in mm
II! Ill if
mm ■ill §
111 hi! i !i iji 1 Pi i
it' 1 I I
; rn ! | hi i
It i I !il
= ;! j! I I	i

£ I III ill
fj!]1 |l i I ill m
|i l! I ji | iii| ili'iljii!! i
! If! |! i I III;
■VI;	i I Hi
Ell in ill
wwi ti iu i i |i ii ill li
ii! I;!il!i;;ili:mi lilJ ilillll
532353484853239153232348484823232353232323234848532323234853534823484853235323Cd34i
4-0 %
"I give the/e Books for the- founding of c College in this Colony'
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
Alfred E. Perkins FundBETWEEN TWO WARSBetween Two Wars
1861 — 1921
being
MEMORIES, OPINIONS AND LETTERS RECEIVED
By James Mark Baldwin
PH.D., D.Sc., LL.D.
Correspondant of the Institute of France, the Royal Academy of Belgrade, the Institute of Social Science of Tokio, Gold Medalist of the Royal Academy of Denmark, etc.
Two Volumes, Illustrated Vol. II
1926
THE STRATFORD COMPANY, Publishers Boston, MassachusettsCopyright, 1926 The STRATFORD CO., Publishers Boston, Mass.
Printed in the United States of AmericaVolume II
Opinions and Letters ReceivedPreface to Volume II1
The collection of fugitive papers, made up of speeches, lectures, and shorter addresses dating from the war period, 1914-1918, has I trust sufficient interest to justify its publication in this form; not only, that is, the interest attaching to all competent and authentic opinion touching the events of this momentous period but also that arising from the character, which many of the papers present, as being in a sense representative. Many of them represented at the moment of their pronouncement more than the views of the individual author.8
The verses entitled "The Voice of America" which stand first professed to announce, at the very outbreak of the war, what was to be the authentic and inevitable decision of the United States. The Nation's action, taken officially later on, fully justified the confidence of their author.
In the letter addressed to Hugo Kirbach (see p. 32 below) I spoke as one of the American professors who had studied in Germany, to whose verdict appeal was made. It was gratifying to see with what practical unanimity similar views condemning Germany were expressed by the great body of American University professors.
The speech made at the banquet of the American Chamber of Commerce of Paris on the Fourth of July, 1915—p. 44 below—was delivered with the approval of the Chamber, and constituted the response of the American colony in Paris to the stirring address of the French Premier, M. Viviani, delivered on the same occasion.
1	Written for the French collection of papers, Paroles de Guerre d'un American, Paris, Alcan, 1919. Now somewhat revised.
2	They constitute Part II, Opinions.
iii
PREFACE
The telegram addressed to the President of the United States on the occasion of the submarine attack on the "Sussex," spoke for a woman whose mutilated form represented all the victims and symbolized all the nefast meaning of the German submarine warfare. That it voiced the feeling of a much wider circle may be seen from the following words cited from the editorial comment of the New York Times, April 4, 1916: "He demands reparation—that is the demand of the American people, that is the way they feel" (see Vol. I, pp. 220-1).
Similarly the "Message from Americans abroad to Americans at home" (below p. 79) spoke in the first instance, for the hundred signatories, representative men and women of all professions, all resolute to convince their dear land of its duty. They all later on testified to the sincerity of their patriotism by their work in support of the American government, when it had given wider and official pronouncement to the very truths they formulated in this Message.
In a further paper, the address (below p. 101) made at the manifestation in honor of the United States, organized at the Sorbonne by the French Ligue Maritime—an occasion graced by the presence of the President of the Republic and of many representatives of both governments—the speaker, representing the American Navy League, presented in its name the reasons, now universally accepted, for the American participation in the war.
In the comment (p. 42) on the Raemakers cartoon, originally printed in the collection of that artist's war cartoons published by The Century Co. of New York, I give my testimony, as a man who has devoted his life to Science pure and undefiled, and who has the right to speak in thePREFACE
iii
name of all high-minded scientific men, to the truth graphically presented by the great draughtsman. I believe that every true apostle of Science, even be he German, must and will accept the terms of this indictment.
It is with the same feeling of having spoken for a moral and humane cause, against the brutal practises of an official system of murder, that I have included the paper on "German Methods in Belgium" (p. 36).
* * *
Apart, however, from this representative note, attaching to certain of these papers, there are two further comments which I find it a propos to make in this place.
In the first place, it is a pleasure to an advocate of Franco-American amity to revive papers containing praise of France and appreciation of French civilization.
The lecture devoted to "French and American Ideals" (p. 3) was given in the Theatre Michel at Paris in the Spring of 1913, when there was no sign of war; and that on "France and the War"3 was prepared for English-speaking audiences at the very beginning of hostilities—as was, on the other hand also, the letter to Hugo Kirbach. Over-statements on one side as on the other, as they may have appeared at the time, they now seem to be but expressions of sentiments which many persons share.
As the war proceeded and the contrast between the two sides established itself, the aesthetic value of this contrast came to embody for me one of the profound lessons of the war. This is expressed in the papers "Two Nations: An Aesthetic Contrast," and "After Two Years of War" (p. 90 and p. 93).
The other point to which I wish to refer concerns the opinions expressed in some of these papers on the subject of American neutrality, and the comments made on some of
3 Not included here, but published in English by Appleton.iv
PREFACE
the utterances of the President during the first two years of the conflict.
I allow these expressions of opinion to stand as they were originally published.. They too were expressions of more than isolated and personal opinion. They represented views on questions pertaining to the wider interpretation of the war, and views on questions of international obligation —views which, in their larger part, grew in influence with discussion, and finally prevailed in the policy of the American Nation.
All types of document will serve to inform the historian of the next generation and to control his conclusions. Views of the type expressed here on the American neutrality policy of 1914 to 1916, were so widespread in their extent and so authoritative in their origin, on both sides of the Atlantic, that their claim to legitimate parentage to those which underlay the new national policy of intervention will have to be recognized. At the time the President adopted them they had become current.
It is most important to all Americans that these questions of interpretation should be conscientiously worked out to their solution; for they relate to a most critical epoch of our history, that of the final abandonment of our national tradition of isolation and of the deliberate assumption, once for all, on the part of the Republic, of a full share in the duties and obligations of a world State.
No intelligent American with patriotism could fail to be impressed by such a spectacle, presented as it was through the lens of a stupendous war, waged on moral issues and fought out for ends of liberty. Neither could any patriotic American refuse to speak out at the time, or be unwilling to recall, afterwards, the considerations which moved him during this fateful period, and which consti-PREFACE	v
tuted his contribution, however humble, to the molding of the opinion of his fellow-countrymen.4
For the discussions were, and are still, on principles, not on men. The present writer has, as have many others, criticised the President's utterances of 1914 to 1916; he is still, with others, quite unable to explain much that they contain. He criticised the policy of moral neutrality, and deplored its effects both at home and abroad. But one has only to turn to the paper entitled "America Ready for Great Resolutions" (below p. 57) to see with what joy and enthusiasm he welcomed and proclaimed, in France, the first of the President's messages which showed real comprehension of the meaning of the war to us and indicated a change of policy.8
Among these papers there are two which discuss general issues and point to the future: that on "A Pan-Atlantic League" (p. 94) and that on "The Procedure of Peace" (p. 111).
The former of these, published first in August, 1916, was pointed then to the future; for the United States was still neutral, and seemed far enough from the moral and political alliance with England and France that the term "Pan-Atlantic" presumed, and which the paper was written to advocate. Today such an alliance is no longer future, in the important sense that its realization, on the moral side,
* With what sincere respect and admiration one readB the following statement
made, as reported in the papers, by the Vice-President of the United States,
Mr. Marshall, in his address at New York in September 1018, in support of the
Fourth Liberty Loan. Mr. Marshall is reported to have said: "I come here to make an apology for my attitude during almost two years and a half of this
fateful conflict; an apology that a God-fearing man, in the twentieth century of civilization, could have dreamed that any nation, any man, could be neutral when the right was fighting against the wrong." What a clearing of the atmosphere, if Mr. Wilson had come out with a similar manly "apology" I
6 I may add, in order to give American readers an indication of the tension
of French feeling at the time as to American opinion, that there was hardly a
French journal of importance, in the provinces no less than in Paris, which did not reproduce this article, together with the following one, "A Word to the French" (p. 71).vi
PREFACE
was attested by common effort on the battle-field; while every indication pointed to its permanent consecration in the "Pact of Guarantee" signed at Paris.
Such a Pan-Atlantic alliance would be of unspeakable benefit to mankind. It would incorporate and concentrate, for every future effort and in every future emergency, the moral forces of the Anglo-Saxon and Latin races for the final triumph of the rights of man and the permanent establishment of the commonwealth of nations.
Finally, the occasion is here found of evoking the memory and recounting, in retrospect, the reciprocal words of Franco-American fellowship of which certain occasions are here recorded. One may be allowed to bring even the smallest offering to the altar of Victory, the offering of reverence for the virtues of those of whom it celebrates the memory, as of hate for the vices of those whose crimes it holds up to the abhorrence of posterity, as one brings to a commemorative monument the simple flower, which fades in a day but which at the time expresses the most enduring impulses of the heart.
The concluding papers are of a philosophical character; they present a resume of the doctrine worked out in the writer's more special publications. They bring us back, after the excitement and emotion of the war-period, to the calm atmosphere of thought and faith. It may seem ironical to speak of "A Beautiful World" after the hi.deous happenings of the immediate past, but philosophy looks at things "sub specie seternitatis," and lays its foundations far beneath the agitated surface of this epoch or that. La Rochefoucauld in his famous book of "Maxims," says, "Philosophy triumphs over the ills of the past and the ills of the future, but the ills of the present triumph over it." The word of the philosophical agnostic, seeing in the "pres-PREFACE
vii
ent fact" the stumbling-stone of the philosopher who would hold the world at arms' length to look at it. The same writer says, "We have courage enough to bear the misfortunes of others"—in this adding to the role of the philosophical agnostic that of the ethical cynic. But the true philosopher, in whatever walk of life, may regain the vision of the moral idealist—who sees the universe apart from his own shadow, and supports its ills with the serenity of the sage—when in sheer wonder at the spectacle of it, he bows down to admire the world, even though he can neither approve the part nor understand the Whole.
A prefatory note to Part III will be found on p. 198.Table of Contents of Volume II
Part II. Opinions Chapter	Page
Preface .......... i
I. The Voice of America.......1
II. French and American Ideals.....3
III.	Open Letter to Dr. Hugo Kirbach .... 32
IV.	German Methods in Belgium.....36
^ V. The Spirit of German Science.....42
VI. Fourth of July address, Paris, 1915 .... 44
VII. On Neutrality .........49
VIII. America Ready for Great Resolutions ... 57 IX. Incoherence: 1. The President on the War-Aims 61 2. Peace Without Victory ... 64 X. A Word to the French on the English . . .71 XI. Submarine Warfare and the Neutral Nations . 75 XII. Message from Americans Abroad .... 79
Comment by G. Hanotaux......88
Response by Miss Edith M. Thomas .... 89
XIII.	Two Nations: 1. An Aesthetic Contrast . . . 90
2. After Two Years of War . . 93
XIV.	A Pan-Atlantic League—Why Not? . . .94 XV. 1. Why is the United States at War? . . .101
2. Address of Monsieur A. Millerand . . . 107 XVI. The Procedure of Peace and the Role of the U. S. Ill XVII. Our Future Intellectual Relations . . . .123 XVIII. Franco-American Notes:
1.	Moral Education in the U. S. and in France 128
2.	Franco-American Solidarity . . . .131
3.	American Debt to French Art . . . 135
ixx
CONTENTS
Page
4.	French Liberty and American .... 138
5.	American Philosophy and French Influences 147 XIX. The Development of American Philosophy . .151
XX. Notes on Mexico........153
XXI. Genetic Logic: a Resume......160
XXII. The Beautiful World.......172
XXIII. Reflections and Proverbs......190
Part III. Letters Received
I.
Selected Letters of James McCosh (7)	. 199
II.
Selected Letters of William James (23) .	. 204
Letter of J. Mark Baldwin to W. James .	. 220
III. (1888-1903)
Letters from
Sir Daniel Wilson ...	.... 223
G.	Croom Robertson ...	.... 224 Campbell Fraser ....	.... 225
A. Bain (2).............. 226
Thomas Davidson ....	.... 227
Th. Ribot................ 228
F. L. Patton (2) . . . .	.... 228
A. T. Ormond ....	.... 230
A. Binet................ 231
J. Royce (2).............. 232
H.	Hoffding (2) . . . .	.... 235 E. W. Cope (2) . . . .	.... 237 H. F. Osborn.............. 239CONTENTS	xi
Letters from	Page
C. B. Davenport............... . 240
Ray Lankester (2)............. . 242
G.	Tarde (2)............... . 243
T. D. A. Cockerell............. . 244
A.	R. Wallace (2)............. . 246
J. M. Baldwin, reply to A. R. Wallace . .	. . 248
Henry James................. . 249
R. T. Ely (2)................. . 250
L. Stephen (2)............... . 253
H.	B. Fine................. . 255
J. M. Baldwin, reply to H. B. Fine . .	. . 256
IV.
(1903-1914)
S. Newcomb (2) . . . ...	.258
B.	Bosanquet .... ...	. 259
C.	D. Allen .... ...	.260 C. S. Minot (2) . . . ...	.261
E.	A. Chavez (5) . . . ...	.263
B.	I. Gildersleeve ... ...	.269 H. Bergson (3) . . . ...	.270
C.	S. Peirce (2) . . . ...	.272
F.	H. Bradley (4) . . ...	.274 C. LI. Morgan (5) . . ...	.279 E. B. Poulton (4) . . ...	.284 E. P. Poulton .... ...	.285 Th. Flournoy (3) . ...	.288 A. Espinas .... ...	. 291 L. Levy-Bruhl (2) ...	.293 H. James (2) . . . . ...	.295xii
CONTENTS
V.
(1915 and Later)
Letters from	Page
J. Jusserand ...	.....297
J. G. Hibben (2) . .	.....297
G. Fagnier (2)	.....299
W. Warren . / .	......301
A. Lalande ....	......302
E. Picard................303
E. Boutroux ....	......304
A. Espinas ....	......304
P. Sabatier (3) . . .	......305
G.	H. Putnam..........309
I. W. Riley...........311
W. H. Howell..........313
E. H. Griffin (2)..........314
H.	H. Field...........317
John Finley...........318
L. Destree...........319
E.	Dimnet...........320
R. Stourm and H. Joly........321
W. G. Sharp...........322
F.	H. Mason...........323
W. R. Hearn...........324
J. E. Carpenter..........325
H. A. Gibbons (2).........326
D. Harper...........329
F. E. Drake......-.....330
M. P. Peixotto..........331
W. J. Ashley...........332
P. Janet............333
J. Bryce............334
A. V. Dicey (2)..........334CONTENTS	xiii
H. Van Dyke...........337
Ch. Wagner...........338
A. J. Balfour...........339
G.	Parker...........339
E.	Wharton...........340
Y. Guyot............340
Ch. Richet...........341
F.	Pollock...........342
H.	Hoffding...........343
W. M. Urban . . '.........344
M. T. Herrick..........346
M. R. Vesnitch (2).........347
E. B. Poulton (4)..........348
Index to Volumes I and II........353List of Illustrations in Volume II
Part II.
Portrait of the Writer	. Frontispiece
Page
German Proclamations in Belgium (5)	38,40
German Medal "America"...........70
Pages from H. Bergson and Anatole France (2) .	88, 90
Sketches of the Writer by M. Resco (2) .	.102
Portrait of Alexander Millerand...........110
Diagram of Development of American Philosophy	. 151
Part III.
Portrait of James McCosh .	. 202
Portrait of William James .	. 220
Portrait of Sir Daniel Wilson	. 224
Portrait of Simon Newcomb .	. 258
Group at University of Mexico .	. 268
Biological Group ...	. 286
Portrait of E. B. Poulton	. 350BETWEEN TWO WARS 1861 - 1921I. The Voice of America1
(August, 1914)
I
All nations hail!—and peoples all
Who question, in this hour of proof,
What hopes, what vows, what fervent prayers
Go out across the seas. Behold!
The torch relit on Belgian plains
Is one in color and in flame
With that which every freeman hails
When first he sees America!'
II
England, noble Mother, hail! Thy daughter, now thine equal friend, Upholds thy hand. Strike hard, strike hard! Would God our filial thoughts, as men And soldiers girded, all might sail To stand, our legions with thine own— No longer two, but one again— To fight for freedom's Holy Gain!
III
France, brave foster-sister, hail! Thy comrade since our double birth, Thy twin Republic greets thee, hail! Once more to prove thy boasted power To make the distant vision real, Wed deed to thought! Reveal again Thy soul intrepid, kin to ours, Defender of the rights of man!
1 Originally published in the Times (London) and copied by the New York Herald and other papers.
■ Allusion to the statue of "Liberty Enlightening the World" at the entrance to New York Harbor.
12
BETWEEN TWO WARS
IV
All men of honest purpose, hail! Proclaim the faith, create the bond, And brand with universal scorn The beast in German skin that prates Of resting in the sun, while prowling In the dark, to gore defenceless men. Awake, Europa's martial Will, Awake to strike, and strike to kill!II. French and American Ideals1
Ideals are very obscure things. They reveal themselves to us slowly and only through facts and events. If we would know what an individual or a people cherishes and sets store by, what the direction is in which its ideals lie, we must look to history and to the institutions already established. It is there that the sorts of value appreciated, the modes of good approved, reveal themselves. Tradition and culture disclose the stirrings of the national life. A material culture embodies an endeavour that is mainly material, and reveals a mind that finds satisfaction mainly in material achievements. So an aesthetic culture reveals a more refined motive and a more spiritual striving. The end or ideal is a general growth; it takes form in the successive stages of the actual historical development of national life.
A national ideal, moreover, is very complex. Its factors are always to be stated in the plural. The motives of human life are varied; and each of them has its legitimate growth, coming slowly to its relative accomplishment. A comparison of ideals is, therefore, a research to discover which among these motives, all of them normal and necessary, takes precedence and has the place of highest honour in the case in question. The commercial, the practical, the religious, the aesthetic, the scientific and rational are all alike necessary though partial ideals. Which is to have the highest place? which gives fullest satisfaction? which acts as leading motive in the national life?—these are the questions that concern us in the comparison of national ideals.
XA lecture delivered in Paris for the Comitfi France-Amerique, February 19, 1913. Reprinted from the Sociological Review, April, 1913. The companion paper entitled "France and the War" appeared in the same Review, April 1915, and was published in a separate booklet in 1916 (Appleton & Co.).
34
BETWEEN TWO WARS
When we compare France and the United States, therefore—if the inquiry is to be illuminating—we are not to seek in the one for something that the other entirely lacks, some peculiar national gift or endowment which is not general and human. But we are to see how motives and interests, common to humanity, variously adjust themselves in the two national cultures; how one civilization subordinates what the other elevates, how in one people the results most valued tend to overshadow other results considered less valuable, while in a different people the reverse relation may hold good; how national methods may vary for reaching the same ends. What sort of achievement is most striven for, what sort of man most honoured, what events most celebrated, what indulgence most sought after; what glamour, what colour, what rumour, what deed most thrills the nation and stirs its blood?
Looking thus upon our task, we find it easy to distinguish certain great provinces of life under which our observations may be classed: the commercial, the political, the moral, the aesthetic, the intellectual or philosophical. In each of these we find contrasts, differences of emphasis and of method, to reward our inquiry into French and American ideals—all of which, however, illustrate one great contrast which it is my object to point out.
I.
I cannot dwell long upon the commercial and industrial facts and methods, both because of lack of time and because there is little really distinctive here or there. The methods of practical economics, no less than those of theoretical political economy, are now so universalized, so internationalized, that national differences are no longer profound. The union and the syndicate on the side of labour, the trust and the combination on the side of capital, are the out-FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 5
standing phenomena the world over. The industrial ideal is one—material gain, economic welfare. Its modification and gradual transformation, in the light of moral, humanitarian and aesthetic considerations, is everywhere the humane desideratum. As in France and the United States the economic motives are freest to work themselves out, so here also, under the Republican form of government, the national will finds its freest expression in controlling and guiding them. The popular demand for greater personal freedom for the toiler, and for greater humanity and righteousness in the regulation of labour by the employer, is making itself heard in unmistakable terms. Remarkable progress is being made in the United States, for example, in the provisions through which the moral dignity and personal self-respect, no less than the material welfare, of the working man are recognized and respected. The details are such as to encourage the greatest optimism on the part of the humanitarian idealist. According to recent reports the United States Steel Corporation, the "Steel Trust," spends 5^2 million dollars in a single year on charitable and humane provisions for the welfare, education, amusement and cultivation of its employees. In recent legislative enactments regarding child-labour, old-age pensions, a a shortened day's work, working-men's insurance, etc., these demands of a common ideal are being everywhere effectively advanced.
The methods of effecting this common end differ, however, as between the two countries. In the United States the appeal is made to direct and immediate legislation, for collective enforcement of all sorts of progressive projects. This is the characteristic American method: this appeal to law in the interests of a desirable, although perhaps ill-defined or impossible reform. For instance, the current "progressive" movement is motived by great popular spon-6
BETWEEN TWO WARS
taneity and moral earnestness; but in certain cases it shows itself misinformed and ill-directed. So much so that through it the appeal to popular morality has become too often the tool of political craft and the fad of social hypocrisy. From the ill-considered schemes of a former President—schemes until recently taken by the country to be honestly meant at least, if unworkable and shallow in the opinion of the competent and in the judgment of the courts —to the excesses of the "muck-rakers" and the play-to-the-gallery of Congressional committees, the spirit of true progress has been sadly betrayed. The little group of "insurgents" in Congress, who resorted to tactics of obstruction to make themselves conspicuous, showed a degree of insincerity and a lack of personal disinterestedness that chilled the moral heat of the nation. The case is so typical that it is worth citing. The willingness of the American people to be hoodwinked by the moral charlatan is due no doubt in part to the naivete of their moral feeling, but more essentially to their lack of training in reflection on moral questions. And this latter is directly due in turn to the habit of looking to the government to define and conserve the moral by legislative enactment. The resort is to collective and social measures rather than to individual reflection. An example of this in recent American legislation is the Beveredge Child-labour Bill, a measure whose provisions were manifestly extreme and unconstitutional, but which brought out the moral enthusiasm of lovers of the child.
Both the rights of individual liberty and the discipline of character in sturdiness of fibre and depth of insight are prejudiced by such moral fiascos as many of the proposals which from time to time claim the title of "progressive" in the United States. Progress in matters social and ethical is being made, not because but in spite of the so-called progressives, of whatever party, who bring forward half-FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 7
baked schemes of reform by legislative enactment. What the industrial no less than the ethical ideals of America needs is more of the French citizen's clear insight and sharp analysis of moral questions, and more of his personal honesty and sincerity of judgment — even to the extent of opposing what is in itself humane and altruistic, when it is pressed upon him in a form that makes it unjust or unwise.
II.
In political matters proper, the ideals of France and the United States are more nearly identical. It is not a mere similarity; nor is it accidental. It is due to the actual coincidence and mutual interaction of French and American thought. It is the more interesting because, of the three great political units—England, France, and the United States—in which constitutional liberty is to-day most forward, it is between the two of different race that this affiliation has been established. It was part of the new inheritance of liberty won by the American Revolution that its transmitters were free to accept or reject elements of British political tradition. On the judicial side American practice remained British; on the political side it drew upon France. The view that continuous political evolution moves only on racial lines has here to acknowledge an exception. We see the role that a reasoned political philosophy—the theory of individual rights, as developed in France and the United States—may play in the formation of institutions of government.
Yet, as we are to remark more fully below, there remained the British moral tradition of authority, which has always tempered the manifestations of Anglo-Saxon individualism. The social leviathan of convention is a reality in English-speaking countries. "It exists, and it must be employed for our ethical purposes," say the advocate.-28
BETWEEN TWO WARS
moral collectivism. In France, this force was dissipated at the Revolution; and it is only slowly reconstituting itself in French institutions. But in England and America, where the progress of evolution has been slow, society is contented to utilize the conservative force of tradition, while re-casting it in the moulds of later political form. This contrast between the two nations is the most interesting one in the whole body of their affairs and ideals. The moral collectivism and conservatism of Anglo-Saxon culture is effective in guarding and forwarding certain values; but it hinders and impairs others. In France, where the collective moral sanction is strikingly less forceful, we find the blooming of motives of unfettered individualism shown in sharpened theoretical insight, clarity and vigour of personal expression, and unequalled fertility of aesthetic invention.
III.
Turning with this thought in mind to moral ideals as such, we come at once upon striking contrasts, both in the domain of social regulation and in that of individual moral training. It appears in the contrasted methods of control in the practical life. The French system may be described as one of social laissez faire, along with personal restraint; while the American method is one of personal laissez faire, along with social regulation. In more general terms, we may say that in America one conserves the moral by working through the social and collective channels of regulation, allowing to the individual the fullest liberty within the limits set by this social control. In France, on the contrary, the social policy is one of "hands off," no interference; while in revenge the individual is beset by a series of family, conventional, and personal limitations which Americans would not care to tolerate.
Illustrating this first in the case of France, we notice the greater liberty allowed in such matters as publication. Loose and to Americans unseemly things have currentFRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 9
circulation in Paris. The short stories appearing in some of the Paris dailies would be impossible in the United States. And there are special popular publications which would scandalize a New York public." So too in fiction. A freedom of topic and treatment is found which shocks the American reader, who superficially assumes that these books circulate among all classes. The same holds true of plays, of street-scenes, of advertisements, of conversation— in short, of the whole range of social influence in which the young are brought up. The result is that the safeguarding of the purity of mind of the young boy or girl must be secured by some sort of defence against society itself. The boy must be kept from knowing, reading, hearing certain things, from going here or there. The young girl must be always attended, taken only to selected plays or theatres, given only carefully chosen literature, watched here, chaperoned there, never left to mix freely with the world. The remance writer writes for a chosen class of readers, not for everybody.
In the United States, on the contrary, such control and supervision are not exercised upon the individual; they reside in the general regulations of society. The idea is to remove temptation, to make the environment wholesome, to construct a social milieu in which the individual, old or young, male or female, is safe from the intrusion of impure suggestion.
This difference may be illustrated by many other familiar contrasts: the social policy in respect to gambling, duelling, sport, Sunday observance, etc. In New York State the anti-gambling and anti-racing laws are responsible for some of the most remarkable criminal prosecutions of the day. The assumption is that the vice of betting for money
2 Since this was written, however, New York has made "progress" in this linel In fact, since the war so-called "sex literature" has developed surprisingly in the United States.io
"BETWEEN TWO WARS
—if it be a vice—is to be socially controlled. So with the regulation of the liquor traffic, the control of the sale of poisons and narcotics, the pursuit of social vice, the prohibition of brutal sports, the imposition upon the individual of "blue" laws. So far as this has a theory in America, it is that of Puritanism of personal morals, combined with collectivism in the theory of sanction and methods of enforcement. A complaint has appeared in the London Academy, coming- from an English student at Oxford, to the effect that the morality of the American Rhodes Scholars is too "puritan"; the Oxonian complains that such a rigid morality lacks variety and interest. So of course it does. I have myself taught in a university -in which smoking was forbidden, and a game of golf or a ride on horseback on Sunday was something of a scandal. In many cultivated families, the reading of the secular papers on Sunday is forbidden; in my boyhood in a New England family the daily papers were never opened on Sunday. To-day it is not in New England, but in the middle western states, that these trivial externalities of morals are given such importance. There could be, however, no more effective civilizing agent in new-forming societies, and the Puritans of New England in their time proved it.
This deference to authority is, in fact, the great fault of the American moral temper. We have the defects of our qualities. Shrewd, far-sighted, and inventive in everything else, the average American citizen is a gullible child in his more superficial moral enthusiasms. While you can't "fool all the people all the time," you can fool many of them most of the time, and most of them too often; and this in spite of the fact that the fundamental moral questions that come to the bar of social judgment are generally settled right. Americans are true to their ideals, but the ideals are not always pointed true; and it is the political agitator andFRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 11
demagogue who know this and make use of it. The common man is too often afraid of the insinuation of conspiracy with evil if he disapproves of the measure proposed to correct it. He shows the equally pernicious habit of mind of "getting there" in matters of social and moral good, regardless of the permanence, validity or constitutionality of the measures adopted for getting there. He forgets that there are in the world some constitutions that cannot be revised, some decrees that cannot be annulled, some judgments that cannot be recalled. Think for a moment of the meaning and possibilities of the tolerance extended to public men who openly insult the personnel of the highest courts of the country, and advocate the recall of judicial decisions which do not suit the occasional and transitory popular desire or the wish of the leaders by whom that desire is inflamed and misled! Think of the weapon this gives to the political trickster and moral mountebank to work disorder and confusion while invoking the name of "progress!" One recalls with sadness the long travail through which constitutional liberty was born, and with it the cataclysms which have threatened human progress when the vision of its principles has been blinded by the dust of passion or obscured by the mist of moral sophistry.
Another good instance of the American resort to collective and political means of effecting moral reforms is seen in the movement for the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. For a generation the prohibition of the sale and use of alcohol, through state and national legislation, has been advocated. The national Prohibition Party gets a moderate vote at each election; and in the individual states the spread of prohibition legislation has been of late extraordinary. But a large class of reformers hold—and the results seem to justify their view—that this success is due to the withdrawal of the matter from politics and its treatment purely12
BETWEEN TWO WARS
as a moral and social question. Yet it still remains true that the regulation is reached through legislation ;s it is not left, as in other countries, to individual choice and self-control.
Apart from the question as to whether the values most appreciated are really the same in the two countries—the values that represent the highest morality of the individual —these different methods lead to striking variations in the personal outlook upon life. The American submits to the larger social restriction, when he would rebel against the curtailment of his personal freedom. He gives up the lottery, as a social institution, for the general good; but he resents the surveillance of his private life, and continues to play games of chance for stakes. When in London or Paris he deplores the need of having a constant attendant for his daughter, not recognizing that it is the larger liberty of continental custom as a whole that makes it necessary. The new courage and manliness and the tougher moral fibre that come through personal struggle and victory are less in evidence to him than the toll paid in virtue and character— the loss of men and women who go wrong—through the lack of social discipline and the absence of collective support. To him the theory of laissez-faire with natural selection, in moral things, is too costly and too individualistic. The social body is competent to establish tests of social fitness and survival without this frightful winnowing process; society is competent to establish the general rules under which the moral life of the community shall be administered with best results to the individual.
An interesting effect of the same cause is seen in the contrasted methods of contracting marriage in the two countries: issuing respectively in the mariage de convenance, and the mariage d'inclination. The difference is familiar: that
• Fully justified by the later passage of the Prohibition Amendment.FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 13
between "profit-matches" and "love-matches." I think it is the outcome of the general difference of social policy spoken of. When the individual is so hemmed in socially that he has no means of choosing for himself, the parents must perforce choose for him. It is a result of the system that purchases freer adult relations between the sexes by greater restrictions upon the young. In America, on the contrary, the youth are thrown together with the greatest freedom, because the larger social restrictions and conventions are so compelling and exacting that such a course is safe. The young of both sexes have the opportunity of choosing their own mates for life; and they also receive a certain social discipline for doing so. With this personal freedom goes the young man's greater independence of considerations of dowry, and his greater sense of responsibility for the support of his family. It is still true that, in the great body of American society, a young man not only remains ignorant of the worldly position of his prospective father-in-law—except so far as externals reveal it—but he would consider it unworthy of him to make inquiries, an opinion with which the elder gentleman would thoroughly agree. Any such thing as a marriage contract, settlement, or dowry, on one side or the other, involving money, is quite foreign to the practice of three-fourths of the population—except for the formal phrase, "with all my worldly goods I thee endow," of the customary religious ceremony, spoken by the bridegroom. A man who would reject a chosen girl because her fortune or competence were for any reason impaired would be considered a brute. It is for this reason that the international marriages motived by money are so widely derided in the United States; a man who seeks a bride to repair his fortunes is looked upon as an adventurer or a "joke." Practically the only question of finance considered worthy is that of the bridegroom's14
BETWEEN TWO WARS
ability to support a wife and family. The possibilities of legacies, inheritances, or other contingent prospects—of which so much is made in French fiction—is quite outside the sphere of discussion. Parents for the most part keep the provisions of their wills secret from their children, both before and after their marriage. In ideal, at least, marriage is an affair d'inclination.
While the strictness of social regulation in the United States is no doubt due to the original Puritanism of the colonists, it reacts to produce a more conventional and less sincere Puritanism in the individual. There is undoubtedly a shading of hypocrisy in American middle-class morality, an attitude of exaggerated conformity to extreme standards. It is not a conscious insincerity or Pharisaism, but a primness, smugness, and over-respectability, that appears in very unfavorable contrast with the frankness and sincerity of French discussions. The distinction between the social requirements of morality, which are and must be utilitarian in their nature, and the essential rules of moral conduct, based on moral insight and fundamental right, is not well drawn in the United States. In France society may permit more than the individual sense of moral right approves; the social regulation lags behind the personal judgment. In America, on the contrary, society sets the standards of personal conduct so fully that the individual dare not entertain the wider tolerations, indulge the larger charities, or condone the lesser sins, from dread of the social penalties. I say he dare not: it would be truer to say he cannot; for by training and habit of mind he is thoroughly set in the conventional mould. His discussion of matters of marriage, divorce, gaming, horse-racing, prize-fighting, the province of art, the legitimate in literature, and a host of other moral or quasi-moral questions, is narrow and nearsighted for the reason that the voice of Mrs. Grundy hasFRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 15
been heard by him from childhood, uttering the general social condemnations. The social penalty comes to be out of all proportion to the offence. Society confuses the fault with the vice, and both with the crime; it classes gambling with homicide, defalcation, and fraudulent practice: all alike are "crimes." The American citizen shows no great alarm over the appalling increase in crimes of blood and violence in the great cities of the Union, as shown by recent statistics, or the fraudulent schemes of mining and other stock-promoters; but he lashes himself into all extremes of indignation in pursuing violators of the pure food and child-labour laws. He possibly condones the lawlessness of the lynching party, while condemning out-of-hand the clergyman who remarries a penitent divorce. In" all this, the rule of moral reason is too often replaced by the maxim of current convention.
No doubt there are many factors entering into this general contrast. The vitality of the religious sanction in England and America, still interpreted through theological formulas, has much to do with it. In France authority has more largely yielded to reason; the Church has become an aesthetic instrument, a means to culture rather than an end in itself. In the United States, the great middle class is not only religious, but theological, to the core. The Old Testament Semitic view of the grounds for divorce, for example, is more influential than the utilitarian or the strictly ethical view. The greatest obstacle to the abolition of slavery in the United States in 1860—apart from vested property interests—was the defence of the institution on biblical grounds by the clergy in the Southern States. Any "compromise with evil," such as would be involved in a state lottery, or in the recognition of social vices by segregating, licensing, or even restricting them; any laisses faire policy which relied upon individual character to supplement16
BETWEEN TWO. WARS
or replace social control, is at once condemned by religious prejudice and theological intolerance. The subterfuges of concealment, and the subtleties of casuistry take the place of frank and responsible discussion. As I write, a prominent and most highly respected clergyman of Washington finds it necessary to protest before a Congressional Commission that when, in answer to questions, he expresses his conviction as "to the proper way of treating social vice in the city, he is accused of compromising with sin." In my boyhood days an "infidel"—a religious sceptic—was worse than any mere sinner; he was a moral monster. "Unbelief" was the most heinous of crimes.
Moreover, the confusion of social standards with individual duties leads to a false view of collective responsibility; for example, the failure to distinguish between vice and crime, as Mayor Gaynor of New York forcefully pointed out in discussing (before the Forum of New York University) the popular demands for reform in city administration. There is a confusion between the moral and the legal. In military countries similar confusions arise from the growth of what we may call a special "martial morality." It is hard to distinguish the really good when the most trifling acts are strengst verboten by an absolute civil or military authority. Nothing excites general rebellion like trivial restraint. The light of reason tends to be hopelessly obscured, when the same authority tells us, with the same gravity, not to kill, and not to play the piano after twelve o'clock; not to steal, and not to walk on such a plot of grass!
In France, if I read the signs aright, the pendulum begins to swing toward greater social regulation. No doubt, the element of paternalism in socialistic theory is partly responsible for this. But there are other motives at work, both ethical and pedagogical. It will not do to press theFRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 17
practice of Rousseau's "back to nature" to an individualism that becomes socially irresponsible. Likewise, the appeal to scientific knowledge by practical positivism does not supply an adequate moral sanction to the individual. To know all should not be to forgive all; knowledge does not justify all, as it certainly does not prevent all, that is morally objectionable. The moral weakness of the immature is not sufficient reason for leaving them to their destruction. The same responsibility rests upon society to inform the intelligence and to fortify and confirm the will; the same duty to inspire our youth to the highest effort, and to remove obstacles to the success of that effort. The liberty allowed to the good man freely to spurn the wrong is dearly bought at the price of the fall of the weak man to whom this liberty offers a direful opportunity. The psychology of suggestion, physiological and social alike, indicates that sharp limitations must be placed upon the theory and practice that leaves the boy and girl, the man and woman, to meet the social dangers single-handed. In France there is a growing feeling, among writers on the subject, that stricter social regulation should be resorted to in cases in which the present laws leave room for a dangerous personal license. Of this a further word later on.
IV.
In matters involving the aesthetic ideal the same contrast presents itself, though its manifestations are much more subtle. It may be true, as it is sometimes said, that the Anglo-Saxon temper is essentially prosaic; that the English, from whom Americans inherited their traditions of taste along with their morals, really lack creative imagination and delicacy of sensibility. It may be that there is something in the very stock that adds to its moral strength a touch of rudeness, to its toughness of character a strain18
BETWEEN TWO WARS
of inflexibility, to its courage a suggestion of brutality, to Its aesthetic appreciation a shading of coarseness. These may be the defects of the Briton's high qualities; and this may account for the apparent numbness of British and American feeling in certain aesthetic directions—notably in plastic art and music. There is a relative lack of buoyancy of feeling and freedom of inspiration. There can be no reasonable dispute as to French pre-eminence in fine art; no question that this pre-eminence extends to all the matters of taste. One has only to pass a few months in London or New York, after living a time in Paris, to feel the contrast; there is a difference in the aesthetic quality of the entire milieu. In the smaller towns, the physical details of this difference stand out in high relief; and the same may be said of the intellectual and moral details when we come to consider the case more closely.
In France the aesthetic values of things are in evidence everywhere: in the street-decorations, the quality of the public monuments, the shop windows, the people's costumes, the cuisine, the arrangement of flowers, etc. The "neck-tie" on the leg of lamb at the butcher's shop shows it, the "lie" of the croquette on the plate at the restaurant, the delicious suggestion given to the bon-bons by their mise en scene! Taste: refined, pleasing—style: simple, effective —manner: unobtrusive, telling—beauty, in the trivial as in the important. The chef has his inspirations as the musician has; the creations of the modiste are as serious as those of the sculptor; the furniture-maker is as reverent toward historic specimens as the architect toward historic buildings. Everybody is expected to be an artist, even in the most commonplace details of his trade.
This the American feels, in the negative sense, when he returns to the United States or goes to England, perhaps more strongly in London than in New York. Compare theFRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 19
shop-windows of the Strand with those of streets of the same or lesser importance in Paris—the Boulevard Hauss-mann, or the Rue St. Honore, or even a commoner street, such as the Avenue Wagram or the Boulevard St. Michel; or compare Seventh Avenue, New York, with a street of shops anywhere in Paris. The shop-window is intended to please, to attract; it is a barometer of taste in decoration, of skill in arrangement. The French window displays a selected group of articles arranged with a view to a harmonious ensemble. Its rule is simplicity; its guide, the intuition of aesthetic values in colour and form; its result, a pleased and in its way chastened emotion. It is a lesson to the passer-by in refinement. In the window on the Strand, on the other hand, or on Seventh Avenue, there is a mass of articles; one sees the incoherent surface of a pile of things —things lying and things suspended en masse. One is reminded of the untrained waiter who seeks to please by bringing two forks instead of one. Quantity, utility, economy of space, reckless show! The idea seems to be to increase the chances of selling something by increasing the number of things disposed for sale. It does not seem to occur to the shopkeeper that useful articles may make a stronger appeal if they be made beautiful also. But the real difficulty is not that he does not try; he does try, and this is the best he can do! And the passer-by does not shudder; he admires! So it is in dress. France leads in the world's modes for the excellent reason that the French modes, even when extravagant, do not offend our taste. In other lesser things—colour arrangement, personal courtesies of intercourse, etc.—as well as the higher things of mind and art, the same is true.
In view of this, the question arises, in connection with the topic of ideals, whether the difference is really due to race, endowment, stock; or whether differences of culture,20
BETWEEN TWO WARS
tradition, ideals of life, may not explain it in whole or part. It is, of course, impossible to discuss such a question here; it is too large. But I wish to point out that the difference of moral tradition and regulation between France and the United States, as pointed out above, reacting as it does upon life in general, may explain much of the contrast in aesthetic matters, or at least dispose of certain of the cases most in evidence.
The difference between the French idea of self-control and the American idea of social regulation, that between the culture based on free individualism and that based on collective restraint, in the affairs of personal conduct—this difference is of the first importance in matters of art production and appreciation. It is easy to see how this comes about. Art, of all things, demands freedom: the removal of external restraint and constraint, the self-regulation of its processes, and the selection of its topics by its own inner rules of choice. Art is autonomous, through and through. Whatever we may concede as to the moralizing role of art, its social function,, its larger utility, still in the end we must say that even in these things it is self-regulating. It is good and useful and true because it fulfills its peculiar end of being beautiful. As soon as any consideration, of any sort whatever, extraneous to the art impulse itself, is allowed to direct its course or prescribe its province, the envelope of art is pierced, the beautiful bubble collapses; its integrity as art is lost. Then we get the mere exposition, the dull prose, the sermon, the tract. These may be true, moral, and valuable; but they have not the sort of value attaching to the aesthetic ideal. The artist depicts what is good and true, in an imaginative construction, semblant of the real, as-if real; but he does not set out purposely to teach the true or to enforce the good. He depicts what he chooses to depict.FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 21
How foreign to this aesthetic impulse, this pursuit of the aesthetic ideal, is the habit of mind that bows constantly to external standards and appeals to external authority! The Puritan cannot understand art, much less produce it; the judgment of moral convention usurps the place of personal insight and free imagination. He is unaccustomed to freedom of choice, and would not know what to do with it. In English, "free-thought" is a phrase denoting a dangerous and reprehensible license. Yet without freedom of thought how could there be the greater freedom of the artistic imagination? In the result we find the well-known Anglo-Saxon attitude of intolerance in matters of art: the various forms of public censorship, the impertinent claim to tell the artist what he may and may not do, in the same spirit in which the regulations of street-traffic and of the sale of alcohol are enforced. If the artist yields to this claim, he forfeits at once his birthright; he is false to his aesthetic trust, because he misconceives his own mission, or voluntarily betrays it. His art may limit itself in this way or that, but it cannot allow any other agency to prescribe its limitations.
You may say perhaps that the true artist, American no less than French, is not influenced by these social restrictions; but is this true? What artist, commissioned to do public work, is able to forget that the work of a fellow-sculptor, let us say, has been rejected because in the composition there was not sufficient drapery to satisfy a local town-council?—or that on leaving the Salon, his picture will have no chance of sale in his native land, where so many patrons of art will judge it by its superficial moral suggestion? Before there can be a free and productive art, there must be a general education in the aesthetic point of view; in the sort of moral detachment that the aesthetic judgment requires. And this means a wide tolerance and a personal autonomy—a general freeing of the mind.22
BETWEEN TWO WARS
If the French pre-eminence in art is due to the national theory and practice of individualism of thought and autonomy of conduct, then the importance attributed to differences of race and stock would seem to be greatly reduced. The rigidity of manner found in primitive art, along with paucity of imagination, stiffness of portrayal, and superficiality of conception, is attributed to its crudity, its lack of development. The aesthetic impulse, we say, has not been released from the trammels of slavish imitation, from servitude to convention, from crass utility; its inspiration is not free or conscious of its scope. Likewise, we may say much the same of civilized cultures and countries where conditions prevail similar in kind though lesser in degree; where ideals are largely practical and utilitarian, or "positive" and scientific. The aesthetic taste is not fully matured ; the artistic impulse is not freely released.
In the United States, there has been a certain conscious scruple against enjoying or allowing art. It was considered soft, effeminate, unworthy of men. The poet was a trifler if not "loose in his head"; the writer of novels a silly fellow who had no serious occupation; the actor an actual menace to the good order of society. Not long ago a family was ashamed of the charge that one of its sons was an artist, and hastened to explain that he was a house-painter and not a painter of pictures. These things show that the obstruction to the exercise of artistic talent is social, moral; it does not indicate lack of artistic talent. It may be that artistic geniuses have been born in America as elsewhere. They may have been stifled at birth by the close commercial and social atmosphere. With free conditions, they are now appearing. In recent years, indeed, a remarkable change has come over—or is coming over—the American horizon in matters artistic. It is due in great part to French influence, example, and instruction. Societies, civic commit-FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 23
tees, school boards, are yielding to the injunctions of the artists, and concerning themselves with plans designed to educate the public taste. In the matter of the beautifying of cities, the recent schemes of improvement have immensely bettered the sordid and unsightly conditions by which many of the American cities were formerly disgraced.
V.
With this aesthetic awakening has come also a broadening of the moral horizon in the direction of a greater reasonableness and a lessened prudishness. The right of individual judgment is being more widely recognized in matters formerly ruled by social convention. The individual is coming more and more to disregard the criticism of a narrow social prejudice, and to face with courage the sort of social ostracism that comes from moral hypocrisy and intolerance. This has followed a remarkable growth in religious toleration. The Roman Catholic and the Unitarian sit together in counsel on sectarian matters; and the Presbyterian and Methodist join -\yith the Hebrew in administering charities and forwarding plans of philanthropy and public good. There are movements on foot to secure to the Jew and the secularist the right of spending the seventh day of the week as their consciences may dictate. Some years ago active opposition developed to the proposed bill urged by the Sabbath Alliance for the extension to the District of Columbia of the drastic Sunday labour laws which are in operation in all the States (according to the statement of the Alliance) with the exception of California. A "rider" to a recent National Post-office Appropriation Bill, which very much restricted the national postal delivery service on Sunday, was defeated. Such conflicts show the24
BETWEEN TWO WARS
growing opposition between the points of view of private judgment and social regulation.
Facts like these, of which many more might be cited, are symptomatic of the growth of a general spirit of tolerance, in the United States. It appears in the loyal public support of the secularized school system, in the abandonment of religious shibboleths in electoral contests, in the freedom with which public men act as patrons of all sorts of reforms, in complete equality as respects race, creed, etc. It indicates that a profound change is coming over the American point of view—a modification of its ideal in the direction of clearer and broader individual vision, greater moral autonomy, the gradual emancipation of conscience from the bonds of social regulation.4
There are signs, I think—speaking, however, with the caution proper to a foreign observer—of a modification of the French point of view in the opposite sense. Certain defects of its qualities have appeared in the practical working of the French no less than in that of the American ideal. The right of personal judgment may always be invoked, of course, to justify license and lawlessness in practice. The results of science may be prostrated to the purposes of hedonism and anarchy. The aesthetic may bloom in an atmosphere of decadent sentimentality, or be itself allied with debasing sensuality. In such ways the spirit of individualism, to which the noblest products of human culture are due, shows itself to contain also the germs of social decay. Such consequences appear only desultorily in France, but they are the symptoms of danger.
As to the growth of modes of hedonistic practice in France and elsewhere, the diminishing birth-rate seems to show it. It is largely due, in my opinion, to prudence and
* This may now (1926) seem optimistic to many, in view of the prohibition law and the intolerance to evolution.FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 25
selfishness, aided by the diffusion of information. It is sufficiently striking everywhere, but it is most striking in France. Apart from the question as to whether a lessened human population, taken just as we find it, would be altogether an evil—I see no reason that it should be considered so—the phenomenon clearly shows the decay of certain human motives which have until now been sufficiently strong. There is a decay of the sanctions of a social and collective character: the sanctions of pride in family and name, of patriotism civic and national, of the group-spirit in general. And with this, there is a loss of spontaneity in conduct, due to the inroad of prudential considerations.
The way to counteract this egoism is plain: it demands nothing less than a re-education; the re-introduction of motives of solidarity. There must be a new collectivism, a new and deliberate eugenic purpose. It must be developed within a tempered and enlightened individualism; within the ideal of life proper to France. The task of modern collectivism and nationalism, in view of this situation, is not to struggle directly against the prudence of the individual : that would be useless. But it is to develop within the scope of this prudence, within its farsightedness and regard for consequences, the interests of solidarity. For the social solidarity of the future, the blind impulses of nature and the naive ignorances of the natural man are entirely insufficient. The social results that once came by nature, in an undeveloped society, must be purchased, in the new social order, by conscious reason acting on considerations of social welfare. Impulse must be succeeded by the larger love of the good and of man, that comes through full knowledge and deliberate intention. The passage of a revision of the law forbidding the recherche de la paternite may be looked upon, perhaps, as a sign of a national return26
BETWEEN TWO WARS
in France to a stricter social regulation, in cases in which the individual shirks his high responsibilities.
VI.
Coming finally to the question of the theoretical ideal, we may approach it through the practical distinctions of which I have now spoken. The American theory of individual rights has been developed upon a back-ground of practical collectivism, puritanical in its moral code. It is to-day in conflict with the demand for a wider and freer individualism, in which the restrictions upon personal conduct would be dissolved in a larger tolerance. This would result, I believe, from a profounder insight into the true nature of moral obligation.
On the other hand, the French, also proceeding out from the rights of man, developed a laissez faire policy of the social life which has in some ways brought to light the limits that must be set to personal freedom; for it has exposed itself to the dangers of license. It is accordingly modifying itself in turn in the direction of a more general social control, a new and reasoned collectivism. In the result, the two types of culture, the two ideals, should approach a common term, and have more and more in common as time goes on. There will always be, however, as there should be, the difference indicated. I venture to suggest a contrast of phrases to sum up the French and American attitudes towards life: "Freedom guided by insight," is the French motto; "Liberty armed with law," is the American.
In the United States the salient points of view, and the strongest motives, are economic and moral; their strength brings them often into conflict with each other. In France these motives and ideals are also strong; but they do not give rise to the same oppositions and interferences inter se.FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 27
In France, practical motives lose something of the exclu-siveness and strenuousness they show in America. One is led to surmise that the fuller development of the aesthetic point of view—the prevalence of beauty and the habitual pursuit of art—serves as a solvent in the practical sphere. Art certainly reduces the asperities of a rigid Puritanism; the freedom it requires suggests a more discriminating judgment and a wider tolerance. Art also in some measure blunts the economic motive, by diminishing the relative worth of material things; wealth and luxury as such are subordinated to the mental gains of inspiration and imagination. The economic ceases to be the end; it becomes the means. And the true relation of values to one another is realized when it is found that the highest aesthetic effects are often the simplest and least expensive. Art becomes, in short, the revealer of the spiritual values.
The French ideal is, in the first instance, an intellectual vision. It cherishes the clearness and distinctness which the great French philosopher, Descartes, made the criteria of sure knowledge. It seeks to analyze, justify, and prove itself to the intelligence, even in the practical affairs of life and the moral interests of conduct. Rational insight, the Socratic "wisdom," is the key to duty. In discussing Descartes, in his admirable volume of "Historical Studies," the eminent Academician, Emile Boutroux—whom I am proud to call my friend—describes the French as follows:
"In the moral order of things, we love reason with an ardent enthusiastic love, that has at times gone astray or formed a striking contrast with the very object of that love; but through all our fluctuations, the goal of our endeavours is clearly a harmonious blending of individual freedom and rational law, in which neither would be sacrificed. And whilst seeking, in a practical spirit, for what suits our own nation, it is impossible for28
BETWEEN TWO WARS
us to separate in thought the happiness of others from our own, or to desire good in any other than the universal form which reason ordains."
To this authoritative statement we may fully subscribe. But we may go perhaps a step further, and say that in the French ideal, this union of reason and the good, of freedom and law, transforms itself into a vision of beauty. In its mathematical formulation of truth, in its marvellous clarity and detachment8 of literary expression, and in its devotion to art as the highest medium of its aspirations, the French genius lays bare its final intuition—the love of harmony, unity, completeness. In the French—as in the Greek genius—there is this comprehensive union, in art, of the partial ideals of the mind, this "pan-calistic" pre-occupa-tion. It remains for some French philosophical thinker to give to the philosophy called "pancalism"—all for beauty and beauty in all—its classical literary form. Such a thinker would follow after Descartes in revealing to the world one of the hidden motives of French national life.
The American ideal, on the contrary, is not that of an intellectual vision, but that of a practical life. It certainly is not, as it is sometimes described as being, the ideal of a material order—big, costly, unspiritual. It is moral, not material; its desire is to realize the right—liberty, equality, fraternity—in a moral and social order. The good, as with Kant, is the good will. As we have seen, the manifestations of this ideal are those fit in the circumstances; it has been shaped in the exigencies of peculiarly American conditions. Law, moral and civil, is the instrument with which the American has overcome many of the historical obstacles— physical, moral, political—to organized human progress,
5 This detachment, coupled with vivacity and esprit, gives an impression of
"lightness" to the foreigner, whose literary touch is heavier. The English
writer commonly takes his subject too seriously; while the German sometimes
fgkes himself too seriously!FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 29
and has held up to the world the luminous torch of stable and progressive democracy. The theoretical has come late in American life; the justification appearing only after the achievement, the knowledge after the mighty effort. The vision is the reward, not the motive. It is with a single eye to the good that the American genius has found the path to its goal—the goal from which, however, it goes on to discover also the true and the beautiful.
There can be no doubt that the philosophy of pragmatism, as formulated by William James, is peculiarly suited to express the American national genius. It is a philosophy of achievement, action, results, success, moral purpose. Like the American citizen, it lacks poise, judicial temper and patience. It constitutes a precious document in the annals of a tempestuous national life. James' doctrine, like Descartes', brings to view, in reasoned terms, a fundamental phase of his people's character and ideal—the restlessness, urgency, vigorous self-assertion of the New World. It shows that the worldly wisdom of Poor Richard's Almanack is not merely the utterance of convenience and prudence, but is capable of a profounder justification; that it is founded in the claim, made with high spiritual intent and moral sanction, to dominate in the world of men and things.
To say, however, that pragmatism is a final and complete expression of the American ideal would be to say that that ideal is more one-sided than it is, and also that it is itself fixed and unprogressive. American philosophy must acquire the poise and serenity of highly-balanced reflective thought; just as American life is acquiring in practice the habits of a confirmed social and political tradition. Other types of thought are as ably pursued as the pragmatic in the United States; and the results are by common consent no less distinguished than scholarly.30
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The American and French ideals might be compared, as a whole and at their best, as they show themselves in the discussion of such a topic as international peace. Our two countries are at one in wishing to secure and maintain peace by every honourable means—diplomacy, treaty, arbitration. The reasons that would be given for this common wish for peace—for the establishment of what, in another address, I have called "a glorious All-Atlantic League," made up of the three nations that were parties to President Taft's international arbitration treaties—these reasons might well differ. The American would give as his reason that "war is wrong: unjust, inhuman, immoral." He might also add that it was ineffective, wasteful, and costly; but "it is wrong" would be his final reason. The Frenchman, on the other hand, as I think of him, would agree that war is wrong; but that would not be his final or principal reason for wishing peace. He would say also, "it is irrational and stupid, and, moreover, it is hideous!" The hideousness of war, its outright ugliness, would be to him perhaps the most convincing reason for its condemnation.
VII.
The lesson of all this is not difficult to draw. It is a lesson that justifies the purposes and efforts of such agencies as the Comite France-Amerique. Here are two great civilizations, representing contrasting elements of what we must consider the full human ideal. The one, the United States, embraces more tenaciously the practical and pedagogical instruments of progress; the other, France, realizes more fully its intellectual and aesthetic fruits. In the past, the one has in some measure exaggerated and over-esti-mated the means; the other has in some measure forgotten the means in the joyful vision of the ends. Each should draw more fully on the other.FRENCH AND AMERICAN IDEALS 31
There are two important ways in which national ideals may communicate their virtue to each other and so purify together the sources of their life. One is physical: the actual union of stocks, by immigration, inter-marriage, physical heredity. This is the method now being discussed in the theory of national eugenics. It is illustrated on a large scale in the "melting-pot" of American social life. The other is the moral way; through information, travel, intercourse, international tolerance, and sympathetic study. In matters of the mind, in matters which pertain to the higher things of life, the latter method is available. Nations, like individuals, may open their doors and their hearts to each other; each may thus learn the lessons the other is fitted to teach. Thus they may achieve together the spiritual values which lie hidden in our common human heritage.
I have said that the French, like the Americans, are housecleaning just now. Indeed, the signs multiply of a new departure in France, a departure amounting to a renascence of the spiritual life. It shows itself in a new sobriety and firmness in foreign policy, a new demand for personal temperance and restraint, a new enthusiasm for moral achievement. In this the true elan of the French character is again revealed. A new stage of the French ideal is in process of formation. It reveals a spiritual view of life, a stricter solidarity in morals, and an impulse in art which finds its highest motive in aesthetic forms fitted to inspire and elevate the soul. Americans join with all the world in acclaiming this renewal of the national life of France in a moral purpose so resolute, so informed with knowledge, so sure of itself. Vive la nouvelle France!III. Open Letter
To Dr. Hugo Kirbach, Recording Secretary of the German University League, New York. Sent in reply to a circular received from the German University League (Deutscher Aka-demischer Bund) of 225 Fifth Avenue, and dated New York, January, 1915, which contained the following passages:—
"The conflict now being waged against Germany and Austria-Hungary by vastly superior numbers has thoroughly aroused all in the United States who know and love German life and German ideals.
"At such a time it is deemed the duty of those who have enjoyed the privilege of a German university education to unite and take the lead in spreading the truth and an understanding of German aims. Such an understanding must contribute toward an earlier establishment of a just peace, which is the desire of all nations.
"With this end in view the German University League has been founded by a number of societies composed of former German university students.
"Some may have remained indifferent, for one cause or another, but it is our hope that they may co-operate with us in our just endeavors. We urgently ask you, therefore, to join the League. . . . We need you!"
New York, Feb. 14, 1915.
Dear Sir,
I am in receipt of your letter requesting me, as a former student in certain German Universities, to join the German University League in the United States, the object of which is to "unite and take the lead in spreading the truth and in understanding of German aims" in view of the "conflict now being waged against Germany by vastly superior numbers."
You are right in thinking that, as such a student in and of Germany, I am not unqualified to speak of German
32OPEN LETTER
33
aims; and also that I am desirous of spreading the truth. Consequently, I send you the following expression of my opinion, which has been reached after full deliberation, and in spite of early pre-judgments in favor of Germany, due to my stay there and to my friendship for many German scholars during-a long academic career.
1.	As to the truth:—In my opinion, the truth is that no country was ever more fully bound by the duty of bringing "vastly superior numbers" against another country than were England, France, and Russia against Germany and Austria. The diplomatic exchanges preceding the war show, on the part of Germany, shameful dishonesty, cynicism, and blackmail. The gauge of war, finally flung down by Germany, could not have been refused by any self-respecting or honest people. France and Russia were under both the duty and the necessity of fighting. England was under the duty only—a duty to Belgium and to civilization. All the more honor to England that she accepted the duty although not under the necessity!
2.	A further truth:—Germany has conducted the war as a national bandit and pirate, taking advantage, in every instance, of the chivalry and high honor of her opponents. Her methods have been those of official vandalism. She has placed herself outside the pale of all possible sympathy on the part of those whose culture is not that of the primitive savage. The appeal to American scholars and teachers is itself an affront. These men are in the front rank of those who keep alive the fires of moral enthusiasm, who seek to maintain the integrity of humane and Christian ideals, who are responsible for public opinion and the moulding of youth. Their response is:—Shame on you and your house! That German professors of morals and of true science can "justify" German methods of warfare and German ends, as revealed by these methods, causes a shock from which the body of American university men will never recover. In their eyes, the moral debacle of Germany seems to be in sight.
3.	And yet another truth:—The aims and the procedure of a group of Germans in the United States, with whom you are likely to be confused, are becoming noxious to all34
BETWEEN TWO WARS
good Americans. Study in Germany has not made us less patriotic as Americans or as lovers of Anglo-Saxon ideals; we were not "made in Germany." We are beginning to demand that the made-in-Germany brand of scholar, journalist, or politician be repudiated; and that those who exploit it, using the United States as a base for an unneutral and unpatriotic propaganda, be given their passports (German passports, not forged American ones!) Led by the German Ambassador, whose early activities would have justified the demand for his recall, carried on by means of newspapers, circulars, and public harangues, it is not strange that the campaign has reached the stage indicated by the bomb, the incendiary fire, the political plot. These Germans are traitors to their adopted country. Our people have shown to them a toleration equal to their contempt for them. But all good citizens of German birth should make haste to join with other Americans—those to whom I write with those who would write as I do—to protest against this abuse of our generosity. Germans living here must have a care that in future the term German-American be not synonymous with the terms intrigue and disloyalty. Certain it is that a very large body of Americans look with distrust upon Germans—even those who are naturalized in the United States—whose patriotism has not had some adequate proof. The first task your organization should undertake is that of exposing German treachery to the laws of the United States. You would thus lift from the German-Americans the opprobrium that is likely to be a serious element of discomfort to them in the future.
4. As to the German aims, which you wish to have set forth—they are clear enough. The word pan-germanism defines them; and the war has placed pan-germanism sufficiently on record. The aims issue from the means adopted, and the means are foul enough: violation of public and private right, destruction of the high monuments of human aspiration, lying official statements suited to the consumers' needs, brazen bluff of unheard-of crudity, reckless bravado typified by the floating mine and the submarine, set to destroy the innocent and the weak. I myself know of instances of devilish atrocity, reflecting an official system ofOPEN LETTER
35
procedure. The "Hymn of Hate" is performed at the table of the emperor! The end to be reached by such means, say apologists for Germany, is the universal spread of the culture whose hand holds such weapons as this. A German victory would destroy for generations all hope of a peaceful settlement of the problems of world politics—problems, moreover, in the treatment of which a strain of barbarism has been kept alive until now by reason of the rise of modern military Germany.
These are briefly stated, my dear Sir, my views as to the truth about Germany and as to her aims. I trust, if your desire for the co-operation of American professors who have studied in German universities be sincere, you will give to them the publicity accorded to those of others whose opinions may be different from mine and more in accord with your own.
Yours very truly,IV. German Methods in Belgium1
This book, written by a Belgian scientific man associated before the war with the well-known Solvay Institute for sociological study at Brussels, is fitted to render service in the English language for two reasons.
In the first place, it presents a topic which is of intrinsic interest, not only in its bearings upon the question of the Belgian "sharpshooters" legend, but also upon that of the origin, propagation and value of such legends in general. In the second place, it is, as the author declares, not a polemic, but a piece of careful work based upon authentic German documents and conducted in accordance with the methods recognized as appropriate to sociological investigation.
It would not be in place to repeat the author's case; he speaks for himself. What I would signalize is the absolute justice of his procedure in carrying out to its conclusion the work of the German society "Pax," an association which, fearing the influence among German catholics of the stories told about the Belgian priests, investigated the stories and found them to be false and libellous. This German vindication of the Belgian clergy against official calumny—calumny propagated by the Kaiser himself in his telegram of September 8, 1914 to the President of the United States—is really a vindication of the Belgian people entire. It is no doubt in some sort just to the German people to look upon the case as one illustrating the growth of collective illusion and prejudgment, based on misinformation and false testimony. But this explanation does not in any sense excuse the principals—the military authorities, the editors of journals, the ambassadors and diplomats, the Ruler himself—
1 Preface written for the book "The Growth of a Legend" by F. van Langen-hove, New York and London, Putnam's, 1916.
36GERMAN METHODS IN BELGIUM 37
who accepted, confirmed and made use of these exploded and mythical legends of Belgian depravity and crime, and continue to do so to-day.2 The falsity of the German White Book of May, 1915, is here again exposed from the point of view of social psychology; it had already been refuted from the point of view of the value of evidence (see Professor J. Valery, Les Crimes de la Population beige, Paris, 1916; also F. Passelecq, La Reponse du Gouvernement Beige au Livre Blanc allemand du 10 Mai, 1916, Paris, 1916).
The German case is as pitiful as a defense as it is weak in its evidence. Suppose the Belgian populace, frenzied by anger and fear, had overstepped here and there the bounds of organized military action, in defending their homes; would this justify the crimes against cities, monuments, families, clergy and individuals of which the "Bryce Report" for example, is full?3 American soldiers were fired upon some months ago from windows in Vera Cruz; were they ordered to destroy that city in revenge and massacre its inhabitants? The German colossus boasts of its power, and in the same breath declares that it acts in "self-defense" in shooting old men and women in villages from which all males under fifty are away on military service. This pretense is as shameful as the crime.
But even this pretense is now shown from the records of German writers and observers to be without foundation. Belgium entire has the right to the same revolt in horror and protest that her venerable Prelate voiced in behalf of his brethren against these charges—a protest which a German society has shown to have been justified. Insult added to injury indeed!— this attempt to blacken the moral character of the victim, after having cut his throat and rifled his pockets.
9 A brochure containing extracts from the German official indictment of the Belgian people in English was extensively circulated in the United States under the title of "The Belgian People in War, a Violation of International Law."
s See also the amazing and crushing documents published in the book "Belgium and Germany, Texts and Documents" preceded by a foreword by Henri Davignon. Thomas Nelson and Sons, London and New York.38
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Early in the course of the war, an American writer penned the following sentences, summing up the case in an opinion now only too fully confirmed. (See Editorial in the Philadelphia North American, Dec. 4, 1914.)
"With characteristic efficiency, the German government and people have set out to destroy the ifnage of heroism and sacrifice that exists in the minds of men (concerning Belgium), and to substitute therefor an image of craft and dishonour. Germany is not yet through with crushed and bleeding Belgium. The flinging of bombs on sleeping homes, the levelling of cities, the exaction of vast tribute, the infliction of alien military rule, the driving of a million men and women into exile, the seizure of all food supplies from a destitute people—these things are not enough. Belgium's martyrdom must be mocked; she must be covered with reproach; she must be branded, in all her helplessness and despair, as a strumpet among the nations. . . . To a certain extent, the desperate nature of her (Germany's) expedient was mitigated by expressions of regret and pledges of reparation. But now these have been repudiated ; and Germany is engaged in an organized campaign to defame the victim she has wronged. This is an offence far blacker than the invasion. Struck down under the plea of "military necessity," Belgium is to be robbed even of her good name. The very corpse of the murdered nation is to be dishonored and mutilated."
After reading such verdicts, rendered by impartial neutral authorities, the reader will be more than ever struck by the other characteristic of the author of this book, his singular self-control and judicial method, in treating the case. One would never know he was a Belgian—except perhaps from this very scrupulosity and the extreme fairness of his argument. He leaves the reader to draw the conclusion—which is happily so clear that "he who runs may read." We may honor him the more for it, finding in it something of the spirit of the BelgianPROCLAMATION
A l'avenir les locality situces prfes de l'cndroit oil a eu lieu la ^destruction des cheniins de ler el lignes t6!6graphiques serout punies ans pitte (il ii'importe qu'elles soient eoupables oil non de ces .actes.) [fens ce but des otages ont fcle pris dans Unites lea locality situees j>r& des chenrtns de ler qui sont menaces de pareilles atlaques; et au ier attentat 4 la destruction des lignes de cheniins de ler, de tetegraphiques ou lignes U#phoniqucs, ils seront imm6diatcmcnt
llles, l« 5 Oclofcr. 1914
JCt gouvtmaar,
VON DER GOLTZ
q FK E
I I LI POPULATION [\lmil
La population d'Andenne, apr6s avoir t6moign6 des intentions pacifiques & l'6gard de nos troupes, les a atta-qu6es de la fagon la plus traltresse. Avec mon autorisation, le g6n6ral qui commandait ces troupes a mis la ville en I cendres et a fait fusilier 110 personnes. I Je porte ce fait A la connaissance de la Ville de Li6ge £ pour que ses habitants sachent & quel sort ils peuvent i s'attendre s'ils prennent une attitude semblable.
Li6ge, le 22 AoOt i91i.
Gen6ral von BDLOW.
Proclamations of the German army of occupation in Belgium.GERMAN METHODS IN BELGIUM 39
people and government alike who, without show, as without hesitation, preferred their country's martyrdom and their own ruin to a moment's acquiescence in the proposal to sell their independence and betray their nation's word. It is the more unusual, however, this reticence in the presence of injury, in the case of these baseless moral charges; for the facts of the invasion itself, and its diplomatic prelude, were open to the world and were placed before the neutral nations by unimpeachable written testimony. In the case of these moral charges however, the evidence is more vague and scattered, its vehicle is more logical and problematical, and its presentation, in dry literary form, runs the risk of appearing unimpressive and merely legal.
Accordingly, in writing this little Preface, I consider it my duty, an observer and critic of a neutral country, to raise the curtain of the author's reserve, and draw the conclusion of his study. This is done indeed in the citation made above. The legend of the Belgian "franc-tireurs": old men engaged in terrorizing the hosts of the Kaiser in the thin moonlight of Flanders !—fearful women passing as pale ghosts before the shrinking giants of the Imperial Guard!—unformed girls waving ghastly flags of vengeance in the faces of the dauntless heroes of the Brandenburger regiments!—babies crying in the windows with the intent to unnerve the valiant gunsmen of the Emperor's siege mortars!—even the poor carrier pigeons bearing the brass numbers of an innocent sport, giving evidence of the complicity of entire villages in the crimes of leze-majestat—these are the reasons given to the world and accepted by the Germans for the destruction of Louvain, with its library and historical university, for the shelling for days of priceless architectural monuments, for the assassination of hundreds of men and women in a day in the market places, for the murder, under official order, of priests and the bombardment of hospitals and relief40
BETWEEN TWO WARS
convoys—for all the fearful show of bloody crimes which make one faint to read and sick to think of.4
That any one but Germans can accept this "justification" is too much to believe. Certainly not Americans who have their own reasons for refusing to be gulled by stories whose tragic setting alone robbed them of their import of farce. It was not a German torpedo that sunk the "Tubantia," but if it was German then the torpedo was not fired at this vessel but at some warship which passed that way! The "Sussex" was not torpedoed, but another vessel at the same time and place which—in the sketch of the commander—had two funnels! It was not German or Austrian submarines that did similar things in the Mediterranean, but Turkish, yet we can not tell just which were concerned, for the Turks, it seems, have none! The "Set-timbro" was fired upon, even the boats full of passengers, but the captain of the submarine thought he saw a uniform in one of these boats and this indicated, without doubt, a transport! So the merry round of silly tales renews itself. If the devil saves his face before a civilized world by such gauze-like veils as this, it is certainly the thinnest material that ever served so worthy a purpose.
While it is well then that M. Van Langenhove has given to his book the character of a scientific study, conscientious and prudent, and has used methods and data suited to convince any who were still in doubt,6 while too it is well that fye has himself refrained from stating the conclusions which a legitimate inference can not fail to draw; still there are many who will find it difficult to suppress their feeling of indignation. There is a certain popular judicial sense abroad which often finds in the form of a criminal's plea of "not guilty" adequate reasons for
* The evidence given in the publication "Belgium and Germany" cited above,
illustrated by photographs of German and Belgian documents and scenes, fully
justifies each of these statements.
6 One may read an interesting r6sum6 and appreciation of Mr. Van Langenhove's book from the pen of M. F. Pasaelecq, in the French review, Le Correapondant, December 25th, 1915.<D X' A ® ®
1 a 3 Sr1 s
"" tr « ff c «
aSUZ0
— « d 5 <D
o an 4> £ r£ ■n » o- a
t3 g.

g'd <S g.b 5 i «
a73131 0. -rt i
« .51 ® 3 S O v O M
3 t. t P -9 c S n £ 2
■3 5 S-g45
°i3 §,- £ o
> 2 «o S _ a-® © £ 5;
rtj? g-s ®
35*1**
« § 3 S
~ n: ° £ » «	__
© H.,9.2 J= 2 ™
o WO 3 o J; »•« n a) m -a u B.
™fri ► B t. O O ^ I
E
[So PQ
.H
c
o
o >>
6 I*
rt
rt
£ ii
<1> O
PhGERMAN METHODS IN BELGIUM 41
his conviction. Germany's acts of war are powerful enough; her reasons for many of them must be considered stupid in any court of enquiry which goes the length of admitting their sincerity, and takes the trouble, as the author of this book does, to submit them to serious examination.
The reader will find interesting the reproductions of German proclamations in Belgium given here. Among them is the famous one bearing the name of Miss Edith Cavell among those condemned to death, and adding, "the judgment has already received full execution."V. The Spirit of German Science1
While science has been used in war at all times and has been a formidable arm in the hands of those who have known how to use it, still the limits of its use have been fixed with more or less rigor. Even before the conventions of The Hague were formulated, there was the general recognition of the natural distinction between civilized and barbarous warfare. The savage's poisoned arrow has long been the symbol of what though scientific was barbarous.
The murder of the wounded soldier or disarmed prisoner has always been condemned as the crime of the apache, not the method of the gentleman. Pity for the innocent—women, children, even animals—and merciful treatment of the helpless— the drowning, the famished—seemed to mark man, even in the profession of intentional killing of his fellow man, as moved by a certain sentiment, a certain sense of human superiority to the brute which takes blood simply from the love of it.
Even against a legitimate foe, there are certain means of offence so base; the poisoning of wells, for example, or the diffusion of microbes of disease—or so treacherous; the use of the dynamite-loaded cigar, for example, that the chivalrous man redresses himself at the thought of them with a shudder of mingled moral contempt and physical nausea.
This has been the use made of science by the Germans. They have abolished the distinction between the knight and the brute, between the man and the snake, between pure science and foul practice.
This indites the German race.
Our grandchildren will say to their grandchildren: "You mur-
1 Page written for The Century Co. to accompany Raemaekers' poignant cartoon bearing this heading. Raemaekers, "America in the War," 1918.
42THE SPIRIT OF GERMAN SCIENCE 43
dered people in open boats, you bombarded audiences kneeling in churches, you torpedoed hospital-ships in mid-ocean, you sent young girls into immoral slavery, you tortured prisoners, you poisoned the wells used by civilian populations, you did a hundred treacherous things that our fathers and mothers shuddered to recall. You Germans did this!"
To future generations this will damn the German race. No theory of the superman, of the chosen state, of the alliance with God, will ever gloss it over.
Their science may have honored the Germans, but the Germans have dishonored science.
German science has often had the credit of making happy application and practical use of abstract laws and formulas, chemical, physical, biological. In applying science in war, however, it has disallowed the moral laws which underlie all sound science and healthy life.
Here German "applied science" will remain, let us hope, for all time unrivalled.VI. Address Pronounced at the Banquet of the American Chamber of Commerce in Paris, July Fourth, 1915
The Fourth of July is to us Americans not only a day of recollection, but also one of inspiration: not only a day of revery on past events, but also one of new visions of the future of our country.
In the present year, perhaps more than in any other year of our history, is this true, for the European crisis occupies our thought and its heroes inspire our imagination. What inspirations, what glorious examples, have appeared in the last year to thrill the soul of every true patriot!
As we dwell therefore to-day upon the Fourth, veiled in all the cloud of its traditions, certain figures emerge and take form: we see His Majesty King Albert, standing for heroic Belgium, the figure of one who is "every inch a King." What higher inspiration to loyalty does history show than this?—loyalty to the pledged word and the honour of nations, shown by the simple spurning of base proposals and by resistance to their execution.
We see too the august figure of England—our mother land— more august than ever before. Britannia arises to throw the mantle of her protection upon the smaller State, fallen by the hand of its own perfidious guardian. What a source of national inspiration to our country, which has also espoused the cause of smaller nations! What a bond of understanding should unite these our two Anglo-Saxon peoples in the belief that this is always to be their common mission.
Then we see a different figure, something mystical, legendary, poetical, but also human, military, powerful,—militant France,
44ADDRESS, JULY FOURTH, 1915 45
symbolized in the figure of Jeanne d'Arc. France is, for the world to-day, the source of inspiration to the individual.
The factors of this inspiration are still obscure, but the fact of it—the fact that France is the world's noble example— is beyond dispute. The French have shown, during the struggle of the last year, qualities of soul and body—physical courage allied with moral restraint, sanity of mind motived by patriotic exaltation,—qualities which demonstrate the Frenchman's right to bear the image and invoke the name of his patron saint, Jeanne d'Arc.
This has been called the "miracle of France," this wonderful issuing forth of the purest gold of character from the mine of the subconscious areas of national and individual personality. Let us rather say that it is an exhibition of supreme spiritual force, an evolution of that which in the world really signifies the "superman." It is but the carrying out of the familiar virtues of fidelity, loyalty, sacrifice, devotion, to their synthesis in a nearer approach to their ideal. The common duty leads to the "sacred union," and the sacred union begets the heroic deed.
This is not merely symbolic language; I mean to say that it is a reality, and that is its inspiring force to us. And on the other side, the false "superman" shows himself, in all his naked forms of brute force and animality.
A great English savant, Sir William Ramsay, has lately said of the British people's present feeling for France, that their sentiment is akin to reverence. Now that is our feeling too— reverence, the homage paid to a higher virtue which we do not fully understand. In a recent publication, M. Barthou, the statesman who served France nobly in securing the passage of the "law of three years," writes with justifiable pride: "Those who from the outside passed judgment on France, living, passionate, vibrating, either rejoiced or mourned, according as they were our adversaries or our friends, at our hesitations, our contradictions, our vagaries. But both parties were mis-46
BETWEEN TWO WARS
led by appearances ... as we were ourselves. We were divided: we were thought irreconcilable. We were light: we were considered corrupt. We amused the world: we were thought incapable of defending France. But we do defend it, and we do better . . . The France of to-morrow cannot be the France of yesterday. . . . There are things whose return the war has rendered impossible."
To this eloquent claim we may gladly assent. But we may add a further statement: there are things also, seemingly impossible, which the war has rendered real,—the birth in a people of a conscious will-to-greatness, more powerful than any nation's "will-to-power."
In this inspiration, drawn from France, there is a further element; I mention it in the name of the women of America. The women of America find their example now in the women of France, who in their sphere, take on the form of that armored woman, Jeanne d'Arc. We who have seen the French woman from day to day—the mother in the desolate home, the wife in her widow's weeds, consoling the wounded, inspiring the recruit, laboring day and night for the civil weal—we feel again a new veneration. The French woman is sustained by the affection of the civilized world to-day. She presents the figure which we Americans think of in our reveries on the wives and mothers of our own Civil War.
Gentlemen of the Chamber, I ask you whether such inspirations as these now described tend to confirm us in our neutrality. Do they permit indeed any sort of personal or moral neutrality? Is such neutrality possible to anyone born, as we were, with intuitions of right and under rules of conduct akin to those which we see here in force?
My colleague and friend, M. Henri Bergson cites, in a recent able address, the definition of a philosopher as "oneADDRESS, JULY FOURTH, 1915 47
who knows everything- but is indignant at nothing." He adds the comment that if it be a choice between knowing everything and being indignant about some things, the true philosopher must often choose the latter alternative—indignation. He says this a propos of the crimes committed during this war. In this I agree with my fellow philosopher, but I go further, adding a third case: there are times when the more one knows of a subject the more one finds one's indignation justified. We are now at such a time and in the presence of such a case. We cannot be true to our own patriotism, if we fail to condemn publicly and without measure those who make assaults upon the spiritual values on which our patriotism is founded.
As a nation we have played the part of the "good Samaritan." The recent superb manifestation of gratitude at the Sorbonne shows us that the French appreciate this. But we should not forget the truth that it is better to rid the world of thieves than to minister to their unfortunate victims. A recent utterance of an honored Frenchman, M. Gabriel Hanotaux, to the effect that Germany has had from our Government more compliments, amid her offences, than the Allies have had, with all their chivalrous and friendly concessions, should have an echo throughout America. In fact, it would be well if public men both in England and France—men not in office at least—spoke more plainly to us, not only to utter their satisfaction when they find it possible to entertain it, but also to express their disappointment when they find it impossible to escape that.
I would not be doing my whole duty, however, in speaking to the Chamber of Commerce, of which I am not a member, in the presence of the official guests who honor our meeting to-night, if I did not protest against a charge which our people are eager to refute: the charge of undue commercialism. Whatever may be the inner forces which48
BETWEEN TWO WARS
struggle for the upper hand in the formulation of official utterances at Washington, I am sure that I speak for the American Chambers of Commerce everywhere when I say that considerations of trade and commerce cannot, must not, be dominant. Our people know the difference between humanity and patronage, between duty and prudence, and woe be to any man in power who slurs over these elementary distinctions of social morality. Is there a man here tonight, among those whose lives are largely devoted to business, who does not place national honor above profits, and who would not prefer personal loss to unworthy official silence or indifference? In your answer, we may see that of American Idealism in general.
This, then, is the nature of the inspiration which comes to us on this Fourth of July. In the conflicts of other great nations we see revealed to-day, on a scale never known before, the great contrasts and oppositions of good and bad, the great examples of devotion and heroism, the great ideals of truth and value. The elementary factors both of moral culture and of political liberty, ours as well as those of others, are laid bare by these conflicts. When in the future the historian writes of this war, carefully weighing and awarding the meed of praise and blame, he will I think find a place supreme for this fair and noble France—France gazing steadily at the stars, while bleeding in every member! He will find in her the symbol of a great vision and a great sacrifice. We Americans hope that he will not have to record the failure on the part of the sister Republic to have seen the vision and to have shared effectively in the sacrifice.VII. On Neutrality1
It is necessary to distinguish, at the outset, the neutrality of a State as such—that of a government in its relation to other governments—from personal neutrality, that of the individual, the private citizen.
The character of the former, political neutrality, is clear. In general terms it requires that the neutral nation remain impartial in all its dealings with the belligerents; that is, that it give no aid to one rather than to the other, and that in its commerce, its measures of relief, humanity, etc., its activities remain without political bearings.8
It is evident, moreover, that the state of political neutrality implies reciprocal engagements. The neutral nation counts on the consideration due it from the belligerents, and should be ready to exact it. The rules which define neutrality establish also the rights of neutrals. When, for example, submarine warfare is conducted in a way to disturb the navigation of neutral ships, the obligation of neutrality is diminished or even annulled, and the question of imposing its rights by force becomes for the neutral State an urgent one.
Further, political neutrality can not condone the violation of positive engagements of whatever kind. Such violations destroy at once and at their base the guarantees for the sake of which neutrality exists; and the neutral
1 Contributed, at the request of the editor, to the Revue, Foi et Vie, Paris, July
1, 1915. After having been accepted by the editor of one of the great London
weeklies, this article was suppressed by the British censor. These observations
were further developed in the lectures prepared for The Harvard Foundation, and
published in the little book "American Neutrality, Its Cause and Oure," New
York and London, Putnam's, 1916.
9 A number of such conventions have been established by common consent,
and have acquired the force of international law: such as the conventions relative
to contraband, the sale of ammunition to belligerents, etc.
4950
BETWEEN TWO WARS
State is again called upon to consider the defense of its neutrality. Such was the case with Belgium. This case presents itself also in the present war whenever the conventions of the Hague respecting neutrality are violated— conventions to which the two groups of belligerents, as well as those which have remained neutral have subscribed. This is the least that one can say, even though no account be taken of the moral obligations which bind the neutral States, even when they have not signed treaties or conventions embodying them.
* * *
In the presence of such complications, the question of individual neutrality takes on extreme importance. In what sense can and ought the individual to remain neutral?
The term "moral" expresses best the meaning ordinarily attaching to the neutrality of the individual. It indicates as moral the attitude which the individual is called upon to assume in presence of the great questions, the great human interests, which are put in evidence by war. Personal neutrality, we are told, requires that the individual avoid all expression of opinion, all approval or disapproval of the acts or methods of one of the parties at war, as well as of the issues at stake in the conflict. Whatever one may think or feel, say those who advocate such a moral neutrality, one must not allow himself to express or even to reveal his preferences, as long as his country remains politically neutral.
So defined, moral does not differ much from political neutrality. The political neutrality of the States carries with it the moral obligation of the citizen. As a good citizen one supports one's government, refusing by deed or word to take sides with one party or the other. In principle one abstains from any act which may embarrass the government in the maintenance of its neutrality.ON NEUTRALITY
51
But just here a confusion appears which shows the disastrous consequences which follow from such an identification of the moral and the political, due to the dominance of the political. The correct political attitude of neutrality of the citizen is made to carry with it the personal or moral neutrality of the individual as a man. He is required to forget his humanity in the accomplishment of his duties as a citizen.
Such a requirement, let us say without ambiguity, demanding true moral or personal neutrality under the cloak of political loyalty, would make of the individual either a moral hypocrite or a political slave.
For in case the individual represses his impulses of sympathy and his acts of preference for the cause which he considers just, he makes himself, it is true, the instrument of political neutrality, but under cover of a distinct personal and moral subterfuge. On the other hand, in abandoning to the State his right to individual judgment and moral preference, accepting the obligations of political neutrality as having the value of moral duty, he renounces, for the time, at least, his moral autonomy and ceases to be a free citizen—and this just at the moment of crisis when the State has greatest need of direction by popular sentiment and discussion.
The first of these alternatives presents itself when a government orders its citizens to abstain from expressing any opinion or preference. Taken literally, this would signify that the people should remain sullenly indifferent in the presence of questions as grave as those of war and peace, chafing the bit in a silence which is all the more difficult as their patriotism is the more ardent and their humanity the more sincere. If silence in these conditions deceives nobody, it is useless; if it deceives anybody, it is hypocrisy, mean and ignoble.52
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The second of the alternatives mentioned above is realized in countries in which the people are accustomed to governmental intervention. Not having acquired habits of independent exercise of the rights of the free citizen, they accept the orders of the State without complaint.
To conclude, we may say that in one of these two cases, political neutrality acts to stifle or render callous the individual sentiment of right; in the other, it imposes a political restraint which is tyrannical and undemocratic. In both cases alike, moral neutrality is false in principle and wicked in practice.
* * *
In the ethical realm, these complications become very grave since, when all is said, it is the sentiment of the people, freely expressing its will, upon which depends the resolution of the democratic State to affirm its rights and to defend the conventions signed in good faith. , Here we see the pernicious effects of the attempt of a government to control or suppress the expression of public opinion in a crisis such as that which the world confronts today.
To make my meaning clear, I will illustrate it by the case of two nations, both neutral at the outbreak of the war, the United States and Italy. By writing as I do, I claim the right, as a loyal American citizen, to that free expression of opinion which no decree of political neutrality is competent to destroy or impair.
At the opening of hostilities, the President of the United States published a note requesting all American citizens to observe strict personal neutrality. This advice, taken seriously and strictly observed by a docile public, was understood to forbid all free expression of individual opinion and feeling. In the minds of a great many, there existed also a desire not to offend their fellow-citizens of German birth. It is also to be remembered that the publicON NEUTRALITY
53
mind was imbued with the vague international policy, attributed to Washington, according to which the nation should avoid all entangling alliances with the Nations of Europe. The great mass of the American people were ignorant, or at least poorly informed, concerning the departures made in recent years by the country in the direction of active participation in international affairs: the acquisition of territory, the active part taken in diplomatic negotiations relative to the integrity of China, the conference of Algeciras. It did not at all appreciate the rights and duties attaching to membership in the Hague Conference. The sole principle of current international faith was the Monroe doctrine variously and vaguely interpreted. In their minds the United States was not only in a different continent, but in a separate world.
The result was that the people understood literally and in a moral sense the declaration of the President to the effect that the war was "not our quarrel." They saw in the horrors of the European catastrophe something to excite their pity and arouse their charity, but nothing to call out their active sympathy for one party to the controversy rather than the other.
It was only when German atrocities began to affect American interests as such, American lives and commerce, that, again following the lead of the President, they felt at liberty to raise their voice. Such is the sad fact. Moreover, the official protestations addressed to Germany from Washington continued to invoke the "sincere friendship" of the two peoples. The note dispatched after the attack on the Lusitania contained the most repulsive compliments —written too by the hand of the same man who had persistently refused any sort of recognition of Huerta in Mexico on the ground that he had been charged, though not convicted, with being implicated in the crime of murder. Americans54
BETWEEN TWO WARS
find themselves obliged to ask today what has become of the "burning moral indignation" of the President!
But before these direct attacks upon American interests, was there nothing in the events transpiring in Europe to shock the sentiment of moral neutrality?—nothing hideous enough to destroy all "sincere friendship?—small States violated, hospital ships torpedoed, universities and libraries burned, priests and children massacred, women led into slavery, holy places profaned, the conventions of the Hague disdained, the laws of civilization and humanity flouted, public and private right trampled under foot! Yet in the presence of all these crimes, America, the champion of the oppressed, the defender of small countries like Cuba and Porto Rico, herself indebted to France for her safety and independence, America, the country that has the least right of all to remain silent, America simply declares: "the quarrel does not concern me!" Like the Jew in the parable, America "passes by on the other side."
If the United States had been faithful to their moral traditions and had performed her duty even to the extent of protesting her indignation and expressing her horror, most of these inexpressible crimes would not have been committed; and more important still, the other neutral States would have found in America a leader and in the country a rallying point where they naturally looked for it.
The exaggerated requirements of political neutrality, added to the inflexible juridical correctness of the government, reduced the people of the United States to a condition which seemed to Europeans as a sort of moral lethargy. And the country was fatally exposed to the charge of betraying its national ideal for material gain. This is the opinion now current in Europe.
Yet however true this judgment may appear, I believe, so far as the American people is concerned, that it is noON NEUTRALITY
55
longer true. As a fact, the political charm is broken, the fetish of neutrality is exorcised. And as to entangling alliances, God save the people which does not welcome an alliance, however "entangling," with justice and with those who defend it, no matter on what continent or on what seas the issue is to be fought out. To those peoples, whatever their name, who fight for this, to them be the glory forever!
It is reported that the President, recently passing in review the Atlantic Squadron, declared: "The United States navy represents our ideal. The great thing for the United States is that she does not seek to acquire new territory. She defends humanity and does what humanity demands."
However hollow these words may seem to those who have waited through all these months of torture, for some word from Washington putting "humanity" into action, still let us hope that the heart of the country now vibrates in accord with the great heart of Europe, laboring in its gigantic effort, that the phantom of neutrality is banished, and that the national Executive will finally see the signs of a rising national will and a determined national purpose. May our nation still be given the chance to repair in some measure the loss of the greatest occasion she has had to "serve humanity" since the abolition of slavery!
It seems then that we are in the presence of a reaction of national sentiment which will openly rebel against our political neutrality.
In Italy, we see the remarkable spectacle of a nation getting rid completely of its political trammels, thanks to the action of moral and emotional forces. The movement was irresistible. By a single impulse the national conscience asserted itself, and the chains of political convention were broken. Ancient and sacred affinities of race, language, and liberty, have imposed silence upon the voice of political profit and intrigue. The tradition of noble strug-56
BETWEEN TWO WARS
gles for the ideal of national liberty and unity have replaced the forced and unnatural deference for Germanic force, which for a generation has interfered in the politics of the country. The flame of indignation and horror, lashed into a blaze by the whirlwind of German barbarism, has kindled all the fires of Italian patriotism, and rendered more intense the Italian's love for his patrimony of classical culture. Neutrality, the instrument of political time-serving, is melted in the crucible of just moral indignation, and another great Nation joins the crusade of the powers of
justice, to rid Europe of its scourge.
* * *
These two examples may suffice to show the essential character of neutrality, and the real nature of the ends for which it serves as means. Neutrality is a political expedient, a regulator on the political machine, the guarantee, when both sides respect it, of the duties of belligerents and of the rights of non-belligerents. But it is purely and simply a political instrument; it can never take on a moral character. As soon as the larger and more profound instincts of good and evil show themselves, and the impulse of humanity and justice are set in motion, the outer envelope of political neutrality is rent asunder, and the true national Will, taking form and substance, advances upon the stage.VIII. America Ready for Great Resolutions1
It is a somewhat delicate matter for an American citizen, at the moment away from his own country, to express an opinion upon the acute crisis which has been brought about in Ger-man-American relations by the recent acts of German submarines, particularly for a survivor from the "Sussex"; but I trust that my remarks will be judged simply for what they contain apart from all personal considerations.
In an article just dispatched—by request from the editor-to a London journal, and written before the President's speech to Congress appeared, I took the following ground.
I maintained that the attack upon the "Sussex," gave evidence of two things. First, that the concessions made by Germany to the United States had been and would be invariably violated by Germany in the most cynical manner. These concessions related to the general exemption of passenger ships, to the safety of passengers and crew taken from such ships, to the exemption of ships armed for defense alone, and to the inviolability of neutral shipping. Each and all of these engagements on the part of Germany had been absolutely disregarded.
Second, that the concessions made by the United States had been similiarly abused, being utilized by Germany to her own profit. Notably is this true in the case of Mr. Lansing's suggestion to the Allied Powers that all merchant ships should be unarmed. Without waiting to know the reply of England and France to this suggestion, the Germanic powers extended their submarine attacks to unarmed ships of all sorts.
Further the attacks upon neutral shipping have become general and indiscriminate. The distinction between belligerency
1 Article written for Le Journal, Paris, and printed in that paper, in French translation, and also in English in the Paris edition of the New York Herald, April 25, 1916.
5758
BETWEEN TWO WARS
and neutrality upon the high seas is completely annulled. Germany is now waging war upon all commerce, upon all the maritime powers equally. The object of Germany is evidently to reduce the tonnage of every kind upon the seas and thus to render more and more difficult all transportation to and among the allied nations. This makes the question of the attitude of the neutral powers, particularly that of the United States, most acute. Can any neutral power, having ships at sea, remain neutral, without sacrificing its honour along with its interests?
Can the United States submit to this last extension of the use of the submarine, without abandoning all semblance of respect and responsibility for international law and for the principles of humanity, and without abandoning also with this the right to a place in the family of civilized peoples?
It is with profound emotion and gratitude that I now see these same considerations brought out clearly and strongly in President Wilson's address to Congress (Apl. 18,1916), summarizing his note to the Imperial German Government. He states with admirable directness and force the absolute necessity the government of the United States is under, in the name of law, of humanity, and of the interests of all the neutral nations alike, of resisting this monstrous use of the submarine, cost what it may.
There are certain aspects of the situation thus created, to which I should wish especially to call attention.
1. The President's appeal to Congress lends to the present crisis a very exceptional gravity. The earlier notes addressed to Germany and Austria were from the State Department primarily; they did not represent, in any conclusive way, the entire government, nor the sure determination of the nation. In the earlier cases (the "Lusitania," the "Arabic," the "Ancona," etc.) the German ambassador at Washington has taken advantage of this fact and has stirred up opposition in the country, even in Congress itself, to the enforcement of the President'sAMERICA READY
59
emphatic words. It has been said that the President himself feared or knew that the country would not support him in any positive action, and was himself afraid, for political reasons, to follow up his notes with measures which might reveal the country's unwillingness to break with Germany. We now see on the contrary that the President is ready to defend and maintain the country's honour and the rights of neutrals.2
2.	The response of the country itself is all that it should be. There are many who have maintained—myself among them— that the people of the United States would follow the President with enthusiasm in whatever active measures he might find it right to take. The Americans have been "ready for great resolves"—ready for months past to follow up their sympathy for the cause of the allies and the resentment against German intrigue and barbarity, with active and efficient effort, whenever they found themselves properly led from Washington.
We now see that the country is sound. The German-Americans will "run to cover," and the danger of serious or widespread disturbance in the country is most remote. In my opinion, any riots or manifestations in favour of Germany in the United States in case of war would be entirely local and desultory and would be suppressed almost in a day.
3.	What will Germany do? It is unlikely that Germany will yield to any degree that would diminish the effectiveness and value of the submarine. Possibly the policy of "paper-concessions"—the rubbish spread in the United States by Bernstorff to flatter the Americans' love of "diplomatic victories"—may be adhered to, under a new ambassador, Bernstorff being made a scapegoat. But this would not deceive—as for a long time it has not deceived—anybody but the most credulous or insincere pacifists, like Bryan. Moreover, what I personally know of the President leads me to believe that his determination is now
2 As the event proved, however, this was giving the President a credit he did not deserve.60
BETWEEN TWO WARS
based upon an unalterable conviction of duty. One may believe that this determination should have been taken long ago—when the "Lusitania" was torpedoed, in my opinion—and that the apparent supineness of the administration has done incalculable injury to the country and to its good name; but if that apparent supineness turns out really to have been the moderation of fairness and of the will to act only when sure of the will of the country, then all good Americans can rejoice both that demands of fairness have now been exorcised and that the accumulating voices of protest have been heard.
In any case, whether it is to be the submission of Germany or war against her, I am sure I represent the mass of my loyal and intelligent countrymen when I say that in a day the President of the United States has put a new light in our eyes and a new spring in our tread! Could it be possible that the fate of democracy, of law, of brotherhood among men was to be decided, as against the most monstrous powers that ever threatened them, while the United States of America remained a silent witness to their victory or an equally silent accomplice in their defeat? Banished now the thought !8
8 A full year elapsed before war was declared on Germany and nine months before Bernstorff was given his passports (Feb. 3, 1917) 1IX. Incoherence1
1. THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR THE BELLIGERENTS' WAR-AIMS
The incoherence of American national life has been thrown into relief in many startling ways by the war. The policy of the government illustrates it sadly. The government has seemed to wait upon the movements of popular opinion and to seek to reflect them— a reflection as incoherent as the movements themselves.
The recent note of the President to the belligerent powers demanding a statement of their war-aims bears witness to my mind to this incoherence and indecision. If taken to mean just what it says, it misinforms our foreign friends as to American opinion and does great injustice to that body of American citizens who, in giving their time, means and in many cases their lives, for the cause of the Allies, are guided by a coherent and definite democratic faith.
I do not wish to take advantage of this occasion to speak of political events, but to my mind every Franco-American reunion to-day suggests irresistibly considerations bearing on the moral aspects of the war. What impresses me most just now is the respose that France is making, by her army and by her action, to the question put by the President of the United States a propos of the objects pursued in the war.
To ask of Russia—Russia coming to the rescue of Serbia— why she fights, is strange enough; to ask this question of England—England crusading for the maintenance of treaties and the integrity of public law—this is worse; but to ask it of France—France invaded, bleeding, heroic—France the sister
1 Address of the presiding officer on introducing Professor Caullery of the Sorbonne who lectured on American Universities, Paris, December, 1916.
6162
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Republic, constant and generous friend of our democracy— France, the land of the proclamation of the rights of man, herself the noblest model of liberty enlightening the world— France, the mother of ideals and the champion of the oppressed, herself born like us in the fires of revolution—to ask such a question at this tragic hour of France, this approaches sacrilege!
The response of France by action is the only response possible.
You the French, you call attention in all kindness to the charitable deeds of Americans—I'effort charitable—and it is worth while to do this. For all this charitable effort shows that the American heart is with you. But you may be sure that the American brain is with you too, no less than the American heart. The verdict of the thinking men of America has been rendered. These men do not ask what your aims are in this war, nor do they suggest that there is any common measure between your aims and those of Germanic theory and practice. On the contrary, they see in your ideals those of George Washington, and in your will that of Abraham Lincoln.
For the American will is also stirred and takes form in the action of thousands of volunteers—in the ranks, on the ambulances, in the air—young men who offer every day their service to the death and of whom, well nigh every day, one is taken at his word and falls on the field of honour. These are the facts which we prefer to cite, facts which show that Americans understand and love you and are ready to make such sacrifices in your cause. These facts can not be neutralized by endless reams of diplomatic verbiage, nor obscured by the mists of moral perplexity which hang about the windows of the White House.
It is desirable—and this is the avowed opinion of the President also—that a world organization of States should be set up to secure and impose a lasting peace. I have myself made the suggestion of a "Pan-Atlantic League," in which the UnitedINCOHERENCE
63
States would join with England and France to enforce a just and lasting peace. It is not, however, by arranging compromises with aggressive militarism, nor by accepting the hypocritical and deceitful promises on the part of the aggressors, that such an organization can be effected. On the contrary the Entente constitutes to-day the true and only possible league for the enforcement of peace; only by its complete victory, can there be any hope of a new regime of disarmament and international justice.
What would be the value of the decisions of a conference into which Germany entered, and from which she went out, armed to the teeth? Is she not now glutted as never before by the satisfaction of her military and moral lusts in Belgium, Serbia, Poland, and Rumania? Could American or any other self-respecting jurists sit again on terms of mutual confidence with those who have honoured in this fashion their signatures to the Hague conventions? Shall men like these be allowed, by the grace of neutrals and at the request of the United States, to set their seal again to papers guaranteeing the interest and the integrity of small States and constituting themselves the guardians of lasting peace? Of course Germany wants a lasting peace—with lasting German hegemony from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf—peace secured as the Chancellor phrases it, on the basis of the "war-map of Europe."
The very suggestion of peace now, a suggestion coming from Germany herself, and weakly echoed by the President of the United States, is one tending in its results to the indefinite continuance of war. In the name of pacific humanity, then, let the Allies continue to fight "jusqu' au bout"—to the bitter end. Would that the role of the United States were more worthy of its influence, its power, and its history!
After the war, what friendly, affectionate, co-operation will we see between the two sister Republics. We will hope that in all our common efforts toward the high ends of the mind—64
BETWEEN TWO WARS
in politics, in science, in literature, in art—the universities will play a preponderant role. May the French genius, aesthetic, classic, idealistic, and the American genius, practical, scientific, utilitarian, profit mutually from a spiritual alliance constantly more and more intimate.
2. PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY The real significance of President Wilson's much-discussed1 speech of January 23, 1916, to the Senate does not reside, I think in his allusions to the present war, nor in his evident desire to maintain the sort of neutrality becoming to a possible mediator. Its true permanent significance rests in my opinion upon two grounds: first, it makes a declaration of faith in the democratic principles which must underly lasting peace, and second it declares for a certain method of securing such a peace—that of a "league of nations."
As to the first of these points, the declaration of faith in the principles of nationality and self-government, the address is both opportune and valuable. It places the United States where that country must inevitably stand—in a position of radical opposition to the imperialistic and autocratic pretensions of the Central Empires, in opposition, that is to the projects of pan-Germanism both immediate and remote. Those of us who differ seriously from the President as to his general policy must still recognize the value of this official declaration of faith.
The other point is of equal importance. The President declares in favour of a "league of nations" united to secure and guarantee future peace. This method he declares the United States should be willing to adopt, pledging its moral and material support to such a league.
The immediate bearings of such a pronouncement are of considerable importance. It brings the discussion of the future
1 That in which he suggested a "peace without victory." This paper, written for the Echo de Paris just before the rupture of diplomatic relations with Germany, was held back on account of the rupture.INCOHERENCE
65
arrangements for peace into the area of American politics. Although of course not settling anything—for this speech is merely the President's personal views—it nevertheless gives official standing to a policy which would involve the country in certain world-undertakings, putting an end once for all to the theory of the permanent political isolation of the American Republic. Coming at such a crisis this is of great importance.
It is after these two memorable pronouncements, however, that the President's strange detachment from the realities of the present crisis begin to appear.
He assumes that a union of all the nations to secure a lasting peace is possible, provided the present war be terminated "without victory"—which would leave resentment and distrust in the breast of the vanquished.
This brings to mind the manifesto of Nicholas II, Czar of all the Russias, issued twenty years ago, pleading for disarmament and in favour of a tribunal of arbitration based on international good-will—the sublime and idealistic vision of a generous autocrat—a manifestation which took form in the first peace Conference at the Hague in July, 1899. We ask at once: why has the project of the Hague Tribunal failed? Has it been the distrust and resentment of the vanquished of 1870 which caused the failure of the Hague Conventions and destroyed their moral base?
With the facts before us—the records of the Hague Conferences, the history of modern Germany, the diplomatic correspondence of Germany with England and France in recent years—with these facts before our eyes, we find it difficult to share the President's hopes. Are the nations to construct again the tower of peace, having German militarism and American pacifism side by side in its foundations ? Are they to rediscover this Trojan horse carrying German gifts of good-will, fidelity, and honour? Is Belgium to bow again her thanks to Germany for renewing the pledge to defend her neutrality in the future—66
BETWEEN TWO WARS
as in the past ? Is a drawn-game the means most proper to realize the firm will of democracy in Europe and to finish with the aggressions of despots?—a drawn game, leaving Germany stronger and more convinced than ever, both in theory and practice, escaping scot-free from all sanction for the crimes with which she has immolated Europe, and repudiating all claim to reparation for the incredible damage she has done to modern civilization! Is such a "draw" the means proper to clear from the German mind the superstitions of the "master morality," the "super-state," the "right of might," which have actuated the pan-Germanic movement and impelled the teutonic peoples to follow their leaders through such seas of blood?
The President must know that it is the German State which has blocked all pacific endeavors, scuttled international law, squeezed out of the Hague Conventions all semblance of vitality. Is this military colossus, this tool of the ambition of the Hohen-zollerns, to dissolve itself and accept meekly the mild and healing teachings of democracy because Mr. Wilson waves the flag of peace? The Czar waved the same flag before, and a generation of international Utopians have lived under its folds. With what result ? The present war. But for the military preparation of France indeed,—the policy of safety for France, which was criticised, maligned, undermined by her own pacific doctrinaires—the German aggression of 1914 would have succeeded, and the rights of man would have been extinguished in the land of their birth, this being the price of the credulity and pacific illusions of the simple-minded.
A draw with the German theory of autocracy would compromise the principles of government clearly stated in the President's speech and endanger the foundations already laid by all the workers for peace; for it would leave the Central Empires unbroken and armed, keen in theory and ready in practise for the crisis of the future, more momentous still, when the democracies of the world would again feel the razor at their throat.INCOHERENCE
67
The President's dream, therefore, of a peace based on goodwill, a peace of compromise, "without victory," is absolutely unrealizable.
This note of the President is, in fact, a grave mistake, as all merely verbal intervention would be in the present circumstances. It sounds false. It carries the suggestion of personal ambition hidden behind a false neutrality. What! the Allies may say, you, who have pushed your neutrality to the extreme limit, declaring that the war does "not concern you" and expressing the desire for a "peace without victory," you who fail to distinguish morally between the two groups of belligerents, you who have kept silent in presence of the violation of treaties and the brutal oppression of civil populations—you now dare come to us and demand that we give account of ourselves to you! No! you have taken no part, either active or moral in the conflict; continue then to play your chosen role. Having left to others the defense of democracy and liberty, having confessed ignorance of the very principles lying at the basis of this defense, by what right do you seek a place in the councils of peace? It is too evident that this intervention costs you nothing; it also exposes you to the suspicion of acting from motives far from disinterested.
This note of the President, in fact, professes ignorance of facts which no intelligent American citizen has failed to learn during two years of public discussion: the fact for instance, that the Allies are fighting in the defense of small countries, as well as in their own defense, against German military aggression in the present and for the future. All the prime ministers, —in England, in France and in Italy—have said this with identical clearness and force, and have repeated the same story with unanimous conviction. Germany has understood it; only the President of the United States has not!
As to Germany, also, the President does not understand, so he himself says. He asks for information as to the German68
BETWEEN TWO WARS
war-aims. He seems to take seriously the German assurances in respect to consideration for small States, assurances given precisely at the moment when the Germanic conquests are the most extended, no less than four small States being riveted to the earth by German bayonets. Is the President the only living man of intelligence who remains still uninformed as to the signification of Pan-Germanism, and the morality on which it is based? Can he forget the incidents of comedy, played in his presence in Washington by German diplomats, which have given him the short-lived fame of so many "great diplomatic victories?" Is he still their only dupe?
Patriotic Americans can not say all they think on this subject. They do not wish to seem—especially those living abroad —to lack respect for the President's high function, which they have always venerated and hope to venerate again.
It is useless, though charitable, to seek with certain writers for profound esoteric motives and principles hidden in the Presidential writings.2 These explanations furnish abundant food for fertile imaginations. The note explains itself. It is a monument of incoherence, perplexity, indecision. The policy of "watchful waiting," long gone bankrupt, has been galvanized again into life in the form of an apparent thirst for information. It is also most inopportune, as to its time of appearance, its positive proposals, its choice of addressees—all placed indiscriminately together. It will give great pleasure to the Kaiser, who will put it in his pocket saying: "Just what I would have said myself to those Allies!"
If Germany is to enter into a world organization of the sort desired by us all, it must be either a Germany which can give guarantees of a change of heart and of a willing adoption of the principles of nationality, with the abandonment of the theory of Pan-Germanism—or a Germany conquered, broken, and
a A telegram from New York published in Paris even suggests that Frenchmen need not expect to get the full force of the President's distinctions, for seeing the poverty of the French language, they cannot be adequately translated!INCOHERENCE
69
helpless. There is no doubt that it is only by securing the latter, a conquered and disarmed Germany, that the world can hope to see the former, a demilitarized and pacific Germany. The complete victory of the Allies is then the only method and the true means to a practical and rational pacific programme.
If such a league as that sketched by the President is not feasible—a league in which militant Germany would play a leading part—then we may ask, what sort of a league is feasible and practicable, in the interests of permanent world-peace. Is the President's proposal that the United States take part in an alliance to enforce future peace to bear no fruit, to have no realization? Is the United States to remain, as in the past, either the silent witness of the adjustments secured after the war, in which the future fortunes of the world will be decided; or to be at the best a platonic friend of peace—signing conventions with reserves designed to release her from all responsibility?®
If the suggestion that the United States enter a league to enforce peace is to have any realization, no one can fail to see that such a league must be constituted by Great Britain and France, with such of their allies as may join them in this permanent aim and purpose. England and France are the soul of the coalition engaged today in laying the foundations of a lasting peace, by the destruction of the arch-enemy of that peace; these countries will be the nucleus of the future league, whatever may be the wish of the United States. To them the American Republic must join herself, thus completing what has been called a "Pan-Atlantic Alliance"—a league of the nations situated on the Atlantic to define the principles of a world-scheme of pacific international organization.
Stated in this form, that of a Pan-Atlantic Alliance, the project so vaguely suggested by the President and by many others before him, enters at once into the domain of the practical and concrete. The United States might have aided the cause of
3 This has turned out, as all the world knows, to be precisely the case.70
BETWEEN TWO WARS
peace earlier, by actively protesting against the violation of Belgium; but that is now past, and at last the American Republic is no longer morally neutral. It behooves the country, therefore, to begin its preparation by deciding upon the direction of her policy on the one hand and by looking to her armament on the other hand. The United States has just passed the greatest naval budget in the history of nations; it is discussing the means of securing the military preparedness which its own security in the future demands. What higher use could she make of these armaments than that of entering definitely and at once into an alliance which would bring her moral and material resources to the service of human rights and establish the tranquillity of the world for many generations, if not for all time?
It is to be hoped that far-seeing American statesmen will realize this; and that men of all parties, even the most pacifist, will see that the only way to give body to the President's vague dream is to break with Germany and take sides once for all, and with the utmost energy, with the enlightened nations of the Atlantic.German medal: America's Contribution to the War. A fantastic craft, wearing an Uncle Sam hat, swallowing dollars, laden with munitions; back-ground of sky-scrapers. Reproduced by permission of the British Museum.X. A Word to the French on the English1
It is difficult for me, in the present circumstances, to turn aside and think of other things than the horrible event of which my family have been the innocent sufferers; but I can not refuse the request to say a word of encouragement to the noble people to whom I owe so much, and for whom all my hopes and expectations go out in confidence—the French.
The first thing I wish to say to them is that they are understood and admired by their British allies as never before. Going to England early in March I spent two weeks in London and in Oxford, filling a lecture engagement; and it was my privilege to meet and talk with men in every position in life. Everywhere the same opinion: unbounded admiration for the French army and its generals, and for the magnificent sobriety and calmness of the French civil population. I remember especially the words spoken to me by Lord Bryce (who had just returned from Paris where he was President of the British inter-parliamentary commission)—spoken in praise, among other things, of the high genius of the French generals in the field; and the words of Sir Gilbert Parker, the eminent man of letters, on the power of the "union sacree" in France. Again and again I was asked, when some matter of administration or organization was under discussion: "How do they get such fine results in France?"
Let the French know then that they are observed, admired, and loved across the channel, and that there is in the allied armies a common morale to which they contribute.
1 From Le Journal, Paris, April 6, 1916: interview accorded just after the torpedo attack on the "Sussex."
7172
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Their allies recognize that in this morale no higher element of spiritual power, no more prophetic pledge of victory, could be wished than the power and the pledge lodged in the French nation. Frangais, restez toujours vous-meme!— is the cry of the English civilian.
But I bring another message also from England; a message that concerns the British effort and its results.
The British methods of doing things differ from the French. Lacking the direct machinery of conscription and the means of industrial mobilization, they have had to improvise everything, from the outline of a gigantic army to the details of a commissary operating many miles from its home-base. Despite the apparent diversity of opinions and conflict of counsels—labor strikes and contentions over the order of voluntary service—the result is stupendous! All of England is in khaki, Colonials touch shoulders with Highlanders, and the nerves of this mighty empire tingle with messages of loyal and effective devotion, bringing inexhaustible support, in man and things, to the little Island which is its brains. The mass, enormous, formidable, irresistible in its weight and constant in its momentum, is now rolling forward to crush the power that stands confronting it.
The British navy was ready and the results showed themselves : the destruction of German sea-power and of German commerce, together with the essential defense of France on the north coast. The British army is now ready; and the results will be analogous. It has been long to wait: the task was one to tax the mind and heart, the moral and physical resources, of the "Empire on which the sun never sets": but we now see the beginning of the result — a military instrument matching in power and efficiency its sister arm, the Navy.
Let the French know that there is now behind them aA WORD TO THE FRENCH
73
military power that rivals their own, and a will-to-conquer which will not relax the nerves of empire till the German monster is crushed, and crushed completely!
I write this in the midst of the sadder scenes of this British organization, the medical. Here too, in all the details of the indoor and outdoor hospital plants, the solidity, permanence and largeness of capacity, vie with the attention to detail and the generosity of this provision for a war lasting as long &s it may. In the one great Hospital (General, No. 14) over which I was shown by its commander (a man of long experience, admired and loved by all), the striking thing was this quality of ampleness; enough of everything for any event. Tons of chocolate from Trinidad, beef from Canada, stores from New Zealand and Australia, as well as eggs by tens of thousands and milk fresh every day from England! Great hotels turned into the safest of hospitals; even the outdoor hospital—"huts" covered with asbestos! On the medical side the same excellence—the British excellence of giving the best and sparing nothing. What an unbounded satisfaction to us, thrown suddenly upon their bounty, to find our dear patient in the hands of a group of medical authorities that could not be surpassed in England itself! All these men were here serving the "Expeditionary force" on French soil.
I feel too that the same is essentially true of the political and administrative aspects of the war in England. The English are not like the French—intuitive, spontaneous, direct in reaching an end; on the contrary, they are people whose principal methods are those of conviction, reasoned belief, reflection and deliberation. In England, every man has his opinion and must have an opportunity to express it. The result is an organization which is slow to perfect itself, hindered often by experimentation and some lack of foresight; but always corrected and constantly improvedBETWEEN TWO WARS
by public criticism. The result is better adjusted, more solid and permanent, from having passed through the experimental stages. Lloyd George and Lord Derby came by this process, through experimentation and under criticism, into the positions in which they are now solving the national problems of munitions and enrolment.
This, then, is my message to the French: you have in the British an ally that admires you and also one that is worthy of you! Would that my own country which is morally allied with both, might also take its stand politically beside England and France. What a pact it would be! —an "All-Atlantic Alliance," which I have often dreamed of, in the interest of the World's Peace and of international Right!
Coming from an English University where I lectured on the "German State" and pointed out its monstrous character and its brutal and inhuman methods, I was present with my family on the torpedoed "Sussex"! Proper punishment possibly for me,2 but proof of all the truths I uttered at Oxford. It was to a French friend that I wrote just after the event: "I am now allied to you by the new bond of common suffering. I am henceforth mobilized with you in your cause!"
2 Our cook in Paris, the German -wife of an Italian, said it served me right for what I had said of her Kaiser I The French maid, on the contrary, took it as an answer to her prayer that we were rescued by the "Marie Thfirdse," for, said she, her own name was Th6rdse and she had prayed to Marie IXI. Submarine Warfare and the Duty of Neutral Nations1
Whatever may have been one's opinion as to the relation of submarine warfare to international law in the early days of the war, only one conviction would seem to be possible now. The submarine is being used in every possible way, regardless of international law. This appears from certain facts.
First, the concessions made to the United States by Germany —in each case counted a "diplomatic victory" by the more uninformed or a "political triumph" by the more partisan Americans—have been followed by extensions of the use of the submarine which have more than annulled the concessions.
Second, the American recognition of the limitations of the submarine, and Mr. Lansing's restatement of the German argument as to its vulnerability, in his Note of January 18 to the Allied Powers, was taken as a sign of yielding; and the new campaign against neutral shipping was inaugurated just after the supposed settlement of the Lusitania case by the German admission of the "equivalent of illegality" (a settlement, however, the terms of which have never been made public).
Thus both German concessions in recognition of international law and American concessions in modification of it, have had merely the "instrumental value" of forwarding the German interests. Anyone who believes now that the rules of submarine warfare in this war can be based on former international regulations is either misinformed or intentionally blind.
Profitable discussion is limited now, therefore, on the part of belligerents, to questions of effective armament for the destruction of the submarine, and of effective means of defence
1 Article written for the Daily Chronicle, London, and printed in that journal April 26, 1916.
7576
BETWEEN TWO WARS
in general in view of this warfare on mercantile and neutral shipping.
It would be useless to apply the rules of offence and defence established for warships, to submarines, for certain reasons— all more or less familiar, but worth repeating.
1.	The distinction between ships "armed for defence" and those "armed for offence" is entirely annulled, for the reason that offensive action against a submarine is the only effective means of defence. Unless a vessel sees and sinks a submarine before the latter sees and sinks her, she is lost. What matters it in the result, for example, whether the "Sussex" was armed or not?—or, if she had been armed, what size her guns were or where they were placed? The procedure of employing an invisible engine for blowing up, without warning, a passenger ship under a belligerent flag or any ship under a neutral flag, "blows up" also every vestige of significance attaching to the presence or character of armament on such vessels.
2.	The impossibility of saving life, either that of civilian belligerents or that of neutrals, makes it necessary, for humanitarian reasons, to meet the German submarine warfare by every possible effective device, regardless of former rules. The rules and regulations hitherto in force have had in view the safeguarding of life and of neutral property. It is in the same interest that a departure from these rules, or a modification of them in practice, is now made necessary by the inhumanity and lawless violence of one of the belligerents. The only way to protect the women and children in a stage-coach attacked by Bandits is to shoot the assailants at sight.
As to neutrals, their duty is no less plain and unambiguous. In Mr. Lansing's Note suggesting the disarmament of purely mercantile and passenger ships, he actually stated that the United States Government was "seriously considering instructing its officials accordingly"—that is in the sense of his suggestion that the belligerent Powers on both sides agree thatSUBMARINE WARFARE
77
only unarmed ships should be free from attack. This, it should be noted, is a German proposal taken up by Mr. Lansing; it makes a concession which would have annulled the rule of international law permitting defensive armament on merchant vessels.
But Germany, without waiting to learn the reply of the Allied Powers to this suggestion, at once issued the new orders which have resulted in the sinking of all tonnage, armed and unarmed. This constituted a direct blow in the face to the United States and a most cynical flouting of the rights of all neutrals. What are agreements worth under such conditions as this ? They merely give to the Powers that break them opportunity and occasion to extend and make effective their campaign against all commerce upon the high seas.
In fact, the object of the present German submarine warfare is not merely to isolate England: it is to diminish the aggregate shipping facilities of the world, of every sort. It is intended to increase the expense and difficulty of transportation, to hinder the export of munitions and supplies from America to Europe, from England to Italy, from the Allies to Russia, from Japan to the Western Continent, from the Colonies to the Mother Country. This end is furthered by the destruction of neutral and belligerent shipping indiscriminately.
The question perforce arises: Are the neutrals—is America —going to submit to this ? Will the United States, the strongest of the neutral nations in power, the most pronounced in theory, and the most exposed in commerce, tolerate this new and comprehensive outrage to international law and to the freedom of the seas?
It is now for the United States not merely a question of human lives—to be sure a question grave enough!—as was the case when the Lusitania was sunk. The controversy has progressed in the year since that "accident." It is now nothing less than the question whether any ship whatever, of whatever78
BETWEEN TWO WARS
kind or country, may cross the seas without becoming the target and victim of pirates—passengers, crew, and cargo! If the United States can allow this to go on, without coming to the aid of those nations engaged in destroying these pirates—thus defending American commerce and American citizens as well as theirs!—it is difficult to see what place the United States can hereafter occupy in the circle of honourable peoples.XII. A Message from Americans Abroad to Americans at Home1
Published in the United States through The American Rights League, October 17, 1916
THE AMERICAN RIGHTS LEAGUE
is interested in bringing before the American public the accompanying "Message from Americans Abroad to their Fellow Citizens at Home." The League finds itself in full accord with the contentions maintained in this "Message," contentions which are in line with those that have been upheld by the League since its first organization.
Geo. Haven Putnam, Prest.
L. L. Forman, Secy.
October 17th, 1916 2 West 45th St., New York
\
Fellow-Countrymen:
It is often said that Americans staying abroad lose their right to counsel those living at home, since foreign residence directly affects their opinions and sympathies. The latter part of this statement is true, but we should also remember that residence abroad gives many opportunities of observation and that those who follow the course of events close at hand are in a better position to get direct impressions of fact upon which adequate conclusions can be based.
While, therefore, not at all concealing our sympathies, we the undersigned Americans at present abroad, venture to present certain considerations on the war to you, our fellow-citizens.
1 Prepared by the present waiter following a suggestion from a group of Americans in London.—Note now added.
7980
BETWEEN TWO WARS
We speak for hundreds of our fellow-citizens abroad, who share our views.
I.—Neutrality
In the first place, we consider moral neutrality impossible; for it is the attitude of one who either refuses to obtain knowledge or fails to act on his knowledge. In either case certain disastrous effects follow.
This attitude results in placing all the parties to the controversy, whether innocent or guilty, on the same footing. There is no discrimination between the bad and the good: as, for example, between the Germans' and the Allies' methods of conducting submarine warfare, or between the Germans' and the Allies' treatment of the neutrality of Belgium. To say that all the Powers have "gone mad" is to do infinite injustice to devastated Belgium and to invaded France.
Another result is that the moral sympathies are dried up and the conscience blunted. We feel that the official counsel of neutrality made by the Administration at the outset of the war has had this effect.
Such neutrality, further, does violence to American ideals. Americans, of all people, cannot be content to remain ignorant of the causes and effects of such a world conflagration or, understanding these, cannot fail to sympathize with those who are fighting for ideals identical with their own.
'We do not ask you to take sides because you are Anglo-Saxon, or French, or Slav, but because the facts are so clear and the principles at stake so important that their appreciation carries with it the duty of allegiance to one side and the right to condemn the other.
In fact we see in Americans—we feel in ourselves—the lamentable effects of these two years of constrained neutrality. The country has been again and again galvanized by a sharp Message which seemed to promise a vigorous policy, only toMESSAGE OF AMERICANS
81
fall back into indifference when a compromise had been effected in the interest of neutrality. What seemed to be clarion calls of liberty and justice have died away in the rumble of commercial wheels and the clang of factory bells. The public heart has been seared by a weak and ineffective diplomacy, and the public conscience dulled to the charge of commercialism. The statement that the United States stands for the "rights of humanity" excites everywhere, in Germany no less than in England and France, a melancholy or ironical smile. No satisfaction has yet been secured for the murder of Americans on the Lusitania.
We, Americans equally with you, deplore this degradation of the popular conscience, this blunting of the nation's sensibility. For this reason we seek to inform ourselves as to the facts and then to examine our hearts as to our duty.
In considering the case judicially, we find two relatively distinct topics forced upon us: first, the war itself considered as a European conflict, and second, its repercussion upon the United States.
II.—The Meaning of the War
There is place here only for a summary of the conclusions to which careful study has led us.
As to the immediate causes of the war, the following statements are fully proved by diplomatic records and official reports.
England entered the war only after hesitation up to the last minute and only when every diplomatic resource had been exhausted. The German march into Belgium was the deciding factor in British opinion and the immediate cause of British action. The British were absolutely unprepared for war, except on the side of the navy, which was at its customary plane of efficiency.
Can we blame England for honoring her signature to the guaranty of Belgian neutrality?
France acted purely on the defensive, being exposed to attack82
BETWEEN TWO WARS
as the ally of Russia. The official German charge, that French aeroplanes dropped bombs on German territory—on the railway lines near Nuremberg—on the second of August, 1914, has now been declared unfounded by Schalbe,1 the man who made the original report. Those who have lived in France during the last decade know—and have fully demonstrated—the pacific attitude of the French, even toward the Germans, and the un-military character of French civilization. The thought of revenge for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1870 had largely died out; France wished only to be let alone. The increase in 1913 of the term of compulsory military service, from two years to three, was due to the increasing signs of German aggressiveness ; and as it was, the "law of three years" was passed only after a campaign which threatened to disrupt the country, so violent was the opposition of a pacific people to any increase in the military burden.
Can we blame France for resisting invasion and for keeping faith with Russia?
Russia took up arms in defense of a small state of kindred race, Serbia, and this only after making the suggestion that the Austrian demands be arbitrated. These demands, accepted by Serbia to the point of national humiliation, would have annihilated Serbian sovereignty; they were based upon the unproved charge of Serbian official complicity in the murder of the Austrian Crown Prince.
Can we blame Russia, a great state, for championing Serbia, a small state of kindred race whose existence was unrighteously threatened? Did we have equal justification for entering the lists against Spain in the interest of Cuba?
It results that the immediate causes of the war were the Austrian humiliation of Serbia and the German violation of
* Declaration made May 18, 1916. This false statement, corrected after two years, was made use of officially by the German Ambassador at Brussels, August 2-3, 1914, by the German Ambassador in Paris on August 3d, and by the Chancellor in the Reichstag on August 4th. The declaration that French troops had crossed the Belgian border was equally false.MESSAGE OF AMERICANS
83
Belgium. We have here the first indication of the fuller conclusion that Austro-German forces of aggression and conquest forced the war upon Europe. Germany could have avoided war by adopting any one of three courses: by counselling Austria to accept the adequate concessions of Serbia, by agreeing to the Czar's suggestion of arbitration, or by accepting Sir Edward Grey's proposal of a conference of the interested Powers. Rejecting all three of these courses, Germany declared war upon Russia, and then, on the basis of false charges, upon France. Later on, Belgium, the innocent victim, was charged, on the most absurd evidence—now thoroughly exploded—with having violated her own pledge of neutrality.
We can not avoid the conclusion, therefore, that the present war, with all its horrors, is actually due to Germany. But for the initial crimes committed against the liberty and integrity of small states, the Allied armies would not be to-day in the field.
But one may say that there are deeper causes, that Germany and Austria represented a type of culture and a theory of government, which were bound to bring them into collision, sooner or later, with the other Powers of Europe. This is the contention of many German writers. It is undoubtedly true. On further study, we find ourselves compelled to view the present war as a conflict of human and cultural forces acting through different forms of government. But, far from freeing the Germanic Empires from the responsibility for this war, this only fixes it more firmly upon them, for it shows the absolute necessity the enemies of imperialism and militarism were under—in this case, as always—of resisting to the death the aggressions of such Powers. The struggle thus becomes the most typical and tragic contest in the history of human liberty.
III.—The War and the United States
The American State, founded in democratic freedom, under traditions received from states like England, France, and Hoi-84
BETWEEN TWO WARS
land, has never had to vindicate its liberties against foreign aggression; it fought for these once for all in the Revolution, aided by France. But it has exercised its moral influence and put forth its military force to defend the liberties of other states which were oppressed or threatened. What is its duty now?
Never in our history have the forces of aggression and dominance of autocratic government shown such efficiency, brutality, and "will-to-power" as in the Germanic Empires of to-day. German writers in theory, and German soldiers in practice, agree in reasserting certain old claims long since exposed— claims which have made the scenes of the struggles for liberty charnel-houses of heroic patriotism and valor. The "divine right of Kings," the mission of a "chosen people," the "right of might" by which a powerful nation, invoking the biological law of "natural selection," crushes its feeble neighbor, the pretension to be the "superman" and the "super-state" exempt from the obligations of ordinary morality, the assertion that "military necessity" justifies moral wrong—these are some of the unblushing claims put forth by the German military State.
In practice we see these claims made good. The treaty guaranteeing neutrality becomes a "scrap of paper," the oath of allegiance is the screen for intrigue, the passport is the means of espionage and forgery, the conventions of The Hague are targets for irony as the hospital ships they are intended to protect are the targets of gun and torpedo fire, diplomacy is a system of subterfuge, dishonor on -the battlefield as in the Cabinet is justified as means to the end of the spread of Pan-Germanic culture. We see clearly what the "master-morality" of Germany means and the sort of "culture" it seeks to impose upon the free nations of Europe.
This, fellow-Americans, is not mere hearsay or unconfirmed report. Our own Government, in spite of its policy of careful neutrality, has been forced to recognize the real character of German aims and methods; for the United States has beenMESSAGE OF AMERICANS
85
made the theater in which these aims and methods have been exploited. We need no further proof of German diplomatic duplicity after the revelations which led to the dismissal of von Papan and Boy-Ed, we need no further proof of German barbarity and cruelty on the battlefield and in the ravaged cities of Belgium and France, after the submarine assaults upon passenger and hospital ships. The explosion of German bombs on American territory and on innocent merchantmen leaving American ports is enough to open our ears and consciences to the reports of the destruction of churches and ambulances in Europe. That we need no further evidence as to the sort of enemy the free nations of Europe are fighting may be judged from the words penned by the President, in his note of April, 1916, to the Imperial German Government demanding the cessation of submarine warfare against passenger ships. He convicts the German Government not only of crimes of the most brutal inhumanity, but of violation of its pledged word and of deliberate lying in the matter of the "Sussex." Caught red-handed, the Imperial Government admitted this last charge.
The platforms of both the political parties agree in exposing the traitorous and baneful activities of the Germans in the United States. This is what the Germans do in a country with which they are at peace; imagine their methods in Belgium and Serbia, where they are free to exploit their "culture" without restraint. In the documents of their agents, in letters found on prisoners, and in official proclamations and military orders, the record is one of sickening and unspeakable savagery.
IV.—Conclusion
This then is the spectacle presented to us. We see a gigantic military autocracy, beside which the armies of the past were mere toys, attempting to impose its system and its rule upon the most free and democratic peoples of Europe. Its preparation has been complete, its science is unrivalled, its organization86
BETWEEN TWO WARS
and solidarity perfect. Do we realize that this power has grown to its present stature by a series of wars of conquest; that it has already in this war crushed out the life of no less than three small and flourishing states, Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro, besides devastating again its old victim, Poland; that the sinister Turks are its tools in Armenia and through the Orient; that if the war should end in the status quo of to-day all these peoples and territories would be subject permanently—and with them large portions of republican France and of liberalized Russia— the birthland of The Hague Conference—to the rule of the Hohenzollern House which represents and imposes this theory of government and this form of culture? What would be the limits and results of the next war when a victorious or uncon-quered Germany saw fit to declare it? Can we believe that her submarines would visit American ports only for purposes of commerce? It is in our own interest, as it is in the interest of public right, that the power of Germany should be broken or reduced.
The humiliating attitude of moral neutrality is therefore unworthy of us. Our sympathies should be open and pronounced for those who defend what we approve and love. Our fathers died for the democratic liberty in which we live to-day; and the cause of Washington has become the world-cause for which the Allies are making the extremest sacrifices. Those who die for this liberty to-day will pass it on to our children of tomorrow. We were in the vanguard of liberty; now that the main hosts of democracy are engaged, how can we remain indifferent ?
We are called upon to forward the consummation of an alliance of wills, if not of States, with the other great enlightened Powers, in the interests of democratic liberty and international right.
Let us tell them plainly then—the nations Allied in this struggle—of our desire to aid in the triumph of the cause which hasMESSAGE OF AMERICANS
87
always been ours, but which in this crisis our Government, declaring that the war does not concern us, has failed to serve.
Let us tell our Government that it must, if it would live, revive the high traditions of honor and action which have made our nation great.
We must have a Government which will take the lead among the neutral nations, standing for the inflexible enforcement of international agreements, and for the vindication at any cost— not merely by verbal threats—of the elementary principles of humanity.
Let us choose such a Government; let us tolerate no other.
Let us tell our fellow-citizens everywhere that the war does concern us; that it affects our deepest interests and involves the vital principles of our political life.
Note the generous action of a sister American Republic. In July, 1916, the Brazilian Congress adopted in both Houses the discourse pronounced by the Ambassador Ruy Barbosa, its official delegate to the celebration of Argentine Independence held at Buenos Aires. The motions to adopt this discourse, as the official pronouncement of Brazil, were made by men of opposing political parties. This pronouncement was described, in an official French parliamentary note of appreciation, as making the day of its passage "a historic date." The following words are from this discourse:
"It is not allowed to neutrals to reward by their abstention those who have planned this aggression. As between those who destroy the law and those who observe it, no neutrality is admissible. The tribunals of public opinion and conscience can not rest neutral between law and crime."
We did not take this initiative, but we can follow this example. We did not create the "historic date," but we can make the date doubly historic. Let us adopt these words and do our88
BETWEEN TWO WARS
utmost to enforce them—every one of us who loves his country and who believes in the principles of American Independence. {Signed by fifty representative Americans in Europe, and, in a second edition, by as many more).
Commenting on this address (in the Figaro, Paris, October 27, 1916), M. Gabriel Hanotaux, former Prime Minister, writes:
"If any neutrals still hesitate, they have only to get their heads together. New and convincing testimony is brought to them by a neutral people who are also our friends. On the eve of the presidential election, the American colony in Paris lifts its voice and speaks to the electors in the United States. They tell of what they know and what they see, what they find close within the reach of their hands which have so often already ministered to our needs. After two years these free-men, from whom nothing has been hidden, and who have had the time and means to inform themselves, to reflect and make up their minds, these men render their decision in this manifesto of a simple and sober eloquence. They point out to their compatriots on one hand the wrong, on the other hand, the right; on the one side the spirit of domination, on the other the spirit of liberty. And with an irrefutable logic, carrying with it the authority of reason and the testimony of history, they make their appeal. 'We do not/ they say, 'ask you to take part because you are Anglo-Saxon, French, or Slav, but because the facts are so clear and the principles at stake so important that their appreciation carries with it the duty of allegiance to one side and the right to condemn the other.' They denounce the deplorable effects of a 'false neutrality.' "HOMMAGE des ARTISTES et des ECRIVAINS FRANCAIS AUX ^TATS-UNIS I>AMERIQUE
AfW^/	j(ufc Jbt	^
^ui- ju&UAS	act
U/t* TiA^cr / 'Ah^e'uy**
Aurographe de M. Henri BnRGsoN^ie l'Academie Francaise (fragment) — Extrait de l'Alhum
Im|irimeiie dc la Krnaissance, 10, rue Hoyale.
Page from Album of French artists and writers, issued in "homage" to the United States. (Also the following plate.)TO AMERICANS ABROAD FROM AMERICANS AT HOME8
O Citizens afar of God's own land,
Now fallen from that early faith it knew
When Freedom and the Rights of Man it held
More dear than safety—than dear life more dear!
How bold, how searching, are these words you send
From far beyond the seas! Ah, how your charge
Beats on the heart with apostolic force!
You would awaken us (Laodicean!)
To what we were and what we yet might be;
You, from your vantage ground of dreadful sight,
Behold accomplished ruin reaching wide—
You see the crucifixion of a world,
Then cry to us:—"Can such things be as naught
To our great State, whose pristine boast it was
To stand the bulwark of Humanity,
And from oppressed peoples lift the load?
The which we have not done—nor moved to do—-
In this most awful hour of human need."
(And does some shadowing Nemesis draw near?)
O glorious handful—you who send this "Message!"
'Tis you who are the True Americans.
Though we have never left our land of birth,
'Tis we who are expatriate, not you!
With you resides the genius that shall save;
Dying—or dead, are we to that great faith
Which in entirety still you firmly hold.
And yet some few of us plead saving shame—
We have been kept from war? Oh, no; not all!
On that hid foughten field Man calls his Conscience
Stern is the battle—and it rages still.
Edith M. Thomas New York, November 8, 1916.
9 Response made by Miss Edith M. Thomas to the "Message." It was printed in the New York Herald of Paris, December 2, 1916.
89XIII. Two Nations
1. AN AESTHETIC CONTRAST1 Gentlemen,
It is difficult, in these days of war, to separate a man entirely from his country in our thought, to think of a person simply as an individual. We look upon each individual as belonging to a country, to a nation. One man is French, another is English; one is from a neutral, another from a belligerent country. Our thought rests naturally upon the thought of nationality, passing over that of simple personality.
In honouring me, I am sure that my country enters as well into your intention. I am not merely a philosopher, a man of letters, but also an American,'a citizen of a country which is officially neutral, but which is morally in sympathy with you and with your ideals. I am flattered indeed at having been chosen to represent my nation from the point of view of this moral sympathy, for there is not in all America a single person whose love for France is greater than mine.
How mysterious is this sentiment for a whole people, for a nation entire!
I was present last year at a gathering of Americans at which one of the speakers, a professor from the United States, attempted to explain the dislike and aversion which instructed and cultured Americans feel for the Germans. He analysed the teutonic character and even the German climate, in orcfer to explain this positive aversion. But while he constructed his theory point by point my thoughts
1 Address of the author on the occasion of his official reception by the Sociiti des Qens de Lettrea of France, Paris, June, 1916.
90HOMMAGE dcs ARTISTES ct dcs ECRIVAINS FRANCAIS AUX ETATS-IJNIS D AMFRIQUF.
la >«kciiki,i.ki<ik

fi - Z^r-
o
Autographe de M. Anatoi.k France, de l'Academic Francaise — Extrait de l'Album
I■■■ |<limerie de lo IU kmssavtk, 1(1, rue H.>vale.TWO NATIONS
91
took a different turn. The Germans are plain, as he said, especially their men; but that is not a sufficient reason that they should be so strongly disliked. They are coarse, vain, pedantic, all this is true; but these things taken together do not suffice, nor that they are militarist and brutal.
While the orator was enumerating all these and other reasons, there lingered in my mind an anecdote which I have heard attributed to our national humorist, Mark Twain.
There was once a mother who set out to inform her little girl of the tradition according to which "father Adam" selected the names to be borne by all the animals. "It is astonishing," said she, "what funny names he chose, for example the name 'cow' for the cow."
"But Mama," said the child, "he called the cow a 'cow' because it was a cow."
Disregarding the insulting comparison which I am told the word cow suggests in French, I may say that here in the child's reply, we may see the true reason that the Americans find the Germans unlovely: it is because they are unlovely. Here is the simple, conclusive and satisfying reply.
Our reaction of sentiment toward an entire people, toward the character of a nation, is not an affair of analysis; it is rather an affair of taste, of aesthetic appreciation. Character is a synthesis, a whole of beauty or of ugliness, which escapes analysis. Analysis indeed destroys it.
But while speaking of the German character, my thought turns by way of contrast to the French, and I recall the appreciation of the French character which my countrymen entertain today. It is relevant to ask why it is that the Americans love the French—for there is no doubt that they do love them sincerely and profoundly.
We might proceed, in seeking for an answer to this ques-92
BETWEEN TWO WARS
tion as the professor proceeded, and analyse the French character. It might be said with truth that France is geographically beautiful; that the French are good-looking, especially the women; that they are intelligent, gay, tasteful, idealistic, chivalrous; and especially that they have a personal manner which attracts others and excites affection.
But however real each of these traits may be, and however valid the analysis, from the point of view of fact—still all this is not sufficient. In such an analysis, just by reason of the complexity of the details, one loses the ensemble of the beautiful, which is a matter of intuition, of spontaneous sympathy. In fact, here again the child is right. Why do the Americans find the French admirable?—simply because they are admirable!
In a word there is a nuance, an aroma, which we call that of charm. A beautiful character charms; we find it charming. The entire French national life is impregnated with this delicate essence of beauty. No doubt this is why the French nation is represented oftener than any other by a female figure. Charm is an attribute of woman, and most of all of the women of France.
In time of war, national traits are enormously exaggerated. All the values of beauty and ugliness are enlarged and take on heroic proportions. On one side, the barbarians wage a warfare which is colossal, monstrous, hideous; this is the natural manifestation, in tragic outline, of an unlovely life and character. On the other side, a similar enlargement shows itself in the contrary sense: that of devotion, loyalty, heroism, the whole manifesting itself in a warfare which is prodigious and epic, but honest and beautiful. On each side, it is a picture essentially aesthetic: a nation inspired and sublime stands over against another which is monstrous and hideous.TWO NATIONS
93
1	congratulate you, gentlemen, and with you all the French, on belonging to one, and not to the other!
2. AFTER TWO YEARS OF WAR2
After two years of war, the most striking fact is this: the enormous contrast, the unparalleled moral opposition between two countries, France and Germany. The one has grown constantly greater, the other constantly lesser: one has shown reserves of virtue—military force, honour, sincerity, and piety—the other increasing duplicity, ferocity, and love of blood. One has earned the approbation and reverence of the world entire; the other has lost the respect even of her well-wishers, and won the reprobation of civilized man.
Now that the victory is sure, the contrast becomes ever more evident. The Germans shoot the helpless prisoners of war and send into slavery the captive families of Lille; while a French aviator drops upon Berlin a proclamation conceived in truth and equity!
This illustrates the eternal opposition between two types of character and two theories of life: the utilitarian and the idealist. To secure the ends of her lust for power, Germany balks at no means; France chooses the path of honour and wins as her reward a prestige incomparable. After the war all nations will send their young men and women to France
to worship at the shrine of the Ideal! - *
2	Interview given to Le Journal, Paris, on the second anniversary of the out* break of war.XIV. A Pan-Atlantic League—Why Not?1
France, Great Britain, and the United States, this combination, constituting a "Pan-Atlantic Alliance," would go far to secure the permanent peace of the world.
Addressing the American Club of Paris on Thanksgiving Day, November, 1912, I suggested this name for such a combination, which I held even then to be the desirable consummation in world politics. The idea of such a League is now, in the light of the war, becoming more and more "actual." Ex-President C. W. Eliot has recently argued forcibly for it (New York Sunday Herald, March 12, 1916.).*
I wish to bring out succinctly certain additional points in favour of such a Pan-Atlantic Alliance or All-Atlantic League, of which the general character and purpose may be sufficiently indicated by means of the following citation: "Let us hope that the war will have drawn together the three great Powers of the Atlantic that love justice and the life of peace—France, England, and the United States. Could these Powers but form a Pan-Atlantic League to enforce peace, inviting the other nations to join them, a long step would be taken toward a more rational Utopia, and the spiritual interests of mankind would have a permanent and powerful advance-guard" (the writer's volume American Neutrality, the last page).
The immediate utility of such a League would appear from the fact that the naval forces of these three Powers would absolutely control the seas and guarantee their freedom, both in respect to their use for peaceful purposes and
1 Reprinted from The Outlook (London), August 26, 1916, and the French
review Le Parlement et VOpinion, August, 1916.
3 See above (Vol. 1, p. 205) where a note from President Eliot is reproduced.
94A PAN-ATLANTIC LEAGUE
95
in respect to their safety from pirate and hostile navies, bent on aggression or interference with peaceful commerce. The division of the naval burden would enormously reduce the annual charge for each. Such a union would also directly tend to bring about disarmament, for it would have a discouraging effect upon the naval programmes of other nations. In the presence of such a combination what State would dream of building up an equal force?
But while it is true that such an alliance would be, for this and other reasons, an important instrument for future peace, I hold on wider grounds that it is actually essential to that end. Let us consider certain of the probable conditions in the political world after the present war.
However decisive the victory of the Allies may be, the spirit and purpose of militarism will probably not be destroyed in the Germanic nations. The history of Prussia affords an instance of the possible rebound in this sense after crushing defeat. Moreover, the immediate tasks remaining after the settlement of the military account—among them the regulation of the status of neutral countries and neutralised works and highways, such as the Suez, Kiel, and Panama canals; the adjustments of new boundaries; the distribution of Colonial possessions; the solution of complications arising over the payment and expenditure of indemnities; the enforcement of prize decisions and reparations of every sort, especially in Belgium, Serbia, and Poland—all these undertakings, extending in their effects and sanctions far into the future, and presenting constant fuel for a future conflagration, will require a permanent coalition of nations of sufficient strength to dominate the recalcitrant powers and prevent the recrudescence of militarism. We now know that treaties without effective sanction are worthless. Will that of 1917 fare better than others unless sufficient force be placed behind it? The safety of Europe from Germanic96
BETWEEN TWO WARS
oppression will have been dearly bought, and it should be remembered that it would have been lost but for the military ententes which existed beforehand among the Allies.
The United States is the country most able to contribute decisively to this end. Assuming that an entente between England and France, of some sort or other, will survive the war, these Powers will have the same need as before for further support, physical as well as moral, if permanent stability and peace are to be secured. This support the United States can give as no other nation can. A special interest involved—one that overshadows all others to my mind—is that represented in general conception by the Hague Conference. What is to be the post-bellum status of this institution?—or of whatever tribunal may succeed it?
To abandon the purposes and ideals of which the Hague Conference is the concrete symbol and the only positive instrument, would be to confess moral defeat even in the midst of military victory. The Hague Conference represents, in its decisions and methods of settlement, the judicial conscience of the allied nations and of the world. In defeating Germany the Allies will have defeated the historical and inveterate enemy of the principle of judicial settlement of international disputes.
Admitting, then, that the work of the Conference must go on, it is plain that the United States can play a role of enormous importance in its further development, a role quite consistent too with its record before the present war. But to bring the force of the United States to bear some commitment will be necessary. Without this her voice will have lost its force in the future Conferences; for she rests now under the implication of not having, in any high moral sense, honoured her signature to the previous decisions when they were brought to the test. If such a commitment be not made, pledging the actual support of the AmericanA PAN-ATLANTIC LEAGUE
97
nation, the effect will be disastrous; American failure to assume this responsibility would not only go far to wreck the future projects of the Conference, but would bring further damage to its very principle and ideal. There is here, therefore, not only an opportunity offered to the United States, but the call of an imperative duty to future peace.
I can conceive of no greater misfortune to the American nation than that of failing to come to the effective support of the Hague Conventions, and through them to that of international law and right. For it is just in the manifestation of a noble and pacific idealism, through its adhesion to the Hague Conference, that the better spirit of the American people had begun to take on a sort of international consciousness.
What will be the immediate work of the Hague Conference?8 It will certainly be charged with the revision of the rules of war, with the regulation of the use of submarines and aircraft, with the consideration of new engines of destruction, with measures for the protection of sanitary units and medical plants during war, with the distribution of relief to non-combatants, with the rules of contraband, blockade, postal and wireless communication, etc. These and many other urgent matters now rest under insufficient definition and regulation, as the war has abundantly shown; but what has been especially lacking has been the efficient means of enforcing such regulations as were in existence. Americans must ask themselves the question whether their country's future participation in all this work is to remain merely advisory and platonic.
But there are still wider interests at stake. The supremely important topic for such a Court after the war will be that which concerns guaranteed territory; and the first question will concern the duties of the signatory
8 Or of any international Oourt.98
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Powers—whether actual guarantors or not—in respect to the enforcement of the guarantees. It should not be possible hereafter for any nation to sign the rules of neutrality which define in law and morals the rights and duties of guaranteed States while themselves assuming no responsibility for the principles of law and morals upon which the guarantees rest.
This question will in the near future be upon the United States, along with all the other Powers participating in international Conferences. The decisions reached must become binding obligations for all the signatories. The United States will be forced to stand or refuse to stand with the enlightened Atlantic nations, England and France; to become full partner in their high moral business; or, on the other hand, remain a mere witness who by silence
makes himself an accomplice to the work of the opposition.
* * *
Such an Alliance might be limited at the start; but it should include at least the following articles: the active support of international Conventions in all their extent and detail; the maintenance of international law and convention as already formulated and as recognised by the signatory Powers; the joint guarantee of neutral territory and of property and works necessary to international communication (such as the world's straits and canals) ; the union of the forces, especially the navies, of the nations entering into the agreement, for all these avowed purposes; the definition of the legal scope and peaceful purpose of the League, with a view to justifying and recommending it to the other nations.
With such a beginning the activities of the League would rapidly extend themselves. It would soon become an explicit defensive and offensive alliance in the interest of international organization and stable peace. Soon its veryA PAN-ATLANTIC LEAGUE
99
name would become the rallying cry of the smaller nations and its voice the arbiter in the politics of the world.
Americans have made objection, however, to this general proposal. They have said that the Monroe Doctrine forbids the United States to enter into such an alliance with European Powers, and also that such a stand would lead the country into war at once on the side of the Allies.
As to the Monroe Doctrine, that spectre of American politics, events are showing that it bears straight in the direction of the spirit of the proposed Alliance. The President's recent ultimatum to Germany on the subject of submarine warfare, although threatening to lead to hostilities, was hailed with satisfaction by the South American Republics. Why should not Pan-American sentiment be thus positively exercised in international affairs? The Monroe Doctrine in itself is entirely defensive and negative; it does not establish international law for the Western continent nor create special morality for the Americans. It would offer no barrier whatever to the positive action of the American Republic in an alliance whose object was the maintenance of peace against aggressors and the enforcement of the free and pacific use of the high-seas by all alike.
Moreover, it is not generally seen that no statement of Monroeism which takes the form of Pan-Americanism is possible without Canada, a country far more important to the United States in many ways than any of the South American Republics. Canada is, geographically and politically, a link of the first importance in the chain of interests represented by both of the two proposed combinations, Pan-American and Pan-Atlantic. Canada would be common ground, literally speaking. In consideration of Canada, England could give support to Pan-American interests; and in consideration of Canada equally the Americans could ally themselves morally and defensively with100
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Great Britain. As Canada could not enter into any arrangement which did not carry with it the consent and potential backing of Great Britain, it is evident that a true Pan-Americanism must recognize the British Empire at least as a silent partner. The Pan-American Federation would thus, in regard to a large class of its interests, take its place as a unit in the Pan-Atlantic Alliance.
The splendid showing of the Colonials—Canadians and Anzacs—in the present war serves to indicate what an element of strength would be added to the League by the British Colonies, whose interests, like those of the American nations, lie in the direction of open communication and of the free commercial and political development of peoples.
As to the objection made on the ground of the possibility that the United States might be drawn into the present war, would this eventuality be a reason, one may ask, for discarding a course of action dictated by considerations of high morality and equally high politics? It is just my point that the United States should be ready to take its part, to pay its share, in the furtherance of liberty and in the defence of free institutions. If a positive alliance with the Powers which stand for democratic government, moral enlightenment, and international justice requires that the country go to war to-day, to-morrow, or in a decade, she should be ready to do so—ready when her duty to her neighbours, wherever situated, and to the rights of man, whenever threatened, demanded it. This is her plain duty, apart from considerations of far-sighted political policy. In the matter of our present discussion both sets of considerations, moral and political, counsel the resolution which is the handmaid of statesmanship.XV. 1. Why Is the United States at War?
The President of the Republic, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,1
At this proud moment in the history of the United States, it is not in place to dwell upon incidents of the past, still less upon the conduct of individual persons; otherwise I should wish to insist upon the fact that I do not deserve personally the great honor you do me to-day. If I have been able in some small measure to aid in bringing my country into active co-operation—as it has always been in popular sympathy—with the other nations, great and small, which love honor, liberty and right to the point of fighting for these things of highest value, it is only as one of many. It has been my privilege to inform the French of the loyalty of America, and proclaim to Americans the grandeur of France; and it is as one of the American citizens who feel the inspiration of our Nation's new task and privilege, that I receive your congratulations and give you thanks for this superb reception.
The recent organisation of the Paris Section of the Navy League of the United States served as occasion for an expression of our affection for France, voiced in a message to your President, M. Millerand. The response made by the French Navy League to-day will stimulate our pursuit of the ends of our organisation and encourage all our efforts; it will also find an echo of appreciation and sympathy in all the Sections of the great parent association at
1 The French te^t of this address, as given at the Sorbonne on the occasion of the writer's official reception by the "Ligue Maritime Frangaise was printed in full in the Journal des D6bat8, April 21, and in the Revue Hebdomadaire, along with other addresses delivered in the course of this splendid manifestation of Franco-American unity. The English text was printed separately (besides its authorized publication in the Bulletin Protestant Frangaiae, May, 1917). For an account of the celebration, with illustrations, see Vol. I, p. 237f.	.
101102
BETWEEN TWO WARS
home, whose members are scattered over the entire area of the American Union. In their name and in that of all Americans who know the traditions of Franco-American friendship and the history of our co-operation on land and sea, I repeat the same word of thanks.
At the start, I spoke of the present as a proud moment in the history of America; I referred in these words to the participation of the United States in the war. Now why, one may ask, is the United States at war?—and why be proud of it?
The United States is at war for two reasons, as I conceive it: each in itself adequate, but reasons which have very different values; for one is secondary in its moral significance, while the other is primary and fundamental.
The secondary reason is that America is forced to take up the challenge issued by Germany, a challenge born of affront, insult, outrage, murder; she is forced to hurl in the owner's teeth her reply to the infamous mass of wrongs which our nation has tolerated so patiently and so long, while feeling bitterly their sting and smart. We are witnessing the assertion of our Nation's self-respect. Assertion of one's self-respect is the highest form of self-defense, for honour is higher than material interest and higher also than physical life. Germany has not only assaulted the physical life of Americans and defeated their material interests; she has also outraged their national honour and challenged their self-respect. They have long tolerated it. It would be hard to find in history a toleration similar to this—toleration of diplomatic villainy and moral turpitude, daily illustrated in practise by cynical deeds of violence to property, liberty, and life. Here is adequate cause for a war which reflects the moral revulsion of the honour and dignity of a free and self-respecting people. This revulsionTHE UNITED STATES AT WAR 103
has come slowly, but it has come surely; and all Americans may now be proud of it.
But there is another reason for war with Germany—a reason which goes deeper. It is the reason lying at the basis of all wars in which great moral causes are at stake— the reason of Right. Interest is merely prudential; honour even may be but relative and,in a measure optional; one may be, on occasion and in a just cause, "too proud to fight"; but right is absolute and eternal—the moral right of obligation, the political right of the free man to assert his autonomy, the democratic right of the citizen to defend his liberty, the right everywhere when it is exposed to the aggression of might. Wherever its integrity is threatened, Right must be maintained and defended.
To the private citizen there is no option in questions of right; he must take his stand for law and order, go out to defend those who are unjustly assailed, give his strength and his life for the maintenance of the contracts and obligations on which organized society is founded. These are the essential values of life, and when in peril they must be fought for. The coward cannot excuse himself because the crime which calls for redress was not committed in his street, nor because his ancestors have left him a patrimony isolated in its location by geographical barriers or reserved in its possession by the force of tradition and custom. Right has no boundaries and duty admits of no isolation.
This is also true of the Nation. No nation can escape its moral obligations—the United States no more than any other—by reason of its geographical position or its political isolation.
This then is the real and proper reason for war with Germany; the United States must aid in establishing, defending and extending Right.
The wars of the United States have been of this char-104
BETWEEN TWO WARS
acter—the war of Revolution, the war of Secession, the war for the liberation of Cuba. Could we believe that in this crisis the noble examples set us—England warring for Belgium, France for Serbia—were to have no force or echo in the United States?—that the heroic sacrifices of democracy in Europe were to arouse but a platonic and charitable response in the land of Washington, Franklin, and Lincoln?—that the "sacred union" binding together hearts of oak in other States was to cast no spell over our country, given over to diversity, division and disunion? Was it possible that the refining presence of suffering, the purifying fire of righteous indignation, the thrilling sense of high community of ideals, the patriotic impulsion of a common "tricolor" of liberty—that these redeeming agencies, now purging the world of its dross and branding the "mark of Cain" upon the apostate foes of mankind, were to set no distinctive sign upon us Americans? Were we to remain the symbols and representatives of moral indifference to good and evil—the luke-warm—when all the peoples of the world showed themselves in their true temper as being cold or hot?
With what a sign of relief we answer, No! With what pulsations of joy and with what pride we take our place, as the new recruits of the "class of 1917," in the great war of national enfranchisement, beside the indomitable soldiers of France, saluting with our reverence the veterans who have erected new and indestructible barriers of liberty along the Marne, beside the Somme, and before the ramparts of Verdun, and invoking as well the spirit of those other veterans, our forefathers, who performed their prodigies of valour also at Bunker Hill and Gettysburg!
This, Mr. President, is the real reason of our war with Germany. This cannot be a passive war, a war of defense alone; it must be to us what it is to you, a war of humanTHE UNITED STATES AT WAR 105
liberation. Our purpose must be the same as yours—the purpose set forth in the declaration of the Allied governments, and stated in the proposals made to Congress by the President of the United States. We adopt your "buts de guerre," we vow their realization, and we engage to pass the vow from lip to lip until a mighty chorus is heard from shore to shore of our great land—the vow not to cease till these purposes be accomplished!
These reasons for war are not new in statement; they were seen and declared by far-seeing and patriotic American citizens at the very outbreak of hostilities in Europe, and they have now been officially formulated by the President. The whole nation adopts them, thus bringing into the struggle the enormous reserves, both material and moral, of the greatest of democracies. In the words employed by the President of the French Republic in his telegram to the President of the United States, "the war would not have had its full significance if the United States had not been led by the enemy himself to take part in it."
In considering the measure of our duty, we remember that for more than two years the British and French navies have defended our interests and the lives of our people on the seas; that but for the military preparation of France, the enemies of the rights of man and of peoples would in 1914 have extinguished those rights in the land of their origin, and endangered them everywhere; that Serbians, Belgians, and the Christian populations of the Orient call to us, as to the other enlightened nations of the world, to redeem their soil, re-establish their liberties, and create a regime of justice and law. These facts reveal to us our opportunity and point one duty: to join gladly in the crusade for a world-civilization finally freed from the mock-culture of the German pretender and parvenu. The world must be made the home of honest men who wish to live106
BETWEEN TWO WARS
their lives in brotherhood and of honest nations which seek to pursue their destiny in peace.
But now appears as in a vision the extreme reason for the present war and for our participation in it along with you: it is a war to secure peace.
Many before us have had the vision of lasting peace, but never has the world had at hand the means to give the vision practical form. Now we see clearly the condition, victory; and its formula, peace with and by victory: victory of the forces of right and liberty over those of might and military despotism, victory leaving in the hands of the just the scales of justice and the sword of order, victory discarding the armor of Mars to take on the robe of Minerva. This is the supreme prize before the world today, the splendid gage of battle. It will be the predestined opportunity, as it will be to the immortal glory, of the enlightened nations— France, England, the United States—to form the nucleus and the sufficient guarantee of a league of peace destined to replace the alliances of war, to erect a Council of Justice fit to succeed to the arbitrage of battle, to provide an executive force adequate to sanction the decisions of international right and to impose the deliberate will of the new body-corporate of Nations. Let the United States earn her place in this "pan-Atlantic confederation," by throwing her means and her men into the war for the victory which is the indispensable and sufficient condition.
What a future such a prospect opens for our common humanity ! May the heart of our torn and bleeding race find its consolation in such an organ of brotherhood, and may the universal Conscience find here the efficient executive of its stern and holy purpose!
This then is the mission of the Powers allied in the cause of Right. Five continents are combined—Europe, Asia, America, Africa, Australia. A spectacle more sublime wasTHE UNITED STATES AT WAR 107
never offered to the gaze of man—the universe in arms in defense of the moral ideal. Latins, Anglo-Saxons, Slavs, Orientals are united to eradicate, at its source and root, the theory and practise of government by despotic and military power!
The United States has supplied the essential link, joining the poles of the spiritual circuit of the globe, at the sacrifice of her own isolation. Who can doubt that the victory will bring the nearer approach of the very ideal of liberty, the nearer consummation of the dream of the ages—the moral union of mankind in the push of progress toward the fulfilment of spiritual values in human society!
2. ADDRESS DELIVERED ON THE SAME OCCASION BY ALEXANDRE MILLERAND2
The President of the Republic, Ladies and Gentlemen.
When, following upon the destruction of the "Lusitania" by a German torpedo we heard of the similar fate of the "Sussex" in March, 1916, our emotion due to this new crime of German piracy was increased on learning that on the list of passengers figured the names of Professor and Mrs. Baldwin and that of one of their daughters, who was seriously injured.
Mark Baldwin had not waited to be directly attacked by the Germans; he had publicly taken sides before this. From the outbreak of the war he had been engaged in informing the opinion of his compatriots concerning France. Later on he published in a French Revue, "Le Parlement et l'Opinion" an article recommending the alliance, which we see taking form today, of the nations which skirt the Atlantic Ocean—a "Pan-Atlantic" Alliance.
2 Deputy, Ex-Minister, President of the "Ligue Maritime Francaise," elected President of the Republic in 1920.108
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The high scientific standing, the universal reputation of the philosopher and psychologist, to whom our Institute of France has been glad to open its ranks, gave to his words a singular authority.
The 16th of March last, Mr. Baldwin, acting in his capacity of Chairman of the American Navy League at Paris, addressed to the President of the Ligue Maritime Fran^aise a letter in which he wrote: "Our two organizations pursue, each for itself, the interests of their respective nations. But at this critical hour, when we are threatened by the most serious dangers, our common ideals take form, our national
interests harmonize, and our reciprocal duties blend in
„_„ ii one.
How clear was his vision! The memorable Message of April second brilliantly confirmed his words. The American and Allied fleets are today beginning their united action, and Admiral Lacaze, the honored and beloved chief of our Marine, has clothed his high authority in the following words:
"The co-operation of the American fleet, with its new methods and excellent material, will be most warmly welcomed by France and her Allies. We expect of it very special aid in the struggle against the submarine."
The Ligue Maritime Franqaise had already received a precious testimony of sympathy from another friend of France, the Senator Ireneu de Mello Machado, President of the Navy League of Brazil.
It is Mr. de Mello Machado, who, less than a week after the declaration of war, August 8, 1914, secured in the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil, by a unaimous vote, the passage of a motion protesting officially against the violations of international law.
Today on both sides of' the Panama Canal, words are giving place to acts.THE UNITED STATES AT WAR 109
Allow me, therefore, on this occasion, to unite in the same expression of gratitude the names of Baldwin and Machado. They have been precursors. Free from official trammels, at liberty to express their sentiments, they forwarded with all their power the movement then in preparation by those other men who, although moved by the same feeling, did not have the right to make it publicly known. Such a one is His Excellency, Ambassador Sharp, who has contributed not a little, by the exact and precise information given to his government, to facilitate the task of his illustrious President, Mr. Wilson.
Washington, Lincoln, Wilson—immortal types of democratic Chiefs of State, who in full consciousness of their responsibilities, assume the duty of guiding the nation at whose head they have the honour to be and thus realize the union—necessary in the government of human affairs—of the principle of authority with the principle of liberty.
Yes, history will assign the place which is due to him to the great statesman who, in an imperishable document, has pointed out the ideal considerations in view of which honour commanded the abandonment of neutrality and demanded war, in order that the final benefits of peace might be assured to humanity.
Beside him take form the shades of the victims whose sacrifice roused the indignation of the civilized world and rendered inevitable the moral revulsion which we see today.
Captain Fryatt, shot by the Germans for having fulfilled with courageous simplicity your duty as a sailor, by charging upon the submarine which summoned you to surrender the ship confided to your care! Edith Cavell, pure and noble woman, snatched from the school of nurses of which you were the soul, to be assassinated after a parody of justice!—all of you, martyrs, fallen by the blows of110
BETWEEN TWO WARS
barbarism in the defense of the Ideal, your heroic deaths will be avenged! From your blood a new world arises, a world of liberty, light, and peace. To you the glory!
Glory to the Baldwins and the Machados, the annunciators of Justice !—and Glory to the United States of America which has sounded its hour of triumph!Alexandre Millerand, French statesman. Later President of the Republic.XVI. The Procedure of Peace and the Role of the United States1
It is not surprising that men everywhere are interesting themselves in the ends to be secured in the treaty of peace which is now, we hope, not far off. These ends, the "buts de guerre," are more or less clear, in a large sense, however, and we are informed, in a general way, as to the terms which the Allied nations will impose upon the Central Powers, victory once achieved. A further word on the subject is appended in the last paragraph of this article; but it is not the ends to be secured by the peace treaty so much as the means to be adopted, the "procedure of peace," that I am now to take up.
We may assume that among the great aims to be secured are these: general disarmament, general arbitration of international disputes, general and effective sanctions for disloyalty and aggression, general substitution of right for force—in short, the establishment of an efficient and durable Institute of Conciliation among the nations. How is this to be secured?—by what actual procedure?
I.—A Political Society of Nations is Impracticable.— The phrase "society of nations," used more or less vaguely by the President of the United States, after many others, has come to stand for the new order of things, and the discussions now proceeding in all the Allied countries take this phrase as point of departure. The prompt creation of a veritable organization of the nations, in a sort of over-nation, is sketched, having the existing States as its members, and endowed by their consent with powers conferring upon it, for certain purposes at least, a unique and unchallenged political sovereignty.
1 Reprinted from the New York Herald, Paris Edition, October 20, 21 and 23, 1917, and from the French review Le Parlement et I'Opinion, November 1917.
Ill112
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Such a "society of nations," or rather "State of States," has indeed been sketched often enough. Its realization has seemed less remote since the colonies of America and the Cantons of Switzerland succeeded in establishing such confederations, followed in turn by others, notably Brazil and Mexico. The judicial and political outlines of such a super-State have become familiar to us in their actual working. The conception of a State of States is therefore no longer speculative.
In what sense, then, can such an organization reasonably be expected to emerge after the present war?—having, let us say, as its principal constituent States (its "foundation" members, so to speak), France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and the United States, whatever other nations may be subsequently included.
It is safe to say, even without very profound examination, that the creation, at a single bound after the war, of such a sovereign State, which would include these or any two or three of these, is not only not likely but would be, politically speaking, a miracle. Let us see, briefly, what it would involve.
The establishment of a sort of international Government, having prerogatives delegated to it by its member-States and inscribed in some sort of a constitution or bill of guarantees, prerogatives irrevocably surrendered by the nations subscribing to it—this would involve the creation of detailed machinery to maintain inter-State representation, in all the nations; of an international legislative body; of economic and financial arrangements of an inter-State order to replace the competitions and rivalries of the present tariff systems; the reconstitution of the taxation and budget arrangements of all the States; the establishment of means of control and regulation to which all would have to submit; and the creation of judicial establishments for arbitriment, appeal and the decision of disputes.
Of all these organs—and there would be still others to create—only one has been so far attempted, the judicial; thatTHE PROCEDURE OF PEACE 113
effected by the Conference of the Hague. Of this I shall speak again below.
The others, the executive and legislative organs of such a State, would have to be created de novo, struck off by a single stroke of the pen, so to speak.
Let us look, to be concrete, at the Empire of Great Britain, as it is to-day, to see something of the difficulties of such a scheme. What, to begin with, is the Irish question but the problem of the integration of a smaller into a greater political unit—an integration rendered futile or impossible by economic and religious obstacles ? What will be the solution for England after the war of the stupendous problems of her own, involving the question of the status of her autonomic dependencies, Canada, Australia, Egypt, India, etc.? Could England, without first solving all these internal imperial questions, delegate the sovereign determination of her finance, tariff, naval, constitutional or legislative powers in any measure to a State which would issue its decrees from the point of view of international, and not of British, interest ? What would become of the autonomy of the dependent States of the British Empire as respects their religious, economic and intimate household affairs ?a
The British Empire is to-day a striking illustration of the truth that nations grow; they are not made. Great Britain is now solving, for her own dominions, just this problem of the political integration, in an Empire of States, of a number of free political units. What unheard-of difficulties would arise to the creation of an executive system for countries having different types of internal government, such as France and Japan; different principles of political education, such as Germany and Great Britain; different civic spirits, such as the American and the Mexican. Either the head of such a federation—
2 In an able address, General Smuts has recently pointed out some of the problems confronting Great Britain after the war. "The British Commonwealth of Nations." London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1917. We may equally ask in what sense Russia is going to settle finally the questions of the Ukraine, Finland and Cronstadt.114
BETWEEN TWO WARS
king, president, or whatever he be called—would have an empty title, or his place would not be long occupied.
On the side of the legislative arm of government the difficulties would be equally insurmountable. Either such a legislature would content itself with arranging for anniversaries and attending funerals—being entirely emasculated of true legislative functions—or it would excite civil war as soon as its enactments touched upon the vital interests of the constituent States. What tariff legislation, for example, could it pass for all the nations in common? What fiscal system adopt? What school legislation? What measures of social reform? What real acts of any kind?—without running counter to the established internal institutions of some State or other?
An instructive illustration of what I say may be seen in the case of the United States. The American Constitution defined very vaguely the powers of the National Government, its authors properly counting upon the high degree of uniformity of sentiment and essential morale—political, religious, social—existing among the Colonies. But it prescribes common financial and economic rules, common political and judicial procedure, common means of inter-State intercourse, common rights and duties of citizenship, for all the States. Yet on the one point of profound social and moral difference among the Colonies, that respecting the institution of slavery, the ship of state ran on the rocks of civil war; certain States reclaimed their full and independent sovereignty, and only the appeal to force, luckily superior, prevented the disruption, which would have entailed the complete failure, of the American Union.
While thus beset with insuperable difficulties, the creation of such a new political unit, a State of States, superseding in many of their essential functions the States which might enter into it, is by no means necessary to the great object the Allies have in view. It is not political union or political obliteration, not even political confederation, which should be the object of theirTHE PROCEDURE OF PEACE
115
concern. On the contrary, it is desirable that the variety and distinctiveness of the political units of the world remain, each nation having exclusive care of its own population. The essential object, the future peace of the world, can be secured by a juridical organization embodying the unity of purpose of the nations. If this can be secured without entering upon the thorny paths on which political rivalries and jealousies will surely stalk, what folly to court trouble and bring on disaster by mere excess of idealism or through mere love of neat phrases such as "society of nations!"
The idea, therefore of a "society of nations," understood in the political sense, while perhaps not in itself chimerical, is still not at all the true indication in our present dilemma. It points our thought in a false direction, the political. The true line of progress is juridical—the substitution of international law for national force, and the resort to force only in support of law.
II.—The Juridical Organisation of Peace.—Fortunately, the juridical conception has not had to wait for its formulation until now. The establishment and successive reunions of the Hague Conference—the happy initiative which should now console the unfortunate Tsar in his exile—issued in a great body of judicial decisions, both as to theory and as to procedure, despite the defect—the lack of effective sanction—which rendered it abortive in the present crisis. The actual formulations of the Hague Conference, taken together with certain of its informal proposals—notably those made by the delegates from the United States—afford the bases of a new charter of international right. On this we may found the edifice, and from it draw the procedure, of a veritable High Court of Justice.
Without going into details, let us see summarily, then, what our assets, inherited from the Hague, amount to, and what are the "lacunes" still to be filled in.8
3 One should consult especially the official "Proceedings of the Second Conference at The Hague" (October, 1907).116
BETWEEN TWO WARS
What have we already?
1.	We have a tribunal of voluntary arbitration, of wide scope and real authority, having a record of good service done.
2.	We have a project, already worked out in detail, for the establishment of a permanent tribunal, a high court of international justice, a project accepted by the world's best jurists.
3.	We have a body of principles of international law, actually applied to a wide range of subjects: contraband of war, the protection of humanitarian agencies, such as the Red Cross, the humane conduct of war on land and sea, the capture and internment of ships, prize courts, the treatment and exchange of prisoners, etc. These regulations of the Hague rest upon recognized principles of equity and humanity, which go far to establish a charter or constitution of Right.
These are our resources.
What is still lacking?
1.	We lack a real institution of judicial settlement, a Court having jurisdiction over all possible international questions (the plan of which, however, as indicated above, has been elaborated and made all but effective).
2.	We lack means of enforcement, sanction, for the failure to observe the rules or for the intent to break them. Arbitration even has remained voluntary and optional. The rules have assumed good faith, with fidelity of conduct; no punishment attaching to bad faith or perfidy of conduct. It remained in fact for a single Power to take advantage of this. Germany disclosed her perfidy and discredited all this work of patient pacific effort, blindfolding the figure of justice with a bandage soaked in blood.
3.	We lack a constitution or Charter of international law, which will contain the obligatory definition, for all the nations, of international rights and duties, a declaration from which no State will be exempt and under which no question will be excluded.THE PROCEDURE OF PEACE
117
These are the lacks, the lacunes.
On reading these two statements together, the resources and the lacks, one sees how near we are to the goal, what remains to be done. Certain practical measures, well within the range of execution, would bridge the chasm.
On the political side it remains only to secure certain common ratifications by treaty: ratification of a Charter of principles, of an act establishing a High Court, and of the details of distribution of the means of sanction or enforcement (stated in terms of money, armies, navies, supplies, etc.). The only delegation of political sovereignty would be the lodgment in the Court by each nation of the right to enforce its pretensions by arms. For this is substituted, for all nations alike, the resort to the juridical authority vested in the Court, which alone will have in the last instance the right to resort to force.
On the judicial side only this is necessary: the perfection of the scheme of the Court, together with the formulation of a Charter of principles, and the recognition of the subscribing nations as each having its responsibilities before the Court.
On the executive side only this is necessary: to maintain in part the forces now in action in the interest of a world police— the executive arm of the international Court.4
The following suggestions as to the first determinations necessary on the executive side of such a juridical organization may not be found entirely out of place. Some such determinations might well enter into the preliminary agreements of England, France, Italy and the United States—the original sponsors of the scheme—as conditions of their guarantee of its success. It would constitute a sort of underwriting agreement.
1.	The mandate to be given to Great Britain and the United States to police the seas, securing their freedom and tranquillity everywhere, under rulings of the Court.
2.	The mandate to be given to a group or groups of Powers
* Such a scheme is now approached by the World Court, founded by the League of Nations.118
BETWEEN TWO WARS
—France and Italy in Europe, Japan and Russia in Asia—to maintain sufficient military forces to enforce the rulings of the Court everywhere on land.
3.	Complete disarmament, naval and military, of all the Powers, save for the forces needed to execute the mandates of the Court and provide a home constabulary sufficient to maintain internal order.
4.	Distribution of the costs; the entire fund to be administered by special agents of the Court.
The procedure we have sketched evidently presupposes for its realization the victory of the Allies—the nations which are ready to set about abolishing war once for all. Other nations must submit or be conquered if they will not submit; that is the first and painful preliminary. The present war becomes from this point of view the first effective step taken to give real sanction to international law, by forcing the Germans and others like them to take their place in a juridical organization of the forces of civilization. This the Allies' peace terms should at least make sure of—both that Germany unconditionally accepts the scheme, and that her power be so reduced that she cannot again turn her armed forces upon the Temple of Peace.6
The place of Germany then becomes that of one of the parties to the new order; it is her right as it is her duty. But it must be a new Germany, and from the military point of view, a powerless Germany.
It is not necessary nor even desirable that the steps preliminary to the establishment of such a court should be delayed until after the treaty of peace is signed. On the contrary, certain considerations may be advanced to show that the moral value of an immediate compact among the great Allied occiden-
6 It would be impossible to demand that Germany change in any given way her form of government; such a demand would violate the very principle of self-government, by forcing something upon a people ab extra. The most to demand and the least—and it is enough—will be the establishment of organs of effective representation, securing that treaties signed by Germany shall represent the Nation and not merely an irresponsible autocratic State.THE PROCEDURE OF PEACE
119
tal Powers would be enormous. If the United States took the initiative by approaching France, England and Italy, or France by approaching England, the United States and Italy, positive progress could be made at once. An international commission of jurists might be appointed to draw up the Charter of Justice or Constitution of Right for the future guidance of the Court, and the organization of the Court itself might be taken up by a similar commission, beginning its work at the point at which the Hague Conference left off.9
What could better demonstrate the good faith of the Allies, their desire to bring in the rule of justice and right, their sincerity in disclaiming egoistic ends of rapacity and conquest? What could more fully refute the statements of Germany to the effect that, herself loving peace, she is fighting in self-defence against a circle of vindictive and avaricious enemies? What argument so direct and conclusive could be presented to the German people in favor of a reform in their Government, fitting it to take its place in this circle of honor and peace?
The preparation and publication of such a scheme providing in advance for the compulsory resort to a judical tribunal, for disarmament, for the necessary guarantees of equal justice for all the Powers, would prepare the belligerents to compose, on one hand, and to accept, on the other hand, the peace terms necessary to its accomplishment.
III.—The Role of the United States.—As to the role of the United States, finally, it is to be an important one. The President has already announced that the establishment of an organization to secure future peace is first in the war aims of the country. Accordingly, however true it may be that the United States may not be actively concerned in the settlement
6 The procedure of the selection of judges for the permanent Court, because of which the earlier attempt remained sterile, is in itself not difficult. Admitting
that each State is, for juridical purposes, an equal "person" before the Court,
each should appoint one, two or three judges (the same number for each), these to serve equal terms by some method of rotation (say, from an eligible list of 50,
or 200, a court of sa? twelve to be always in session, an automatic rule of succession bringing each country's representatives into function in turn).120
BETWEEN TWO WARS
of certain of the territorial and political questions of the peace treaty, still she will have to use her influence to secure terms fitted to establish permanent peace, such as the final dispossession of the military autocracy in Germany and a real disarmament everywhere.
This will be for the United States a momentous step. It will be remembered that the part of the United States in the Hague Conferences has always been strictly that of a conferee, not that of a guarantor. The general agreements of the Hague of 1899 and 1907, concerning neutrality and the pacific regulation of international differences, were signed by the United States only with the express provision that the country did not commit herself to depart from her traditional policy of non-interference in European affairs.
This policy is now definitely abandoned through the participation of the country in the present war as an Associate among the Allies. Here is a real interference, a real participation, not merely a verbal and conditional promise. The duty of the nation is clearly to see that this action establishes a precedent sufficient to define future policy. It is in the interest of America as in that of Europe that similar wars be made impossible. We join the Allies in Europe in their just war, let us join them also in their righteous peace.
The importance of the American role will be enhanced also by its political disinterestedness. Able to say that it is from moral considerations only—not political, territorial, financial, or other —that she has taken up arms, she can speak with evident purity of intention as to the moral results to accrue from the enterprise. She will be free to say to this Power or that: "I prefer your suggestion since it tends to further the ends of future peace"; or to another: "I disapprove your proposal, because it leaves alive the seeds of future discord." And no one will dare say that these preferences are motived by self-interest or partiality.THE PROCEDURE OF PEACE
121
To this is now added the further consideration that, being in the war, the United States is paying the price of her ideals. Had she not entered the conflict, how could she—rich, happy, complaisant—have claimed a place beside those noble peoples who presented themselves clothed in crape and supported by crutches? The price of continued neutrality—as it was my privilege to point out early in the war7—would have been a moral discredit in the councils of political and social readjustment, discredit in the eyes of those, above all, English and French whose traditions and examples enter so largely into her own glorious patrimony of liberty.
This then will be the opportunity. If taken advantage of, it will furnish to the United States her role in the preparation of the institutions of peace. The predilections of the country and the honorable part played by American delegates to the past Hague Conferences both indicate that she will be ready to play this part provided the Government is awake to its historic mission. That the President was slow to see the need of war should not lead us to diminish in any way his credit for the final decision. Let us hope that he will take the part in the procedure of peace that the Allies have reason to expect from the responsible head of the American Nation.
IV.—The Terms of Peace.—If the procedure of peace is to be that of the creation of a juridical institution, a high court of justice, guaranteed by treaty and sanctioned by force—then the terms of peace should be so framed as to favor this intention. Certain desiderata are indispensable, and I may conclude by coming back to the remarks made at the beginning of this paper.
It is absolutely necessary that Germany and Austria be placed in a position of military powerlessness. Germany must be stripped of her army and navy and of the means of restoring
them. The Kiel Canal should be neutralized, the German west-_ *
7 See the article, "A Pan-Atlantic League," above.122
BETWEEN TWO WARS
ern frontier retired by the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France, united Poland reconstituted and all the present conquests of Germany relinquished. Austria in turn should be radically dismembered through the full satisfaction of the claims of Italy, of the Slavonic peoples, and of Roumania.
These measures—together with the exaction of financial indemnities equal at least to the money levies made by Germany in the invaded territories and the cost of the restoration of towns wantonly destroyed in Belgium, France and Serbia, enforced possibly by the international administration of certain German ports until these terms are finally met—these measures would remove the menace of a renewal of Germanic aggression. They are essential, therefore, whatever other stipulations may for other reasons be equally necessary.8 If the preliminary provisions for the institution of such a tribunal be made beforehand—as it is most desirable they should be—then the acceptance of the scheme by all the belligerents should be made an article of the treaty of peace itself.0 The nations then, great and small, would lay down their arms not with disquietude and suspicion before an uncertain future, but with a definite and concrete plan for constructive work in the direction of peace and progress.
What an awakening it will be from the horrible nightmare of war!
• A comprehensive statement would of course cover many other points. My
object is only to indicate the minimum necessary, if the Central Empires are to
be made permanently incapable of military aggression.
8 So it was in the main, in the scheme of the League of Nations, as sketched in the Versailles Treaty. If President Wilson had accepted the reservations of the Senate, aiming at ridding the scheme of its political features, what a wonderful vista would have been opened uplXVII. Our Future Intellectual Relations1
The question as to what attitude literary men of the Allied countries will find it possible to take towards those of the Central Empires, especially the Germans, is not only one of interest but also one of importance.
One's first reaction is that of such strong aversion and repulsion that no relation at all seems possible. The very word "German" brings with it a flood of reminiscences of crime, treachery, falsehood, the suggestion of all that is the contrary of the ideals and principles of pure science and fair literature; and the suggestion of toleration extended or felt towards the agents of these horrors seems forced and impossible.
This is quite just. One finds his sympathies fully engaged for those, whether individuals or societies, who refuse to consider any personal relations possible with men who have shown themselves, if not individually criminal, at least tolerant and cowardly towards Governments and agents which were guilty of revolting wrong in their interest and in their name. We must approve the action of the Societies and Academies who have stricken out the names of those who signed the manifesto of the German "intellectuals," and that of the man or woman who refuses to meet Germans or to buy German goods. All this is but the legitimate impulsion of our self-respect, our spontaneous verdict of condemnation of what is base, rendered in the name of what is right and honorable.
There is, however, a distinction to be made between the German as a man, and the work—in science, art, literature
1 From The New World, 1920.
123124
BETWEEN TWO WARS
—in which this German may be engaged. We must distinguish between the man, to whom our relation is personal, and the whatever of truth, beauty, value that may be in question, to which our relation is impersonal. We have no right to neglect or condemn real value, established truth, veritable art anywhere—no matter who discovers the truth, creates the art, or establishes the value. We must recognize, for example, the courage of a German aviator who plays fair, and shows himself a hero; we recognize the act, though we may not care to know him as a man. So, a fortiori, in science and art. We may think that German science has been much overrated; true, it has: but there have been great scientific men in Germany nevertheless (for example, Helmholtz), and Germans have made important scientific discoveries. These things are to the gain of humanity; and they are to us impersonal. Their origin is without significance.
Shall we now, because of the relevation of the baseness of German character, revise all our books and confess ourselves to have been wrong in the estimates, published by us before the war, of German discoveries and productions in literature and science? Am I to think less now of the biological work of Weismann or the aesthetic work of Lipps? This would be to stultify my own judgment, and to declare myself either to have been incompetent when I praised the German's work, or biassed now when I condemn it.
The guiding principle in this dilemma is plain. Truth, art, value—moral, aesthetic, literary—are impersonal. Our estimates, if they are to be sound and competent, should be guided by intrinsic criteria, not by considerations of race, language, or personality. The Germans in the future will no doubt produce worth-while things, as they have heretofore, notably in science and literary art, with music. AnyOUR FUTURE RELATIONS
125
such productions, if fit to live at all, will be added to the store of human culture; and the education of the future, if complete and thorough, will have to include these along with other works of human genius or talent.
If we apply this criterion, distinguishing between our personal relation to the German and our impersonal relation to his work, we are able to see our way to answer2 certain disputed questions, which are now troubling the public.
As to future international congresses—are they to include Germans? No, we answer. Congresses are as much social as scientific. Let us refuse to meet Germans at congresses. But this does not mean that we are to refuse to have the Proceedings of German congresses in our libraries, or to read whatever important papers they may contain.
Are we to elect German members to our Societies and Academies? No, for much the same reason: such a compliment is personal and social and involves the recognition of the country with the man. But this does not mean that we are to refuse to learn or teach the German language. Language is impersonal: it is the key to a mass of historical and literary material which belongs to the patriomony of human civilization. Educated men should know German, and scientific men must know it.
Are we to accept invitations to travel and lecture in Germany, found exchange professorships, reestablish the relations of a quasi-social sort that existed before the war? No. These are personal relations; international friendships, now impossible, are symbolized by them. But this does not mean that one may not travel in Germany, or that we should delete the German Empire (or Republic) from the geographies which our children study at school.
a That is, to answer for us, men of this generation, who have passed through the horrors of the war. Later on, Germans themselves may join in denouncing the official Germany of 1914 and come back as individuals into full human fellowship.126
BETWEEN TWO WARS
It is evident that there is danger of a sort of phrenetic condemnation of everything which with reason, without reason, by accident, or by fraud is labelled with the word "German." In fact, certain extreme corporate measures, which are unfortunate, however praiseworthy their spirit and motive, have been taken by learned societies. It is reported that certain scientific societies have decreed that articles published by Germans shall not in future be included in their collections and catalogues of scientific literature. What more discouraging to true men of science in Germany or more short-sighted to the interests of Allied men of science. It sacrifices to one the legitimate opportunity, and to the other the resource which the inclusion of German publications would afford.
So too the International Bibliographical Institute conducted by our honored colleague Dr. Field at Zurich, and supported by various national subsidies, which has furnished bibliographical data to libraries and institutions everywhere—this should not be allowed to die. Co-operative scientific establishments of all kinds should be maintained : marine biological stations, astronomical undertakings, explorations involving international co-operation. These things are not only impersonal; they are in the interests of truth, of knowledge, of social progress. If Germany is to be allowed to fit herself politically to become a member of the Society of Nations, she should also become eligible to join in purely scientific and literary undertakings.
This is the general principle which should guide us. It will prevail in the long run. At present, it is difficult to bring ourselves even to this degree of toleration. But the long future of science, literature and art stretches out before us, and it is the point of view of the future which will prevail, We have not the right to use the arm of a collectiveOUR FUTURE RELATIONS
127
intellectual boycott against any country, to destroy whatever it has of genuine artistic inspiration or of legitimate scientific impulse. By so doing we would do damage to truth itself, and deny to future generations part of their full patrimony. Rather be judged by our children as over-magnanimous in our impersonal devotion to truth, than be condemned by them as over-severe and fanatical in our legitimate indignation.XVIII. Franco-American Notes
1. MORAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN FRANCE1 *
The Anglo-Saxon conception of moral education is based on the idea of Self-control. In the United States, the feverish development in the direction of practical activity has multiplied the appeals made to the energy of the individual. But all these appeals are based upon the one fundamental idea of Self-control, to which are added the correctives of Self-reliance or confidence in one-self, and Self-respect, regard for one's personal dignity. Here are the three great S's of American morality, three expressions all commencing with the same word, Self, the moral Agent, who is regarded as self-sufficient and fully autonomous.
The individual must be trained to bring all his forces into play. His personal faculties must be held in, controlled, directed by himself, and by himself alone, without any external intervention or surveillance of any sort—his guidance being found in his conscience and honor, in his loyalty to his moral ideal. In America, as in England, this is the fundamental conception on which reposes the edifice of public and private duty.
This then is what is so admirable in Anglo-Saxon morality : the individual must suffice unto himself and, when he fails, the social and religious sanctions, unsparing and severe, fall upon him without pity and without respite.
The defects of this conception appear just where the French and Latin theory shows in turn its superiority; that
1 From an address delivered before the "Ligue d'Education morale et civique," printed in La Ligue Maritime, Paris, March, 1918.
128FRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
129
is in the lack of proper intellectual or rational foundation. The individual the most completely master of himself, the agent who finds his rule of conduct entirely in his own conscience, becomes dangerous if he be misinformed. If he remains ignorant of moral and political principles, if he misinterprets the highest ends of human conduct, if he is not trained to reflect on the different moral alternatives and to base his conduct of the real distinctions among human values, then the rigidity and autonomy of his character will have the worst consequences for himself and for society. Fanatics, men of fixed ideas, political and moral adventures are generally men of very great abnegation, of unbounded confidence in themselves, and of such self-respect that often their egoism and personal vanity are equalled only by their ignorance and miscomprehension. Of such characters the German Kaiser is a striking example.
The intellectualism of the French theory of moral education presents the necessary complement to this English and American conception. The French always demand light on the reason of the act, its rational principle; they wish to know why. They are not willing to conform to a tradition which they can not justify. They insist that the prescribed line of conduct be explained to them and its grounds brought out: they must comprehend it and freely adopt it. They can not act without being informed.
Such was our understanding of the case before the war. The American was living in a whirlwind of activity, pursuing his daring and adventurous life within the law, always moving directed toward practical ends and self-disciplined for their attainment. The Frenchman on the other hand was living in the midst of his theories, playing with luminous and ideal definitions, largely verbal, but at the same time exercising a constant personal surveillance130
BETWEEN TWO WARS
over the youth which we would consider most humiliating and of a nature to destroy all true self-respect.
Then comes the war. And what a transposition of roles! Did the French lack Self-control? Quite the contrary. Never has there been such an exhibition of self-control, self-reliance, and self-respect, the three great qualities of Anglo-Saxon morality. In the army as at the rear, with woman as with man, with the free-thinkers as with the clericals, everywhere the same calm, the same reserve, the same superb faith.
And what of the Americans? Did they show themselves impulsive, acting without information and reflection? Again, quite the contrary! They needed a long and painful education in the principles put in evidence by the war. Little by little the light came to them, and they finally understood that they must, by every moral necessity, place themselves on the side of the Allies.
Here then is the lesson for us today. I can only suggest it here. In the future, we are to understand that the French are not lacking in the Anglo-Saxon virtues, and inversely after this new proof, that the American is not, as is too often supposed, the mere machine of energy and of a blind activity, based upon instinct and lacking all reasonable principle.
Let us utilize this experience in the future. Let us reform our methods of education. Let us recognize the idealistic and aesthetic tendencies which slumber in the heart of the American, awaiting only the chance to show themselves, and, on the other side, not deny the qualities of moral equilibrium present in the French character.
The two nations will then learn that they are not so far from each other. Americans and Frenchmen, we are brothers in our native qualities, in our aspirations and in our hopes. It is the duty of our teachers and statesmen to per-FRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
131
feet the methods of rendering closer the spiritual alliance which already exists between us.
2. FRANCO-AMERICAN SOLIDARITY2
Why should America occupy herself with the restoration of the devastated regions and cooperate in the reestablish-ment of the French financial and economic situation?
This is a question that can be asked only by those who have not reflected deeply upon the problems resulting from the war. For the reasons are clear enough. The urgency of such collaboration is evident both in the interest of the United States and in that of France. They are the same as those which led America to throw herself into the turmoil of the war. They may be summed up under a single word "solidarity"; for there is a real solidarity of interests between the two great Republics.
In the first place there is an economic solidarity.
It appears to all those who are versed in economic questions that America after the war was touched by all the perturbations and deviations from the - normal which afflicted the commerce and finance of Europe. Did European exportations diminish? — the dollar rose. Did the dollar rise?—American exportation diminished. While this situation prolonged itself, American industrialists and farmers found themselves facing ruin. Did the countries of Europe re-establish the equilibrium of their budgets, by the inflation of their currency?—greater became their difficulty in meeting their foreign obligations, a difficulty having its immediate repercussion on the American market.
Add to this the enormous development of American industry by adaptation and by new construction, increasing the general capacity of production to meet the exceptional needs of the war—together with the corresponding aug-
a Contributed in French to Le Monde Illustri, June 18, 1921.132
BETWEEN TWO WARS
mentation in mining and agricultural production; all this created a state of abnormal congestion. America suffered from the atrophy of her industry. The great trusts of steel, copper, sugar, and automobiles found themselves in the condition of the enormous zeppelins floating in the air without use or guide.
The only remedy for this state of things would be the prompt restoration of the purchasing power of Europe by measures of cooperation and solidarity, leading to the re-establishment of the gold standard, the institution of credits extending over the period necessary for the restocking of Europe in raw materials, and the organization of tariff concessions to European merchandise admitted to America, in order to reestablish the exchange. Instead of this, the wild idea was entertained of raising the American tariffs, which would have had the result of further paralyzing European exportation and of increasing the load of over production in America.
From this illustration it is easy to see what is meant by economic solidarity. Whatever the United States can do directly or indirectly to restore the industry and commerce of France would have a happy repercussion upon commerce, industry, and normal economic life at home.
The same is true in the domain of pure finance; there is a real financial solidarity.
As long as France is weighed down under the weight of a budgetary deficit and a national debt of billions, having to support the charges resulting from the war, pay for reparations and pensions by domestic loans and taxes which crush out initiative and discourage individual effort, how can she at the same time enter into financial competition with other countries? What can she do toward acquitting herself of the enormous debts contracted toward the UnitedFRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
133
States during and since the war?—especially when these debts have been quadrupled by the fall of the franc.
A prompt funding of these debts into long term bonds of some kind or their conversion into perpetual loans® of the nature of the French rentes or of English Consols— some such measures quickly taken would encourage French finance and would have a happy influence on the industry and commerce of both countries. Financial markets of the world would be freed from the nightmare of the war debts and the United States would benefit from it as much as France.
There is also a political solidarity.
This is something which does not appear materially, but yet it is very real. It is illustrated by the bond which united the great democracies of the world in their struggle against autocracy and militarism; the solidarity of political faith and of a common social conception of the human ideal. This is the sentiment which animated the people of America in entering the war beside those of France and England. A wave of popular sympathy for the ideal which they represented, and an explosion of rage against German culture, as illustrated by the savagery of its submarine warfare—this is what forced the President to act, and which sustained him in his action. This sentiment appears now, it is true, somewhat diminished, a little chilled, because the immediate occasion of it has passed. But the American people remain the same, and will not tolerate any interruption with the essential democratic solidarity which unites them with the people of France and England.
3 Why not change all the interallied war debts into perpetual loans bearing a low rate of interest? This would banish forever the enormous capital of the debts, and the debtor nations would only have to concern themselves with the payment of interest. Each country, such as the United States, England, etc., would issue internal loans secured by these bonds, to be subscribed for by its own citizens, and each debtor country, while paying the interest on theBe loans, could also redeem the principal gradually by buying these bondB in the open market. In this way, the entire debt would be liquidated in time in a progressive, reasonable, and equitable manner.134
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The Anglo-American sentiment in favor of guaranteeing France against any future aggression of Germany is still alive, and would manifest itself in all its force if Germany decided anew to let loose the fury of war.
It would be a just manifestation of this solidarity, I am convinced, if the United States would associate itself with the Allies in economic sanctions intended to force Germany to make reparation and to execute the treaty of Versailles. The payment of damages is only the logical consequence of the common victory, and it is our common duty to demand it.4
Finally there is a moral solidarity, which is based upon affection.
On this France is able to count, for it has its roots in the historical development of the great American Nation. It was from this source that sprang all the aid in gifts and in acts of devotion which came so spontaneously before the intervention of the American Government, and continued so magnificently during the entire period of the war. Americans will not—because they can not—cease to interest themselves in the restoration of the devastated regions of France and Belgium.
This is not charity, it is fraternity; it is not in pity but in recognition of the manner in which they defended themselves, that we love and aid these countries. They accepted suffering for our common faith, and their suffering has been infinitely greater than ours; while their dead are many times more numerous. We can never do enough to aid in this material reconstitution, and demonstrate our community of views in the pursuit of the peace rendered possible by the solidarity of our armies, and sealed on the fields of battle of France.
* Since this was written in 1921, the Dawes plan has been devised and put in operation with the active cooperation of the United States.FRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
135
3. AMERICAN DEBT TO FRENCH ART5
No American can open a French art catalogue without thinking of the enormous debt that American art owes to France, particularly just now when every one admires the way the Americans are paying off their ancient political debt to the same country.
From the earliest colonial times there has been a continuous stream of art products pouring into the United States from France, and an equally continuous movement of art students from America to France. These are the two important ways in which the debt in matters of art has been contracted.
The first of these movements — the steady flow of works of art across the sea from east to west—has resulted in the creation of an artistic sense which begins to show something of the French refinement in its standards and, in its judgments, something of the French sureness. The highest place is held by the Barbizon masters in painting and by the school of Rodin in sculpture. The extent of the influence is seen, too, it must be admitted, in a certain imitativeness appearing in the reproduction, in the American centres, of some of the bizarreries of recent French "modernistes" and "excentriques."
The other influence—that due to the flow of American art students to Paris and to the residence of American art masters in France—has been equally potent, and its effects are even more fundamental. Great numbers of students have studied under French masters and identified themselves with French schools. A large number of the most distinguished American painters and sculptors have maintained French residences or studios, having become saturated with the French atmosphere and adapted to the French
8 Preface written for the Catalogue of the Exposition of the Amis des Artistes. Paris, 1919.136
BETWEEN TWO WARS
environment. These men have in turn become the masters for new generations, and their works serve as models to American fine art.
A further direct effect of these influences is to be seen in the character of American art collections, both public and private. The rooms devoted to "modern painting and sculpture" in the museums and in private collections have many examples — along with American works — of the products of ancient and contemporary French art.
It is interesting to note that this state of things, showing the enormous prestige of French art in the United States, is not due in the slightest degree to the war, although it is legitimate to expect that French art, like all things French, will gain further prestige from the war. On the contrary, it is entirely a pre-war matter. It is not an accident of war, nor a moral result of our new war preferences and antipathies, that German art holds a low place in American appreciation. It is rather due to the just estimate made by Americans—a constant and historical estimate of the relative values of French and German art.
Being thus historical, it is not at all remarkable that this distinction has withstood the inroads of Germanism in other domains. In education, for example, the place held by Germany and by the Germans has been commanding and almost exclusive of every other national influence. For half a century higher education in America has been modelled upon German institutions and its procedure dominated by German methods. But while in philosophy, in science, in medicine, in philology, American students have flocked to Berlin and Leipzig, students of fine art, on the contrary, have for generations made their loyal pilgrimage to the shrines of Paris.
* * *
I have asserted that this prestige of France in art wasFRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
137
not accidental and that it was not due to the war. To what then it may be asked, is it due?
It is due, in my opinion, simply to the French temperamental endowment, to the French artists' gifts. France has the prestige in art because she deserves it. The French have an inborn taste for order, clarity, beauty which is strengthened and refined by an unsurpassed aesthetic and social tradition. From the master painter to the cabinetmaker and the coiffeur or the "chef," the French approach their task with the feeling and reverence of the artist. They hate the machine-made article and love the hand-made—the article in which the maker incorporates something of his refined and delicate feeling. In France the humblest artisan is a "maitre" in much the same sense as the painter of portraits or the modeller in clay.
This outpouring of feeling in practical forms has produced, in the course of centuries, a very sure tradition of styles, and with this a body of models in every department of activity. The workman studies the models in the collections, and aims at producing something worthy of him—a "creation" of his own.
The mass of tradition with its established values constitutes in the domain of art the inestimable moral riches of France.
It is as unusual to show bad taste in France as it is difficult in many other countries to find examples of good taste.
Upon this pedestal of values, having its sure foundation in tradition, the individual artist builds; and this aesthetic structure, shining in the sight of all, attracts the gaze and commands the admiration of art devotees from all the world over.
* * *
Perhaps it is the very nearness and intimacy of this138
BETWEEN TWO WARS
vision to the French themselves, who live in the very atmosphere of it, that accounts for the fact that with all their art and their surpassing art history, they have not been preeminent as theorists of the aesthetic nor as expounders of the place of the aesthetic interest in the general philosophy of the world. Systematic treatises on art in French are few. American workers have here drawn upon Germany. French criticism is penetrating and detailed, but not systematic. The aesthetic is treated as presenting in a sense a problem apart—apart that is from the general problems of value and reality.
In view of this, I have recently pointed out, in the Preface to the French translation of my work on Pancalism—the theory which finds in art the fundamental synthesis of all human values—that a philosophy of this type ought by right to have been developed, and that long since, by a Frenchman.
Such a theory would render explicit to all, and would consecrate by force of logic, the right of France to occupy the wide "sphere of influence" which she actually holds in the world of the beautiful.
4. FRENCH LIBERTY, AND AMERICAN8
In France as in America the word Liberty is on everybody's lips as I write in the month of July when the speeches of the fourth and fourteenth resound. It may be well to reflect a little on the difference of meaning attaching to the word "Liberty" in the two countries, France and the United States; what is the difference, and what its origin ?
Originally liberty meant political freedom, both in France and in our mother country, England: freedom from tyranny
■ Written for the "Bulletin" of the American Woman's Club of Paris, Vol. I, No. 9, September 1923.FRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
139
secured by the establishment of a government for and by the people, at least in principle. Such government established and guaranteed individual "rights" — les droits de I'homme—in France; and in England, the rights of citizenship as first defined in the Magna Charta.
For each country, the United States and France, a historic event brought in the present regime of liberty. In France the Revolution gave practical realization to the theory of the "rights of man" as defined by the eighteenth century philosophers. A theoretical and philosophical doctrine of "rights" was worked out and realized in the life of the people. It is essential to know this if one would understand the liberty of France.
On the other hand, the new step for the Anglo-Saxon world, and for the New World in particular, was one of very different significance. The departure of the Pilgrim Fathers was a practical revolt, not the assertion of a theory; they established liberty in the new world, but it was, first of all, religious liberty. The end in view, while resting on the same basis of revolt from tyranny, was circumscribed and definite. The liberty secured and valued in the New World of the American Colonies was rather freedom of worship than freedom of thought or freedom of conduct.
It was only later on, when the American Constitution was drawn up, that the definition of freedom in terms of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was composed under the influence of a group of statesmen influenced by much the same system of philosophy as that current in France.
In this difference of origin we may see the raison d'etre of much of the difference of practise of the two forms of liberty. French liberty means individual liberty, personal liberty, the exercise of private rights, des droits de I'homme, belonging to the citizen by right of his human nature.140
BETWEEN TWO WARS
American liberty, on the other hand, means a civil status, a social and legal position, a state of conformity to the law which defines and limits individual rights. In the United States, the emphasis is not on the individual rights but on the collective interests, not on personal privileges but on personal duties, on social and religious obligation.
Let us see a little more in detail how this contrast works out.
In France, in the discussion of any project of social reform or legislation, the first question asked is whether or not it infringes or curtails personal liberty. It was only, for example, after a great struggle, that the income tax was introduced for the first time in France a decade ago; the fight turned upon the degree in which the citizen could and would submit to the inquisitorial questions which the returns of a tax on his income involved. It was thought that such an inquisition would lead to further prying on the part of the State into the private affairs of the individual. A recent proposal to compel the registration of bond transfers and of the payment of coupons for the purposes of taxation, was defeated on the same ground, after a violent campaign in the press. The establishment of censorships in the theatre, in literature and art is impossible; where, it is asked, would individual rights be under such an intolerable interference with freedom of thought and with the liberty of creative genius? A man's private life, it follows, is his own affair; only his wife—or one whose rights analogous to his may be interfered with by his conduct—has the right to call him to account.
Hence what Anglo-Saxons call the extreme latitude, the "license" of French manners, is to them, the French, a most precious heritage. Any limitation on their rights, even when it is clearly in the interest of public welfare or morals.FRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
141
has to run the gauntlet of criticism and opposition. "The best government is that which governs least."
The French individual, in short, minds his own business, at least ostensibly, and expects even more ostensibly that others shall mind theirs. £a, ce riest pas mon affaire. Hence it is that an extreme laissez-faire runs all through their social life. No one feels called upon to correct abuses, provided they do not affect his personal rights. They put up with antiquated methods of doing business and old-fashioned apparatus in daily usage. Hasn't the individual the right to work in the way and with the means of his fathers ? So too in personal manners and cultural dispositions and "follies," from the "folie" neo-Grecque of Raymond Duncan to the "folie" neo-Turque of Pierre Loti.
They hold further that reason is the guide in matters of social welfare and regulation, not direct public utility. The distant consequences upon the individual and upon the output of culture—sur la pensee frangaise—are always to be considered. The reason construes the consequences of social usage and custom in terms of results upon individual character and achievement, not merely in terms of public utility and general material welfare. Character can not be made by law; it is an achievement of individual effort, the reward of continued and painful self-control, the prize of the hard choice and stern self-denial which comes through meeting temptation and overcoming resistance. Restrict the individual's range of choice, remove the temptations, screen the red-lights of social indulgence, and the world ceases to be a school of training and discipline to the moral agent. The sceptre of the individual will is replaced by the club of the policeman; the arena of struggle by the comfortable loge of the spectator. Thus is endangered the finest fruition of life—the virtue that comes by victory over self.
Can the artist live without liberty? No—to regulate fine-art is to stifle it. Can genius come to fruition in an atmos-142
BETWEEN TWO WARS
phere of constraint? No—individual attainment, secular as well as moral, is self-regulating and self-controlling. Only mediocre men are "made in series," all bearing the imprint of the social mold that compresses them in the same form. A society of such men will be an undistinguished, utilitarian society, futile and banal to all the high graces and great passions of the spirit. It is the glory of France to let live, flourish, bloom all the liberties, all the potencies, all the eccentricities even, from which emerge the great men, the geniuses who delight, instruct, and save the world.
Fortunately for France, this is what her enlightened citizens read into the formula of the Revolution—Liberie, Egalite, Fraternite.
The American theory—or practise, for it is more a practise than a theory—is strikingly different. It places the emphasis on social utility rather than on individual liberty, on legal obligation and obedience rather than on personal autonomy; the good of all is put above the rights of any, and legislation is the organ of the public welfare. By law the public good is defined and decreed. This is the settled tradition, handed down from the day when religious liberty was proclaimed on the rocks of the New England coast.
Furthermore, in the subsequent flow of events the emphasis was more and more placed on the "religious" rather than on the "liberty" in the phrase. And in the course of time the religious tyranny known as puritan orthodoxy came to prevail in New England. Beware the man or woman who practises sorcery, witch-craft or any other form of demonry in the name of personal liberty! Freedom became a form of secular legalism, reinforced by the most absolute religious regulations and sanctioned by the most rigid social taboos. All the "law and prophets" took on forms beginning "thou shalt not."
What a struggle it has been in America—the struggle forFRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
143
freedom of thought and speech. The writer remembers the bitterness of the controversy attending the teaching of philosophy in the American Universities as late as the 80's. John Fiske was a martyr to his opinions at Harvard. No philosophy could be taught at Yale or Princeton that could not secure the theological visa. What progress to the Harvard of James, Royce, and Palmer!—always with the background, however, of the passions still stirred up from time to time by some itinerant censor condemning such men as these as "destroyers of the faith."
Every step toward artistic independence is still bitterly fought. Science itself is not immune; biological evolution is made the butt of political and religious mountebanks, the self-constituted censors of public belief. Over and again the teaching given in the State universities has been subject of stormy sessions in the respective State legislatures.
Results:—a dearth of great men, artists, thinkers, geniuses relative to our population, facilities, and natural endowment. What else could result from the suppression of the variations from which the great geniuses normally emerge, and the lack of a stimulating environment for those who survive?
The arm of the law reaches everywhere, repressing originality along with caprice, and producing a virtuous but uninteresting uniformity where in France there is an interesting though perhaps, on the surface, less edifying variety. Just now there is a recrudescence of this form of legalism in the United States, the daily papers reporting new regulations on things as diverse and trivial as bathing-suits, jaywalking, and smoking in public places.
Far is it from my intention to support either view without stating certain necessary qualifications, which there is no space to give here. "Liberty guided by reason," on the one side; "freedom armed with law," on the other—these144
BETWEEN TWO WARS
are the slogans in the dispute. Each suits, in a sense, the race that has produced it. Each works to its appropriate ends, provided extremes are avoided and the balance is well kept. But so much may be said, namely, that there are unrivalled possibilities for the individual in a culture based on the French theory, although pedagogically speaking, it has its dangers. American parents feel the danger strongly, and we hear such expressions as this: "if you want your boy to be safe, educate him in America." But on the other side, it may be replied: if you want him to make the most of his faculties, send him to France. In America he will not go to the devil, but neither will he climb the heights of Parnassus. In France he may lose his confidence in certain traditional ideas in morals and religion, but he may gain a larger and more serene spiritual vision, and find his niche in the temple of fame.
The whole ideal of life is in fact involved; on the one side, a placid society, more or less banal and uninteresting, the society of Main Street paved with gold, with near by a full-length golf course, and parking space for innumerable flivvers. On the other hand, a society in constant turmoil, showing an irresistible elan vital, producing novelties —men, institutions, works of art—and having an infinite ambition to grasp the highest things and enjoy the richest fruits of Elysium, even at the risk of losing the palm branch and the box seat in the New Jerusalem.
It is curious that the issue should be so joined. For American life, save for morals, is individualistic. American business, American practise in enterprises of all kinds, American sports are based on competition, on personal effort, on taking risks and "making the venture." Who else takes chances like those of the American promoter and prospector? William James is the prophet of this spirit,FRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
145
preaching the gospel of "living life without fear." We believe in getting out of each situation all its worth.
Yet in this greatest of all ventures, life, we are in a sense cowardly, afraid of risk, and content with "safety first." May we not be in danger of losing our soul just by hugging it too tight ?
At any rate, we need not be surprised to see the French, as heretofore, carrying off the main prizes in art, literature, and the fields generally of free imaginative creation, while we lament their "moral depravity" and low standards of public welfare, as measured by the lack in France of our nickel-mounted bath-tubs and electric washing machines!
We abolish "liquor" and continue to get drunk; the French of the same social class take their "liqueur" and never get drunk. It is a choice between Rodin meditating before the penseur, and Bryan leading the Sunday-school singing class—that is, when it is stated in somewhat extreme terms!
It may be said, however, and is said very often, that morals and religious faith are matters of greater moment than art and literature and that safety in these matters is the first concern of good government. From this view "paternalism" results; the government exists in loco parentis. Public morals are thus safe-guarded, and the individual is subjected to the paternal control of a watchful legislature.
If paternal government did secure better morals and produce a higher type of individual character, something might be said for it—though only "something," for the rights and duties of the parents themselves are to be considered also. But in fact it does not; on the contrary, it substitutes a flatly legalistic conformity to law for real and manly virtue. Morality can not be produced by legislation; virtue consists in love of the good, not in fear of the law. The real heroes are not those who yield to force, but those who win their146
BETWEEN TWO WARS
way through struggle. Virtue has its roots in character, and faith has its grounds in personal conviction. The highest moral insight comes from situations which try the soul.
The French system does often produce such situations and it is true that many fall by the way-side. But the ordeal is one of fair-play and no favour. Every view has its chance; and we often see conversions to faith as striking as are the apostasies from faith—the Bourgets may be set over against the Renans.
In America there is in fact a truly naive faith in law as such. Pass a law and the trick is turned. There is just now a movement to abolish war by formally declaring it to be a crime ! Would the salvation of man were so easy! Every day in the States new laws create new crimes. Reversing the saying of St. Paul, "but for the law, where were the sin," we may ask, "in the multitude of laws, where were the virtue?"
From all this there results a perverted sense of values and a real dullness of discrimination between the trivial fault and the moral crime. If laws are "made to break," and virtue in their regard consists in evading them—in "not getting caught"—then who is to restore the majesty of moral law and who is to bring back into our lives the lessons of dignity and holy serenity shown by the martyrs to truth in all ages who scorn evasion and compromise and hate hypocrisy and lies?
No, better a frank acceptance of the struggle for virtue! Rather the loss of some weaklings who fall by the way than the deadening of the moral discrimination of the nation!
As I said above, this article does not aim to present the merits and defects of either theory in detail; but simply to give a brief exposition of the two points of view. Those who make a short visit in one country or the other are likely to be impressed by the superficial differences; to themFRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
147
such an exposition may be helpful. It would be not unwholesome if each Country entered sympathetically into the other's view-point. We might profit by a dose of French liberte, with its apparent lack of restraint, and they by a dose of our "liberty" with its emphasis on public duty.
5. AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY AND FRENCH INFLUENCES7
The course of development of philosophical thought in the United States has revealed important foreign influences. From the sturdy Puritanism of the Pilgrim Fathers to the latest importations of systems "made in Germany," the gate has been open to the immigration of ideas no less than that of persons.
The permanent basis of indigenous American thought has on the whole remained realistic. It has retained its religious cast, and has given support to Puritan morale; and to keep these two things intact, it has battled against all forms of "disintegrating idealism" and "debasing materialism." The realism of the Scots—Dugald Stuart and Reid—served, in the Universities and churches, to check and repel each succeeding tide of foreign speculation, up to the end of the nineteenth century, when a group of original thinkers arose in America and gave the country for the first time a series of philosophical treatises of great originality and complete independence.
French influence upon philosophical thought in America has been on the whole on the side of this national realistic tradition. In the eighteenth century came the French Encyclopedists, taken up and interpreted by the materialistic school of Philadelphia and seconded by the agnostic
7 Notice prepared for a private French circle. Cf. the detailed study oi Professor Woodbridge Riley, "Revue Philosophique."148
BETWEEN TWO WARS
speculations of Franklin and Jefferson, both imbued with French thought.
This naturalistic movement in the central states was opposed by the idealism of New England, embodied in Edwards and stimulated by Berkeley; but at the same time the innate American realism strenuously combated both of these systems.
A second wave of French influence appears in the transition period, from 1825 onwards, when the eclecticism of Cousin had a considerable vogue. This was, however, more negative than positive, since there resulted no genuine impulse toward constructive thought.
Up to 1880, therefore, we may say that the native American realism rooted in British colonial Puritanism, had held its own in America. The most important foreign influences, coming from England, Scotland and France had strengthened this native growth, the exception, however, being the Hegelian movement located in St. Louis, which flourished for a decade beginning 1860.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, however, there came a great flowering of systems. A native idealism arose assimilating the German systems through the medium of the neo-Hegelian movement in England and Scotland (Green, Caird, and others). The late Professor Josiah Royce represented this school. Positivism also took on new and original forms through the acceptance of the theory of evolution and by reason of the attempts to found a reasoned sociology. The American biological theory of the School led by Cope and Marsh up to 1880, was based upon the philosophy of Lamarck; while a counter movement based on Darwinism succeeded in the twenty years following. August Comte had influence; but it was indirect, coming into America largely through the British positivists, Spencer and Mill. Another French writer who had a considerableFRANCO-AMERICAN NOTES
149
influence on social theory was Gabriel Tarde. This sociological current, setting in from France, has since been fed by the works of Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl.
The later realistic movement in America has been a reinterpretation of data, rather than a new intuition; its ablest representatives are the contemporaries Ormond8 and Ladd.
But the most striking and original departure of the beginning of the twentieth century, is, of course, the pragmatic movement with which the name of William James is protni-nently associated.
Pragmatism may be considered the philosophy best fitted both to embody American traditions and to incorporate American ambitions. Its means is action and its end is practise. It conserves all the traits of the traditional realism and renders conscious count of the practical values upon which American civilization rests. William James may justly be considered the prophet of this new American philosophy, which found its first and essential role in the refutation of the many types of absolutism which had flooded the country from Germany.
Against all the returning germanophils, who had visited the shrines of Konigsberg, Berlin, and Halle, James stood the representative both of the American spirit and of the more sober French way of treating fundamental problems, involving detailed empirical observation, patient and full analysis, clear exposition. These three characteristics of James are found at their best in contemporary French writers, and it is not an accident that James cites French authors by preference, dedicates his great work on Psychology to a Frenchman, and spends many pages declaiming against the puerile and obscure pedantry of German writers.
8 Professor A. T. Ormond of Princeton has recently died.150
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Bergson was first recognized and introduced to the English-speaking world by James.
In other very recent movements in America, French influence has been real, although desultory and individual. Ribot, for example, has been very popular among the psychologists, Pierre Janet among the pathologists, as in the earlier generation Taine and Charcot had been. The work of Boutroux is widely known and often cited. I might also mention other names, each in a special department, such as Couturat and H. Poincare, respectively, in logic and the theory of mathematics.
In the field of general philosophy, however, a wider extension of French influence is to be expected after the war. The French intellectualism of the last two generations had not reached the Americans, who have been busy reading German. Renouvier and Revaisson remain virtually unknown.
It is desirable that after the extreme "activism" and pragmatism of the present generation, American thinkers should drink deeply of the refined and critical intellectualism which tempers and distinguishes French national thought. It is this which has prevented the extreme pragmatists from getting much influence in France.
Postscript. I add under the next heading the scheme used in my lectures on American Philosophy at the Ecole des hautes Etudes sociales, which have not yet been prepared for publication. It is self-explanatory, the headings all being familiar to students of the subject.03 O • i—i t-i
<D
6 <
jg
bJD P o
H
H
2 W PC OS D u
o p
to
M
J <
o p
2
£	c
7	/-v
5: o	^
<	in	C
H®	«
5	»	^
?r	°	e
Cu	s
H
Z <
<L>
Q
d
§1 r1 *■>
-r to O D
^ -c
•• Q-.
B „ a a
<d m 0)
D .2 1—1 "C
O 4)
li s
CO
o o
o co
J S 22 « < 8 J '3
H Z UJ
Qo
Z VO LxJ oo
U	-7
CO	o
Z	°
<f	CO
J
< J LJ J
Q 4-!
— co Z ••
S £
LJ T
a s
vO CO
CO
< s o a
oo H LJ CT £ ^ 8© 5 S02 ? is
W -S g
^	v
CQ	\
■w
O
a> CO to 3 O
crj (J
•	r—I
D. O
CO
•	i—i P-i
CO
a
X H
Z >-
CO
a
<L)
8
n,
jd >
<U
Q
<u
H
t—I
XI
H
z
Id *
D U
U
P <
%
o <
Qu
CO O J— rsi J3
Z 00
<■— nj r	1 !>
Ho?
— <N T) K vO LU
o U
u
CO
J <
LJ
a:
<D
v ■ JC
a: . D -
o < £ z® o
vr\
3 0 U
£ ^ fc ©
ct £
0O CL — CO w
y
H U
LJ J
u
LJ
C
flj 0) N
O
J
TJ a o
^ >-i co O
J
<
LLJ
a: u
f-
Z
LJ
u
CO
c
.2 "C
v o c
4J
a
CO
-o
T3 >cr< CO
J
o	H
o	—1
Z.	co
O CL
LJ (J
z
LJ
u co
CO <
•
§ O
co o
w -J O X
u >
CO
au
co
— E G
{-. . 4) rt -r

O o
V
CO
C £ (0 .
O M vD «
00 X
		S
CO		CO
H		J
D -		<
-J 8		L23
8$		Q
		i-H
V m ,9 ______	V	s
^ «	/	
jf a: o		D d CO CQ
£		<
C/l
Z <
5
£ j
H D
O O J
o u o
co co U
(0
6	xo
bo	O o
(0	"
CL	U r:
(4
o 2
Uh
H Z ui
U
LU
o °
CO
H <
O
cu
J <
CJ H
UJ
cc: o
Ld
X H
M
V _
W152
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Of the two principal "currents" indicated, the realistic and pragmatic movement is the more strictly native, and had its natural outcome as was shown in detail in the lectures, in the explicit pragmatism of William James. The early rationalistic movement was absorbed in the great systems of idealism imported from Germany and England. The two attempts at syn-theism indicated in the central column, were based upon established advances respectively in natural science and in the theory of art. With both of these synthetic positions the present writer has been identified in his books on Evolution and Genetic Logic.2
s The reader may compare the excellent work of Professor Woodbridge Riley. "American Thought, from Puritanism to Pragmatism," 1015.XX. Notes on Mexico1
About the time of the death of Maximilian and the restoration of Mexican independence, a man arose ready for his opportunity—Gabinus Barreda, a Mexican born in Puebla in 1824, educated in law and medicine in Mexico City, who had been studying under Auguste Comte in Paris. Enthusiastically adopting the Positivist scheme of knowledge, and with it its negative attitude—"positively negative," we should add, as Comtist writers demonstrate fully—towards metaphysics and all the children of the subjective point of view, such as psychology, he was just the man to seize the chance to carry out the Positivist programme in a comprehensive scheme of education. As head of the commission of 1867 he was given a free hand to reorganize the national education, including the curriculum of the Preparatory School.2 This school had hitherto furnished a typical and intrinsically the most important illustration of the vicissitudes of a private foundation, gradually dying from poverty and maladministration, while occasionally galvanized into life by Government aid. It finally passed over to the national Government, as did so many other institutions whose loss of private autonomy served to swell the tide of nationalization. The Preparatory School became the official embodiment of the policies of national education pursued by the successive ministers. And in Barreda the time was come for the Positivist novelties to have their "innings."
In the result, these novelties did have their "innings." Barreda drew up a curriculum based in extenso on Comte's classification of the sciences in a hierarchy of logical comprehension: chemistry based on physics, physiology on chemistry, etc.,
1 From The Nation, March 1, 1906.
1 Equivalent to our "college" of liberal arts.
153154
BETWEEN TWO WARS
through all the stages of development now so familiar to us. Beneath all this was the Comtean platform also—the recognition only of those disciplines (the Positive Sciences) which grow up by objective observation and experiment. These studies, thus exclusively recognized, were distributed through a five years' curriculum, each subject running a full year; and the only departures from the strictly logical order, as prescribed by the Positivist rubrics, were the overlapping and lack of consecutive-ness due to the limitation to five years. Metaphysics and theology were abolished; with them psychology proper and ethics of the "subjective" or immediate sort; and the only "moral" and humanistic studies were those called by Comte "sociology," viz., history and "objective morals." Crowning all was "Logic," a chair in which Barreda himself took his seat— having before this taught law, medicine, and physics. "Logic" was the defence, the justification and amplification of the Com-tist thesis of Positivism, worked out in theories of science, history, and education, together with the logic of inductive science as given in J. S. Mill's "Logic." Barreda for some years held this structure together, despite the assaults of the humanists and more particularly of the utilitarians, by force of the personal expositions and arguments given in his lectures. The fate of departments previously central in the educational scheme is revealed in the fact that the classical languages were neglected, except the study of "roots," considered likely to be useful to medical men, lawyers, etc.! Such a scheme, apart from the philosophical basis of it, is more or less familiar to us in the courses offered in some of the "scientific" schools of our own country.
In Mexico the example was followed more or less closely in many of the confederated States in which schools of the "college" grade were founded. Indeed, higher education in Mexico is to-day decidedly "Comtean," both in theory and in practice.
I may not follow up the fortunes of Barreda's institution. The modifications introduced under succeeding ministries were,NOTES ON MEXICO
155
however, mostly motived by utility. Dentists and veterinarians could not see the need of spending years in the study of botany, sociology, and the Comtean logic; and the Government had to heed the demand for short-cuts to the professions. The successive reorganizations, however, have not changed the basis of the curriculum, which remains definitely scientific and Comtean. The principal changes were made in the reorganization of 1896, under Minister Baranda, when the present Sub-Secretary, Sr. Chavez, secured the introduction of semestral units in place of the yearly units, and was thus able to correlate and articulate the studies much more rationally. His own ideas, together with a full history of the movement started by Barreda, are to be found in his excellent monograph on "Mexico, Its Social Evolution."
Apart from its interest to students of philosophical and educational history, this Comtean incident illustrates the initiative and independence of strong men in Mexico. No "home-products" cry nor protests from vested interests could prevent a Barreda the politician from carrying out the plans of Barreda the philosopher and reformer. And a less superficial examination convinces us that, for the Mexico of today, exhibiting the economic and political factors of progress that it does, a Posi-tivistic and scientific, a pragmatic and directly utilitarian, education of the mass of the students is best for the State. The motives of poverty, widespread illiteracy, urgency of competition with outsiders, principally Americans, must be for some time to come controlling, where the problems are those of the development of mining and agricultural resources and the training of men to administer still undeveloped States. One is somewhat surprised when first told that there is in the Government a Ministry of "Fomento," promotion! Yet in California the "promotion bureau" is a familiar fact; and our Government is establishing departments of commerce, labor, immigration, etc., that partake of the "promotion" idea. Mexico may be glad that at156
BETWEEN TWO WARS
a blow Barreda destroyed the plants of classical, linguistic and theological medievalism—all but the "roots"! Otherwise there would have been the long fight we are still waging to destroy the linguistic fetish that remains enthroned in many of our educational temples.
I have already referred to the reform wrought in finance by the Diaz Government. The part of President Diaz appears in his robust—some say "dictatorial"—use of his judgment—; I think "robust" is the better term, because it is part of his judgment to get the best advisers. He entrusted the financial reforms to Limantour, a native Parisian, and he has just constituted the board of "controllers" of finance of nine men, five of them foreigners. Foreigners are called in with remarkable broad-mindedness and wisdom. The director of the School of Fine Arts is none other than the distinguished Spanish painter, Fabres. It is expected that the new university will be equipped with the best men, regardless of nationality.
President Diaz is at present working out a policy of railway control which he himself thinks will anticipate the problems President Roosevelt is now dealing with. The prime idea is to have the Government itself own either a competing line or the controlling interest in a single line wherever combination would be likely to destroy competition. It is in pursuance of this policy that the Mexican National is made to compete with the Mexican Central, and that the charter of the new Tehuantepec Trans-Isthmian Railway reserves to the Government at least one-half of the stock. The President's plans for the further development of railway facilities, particularly in the west-coast direction, are truly fine, and he takes justifiable pride in referring to it. In a conversation on the subject, in answer to my question as to the possible invasion of Mexico by our railway jpagnates, he pithily remarked,—"They may suck the orange,NOTES ON MEXICO
157
but they shall not squeeze it!" Among the projects in which he is deeply interested is that of the construction of a great inland harbor, with docking facilities at Salina Cruz, the Pacific outlet of the Tehuantepec Railway. When completed, at enormous expense, it is expected that this line of trade will be a first-rate competitor with the Panama Canal; and it will have the advantage of being established and doing business first. Such schemes show both daring and wisdom, and only a Government of robust judgment and of really dictatorial powers could have compassed them as the Diaz Government has done.
Another line of policy illustrating "robustness" tempered by "moderation" is that adopted in the administration of the religious Reform Laws of 1863. In consequence of the moderation of the policy of suppression of the Catholic orders, there is to-day no strong Conservative opposition party in Mexico; everybody is Liberal. The orders as such are suppressed; no more than three persons bound by religious oaths can live together; no gatherings, processions, religious demonstrations of any kind are allowed in the open air—hence the absence of the Salvation Army from Mexico; but the charitable agencies, the female orders whose work is socially valuable and of merciful intent, still do their work, and their modes of life and system of organization, when motived by such ends, are not too closely inquired into.
The quality of moderation is indeed that which most forcefully strikes the observer of recent happenings. Among the events of great importance of the last years in the internal affairs of Mexico was the abolition of the Free Zone. The Free Zone was a strip of country on the Texas border, in which, by an enactment long in force, the tariff duties on imports from the United States were merely nominal. The economics of this policy was based on the expectation that this strip of territory,158
BETWEEN TWO WARS
having practical free trade with the States to the north, would develop with them in many material ways—manufacturing, mining, etc.; the conditions of import of raw material, manufactured tools, building materials, machinery, etc., being those of free trade. But this expectation failed utterly; I have no space to discuss the reasons why. The policy amounted simply to granting sectional legislation to this zone, with no corresponding advantage to the country at large. Now it has happened this year that President Diaz has voluntarily surrendered a certain prerogative whereby the Executive might decree modifications of the national tariff; but, before surrendering it, his last act under it was the abolition of the Free Zone, by a decree to go into effect the following day! In a certain state paper recently printed it was said, with beautiful directness, that such suddenness and celerity in starting the new order was necessary for urgent reasons of public welfare. One does not have to use much imagination to supply the "reasons." Think what would follow upon a proposal to change preferential legislation of any sort in the United States, be it sectional (such as a change in our Chinese exclusion law), or industrial (such as a change in the sugar schedule). Once decreed, and in effect the following day, this reform marked a robust act of judgment; and it is said that the support of the "Free Zoners" themselves testifies to the moderation that made such an act the last of its kind by voluntary surrender. Only the vested interests of the territory were greatly stirred up.
Reflecting on this sort of government, one may say, "After me the deluge!"—and, of course, on a plane polished by the continuous action of a glacial mass moving in one direction, floods are possible. But one finds that the Mexicans have no such fear. They have now so large, well-chosen, and well-organized a force of able public men that things seem stable.NOTES ON MEXICO
159
Moreover, had one the chance to do so, certain more profound reasons might be expounded for thinking that things are stable. Diaz has been President, with but four years' intermission, since 1877; his robustnesses have been matched by his moderation; and the political student has a right to expect that a third of a century of such amazing accretion to the "funded contents" of the national life will be not only a monument to a man, but also the permanent body of a great State.XXI. Genetic Logic: a Resume1
A.	Genetic Science. The genetic point of view, that of origin and development, has gradually worked its way into the mental sciences and philosophy. It appears necessary to carry it radically through the entire domain of science. Beside the mechanical, exact, or static sciences, which establish quantitative statements and formulate equalities, making the equation (A is B) their ideal, as in transformation of energy, chemical analysis, etc., we must create the "genetic" sciences, which would recognize events, movements, sequences, and formulate the laws of transformation or "progression" (A becomes B). The recently established principles of biological "transformism" are before our eyes, the first great triumph of Genetic Science.
Employing the word "logic" in its broad sense, meaning method, or process, or dialectic—the way we think a thing works —we may seek to establish a Genetic Logic; that is, the body of principles operative in genesis and development. In this sense, mechanical laws constitute the "logic" of the quantitative or exact sciences. In the sphere of mental and moral happenings, it is natural to use the word "logic" in this broad sense, since the place and role of the reasoning function, to which the term logic (meaning "formal logic") is usually applied, is one of the essential problems before us. Formal logic, or the logic of reasoning, is only one of the spheres of Genetic Logic in the general movement of mind as a whole. If we recognize this relation, we may state as the problem of Genetic Logic: the research into the principles of the origin and development of mental process.
B.	Genetic Logic. The two great manifestations of mind
1 A r6sam6, that is, of the work "Thought and Things, or Genetic Logic." Vols. I-III.
160GENETIC LOGIC: A R£SUM£ 161
are found one in the race, the other in the individual, the one embodied in the social life taken in a large sense, and the other in personal experience. These are the domains respectively of mental and social evolution and of mental development. The latter, mental development, as accomplished through the processes of the individual's experience, is the domain to which we devote ourselves in accepting the definition given above of Genetic Logic.
It is well to utilize current distinctions when possible; that between the "cognitive" and the "active" lends itself to our purposes. The cognitive "mode" of mental process covers the entire life of knowledge and thought, from perception to abstract reasoning. Our first great problem is to establish its logic by tracing out its development through certain great epochs, the prelogical (perception, memory, imaging, generalization, etc.) up to the rise of reasoning; then the logical proper (concept, judgment, reasoning) ; and finally the hyper-logical (intuitive or rational modes of intelligence). This with the assumption, however, that the inner life-process is one and continuous, that the later and more complex modes proceed out of and continue the earlier and simpler without discontinuity or break, and that it is by the patient investigation of the actual differentiations and integrations of cognitive meanings for the subject himself, that the understanding of the life of knowledge and thought is to be made out.
I.
Taking up first, the prelogical movement, we are able to place under the microscope, as it were, the germinating contents or meanings and observe in their rise and gradual clarifications, the great distinctions of mind: "inner" and "outer," the "actual" and the "unreal," "self" and "not-self," the "particular" and the "general," the "true" and the "fanciful." At this first stage,162
BETWEEN TWO WARS
the characters of all mental development appear, characters which may be summarized as follows:
1.	The inner life is a movement sui generis, within a body of contents or meanings in which great lines of cleavage appear and successively establish themselves, to persist in all later experience.
2.	Two great spheres of "control," or modes of being present are formed, having the meaning of existence; the external-internal contrast shapes itself. The external is the uncontrollable, the resisting; the internal is the reacting, the insisting; and all sorts of shadings and values gather about the terms of this distinction. One sphere becomes later on the world; the other, the self.
3.	The growth of knowledge is a movement motived by the need of the maintenance and extension of this essential duality under the stress of life. It is the reflection in the inner life of the objective struggle-for-maintenance of organism and mind together, in and against the environment.
4.	The method of this growth is in general that known as "trial and error." Knowledge already in hand is set up as if it were true in the new experience; it is tried out instrumentally, as the tool to further adjustment to the new situation. When this trial is successful, new items are added to the store and the old corrected. This method takes on a characteristic form sometimes called "schematism," from the presence of the image (schema), idea, notion, or hypothesis used as tool—acted on as likely to hold good in the presented situation. The child like the animal and the savage, takes his risks of life and death in the most common-place affairs of life; he acts on the unknown as if he knew all about it. The moth flies straight to the light, and the child swallows the penny, with the same audacious confidence. This risk is the price of knowledge; and this method of learning is the only one we have.
5.	The distinction between self and other persons arises fromGENETIC LOGIC: A RfiSUMfi
163
the fact that these latter are found in both spheres of existence or control, the internal and the external. While themselves centres of inner life, other persons are also recognized as being part of the one person's environment. With this complication, a social strain enters integrally into all the genetic movement of knowledge, dating from the child's earliest responses to other persons. He would say if he could explain: "Mama is a person who sees me and she is also an object that I see;" and further he would say, "the chair is an object which both Mama and I see. We, she and I, are persons to each other, and we are also both objects, as the chair is, to everybody else." His actions show that he makes these discriminations.
We draw the general conclusion from our examination of this early prelogical movement that knowledge as such is instrumental to further knowledge and so on indefinitely. Objectively considered, knowledge is instrumental to the life process in general.
II.
The Logical as such. The transition from the prelogical to the logical (in the narrow sense of the reasoning process) is most instructive. Our exploration shows the sort of change dear to the heart of the biologist, who actually sees the cells segregate themselves into tissues under his gaze.
There are two important genetic changes in this transition: first, the rise of the "general" meaning or concept, whereby an image or percept gets the right to stand for a number of experiences. Set up as schema, it makes good and holds its own for a group of cases, thus serving as norm of classification. Thus concepts, notions — concrete and later abstract — are formed, and become available in their turn. The thinker finds himself in a measure free from the bondage to the immediate and singular fact. He establishes habits of action and reaction, which correspond to the general terms of knowledge.164
BETWEEN TWO WARS
He passes beyond the first view of the event that solicits him, and faces the future forearmed.
Second, the great function of speech now takes its rise and begins to play its enormous role. In language, general meanings (concepts) are made available, not only for further interchanging and combining among themselves, but also for the verbal expression of all sorts of meanings by one person to others. With language, knowledge becomes relational and communicable. By it the genetic movement takes up and ratifies the social or "common," and unites it with the impersonal, on the one single-track railway of progress. Knowledge henceforth has the quality of "community." It is held by the one thinker to hold for another also. This is hereafter an essential mark of all the processes of thought.
In the processes of "reasoning," inaugurated by "judgment," there is nothing new in principle—only further progress along the same lines. A term stands for, or mediates, a group of meanings either immediate or remote. The essential aspect of judgment is the attitude of acceptance or endorsement which follows when the general class or concept, into which the new experience fits, is established. This is the attitude of belief. Belief is the resolution of a preceding state of hesitation or doubt. But the "schema" proposed in a given case may not fit; the solution may be delayed, the doubt may be prolonged; the proposition then remains a logical "hypothesis."
We need not follow the mind through all the forms of mediation which make up the resources of the reasoning being. The formal or Aristotelian logic establishes and manipulates them, in the rules of syllogistic proof. We have only to say that it is all a natural flowering of judgments duly accepted and rendered in propositions. All formal logic is experimental logic at bottom. Universal propositions never lose the mark of their experiential origin. Deductive reasoning is the unravelling of skeins earlier tied up experimentally. "A priori" principles,GENETIC LOGIC: A RfiSUMfi
165
even the axioms of mathematics, are consolidated or frozen blocks of racial and personal experience. Analytic proof is but the counting over in detail, by the intellectual miser, of the stores gained by the race in the great experimental laboratory of life.
But one thing already intimated above is worthy of further emphasis; all these gains are socially acquired and socially propagated. No one thinks to himself alone, he always thinks "out loud." He thinks for all, for some, or for other one person. All thought is "syndoxic." What is called the "community" of logical propositions (and of all judgment) is as intrinsic as those other traditionally recognized aspects (quantity, quality, relation and modality). The function of inter-communication has been and is the tap-root of the logical tree. Here anthropology, philology, and psychology join hands. Even the abstractions of mathematicians and the tautologies of the symbolic logicians do not escape the reference to the actual and the social from which they are abstractions and which they symbolize.
To sum up the method of logical process, of reasoning that is, a single word suffices: "mediation." The immediate datum, the given fact, image or idea, stands for or mediates the recall of a cloud of other meanings. The fact mediates the idea, the particular mediates the general and universal, the "middle term" mediates the "conclusion." So there grows up a system of mediated truth, made up of accepted data and conclusions, a system more or less self-contained, having its rules of construction and of inference; a system which, becoming more and more abstract, loses its contact with its humble experiential points of support, and claims intrinsic validity, simply by virtue of its logical "consistency." The mediation by facts or first hand presences is dispensed with, except perhaps for confirmation. Thought becomes its own master and, for the thinker, the engine of deduction and discovery.166
BETWEEN TWO WARS
III.
Affective Logic. Before proceeding to follow the progress of thought into the so called hyper-logical spheres, let us look at the active or "motive" life and follow the unfolding of its early genetic stages.
On the side of response, action, emotion and all that the term "motive" may mean, the inner world seems to assert itself in opposition to what is foreign and external to it. We have seen this opposition developing in the contrast of internal and external. In general, we may say that the agent, as knower and as doer, finds himself interested in things, both by his curiosity and by his appetites. This, his interest, is what he opposes to the objects of his knowledge; he takes interest in what he knows and acts interestedly on it. The development of interest then presents the great genetic problem of affective or motive logic.
The forms of interest are very varied. It begins as purely organic response, becomes emotional, turns theoretical, and emerges finally in the complicated modes of sentiment, moral, religious and aesthetic. There is a real progression in this, a very complicated genetic movement, which presents one of the great problems of the future for psychologist and logician.
Looking broadly at the facts, we find that as soon as the object of interest begins to lose its immediacy as satisfaction of sense and gratification of instinct and impulse, a new method of mediation begins to show itself. The image of memory or fancy serves to suggest the distant pleasure-to-seek or pain-to-avoid. A world of things of desire, things of value, begins to form itself for which the body of facts and knowledges supplies the mediating terms. So the whole system of cognitive meanings—facts, truths, realities—become means to the pursuit of a further system of values or ends. This mediation of ends by means is the method of affective progress. Interest works by using means to secure ends.GENETIC LOGIC: A R£SUM£
167
Whatever the interest may be, this is its method of working— even that of knowledge itself—the "theoretical" interest. Here the conclusion is the end and the premises are the means; discovery is the end, facts the means. So we have the entire active life reduced to a complex system of mediation, where the gains of knowledge or thought become means to further feeling, sentiment, and desire. The whole world of fact or truth is wrapped up in an envelope of value: besides being true, the true becomes useful, good, and beautiful.
Here in the mediation of ends by means, we have the fundamental formula of Affective Logic and the theory of Value, just as in the corresponding logical mediation of truths by facts we have found that of theoretical logic and of the theory of truth. The different systems of ends give rise each to its respective system of values. In the domain of knowledge, the ends have theoretical value; in that of personal and social life, the ends have the value of utility, prudence, economy, social prestige, welfare; in the realm of conduct, moral value; in that of beauty and art, aesthetic value. All these form chapters in the very imperfectly developed theory of affective logic. But in it all the interlocking of the two forms of mediation, cognitive and affective, is in evidence. In reaching a new conclusion by thought, I reach also a new value for enjoyment or contemplation; and in setting up a value as end, I adopt the knowledge which is the necessary means to its attainment. Our full experience lives by this criss-cross of mediations.
IV.
The Hyper-logical. In the further progress of the mind, reaches are attained in which, after working by the two forms of mediation characterized above, cognitive and affective, the thinker attains experiences which show a new immediacy: "reason" succeeds to reasoning, sentiment to emotion, abstract ideals to concrete ends. And this in each case emerges as a168
BETWEEN TWO WARS
sort of limiting case or terminus, in its respective mode of process. Let us look first at the cognitive side.
The sort of detachment claimed by formal logic and all forms of symbolic reasoning, issues in the postulation of "principles of reason" and logical axioms. "The reason" is looked upon as being a priori and synthetic, the organ of a sort of revelation, entirely detached from experience. But genetically considered, it is but the final case, the ideal, of the cognitive form of mediation which, by repeating its generalizations and abstractions, reaches its limit and thus suppresses itself. The scaffolding falls away when the arch becomes self-supporting. Reason is merely reasoning which has become so abstract and tautological that it stands alone, an empty shell of presumption. It then poses as the axiomatic background of all thought. The mediating experimental term—the concrete filling of the shell—has completely disappeared.
Something analogous happens also in the progress of the affective life. The mediation of ends by means sets up the sort of universal values called "ideals." These are sometimes looked upon as a priori and synthetic norms of value—rules of conduct, canons of art, postulates of practical reason. But here again we have to recognize merely the limiting case of the normal mediation of ends by means. The value becomes abstract and universal, the supporting facts, truths, and lesser values which serve as means, fall away; and there is left the shell without filling. This poses as "value" as such, which is a mere tautology which has as such no application.
V.
The Reconciliation. It only remains to ask, what finally becomes of these distinctions—between the cognitive and the affective, between mediation of truth and mediation of value, between the knowing and desiring self and the things and ends known and desired? Does the mind remain always in thisGENETIC LOGIC: A RfiSUMfi
169
turmoil of motives and efforts, continually readjusting itself to the world and to society, and reestablishing its values all along the line? And in recognizing these dualisms, do we say the final word? Is this the outcome of the genetic process and of our account?
In answer to these questions it may be said that the motives of thought and desire, being fundamental and essential, do remain always in force. We never cease to seek our readjustment, as long as we think at all and there are problems unsolved, nor end our strivings as long as we have aspirations to satisfy. But the efforts of the inner life itself to put an end to this, and to repose in a real equilibrium, are constant and pathetic. There is a movement of return to the stark immediacy of simple and primitive experience. We retreat willingly into those states of feeling which are the negation of interest, and represent the withdrawal from life. Personally, when in such a mood, I think of myself as on a float alone on the open sea, lying prone, with nothing in mind—nothing but the heaving of the mighty deep felt beneath me. The mystic on the contrary finds peace in states of mental fixation, so intense and prolonged that paralysis of the attention ensues, and vacancy of mind comes through the cessation of self-consciousness and all its works.
This is, in its many forms, an attempt to revert to the immediacy of the primitive, to reach in it a certain relief from the dualisms and conflicts of the strenuous life. All such return to the primitive mean, however, a lapse into a pasty and protoplasmic "pure experience," as empty as that, presumably, in the know-nothing oyster. It gives no doubt a temporary relief to the fatigued thinker. And there are eminent theorists who signalize this "pure experience" or thoughtless pacivity. They deify the primitive, as being not only the source of all, but the fulness of all—saying that developed knowledge does not reveal but in fact conceals reality, that ideals serve only to create illusions. Hence back to "pure" experience.170
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Yet such statements get us nowhere. They ask us to find the essence of mind in a state vacated of all the essentials of mind.
A different and more fruitful source of relief—both for consciousness and for our theory—is that found in a higher immediacy, rather than in the lower and primitive. There is an effort on the part of consciousness, all through its development, to effect a sort of reunion of its diverging strands, to find a common ground for the various interests at play, and to reestablish its ownership over all its conquests, even that of the external and refractory world. It seeks a synthetic state of contemplation, in which the various opposing motives of knowledge and action may come to a truce, and dwell in a common tent; in which the worlds of fact and value may reveal themselves as one only, and as being in its entirety a finished and ideal world.
In its lower stages this takes form in the various modes of "make believe" (semblance) seen in play; and in the higher modes it satisfies itself in aesthetic contemplation, in which the semblant motives finally discover their own proper ends and ideals in Fine Art.
In both play and art, the material of knowledge is set up "semblantly," that is, for purposes of manipulation apart from the hard and fast conditions of the actual. The child can freely and capriciously manipulate his play horse, and the artist can remake and restate, less freely but still really, the object he chooses to depict. The difference is—and it is a very great difference—that the caprice of the player gives place to the self-expression and self-embodiment of the artist. In fine art, a new and essentially unifying motive appears, that called "aesthetic sympathy" or "empathy." The context chosen—a bit of landscape, a human scene—in being detached from its anchorage in the actual world, becomes in so far open to the artist's suggestions, and he is able to read into it a mental life whichGENETIC LOGIC: A R£SUM£
171
is his own. All art does this. A "semblant" schema of fact or truth is essential; but it is charged with the artist's or admirer's own meanings and values; and in identifying himself with it, he claims it as his own creation.
From this the most far-reaching and precious results follow. The act of aesthetic contemplation becomes the fountain-head of a series of reconciliation, in which the dualism-ridden thinker finds his haven of peace and self-possession.
This is not the place for the larger questions of interpretation. The present writer has pursued the subject out to the conclusion that in the creation of fine art the most comprehensive and satisfying meaning is given to what we call Reality, and that, in the contemplation of its Beauty, the mind finds its deepest interests reconciled to one another and all its aspirations gratified in common.2 This is brought out in the following section (XXII).
a See Genetic Theory of Reality: Pancalitm.XXII. The Beautiful World
"Truth, Goodness, Beauty, these three, but the greatest of these is Beauty." This sentence was sent to M. Henri Corbiere, editor of a book of autograph sayings of different authors in 1921; it is the equivalent of the Greek motto affixed to the book on Pancalism.1 I take it for the text of the following more popular exposition of that doctrine.
I.
The greatest of these is Beauty.
The sentence given above may seem to many to be a parody on the famous saying of the Apostle Paul, "Faith, Hope, Charity, these three, but the greatest of these is Charity"; but while taking the same form, it in no wise conflicts with St. Paul's profound saying. For it is in a different domain; not the domain of faith and works, but that of thought and intuition. It is an answer to the question, how we are to think of the universe, not that as to how we are to regulate our lives. How, it asks, do we get our most profound and satisfying experience of things, the richest meaning of the world and what is in it? By knowledge, through which we establish truth?—by action,
1 "Genetic Theory of Reality; Pancalism." The Greek motto is T6 KaXov Ilav. In the Preface to Volume III of "Genetic Logic," I refer to Professor Stewart as "a prominent Greek scholar whom I have consulted," and there cite his opinion, which the following letter supplements.
14 Bradmore Road, Oxford, Sept. 19, 1911.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Again I have to apologize for delay: I have been in Scotland for a week and only returned last night. I should be very pleased if you added a footnote to "pankalism," either naming me or describing me as a "scholar whom you have consulted"—the latter perhaps preferably.
I wrote c instead of k, after the analogy of (say) "callisthenics"; but k is perhaps Less misleading, for the reader who does not know much Greek: even Grote wrote "Sokrates" for the usual "Socrates."
With kind regards and best wishes, I am yours sincerely,
J. A. Stewart.
[Professor at Oxford],
172THE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
173
attaining the good ?—or by the contemplation which creates and enjoys the beautiful? It decides that, of these ways of getting into touch with reality, each normal and legitimate in its sphere, called respectively the rational, the practical, and the aesthetic, it is the way of beauty, the aesthetic, which is the most fruitful and profound.
The reason of this is the same as that given by St. Paul in the other case. Love to him is the greatest of the Christian virtues, because it includes the other two, faith and hope, and unites the two in one. What I love exercises my faith and stimulates my hope; both are impregnated and fused into one by the passion of Love. Similarly, Beauty is the greatest of the three natural revealers of reality, because in its revelation it includes and unites the other two, the true and the good. It offers something to know and suggests something to seek; but both of these inclinations are diffused with the glow of emotional contentment, and blend in the ecstasy of aesthetic contemplation.
The first impression that many get from such a statement is that we are taking the most superficial and fleeting experience— that of beauty—and making it the most profound of all. But this impression comes from the inadequacy of the aesthetic impressions too often taken to represent beauty. As is true of knowledge, which may be superficial or thorough, and of action, which may be capricious or heroic, so our experience of beauty may be fleeting and trivial, no less than profound. But taking knowledge at its best, as in the great scientific discovery or in the sustained logical argument, we may doubt whether its report is finally and completely true. And taking action at its best—in the noble or heroic deed, the sacrifice of a mother or the self-immolation of a saint — we may ask here, do we now reach the very deeps of human capacity to realize the meaning of things. So also, as we stand before a great work of art, whether found in nature or made by the hand and thought of man, the same question comes—is it here that the human soul comes into174
BETWEEN TWO WARS
communion with the soul of the world, drinking deepest of the springs of being? Is this the greatest revelation of all? What I would say is that this last experience, aesthetic intuition, gives the human person, whether himself a spectator of beauty or a creator of art, the deepest and richest revelation. Why?— because, while including the other two, the true and the good, it adds much more besides; it gives a synthetic intuition of the real, in which all our powers are engaged.
Suppose we had the gift of knowing perfectly all there is to know. The outcome of this knowledge, taken alone, would be a complete statement of what is—a statement which would leave nothing over to know. But with this there would not be, or need not be, the slightest emotional or moral satisfaction, nothing for faith and love to feed on, no personal fulfilments or ideal accomplishments. There would be no call to approve or disapprove, to admire or reject, to love or to hate. But for the presence of other ends, the truth alone would not "make us free"; it would leave us neutral and indifferent.
This is the world that the Rationalist would give us.
What a poor affair after all such a world! Just a system of globes whirling in space, and systems of systems of atoms attracting and repelling one another, with millions of people knowing everything, but caring for nothing—things simply existing, having no further mission or end, a world of truths without a soul. We can imagine a logical intelligence, a living logical machine, doing just this. But we are not so constituted. Our life is, by more than half, effort, desire, pursuit. Truth itself is not our end, but a means we use, an instrument, for getting more out of life, for satisfying our passions. We must then recognize other experiences, more ample situations which, while giving us truths to inform and guide us, give us also valuable ends for our effort, ideals for our achievement, and beauties for our admiration.
Let us then go on to endow our "intellectual," the man whoTHE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
175
by supposition has knowledge but nothing else, with a further faculty, that of finding values in the world, the faculty of appreciating the good and rejecting the bad—all that is meant by Will. To the Intelligence, which reveals the truth, is added the Will, which pursues the good.
In the term "will" are included all the powers of distinguishing that which satisfies, that which gratifies—and sets the human agent afoot in pursuit of it. In contrast with the merely intellectual or rational world, it opens to us the "practical" world: the world of ends, values, utilities, ideals, all names for that which stirs up our desire and stimulates our effort.
With this aspect of things, their value, certainly our experience is greatly enriched. Truths as such lose their sombre and neutral character, becoming articulate with appeals to our desire. The moon ceases to be the "globe in space," of the astronomer, and becomes the "thing to grasp at," of the child.
There has arisen, accordingly, another school of thinkers who say that the theory of Rationalism, which makes the rational, as revealed in knowledge, the ultimate and primordial reality, is not sufficient. In the Will another principle is in evidence, and this has its claim to be the root principle of the universe. The experiences which give us the realest apprehension of the nature of the world are those of value—conduct, religion—all the experiences in which the active life comes to its fruition and reaches its goal. We know things, it is said, only to reap their value; knowledge serves to direct us in the race for the pursuit of our ends. This is the supreme thing in our existence—the realization of the highest values. To the religious man, knowing about heaven is of little importance; taking the necessary steps to attain it, that is the thing that counts.
This then is the world of the Voluntarist, the world of Value.
We have to admit that to enjoy a thing is a richer experience than merely to know about it. In its final statement, the world must be one to enjoy, no less than one to know, whatever we176
BETWEEN TWO WARS
may say as to the relation of these two principles to each other.
But we may go further and ask, is this the whole? Is the deepest experience, the richest joy, attained when, acting on our knowledge, we reach the end desired—the value achieved, the action well done? Is there no further key to the riches of the cosmic chest, no further aspect of reality as yet untouched, something which to reach would give a further tang, a richer satisfaction, supplementing both our knowledge-of-the-true and our will-for-the-good ?
The reply is not doubtful. Yes, there is: it is in the domain of our admiration. It is true that we know the world, or part of it; and equally true that we enjoy the world, or part of it; but it is no less true that we admire the world, or part of it. In our admiration, our aesthetic satisfaction, there is a sort of experience which adds something still, making experience richer and life more worth while. It reveals something more in the world than facts for our knowledge and values for our enjoyment—namely, beauties for our contemplation.
I have a bunch of roses on my desk. Why do I place them there ? Is it because being something of a botanist, I recognize them as roses? That may be my reason. Is it because I enjoy their perfume? This too might be the reason. But I admire the roses, that is my reason for putting them on the desk. Potatoes would not do, nor golf-balls, nor bits of paper just the same shade as the rose petals, though all these are objects of my knowledge and on occasion of my desire. It is the beauty of the roses, whatever that may be, that appeals to me and leads me to set them on my desk.
This, I take it, is the deepest and richest way of apprehending the rose—to admire it; because while recognizing its physical properties, recalling all I know of roses, and enjoying its perfume, yet over and above these things, I attribute to it the something I call its "beauty."THE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
177
When we consider the world under this aspect, we reach a third point of view, the Aesthetic.
II.
Admitting this to be a fact, that the experience of beauty does give us a thrill, a joy, over and above the recognition of truth and utility, it still remains to ask why this is true ? What is it that beauty adds to the object we admire? And why is it that some objects have it while others do not? Is it something important or essential in the world, or something trivial and passing? Can we turn it to account in our profounder thought, and attach a significance to it in our interpretation of the meaning of the world of men and things?
Answering this last question in the affirmative, I may state briefly certain points, resulting from the analysis of aesthetic contemplation, which open to us a vista of what we may call "the beautiful World."
1.	Art, and with it all aesthetic contemplation, makes a peculiar use of knowledge and values of all sorts, detaching them from their surroundings and giving them a new setting and a freer rendering.
2.	The beautiful object, thus reconstituted, is charged with a sort of inner principle of life, with which the artist or observer identifies himself, by a movement of "aesthetic sympathy."
3.	In this movement of animation and vivification, defects of form and matter are eliminated, and the work of art comes to give the actual object a new significance and a new reality.
4.	It thus appears that, in the universe of aesthetic contemplation, as this would appear to a perfect intelligence, the dualisms and confusions of apprehension—self and non-self, knowl-and will, real and imaginary—become contrasts of partial import. They disappear when we find ourselves in the immediate presence of the work of Art.178
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Let us explain these points a little, mainly by way of illustration.
There are two words current in discussions of beauty, words which show the general recognition of the first of the facts given just above—that of the "detachment" or isolation of the object of aesthetic contemplation—the words "semblance" and "fiction." The object of art is declared to be a "semblance" or "make-believe" object, and it is called by certain writers even a "fiction." We may say truly that the work of art offers the "semblance" of the thing it represents, say a portrait which "resembles" its original. So too, in relation to the actual thing, it may in a sense be called a "fiction." But when we come to enquire into the actual process involved in art, and also in the contemplation of beauty, we see that the first indications, suggested by these terms, are superficial and very misleading.
What is, we may go on to ask, the difference between the actual object and its artistic counterpart, when both are considered in the light of being something presented or set up before our minds—something apprehended or contemplated by us ?
Just this: in making a portrait, for example, the artist is free to "handle" his subject, to emphasize this feature and neglect that, to idealize the face, as the artist would say. He aims to put on the canvass the essential only, neglecting the accidental. The art-piece then becomes a truer picture of the real man than the original, as I see him, can be; for in the casual and incomplete way that I look at him, I really distort him—or, at least, fail to comprehend the real man, as his character if fully understood would reveal him. The artist, so far as he succeeds in his rendering, reinstates the true personality and gives us the vision of the real man—a picture which sums up and completes what only a lifetime of "looking at" the man would otherwise reveal to us. In this very important sense, therefore, the picture is the real man; while the actual person, in flesh and bone beforeTHE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
179
me, is the "semblant" person; the former is "real," the latter is "fiction."
This is true in all art and, in my opinion, in all our perception and appreciation of beauty. It is illustrated by the line of distinction which we draw, commonly, between creative or "fine" art and the "practical" arts, say that of photography. The photograph is always a snapshot showing one pose of the model, one side or aspect, with a certain illumination, a given background, etc. In this it is true to our perception, which is itself always just a snapshot, taken under given conditions. The photograph never gives us a satisfying or artistic rendering, just for this reason; and our perception does not either. Our criticism of the photograph is justified; it does not do justice to the full character or the complete look of the man. My friend's real character, his life, his preferences, his moods—his personality, in short—is lacking; the real man is not there. This is only a "semblance" of him, a "fiction."
What then can do justice to the personality of my friend, to what I know and love as the real man ? It is only my experience of him in many attitudes and situations that reveals his character, of which only one aspect is given in any one perception. If the photograph, just by being too faithful to the snapshot of the moment, fails to give me the real character, how then am I to reach the adequate vehicle of his personality? Is it to remain just a "feeling" in my mind, my "idea" of my friend, something unexpressed and inexpressible?
Just here the artist intervenes, and gives me the artistic portrait, a rendering of my friend which corrects the futile details of any one actual sitting or any one partial pose, and seeks, with more or less success, to render the character through those features which best symbolize it.
Of the two then, the actual or photographic and the ideal or artistic rendering, which should we consider more satisfying and perfect? And from the point of view of this more180
BETWEEN TWO WARS
perfect and complete rendering of all the meaning, which is the more real? The artistic, we answer. The temporary and fleeting, the snapshot product, remains but a semblance, a fiction, while the art-work is the real. The portrait renders, in greater or less perfection, the reality of the actual man. He himself, as he presents himself to my senses, includes a large measure of casual appearance and many elements of fiction, which need to be corrected or eliminated. To do this is the function of Art.
Art then seeks to reach reality by getting rid of the trammels in which the actual thing is tied up. In its sem-blant production, it limits the contents of images, just as the frame limits the picture—and for the same reason; it lifts the object out of its particular and accidental setting. It is only thus, in the relative detachment of the whole, that the further meaning can be suggested; the meaning necessary to complete and perfect the subject rendered. As it has been put technically, the images used no longer remain under the "control" of the actual world of things, but are made free for the idealization, which is also a realization, of all that their reality implies."
But the reader of course asks, as everyone asks, at the first blush: How can you say that the portrait is more real than the actual man? He is really there, and the portrait only copies him.
This is true on the surface, but it is only superficially true. The artistic portrait does not copy the man; it renders the meaning of the man, and renders it more truly than does any actual pose of the man himself. We have in daily life many cases in which the direct reports of our senses and the first conclusions of our thought have to be revised and supplemented by further insight or reflection.
2 The reader may pursue this subject in its more technical and detailed aspects in "Interest and Art," Vol. Ill of "Thought and Things."THE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
181
We correct the seeming realities of the external world in various ways—by hypotheses, fictions, general truths, scientific corrections, etc. The eye, for example, sees a curved stick projecting out of the water; in the absence of any further rendering or correction this is what we see, it is the actual thing as we observe it. But science, on the basis of complicated formulas, drawn from optics, informs us that we must revise our actual view and accept the statement that the stick is not curved but straight. The real thing, then, is not what we see but what we believe in spite of our senses. The latter is the reality, the former the fiction. This need to revise and correct our knowledge runs through all our life of thought, both personal and social; it has marked the progress of positive science. The sun did move around the earth until Copernicus demonstrated that it did not; and the earth was flat until Columbus sailed around it. The revision and re-rendering of evident facts gives them their place in the larger system of truth from which our perception for the moment separates them; the personal snapshot must be replaced by the general and impersonal truth, which absorbs and completes it.
This is what art does in creating the beautiful thing, and what we all do in a measure in contemplating it. Art frees the actual thing from its external setting and control, giving it a real detachment from the particular conditions which hold it to its context, and so releases it for the larger and freer rendering of the spirit, which is athirst for all the richer meaning that the single thing may symbolize and suggest.
This "detachment," as it has been called, of the subject in a work of art—due as we have seen to its being taken up in a "semblant" construction—is, however, much more radical than that which occurs in our ordinary positive knowledge. The crooked stick is detached from its given182
BETWEEN TWO WARS
network of conditions, of atmosphere, water, etc., and reconstructed on certain more general principles of optics, light and shade, perspective, etc. Beside the stick seen curved in the water, we place the imagined one made straight and true by our special knowledge. The detachment attained by art is, as already remarked, much more radical. It takes the object quite out of its physical or other relations, cutting it off from its context, as the frame cuts off the picture from the hangings of the wall; so that new values and meanings may be found in it without contradiction or discord. For the portrait the artist selects the posture, adopts the color-scheme, arranges the background, for the model—all designed to suit the character of the person as he apprehends it. He thus substitutes a new and arbitrary set of conditions, for the purpose of the pose, in order to enhance the essential and reduce the accidental qualities of the sitter, whose true reality is thus thrown into relief. But this is possible only because of the complete detachment or isolation of the person, or object, treated in this semblant way.
Another property of art, and of all beauty, is prepared for also by the detachment of the object—that mentioned in the second of the points drawn up above: art makes possible the injection into the object, or the discovery in it, of a certain movement or life. This is worthy of further remark.
III.
The difference between an inanimate thing and the artistic representation of the same thing, say by a picture or a statue, resides in this, that the former is dead, while the latter has a sort of life. The block of marble before inert, seems to acquire a certain movement, appropriate to the thing reproduced in it, an incipient life. We ascribe to it aTHE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
183
sort of feeling, something into which we enter and with which we sympathize. As we contemplate the celebrated group of Laocoon and his sons, writhing in the coils of the serpent, or the discus thrower in action, we ourselves become in a sense the very actors, we feel their tension of muscle and shortness of breath. Not only is this true of those works in which life and movement are actually depicted, as in those just mentioned, but also in artistic representations of still things, landscapes, buildings, etc. The arch's curve bends us with it, and the long-descending road gives us the incipient sensations of tramping and finally reaching the goal. The erect marble column seems, when I contemplate it, or the picture of it when I admire that, to carry itself upwards, to strain its forces in the ascent; and we the admirers feel the tendency to go up with it, a certain "urge" lifts us up on tip-toe. The Gothic cathedral as a whole, and all the details of the architecture, carry us in thought heavenward and we say, "how I am lifted up," "how it inspires me." It does elevate and inspire our feeling, and our organism responds to the inspiration ; our feeling shows in our face, where the sympathy with the structure and its purpose registers itself.
This is true, in a greater or less degree, of all art and of all beauty, no matter how simple in design or reposeful in motive. The repose of the summer landscape is our repose as we contemplate it; its calm is the calm we find in its aesthetic charm. We walk leisurely with "the plowman who homeward plods his weary way," and feel the satisfying indolence of the herds that "wind slowly o'er the lea." And how well the poet states our experience, in saying, "And leaves the world to darkness and to me"— to me, the observer, who find myself alone in the stillness of the parting day.
This then is what is essential in the new meaning taken184
BETWEEN TWO WARS
on by a dead subject when art revives it and gives it a soul. It becomes impregnate with a life with which we sympathize. Freed from the actual control of fact, by reason of the preliminary detachment wrought by the imagination, the object is endowed with the movement of the mind which enters into it and animates it. It takes on a spiritual meaning, and appeals to the admirer for his sympathy. Or it shows off the genius of the artist, who speaks of it as his "creation." We enter into it, and make it the vehicle of our common ideals and aspirations. In thus finding in it the inner "control" of a spiritual life, we personalize what was before impersonal.
This "taking-up" of the object into our feeling and rereading our feeling into it is a double movement, called in the literature "aesthetic sympathy" or "empathy." It is the source of the beauty of an object or work of art, and also the motive of the artist's continued effort to produce. In it, too, idealism in art in all its forms find its justification, and realism its limits. For without this factor, the realist reduces art to the mere photograph; while, on the other hand, with it the idealist becomes the prophet, interpreting the real in its most varied and profound forms. The saying that "art imitates nature" is only partially true; in fact art reproduces nature, but at the same time purifies and enriches it. There is truth in the contrary saying, that "nature imitates art." Oscar Wilde was not altogether wrong in saying of a sunset, "It approaches Turner." For the artistic sunsets of Turner add human feeling to the glamour of the real sunset, and give its successive phases the meaning of a panorama of human emotion.
In this personalizing of the impersonal, characteristic of art, the freedom of the artist comes into its own; a limited freedom, at the best, for it is in this respect in striking contrast with other functions in which things are treatedTHE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
185
"semblantly," notably that of play. In the child's play, there is always a movement of semblance which issues in a genuine fiction. He makes a soldier out of a block of wood and turns himself into the President. He plays at being this or that, by a capricious and versatile "turn of the hand." In the delightful freedom of play, the hero is master of all the machinery; he overrides both truth and utility, and gives account of himself to nobody.
In art, the freedom is something very different. It is exercised in finding and using freely the possibilities of truth and value latent in a given subject-matter, and in turning to account all the possible means of developing and enjoying, while not subverting them. The work of art and beauty always retains the framework of truth, but charges this framework with values fit for the use and profit of the competent spectator.
The distinction between the self and the object, taken in an absolute sense, is therefore in so far abolished. The contemplator feels the merging of the inner world of self with the outer world of external things. He no longer looks upon the object portrayed as simply a "thing" in time and space, but as the satisfying vehicle of his thought and feeling. The object itself incorporates that which is also his very own. "I embody," he may say, "my self in its life, and I take it up into mine." When our simple perception passes over into aesthetic contemplation, the miracle is accomplished, for the moment and in the special case, of overcoming the dualism of self and not-self.
It is therefore not a mere theory but a fact of experience, that with beauty something surprising and unique is added to the truth and value of an object. Both truth and value are interpreted in terms of a precious intimacy of ownership and realization of the self, in which the oppositions186
BETWEEN TWO WARS
inherent in the commerce of self and the world are in great measure healed.
IV.
Again another consideration, the third mentioned above: the point of view of "semblance" attained in art and beauty-gives an elevation from which a new vista is obtained, the vista of a beautiful world; that is of a perfected world, one no longer torn by the conflicts and antagonisms of imperfect knowledge and conflicting desire, a world free from the dualisms of truth and value, fact and end, freedom and fatality.
Imagine yourself standing before a great picture, say the Sistine Madonna, or a great building, say the Notre Dame de Paris or the campanile of Giotto at Florence, and while allowing your contemplation fully to establish itself, feel yourself invaded by the charm of its beauty and the conviction of its truth. Then at that instant, holding on to that which you have, you might say, why should this cease?— why should I go back to the prosaic world of duty and distraction, effort and disappointment?—why not stay on the mountain top and view everything from the point of view of inherent pulchritude? While this is unrealizable in fact, one can nevertheless make it a disposition, a temper of mind, to reconstruct and interpret the temporary and confusing situations of life in a whole of harmony and calm. And from this it is only a step to the thought, if not of a world from which all disharmonies have disappeared, still of an Intelligence so capable of taking in the aesthetic meaning of the world, that the disharmonies become elements in a greater whole of beauty—discords in the richer symphony. Such an intelligence, capable of placing each detail in its place, and each contrast in itsTHE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
187
proper setting, would realize the complete or beatific vision, "the beautiful World."
Such an intelligence would be a genius capable of understanding and contemplating all in one; his vision would not select the bit here and there, but make a single picture, and identify himself with its inner life and essential movement. If then he could be asked what of truth and goodness his vision retained, he would of necessity say that all truth entered into it, that it was a perfectly rounded system of all that is. And as to goodness, a similar statement— nothing valuable in the universe has been left out. Then finally, by a supreme elevation of his spiritual nature he would claim it, the picture, as his own, his creation, the product of his inner life and the dwelling-place of his intelligence. It would embody his creative Will, his directing Intelligence, and his self-asserting spiritual Life. It would not only embody, it would be, his very Self. It would be a direct and immediate experience, not an indirect or mediate one, in which he would find himself immersed in a flowing and creative realization of himself."
8 This immediate creative experience is simply lived, not supposed or reached objectively. James* "simple experience"—say that of an oyster— is too simple, it has nothing in it. On the other hand the creative movement must be that of direct intuition, not that of a vital principle, known by external signs. In Appendix C. Ill, added in the French translation of my "Genetic Theory of Reality" I criticize Bergson's postulate of an "61an vital" in these terms:—
If one -were obliged to choose between the spiritual principle and the vital principle, in searching for the fundamental reality, it is the former, the spiritual, and not the latter, the vital, to which one would be driven. It is the spiritual which would suggest itself as the vehicle of the true movement of "creative evolution." The immanent ilan—the essentially creative movement in the body of reality itself, for which the writer has long since argued in detail (see the entire theory of "genetic modes," expounded in "Development and Evolution," 1902, Ohap. XIX, a chapter cited by M. Bergson in his Evolution criatrice, 1 ed.)— this ilan is given immediately in experiences of the psychic or subjective order, and only ■indirectly inferred in those of the vital or objective order. Even M. Bergson (in Les Donnees immidiates de la conscience) finds the immediate data to be, as has been said, in time and free will, both of which are given only within the flow of experience as such.
Why then go over to the vital in search of the supporting principle! Why not remain within the sphere of direct and intuitive experience itself, and recognize an ilan spirituel, rather than appeal to an ilan vital t This course would seem to be the more necessary to a writer who, like M. Bergson, finds in intuition, an inner and subjective light, the valid mode of apprehension, and who explicitly denies the validity of the mediate and logical processes upon which our knowledge of vital facts essentially depends.188
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The old Hebrew writer of the creation story of Genesis had an intuition of this. He narrates that after the seven days of creative effort Jehovah rested, then looking out upon what he had made, the universe of all that was and was to be, exclaimed that it was "very good." What do we suppose to have been the meaning of the approval given to the world, in the mouth of an infinite Creator? As all-wise he knew the whole truth of the system of things which he had set in operation; it was in accord with his design; it embodied particular details with rational consistency of the whole. He also knew its value, as fulfilling his inventive and creative energies, leaving nothing to be desired by any reasonable will. But now that these approbations, intellectual and voluntary, were issued, each in its way complete, was he to find in them still sources of conflict; could the Will rebel against the Intellect, or the instinctive repel the reasonable? No, a further and supreme harmony must follow, that of the Creator himself with the universe as planned and executed; it must be the emanation of his very Life, the fulfilment of Himself. In this sense he contemplates and admires it, finds it beautiful. Jehovah thus realizes the role of the supreme Artist. He holds up for contemplation the whole of things, in a semblant or imaginative plan, realizes it as the supreme good, and finds incorporated in it his own divine life. In realizing the world he realizes himself in the consummate way of a work
In using the figure of "instinct" to illustrate, if not to explain intuition—he calls it a "sort of higher instinct"—M. Bergson again goes to life, the genetically lower and objective order, to describe the modus operandi, instead of confining himself to the intimate data in the higher order of immediate experience.
Accordingly, considering the matter from M. Bergson's main point of view, that of a creative movement, a radical evolution in reality—what the writer calls a true "genetic" movement—there is no good ground for resorting to a substantive principle of life for its interpretation.
But, while a spiritual principle recognized as immanent in experience itself is to be preferred to a vital one, still even this resort is not justified. Rather should we remain within the domain of direct experience of the immediate, and nse as basis of our interpretation the fullest and most synthetic phase of this experience. This phase is that of the mode of contemplation, to the writer aesthetic in character.THE BEAUTIFUL WORLD
189
of art, which he admires or more literally "wonders at." The "very good" means, the "divinely fair," the "supremely beautiful." This is the height reached by the Hebrew cos-mologist: his final word is, "Jehovah, Artist of the beautiful World!"
Anatole France puts into the mouth of Monsieur Ber-geret, his personal double, the following words:
"For my part, if I were called upon to chose between beauty and truth, I should not hesitate; I should hold to beauty, being confident that it bears within it a truth both higher and deeper than truth itself. I will go so far as to say there is nothing true in the world save beauty."
In a similar way, if we were called upon to choose between goodness and beauty we should hold to beauty, being confident that it bears within it a higher and deeper goodness.
And so we return to our starting point:—
"Truth, Goodness, Beauty, these three, but the greatest of these is Beauty."
This then, is what Pancalism teaches: that the pro-foundest and completest apprehension of reality is, in its type, that which we actually reach when we contemplate a satisfying work of Fine Art, and fill our minds with the Truth and Goodness, along with the Charm, embodied in the thing of Beauty.XXIII. Reflections and Proverbs
I. REFLECTIONS
1.	Apropos of Pancalism:
The ugly is the abortion, where beauty is the fulfilment ;
The evil is the refractory, where beauty is the concordant;
Error is the incomplete, where beauty is the finished;
The mediate of the reason disunites, the immediate of art reunites.
2.	The English muddle their way through;
The French think their way through;
The Germans force their way through;
The Americans buy their way through.
I make my reservations as to the last statement, but the rest is no doubt true.
3.	In France vice is made attractive; in America virtue is made repulsive;
In England both are carefully hidden away.
4.	It takes two Stoics to make one Epicurean; that is to say, only those who have learned to despise the good things of life can rationally enjoy them.
5.	Social morality: servant of all, slave of none, lover of one.
6.	Consistency is the jewel of youth, but caprice is the reward of experience.
7.	How to be well governed. There are three forms of government, all tyrannies; the Czars, the Democracies, the Proletariats, The Czars kill you to preserve their own skins; the
190REFLECTIONS AND PROVERBS 191
Democracies stifle you to save your soul; the Proletariats exploit you to demonstrate their incompetence. Italy, America, Russia, three post-war examples ! The Czars get the best results; they at least know what they want, and their eyes may light on the true way of life. The Czar may be a good tyrant; the mob cannot be other than a bad one. France has suffered all these tyrannies. Her conclusion seems to be, "the best governed are the least governed" — a result which England approximates without intending it. Plato's plan of government by the "philosophers," the "wise men," would be fine, if only the "wise" could get themselves installed once for all!II. PROVERBS (More or Less Ironical)1
A resting stone gathers no polish. ("A rolling stone gathers no moss.")
A new boot pinches the foot. ("A new broom sweeps clean.") The means betray the end. ("The end justifies the means.") Who wills the means approves the end. ("Who wills the end wills the means.")
A rod in the bush is worth two on the hand. ("A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush. Error is the worst of sins. ("Mistakes do not count.") "Dirt is healthy." ("Cleanliness is next to godliness.") Nothing is so permanent as the temporary. (From the French:
"Rien n'est aussi durable que le provisoire.") The exception breaks the rule. ("The exception proves the rule.") Appearances—in short skirts—are un-deceiving. ("Appearances are deceiving.")
Things are what they seem—in the chorus. ("Things are not what they seem.")
Straws show how the lemonade flows. ("Straws show how the wind blows.")
Conformity is the tribute that virtue pays to vice. "Imitation is the
tribute that vice pays to virtue.") "Never do today what you can put off till tomorrow." ("Never put
of till tomorrow what you should do today.") "Never do yourself what someone else can do for you." ("If you
want a thing done, do it yourself.") Pound wise penny foolish. ("Penny wise pound foolish.") Look out for the pounds, the pennies are not worth while. ("Look
out for the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves.") "Punctuality is the thief of time." ("Procrastination is the thief of time.")
Honesty is the policy of dupes. ("Honesty is the best policy.")
1 The idea of these proverbs was originally to show the equal wisdom of the reverse of many of the well-known sayings current (that given in each case—or in many cases—above in parentheses). In some of these sayings, however, I have wandered away from this original intention. These sayings might be known collectively as "the wisdom of a disabused tourist through the wilderness of life." Whenever I am conscious of having seen or heard the statement I place it in quotation marks.
If knowlege is power [ If doubt torments J
'tis folly not to know
"If ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise.")
192REFLECTIONS AND PROVERBS 193
Virtue is its only reward.	)	.
Bigamy is its own punishment.} < Virtue 18 lts own "ward. )
Nothing venture, nothing lose. ("Nothing venture, nothing have.")
The best way to keep your cake is to eat it. ("You can not eat your
cake and have it too.")
A hard blow is the best persuasion. ("Constant dropping wears
away the stone.")
It is never too soon to mend.) ,„Xi .	, ^ ^	, „x
T. •	. i . .	j r ( It is never too late to mend. )
It is never too late to spend. J v	'
Understanding breeds affection.]	„x
"To know all is to forgive all." J < ^miliarity breeds contempt. )
Two rights may make one wrong. ("Two wrongs do not make a right.")
He laughs longest who begins to laugh first. ("He laughs best who laughs last.")
Haste wins more than it wastes. J	, ,	A
The worst waste is the waste of time.J ( Haste makes waste' > Opposition is the truest flattery. ("Imitation is the truest flattery.") It's a modest man who admits his pride. ("Pride goeth before destruction.")
"The early worm gets eaten by the bird.") ("The early bird gets the The late worm escapes the bird.	Jworm.")
("Look before you leap.") ("He who hesitates is lost.") ("Absence makes the heart grow fonder.") ) ("Out of sight out of ("Distance lends enchantment to the view. ")j mind.") ("Night brings counsel.") ("At night all cows are grey.") ("Experience is the best teacher.") ("Foresight is better than hindsight.")
("An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.") ("Sufficient
unto the day is the evil thereof.") Change reveals identity. (From the French: Plus ga change plus
c'est la meme chose.) ("There is nothing new under the sun.") "Necessity is the mother Demand is the child of invention.	j of invention.")
("Better to wear out than to rust out.") ("All work and no play
makes Jack a dull boy.") Make your bridge before you cross it. ("Never cross a bridge before you come to it.") Many are the trials of the rich. ("Many are the uses of adversity.") Justice fails but there is always time. (Free reversal of: hora fugit stat jus.)
'Tis false, 'tis well, and well 'tis 'tis false. ('Tis true 'tis pity, and
pity 'tis 'tis true.) Take everything humorously, nothing farcically. (Reversal of the French: Tout au serieux, rien au tragique.)194
BETWEEN TWO WARS
("Every rose has its thorn.") ("Every cloud has a silver lining.") One good whack deserves another. ("One good turn deserves another.")
A soft answer inviteth a blow. ("A soft answer turneth away wrath.'*)
It's a good wind that blows nobody any ill. ("It's an ill wind that
blows nobody any good.") Hunger justifies the means. (After the French: le faim—la fin—
justifie le moyen; an untranslatable pun.) The senses have their reasons that the reason does not know— apropos of racial prejudice. (After Pascal, "the heart has its reasons, etc.")
Many are shot at, but few are hit. ("Many are called, but few are chosen.")
Necessity is another name for law. ("Necessity knows no law.") Boils will out. ("Murder will out.") "Girls that can't sing and will sing) <(R. , „ should be sent to Sing-Sing." J ±5irds' etc'
All things are possible to him that fights. ("- believes.")
Money is a means not an end. ("Money is the root of all evil.") Faith is the hand-maid of deception. ("Faith will remove mountains.")
An ounce of cure is worth a pound of prescription. ("An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.")
The proper study of mankind is woman (-"man").
The good enough is enemy of the better. (Suggested by the French:
la mieux est l'ennemi du bien.) The best dressed people are the least dressed (motto of the theatre). ("The best governed people are the least governed.")
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't undress. (-"throw
stones.")
All over but the paying (motto of the restaurants). (-"but the
shouting.")
There are as bad toothaches in your head as were ever extracted. ("There are as good fish in the sea as ever were caught.")
A little mosquito is a dangerous thing. ("-knowledge-.")
The faith-game removes many pocket-books. ("Faith may remove mountains.")
The queen by no other name would seem as gracious. ("The rose by
any other name would seem as sweet.") "Better never late." ("Better late than never.")
Sweet are the uses of prosperity. ("-adversity.")
The fist is mightier than the voice. ("The voice is mightier than the pen.")REFLECTIONS AND PROVERBS 195
Money can not buy time. ("Time is money.") Forgiveness is sweet. ("Revenge is sweet.")
All roads lead to woman. ("-to Rome.")
Her face is her misfortune. ("-fortune.")
An American and his wife are soon parted. ("A fool and his money, etc.")
("Live and [not] learn.")
"A miss is as good as her smile." ("-a mile.")
A college President may look at Mr. Dempsey. ("A cat may look at the King.")
The meek shall inherit many blows. ("-the earth.")
One swallow may make a stomach-ache. ("- doesn't make
spring.")
An onion a day keeps the lover away. ("An apple a day keeps the
doctor away.") A grave with any other name might be as old.) A Shylock of any other race would be as mean, j rose» e c- ) The righteous hold up their hands when the wicked commandeth.
("The wicked flee when no man pursueth.") An honest purgation is good for the soul. ("An honest confession -")
While there's life there's a rope. ("-hope.")
Eternal shaving is the price of beauty. ("-vigilance-liberty.")
Hair springs eternal on the human chin. ("Hope-human breast.")®
1 These sayings are dedicated, with respectful homage, to the three wise men, Benjamin Franklin, La Bochefoucauld, and King Solomon.PART III
Correspondence — Letters ReceivedPrefatory Note to Part III
The letters here printed have been selected from a very large number, both to illustrate the text (in which reference is made to many of them)1 and also to throw light on the opinions and character of men of note in which the reader is likely to be interested. They have been selected with the greatest discretion; and the publication of no one of them can, I am sure, excite the least objection. They have been arranged in a vaguely chronological order—by periods—vaguely, for the reason that, when there are several by the same writer, as James McCosh or William James,—or even two or three—it seemed to add to the interest to place them together, rather than to scatter them here and there. In certain cases, those notably of the two personages mentioned, the interest of the personality predominates; in other cases — that say of the "Sussex" letters—the event overshadows the man.
I have never made it a practise to keep copies of my own letters. A letter has always been to me a "means" and not an "end;" and it generally accomplished its mission in the fewest words possible. Occasionally, however, I did make copies of important letters; and certain of these appear below in loc. along with those of my correspondents.
The reader may readily trace the many allusions made to these letters in the text of Vol. I by making use of the Index at the end of the work.
1 Sea Vol. I paiaim.
198I.
Selected Letters from James McCosh
PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON COLLEGE
Princeton, Dec. 2, 1884.
My dear Sir,
I am glad to hear from you. You have chosen proper subjects and I believe the appropriate professors. I expect you to give me an account of what they teach you with critical remarks if you have any. ... I trust you will watch narrowly the direction of thought and give me a report of your observations. I do trust that you will profit by your year in Germany.
I send you by mail two copies of No. 7 of my Philosophical Series. It is on Kant. If any two of your professors know English, and would feel an interest in such a work, please present the copies to them. Others will be sent if wished. It will be very difficult to induce a German professor to take any notice of a work which disputes the fundamental principles of Kant. I am very anxious to have the little work discussed. You will do me a great favor if you can promote that end.
You may tell Prof. Wundt that his works are known in this college to our best students. A number of years ago I used the Professor's researches in my "Examination of J. S. Mill's Philosophy." Two years ago we had a Wundt Club which met to read the Mental Physiology.
You will be scanning the religious state of Germany. By
199200
BETWEEN TWO WARS
strength from above you will be able to keep your own faith in the most irreligious country I ever visited.
Yours, James McCosh.
Princeton, N. J., Aug. 19, 1885.
My dear Sir,
I have read your paper on Pollock's Spinoza. You have bestowed great care on it.
Certain German thinkers toward the end of last century rushed with great eagerness toward Spinoza's Pantheism. Great acclamations were given on the occasion of his bicentenary. We have in our library a collection of books issued on this last occasion.
I do not go to the length of Dugald Stuart who called Spinoza the "thought bewildered man," nor of Mansell who spoke of him as a "hair-splitter," nor of Martineau in his recent book on theories of Ethics; but I reckon his method wrong and his definitions artificial, and his reasoning not just logomachy but a war of unfounded notions. What do you wish me to do with your paper? ... I am keeping your account of recent work in Germany. It will be of value. . . .
I am yours ever,
James McCosh.
Princeton, N. J., Oct. 25, 1888.
My dear Sir,
I have sent off 80 pages of my work First and Fundamental Truth to Scribner for publication. I fully expect that it will be published by the first of February. It is to be the copestone of what I have done in Philosophy. I am taking excessive pains with it. I will send you an earlyJames McCosh.LETTERS RECEIVED
201
copy on publication. It will require a great deal of pressure to force it into Europe. It will get an entrance into this country.
I intend to review my two works on psychology for next year's sale. I intend to ask you for suggestions. So please mark down what may occur to you.
Of my pupils, I have recommended two for Presidents of Colleges, between a dozen and fifteen for professors, within the last two years, chiefly within the last few months. . . .
There is a talk of your visiting us soon to take away one of our finest young ladies. We must submit.
Yours ever,
James McCosh.
Princeton, N. J., Nov. 4, 1889.
My dear Sir,
I congratulate you on being appointed to Toronto. I am told that you have a fine position with opportunities of doing much good. The rooting of good principles in students depends much on the philosophy which they are taught.
I am at present considering the question whether the prevailing philosophies, Experiential, Kantian, Scotch, can logically reach realities. If they can not our young men, whatever we may do, will carry them out to agnosticism. Let us work together to extend a sound philosophy.
Yours truly,
James McCosh.
Princeton, N. J., Feb. 16, 1889.
My dear Sir,
I have just instructed Mr. Scribner to mail to you a copy202
BETWEEN TWO WARS
of my special philosophical work, "First and Fundamental Truths." I should like you to look over Part Third, which is a considerable improvement on the corresponding part of the Intuitions. It treats of the topics which should be brought before the American mind to elevate it. Kantism has issued logically in Agnosticism, led by Herbert Spencer, and we need to have a high philosophy, like that of Kant, founded on Realism, which alone is fitted to meet the Negativism of the day.
Mrs. McCosh joins me in regards to you and Mrs. Baldwin. You have selected a good wife. I am
Yours truly,
James McCosh.
Princeton, N. J., without date [1889]. My dear Mr. Baldwin,
I regret that I had no opportunity of having some talk with you when you were in Princeton.
At present, we are greatly anxious as to who is to be my successor. The older men want a minister and have fixed on Dr. Patton. The younger men wish . . . but he can not be carried in the Board of Trustees. There is now a proposal to have Dr. Patton made President and Prof. . . . made Vice-President. I am favorable to this plan. It will keep both men here. It will reconcile both parties. Till this question is settled, nothing else can be. The Board meets on February 9. . . .
The review in the new Psychological is a very shabby one. It shows the tendency of the Physiological Psychology to become exclusive, and to keep young men from ever looking to the ideas and feelings of the soul.
A review of the article on me will appear in the next New Princetonian. You may do me good in some other quarter.LETTERS RECEIVED
203
The intention is to undermine my influence in the Colleges and Academies that use my text-book. I am much gratified to find that you use it and are satisfied with it. If you have any suggestions as to its improvement, I will be obliged to you for them.
Yours ever,
James McCosh.
Princeton, N. J., Nov. 15, 1889.
My dear Sir,
I am obliged to you for your corrections of the physiological part of my Psychology. . . . We may converse on this subject when we meet. There is an attraction which will bring you here occasionally.
I have long been of opinion that Metaphysics restricted within its own province, that of First and Fundamental Principles, might be made as certain as Aristotle made Logic. I am now to attempt to do this; am to begin next week.
I am to support Dr. Patton in every way. I wished Prof. . . . to be Vice-President, to supplement Dr. Patton, but could not carry it. I hope Dr. Patton may turn out as practical a man as he is powerful dialectician.
Yours truly,
James McCosh.II.
Selected Letters from William James
(IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)1
95 Irving St., Cambridge, Mass.
January 11, '91.
Dear Prof. Baldwin,
I am rather used up with over work (trying to write something along with my other duties) and am answering your interesting letter along with arrears of correspondence which have accumulated, so you will pardon me if I am short.
I cannot think at this moment of any "cat and kitten" analogies, but perhaps that is because I can not think at all. If any occur later, I will let you know. You are evidently in a fertile vein about the motor discharge and I hope that something will come of it. I don't see yet all the implications of your high potential ideas, so will await their development ere I speak again.
I do believe that some kind of an intellectual school of psychology is needed to rectify the raw philistinism of the Stanley Hall school. Jastrow's little notice of your volume in Hall's journal I thought simply scandalous when it appeared. I haven't even had time yet to read your last paper in Science. I will do so soon.
Yours ever, W. J.
1 This selection is made from about 75 communications of different sorts, now deposited at the Harvard University Library (see note p. 86 of Vol. I).
204LETTERS RECEIVED	205
95 Irving St., Cambridge, Mass.
March 7, 1891.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
Hume was here two years and endeared himself to us all by his genial and manly character. He is very expert in the Green-Caird-Young way of thought. I only hope it won't stand in the way of his attending to particulars. His fight with you for the professionship seemed to me rather amusing at the time, and made me glad that appointments here were not in the hands of the politicians. However, if the politicians could make places for all academic candidates as they did in this instance, perhaps the quality of the contests might be condoned. . . .
I was much interested in your last baby article. My wife has often put the babies to sleep by flaring up the gas upon them, but equally well by suddenly turning it down. She thinks the hypnotic effect comes from any sudden change. I admire your energy over the creatures; I don't think anything could hire me to put my baby to sleep more than one day at a time.
Very truly yours,
Wm. James.
Eseola Inn, Linville, N. C.
June 1, '94.
My dear Baldwin,
How go the measles? I trust complete recovery has supervened, but I promptly write to free your mind from disappointment by saying that you need have no regrets at being cut off from this trip. We left N. Y. last Tuesday P. M., and reached Blowing Rock Wednesday night, coming on here yesterday, Sunday. But a terrible drought has raged over all the mountains; the heat is intense, the206
BETWEEN TWO WARS
air smoky, and the blight of a frost late in May has killed the rhododendron blossoms, and half the foliage of the trees, giving a wan and seedy and stale look to the face of nature, neither like autumn, spring, summer nor any other season; so that on the whole a worse moment could not have been chosen for such a trip. Linville is in itself beautiful, and the roads round about divine. Laurels and azaleas still abound, and rain threatens. If it comes, things will improve. But in any case I go back by the end of the week without going further into the heats, as e. g. to Ash-ville. I'm glad I came with my one companion, for I have slept and "rested" famously and shall go back in good trim. I only write this one word to console you for your loss.
Leb' wohl!
W. J.
Without date [1904].
My dear Baldwin,
Of all the inanities! Such work as that ought to be for dull old library parasites who can't pick up a living by anything but book-worm work. I'll have none of it; and I can't help regarding it as a temptation of the evil one in your case, to waste time in making scraps accurate instead of employing your genius in something continuous and elucidating. But you have evidently a foible that way. I haven't cerebral strength for my tasks, and none for word-mongering as such.
But we have a man here--Ph. D. the famulus,
assistant bibliographer, dry-as-dust examination marker and bookworm of our philosophical department, to whom it would be a god-send to have such a job with the accruing dollars, and who is faithfulness incarnate. ... I advise you to communicate with him. . . .
I hardly know whether to wish you good luck or not. By the way, was "Porter" one of the names that came toLETTERS RECEIVED
207
you in the Piper sitting? If it was, I wish you would send me the notes in case you still have them. P. S. "Science" just arrived. How prettily Hall lifts his foot out of the dish into which he had put it.
Wm. James.
Cambridge, Dec. 1, '94.
My dear Baldwin,
"Broadly you burgeon and grandly you grow"—long may you keep a-doing of it! I have read the proof with the greatest interest and admiration. If much of the book has the same originality and vigor, it will be epoch-making. It is all new to me. I had never thought of synergy as the condition of synthesis; and the whole thing is as yet so un-assimilated by me that I can't tell whether I can make use of it or not. It is very magnanimous of you to let me have it in advance instead of keeping it all back to kill me with when I have had my say at the meeting. I fear that I can't use it much yet, for my own speculation (so far as I have made any) run in somewhat incongruent lines. I haven't written a line yet, and imagine that nothing may come at all. Of course there need be no presidential address. It isn't part of the to-be constitution, I hope, but a free gift if it comes, any year; and I am disposed to think, if my paper does materialize, that since it will be wholly technical in form, it will be better to give it as one of the common communications and not as a presidential address. The latter should be some rather broadly suzammenfassend review of the situation, I should say.
I make no comment on your text now. What jolly type you have!
Yours ever, W. J.208
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Chocorua, N. H.
August 28, 1895.
Dear Baldwin,
I am very sorry for the lateness of your dates. Things have shaped themselves, owing to the movements of the Keen Valley people, so that I must leave here today, arriving there Saturday morning, and staying till the 10th, or a little earlier. Can't you come up there? Jim Putnam writes enthusiastically about my bringing you. The company is first rate and the walking day after day does one infinite good. In case the accommodations at the Putnam's should be insufficient, St. Hubert's Inn is only ^ of a mile away.
PRAY COME.
So slow is my progress that I am only now reading your M (ental) D(evelopment). It is first rate so far (195 pp.) and clear as a crystal except in the last few pages. Cleaner better observations were never made. Continue !!
I have also just read Ladd's Philosophy of Mind. He treats me most stupidly, and either goes back most fearfully on his Phys(iological) P(sychology) or else has misstated his opinion there incredibly. But that is immaterial in comparison with the immense vigor and spirit of the statement he now gives. I don't see how the "ghost" theory of the self can hold itself up at all after this rich and concrete Humian account. It surely will deal a crushing blow to scholasticism and abstractionism in psychology.
Yours ever, Wm. James.
Lamb House, Rye, Dec. 15, [1897].
Dear Baldwin,
A merry Christmas to you from us both, and thanks for your cordial note and photograf. I am glad that Mrs.LETTERS RECEIVED
209
Cleveland is of my constituency, as she undoubtedly is of yours. I left your "Story" with my mother-in-law when I came away, with particular injunctions to study the account of the "motor type" in her dealings with my youngest son, who lives with her. Your comparison of the two types might have been a portrait from life of my oldest and youngest child.
But I wish that Cleveland were in public life again. It is a damning condemnation of our constitution that such a thing should be possible as his effacement—or Reid's.
Good success to you, W. J.
Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 27, 1897.
Dear Baldwin,
Blest if I know who could do the aesthetics. . . .
As for jurisprudence and law why not turn to President Cleveland, who must want a job, and who is going to be your neighbor? It would boom the Dictionary. . . .
Royce wrote to you about great things lately. I don't know yet which way the cat will jump. But keep up a devil of a thinking, and talking over things with Mrs. B., and although your trustees will doubtless offer herculean inducements, I still won't give up all hope that the dice may fall in such a way as to make us colleagues at last.
Always yours,
Wm. James.
January 10, '98.
Dear Baldwin,
You alarm me with your threat of sending proofs for me to look over for the Dictionary. Didn't I expressly decline to work for it?—I have a dim memory of agreeing to leave my name as consulting editor—though I am not sure—and210
BETWEEN TWO WARS
I also seem to remember that you told me that meant only giving advice as to who might be stuck for work.
Send me no proofs! I will return them unopened, and never speak to you again. As Mrs. Royce says: "Remove the cuticle from your own polecats," or get your entrapped victims to help you. I am of the eagle's race and free!
T-must be an irredeemable donkey.
Don't reply, to your W. J.
Hotel Windsor, Atlantic City, April 22, 1898.
Dear Baldwin,
Now let baseball and prize fights hangs their heads! For really exciting sport there is nothing like such a naval battle as now seems to be imminent. Have your read Carl Schurz in the last Harper's Weekly? The odd thing- about all the war-talk has been the absolute non-reference by any one to any possibilities more than a month distant in the future. Well, our blindness and instinctiveness in all this are only a measure of the greatness of our destiny, no doubt. The great thing will be the driving out of Spain and all affairs of manner, good or bad, are among the minutiae.
Yes, I am elected Gifford Lecturer at Edinboro' for the years 1899-1901. (Two courses of ten lectures each on Natural Religion). I have kept it out of the other papers, but the Psychological Review is entitled to it; as it is to the further fact that I am elected "Correspondent of the Institute" (Acad, des Sciences morales et politiques). . . Heaven save the mark. You see the Princeton LL. D. (which I know I owe to your personal kindliness) is designating meLETTERS RECEIVED
211
to the world as a hook to hang titles of honor on. They will abound the more in proportion to my growing imbecility.
Wm. James.
Cambridge, April 29, 1898.
Dear Baldwin,
Thanks for your flattering and genial note. It has just occurred to me that the great perquisite of being connected with the French Institute is that one gets an eloge funkbre! Just think of being born for that!
Always yours, W. J.
Cambridge, Dec. 26, 1898.
Dear Baldwin,
Thank you for your letter and the "Story," which I had not seen and which, from the little I have been able to read, seems perfectly stunning. I am surprised at what you write of guessing, however, in the Classics. My boy's trouble has been that he wouldn't guess until this year. Since then he goes on swimmingly and likes it—it is the soul of artistic and literary method and to taboo (it) plunges (you) right back into the dead dictionary which you also taboo. But this is one detail: the booklet seems free and vital in an extraordinary degree. I regret not to be at the meeting. . . . The program including the general biological day seems to me unusually good. I hope the Will-to-Believe discussion will succeed. The psychology of the matter is so simple that I don't see how you can escape slopping over into general methodology and even religion.
Ever truly yours,
Wm. James.212
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Cambridge, July 9, 1899.
Dear Baldwin,
The contrast you draw between the active and sensitive type in your "Story of the Mind" is one of the freshest pithiest things in all recent psychology. I am not sure of all of your positions—e. g. that the motor fellow runs to habit so predominantly—but those are trifles—the great thing being a perception on your part that combines a lot of familiar facts in a new unity, and creates a new subject to dispute about. You're a wonderful cuss.
I go off tired and with rather a heavy heart about my unwritten Giffords. But the Lord will take care of his servants ! . . .
With best regards to you both,
Always truly yours,
Wm. James.
No date [early in 1899].
Dear Baldwin,
Had I not labeled my article "The W(ill) to B(elieve)," had I entitled it a defense of faith or words to that effect, he would have been without a pretext for most of what he says. And in your remarks about guessing, etc., you also seem to be fighting a man of straw. In the abstract one may conceive a man pretending to himself to believe what he doesn't believe. There may be such men—the nearest approach I know to them is in those who out of obstinacy stick to a refuted position. The "will to believe" that I meant I called the "passional nature" in the only important passages of the essay. This is essentially a will of complaisance, assent, encouragement, toward a belief already there,—not of course an absolute belief, but such beliefsLETTERS RECEIVED
213
as any of us have, strong inclinations to believe but threatened. The inner process is a succession of "synthetic judgments." What is so good, may be, ought to be, must be, shall be—so far as I am concerned, I won't admit the opposite. In all the great hypotheses of life there is this parti pris, which from the inside is the completest concrete expression of the individual's life: but what, for the outside observer, is only a "guess." My contention is that the outside observer must keep his hands off and let the thing occur. Neither a priori rationalism nor authoritative scientism have any standard by which in a general precursive way they can divide the legitimate from the illegitimate guesses and say: "Thus far guess, but no further." And they have no means of knowing psychologically how sincere the guesser is or how adequate or inadequate the evidence to him may seem. It seems to me that your discussions on pp. 170-171 of F(eeling) and W(ill)—I find the whole chapter covered with my pencil-marks—is on the basis of too abstract and ideal a type of belief, as something complete. Belief in your sense of resolved doubt, is almost never complete, when its object is abstract. The only discussion which is of practical importance is discussion of probable things; and if any general laws of value can be laid down as binding individuals in their relations to such, I have yet to learn them. "Don't guess" would abolish three-fourths of life at a stroke; and probably condemn us in advance to lose the truth in most cases.
Surely your tabooing of guessing in Latin would kill the whole literary life of the pupil reading the author. The "guess" must be a "chance" affair viewed from without, and before the fact. After the fact, it may be "sympathetic divination," the only live thing in literature. Etc., etc., etc.
We seem to be getting into a rather verbal squabble. I am willing to give up the word "guess" provided you suggest a tertium quid, between that and going to the Dictionary.
What an awful thing it is to draw a man, by attacking his214
BETWEEN TWO WARS
opinions; you will probably feel bound to reply, and then I again, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
Truly yours,
Wm. James.
4 De Vere Gardens, London, W.
October 16, 1899.
Dear Baldwin,
I am delighted to hear from you and that your conditions are so prosperous. . . . My own heart is in bad shape. Just how bad I can't tell till I have had one or two more "cures" at Nauheim. Meanwhile my whole scheme of life is upset ... all effort and excitement—especially philosophical and political controversy—having to be avoided and, no "general society" indulged in. I can't go either to Oxford or Cambridge, and must depend on your not failing to call and see me when you come to town. I am in my brother's' old apartment which he has deserted for Rye, and from which a tenant may at any moment drive us. I hope not soon, for it is luxury incarnate compared with any "lodging" possibilities, and the light, for London, is very strong.
I think Schiller's article on M'g's book in "Mind" is too patronizing and could easily have been made more effectively destructive; for M's theories seem to me the most vulnerable things in the world. I don't regret a syllable of the S. P. R. Review, that particular article of M's being such a monumental exhibition of asininity.
You say that Sidgwick "waxes warm over the war." Pray let me know by post-card on which side. He can hardly be a rabid jingo. . . . Yet our Philippine business has shown how hard it is to predict the attitude of our dearest friends in these great sentimentalities.
How jolly it is for you to be free to concentrate yourself on the Dictionary. Like me with the Gifford lectures begunLETTERS RECEIVED
215
last Wednesday — and finished God knows when under present circumstances. This first course on the psychology is, I regret to say, perfunctory work—scissors and paste, as much as possible, tho' if I had the requisite learning it would be all the better for that. I should like to put myself in evidence in the second course and stand or fall by the record. Maybe I shall be spared to write it!
Pray give my love to Howison who, I hope, is well and happy and to Mrs. H. It is a matter of great grief to me not to be able to go down to see you all.
Ever affectionately yours,
Wm. James.
Lamb House, Rye, 9 Jan., 1900.
Dear Baldwin,
My trip to West Malvern, whither I was ordered after my course of baths, proved rather disastrous than otherwise, and I have been for three weeks recuperating here at my brother's. I am still weak and unable to make the slightest effort without cardiac symptoms. I am going to the south of France in a few days to get the benefits of more life in the open air. The doctors take a hopeful view of my case; but it needs a lot of passivity on my part to win through if I ever do so.
I need not say how extremely sorry I have been to spend all these weeks in England and see nobody. Particularly sensible have I been of this privation in your case. Of course I have sent in my resignation from the Gifford Lectures, and my only hope is that the committee will let me postpone them indefinitely. Goodbye, dear Baldwin. If I get sensibly better be assured that I will let you know.
Yours most truly and affectionately,
Wm. James.
Unable to write, I dictated this in duplicate to a number216
BETWEEN TWO WARS
of friends the other day. . . . Royce came here in fine shape. The Absolute must enjoy being him, less so being me. I hope he'll have reason to enjoy being you and Mrs. Baldwin for a long time to come.
Cambridge, October 23.
Without year [1900?]
Dear Baldwin,
I am on a committee to consider examinations here, especially the question of trusting the students' honor absolutely. I don't want to bother you about it, but is there anyone in the College whom you could get to tell me what preliminary steps were taken to get the students in favor of the movement. Did it originate in the faculty or in student petitions? What sort of encouragement of success, beyond general trust in human nature did the faculty have at the outset to build on? Have you a factotum or apostle or any sort of a creature, at Princeton, who would take great pleasure in sending me a little information for the use of our committee?
Truly yours,
Wm. James.
34 DeVere Gardens, W.
November 20, '99.
Dear Baldwin,
I return Miinsterberg's letter which repeats the substance of a long one I got from him a few days since, together with a still longer one from Palmer, all placing on me the burden of fighting his battle with Stout and Schiller. Merci bien! My heart absolutely forbids polemic excitement; even these letters are too much for it.
Of course, I deplore Schiller's remarks on M's English,LETTERS RECEIVED
217
which however true, are discourteous. His English, qua English, is pretty fearful; but considering his newness at it, is a remarkable achievement. The truth should not always be told in print. What surprises me is thfe very tragic way in which M. takes the matter. As editor of a Psychological Review, now frustrated of an article, you have the right to appear in the quarrel. All my rights I bequeath to you!
I have had a bad time since you were here, but within a few days things look more hopeful. . . .
Affectionately yours,
Wm. James.
(Dictated). (Post-card).
Chateau de Carquieranne, (Var), February 4, 1900.
Thank you very much for sending me Mind. I think you officiated in the M—g affair with great good taste. It was weak of M. to make so much of that point (which after all only served as a discharge for the whole mass of his accumulated peccant humours with S.) ; and S. might now have been a bit more gracious. ... I am curious to see how Hal-dane treats his book. If he gives an equally severe review, there won't be much amends. Yet I don't see how there can be an even decently favorable review of M's doctrines. . . . I am improving, tho' with extreme slowness in Richet's chateau. The climate here is simply glorious.
Good luck, W. J.
95 Irving St., Oct. 24, 1901.
Dear Baldwin,
It seems to me absurd to make a technical term of the218
BETWEEN TWO WARS
W(ill)-to-B(elieve). Would God I had never thought of that unhappy title for my essay, but called it a "Critique of Pure Faith!"
Why not define the Will-to-Swim, or to get rich, or to sit down? I can't define such a term differently from the way you have defined it. What I meant by the title was the state of mind of the man who finds an impulse in him toward a believing attitude, and who resolves not to quench it simply because doubts of its truth are possible. Its opposite would be the maxim: Believe in nothing which you can possibly doubt. Pray leave it out of your Dictionary. It can't be treated technically and has been the source of utter misunderstanding of my essay. If that couldn't explain the title, what could?
Ever truly yours,
Wm. James.
[Without date, 1903].
Dear Baldwin,
No go! I'm very sorry, but celebrations are not for me. I hate to say no so much. This A. M. a man came to beg for a preface to his book on lynching—immediately after came one to get me to lecture at the Grenacre School. Yesterday, an invitation to give a course in N. Y. on Charity Organization (!!!!) And so on. So my "no" function gets developed, and it must be the same with you.
I am very sorry to have missed Ward—the one man of the Congress whom I really wanted and needed to see; but you have had the whole of him.
As for you and me it is really sad the way we never talk to each other now. Glenmore would have been the place, but neither of us went.
Hoffding is staying with us. A dear old boy. The JanetsLETTERS RECEIVED
219
and Lloyd Morgan come next week. You see we shall not die of solitude.
Best regards to Mrs. B.
Yours ever truly,
Wm. James.
Cambridge, July 3, '03.
Dear Baldwin,
I am sorry to hear your animadversions on the spirit now ruling at Princeton. I had supposed that, with you tipping the wedge, all things were growing more liberal and lati-tudinarian. It is slow work apparently in certain milieux. We, here find it hard to credit the existence of theology in any shape, anywhere.
You ought to stay and fight it out and not abandon the place to the enemy.
As to the hist, of mental pathology, I regret to say "non possum." I am little by little clearing my life of all odd jobs, so as to be able to do what I vitally wish to, ere the destroyer comes. I have just got some obstructions out of the way and feel extraordinarily hearty and hopeful in consequence, intending, as soon as I get back to Cho-corua (next Tuesday) to write the first sentence of my system of philosophy already composed in my head as follows:
"Philos'y is a queer thing, at once the most sublime and the most contemptible of human occupations" (!)
Yours always truly,
Wm. James.220
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Lamb House, Rye, April 2, 1910.
Dear Baldwin,
Your friendly note of the —th has come. My wife is with me and we are to remain here—my brother being ill—till near the end of the month, when I expect to move to Paris for a week or more to try the high frequency currents of a certain Dr. Moutier, on my arterial tension, 'ere I proceed to Nauheim. We have promised the Boutroux, who were our guests during their stay in Cambridge, to be theirs at the Institut Thiers, while we are in Paris. He is the gentlest of all philosophic characters, nicht wahr? But I beseech you to make no social or junketing engagements for me. I am in such poor shape pectorally, that dyspnoea and angenoid pain follow all animated conversation, and I know that the necessary interviews that I shall have at Boutroux' will be about all that I can stand. If Moutier gives me the positive relief which he has already given to a friend of mine it will be another matter, and I shall then "accept with pleasure" whatever you may propose. Meanwhile I am postponing all activity, social or ambulatory, till the fruits of the summer "cures" shall be seen. I will of course notify you the date of our approach. With cordial regard to you all from us both I am ever truly yours,*
Wm. James.
6 Ave Matignon, Paris, January 23, 1910.
My dear James,
Most hearty and sincere congratulations of the splendid honor conferred on you by the Academie des sciences morales et politiques here. It is well deserved, as all the country will testify. You bring distinction to all of us, and
' See Above (Vol. I, p. 00) on the last visit of W. J. to Paris.William James. Portrait given the writer by the novelist, Henry James. See the text, Vol. I, p. 174, also Vol. II, p. 295.LETTERS RECEIVED
221
we rejoice as your friends. I have known through our common acquaintances here of the likelihood of it. You and "Teddy" are now the two American Associates of this Academy; of the two my sympathies are with you! . . .
... I send you a note, in copy, which I am just getting off to Pillsbury in view of the action proposed at the Psych. Ass. meeting in Boston with view to discouraging the coming of the Inter. Congress of Psychol, to the U. S. in 1913. I had intended to write you before to say that I was put in along with you and that later on we could go into the questions of time, place, etc. 1913 is a long way off. But I also wanted to tell you something of the details of fact connected with the organization of the new bureau.
In the first place, the Congress was informally committed to the American plan by the earlier Congress at Rome. Then some Americans at Geneva, notably your friend Morton Prince, got up a petition to the Congress to select the U. S. instead of Budapest, from which a formal invitation was received. I did not sign this petition; but it was fairly representative and the Congress decided on coming to us. You and I were decided upon as the two Presidents, by the old bureau, and the choice of colleagues was left largely to me. I suggested Titchener and Fullerton as v-Presidents, and Sanford as Secy.—a representative set of men. But Strong who was there (as also Fullerton) asked the committee to reconsider and substitute Cattell for Fullerton. The demand was made with such insistence that it amounted to a threat to boycott the Congress on the part of Columbia University. So I of course gave way, and Cattell was made Vice-President. Sanford declined to serve as Sec. and Watson was named in his place.
You will see from this and from my note to Pillsbury that the thing was "put up" to me, in a way, and that I am not at all enamoured of it. I should prefer you to be "President222
BETWEEN TWO WARS
effectif." Or if you think best we can decline to have it, and recommend that the invitation to Budapest be accepted still. . . .
I am in full touch with the Paris crowd of psychologists and philosophers and find the company most congenial. Boutroux is beaming with joy at the prospect of coming to you. I am making progress with my angry throat, and hope to get on my feet again in time. I find this liberty a fine form of "academische Freiheit" and my "Genetic Logic" is profiting by the leisure I have from lectures.
With kindest regards as always to you and yours,
J. Mark Baldwin.III.
Letters from Various Correspondents
1888-1903
Toronto, 8th. June, 1892.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
I wish to thank you for your pleasant letter of May 20th, when Mrs. Baldwin and yourself were in the Parisian Elisium.
To deal with business matters first. I have seen both the Chancellor and the Minister of Education. The latter is fully prepared to comply with your wishes, as to advertising, and the Chancellor distinctly recognizes that the choice of an assistant must rest with you, if a fitting man can be had on the very moderate terms at present available. I confidently trust that the right man may be found and that we shall have the psychophysical laboratory in full and effective work in October.
I am sorry that Mrs. Baldwin is not with us this week; for we are to hold the University Convocation with unusual eclat. The pavilion in the horticultural gardens has been secured; and the proceedings under the conduct of the Chancellor will be carried on with all academic formality and undergraduate demonstrations. However, I trust that Mrs. Baldwin and yourself will grace many future "Commencements," and meanwhile the charms of the continental tour will throw into the shade any attractions we can hope to offer. Your intercourse with leading European psychologists will be a special source of pleasure and to us all of profit.
In one of the "Academy" nos. of last month your later volume receives a very discriminating and appreciative notice. When you compare notes with the German metaphysicians and
223224
BETWEEN TWO WARS
wind up with the philosophers of Edinburgh and Dublin, we shall expect you to bloom out in brilliant efflorescence, wedding the ideal with the real, and winning new triumphs in the old paths of Plato.
I was at Ottawa last week at the annual meeting of our Royal Society. We had a pleasant gathering and did some good work. . . .
I suppose the world will be wiser in the 20th Century. "Knowledge grows but wisdom lingers." But the world does not stand still. Kindest greetings to Mrs. Baldwin,
Faithfully yours,
Daniel Wilson.
[President of the University of Toronto.]
2 Kensington Park Gardens, London, Dec. 4, 1890.
Dear Sir,
I was very sorry to hear of your calamity by fire. Seeing that a movement has been started here to procure books for the library, I had thought, before getting yours of March 22, of offering a few from my own shelves; and have so far been kept from transmitting any to the collectors chiefly by absence from town at Easter—though I also have had some doubts whether the books I put aside (mainly mathematical and classical) were particularly worth the trouble of sending. It had not occurred to me, as it might have done, that a set of "Mind" could hardly fail to be welcomed.
I am the possessor of a complete spare set, and after your account, am not indisposed to present it to the University of Toronto's library. I have been keeping it by me in waiting for some worthy recipient, and none more worthy is likely to present itself. Do not be surprised at that way of putting it; for there is probably not another set anywhere to be had. Of No. 3 by itself the publishers have long had no copy left in stock,Sir Daniel Wilson, President of the University of Toronto. 1890.LETTERS RECEIVED
225
nor have they any copy of Vol. 1., No. 3, when by chance it can be got hold of, always fetches a very high price, and hardly less scarce are Nos. 4 and 7.
The gift shall then come, but not from the publishers—who are besides mere agents for distributing the Review and have no other interest in it.
I shall proceed to make enquiries as far as I may be able, as to means of transmitting the volumes by way of the collecting committee here; but in case I may not be able (owing to other occupations) to get the transmission arranged for before I can hear from you in reply to this, I will ask you to send me such directions as will best insure your speedy obtaining the volumes. There are fourteen of them bound uniformly in cloth.
I was sorry that there should not have been a more adequate notice of the first volume of your "Handbook." I could not (working as I am with strength reduced by ill-health) overtake it myself, as I had hoped, and had to content myself with certain modifications of a note furnished me by a contributor who, I do not mind telling you, was Mr. T. Whittaker,—though you should not make any use of the fact.
Truly yours,
G. Croom Robertson.
[English philosopher, Editor of Mind.]
University of Edinburgh, April 21, 1891.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
I thank you much for your kind letter. I should have thanked you sooner for lectures and articles which I have read with much interest and advantage. I find much in common with my own aims in what you say, and look with hope and high expectation to your influence on philosophic thought in America.
For myself, I am about to retire from the active duties of226
BETWEEN TWO WARS
the chair which I have occupied for 35 years, and look to the appointment of a successor say in the early summer.
I have already retreated into a country home at Gorton, in classic Hawthornden, where I shall be glad to see you, if your movements should bring you within reach of it.
I trust that your university continues to flourish under the benignant care of my old and much valued friend Sir Daniel Wilson to whom please (words illegible).
With best thanks, I am very truly yours,
A. Campbell Fraser.
[Scottish philosopher, Professor at Edinburgh.]
Aberdeen, 13 Jan. 1893.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
I received your letter of 14th August, and regretted that we had not had opportunity of talking over the points that you raised. I feel, however, that I can not enter fully into the controverted issues without seeing in extenso your paper as read at the Congress. I should like to consider again your detailed observations and experiments in order to satisfy myself of the need of a third primordial assumption in accounting for our voluntary activities.
I have already illustrated at length what I term the "fixed idea," and the acting out of an idea once suggested to the mind, and either I should have to enlarge and correct this hypothesis or adopt some entire new assumption at present overlooked.
Yours faithfully,
A. Bain.
[Scottish psychologist, Professor at Aberdeen.]
Aberdeen, 13th May, '94.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
In answer to yours of 15th December last, I am now able to say that in my new edition of "The Senses, etc," I have modifiedLETTERS RECEIVED
227
the statement on "Imitation" in accordance with what I infer as to the bearings of heredity.
I regret that I can not afford the labour, in my diminished strength, to say what I think of your paper in Mind for January, as well as your other papers. ... I am now engaged in putting a finish upon my work in Philosophy so as to hand on the torch to my successors.
Believe me with good wishes,
Yours truly,
A. Bain.
Keene, Essex Co., N. Y. May 12th, 1893.
Professor J. Mark Baldwin,
Dear Sir,
Schurman having resigned from the chairmanship of the "Committee on Foreign Correspondence" of the Philosophical Department of the World's Fair Auxiliary, I have been appointed in his place, and the foreign correspondence now accordingly, falls upon you and me. We must do our best. We shall hardly get foreign professors to come and lecture to us, but we might get a few of them to send us papers, I think. Will you write a personal appeal to some of them, and to whom? I will take charge of the Germans and Italians, if you will take the English, Scotch and French.
Could you not run down for a Sunday and see me here in this glorious wilderness? I could make it pleasant for you, I think, and we might together work up something worthy for the Fair. . . . Couldn't you give us some lectures here next summer ? Dr. Murray has been two summers with us, and seems to have enjoyed himself. We shall have a fine collection of philosophers here this summer.228
BETWEEN TWO WARS
[The Glenmore summer school was conducted by Davidson.]
I am yours truly,
Thomas Davidson.
[American writer and philosopher.]
Paris, April 21, 1892.
(Translated). Dear Sir,
You arrive in Paris at a moment when hypnotism is very largely abandoned. At least six months ago the majority of serious workers, who formerly occupied themselves with it, reached the conclusion that it was being misused, and that it would be well to give it a rest for a time.
Of course, there are others who continue to occupy themselves with it, and it would be easy for me to introduce you to them: but they are subject to caution.
Nevertheless, I send a card of introduction to Professor Charcot (who himself gives the subject the least attention possible).
If you care to make the voyage to Nancy (where hypnotism is still flourishing) nothing would be easier than to give you introductions to Bernheim, Liegeois, and others.
If you would like to talk over these matters, you are sure to find me at the bureau of the Revue philosophique. . . .
Very sincerely yours,
Th. Ribot.
[French psychologist, Professor in the College de France.]
College of New Jersey, Princeton, N. J.
February 13, 1893.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
You will hear officially, if you have not already heard from the Rev. Dr. Craven, regarding the action of the Trustees concerning yourself.LETTERS RECEIVED	229
They created, first, the new chair which is to be known as the Stuart Professorship of Experimental Psychology, and then unanimously elected you as the first incumbent of it. . . .
I feel of course the great responsibility that devolves upon teachers of philosophy, and I regard it as a sine qua non that any one who teaches philosophy in Princeton College should be in full intellectual sympathy with evangelical Christianity as a miraculous revelation of God, and that he should not hold a philosophy that is incompatible with this position. It was my confidence in you as thus regarded, in addition to your work in Psychology, that led me to think of you for the place now offered you.
Please let me hear from you as to your acceptance of the chair as soon as you conveniently can, and believe me,
Very faithfully yours,
Francis L. Patton.
[President of Princeton University.]
Springdale, Princeton, 19 Sept., 1903. My dear Professor Baldwin,
It saddens me to hear of your leaving Princeton. The loss to the university is simply irreparable. I shall always be proud of the fact that I was the means of bringing you to Princeton and that I secured the endowment of your chair.
I have made no secret of my personal regard for you and my great admiration of your genius; and in saying that you hold a large place in my affection and esteem, I am only saying what you have known long ago. That affection and esteem will follow you to Baltimore, and I can only hope that you will have as pleasant recollections of the days when we were colleagues, as I shall always have.
With kindest regards to Mrs. Baldwin,
I am very faithfully yours,
Francis L. Patton.230
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Princeton, N. J. March 27, 1893.
My dear Baldwin,
I am looking forward to your advent in Princeton with a great deal of pleasure. I am not fretting in the least under my share of the responsibility for that event, and as to the "talking to death" process two can work at that. I think when we combine our forces, we will be able to give philosophy a boom and keep Princeton well to the front in the contemporary movements.
I do not dispute your claim to the whole catalogue of virtues in giving up the shorter term for the longer one. When I think of the six months' vacation at Toronto, I almost feel disposed to regret that I didn't at an earlier stage in the proceedings propose to swap places with you. I find the vacations here all too short for the work I should like to crowd into them.
My manuscript is finished, but "there is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip," and I can not say when it will be inflicted on a long-suffering public. The point you mention is a valid criticism of the first draft of the treatise but I modified some points quite materially. ... I think I succeeded in synthetizing the categories of immanence and transcendence. The elements of originality in the book are, as I conceive it, its central principle, the Logos and the doctrine of the negative, or non-being, which is the pou sto against the Hegelian pantheism. If the work is noticed at all, I expect it to be torn to pieces by the critics. But I have some batteries yet in reserve.
The house question is the serious one here. The supply is not equal to the demand and within a year or two rents have become exorbitant. I hope you will be able to locate pleasantly. But you may have to. wait some time.
Yours very sincerely,
A. T. Ormond.
[Professor in Princeton University.]LETTERS RECEIVED
231
29 rue Madame, Paris. October 5, 1894.
(Translation) My dear Friend,
Getting home after a short absence, I find your letter and at the same time the number of the "Psychological Review" which I lacked. Let me express to you the great satisfaction I feel, at the way the Review is edited. I find it extremely interesting. The "American Journal" is also an excellent review, but its articles are too long—a very unfortunate thing, for one should always preserve the distinction between the magazine and the book; the former should contain short and suggestive resumes. We have the proof of this, I may say, in the "Review" of Brown-Sequard which has always been generally read, and you know why? Because Brown-Sequard imposed a maximum of ten pages upon all his contributors, even upon members of the Institute.
In the two last issues of the "Psychological Review" I find something very spicy [piquant]. There are reviews of the work of Sollier by Wm. James and by Gardiner. I myself think that this work contains many experimental faults, and Gardiner has brought this out very well; but James has not perceived it, because the conclusion of the work is favorable to his own theory. I think that James, if I may allow myself the remark, will later on be the first to smile at his own optimism.
You ask me for accounts of work done here. Alas, very little good psychological work is appearing in France. I have before me five or six volumes of which I might send you an analysis, but it would be with a deep disgust. Why, I ask myself, are they published. Our French public does not buy books on experimental psychology, having taste only for metaphysics, ethics, sociology and notably bluff [la blague] !232
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Do you want a notice of "La Famille neuropathique" of Fere?
Faithfully yours,
Alfred Binet.
[Professor in the ficole des Hautes fitudes, Paris.]
103 Irving Street, Cambridge, Mass. July 9, '95.
Dear Prof. Baldwin,
You may indeed be thinking me a worthless being, and so perhaps I am. But I have had to contend with a long siege of illness in my household. On June 18, just as my college work was completed and I was free, as I hoped, to pass over to the long-needed undertakings which included the revision of the article on "Self-consciousness" and the preparation of the book-reviews—Mrs. Royce met with a bad bicycle accident. She fell, namely, from the bicycle as it sloughed in rounding a curve, and her left leg was broken some inches above the ankle—both bones. She was quite expert and was doing nothing out of the common when the unaccountable slip came. Since then, the house has been full of care, which has included some illness on the part of the children, much alteration of the domestic service and the constant call on my own very inefficient powers as manager and general steward. Nurses, doctors, and the rest of the crew have passed in procession through the house, and as for me, in view of the natural capriciousness of domestic service at such times, I have had to "keep a dog and do my own barking," wherever the details of the domestic service were concerned.
Now this is nothing for me to complain of, on my own account. My poor wife has to bear the real trouble, and she does so with admirable cheerfulness and courage, and is doing well. The accident was an absolutely unpreventable one, and athleticLETTERS RECEIVED	233
accidents are always honorable mishaps, flavored with a certain glory. Only—one can't lose sleep o'nights, and watch closely all day, and do one's psychological duties too. Moreover, there had been illness in the house before this particular trouble, and the whole thing had proved pretty distracting. However, we now see light ahead and seem to be coming out very well.
At the moment, then I can only send you my paper unrevised. If it is not too bad, print it at your pleasure. I shall be here till at least August 15. Send proofs accordingly.
I did not write to express my sympathy for your personal affliction when I heard of it. I always feel how vain are mere words. I felt for you; and now feeling as I do how hopelessly inefficient, for professional duties, my present cares are just now making me, I feel also a great reverence for the unflagging way in which you seem to do all your work, despite your often delicate health and your various personal troubles. You are a marvel of true energy. But I am—what I am—a very useless sort of dabbler.
Yours very truly,
Josiah Royce.
[Professor in Harvard University.]
103 Irving Street, Cambridge, Mass. June 20, 1897.
Dear Baldwin:—
With many delays, due to the exigencies of the examination period, I have at length read your paper,—with pleasure and profit, as I need hardly say. I agree, of course, very largely. Excuse the following hasty comments, written under much pressure of cares.
As to criticism, I may speak first of the minor matters of the exposition. Your terminology is, I think, sometimes a little puzzling. The term "self-thought-situation" despite the pretty234
BETWEEN TWO WARS
full explanation that precedes the use of the compound, is of a type always questionable, I think, in English. As a matter of the logic of relatives, any compound of three members has to be, in form, ambiguous. Our rule in compounds, such as warehouse, or washtub, is that the first member involves a qualification of the second by setting the second member in relations which the first indicates. But if there are three members, what is the modifier, and what the modified? The combination a-b-c can be read either as a- (b-c) or as (a-b) -c, and the "relative multiplication" here involved is not of the "associative type." Or your term, in the present case, can mean either a "situation" somehow modified by a "self-thought," or a "thought-situation" somehow qualified by, or related to, a "self." I myself am not sure which you mean. And each alternative opens the door to several interpretations of its own precise implication. I dread the compounds, freshly manufactured in English, more and more as I grow older. They are nests of vagueness in case anybody but the first coiner of them gets to using them. The word "method," as used in the first part of the paper suggests, rather frequently, "method of social science," instead of what you of course mean, viz., the type of functioning peculiar to social activities. I say the word has the former of these as its first and customary suggestion whenever your context doesn't directly fix attention on what you mean. Couldn't "type of function" be, at least sometimes substituted?
The latter half of the paper is perhaps a little too condensed, and has to be read twice to get the force. But I suppose that this is a good fault. . . -1
The "lectures" are to be the Gifford,—not the Hibbert lectures,—at Aberdeen, in the academic years 1898-9, and 1899-1900. The subjects are not yet more closely defined. Thanks for your interest.—Congratulations too upon your very bril-
1 A passage of this letter—here following—has been cited in the present writer's "Social and Ethical Interpretations."LETTERS RECEIVED
235
liant success in the prize-contest. We shall all be very proud to see the completed volume.
You see, I am not yet producing fast on the Dictionary. But now vacation is fairly begun. From now on I pledge some working hours of each free time to your task, until something has been done. Only, at the instant, I feel very tired. I must wait until about July 4 or 5, before getting back from a short journey that I shall take for rest, and cannot work at all until then. Please bear with me a little. Our official tasks have been very complex and severe of late.
Yours very truly,
Josiah Royce.
[Postcard.]
Copenhagen, April 10, 1897.
Dear Sir,
It was to me a very great pleasure to discover you as the author of the paper which has won the prize of our Academy. I have learned very much from your beautiful work, which is an important continuation of your Mental Development in the Child and the Race. Your paper was the only one "crowned" of nine. The others were, four Danish, two German, and two French. I remember with pleasure the evening I spent with you and Mrs. Baldwin here in Copenhagen and I am with best congratulations and compliments,
Truly yours,
Harald Hoffding.
[Danish Philosopher.]
Copenhagen, May 18, 1897.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
I think you have now seen the report and the criticisms which we have added to our acknowledgment of your work. The psychogenetic parts of the paper are very good and interesting,236
BETWEEN TWO WARS
but the special ethical consequences ought certainly to be more explicitly and specially described. I should wish to see the several possibilities for a conflict between the individual and society distinguished and classified. You have already given valuable suggestions in this respect, but it would be very interesting to have the discussion carried through. I had the impression that the paper was a psychological treatise which—on behalf of the ethical consequences of the results—was given as an answer to an ethical question. In the committee there was some scruple owing to this circumstance but we came to an agreement because the ethical consequences were easy to draw.
The members of the committee were Mr. Goos (our most eminent jurist, former member of the government), Professor Kroman (author of a valuable book on "Our Cognition of- Nature," etc.,) and myself.
The recipient had no claim to any title nor to other predication. Philosophical questions are proposed at intervals of two years. Fifteen years ago Professor Kroman won the medal, and later on Dr. Alfred Lehman. In earlier years (I believe in 1811) Maine de Biran had the medal for a psychological question, and in 1840 Schopenhauer had answered an ethical question, but the medal was not given him,—certainly because the committee did not see the great importance of his treatise "Uber die Grundlage der Moral." Our Academy was founded in 1742.
Before I had finished the reading of your "Socius," I guessed that you were the author. I could see the relationship with the thoughts in your books. What I myself have learned from you is in the first place the useful conception of the individual and society as two social forces. Indeed I have in my "Ethics" some related ideas, but you have made the matter appear in a much more evident manner. I shall be glad to see your paper as a book.LETTERS RECEIVED
237
Believe me with most cordial feeling and with my best compliments to Mrs. Baldwin,
Yours very truly,
Harald Hoffding.
Copenhagen, Oct. 20, 1913.
Dear Colleague and Friend,
Though I have not yet perused the interesting book you have been kind enough to send me, I will not put off to thank you sincerely for your kind letter and for the precious present which accompanies it. I have found in your book the important ideas which I had the pleasure to meet already in your work in which you gave so excellent an answer to the prize-question of our Academy. I believe you have given us a good method for treating the History of Psychology. . . .
I thank you also for your sympathy with the celebration of my 70th anniversary. I am as yet in full academic work but I am not sure that a new productivity will appear. There is also so much to learn before sunset that I shall have enough to do so long as I can keep my physical and psychical forces in full actuality.
I was glad to meet you and Mrs. Baldwin at Geneva some years ago, and I beg you to accept my warmest greetings and thanks."
Yours sincerely,
Harald Hoffding.
2102 Pine Street, Philadelphia, July 10, 1895.
Prof. Baldwin,
Dear Sir:—
Your letter interests me, and you are correct in supposing that Dr. Newbold is reviewing your book—for the American Naturalist. The review in fact has just appeared in the July number.
8 See also below p. 343.238
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The parallel columns to which you refer were first published by me in an essay on Alfred Russel Wallace contained in the annual volume of the Brooklyn Ethical Society for 1891. The first statement of my views on the subject which were specific, was made in a lecture before the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia in 1874. In 1878 I extended the proposition in another lecture, which was published in the American Naturalist for 1878. These and several other papers bearing on the matter were republished in "The Origin of the Fittest," (Appleton, 1887) which is probably in your library. I refer you especially to one (p. 390) entitled "Consciousness in Evolution."
I must read your book in the light of your letter to be able to answer your question intelligently. I shall do so so soon as I get hold of the copy now in Dr. Newbold's hands. Your phrase "Organic Selection" sounds a little vague, and as though it is not intended to discriminate conscious from unconscious states. But on reading your book I may understand it better.
I take great interest in the metaphysical (psychological) side of evolution, and may have something to say on the subject later. I hope you will favor me with copies of any papers of yours on this question that you can spare.
The columns may be and probably are held in a mixed form by particular persons. I believe, however, that if mind had a hand in the matter, the preformists are wrong.
Very truly yours,
E. W. Cope.
[American Biologist.]
2102 Pine Street, Philadelphia, April 9, 1896.
Dear Prof. Baldwin,
Your manuscript is at hand and will go into the May Naturalist. I may be able to get a reply in to follow it immediately.
There is one point in which you give a incorrect impression.LETTERS RECEIVED
239
From your remark about Dr. Minot you appear to think that he is a Weissmannian. But at the Springfield meeting of the A. A. A. S., he attacked and repudiated this doctrine in vigorous language. He disagrees with me also, though he has not given reasons that I can understand. His difficulty is with the inheritance, but he offers no alternative. So with most embryolo-gists. They object to extant theories and offer nothing else. Probably Minot means embryologists when he says "biologists" in his letter. The fact is that paleontologists are all (so far as I know) Lamarckians, and they are also biologists. I may add that I know no embryologist who is a thorough Weissmannian at present, though they all were a few years ago.
When Prof. Osborn says the Lamarckians have no theory of heredity, I reply that no one else has any either in any more exact sense!
Very truly yours,
E. W. Cope.
New York, Feb. 20, 1896.
Dear Baldwin,
I have taken advantage of a quiet evening to go over the ground again. Upon more carefully studying Montgomery I do not think he anticipates us. Also more careful study of your "Mental Development" appears to show that you do not bring out the idea here—as clearly as I at first thought. I believe now, with you, that the first clear statement of the idea was your discussion in connection with instinct—I should call it a clear suggestion perhaps. At the present moment I believe Morgan and myself were loaded with facts—and I had been (I remember) hammering away at him upon determinate variation and autogenic adaptation ever since he landed in New York.
Morgan first broached the new interpretation idea to me in discussions at Dr. Dean's house, during a game of billiards. I interrupted him or said, "Yes, that is exactly what I have been240
BETWEEN TWO WARS
coming to." He evidently thought it was an entirely original idea with him—and I remember distinctly the feeling that it was remarkable we should have independently reached this conclusion. We discussed it pretty thoroughly and neither of us recurred to your instinct discussion—but a few days later when Graf's paper came up I referred in the criticism I made of it both to Morgan and yourself. Alluding to your views as something similar. I am inclined to think now that unconsciously I was more influenced by what you had said—than I was aware of. I know very well that, if I had received a clear impression of your views—you rather than Morgan would have been uppermost in my mind.
It thus seems to me that your discussion must have influenced both Morgan and myself. I will look up your discussion again as reported in Science. I did not read it at the time but I remember that the word Social Heredity caught my eye and my mind. The Trans, of the N. Y. Academy of Sciences are in the College Library, at least I have frequently seen them there. If not sent, kindly let me know and I will instruct our Librarian to send them on —or I can possibly arrange the exchange.
Yours sincerely,
Henry F. Osborn.
[Professor in Columbia University.]
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., May 11, 1897.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Your kind letter with valued expressions of interest in my work and papers just received.
I have just been looking over Delage's theory again—and I am surprised to see how closely it resembles yours—yet clearly independent. The essence of your theory as a distinctive one lies, I take it, in accounting for phylogenetic change in the direction of individual adaptations—accommodations—withoutLETTERS RECEIVED
241
resorting to the inheritance of acquired characters. . . . Might not your theory be called in full—"organic selection, or the survival of the accommodating"—this would indicate also a certain ethical bearing of the theory. . . .
Would it not be possible to subject your theory to experiment? I have myself thought of some practical experiments. . . .
I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Chas. B. Davenport.
[Professor in Harvard University.]
12 Park Lane, W. London, July 25, (1898?).
My dear Sir,
I am much obliged by the proof of the article on Organic Selection which arrived this morning. I have read it carefully two or three times and confess that I am a good deal puzzled. . . . There surely needs no list of persons who admit the self-evident fact that a beneficial adaptation (individual) may hold a race up against competition and destruction until a congenital variation of the same form has had time to appear and be selected.
The only interesting thing in that connection is the examination of instances where such appears to have been the history. . . .
The kind of case I can imagine is the individual adaptation of integument to resist pressure—by formation of corns or callosities—ultimately superseded by congenital thickenings selected and perfected.
It seems to me that the reverse process goes on in the history of the brain—congenital mechanism of a definitely useful but limited quality being replaced by brains relatively free from242
BETWEEN TWO WARS
congenital fixed mechanism but capable of ever-increasing individual adaptation (educability).
Of course, the recognition of the possible coincidence of the structural results of individual adaptation with those of congenital variation and selection is of importance in dealing with the cases put forward as evidence in favor of the transmission of acquired characters; but the facts and possibilities are in no way suggested by the term Organic Selection. . . . Isolation, the climatic conditions, a gregarious habit, abortion of wings or eyes, must also in some cases have delayed destructive action until congenital variation offered a field for natural selection and so a race resulted no longer needing isolation, or given climate, or gregariousness, or flightlessness or blindness. . . .
Pray forgive my somewhat abrupt and out-spoken words. I enclose something for you to attack en revanche.
Yours very truly,
E. Ray Lankester.
[English Zoologist.]
British Museum, Cromwell Road, London, S. W., Aug. 22nd, 1898.
My dear Prof. Baldwin,
I am very much obliged to you for your letter and for kindly sending me the book (Groos) on Play. I think you will not find it possible to get people to refer to the coincidence of selection acting on a congenital variation—with previous direct adaptation—by the large term Organic Selection; and it seems to me that it would be wise to give a more appropriate name to the phenomenon at once. Unless I am mistaken as to the significance of the word "principle," there is no "principle" new or old involved in the fact noted, namely coincidence.
Sincerely yours,
E. Ray Lankester.LETTERS RECEIVED
243
(Translated)
Paris, June 10, 1898.
Dear Colleague,
But for an illness I should have replied some days ago to your letter, which caused me a real joy. I am happy to see that, all misunderstanding being removed as between us, we can now collaborate together for the advancement of the science to which we are devoted. Not only am I not surprised that by your independent researches you have come as I have to consider imitation as the corner stone of sociology, but rather I am surprised that the evidence of this truth has not struck other minds. For me when I conceived the first outline of my theory, I was so convinced of the impossibility of building a social science on any other basis and of the power of truth to assert itself, that I took no trouble to spread my ideas. I was living near Sharlot, a village of 6,000 souls, without any intellectual relations; knowing no one in the press, I could not count on any articles de complaisance, and yet I never doubted a single instant that the truth would establish itself in the long run. And I was not wrong. . . . Still it remains yet to make it known in many countries where they refuse to see it, as in Italy, for example. I am convinced that by supporting each other, as I for my part am quite disposed to do, we can give a decisive impulsion to our theory, and establish its preponderance over the mass of incoherent sociological suggestions which are falling over one another and which only excite in the public a real disgust with the infant science.
I am having printed just now a resume of my lectures given at the College libre des sciences sociales under the title, Esquisse d'une Sociologie. I will send it to you in two or three months, as soon as it appears. I am also gathering into a volume a series244
BETWEEN TWO WARS
of articles under the title Etudes de Psychologie sociale, which I will also send you.
Believe, dear sir, in my sentiments of sincere sympathy.
Tarde.
[French Sociologist.]
(Translated)
Paris, June 10, 1898.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
I am happy to learn that in the second edition of your work Social and Ethical Interpretations you propose to indicate clearly the agreement of your views with mine. I grant very gladly the authorization that you ask for, to reproduce in your preface the passage from one of my letters to you, the passage you cite in yours to me.
In my little volume on Les Lois sociales (which I recommend to you) I have spoken of you and indicated our accord. I have only been able to say a word seeing the character of that little work in which I abstained from citing names. ... In my Etudes de Psychologie sociale, another volume appearing at the same time, I regret that, being only a reproduction of earlier articles, no mention is made of your work. Believe, etc., etc.,
Tarde.
East Las Vegas, New Mexico, October 16, 1902.
Prof. J. M. Baldwin, Dear Sir,
I have been reading your excellent work on "Development of Evolution," and have written a notice of it for the Dial, which, though necessarily inadequate, will I hope arouse the interest of some readers.LETTERS RECEIVED
245
In connection with the theory of Organic Selection (I would rather call it Indirect Selection) it seems to me that we might recognize definitely what I propose to call Directive Characters and Directive Individuals. I would define these terms thus:— Directive Characters are congenital characters which influence the direction of adaptive modifications, and thus are of high value for selection, not because of their immediate importance, but because of the outcome of the changes they initiate.
Example: A boy may have an inclination for a certain pursuit, this is something born with him, an inherited tendency merely, and is of no value for selection at the time; it may even be detrimental. But this tendency starts a set of adaptive modifications, which finally make the individual very fit to survive. Thus those will survive who manifested a character in the past, which was then of no value. Directive Individuals. Individuals who influence the direction of the evolution or social modification of the race, and thus become of high value for the selection of the race, though during their lifetime they were of no value, or may have been detrimental as producers of discord. Example: The early abolitionists; the early republicans. I write very briefly, being very busy today, but I believe I have made myself clear. If you think these suggestions of value, you might send them to "Science" (or elsewhere as you may prefer), with such comments as occur to you.
Your book suggests many thoughts; but I fear I should weary you by describing them all!
Yours very truly,
Theo. D. A. Cockerell.
[American biologist.]246	BETWEEN TWO WARS
Parkstone, Dorset, August 15, 1902.
Dear Sir,
I thank you for sending me your work on Development and Evolution. Being more than usually occupied just now I have only been able to look at certain chapters which especially interest me. Your account of Organic Selection, as originated by yourself and Lloyd Morgan, is very clear and I have no doubt is occasionally a real factor in evolution. But I do not think that it is an important or even an essential one. I am myself so impressed by the extreme rigidity of natural selection in keeping up each species to a high standard of adaptability to its environment, and also with the very great range of variation always present in every dominant and wide ranging species (and it is from these alone that new species are produced) that all the arguments of H. Spencer and others as to the impossibility of coincident variations of the right kind occurring when required seem to me purely verbal objections not warranted by the facts of nature. This view is enforced in the various chapters on The Theory of Evolution in my "Studies Scientific and Social," vol. 1.
One other subject I will refer to. On p. 145 you refer to the controlling force of intelligence on evolution in man, which has become mental instead of physical. I believe I was the first to put forth this view nearly forty years ago in my paper on The Development of Human Races (Anthropological Review, 1864) and republished in my "Natural Selection and Tropical Nature," Chap. 8, where it will be found to be enforced by a considerable amount of reasoning which has never been replied to.
Believe me,
Yours very truly,
Alfred R. Wallace.
[English Naturalist.]LETTERS RECEIVED
247
The Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne, May 17th, 1910.
Prof. J. M. Baldwin, Dear Sir,
My friend Prof. E. B. Poulton writes me that I have not acknowledged the receipt of your book "Development and Evolution" [rather "Darwin and the Humanities"]3 which you were so good as to send me. I have ever since been under the impression that I did acknowledge its receipt as I always do of books, if not of papers. If I really did not, I sincerely apologize. Sometimes I think I will write when I have had time to read the book, and then the press of work or the book being laid out of sight causes me to forget all about it. It may have been so with yours, which is really too elaborate and metaphysical for my matter-of-fact mind to assimilate. I can hardly ever (of late years) read any book that is "pure reasoning." I require the facts to be clearly stated and demonstrated first, unless already well known to me; but your book assumes a full knowledge of modern physiology and psychology, of which I know nothing except mere outlines at second hand.
If I remember, I met you some years back at South Kensington, and had a conversation, and it was after that that you sent me your book. The subject you wanted me to look at was what you termed "organic selection." This, as I think I told you at the time I did not think of much importance, neither do I now that I have looked at it more carefully, both in your book and in those of my friends Lloyd Morgan and Poulton. In a book that I have been writing for the past year I touch upon this subject and give my reasons for thinking that although it may possibly, in very exceptional cases, have been of use as a supplement to natural selection, yet these cases are I think of very rare occurrence.
The accumulation of books—big books—on every phase of
' Mr. Wallace's letter on the earlier book is given just above.248
BETWEEN TWO WARS
evolution is now so great that it is quite impossible for me to do more than look at a few points in them in which I am more especially interested; especially as I have more correspondence than I can keep up with and not the strength for continued work that I had forty years ago.
Yours very truly,
Alfred R. Wallace.
Reply to Mr. Wallace's first letter.
Princeton, N. J., Nov. 9, 1902.
. Alfred R. Wallace, Esq., My dear Sir:
I received with great pleasure your note of response to my sending of my book on Development and Evolution. I note your citations of your views in regard to the important place of mind in evolution and I regret not having been prepared to cite them in the book. My own position—as you may have noticed—gives consciousness a place even in the lower forms, inasmuch as it considers consciousness as a great "accommodation" (or adaptation) agent which has its great importance in the principal of organic selection, i. e., as supplementary and screening inadequate and useless congenital variations. This, I suppose, you had not suggested.
This brings up the general question of utility as attaching to variations purely congenital, and in this I think I am obliged to differ from your position as I understand it. I think that no congenital variations mature without a certain degree or amount of modification and accommodation (which is more or less alternative or optional in its working out in different environments). Utility, in almost all cases, attaches to the joint production of variation and modification: hence you and others are wrong in supposing that minute variation with selection is a sufficient theory. Minute variation must be developed and matured in this or that direction before the in-LETTERS RECEIVED
249
cidence of the selection. So the supplementing process of individual accommodation must be recognized especially when, working in the same direction for successive generations, it gives a trend or direction to the evolution, which the mere fact of fortuitous variation (considered apart from individual accommodation) would not have produced. This seems to me to be an extension of selectionist principles and a new resource against vitalism (determinate variations, etc.,) and Lamarckism, and I should have thought it would appear valuable to you. For example, it gives a mode of operation of consciousness and intelligence, as using and rendering useful minute variations; and mind thus becomes an intrinsic factor of a directive sort. How do you, otherwise, bring consciousness into the working of the process of evolution? Besides the direct selection of variations in mental endowment, I find mental endowment critical as supplementing all sorts of physical characters.
Believe me with the highest personal respect and regard
Sincerely yours,
J. Mark Baldwin.
Letter received from Henry James on the presentation to him of a note of introduction from his brother William.
Lamb House, Rye, 26 August, 1898.
Dear Sir,
Forgive me my answering your note in this mechanical manner (typewriter), to which I am now constantly reduced. It finds me, not unnaturally at this season, away from London, to which I don't return till late in the autumn; and I am very sorry not to see my way clearer to profit by my brother's introduction to you of which he some time ago wrote me. I am afraid I cannot be said to be, as such matters are measured here, "near" town—I am at a distance of two hours and a half or three hours250
BETWEEN TWO WARS
according to trains; which rather deprives me of the requisite assurance for proposing to you and Mrs. Baldwin to come down for the day. On the other hand, to my regret, I am at a moment when my power to put you up for longer has already been completely encroached upon. I shall have my little house full, from tomorrow on, as I apprehend, pretty well through September. Please believe I deplore these irreconcilabilities—as I gather that you are almost immediately sailing. My brother has a perverse habit of placing me in relation with his friends— whom I should be so glad to make mine—at the season when I am never, by any chance, in London. Could you both, none the less, face such an ordeal as to come down on Wednesday next to lunch and for the afternoon? There is a very good train from Charing Cross at eleven o'clock, which with a change at Ashford, would deposit you here at about 1.40. Then there would be another very decent one to take you back via Hastings at about six?—for I should not allow you to get into weary motion again by the earlier, the 4.53. These things would mean, in the day, five monstrous hours of train; but I should be delighted to see you, and the journey, as well as the little place I am settled in here has a good deal of charm.
Believe me, yours most truly,
Henry James.4
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
,, ,	February 3, 1898.
My dear Sir,—	J
Through your book, "Social and Ethical Interpretations," I feel acquainted with you, for something like six weeks I put all my spare time into a careful study of that work. The book was sent me by President Hall of Union Theological Seminary, editor of "The Expositor," and I have written a review of some length which will appear in the March number of that maga-
4 See also below pp. 295-6.LETTERS RECEIVED
251
zine. You will see from the review that I value your work very highly. Indeed, apart from style, I do not criticise it at all in the review.
If I had had at my command more space, however, I should have been inclined to raise the question whether or not your treatment of the antinomy of society is adequate. Of course I understand that you are discussing ultimate tendencies revealed in social evolution, but nevertheless it seems to me that the antagonism between the individual and society is greater than could be gathered from your book. I turn from the perusal of your work to the events which are occurring about me and I ask myself, how is it possible to explain all these social conflicts which fill the air? And this leads to another thought: Do you give sufficient scope to religion as a social force? Perhaps I do not understand fully your treatment, but if I do I should be inclined to criticise it on this account. It seems to me that the role of religion in the formation and evolution of society is a larger one than could be inferred from your discussion of the subject. It is just this antinomy of society which makes room for religion and absolutely requires it.
I am glad to see what you say in regard to Kidd. Possibly a rather popular article which I wrote some time since entitled, "Religion as a Social Force" may have some interest for you. I think that in my article, which I mail you with this, there is something about Kidd which can be added to what you have said.
Your book has been of very great service to me and is likely to influence my thought very considerably. As I wrote to President Hall, it is not improbable that if, ten years from now I should be asked to mention a number of books which had influenced me most, I should include yours among the number.
Faithfully yours,
Richard T. Ely.
[Professor in the University of Wisconsin.]252
BETWEEN TWO WARS
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, February 22, 1898.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
Please accept my thanks for your very kind and interesting letters.
I have read with care what you write concerning the antinomy in society and also concerning religion. I shall think further on your position but I am obliged to confess frankly that it seems to me scarcely satisfactory. Please understand, however, that I do not regard myself as an authority on this subject. I have never professed to do original work to any extent outside of my own field, which is, as you know, that of Economics, although I am interested in other fields which touch mine. I may say that your own work has strongly impressed n^e with the importance of Social Psychology for the economist. The work which you are doing is fundamental.
It occurred to me after I had sent my last letter to you that I ought to have said something more about my position concerning the antinomy of society, as I gave no grounds whatever for my position. You state that the average man cannot be in opposition to society because the institutions of society on the one hand mould him, and on the other, because they are a reflection of his thoughts, feelings, etc. This would be true if our institutions were entirely plastic, but institutions as a matter of fact are plastic only to a limited degree. From one cause or another the institutions of a given time may reflect the views, wishes, aspirations, etc., of a previous generation rather than of the living generation. Nevertheless it may be extremely difficult to change these social institutions. It seems to me that here we have room for a large degree of antinomy which may, in conceivable cases, terminate even in revolution.
I asked my publishers to send you two of my books which I thought most likely to prove of interest to you. PerhapsLETTERS RECEIVED
253
in view of the interest which you express in my work I may say that my more important work is as yet unpublished. I have been for five years engaged upon an exhaustive treatise on the distribution of wealth and I presume I may work on it for another five years before it sees the light.
Please accept my thanks for your invitation to pay you a visit. I do not know when I shall be in the East again but I shall be very glad to call upon you at your home if an opportunity presents itself. Should you come West we should be very glad indeed to see you and you would find my latch-string hanging out.
Faithfully yours,
Richard T. Ely.
P. S. As you say that you are preparing a second edition of your "Social and Ethical Interpretations" for the press I think I may without impropriety enclose the soiled manuscript of my review, which was sent back with the proof. So long as there is no danger of its being printed the publishers cannot object, and there is a bare possibility that in some slight particular it may be useful to you.
32 Hyde Park, S. W., October 12, 1902.
My dear Sir,
I am much gratified by your letter, both by your reference to my book and by your recollection of myself personally. I have not yet received the book (your letter has only just arrived), but I must answer you at once. I am tomorrow to go into a "nursing home" where, on the day after, Sir F. Treves is to perform an operation upon me. They tell me that it is not dangerous and that if all goes well, I shall be relieved from certain discomforts which have of late been weighing upon me. At 70, however, an age I have just reached, such things do not restore a man's strength and I shall be an invalid for the extra254
BETWEEN TWO WARS
bit of life possible after the regulation limit. This must answer your kind suggestion about another visit to the United States. I always look back with especial satisfaction to my visit of over forty years ago, when I gained the friendship of Lowell and Charles Norton. Since then I have been fortunate enough to make other friends on your side, and nothing would be more agreeable to me than to see them again. That, however, is not to be. This small island will be my prison henceforth and it is big enough for me.
I shall hope to read your book when the surgeons let me out of their hands, and meanwhile thank you very cordially.
Yours sincerely,
L. Stephen.
[English philosopher and historian.]
April 2, 1903.
My dear Sir,
Your "Social and Ethical Interpretations" reached me some weeks ago. Unluckily I was just going into a hospital for a serious operation. I am, I hope, convalescing; but the process is a slow one and I am still quite unable to read such a book of yours as it deserves. I am about up to rereading the Waverly novels for the nth time.
I have dipped into you and read bits, and wished that I could assimilate better. I see enough to be sure that when that happens, I shall be quickly interested. I have here and there a caveat to make; but it strikes me that they are much more likely to illustrate my stupidity (for the present, at any rate) and ignorance, than to enlighten you. So I will not make the effort. I can only thank you and hope that some day I may be in a more efficient state and have perhaps again the pleasure of seeing you. But a man who has celebrated the beginning of his 71st year by placing himself in a surgeon's hands, cannot look forwards with much confidence.LETTERS RECEIVED
255
I was touched by the inscription in your book, which shows a kindness more than I deserve.
Yours very truly,
L. Stephen.
Princeton, Sept. 18th, 1903.
My dear Baldwin,
Knowing what your feeling is with regard to the relative importance of graduate and undergraduate teaching, I think that I understand why you have decided to abandon Princeton for the Johns Hopkins, and I wish you all possible success, distinction, and happiness in your new work. But it is hard on Princeton in one year to lose two men of such standing as you and Finley.
In June you upbraided me somewhat for accepting the Dean-ship, because of the damage my new duties were likely to do my university work here as scholar and teacher, and you maintain that, our force of University men being so small, my first obligation was to that work rather than to the work I have undertaken. I shall now insist that you are open to the same charge; for surely your decision has dealt the University work at Princeton a far heavier blow than mine has dealt it.
I should have written before, but I did not feel convinced until West told me of your letter to him, that you had actually accepted the call to the Hopkins professorship.
It is hardly necessary for me to tell you of the personal regret I feel, in common with all your friends, that Mrs. Baldwin and you are no longer to be in Princeton. We are too closely associated here not to feel a separation like this as a personal loss.
Sincerely yours,
H. B. Fine.
[Dean of Princeton University.]256
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Princeton, N. J., Sept. 20, 1903.
My dear Fine,
I am touched by your kind note and grateful for every word of it. You size up the situation quite rightly on the professional side; it is an opportunity I simply can not let slip.
My—our—regret at leaving Princeton is however, largely social. I am going to write to you as an old friend—as I am doing to only a few persons here—because I am sure you will see essentials somewhat as I do—at least to the extent of not judging unsympathetically. . . .The Hopkins position is in itself its own justification; but to be honest I have to say that I should leave for much less. My reason is briefly—I can't go into details—that the recent movements in the direction of revising the curriculum and especially in the development of policy in the Graduate School are to me deadening and stifling. As to the curriculum, you know my views, for I expressed them in faculty last year. The new Administration has shown no sense of being awake to the need of liberalizing, rather than contracting and stereotyping (in scholastic and medieval lines, too) the course of study. I may be pessimistic in this. I sincerely hope I am.
As to the Grad. School, it is to me in its present management and methods, simply impossible. If the rules, regulations, enactments, and policies of the Grad. School are carried out it will stifle every man's ideals and methods of research so far as he is individual and original; and just at the critical time when each spark of living investigation here should be fanned and nursed into freer life! The atmosphere of the Johns Hopkins is so different that my enthusiasms go out at once. If it were a matter of equipment and waiting a few years, 'twould be different; but it's the management and the development that I can not endure. West, in my judgment, meaning nothing even remotely personal—simply doesn't know how!
Comparing your course with mine—'tis somewhat a matter ofLETTERS RECEIVED
257
temperament, I suppose, granting that we are equally moved by motives of duty. We differ, however, in our local patriotism. I put the emphasis on my subject, aiming to advance it wherever I best can. You argue for Princeton. Surely a location is a smaller thing than a great subject. Moreover, arn't these university competitions somewhat unworthy? I may be able, by founding and developing a new centre at the J. H. U., to forward philosophical studies generally in America, or in themselves; shall I consider this a lesser work than living here to do partial tasks—in discontent besides—through so-called loyalty to the tiger? I can honor my alma mater much more truly by doing my best work, wherever it be, and making full use of the training I got at Princeton.
Now I don't care to have this kept confidential; my opinions are honest (and essentially loyal, too!) and I believe in free expression. It is your genuinely kind note that has led me to write; otherwise I should fear the look of egotism.
I have omitted the personal note, but not because I don't feel it. You have always been identified, to me, in Princeton, with the sort of interests I also have; and even when not fully expressed, one has a subconscious sense of sympathy and moral support. I shall miss it in your case.
Always faithfully yours,
J. Mark Baldwin.IV.
Letters from Various Correspondents
1903-1914
1620 P St., Northwest, Washington, D. C., February 14, 1903.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Pearson's book which I borrowed from your library was returned two days ago by mail. It discusses very interesting subjects. I would like to have three or four heads to work independently on all the jobs I am interested in. It is a lucky thing for you that writing with the hand is very tedious and tiresome for me, for otherwise I fear I should be inundating you with questions and suggestions. Outside of astronomy, I am at work on a statistical research of which I must have told you, based on sexes in families. And now on top of everything I am made chairman of the organizing committee of the World's Congress (at St. Louis). And worse yet, I had not the moral courage to decline it.
With kindest remembrances to Mrs. Baldwin and your daughters, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
S. Newcomb.
[Astronomer and Mathematician.]
Washington, Nov. 9, 1898.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Thanks for your kind note which reminds me how derelict I have been?
258Simon Newcomb.LETTERS RECEIVED
259
The question you put as the possibility of duplicating mind and not body is very pertinent; but I would not like to answer it off hand until it is more limited. Nearly twenty years ago, 1879 or 1880 I think, I published two or three papers in the "Independent" on this subject. But I do not know the dates nor, as far as I can now find, have I a single copy. The basis of my idea is this: you can not have a 1 to 1 correspondence between two states of things unless they are of the same order of complexity; and the possible modifications of mind are of an infiitely higher order of complexity than the possible modifications of matter, as we understand and conceive the matter. I do not deny that we know nothing of mind except as associated with matter, nor that there may be "potencies" of matter which do not enter into our conception of it. I only claim that if these potencies exist, they transcend those of chemical and physical action, and are not representable in terms of time and space alone.
With kindest greetings to Mrs. Baldwin, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
S. Newcomb.
Heath Cottage, Oxshott, Surrey, England.
January 7, 1903.
Dear Baldwin,
(If I may use this briefer address which seems natural) : I have to thank you for the advance sheets of the "Psychological Review" for January, 1903. I did not know that my paper had appeared in the July number and had been commented on in the November number. I have sent for these numbers and must wait for them and for leisure before making up my mind whether to say any thing further. Meantime I am very grateful for the courteous tone of your rejoinder, so far as I have seen it.
Probably you know Mrs. Ladd-Franklin personally. I was260
BETWEEN TWO WARS
interested to see that she uses in the "Dictionary" that story of the Prelate and the Nobleman which I believe I first launched in the logical world in "Knowledge and Reality" in 1885. I told it from memory then, and it looks a queer piece of Russian scandal if you compare it as it is in your "Dictionary" with its form in Thackeray's Roundabout Paper on Benny Found-out, where the personages are the Abbe Kahatoe and the Marquis de Croquemitaine. The Dictionary itself is a wonderful piece of work. I believe a brief notice of it by me will appear in the Manchester Guardian. But of course that could only be a very general impression. I wonder if you realize how queer the predominance of Pierce's and C. L. F.'s logic looks to some of us here. Time will show whether it is the coming thing; I fear I am not convinced; and I hope to have a chapter on Royce and his Dedekind one day. I make that point chiefly in the notice, that you have made a bold bid to be the coming thing, and are interesting rather than orthodox (Moore, too!). Of course there is a lot of authoritative first-class work in it also.
Yours very truly,
B. Bosanquet.
[English Philosopher.]
1144 Eighty-third Street, Dyker Heights, Brooklyn, N. Y., December 13, 1906.
My dear Prof. Baldwin,
My thanks to you for this exceedingly beautiful example of the work of Mr. Sherborn.1
It is a real gem! I congratulate you upon owning so satisfactory a book-plate,—which will always be a joy.
I have kept for some time one extra copy of the Crolier Club plate—in proof state—printed before all the final details were
1 The plate reproduced as Frontispiece to Vol. I.LETTERS RECEIVED
261
added. It is a rather good specimen as there were but a few like it. I am very glad to give it to you.
May I ask if this copy of your own plate is the "artist's proof" you mention ? I send with the Sherborn one of mine by Mr. French which has his signature and his remarque. I had a dozen of these done not long ago: the remarque shows White-face, one of the Adirondack mountains visible from his home at Saranac Lake, and is a memento of a visit I made to him there.
The death of Mr. French on Saturday last has deprived me of a long loved friend, and book-plate art of a master.
In case you have one of yours signed by Mr. Sherborn and are willing to grant me a copy, I shall appreciate it greatly.
Very sincerely,
Chas. Dexter Allen.
[Book-plate Authority.]
November 9, 1895.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
The jolly row you psychologists have started—in the last number of Science,—reminds me that I meant to write to one of them—to wit yourself to explain hurling biology at his head, —in the shape of the pamphlets.
It is your book which has done it, and if you do not like the treatment you shouldn't have asked biologists to show respectful attention to evolutionary psychology. Worse is however to come upon you, for I have jotted down some comments of my own—for I read your Mental Development in camp, and am now reading my own copy again. When I get through I shall send my apostils and you will surely regret your preface in which you "despair of biologists" and will doubtless despair in earnest.
I am sure that your book must have a wide influence, and I am much delighted to hear of the 2nd edition so soon.262
BETWEEN TWO WARS
The little essay on "Verrebung" etc., may interest you for it has much to do with the "Recapitulation" Theory.
With great esteem,
Yours faithfully,
Charles S. Minot.
[Biologist, Professor at Harvard,University.]
Harvard Medical School, November 9th, 1895.
Harvard Embryological Laboratory, October 26, 1906.
My dear Baldwin:—
Have you any ideas, or can you tell me of anyone who has expressed opinions, upon the subject of a child's mental development at various ages? It is of course a well known phenomenon that the speed, or to speak more scientifically, the rate of growth is greatest in the young and gradually diminishes. This change in the rate of growth is, I believe, correlated with the progress of differentiation of the tissues. Now if that is the case, there should be a functional phenomenon. In other words, I mean to say the speed of functional development should be far greater in the young than in older persons. I presume that in a general way this may be said to be true of the psychological development of man, but my biological studies have led me to the belief that it is during the very young period that the decline in the power of development is at its maximum. In other words, youth is the period of most rapid decline. I am searching for information which will enable me to judge whether something similar to this occurs psychologically. To better illustrate my meaning, let me say that I should expect to find that a child learns as much in proportion to what it already knows during the first year after birth as it does during all the rest of its life. Have you ever thought upon this aspect of your subject?LETTERS RECEIVED
263
I am to give next spring a course of lectures at the Lowell Institute on the problem of Age, and as you see, am now on the search of material to incorporate in the course.
I hope everything is going well with you. Mrs. Minot has gone off for a few days' visit in Baltimore. I wish I could have gone along and seen my many good friends there. When are you coming to see our five medical marble palaces ? Please give my regards to your wife and believe me,
Yours faithfully,
Charles S. Minot.
Mexico, Feb. 16th, 1906.
Professor James Mark Baldwin. Dear Mr. Baldwin:—
I have delayed answering your kind letter until now, as before doing so, I wished to show it to Mr. Sierra, who has only just returned from his trip to Yucatan.
Both the Minister and I have been extremely gratified to hear that you have already begun your noble work of drawing together the bonds of union which should unite Mexicans and Americans. I personally am doubly grateful to you for having endorsed the invitation which Mr. Moore has so kindly tendered me to deliver a course of lectures in Berkeley University, which I hope to accomplish, thus collaborating with you in the excellent work of cementing the bonds of affection between us, and opening up new fields and opportunities to the minds of the New World.
I thank you most sincerely for the kind words you used with regard to my study on the Evolution of Education, published in "Mexico, Its Social Evolution." I am looking forward with keen pleasure to reading both the articles which you promise to publish shortly as a result of your visit to Mexico, as well as your Official Report to the Bureau of Education.
Your whole letter is full of that sympathetic feeling which264
BETWEEN TWO WARS
you know how to imbue into whatever you write, and which is as it were the reflection of the light which radiates from your eyes and face when you speak.
Let me take this opportunity of thanking you in the name of all those after whom you so kindly enquired: they all cordially reciprocate your warm feelings. Mr. Arrangoiz and Mr. Branch in particular are delighted to hear that you are busy working out some plan to facilitate correspondence between students in Mexico and the United States, and I join Messrs. Tablada, Quintero, Martinez, Branch and Orci in expressing our most cordial thanks for the promise of books written by you, and which you purpose sending us.
After overcoming some slight difficulties in the Custom House, Mr. Tablada has sent your box together with your handbag, while I have been pleased to recommend them to the care of the Department of Foreign Affairs, so that they may reach you through our Ambassador in Washington. I hope that by the time you read this everything will be already safely in your possession.
I am grieved to hear that you have been sick. Nature is not always wise. Her best sons should never be ill. When a useful man falls sick, everything in turn around him is necessarily affected. Fortunately you are now better, and I earnestly hope I may soon have good news from you.
The Minister and your numerous friends here join me in sending our best wishes.
Most sincerely yours,
Ezequiel A. Chavez.
[Sub-Secretary of Public Instruction and Fine Arts, Mexico.]
Mexico, 27th April, 1908.
Mr. James Mark Baldwin, etc. My dear Mr. Baldwin :—
I can just to-day write you because I prolonged my trip forLETTERS RECEIVED
265
a few days and waited until I had had my first conversations with Mr. Sierra and General Diaz.
Before all I have now the pleasure of expressing you, that of all my trip, the most satisfactory recollections are those of your excellent hospitality that intensified our friendship and that is for me the best because I consider it an exceptional good fortune to have as friends men of first quality as you are.
Besides, the medium in your home is so well adapted for seeing life in a way serious, grave and joyful, so constantly disposed for finding pleasure in the benefits of all, that there, in your company, my wife, my daughter and myself felt as happy as if we had been in our own home.
In my conversations with Mr. Sierra, I have presented to him our total scheme, and I have found of course the good resolution that Mr. Sierra has constantly at the service of science.
In my explanations with General Diaz, I have found also a clear and solid vision of the importance of things, and of the immense transcendence of it. Mr. Diaz and Mr. Sierra both, think that our Institute of Psychical and Social Sciences, can be a model of work for all nations.
Unfortunately I could not finish my account on matters of money, in my interview with General Diaz, in spite of the long hour that I spent with him, and I have need of a second conversation.
I ought also to have one with Mr. Limantour in a brief time. Then, as you see I have taken only the first steps here; but I am satisfied with the reception of our ideas.
I have just read an announcement of the publication and sale of the second volume of your Logic. I think that I will have the advantage of knowing it in a very brief time, and undoubtedly it will invigorate my thought and my will.
Here, the discussion on the bill of education that I had the pleasure of presenting to you and to Mr. Moore progresses266
BETWEEN TWO WARS
daily. I have had the good fortune of utilizing particularly the suggestions of yourself and of Mr. Moore in perfecting the articles. As you remember, we considered the most important of them in your home one afternoon, when rain and fog enveloped your busy city. I have to-day the satisfaction of sending to you a copy of the central article of the bill, the psychical basis of it, in which you will find the marks of your indications.
Until I am able to write you again, receive, my dear Mr. Baldwin, our best regards, for Mrs. Baldwin, for Miss Elizabeth, and for your daughter that we had not the satisfaction of knowing. Leticia, Enedina and myself remind you of your promise of sending us a picture of both your two daughters, and, hoping to receive it with your letters very soon, accept anew the cordial expression for yourself, Mrs. Baldwin and Miss Elizabeth, of our gratitude for all your attentions and for your excellent friendship.
I am, my dear Mr. Baldwin, very sincerely yours,
Ezequiel A. Chavez.
Mexico, 10th March, 1910.
Dr. James Mark Baldwin, My very dear friend:—
I have certainly had every day, since the receipt of your last good letter of 25th December, the desire of writing you on the many important questions that you submitted to me in that letter ; but you know my life and the nearly complete impossibility of my doing the things I want, at the right time. Then I am sure that you will excuse the delay of my answer.
To-day I have pleasure in telling you that the Department of Public Instruction has just tendered invitations to the most famous universities in the world, in order to have representatives from them next September on the occasion of the foundation of the National University of Mexico. We have always considered you as one of our guests and I have the satisfactionLETTERS RECEIVED
267
of begging you, in the name of our distinguished friend the Minister Sierra, to come here next September in order to give, preferably in French, a public and brief course of about three months on some subject such as psycho-sociology or as inter-psychology, that you know as thoroughly as our mutual and regretted great friend Tarde.
If you consider it possible to accept this proposition you will
receive as a mark of recognition a sum of........and
you will have free transportation through the Republic.
I don't need to tell you how I earnestly desire that you will be able to be here with us next September: that will be a great pleasure not only for me and my family but also for the good friends that you have here; and I will have special satisfaction if you attend the ceremonies of the foundation of the University, whose coming into being you have been one of the first in greeting, giving me excellent advice on the main lines of its organization.
I therefore hope that you and your very distinguished family will be able to come here at that time.
Concerning your interesting suggestion about the possibility of requesting a "table of work" in the laboratory of Roscoff, I must tell you that the Department of Public Instruction will consider it when the studies on marine biology in Mexico justify it; but of course we cordially thank you for your interest in any subject that may prove beneficial to Mexico.
In the meantime I hope also that you have not suffered with the last terrible floods in Paris.
I congratulate you most sincerely on the honors you are constantly receiving, and particularly on account of the Presidency of the next International Congress of Psychology and of the Doctorate in Science causa honoris of Geneva University.268
BETWEEN TWO WARS
I await your favorable answer in a few days, and remain as ever,
Very sincerely and cordially yours,
Ezequiel A. Chavez.
Mexico, November 12, 1925
My dear Mr. Baldwin:
Is it a dead man who is writing to you ? It was nearly a dead man who had need to exile himself, to take refuge years ago in the United States, who received the most cordial help from his great friend Dr. Ernest C. Moore and worked there, and came back to Mexico to remake his life, and who ever had thought that his other excellent friend James Mark Baldwin, following him at the distance and remembering with a very sweet remembrance the good old days of his good talks in Baltimore and in Mexico, in the glory of the past years.
Now I send to you herewith the official notification of your appointment as the first American Member of Honour of the Mexican Society of Psychological Studies that we have just founded. We shall have no more than two Members of Honour for every one of the countries. We have all remembered with the greatest satisfaction the time when you were our Professor in the National University, the time when you wrote the excellent History of Psychology in which you had the kindness of inscribing my name just a few days before the long and troubled years that Mexico and the whole world have suffered.
Let me know once more something about you and yours. My wife and my daughter join to me to greet you heartily. I am, as always,
Most cordially yours,
Ezequiel A. Chavez.
My very dear Friend:
My wife, my daughter and myself all three have had a realLETTERS RECEIVED
269
feast reading your good letter with the excellent news of yourself of Mrs. Baldwin and your loved daughter.
I am extremely anxious to have your "memories": they shall be a testimony of supreme value about the Mexico you knew, so different from the Mexico of to-day.
My life has been, since those days, so constantly troubled, that I imagine it is similar to a dismantled ship in a long, a very long storm, that has been raging for years. My papers then, the vestiges of the past, are in the same condition as would be the engines of a boat just after the tempest. I certainly reached the port a few years ago but only to go out to new activities. Consequently my life has been broken in several parts and the difficulty to go up its stream is great.
Your letter and the official note about your acceptance have been read to the members of the Society for Psychological Study. All of them love you certainly. Do you remember Dr. Francisco de P Miranda, who is one of our members ? He especially remembers you and knows, as many of the others, your works pretty well.
Faithfully always and most affectionately, I am
Your friend
Ezequiel A. Chavez.
1002 N. Calvert St., (Baltimore).
October 26, 1907. My dear Fellow Princetonian and Fellow Carolinian,
If I dared I would call you "old fellow," for there is no heartier appellation in the English language. But you are so absurdly young in years and in appearance to have achieved so much, that men marvel when they see that you are not old. Surely this is better than to retain, as I seem to have done, a certain vivacity of manner. I am afraid it is [illegible], and I should much prefer to grow old gracefully. Fortunately I am old enough in outward seeming, for I detest the ci-devant jeunes270
BETWEEN TWO WARS
hommes who are generally what some one said of Gentz, "petrified brains and putrified hearts." Unfortunately to grow old gracefully requires sympathy with the work of younger people.
I send you herewith the little article to which I referred in our recent conversation. It is a matter of some interest to me that psychologists by profession should have thought it worthwhile to consider formulae that I have been using for many years to impress on my students syntactical facts. An utter stranger to modern speculative literature, I am naturally averse to making a spectacle of myself by intruding into an alien sphere. Still if the thing seems to be of any service, I am willing to sacrifice myself.
Yours faithfully,
Benjamin I. Gildersleeve.
[Professor in the Johns Hopkins University.]
(Translation)
Saint-Cergues, (Vaud), Suisse, 10 July, 1907.
Dear and honored Colleague,
I have not replied before to your kind letter because you wrote that you were soon to be in Europe, and I feared that my letters would not reach you if addressed to America. I have no need to tell you that I should be most happy to talk with you. I shall be here all summer, in Switzerland, and shall
not be back in Paris before the middle of October.....
Your work bears on the same questions as mine, and although I have not approached these questions by the same method as you, I have arrived on more than one point at conclusions quite consistent with yours. I have been so over-charged with work this last year that I have not yet been able to read your "Genetic Logic," but I have put it aside for thorough study on my return to Paris. If I may judge by a superficial examina-LETTERS RECEIVED
271
tion, it uses a new and original method of studying the operations of reasoning in themselves and not simply, as has been usual heretofore, in their symbolic expression. An enterprise of this kind raises no doubt difficulties really formidable in character, and I am convinced with you that only in this way a real philosophy of mind can be constituted. Believe me, etc.,
Very sincerely yours,
H. Bergson.
[French Philosopher.]
(Translation)
Villa Montmorency, Auteuil, Paris, 6 Feb., 1908.
My dear Colleague,
I hasten to thank you for the gift of your book "Development and Evolution." You have thus given me occasion to read it a second time, for I was familiar with it already, and had found in it a number of interesting points of view, the more so for me since I had arrived by very different paths at conclusions quite parallel to your own. In particular, I had noted your remarks on the irreversibility of the series of vital changes, and had cited them in my "Evolution creatrice" (p. 29).
I have not yet been able to explore thoroughly the first volume of your "Genetic Logic," but a first rapid reading has sufficed to show me that the work is an enterprise entirely new and original—a direct and really empirical study of thought. What has generally been studied, so it seems to me, is less thought in itself, as it is given to us in direct observation, than its reconstruction in more or less artificial terms. You have sought on the contrary, to reach the immediately given data. I hope now to read soon the second and third volumes. The work as a whole seemed destined to make over entirely the questions of which it treats.272
BETWEEN TWO WARS
If as you suggest you should write a notice of my last book in the "Psychological Review," I should be especially pleased. It would be of great interest to me to know how far you could accept my conclusions on biological evolution and on the general philosophy which these conclusions form part of.
With very sincere good wishes,
H. Bergson.
(Translated)
18 Ave. des Tilleuls, Auteuil, Paris, [no date, 1910.]
My dear Baldwin,
You have been unanimously elected [to the Institute of France]. Bravo! All my compliments to you and yours !
We are just leaving Paris for some days, but we will try to see you before going.
Votre tout devoue,
H. Bergson.
Milford, Pa., April 4, 1908.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
Lest I forget it at the end of this brief letter, let me beg at once that you present my Easter salutation to Mrs. Baldwin and to the accomplished sister-in-law, whose name I forget.
You must know that not only do I find incipient senescence a great impeder of all work, as my father did at the same age, but, moreover, I am hampered by the necessity of earning my living, and by the fact that for fifteen months I have been suffering, or enduring rather, the effects of a grippe. We have no such thing here; but I got it in Cambridge.
I have for a long time been struggling to put into shape the first part of my defense of Pragmatism—which by the way is free from most of the faults you find with James' pragmatism.LETTERS RECEIVED
273
As to that, I have long thought quite nearly as you think; and I am most gratified to find that you, pursuing a course of scientific investigation, quite opposed, or at any rate very different, to my own—which naturally seems to me to be infinitely the more expeditious—should reach conclusions in so many all-important points identical with those at which I arrive. It seems to me like two explorers of darkest Africa, one from the Atlantic, the other from the Indian Ocean, meeting at last.
You will comprehend that in my notice for the Nation (which has, as you surmise, sent me your second volume), desirous to do justice to the scientific character of your work and not to put forth there my own opposite point of view, I should find it very laborious to work round towards yours. Besides, I hope to be able to advert to some other sincere and scientific ways of working—those of Husserl, for example, of Benno Erdmann, and of Jerusalem. I don't know whether the Nation editors—mere journalists, they appear to me to be—can be brought to consent to such broad treatment, requiring many columns, or no. But all I want to express to you is my earnest sympathy with your spirit of science and my determination, along with such criticisms and objections as I may find myself constrained to express, to tell the readers of the Nation to rely upon it that you are a serious man of science, whose opinions seem something objective.
Of course, your kind references have pleased me, and still more the fact that you seem to feel, as I do, that morality demands that literary elegance be made secondary to a strict code of rules of nomenclature, which it ought to disgrace a man in his own conscience to violate.
Most faithfully, your supporter in insisting on scientific methods in philosophy,
C. S. Peirce.
[American Philosopher.]274
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Milford, Pa., Sept. 22, 1908.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Your letter only reached me the 19th and brought the first I have heard of your having sent a communication to the Nation. The reason (at any rate one reason) the editors must have had for not inserting it was the detestation in which logic is held by the sort of people that read that journal. I have no particular reason to object to your offering your conjecture that I wrote the review. Only you must see for yourself that I can't authorize you to do so. Moreover, as is generally recognized, nobody can be said to be the writer of an article in such a journal in the sense in which one is the writer of a signed article; since the editor and his counsellors almost always have a hand in it, and very frequently omit what the original author would have put forth as the strongest proof of his assertions: and in all cases the possibility of their doing so operates to modify what is said. For this reason, during the forty odd years that I have written for the Nation, it has certainly not happened to me half a dozen times to be so much as asked whether I had written a given article. I remember DeMorgan's stating the case in reference to the Athenaeum in similar terms.
No doubt there is a sense in which logic is genetic. But you have a heavy responsibility in professing to train reasoners by such a method as yours. . . .
Very faithfully,
C. S. Peirce.
Merton College, Oxford, March 22, '08.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
I have just come back into this freezing climate from the Riviera and find awaiting me the two volumes of your Logic. I return you my best thanks. I had lately begun the first volume and found it most interesting and valuable, though I amLETTERS RECEIVED
275
at present only about half way through it. And the second volume is evidently at least as interesting if not more so than its predecessor. Many thanks for your complimentary reference to my book on Logic. I wish that I could rewrite it, but I learn that it has been pirated in America, and though I greatly disapprove of piracy, I am not really sorry that this has been
done, though this does not alter my opinion of Messrs S-'s
theft.
I am astonished at the amount of work which you have got through and get through. I hope that you will not overstrain yourself as that I am sure would be a great loss to philosophy.
I hope to read your book now very soon. I can not do very much in the way of work, but I try to go on doing something, and I have from time to time considerable periods when I am not obliged simply to vegetate. So I hope soon to finish your book. I noticed in the first volume that though the importance given to play seemed right, I could not wholly follow your account of play. And I am venturing to send you the off-print of an article in which I have expressed my doubts as to the universal connection between play and semblance.
This is however a very small point.
Thanking you once more for your book, and with best wishes, I remain,
Very truly yours,
F. H. Bradley.
[English Philosopher.]
Merton College, Oxford, August 18, '15.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Many thanks for your book "Genetic Theory of Reality" which I have found here on my arrival after an absence of two months. Naturally I have not had time to do more than glance276
BETWEEN TWO WARS
at the contents, which promise an interesting discussion in the work itself. . . .
What you call Pancalism is a view of the world which as presented by Schelling I found attractive, but so far as I could see, not in the end tenable. And I therefore shall be the more curious to reconsider the matter in the light which I have no doubt your book will throw on it. . . .
Thanking you once more, I am
Yours truly,
F. H. Bradley.
Merton College, Oxford, Sept. 27, 1915.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Many thanks for your card of the 22d, which I found here on my return from Paris a day or two ago. I have been over there to see some friends just outside the fortifications.
I am sorry to say that I have not been able to read your book yet. And as I can do extremely little work, I am terribly in arrears with what I am doing. I do not know when I shall be able. Hence I am sure that I shall not be able to compare your view with mine. I can only notice hurriedly some of the points you raise in the Appendix. I am inclined to think there is no such difference in principle as you think there is between us. And even as to the extent of difference in the result, I doubt.
With regard to my own view, I remark:
1.	The "finite centres" are not a postulate. They are the fact that at any moment I and you feel, and that my feeling and yours are not simply one feeling, any more than my felt past and present are one feeling. How much inference is implied in this "fact" is a question. But how is it a postulate?
2.	So far as this fact is immediate, the absolute reality doesLETTERS RECEIVED
277
not appear to it but in it, and is it. There is no contact at all— until you pass beyond immediacy.
3.	But this immediacy is not the whole reality, and hence in this sense it is an appearance.
4.	The region of subject and object, of relation, and of mediation which follows is a further development of the reality, but remains defective.
5.	Higher and fuller immediacies are realized, but still none of them is complete and perfect and hence all are appearance.
6.	The complete and perfect reality is all its imperfect appearances but it also is more and includes them, and is beyond them. We can know it so far as to form the general idea of it, but we can not experience it as it is in full individuality.
7.	As to the absolute reality demanding mere identity, no one can hold the opposite more strongly than I do.
8.	As to the beautiful, my difficulty is that for me it (1) remains an object and does not include the contemplator; (2) if you take it as a genre which sweeps away into itself the whole being and satisfies at once all ideals—this (for me) is not mere beauty; and (3) I do not think it is experienced as a fact.
9.	As to the "finite centres," you could (if that makes things clearer) take them as the result of the self-differentiation of the one immediacy into its secondary relational stage. I prefer not to do this, as in any case they remain necessary for the development of the whole into its third stage, which includes the second and first. And they still to me remain inexplicable— just as the development of the whole is inexplicable.
I fear that this may not make things much clearer, but I fear that it's all I can do at present, though I would most gladly discuss all these questions with you.
I am struggling with some logical questions on which I hope to say something in a second edition of my book on Logic.278
BETWEEN TWO WARS
But I am constantly being laid up more or less and can't get on. I fear I have left it too long.
I did not see your discussion with Bosanquet.
Yours truly,
F. H. Bradley.
Merton College, Oxford. October 14, 1915.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Many thanks for your letter. I am not convinced that our starting points and methods differ—whatever may be the case as to our results.
I do not think that you are right as to the assumption which you take me to make. In immediate experience, there is not (for me) a distinction made between the finite centre and the whole, so that you can stand on one and infer or assume the other. Both aspects are there, though not at first differentiated, and each is essential. I should imagine that there is very little difference between our views here and none as to the method of advance which we use.
As to the result of course I could not admit the presence of process as such in the Absolute. Further, for me the Whole will remain super-aesthetic, as it is super-intellectual and super-volitional. I venture to think that any attempt to make any one of these aspects include the others can hardly succeed, though I recognize the truth in all such attempts.
Many thanks for your papers and addresses (on the war). If there ever was a war in which right was on one side only, I think this war is such. But I am extremely anxious.
Yours truly,
F. H. Bradley.LETTERS RECEIVED
279
16 Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol. 4th Dec., 1896.
My dear Baldwin,
I am sorry there was no allusion to your having published similar views, in the main, to my own in my Science article. You will find such an allusion in a footnote p. 315 of Habit and Instinct which should have reached you as editor of the Psychological Review ere now. The summary was written out substantially as it stands in my book before I reached America. The chapter based on it was finished in February or March before I knew you were on the track. I sent about Easter a copy of the summary to Osborn and he then asked me to let Science have an expansion thereof. I therefore asked a clerk to copy the chapter and despatched the MS., I suppose about June. I intended to insert a note on proof, but being pressed at the time omitted to do so.
A note in the margin of my Nat. Sci. article of 1892 written I think in May or June (anyhow before the number was bound up for the words are clipped in the binding) indicated when the germ of this idea occurred to me. The note is "May not modifications due to individual use permit like pendulum swings—elsewhere constantly damped down by Nat[ural] Selection] ?"
I quite agree that it does not matter a brass farthing whether the suggestion is, as a matter of priority, yours or mine or someone else's. The question is—how far is the suggestion helpful and in the line of definite progress. At the same time I am sincerely sorry if I have seemed to ignore the publications of a fellow-worker whose writings I value and whose esteem I value yet more.
As to the Dictionary work I still believe you would do better to put it in other hands. But I intend to try my hand at a few terms and see how it works out. I may have to ask you to help me in the French and German equivalents. I am a halting and280
BETWEEN TWO WARS
slow reader in the latter language and should feel on rather uncertain ground.
I write in haste to catch tomorrow's mail.
With hearty good wishes,
I am yours sincerely,
Lloyd Morgan.
[English Biologist and Philosopher.]
Clifton, Bristol. 15th Feb., 1897.
Dear Baldwin,
I am quite clear that you should write the letter to Science and Nature. If you submit it to Osborn he will say whether he wishes the reference to him at the outset to stand. I have written it out again as I should put the matter. But of course since it is your letter you must adopt these suggestions or not according as you see fit.
In anything I write further on the subject I will refer to your terms Organic selection, orthoplasy and (if it must be so) social heredity: and do you likewise refer to my "coincident variations" in like manner. I do not engage to adopt myself any of the three. What you say about correlated variations (in your letter) in connection with Organic Selection makes me suspect that you would use the term in a wider sense than I should care to adopt. I want too to lay stress on the natural selection of coincident variations and any term which might seem to mask the influence of natural selection would not be one I should care to use. Nor should I be likely to make such play with orthoplasy (homoioplasy would be in better line with coincident variations had not Lankester already used homoplasy) as you will. As to social heredity I fear I may refer to it only to oppose it—at any rate I can't promise not to do so. I can't for the life of me see why social accommodation does not meet the case.LETTERS RECEIVED
281
To come back to the letter—I think it puts the matter forward as clearly as is possible in a short space. It may draw forth criticisms which may be helpful. I expect I am not quite so eager as you are to get the matter of terminology settled out of hand, partly perhaps a matter of temperament, partly a matter of experience, for I have ere now been bitten for my hurry, and partly of grey hairs which invade my beard apace! But I like your enthusiasm and vigorous life. Send the letter by all means and let us see what comes of it.
I shall allude in notes to your terminology and so far as possible in such a way as not to tie you down within too narrow limits.
They asked me in Liverpool whether I should go to the Association meeting in Toronto and I said that I should try. But— I question whether I can afford the trip. My boys are at an expensive age. Moreover I have Romanes' last volume and certain dictionary engagements, from which I have so far vainly endeavored to escape! If I don't work at these during the long vacation I don't know when I am to do so. So you must not expect to see me in Toronto much as I should like to run over.
Finally as to Weismann, I have not his lecture at hand, having lent it to a friend, but I am clear that though he says that modification gives time for variations to arise and to be selected he does not contend that coincident variations are advantaged by the fact that they are sheltered and shielded by the modifications from the eliminative incidence of natural selection. I am writing to Osborn to this effect.
If you send your letter to Nature and give time for it to appear simultaneously in Science, the editor is sure to insert it. You may ask him to send me the proof if you like.
Yours sincerely,
Lloyd Morgan.282
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Clifton Park, Bristol, 2nd Sept.,'09.
My dear Baldwin,
Thanks for letting me see the proofs of your interesting little book "Darwin and the Humanities." Your development of the range and influence of selection has good points. But, as I think you know, I am a crank in one matter. I wish you could see your way to emphasize what I conceive to be a logical distinction between Natural Selection through elimination and human Selection through choice. Of course there are some cases in which we choose to eliminate. But the natural selection process works up the scale leaving the survivors. It lets the worst go first, then those a little less-worse, and leaves the least-worse, the fittest, at the end of the process. Human selection, on the other hand, (let us say the selection of stock for breeding, or of theories through argument, or of ideals through persuasion) picks out the best, and works down the scale. I can understand the attitude of the biologists who say, it doesn't matter a brass farthing if there is a logical distinction, since the result is the same—the best cases come out on top. But you as psychologist should, I think, work the matter out, since it is characteristic of the mind process and is a deliberate short cut.
In the naive development of skill, I take it, the redundant and awkward adjustments are eliminated. But in the more deliberate acquisition of skill there comes in a certain amount of true selection—shall we say the right stance, swing, etc. ? I got back from a month's holiday yesterday.
Kindest regards, yours heartily,
C. Lloyd Morgan.
Bristol, 25th Sept., '09.
My dear Baldwin,
Many thanks for your "Genetic Logic." Both volumes have arrived. I need not say that the second is to me much moreLETTERS RECEIVED
283
valuable, from the fact that it contains some further impress of your individuality. Indeed I feel that I am highly honored by the gift. And the best of it is that I shall now have time to read it. My official duties are at an end, at any rate nominally, and I turn over with relief a new page in my life.
I won't trouble you now with a further disquisition on selection and elimination—though I remain unconvinced by what you say. It comes to this, that the two factors (if, as I believe, they are two) interact in so many ways, and so subtly that the evaluation of their effects on evolution is exceedingly difficult. That I am ready to admit. The same is true of modification and variation. None the less you and I believe that they are logically distinguishable, and that the study of their interaction does have fruitful results. There may be a lot of disturbing circumstances—but human choice does count in evolution. Your selection and mine may be different; but to say that selection is inoperative in the evolution of a conscious race seems to me to be nothing short of preposterous. But I will say no more now. I may endeavor to deal with the matter at greater length on another occasion. I might be able to run over and see you at Christmas. It is long since I have been in gay Paris save en passant.
I am yours gratefully and sincerely,
C. Lloyd Morgan.
5 Kensington Place, Clifton, Bristol, 2nd April, '16.
My dear Baldwin,
In common with your many friends we were shocked to learn that your name was not at first among the survivors of the Sussex. And that very morning I found at the University your latest book for which please accept my very best thanks. My wife is going to read it to me so soon as we have finished the284
BETWEEN TWO WARS
book now on hand. I gather that neither Mrs. Baldwin nor you were hurt but I fear you may have suffered from the shock and from your anxiety about your daughter. I do hope she is coming on well. You must be overwhelmed with correspondence. But if you can spare time to let me have just a postcard I shall be very grateful.
I had received the report of the delivery of your Herbert Spencer lecture which I hope and feel sure went off well. I forget whether I sent you a copy of my very gritty Scientia paper and my notes on Berkeley's Doctrine of Esse. If not I will do so with pleasure should you care for a sight of them. What with Bergson on the one hand and Bertrand Russell on the other hand there is pretty wide divergence of philosophical opinion. It seems to me that both are a little weak in psychology or at any rate each has a psychology of his own. I wrestled again and again with Bergson's Memory Thesis and find it very difficult to grasp in a comprehensible form. But I suppose he would say that by comprehensible I mean grasp-able by the chopping up intellect and that I must cultivate more of intuition—which affords a poor fellow like me rather a glorious [?].
My wife bids me remember her most kindly and cordially to you both and longs to have further news of your daughter.
Yours ever sincerely,
Lloyd Morgan.
rT5 , , ,	Oxford, Dec. 7, '09.
[Postcard.]
In the most terrible rush just now, so I am returning your present of the English P. C. It was just that we both independently thought of the most appropriate thing to do, that led us to inscribe to A. R. W. Wallace's address is Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. He may not like what you have written on pp. IV, V, because he is hyper-sensitive about Darwin, and is always thinking that he (W.) gets too much credit. YouLETTERS RECEIVED
285
did not hear of my intention; nor I yours till after it was printed. I agree with all you say as you may be sure I should do; but I don't know about W., himself. Perhaps as an American work printed in America, it is not as important that he should approve; but it might be awkward for you if he disapproved anything. Perhaps you could not easily change. If it would inconvenience you much perhaps it would be better to chance it, and not send it to him.
Love to all,
E. B. Poulton.
[English Zoologist, Oxford University.]
Wykeham House, Oxford, March 27, '16.
My dearest Friends,
The agony of mind we have gone through these days! And now we hear that you are safe and not injured; we feel though terribly anxious about Elizabeth and long for news. But we well understand what you must be feeling. We are writing to Helen to tell her about your happy visit here, for we think you may not have been able yet to do this. She cabled to us asking for news but fortunately we did not cable back what the papers said; and of course by now she knows the truth. All your friends here have been in and out all the time, and the Osiers have been in communication with your Embassy. Words can not express our relief, nor our sorrow for everything that has happened.
We constantly think of the happy days you spent here with us. With our love and deepest sympathy and hoping to get good news of Elizabeth.
Yours affectionately,
Emily P. Poulton.286
BETWEEN TWO WARS
My dear Friends,
I just add a line to my wife's. I have been consulting with the Osiers from time to time yesterday and today and they agreed that we could not cable to Helen as nothing was certain; and now I know that you have cabled. I am keeping papers for you. Your obituary is in the Times, and evening papers too. I will send them. I am longing to hear your account of what took place.
With our love to you all and hoping to hear good news of Elizabeth.
Your affectionate friend,
E. B. Poulton.
P. S. I had not Helen's address so sent it to the President, White House, and asked him to forward it. I said it was the daughter of an old colleague and explained the situation.— E. B. P.
Wykeham House, Oxford, March 29, 1916.
My dear Friends,
We were so relieved to receive your letter; but today we feel very anxious about Elizabeth and should so much like a line to tell us how she is now. Lady Osier brought a wire from Sir W.'s nephew who had just reached France on Monday— that Elizabeth was still unconscious from concussion and with a dislocated shoulder; but that she was better. That was on Monday.
I expect that your reticence about details is because you are going to give evidence before the U. S. Ambassador in Paris or London, and if your letter to me got opened by the censor, it would show your line beforehand. Whatever the reason I quite understand that it is a good one; and that you will tell us all when the time comes. I have sent you today the reports of two morning and one evening paper.LETTERS RECEIVED
287
I hope your luggage was not lost; but in case it is I send a little installment of stamps for Mrs. Baldwin—just a beginning from a Rhenish society of which I am an Hon. Member. With our warmest sympathy and love to you all,
Your affectionate friend,
E. B. Poulton.
Wykeham House, Oxford, November 10, 1923.
My dear Friend,
I will tell you how I knew that little Janet, not three [years old], was a naturalist. A caterpillar just out of the egg and about this size ("S") or a little smaller, is not a very exciting object for a child of that age as a rule. If you had heard her say with the utmost excitement "she walk ! ! !" you would have realized that there was some unusual attraction. At first she could not say caterpillar but called them "catpins." One day I spoke to her and said "darling": she replied "who darling?" I said, "you darling"; she, "no, darling catpins." And this was not at first only; she kept her interest all the time she was at St. Helen's. It was the same with Ronnie Symons when he was as young or younger.
Kelvin and Lister were both at the British Association at Liverpool in 1896, Lister being President. I think this must be the year you are thinking of. Crookes' address (presidential) was in 1898 at Bristol. The telepathy part is at the end and very brief. The main subject was the food supply of the world, especially the wheat supply. I remember it very well; we took Ted., and made him a life-member at fifteen.
Yes, Waller and his wife are both dead. She had a malignant growth, and under the shock of her illness, which he knew must be fatal, a blood vessel broke and he died in a few hours. I think he knew that his blood-vessels were in a weak state, and that he was not likely to live to an old age, but to die of a288
BETWEEN TWO WARS
stroke. Dear Alice lived for many months after his death, but the case was hopeless. Since her death the daughter Mary has become a Roman Catholic and says that she has got great comfort from it.
I am just correcting the proofs of the obituary notice of A. R. Wallace for the Royal Society. He died in 1913; but for such a notice one must have time, and it is appropriate too that it happens to be the centenary of his birth. I will of course send you a copy when I get them. It will contain a very charming portrait of him.
The H. Spencer lecture this year was by G. Santayana. He came to tea with us before the lecture. He seemed a very pleasant man and spoke beautifully. I am going to send you the lecture, which I think will interest you. He said he had met you.
The Cuckoo's egg grant has already produced unexpected results, for as soon as it was known that a big paper was coming out on the subject at the Zoological Society, Stuart Baker, an Indian ornithologist with a remarkable knowledge of Indian cuckoos and their hosts, set to work and brought out his own results in an admirable and most interesting paper with three colored plates. So you see the E. B. P. fund has produced big results without spending any money!
Is that not fine?
With our love to you both, your friend ever,
E. B. Poulton."
(Translated)
Geneva, Feb. 9, 1898.
My dear Baldwin,
How can I offer any resistance to your amiable insistance that I enter in the ranks of the Consulting Editors of your Diction-
2 Certain late letters from E. B. P. are placed at the end of this collection (p. 348f below).LETTERS RECEIVED
289
ary? I accept then, with thanks for the honor you do me, in putting my name in this learned company, and with the hope that the difficulties of the delicate task which you propose will not be beyond my powers or above my feeble competence.
I hope nevertheless that you will put under contribution our honorable and learned colleagues of Paris who are more au courant than I am of the official and classic usage in the beautiful French language.
We were much touched on receiving some weeks ago your good wishes inscribed on the charming photograph of the University of Princeton. It gives me an idea of your environment and aids me to understand your power of work and your fruitful activity. These superb buildings, surrounded with vegetation, these templa serena of science, hidden in their nest of green, realize the ideal conditions of the most perfect physical and mental development. Certainly we have nothing to complain of here in the matter of nature, but it is the temples of science that are lacking, and we have not the stimulants to rouse us from our intellectual somnolency.
We are enjoying an exceptionally mild winter, dry and agreeable, not at all like the tempests of snow which the papers inform us rage at Boston. But the calm of the atmosphere unhappily does not extend to the moral domain; for we are overexcited by the Dreyfus-Esterhazy-Zola affair. Useless to tell you that we all incline here, as in the rest of Europe, to admit the innocence of Dreyfus; and we are grieved to see the state of blindness and moral "folie" of our great Neighbor.
I received your volume on Mental Development when it appeared and thank you again for it, very heartily. I have thought that the best means to make it known in our Swiss Universities was to devote an article to it in the journal "La Suisse univer-sitaire," which though published in Geneva is read by the entire Swiss university public. But it only appears once a month,290
BETWEEN TWO WARS
and always has more matter than it can publish; so that my article on your book is still waiting its chance to appear. As soon as it comes out I will send you a copy.
I have no special work on hand, having had to give so many popular lectures on psychological subjects. This no doubt distracts and amuses the public, but when added to the university courses, brings to the lecturer only fatigue and loss of time.
I grasp you cordially by the hand, my dear friend, thanking you again and making excuses for my long silence.
Bien a vous, Theodore Flournoy. [Swiss Philosopher, Geneva University.]
[Postcard.]
Geneva, March 21, 1915.
My dear Colleague and Friend,
I thank you for your kind letter and beg you to excuse this short reply; the war taxes all our energies to the utmost. I hope to take up your "Pancalism" at the Easter vacation. I have read with the greatest satisfaction your "Open Letter," and I immediately sent it to my fellow citizen Debarge, for the "Semaine Litteraire." I send you herewith the number containing the translation made by him. You well know our sympathies for the Allies, and that your energetic prose, "si bien tapee," will have a great success in French Switzerland.
Believe me, always yours,
Th. Flournoy.
[Postcard — translated.]
Geneva, April 2, 1916.
My dear friend,
What diverse emotions you have procured for us this week! First of all, I received your beautiful Herbert Spencer lecture— then the same day, the papers informed us of the frightfulLETTERS RECEIVED
291
catastrophe of the Sussex and your disappearance with your wife and daughter! ! ! You can judge of our alarm and of our anguish. Then the next issue said that you were at Wimereux, with your daughter gravely injured. Finally the days following have brought us little by little the tragic truth in all its essential details. Useless to tell you how we have followed the peripatetics of this drama, and all the vows that we have taken for your rapid and complete recovery, all three of you! We are impatient to have further news—may they be altogether reassuring!—And now I receive your volume. I hope that the "Semaine Litteraire" which has just published a very old (alas!) photograph which I gave them at their request, will print next Sunday an article on you which I am preparing. All our sympathetic vows for you and yours.
Th. Flournoy.
(Translated)
Paris, May 7, 1910.
My dear Colleague,
I have hesitated to send you this volume (Les Origines de la Technique), fearing to be indiscreet. But of course you are free not to read it. It is a sort of sample drawn from a new group of facts and problems. I have traced in my lectures the outline of this science, both of the whole and of its parts. It is to be feared now that I shall not be able to make it publicly known. If the idea seems to you worth the trouble, you will work out the scheme for yourself, and communicate it to the country which has most need of it, your own; for if there is anywhere ground favorable to technology, it is the country where technique flourishes as by predilection, the country of practical inventions of all sorts. I should like myself to have gone to the United States to present this philosophy which is American par excellence.
At this moment Tarde is occupying me. It is a very fre-292
BETWEEN TWO WARS
quent fact with him that he develops in one paragraph two theses at a time, one announced as the object of the demonstration and the other insinuated as an accidental detail of which he really seemed bent on persuading his readers at the expense of the first. It is by inadvertence you say; but what will you say if I show that these two opposed theses are thereafter considered as both equally established, and that he argues indifferently from both. For example, the existence of God (no more and no less). He makes use of the existence of God to explain the sentiment of fraternity which he attributes to his monades, and elsewhere he proves the impossibility of determinism by the postulated non-existence of a sovereign reason capable of foreseeing everything (Rev. Philos. Nov. 1901). I have moreover a letter from him saying that he does not accept the dogma of the existence of God.
It is difficult for a foreigner to untangle all this, for even French philosophers like Bergson are deceived by it.
Those who study Tarde as criminologist and jurist are less exposed to misunderstanding than those who study him as philosopher and sociologist. Still there are parts of his criminological doctrines very difficult to understand; for example the reasons which justify his strange predilection for crimes of blood. To this question, as to whether crimes of blood are worse than crimes of ruse, he attaches that as to whether urban societies are better or worse than rural societies. I defy any one to find out which in his opinion is superior to the other. He might well have left the question unraised but having raised it he can not legitimately maintain both solutions at once.
Believe me that I am not accustomed to defame thinkers with whom I am not in accord. Often it is precisely those from whom I differ that I esteem the most.
Speaking of technique, have you seen the Musee des Medail-LETTERS RECEIVED
293
les, along-side of the National Library, which contains many curious things beside ? It is worth the trouble of a visit.
Accept, my dear foreign colleague, the expression of my most cordial regards,
A. Espinas.
[French philosopher.]
(Translated)
7 rue Lincoln, Paris, October 7, 1911.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
Will you allow me to write in French? You know our language so well that it will make no difference to you, and it will spare you the annoyance of reading my bad English.
I am very sensible of the great honor you do me in calling attention, in the preface to your third volume, to the convergence in the result to which we have come, each from his own side and by different methods. As you say with reason, here is a further presumption in favor of the exactitude of these results. I had remarked also, as you may well suppose, that on important points there is marked agreement between the first volume of your "Thought and Things," and my "Fonctions mentales," and I had taken satisfaction in it. My intention is to continue my researches in the same direction; and naturally the confirmation they receive in the results of yours, will be a precious encouragement. I am waiting with impatience for the third and fourth volumes of your great work. I am sure that they will bring me, like the preceding volumes, much matter for reflection, and that they will make over the important problems of which they treat.
It goes without saying that a critique of the association psychology is a little late in the day. It has been made long since, and by master hands. I wished simply to indicate how the asso-294
BETWEEN TWO WARS
ciationist psychology accepted blindly by the English anthropologists led them to postulates of very doubtful value.
You have every reason to protest against the procedure of your publishers. [Referred to above, Vol. I, p. 94]. It is to be hoped that you will find time soon to prepare a new edition of your useful Dictionary. But it is really excessive on their part to announce a new edition, without having had your collaboration.
Kindly present my respectful homage and that of my wife to Mrs. Baldwin and accept the expression of my best sentiments.
L. Levy-Bruhl.
[French philosopher.]
(Translated)
Paris, Dec. 27, 1913.
My dear Colleague,
I owe you many thanks for the two very interesting little volumes (History of Psychology), that you send me. You will excuse me, I hope, if I do wait to thank you. I find them, like your other books, altogether attractive and full of ideas. Your conception of the history of psychology is both new and satisfying; the place you give to the social element—very justly in my opinion—enables you to give to the history an organic and living character. I am happy to congratulate you on the work, and I shall not fail to signalize it to those of my students who read English.
I agree with you that the remarkable similarity of results to which we have arrived, pursuing very different roads, offers a very serious interest, and constitutes an important argument in favor of the exactitude of these results. But I think at the same time, that this argument gets its force especially from the difference of our methods and postulates. I do not set out from the hypothesis that the development of the race reproduces theLETTERS RECEIVED
295
development of the child and the reverse. On the contrary, I have abstained carefully from all evolutionary hypotheses, limiting myself to the analysis of the facts of primitive mentality, in complete abstraction, as far as possible, from all general theories. That the results obtained by this method are in agreement with those reached by you from your "genetic" study of mental development, is an important fact on which we may well congratulate ourselves. Believe, etc.,
L. Levy-Bruhl.
*	21 Carlyle Mansions,
Cheyne Walk, S. W., March 13, 1913.
Dear Sir,
I hope—though not with absolute confidence—to be able to send you tomorrow a photograph of my brother William James, for the purpose you write me of. The difficulty is that it is (if I possess an available one) locked among many other things in my (closed) house at the country, from which I am absent for the winter. But I am trying to cause it to be got at, and if successful (which I shall know tomorrow) you shall have it. Otherwise I must ask you to believe in the regret of, yours very truly,
Henry James. March 14, 1913.
Professor Mark Baldwin. Dear Sir,
I enclose herewith the photograph, already referred to, of W. J. I hope you will be able to have it really well reproduced. I shall have been very sorry to have exposed it to anything else,296
BETWEEN TWO WARS
and I ask for a word signifying its safe arrival. It's a very fortunate and happy portrait of him.
Yours very truly,
Henry James.
May IS, 1913.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
I have not received the packet you speak of—only the postcard ; but I dare say the photograph matter is all right. I can't help being sorry, however, that the portrait I sent you failed of effect, as it represents a view of my brother that I myself preferred, and there are two or three in circulation that I think much less happy." However, I hope that what you got from the Longmans will sufficiently answer, and am yours very truly,
Henry James.
3 The photograph sent by Henry James is now reproduced above, p. 220 of this volume.V.
Letters from Various Correspondents 1915 and Later
Ambassade de la Republique Franqaise aux Etats-Unis
Washington, March 29, 1915.
My dear Mr. Baldwin,
It is most kind of you to have sent me your Open Letter to Dr. Hugo Kirbach.
This vigorous refutation of German untruths, false pretences, monstrous assumptions, is as timely as it well could be. From one of such authority, a scientist, a thinker, a former pupil of German Universities as well as of French ones, it cannot fail to have a very deep effect, and if anything would cause the Germans to perceive that even constantly repeated misstatements are of no avail, this ought to do it.
If you could send me one or two more copies, I should be very much obliged.
Believe me, with best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Jusserand.
[French Ambassador at Washington.]
Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.,
May 16, 1916.
President's Room
My dear Professor Baldwin:—
I have just received a copy of your book and I shall take
297298
BETWEEN TWO WARS
great pleasure in reading it. I am glad that you have expressed yourself with no uncertain sound. I am in full sympathy with you and all that you think and feel in reference to this war and the attitude of our country. I am in a state of constant anger and irritation in reference to it.
I hope that your daughter Elizabeth is progressing and will have a complete restoration of health and strength. We have felt very bitterly here about the sinking of the Sussex and all the Princeton people involved.
With my very warm regards to you all,
Ever faithfully yours,
John Grier Hibben.
[President of Princeton University.]
Princeton University, Princeton, N. J., November 29, 1916.
President's Room
My dear Professor Baldwin:—
I have just received a copy of—"The Message from Americans Abroad to Americans at Home." I am very glad indeed to know what you are thinking and feeling. We have just sent out from Princeton, with signatures of most of the members of our Faculty, a protest against the wholesale deportation of Belgians by the Germans. I do not know whether it will do any good, but it gives us at least the satisfaction of expressing ourselves publicly in reference to this horrible national crime. I feel that it is the duty of separate institutions to do all in their power to express what our own government has not seen fit to do.
With warmest regards to all of your family, believe me,
Faithfully yours,
John Grier Hibben.LETTERS RECEIVED
299
(Translated)
Meudon, March 10, 1915.
Dear Sir,
I can not be content simply to thank you for your Open Letter to Dr. Kirbach; I wish to assure you of its moral importance for us Frenchmen, both because of its signatory, and because we have the right to consider it as expressing the opinion of a great many of your compatriots. Its frankness, its clearness, the bearing of the condemnation it pronounces add a further and great value.
One of the highest triumphs of civilization was to have established laws of war, which is an extreme but effective method of regulating international conflicts themselves as inevitable as those—daily, economic, etc.,—of private life. Germany has brought war down from this position, where it was submitted to the rule of universal morality, and placed it on the level of the industries of prey practised by the practical disciples of anarchy of the type of Bonnot.
The cause in the service of which Germany has employed means hitherto avowed only by apaches, is worthy of these means. What she is attempting to realize is the substitution for the Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Slav civilizations which compete loyally among themselves, in the complex destiny of humanity, a Kultur in which enter as ingredients—along with the real virtues of discipline, organization, and labor—the worship and cult of force, contempt for and destruction of what is feeble, on the side of morals, and on the side of intelligence, love of exclusive systems, subtlety of ideas even to the vanishing point, and a predilection for the colossal, mistaken for the beautiful.
It is the interest and the duty of civilized nations to show what their ideal is, in opposition to this menacing but unsuccessful effort to substitute, for our varied but harmonious civiliza-300
BETWEEN TWO WARS
tion, a type of society in which murderous attacks upon humanity become national virtues.
Believe me, etc.,
G. Fagnier.
[President, Academy of Moral Sciences, Paris.]
Mendon, 17 June, 1913.
Sir:—
I have let you wait for the acknowledgment I am indebted to you. I have been too busy to read your lecture sooner, but I read it twice and shall likely yet recur to it especially for the American temper and ideas with which I am not at all acquainted.
As for the French ones, I should regret some omissions if the reader ought not make allowance for the audiences to whom the lecture was delivered. For instance you make ample justice to the traditional and reputed taste which prevails in France with regard to common life. This accomplishment is real, this praise always due if one compares ones country with foreign ones but they are not if we compare present France with the former. Such an encomium will look to yourself require qualifications when noticing that the genuine esthetic is spoiled by the imitation of foreign vulgarity, for instance in architecture by the adoption of Germanic building, of what is called Kolossal style. More than that. You have certainly not failed to notice also the stupid indifference with which the Parisians attend to the overthrow of the monuments, the picturesque sites, the open spaces to which their city owed its beauty and its charm and which had escaped the beotian enterprise of Haussmann. As a prominent member of the American colony in Paris, you should join to the endeavours I am making with some friends to stir up public opinion on behalf of the monuments and perspectives which are endangered by speculators who may rely upon theletters Deceived
301
complicity of the pouvoirs publics. You may not be unaware of the systematical destruction of gardens and parks such as La Muette, of the reformation of quai d' Orsay, of the contemplated mutilation of Palais Royal and Tuileries and of the charming prospect of Pont Neuf, etc., etc. This overthrow betrays a great decay of taste, a dreadful regression in the way where we had obtained and still enjoy the primacy. I understand such a truth could not have suited the audience who heard you lecture.
You are also too sharp-sighted not to have observed the prominent feature of our present situation. I mean the nationalist reaction which prevails among the young men and which afford to old people the hope of seeing the France worthy of whatever your honourable acknowledgment of her hospitality promotes you to tell. Still less than the former such a truth was calculated to be pleasant to your auditors.
Apart from these voluntary and necessary omissions, I fully appreciate in your paper the acuteness of observations and neatness of style and apologize for the awkwardness of mine.
Yours sincerely,
G. Fagnier.
Paris, le 30 June, 1915.
My dear Confrere,
I cannot tell you how I have enjoyed your La France et la guerre—and your letter, was, by Jove, worth everything that has appeared up to date. I should like to have a copy if you have one. I am sending you copy of a speech I made with many apologies, for, it is not my line, alas! Thank God we are not neutrals, they are the only real dead ones of the war.
Yours faithfully,
Whitney Warren.
[American architect.]302
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Paris, February 28, 1915.
My dear Colleague,
I have waited several days to reply to you, thinking I might receive from La Revue Philosophique the volume that you have the kindness to offer me. But as it has not arrived, it is with great pleasure that I will accept the one from you for which I thank you in advance.
If I were less pressed for time I would go to see you; but at the Sorbonne our habitual schedule is maintained, although with fewer students. At Sevres nothing has been changed; and I am charged besides, in consequence of the war, with services at the Mairie of my quarter. Yesterday, we had to pass on a thesis—the first, to tell the truth, in philosophy for the year; I took the occasion to raise, in opposition to the candidate, an objection based on your genetic analysis of the different forms of dualism, mentioning of course the source from which I drew it.
I am about to commence work on the letter S of the Vocabu-laire, and I would desire if possible to include the word "syn-nomique." As I do not want to deform your thought, may I define it thus:" that which in its own right (en droit) and in the domain of thought is virtually common to all minds?" This it seems to me is the important sense resulting from the analyses given in volume II of "Thought and Things," especially pages 76 and 93, and in the table on pages 270 and 271. Yet I am in some doubt whether in your thought the meaning of synnomic is not restricted to the content of propositions; and in that case I would ask what word would appear to you to be the best for the meaning given above ? For this definition pertains to a concept of which we have great need and for which the term "universal" is often used in French, a usage however which is doubly ambiguous ; for it may mean, first, the formal character of propositions A and E; and second, the character of propositions (ifLETTERS RECEIVED
303
there are any, as many philosophers have believed) \vhich are actually common to all men.
And might I define "syntelique" as that which, in the domain of the rules and ends of action, corresponds to that which is synnomic, as defined above, in the domain of thought?
I should be very happy if I could see adopted in France these expressions which represent conceptions so precise and necessary. If on the contrary you think that the senses in which you have used these words do not admit of just this signification, I will conform to the very equitable rule which you formulated at the Congress of Psychology at Geneva, and try to find some other designation. Pray believe, etc.,
A. Lalande.
[French philosopher.]
(Translated)
Institute of France, Paris, April 9, 1916.
My dear Colleague,
It is with great emotion that I learned of the frightful catastrophe in which you were involved, you and your family. I send you the most sincere wishes for the prompt recovery of Miss Baldwin. May you all come uninjured from this frightful act of piracy, against which you have so nobly protested in your message to the President—of a kind to which the German barbarism is making us more and more accustomed.
Permit me to thank you for the gift of your lectures on American Neutrality. I have read them with the greatest interest, and they have singularly lightened up certain points which were obscure in the foreign policy of the United States. I associate myself with all my heart with the beautiful passages with which you finish the book. A permanent ligue is necessary against those who have shown that far from being supermen (jwr-hommes) they are inferior men (jowj-hommes).304
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Accept my dear colleague, the assurance of my deep and cordial sympathy.
fimile Picard.
[President of the Academy of Sciences, Paris.]
(Translated)
Fondation Thiers, Paris, April 6, 1916.
My dear Colleague and Friend,
We are still very tormented for news of the condition of Miss Elizabeth. We hope that she is now on the way of complete recovery.
I hardly dare broach the subject of a commission with which I am charged. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is organizing a series of lectures at Lyons on the occasion of the Book-Ex-position. I have been delegated to ask if you could give a lecture there, toward the end of this month, on the intellectual relations between the United States and France. If you do not find it impossible to do this, will you let me know, and I will transmit your reply at once to the Government. I am myself going to give a lecture there on the same subject.
Be assured my dear colleague and friend, of the profound and cordial sympathy, for you and Mrs. Baldwin, of
Your devoted,
Em. Boutroux.
[Director Fondation Thiers, Paris; French Philosopher.] (Translated)
Paris, April 6, 1916.
My dear Colleague,
We did not realize that the wounds of Mademoiselle Baldwin were so serious, and we hoped to find you all three at home on Sunday. I feel that all words are vain in the presence of the events through which you are passing; but we hoped to find youLETTERS RECEIVED
305
to grasp your hand and express our deep sympathy when we called on you. The concierge told us something of the shipwreck—of your separation and later reunion in the life-boat, along with your unconscious daughter—what moments indeed! —But it is said that wounds of the head heal quickly and we count on having better news soon.
Such banditism on the part of the Germans will perhaps open the eyes of your compatriots. As for you, you have not hesitated, as true philosopher that you are, to place yourself on the side of right. You merited a better recompense!
Amitiees devouees,
A. Espinas.
(Translated)
October 6, 1916.
Dear Sir and honored Professor,
Will you permit a hermit from the Cevennes to tell you of his gratitude and admiration. In your lecture on the "Super-State and the Eternal Values" you have established in luminous terms the contrast that exists between the ideals of the peoples of the Entente and the other—if indeed one can give the term "ideal" of the lamentable system to which the ninety-three [German intellectuals] have given their adhesion. I am inclined to think that their "manifesto" will have greater importance for the destinies of Germany than had Sedan for those of France.
In your preface you see us rather as we would wish to be than as we are; but in placing such a flattering portrait before our eyes you aid us to become more and more like it, and to realize our better self.
To draw closer the spiritual bonds existing between our two countries, and to create still further bonds, seems to me so necessary that I have recently approached different American306
BETWEEN TWO WARS
friends to ask them to give the matter consideration. You may therefore imagine my joy in seeing that you had had the same thought. Success in this direction will be indispensable to complete and affirm the victory of the Allies on the field of battle. From my post of observation, I can see only too clearly that the peace, even if made on our terms, can only be a preface; it can afford only an external solution to the conflict of the two systems of ideas.
The day after the war, when this nightmare shall have given place to joy, will not the peoples, even the best informed, give themselves over to repose, relaxation and forgetfulness ? It is then that the United States will have a singularly elevated mission in regard to us—that of hindering us from falling asleep.
One is being asked on every side whether there will be a religious awakening. It has come already, instantaneous, sublime ! The conscience of each in the darkness that followed the mobilization, found its purity and its instinct of sacrifice for an idea. But granted that this has been prepared for by long centuries of Christian life, still it is necessary to say that at this present moment it has not been the church that has aided us either to see clear or to form a resolution.—The renovation in religion has taken place outside of the churches, and it does not draw its nourishment from them.
Such a situation can not be prolonged. The Roman Church, profiting by its organization, and representing itself as the sole fountain of true patriotism,—will stir up political movements, which will turn all the democratic forces of the country against her. A new anti-clerical block will be formed, and the saddest of civil dissensions will break out again.
This democratic anger in France will be all the greater as the partiality of Rome for Germany appears in all its crudity. In a long conversation which I had with Pius X, at the beginning of his pontificate—and which I at once committed to writing and sent to two French bishops—he said to me: "If France wantsLETTERS RECEIVED
307
to be saved, let her follow the instructions (?!) of that holy sample (echantillon) of a man, our Emperor of Germany (quel santo pezzo d'uomo il nostro imperatore di Germania) !
As you probably know, Cardinal Gibbons and Mons. Ireland refused to sign the Address of the 500 [Americans—in favor of the Allies].
The war then will be followed by a spiritual crisis in which we will have singular need of the sympathy and co-operation of our friends in America, and it is this that makes me enthusiastic in support of your ideas of closer union. In short our consciences are striving to bring religious progress up to the level of the prodigious progress realized in the other branches of human activity. Believe, etc.,
Paul Sabatier,
[French writer, author of the "Life of St. Francis of Assisi."] (Translated)
La Maisonnette (Ardeche), October 16, 1916.
Dear Sir and honored Professor,
I am very grateful to you for the gift of your article on the Pan-Atlantic Alliance. I hope you will take no rest to advance the realization of this fruitful idea: it would afford the surest guarantee and assurance that this frightful war will not have broken out in vain, and that the very excess of the evil will have given birth to the more precious fruits.
You may well imagine with what interest I have read your pages on "France and the War," when I tell you that from one end to the other my views accord profoundly with yours. You may convince yourself of this by casting a glance over an essay on contemporary history that I published toward the end of 1912. You know France too well not to recognize that the religious orientation of the country is a difficult and delicate subject. The fact that I constantly find myself in accord with308
BETWEEN TWO WARS
you rejoices me more than I can say. I have ventured to give your address to my friend Henri Chalamet, Mayor of Valence. The Municipal Council of that city has just passed a vote of thanks in response to the Manifest of the 500 of the American elite. He will notify you of this feeble tribute of our gratitude.
Let me add that it is not the large cities alone which feel the great value of this noble suffrage of intellectual America, but also the smallest mountain villages. On all sides they ask for copies of your Address, so that the mayors may communicate it officially to the city Councils, and that after its communication that body in voting its appreciation may order the precious document preserved perpetually in the archives of the City,
Receive, dear sir, etc.,
Paul Sabatier.
(Translated)
La Maisonnette (Ardeche), 11 November, 1916.
Dear Sir,
I did not venture to write you when I saw in the "Debats" the Message to "Americans at Home," fearing to be indiscreet. But since you have been good enough to send me some copies, let me thank you for them and especially for the part you have taken in its preparation. It is evident how important it is. It is a new and magnificent step in the path so well marked out by the Address of the 500.
These two manifestations awake strong and profound echoes in the soul of France; and I wish you could see with what joy at once fraternal and respectful, the reading of these documents is listened to.
I have already written you of this, and M. Chelamet, Maire of Valence, has sent you the resolution of the City Council. But the resolutions taken by the little communes are often moreLETTERS RECEIVED
309
touching, more naive. Here is one from a very small village hardly known except to the learned (because of its role in the wars of religion). You will appreciate the huguenot and even camisard note it strikes.
I presume that you have sent copies of the Message to your countrymen and to the Times of London, but I shall still send one to my friend Steed, foreign editor, and to some Americans in the United States and Italy.
But I must not try your patience, ....
Believe me, etc.,
Paul Sabatier.
2 West 45 St., N. Y. May 31, 1916.
Dear Professor Baldwin:—
I had for some weeks been intending to give you a word of greeting and of inquiry. I have, however, had on my hands during the past two or three months a special pressure of work and correspondence. In addition to the routine responsibilities of the publishing office, there has come to me a great mass of correspondence connected with the work of The American Rights Committee, of which I am President.
I have been making addresses three or four times or more a week, in support of the contention of our Committee that the time had come for the United States to take direct part with France, England and their Allies. I have, from the outset, been fully in accord with your own views in regard to the proper relation of Americans to this world's war, a war that is being fought in maintenance of the principles of civilization. I find my audiences increasingly sympathetic with this view.
I am enclosing with this copy of the Declaration which was prepared for the Lusitania Memorial Meeting announced for May 7th, a meeting that was postponed under the instructions of the Mayor. On the same slip, you will find the shorter Declaration, which was passed at the meeting finally held on310	BETWEEN TWO WARS
May 19th, with but one opposing vote. We had present about 2,500. A similar declaration was passed, with two or three opposing votes, at a meeting of 2,500 in Boston. I secured the other day in Indianapolis, at a meeting of about one thousand, acceptance of the same declaration, and with no opposing vote.
We shall press forward, as rapidly as the funds available will permit, the "missionary" or educational work of our American Rights Committee. We have now on the list of members of the Committee something over seven thousand names.
I have been looking in foreign dispatches from week to week for some further word in regard to your daughter. We are all hoping that the great anxiety that came upon Mrs. Baldwin and yourself in connection with her injury on the "Sussex" may now have passed, or have been very much lessened. You are yourself at this time a most important connecting link between public opinion in this country and in France. It has been my privilege to be something of a connecting link during the past half century in which I have made annual sojourns in England between Great Britain and the United States; while during the months of the war, I have received recognition, appreciation, and a fair share of abuse, coming to me in German and in English, on the ground of my advocacy of the cause of England and her Allies.
I finished reading last night the little volume on Neutrality. It had been on my desk for some weeks, but I had only just been able to reach it. It seems to me an admirable presentation of the case for action on the part of the United States. A number of Democrats, like myself, who worked hard for the nomination of Wilson, and who have had reason to approve cordially certain of his actions, have become very much discouraged with his lack of incisiveness, or even of consistency in the protection of American citizens and the fulfillment of the obligations of our Republic.LETTERS RECEIVED
311
I was prepared on May 7th to express the protest of our Committee that twelve months after the sinking of the Lusitania, the crime was still a matter of correspondence; while in presiding at the meeting of May 19th, I took ground for protest that the crime of the Lusitania was no longer a matter of correspondence, but had apparently been permitted to pass into innocuous desuetude.
I am, with best wishes, and with cordial regards,
Yours very truly,
Geo. Haven Putnam.
[American publicist and publisher.]
Raymond Avenue, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 11 June, 1916.
Dear Dr. Baldwin,
Your "American Neutrality" has just reached me and so I have your address. Have read the work with great interest and am reviewing it for the Chronicle, a paper in which I am interested.
Now that I can know where to address you I want to express my sympathy to you and Mrs. Baldwin for the terrible experience on the Sussex. I have just learned from May Edgar that Miss Elizabeth is better and I trust recovering. My horror and indignation over that atrocity were so great I could hardly contain myself. 1 at once wrote to President Wilson, with whom I had a bowing acquaintance, that his "neutrality" was a farce and for him to read me out of the Democratic party. More than that I could not do except write against his wretched administration and join a military company. It would do your heart good to know how even the "neutral" colleagues have turned against the Teutons. Not one of them has been inside our house since the Lusitania, but we have had three speakers here before our friends who have stirred things up: Poultney312
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Bigelow, Mme. Huard and Major N. N. Leamon who denounced the invasion of Belgium. Because of this propaganda and a few things I've written, I've had anonymous letters and learn that my house is early to be burned down when the Boches come over. I am now learning to shoot a military rifle, as I've never had any lower game than woodchucks.
You ought to be here to learn how white men feel. I divide the country into three classes—white men, niggers and hyphens. The preparedness parade in which I marched with the journalists, was a serious affair. Afterwards I happened to be in a row where some Hoboken representative of Kultur who passed some slurring words in the parade, would have been badly handled if it had not been for the police. Don't let "neutrality" talk fool you—the college crowd and the sort of people we know are boycotting the German Americans both socially and commercially. In one week, also, I learned of three schools where German teachers were dropped because there was no demand for the unpopular tongue.
You are doing a great service by your lectures and I am passing your book around. Your telegram to Wilson made your friends rejoice. It had its place on the front page of the Times as you see by the enclosed.
The Allied Bazaar here is an enormous success. All the art and beauty of the Kingdom are there, in marked contrast to the Bazaar of the Central Powers which was frequented by a crowd of delicatessen shopkeepers.
We have seen something of the Allied Bazaar's workings as Major Leamon is in charge of the British War Relief of which Mrs. Riley is a patroness.
I have just finished a chapter for the Cambridge History of American Literature on Early American Philosophers. This summer I shall be busy on an article upon "French Puritanism in America"—a subject which I had not space to touch upon in my "American Thought." The latter work was not sent byLETTERS RECEIVED
313
my publishers (Holt) to the French journals for review, but I recently received about twenty pages on it in Italian, excerpts of an article in the Nuova Ontologia by Professor Chiappelli of Florence. Coming under the title "II nuovo pensiero Americano" he speaks of Darwinian evolution, "e le applicazioni re-cente alle questioni e indagine psicologiche nell opera, geniale per molti rispetti, di Giacomo Baldwin."—
Mrs. Riley joins me in warmest regards and utmost sympathy for the terrible trials you have undergone—all of you.
Faithfully,
Woodbridge Riley.
[Professor in Vassar College.]
232 West Lanvale Street, Baltimore, Md. May 19, 1917.
Dear Baldwin,
I was delighted to get news of you from the notice you were kind enough to send of the "Grande manifestation" in your honor. I read your address with the greatest pleasure—it strikes a fine note. In this country we are beginning to feel the seriousness of the situation, but if matters go as they promise we shall feel it much more deeply a year hence since by that time doubless many of our friends and families will be at the points of danger and honor. My boy who has just received his Ph. D., degree has enlisted and no doubt will be sent over to France in due time. Everybody is anxious to do something for the cause. All the scientific men are organized into committees and are turning their attention to practical problems that may have some bearing on the conditions developed by this war. It is a sad business for the world to be engaged in, but it would be much sadder if the principles of German civilization were allowed to win out. Those of us who are not placed so that we can help in a direct and evident way are314
BETWEEN TWO WARS
conscious of a great nervousness that makes it difficult to attend to ordinary affairs. With best wishes and kind remembrances to Mrs. Baldwin,
Sincerely yours,
W. H. Howell.
[American physiologist.]
1027 Calvert Street, May 23, 1915.
Dear Dr. Baldwin:
I ought more promptly to have acknowledged the "Open Letter," received several weeks ago.
Of course I sympathize with the indignation which you express, both in regard to the motives (as far as we can understand them) of Germany in bringing on the war, and the methods employed in its prosecution, and also in regard to the propaganda carried on in this country. Your language is more emphatic, in some of its epithets, than I should have ventured to use, but your opportunities of observation and information have been so much greater than mine that I should not permit myself any criticism.
We have just inaugurated the new president of the University and dedicated the buildings at Homewood. The weather was not altogether propitious for out of door ceremonies, but the occasion was worthily commemorated. Several laboratories are needed for which the money is not in hand, but I think one or two more buildings will be put up at once and that the University. will move out in September, 1916.
I may safely tell you what is, as yet, a secret here, that I am to retire at the end of this year. The time which I have long fixed in my mind for retirement was last year, at the end of twenty-five years' of service, but, as the new president was not then in office, I said nothing. It is clear to me that I ought not to delay longer.LETTERS RECEIVED
315
Mr. Gilder sleeve also retires this year; this has already been announced. The next half dozen years will make a great change in the University staff.
I was much interested and pleased to hear from several who were present at the charming wedding a few months ago. The glimpse which I had of Mrs. Baldwin at the time of her brief visit in Baltimore was rather tantalising than satisfying. I hope slie may come again for a longer stay.
You do not expect the Germans to take Paris evidently. We long for a close to this dreadful misery and ruin. How much more deeply you must feel it all. With many remembrances and good wishes.
Yours truly, Edward H. Griffin.
[Philosopher, Dean of the Johns Hopkins University.]
827 Park Avenue, Baltimore, May 18, 1920.
My dear Dr. and Mrs. Baldwin:
The very interesting invitation for June the fifth, which I received yesterday, shows that you are, or are soon to be, in Princeton.
Whether you have just returned from the other side, or have been in the country for some time, I do not know, but it must, in either case, be a pleasure to be here again. The agitating and anxious years through which you have passed must have made great demands upon you, both physical and moral, and relief must be very welcome. We who have lived in inglorious ease amid the turmoil and sufferings of the world look with admiration, and something of envy, upon those who have borne their part in this great crisis. I have heard in various ways of the help which you have rendered, and am sure that it will be a life long satisfaction to know that you were able to be of so much use.316
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Probably you are disappointed with the conditions which you find here. We all lament that the ideal enthusiasms which united our people during the war seem to have, for the time being, expended themselves, and that ignoble motives and class antagonisms threaten our peace, and hold us back from doing what needs to be done for the peoples who have suffered so much. All this was, I suppose, more or less inevitable, though the responsibility of it rests, to a certain extent, upon those in authority—the distribution of that responsibility being, of course, dfferently made, according to the political predilections of individuals. But I feel sure that things are going to right themselves in time. When the Presidential election is over, prophecy will be easier than it is at present.
It is a pleasure to hear of the happiness to which Miss Elizabeth is looking forward. Your own feelings are, as I can well understand, of mingled pleasure and pain. I know the sense of disrupted family life when sons are married, and this experience must be far more keen when daughters establish homes for themselves. Yet we would not interfere with the order of nature, and in due time we become more than reconciled.
I often recall the years of your residence in Baltimore, and the friendship which was so welcome to my wife, and later to my sister, and to myself. On the 29th of May last, my sister, with whom, at Springfield, I had spent a part of each year, since my retirement from the University, died, and I am now living here—except for the summer months at Lake Placid. I hope we may meet sometimes, if you are now returning to this country.
Will you please extend to Miss Elizabeth my most hearty congratulations? I wish it were possible for me to be present on the fifth.
May I ask to be remembered also to Mrs. Libbey, whom I used to see here occasionally?LETTERS RECEIVED
317
With thanks for your kind invitation, and with grateful memories of the past.
Yours very sincerely,
Edward H. Griffin.
Zurich, Oct. 7, 1917.
Dear Prof. Baldwin:—
I hoped to get to Paris for July 4th last; but I could not manage it. Now I am planning to come before the end of the year; but it may not be possible.
I am very busy here not merely with my normal work, but also with those services which a loyal American can render to the cause in a neutral state and particularly in the only bit of neutraldom where a German can hear his language spoken and hope for an encouraging word. I try to prevent such encouragement: that is my whole programme and I am fairly successful so far as an individual can do anything.
Now as to the object of this letter. The Zurich magazine "Wissen and Leben" wants to publish an article on Wilson and his attitude in the war, an article presenting the case of America under the heading "Wilson." The editor turned to the American legation which in turn consulted me. There are reasons which render it unwise for me to assume the task. Herron has a way of exposing his personal views and calling them Wilson, much as clergymen in each sect hang their theologies on the central figure of Christ. Wilson would not know himself in some of his costumes made for him by Herron. Suddenly I thought of you and thought you might be glad to speak to the German Swiss and help in the good cause. Of course I know you are not exactly a Wilson man (any more than I am) ; but I must confess that his policy in the war has probably been wise. This angelic patience under all the offences poured upon our nation gives his final resolve additional force and he had no need to lead the people; he waited till the people would tolerate no other318
BETWEEN TWO WARS
course. This too is a factor of strength. At any event we surely are all ready to forget any internal feuds and stand together to-day and you are doubtless also ready to make amends for the interview which appeared as a fluke when the first election reports came through.
"Wissen and Leben" is an organ of liberal "intellectuals." It has opened its columns to moderate writers in both camps; but the resultant is distinctly favorable to the Entente. The editor in a series of articles on his recent visit to Paris, while avoiding outbursts of hatred, made a strong plea for the cause of justice and proclaimed the impossibility of "moral neutrality" for the Swiss. The paper is much read in University circles.
I have just read of the misadventure of Cattell. I did not know his sympathies ran in that way; but he is quixotic in all that he does. For all that, I wish Columbia had been more tolerant, unless things went further than newspaper accounts imply. Harvard kept Miinsterberg, who was a much more objectionable propagandist and Munich keeps Forster, who espouses the cause of the Entente with rare ability and fervor. Perhaps Cattell's case contained graver elements.
With warm regards,
Yours faithfully,
Herbert Haviland Field.
[Founder of the International Bibliographical Institute of Zurich.]
Paris, le 27 May, 1917.
My dear Baldwin:
I have read with greatest interest and inward applause your splendid address. The book I have had to put aside for a free moment if it comes.
I am proud as an American and friend of France of the honor, the great honor that has come to you. It is fortunate and providential (wholly providential and not "almost provi-LETTERS RECEIVED
319
dential" as Professor Duffield used to say) that you have been here as a free ambassador in those critical days in the world's history.
And I am glad to have had the picture of Paris from your home and of your delightful home in Paris.
I am keeping the first of June in my calendar for your affair and I am hoping that nothing will keep me elsewhere.
Sincerely yours,
John Finley.
[American writer.]
(Translated)
Paris-Plage, March 30th, 1916.
Dear Sir:
My thought goes out toward you since the terrible drama of the 22nd of March, and I send you my ardent vows for the recovery of your child.
Your letter of February, 1915 addressed from New York to Dr. Hugo Kirbach has rendered your name most "sympathetic" among those who have suffered and who continue to suffer from German barbarism. I am one of them, and not knowing you otherwise than by your high scientific reputation, I have conceived for you since that letter the profound esteem which one experiences for those who place the interests of honor above all else, and speak the words that should be spoken without palliative or ambiguity.
Your psychology has been clairvoyant, my dear Sir, in revealing the perfidy of Germany such as she really is.
All that you have said—and I know your Letter by heart so often have I re-read it—reveals with luminous clearness what we really have to think of this vain people who shrink from no crime to satisfy their thirst to be "in the sun." Oh, if you could speak again now loud and clear, as you did before—and tell of the felony of this odious nation which promises the320
BETWEEN TWO WARS
United States not to attack unarmed boats and then immediately torpedoes the "Sussex"—tell of the infamy of this country that charges its submarines with the shameful work of which the innocent and feeble women and children are the principal victims.
It is your authorised voice that we listen to, and it is you whom we call upon; and if you affirm that the "Sussex" was not armed no one will dare assert the contrary. Your phrase "Germany has waged the war as a nation of bandits and pirates" will take on a new signification for the present as well as for the future. How this phrase of yours returns to mind when we read the German work "The Greater Germany" by Otto Richard Tannenberg in which the dream of Germany unfolds itself in its conscious Machiavellism, terminating in this final thought— "who will there be to judge us when we have become masters of the world ?"
Truly we would have to admit that if this spirit triumphs, life will no longer be worth the trouble of living. . . .
Allow me to finish as I began, dear Sir, with my ardent vows for the prompt and complete cure of Miss Baldwin. Believe, etc.
Louis Destree.
[Belgian judge and statesman.]
College Stanislas, Paris, le 29 Nov. 1916.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
I ought to have acknowledged the receipt of your Oxford lecture and of your Alliance Pan-Atlantique sooner, but as I have no doubt that the dignified appeal from Americans Abroad to their country is also your work I am glad to have this chance of congratulating you for the three publications.
You ought to be pleased with yourself. Count the men— even of the highest merit—who have intervened in as tellingLETTERS RECEIVED
321
a manner on as many occasions. I wonder what you thought of President Elliott's article in defence of Wilson. I was sorry. Even if many things can be said in explanation or extenuation of his methods it remains that culture as a whole had been against them in America, and that it was a strong argument for people who were anxious for simplification.
I am now writing my London lectures, and I will send you a copy as soon as they are printed, but I wish you would remember your promise to call here some day when you happen to be in this quarter and have nothing better to do. Please remember me to Mrs. Baldwin.
Yours very faithfully,
Ernest Dimnet. [French writer.]
(Translated)
Academy of Moral and Political Science, The Perpetual Secretary, Paris, April 1, 1916.
Dear Sir,
I hasten to transmit herewith the words addressed to you by our President, M. Henri Joly, at the meeting of today. All the members extended their profound felicitations to you, and joined in the vow for the complete recovery of your family and yourself. Allow me to add the expression of my personal sentiments of esteem and affection for you, and the desire of us all to see you soon among us again.
Rene Stourm. [Perpetual Secretary.]
Seance of April 1, 1916. M. Henri Joly, President. "My dear Confreres,
Permit me, in your name, to address our felicitations to our esteemed Correspondent, Mr. Baldwin, who has just escaped the greatest peril to which all our allies are now in common ex-322
BETWEEN TWO WARS
posed. Our felicitations, are, however, at this moment mixed with the fears which the condition of one of the members of his family continues to inspire, not to mention the effects of the terrible emotion to which he has been himself subjected. We hope that our member will soon be able to take his seat again among us, completely reassured. Our affectionate esteem goes out to him.
"You will remember that a short time ago he sent to us from the United States a sum of money resulting from a collection made by him among the American Correspondents and Associates of the Institute, at the head of which appeared the name of our eminent member, Th. Roosevelt.
"Let us extend to Mr. Baldwin all our compliments and all our sincere good wishes."
Embassy of the United States of America, Paris, March 27, 1916.
My dear Mr. Baldwin,
I was greatly pleased to receive your letter under date of Sunday, the 26th instant. While our mutual friend, Mr. Donald Harper, had already communicated to me the contents of your letter to him—which, by the way, was the first intimation of your actual safety—yet the additional information given in your letter to me is appreciated; I can assure you that I have already carried out your wish, that your friends may be made acquainted with its contents. George has 'phoned to a number of them to let them know the further good news.
I am not going to take the time just now to write a long letter, as it is the office closing hour, but you have hundreds of friends in this city who were overjoyed to know that you and your family were not among the victims. I suppose Mr. Harper has already written you that it seemed certain at one time, from the news we got, that your daughter had been killed outright.LETTERS RECEIVED
323
We all join in the earnest wish that she may speedily recover in such a manner as to come on to Paris—that in any event her injuries are not serious or lasting.	\
I might add, in conclusion, that this Embassy to-day instructed the representatives of the Military and Naval Attache Departments here—who went yesterday to Boulogne—to go down and see you, and, if you feel so disposed, to take your testimony upon some points as to the "Sussex" disaster.
Kindly remember us all to both Mrs. Baldwin and your daughter, Believe me,
Sincerely yours,
W. G. Sharp.
[American Ambassador in Paris.]
107, Rue de la Pompe, Paris, April 16.
My dear Prof. Baldwin,
Ever since that dreadful day when we all feared that you were all lost in the disaster which befell the Sussex, I have been promising myself to write you a neighborly letter and try to tell you and dear Mrs. Baldwin what an immense vacuum you would have left if the worst had happened and how fervently Paris rejoiced when your letter to Harper showed that you are still with us.
And among all the myriad victims of this unspeakable war I know of none whose sufferings have awakened a keener world-wide sympathy than those of your sweet daughter, whom everyone loves and whose cruel fate to be stricken in her innocence by the cowardly pirates of the sea, was an outrage for which civilized warfare has no parallel.
All during your days and nights of waiting by her bedside our hearts have been with you, and your legion of friends here are counting the days until you will all be back in your charming324
BETWEEN TWO WARS
home in the Boulevard Delessert, with Paris bathed in sunshine and blessed with the beauty and hope of Spring.
I believe Mrs. Mason wrote you at the time that I have been for a month past rather seriously ill. A progressive attack of Jaundice, Asthma and Bronchitis, which has left me depleted in weight, weak and without appetite or energy. But I am steadily gaining and hope to be back in my usual life within a few days more.
I have had time during these days and nights of illness to do a good deal of thinking and some serious reading, but of course the great overshadowing, all absorbing topic is the war and the deplorable situation that it has entailed in our own country. Your telegram to the President was admirable and in sending it you added one more to your long list of patriotic and timely services during the war.
No object lesson during these whole twenty months of outrage and misery has come home more forcibly to the American people or put a greater pressure of responsibility upon the Administration than the destruction of the Sussex, the sacrifice of innocent life which it entailed and the cowardly mendacity of the German Government in trying to deny the crime and escape the shame of it.
Give our faithful and devoted love to Mrs. Baldwin and your precious pathetic sufferer, and with the renewed assurance of our tender, affectionate sympathy believe me, as ever,
Faithfully yours,
Frank H. Mason.
[American Consul-General in Paris.]
j i
British Consulate General, 6, Rue Montalivet, Paris, March 29, 1916.
My dear Professor,
I wish to express to you our great relief and happiness inLETTERS RECEIVED
325
knowing that you are all three safe and alive, after your very bitter experience on the "Sussex." The first report that you were all lost will have been a very sorrowful shock to all your friends and acquaintances. However by this time they all know of your safety and we hope and pray that your daughter will soon be out of danger and recover. We are also glad that no American lives were lost, although perhaps your President might have written another note in stronger language had it been otherwise.
My private opinion is that the United States as well as the ABC republics in South America would have done well immediately on receipt of the news of the "Sussex," to seize all the German vessels in their ports and to have left it to Germany to deal with the matter as she did with Portugal or as she might choose.
I cannot imagine how any nation that is not in fear of its existence can remain neutral in the face of general piracy and barbarity.
We hope that we shall soon have the pleasure of seeing you and your wife and daughter once more hale and hearty in Paris.
My wife joins me in sincere congratulations and regards.
Yours very sincerely,
Walter R. Hearn.
[British Consul-General in Paris.]
Cleave Hotel, Leistleigh, Newton Abbot, Devon, March 28 [1916].
Dear Prof. Baldwin,
It was with inexpressible relief that I learned today the news of your safety with that of Mrs. Baldwin. The tragic tale of yesterday told iis that you had both perished, and that Miss Baldwin had been killed instantaneously by the explosion. I trust that she is not hopelessly injured, and that recovery may326
BETWEEN TWO WARS
advance steadily, while Mrs. Baldwin and yourself regain strength and composure after so dire a shock. The continuance of these outrages by Germany on unarmed vessels puts her out of the pale of civilized warfare, and her insolent announcement that citizens of neutral nations should not travel in the vicinity of her submarines is really part of a declaration of war against the whole world. A writer in the Round Table for the present month argues forcibly that against an enemy of the human race and its liberties there can be no real neutrality, and appeals to the nations hitherto neutral to recognize their tremendous responsibility in standing aside in a conflict which really involves the destinies and freedom of all.
I trust that Mrs. Baldwin has not been unnerved by your terrible experience. It will seem half a life-time since you left England; I can hardly believe that it is not yet two weeks since you lectured at Oxford. I was sorry that through calls to Birmingham and (unexpectedly) to London during the brief days that you were at Poulton's after Mrs. Baldwin's arrival at Liverpool, I was prevented from calling upon you. With sincerest wishes for your safety and that of those dearest to you.
Faithfully yours,
J. Estlin Carpenter.
[Professor in Manchester College, Oxford.]
Villa L'Etoile, Theoule, Alpes-Maritimes, April 1, 1916.
Dear Professor Baldwin:
On Saturday last I was in Verdun. When I arrived in Paris the following day, I heard the terrible news about the "Sussex." I was at lunch at the Lines that day. The Thackaras were there and Carlotta. We tried our best to keep up our courage, but it was a sad effort. For at that time, we thought Elizabeth was dead and that we might also have to mourn the loss of Mrs. Baldwin and yourself. That very morning a letter had comeLETTERS RECEIVED
32 7
from Princeton from my mother, saying that she had seen Mrs. Baldwin recently at Mrs. Libbey's.
The "Herald," which is in the charge of a new editor from America, who had not quite placed who you were, asked me to write something about the Baldwin family. I remember with what a heavy heart I did that on Sunday evening. Then, the next day, at the Monday Luncheon Club, Mr. Harper read your note.
I went immediately over to Morgan, Harjes and asked them to send an urgent telegram to Helen, for I knew what a shock the news would be to her if she saw it in the newspaper, and hoped that the telegram would get to her first. The Paris papers do not reach this place until the afternoon of the following day. Helen had just opened her "Herald" when the telegram arrived, so she was spared a great shock.
I left Paris on Monday, and have had no news since. In the midst of our rejoicing over your escape, the shadow still remains because we are without reassuring word about Elizabeth. I know you are overwhelmed with enquiries and messages of sympathy these days. But we would appreciate just a line, telling us how Elizabeth is getting on. We think of her all the time in that hospital near Boulogne. The whole business has been terrible beyond words. The only thing more terrible would be if our Government stands for it.
I suggested to Boghos Nubar Pasha that if Elizabeth is recovering as we all ardently pray for, you might be willing to be present at the session of the "Amities Franco-Etrangeres" on Sunday, April 9th, at 2 o'clock in the Sorbonne, and say a word of response to the speeches of MM. Deschanel, Painleve and Anatole France, as an American friend of Armenia. For political reasons, it would be impossible for an Armenian to respond at this moment. Perhaps you have heard from Nubar328
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Pasha about this. You remember going in with me one day to call on him at his home in the Avenue du Trocadero. Helen joins in loving sympathy to you all.
Faithfully your friend,
Herbert Adams Gibbons.
[American publicist, writer.]
120, Boulevard du Montparnasse, Paris, October 25, 1916.
Dear Professor:—
I saw the manifesto1 in this morning's "Herald." It is just right. I congratulate you most heartily on your success in putting in terse, forcible form exactly what we are all thinking. May it have some influence on the other side of the Atlantic!
The more perspective we get through the prolongation of the war, the more regrettable is the glorious opportunity missed by our country when Belgium was invaded. I never have believed that the United States was bound, either by treaty or by any historical precedent, to protest against the violation of Belgian neutrality. But it was a great chance to stand out for international morality—and President Wilson missed it! I am thoroughly persuaded that immediate and energetic official action at that time might have changed the course of history. The Lusi-tania business and all that has followed the initial errors of our foreign policy of supineness in Mexico and Europe has not only led our nation into false ways but has been and still is—and probably will be more so to-morrow—a menace to our peace and prosperity as well as a stain on our escutcheon.
You have been to our American community a splendid leader —with the vision of a prophet. Some of us have not always been of your opinion, when it was a question of ways and means. But there never has been any difference of opinion as to the
i The "Message from Americans abroad, etc.," reproduced above, Vol. II, p. 79.LETTERS RECEIVED
329
message we want to give our fellow-countrymen. This manifesto is simply one more proof, added to many others, that your pen accurately sets forth what we feel.
Faithfully your friend,
Herbert Adams Gibbons.
Paris,'March 28, 1916.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Yesterday morning while I was still in bed the maid brought me your letter and when I saw the handwriting on the envelope and looked at the name of the hotel "Sussex," from which it was written, on the back of the envelope, I thought that I was going to read a message from the dead. We all had about given you up as lost and the joy upon reading that you were alive was almost too great to believe. I immediately called up the Lines, the Masons, the Ambassador's home, Twyeffort and other friends, and during the morning most of the journalists flocked into my office.
You do not know how rejoiced everyone is that you, Mrs. Baldwin and your daughter are safe. We long to know the details of the tragedy and when you are coming to Paris?
Dr. Lines told me this morning that he had received a letter and gave us the good news that apparently your daughter's injuries are not so serious as you first thought—only external and not internal.
I went yesterday to the [Luncheon] Club. The Ambassador was there and a great many other friends also, and when I gave them the news of the safety of yourself and family, you should have seen how happy it made your many friends.
Mrs. Harper and the children join me in sending kindest remembrances to Mrs. Baldwin, your daughter and your own good330
BETWEEN TWO WARS
self, and it is needless for me to express again my great joy to know that your usefulness in this world has not yet ceased.
Your devoted friend,
Donald Harper.
[American lawyer in Paris.] P. S.—I am sending you today's Herald, Mail and Matin. I am keeping for you some of the obituary remarks of the journals of the previous day, as I presume it is very seldom a live man has the opportunity of reading such notices.
D. H.
47-48 Farringdon Street, London, E. C., May 24th, 1916.
My dear Professor,
Your letter of May 11th arrived while I was absent for a few days and I need not express my great delight to hear that your daughter is improving. I hope the progress will be constant and rapid from now on.
I must correct the impression which you might have had that I personally was responsible for the placing of your daughter in the life-boat. It appears that before I reached the upper deck the two sailors who were launching the boat had discovered her and recognising her condition, placed her in the boat.2 I noticed afterwards that you and Mrs. Baldwin had discovered her and it gave me great delight to know that the family was re-united even under such tragic circumstances.
Some time in the early summer I hope to get to Paris and I shall make every effort to find you all to renew the acquaintance which began under such tragic auspices.
I fear that our President has slipped back into the slough of political despond. I am growing more discouraged than ever
s My friend Oolonel Drake has since informed me that he was present at this rescue and thinks he was the first to recognize Elizabeth. Evidently one of the two "sailors" he mentions was Mr. Morton (spoken of above in Vol. I, p. 229).LETTERS RECEIVED
331
with his mental attitude. He seems to burst forth whenever the public sentiment is so outraged that some urgent act on his part is required, and then after he has calmed the public by some pungent sentences of his mighty pen, he relapses again into the peaceful pacifist. Let's hope for better things. With kindest personal regards to you all.
I remain,
Yours very truly,
F. E. Drake.
[American resident of Paris, later Colonel.]
American Chamber of Commerce in Paris, Inc.,
3, Rue Scribe, Paris, March 30th, 1916.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
In the daily performance of our duties, rendered more exacting by present circumstances, all of us have become conscious since the beginning of the war of the uncertainty of the times, and the possibility at any moment of calamitous events. We are, of course, more profoundly moved when such events affect those who are close to us. You can, therefore, readily imagine the anxiety felt by all of your many friends in Paris last Saturday and Sunday. Those were long hours for us, employed in diligent efforts to obtain exact news, and always with the hope that our fears were unfounded. I can hardly express to you the sense of relief which we experienced on Monday when we learned that your good family and yourself were safe, and it is our ardent hope that your daughter, who has so cruelly suffered from this disaster, will rapidly and completely recover.
The criminal act in attacking the "Sussex," and its consequences, are now the uppermost thought in the minds of all, and no group or assembly can come together without giving expression to its feeling on the subject. At the meeting of the Board of Directors of the American Chamber of Commerce in332
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Paris yesterday, the question was not, shall the Chamber express itself on this matter, but in what way can it express itself most effectively? That is what we are at the present moment preparing to do.
The members of our Board felt so strongly on this subject that a motion expressing the sense of relief and thankfulness which we all feel that your family has escaped this terrible disaster, has been officially recorded, and I have been requested, as President, to inform you of this fact.
With sincere personal regards, and again repeating our hope for the rapid recovery of your daughter, I remain,
Very sincerely yours,
M. P. Peixotto.
[President American Chamber of Commerce, Paris.]
3 Gately Rd., Edgbaston, Birmingham, April 3, 1916.
My dear Baldwin,
You may be sure that your one-time colleague and his wife and family have read with the keenest interest the newspaper accounts of the ordeal you and yours went through on the Sussex; and that we were distressed by the implication of the open telegram to Wilson reported in today's paper. We shall be thinking of you continually until we hear that Elizabeth is out of danger.
I went into College this afternoon full of the thought of your great anxiety, and among the mail which I had accumulated on my desk there was your book on "American Neutrality." I have already read much of it and find it full of instruction as well as of warm sympathy with the Allies' cause. You will not need that I should tell you how warmed are our hearts by your words, and to know that you believe, in spite of all our faults, that ours is a righteous cause. And after these many years, during which we have seen nothing of one another, itLETTERS RECEIVED
333
is an unspeakable happiness to have our old Toronto friend standing on our side!
Our boy, who has been rejected for active service, has been doing government work since the war began, and is now in the charge of a [ ?] as near the fighting line as they are allowed to go. And I have been given by the government the most responsible (confidential) work. Sometime I should like to write to you about our doings, and also about the American situation and your book. But your mind must be full still of anxiety— though I trust the gravest fears are no longer necessary—and while that is so, I cannot write nor you read about other matters.
Give my greetings—full of sympathy—to your wife. My wife has asked me to enclose a note to her.
Yours affectionately,
W. J. Ashley.
[Sir William, Professor in the University of Birmingham.] (Translated)
54 rue de Varenne, Paris, March 28, 1916.
My dear Baldwin,
You have come to life again!—we are glad of it! We were aghast on hearing the bad news, and our inquietudes over your fate were great.
Do you remember a conversation you had at the Institute with Bergson and me? He and I agreed that in the interest of France, it would be a good thing if you should be torpedoed during this voyage; for that alone could put an end to the hesitations of Wilson. Our prediction came near to being accomplished—but happily things were stopped in time. You were torpedoed, but you are saved. Will that be enough for Wilson ?
At any rate that's enough for you and for us. We hope that the injuries of your daughter are not very grave, and that she will soon be well again.334
BETWEEN TWO WARS
My wife joins me in congratulations to Mrs. Baldwin on her escape, and with all our friendly vows,
Bien a vous,
P. Janet.
[Psychologist, Professor in the College de France, Paris.]
House of Lords, March 30, 1916.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
I must send you a line to tell you how relieved we are to hear that you and your wife have escaped the danger that had so nearly engulfed you both. We were alarmed and horrified at the first news that you were both missing; but now your embassy here confirms the newspaper statement that you are safe. I earnestly trust that your daughter's injuries are not serious enough to give grave concern.
We gather that there is no doubt it was a submarine, not a floating mine, that struck the ship. Could anything show more clearly how dishonest and delusive were the promises Bernsdorff made on behalf of his government? In principle the Sussex, like the Tubantia, is the same case as the Lusitania. The truth is that the German government has been merely playing with yours.
I am reading with great interest your Oxford lecture and receiving much light from it.
My wife desires to join in hearty congratulations on the escape you have both had.
Sincerely yours,
Bryce.
[Lord (James) Bryce, formerly British Ambassador at Washington.]
The Orchard, Oxford, 3rd April, 1916.
My dear Baldwin,
I can not tell you how terribly we were grieved and shockedLETTERS RECEIVED
335
by the report, which seemed at first sight to be perfectly authentic, that you had all perished owing to the lawless attack on the Sussex. It was an infinite relief to hear that rumour had exaggerated the calamitous effects, as far as you were concerned, of this outrage. Still the injury to your daughter is terrible to think of, and we can only hope that the medical aid she is receiving will be effectual. I never had brought before me with so much vividness the horrible effects of this detestable attempt to establish the supremacy of Germany by means of a hateful war which is to me, as I am sure to you also, only less detestable than the very notion of some patched up peace which may leave Germany the strongest state in Europe. Personally I believe it impossible that Great Britain and her allies will ever assent to so disastrous a termination of one of the noblest struggles against tyranny in which the civilized world has ever been engaged. I hope and fully believe it is true that you had the thought and the vigour, in the midst of your personal sorrow and distress, to send a message to the President protesting against the terrible wrong afflicted upon American citizens.
I had at one time hopes that he would prove a President of x exceptional ability, and a man determined to raise the tone of public life. I am told he has shown a great deal of skill in the management of Congress; and I don't suppose him still to be in any sense a man of bad intentions. But it seems to me as if he had been placed in a position, as may sometimes happen to a good enough kind of man, with which he is exceptionally disqualified to deal. He made an error as to the mode of dealing with Mexico, and in regard to this war he seems to have entirely mistaken, or misconceived, the duty of a neutral country. It surely, as you point out in your book, is not a duty of •any country to conceal its condemnation of outrageous international wrong-doing. And a country so strong as the United336
BETWEEN TWO WARS
States which had taken part in the Hague Conference was surely bound to utter a protest which could not have failed to produce considerable moral effect, against the numerous breaches of international law committed by Germany. It is quite true, I think, that it would not have been becoming for the American government to have assumed that most of these charges were established. But the breach of the neutrality of Belgium was patent and admitted; and after the publication of the Bryce report there was assuredly prima facie reason for insisting that the allegations made by a committee headed by such a man as Bryce, and a man so well known in the United States, could not be passed over without some satisfactory explanation. It seems as if Wilson thought that even if some European country were to introduce the practise of torture, no neutral ought to protest.
But there is no need of preaching to you, who have put the case in favour of moral reprobation as strongly as possible. I only want to express to you my keen sympathy, not only for your sufferings, but also with your general view as to this whole conflict.
Yours very sincerely,
A. V. Dicey.
[Law Professor at Oxford University.]
The Orchard, Oxford, 20 December, 1901.
My dear Baldwin,
Happy is the man who has done his book and got it through the hands of the printers.
This obvious reflection has been forced upon my attention because the fact that I am labouring slowly and with very little success, at getting into printable shape my Harvard lectures onLETTERS RECEIVED
337
Law and Opinion has been the principal reason and is the only excuse of my not having written before this to thank you, which I do most heartily, for the volume of your Dictionary. I was delighted to have it both for the interest of the book itself which I am sure will be great when I am able to study it, and as a memento of our very pleasant acquaintance in Oxford. I heartily hope your work may soon bring you over to us again. I shall much want Oxford friends at present because my wife has been ordered by the doctors to be away from Oxford for some months to avoid the damp, and the result is that I shall be there next term alone.
I am intensely interested in Roosevelt's career. As far as I can judge he is doing very well. It is at any rate a great thing that the treaty with England has been ratified by the Senate.
Yours sincerely,
A. V. Dicey.
P. S. Please give my kindest remembrances to Dr. Patton.
Legation of the United States of America, The Hague, April 23, 1916.
My dear Professor Baldwin,
I have to thank you for your kindness in sending me a copy of your booklet on "American Neutrality" which I shall read with interest.
We are all most happy that you and Mrs. Baldwin and your daughter escaped from the submarine outrage on the Sussex. The newspapers tell us that your daughter suffered, but she has the consolation of knowing that it was in a good cause. Returning from America lately in the most dangerous hour, I should have been glad to go down, if it would have helped to make clear the fundamental issue of this inhuman war.
I think the President had made it clear now, and I have no338
BETWEEN TWO WARS
respect for any American who does not stand behind him in the position which he has taken.
With sincere regards to you and yours,
I remain very truly yours,
Henry van Dyke.
[Writer, American Minister at the Hague.]
(Translated)
Le Foyer de l'Ame, April 6, 1916.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
We have all been touched by your having found the means, during the anguish of your heart, to send us a line. The news is precious to us. We take our part in the inquietude that your daughter's condition causes you, and we hope that good symptoms will soon show themselves which will bring a little relief to your pain.
The German nation is sinking in dishonor, before being conquered by arms. When she shall have lost the fight, despite her crimes of brigandage, in which she has not taken the trouble to rescue her victims, the whole world will pronounce her condemnation. As I am proud and happy, despite my mourning, in view of the magnificent defense of France, so as a man I find it sad that a nation as well endowed as the German people should fall into such a depth of blindness, into such bestiality and baseness of heart.
It has needed such catastrophies as that of which you are the victim to arouse the neutrals, and America in particular, to see the real character of the Germans, and to realize the danger that this people of bandits is to the liberties of the entire world.
I send you our vows for the progress of your dear patient. Be good enough to present my respectful homage to Mrs.LETTERS RECEIVED
339
Baldwin; and be assured yourself of the affectionate solicitude with which your friends in France think of you.
Ch. Wagner. [French Philanthropist and Author.]
Admiralty, Whitehall, March 29, 1916.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Allow me to send you one line of most sincere thanks for your volume of lectures; and to offer you every congratulation on your happy escape from the perils into which Teutonic methods of warfare brought you.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour. [English Philosopher and Statesman.]
Wellington House Buckingham Gate, London, S. W., 30 March, 1916.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
My heart stood still when I picked up the Times, and saw that you had been lost with the Sussex. Curiously enough I had been reading with the utmost pleasure and satisfaction your very admirable book: "American Neutrality: its Cause and Cure." Twenty-four hours, however, of exasperated indignation was followed by the happy knowledge of your escape from the sea and from German barbarism. My congratulations, and I hope that your daughter is recovering fast. With kindest regards and greetings,
I am, yours sincerely,
Gilbert Parker. [English writer.]340
BETWEEN TWO WARS
Beauvallons. Mer. April 15, 1916.
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
I have been travelling in the south for several weeks and your letter has only just overtaken me.
I am full of compunction at your having thought it necessary to write in spite of your comprehensive message through the Herald and yet I am so glad to have direct news of you. My thoughts have been constantly with you and Mrs. Baldwin through all these terrible weeks, and I am grieved indeed to know that as yet there is no relief in your anxiety.
Sympathy with you in your great distress is so blent with indignation, and with the bitter humiliation which our country's attitude brings on us all, that words are hard to find to tell you how I feel for you and with her. . . .
Thank you for your kind congratulations. I feel it is a great honour to have received the Legion of Honour during the war.
Please remember me to Mrs. Baldwin and believe me with the deepest sympathy,
Yours ever sincerely,
Edith Wharton. [American writer.]
(Translated)
Paris, Dec. 1, 1917.
Dear Sir,
I thank you very much for your remarkable study on the "Procedure of Peace."3
You put very well the questions, but I have been astonished that you could conclude "how little remains to be done." I find, on the contrary, that between the present state of things and a regime under the Society of Nations there is an abyss.
As matter of fact, one might institute a high court, a Court of
* Reprinted above Vol. II, p. 111.LETTERS RECEIVED
341
International Jurisdiction. But how control the internal practices of the different governments, the backdoor intrigues at Washington, no less than at London, Paris and Rome—not to speak of Petrograd. Will the international court ever get the better of this? Will the members of the High Court ever succeed in stripping themselves of their smaller national interests in coming to take their seats?
As long as the governments of all the countries show so much feebleness, incoherence, and lack of comprehension, I doubt very much that any super-tribunal will ever come off any better. I very much fear, on the contrary, that they will fare worse.
I have attempted, in a volume of which I am expecting the final proofs, to read the lessons of the past. Certainly the times have changed. Europe of today is not that of the Treaty of Westphalia, nor even that of 1815. But the views of all the belligerents are full of reminiscent elements which the problems of today recall.
I send you a volume published in the first quarter of 1915 in which I confine myself to the redistribution of territories on the map of Europe, in which I see we are substantially in agreement.
Tout a vous,
Yves Guyot.
[French Economist.]
(Translated)
15 rue de l'Universite, Paris, [no date, 1916].
Dear Confrere and Friend,
Thank you, but to my enormous regret I am just starting out on an important mission, very important. Tell Mr. Wright of my admiration, and also say that I had the honour of contributing, at the Academy of Sciences, to having the great award given342
BETWEEN TWO WARS
to him—of which he is so worthy. And be assured also for yourself, how I am touched and moved by your admirable campaign for truth, right, justice, liberty which France and America are defending together! Long live France, America, England! Vivent!
Your very affectionate,
Charles Richet.
[French Physiologist.]
3 Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, W. C., [no date, 1916].
Dear Sir,
I am much obliged for your vigorous open letter to Dr. Hugo Kirbach, which ought to be widely known here, and I will try to make it so. Just now it is important for our people to be clearly informed that the strict official neutrality of the State Department is one thing, and free American opinion another. On one point, I slightly differ: it seems to me that it was, or in any case would soon have been, no less necessary than just, for us to take part in the war. In a separate cover I send you a pamphlet of mine which you will observe was prior to the publication of the French Yellow Book and of the revelation made by Signor Giolitti that the plan of an attack on Serbia was already formed in 1913.
You have probably seen in English or German Herr Dern-berg's "The Case of Belgium"—distributed by an anonymous agency in New York and for sale by P. C. Kullman, 68 Wall Street, for five dollars per hundred—which tries to make capital of the memoranda, found at Brussels, of conversations between the Belgium General Staff and our military attache; and if so you will have noted the seemingly wilful misreading of the date "fin Septembre, 1906," quite clear in the facsimile, as "fini," and the translation—impossible even if the reading were cor-LETTERS RECEIVED
343
rect—as "concluded." Apparently the comment of the "Nord-deutscher Zeitung" went even farther in misrepresentation.
Please observe that I vacated the chair of jurisprudence at Oxford in 1903. My successor is Paul Vinagradof formerly of Moscow—a choice which does honour to her much like the earlier adoption of Alberico Gentili. I note with pleasure that we are colleagues in the Institute of France.
I am truly yours,
F. Pollock.
[Sir Frederick, English Authority in Law.]
Carlsberg, Copenhagen (Valley), 16 March, 1916.
My dear Colleague,
I had just finished the lecture [reading] of your "Pancalism," as I received your "Open Letter," with the strong repudiation of German-American agitation. I sympathize both with your book and with your letter, and I thank you heartily for both. Especially I am grateful for the fraternal greeting on the first page of the book.
I have often myself spoken of a poetry of life, an idea which is not too different from your "aesthetic intuition," though I accentuate the emotional character of the life-experience, which seeks expression, more than the intellectual and aesthetic. I believe that the same life-experience is to have different expressions, corresponding to the different evolution of the intellectual and aesthetic life in different individuals. It is the central human life-experience, which in my eyes gives the old religions (where they are represented by deep and serious men) their value, also for the mind of the philosopher.
I am quite of your opinion as to the impossibility of a speculative solution of the metaphysical problem. I do not believe in the possibility of a rational metaphysics.
One thing only is not clear to me. In speaking on Pancalism344
BETWEEN TWO WARS
you seem to imply a projection of aesthetic intuition into the whole cosmos—to believe in a cosmic harmony. But then the difficulties of the old optimism (that of Plotinus and that of Leibnitz) will arise again. And it will be your task to defend a sort of metaphysics.
Perhaps I have not quite understood you on this point.
My sympathy is—as it is the case with all my colleagues in the Danish scientific world—with France and England, the countries which have been the cradle of all free mental and material development. Germany is a danger for all free and natural culture. And it is a monstrous phariseeism when our German colleagues assure us that their government and their military system are fighting for high culture. A German judge wrote recently to the Vossische Zeitung, that Germany was now undergoing the same treatment as Christ who was spit upon ("bespittlet") because he represented the Highest! To such blasphemy the German chauvinism has been developed!
Let us hope to see better times soon; though I don't believe that in my life-time the international intellectual work can be taken up again.
Yours sincerely,
Harald Hoffding.
[Danish Philosopher.]
71 Vernon Street, Hartford, February 11, 1915.
Dear Professor Baldwin,
Your new book from Putnam's has been in my hands for some days and what a treat it has been! I do not yet feel equal to speaking critically of it—I must give it a second reading, but I can at least give my impressions.
The entire position, as it now stands revealed and rounded out, appeals to me tremendously. Instinctively and naturally I should myself choose Pancalism as my philosophy. I haveLETTERS RECEIVED
345
always felt the reality in the aesthetic experience, and the highest reality. If I could only be persuaded—and almost thou persuadest me! But to put my difficulty in a word, at the start: I cannot see how the aesthetic can be put outside the sphere of value. "Beauty" may be the supreme value, but it is still a value and must, as such, stand in the relation of more and less to other values. It seems to me that the whole genetic conception—with precisely the aesthetic as the culmination of the "dialectic" of experience, already assumes value, with its conception of "degrees of reality."
But this does not mean that there is not a large part of your position with which I am wholly in accord. I think, for instance, that your whole treatment of Idealism (the value side) and Intellectualism is masterly and convincing. It seems to me to be one of the best results of the genetic method. I may say here that I have myself given up the voluntarism with which my treatment of values culminated. If I had not done so already, I should be compelled to do so after reading this book. Philosophy has come for me to mean, a system of values which, properly understood, means, I think, a transcendence of Idealism and Realism. With much of your development of this point I could agree.
As I see this splendid cap-stone to your stately procession of books, I am wholly ashamed of my own work. I am still at work on the philosophical side of the value problem and have quite a little completed which, however, I have been holding back to tighten up the joints of the whole system. My year abroad was quite fruitful, but unfortunately it must have included more work than I thought, for it was followed, on my return, by a year of nervous breakdown. I was able to keep up the daily tread-mill of work, but practically nothing else. The array of almost completed things, both literary and philosophical is appalling. But I have been on my feet again for several months now, and can work almost as before.346
BETWEEN TWO WARS
I hope your charity will allow this to cover my multitude of sins of omission in the last year or so. Correspondence was one of the most difficult of things and I have simply had to trust to the endurance of friendship through a period of silence. Professor Warren told me in New York of your reading a paper at his Seminar, and I was almost on the point of coming. It would have been so pleasant to see you in the flesh again and to knit up the broken threads, but I simply could not manage it. I hope that the opportunity will still come while you are on this side of the water.
As I reread what I have written about your book, I feel how inadequate it is. I hope to include a more just estimate of it in some of my papers when I begin to bring them out. In the meantime I am getting much stimulus and instruction out of it.
My wife joins me in kindest regards and best wishes to Mrs. Baldwin and yourself.
Faithfully yours,
Wilbur M. Urban.
[Professor in Trinity College, Hartford.]
Society for Savings, Cleveland, May 16, 1916.
My dear Doctor Baldwin:
I have read with deep interest your book, "American Neutrality—Its Cause and Cure." Our people are finally, though slowly, awakening to the fact that they are involved in this world crisis, and also they are beginning to understand, as you have indicated, that the Civil War did not so establish representative government in the United States but that it is still necessary for men of ability to give it their continued attention.
The American idea of success has shifted radically in the last few years. There are few men now who would care to be a Rockefeller or a Carnegie. There is hope yet for the American ideals, and with the ability we have we shall finally arrive at aLETTERS RECEIVED
347
more desirable state of public affairs if our first-rate men will interest themselves in the government. Men who would have scorned public service a few years ago as a thing beneath them are now ready to lay down business and do something for their country.
If we can nominate the right man at Chicago, who will harmonize the party, as I think we can, there will be a change of administration while there is yet time to save our reputation and put us right in the eyes of the world.
Both Mrs. Herrick and I were very much distressed to learn of the frightful disaster that befell your daughter in the sinking of the Sussex, and we extend to you and Mrs. Baldwin our sincere sympathy.
With warmest regards to yourself and Madame, in which Mrs. Herrick joins, believe me, also to the rest of the family. Please pardon this hasty letter.
Very sincerely, Myron T. Herrick.
[American Ex-Ambassador in Paris.]
Legation de Serbie, Paris, July 15, 1918.
My dear Confrere,
So many thanks for your friendly letter.
In the most critical moments of this tremendous war, I never have despaired of the future of my country and of the Jugoslavs. Since America has taken place on the side of the Allies, I see with complete confidence our country's future.
You have had your fine part in this. We owe you heartiest thanks for all you have so generously done for us; our future generations will keep for a long time the memory of your tenderness for our youth.
I hope you will enjoy your stay at Aix-les-Bains, and that348
BETWEEN TWO WARS
your ladies have a nice time there. My wife and my daughter wish to be remembered to them and so do I.
Sincerely and affectionately yours,
Mil. R. Vesnitch. [Servian Minister in Paris.]
(Translated)
Paris, Nov. 13, '24.
My dear Confrere and Friend,
• I am very happy to be able to send you in the same envelope the insignia of the Commandeur de St. Sava, a humble mark of our great gratitude to you for all that you have done for our students and in general for our national cause. I hope that your early departure for America will bring no modification in the interest that you have so nobly shown since the beginning of the war.
In wishing you a good crossing (the Tirpitz exist no more!), I affectionately grasp your hand.
Tout a vous, Mil. R. Vesnitch.
St. Helens, Isle of Wight, April 9, 1924.
Dear Friend,
I have just been reading again carefully your paper in The New World on Our Future Intellectual Relations. It seems to me that you put the matter unanswerably, and I entirely agree with everything; but I am sure that the Royal Society has not taken action excluding German articles from the international Catalogue. If however you have any doubt on the subject I will write to the officers and inquire.
My Fiji paper is at length quite off my hands and I shall have my separates in a few weeks I hope. I am much lookingLETTERS RECEIVED
349
forward to sending you a copy that you may see what has been made possible by the E. B. P. Fund.
... I have an exhibit of mimicry in butterflies at Wembly. Everyone is being roped in to show something. How we wish that you two dear friends could come over to see it and stay with us and see something more of your Oxford friends. . . .
I expect you follow our curious political state. We can only hope that responsibility will have an educating effect on the Labor Government; for I have no doubt that the Labor party has come to stay, and that the other two will somehow combine to form a Constitutional Party. I wonder how it all appears to you looking at it from a distance. Love to you both from us both.
Your friend,
E. B. Poulton.
Wykeham House, Oxford, April 29, 1925.
Dear Friend,
. . . Next Monday, May 4th, is the centenary of Huxley's birth—the youngest of the five British evolutionists of the last century—Darwin, Hooker, Spencer, Wallace and Huxley (in order of age). I have to give a lecture on him at his own place—the Imperial College of Science which is a development from the School of Mines—at five on Monday. I will of course send you a copy. It will be a great effort and prevents me from doing lots of thing I ought to do; but I couldn't refuse. Five people connected with the College wrote to me and I couldn't point to any one else now alive. Of course, Ray Lankester would have been ideal, but he is not now strong enough to stand the strain. He has however sent me a message to deliver for him. He knew Huxley from boyhood, being six when his father introduced him to H. I saw H. first in 1881.
I am very anxious to send you a copy of the Social Evolution paper that will be out soon helped by the E. B. P. Fund. I am350
BETWEEN TWO WARS
also taking advantage of some young naturalists who happen to be out in Samoa to get more material from other Pacific islands. ... I am afraid we shall not be able to get to the Paris Exposition. Please give our kindest regards to Wheeler and his wife and daughter if with him. We know them well and they have stayed here and Wheeler also with us at St. Helens. I went collecting with him near Chicago in 1897, so our friendship goes back a long way. I am very interested to hear that he is an Exchange Professor at the Sorbonne.
Yes, the Hindenberg election is a dreadful thing. I should not think that there is much fear of Socialism in France with the large proportion of people who have something to lose. It is a great mistake of our country not to have developed the same class more fully. Love to you.
Always your friend,
E. B. Poulton.
Wykeham House, Oxford, October 1, 1925.
My dear Friend,
I am now sending a copy of the Cuckoo paper of which the plates were rendered possible by the Fund. By extraordinary ill-luck the proofs were never properly corrected and hence the errors which I have corrected in red ink. . . . You will see that the paper is of the greatest importance and sums up a vast amount of scattered information. The last part showing that the nestling Cuckoo, parasitic on the cleverest bird, has become like its foster brothers and sisters, is extraordinarily interesting and will be new to most people.
I am sending the Spectator's criticism of Lloyd George. I too think it is the wrong way to tackle the problem. The great thing is by hook or crook to increase the number of small holders of their own land and in the meantime to help the farmer by subsidies as you suggested. The Conservative party is, I believe, determined to increase the number of small holders andE. B. Poulton.LETTERS RECEIVED
351
I hope they will be quick about it. A farm hand once exclaimed to my brother-in-law why the small holder thrives when the big farmer often does not. "You see, Sir, he said, they sells their own labor to themselves so uncommonly cheap!" I too watch the French-American negotiations with the deepest interest. I believe you are right in criticising Baldwin's dealings with the U. S. A. I expect we ought to have held out for a common scheme for all the nations concerned. However, we must now hope for the best. I am so glad Elizabeth is all the better for her visit to Europe. Love from us both to you both.
E. B. P.
Wykeman House, Oxford, March 14, 1926.
My dear Friend,
... I took for my Presidential address to the Entom. Soc'y of London the relation between mimicry in cuckoo eggs and mimicry in insects—both caused by selective destruction actuated by the sight of birds. When the day came, January 20th, there was a terrible thaw after frost and snow, so as I had not recovered I did not dare to travel to London. Bateson, v. p., took the chair and the address was read by the Secretary. The very short time after that date Bateson died very suddenly from angina pectoris. It was a great loss, for he was making his Horticultural Institute at Wimbledon a great success, and it was full of active workers. I have had many controversial rows with him, but lately we have come together in friendly cooperation. After his death, I was told by one of our Fellows who heard the address on January 20th, that Bateson said to him that evening that it was very new to him and interested him very much. It was a pleasant last word to receive.
.... Is there any chance of your both coming over for the British Association? We should love to put you up. / . .
Ever your friend,
E. B. P.Index to Volumes I and II
Academies (see Institute of France). Academy of Moral Sciences, I, 274, 281. Academy frangaise, I, 166.
Admiral -, I, 189.
Aesthetic repulsion, I, 88. A. contrast, II, 90, Pref. A. ideal, II, 170. A. sympathy, II, 170f. (See Beauty.) Affective logic, II, 166f. Agassiz, I, 21 Agincourt, I, 4, 257. Air raids, I, 183. Aix-les-Bains, I, 291. Albert I, King, I, 193, 197, II, 44. Allen, 0. D., II, 260. Alyarado, house of, I, 137. Amendment, fourteenth, I, 9. Anglo-Saxon theory, I, 176. America, voice of, II, 1. A. ready, II,
57f, II, 128f. (See U. S.) American customs, I, 147f. A. abroad, II, 79, 89. A. Chamber in Paris, I, 196, II, 44f. A. debt to France, II, 135. A. liberty, II, 138f. A. Navy League, I, 234, 281. A. charities in Paris, I, 242f. A. neutrality, I, 199f. A. ambulance corps, I, 255.
A.	flag, I, 273. A. Bights League, I, 198, II, 79. A. relief organizations, I, 288f. A. poster, I, 298. A. soldier, I, 301. A. philosophy, I, 302, II, 147f, 150f. A. University Union, I, 250. A. Whig Society, I. 28.
Annin's "W. "Wilson," I, 93, 211. Armistice day, I, 273. Arras, I, 258f.
Art, II, 20f. A. French, II, 135f. A.
and play, II, 170f. (See Aesthetic.) Ashley, W. J., II, 332. "Atlanta, City of," I, 26f, 216. Atwater, L. H., I, 19, 21. Austin-Lee, Sir, I, 256, 279. Aviation, I, 269. Aztecs, I, 136f.
Bacon, R., I, 197.
Baer, Dr., I, 230.
Bain, A., I, 76, 109, II, 226.
Baker, Sec., I, 270.
Baldwin, 0. H., I, 4, 8. J. M., I, If.
B.	F., I, 43 (see Elizabeth). W. F., I, 3, 6. 0. 0., I, 4. Genealogy, I, 4. Helen Jr., I, 174, 178. Helen Sr., I, 38, 41.
Balfour of Burleigh, I, 58.
Balfour, A. J., I, 74, 279, II, 339.
Baltimore, I, 118f.
Banquet in cave, I, 144.
Bapaume, I, 259f.
Barbosa, R., II, 87.
Barbour, F., I, 108.
Barnwell, 0. H., I, 13.
Barreda, G., II, 153.
Barres, M., I, 4.
Barckhausen, I, 33f.
Basset, S., I, 264.
Batres, I, 131f.
Beauty, I, 302. B'ful world, II, Pref.
vi, 171, 172f (see Aesthetic and Art). Belleau Wood, I, 300. Bennett, J. G., I, 256f. Bergson, H.f I, 161f, 167, 233, 272, II,
46, 150, 187, 270. Berloque, I, 184. Bernheim, Dr., I, 48f. BernstorfP, I, 155, 193, II, 59. "Bertha," the, I, 184f. Bethman-Holweg, I, 155. Binet, A., I, 161, II, 231. Boaz, F., I, 153. Bodley, J. E., I, 231f. Boer War, I, 105. Bolivar, I, 153.
Bombardment of Paris, I, 182. Bosanquet, I, 109, II, 259. Bourgain, Oapt., I, 217f. Bourgeois, Gen., I, 186, 287. Boutroux, E„ I, 161, 167, 283, II, 27,
150, 304. Bradley, F. H., I, 109, II, 274. Brazil and the war, II, 87. Bridges, R., I, 110. Briguet, I, 269.
British Empire," I, 27, II, 113f. British Policy, I, 194. B. Assoc., I, 52. B. traits, I, 103f. B. military, I, 22 7f. B. general headquarters, I, 257
Bryce, Lord, I, 278f, II, 71, 334. Bui court, I, 261. Bulwer-Lytton, I, 256. Bunau-Varilla, I, 171. Burglaries, I, 14.
Cadorna, Gen., I, 257.
353354 INDEX TO VOLUMES I AND II
Caird, Ed., I, 105.
California, I, 83.
Calles, Pres., I, 160.
Calvin, I, 58.
Cambon, J., I, 187.
Canada in Pan-A. league, II, 99.
Cardozo, I, 8.
Carlisle, Sec., I, 91.
Carnegie, A., I, 58.
Carpenter, J. E., II, 325.
"Cartel des Gauches," I, 285.
Carter, E. C., I, 248.
Cattell, J. M., I, 64f.
Caullery, I, 195, II, 61.
Cavell, Edith, II, 41.
Censor, British, I, 194f.
Chamber, of horrors, I, 13, 25. Of
Commerce, II, Pref. ii, 44f. Chamberlain, D. H., I, 8. Chandler, I, 105. Chapultepec, I, 140. Charcot, I, 48. Charleston, earthquake, I, 39. Chavez, E., I, 127, 130f, 150f, II, 155,
263f. Cheradame, I, 192. Chittenden, J. B., I, 188. Christian Herald Fund, I, 245. "City of Atlanta," I, 26f. Clemenceau, I, 30, 273, 294f. Clemens (see Mark Twain). Cleveland, Grover, I, 90, 206. Cliosophic Society, I, 28. Cockerell, II, 244.
Columbia, S. C., I, If. C. Theol. Sem., I, lOf.
Commerce in Prance, II, 4. -Communists, I, 285. Comit6 F. A., I, 168, II, 30. Comte, A., I, 159, II, 148. Congaree River, I, 25. Cope, E. D., I, 70, II, 148, 237. Corbifere, II, 172. Cou6, I, 49. Coulet, I., I, 199. Couturat, I, 74, II, 150. Crocker, G., I, 213, 229. Crookes, E., I, 107f. Cuernavaca, I, 158. Curzon, Lord, I, 113.
Daniels, J., I, 235, 270. Danish Academy, I, 166. Darwin fgtes, I, 128, 149. Darwinism, I, 149. Davenport, C. B., II, 240.
Davidson, H. P., I, 15f. Thomas D.,
II, 227. Davignon, H., II, 37. Debts, war, II, 133. Denis, E„ I, 249. Destr6e, II, 319. Detachment of art, II, 181f. Dewey, J., I. 74.
Diagram of American Philosophy, II, 151.
Diaz, Pres., I, 131f, 151f, II, 156f.
Dicey, A. V., I, 105, 110, II, 334.
Dictionary of Philosophy, I, 71f.
Dimnet, E., II, 320.
Doughboy, I, 290, 300.
Doyle, Conan, I, 64.
Drake, Col. F. E., I, 216, II, 330.
Drowning accident, I, 25.
Duffield, J., I, 24.
Durkheim, E., II, 149.
Echo des Gourbis, I, 272. Education in Mexico, I, 134f. Eliot, Pres., I, 204, 247, II, 94. Elizabeth Baldwin, I, 174, 178, 212f,
265. Elliot, I, 106. Ellis, R., I, 102, 105. Ely, R. T., II, 250. Empathy, II, 170f.
England, crisis in, I, 179. E. at war,
II, 44, 71f. Espinas, E., I, 162, II, 291, 304. Evans, Ad., I, 91. Evans, Sir J., I, 53. Evolution, I, 21 (see Organic Selection, Darwinism).
Fagnier, A., II, 299.
Faivre, A., I, 184.
Fellowship, I, 31.
Feminine logic, I, 121.
Field, H. H„ II, 317.
Fine, H. B„ II, 255.
Finley, I, 163, 284, II, 318.
Fires, I, 17, 44, 119.
Fiske, J., II, 143.
Flanders, Earls of, I, 4.
Flood in Mexico, I, 147. F. in Paris,
I, 171. F. in Spain, I, 173. Flournoy, Th„ I, 74, 126, II, 288. Fourth of July, I, 196f, banquet, II, 44f.
Foch, Marshall, I, 165, 286. Ford, L. E., I, 4. Foreign Legion, I, 181. Fournier, Adm., I, 238. Fowler, T., I, 102, 105.INDEX TO VOLUMES I AND II
355
France, I, 272, 285. F. at war, II, 45f. France, Anatole, I, 285, II, 189. Franklin, B., II, 195. Franco- Amer. solidarity, II, 131f. Fraser, C., I, 109, II, 225. French defects, I, 176f. F. women, I, 243. F. war sayings, I, 243f. F. traits, I, 103. F. academy, I, 115, 167f. F. moral theory, II, 129f. F. art, 135f. F. liberty, II, 138. F. philosophy, II, 147f. Fryatt, Capt, II, 109.
Galieni, Gen., I, 297f.
Galton, F., I. 73.
Garrison, N. P., I, 50f.
Guadaloupe, I, 49.
Gaynor, Mayor, II, 16.
Genealogy of Baldwins, I, 4.
Genetic logic, I, 122, 168, 301, II, 160f.
G. science, II, 160f. Geneva Univ., I, 126. G. celebration, I, 58.
Germany, life in, I, 32f. G. scholarship, I, 35f. G. theory of state, I, 200f. G. mentality, I, 67. G. kultur,
I,	88. G., truth about, II, 32f. G. methods in Belgium, II, 36f. G. science, II, 42f. G. relations, II, 123f.
Gibbons, H. A., II, 326.
Gildersleeve, B„ I, 125, II, 269.
Gilman, D. C., I, 96f.
Girardeau, J. L., I, 9.
Girod, Col., I, 269.
Glasgow Univ., I, 58.
Glass, Mrs., I, 13.
Gluck (or Kluck), von, I, 297f.
Godley, I, 112.
Goodwin, Gen., I, 226.
Gorizia, I, 257.
Gothic, I, 100.
Griffin, E. H„ I, 120f, FT, 314. Granados, I, 225.
Green, Mary, I, 38. G., Helen, I, 38, 41. G., William H., I, 38, 117. G., T. H., I, 41. Grey, A., I, 21. Gugot, Y., I, 171, II, 340. Guillaumat, Gen., I, 266.
Hae.ckel, I, 171.
Hague tribunal, II, 65. H. conference,
II,	96f.
Hall, S., I, 64, 118. H., T. 0., I, 188. Handbook of Psychology, I, 67. Hanotaux, G., I, 168, II, 88. Hanas, P. H., I, 189.
Harper, G., I, 29. H„ D„ II, 329.
Harris, W. T., I, 89, 127.
Harrison, F., I, 110.
Hart, H„ I, 115.
Harzburg, I, 33.
Heam, W. R., II, 324.
Helen Baldwin, I, 174, 178.
Helmholtz, I, 74, II, 124.
Herbert S. Lecture, I, 171, 200.
Herrick, Amb., I, 250, 298f, II, 346.
Herriot, E., I, 284f.
Hiatt, C. W„ I, 203.
Hibben, Pres., I, 99f, II, 297.
Hidalgo, I, 150f.
High Court, II, 115.
Highlands, Scottish, I, 108f.
Hill, D. J., I, 163, 284.
Hill "202," I, 267.
Hindenburg Trench, I, 259, 261f.
Hodge, A. A. and C. W., I, 3.
Hodgson, S., I, 71.
Hdffding, H., I, 67, II, 235, 343.
Hospital No. 14, I, 218.
House, Col. E., I, 191, 210, 224.
Howison, G. H., I, 116.
Huerta, Pres., I, 155.
Hughes, Sec., I, 195.
Hume, Prof., I, 42.
Hutton, L., I, 54f.
Hy&res, I, 86.
Hypnotism, I, 47.
Ideals, French and Amer., I, 68, II,
Pref., 3. Incoherence of Prest., II, 61f. Institute of France, I, 165f, 247, 253, 274.
Intellectual relations, II, 123f. International law, II, 116. •isolation, Amer., I, 276. Italy, in Corfu, I, 278. I. at war, II, 55f.
James, Henry, I, 174, II, 249, 295. James, William, I, 46f, 62f, 74, 84f, 86, 90, 123, 126, 166, 174, II, 29, 149. J., W., letters of, II, 204f. Janet, P., I, 47f, 74, 78, II, 150, 333. Jaurds, I, 285. Jeanne d' Arc, I, 298. Jefferson, J., I, 91. Johns Hop. Univ., I, 96. Joffre, Marshall, I, 165, 273, 286. Johnston, A., I, 19, 24, 61. Joly, H„ II, 321. Juarez, I, 148. Jusserand, J., II, 297.356
INDEX TO VOLUMES I AND II
Kant, Im., I, 19.
Kargfi, Prof., I, 36f.
Keller, H„ I, 54.
Kelvin, Lord, I, 52.
Kirbach, H., I, 188, II, Pref., 32.
KirBchmann, I, 42.
Kultur, German, I, 88 (see Germany).
Laboratory, Psych., I, 63. Ladd, G. T„ I, 128, II, 149. Lafayette Squadron, I, 254f. Laissez faire in France, II, 8f. Lake Forest Univ., I, 40f. Langenhove, F. v., II, 36f. Lalande, A., II, 302. Lankester, R., I, 71, II, 242. Lansing. Sec., I, 193, 221, II, 57, 75. La Rochefoucauld, II, Pref. vi, 195. Laurie, I, 109.
League, Pan-Atlantic, I, 204. L. of
Nations, I, 205, 276, II, lllf. L6gion d'Honneur, I, 165. Lens, I, 264f. L6pine, I, 253.
L6vy-Bruhl, L., I, 133, II, 149, 293. LeygueB, G., I, 236. Library meetings, I, 20f. Libertyt French, I, 175, II, 138f. L.
Statue, I, 30. L., Amer., II, 138f. Libbey, W., I, 38. Liggeois, I, 49. Liibault, I, 49. Limantour, I, 133, II, 156. Lind, I, 155. Ling, I, 84. Lister, Lord, I, 62. Lodge, O., I, 46. Logan, Gen., I, 5f.
Logic, genetic, II, 160f. L. affective, 166f.
London, G., I, 222. L. Congress, I, 76. Lotze, H., I, 35. Lusitania, the, I, 201f.
Machado, M., II, 108. McOosh, Pres., I, 19f. Letters of, II, 199f.
McCurdy, F. B., I, 42. McKenzie, I, 114
MacMaster, Thornwell, I, 26. J. B. M.,
I, 63. Madero, I, 155. Madrid Congress, I, 79. Maguey plant, I, 142. Maison de la presse, I, 256. Mafiana habit, I, 146. Mark Twain, I, 62, HOf. Marie Thlrdse, the, I, 217f.
Marne, battle, I, 296f. Marshall, Vice P., II, Pref. v. Marshalls of France, I, 286f. Marriage, II, 12f. Marsh, II, 148. Masaryk, I, 277.
Mason, consul g., I, 288, II, 323. Max de, I, 193. Mayas, the, I, 126f. Medals of Verdun, I, 267. Mendelssohn, Dr. M., I, 186, 231. Mental Development, I, 43, 66. Mercier, Card., I, 193. "Message from Americans," I, 197f, II.
Pref., 79f. Mexico, I, 130f, 150f. M., monuments in, I, 137f. M., University of, I, 130, 152. M., Independence of, 150f. M„ Notes on, II, 153f. Mill, J., S., I, 166.
Millerand, A., I, 236f, 243, 280f, 293,
II, 101, 107f. Minot, C. S., I, 70, 74, II, 261. Mobilization in Paris, I, 180. —Monroe Doctrine, I, 160, 206, II, 99f. Moore, E. C., I, 137. Morgan, C. L„ I, 69, 109, II, 279f. Morley, Lord, I, 179. Morton, A. J., I, 229. Moscow, I, 49. Mott, J., I, 248. Mouffet, Capt., I, 218. Mower, C. H., I, 234. Mun, Ct. de, I, 16. Munich Congress, I, 75. Miinsterberg, H., I, 86f. Murray, I, 58.
Nancy, school of, I, 48.
"Nassau Lit.," I, 29.
"Nation," the, I, 50.
Natural Realism, I, 21.
Naturalism, I, 169.
Netter, Dr., I, 219.
Neutrality, I, 178f, 190, 200, II, Pref.
iv, 49f, 80. Newcomb, S., I, 23, 74, 81f, II, 258. New Psychology, I, 20f. N. Freedom, I, 276.
"New York Tribune," I, 11. "N. Y.
Observer," I, 11. Nietzsche, I, 201. Notre Dame de Lorette, I, 263ff. Nuttall, Mrs. Z., I, 137.
Open Letter to Kirbach, I, 188f, II, 32f.
Organic Selection, I, 69f.
Ormond, A. T., I, 74, 113, II, 149, 230.INDEX TO VOLUMES I AND II
357
Orris, Prof., I, 32. Osborn, H. F„ I, 69f, II, 239. O'Shaughnessy, N., I, 154. Osier, W., I, 105, 122. Ostwald, I, 169f.
Oxford, I, 99f, 102, 152, 200. O. Press, I, 115.
Pacifism, I, 203.
Paderewski, I, 127.
Page, W. H., I, 192.
PainlevS, I, 162, 185, 266, 274.
Pan-Atlantic league, I, 204, II, Pref.,
62f, 69, 94f. Pancalism, I, 123, 301, II, 172f. Paris, I, 161f, 181, 273. Paris School of hypnotism, I, 147. P.
before the war, I, 161f. Parker, G., II, 71, 339. "Paroles de Guerre," I, 75. Pasteur, I, 167.
Patton, F. L., I, 21, 24, 38, 55f, II, 228. Paulsen, I, 32.
Peace, Organ, of, II, Pref. P. without victory, II, 64f. P. procedure, 111. P. terms, 121. Peirce, 0. S., I, 50, 74, II, 272. Penfield, W., I, 213. P6ronne, I, 259f. Pershing, Gen., I, 244, 293. P6tain, Marshall, I, 273, 286. Picard, E., I, 167, II, 303. Piexotto, M. P., I, 196, II, 331. Pillet, Oh., I, 2.67. Pilter, Sir J., I, 238. Piper, Mrs., I, 64. Pitney, F. B., I, 220. Play and Art, II, 170f. Poincarfi, H., I, 161f. Pres. R., I, 237,
280f, 282f, II, 150. Political idols, II, 7f. Pollock, F., I, 102, 105, II, 342. Porter, N., I, 22. Positivism, I, 159, II, 153f. Potter, J. B., 143.
Poulton, E. B„ I, 70f, 79, 90, II, 284, 348.
Pragmatism, I, 123, II, 29, 149. Preyer, I, 73. Prime, I., I, 11.
Princeton Coll., I, 18, 19f, 153. P. Univ., I, 54f, 57. P. Seminary, I, 39.
Progressives, II, 6. Proverbs, II, 191f. Psychical research, I, 45f. Psychological Review, I, 64.
Psychology exper., I, 32. Hist, of P.,
I, 153, 174. P. committee, I, 97. Publishers, I, 92f. Puritanism, II, 14f. Pustkuchen, Oapt., I, 233. Putnam, G. H„ I, 198, II, 309. P.
camp, I, 86. Pyramids of Sun and Moon, I, 135f.
i
Raemaekers' Cartoon, II, Pref. ii, 42f.
Ramsey, Sir W., II, 45.
Rapello treaty, I, 249.
Rationalism, II, 174.
Raymond, G. L., I, 4.
.Reconstruction in South, I, 7f.
Reeves, I, 23f.
Reflections, II, 190f.
Regnier de, H., I, 167.
Relations, intellectual, II, 12 3f.
Religion, I, 12.
Remsen, I., I, 59, 97, 121.
Renan, I, 167.
Restrictions in Paris, I, 252. Richepin, J„ I, 238. Richet, Oh., I, 46, 86, II, 341. Ribot, A., I, 288. Th. R., I, 39, 165,
174f, II, 228. Riforma, I, 140. Riley, I. W., II, 147, 152, 311. Roberts, W. 0., I, 40. Lord R., I, 105. Robertson, 0., I, 45, II, 224. Rockwell, Wm., I, 188. Rolland, R., I, 170. Rondet-Saint, I, 238. ,,-Roosevelt, Th., I, 206f, 247. Rousseau, J. J., I, 58. Royce, J., I, 74, 82f, 96, II, 148, 232. Ruhr, I, 284. Rurales, I, 142.
Sabatier, P., I, 198, II, 305. Salamanca Univ., I, 152. Salem Ool. Institute, I, 15f. Salpetridre, I, 48. St. Gervais Church, I, 186. Sanderson, B., I, 105. Sawyer, R. W. S., I, 226. Sayles, W. R., I, 223f. Schaefer, A. E., I, 109. Schalle, II, 82. Schematism, II, 162f. Science, German, II, 42f. Scott, "W. B., I, 23. Seeger, A., I, 181. Semblance, II, 170f. Semantics, I, 106. Serbian "foyer," I, 248f.358 INDEX TO VOLUMES I AND II
Seth, A., I, 109.
Sharp, Amb., I, 196f, 235, 239, 271,
277, II, 109, 322. Sheldonian Theatre, I, 105. Sherborn, C. W., I, 116. Sherman, Gen., I, 5f. Shoninger, B., I, 247. Sidgwick, H., I, 46f, 73f. Mrs. S., I, 74.
Siegfried, J., I, 269.
Sierra, J., I, 128, 130, 132.
Smith, G., I, 52.
Smuts, Gen., II, 113.
Sochimilco, I, 13, 45.
Society of Nations, II, lllf (see
League). Sociology, I, 167. Socolo, I, 140. Solidarity, II, 131. Solomon, King, II, 195. Sorbonne, I, 274. South Carolina, I, 7f. Southern Society, I, 124. Spinoza, I, 19, 32. Stanton, Col., I, 244. -States Bights, I, 276. Steinbreing, von, I, 223, 233. Stephen, L„ I, 110, II, 253. Sterrett, M. I, 29. J. A., I, 178. Stewart, J, A., II, 172. Stimson, Ph. M., I, 231. Stratton, M„ I, 29. Stourm, R., II, 321. "Story of the Mind," I, 92. Submarine warfare, II, 57f, 75f. Sully, J., I, 112. Super-State, I, 200.
"Sussex," I, 20, 212f. S. Hotel, I, 219, II, 57f.
Taine, II, 150.
Tarde, G., I, 68f, II, 149, 243. Tehuantepec railway, II, 157. Telegrams to Prest., I, 220, 271, II, Pref.
Thackara, A. M., I, 187, 288.
Teotihuacan, I, 135.
Thomas, Miss E., I, 198, II, 89.
Thompson, H. S., I, 13. Sir J., I, 109.
Titchener, E. B., I, 74.
"Times," N. Y„ I, 221.
Toronto, I, 41f. T. Univ., 41f. T. _
meeting at, I, 52. Treaty of Versailles, I, 276. Turner, II, 184.
Union des Colonies, I, 247f.
United States at war, II, 101, lllf.
R61e of, II, 119. (See America.) University, see Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Toronto, Lake Forest, Mexico, Geneva, Oxford, Glasgow, South Carolina. Urban, W. M., II, 344.
Value, world of, II, 175f.
Van Dyke, H„ I, 163, 241f, II, 337.
Vanneman, W. S.r I, 39.
Verdun, I, 145, 266f. V. motto, I, 244.
V., Medal of, 267. Vesnitch, M., I, 249f, II, 347. Villa, "Pancho," I, 155. Vimy Ridge, I, 263f. Vincent, Dr., I, 212. Viviani, Prem., I, 196, 287, II, Pref. "Voice of America," I, 188, II, Pref. ii, 1.
Voluntarism, II, 175. Volunteers, Amer., I, 181, 253.
Wagner, Ch., I, 246, II, 338. "Wallace, A. R., I, 71, 128, II, 246. Walter F. Baldwin, I, 3, 6. Walter, W. J., I, 17. War, the Civil, I, 5f. W., the great, I, 178f. Our W., I, 270f, II, 81f. War aims, II, 61. Ward, J., I, 74, 80, 112, 118. Warren, H. C., I, 65, II, 301. Watson, J., I, 62. Webb-JohnBon, I, 219. Welby, Lady, I, 106. West, A. F., I, 99. Wharton, E., II, 340. Wheeler, A., I, 191. White, A. D., I, 128. Wilde, O., II, 184. Williams, Col., I, 190. Wilson, Sir D., I, 42, 44, II, 223. Wilson, H. L., I, 153f. Wilson, Woodrow, I, 13, 59f, 98f, 125, 138, 155f, 190f, 205, 206f, 224, 270. 274f, II, 52f, 61f, 109. Women of France, II, 46. World, the beautiful, II, Pref. vi. Worms, R., I, 168. Wright, Sir A., I, 219, 227. Wundt, I, 86.
Y. M. 0. A., I, 30, 290f. Youmans, I, 124.
Young, C. A., I, 19, 23. Prof. Y., 41.
Zepata, I, 155. Zeppelins, I, 182.XIX. The Development of Philosophical Thought in America1
PRAGMATIC CURRENT
RATIONALISTIC CURRENT
PURITANISM (1620-1820) Edwards
SYNTHESIS
NATURAL REALISM ( I 750-1890): Witherspoon, McCosh ECLECTIC SPIRITUALISM (Cousin) (1820-1850)
SCIENTIFIC REALISM (Lotzean) 1900: Ladd, Ormond POSITIVISM (Spencerian) (1880-1900) PSYCHOLOGY AS SCIENCE
ANTI-PURITANISM (1700-1850) Deism: Franklin Mystic Idealism: Johnson Materialism: Priestley
I
TRANSCENDENTALISM (1830-1860): Emerson GERMAN IDEALISM (1860-1870): St. Louis School
I
NEO-HEGELIANISM
(British: Green, the Cairds) (1870-1890) NEW MYSTICISM ^ Various Sects
V
EVOLUTIONISM (1860-1900) Hegelian Spencerian, Fiske Darwinian
yr
UTILITARIANISM
(1880-1900) Moral Pragmatism SCIENTIFIC SOCIOLOGY Ethical Societies
I
THEORETICAL PRAGMATISM
James (1900 ff)
MORAL ABSOLUTISM
Theological
ABSOLUTE IDEALISM Royce (1900 ff)
V
AESTHETICISM Pancalism (1900 ff)
Illustrating the lectures on the Development of American Philosophy, given at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Sociales, Paris, January, 1918.