. In most cases this is not a true\nprayer, but still it brings peace and calmness, and it is lovely to be\nin a calm state before going to sleep. I think the reason for this is\nthat the person who prays before going to sleep thinks himself so\nvirtuous that he is at peace with the whole world. Then again, the\nperson who goes to church every time he commits a sin, and prays for\nforgiveness, becomes careless of the wrong he does. For can he not pray\nand be forgiven without the least trouble?\u201d\n\nWe had a good laugh over Virginia\u2019s idea of prayer, which seemed to be\nchiefly her idea of other people\u2019s prayer.\n\nThen I read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cEvery man must decide for himself whether or not he shall pray, for no\none else can tell him, since it is a matter of feeling. If a man is\nrelieved by prayer, then let him pray; but if he only prays from habit,\nhe is doing wrong.\n\n\u201cWe must not expect that our prayers will be answered by that superior\npower which we call God, for this will only happen when we make up our\nminds to gain our end, and put our heart and spirit in the work. There\nis a saying, \u2018God helps those who help themselves.\u2019\n\n\u201cSome people like to put their prayers in words, while others like to\nthink them and feel them. Still others like to put out of their minds\nfor a time all earthly troubles, and just think of and feel that\nkindness and sympathy for their fellow man; and to think of the great\nspiritual questions which should have such great influence on the lives\nof everybody, and in this way let that spirit within them get complete\ncontrol of them, and that is their way of praying.\n\n\u201cNo one can say which way is the right way, but if you do it in that way\nwhich does you the most good, for you it will be the right way.\u201d\n\nHenry said he thought kneeling, and the attitude of prayer, were a\n\u201cpretty\u201d custom. They were the attitude of supplication. I questioned\nwhether the best \u201cprayer\u201d was a supplication, said I did not like the\nword \u201cprayer\u201d for that reason. Virginia said she thought we often \u201cfelt\u201d\na supplication, even if we did not pray nor expect an answer.\n\nMarian had tried to get the \u201cprayer-feeling\u201d each night last week, but\nhad not succeeded. She could not get calm, but thought of everything\nunder the sun, and then fell asleep.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cYou can\u2019t make your mind a blank.\u201d\n\nI answered: \u201cMaking your mind a blank is not prayer.\u201d\n\nHenry thought it good to consider our spiritual problems just before\ngoing to sleep, and so get into the right state of mind. Ruth agreed.\n\nNow I read Marian\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cAt a meeting of the Seekers on November 8th, we discussed the subject\nof Prayer. Prayer is really a feeling. When we feel truly in harmony\nwith our inner and our bigger self, the feeling we have is prayer.\nPrayer can be made a source of strength. If we find some way to get into\nthe prayer-feeling every day or at night, it will be a great help to us.\nAs we reached a conclusion on this subject very soon, we began a\ndiscussion on Immortality, which we expect to finish next week.\u201d\n\nNow we spoke of immortality. Although the six of us believed in it, by\ntrying to convince Alfred we might gain much.\n\nI asked why, or whether, it was important to have an opinion concerning\nimmortality.\n\nMarian said it was important for us to know, because we were interested,\nbecause we cared so much. I answered, that was one reason, and then\nthere was another. Ruth said the other reason was that we acted\naccording to our ideas of death, that it influenced our morality.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cwe live according to our expectations. Think of how\nthe false or true ideas of a future life influenced morality in ages\npast, of the morals, good and bad, which sprang from the idea of heaven\nand hell! Alfred, do you think it is important to know?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said he, \u201cit is important; but I can\u2019t come to any conclusion. I\nam not convinced.\u201d\n\nSome people feel sure one cannot know anything about immortality, and\nthat therefore it is not worth thinking of it at all.\n\nHenry said: \u201cBecause one does not know a thing now is no reason why one\nshould not try to find out. And I believe we shall know, some time. If\npeople had felt so about other equally difficult things, we would never\nhave got on.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cWhat is knowledge? We cannot _know_ immortality as an\nexperience, through our senses; but I believe we can _know_ through our\nreason, just as so much other scientific knowledge is a matter of\nreason, of analogy, of deduction. It can\u2019t be proved, as one might prove\nthat two and two are four. But then I once read in a book that nothing\ncould be proved, except the things not worth proving.\n\n\u201cIf we saw a red rose, and we all called it a red rose, there would be\nno doubt of its redness. But if we differed, and some called it red,\nsome pink, some yellow, we should soon be in grave doubt. Our eyes might\nbe wrong. There have been so many opinions regarding immortality,\nbecause people had different \u2018eyes,\u2019 that now we are full of doubts.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of the time when the earth was thought flat because it looked\nflat.\n\nAlfred said: \u201cImmortality of what, do you mean?\u201d\n\n\u201cImmortality of everything,\u201d I answered. \u201cWe might, of course, believe\nthat the universe will die, will be extinct. But it is an unthinkable\nthought. We all believe in something eternal. We know that force does\nnot die, but is changed and transmitted; we know that no substance is\ndestroyed; we know that every action, every circumstance has endless\nconsequences and endless antecedents. They\u2014and I\u2014are forever a part of\nthe universe. How could we be destroyed? Why should we think that\neverything is immortal, excepting self, which seems the motive force?\u201d\n\nAlfred said: \u201cI don\u2019t believe it is destroyed; but it goes out of me,\nand that is the end of me.\u201d\n\nThe others asked how Alfred could have agreed with us all so far, and\nnot agree now, since it seemed to them that what we had said before, the\nidea of progress, implied immortality. How could he believe in the Self\nas God, the vast Self which comes to complete understanding, and yet\nbelieve that he, who was a part of it, that in him, and he in that,\ncould be utterly destroyed?\n\nHe said he believed new self was always coming into the universe, and\nold self going out.\n\n\u201cWhere would it come from, where would it go?\u201d asked Virginia.\n\nI said: \u201cThere is nothing but the universe. Everything is in it.\u201d\n\nHe answered that he believed in progress, progress toward unity and\nunderstanding, but it passed from one person to another; it would not be\nhimself.\n\n\u201cHow could the whole of Self be complete unless you were there?\u201d I\nasked.\n\n\u201cI can\u2019t believe it,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t see how it could be. It would\nnot be myself.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, not you, in any definite sense, but self, and yourself in that. But\nit does not matter whether you disagree, if you can really go onward\nwith us, and believe with us, without believing you are immortal. For\nall that matters is how we live now. It is not necessary to know the\nfuture, unless you need it for the present. When I say \u2018immortal\u2019 I mean\nwe are immortal, now, because the universe is here.\u201d\n\nRuth thought that life would be meaningless if we were not immortal;\nthat all progress, all goodness would have no sense. She said: \u201cOne\nmight live to do good, just to be kind to others, who were also mortal.\nBut if that were the end, there would be no meaning in it.\u201d\n\nHenry agreed with her, and most of the others expressed similar ideas. I\nsaid this did not prove we were immortal. But I, too, felt a limited\nlife to be meaningless. Still, I wanted to know the truth.\n\nAlfred saw he could not consistently believe in race immortality, but he\nwanted to.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cYou know the sun will burn down some time. Every fire\nburns itself out. Then the world will get cold and dark. And then what\nbecomes of the human race?\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cthe energy that was the sun will be in the universe, and\nwill light other suns.\u201d\n\n\u201cEnergy never dies,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cIf I put out my arm like this,\u201d and\nshe stretched forth her hand, \u201cthe energy that goes out from me never\ndies. It bounds and rebounds, and in some way goes on forever.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs it has been forever until now,\u201d I said.\n\n\u201cNo, I think it dies out,\u201d said Alfred. \u201cIf you bounce a ball, it bounds\nand rebounds and then stops.\u201d\n\nI explained to him how energy is not destroyed, but transmitted; how\nnothing is ever destroyed, but all things are changed.\n\nHe believed the physical part changed and was not destroyed. Still, it\nwas not life any more.\n\nHe said: \u201cIt is not the same thing. I am myself now, but I am not the\nsame person I was as a little child. I am all changed.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered him, \u201cyour body is different material, your brain and\nyour thoughts are not the same, your shape is changed, but you are still\nself, and you were self then.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut when I die, where will I be?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d I said. \u201cBut I know that somehow you must be.\u201d\n\nVirginia and Alfred\u2014in fact, all the children\u2014had a long discussion.\nAlfred said, in speaking of a horse which had been buried in the woods,\nand over which ferns had grown, \u201cbut the ferns were not the horse\u201d\u2014a\nsensible remark. He said: \u201cWhen you move your hand, the energy that goes\nonward is not the hand. And so, when I die, the self that goes out of me\nmay be a force, but it will go out of me, it will not be I.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut you yourself,\u201d I said, \u201care the life, the force, the self, which\ngoes forth, which moves all things.\u201d\n\nHere the children, being left to themselves, went up into thin air. They\nargued the possibility of nothingness. Virginia told how when she was a\nlittle child she used to imagine what would happen if there were no\nearth. They each described how they couldn\u2019t imagine nothing, and what\nhappened when they tried. Ruth told how one couldn\u2019t imagine perfect\nunity and understanding, either. I stopped them, and said it made not\nthe least difference in any fact whether they could or couldn\u2019t imagine\nit. Virginia, the little artist and mystic, said she thought in\nchildhood one touched the truth unconsciously. The others all denied\nthis. I said it was a pleasant and comfortable thought.\n\nNow I said there was one other interesting thing I wanted to speak of,\nand that was memory. Most people believe we remember nothing from before\nbirth. This is not true. Our whole body, our very being, is a memory.\nFlorence said: \u201cIt is a race memory. Often we find it easy to do a thing\nwe never did before, because our ancestors did it.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cinstinct is a memory. The fact that we are here at\nall, our minds, our thinking, as well as our bodies, are a memory. We\nourselves, our present bodies, are a consequence of the lives before us,\na memory from the endless past.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe are what they lived,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cas our bodies shall be what we\nlive, not what we think on the surface, but what we live.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cbut after a while we do live our thoughts.\u201d\n\nHenry said life was a repetition with progress. \u201cBut in the one-celled\nanimal,\u201d he asked, \u201cwas life an expression of mind?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d I said; \u201cbut it seems to me self or will must be at the\nbottom of all motion. I read a theory lately, in an \u2018evolution\u2019 book,\nthat was very interesting. It is this: That consciousness or desire is\nthe source of all development, and that lower creatures are conscious of\nacts which to us are automatic. The lowest creature, which is a mere bag\nor stomach, would then be conscious of itself, whereas in us the\nconsciousness of primal organs is swamped and lost in our more intense\nnervous consciousness. Thus, from the first, consciousness and will\nmight be the source of progress, as they are now.\u201d[2]\n\nThey all thought it a plausible and interesting theory. Marian said:\n\n\u201cIt seems likely. For do not babies have difficulty in walking, and are\nconscious of every step, whereas we do it almost automatically?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said; \u201cit might be the same with the race.\u201d\n\nI insisted that one could know the truth in certain directions, if one\nwere willing to admit absolute ignorance in others. I felt sure I was\nimmortal, but I had not the least idea how. I would not build up a\nheaven, hell or universe of the dead, because all these conjectures were\nlikely to be false. I said one could know much and learn more only by\nadmitting one\u2019s limitations.\n\nOf course one could not know, I said, but I myself did not believe in\npersonal immortality with definite memory. It might be so, or it might\nnot.\n\n\u201cI think it is not so,\u201d said Marian, \u201cfor we remember nothing definite\nfrom before birth.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cI feel sure that memory, the essence of memory, will go\non; just as our bodies and selves are a memory, so whatever we are in\nthis life will have its consequences, and we will be forever according\nto what we are now. All progress is a memory\u2014and a prophecy.\u201d\n\nI spoke, too, of the endless stream of every least action, how the least\nword, once spoken, is a spring of eternal consequence, how each moment\nis tremendously important. I reminded Marian how she had once said\nschool was so short, it did not much matter what one did; and I had\nanswered her, all life was short.\n\n\u201cSome people think actions under certain conditions\u2014in foreign lands,\nfor instance\u2014do not count.\u201d\n\nVirginia said she lived to enjoy herself, no matter what death might be,\nbut her enjoyment included making others happy. I said, that was the\nonly good way to live, to enjoy oneself, and have a very big idea of\nwhat enjoyment meant.\n\nIn talking we stumbled across difficult, confusing words, \u201cGod,\u201d\n\u201ctruth,\u201d \u201ceternity.\u201d Ruth said: \u201cWe ought to invent a new language, a\ncode of symbols, for everything in the old language has so many acquired\nmeanings, is so used up.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe have made almost a code of our own,\u201d said Marian.\n\nAlfred had said nothing to let me know whether or not he had been\nconvinced of immortality. It will be interesting to hear what he has\nthought during the week.\n\nWe had now finished the first and fundamental part of what we meant to\ndo; we would now test everything by that standard.\n\n\u201cIt is strange,\u201d said Marian, \u201chow everything we have said has sprung\nfrom just one thing.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat is that?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cOur idea of God,\u201d she answered.\n\nI said that, according to my prediction, we scarcely found it necessary\nto use the word God.\n\nMarian answered: \u201cIt is because the word has so many meanings, is so\neasily misunderstood. But we know what we mean without saying it. My\nSunday-school teacher said God took a personal interest in each one. I\ndon\u2019t believe that,\u201d she went on, \u201cexcept as we are in ourselves, and\ntake an interest in ourselves. That idea of hers puts God, as it were,\noutside and apart.\u201d\n\nI questioned Ruth concerning Christian Science. She said our idea\ncorresponded altogether with hers; it was the application which would\nprobably differ, and we had not yet spoken of that. \u201cWe will do so now,\u201d\nI answered. I asked the others if they would not like to have Ruth\nspeak, in a meeting later on, of Christian Science. They all said that\nthey would like it.\n\nNext we will consider art, creative genius, in relation to our idea. I\nwas glad the children agreed with me in preferring this to moral\ndisputations. I said I thought the longer we waited to speak of moral\nquestions, the larger view we would take of them. I wanted to avoid\npettiness.\n\nOur subject for next week grew naturally out of this week\u2019s talk. I\nsaid: \u201cAs a drop of water can be a sphere as perfect as the suns and\nplanets, so each smallest thing, if it be perfect in itself, typifies\nthe universe. You must realize that in an infinite universe there is\nreally no such thing as size.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere is only comparative size,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered; \u201cand it is with this idea in mind that I wish to\nconsider beauty, and the definite separate creation. I shall want to\nknow next week what each of you means by beauty, or thinks beautiful.\u201d\n\nMarian\u2014thinking of the personal side immediately\u2014said: \u201cI think it\u2019s\nbecause most people are homely, that we think some beautiful.\u201d\n\nWe were amused at that. I said I did not mean personal beauty in\nparticular. Then they asked, did I mean artistic beauty? I meant beauty\nin anything. I would want to know what made certain things seem\nbeautiful to us.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI think there is nothing so beautiful as taking a deep,\ndeep breath. That brings beautiful thoughts into my head, and makes\neverything right.\u201d\n\nThis remark did not seem pertinent to any of us. Virginia insisted, too,\nthat she thought a man was an artist, even if he could not express\nhimself; that to have artistic thoughts made one an artist. I answered,\nit might be so; work itself was not good art unless it was a good\nexpression, no matter what the artist might be. Virginia explained: \u201cI\nmean an artist is more interesting than his work, sometimes.\u201d\n\nFlorence said: \u201cA beautiful thing\u2014in art\u2014is a complete thing, complete\nand perfect in itself.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think so,\u201d answered Virginia. \u201cIf you were to sketch a\ntree\u2014without finishing it at all\u2014and that sketch were your whole idea\nof the tree as you saw it, then it would be no sketch, but a finished\npicture. A thing is a sketch until you have altogether expressed your\nidea. But then, no matter how sketchy it may look, it is finished.\u201d\n\nI had to interpret Florence to Virginia. I said: \u201cFlorence did not mean\ncompleteness in the sense of exactness. She meant that the tree, no\nmatter how indicated, must seem to us so complete, in a world of its\nown, as to leave nothing lacking or intruding; that everything in the\npicture is there in relation to the tree, and the whole makes a perfect\nlittle world. If there were suggestions of other things which had\nnothing to do with the tree, such as there always are in life, it would\nnot be a perfect picture. You said it must be a complete expression of\nthe artist\u2019s thought. That is just the completeness Florence means. It\nmust be a complete, self-sufficient harmonious vision of a tree. And\nharmony means wholeness, doesn\u2019t it?\u201d\n\n\u201cFor instance,\u201d said Florence, \u201ceven the smallest and most trivial poem\nwould be beautiful if it were perfect in itself\u2014and complete. Take\nLeigh Hunt\u2019s \u2018Jenny Kissed Me,\u2019 such a little thing, and yet beautiful,\ntelling the delights of a kiss. And then take \u2018Faust,\u2019 which is much\nlarger and deeper; and yet each is perfect in its way, though \u2018Faust\u2019\nexpresses so much more.\u201d\n\n\u201cHave you read \u2018Faust\u2019?\u201d I answered her.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d she said, \u201cbut I know all about it.\u201d _I_ knew that she had got her\nideas ready-made from \u201cbrother Arthur,\u201d and I was amused. But I did not\nwish to be hurried into the midst of my subject without beginning at the\nbeginning, so I cut the discussion as short as might be.\n\nMarian said: \u201cI don\u2019t understand what they mean.\u201d\n\nI told her she would understand when we had talked it over, that I only\nwanted her, before next week, to settle her own ideas as to what she\nthought beautiful.\n\nFlorence repeated: \u201cBeauty is completeness.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI begin to see what Florence means by that.\nLike the drop of water.\u201d\n\nI like to suggest the subject for the following week at the close of\neach meeting, and, if possible, to speak enough of it to give them a\nstarting-place for their thoughts.\n\n-----\n\n[2] Cope\u2019s theory, in \u201cDarwinism To-day,\u201d Kellog, p. 287.\n\n\n\n\n SEVENTH MEETING\n\n\nRuth brought with her a \u201cChristian Science\u201d prayer. I said I would read\nit aloud at the meeting on Christian Science. One line in the prayer\nwas, \u201cpurified from the flesh.\u201d Ruth guessed, before I said anything,\nthat I objected to this line. She believes the body is \u201csomething to be\novercome.\u201d All the others and myself disagreed with her.\n\nI said: \u201cI, who believe in endless progress, believe the means\nthemselves to be good and wonderful. Unless this moment were good,\nnothing it led to could be wholly good.\u201d\n\nRuth said: \u201cThe body is something unreal, unessential, which we do not\nkeep.\u201d\n\nI answered: \u201cWe keep nothing but what we always possessed, the power of\ngrowth.\u201d Ruth says we get certain new truths, and then keep them. She\ntries to think that my idea and Christian Science agree in every way,\nexcept that we use different language. But she has doubts and qualms.\nThen we spoke of \u201cNew Thought.\u201d I said I thought most of what is called\nso was unanswerably true, only there seemed to be an enmity between \u201cNew\nThought\u201d and good English. Marian agreed with me. She said she could\nhave no respect for a man who used poor English. I would not say that,\nfor I had received too much information from men who did not know how to\ngive it. But, I said, I had often missed information rather than rewrite\na book for myself mentally, before I could read it. Marian\u2019s father had\nread aloud to her, from a \u201cNew Thought\u201d book, this sentence: \u201cThe seen\nis unreal, and the unseen is real.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t believe that,\u201d she said. \u201cDo you?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201cI believe everything is real, the seen and the\nunseen. There is nothing but reality.\u201d\n\nI also said my chief objection to all these cults was that they insisted\ntoo often on physical health as the aim of life. Virginia said: \u201cBut\njust think, if we had not to be concerned about our bodies any more, if\nwe were perfectly well, how much we could do!\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cthat is true; but still it is not an end, but only a\nmeans.\u201d\n\nThis was all before the meeting. Alfred had come very early, as usual,\nand told me he \u201cthought\u201d he believed as I did concerning immortality.\n\nI opened the meeting by reading Marian\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cOn Sunday, November 15th, the Seekers held a regular meeting. Our\ndiscussion was on Immortality. Most of us agreed that our self, our real\nor inner self, is immortal. In the first place, if this self in us and\nin every one should die there would be nothing left, because that is the\nreal, the life-giving power. Moreover, if we were not immortal, what\nwould be the use of life? Some people argue that we leave part of\nourselves and the impressions of our characters to other generations,\nand so on. However, science has (almost) proved that the race is not\nimmortal, and at least, it is harder to believe that it is, than to\nbelieve in the immortality of the real self. Personally, I feel that my\nreal self is immortal, and that I will go on being. We do not attempt to\npicture any future state. This discussion is the only one in which we\ndid not all agree.\u201d\n\nNext I read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cTo-day we continued our talk on Immortality. Immortality is entirely a\nmatter of faith, but the different ideas concerning it have influenced\nthe fates of nations.\n\n\u201cThe mind realizes so much that it does not accomplish, that it seems as\nthough there must be a continuance of spiritual action after what we\ncall death. If the spirit did not continue to exist, what would be the\npurpose of our life? Some say our purpose is to pave the walk of life\nfor our descendants. Indeed, we do want those who come after us to find\nlife pleasant and worth while living, but that alone would not be a\nsufficient purpose, for why need there be descendants? Why was there\nanybody in the beginning? And besides this, we have more reason to\nbelieve in the mortality of the race than for any of our beliefs in\nregard to the soul. Science teaches us that certain of the planets,\nwhich were once habitable, are now no longer so. This may some day\nhappen to our planet, and then the race for which we have worked will\ncease to be. Although we do live for the race, we live more for the\nspirit. We have already said that we are part of one great union. If\nthis is true there must be immortality, for when part of the spirit\nceased to be, there would no longer be a great, perfect union.\u201d\n\nI said to Henry: \u201cYour papers never begin as if they were going to be\nright, but they end especially well. You always keep the best for the\nlast.\u201d\n\nNow we went on to our subject of beauty. What, I asked, was the one\ntruly beautiful perfect thing, the thought of which gives us more\ndelight than any other?\n\nThey said\u2014bit by bit\u2014that it was complete understanding, unity,\nsympathy.\n\nI said I believed every beautiful thing was one which symbolized this\ncompleteness, something that in itself seemed complete and perfect and\nfulfilled. It took some time to explain this. Florence, of course,\nalready understood it. Virginia and Marian caught at it as a new and\nelusive and valuable idea. All except Henry saw what I meant. Marian had\nsaid, even before I expressed this idea, that beauty was symmetry.\n\nHenry said: \u201cI don\u2019t see what you mean, or why you need question it. A\nbeautiful thing is one that gives us a thrill of delight.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201ccertainly. That is like saying a thing is red\nbecause it has a red color. What I want to know is why things delight us\nwith their beauty, so that we may make a standard from these, whereby to\njudge all things.\u201d\n\nI stopped them when they began to speak of special works of art,\nbecause, I insisted, we would first speak of beauty in all things in the\nworld.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cWhen I am in a field among animals, playing with them\nall, that to me seems beautiful. I do feel sympathy with them, but it\nisn\u2019t completeness.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cand it isn\u2019t beautiful, though it is delightful in\nanother way. Beauty is something apart from us, which we see and hear,\nand which wakes in us a sense of completeness, of harmony within itself,\nas if _there_ were the whole world, nothing lacking, nor yet too much. A\nlandscape, for instance.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is sometimes not beautiful at all,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201csurely not. A landscape, no matter how beautiful and\nwonderful, would be spoiled by a big sign on the nearest tree,\nadvertising \u2018Babbitt\u2019s Soap.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cOr a sign \u2018To Let,\u2019\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cthough that might not be as bad, yet that, too,\nwould be inharmonious, and suggest all sorts of irrelevant things.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Henry, \u201ca burnt wood is harmonious, I suppose, and yet it\nwould be ugly.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot always,\u201d said I, \u201cnot if it were blended into the landscape, and\nmellowed.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d Henry answered, \u201cperhaps not, if the colors were beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut if it were ugly,\u201d I said, \u201cit would be inharmonious. A newly burnt\nforest suggests death and desolation in the midst of life and summer\u2014an\nincongruity. It suggests destruction where the thought is most unwelcome\nand horrible.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d said Marian, \u201cit is not the thing itself, but the feeling which\nit gives us, that is beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cit gives us the thrill of that complete joy. We seem to\nsee something which is what cannot be; complete harmony. The sight of\nthe sea makes Virginia feel so. And you, the out-of-doors.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI have sometimes thought beauty is light, because the\nsun is most beautiful\u2014and, at night, the moon.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said I, \u201cif there were no shadows and no darkness, sun and moon\nwould not be beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen contrast?\u201d she asked.\n\nI said: \u201cThere must be contrast in all beautiful things, because without\ncontrast we could not have completeness.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she said, \u201cin pictures it is so.\u201d\n\n\u201cA small thing,\u201d I went on, \u201cmight symbolize completeness, as well as a\nlarge one. A dog, in his way, a beautiful Scotch collie, for instance,\nmight be as beautiful as a man.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, indeed,\u201d said Ruth.\n\nWe criticized, and found lacking, according to our standard, the beauty\nof prize bulldogs; the teeth were too suggestive of strife and biting,\nthe spots unsymmetrical, and so on. They spoke of many instances of\nbeauty in things, especially the beauty of little children, and fitted\nthem to this new standard.\n\nMarian said: \u201cA drop of water is so symmetrical and harmonious, so\nbeautiful in the sunshine; and yet, on a dark day, on the sidewalk, it\nis not beautiful.\u201d\n\nI explained even that. I showed her how a drop on the sidewalk was not a\ndrop, but a daub, how it suggested all sorts of ugly and incongruous\nthings. \u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cif we take the trouble to look at a drop hanging\nfrom anything, say from a leaf, we shall always find it beautiful.\u201d\n\nShe agreed to that. Then she said: \u201cDon\u2019t you think we sometimes do\nthink of our own life as a beautiful thing?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered. \u201cThere are moments when our own life suddenly seems\ncomplete, when we feel an artist\u2019s delight in it, and for a while we,\nand the whole world with us, seem to have reached what we longed for.\u201d\n\nFlorence asked: \u201cDon\u2019t you think it is usually when we are having a very\ngood, jolly time?\u201d\n\nMarian answered quickly: \u201cNo, not at all.\u201d\n\nI understood what Marian meant, and did not attempt, naturally, to\nexplain it to the others.\n\nNow we all agreed, every one of us, that completeness and harmony were\nbeauty. But the children had started time and again to bring up\ninstances in art which to them seemed not to fit, and which they\nthoroughly misunderstood.\n\n\u201cYou see,\u201d I said, \u201cthat the beautiful thing is the same as that which\nseems to us most true and good.\u201d\n\nMarian said again that one idea seemed to cover everything, and that we\ncame to conclusions quickly.\n\n\u201cNow I will tell you,\u201d I said, \u201cwhat I mean by art and the artist. In\nspeaking of art here to-day I mean not only painting\u2014as one of you\nthought\u2014but everything which expresses beauty; poetry, the novel and\ndrama, sculpture, music, acting. You see the difference between science\nand art?\u201d\n\n\u201cScience gives us knowledge,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cor, rather, science gives us facts, truths, but\nnever at all the complete truth. It gives us parts as parts, never the\nwhole. Philosophy, on the other hand, does what we are doing here. It\nreaches out for the complete whole, for understanding, for unity, but it\nknows well that it can never attain the end. It reaches out for the\ncomplete good, and is satisfied with nothing less than that unattainable\nwhole. But art does another thing; it tells us a lie\u2014the most wonderful\nlie in the world\u2014truer than any truth. It says: Look, here is\ncompleteness, harmony, wholeness, in this one small shape. And we know\nit cannot be so, but still we feel it to be there. That lie gives us, as\nno truth can, the thing we long for, and know to be most true.\n\n\u201cNow, what do you mean by the word genius? What is genius?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cUsually,\u201d said Virginia, \u201ca genius is a crank. There is a girl in my\nart class who is the frousiest, queerest crank in the world, and every\none calls her a genius.\u201d\n\n\u201cGeniuses are often queer,\u201d said Henry.\n\nRuth said, too, that many geniuses were anything but great and good in\ntheir private lives.\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d I answered, \u201cI am surprised by your definition of a genius. But\nperhaps you will be more surprised, and sorry you said so much, when I\ntell you that I consider every one of you a genius.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, my,\u201d said Virginia, \u201chow nice! I wish I were.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cWhat we usually call genius is but a larger power of\nunderstanding, a sense of unity, of the relations of things. And we all\nhave that, in some degree. So we all have genius. It is not a matter of\nquality but of quantity. We are all the same stuff, only some more and\nsome less.\u201d\n\nHenry said I might use the word in that sense, but he didn\u2019t think it\nwas the true meaning. He said: \u201cWhat definition is in the dictionary?\u201d\nWe had no dictionary at hand, so I tried to prove my definition true\nwithout a dictionary, and I succeeded.\n\nI said: \u201cThere is no gulf between the genius and the stupid looker-on.\nDon\u2019t you see why there could not be?\u201d\n\n\u201cI see,\u201d said Marian; \u201cit is because the looker-on would have to have\nsome genius, or else\u2014\u2014\u201d She could not finish.\n\n\u201cJust so, Marian,\u201d I went on; \u201cor else he could not appreciate the\nartist\u2019s work. It is the genius in the onlooker that appreciates the\ngenius in the artist. And in so far as you can appreciate the genius of\nShakespeare, in so far you have the same sort of genius.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d said she, \u201cart makes us recognize ourselves.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cour bigger selves.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo one might speak,\u201d she said, \u201cof a person developing his genius for\nmusic, or his genius for painting, and so on?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered; \u201cand you see how easily and well one can use the word\nin that sense.\u201d\n\nRuth asked: \u201cIf the great genius is really one who understands better\nthan the rest of us, and has a more harmonious vision, how is it that so\nmany geniuses are incomplete and very imperfect in their personal\nlives?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think it is,\u201d I said, \u201cfor the same reason that I gave you for\ndisease in highly developed beings.\u201d\n\n\u201cI see,\u201d said Marian; \u201cit is one part developed at the expense of\nanother.\u201d\n\nThey wanted to know why so many artists were peculiar, erratic,\n\u201cBohemian\u201d\u2014Marian used that word. Virginia spoke again of the\nhappy-go-lucky people down at the art league.\n\nI said I thought one reason for this manner among artists was that, as\nthey were always looking for the new, the beautiful\u2014which is ever\nnew\u2014they had no patience with so-called respectable people, who clung\nto old things because they were old, and so these artists often\npurposely went to the other extreme.\n\nI said: \u201cYou must see that there is the tendency in all of us to make of\nlife a work of art, to live a complete, beautiful life.\u201d\n\n\u201cI know some people,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cwhose lives do not seem to me in\nthe least artistic.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat may be,\u201d I answered, \u201cbut the tendency is there to make of life a\ncomplete expression.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat isn\u2019t all I mean,\u201d said Marian. \u201cI want to know what is meant by\nthe artistic temperament.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is in great part,\u201d I said, \u201ca fiction and a false generalization.\nMany experts have not the artistic temperament, and many not-artists\nhave it. As for artists going astray more often than others, if that be\ntrue\u2014which I doubt\u2014there\u2019s a good reason for it. Artists are always\nvery sensitive\u2014naturally\u2014and so, unless they are very strong-willed,\ntoo, they will be more easily swayed by outside events and their\nimpressions.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t believe every one has genius,\u201d Virginia said. \u201cI know some\npeople who are perfectly stupid, and don\u2019t understand anything.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is scarcely possible,\u201d I answered, \u201cif they are human beings.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you mean to say,\u201d asked Henry, \u201cthat you know any utterly selfish\nperson?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she answered; \u201cor, at least, people who are not interested in\nanything worth while outside themselves; people who can walk through an\nart gallery and not look at the pictures; who love nothing beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cI may be one of those,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cfor I do not care for pictures.\u201d\n\n\u201cOne\u2019s genius might not be developed in that particular direction,\u201d I\nsaid; \u201cnone of us are developed in all directions. But grant, at least,\nVirginia, that your most stupid people have undeveloped genius which\nmight be awakened.\u201d\n\n\u201cAll right,\u201d she said.\n\n\u201cBecause if you don\u2019t,\u201d I answered, \u201cI shall think your understanding of\nthose people is very limited. Genius does not necessarily show itself in\nrelation to art, to the sense of beauty. Genius is in the understanding\na man must have to be a man. How could he have any relations with his\nfellows, any intercourse without some understanding?\n\n\u201cBut there is one essential difference between the genius of the\nlooker-on and the genius of the artist; it is that the artist creates,\nthat he must have talent. No matter how much genius a man may have, if\nhe does not or cannot express his genius, he is not an artist.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you think,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cthat an artist knows himself to be a\ngreat genius?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d I answered her, \u201cthat no man ever does a great thing unless\nhe first believes he can do it.\n\n\u201cYou remember, I once said that to understand life well one must be\ncreative, one must do things, because life is forever creating. And so\nthe genius who is an artist, who has talent, who creates, by that very\ncreation understands better than other men. He who can draw a thing sees\nit better than he who cannot.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthe fact that he can draw it proves that he sees\nit better.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd in learning to draw it,\u201d I went on, \u201che came to see it better.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe great artist,\u201d said Henry, \u201cis one who expresses his idea\nperfectly.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d Virginia said, \u201cI wonder if I will ever get to be a great\nartist. For the thing I draw is never the thing that was in my mind.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d said I, \u201cyou see the distinction between genius and talent.\nGenius is the power of understanding. Talent is the power of expression.\nA man may have very little to say, and yet say it wonderfully well. And\nanother man may have much to say, and marvellous understanding of life,\nbut not nearly so great power of expression. That is what Florence meant\nthe other day, when she spoke of \u2018Jenny Kissed Me,\u2019 and of \u2018Faust.\u2019 But\nthe man who expresses even the smallest thing well understands, at\nleast, that thing. The power of expression itself implies understanding\nand a sense of unity and harmony. For no matter how well a man may be\nable to draw lines and objects, unless he understands composition\u2014which\nis the knowledge of harmony and completeness\u2014he cannot paint a good\npicture. And no matter how well a man may write English, however perfect\nhis style may be, unless he understands something of life, of symmetry\nand structure, he cannot write a good book.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cPoe expressed himself very well. Was he a genius?\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, stop,\u201d I answered. \u201cDon\u2019t ask, \u2018Was he a genius?\u2019 Of course, he\nwas that. We all have genius. The question is, how much?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt seems to me,\u201d said Henry, \u201cthat in some way Poe was as great as\nShakespeare.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cin some ways; and that is a very good example. Poe\u2019s\npower of expression may have been as great in some ways as\nShakespeare\u2019s. But just think how immeasurably greater was Shakespeare\u2019s\ngenius, his understanding, and grasp of life!\u201d\n\n\u201cPoe, for instance,\u201d said Henry, \u201cwas a great mathematician, and used\nhis deductions in his stories.\u201d\n\nThe others told Henry this had nothing to do with his genius. They had a\nlong talk on the relative genius\u2014that is, understanding of life\u2014of Poe\nand Hawthorne, and brought up many instances.\n\nMarian said: \u201cWas Milton a great genius?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat do you think?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cI suppose he was,\u201d she said, \u201cbut I don\u2019t think he had a great\nunderstanding of human life.\u201d\n\n\u201cHave you read \u2018Paradise Lost\u2019?\u201d I asked her.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she answered.\n\n\u201cThen you must have noticed his wonderful sympathy with, and\nunderstanding of, the devil himself. He saw the tremendous contrasts of\nlife, and understood them.\u201d\n\n\u201cI must read that,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cif he wrote with understanding\nsympathy of the devil. Don\u2019t you think,\u201d she asked, \u201cthat those who\nwrite books for children generally understand life very well, and have\ntrue genius?\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d I said. \u201cWhat do you think? How about those artists who write\nfor children in the Sunday comic papers?\u201d\n\nNow I spoke of the artist in us all, who sees things ever as distinct\nwholes, who picks out, as he goes through life, complete visions of\nbeauty to reproduce in his mind. These visions have to be distant,\nseparate from himself. For life is so distracting and full of\ncontradictory passions, so vast, and, as we know it in our limited\nlives, so incomplete, that we must get rid of it, we must separate\nourselves, with our universal and unfinished relations, from the perfect\nand whole beauty which we wish to see in the artistic vision.\n\n\u201cYou must have noticed,\u201d I said, \u201cand you have often heard, that far-off\nthings are most beautiful. It is because our life, interwoven with\nendless distracting circumstances, does not seem to touch those far-off\nthings.\u201d\n\n\u201cAutumn leaves,\u201d said Marian, \u201cfar off look so beautiful, and near by\nare full of imperfections.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cAnd perfection of detail in a picture, as if the things\nwere very near and real, does not make it better. It does not seem good.\nYou know Millet\u2019s \u2018Sower,\u2019 at the Metropolitan Museum: when you go\nclose, it is all streaks.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis dimness of detail is for two reasons, in most great pictures,\u201d I\nsaid. \u201cFirst, the artist often paints a picture with the intention of\nhaving it looked upon from a distance. Second, in the perfect whole,\ndetail is merged. All must blend and harmonize.\u201d\n\n\u201cI never thought of that,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cThe too precise details in a\npicture attract a person\u2019s attention, and want to be looked at for their\nown sake, and so break in on the harmony and wholeness of the picture.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, just so,\u201d I answered. I spoke again of the sublime lie of art\u2014the\nuntruth which is most true. I said: \u201cI once had an English teacher who\nused to tell us that in art one was not to give the truth, but the\nimpression of truth. Truths often break in and destroy the impression of\nthat whole truth.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I asked, \u201cwhat is the one, the only object, of art in the world?\u201d\n\nWe decided, all of us, that it was complete understanding and sympathy.\nArt is a symbol of that completeness for which our whole life longs. One\nof them\u2014I think it was Henry\u2014said its aim was progress. I said it was\nrather the picturing and prophecy of the end and aim of progress itself.\n\nThey had probably heard, I said, of \u201cart for art\u2019s sake,\u201d the cant of\nthose who believed mere form and expression to be the whole of art, and\nleft out of account the thing expressed. Virginia misunderstood me to\nsay: \u201cArt for its own sake,\u201d quite a different thing. So, thinking I\nwould agree with her, she quoted, with disapproval, an article by Kenyon\nCox, saying: \u201cHe who worked for gold sold himself, and he who worked for\nfame was utterly lost.\u201d I said I quite agreed with him; that unless one\nworked first of all for the sake of expression, and the joy of it, he\nwas no artist.\n\n\u201cAnd, meanwhile, his wife and children might be starving,\u201d she answered.\n\n\u201cIt is praiseworthy,\u201d I said, \u201cto support one\u2019s wife and children, but\nit has nothing to do with art.\u201d\n\nI said a man might well use his expression to earn himself bread; that\nit was necessary and natural, and had often even spurred a man on to\nwork, but that it could not be his first aim if he were an artist. We\nspoke of Shakespeare, and of Goldsmith, and of their writing under the\nstress of poverty. I pointed out how, nevertheless, these men wrote of\nthe things they loved and understood, and how the joy of work must have\nbeen their first aim.\n\nI spoke of play, and of art being like play; of the old saying: \u201cWork\nfirst, then play.\u201d\n\nHenry said that was meant for little children.\n\nI told them how scientists tried to explain play by calling it a\npreparation for work. Virginia liked that idea. I said that I thought\nwork a preparation for play, that play, interplay, the joy of creation,\nwas life itself. The children easily understood play in this sense of\nthe beloved work. Virginia said her work was all play. I reminded her\nthat she might have to work hard, but she would do it gladly for the\nsake of that play. Marian said her school-work was almost always play.\nRuth said: \u201cI think play and work are the same thing, and that we human\nbeings have made the distinction of words.\u201d\n\nArt cannot rightly have any object but whole representation, but\nexpression of the understanding of life. I said that whenever art tried\nto be moral\u2014which was rather the business of philosophy\u2014it lost\nthereby; that whenever one took sides for a thing, one took sides\nagainst something else, and had lost the completeness and symmetry of\nart.\n\nHenry said he thought art ought to teach a lesson.\n\nI answered: \u201cArt ought to show us the whole of life, which is\nbeautiful.\u201d\n\nVirginia spoke of Dickens\u2019 novels, and said she thought those were best\nin which he wrote with an object, and against an abuse.\n\nI answered her that they were best and also worst. They were best\nbecause he described in them the life which he knew and loved. But the\nparts of these very good novels which were directed against any people\nor institutions were always bad, inartistic, incongruous. As an example\nI quoted the dreary dissertations on Chancery in \u201cBleak House,\u201d and\nthose who had read it immediately agreed with me.\n\nHenry and Virginia questioned me several times concerning ugly pictures\nwhich were considered \u201cgood art.\u201d I told them that a subject not usually\nthought beautiful, an old, old woman, for instance, might be made\nbeautiful by the artist\u2019s insight. I did not go into details, however,\nto-day. A great many ugly pictures, such as the work of Teniers, Steen,\nand others, seem to me very bad art. But now I spoke to them of Wiertz,\nthe Belgian, who seems to me no artist at all, and concerning whom they\nhad both questioned me. I took as an example of bad partisan art his\npicture of Napoleon in hell, with crowds of poor people making faces at\nhim, and pelting him with brimstone. Such a subject in itself is\nimpossible to art. What could be more unintelligent, petty, scattered\nand ugly!\n\nRuth said she did not see why an artist need understand human nature\nespecially well unless he was one who treated of human nature; that a\nmusician, for instance, need not do so. I began my answer, but gave way\nto a burst of enthusiasm from Henry.\n\nHow, said he, could a musician not understand human nature, he who knew\nhow to rouse us to the depths with his notes, who could move us to\ntears? Surely he knew what he was doing, and the heart which he stirred.\n\nRuth said she did not see why Shakespeare showed greater understanding\nor completeness in his work than Emerson, for instance. Henry thought\nthe same. I tried to show them that Emerson in his essays was not an\nartist\u2014or, at least, not nearly so much of an artist as a\nphilosopher\u2014that he strove to reach the good, the complete harmony of\nthe universe, but that he did not give us the vision of a present,\nfinished, concrete beauty. They both maintained that he did. Henry spoke\nof the essays on \u201cFriendship\u201d and \u201cManners.\u201d\n\n\u201cHave you read the essay on \u2018Manners\u2019?\u201d he asked.\n\n\u201cYes, several times,\u201d I said.\n\n\u201cAnd doesn\u2019t it give you a picture?\u201d he asked. Ruth added: \u201cAnd the one\non friendship. I seem to see that friend.\u201d\n\nI owned I did not feel so. I said it gave me an inspiration, an ideal of\nconduct, not a picture. \u201cMind you,\u201d I said, \u201cwhen I call Emerson more\nphilosopher than artist, I am not saying philosophy is less than art.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, I understand that,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cbut I, for one, when I read\nShakespeare, get not any especial feeling of the completeness or whole\nunderstanding of what I read. Emerson uplifts me much more, and gives me\npower to do things.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat may be,\u201d I said. \u201cYou may rate either as high or as low as you\nplease, but their genius is different.\u201d\n\nI pointed out, too, how in Emerson\u2019s poetry, with its rare, beautiful\ncouplets, and its many lapses, the genius and philosopher far outshone\nthe man of artistic talent. We had not time to go into detail, or to\nquote largely, and I did not wish to speak much of literary criticism\nand methods at this meeting, for I had planned to do so at the next, so\nI think Henry and Ruth went home unconvinced of the artistic superiority\nof Shakespeare over Emerson. One might almost as profitably argue who\nwas a greater man, Beethoven or Napoleon!\n\nMarian asked me whether George Eliot was an artist or a philosopher. I\ntold her I thought she was both, but that I believed she would have been\nmore of an artist had she been less a philosopher.\n\nI asked Alfred why he had kept so silent. Did he agree with us?\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he said, \u201cI do. It is very interesting. But I don\u2019t talk unless I\ndisagree.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n EIGHTH MEETING\n\n\nHenry came several days ago to tell me he would be unable to attend this\nmeeting, as he was going to Washington. \u201cI will think of the subject we\nwere going to discuss,\u201d he said.\n\nI opened the meeting with Marian\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cAt a meeting of the Seekers, held on November 22d, we discussed the\nrelation which our previous discussions had to Art. We set up a standard\nfor judging Art, and agreed that a good piece of Art is one that makes\nus feel that unity and completeness for which we are striving. Two\nthings are necessary, a good thought and good workmanship. We also said\nthat details in Art, particularly in painting, are bad because they\ndistract us, and we don\u2019t see the picture as a whole. I was very glad to\nhave a standard by which to judge Art.\u201d\n\nI said to her that I hardly thought she could already have that\nstandard.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d she said, \u201cbut I am going to get it.\u201d\n\nThen I read Virginia\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cArt as it is connected with our previous discussions:\n\n\u201cWhen an artist dies he leaves behind him all the beautiful ideas he has\nput on his canvas, or in his books. To be a true artist one must possess\nan idea of the beautiful, and also be sympathetic with all his fellow\nbeings. Not only humans, but flowers and beasts also. A person who\npossesses these qualities is a genius. But to be an artist one must also\nhave talent. Either he must have a talent for writing, music or\npainting, or he cannot express the genius within himself.\n\n\u201cThis sympathy, this love, is something we cannot explain. And so we\ncall it the soul, because it is a puzzle, and we do not know what it is.\nEverybody possesses some of it, even the most heartless. It may be the\nlove of a plant or dumb animal, but still it is love for a fellow\ncreature. So all of us possess genius, though few of us are artists.\u201d\n\nNext I read Alfred\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cOn Sunday, the 22d, we discussed the subject of art. We said that for a\nthing to be high art it must be pleasing to the eye or ear, and complete\nin itself; that is, the artist or composer must so construct his work\nthat it will fully express some idea. In painting a picture an artist\nmay choose to convey some gruesome idea, and do so perfectly, but that\nwill not be high art, because it will be displeasing to the eye.\n\n\u201cIt may also be applied to books; if the author tells something so well\nthat it gives the reader a perfect picture of the thought, the writing\nmay be considered a good one.\u201d\n\nI said I could tell by Alfred\u2019s paper that he had not grasped just what\nwas the object of art. The children repeated that it symbolized the\nunity for which we longed. I asked, did they see why we took up this\nsubject of art at all, what it had to do with religion? Marian had said,\nbefore the others came, that it was the expression of our religion.\nVirginia now used almost the same words, and Alfred, speaking after her,\nsaid it in such a way as to make me believe he understood.\n\nI replied, this was true; art was the service of religion, the\nexpression of that sense of oneness with the world which can speak only\nin creations, because life is an endless creation. Beauty, I said,\nseemed to me the perfect symbol of truth, of completeness and symmetry.\nI quoted the lines from Keats:\n\n \u201cBeauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all\n Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe subject of beauty always puzzles me,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cbecause beautiful\nthings so often are not good. Take the ocean, for instance. It is so\nbeautiful; it gives us above all things the sense of immensity and\nharmony. And yet, think how cruel it is! Think of the shipwrecks and the\nsuffering!\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is not the ocean\u2019s fault,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cThat is because we are\nadventurous and go out in ships.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cand we are willing to take the chance and pay the\nprice. But surely you do not think of the ocean as cruel, as either good\nor bad. Beauty is not in anything, but is in the vision of him who\nbeholds it. It is a momentary vision of the completeness of life.\u201d\n\n\u201cBeauty is always a thing of moments. Don\u2019t you think so?\u201d asked Marian.\n\u201cIt depends upon you. At one time you may see a thing as beautiful, and\nat another time not.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I said.\n\n\u201cWhy is it,\u201d she asked, \u201cthat some people cannot appreciate beauty in\none special form, either in music, or painting, or poetry?\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cOur senses are channels through which we get the feeling of\nbeauty. But no matter whence the feeling comes, it is that same joy. One\nman finds it in a picture, and another in a symphony, and another in the\nwoods. Do you know those two lines by William Blake:\n\n \u2018Who knows but every bird that cleaves the air\n Is an immense world of delight closed by our senses five.\u2019\n\n\u201cThere may be other senses than ours which bring the same message. Helen\nKeller hears and sees it with her fingers in her world of darkness.\n\n\u201cThroughout the centuries,\u201d I went on, \u201cin all beginnings and primitive\ntimes, art was the expression of religion. The first rude drawings were\nreligious symbols; drama and the dance and music were religious; and all\nthe oldest literature in the world, the Vedas, the Bible, and the old\nScandinavian myths were religious books: the Greek drama, and\u2014can you\nthink of others?\u201d\n\nThey brought forth many instances; Marian mentioned the English miracle\nplays, and Virginia spoke of American Indian drawings, saying, however,\nthat they were more often used for communication. I showed her how the\nfirst rude figures of animals, the totems, for instance, were also used\nas religious symbols.\n\nI spoke, too, of the way in which art related us with great minds in\nages past. \u201cRuskin mentions that,\u201d said Ruth and Marian.\n\n\u201cBut it is a one-sided relation,\u201d I said, \u201cfor we cannot speak to them.\u201d\n\n\u201cI wish we could,\u201d answered Marian. \u201cI so often wish I could ask them\nquestions.\u201d\n\nWe said again how hard it was, when asked, to explain to outsiders the\npurpose of our club. Ruth said: \u201cWhen I try to tell people, they answer:\n\u2018Oh, yes, I suppose you just talk nonsense, and have a good time.\u2019\u201d\n\nMarian said people wondered that she was willing to stay in-doors on\nSunday afternoons.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI don\u2019t tell any one of it.\u201d\n\nI suggested to them that if one got a perfect standard of beauty in art,\nit might be all one would need as a moral standard to make one\u2019s life\nbeautiful in the same way.\n\nNow we spoke of the novel. I said I had noticed that last week when I\ntold them of completeness in novels and plays, they seemed not to know\njust what I meant. Florence said she knew. \u201cIt means,\u201d she said, \u201cthat\nevery word and every person and every incident must count. It must not\nbe like life, where distracting and unimportant things are always\nhappening.\u201d\n\n\u201cJust so,\u201d I answered. She had learned all that from brother Arthur.\n\nI went over it more explicitly, citing instances, and then told them\nthat we were all of us story-tellers, in the sense that we tried to make\nevery story complete.\n\n\u201cIn telling anything that has happened,\u201d I said, \u201cwe naturally leave out\nanything that has no effect on the story.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd,\u201d added Florence, \u201cwe unconsciously make up little details that\nhelp to fill out the story.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI think I must forgive some one I know, who is\nalways exaggerating.\u201d\n\n\u201cI know some one who does it all the time,\u201d said Florence.\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think that makes it right, though,\u201d Ruth protested.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cnot right, but not wrong, either. When we realize the\nartist\u2019s tendency in us all to turn everything into a story, first, we\nwill not judge people harshly for doing it, and, second, we will be\ncareful when we are trying to tell the truth, not to allow ourselves to\nbe cheated by the artist in us.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cpeople often miss-tell an event, and get it\nall twisted, because they really forget what was said.\u201d\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d answered Ruth, \u201cone is not to blame for forgetting.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cI think that most of us, unconsciously, are story-tellers in\nboth senses. Many of us are constantly telling ourselves stories about\nourselves.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, yes,\u201d said Ruth, Marian and Florence. They gave me a hint of those\nwonderful romancings. Marian is always beautiful in her stories, \u201cas in\na real novel,\u201d she said. Florence said she was always as homely \u201cas a\nmud fence,\u201d but I could see by her expression that none the less she was\nalways triumphant. Virginia in her stories was accomplished and a great\nartist.\n\nI forgot to be one of them for a moment. I said: \u201cUntil very lately I,\ntoo, used to tell myself stories about myself.\u201d\n\n\u201cI still do it,\u201d said Ruth.\n\nOn the subject of unimportant details and characters, we had a long\ntalk. We spoke of Dickens\u2019 many characters and interwoven stories, and\nVirginia maintained that many had nothing to do with the plot, that they\nwere soon forgotten, and there seemed to be no special reason for them.\nMarian saw, however, that at times six or seven plots might be woven\ninto a single story. Instead of fitting the standard to Dickens, they\nfitted Dickens to the standard, and found, indeed, that \u201cThe Tale of Two\nCities,\u201d which had least characters and distracting stories, was most\ninteresting, and well constructed. Virginia spoke of \u201cLorna Doone,\u201d and\nwe all agreed with her that the long descriptions of how things were\ndone\u2014fishing, for instance\u2014which the author gave because he was\ninterested in the country, and which had nothing whatever to do with\ncharacters and story, made it monotonous and almost spoiled an otherwise\ndelightful book.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cHe even tells what pattern of suit he wore when he went\nfishing.\u201d\n\nThey found the same fault with Scott. Indeed, none of them likes Scott.\nThe criticisms were amusing. His blonde heroines were always weak, his\ndark ones strong, but none of them interesting. Ivanhoe was a flabby\nnobody.\n\nWe spoke of Shakespeare, of the part his clowns played in the story.\n\nMarian said: \u201cI see in what sense his plays are complete, and I feel in\nhim wonderful understanding of men and great sympathy. But he doesn\u2019t\nuplift me.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you want to be uplifted into the lofty nothing?\u201d I asked. \u201cIs not\nhumanity good enough for you?\u201d\n\nWe spoke, too, of \u201cLittle Women,\u201d a much beloved book. We noticed how\nLouisa Alcott had changed the story to make it a story.\n\nI pointed out to them what it was that made melodrama; namely, the\nintrusion of events coming from without, not springing from the reaction\nof characters upon one another, or the intrinsic situation\u2014such as\nrobbers, marvellous rescues, or fortunes left by distant relatives. We\nhad a long talk on this subject, and the children told many stories. But\nI doubt whether all finally quite understood the distinction, which is\noften hard to make. Is the coming and going of the ships in \u201cThe\nMerchant of Venice\u201d melodramatic? I told them I should not call it so,\nsince it was bound up with the whole story, almost like the persons. I\nsaid that the melodramatic was more like life than the purely dramatic,\nbecause in life, with its thousand relations, outside events made\nchanges constantly. But the story was more true if it contained within\nitself its own complete world, like a miniature universe. Each work of\nart must represent the whole. \u201cAnd this is why,\u201d I said, \u201cin a really\nwell-built play or novel, a trained person usually can foretell the\noutcome. Suppose that we knew everything in the universe, and all the\nrelations of all things to each other, we should be able to foretell\nevery event.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps that is why novels grow tiresome,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cfor we get to\nknow just how they will end.\u201d\n\nI spoke of the author leaving out his one-sided moral verdict of his own\nstory. After representing life, the artist should not judge; first,\nbecause his judgment is usually partial and incomplete, and breaks the\nunity; second, because he thereby shows lack of understanding and\nrespect for his reader, who might be trusted to draw his own\nconclusions. Hawthorne\u2019s stories are often spoiled by his moral comment\nat the end. At this point I spoke of missing Henry. I am certain he\nwould not have agreed as readily as the others.\n\nI said moral discussions were in place in books on moral subjects, not\nin artistic works. I mentioned especially the worth, ability and good\ninfluence of the writers of so-called \u201cmuckraking\u201d articles in the\nmagazines. Virginia waxed enthusiastic. She asked why should Dickens not\nwrite of abuses in his novels, when by so doing he actually brought\nabout social reforms? I said that for the social reformer they were\nright, but not for the artist. I warned her not to confuse the two.\n\nHere Marian spoke of Milton, and of his giving up his artistic work for\nyears to serve his country in politics.\n\nOne could not wish he had done otherwise. A man\u2019s life comes before art,\nbefore any other expression. I said many of the \u201cmuckrakers\u201d were men\nwho might have been artists, but who felt called to work in this more\ndirect way for the beauty of life, because they could not tolerate its\nugliness. But they were not artists; they were something different.\n\n\u201cThat may be so,\u201d answered Virginia, \u201cbut just the same I admire those\nbrave, muckraking men more than artists.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey are often more admirable,\u201d I said, \u201cbut that does not make them\nartists. If you admire a soldier more than a poet, that does not make\nhim a poet.\u201d\n\nThey spoke of the reformers working for the present, the artist for all\ntime.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthe result of the reformer\u2019s work will last for\nall time, too.\u201d\n\nI spoke again of \u201cfor\u201d and \u201cagainst\u201d in books, of how we felt that\nwriter to be the greatest who understood and loved the villains as well\nas the heroes, and saw the strength and weakness of both alike. They all\nagreed to this, and quoted plenteous incidents; among others, the\noutcast in \u201cBob, Son of Battle,\u201d which they had all read and loved. \u201cHow\nI cried over him!\u201d said Marian; and Ruth and Virginia had cried, too.\nHere Alfred came in with his enthusiasm.\n\n\u201cDidn\u2019t you cry over it?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d he answered, \u201cbut I almost did.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, of course not,\u201d she said. \u201cI forgot you are a boy.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe wouldn\u2019t dare admit it, even if he did,\u201d I said.\n\nVirginia said she usually loved the bad characters more than the good\nones.\n\nWe saw how the false simplicity of villains and heroes\u2014as represented\nin the poor novel\u2014of all good and all bad, and their appropriate\npunishment and reward, was untrue to life and human nature. Surely, they\nsaid, all men had in them both good and bad. Scott, they insisted, made\nthis mistake.\n\nI spoke of the psychological and the dramatic methods in novels. I said\nto Marian:\n\n\u201cGeorge Eliot, of whom you spoke the other day, is an example of the\npsychological method.\u201d I explained the two methods to them, the one\ngoing into minute details of motive and thought, the other suggesting to\nus the motive and thought through the action itself.\n\nMarian does not like George Eliot. She greatly prefers Dickens and\nThackeray.\n\nI said I liked George Eliot, but still I preferred the dramatic method\nfor several reasons. I thought that the passions, moods and changes of\nthe soul were too complicated ever to be put down by any author so as to\ngive the impression of truth.\n\nRuth agreed with me, and said: \u201cPerhaps that is why I like plays\nbetter.\u201d\n\nTo put down how a man would act under any particular circumstances is\nmuch more convincing than to tell how he would feel; for life always\nexpresses itself in creative action. I said: \u201cA reader likes to be\ntrusted and understood by the author. He would rather imagine the minute\ndetails of feeling as part of the whole swing of action, to fill out the\npicture for himself, to be recognized by the author as a fellow genius.\u201d\n\nRuth said novels tired her, because most novelists had only three or\nfour characters which they used over and over again. I answered her that\nthis was because they wrote out of their own lives, and their characters\nwere usually but different sides of themselves. I said many great\npainters used only few models. Virginia said she had remarked that many\npainters always painted faces that resembled themselves.\n\nAt this point, just as I was beginning to speak of wit and humor,\nVirginia\u2019s brother came into the room\u2014in this case, for many reasons,\nan unavoidable interruption. I had so far always kept these two hours\nclosed against all visitors. Although he sat down in the adjoining room,\nand was warned to listen and not to talk, his presence made them at once\nself-conscious and superficial. I asked them whether they knew any\ndistinction between wit and humor.\n\nVirginia answered: \u201cI always think of a witty person as one who has good\nthoughts and expresses them cleverly, and of a humorous person as a boor\nand booby, like that one in the next room.\u201d\n\nAfter the laugh had passed, I said: \u201cVirginia, I can think of only one\nexpression that will fit you just now, and that is slang. I think you\nare talking\u2014\u2014\u201d\n\n\u201cThrough my hat?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, exactly. This to me seems the difference between wit and humor:\nThe witty man is he who says or writes clever, funny things, just to\nshow how clever and keen he is. Conceits are witty, because wit is\nessentially conceited. It may be very interesting and entertaining, but\nit always makes you think of the author rather than of his characters.\nIt is always superficial, the trick of words, and it doesn\u2019t keep well\nthrough the ages. A pun, for instance, is always witty.\u201d\n\n\u201cOugh!\u201d said Virginia, \u201cnot always!\u201d\n\n\u201cBernard Shaw,\u201d I said, \u201cis a good example of wit. Humor is the\nunderstanding of the petty foibles, humors and lovable weaknesses of\nmen. Remember that the word humor really means mood or state of the\nblood, that it is a word very like the word \u2018human.\u2019 Humor is always\nhuman. It is the large, genial way of looking at life of him who sees\nhow little men are, and how great they are at the same time. It is a\nsense of absurd contradictions, of the unity of utterly unlike things,\nalmost a parody of completeness. All humor, all wit, everything funny is\nan incongruous bringing together of things that do not seem to belong\ntogether.\u201d\n\n\u201cI suppose,\u201d Marian said, \u201cthat is why we laugh when we see some one\nfall in the street?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cfor their heads and the sidewalk don\u2019t belong\ntogether.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, seriously,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cwhat makes me want to laugh when I see\nany one fall, especially a grown person? And I must laugh, especially if\nit is a fat person, no matter how hard I may try to be polite.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s because you expect a grown person and a fat person to be\ndignified, and to fall is very undignified. Imagine his high hat flying\none way, his gold-headed cane another, and his heels in the air. But if\na little boy falls you don\u2019t laugh, because little boys are meant to\nfall.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhen my mother falls,\u201d Ruth said, \u201cI can\u2019t keep from laughing, though I\nhate to see her fall.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut everything funny grows stale very soon,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cThat is,\u201d I answered, \u201cbecause when we get used to a combination it no\nlonger seems incongruous.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cwhen you laugh at people because they are boors\nand funny, why is that?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is,\u201d I said, \u201cbecause you feel yourself to be so vastly superior.\u201d\n\n\u201cIs it?\u201d she asked. \u201cI suppose so.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd next time you want to laugh at any one,\u201d I said mock-seriously,\n\u201cjust think of it first, that you are considering how superior you are.\u201d\n\nShe seemed greatly impressed and quite cast down by this remark.\n\nI said: \u201cPerhaps a good distinction to make between wit and humor is\nthat wit laughs at people and humor laughs with them.\u201d\n\n\u201cIsn\u2019t satire wit?\u201d asked Marian.\n\nI thought a moment. \u201cYes, surely,\u201d I answered.\n\nAs I spoke again of the relation of beauty to our subject, Ruth said:\n\n\u201cWhat has all this about wit and humor to do with our subject?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot much,\u201d I said, \u201cexcept that it shows how the spirit of fun has a\npart in harmony; and that it shows humor to be understanding and a human\nthing. But it is interesting for itself, isn\u2019t it?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she answered, \u201cit is very interesting.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n NINTH MEETING\n\n\nRuth was unable to come.\n\nNot a single paper this week! When all but Florence and Marian had\narrived without papers, I began to be disappointed; but when they came\nin, I said:\n\n\u201cI am going to give up the club.\u201d\n\nYou should have seen Marian\u2019s serious face. \u201cWhy?\u201d she exclaimed.\n\n\u201cBecause you haven\u2019t brought me any paper.\u201d\n\nThey all were too busy. But Florence had given Henry a good little talk\non the meeting he had missed.\n\nI asked them whether they had enjoyed these meetings on art as much as\nthe first meetings. They all said yes, quite as much. I spoke again of\nthe relation of our idea to art. It seemed to them all that art was the\nexpression of the religious ideal. Virginia said: \u201cIt relates us with\nothers and gives us sympathy.\u201d Henry said it was the action of religious\nfeeling.\n\n\u201cJust as,\u201d he added, \u201cit is said one knows a man by his actions.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou know what I mean,\u201d said I; \u201cit might be well expressed in a single\nphrase that would stay in your minds. Art is the symbol of completeness.\nIt must be in itself a tiny world, a miniature universe. Do you remember\nthe delight you used to get when you were little, from a tiny doll\u2019s\nhouse, from a little thing that seemed real, that seemed a small,\nperfect world in itself? This joy you get from every work of art, the\njoy of a complete world.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs in the novel,\u201d said Marian, \u201cwhich is not like real life, with its\nincompleteness and distraction, but has within itself all the people and\nall the things necessary to itself.\u201d\n\nI spoke again of the way in which I meant to discuss questions of\nconduct according to the rules of art. I said: \u201cLife can be made\nbeautiful and complete in the same way, and by learning these large laws\nwe may avoid the pettiness of moral discussion. You, being a self, are\nthe symbol of the whole Self.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I continued, \u201cwe will speak of poetry, of painting, of all the\narts, and you will see that the laws of all are the same laws. What is\nthe difference between prose and poetry?\u201d\n\nThey mentioned various differences, such as subject-matter, form, manner\nof treatment.\n\n\u201cThe chief difference between prose and poetry,\u201d I said, \u201cis that poetry\nis written in poetry.\u201d\n\nThat seemed an evident difference.\n\n\u201cMetre, rhyme, musical measure of the words are qualities of poetry\nalone.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut all poetry doesn\u2019t rhyme,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cbut all poetry has metre. Tell me another difference.\nIn what way does poetry affect you differently from prose?\u201d\n\n\u201cI know what you mean,\u201d said Florence. \u201cYou mean because it has metaphor\nand simile.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat, too, but something else.\u201d\n\nMarian answered, with some hesitation: \u201cPoetry is emotional. It stirs\nyour feelings more than prose.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is what I meant,\u201d I said; \u201cit resembles music because it stirs you\nas much by the sound as by the sense. And just because it is more unreal\nand distant, it seems more real and close and complete in its grip. A\nthing must be far off to give us the sense of completeness and beauty.\nMusic is to me the art of arts, because it expresses everything and\ndefines nothing; because it is like life itself, rather than a\ndescription of life.\u201d Henry assented enthusiastically. I went on: \u201cYou\nspoke of metaphor and simile. We find it not only in all poetry, but in\nall prose. And what is it but the relationing of things to one another,\nthe likeness and the bond between things unlike? And so keen is it, so\nnatural, so close to us, that we use it every day, we are poets every\nmoment in this respect, for we hardly ever speak without using metaphor.\nWe say a sharp look, a piercing look, and so use metaphor. Do you see?\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cWhen we say in school, for instance, that our teacher\nlooked daggers, we are using metaphor.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cand even slang is often good metaphor.\u201d\n\nAlfred asked: \u201cIf you call a person a lemon, is that metaphorical?\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I said; \u201cbut I think it would hardly do in poetry, because it\nis too unsympathetic.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow about 23 skidoo?\u201d asked Virginia. \u201cIs that simile or metaphor?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d said I, \u201cis less metaphor than nonsense.\u201d\n\nI said that in the modern play, which could not use the figurative\nlanguage of poetry, the metaphor and simile were replaced by the symbol.\nI could not go into this, however, as none of them, except Florence, had\nread any modern plays. So I spoke of the fairy story, and how it often\nstood for something which was not itself. \u201cYes, like Brandt,\u201d said\nFlorence. I did not dwell on this point, but went on to the subject of\ntaking sides in poetry. I said that good poetry could not possibly take\nsides; that all didactic and party poetry was poor.\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t see that,\u201d answered Henry.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Florence, \u201che wouldn\u2019t let me convince him of it the other\nday.\u201d\n\nHenry went on: \u201cTake Whittier\u2019s war-time poems; they were written with a\npurpose and taking sides.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cI don\u2019t consider Whittier a great poet. But that\u2019s not the\npoint. His war-time poems are some of them good, perhaps, but the best\nare not partisan. A man may sing of freedom, and still not be partisan,\nas a man may sing of his native land, and need not therefore say mean\nthings of his neighbor.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt seems to me,\u201d said Henry, \u201cthat every work of art should have a\npurpose.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I answered. \u201cI never said it should not have a purpose. I said\nit should not take sides. Every work of art has the purpose of being\nbeautiful, complete and true. So I suppose you might say that art is\nagainst ugliness. But ugliness is only a discord, a false vision which\nart overcomes with its beauty.\u201d\n\n\u201cI understand,\u201d said Henry. \u201cYou mean one might be for something without\nbeing against anything.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cone can be for completeness, for unity, for beauty,\nwhich includes all things. An artist pictures life; in telling a story\nhe may see that some things lead to ruin and some to happiness, but he\nwill not say he is for some and against others. He will stand far above\nthem and see them all as they are, he will love them all, he will create\na complete and individual world.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI suppose you don\u2019t consider Burns a great poet.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, I do,\u201d I answered, \u201cexcept in his didactic poems.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d she said, \u201c\u2018Scots wha\u2019 ha\u2019 wi\u2019 Wallace bled\u2019 is partisan.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cit is martial, but it gives the foe his due. \u2018Break\nproud Edward\u2019s power.\u2019 That, it seems to me, is a tribute to Edward.\u201d\n\nAt first they dissented, but finally agreed with me that most martial\npoems\u2014all great ones\u2014give the enemy his due. Marian spoke, in this\nrelation, of Homer.\n\nWe considered high-falutin style and books that are all climax, without\nrhythm and reservations of strength, unlike life, which is all\nheartbeats and pulsations. Florence told of a book which had \u201csix\nclimaxes on every page.\u201d I spoke of the conventional phrases which mar\nstyle, because we feel them to be imitated.\n\n\u201cThey are not original,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201cand originality simply means truth in the writer.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe feel,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat he didn\u2019t take the trouble to think for\nhimself.\u201d Then she spoke of having been made, in school, to compare the\nlike thoughts of different authors, and asked whether their being alike\nmade them less original.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cfor two might see life in the same way, each for\nhimself.\u201d\n\nI went on to speak of music. \u201cTo me,\u201d I said, \u201cit seems the most perfect\nof arts, because it is in itself harmony, the very word we associate\nwith this idea of completeness. I don\u2019t know much of the laws of musical\ncomposition, but I know they are the laws of rhythm and harmony, the\nlaws of all motion. Of course, it is figurative to speak of the music of\nthe stars, and yet in a sense their motion is music, because it follows\nthe laws of music. Music is the least definite of all arts, yet the most\nreal and near. It arouses our emotions as nothing else can do.\u201d\n\nMost of them felt as I, that music was most gripping in its effects.\nMarian, however, did not, since she is not at all musical. I spoke of\nwords and intellectual ideas in relation to music. Virginia said it made\nher feel glad to hear music, that she had to beat time. The others all\nenjoy music most when it has a literary annotation, either in opera, or\nin concerts with verbal explanations. At least they want to know the\nname of every melody. In this I said I agreed with them, because knowing\nthe name immediately put me into the mood the composer wished, and saved\nme those first five minutes of uncertainty which every strange music\nawakens.\n\nHenry said: \u201cWhen I learn a new piece on the piano my teacher and I\nalways talk it over. I have a piece called \u2018Spring in the Wood.\u2019 We say,\n\u2018Now we are in the border of the wood, now we hear the water rippling\nfar off, now there are the ferns at the edge.\u2019\u201d\n\nWe spoke of painting.\n\nI explained to them the point of interest, the point around which all\nother lines, colors and interests must centre, to which all are made\nsubordinate. Virginia said: \u201cBut it need not be in the centre of the\npicture.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cit had better not, since that would be monotonous and\nstiff. But wherever it is, it makes itself a centre, and makes the\npicture a complete whole.\u201d\n\nVirginia told of the plan of completing the central figure in a sketch,\nand leaving the rest unfinished\u2014as a substitute, as I showed her, for\nthe effectiveness of color. All eyes should be directed to the central\nfigure.\n\nI went into technical details of lines, angles and motion, with help\nfrom Virginia, to show how color might express mood and action, as well\nas did the figures, and so would make the whole harmonious. Virginia\nspoke of \u201ccurly clouds\u201d in a picture of a burial, made at the art\nschool, where the lines of the clouds were too gay, and spoiled the\nsolemn effect of vertical lines.\n\nFrom balance of line we went on to balance of light and shade and color.\nFirst I explained to them\u2014what most of them knew\u2014the complementary\ncolors, and the cycle of color; that a picture containing blue and\norange, or green and red, has within itself all the color there is.\nThink of the hideousness of a blue and yellow or red and blue picture!\n\u201cIt would have to be toned down with the third color,\u201d said Virginia.\n\nI spoke of the literary intrusion into painting, of the necessity of a\ncomplete idea in the picture itself; the difference between illustration\nand art. A picture may have an illustrative name, but if it be complete,\nbeautiful and satisfying without any name, it is not illustration.\n\nWhat is excellent craftsmanship might be bad art.\n\nVirginia and Marian spoke of some pictures in the Metropolitan Museum,\nwhich they had been told to admire, and could not; some of them pictures\nby Meissonnier, in which satins, silks and velvets were done to\nperfection. Henry spoke, too, of certain pictures of German monasteries\nwhich were painted for the purpose of picturing the life, with precise\ndetail, and were not beautiful. I told them of the difference between\nart and craft. Art is a complete expression of life by one man. Craft is\npart of a big completeness, the work of one man which has a purpose in\nrelation to the work of others; as a craftsman may make the cornice in a\npalace which an artist designed. The craftsman does a part, the artist\nplans the whole.\n\nMarian said: \u201cSometimes some one says to me, \u2018that picture is perfectly\nbeautiful,\u2019 and I can\u2019t see it so. Then again I may think a picture\nbeautiful, and another person will not. Why is that?\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d I said, \u201cyour taste, your standard, is different.\u201d\n\n\u201cIs it just taste?\u201d she asked.\n\n\u201cTaste with a reason,\u201d I said, \u201ceven if you don\u2019t know the reason.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat when an artist expresses himself well,\nevery one must realize it.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot at all,\u201d I said. \u201cOne has to be trained to understand pictures, as\none has to be trained to see.\u201d I told them of Turner, whose pictures\nlook beautiful to some, and to others are mere blotches of color.\n\n\u201cA picture is not what it represents,\u201d I said. \u201cOne must learn to see\nit. A proof of this is that babies, quite able to recognize objects, do\nnot recognize pictures. And so some people are babies all their lives in\nrelation to art.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I asked, \u201cdo any of you think photographs artistic?\u201d\n\nI believe Henry was going to say he did, but was overwhelmed by the\nothers. Alfred said: \u201cIn a photograph all the unimportant things are\nthere with the important.\u201d\n\nMarian said that there, as in life, there was intrusion of inharmonious\ndetails.\n\nThe out-of-focus and blurred photograph sometimes is artistic, because\nof the lost details and the effect of distance; but, just therefore, it\nis untrue to fact.\n\nVirginia said photographic art was bad art. She said: \u201cMy teacher gave a\ngood example. If a fire-engine were tearing along the street, you would\nbe so interested in that you would see nothing else. There might be\ncrowds of people, but you would not notice them. But if a camera were to\nbe snapped, they would all be in it and obscure the engine. You see only\nwhat is important, but the camera sees everything.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is a good illustration,\u201d I said. \u201cAnd so you see we are\nstory-tellers in vision as well as in narrative. We see things complete\nand dramatic, whether they are so or not, just as we must tell a\ncomplete story. Do you realize how all the arts are related, how they\nall have the same laws? And these, I believe, are the laws of life.\n\n\u201cDid you ever think of it, that the artist sees only with his eyes,\nwhereas you see with your eyes, fingers, ears, with all your senses? You\nsee a table square, high, hard, smooth, but an artist sees it only in\nperspective, from a certain point of view. To get completeness you must\nlimit yourself, because you cannot see the universe. The drop of water\nis most complete and perfect when it is a limited, spherical drop, not\nwhen it is scattered abroad in mist.\n\n\u201cThe artist,\u201d I said, \u201cis one who sees things beautiful, even when to\nothers they do not seem so; and to see things beautiful is to see\ntruth.\u201d\n\nNone of the children disputed this much-disputed fact\u2014for to youth it\nis obvious\u2014so I myself had to answer the objections. I said: \u201cOne might\nsay that in life many things are ugly, and these things are true,\ntherefore to see these things as beautiful is not to see them truly. But\nwe believe that the whole universe, altogether, could we know it, would\nbe harmonious and beautiful; therefore to see things as beautiful is to\nsee them in relation to that truth, and as symbols of that truth.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cWe must believe that the whole universe is harmonious;\nanything else is unthinkable. We feel it in ourselves.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean, because we have the laws of harmony in our own nature?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes. The whole must be harmonious.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of instances in which ugly things could be seen as beautiful.\nThe empty lot across the street, with its boards, rubbish and shanties,\nis ugly; but at times, under certain conditions, and by shutting out a\npart with my hand, I see it as a beautiful wild landscape.\n\nMarian said: \u201cNear us are some poor, ugly houses, that I hate to see;\nbut sometimes I see little children at the windows, who are so sweet and\ngraceful they make the houses look beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere are a great many pictures,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cbut I think there is\nnot much art. Do you?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I said. \u201cTo be a painter does not make one an artist. Do you\nremember hearing people make the criticism that a picture was pretty,\nbut not beautiful? Prettiness in art is a sad fault, one that perhaps\nyou, too, have found. But do you know just what it is?\u201d\n\nVirginia said she had often seen pictures that were just pretty, without\ncharacter.\n\nI said: \u201cWhen a painter makes pictures to please the taste of people\nwhose taste he does not respect, when a would-be artist works to catch\napplause or money from the crowd by satisfying their bad taste, and does\nnot even believe in the love of truth and beauty which sleeps in them\nall, then the thing he paints is usually pretty. He will paint a little\nchild with a kitten in her lap, because that is a pretty subject, but it\nwill be the most affected child and the posiest kitten!\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is superficial,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cYes, for he does not know the true character of those for whom he\nworks, nor care to know his subject. The smirking advertisements one\nsees are a good example of prettiness. But many artists, working for\nmoney alone, fall into this cheap, easy habit of pleasing the worst\ntaste.\u201d\n\n\u201cWouldn\u2019t you call \u2018The Vicar of Wakefield\u2019 a pretty book?\u201d asked Henry.\n\n\u201cNo, indeed,\u201d I answered; \u201cit is far too genuine and lifelike to be\nmerely pretty.\u201d\n\nHenry insisted it was written for money, and was merely sweet and\npleasing. The others disagreed with him so strenuously, I had hardly a\nchance to say, as before, that one might write for money the thing\nneedful to be said. Virginia asked whether I did not think Jessie Wilcox\nSmith\u2019s drawings merely pretty? I said I thought them so now and then,\nbut that sometimes her deep love and understanding of childhood made\nthem shine with loveliness.\n\nMarian said: \u201cSome people are merely pretty and uninteresting.\u201d\n\n\u201cOften,\u201d I answered, \u201cthey want just that. They look for superficial\nadmiration, and show only their superficial prettiness.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, of course, that isn\u2019t art,\u201d said Marian.\n\n\u201cSometimes it is,\u201d answered Florence.\n\nI spoke of sculpture as the Greek drama of visual art, a metaphor that\nappealed to those of them\u2014Florence, Marian, Henry\u2014who knew enough of\nGreek drama, with its masks and buskins, and its far-offness, to\nunderstand. The distance, the unlifelikeness of the material, is its\ncharm. The colored German marbles lose artistic beauty in gaining\nlifelike color.\n\n\u201cIn that case,\u201d said Alfred, \u201cI should think the process of coloring and\nthe newness of the material would interest one so much as to draw one\u2019s\nattention away from the statue.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think it is only that,\u201d I answered; \u201cfor surely wax works,\nwhich are quite common, with all their lifelike color and softness, do\nnot give us the thrill of reality and beauty that we get from a marble\nstatue.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Henry, \u201cit is just the coldness and hardness of marble,\nchanged by the artist into shapes of life and warmth, that make it\nbeautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cexactly. The sculptor expresses his idea in every curve\nof the human form, and makes human shapes say universal things. They\nexpress by attitude and line power, beauty, tenderness. In the\n\u2018Mercury,\u2019 the lines of that headlong figure, to half-shut eyes,\nrepresent the curve and angle of flight itself.\u201d\n\nVirginia now spoke of Michael Angelo, and his misdrawing of figures,\nwhich are none the less beautiful and powerful. I said he was so great a\ngenius that his genius, as often happens, overshadowed his shortcomings\nas a craftsman.\n\nHere we came, I know not how, on the subject of drama. I said that to me\nit could never seem a perfect form of art\u2014that is, the acted\ndrama\u2014because the actors usually obtruded their personality, and so\nbroke in on the unity of expression\u2014the creation of one mind\u2014necessary\nto art. But the children, better at the art of looking on than I, and\nnot so quick to note the significance of personality, said they forgot\nentirely the actors themselves, and felt as though the thing were a\npiece of life. Virginia and Florence said they felt as if they were\nthe author, as if by being spectators they took part, and Virginia said\nshe always did hate the villains!\n\nOf architecture we observed that it appealed directly to the emotions,\nlike music; that it made us feel, we knew not why, glad or sad, or calm\nor overawed. Virginia spoke of the Palais de Justice in Brussels, which\nmade her feel very tiny; and this naturally brought us to speak of the\nfeeling of reverence and awe.\n\n\u201cWhenever we feel small,\u201d I said, \u201cand see another thing as vast, that\nvastness is in our minds, it is our own immense other self which\noverawes us.\u201d\n\nThey said they did not know what the feeling was. Virginia said: \u201cWhen I\nhave it, if I try to think of what it is, it is already gone. But the\nnext time I see the same thing, perhaps some beautiful picture, that\nfeeling is there again.\u201d\n\nVirginia and Florence said they never had any reverence for particular\npeople, because they were older, for instance. But, I said, at least\nthey must have reverence for people, as such, for the self in all\npeople. They granted that.\n\nWe spoke of the completeness of that architecture which showed outwardly\nits inner use, and the spirit of its land and people; of distinctly\nAmerican problems, the skyscraper, the selfishness of New York builders,\nwho did not consider the beauty of the whole city, and so wrought\nugliness. The children gave examples, and did not agree with me\naltogether, Henry saying that a railroad station built like a Roman\ntemple made you feel like travelling more than did the gloomy Grand\nCentral. When he asked me how about the banks built like Greek temples,\nI said that might be more appropriate, since some of us did worship\nmoney!\n\nHe spoke of the library at Washington as fitting exactly to its use; its\nbig, comfortable rooms made one feel like studying and reading all the\nday.\n\n\u201cI wonder if anything could make me feel like that!\u201d said Virginia.\n\nWhen the others had left, I took a walk with Alfred. He said: \u201cI didn\u2019t\nexactly understand what you meant by my being big when I feel little.\u201d\n\n\u201cI meant,\u201d I said, \u201cthat when you feel awe before the immensity of the\nuniverse, under the stars, or by the sea, the thought of immensity is in\nyourself, and it is really yourself who become immense. You realize your\nwhole self. And before that realization your daily life and thoughts and\nyour own small self seem very tiny. It is one part of yourself, the\nsmall part, standing in awe and wonder before that other immense self.\u201d\n\nHe understood that.\n\nI went on: \u201cI only mentioned it to-day, and did not expect you to\nunderstand. I often do this, either to give a suggestion for the next\nweek, or else to see what really interests you.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think it is a good idea,\u201d he said.\n\n\n\n\n TENTH MEETING\n\n\nVirginia could not come. We did have six present, however, as we had a\nvisitor, Leo, a boy of sixteen.\n\nRuth brought with her a box of candy, given her by a sympathetic aunt,\nwho has an opinion, I surmise, of our club. They all assured me that\ncandy would not disturb their thoughts. Marian said: \u201cThere\u2019s nothing I\ncan\u2019t do, and eat candy at the same time.\u201d I do, myself, think it was an\nimprovement. We had a lively and interesting meeting, and much\nsweetness.\n\nMarian wrote a paper on our meeting of two weeks past, following the\nnotes I had made for Florence to use in her talk with Henry. It lacked\nMarian\u2019s usual originality, as it was built directly on my thought. She\neven used one phrase of mine, word for word, namely: \u201cLife proves all\nthings by creative action.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy did you use it?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d she said, \u201cI didn\u2019t understand what it meant, and I wanted to\nask you.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am glad,\u201d I said, \u201cfor it is a thing of which I meant to speak\nto-day. All action is creation and self-expression; everything is\nchanging and in action all the time, because it is striving to come into\nbetter relation with all other things. All art and all life is\nself-expression and action at every moment. We must create if we would\nbe complete. That is why I love the active and creative life.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI understand. You had told us so before. But I\ndidn\u2019t know it was what you meant by that sentence.\u201d\n\nNow I read Marian\u2019s paper for this week:\n\n\u201cOn December 6th the Seekers held a meeting, in which we continued our\ndiscussion on Art. We first considered the subject of Art in Poetry.\nPoetry differs from prose in two essential respects, namely, it is\nfarther off, and it expresses the emotions, and does so in a musical\nform. Our standard for Art applies in poetry, as well as in other\nthings. In connection with poetry we took up the subject of controversy\nin art, and especially in poetry. We decided that a controversial poem,\nor novel, is not good art because it is one-sided and incomplete. If a\nman writes on one side of a question he cannot be really in that\nsympathetic frame of mind that is necessary for the production of a good\npiece of art. We next took up art in music, and decided that music is\nthe most complete or artistic of all arts, because it is farthest off,\nand expresses most completely our ideal. We also considered sculpture,\nand noted the fact that the sculpture is the expression in human form of\nthe sculptor\u2019s ideas. We also considered painting, and after we had\nagain applied our standard, Miss Sampter told us that every picture has\na central object or figure, the figure of most importance; that all the\nlines of the picture are direct toward it; and that in every good\npainting there must be contrast, and all the primary colors must be in\nit. It is complete in every way. All the colors, light and shade, and\nthe idea of the painter well worked out, complete it. We considered,\nbesides, the subject of architecture, and said that a building should in\nsome measure express the purpose for which it was to be used.\u201d\n\nRuth said she understood all this, and could gather something of our\nlast meeting. She did not quite see what was meant by a thing in art\nbeing \u201cfar off.\u201d Henry told her it meant that though removed from\nreason, and not clearly defined or lifelike, it appealed to our\nsympathies and emotions, and we understood it all the better. Then I\nread Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cIn poetry and music, as in all the other arts, it is completeness,\ncomplete harmony, which makes a thing beautiful. Of all the arts the\nmost beautiful is music. Harmony is everything in music, and is the\nprincipal in musical composition. A piece of music always closes with\nthe first note of the scale, thus completing the chord. If it were\notherwise we would say there was something lacking. The phrase itself\nshows us that what we want is completeness, though few people stop to\nthink of its full meaning when they use it.\n\n\u201cWe have said that the farther away we are from something, the more\nbeautiful it seems. This is true of music, which, besides being the most\nbeautiful of arts, is the farthest away, for we cannot say anything\ndefinite with it, but must leave so much to the sympathy of the\nlisteners. I like to think of this as a symbol of the beautiful\ncompleteness we hope to realize some far-distant day, and that then\nthere will be something still more beautiful, that we shall know in\ntimes still farther off.\u201d\n\nI thought this an excellent paper, and I told Henry so. I said I was\nglad he had written more of musical composition than I had been able to\ntell him.\n\nWe spoke of some of our past meetings. Florence said: \u201cI couldn\u2019t make\nHenry see the difference between wit and humor.\u201d\n\n\u201cI see it now,\u201d he answered. \u201cWe discussed it in school.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo did we,\u201d said Marian. \u201cIsn\u2019t it queer?\u201d\n\nThey had been taking up drama, too, and so their club and school work\nharmonized.\n\nI said: \u201cYou have heard people speak of the art of life. To me it seems\nthat to make an art of life, to live it as if it were our creation, our\nwork of art, is the best way, the most complete and beautiful way. You\nremember, I spoke to you of the three ways of looking at life, of\nwriting books, for instance: The scientific way, the philosophic way,\nthe artistic way. One can live life in these three ways, too; but to me\nthe artistic way seems best.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cthat if we lived as an art, we should\nbe too apt to excuse ourselves?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow do you mean, Marian?\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d she went on, \u201cwe should admit the shadows in life as well as\nthe light.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe shadows,\u201d I answered, \u201care not the wrong, the bad. How can you\nthink so? Are shadows in a picture the mistakes in it? Shadows make the\nrhythm and the contrast; and in life would be repose and sleep. That\nnecessary pulsation of activity and rest alone can make life whole and\nperfect.\u201d\n\n\u201cI see,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthat is true.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs for blaming ourselves for things past, I think it is silly to do\nso.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat,\u201d they asked, \u201cis the scientific way of life?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is,\u201d I answered, \u201cliving according to small definite truths, knowing\ncertain separate things to be good or bad for us, and living according\nto that knowledge, without any general aim of life. It is to bathe\nregularly, to tell the truth carefully, to be honest, to look out for\nyour neighbor, always because each one of these things is expedient in\nitself. The philosophic way is to see the final, complete good, and to\nwant that once, to lose yourself and the beauty of your own life in the\ndesperate effort to make the whole world perfect now. Suppose, for\ninstance, that on Christmas a starving family came to the door of a\nmiddle-class man for food. If he were a scientist in his life he would\nsend the poor family at once to the public food kitchen, with a ticket\nof recommendation, because he did not believe in indiscriminate charity\nand pauperism. If he were a philosopher he would be horrified at the\nidea of any man lacking a dinner, and without further thought would give\nhis whole dinner to the poor, and go without, and let his children go\nwithout. That is just what Bronson Alcott did\u2014the typical philosopher\nin life\u2014who neglected his own family for the good of the universe.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have often known of people,\u201d said Henry, \u201cwho went out to do charity\nand neglected their families.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cbut that is sometimes for still worse reasons. Now what\nwould the artist in life do? He would be full of the delight of\nChristmas feeling; and he would either share his dinner with the other\nman\u2014according to circumstances\u2014or ask him in to his table, if the poor\nchildren were not too dirty. He would look out for himself and for the\nother man, and do it gracefully, beautifully. He knows that first of all\nhe must make his own life sane and beautiful, but he wants to include as\nmany other lives as he can in that life of his, and to make all his\nrelations with men beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat you call the philosophic way,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cis what I had always\ncalled the artistic way.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is,\u201d I said, \u201cbecause you have all of you had a ridiculous, false\nidea of what the artist is. The scientific life is the life according to\nparticular truths, without an aim. The philosophic life is the life\ndreaming of supreme good, and neglecting the particular, individual\nbeauty of life.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut doesn\u2019t the philosophic way help toward that good?\u201d asked Henry.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cthough often it tries only impracticable schemes. The\nartistic way combines and transcends the two. For the artist must have\nknowledge of facts, must know science, and must love supreme good, as\nwell. Facts according to the supreme good, life made beautiful to be\nlike completeness, that is the artistic life. It includes both the\nscientific and the philosophic.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is as it were the middle way?\u201d asked Ruth.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cbecause beauty includes all extremes.\u201d\n\nHenry remarked: \u201cIt may be the best way, but I wouldn\u2019t guarantee to\nlive according to it.\u201d\n\nI smiled. \u201cYou mean,\u201d I said, \u201cthat you didn\u2019t like the idea of asking\nthe poor man in to dinner?\u201d He assented. \u201cBut you misunderstood me. That\nwas only a picture, a story, not a law. If we make large laws for\nlife\u2014such laws as those of art\u2014we shall avoid petty moralizing, which\nI, for one, detest. We shall see that every circumstance alters the\ncase.\n\n\u201cIt\u2019s just this petty moralizing that is unnecessary, when one has big\nlaws and standards which he can use in life, each for himself.\u201d\n\nWe did come very near having a discussion on truth-telling, but I\nstopped it at once. I was glad to discover, however, that Ruth is not a\nstickler for literal truth under all circumstances.\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t like little laws laid down,\u201d I said, \u201cbecause they are never\ntrue and necessary in all cases. They make me feel rebellious.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthey make one feel contrary, and want to do just\nthe opposite.\u201d\n\nI spoke of the undeniable fact that all great action, all history sprang\nfrom imaginative thought, that a deed had to be imagined before it could\nbe done, that all history was inspired by the bards and prophets. I\nspoke of even such scientific theories as evolution springing from\nimaginative thought. They all seemed to have realized this before, and\nnone dissented. I read to them O\u2019Shawnessy\u2019s Ode, \u201cWe are the\nMusic-makers.\u201d\n\nFlorence said: \u201cWe spoke of the thinker\u2019s influence lately, at home. But\nI always thought of those great men, not as poets, but as philosophers.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cthey often were. But they were poets, too. The\ngreatest artist\u2014as I showed you\u2014is a scientist and philosopher as\nwell. Goethe to me seems the best example of such a complete man. His\nlife was so many-sided, and yet so artistic, so definite in its aim; it\nmight stand as an example of the artistic life.\u201d\n\nNow, what the children seemed to know of Goethe was that he had a great\nmany love affairs, and did not behave well in any of them. Marian and\nHenry had a clearer idea, and knew this was not the whole or the chief\npart of his life, nor quite so faulty as represented. Henry said: \u201cHe\ncould appreciate the good points in a woman without always falling in\nlove with her.\u201d\n\nWhen Ruth said she didn\u2019t know anything of Goethe but his lover\u2019s\nweakness, Marian turned on her with: \u201cNow, isn\u2019t it a shame to know that\nof him, and nothing else!\u201d\n\nI told them again that as every work of art was a symbol of\ncompleteness, so every self, being a self, symbolized the complete self\nof understanding and unity; every man was a symbol of completeness, of\nthe Divine Self.\n\nBefore we went on to enumerate for ourselves the laws of art, now that\nwe all agreed they would be one with the laws of life, I wished to read\naloud some slips from a Ruskin calendar, which Ruth had brought me two\nweeks before. The most fruitful of conversation were the following:\n\n\u201cAll are to be men of genius in their degree\u2014rivulets or rivers, it\ndoes not matter, so that the souls be clear and pure.\u201d\n\nThis, they said, was exactly our idea of genius in all.\n\n\u201cGood work is never done for hatred, any more than for hire\u2014but for\nlove only.\u201d\n\nSurely, then, not for controversy, we said.\n\n\u201cNeither a great fact, nor a great man, nor a great poem, nor a great\npicture, nor any other great thing, can be fathomed to the bottom in a\nmoment of time.\u201d\n\n\u201cEvery great man is always being helped by everybody, for his gift is to\nget good out of all things and all persons.\u201d\n\nThis, I reminded them, was what we had said when we spoke of the good\nand bad, that we must use all things for good.\n\n\u201cThe ennobling difference between one man and another\u2014between one\nanimal and another\u2014is precisely in this, that one feels more than\nanother.\u201d\n\n\u201cDoesn\u2019t it seem,\u201d said Florence, \u201cas if Ruskin had written those papers\nespecially for us?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat last one,\u201d I said, \u201cexpresses exactly our idea; here \u2018feeling\u2019\nmeans the same as \u2018sympathy,\u2019 or \u2018feeling with.\u2019 So you find, all\nthrough the old books, the striving for this same truth, always vaguely\nexpressed, never fully understood, as an ideal, as a religion of life.\u201d\n\nRuth asked: \u201cDon\u2019t you think all great religions have always believed in\nthat final unity?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot quite in this way,\u201d I answered. \u201cThey have vaguely striven for it\nand implied it, but never realized it as the one meaning in life, the\nmoving force of the universe.\u201d\n\nI gave each of them a pencil and a piece of paper, and said we would\nfind out and write down what were the chief laws of all arts, and then\nfollow that written paper throughout our meetings. I said: \u201cIt looks\nlike a party, with the candy and the paper and pencils.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Florence; \u201cand now we are going to play a guessing game!\u201d\n\nThe first law upon which we decided, after some conversation, was:\n\n1. Art is the symbol of completeness, in a definite shape.\n\nOn this last part, \u201cin a definite shape,\u201d I especially insisted, showing\nthem how the definite, the particular, the finite\u2014the drop as opposed\nto the mist\u2014symbolized completeness. I said for them Goethe\u2019s poem,\n\u201cUeber allen Gipfeln,\u201d to show them how so short, clearcut and simple a\nthing gave us the sense of immensity.\n\nHenry said he had thought at one time that if one only knew the truth,\nit was not necessary to be a good orator; one had simply to state the\ntruth. But now he believed the form an essential part of the thought.\n\nMarian said something of the artistic life as meaning one must have a\nsingle aim. I answered her it might be so, but the single aim would be\nimmense and inclusive. Now we went on to the second law, which we\nformulated thus:\n\n2. Art is self-expression and self-fulfilment.\n\nSelf-expression means action, creation. \u201cThinking, writing, the work of\nthe artist is action,\u201d I said. They understood. I quoted: \u201cThere is only\none gift worth giving, and that is one\u2019s self.\u201d \u201cTo give one\u2019s self,\u201d I\nsaid, \u201cthat is action, that is life, creation and fulfilment.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow so fulfilment?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cBecause it is always fulfilment to do the thing we love to do. Now what\ncomes next?\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cTo leave out the distracting; to leave out detail.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot necessarily detail,\u201d I answered; \u201ccertain definite details are\nessential.\u201d\n\nThey said to leave out the irrelevant, the inharmonious, the\nunnecessary. I said:\n\n3. To leave out the unimportant.\n\n\u201cCan you see,\u201d I asked, \u201chow that will apply to life?\u201d\n\n4. Must have variety and many-sidedness.\n\nThat is, contrast, rhythm, the all-roundness which makes the whole.\n\nWe had just begun to speak of the next law when I was called from the\nroom.\n\nAs I returned, Henry said to me: \u201cWell, then, let us write down: \u2018must\nnot be for or against.\u2019\u201d\n\nSo they had formulated it while I was away. I answered: \u201cRather let us\nuse the word \u2018partisan,\u2019 which means part, not whole.\u201d\n\n5. Must not be partisan, and must be sympathetic.\n\nNow, I said, art,\n\n6. Must give the impression of truth.\n\nI did not linger on this point, and was glad the children accepted it\nwithout question, for I wanted more time to explain it.\n\nI went on to the last law, which was the only one I had some trouble in\nmaking clear. I asked why was the photograph inartistic? They said\nbecause of inharmonious details. I asked, why is the statue more\nbeautiful than wax works? Henry spoke again of the \u201cdistance\u201d of\nmaterial, which just thereby appealed to the sympathies. I wanted to\nspeak of the artist\u2019s aloofness, how he was creator of his work, within\nit, and yet around it and above it. They did not understand. They said,\nif he were above it, he would be unsympathetic. They did not understand\nthe creator\u2019s attitude toward himself, the created; the dramatic\nattitude in life, in which we are both actor and spectator. Marian said\nshe thought she understood it. \u201cHaven\u2019t you ever laughed at yourself?\u201d\nshe asked the others.\n\n\u201cI have sworn at myself,\u201d said Leo.\n\nI meant to pass by the subject, and leave out the last law, rather than\narouse a self-consciousness, which was the opposite of what I hoped to\nawaken. But unintentionally the conversation led to a better\nunderstanding.\n\nI spoke again of reverence, as I had done to Alfred, of the small self\nawed in supreme moments, before the immensity of its whole self.\n\n\u201cDo you mean,\u201d asked Leo, \u201cthat it makes us feel how small we are?\u201d\n\nI tried to make it clear. I spoke of the feeling of nothingness that\novercomes us, when we stand under the stars at night, and realize them\nas worlds and suns, and our planet as a dot of light in immensity.\n\nThey had all felt so, except Henry.\n\nHe said: \u201cIt does not make me feel small. I feel that I am a part of it\nall, and one with the universe.\u201d\n\n\u201cYours is the true feeling,\u201d I answered, \u201cfor you are, indeed, a part of\nit, and the realization of it is within yourself. A kitten in your place\nwould not feel it.\u201d\n\n\u201cI know,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthat many people do not feel it. For I have\nsometimes walked with some one out in the night, or by the sea, and\ncould not speak. And suddenly they said some trivial thing, which showed\nthey did not feel as I did.\u201d\n\nAlfred said he felt overawed by the sea, because it was so strong and\nbig.\n\n\u201cYou mean,\u201d I asked, \u201cthat it makes you feel helpless before its might?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt has been said,\u201d Henry went on, \u201cthat one cannot be an astronomer and\nnot worship, I believe it is true.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd now,\u201d I said, \u201cwe are coming to the seventh law after all. For by\naloofness I mean that the artist, during his act of creation, feels his\nown immense self, feels the whole universe, and sees himself and all\nother things as a part in relation to it.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have felt that way sometimes,\u201d said Florence, \u201cjust for a moment.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is a momentary realization,\u201d I answered.\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think,\u201d asked Ruth, \u201cthat it is a superior feeling, though; a\ncold, perfect feeling?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201cthough it lifts us above petty concern for ourselves,\nit does not lift us out of sympathy and action.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cWhen I go to Riverside and see all the lights, and think of\nthe millions of people, I feel them all.\u201d\n\nIt reminded me of the day Marian had said she felt so when she thought\nof all the windows and rooms in all the apartment houses.\n\n\u201cSuppose,\u201d I asked, \u201cthat you had failed in a very important\nexamination, Henry, would you feel bad?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he said, \u201cif it were a very, _very_ important one.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen, if you went to Riverside Drive and forgot yourself in that\nimmense feeling, when you returned home you would not only be over your\nsore, bitter disappointment, but you would be full of energy to begin\nwork again.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he answered, \u201cI would.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo, you see, it is a creative, sympathetic, living aloofness, not cold\nand far off.\u201d\n\nWe put down for the seventh law:\n\n7. Aloofness.\n\nKnowing what we meant thereby.\n\nRuth said she had noticed that the artistic life was a selfish ideal.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cselfish in the best sense.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is self-development, you mean,\u201d said Alfred.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cand that selfishness includes the whole world.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy use the word \u2018selfishness,\u2019 then,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cthat has been\nused in another sense?\u201d\n\nWe spent the rest of the time telling Leo our idea of God and progress.\nHenry, Ruth, Florence and Marian did it; Florence told him of complete\nhuman sympathy, Marian of progress toward it as the good, Henry\nexplained the poem, \u201cAbou ben Adhem,\u201d and Ruth\u2014when Leo objected that\nknowing men was not knowing God\u2014quoted a passage from the Bible to show\nit was.\n\n\u201cI always think of God as a supreme power,\u201d said Leo.\n\nI told him something of our idea. What I cared for was to hear the\nothers talk. All, except Henry, seemed satisfied with a merely human\nconception of self\u2014that is, Florence set the key, and all but Henry\nkept the tune. He spoke of the \u201csomething outside.\u201d\n\nI remarked that, as I had foreseen, we no longer used the word God.\n\n\u201cI use it to myself,\u201d said Ruth.\n\nHenry said: \u201cI use it when I speak to other people; but not here,\nbecause we know what we mean, without saying it.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cWe have made a vocabulary of our own. Ought we to?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said. \u201cPerhaps we can impose it on others?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think that would be fair or right,\u201d she answered.\n\n\u201cWhy not? That is just what every great thinker has done. He has imposed\na new vocabulary upon the world. Unless our words are good and great and\ntrue, they will not last.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n ELEVENTH MEETING\n\n\nI read Virginia\u2019s paper of two weeks ago:\n\n DISCUSSION ON ART\n\n \u201cAnything to be really beautiful must be complete. The reason\n for this is that it gives us that idea of completeness which the\n universe possesses. A picture in which every detail is painted\n may be pretty, but it is not beautiful. When you look at a\n person you look at his face and the expression of it. In\n anything on which you set your eyes, you see only the part that\n interests you. Therefore a good picture or a book should only\n have that part brought forth, and the rest and unimportant parts\n should be kept in the background. In fact, they should only be\n there to make the important thing more interesting; to make it\n stand out.\u201d\n\nThen I read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cAt our last meeting we reviewed all that we had said about art. We\nspoke of the three kinds of life, the artistic, philosophic and\nscientific, and agreed that the artistic life is the one we care for. We\nmade a list of those things which are necessary in art, so that we can\nrefer to them, and apply them in judging life.\n\n\u201cGood art\n\n1. is a symbol of completeness in a definite form.\n\n2. is self-expression and self-fulfilment.\n\n3. must leave out unimportant detail.\n\n4. must have variety and many-sidedness.\n\n5. must not be partisan, and must be sympathetic.\n\n6. gives the impression of truth.\n\n7. \u2014\u2014\u201d\n\nThe last law, the idea of aloofness, of being above as well as within\nlife, of being actor and spectator at once, they do not understand, and\nI made no further effort to explain. Henry said he left it out\u2014for that\nreason\u2014when writing his paper.\n\nI said Henry had mentioned we did prefer and choose the artistic life.\nBut why? I suspected, from something they said, that they did not grasp\nthe reasons.\n\nVirginia said she didn\u2019t care what the reasons were, she knew she liked\nit best. The reasons, at any rate, had not impressed them. So I repeated\nwhat I had said, of the artistic life including the other two, of how\nthe artist must know science and love goodness before he can create\nbeauty.\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d said Florence, \u201cthe great artists were philosophers?\u201d\n\n\u201cAlways,\u201d I answered. \u201cTake the ancient religious writings, such as the\nVedas and the Bible. They were always poems, the work of artists who\nwere also philosophers and scientists.\u201d\n\n\u201cScientists?\u201d asked Marian incredulously.\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I answered, \u201cmen such as Moses, who gave laws on sanitation\nand daily life, were the scientists of their time.\u201d\n\n\u201cAn artist must understand science,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cnatural science, if\nhe wants to paint. And he must know physiology, too. I am beginning to\nrealize that at school.\u201d\n\nSome one mentioned Franklin. \u201cWas he more scientist, or philosopher, or\nartist in his life?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think he was a philosopher,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d Marian answered, \u201che just gathered a lot of bromidic proverbs,\nthat were as old as the world, and said them over in an impressive way.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut they were philosophical,\u201d Virginia protested.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI don\u2019t think so. They were scientific, for they\ndealt with little disjointed parts of life.\u201d\n\nI told them I wanted to paraphrase a certain verse in the Bible, the\nverse:\n\n\u201cFaith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow?\u201d asked Ruth, much interested.\n\n\u201cI would say,\u201d I went on, \u201c\u2018Truth, Goodness and Beauty, but the greatest\nof these is Beauty\u2019\u2014because it includes the other two.\u201d\n\nNow I changed the first law into terms of life:\n\n\u201cLife is a symbol of the complete Self, in a definite shape.\u201d\n\nLife must express that Self in definite and individual lines, that is,\nin beauty.\n\nI spoke again of small and great genius, of art expressing a lesser or a\ngreater completeness, of \u201cJenny Kissed Me\u201d and \u201cFaust,\u201d Florence\u2019s\nexamples. \u201cWith people you must have noticed the same thing. Some people\nwhose lives seem very limited, who understand and know little, still\nhave such harmonious natures that in their spheres they seem complete.\nBut with still other people you feel that their lives are much larger,\nthat they grasp more of life and possess more, because they understand\nmore. The more we understand, sympathize and love, the larger is our\nlife.\u201d\n\nMarian looked puzzled.\n\n\u201cWhat is it, Marian?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cWhy,\u201d she said, \u201cshould some people be larger and more complete than\nothers?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow do you mean, Marian?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy is it so? Why aren\u2019t we all alike?\u201d\n\n\u201cIf we were,\u201d said Henry, \u201cit would be very monotonous.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, I know that,\u201d said Marian. \u201cBut why is it so, anyway?\u201d\n\n\u201cMarian always asks the unanswerable,\u201d I said. \u201cAnd still\u2014if we believe\nin progress, in the evolution of self, don\u2019t you see?\u2014some selves are\nmore developed than others.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf we believed in transmigration,\u201d said Marian, \u201cit would be easy to\nunderstand.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou know,\u201d I answered, \u201cwhat I think of transmigration. But whether\nthere be transmigration in the usual sense, or not, I think we all\nbelieve that in some way we have lived until now, that we are not\ncreated in one moment, that we evolve throughout all time.\u201d\n\nAnd now I made a mistake, tried an experiment that was not successful. I\nhave had misgivings, now and then\u2014unfounded ones, I believe to-day\u2014as\nto the value, to young people, of a philosophy of life which does not at\nonce directly and concretely affect their manner of living, but does so\nindirectly and slowly through affecting their tastes, opinions and\ndesires.\n\nOne of the girls happened to speak of the relation of parents and\nchildren. I had realized for a long time that this was among the\npressing problems of youth\u2014especially of some of these particular young\npeople\u2014and instead of keeping to my prepared work, I took advantage of\nthe remark, and launched off into that bottomless subject\u2014without a\npilot.\n\nI said: \u201cI think it is one of the gravest\u2014perhaps the only grave\nproblem\u2014of your lives, and we might as well try to solve it now, if we\ncan. What shall we do with our parents?\u201d\n\nThere came a flood of ideas and confessions. I made so personal a call\nupon each one, and intimated that I already knew so much of their lives,\nthat they were frank and open with me, and said to me, without thinking,\nmuch more, I am sure, than they would willingly and deliberately have\nsaid to each other. They spoke as if to me alone, even mentioned\npersonal circumstances of which I alone had knowledge. Naturally, I will\nnot write down that conversation.\n\nI told them the difficulty arose from a change for the better in the\nrelation between children and parents, and that neither one nor the\nother had fully realized the change. The old relation of fearing\nreverence had been changed to that of love and companionship. I said,\nmock-seriously:\n\n\u201cOf course, we do know more than our parents can possibly know, and we\nare quite able to judge everything for ourselves, and so we resent being\ntold to do things\u2014\u2014\u201d\n\nMarian interrupted me with a solemn: \u201cOh, no!\u201d and it was a moment\nbefore they all realized that I was joking.\n\n\u201cBut, truly,\u201d I went on, \u201cwe are so used to having, and fond of having,\nour own way, that we do chafe and even feel contradictory the moment we\nare ordered to do anything. Don\u2019t you, Alfred?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Alfred; \u201conly I don\u2019t like to stop if I have anything else to\ndo.\u201d\n\n\u201cI hate,\u201d Marian said, \u201cto be told to do anything which I don\u2019t want to\ndo, and for which I see no reason: going to see people whom I dislike,\nand who bore me, for instance.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere,\u201d I answered, \u201cthe reason is clear. I remember feeling so myself,\nand I am not glad that I was given my own way. Young people must know\nand see and tolerate all sorts of folks, even pokey old relations, so\nthat they may learn to know people and be able to choose for themselves\nas they grow older. To know many is to find some.\u201d\n\nWith that they agreed.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I went on, \u201cthe trouble is not so much with what you want or\ndon\u2019t want to do, as with irritability and impudence.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean \u2018sassing\u2019 your parents?\u201d asked Virginia.\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cI \u2018sass\u2019 mine,\u201d she said, \u201cwhen I think they will like it. I wheedle my\nparents, and so I get what I want without being disagreeable.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, _you_ don\u2019t count, Virginia,\u201d I went on, \u201cbut what I mean is\nanswering back, being unkind and contradictory when we would rather not,\ndoing all sorts of regrettable things because we are in a temper, and\nthen afterward feeling mean, sore and despicable, and knowing that we\nwere wrong. That sort of ugliness and irritation, if it\u2019s not stopped,\nmakes mean, ugly, irritable characters.\u201d\n\n\u201cI know just what you mean,\u201d said Marian, \u201cand I know exactly what I\nthink of other people who are like that.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is ugly,\u201d I said. \u201cI dislike it, because it is not beautiful. How\ncan any one live a beautiful, harmonious life who begins by being out of\nharmony in his relation with the person whom he loves? For that is the\ntruth. Children often love dearly the parent with whom they are always\ndisagreeing. How shall we get understanding and unity and sympathy in\nlife if we cannot get it with those nearest us, those we love?\u201d\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d said Henry, \u201cour idea of life, of complete sympathy, is\nagainst all that kind of thing.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is much easier,\u201d said Marian, \u201cto know what is right than to do it.\u201d\n\nWe all agreed.\n\n\u201cBut why,\u201d I said, \u201cshould we suffer regrets, and do ugly things, when\nthere must be some way to stop it?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat way?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cWell, first, what is our feeling toward older people?\u201d\n\n\u201cPity,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cHow?\u201d we all asked rather indignantly.\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d she went on, \u201cyou get up for an old woman in the car, because\nyou are sorry for her, so that she shouldn\u2019t flop all over your shins.\u201d\n\n\u201cPity for the other people!\u201d said Florence.\n\n(We are always undecided in the club whether to put Virginia out of the\nroom or whether to hug her. So, in our indecision, we leave her alone.)\n\nI said: \u201cWe used to be told to reverence the old. I say to you,\nreverence every one. If you think of self as a symbol of the complete\nSelf, as the holy thing, then you will reverence the self in every human\nbeing, in every creature.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat we have much sympathy with the\nself in animals we kill to eat.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d I answered, \u201cis another question. It has nothing to do with what\nwe are saying now.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think it has,\u201d she protested.\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d I said, \u201cif you reverence self, and understand and respect the\nself in every person, how could you quarrel with any one?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou expect us to know an awful lot,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cto know every\none.\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly,\u201d I answered. \u201cIs not that our idea, to reach what we desire\nthrough understanding and sympathy with every one?\u201d\n\nThey said they couldn\u2019t respect every one. Some people they couldn\u2019t\nhelp, as Henry said, pitying.\n\nI objected strenuously to that word. All but Henry agreed with me. It is\nalways a word of scorn.\n\nThey spoke of \u201cfeeling sorry for\u201d people who had suffered some loss,\nfeeling sorry, but not pitying.\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d said Marian, \u201cone ought not to say \u2018sorry for\u2019 but \u2018sorry\nwith.\u2019\u201d\n\nVirginia said if a girl\u2019s mother had died, and one had not known the\nmother, one might be sorry for her, but not sorry with her. They had a\nlittle argument, and to stop it I said one might be both sorry for and\nsorry with, but certainly one would have the \u201cwith\u201d feeling.\n\nRuth objected that when there was an argument I always made both sides\nright.\n\n\u201cWhy not?\u201d I asked. \u201cBy the light of complete vision we do see most\nthings as true which first seemed contradictory. Our idea of\ncompleteness is to include many truths, and show them to be the same\ntruth.\u201d\n\nShe admitted that.\n\nMarian spoke of people she liked, but could not respect.\n\n\u201cIf you knew them from the inside,\u201d I said, \u201cas they know themselves,\nyou might feel otherwise.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cI have always thought that if anybody knew all\nabout me, knew me just as I know myself, they could not help liking me.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cIt seems not much to expect of us, to understand our parents,\nwho are so anxious for an understanding, and whom we love. After all, we\ndo owe them something\u2014when you consider that but for them we would not\nbe here; and we are most of us rather glad that we are here.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI would like to stay a while longer.\u201d\n\nNow we spoke of many things, many personal things, of quarrels and how\nto avoid them. Virginia amused us by saying people often quarreled with\nher, but she never quarreled with them.\n\nMarian said: \u201cIf there\u2019s one thing which makes people feel mean, angry,\nself-reproachful and small, it is to try to quarrel with some one who\nwon\u2019t be made angry.\u201d\n\n\u201cNaturally,\u201d I said, \u201cthey can\u2019t help comparing themselves with the\nother person.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Florence, \u201cI am always sorry and angry at myself when the\nother person keeps cool or is hurt. But when the other person gets\nangry, too, I feel as if I were right.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt\u2019s an ugly thing to be angry,\u201d I said; \u201cit makes us so small, shuts\nus in.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow do you mean?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cIt cuts us off from that other person, makes it impossible to\nunderstand at least him, and so keeps us from completeness and harmony,\nactually robs us of part of ourself.\u201d\n\nWas it all the children\u2019s fault, they asked, when children and parents\nfailed to understand each other?\n\n\u201cAs it takes two to make a quarrel,\u201d I answered, \u201cso it takes two to\nmake a misunderstanding. But _one_ can stop it. Remember that older\npeople have often gone through trials in life that have shaken their\nnerves and made them sensitive and irritable to little annoyances.\u201d\n\nMarian asked: \u201cDo you mean fussy?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cand it is easy to understand. But the fact that in many\nfamilies some of the children get along well with the parents, and\nothers do not, proves that at least some of the responsibility rests\nwith the children.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of self-control, of standing, as it were, outside and above\nourselves\u2014the idea of aloofness\u2014and not working like a machine for the\nimpulse of the moment. I said I had known people who had this trouble in\nyouth, and stopped it with a strong resolution, because they saw it was\na bad, an ugly and a controllable thing. Henry spoke of the old plan of\ncounting a hundred before saying anything. We none of us liked the idea,\npossibly because we were tired of it; I said, for one, that I did not\nsee how counting a hundred could make me change my mind, whereas\nthinking might. I said the best plan was to put one\u2019s self at once, as\nit were, inside the other person, and then one could not possibly say\nthe disagreeable thing. Henry, it seems, has only one difficulty, that\nof wanting to express or keep his own opinion at the expense of\ncontradicting his elders. I said one had always the right to express\none\u2019s opinion, but one might also do it as an opinion, say \u201cI think,\u201d or\n\u201cI believe\u201d; that one might always consider how the thing said would\nimpress the person listening. Marian spoke of people who irritate you by\ntheir presence, whom you dislike and who grate on you, no matter what\nthey may do or say. Then I told them of the saving sense of humor; how,\nif we resolve to be amused by people in a pleasant, genial way, to see\nthe humor in human life, we may avoid being hurt by them or hurting them\nin return.\n\nVirginia especially agreed with me, cited incidents of being amused by\nthe disagreeable, and spoke of Dickens as one who could be amused by all\nsorts of people, even the most \u201cbromidic\u201d or disagreeable. Marian said\nDickens was amused by every one but his heroes and heroines. They almost\nalways seemed a hardship to him and to others.\n\nI said we must use every one for our good. That word to \u201cuse people\u201d had\nbeen employed in a bad sense, but I meant it in a good sense.\n\n\u201cWhenever you are with any one you don\u2019t like, think at once what you\ncan get out of that meeting. Every human being has something for you,\nand you for him. Self always wants to find self.\u201d\n\nMarian and Ruth immediately thought of people from whom they could get\nnothing. Virginia, who does get something from everything, remarked that\nsome people seemed to have very little self.\n\n\u201cTo be a human being at all,\u201d I answered, \u201chow much of self one must\nhave, compared with the animals!\u201d\n\n\u201cI suppose,\u201d said she; \u201cthat is why some people, who have not much,\nremind me of animals.\u201d\n\nI said I was sorry we had digressed so far, and feared we had not\narrived anywhere, after all. Florence said she liked to confess her\nsins. And Marian answered her that it was a bad habit.\n\n\u201cIt is all,\u201d said Marian, \u201cwhat I have heard before, and know to be\ntrue, and don\u2019t do, anyway.\u201d\n\n\u201cNothing new?\u201d I asked. \u201cNot even the plan of trying to feel at once\njust what the other person is feeling?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, yes, that, perhaps,\u201d she said.\n\nMarian seemed to think I had given her a great many dreadful \u201cslams\u201d;\nbut I could not see it so. \u201cI am sure I did not,\u201d I said. \u201cOh, no,\u201d she\nanswered quite sarcastically, \u201cnot at all.\u201d But she seemed to bear me no\nill-will. Virginia said I wanted them to be good and virtuous. No, I\nsaid, I had not thought of that.\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d she suggested, \u201cgood but not virtuous, or virtuous but not\ngood?\u201d\n\nI answered: \u201cAll I want you to do is to satisfy yourselves.\u201d\n\n\u201cIs that all!\u201d exclaimed Marian. \u201cAfter you told us how we could never\nbe wholly satisfied, how we should always want something more!\u201d\n\n\u201cThe beautiful life must be harmonious,\u201d I said. \u201cDisjointed beauty is\nnot beautiful. You remember, we spoke of the city, how a beautiful house\nmight be made to look not at all beautiful by being placed next to a\nhigh wall, or in any position where it did not fit; how the city could\nnot be beautiful until all the people combined to build a harmonious\ncity.\u201d\n\n\u201cBy itself the house would be beautiful, anyway,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cbut in ugly surroundings its beauty would be half\nlost.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cIf I saw a very beautiful little girl between two ugly\nmonkeys, I think the little girl would look all the more beautiful.\u201d\n\nMarian answered: \u201cI would immediately imagine her petting or fondling\nthe two monkeys, and then it would look beautiful.\u201d\n\nIt turned out, however, that Virginia\u2019s monkeys were figurative, and\nthat she meant ugly children. This was disconcerting to Ruth, Marian and\nFlorence, and caused prolonged giggles.\n\nI said that would simply be contrast, not discord, that contrast might\nplease and make even the ugly look beautiful, but discord, two beautiful\nhouses so placed together that neither looked well, two colors that\n\u201ckilled\u201d each other, these were ugly. Beauty had to find for itself or\nmake for itself the right surroundings, in order to be truly beautiful.\n\nFlorence said: \u201cI think it is a shame people should be liked just for\ntheir looks. I know girls who are liked just because they are pretty,\nwhen there\u2019s nothing to them, and others who are homely, but much nicer,\nwho are liked less. I try never to let it influence me.\u201d\n\nHenry said he never did let it; that he always liked people for what\nthey really were, and not for looks.\n\n\u201cI can\u2019t help it,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cI know a girl who is horrid in every\nway, and when she is away I can\u2019t bear her; but the minute I see her I\nforgive her, because she is so beautiful.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d I said, \u201cif you knew her from the inside, as she knows\nherself, you might think that no one could help liking her.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Virginia; \u201cshe\u2019s one of the people who, I feel sure, cannot\nthink that of herself.\u201d\n\nMarian agreed with Virginia. She said when she met people she was\ninterested in the good-looking ones, and always judged them by their\nfaces.\n\n\u201cThat is different,\u201d I said, \u201cto judge people by the character written\nin their faces, as we judge them by all things. But though all beauty is\ngood, the beauty of the personality, of life itself, is surely best.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n TWELFTH MEETING\n\n\nThrough inevitable circumstances the club had been discontinued for six\nweeks. But I was in personal touch with all the members during this\ninterval.\n\n\u201cWe have not met for so long,\u201d I said, \u201cI wonder whether you have\nforgotten anything of what we had done?\u201d\n\nThey all assured me that it was clear in their minds. Henry said: \u201cIt\nhas had time to sink in.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am glad,\u201d I went on, \u201cthat we happened to stop at the end of a part;\nthat now we begin anew at a new thing. But I am a little afraid to go\non. For now we are going to speak of morals, of goodness.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy are you afraid?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cBecause I am so afraid we are going to moralize, to become petty.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t be afraid of that,\u201d said Marian; \u201cI have had too much experience\nto be likely to do it.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, then,\u201d I said, \u201cfirst of all we must find out what we consider\ngood, what we mean by the good\u2014that misused word\u2014and to distinguish\nbetween the true and the artificial good. Have you any ideas about it?\u201d\n\nNone of them had any definite idea of what they meant by the good, or of\nthe distinction between the goody-goodiness which repelled them, and the\ngoodness which they loved. They thought immediately of \u201cgood\u201d people who\nare unlovable or stupid. Virginia and Marian exchanged remarks about a\ngirl they had met that morning at Sunday-school; and all through the\nmeeting, until I found effective means to stop them, they referred to\nher as an example.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cI will tell you of the true good, and by the light of it\nyou will clearly distinguish the artificial. You remember the first law\nof art.\u201d\n\nHenry had the paper with him. It was: \u201cArt is a symbol of completeness\nin a definite shape.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo the good, too, is a symbol of completeness in a definite shape,\u201d I\nsaid. \u201cGoodness is always of relation. It means the right relation,\nsympathy and unity of those who know each other. And the good man is the\nman who makes a complete world, a symbol of the perfect awakened\nuniverse, out of those few people whom he knows\u2014that is, of whose\nexistence he is aware\u2014and of all that he knows in the universe, which\nis a small part of the whole. He makes it complete and perfect, by\nmaking all his relations with life complete, and understanding and\nbeautiful. You realize that a Robinson Crusoe, alone on his desert\nisland, if he never expected to see human beings again, could not be\neither good or bad.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, he could,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cin the way he treated the animals.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is right,\u201d I answered. \u201cIf you include the animals as selves, he\ncould still be good or bad in his relation with them. But you see that\ngoodness is of relation. It is having our relations right, good and\nsympathetic, as far as they reach.\n\n\u201cThat, then, is the law, the only law. All moralities and systems were\nmade to uphold and fulfil that law, and they all change with the needs\nof man and his circumstances, but that one law is always the same, is\nalways true, is the spirit which makes all actions either good or bad.\nFor I believe there is no action in itself either good or bad, but all\nmust be tested by this law. \u2018Is it good?\u2019 means: Does it make for true\nand understanding relations between men? Do you agree with me?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cTake the laws of Moses, or any system of laws,\u201d I went on, \u201cand you\nwill see that they were made by men, who realized in themselves the one\nsupreme law, the law of progress toward the human whole. These systems\nof laws, if followed by people incapable of seeing the broad way for\nthemselves, would lead toward that end. But the lesser laws change with\ncircumstance, as a path changes with the landscape. Take the Mosaic\nlaws. The first laws, \u2018Thou shalt have no other God,\u2019 \u2018Thou shalt not\ntake his name in vain,\u2019 and \u2018Thou shalt keep the Sabbath,\u2019 seem to us\nnow much less important than some later laws, such as \u2018Thou shalt not\nsteal,\u2019 \u2018Thou shalt not kill,\u2019 and so on. But if you stop to think, you\nwill see that these first were most necessary; for the people\u2019s idea of\nGod, so much more limited than ours, was still, like ours, the reason\nfor their morality, the law of laws, the \u2018I Am\u2019 that gave meaning to\ngoodness. In their condition, if they had not reverenced and feared God,\nthey would not have kept the laws of Moses. The actions or ways of life\nwe often hear called good, but which arouse in us a feeling of contempt,\nas if it were goody-goodiness, or self-righteousness, are actions\naccording to petty laws of goodness, by people who do not know the\nspirit, the great law above all laws. Sometimes they are actions no\nlonger good at all, acted according to petty laws that we have passed.\nDo you see what I mean?\u201d\n\n\u201cGive me an example of what you mean,\u201d Marian said.\n\n\u201cMany conventions are an example,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cYes, they may be,\u201d I answered.\n\n\u201cConventions,\u201d said Virginia, \u201care neither right nor wrong.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cthey are usually a matter of convenience. But some\npeople do make the mistake of calling them right or wrong. Then again\nyou will hear people argue whether or not it is right to tell the truth,\nunder all circumstances.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean,\u201d Henry said, \u201cthat they argue whether or not it is good to\ntell the truth as truth, not whether the truth will help us toward\nbetter relation.\u201d\n\n\u201cExactly.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cto tell the truth to hurt people\u2019s feelings\nis wicked.\u201d\n\nNow they were just going to have an argument as to truth-telling, when I\nreminded them that this was what we did not want to do.\n\nMarian spoke of school laws, and said that these were often without\nforce or reason, and that she saw no great harm in breaking them. When I\nremembered the folly of laws in many schools, I could not disagree with\nher. \u201cOf course,\u201d she said, \u201cone gets out of sympathy with that class of\nmortals called teachers.\u201d\n\n\u201cHardly,\u201d said I, \u201cif one is honest at all times. And perhaps the\nmeanest, most cowardly lie is the lie of evasion and shirking of\npunishment in such a case.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cTeachers ought not to ask boys and girls, \u2018did you do this\nor that?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right,\u201d I answered; \u201cbut, again, no boy or girl of spirit,\ncourage and character would hesitate to answer truthfully.\n\n\u201cSelf-sacrifice,\u201d I said, \u201cis a good example of the sort of action that\nis called good in itself, when it is not at all so, but has only a\ndefinite and limited purpose in the scheme. I wish to explain it to you.\nBut first I want to be sure that you understand this idea of good. Is it\nnew to you?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI never thought of it in that way before.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou all have said so little,\u201d I went on, \u201cI am afraid you may not fully\nunderstand.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere is nothing to say,\u201d answered Marian, \u201cfor it grows so naturally\nout of everything we have done.\u201d\n\n\u201cOur whole thought is like a chain,\u201d said Virginia, \u201clink within link.\u201d\n\n\u201cAlfred,\u201d I said, \u201cyou are so silent, you don\u2019t give us a chance to see\nhow bright you are. Now, tell me, what is the good? What do I mean? I\nwant to be sure you understand.\u201d\n\nHe hesitated. \u201cThe good is completeness, harmony.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cbut I want it more definitely. The good is a sign of\nthat completeness. To the truly good man, as much as he knows of the\nworld, or dreams of it, is his whole self. And he wants that whole self\nto be right. The good man cannot be wholly good until every one else is\nso. The world must be perfect to satisfy his desire for good.\u201d\n\nRuth said: \u201cIt is what you told us before, that we cannot be perfect\nunless the universe is perfect. But it seems to me that a man may be\njust as good, though others are bad.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201che can do his best to fill out the gaps and make his\nrelations right, but his goodness will not wholly satisfy him. On the\nother hand, the self-righteous man, who lives according to precepts and\nrules, is easily satisfied with himself. Goodness is beauty. The good is\nalways the beautiful action. But goodness, according to laws and\nprecepts which are outworn, which we have left behind us, is no longer\nbeautiful for us.\u201d\n\nVirginia pointed out that in this, then, goodness differed from art, for\nthe objects of art remained beautiful through hundreds of years.\n\n\u201cSix hundred years ago,\u201d she said, \u201cmen painted pictures which probably\ncannot be equalled to-day.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I answered, \u201ca man trying to paint like Raphael now, would not\npaint beautifully.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said she; \u201cbut if he tried to paint like Franz Hals or Rembrandt\nhe might.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot at all,\u201d I answered.\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d she admitted, \u201che would have to paint like himself, to be\nhimself.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d said I, \u201cand so with goodness. Each man has his own particular\ngoodness, according to his circumstances and nature. But, just as a\nbeautiful picture is eternally beautiful, so goodness in the past,\nthough it no longer seems good to us for practice, is always delightful\nto think of, though it would be horrible to imitate. For instance, the\nself-imposed poverty of St. Francis of Assisi.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of asceticism and the ideals of self-sacrifice, and then of\nself-sacrifice itself, as preached in our own lives.\n\n\u201cIn the first place,\u201d I said, \u201cwe must get clear in our minds the\nmeaning of happiness. People will say to you again and again that the\naim of life is happiness. But if each one of us were to speak of\nhappiness, and use the same word, we would each mean something\ndifferent. Now, what is happiness?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is having fun,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cthat is all right. But that\u2019s only repeating the same\nthing. What is it that makes us happy?\u201d\n\nFlorence answered: \u201cHaving what you like.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cbut more than that. It is having what you want most. If\nyou liked pie, but you liked ice cream better, then pie wouldn\u2019t satisfy\nyou, would it?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat would?\u201d\n\n\u201cIce cream and pie both,\u201d said Florence.\n\nWe decided, however, after some thought, that we would give up pie for\nice cream. \u201cAnd this,\u201d I said, \u201cis the meaning of self-sacrifice. It is\ngiving up what we want for something we want still more. And as the\nthing we want most of all, and for which we would give up everything\nelse, is complete harmony, sympathy and understanding, you see that in\nall our self-sacrifices we are giving up what we want for what we want\nstill more. We are giving up our smaller for our larger self.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is just what Booker T. Washington said at the lecture this\nmorning,\u201d Virginia went on. \u201cHe said he had never made a single\nsacrifice, but he had always done the thing he loved to do most. It is\nfun to do good. It makes us feel so virtuous. And we do it because we\nlike most to see other people happy.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is what I mean, Virginia.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think it is so, always,\u201d said Ruth. \u201cI think often people are\njust forced to give up things and sacrifice themselves, when they don\u2019t\nlike it at all.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s different,\u201d I said, \u201cif it is enforced. I meant voluntary\nself-sacrifice.\u201d\n\n\u201cEven so,\u201d she went on, \u201csuppose you are going out somewhere, and you\nhave to stay at home with some person who is ill, just because you are\nasked to do it. You don\u2019t like it, but you do it, anyway.\u201d\n\n\u201cProbably,\u201d I answered, \u201cyou love that person and that person\u2019s pleasure\nfar more than you do, say, the theatre.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cperhaps you don\u2019t love the person at all.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut you love to feel virtuous,\u201d Virginia said, \u201cand all the time you\nstay at home you are saying bad things, mentally, about that person.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut you stay from choice, you please your bigger self and its demands\nfor beauty,\u201d I went on; \u201cyou give up what you want for what you want\nmore.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d Virginia said, \u201cfor you would be uncomfortable and unhappy if you\nwent.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou see how silly and childish it is,\u201d I continued, \u201cto give up\nanything for nothing, to deny yourself pleasures, to make sacrifices for\ntheir own sake. That is one of the false virtues which make people\nself-righteous, \u2018goody-goody\u2019 and ridiculous. I know a girl who gave up\neating butter during Lent because she liked butter, and she thought it\nnoble to deny herself.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cand I know girls who won\u2019t take sundaes during\nLent, but drink sodas instead, because they like sundaes better.\u201d\n\nI read aloud to them a Ruskin quotation that Ruth had brought some time\nago:\n\n\u201cRecollect that \u2018mors\u2019 means death, and delaying; and \u2018vita\u2019 means life,\nand growing; and try always, not to mortify yourself, but to vivify\nyourself.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou see,\u201d I said, \u201cI believe in being selfish, in the very largest\nsense. I believe the whole world, all that I know and love, to be my\nwhole self, and I want to make that as good, as true, as harmonious as I\ncan. What people usually call selfishness is only self-limitation,\ncutting yourself off.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes; it is making yourself little.\u201d\n\n\u201cExactly. Take selfish people, and you will find that they are not only\nmaking others unhappy, but making their own lives very small and\nnarrow.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey are unhappy themselves,\u201d said Florence.\n\nI told them a story of three apple seedlings. The first said: \u201cI will\nnot grow; there is so little room; I will not help crowd out the\nothers.\u201d He died, a weakling. The second said: \u201cI will not bear apples,\nbecause the effort might spoil the glossy appearance and fulness of my\nfoliage.\u201d He was good to look at, but\u2014useless. The third one said:\n\u201cApple-trees were made to bear apples. I like to do it, I want to do it,\nand I will.\u201d And he did, and so served himself and many beside.\n\n\u201cI never could understand the morality,\u201d I said, \u201cthat tells us to live\nonly for others.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt would be impossible,\u201d said Henry; \u201cone has to live first for one\u2019s\nself.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd last for one\u2019s self,\u201d I went on, \u201cfor that biggest self which is\nour own life in relation with all that we know. If we lived only for\nothers, others would still live for others, and so on, with no end and\nno sense. It is like that idea of living for future generations.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat of it?\u201d asked Marian. \u201cI am particularly interested.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat we shall live for future generations, and the future generations\nshall live also for future generations, and so on forever and ever!\u201d\n\n\u201cUnless it were all for the last generation,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cBut that will never come,\u201d I answered, \u201cor, if it does, it will surely\nnot be worth while. I believe that whoever lives the best life for\nhimself, and does the thing he is most impelled to do, for his whole big\nself, is also best for all others. He must be, since they are a part of\nhim.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt seems to me,\u201d said Marian, who had been dreaming, \u201cthat there is no\nabsolute truth. When people claim that they have found the whole truth,\nand try to explain it to me, I never feel convinced.\u201d\n\n\u201cDoes our idea strike you so, Marian?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cOh, no,\u201d she said, \u201cnot at all. You never make positive statements.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cI am willing to grant that what seems true to me now\nmay one day be included in a larger truth.\u201d\n\nWe spoke a few words, here, of envy. They agreed at once that artistic\nenvy, the envying of capabilities and talents, was impossible to one who\nfelt that others were doing things for him, that what he lacked in\nhimself he would find in others, for his satisfaction.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Florence, \u201cthere are so many other kinds of envy, where\nother people having the thing does you no good.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s true,\u201d I said; \u201ca beggar, for instance, envying the rich people\nin a restaurant for their food, will not lose his hunger through seeing\nthem eat.\u201d\n\nI told them of the danger and difficulty of our philosophy of right and\nwrong, how I hesitated to tell it to them for fear they might misuse it,\nand how much harder it was to guide one\u2019s self by so big a standard than\nby an unbeautiful, ready-made morality of little laws and precepts. He\nmust take the straight and narrow path, who cannot guide himself across\nthe prairies by the path of stars and planets.\n\nVirginia insisted on my repeating some facts I had told her lately. A\nyoung French girl of good education, made desperate by poverty and lack\nof work, slashed a picture in the Louvre, in order to be arrested, get\nshelter and food, and attract attention to the injustice of her lot. We\ndiscussed such cases, and decided that where society did so great a\nwrong, the lesser wrong might be part of the cure.\n\n\u201cI cannot judge people,\u201d I said, \u201cwhen circumstances drive them to do\nwrong in self-defence.\u201d\n\nWe came near forgiving every one, when I reminded them of the sternness\nof our standard. It made us lenient with others, who did not\u2014and\nperhaps could not\u2014know that they might master circumstance, and that\nthe whole world was their whole self. But with ourselves it made us\nterribly exacting.\n\n\u201cSome people are like animals,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cI can\u2019t understand them,\nand cannot sympathize with them.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d I said, \u201cis your loss, you superior animal. Ruskin says\nsomewhere, and quite truly, that who cannot sympathize with the lower\ncannot sympathize with the higher.\u201d\n\nNow Virginia plunged off into a stream of delightful nonsense, told us\nhow she sometimes loved and sometimes hated herself, how, if she was\nvery happy, she had to pay the penalty of reaction, and how interesting\nshe was, altogether. As a punishment we made her keep still for five\nminutes by the watch. I hoped Alfred would talk instead. Suppose we\npunished him by making him talk for five minutes!\n\nFlorence said: \u201cWhat I like most of all is to be liked. I often envy\npeople their lovableness.\u201d\n\n\u201cNaturally,\u201d said I, \u201cthat is what we all like most, isn\u2019t it?\n\n\u201cAnd the truly good person, in our sense of good, is also the lovable,\nbeloved person.\u201d\n\nMarian and Virginia exchanged glances. They were thinking again of that\ngirl in Sunday-school, who, they said, was thoroughly good, but not at\nall lovable.\n\n\u201cThe good person,\u201d I said, \u201cis also the intelligent, sympathetic person.\nSympathy, understanding love, is the great virtue. I have made a list of\nseven virtues. Would you like to hear them? First, Love.\u201d\n\nThat, they said, included all the others.\n\nYes, I answered, it was the chief. Second, Courage. Courage, they said,\nto do as we believed. Third, Trustworthiness. They all agreed. Fourth,\nlove of knowledge. Fifth, love of beauty. Sixth, insight. Seventh, a\nsense of humor!\n\nDuring this time Virginia and Marian were fitting each virtue to that\ngirl, and found her lacking only in the latter ones, but no more lovable\nor interesting than before.\n\n\u201cRuth,\u201d I said.\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cAre you sure they are not speaking of you or me?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d she answered; \u201cperhaps.\u201d\n\nThey protested.\n\n\u201cDo you know the girl, Ruth?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cYes, I do.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d I said, \u201cplease bring her to the next meeting. She interests\nme.\u201d\n\nRuth promised, despite the protestations and explanations of Marian and\nVirginia. \u201cYou would know, then, of whom we had been talking,\u201d they\nsaid.\n\n\u201cVery well,\u201d I answered, \u201cshe shall stay away on one condition.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat is that?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat you don\u2019t mention her again. I always feel,\u201d I went on, \u201cthat when\nany one is badly spoken of, I am being criticized behind my back. Just\nas when a race, such as the negroes, for instance, is unjustly spoken\nof, I feel like fighting for my rights; for I take it as a mere matter\nof chance that I didn\u2019t happen to be one of them.\n\n\u201cFlorence,\u201d I continued, \u201cis quite right in wanting to be loved. It is\nthe best thing in the world.\u201d\n\n\u201cExcept loving,\u201d said Virginia.\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d I answered; \u201cbut to want to be loved by those we love for\nwhat we really are, and truly to wish to be what they can truly love,\nthat is the whole of goodness, I believe. The only difference between\nvanity and true worth is that the vain person wishes to appear to be\nwhat is lovable\u2014which is very unsafe\u2014and the truly good person wishes\nto be it.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean,\u201d said Henry, \u201cthat vanity is company manners?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d Florence said. \u201cI have liked people who used \u2018company\nmanners\u2019 for some company, and not for others.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have known people,\u201d said Marian, \u201cwho were always agreeable and\nsweet, and appeared to want every one to like them, and yet were not a\nbit lovable.\u201d\n\n\u201cNaturally,\u201d I said, \u201cthe person who wishes to be loved for what he is,\nis also willing to be hated for it, if he must, by those who think\notherwise.\u201d I said there was a man of whom we had heard much during the\nlast days (because of his centenary) who seemed to be exactly what we\nmeant by good. This was Abraham Lincoln. We spent some time speaking of\nhim, the man who, it seems to me, might have inspired a new American\nreligion.\n\n\u201cWe always sympathize most with those,\u201d said Henry, \u201cwho sympathize with\nus.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe love them most,\u201d I said, \u201cbut the man of large heart will often\nsympathize with people who understand him no better than they understand\nthe sunshine: with the bad man, for instance.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is true.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn the drama of life,\u201d I said, \u201che who loves beauty and his whole self\nwill live so as to make that whole beautiful, and for this joy and\nbeauty will gladly give up his petty satisfactions. For remember that\nthe good life is the beautiful life, and the influential life. Indeed,\nevery life in this drama has immense influence.\u201d\n\n\u201cFor good or bad,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cYes, surely.\u201d\n\n\u201cI thought not,\u201d answered Florence; \u201ceach one has a very, very small\ninfluence.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn the universe, perhaps, but we know nothing, and can know nothing, of\nthat. We cannot make comparisons with infinity. But with those we love,\nwho know us, in our own family, our own circle of friends, the influence\nof each one is immense. Think of any family you know, of your own\nfamily, and see how much difference each one makes in the whole, how\neach one changes the whole. Each one influences all the others, and\nmakes the tone and color of life, whether he will or not.\u201d\n\n\u201cI suppose,\u201d said Henry, \u201cthat even those who have no influence, who do\nnothing, could have an influence.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey can\u2019t help having it, for good or bad. And people can know they\nhave this influence, and use it consciously, to make life about them as\nthey wish it to be. As a woman who comes into a house, if she loves\nbeauty and order, will set it in order at once and make it beautiful, so\nthat it will be all changed because of her, and for her pleasure, so in\nlife we can set all things in order and change them to our wish, by our\npresence and character.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t think,\u201d Ruth said, \u201cthat the good is always beautiful. Often\nthe thing we have to do is disagreeable.\u201d\n\n\u201cFor instance, what?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cIn school work, for example. We have to study subjects that are hard\nand disagreeable, simply to pass.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean that you have to do disagreeable things to get what you want.\nNaturally. That is self-sacrifice. And you cannot always do things as\nyou would like to do them. The woman in the house might find ugly\nwallpaper, and not be able to change that. But she would find other\nmeans of making things look better. People can have conscious influence;\nand the difference between those who make life good and beautiful, and\nthose who attract attention to themselves, is the difference between the\nplay in which all the actors are good, and combine to make a beautiful\nplay, and the one where there is a star who wants a poor cast to set off\nher charms, and produces an inartistic and uneven play.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t see how one could have conscious influence,\u201d said Marian; \u201cit\nseems to me one lives unconsciously all the time. I like to dream. I am\nnot fond of acting. I don\u2019t believe I would ever have any conscious\ninfluence.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo dream and dream and keep on dreaming, and not act, is impossible,\u201d I\nsaid.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d asked Florence, \u201cisn\u2019t it just the dreamers who do all the great\nthings?\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I answered, \u201cone cannot help influencing people, even by one\u2019s\ndreams. But you, Florence, you must realize how much difference each\nmember of a family makes.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, I do.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd Virginia, I believe, has often made conscious effort toward\ncheerful influence, and knows what I mean. You, too, Ruth; I am certain\nyou know exactly what I mean, and I hope you and Marian will talk it\nover; for it is an interesting subject.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, I know well what you mean.\u201d\n\nAs we left I asked Alfred to write a paper for me. \u201cFor,\u201d I said, \u201cthey\nwill begin to think you stupid if you show no sign of intelligence. And\neven I would like a tangible proof of what I really know, that you do\ngrasp exactly the spirit of what we say.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n THIRTEENTH MEETING\n\n\nMarian was absent. I read aloud Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cLast Sunday we met for the first time in almost two months. We had\nfinished talking about art, and we started on a new course in which we\nshall apply our standard of beauty.\n\n\u201cOur topic last Sunday was Goodness. Good is a much-abused word. We\noften speak disdainfully of a person, as being a goody-goody, but\nusually this person, though not necessarily bad, is not good according\nto the standard of to-day. In the last generation, and even in some\nplaces to-day, the good child is the one which does its work\nconscientiously, and spends all its spare time at sewing or doing odd\njobs around the house. The \u2018good man\u2019 does his work faithfully, never\nswears or lies under any circumstances, and follows his religion, as it\nis set down for him by others, absolutely to the letter.\n\n\u201cIn speaking of bad, one kind we mentioned was that which was once good,\nbut which we have left behind us in our progress. This is true of that\nold standard. We have said that what we want is complete sympathy. That\nwhich is beautiful is the symbol of completeness, and the good is\nbeautiful; and therefore the man with a warm, sympathetic heart is the\ngood man. A splendid type of this sort of man is Abraham Lincoln, a man\nwho suffered with the sufferer, and rejoiced with the happy; a man with\ncharity for all and enmity toward none.\n\n\u201cWe condemn the selfish man, but the man who does so much for others\nthat he does nothing for himself, is to be criticized just as much.\nHillel says: \u2018If I am not for myself, who will be for me?\u2019\n\n\u201cThere is really no such thing as self-sacrifice, for if you voluntarily\ngive up one thing for another, it is because you like it better.\u201d\n\nI said that this paper proved to me, what I had already suspected, that\nin the last meeting I had dwelt too much on one side of our subject, and\nnot enough on the other.\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d said Henry, \u201cI spent too much time describing the man who\nisn\u2019t truly good?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cI don\u2019t mind that. But you say \u2018the man with a warm\nand sympathetic heart is the good man.\u2019 To be the truly good and great\nman, one must have more than a warm and sympathetic heart, more, even,\nthan a feeling of kindliness and sympathy for one\u2019s fellows.\n\n\u201cYou speak of Lincoln as a man \u2018with charity for all and enmity toward\nnone.\u2019 But Lincoln was much more than that. This alone would not have\nmade him great and splendid. What did?\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cHe was a man of determination,\u201d and, before I could answer,\nAlfred went on: \u201cHe was a man of large sympathies.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cit is the combination of the two; it is more than both.\nI mean that the great and good man is the man whose final far-off aim is\nthe unity and completeness of man, who shapes his life and his work\ntoward that aim, who works for it, lives for it, sacrifices himself and\nall things to it; and such a man was Lincoln. He made mistakes\u2014he used\nthem for his cause. His morality, his law, was the union\u2014that symbol of\nthe larger union\u2014and for this immense self-fulfilment he worked with\nhis might, and died for it.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Henry, \u201cand the great man must make mistakes, and go beyond\nthem. Roosevelt, for instance, is always making mistakes, and then\nacknowledging them, and going forward once more.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely. And so Lincoln worked for the union, in sympathy with all men.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn one speech,\u201d said Henry, \u201che asked Davis, his opponent in the House,\nto \u2018help him save the union.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, Henry,\u201d I said, \u201cthere is another thing in your paper\u2014if you\ndon\u2019t mind my saying it?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot at all.\u201d\n\n\u201cI mean that when you quoted Hillel you should have finished the\nquotation: \u2018If I am not for myself, who will be for me?\u2019 and \u2018but if I\nam for myself alone, what am I then?\u2019 You did not bring out the idea of\nthe large and small self, of sacrificing the small self to the large,\nbecause you love the large self above all else, not because you like it\nbetter. This morning I heard a lecture by Professor Royce, of Harvard,\nand it is curious that he used exactly the same words we used in\nspeaking of self-sacrifice. He said we sacrifice the small to the large\nself.\u201d\n\nAt this point Ruth came in, and brought Marian\u2019s paper. I read it at\nonce:\n\n\u201cOur meeting of the Seekers of February 14th was very interesting. We\ntalked about goodness. First we tried to define _good_, and finally\nreached the conclusion that _goodness_ means being in a harmonious\nrelation with all our fellow-beings. We should try to make our life like\nsome beautiful picture or other work of art, making it a complete and\nharmonious whole. All our friends and acquaintances, everything we see,\nhear, do or know, help to make this picture; and if we try, we can\nconsciously make it what we want. We are masters of our lives, and if we\nremember this, it will influence all our thoughts and deeds. We also\nspoke of happiness, and decided that each one has a different kind of\nhappiness, depending on what he wants most. We also spoke of\nself-sacrifice. There is really no such thing as self-sacrifice, because\nwhen we give up one thing it is always because we think another finer,\nand because we want the other more. We cannot have every detail in our\npicture as clear as the main idea, and we must give up something to\nbring out this idea.\u201d\n\nWe all thought this paper excellent. I told Ruth briefly what we had\nsaid before she came; and then we spoke at length of the importance of\nliving our belief, of working for the cause, of giving ourselves to the\nlarge self.\n\nI said: \u201cEvery great man has always done just that, whether he was\nwriter, philosopher, artist, statesman or scientist; he has always\ndevoted himself to a work which aimed toward the great union.\u201d\n\nFlorence said: \u201cYou mean not like the philosophers, simply to dream of\nthe good, but like the artist, to work it out? Didn\u2019t you say that, when\nwe spoke of choosing the artistic life?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cnot quite. The philosopher and dreamer also work for\nthe supreme good, by showing what it is like, and pointing the way which\nmen afterward go.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is what I always thought,\u201d said Florence.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cthe philosopher is the teacher of teachers. But I\nchose the artistic way of viewing life, because it combines the\nphilosophic and the scientific way, the vision and the work.\u201d\n\nVirginia now said: \u201cBut sometimes men who work for completeness, and\nwhose motives are all good, do harm, anyway.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d\n\n\u201cJesus, for instance,\u201d she said. \u201cHe has done so much harm throughout\nthe ages, which he never meant to do.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt was not he who did the harm,\u201d I answered; \u201cit was the people who\nmisunderstood him and misused his words. No great man ever does all that\nhe sets out to do. He cannot, since his aim is no less than perfection.\u201d\n\n\u201cI hate perfect people,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cor to think of any great man as\nperfect, because it is so inhuman. I read a book for children, lately,\nabout Jesus, which made him out a perfect child. It was full of\ncontradictions, for it said first that he was a wonder, who walked,\ntalked and thought earlier than other children, and then it said that he\nwas human, and understood all human weaknesses. I think that to know men\na man must have human weaknesses and imperfections.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said; \u201cand I never thought of Jesus as unhumanly perfect. He,\ntoo, had his temptation and weakness to fight and overcome. Indeed, only\nthe petty man could be perfect.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut he would not be perfect,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201cbut according to his standard, he might think himself\nso. The great man, the Jesus, the Lincoln, could never be perfect, for\nhis perfection could only come with the completeness and beauty and\ngoodness of the whole world. You said of Jesus that he did harm, because\nthe doctrine made from his words did harm. But you must see that until\nall men are great men, every man must suffer so. Take Lincoln, for\ninstance. If he had lived, and kept control of the Government, surely\nthe evils of the reconstruction period would have been avoided. You\nmight say, then, that Lincoln did harm, because his work led to all that\nwrong and unhappiness.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut it has all come right now,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cHardly,\u201d I answered; \u201cit is not nearly right, even to-day.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd I suppose,\u201d Virginia said, \u201cthat finally the work of Jesus and of\nevery great man will come right.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd Lincoln\u2019s work,\u201d said Florence, \u201cwill come right sooner, because it\nis not so large as the work of Jesus.\u201d\n\nNow I said I wanted to go on to a subject which seemed to me especially\ninteresting, the question of the making of laws and regulations. Was it\nnot a curious thing that men\u2019s minds, outrunning their other powers,\nshould see clearly the great good for which they strove, and should make\nregulations for themselves, which they were even unable to keep?\n\nHenry and Ruth did not think it at all curious that people should make\nregulations for themselves, but it did seem strange that they were\nunable to keep them.\n\n\u201cTo me,\u201d I said, \u201cit seems a wonderful thing that the sense of beauty\nand fitness should be so strong in the mind of man, should so far outrun\nhis impulses and his body, that he creates for himself laws and\nregulations which he then tries to follow, as one sets up a ladder which\nhe afterward tries to climb. Of course, we no longer believe in\nrevelation, in the old Biblical sense, but to us it means revelation\nfrom within. We do not believe that God dictated his laws to Moses, but\nthat Moses created his laws from his own sense of love and beauty. Man\nmade his own laws. And his laws outrun him.\u201d\n\n\u201cSome people,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cmake laws for the other people, who are not\nup to them.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d Henry said; \u201cisn\u2019t it really all the people making laws for\nthemselves?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cfor finally it is the few making laws for all, for\nthemselves, too. It is humanity making laws for humanity. Every time a\nman does wrong and knows he is doing wrong, he is breaking one of his\nself-made or self-chosen laws. His mind outruns his powers. When\nColeridge wanted to break himself of the opium-eating habit, he used to\nhire men to stand in front of the drug-stores and prevent his going in.\nHe tried to overcome himself with himself.\u201d\n\n\u201cI like Coleridge,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cI like people with weaknesses, who\ntry to overcome them.\u201d\n\nI said I liked them, too, that there was no sight so stimulating as that\nof fights and conquests, as seeing the very thing we longed for, the\nopposition beaten, the difficulties overcome.\n\n\u201cBut even the weak people who fail to win,\u201d said Virginia; \u201cI like them,\ntoo.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo do I,\u201d I answered; \u201cthe fight itself, even the failure, the human\nlonging, is worth while.\n\n\u201cBut I want you to see clearly one thing about all laws and regulations,\nand that is that they are substitutes. They are substitutes for\nunderstanding love, or, rather, they are the forerunners of\nunderstanding love, the path of beauty and fitness which the mind makes\nfor itself before all our desires are strong and harmonious enough to\nfulfil the supreme desire. Laws are the framework on which the house of\nlove shall be built. But when the house is finished, the framework shall\nno more be seen; nor is it of value in itself, but only as that which\nupholds the house. I would like to talk with you of certain special laws\nof this kind. And the first is justice.\u201d\n\n\u201cI was just going to say that,\u201d said Ruth; \u201cit was on my lips.\u201d\n\n\u201cI was thinking of it, too,\u201d said Henry.\n\n\u201cI am sorry,\u201d I answered, \u201cthat I did not give you the chance.\u201d\n\nWe talked of this subject, and agreed that although justice, the sense\nof equity, was a great and necessary virtue and a serviceable tool, it\nwas but the tool of love, and less than love, and that if our\nunderstanding, our sympathy and possession of life were complete, we\nwould no longer think of justice, nor praise it; that the rigid laws of\njustice, which must oftentimes change, were forever at the service of\nlove, which made changes and overcame laws.\n\n\u201cSome people are not so far advanced as others,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cand the\nothers lift them up with laws. Some people are undeveloped, like\nanimals.\u201d\n\nWe could not help laughing at Virginia, with her eternal animals.\n\n\u201cYou remember,\u201d I said, \u201cI spoke to you of past virtues that were good\nin their time, because the time was ripe only for them, and that in\ntheir own setting interest and delight us, and remain forever beautiful,\nlike old pictures, but which would now be ugly, bad and out-of-place.\nRevenge is an example. How the old stories of revenge stir and even\nuplift us, and yet how hateful is the idea of revenge in modern life!\nYou remember being thrilled and stirred by the heroism of some old duel,\nwhereas you could find no beauty or heroism in any duel at the present\ntime.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cit is often the language in which the thing is\nput that stirs us.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is the spirit of the time and place,\u201d I said. \u201cNo language could\nmake a duel in New York, among educated people, inspiring or heroic.\nWith war it is the same. Old wars and wars among savages may inspire us,\nbecause of the heroism and comradeship of the fighters. But among modern\nnations even the justified war must be somewhat disgusting, because now\nfar more heroism is required in other works, and comradeship can mean no\nless than all mankind.\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d said I, \u201ccan any of you think of another virtue, like justice,\nwhich is a substitute for understanding love?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Florence; \u201cI think that pity is.\u201d\n\n\u201cPity?\u201d I said. \u201cYes\u2014perhaps. Still, that is somewhat different. Pity\nwas good once, because it was feeling, and feeling is the root of all\nunderstanding and sympathy. But self-torturing pity seems to me a\nweakness. Sympathy is quite a different, a stronger, a braver thing. Who\nagrees with me?\u201d\n\nFirst, they said, would I explain exactly what I meant?\n\n\u201cSympathy seems to me understanding and love, such as you have for\nyourself. You are willing to suffer, since it is a part of life and a\npart of the way. You want to suffer for the cause, if necessary; not\notherwise. But you don\u2019t pity yourself. You would be ashamed to make so\nmuch of your pain. So you do not pity others. You love them, you feel\nwith them, you help them bravely. You can bear their pain without making\na fuss over them, as you would bear your own. You consider them as\nstrong and brave as yourself.\u201d\n\nThey all agreed with me, save Virginia. She said: \u201cIf I step by accident\non the foot of a little dog, and he cries out, then that hurts me. And I\nthink it is good, because then I know how I would feel if I were a\nlittle dog, and I try not to do it again. Isn\u2019t that pity?\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d I said; \u201cwe are apt to pity lower creatures. But there is no\ngood in the mere feeling of physical pain that goes with such things, of\nthe pain and thrill up and down your spine when you hurt any creature\naccidentally, and hear it cry out.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think,\u201d asked Alfred, \u201cit is only because they cry out that\nwe feel it?\u201d\n\n\u201cMaybe,\u201d I said, \u201cfor the cry makes us know of the pain. At one time,\nhowever, a virtue was made of the mere suffering _with_ others; and I\nsuppose in its good time this was necessary, because it developed the\nfeeling which makes sympathy possible.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think it is good,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cfor when my sister was ill, I did\nnot know how she felt, or understood her, and so I couldn\u2019t sympathize\nwith her; but later I understood, and then I wished I had felt with her\nas she did. It would have been better.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d I said, \u201cfor it would have taught you to feel. To know how\nothers feel is the best thing in the world. But to let that feeling\novercome and crush you, to pity them, is weakness. I think it is a\nweakness we have all felt, and longed to overcome, when we suffered so\nmuch with others that we were unable to act.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, indeed,\u201d said Ruth.\n\n\u201cTo be strong to help and strong to do, not overcome with world-sorrow,\u201d\nI said, \u201cto face suffering in ourselves and others as something to be\novercome and used!\u201d\n\nVirginia spoke of a curious calmness in herself that made her not act\nexcitedly when anything happened, but always wait first to see the\noutcome. \u201cIf a child falls in the street,\u201d she said, \u201cI don\u2019t go rushing\ntoward it as some people do, but wait to see if it will pick itself up.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut if it fell out of a window,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cI suppose you would rush\nforward.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d she answered, \u201cnot unless it were necessary. I would wait to see\nwhat happened. When my hat blows off, I never go rushing after it till I\nsee where it is going to stop.\u201d\n\nThe juxtaposition of a falling child and a falling hat was\ndisconcerting.\n\n\u201cI know how Virginia feels,\u201d I said; \u201cit is the artist in her always\nlooking on at all that happens. It is a good way, too. Now what other\nvirtues are there, like justice, that are really substitutes for right\nfeeling?\u201d\n\nThey could not think of the others. So I mentioned honesty, which is\nmuch like justice\u2014even a form of it; steered clear of a reef of\narguments on truth-telling, showed them how honesty would not even be\nmentioned where there was perfect love, and went on to the next and most\nimportant, namely, duty. They had not thought of it in this way before.\nThey all disliked the word duty.\n\nI spoke again of the girl who stays home from the theatre with some one\nshe does not love, because she feels it to be her duty. Why does she do\nit?\n\n\u201cBecause she chooses,\u201d said Alfred; \u201cshe wants to do it most.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut why?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cShe may think,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cthat the other person would do the same for\nher.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut she may not think so,\u201d I said, \u201cand still she would stay.\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cshe would feel good afterward.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cin a sense it is that. It would give her satisfaction.\u201d\n\n\u201cI would do it,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cbut I don\u2019t think I would feel any\nparticular satisfaction afterward.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cif you didn\u2019t do it, you would feel dissatisfied with\nyourself. And therein lies the explanation of duty. Duty is a substitute\nfor love. It is the substitute the mind imposes on us when our feelings\nwill not fulfil the scheme of beauty and order which is our strongest\ndesire. To do your duty is to fulfil your strongest desire\u2014lacking the\ngreat love. Love shall overcome duty. Duty means only debt. It is\nlimited, small. It is the ugly framework that love must make before it\ncan build its beautiful dwelling-place. The strong man always does his\nduty, because he flinches at nothing that is on the path, but more and\nmore he loses duty in love.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI think it is fun sometimes to hate things, such as\nhating to go to school.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy?\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause to do a thing you hate to do makes you feel good sometimes. I\nlike it.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe have come to love the hard thing,\u201d I said, \u201cbecause it is the\ngrowing thing. We get to fancy that when we do something hard we must be\ngetting ahead, because generally it is true.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI like the poem by Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm:\n\n \u2018When joy and duty clash,\n Let duty go to smash.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI wish joy and duty were the same,\u201d I said, \u201cand that is just what they\nare when love conquers. You have to do your duty when love fails, and so\nit often seems an unpleasant job.\u201d\n\nI spoke now of promises, and of how unnecessary they would be were it\nnot for our failures in love. Then we went on to speak of obedience. We\nsaid that where love was perfect one would not think of obedience or\ndisobedience. Obedience is a substitute for understanding. He who\nunderstands does not obey. He acts. We spoke of necessary obedience, the\nsubstitute, and then of the family where parents and children were so\nmuch at one that obedience was never mentioned.\n\n\u201cA person out of such a home,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cwould not have enough to\nstruggle against. I don\u2019t like people who are just perfect, and have\nnothing to overcome.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe will never reach perfection,\u201d they said; and they all, save Henry,\nagreed with me that the greatest joy in life was working for, rather\nthan achieving our desires.\n\n\u201cBut when we reach perfection,\u201d he said, \u201cwe won\u2019t wish for it any\nmore.\u201d\n\nI refused to argue that problematic point.\n\nI said: \u201cBe sure the strong and good man will always find something\nstill to fight and overcome.\u201d\n\nWe spoke now of how disobedience might be a virtue, of the rebels in\nwars for freedom, and the child who would refuse to obey his parents, if\nthey ordered him to do what he thought bad; the thief\u2019s child, for\nexample.\n\nI said: \u201cThe framework is for the house\u2014not for itself\u2014and if it\ndoesn\u2019t suit the house, it must be pulled down.\u201d\n\nNow we had an amusing talk on conventions, in which Henry objected to\nfull-dress suits, bouillon cups and polite lies. But I showed them how\ngood and necessary were conventions properly used, since they saved us\nweighty discussions on trivial matters. I said it was a good thing we\ndidn\u2019t have to waste time and energy deciding what we would eat for\nbreakfast each day.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Henry, \u201cif some day I don\u2019t care to eat oatmeal for\nbreakfast, I don\u2019t want to feel obliged.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I said; \u201cdon\u2019t be a slave to convention.\u201d\n\nI went on: \u201cIf all things were right, then conformity would be\ngood\u2014though uninteresting\u2014but in this growing world we need reformers\nwho smash and reform things, whenever conformity becomes deformity.\u201d\n\nYou notice that Alfred spoke more at this meeting. I had told him that\nif he did not help us along, and show what he meant and thought, he was\nnot living up to our idea of completeness and work in unison.\n\n\n\n\n FOURTEENTH MEETING\n\n\nI read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cA good man will bring those with whom he comes in contact into\nharmonious relations with himself. It is not enough to have a good\nheart. Many people are always meaning to do good, but never do it. It is\nthe actions that count; for we said: \u2018Art (good) is self-expression and\nself-fulfilment.\u2019\n\n\u201cMany things which we call virtues are only substitutes for love and\nsympathy, which we are outgrowing. The principal ones are justice,\nhonesty, conformity, obedience and pity.\n\n\u201cMen have not perfect sympathy, but often do things at the expense of\nothers. Therefore man, realizing his weakness, has made for himself a\nset of laws.\u201d\n\nI objected to his use of the word \u201cpity\u201d along with the other\nsubstitutes. We had another short talk on the subject.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI would rather commit suicide than be pitied.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d I answered, \u201csince we do not wish to be pitied, we could not,\nwith perfect sympathy, do so unto others.\u201d\n\nVirginia went on: \u201cWhen a person who has some trouble or loss makes a\ngreat fuss over it, I must say I don\u2019t think very well of him.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe expect people to bear life bravely,\u201d I said, \u201cand to help them do\nit, to do it altogether. A man who is prevented from helping by his own\npity is like a man who, when he saw another blind, put out his own eyes\nin sorrow, instead of leading the blind.\u201d\n\nI said I wanted to speak of a subject that seemed especially to interest\nVirginia. I meant patriotism, but patriotism in a large and unusual\nsense. What were their ideas on this subject? Virginia implied that\npatriotism was not good, \u201cbecause whenever you are patriotic for your\nown country, you have to be patriotic against other countries. You seem\nto be praising and helping your own at the expense of others.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d I said, \u201cis just the trouble with the false view of patriotism,\nand that view has grown out of wars and conquests. For, naturally,\nwhenever people fought for their country, they had to fight against\nanother. But I see patriotism\u2014and any loyalty or faithfulness\u2014in a\nlarger relation. Think for a moment what the word patriotism really\nmeans, in its verbal root, and you will see how it grows, how it begins\nat home, and ends by including the world. What does it mean?\u201d\n\nHenry remembered that it came from a word meaning \u201cFather.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cit meant, originally, loyalty to our fathers, to our\nfamily; and so you must see what it would finally mean.\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d asked Ruth, \u201cwe are related to the whole world?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cwe are related to the whole world, we are children\nof all the nations; but most of all, of course, children of our fathers;\nso that, beginning at the centre, we shall spread to all sides, yet not\nlose the centre. The definite thing, the love for this land, this home,\nwill come first, and include all the others. We will be patriotic for\nour Father, the world.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you suppose,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cthat an Englishman could be patriotic\nfor the United States?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cand I am glad you asked that, for it gives me a chance\nto tell you what forms patriotism is beginning to take. An Englishman,\nor American, may be patriotic for Anglo-Saxonism all the world over; for\nthe English language and literature everywhere; he may dream of it as\nthe world-language; and then, surely, he is patriotic for these States,\nas well as for England. I am not going to preach patriotism to you. I\nknow you are all patriotic for this country, for Americanism, for the\nidea of democracy which America upholds. Surely the schools, from first\nto last, dwell so much upon it that an American child can hardly help\nbeing patriotic.\u201d\n\nI was surprised at the burst of answers.\n\nMarian said, on the contrary, the school with its continual, boring\ninsistence on patriotism, almost made one hate it; that no children\nliked to sing the patriotic songs. Ruth objected that singing patriotic\nsongs was not patriotism. Alfred, Marian and Ruth spoke of the boredom\nof patriotic holiday celebrations in school, how the well-known men got\nup and, as Alfred put it, \u201csaid the same thing each time.\u201d Marian said\nthey had patriotism \u201cthrown at them in chunks.\u201d Florence added, she\nthought we felt unpatriotic, because we didn\u2019t want to be like those who\nexpressed that kind of patriotism.\n\nWe concluded, however, that after all we were patriotic in spite of the\nschools, and that America stood for something big, definite, wonderful.\nI told them that if only they had been away from it more, they would\nunderstand it better. And they all admitted that America, insulted with\nfalse criticism, would arouse them like a personal insult.\n\nThe picture, with its central, definite object, still suggests universal\nthings. So one must begin with loyalty to first things, to family and\nState, before one can be loyal to the universe. I spoke of those French\nSocialists whose patriotism for the whole world had carried them to the\npoint of unpatriotism to France, so that in a war they would wish to see\ntheir own country destroyed. Their loyalty to working-men the world over\nmade them careless of the state at home.\n\n\u201cOnly to working-men!\u201d cried Virginia. \u201cBut I think one need be just as\nloyal to the rich, and that they are quite as much in need of reform and\nhelp.\u201d\n\n\u201cI agree with you,\u201d I answered.\n\nRuth said she could understand those French Socialists very well, and to\nher it seemed that from their own point of view they might be right.\n\nI answered: \u201cFrom their own point of view, of course. And they do want\nfinal, universal good; but they don\u2019t see that to gain the large one\nmust preserve the small, that the universal must begin with the\nparticular.\u201d\n\n\u201cLike some philosophers,\u201d said Henry.\n\nWe discussed the subject of war\u2014all disbelieving in it\u2014without coming\nto any definite conclusion as to what we would do under any particular\ncircumstance.\n\nVirginia asked whether it would be wrong of a man, if his country went\nto war, to refuse to fight because he disbelieved in war. Henry said he\nthought it would be better to do as the fighting Quakers did, to fight,\nso that the war might soon be ended.\n\nRuth said if all people refused to fight, war would end. I agreed with\nher, but said also: \u201cIf a man disbelieves in fighting, still, when he is\nstruck, he defends himself\u2014that is, if he has any spirit. So I would\nexpect a man, no matter what his convictions, to defend his country when\nit is threatened and attacked.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you think,\u201d they asked, \u201cthat Russians can be patriotic for Russia?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cand that is a patriotism of which we have not yet\nspoken, or perhaps thought. It is the patriotism that seems unpatriotic.\nThe Russian revolutionists are patriotic, not for the Russia of to-day,\nbut for the Russia that will be, for the Russia they are going to build,\nfor the nation in their hearts. Often the most patriotic man is he who\ncriticizes his country, who fights against the present state of things,\nwho appears disloyal because his loyalty is large. Such were the\ncolonists, loyal to the union and independence.\u201d\n\nI quoted that slogan at the time of the Spanish-American war: \u201cMy\ncountry, right or wrong, my country still.\u201d They were indignant at such\nan appeal, and agreed with me that blind loyalty was slavishness. I told\na story to illustrate what I meant.\n\nSuppose a family to be in grave debt, but careless about paying, and\nunwilling to make sacrifices. One member, with the family honor at\nheart, insists on these sacrifices and hardships for all, until the\ndebts are paid. His brothers and sisters may accuse him of unkindness\nand disloyalty, but he will be the truly loyal one.\n\nNow, I asked, what was the next law in art?\n\nHenry brought out his paper and read: \u201cMust leave out the unimportant.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cand the next one reads: Must have variety and\nmany-sidedness. Do you understand at all how these apply to life?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou don\u2019t mean,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cthat we are never to do anything\nunimportant, that we are always to be thinking about it?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201ccertainly not. But I mean that we are to have a\ndefinite aim in life, that we are to know what we want most of all. Then\nwe can avoid everything which interferes with this aim. We are to choose\nthe sort of life that will help us to be what we wish to be, that will\nmake us whole and harmonious.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know what I want to be,\u201d said Marian. \u201cI don\u2019t think one need\nhave a definite conscious aim.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou do not quite understand me, Marian,\u201d I answered. \u201cYou need not\nchoose now what your profession will be, or what definite thing you want\nmost. Very few people as young as you have done that.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cFlorence has.\u201d\n\n\u201cFlorence?\u201d I asked. \u201cShe said she loved most to be loved.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe all do,\u201d said Henry; \u201cto be loved, and to love others.\u201d\n\n\u201cI would like,\u201d said Florence, \u201cto dance as well as my dancing teacher.\u201d\n\nI expressed grave doubts as to the permanence of this ambition.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cwhat I mean, Marian, is that you want to be a certain\nkind of person, that you must have an idea of yourself which, even\nunconsciously, you try to attain; and it is this ideal, this vision of\nthe self you wish to be, and mean to be, that should color and shape\nyour life, as an artist\u2019s idea of his central figure and meaning\ncontrols his whole execution.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m sure I don\u2019t think of it all the time,\u201d she said; \u201cI like just to\nlive along, and dream, and be what I happen to be.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, Marian,\u201d I answered, \u201cyou are saying what you think is true. But I\nwill show you that it is not. You live for your desired self, even\nunconsciously. Do you not remember doing or leaving undone certain\nlittle things which your ideal of yourself wanted otherwise, and then\nreproaching yourself for days for this small lapse into selfishness or\nunkindness?\u201d\n\nThey had all had this annoying experience, as well as I myself. Marian\ntold how, when she was quite a small girl, something had happened that\nshe had never forgotten. A little beggar-girl, with only rubbers over\nher stockings, came to the door and asked Marian for old clothes. Marian\nhad been reading stories, and was longing to act them. But her mother\nwas out, and she had not the courage to do anything; so she turned the\nchild away with a mumbled excuse about her mother\u2019s not being at home.\nAnd she had never forgiven herself.\n\nMarian saw that what I meant by a definite aim in life was, after all,\nindefinite enough to suit her.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cWhen I want to do some kind or good thing which it is\nhard to do, because I lack courage, I make up my mind that I will do it\nanyway, without thinking; I walk right in, and then the rest is always\neasy and pleasant.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn other words,\u201d I answered, \u201cyou manage yourself. I do believe it is\ngood to know what you want to be, and how you want to be it, and then to\navoid strenuously everything that interferes.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of wasted and worthless conversation with \u201coutsiders,\u201d and I\nwarned them all against boring people, or allowing themselves to be\nbored. It is better not to talk at all. Virginia said she always made\npeople amuse her, which seemed to us a good way. I suggested getting\npeople to tell of themselves, since all human nature is interesting. But\nRuth objected that people who did it were the worst bores, and only\nconceited people _would_ do it.\n\n\u201cAt any rate,\u201d I said, \u201cplease don\u2019t get into the habit of making flat\nconversation, for then you yourselves will degenerate into bores.\u201d And\nwe decided that merriment would cover many ills.\n\nWe spoke of the worth of knowledge. The boys and girls have to study\nsubjects unprofitable to them, for the sake of passing certain\nexaminations. This, of course, is a definite sacrifice for a definite\nreason. But it is necessary, in all studying, to choose some subjects\nand to sacrifice others. I said I would very much like to know\neverything.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d Henry answered, \u201cI always wish I might know everything there is\nto know.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, of course, we can\u2019t,\u201d I said, \u201cand so we have to choose first that\nknowledge which we need, which will make our life as we wish it to be.\u201d\n\nAlfred told us how he had chosen to study French and German instead of\nLatin, because they seemed more necessary to him, though he would like\nto know them all.\n\n\u201cAnd,\u201d I said, \u201cthe thing you love you shall seek with your might. You\nmust definitely want to be a certain sort of a person in life, else you\nmay be no sort of person. Have you noticed how some people, who were\nquite charming in youth, \u2018peter out\u2019 when they grow older, how they lose\nall interest in things, and become dull? To me that seems unnecessary.\nAge may be just as full, interesting and active as youth, to those whose\nlife has a definite aim and meaning.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cYes, I wish to live long. I have heard people say they\nwould not like to be old, and to be a burden to others.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut you,\u201d I answered, \u201cmean to live long and not be a burden to\nothers.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d he said.\n\n\u201cYou must concentrate,\u201d I went on; \u201cyou must get out of life only what\nyou need and want.\u201d\n\nFlorence said she couldn\u2019t concentrate in her studies, except when she\nloved them. Naturally, I answered, it was strong love that made us\nconcentrate.\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI used to study, only instead of studying I looked out\nof the window.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut now, at your art,\u201d I answered, \u201cyou work with concentration,\nbecause you love it.\u201d\n\nHenry remarked that perhaps, when she was looking out of the window, she\nstudied the landscapes.\n\nAt this point Marian, hearing voices in the next room, whispered to Ruth\nwhether she knew who was there.\n\n\u201cStrange,\u201d I said. \u201cUntil you spoke of it, I did not notice any voices.\nDo you love this club? Well, I do, too; and when I am here, no matter\nwhat happened before, or will happen afterward, or may be happening now,\nI think of nothing but what we are doing, I forget everything else. Do\nyou remember the difference between the painting and the photograph? The\nphotographic plate takes every detail, unimportant and meaningless; the\npicture contains only that which makes it complete and beautiful. Let\nyour life be a picture, not a photograph. Do not let your life be a\nsensitive plate that cannot defend itself against any impression. Let it\nbe an artist\u2019s work, chosen, complete, beautiful. Leave out what does\nnot concern you.\n\n\u201cNow, what is it,\u201d I asked, \u201cwhich all of us do love best, and which\nincludes all our lesser loves?\u201d\n\nHenry answered: \u201cYou mean complete sympathy and understanding.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I went on, \u201cand all our lives are different, definite expressions\nof that desire.\u201d\n\nWe spoke a few words of those people who mistake the means for the end,\nwho make an end of business, athletics, or even study, so that they\nforget these are only a means to the end, and destroy or waste their own\npowers in some pettiness.\n\n\u201cEach life,\u201d I said, \u201cmust be a different, definite expression of the\nlonging for unity.\u201d\n\n\u201cDefinite?\u201d asked Marian again. \u201cIf I were always to be thinking what\nsort of person I meant to be, I would be dreadfully self-conscious.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I said, \u201cyou would not think it, you would live it. Desire is a\nhabit. Self-consciousness of the stilted sort attempts to realize what\nsort of person you appear or are, and then to act your part. Then you\nusually fail, and you are usually wrong in your estimate. But know what\nyou long to be; and then be it, because of your strong desire. It is not\nnecessary to have chosen your life-work now, but you will choose it some\nday, and meanwhile you want to be ready and open for it. You and Alfred\nhave not yet chosen, nor need choose. But the others believe they have\nchosen. And there is no reason why each one should not do just what he\nsets out to do. Each life and each moment of each life is tremendously\nimportant. Each man is as great as he loves to be. The difference\nbetween the great genius and the common, scattered man, is the\ndifference in desire. Great desire makes great deeds. It is not so much\ncapacity, so called, as the desire, the concentration and the belief\nthat you can.\u201d\n\n\u201cSelf-confidence,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cYes, surely. When a man has his call, when he feels that he must do a\nthing, then he can. Did you ever think of the word \u2018calling,\u2019 what a\ntremendous thing it means?\u201d\n\n\u201cVocation,\u201d said Ruth.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cyour vocation. Some of us have our call early, and some\nlate, but we can always follow it to the end with love and courage. I\nbelieve that each one of you is going to do great things. I want you to\nbelieve that you are going to be great, for then you will.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cI mean to be a great man. I know I can, if I work for it.\nWhen some one found fault with me for criticizing Lincoln, because I was\nnobody, I answered that I meant to be greater than Lincoln. And I do.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd you shall. And I believe that Virginia will be as great an artist\nas she means to be. And I believe that if Florence persists, she shall\ndance better than Isadora Duncan, and make of dancing a great and noble\nart.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt _is_ so,\u201d said Marian and Ruth. \u201cIt is an expression of the highest\nart.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely it is,\u201d I said. \u201cAnd I believe that Ruth will reform the whole\nkindergarten system, and give us new and finer ideas on education.\u201d\n\n\u201cI will,\u201d said Ruth.\n\n\u201cI believe it and know it, too,\u201d said Marian; \u201cshe had her call early.\nShe has always been teaching little children.\u201d\n\n\u201cAmbition is good,\u201d I said; \u201cit is best. He who desires great things\nwill do greatly. Genius is desire. And great genius is most desire.\n\n\u201cEach one,\u201d I said, \u201cwill then be a person with a meaning, but for all\nthat a large, many-sided person. Do you understand, Marian? In a picture\nthere is light and shade, and contrast makes completeness. So in life,\nrest and work and play, merriment and seriousness, study and exercise,\nand all the many different things that make up life are needed to make\nit whole. I believe in concentration, in variety.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat do you mean,\u201d asked Florence, \u201cby concentration in variety?\u201d\n\n\u201cI mean,\u201d I said, \u201cthat we will make every activity in life the sort we\nneed, that our pleasures will suit our studies. Our taste and liking in\nevery kind of thing will harmonize. We will like only good nonsense.\nEven our recreation must have a certain character, and satisfy our\ntaste. Each person stands for a definite vision of life.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cAt the academy show last year, you remember that picture\nby Pischoto of an Italian garden, with a fountain? It was calm, the\nwater poured down softly, all was still. At the Spanish exhibition, I\nsaw a picture by Sorolla of the same spot; but it was jubilant, the\nwater leaped, the sun sparkled, everything was gay. It was the\ndifference in temperament that made the same spot unlike.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said; \u201cI am glad you told us that. For I believe each person\nmust be a rhythm in life, must stand for himself, and be a force and a\nmeasure of life to those about him.\u201d\n\nWe spoke a few words more, to make this clear; and then I read to them\ntwo slips from the Ruskin calendar, which Ruth had brought:\n\n\u201cAll that is highest in Art, all that is creative and imaginative is\nformed and created by every artist for himself, and cannot be repeated\nor imitated by others.\u201d\n\n\u201cRemember that it is of the very highest importance that you should know\nwhat you are, and determine to be the best that you may be.\u201d\n\nNext meeting will be Ruth\u2019s meeting on Christian Science.\n\n\n\n\n FIFTEENTH MEETING\n\n\nWe had our meeting on Christian Science.\n\nI wish to record it in so far only as it related to our planned work, as\nI think neither Ruth\u2019s exposition nor our answers were original or\nenlightening.\n\nI had given her a list of topics. The first was the idea of God. In this\nwe found we agreed, and it gave occasion for much reviewing. Ruth had\ntranslated all her ideas from the vocabulary of Christian Science to\nthat of our club, and this helped her to shape her thoughts. We spoke at\nsome length of the personal and universal self. They called it \u201ctwo\nselves,\u201d and I answered them that it was only one, the one including the\nother.\n\nWith the subject and matter and spirit we had some trouble. They all\nunderstood what I said, but failed\u2014I, too\u2014to understand Ruth; and we\nare not sure now whether she and I agree.\n\nMarian said: \u201cScientists speak of \u2018dead matter,\u2019 of all matter as dead.\nIs that so?\u201d\n\nI repeated my ideas on spirit and matter\u2014all form is an expression of\nspirit\u2014and also insisted on the limitations of our knowledge. I said:\n\u201cMatter seems never to be dead, because when one force takes leave of\nit, another comes into possession, and decay is always the beginning of\nnew life.\u201d\n\nMarian answered: \u201cYou mean the particles in this table are held together\nby a force?\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat is it? Does it feel?\u201d\n\nAgain I pleaded ignorance.\n\nWe spoke of form as the eternal changing expression of spirit, of time\nas merely the measure and rhythm of progress or change. So Ruth found me\nwilling to grant that all bad was a condition, not an unalterable thing,\nand that time was only a convention.\n\nConcerning immortality Ruth believed all I do, and more besides. Alfred\nnow agrees with me. He, too, feels that in some way he must continue to\nbe.\n\nOf the individual\u2014or soul\u2014Ruth thought as I. We also agreed on moral\ngood and bad, and on the use and manner of prayer.\n\nMarian asked me: \u201cWhy, if mind force forms body, can we not make our\nbodies perfect at once?\u201d\n\nI answered her that mind force had formed our bodies in the past, as\nthey were now, and that our present, mental force was making future\nphysical conditions; that all things went slowly, and the results of the\npast were inevitable. I spoke of the influence mind and action had on\nthe body, on circulation, for instance. I said again that physical\nperfection could not be the aim, but only one of the conditions of\nprogress.\n\nOn the subject of disease and cure Ruth and I disagreed entirely. But\nthis we both held to be not tremendously important. I do not care here\nto record the arguments\u2014not in the least bitter or heated\u2014which we\ngladly left in air. None of us was in the least convinced by Ruth, and\nwe were frank\u2014she, as well as we\u2014in our expressions of opinion.\n\nSo we found Ruth was with us in all that mattered, and had been candidly\nwith us all the while. The children said the club had not changed their\nviews, but enlarged and ordered them.\n\nI read aloud the Christian Science prayer Ruth had brought some weeks\nago:\n\n MY PRAYER\n\n \u201cTo be ever conscious of my unity with God, to listen for his\n voice, and hear no other call. To separate all error from my\n thought of man, and see him only as my father\u2019s image, to show\n him reverence and share with him my holiest treasures.\n\n \u201cTo keep my mental home a sacred place, golden with gratitude,\n redolent with love, white with purity, cleansed from the flesh.\n\n \u201cTo send no thought into the world that will not bless, or\n cheer, or purify, or heal.\n\n \u201cTo have no aim but to make earth a fairer, holier place, and to\n rise each day into a higher sense of Life and Love.\u201d\n\nWe liked all of it, save the words \u201ccleansed from the flesh.\u201d Ruth\nexplained that this meant cleansed from the idea of evil in the flesh.\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d I answered, \u201cthe author should have said, though it is less\npoetical, \u2018cleansed from the prejudice against the flesh.\u2019 I would agree\nwith that.\u201d\n\nVirginia again suggested the subject of animal consciousness, by telling\nMark Twain\u2019s story of the cat and the Christian Scientist. Ruth said\nthat just now she was studying this subject.\n\nFlorence asked: \u201cDo you believe jelly-fish are conscious?\u201d\n\nI reminded them of Cope\u2019s theory of consciousness and desire as the\ncause of life, and of the higher consciousness swamping the lower. They\nremembered it, and were interested. Virginia said: \u201cIt is like the\nstars, which are always there, but cannot be seen when the sun shines.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cthe light of our larger consciousness hides those\nlesser feelings.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of other religions and creeds, and Henry used the\nterm\u2014referring to Unitarianism\u2014\u201ca mild form of Christianity.\u201d\n\nMarian asked me whether mine was an absolute belief in an absolute\ntruth.\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d she said, \u201cI don\u2019t believe any one can find the absolute\ntruth.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou must see,\u201d I answered, \u201cthat I believe in a growing truth. Why else\nhad we called ourselves Seekers? And I believe we will be seekers all\nour lives. All I have given you is a direction.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am not sure,\u201d answered she, \u201cthat I want just one direction.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe who would go in all directions at once, must stand still,\u201d I\nreplied.\n\n\u201cPerhaps I must,\u201d she said. \u201cI believe only one thing absolutely, and\nthat is that I am immortal. And I don\u2019t think I believe that just\nbecause I like to.\u201d Still, when I questioned her on the whole self, and\nprogress toward sympathy as the good, she fully agreed. She is afraid of\naccepting too much. This is a large truth, different for each one, able\nto include all, growing, forever changing, and forever the same, like\nlife itself. I said: \u201cWe will always be Seekers together.\u201d\n\nI now read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cWe spent a few minutes in speaking of Patriotism. Patriotism is loyalty\nto our fathers, and from this it comes to be loyalty toward our country,\nand then to the whole world. No one should be patriotic to the extent of\n\u2018My country right or wrong,\u2019 nor should any one be so patriotic in the\ncause of humanity as a whole as to forget his duty to his country and\nhis home. The patriotic man is not always the right man, but the man\nwith \u2018Firmness in the right as God gives him to see right.\u2019\n\n\u201cMany people spoil their lives, and even those of others, by putting\nunimportant things on a level, or perhaps higher than the really\nimportant questions of their life. There are women who try to teach or\ndo settlement work because they think it a duty, even though they have\nno taste or ability in those lines, and their right place is in their\nown homes. The farmer who comes to the city and tries to be a business\nman, will not, as a rule, succeed. Every man has some work at which he\nis best, and he should find out what his calling is, and then give his\nbest efforts to that.\n\n\u201cTo represent light in a picture, we must have shadows, and without\nvariation life would be dull. Hobbies are very good; and if a business\nman delights in visiting picture galleries, or baseball games, he will\nbe better off if he gratifies these hobbies.\u201d\n\nHenry\u2019s paper aroused some comment. They criticized Henry for saying one\nshould not be \u201cso patriotic in the cause of humanity as a whole as to\nforget his duty to his country.\u201d They said patriotism for humanity must\nbe patriotism for one\u2019s own land. We agreed that his error was one of\nwords rather than of meaning.\n\nThe girls teased him about his opinion on woman\u2019s whole duty, and\naccused him, truly, it seems, of being opposed to woman\u2019s suffrage. I\nsaid I wished it were not out of our present plan to argue all those\nquestions, but we would not discuss definite social or political\nproblems at all, since the girls and boys had neither the experience nor\nthe judgment to profit by them now.\n\n\u201cDo you mean,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cwhether the very rich man ought to keep\nhis money, or throw it out on the street to everybody?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes\u2014if you wish to put it that way.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am certain,\u201d said Florence, \u201cno one could change my views on social\nquestions.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cprobably not. But no doubt you will often change them\nfor yourself.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery likely,\u201d she said.\n\nI now read Marian\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cOur discussion last week at the club was on various subjects. The first\nwas patriotism. We should be patriotic for our own country and the whole\nworld. If we are rightly patriotic for our own country, we will be so\nfor the whole world. It is not patriotism to say I am for the whole\nworld, but not for my own country. This would be very inconsistent.\nPatriotism does not consist of saying your own country is always right,\nand that another is wrong because it is not your own. We also discussed\nthe question of choosing professions, and agreed that we should always\nchoose what we like, whether it is conventional or not. It is better to\nbe a good dancer than a poor teacher. In doing work for others, we ought\nnot to choose settlement work because our friends are doing it, or\nbecause we or some one else thinks we ought to. If it is work that\nappeals to us, we should do it; but, if not, we might go among the young\npeople of our own circle, and help them. Another thing we spoke of was\n_boring_ and _being bored_. Never bore any one or allow them to bore\nyou. If you don\u2019t know anything to say worth while saying, keep still.\nIf some one else bores you, look at them from some standpoint such that,\nif they don\u2019t interest you, at least they make you laugh at them. If\npossible, don\u2019t frequent the society of people that bore you.\u201d\n\nThey asked, had I not said it was wrong to laugh \u201cat\u201d people. Yes, I\nanswered, malicious laughter was bad, as malicious criticism was bad,\nbut there was a kindly laughter, that laughed with people, and smiled at\ntheir superficial weaknesses in a loving way openly, as we smile at our\nown. In this way we often laughed at, and with, the people we loved\nmost. But, I said, let us never forget or disrespect the self, the\ngrowing, wonderful self in every creature, especially in every human\nbeing.\n\nNow Virginia and Marian have their troubles. They do dislike certain\npeople, and they like talking about them. Virginia said a fool was a\nfool, and continued to be a fool, even if you thought of him as a\ndeveloping self. Marian objected that though she agreed with me, she\ncouldn\u2019t live up to it.\n\nI said: \u201cI am not going to tell you what to do, or preach you a sermon.\nOnly I want you to see the thing in a true light. I find it impossible\nto sympathize with some people, and I cannot help disliking those who\nhave done harm to any one I love. But I look upon it as a weakness and\nlimitation of myself, which I mean to overcome. Remember that every self\nyou fail to understand is a limitation of yourself. Every judgment you\nmake of another is a judgment of yourself. I wish one could say, not: \u2018I\nhate that person,\u2019 but \u2018I am _one who hates_ that person\u2019; the hate\nbeing a quality of your own, and reflecting only upon yourself.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have said of people,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat I did not see how they\ncould have any friends.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut they did have friends,\u201d I answered, \u201cand the limitation was in your\npower of seeing. When you speak ill of a person, you are defining\nyourself.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt would be much pleasanter,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cto think it was a\ndefinition of the other person.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo doubt,\u201d I answered; \u201cdo as you please, but remember what you are\ndoing. Realize your limitation as such, at least.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cI would like to be able to think of myself as perfect.\u201d\n\n\u201cAt once, Marian, dear? Then make a little set of rules for yourself,\nand follow them, like the petty moralists, and be perfect. But we, of\nthe growing truth, cannot reach perfection. At least, we want to know\nwhat is good, and strive for it. I can tell you more than I can do,\nbecause I see ahead. Let us remember that with our judgments and\nsympathies we are measuring ourselves.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n SIXTEENTH MEETING\n\n\nI read Henry\u2019s paper, which expressed his point of view:\n\n\u201cThis meeting was spent in talking of Christian Science. We agree that\nwe are seekers for a great truth and complete harmony, which we call\nGod. We also agree in believing in immortality, though we do not know\nwhat our existence will be like after that of our present state.\n\n\u201cThe difference seemed to lie in our idea of matter, and, as the belief\nin this is closely connected with the idea of cure, we did not agree on\nthe latter subject.\n\n\u201cI believe that matter is the creation of spirit; and science tells us\nthat no matter ever ceases to exist, though it may change its form. As I\nunderstand it, the Christian Scientist says that what we call matter is\nnot permanent, and therefore does not exist at all. But when he says it\nis not permanent, I think he only considers it as a definite shape, such\nas a house or a table, and he overlooks its different forms.\n\n\u201cIf the Christian Scientist\u2019s idea of matter were correct, his idea of\ncure would also be correct. I think he says: \u2018There is no matter, and\ntherefore, there can be no material suffering. Consequently, all pain\nand sickness are spiritual conditions.\u2019 To all those who believe in\nmatter as a real and permanent thing, this idea is impossible.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cI must insist on my ignorance on this subject. Matter to me\nseems permanent, a something that constantly changes form, unknowable\nexcept in form; thus form always seems to me the expression of an idea,\nthat is, of the spirit. I know matter only through spirit or\nconsciousness.\u201d They all agreed.\n\nNow, I said, we would go on to the next law in art, and see what its\napplication might be. Did they like, I asked, to take up each law of art\nin turn, and see what was its relation to life?\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d Henry said, \u201cand doing so makes the laws in art much clearer to\nme. When you tell me their application to life, it helps me to\nunderstand their meaning in pictures.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d said I, \u201cdepends upon your temperament. Another might find just\nthe opposite to be true, that knowledge of the laws of art made them\nclearer in life.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cI do.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe next law,\u201d I said, \u201cis: \u2018Art must not be partisan.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cIt seems to me,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthe application of that to life is quite\nclear already.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, how would you explain it?\u201d\n\nEvidently one must take sides in life. How, then, not be partisan?\nVirginia said: \u201cEverything has two sides.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cand the question is how to use them both, how to be\nfor, and yet not against. Every work of art is for something; it stands\nfor beauty, order, completeness. But it is against nothing. The moment\nit stands against something, it is not art. Lincoln\u2019s life shows so well\nwhat I mean. I wonder whether you will understand how?\u201d\n\nBut they did not. Henry said it was because he stood for the Union, but\nnot against slavery, and looked upon emancipation as only a side issue,\nto be used for the sake of the Union. The others said still more\nuncomprehending things, and so forced me to tell them what I meant. I\nsaid Lincoln stood for a cause, for an idea, and not against any man. He\nwanted to win all to his side, to make his side the whole, the Union. Be\nfor a cause, for a purpose, mean something, and strive for its\nfulfilment; but do not be against persons, against parties. After all,\nmen can be won only if you are also for them, as Lincoln was also for\nthe Southerners. He was willing to work with his political enemies for\nthe Union, since he felt no enmity to men.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Henry, \u201cfor his Secretary of State, Stanley, was his\npolitical enemy.\u201d\n\nThe Red Cross nurses are not less at one with the purpose of their\ncountry, though they nurse and tend with equal kindness the wounded foe.\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d Virginia went on, \u201cDickens is not a great artist in those parts\nof his books where he becomes bitter, and hates the characters of whom\nhe writes?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201csurely not.\u201d\n\n\u201cOne feels that writer to be much greater,\u201d she said, \u201cwho sympathizes\nwith and understands and loves even his worst characters. And I think\nDickens has not a good influence in those books where he arouses hatred\nof people, and does not help the feeling of sympathy.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of political reforms\u2014they are quite unformed and uninstructed\nin social thought\u2014and then went on to school factions. Was it not true\nthat they admired most the boy or girl who worked for a cause, without\nbitterness against any person? They spoke of class presidents and school\nparties, and discussed the thing among themselves. Ruth said that the\nbest class president was always the one who had most enemies, for some\ngirls liking her so much, many others were sure to dislike her.\n\nI answered: \u201cThe person who stands for a purpose will have many against\nhim, and he will not care. But he will not be against them. And in the\nend he will win, as Lincoln has won the Southerners. They may still be\nbitter against the North, but they join the Northerners in honoring\nLincoln, the man, for they know he worked for them.\n\n\u201cYou may have noticed that so far we have spoken of self-development and\npersonal growth; and to you, at present, that is the most important\nthing. But I want to speak a few words of sympathy with those we do not\nknow, of our relations with the world of all men.\u201d I said they had too\nlittle experience to form definite ideas on that tremendous, complicated\nthing called society. I wanted to give them only a few of my ideas that\nmight come back to them later, when they understood more.\n\nI said: \u201cI want you to think of society as a big self, as the rest of\nyourself, as one vast whole, in which each man in so many mysterious\nways affects each other man, that none can be right until all are right.\nHave you ever thought of the relations of people with other people whom\nthey never know, of all the things that are done for us by strangers?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Florence, \u201cI have thought of it, for we once spoke of it in\nanother class.\u201d\n\n\u201cConsider it,\u201d I went on, \u201cthis table at which we sit, the clothes we\nwear, the food we eat, everything, everything that we use, is made for\nus by so many hands, all related to us and all affected by our need and\nuse of them. Have you ever thought what the word Democracy means?\u201d\n\nYes, they answered, they knew. Henry said it meant all people should\nhave their rights. I said it meant even more. Did they remember the\nthree old catchwords of Democracy: Equality, Fraternity\u2014\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd Liberty,\u201d said Ruth.\n\n\u201cYes, and Liberty. But I do not believe that all people are equal.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cI am quite sure they are not.\u201d\n\nI went on: \u201cDemocracy stands for this, that they all have the right to\nbe equal. We must grant this, not for any altruistic reason, but because\nwe need and want them all, because we want to miss nothing. We want each\none to have the right and the chance to develop to be the best he may\nbe, because that, too, will be best for us. And we feel that every\nliving being is capable of immense development. For there is one thing\nin us all that is equal; whether it be big or little, it is the same in\nus all, and that is self. I feel reverence and wonder for self. Every\nbaby seems marvellous to me for this reason; he is a new self. And\nwhenever I stop to think, when I am with strangers, and with people, no\nmatter how uninteresting, I have the strong feeling of kinship and\nmystery. Do you ever feel so?\u201d\n\n\u201cSometimes,\u201d said Virginia. \u201cI feel that way in snatches.\u201d\n\n\u201cI never think about it,\u201d said Marian, \u201cbut sometimes the feeling\ncomes.\u201d\n\nFlorence said: \u201cI feel that way with things more than with people.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d\n\n\u201cI mean, for instance, with the ocean or mountains.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I said, \u201cthere you cannot _know_. With people it is so real and\nclose.\u201d\n\nThe trouble is, they cannot feel so with those they dislike or wish to\ncriticize; and this subject comes up again and again, with amusing\nvariations.\n\nVirginia takes dislikes to faces; Florence cannot \u201cstand\u201d some people\nwhom she greatly admires; Marian will not be deprived of the pleasure of\n\u201cknocking\u201d one particular girl. From what I gather, their gossip is not\nof the malicious sort, and this over-criticism and sensitiveness is, as\nI told them, a weakness and limitation of youth. They have not yet\nlearned to use the good of people for their own good. For people in the\nstreet, however, they often have intense sympathy; and kindness for the\nstranger. Marian spoke again of the apartment houses behind her school,\nwith their hundreds of windows.\n\n\u201cYou would like to tear their walls away, wouldn\u2019t you,\u201d asked Ruth, \u201cto\nsee what is going on?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d said Marian, \u201cbut I can\u2019t help thinking of all those\ndifferent lives in there.\u201d\n\nVirginia said whenever her mother saw strangers who looked as if they\nliked her, she spoke to them.\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d I answered, \u201ccan seldom be done, except with children; because,\nyou see, the world is not as we wish it, though it might be better were\nit so; and since the other person may not understand, we dare not try to\nunderstand him. Often on a sunny, happy morning, when I get into a car,\nI feel like greeting the motorman, and every person I meet. But how can\nI? They would misunderstand.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat is the motive of the fresh young men who\nsometimes try to speak to you on the street.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere\u2019s just the trouble,\u201d I answered, \u201cthat it isn\u2019t their motive, and\nso it cannot be ours.\u201d\n\nRuth told us how at the Christian Science church that morning she had\nleft something undone which she regretted. She said: \u201cThere was a young\nman who did not seem to know any one, and he looked lonesome and\nuncomfortable. I felt as if I ought to go up to him and make him\nwelcome, but I had not the courage.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd I think you were right,\u201d I answered her, \u201cfor he might not have\nunderstood your motive. And yet again he might. It is hard to tell. I am\nsorry to say we have often to wrong people in this matter.\u201d\n\nI spoke of the sufferings and the wrongs of society, and of how we must\nrealize that these are our sufferings and our wrongs.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cbut what can we do? We can\u2019t do anything.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere is very little we can do, except to be on the right side, and\ntherefore ready to do. I want to have you see the thing as it is, to be\nconscious of the whole, as your whole self, so that you will act\naccording to that knowledge.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think,\u201d asked Marian, \u201cthat a great many people act the same\nway, without knowing why they do it?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cor else they are only half conscious, or think they\nhave some other motive. But I believe in being fully conscious, and\ndoing things with freedom and from conviction.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t believe,\u201d said Marian, \u201cthat while I act I think of why I am\nacting.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cI am quite certain that you do not, and that you\nnever will. No man thinks while he acts. The thinking is done long\nbefore. And then the action comes of itself. If you always think and\nfeel a certain way, the good, true way, you need not trouble over your\nactions. They will be right. Do you suppose the man who gives up his\nlife to save another thinks of what he is doing, and why? He is doing\nwhat he must. But all his life long he has been thinking in such a way,\nand living in such a way, that no other action would be possible.\u201d\n\nI said again the quotation from St. Augustine: \u201c\u2018Love God, and do as you\nplease,\u2019 for if you love the good, wholly, you can do only the good.\n\n\u201cRemember,\u201d I said, \u201cthat if the contagiously sick are not cared for, we\nshall all be ill; and, just so, starvation, poverty, sin, hurt each one\nof us, wherever they be, and must be cured for our own sake. Let us get\nover the self-righteous, sentimentally virtuous feeling which I fear\ncharity has given many people. For that reason I have always disliked\nthe word \u2018charity.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cso have I.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut the virtuous feeling is very pleasant,\u201d Virginia said.\n\n\u201cHardly,\u201d I answered, \u201cso sane and sound as the pleasant feeling of\nhelping ourselves, all together.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe word \u2018charity,\u2019\u201d said Marian, \u201ccomes from a Greek word meaning\ngratitude, the word \u2018charis.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cI had always thought of it,\u201d I said, \u201cas coming from the Latin \u2018carus,\u2019\nmeaning love. But that is interesting. For gratitude is always a debt\npaid. And so, I fear, all our charity is a debt partly and never wholly\npaid. The most that a man can give, being able to give, still leaves him\nmore than his share. And that is why I seldom have the joy untainted, of\nwhich Virginia speaks.\u201d\n\nVirginia said it made her glad to see people happy because of her. She\nsaid: \u201cOnce three of us gave a little boy a ten-cent plaything, and it\nmade him so happy we felt as though we had done something fine.\u201d\n\nRuth agreed with me that it was impossible to overcome a feeling of\npersonal guilt at the sight of misery.\n\n\u201cYou see,\u201d I went on, \u201cthat for the rich poverty is as bad as for the\npoor. Drunkenness and misery ask their price of the rich man.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cfor to see poor and drunken people bothers the\nrich man.\u201d\n\n\u201cShe is quite right,\u201d I said; \u201cpoverty does and must bother the rich\nman, and that is just why he must get rid of it. Wells, the socialist,\nonce said he dared not let any man be sick or poor or miserable, and\nbring up sick, poor, miserable children, for he could not tell what\nman\u2019s grandchild would one day marry his grandchild.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is an interesting way of looking at it,\u201d said Marian. \u201cI never\nthought of that.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo you see,\u201d I went on, \u201cwe can no more praise ourselves for helping to\nbetter the world than we can praise people\u2014except for their good sense\nand wisdom\u2014when they put up hospitals for contagious diseases, and\nseparate those who suffer from them. Did you ever think of it, that to\ntake care of the weak strengthens the strong? The man who cares for two\ngets the strength of two.\u201d\n\nFlorence asked: \u201cWhat if there were no weak?\u201d A good question, but an\nunanswerable one, from lack of experience.\n\n\u201cIt is good,\u201d I went on, \u201cto use our powers, to strengthen them; and we\ncan use them only through others. I have heard people say it is foolish\nfor the strong to spend themselves on the weak. To me that seems\nuntrue.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cwhat is their strength for, if not to use it!\u201d\n\n\u201cSparta,\u201d I said, \u201chas left no trace but her history, because she cared\nonly for physical strength, and wasted the strength and power that are\nin weakness.\u201d\n\n\u201cI wish she had not left her history,\u201d they said, thinking of the hard\nnames.\n\n\u201cEverything leaves history,\u201d sighed Marian.\n\n\u201cWe can use all men,\u201d I went on, \u201cand every man does something for us\nthat we cannot do for ourselves. The world is like a vast body, in which\nhand and head do each its part; and the head shall not despise the\nhand.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t like to think of it in that way,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cto think of\ndifferent people as different parts of the body, for some would have to\nbe way down at the foot.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, Ruth,\u201d I answered, \u201cI believe you are despising the foot! That is\nbecause you don\u2019t think well enough of the body. But Florence knows\nbetter. She probably thinks her feet the most important part of all.\nWhen I spoke of the body, I meant that each part was equally necessary\nto all the others. But I suppose each one of us here would like to think\nof himself as a brain-cell.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe like to flatter ourselves,\u201d said Henry.\n\nI spoke to them of the modern trend in judging crime and meting\npunishment. Henry already understood this. We spoke of \u201chomes\u201d instead\nof prisons, of treating the bad as abortive and undeveloped, as moral\nidiots and invalids, and of using for our good and their happiness all\nthe powers they possessed. We would hate badness, but not the bad man.\nHow could we? Each one acts according to his desires, and in that sense\nselfishly; and our character depends on how large we are, how much we\ndesire. The man who wants to be richer than his neighbor will act\notherwise than the man who wants to share and enjoy the riches and\nhappiness of all his neighbors, and make the whole world his home. Our\ndesires are the measure of our growth. And some are more developed than\nothers.\n\n\u201cSome are so undeveloped,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat they seem almost like\nanimals.\u201d\n\n\u201cI wondered why Virginia hadn\u2019t mentioned that sooner,\u201d said Marian.\n\nWe went on to the next law, that art must give the impression of truth.\nHow does it apply? I said they must see that the telling of truth was\nnot the whole of true relation.\n\n\u201cAnd there may be even a kind of truth-telling which is essentially\nuntrue; I mean truth told maliciously, truth told for the purpose of\nhurting. That makes an untrue relation between people, even though it be\ntrue in fact; just as the ugly picture, truly representing an ugly thing\nin an ugly way, does not seem true.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cAs if one woman said to another woman: \u2018I saw your\nhusband drunk last night,\u2019 and the other woman knew it already. It would\nbe quite true, but unnecessary.\u201d\n\n\u201cExactly.\u201d\n\nI spoke of the importance of praise and encouragement to others, and of\nkind, true criticism. At first they all protested that they did not like\nover-much praise. No, I said, not over-much, nor praise alone; I hated\nto be \u201cdamned with faint praise,\u201d but I loved praise and blame combined\nin such measure, that I felt the thing done was worth doing, and yet saw\nwhere it was wrong, and how it might be righted. I said all teachers\nought to praise and blame in this fashion\u2014never forgetting the praise.\n\n\u201cThey don\u2019t have time for it in school,\u201d said Ruth.\n\n\u201cRuth,\u201d I answered her, \u201cjust for a teacher of small children, such\nencouraging critical power is most necessary.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d she said, \u201cI know. I mean to have it.\u201d\n\nI went on: \u201cWhen I criticize a child\u2019s drawing, for instance, and find\nsix wrong lines in it, and one right line, I will insist on the worth of\nthat right line, and show how the other six can and ought to be made\nequally good. One can always point to the wrong, without hurting, when\none insists on the right.\u201d\n\nAnd now we passed to a difficult and engrossing subject: what things are\nworth while in personal social life. At this period of life it concerns\nthe girls chiefly; but it could not be skipped for that reason. And the\nboys were interested listeners.\n\nI spoke again of \u201cprettiness\u201d in art. Did they remember? Virginia said,\nthose painted merely prettily who tried to please the crowd for the sake\nof money or applause. Yes, I answered, they tried to please those who\ncould not understand them or truly judge them. And so there is a\nprettiness of manner and life which appeals to the stranger and\nacquaintance, but does not win the friend; the merely social prettiness,\nthat has no true worth.\n\nWhat did I mean? asked Florence.\n\n\u201cI mean,\u201d I said, \u201ca mixing of values\u2014giving up what is worth more, for\nwhat is worth less, and, usually, because we don\u2019t realize what we are\ndoing. For instance, ever so many will go to much greater trouble to\nplease acquaintances than friends, and even ask their friends to \u2018let\nthem off\u2019 for the sake of their acquaintances.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is,\u201d said Florence, \u201cbecause we know our friends will forgive us.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cand it is a poor reason, for finally we will not\nhave any to forgive us.\u201d\n\n\u201cI know a girl,\u201d said Marian, \u201cwho has ever so many acquaintances, and\nno friends.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhen I think of society,\u201d Virginia said, \u201cin the large sense of all\npeople, the only class I don\u2019t think of as belonging to society, are\njust the society girls.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat,\u201d I answered, \u201cis foolish; for they do belong to it, and can be a\nvery important part of it, if they wish.\u201d\n\nMarian looked puzzled. \u201cIt is all right,\u201d she asked, \u201cisn\u2019t it, for\ngirls to go into society?\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d I answered; \u201cnot only all right, but very good, if they do it\nin the best way. But I think it a terrible waste for girls to do nothing\nbut go into society, to live only for that, and rest only for that, and\ncare only for the superficial show of it, for luxury and\nmoney-spending.\u201d\n\nWe spoke of luncheons and parties, and all sorts of festivities where\ndecoration and show count, and tried to put decoration in its\nsubordinate place. \u201cPeople are apt,\u201d I said, \u201cto lose the real thing in\nthe glamor, to care to outdo each other only in expensiveness and show,\ninstead of remembering that pleasant surroundings are merely\nsurroundings. Like the woman who would spend all her time on her\nhousehold, and waste herself to make it beautiful, instead of\nremembering that its beauty could count only as a setting for herself\nand her greater work. It\u2019s a pity to waste good art on poor subjects.\u201d\n\n\u201cOne must be all-sided,\u201d said Marian, \u201cyou told us so. I know a girl who\ndid college and society and housekeeping all at once.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd all well?\u201d I asked.\n\n\u201cI think so,\u201d she answered, \u201cthough I\u2019m not so sure about the college\npart.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is just the danger,\u201d I said, \u201cand a danger I wish you all to\navoid. I don\u2019t want one of you, when you leave school, to degenerate\ninto a frivolous, silly society girl. You won\u2019t, will you?\u201d\n\nThey all said they wouldn\u2019t. Virginia and Ruth were positive they\ncouldn\u2019t.\n\n\u201cBecause,\u201d I went on, \u201cmany girls do it who seemed serious and\nintelligent while at school. I will tell you why they do. They are apt\nto think school in itself so intellectual, that they particularly avoid,\nat other times, thinking seriously or reading good books or having\nsensible conversations. And, indeed, school does keep them thinking, but\nnot of their own accord. So, when they are graduated, they stop all\nthinking, go into society, and wait to get married.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd some women,\u201d said Marian, \u201cget so uninteresting after they marry!\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cit is true, and it is a pity. Naturally, every girl\nexpects to marry, and has the right to expect it. But if she folds her\nhands and waits for it, or goes out and dances and waits for it, she\nwill hardly be fit when the time comes.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think it is disgusting,\u201d said Marian, \u201cfor a girl to be \u2018on the\nmarket.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cSo do I,\u201d I answered. \u201cAnd no wonder that those girls, when they marry,\nbecome dull and \u2018settled,\u2019 and do not grow with their children. For, you\nsee, they were \u2018finished\u2019 when they left school. I believe that when a\ngirl leaves school she should go on working and growing and learning all\nher life long, whether she marry or not.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI have learnt so many, many things since I left school\nlast year.\u201d\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d they answered, \u201cat art school.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d she said, \u201cI don\u2019t mean that. I learn more out of school than in\nit.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe independent woman,\u201d I said, \u201cwho has some work and aim, who can\nsupport herself if need be, and who does some definite work in life,\nwhether or not she supports herself, will not stagnate when she marries,\nbecause she has been growing all the time. When her children grow up,\nshe will grow with them, and learn and change and think all her life.\u201d\n\n\u201cMust she do some definite thing?\u201d asked Henry skeptically.\n\nFlorence said: \u201cI know you think, Henry, that she should be good and\nhelp around the house.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d I said, \u201cthat she must have a definite thing to do in life,\nthough not necessarily to support herself by money-making. She may\nstudy, if she should wish to prepare for more difficult work, or she may\nhave a household of people to care for, and even other people\u2019s children\nto bring up, just as a married woman might.\u201d\n\nGood manners and politeness next engaged our attention.\n\nRuth is a great stickler for manners, especially in boys, and not a very\ngood judge of character, so she has to make much of evident, superficial\ncharacteristics. Marian, on the other hand, is an excellent judge of\ncharacter. Marian asked me whether I thought manners important, and what\nI thought politeness meant. I said good manners were the natural\nexpression of kindness, but that one often met good people who were\nbores, nevertheless, simply out of awkwardness; that many young boys\nwere so, and Ruth ought to teach them better. We quoted some examples of\nfalse good manners, good simply for effect, which usually were\nself-exposed at last. I said: \u201cThat people with kind manners are thought\nthe best-bred and finest, is but another sign that the world of men goes\nin \u2018our\u2019 direction.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI see how you mean.\u201d\n\nRuth granted she cared too much for good manners, since they did not\nalways mean what they professed to mean. To Florence they seemed\nunimportant, in others, as an index of character.\n\nFlorence said: \u201cI act differently with each person, because I believe a\ndifferent way will please each person.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cwe all do it unconsciously; and that is why we _are_\nas many people as we _know_.\u201d\n\nShe went on: \u201cWhen I am with people who like to be serious, I talk\nseriously; and when I am with people who like to fool, why, then I am\njolly and silly.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut how about your own taste and personality?\u201d I asked. \u201cDoes that\ncount?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhen I am with some very proper people,\u201d said Florence, \u201cI love to\nshock them.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cit is a temptation. But, please, Florence, make the\npeople do what you choose sometimes. You remember that you want to be\nlike a picture, and not only like a looking-glass.\u201d\n\n\u201cI like to be the controlling person,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cand make people\ndo what I choose.\u201d\n\nRuth said: \u201cI don\u2019t believe people are ever their real self with me, and\nit is very annoying. They always try to seem better.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is,\u201d said Marian, \u201cbecause they know you have such high ideals.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d Ruth went on, \u201cI suppose _you_ tell them. And then they show me\nonly their good side.\u201d\n\n\u201cRuth,\u201d I answered, \u201cif that be true, it need not trouble you. If you\ncan really make people always show you their good side, you should be\nglad to have the power. For people\u2019s good side is a pleasanter side to\nsee; and it is excellent practice for them to show it. I want you each\nto be a power and a purpose in life.\u201d\n\nAfterward I had a little talk with Florence. I said: \u201cI am afraid I was\nspeaking for your benefit. Do you mind?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d she answered, \u201cbut I am not going to be that sort of society\ngirl.\u201d\n\nI walked homeward with Virginia and Henry. Virginia told me that the\nclub made her think, that things we said came back to her weeks and\nweeks afterward, and gave new meanings to life.\n\nNext week we are going to have the last meeting. Henry asked me whether\nwe were going to speak of \u201cAloofness.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cand it will include all we have said until now.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n SEVENTEENTH MEETING\n\n\nI read Henry\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cWe should not be partisan. Do not fight against any one as an enemy,\nbut as a friend who tries to help another, by thwarting his wrong\npurpose.\n\n\u201cAgain we can go to Lincoln for an example. When he was president,\nLincoln sent to his great political enemy, Douglas, and asked for his\naid in the approaching struggle. Again, when the war was almost over,\nand those about him said that the Southern leaders would have to be\nseverely dealt with, he told them that though he could not avoid the\nhated war, now that their end had been gained, he wanted peace, and bore\nno malice toward his Southern countrymen, whom he would deal with as\nleniently as possible.\u201d\n\nThen I read Marian\u2019s paper:\n\n\u201cAt our last meeting of the Seekers we took up the application of the\ntwo next-to-the-last principles of Art to life. The first, \u2018do not be\npartisan,\u2019 we understood easily. But how to stand for a cause without\nbeing partisan, is more difficult to understand. By this we mean being\nfor a cause but not against another, and being broad-minded enough to\nunderstand the other side. In doing this all personal attacks are, of\ncourse, eliminated. The next principle, that art gives the impression of\ntruth, when applied to life means being, first, truth-telling. However,\nif by telling the truth we unnecessarily wound a person, we had better\nsay nothing. To tell the truth for the purpose of hurting some one is\nalmost as bad as telling a lie.\u201d\n\nI said I thought it was almost worse. I asked why had Henry and Marian\nboth left out an important part of our last meeting, the part on our\nlarger social relations? Had we not made it impressive enough? For a\nmoment they all were puzzled. Was it at the last meeting we had spoken\nof that? When I reminded them of what had been said, they remembered.\nBut Henry added: \u201cI did not think we said it at the last meeting. It\nseemed longer ago. Perhaps because that is something we have spoken of\nat all the meetings, right along.\u201d\n\nI said I thought all but Alfred and Ruth were not greatly interested in\nlarger social questions. Their family and school life were more\nabsorbing. I said: \u201cI know Alfred is interested in social and political\nproblems, because he has told me so. You see, even though he won\u2019t talk\nto you, he does sometimes talk to me.\u201d\n\nAlfred blushed. He answered: \u201cI care more about those outside relations\nthan anything else.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cI am interested, too. But last time, just in the midst, we\ngot off to the subject of \u2018knocking\u2019 people. And so I don\u2019t think we\nquite finished.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps,\u201d I asked, \u201cwe had better go over it again to-day? And yet I\nthink not. You do seem to understand. I don\u2019t think you can form your\nsocial and political opinions now, and I don\u2019t care to talk much of\nthese things. You see, the boys still have five years before they need\nto vote. And for the girls, I imagine it may be even longer.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cI don\u2019t think it will be much longer.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I went on, \u201cwe spoke of other things, too. Didn\u2019t we speak a\ngreat deal of woman\u2019s life?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean choosing professions, and society, and so on?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cYes.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is strange, too,\u201d said she, \u201cthat I forgot to write about it. For it\nimpressed me very much, and I was talking of it only the other day, when\nsome girls were at the house.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow,\u201d I said, \u201cwe will speak of that strange thing, aloofness, the\nspectator\u2019s point of view, that a while ago you could not understand.\nAnd I think to-day you will understand at once, for it is the sum and\ncompleteness of all we have said. Do you think you know now what I mean\nby aloofness? What do you think, Henry?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think it means,\u201d he said, \u201cunderstanding with sympathy all the people\nabout you, and the outsiders.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said; \u201cbut it means more than that.\u201d\n\nAlfred looked as if he knew.\n\n\u201cWell, Alfred?\u201d\n\n\u201cDoesn\u2019t it mean,\u201d he asked, \u201cbeing able to criticize and judge\nyourself?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said. \u201cThat is nearer; it means both, and more than both. It\nmeans being not only in yourself, but above and around, judging all\nthings as if you were all the people, from the point of view of the\nwhole world. You know what we mean when we say God. We mean that whole,\nthe whole Self. It means seeing life from God\u2019s point of view. It is as\nif we were spectator and also actor; doing our own little part in our\nown little lives, and yet seeing the whole, and caring most for that\nwhole, and acting our part in relation to it, to please the vast\nspectator. Have you not yourselves had that experience? Have you not,\neven in exciting moments, suddenly felt as if you were outside yourself,\nlooking on at yourself, and judging?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Marian, \u201cI often do. Sometimes I laugh at myself. I see how\nfoolish I am, but I go right on. For the actor and the spectator do not\nalways agree.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cAll goodness and power in life spring from making the actor and\nspectator agree, making the larger self include and manage the smaller\nself, and move it as a player moves a pawn. For, remember, it is not two\nseparate selves, but one self, a vast sense of all life, inclusive of\nthis smaller self which we control. Do you not realize that all heroism,\nall great and noble action is done so, in the spirit of the whole, for\nthe vast spectator within us? When a man dies for a cause, he is that\ncause, he is far more than his own small self, and he gladly dies for\nthat which includes and fulfils him. When a man gives up his life to\nsave another man, he sees the whole thing as from above. He and the\nother man are one, are part of the same life, and he spends himself for\nhimself.\n\n\u201cFear,\u201d I said, \u201ccowardice, loss of self-control in crises, always comes\nwhen the actor forgets the spectator, when the spectator loses control.\n\n\u201cIf ever you have been in any exciting crisis, and kept cool and above\nfear, then you will know what I mean; how you think of the whole, of all\nthe people, and seem to be and control the whole.\u201d\n\nRuth said she knew one never thought especially of one\u2019s self at such a\ntime. Experiences, however, were scarce. Virginia spoke of the time she\nwas with me in a burning trolley car, and how she had been interested\nrather than excited. But then she was a very, very little girl. Ruth\nsaid she didn\u2019t remember how she felt when she was almost run down by an\nautomobile.\n\nMarian asked: \u201cOne is not always conscious of the spectator?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered, \u201cone is conscious of him only at rare moments. For it\nis the actor who acts and lives, and the spectator controls him. The\nspectator is oftenest silent. He watches. And he must choose.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut is the spectator always sure?\u201d asked Marian. \u201cSometimes you cannot\ntell what seems to you best, until you talk it over with others.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe spectator,\u201d I said, \u201cjudges and chooses according to all he can\nknow. Surely, he chooses in relation with others. He can use all\nexperience; he goes even beyond his sorrow and pain. Do you understand?\nHe goes beyond sorrow and pain, and uses them. Do you remember I spoke\nto you once of all things being a memory, of the body itself being a\nmemory? The basis of all sympathy is experience and memory. So the\nspectator grows and uses everything. He is, as it were, in partnership\nwith the whole, with God. And he rises on his own knowledge. The higher\nhe goes, the farther can he see. Do you understand that aloofness, the\njudging from the standpoint of the whole, of the whole self, is the\nbasis of morality? It is the part judging and living for the whole.\nThose who know this make the laws for all, according to their knowledge;\nand the others, who are only actors, whose spectator is not wide awake,\nhave to obey.\u201d\n\nAt first they protested. Was this true? They did not understand. Henry\nasked did I mean making laws to control anarchists? I explained how some\nhad to be forced to conform, even for their own good, and how the others\nwere free, because the law that was good for all, they knew to be best\nfor themselves.\n\nI said: \u201cMy own limited personal life is my weapon and means, the only\nweapon and means I have to come to completeness. I will always remember\nthat it is a means, something to use; but it is my only means, and for\nthat reason it is important and precious to me above all else.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat you don\u2019t want to dream away your life,\nlike the ascetics of the middle ages, who dreamed of the whole, but\ndidn\u2019t do their part?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cexactly. It is as if we were all watching a vast\nchessboard, all together interested in the game, but each able to\ncontrol only one pawn, and yet anxious to play in such a way as to win\nthe game along with the others, each for the sake of the whole. And that\npawn is our own life; the only power we have.\u201d\n\n\u201cAren\u2019t we ourselves the pawns?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Henry; \u201cthen we couldn\u2019t manage them.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe are both pawn and player,\u201d I said; \u201cfor if we were only the pawn, in\nthe crowd of little players, we could not see ahead, and would go\nblindly forward without aim. One must be above the board to see it.\u201d\n\nAnd now I asked: \u201cShall we look once more over all we have said in these\nfew months?\u201d\n\nThey answered that it seemed to them this last meeting had been a\nreview.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201caloofness, which a while ago you could not\nunderstand, is now wholly clear to you; and more than that, it includes\nall we have said.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt doesn\u2019t include it all,\u201d said Henry, \u201cbut it finishes and rounds it\nout.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd our little club is finished,\u201d I asked, \u201cartistically finished?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cI have noticed that sometimes some of you call it \u2018class.\u2019 Is it a\nclass? Is it not rather a club; have we not all gone forward together?\u201d\n\nRuth answered: \u201cIt is each or both. Sometimes we speak of it as class,\nor club, or lesson.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely it is a lesson,\u201d said Henry, \u201cbecause we have learned something\nfrom it. Whatever you learn from is a lesson.\u201d\n\nWell, after all, I suppose I have given them my thought; and that is\nwhat I must have meant to do.\n\nI asked them what practical result the ideas had had upon their lives.\n\n\u201cDo you mean in action?\u201d asked Marian. \u201cI never stop to think of it when\nI act, but I find that I refer my thoughts again and again to this\nstandard, when I don\u2019t mean to, or expect to.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is a habit of thought,\u201d I answered, \u201cand our habits of thought\nunconsciously make our actions.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthings that happen are always bringing to mind\nthe things we speak of here.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut we have not yet reached an absolute, stiff conclusion, have we?\u201d\ninsisted Marian.\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d I answered; \u201cwe are going to be seekers all our lives\u2014are we\nnot?\u2014comrades in the search for light?\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d they said.\n\n\u201cAnd,\u201d I went on, \u201cI want something more of you. I have noticed that you\nall are very shy about talking of the club to outsiders. But it seems to\nme that it is worth while telling your thought and your truth, that you\nmust not only seek, but share what you find.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cthat we should try to get converts, like the\nCatholics?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cconverts to seeking.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is very hard,\u201d Ruth said, \u201cto talk to outsiders of these things. I\ncan tell my mother. She understands. But we have made a language of our\nown at the club, and other people don\u2019t understand it. When I begin to\ntell them, they ask: \u2018What sort of language are you using?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is a pity,\u201d I answered, \u201cand yet we could hardly help it. Perhaps\nwe should have tried to use other words.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo,\u201d said Ruth, \u201cI think it is a very beautiful language, and we must\nuse it. But it makes it hard to tell others.\u201d\n\n\u201cPeople don\u2019t want to understand,\u201d said Henry. \u201cWhen you begin to tell\nthem what it is about, they make up their minds they won\u2019t understand\nsuch things. They set out with that idea.\u201d\n\nMarian said: \u201cI often speak of certain things we discussed, just as the\nother day I was speaking of women\u2019s professions and social life. But it\nis impossible to tell the whole idea. One would have to begin at the\nbeginning.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cit would be a whole course. So you have to content\nyourself with telling the unessential parts. But I hope that you will\nabsorb this idea into your life and your actions, and then find new\nwords in which to tell the same truth almost unconsciously, words that\nwill be made clear to all through your own experience.\n\n\u201cWe see clearly how each one of us will draw strength and judgment from\nhis limitless whole self. And the knowledge of our greatest desire will\nmake us teach our lesser desires to follow it, will make us shape and\nuse the whole of our life for the thing we want and love.\n\n\u201cAnd now I wish to ask you each a question. What particular thing or\npower seems most dear and necessary to you in your own life, in order to\nfulfil your aim. Alfred, tell me. Do you know? Or do you want time to\nthink of it?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat I want most,\u201d said Alfred, \u201cis the power to calculate and judge\nhow things are going to turn out. To plan well.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat I want most,\u201d said Marian, \u201cis to be the sort of girl I wish to\nbe. To be like my idea of myself.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat I want most,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cis to have fun, to be happy.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat does that mean?\u201d asked Henry. \u201cHappiness, for each one of us, is\nhaving what we want most.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell,\u201d said Virginia, \u201cI like life to be pleasant for me and for all\nthe people about me.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat I want most,\u201d said Florence, \u201cis to be loved.\u201d\n\n\u201cOnly to be loved, or to love, too?\u201d\n\n\u201cTo be loved and to love.\u201d\n\nRuth said: \u201cThat is what I want most, too.\u201d\n\nHenry said: \u201cI agree with them.\u201d\n\nThey all seemed to wish they had said it. Virginia added: \u201cIf you are\nhappy, you are loved.\u201d\n\n\u201cLately,\u201d said I, \u201cthis last week, a leader of clubs told me he had\nasked this same question of a club of boys. I wanted to see what you\nwould answer.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat did they answer?\u201d\n\n\u201cThey, all but one, answered \u2018Money.\u2019 The one said he wished to make\nbeautiful things.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is a fine answer,\u201d Virginia said. \u201cI\u2019m sure I would like him.\u201d\n\n\u201cI know,\u201d said Henry, \u201ca great many boys feel that way. I happen to know\nof that club. One of those boys said to me lately, what he wanted most\nwas to have lots of money, so he could enjoy himself. But I think after\nhe had the money, he would not find the enjoyment satisfying.\u201d\n\n\u201cOf course,\u201d I answered, \u201cmoney is necessary to life; that is, the means\nof life are necessary to life.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut one can earn those,\u201d said they.\n\nMarian said: \u201cIf I were as strong, capable and good as I would like, and\njust the sort of person I mean to be, it would be easy to earn money.\u201d\n\nRuth said: \u201cIf one is loved and loves many people, one is sure to find\nsome way of getting enough money to live. I don\u2019t mean that people will\nthrust it on you, but you are sure to find the way to get whatever you\nneed.\u201d\n\nI said: \u201cMoney is only, as it were, a certificate of power; for so much\nwork, you are given the means to go on working and living. But the great\nproblem is to make the work itself worth more to us than the payment.\nAnd I am afraid with most people it is not so. Money is a means for\nwork, for life, for fulfilment. If things were properly adjusted, and\nsociety perfect, each man would work for his livelihood at the work\nwhich he loved most to do.\u201d\n\nVirginia said: \u201cI would rather be a pauper than not be an artist.\u201d\n\nI answered: \u201cI hope each one of you will find the means to do the work\nyou love, and make it your livelihood. For that is the only way to\njustify both work and wage.\u201d\n\nThen I said: \u201cBefore we part and plan to meet again, I am going to tell\nyou something very exciting. I am almost afraid to say it.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat is it? Tell us, quick.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you remember, I told you I was keeping minutes of the club?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, that is why you wanted our papers.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, they are not ordinary minutes. They are an exact account of all\nwe have done and said.\u201d And then I told them of this book.\n\nThey were delighted. \u201cWe are all going to be put into a book,\u201d they\nsaid.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d I answered, \u201cit will be a book, and you are all to be in it. But\nwho knows whether any one else will care? Perhaps it will never be\npublished.\u201d\n\n\u201cEven if it isn\u2019t published,\u201d said Henry, \u201cit will be a book.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat will it be called?\u201d they asked.\n\n\u201c\u2018The Seekers,\u2019 of course.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou ought to call it \u2018The Pathfinder,\u2019\u201d said Henry. \u201cThat would sound\nmore romantic and interesting, and attract people.\u201d\n\nWould I dedicate it to them? they asked.\n\n\u201cNo, certainly not,\u201d I said; \u201cyou are all helping me write it. We will\ndedicate it to all Seekers.\u201d\n\nWhat names would I use? they asked.\n\nI would use their right first names, I said. Weren\u2019t they willing?\n\nYes, yes, they were willing.\n\n\u201cFor,\u201d I said, \u201cone could scarcely make up prettier names: I like them\nall, Marian, Ruth, Florence, Virginia, Henry and Alfred.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d answered Marian, \u201cwe like our own names.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd you have really helped me to write it,\u201d I said, \u201cfor I have all\nyour papers. That\u2019s why I wanted them, to prove that I was not inventing\nthe whole thing.\u201d\n\n\u201cAre you putting them in just as we wrote them?\u201d asked Marian.\n\n\u201cYes, exactly.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, please,\u201d she begged, \u201ccorrect my spelling and my bad construction.\u201d\n\n\u201cI will correct your spelling and your punctuation, but nothing else.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, please,\u201d she said, \u201cchange the places where I repeated myself. I\nwrote them so hastily.\u201d\n\n\u201cI suppose,\u201d I said, \u201cthat what was good enough for me will be good\nenough for any one. Don\u2019t you think so? I always wanted to write a book\nlike this, and as I didn\u2019t have brains enough to invent it alone, I made\nyou help me. It is a real live book. We have lived it together.\u201d\n\nNow they asked me crowds of questions. Had I put in all the nonsense?\nYes, every bit. \u201cThen we will laugh at ourselves,\u201d said Marian. Had I\nput in every time Virginia mentioned animals? Yes, almost every time. It\nmust be very interesting, they said. \u201cDid you write down every time we\nlaughed?\u201d No, I took that for granted. And did I write down when\nFlorence said brother Arthur told her things? Yes. And would I leave\nthat in? Certainly. And would I let them see it? Yes, as soon as\npossible.\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX\n\n\nThe notes used by the leader at each meeting, and slightly remodeled\nafterward, as experience showed them to be faulty, are here presented,\nin the hope that they may be of use in some other club. Certain clubs\nhave been formed by some of the original Seekers, in which the text of\nthe book itself is being read aloud and discussed. But were an older\nperson leading the club\u2014and that is always to be desired\u2014he might find\nit far more stimulating and fruitful to conduct the meetings by\ndirecting the conversation along the line of these notes. No doubt if he\nmade this use of my experience, he would, by adding his own, give new\nvalue to the outcome.\n\n\n _NOTES_\n\n FIRST MEETING\n\n _Why Are Our Religions Unsatisfying, and What Shall We Do?_\n\nI. CONDITIONS TO-DAY:\n\n _a._ Religions destroy religion. If you are wrong, I might be\n wrong.\n\n _b._ Men cling to traditional, half-conscious belief, or build\n up an ethic or agnostic faith, because man must live by faith.\n\nII. HISTORIC REASONS FOR PRESENT CONDITIONS:\n\n _a._ Initiated and popular religion in history:\n\n 1. India; castes and the Brahmans.\n\n 2. Egypt; secret priesthood, annexed beliefs, and\n interpretations of myths.\n\n 3. Greece; Rome; early Catholicism; the priests.\n\n _b._ Analysis of initiated and popular belief:\n\n 1. Myths of Orpheus; of Moses and the Burning Bush; of\n the divine parentage of Jesus.\n\n 2. The initiated is the religion of poetry and prophecy,\n of symbols. These, taken literally by the people, become\n a religion of idols and prose. One is a moving spirit,\n the other a graven image. Words can be idols.\n\n _c._ The modern trend:\n\n 1. Democratic spirit (since Reformation) destroys\n initiated religion, keeps popular religion.\n\n 2. Science destroys popular myths.\n\nIII. WHAT MUST WE DO TO-DAY?\n\n _a._ Scientific knowledge destroys popular myths, but does not\n replace religion:\n\n 1. Every scientist has a philosophy or faith.\n\n 2. Science fosters new popular delusions, built on its\n literal facts, such as atheism and scientific\n superstitions of half-knowledge.\n\n _b._ There is absolute religious knowledge:\n\n 1. Its record in history: Moses, Jesus, etc.\n\n 2. Its testimony in our own selves:\n\n (What do we _know_?)\n\n _c._ In a democracy every one must attain this knowledge; each\n must be initiated; every man shall be a prophet.\n\nIV. WHAT DOES EACH ONE BELIEVE CONCERNING GOD?\n\n (Question for next week.)\n\n SECOND MEETING\n\n _God, and the Meaning of Progress_\n\nI. THE IDEA OF GOD A PERSONAL CONVICTION:\n\n _a._ A realization to be achieved, but, after that, silence on\n the subject. Sacredness of the word.\n\n _b._ Members\u2019 individual ideas of God.\n\n _c._ My idea stated:\n\n 1. God as Self (read from Vedas), as the completion of\n myself. \u201cI am that I am.\u201d\n\n 2. The aspiration toward complete sympathy,\n consciousness (selfhood) as the aspiration of God, and\n the aim of progress.\n\n 3. The idea of \u201choliness\u201d meaning \u201cwholeness.\u201d\n\nII. HISTORIC IDEAS OF GOD:\n\n _a._ The inner meaning of polytheism: many aspects of one God.\n\n _b._ The inner meaning of trinity: the three as one, as the\n contrast of life, and its unity. A true paradox. Myself, the\n other Self, and love, the holy spirit.\n\n _c._ The inner meaning of dualism: the two are two sides of one\n thing, the negative and the positive. Light makes darkness.\n\n _d._ Personal, parental, and all other ideas of God are included\n in our larger view. The unity embraces all ideas and\n diversities.\n\nIII. PROGRESS AS THE TREND TOWARD COMPLETE SELF:\n\n _a._ Throughout history the only progress has been toward\n greater understanding and brotherhood:\n\n 1. The value of railroads, telephones, etc.\n\n _b._ The good is whatever leads toward understanding, sympathy,\n wholeness.\n\n _c._ The bad is whatever does not lead thither:\n\n 1. The bad is what was once good, and has been passed.\n\n 2. Or sometimes it is the necessary result of an\n experimental progress.\n\n 3. Things are not \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad,\u201d but better and\n worse. Therefore evil itself is proof of progress.\n\n _d._ The will toward good is in the world and ourselves.\n\n 1. Dissatisfaction is the will toward progress.\n\n 2. We use all bad things for the great good that we\n love.\n\n (This meeting might be divided into two, one on GOD, and one on\n PROGRESS.)\n\n THIRD MEETING\n\n _Matter and Spirit_\n\nI. SHORT REVIEW:\n\n _a._ What is the aim of life?\n\n _b._ How do you explain good and bad?\n\nII. ARE MATTER AND SPIRIT ANTAGONISTIC, OR LIKE GOOD AND BAD, TO BE\nEXPLAINED THROUGH EACH OTHER?\n\n _a._ All matter has shape or idea:\n\n 1. Matter takes the shape of spirit.\n\n 2. We know only the spirit, or idea, because all things\n come to us through our senses.\n\n 3. Pure matter, if it exist, is a thing we cannot\n experience.\n\nIII. MATTER IS THE MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH SPIRIT EXPRESSES ITSELF:\n\n _a._ Expression is the means for reaching understanding.\n\n _b._ All expression, at present, is through so-called material\n means.\n\nIV. SPIRIT CAN DO ALL THINGS IN THE FUTURE:\n\n _a._ \u201cImmovable\u201d physical conditions are the result of will or\n spirit in the past.\n\n 1. Our ancestors.\n\n 2. The mental beginnings of all physical ills.\n\n _b._ Spirit force is the only shaping force in a universe of\n spirit or will.\n\n 1. One can, therefore, control the physical.\n\n 2. One can shape one\u2019s destiny.\n\n FOURTH MEETING\n\n _Evolution_\n\nI. THE PLACE OF EVOLUTION IN A RELIGIOUS ENQUIRY:\n\n _a._ We must believe in that, or in special creation.\n\n 1. Every religion has a theory of creation.\n\n 2. Evolution is a theory of creation.\n\n _b._ It may throw light on the means of progress.\n\nII. EVOLUTION MEANS DESCENT OF ALL CREATURES FROM A COMMON ONE-CELLED\nANCESTRAL FORM:\n\n _a._ Physical proof of the theory:\n\n 1. In likeness of structure.\n\n 2. In rudimentary organs.\n\n 3. In geological records.\n\n 4. In the Law of Recapitulation.\n\nIII. THEORIES OF THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION:\n\n _a._ Natural Selection:\n\n 1. Variations in all directions, and adaptation.\n\n 2. Adaptation a struggle for life.\n\n \u03b1. For place.\n\n \u03b2. For food.\n\n \u03b3. For protection, through imitative color or\n form.\n\n 3. The value of artificial selection as partly showing\n us the processes of natural selection.\n\n 4. What natural selection fails to explain.\n\n _b._ The theory of Sexual Selection, and its shortcomings.\n\n _c._ The auxiliary theory of Isolation.\n\nIV. THE PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EVOLUTION:\n\n _a._ Evolution a self-evolving of uncreated life.\n\n 1. Wish, desire, love cause all change and creation.\n\n 2. Progress is from within, of our own will.\n\n 3. Change or re-birth necessitates death.\n\n \u03b1. Death makes room for young.\n\n \u03b2. We die for the sake of life.\n\n _b._ Evolution and the aim of life:\n\n 1. Fitness and harmony the test of life.\n\n 2. It goes from likeness to unlikeness and recognition.\n\n 3. Pain, disease, death and changing standards of good\n and bad are the path of progress toward wholeness and\n understanding.\n\n _c._ Evolution the simplest, clearest proof of relationship.\n\n [Note.\u2014For reference and illustrations, the first volume of\n Romanes\u2019 \u201cDarwin and After Darwin\u201d is more convenient to use and\n show than Darwin\u2019s own works.]\n\n FIFTH MEETING\n\n _Prayer_\n\nI. A COMMUNION, NOT A BEGGING:\n\n _a._ In a world that goes toward its own desire\u2014which is also\n ours\u2014it is folly to ask one\u2019s vast Self for anything.\n\n _b._ Prayer is a momentary consciousness of the vast Self which\n is God.\n\nII. THE VALUE OF PRAYER:\n\n _a._ To be conscious, by an effort, of the vast oneness, gives\n us renewed calmness and strength.\n\n _b._ To pray for what we can be is to call forth the power to\n _be_ it.\n\n _c._ Prayer puts us in a state of mind in which we draw upon the\n endless source of power and possibility:\n\n 1. The value, therefore, of prayer before sleep.\n\nIII. THE MANNER OF PRAYER:\n\n _a._ By conscious words that give the communion.\n\n _b._ By an occasional state of mind.\n\n _c._ By every creative action.\n\n _d._ By the whole attitude of our life.\n\n SIXTH MEETING\n\n _Immortality_\n\nI. IMPORTANCE TO US OF AN OPINION CONCERNING DEATH AND IMMORTALITY:\n\n _a._ We know we must die soon:\n\n 1. Speak of the numberless generations of life.\n\n _b._ We live according to our expectations:\n\n 1. Relation throughout history of beliefs concerning\n immortality and of the morality of peoples.\n\n 2. Good and bad effects of belief in heaven and hell.\n\nII. KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING IMMORTALITY:\n\n _a._ What is Knowledge?\n\n 1. The relativity of all knowledge.\n\n 2. Knowledge through conviction loses force when there\n is disagreement.\n\n 3. Knowledge through analogy is like circumstantial\n evidence.\n\n _b._ We know:\n\n 1. That matter and force do not die.\n\n \u03b1. We know of nothing that is positively mortal.\n\n 2. That life works in a certain direction.\n\n 3. That death and re-birth are the means of moving in\n that direction, _i.e._, of progress.\n\n 4. That this progress is of the spirit or self.\n\n 5. That we are forever a part of the world, related to\n the whole.\n\n 6. As we know nothing but consciousness or self, we\n believe it must be immortal, though we have no proof.\n\nIII. THE THEORY OF RACE-IMMORTALITY AS AN IDEAL:\n\n _a._ It is more improbable than self-immortality.\n\n 1. All planets die.\n\n 2. The last generation, dies, too.\n\n _b._ It is not true immortality:\n\n 1. The thing we cannot transmit is the Self which loves\n and seeks.\n\nIV. MEMORY AND PERSONALITY:\n\n _a._ Admission of ignorance and indifference. Why?\n\n 1. Everything is a memory and a prophecy, since\n everything exists forever, and advances.\n\n 2. The body is a memory.\n\n 3. Memory must continue at least in its results on the\n self, if not more definitely.\n\n _b._ Love and Meeting:\n\n 1. Love may have other satisfactions than we dream of.\n\n 2. We are all one, and cannot be separated.\n\nV. \u201cI AM\u201d EXPRESSES IMMORTALITY:\n\n _a._ Each least thing is eternal and universal.\n\n SEVENTH MEETING\n\n _The Meaning of Beauty_\n\nI. BEAUTY IS THE SYMBOL OF COMPLETENESS AND HARMONY:\n\n _a._ This is the reason beauty delights us:\n\n 1. It pictures the aim and desire of our whole life.\n\n _b._ The smallest thing can be as a universe in itself, if it be\n complete and harmonious, _i.e._, perfect:\n\n 1. A drop as well as a planet; a dog, in his way, as\n well as a man; a day as well as a century.\n\nII. THE GOOD, THE TRUE AND THE BEAUTIFUL HAVE THE SAME END, AND ARE\nSOUGHT, RESPECTIVELY, BY PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND ART:\n\n _a._ Philosophy seeks the whole at once, therefore can never\n reach that completeness.\n\n _b._ Science seeks individual truths, not the moral truth, or\n aim:\n\n 1. Darwin, the philosophical scientist.\n\n _c._ Art gives us that completeness, our aim, symbolized in a\n small and definite shape.\n\nIII. GENIUS IS THE COMMON HUMAN QUALITY, DISTINCT FROM TALENT:\n\n _a._ The Genius differs not in _kind_, but in _degree_, from his\n fellows.\n\n _b._ The desire for understanding and completeness, present in\n some measure in all, is genius.\n\n _c._ The understanding in the spectator is akin to the genius in\n the artist.\n\nIV. TALENT IS THE POWER OF EXPRESSION:\n\n _a._ To see all things as distinct wholes, impersonally.\n\n _b._ The skill to portray, and to handle material.\n\n _c._ Genius and talent vary in degrees of relation in different\n artists\u2019 work:\n\n 1. The great idea, imperfectly executed.\n\n 2. The small idea in perfect form.\n\nV. ART AS THE SYMBOL OF COMPLETENESS AND CREATIVE EXPRESSION:\n\n _a._ The sublime lie of the Symbol, truer than fact:\n\n 1. The effect of removal from life, of unreality, in\n relation to beauty. It seems more self-sufficient.\n\n _b._ A complete vision must not take sides:\n\n 1. When art is partisan, _for_ something, it is also\n _against_ something. Complete representation.\n\n _c._ Creative art gives us the joy of play, of creation:\n\n 1. Play\u2014interplay\u2014is the progress and will of life,\n and work but a name for the disagreeable but necessary\n part of the game.\n\n EIGHTH MEETING\n\n _Art_\n\nI. REASON FOR \u00c6STHETIC ENQUIRY:\n\n _a._ Art (creation) is the service of religion.\n\n _b._ Laws of beauty (completeness) may give us laws for life.\n\n _c._ Will prepare us to deal more sanely and surely with the\n involved problems of conduct.\n\nII. ART IN THE NOVEL:\n\n _a._ Completeness in the story:\n\n 1. Exclusion of unimportant and irrelevant matter.\n\n \u03b1. The \u201cstory-teller\u201d in us all.\n\n \u03b2. The distractions of real life, with its\n far-relatedness.\n\n \u03b3. The \u201coutside\u201d event in melodrama too like\n life.\n\n 2. Exclusion of author\u2019s one-sided moral verdict.\n\n 3. Must not be \u201c_for_\u201d some characters, and \u201c_against_\u201d\n others.\n\n _b._ Understanding of Life in novel:\n\n 1. False simplicity of poetic justice, of all good, and\n all bad.\n\n 2. Cant phrases offend because they appear imitative,\n not sincere.\n\n 3. Psychological and dramatic treatment:\n\n \u03b1. Dramatic writer trusts reader\u2019s insight.\n\n \u03b2. Action is more convincing than description of\n motive.\n\n 4. Humor and wit:\n\n \u03b1. Humor is knowledge of human nature, its\n contrasted greatness and littleness.\n\n \u03b2. Wit is a juggling of words into contrasted or\n incongruous effects.\n\n \u03b3. Both are a bringing together of the\n incongruous, in a paradox of unity.\n\n NINTH MEETING\n\n _Art_ (Continued)\n\nI. ART IN POETRY:\n\n _a._ Difference between Poetry and Prose:\n\n 1. Poetry is \u201cset to music,\u201d and the rhythm carries part\n of the message.\n\n 2. This unreality or distance from life makes it more\n complete and beautiful in itself.\n\n 3. The emotions and imagination picture completeness\n more easily than the intellect:\n\n \u03b1. Because the desire for completeness is a\n feeling.\n\n _b._ Completeness and understanding in Poetry:\n\n 1. Metaphor and simile a relationing of far-off things.\n\n 2. Symbol in Play replaces them:\n\n \u03b1. The Fairy-story.\n\n 3. Taking sides destroys poetry.\n\n 4. Exaggerated and conventional phrases are weak because\n they are insincere.\n\nII. ART IN MUSIC:\n\n _a._ Music is itself harmony and completeness:\n\n 1. The most intangible and removed, it is yet the most\n satisfying symbol of completeness and harmony.\n\nIII. THE OPERA:\n\n _a._ Its attempt to combine all the Arts in one harmonious\n expression.\n\nIV. ART IN PAINTING:\n\n _a._ Unity or completeness in painting:\n\n 1. Point of interest; with radiating lines, balance, and\n other means of making it prominent.\n\n 2. The cycle of colors, complete color, and the contrast\n of light and darkness.\n\n 3. A story, not embodied in the picture itself, but\n needing words of explanation, spoils unity.\n\n 4. Unnecessary detail, detracting from central interest\n and motive, also spoils unity.\n\n _b._ Truth in painting:\n\n 1. Falseness of photographic truth, because of its lack\n of unity and purpose.\n\n \u03b1. The \u201cout-of-focus\u201d and imaginatively planned\n photograph sometimes artistic.\n\n 2. Perspective, the painter\u2019s vision of the single\n complete experience.\n\n 3. To see beauty in things is to see the truth.\n\n 4. \u201cPrettiness,\u201d the result of catering to the\n shortcomings of the spectator\u2019s taste, is a violation of\n the artist\u2019s taste or sense of completeness and truth.\n\n 5. Knowledge of life (anatomy) is necessary:\n\n \u03b1. One must understand life to portray it.\n\nV. SCULPTURE:\n\n _a._ The Greek Drama of the visual Arts:\n\n 1. The unlifelikeness of the material, the removal from\n life, makes it more beautiful, and a truer symbol.\n\n _b._ Expresses idea through attitude of the human form.\n\nVI. ARCHITECTURE:\n\n _a._ Like music\u2019s, its appeal is to the emotions, without\n definite sense or lifelikeness; but speaks as life itself.\n\n _b._ To be complete, it must express outwardly its inner use and\n meaning.\n\n _c._ To be sincere, or true, it must express the spirit of land\n and people.\n\n [Note.\u2014This ninth meeting might profitably be divided into\n two.]\n\n TENTH MEETING\n\n _Shall We Make an Art of Life?_\n\nI. TRUTH, GOODNESS AND BEAUTY, BUT THE GREATEST OF THESE IS BEAUTY,\nWHICH COMBINES THE OTHER TWO:\n\n _a._ Science is knowledge of facts.\n\n _b._ Philosophy is vision of truth or aim.\n\n _c._ Art is using our knowledge to create what we seek. Action\n and purpose.\n\nII. ART IS SELF-EXPRESSION, CREATION, ACTION, RELATIONING:\n\n _a._ All life, all being, is action, or self-expression.\n\n _b._ All power in the world is imaginative, creative\n thought-power:\n\n 1. All things must be imagined before they can be known\n or done.\n\nIII. ALL GREAT ACTION, ALL GOODNESS, ALL POWER IN LIFE FOLLOWS THE SAME\nLAWS AS ART:\n\n _a._ Therefore let us discover the laws of all arts, and see\n whether they can be applied to life.\n\nIV. THE MESSAGE OF ALL THE ARTS:\n\n _a._ All have the same laws:\n\n 1. Art is the symbol of completeness in a definite\n shape.\n\n 2. Is self-expression and self-fulfilment.\n\n 3. Must leave out the unimportant.\n\n 4. Must have variety and many-sidedness.\n\n 5. Must not be partisan, and must be sympathetic.\n\n 6. Must give the impression of truth.\n\n 7. Must be aloof, that is, separate from life, and see\n things, as it were, from a distance, in their wholeness.\n\nV. REVIEW AND CONCLUSION:\n\n _a._ Each smallest thing can symbolize the whole:\n\n 1. Each human life is a symbol of the complete Self, in\n a definite shape.\n\n 2. Each is deserving of reverence:\n\n \u03b1. Reverence is the small self awed before its\n own vastness.\n\n [Note.\u2014As the eleventh meeting was somewhat of a digression,\n and as the notes taken were covered in later meetings, it is\n here omitted.]\n\n TWELFTH MEETING\n\n _What is Goodness?_\n\nI. EACH LIFE, TO BE GOOD OR BEAUTIFUL, MUST BE A SYMBOL OF THAT PERFECT\nOR COMPLETE LIFE FOR WHICH WE LONG:\n\n _a._ Life\u2014the symbol of complete Self in a definite shape.\n\n _b._ The good man makes all he knows and touches a complete,\n harmonious whole:\n\n 1. Goodness is always of relation.\n\n 2. One cannot be perfect till all are so:\n\n \u03b1. Therefore goodness implies modesty.\n\nII. FALSE AND TRUE GOOD:\n\n _a._ The one law of Love, and its petty, changing codes:\n\n 1. True good of changing harmonious relation.\n\n 2. False good of outworn custom and rule.\n\nIII. THE MEANING OF SELF-EXPRESSION:\n\n _a._ The small and large Self:\n\n 1. The whole world is the whole of me.\n\n 2. Serve, not others only, but others as part of\n yourself.\n\n _b._ Self-sacrifice:\n\n 1. Giving up one thing for a greater thing.\n\n 2. Happiness is whatever we want most.\n\n 3. If completeness is the aim of life, then all lesser\n happiness is sacrificed to it.\n\n 4. If life is a drama, a whole, we give up our selfish\n satisfaction to see that whole self satisfied.\n\n _c._ Creation is Self-expression, is endless, higher rebirth:\n\n 1. All action reveals the actor.\n\n 2. Life is a drama, in which we feel ourselves to have\n equal prominence with others, and conscious power of\n control:\n\n \u03b1. We cannot help having influence.\n\n \u03b2. Let us shape our influence for the whole.\n\n THIRTEENTH MEETING\n\n _Self-fulfilment Through Overcoming Limitations_\n\nI. ENVY, ITS NARROWNESS AND BLINDNESS:\n\n _a._ Every man serves me who does for me what I cannot do for\n myself:\n\n 1. Each one fills out my shortcomings.\n\n _b._ Use, instead of coveting.\n\nII. SELF-REGULATION IN DESPITE OF SELF:\n\n _a._ The moral sense of beauty, an intellectual sense of\n completeness, makes us regulate and suppress our desires:\n\n 1. Hence we make laws which are substitutes for\n understanding love.\n\n _b._ The substitutes necessary until love conquers, are:\n\n 1. Justice.\n\n 2. Honesty.\n\n 3. Duty.\n\n 4. Binding by promise.\n\n 5. Obedience.\n\n _c._ Conventions, their changes and their convenience.\n\nIII. SOME VIRTUES CHANGED BY LOVE\u2019S DEMANDS:\n\n _a._ Revenge, the first expression of Loyalty:\n\n 1. Our admiration for such expression in its own early\n time.\n\n _b._ Pity, the developer of Feeling:\n\n 1. Degenerates into Weakness and Impotence.\n\n 2. Is an Insult:\n\n \u03b1. A strong man does not pity himself. Should\n not pity other strong selves.\n\n 3. Strong Sympathy, and our common Working for the great\n Happiness, should replace pity.\n\n _c._ Reverence for special people, with Fear:\n\n 1. Self-reverence means reverence for all selves.\n\n 2. Reverence the old\u2014and the young, too.\n\n 3. The reverence with love replaces the reverence with\n fear.\n\n FOURTEENTH MEETING\n\n _Loyalty, and Conscious Allegiance to our Individual Aspiration_\n\nI. PATRIOTISM; ITS MEANING:\n\n _a._ We are children of all we can love and serve:\n\n 1. The growth of loyalty, from the family to the world:\n\n \u03b1. War as a fighting for peace.\n\n _b._ Patriotism in its growth, like all progress, must include\n the small in the large, though in seeming disloyalty:\n\n 1. Disloyalty to one\u2019s country cannot be loyalty to the\n world.\n\n 2. But wholesome criticism often seems disloyal:\n\n \u03b1. The loyalty of revolutionists.\n\nII. CONSCIOUS CHOICE IN SELF-DEVELOPMENT:\n\n _a._ Know what you want most to be.\n\n _b._ Eliminate whatever interferes with your choice; make life a\n work of art, not a haphazard photograph.\n\n 1. Concentration.\n\n 2. Choose and subordinate your studies for their worth\n to you.\n\n 3. Prefer friends to acquaintances.\n\n 4. Do the work at hand (charity at home), and be sure\n your service harmonizes with your knowledge and your\n whole life.\n\n 5. Never degrade the end by making an _end_ out of the\n _means_. (Business, athletics, study, must always be\n means.)\n\n _c._ Dare to desire the utmost, unflinchingly:\n\n 1. Greatness comes from persistent desire rather than\n from inborn skill.\n\n _d._ Youth and old age:\n\n 1. Desire and service can continue throughout life.\n\nIII. VARIETY AND RHYTHM:\n\n _a._ Varied life with single Aim:\n\n 1. Concentrate on one thing at a time, but not on one\n thing all the time.\n\n 2. The meaning and worth of Knowledge.\n\n 3. Never be bored, or bore:\n\n \u03b1. Sense of humor; and use of silence.\n\n 4. Work and play, exertion and rest, must harmonize:\n\n \u03b1. Even your pleasures will reflect your\n character, or taste.\n\n _b._ Be a rhythm, a measure, a force like music in the life all\n about you.\n\n [Note.\u2014The fifteenth meeting was spent on Christian Science,\n and is therefore omitted from the notes.]\n\n SIXTEENTH MEETING\n\n _Social Relations_\n\nI. THE AVOIDANCE OF BITTER PARTISANSHIP:\n\n _a._ Take sides, not with persons, but with causes.\n\n _b._ Use all. Be for all, and against none.\n\nII. SOCIAL SYMPATHY:\n\n _a._ Humanity as a vast Self:\n\n 1. Democracy means we have all the right to be equal:\n\n \u03b1. Faith and reverence for self in all.\n\n \u03b2. Service is larger self-service.\n\n \u03b3. Each does his part; hand and head.\n\n 2. To keep well, to be satisfied, we must care for the\n sick and miserable:\n\n \u03b1. Starvation.\n\n \u03b2. Old age.\n\n \u03b3. Contagion.\n\n _b._ To care for the weak strengthens the strong:\n\n 1. To destroy the weak is dangerous loss. (Rome and\n Sparta.)\n\n _c._ In passing judgment on crimes, hate not persons but their\n acts:\n\n 1. Each acts according to his desire or needs.\n\n 2. Punishment as preventive and cure.\n\nIII. TRUTH IN PERSONAL RELATIONS:\n\n _a._ Truth-telling not the whole of Truth:\n\n 1. Malicious truth-telling is not truth.\n\n 2. Worth of kind, true criticism and praise.\n\n _b._ Our judgments of people judge us:\n\n 1. Our limited understanding.\n\n 2. Say: \u201cI am one who hates, or loves,\u201d etc.\n\n _c._ Whom shall we please, and how?\n\n 1. The morality of good manners.\n\n 2. Vanity, the pretended worth; and true worth or\n loveableness.\n\n 3. \u201cPrettiness\u201d in manner, pleasing those who cannot\n understand us.\n\n 4. Social frivolity, overdress and luxury, and its\n result of friendship.\n\n \u03b1. Show is for those we do not love. (Resembles\n \u201ccostly material\u201d in art.)\n\n[IV. WOMEN AND WORK:\n\n _a._ The true preparation for marriage.\n\n _b._ Social life and service.\n\n _c._ Knowledge as mere show; or as power.]\n\n SEVENTEENTH MEETING\n\n _Aloofness and Creation_\n\nI. SEEING LIFE AS A SPECTATOR, FROM GOD\u2019S POINT OF VIEW:\n\n _a._ The collective personality:\n\n 1. Psychological fact: We are often outside ourselves in\n tense moments.\n\n 2. Getting far away from oneself in self-criticism and\n judgment.\n\n 3. Our reasonableness in crises.\n\n 4. All heroism is self-forgetfulness for the sake of the\n whole.\n\nII. RESULT IN ACTION AND CREATIVE LIVING:\n\n _a._ Partnership with whole, or God:\n\n 1. We can see and use our personal life as part of\n whole.\n\n 2. We can get above our own sorrow and pain, and use\n them.\n\n _b._ This aloofness from self, or being the _One_, is the root\n of all morals:\n\n 1. Some know this, and make laws; the others are forced\n to obey.\n\n _c._ Aloofness is collective experience, or memory, whence we\n grow toward the good. We live in all time and space.\n\nIII. PERSONAL RESULT OF OUR CLUB\u2019S WORK:\n\n _a._ Drawing judgment from the whole.\n\n _b._ Drawing strength from the whole.\n\n _c._ Training our lesser desires to serve the whole aim and\n desire of our life.\n\n _d._ How shall we attain to fulfilment in our personal life?\n\n 1. Money, health, power, etc., as certificates of\n creative value, to be used for new creation.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\n\nHyphenation and archaic spellings have been retained as in the original.\nPunctuation and type-setting errors have been corrected without note.\nOther corrections are as noted below.\n\nPage 37, and he saw that an ==> and we saw that an\nPage 91, God,\u201d I answered ==> God,\u201d she answered\npage 93, so; but a word itself ==> so; work itself\nPage 104, a sense of duty ==> a sense of unity\nPage 236, different from each one ==> different for each one\nPage 266, if the operator always ==> is the spectator always","title":"The Seekers","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":70674}