EN CASSEROLE
Special to Our Readers
Many of our readers whom we have met have asked: "Why don't you give us the names of your contributors?" and we suppose that many whom we have not had the pleasure of meeting have the same curiosity.
Well, in the first place, we wish our articles to be taken on their merits, and each, so far as practicable, to carry whatever authority the Review as a whole may be able to attain.
Next, among the popular fashions that we do not wish to follow is that of exploiting names.
And finally, to be very candid, we need to profit by whatever discussion may be aroused by speculation regarding the authorship of the contributions.
Three months of anonymity, however, will be enough to secure the first consideration, to lessen the objections inherent in the second, and to give us most of whatever benefit may be realized from the third; and therefore in such lists of contents of previous numbers as are included in our advertising pages, we shall indicate the authors.
Moreover our advertising pages will often include lists of our most frequent contributors, and this may add zest to such guessing at the authorship of contributions as our readers may care to do.
Virtually all our contributors approve the anonymity, perhaps partly because the names of most of them are so well known as to make farther publicity a matter of indifference.
Another question often put to us by friends is: "How are you getting along?"
Well (again), as our title indicates, we entered upon the enterprise with our eyes wide open to the fact that it could never be popular. Our only hope was that there might be enough people with standards above the popular, to support the undertaking. We still feel justified in entertaining that hope. Of course some ludicrous failures to understand what we are about have been forced upon our attention, but not as many as we expected; and we looked for more letters like the first one following, which, we are surprised and glad to say, is the only one of the kind we have received. All other dissent has been expressed with intelligence and courtesy; and this is the only occasion when our motives have been impugned. We think we can trust our readers to understand why we give the letter, and also the answer which the writer of the letter did not expect us to send. The former seems to us one of the most interesting and instructive contributions it has been our privilege to present, though not exactly for the reasons which make our other contributions worth while. We are glad to repeat, however, that the indications, so far, are that there is less of this sort of thing about than we had supposed.
Here is the letter, in its essentials:
... This number contains some of the most insidious and dangerous fallacies that it has been my fortune to peruse in many years, and that are only intended to craftily instil into the minds of the "rather large class" of people the erroneous doctrines thus covertly inculcated by insinuations and to promote the consequent satisfaction with their comparatively hard lot and the necessity of contentment with their own condition as well as with that of those who are subjects of a more forlorn state.
Now I am going to make a proposition to you that will prove conclusively that your object in publishing that Review is solely for the purpose last above enumerated, as I do not hope that you will accept my proposition; and that the Review is supported by the capital of the men who are a part of the financial oligarchy that is bent on ruining the poorer classes of this country: I will write you an article in opposition to the Irrepressible Conflict and the Juggernaut of the Majority, which will be written in as good a diction as either of those articles and not more controversial in tone and style than Irrepressible Conflict, and shall expect as much pay for it as either of those two articles secured to their respective authors, or as much as it is worth if those articles were produced by respective members of the said oligarchy; and shall insist, if you refuse to publish it, that it is the substance and doctrine of it that make it unavailable and not the diction and style. I have a right to ask this as the public press which claims to be the leaders of public opinion, are teeming with just such articles as these that I have criticised and are published for the express purpose of leading me and the remainder of the public astray on vital questions affecting the material interests of us all,—in other words, there is a comprehensive and well formed conspiracy among publishers of almost all newspapers and magazines to do as I have said and to refuse to permit the other side to be heard. I do not expect to ever get an answer to this letter but I shall make just such use of the reticence and your silence as my poor judgment teach me is legitimate and proper.
Our answer was:
... The Unpopular Review is entirely the property of its publishers.
It is not a forum for discussion, but a pulpit for the preaching of what we believe to be sound doctrine. As you don't believe our doctrine is sound, probably we would not believe yours is sound: so your challenge to us to put it in our pulpit is of course outside the case. You should send it to somebody of your own way of thinking, or set up a pulpit of your own—into which we certainly should not wish to challenge you to insert anything of ours.
A change of subject may be welcome.
If any of our readers have been expecting an article on Psychical Research in this number, their disappointment at not finding one may be somewhat assuaged by the realization that the article in the first number was of four times the average length. The apparent neglect here however, is not real, but it has been impracticable to get what we wanted. We hope to be more fortunate in the future.
A Specimen of "Uplift" Legislation
Since the bull against the comet, there has probably been no assertion of authority as absurd as one recently furnished by our National Government. Yet there was no attention called to it in the debate preceding the passage of the act containing it, and we do not remember seeing any notice of it in the press, although it was immense enough and pitiful enough to justify Iliads.
For years, government—and no government more energetically than President Wilson's—had been hammering away at the trusts, especially those producing petroleum, steel and tobacco. Yet petroleum, steel and tobacco are not necessaries of life, nor have their prices been rising as much as the prices of necessaries of life. These have been rising more than anything else. What has been done about them by the government that has been destroying the trusts in other things? It has simply gone out of its way to specially legalize a trust in these things. In a bill providing money to fight trusts in comparatively non-essential things, Congress specially exempted from prosecution any trust that may be formed by the farmers to raise the price of food. Other trusts claim to lower the prices of their products, and sometimes have done it; but our government has not merely authorized the farmers to form trusts, to raise the price of foods, but has specially authorized them, in the letter of the law, to use methods denied to everybody else but wage-earners; and this at a time when the one problem above all others was how to lower the price of foods, and when the high price was the one burden above all others on the poor.
This piece of imbecility was virtually a "rider" on the trade-union-exemption rider, and was of course "playing politics" to catch support for the principal rider.
A Model of Divinatory Criticism
In our efforts to uphold the dignity of letters, of course we intend that each of our contributions shall be as nearly as possible a perfect example from its special field, and ordinarily it would ill become us to suggest the possibility of degrees of perfection. But our readers will, we trust, find justification for our calling special attention to the following model of divinatory criticism.
The fact that it has already passed the ordeal of the Authors' Club, though a trifling derogation from its novelty, is much weightier as a reason for presenting it for the careful consideration of our readers. [Ed.]
The subject is the proper interpretation of a familiar lyric poem, which runs, in the textus receptus, as follows:
Dr. Foster went to Gloucester
In a shower of rain;
He stepped in a puddle up to his middle
And never went there again.
The question is, What does this poem mean? What does it mean, that is, in its intimate and ultimate essence? According to the conventional interpretation these lines are didactic. Their higher import—what we may call their spiritual center of gravity—is believed to reside in a pragmatic moral conveyed, or at least adumbrated, in the last line: "He never went there again." The idea is supposed to be—remember that I am now speaking of the conventional interpretation—that he never went there again because he had learned wisdom by experience—the annoying experience of the puddle. According to this view the dominant note of the poem is not lyrical feeling, but what literary critics are wont to call—usually with a shade of contempt—ethicism. It is supposed to be a sort of psalm of life—pitched to be sure in a minor key, but essentially didactic.
I wish to show you that this conventional interpretation is altogether wrong. I shall try to prove that we have to do here, not with a shallow didactic rime, not with a piece of brain-spun ethicism, such as a common poetaster might produce, but with a lyrical ballad of deeply felt tragic import.
I call your attention, in the first place, to the singular ambiguity in that famous last line. "He never went there again." "Never went where?" one instinctively asks. Are we to understand merely that Foster henceforth avoided the particular puddle into which he had stepped, or that he in after time discontinued his visits to Gloucester altogether? This is evidently a question of vital importance, and the poem at first does not seem to answer it at all. In the absence of biographical data extraneous to the text, we can only attack the problem by analytic methods. Let us consider the only two possible hypotheses.
1. That Foster never went to Gloucester again. This supposition is utterly untenable, because it is clearly inconsistent with Foster's character, which can be read from the poem itself with entire certainty. In the first place, he was clearly a doctor of medicine. Had he been a doctor of laws, or letters, or philosophy, there would have been no special urgency in his call to Gloucester, and he would surely have waited until the weather should clear up. Secondly he was a youngish doctor. Had he been an elderly practitioner he would not have gone himself, but would have sent his assistant. Or perhaps he would have telephoned that he would come immediately, and would then have quietly waited for the rain to cease. But our Dr. Foster "went"—went in a shower of rain. From this we see, in the third place, that he was a man of energy, capable of self-abnegation, dominated by a strong sense of professional duty. Now can we suppose that such a man would have renounced forever his practice in Gloucester merely because he had stepped casually into a puddle in a well meant effort to reach the place? The supposition is an insult to his intelligence and to ours. No doubt the incident of the puddle was humiliating, but we do not read that there were spectators. In the absence of specific evidence to the contrary we must assume that Foster was alone. That being so, a man of his character would surely have extricated himself from his unpleasant dilemma, given vent to his emotions in language suited to the occasion, and gone on his way. It is simply impossible to believe that he can have taken from the puddle such a deep and lasting chagrin that he would have been willing to renounce forevermore his growing practice in Gloucester.
2. We turn now to the other hypothesis, according to which Mater Anser means merely that Foster never again stepped in that particular puddle. This supposition makes the whole poem trivial to the point of banality. Why in the world should any man in his senses deliberately step into a deep puddle a second time? Remember too that it was raining at the time. The puddle did not exist ordinarily, but was a transitory affair due to the freshet. Had Foster chosen to come back the next day, there would have been no puddle there, hence nothing to be afraid of. To assume that a man of Foster's intelligence would have retained through life a morbid dread of a mere depression in the ground where he had once encountered a puddle is contrary to all reason. Evidently we must seek some other interpretation for that mysterious last line, "He never went there again."
And now observe, please, a singular technical defect in a poem which is otherwise technically perfect. I refer to the dubious rime puddle-middle. There has never been a time in the history of the English language, so far as I know, when that was a tolerable rime. If puddle were of French origin and had retained its French ü-sound, "He stepped in a püddle up to his middle" might perhaps pass muster. But puddle is not of French origin. It was this bad rime, coupled with the anatomical vagueness of the phrase "up to his middle," which led me to conjecture that the textus receptus must be corrupt. It is pretty evident that Mater Anser originally wrote not "middle," but some word which was taken for "middle" by a pestilent scribe. And what word can that possibly have been but "noddle"? Perhaps a captious critic may object that, as a matter of rime, puddle-noddle is not much better than puddle-middle. But remember that in early English o and u were often confused. It is altogether likely that the word which we pronounce puddle was familiar to Mater Anser's dialect as poddle. What she wrote was: He stepped in a poddle up to his noddle.
In the light flashed on the poem by this recension of the text, we penetrate at once the mystery of that last line, "He never went there again," because he never went anywhere again. He perished. His promising career came then and there to an untimely end. We now understand why it is that the career of Dr. Foster subsequent to his memorable expedition to Gloucester has failed to interest the Muse. There was no subsequent career.
I trust I have made it clear that Dr. Foster is the hero of a tragical ballad. He is evidently a being of the same order as Achilles and Siegfried—those dazzling heroes of the Dawn who are destined to run a brilliant career in the pride of their youthful strength, and then to meet with an untimely end. It is true that Achilles and Siegfried are invulnerable, except in one place, and that we hear nothing of Foster's invulnerability. But if you look closely you will find something in his case that is quite analogous. The underlying idea of the invulnerability is always simply this: That the hero is fated to die in one particular way, and in no other. Now it is clear that Foster was fated to die by water. Water was his enemy, his fate. A pious mother had no doubt brought him up to dread and avoid it. When he set out on that last journey he of course took an umbrella, but his precautions did not end there. In view of the inclement weather he of course felt the need of something to fortify the inner man, but he durst not and did not drink water. He drank something else. Just what it was we are not told, but it was evidently something that made him a little unsteady on his feet. And so, just as in the case of Oedipus, the very precautions that he took to avoid his predestined fate only served to precipitate it.
I conclude by summing up briefly what my interpretation does for the advancement of science.
1. It converts what has been supposed to be a rather trivial didactic rime into a tragical ballad of heart-rending pathos.
2. It removes the one serious technical defect of the poem.
3. It accounts in a natural way for the oblivion which has settled like a pall over the career of Dr. Foster after his visit to Gloucester.
4. It enables us to connect Foster with the great heroes of epic song.
Some Deserving "Climbers"
Language, like society, has to recruit its upper strata from the lower. Here are some recent candidates.
I. The very eminent author of The Baby and the Bee in this number puts into the mouth of one of the characters the word "humans" as an equivalent for human beings. The same use of it has been met elsewhere in quarters of less dignity. Many of our readers must have regretted the absence from the language of a single word equivalent to homo. Is not "human" as a noun worthy of being raised to that dignity?
II. Another new labor-saving locution has already found its way into the Standard Dictionary, and seems worthy of general recognition. The dictionary treats it thus:
thon, 1 thon; 2 thon, pron. sing. pl. [thon's, poss.; thon, obj.] that one; he, she, or it; a pronoun of the 3rd person, common gender; a contracted and solidified form of that one, proposed in 1858 by Charles Crozat Converse, of Erie, Pennsylvania, as a substitute in cases where the use of a restrictive pronoun involves either inaccuracy or obscurity, or its non-employment necessitates awkward repetition. The following examples, first as ordinarily written, and afterward with the substitution of the genderless pronoun, illustrate the grammatical deficiencies of the English language in this particular and the proposed method of removal: "If Harry or his wife comes, I will be on hand to meet him or her (or whichever appears)." "Each pupil must learn his or her own lesson." With the substitution of thon; "If Harry or his wife comes, I will be on hand to meet thon (i.e., that one who comes)." "Each pupil must learn thon's lesson (i.e., his or her own)." Compare he'er, him'er, his'er.
III. A third applicant for the cachet is "near," not as a preposition, but as an adjective signifying imitation or ineffective approximation, as, near pearls, near lover, near artist, etc., etc. It would at least often save several syllables, and sometimes save a circumlocution. It seems to have begun rather low down. We don't half like it, and we were surprised to find it as far up as in an article by an eminent professor in our present number. But there it was, and it seems well on the way to full habilitation.
Simplified Spelling
The invitation in the January number for views on Simplified Spelling has brought some interesting letters from both sides. The best objections that we have seen anywhere are the following:
(1) From an eminent professor:
... This point, briefly, is whether the spoken language is the only entity, so to say, to be considered in the case, and the written language merely an effort to represent it, or whether the written language is equally a reality for the purposes of civilization....
I have just received a holiday greeting ... reading
Harty Crismas Greetings.
The chain of frendship reaching far
Links days that wer with days that ar.For him [the sender] all written characters are absolutely nothing but the effort to express spoken sounds, and he puts anything on paper which he thinks will represent the sound he wants most immediately for the reader's intelligence. If he is right, if our written language is nothing but this, there should be no delay in altering it radically.
But is my philological friend right? I think certainly not. Since printing came to take a really large place in civilization, the written word has been a logos—a direct means of representing thought—quite as truly as the spoken. As an agency for communicating thought between absent persons, for preserving thought from one time to another, and even for communicating the knowledge of a foreign tongue to a contemporary learner, the written word actually exceeds the spoken in general importance. And to a very large extent it does this not by representing the sounds of the spoken word, but by representing the idea through an independent convention. When I read the word "choir" I do not think first that it represents the syllable kwiir, and then that the syllable kwiir means a company of singers. Some foreigners who have learned English orally doubtless do go through this process; but those who have learned it primarily by reading, or for reading, do not....
The participle finished has a certain real existence as a language fact, undisturbed by the accident that it is now pronounced finisht.
And this great entity, the written English language, the chief medium of scholarship, literature, history, law, and even business ... is what it is proposed to change. Perhaps it should be done; perhaps the times demand an heroic sacrifice of the organ of scholarly and literary communication and tradition, in the interest of increased efficiency on the part of the average man for whom the language of scholarship and literature is negligible. But we should not mistake the meaning of the effort. It is not the mere effort to do better what we are doing already—writing words so-and-so because they sound so-and-so; for we are already doing nothing of the kind. It is the effort to transfer English from the group where, with modern French and other tongues, it now belongs,—the group of languages whose history has differentiated a written and a spoken form,—to the group represented by classic Latin and modern Italian, whose (doubtless happier) history has kept the written form a fairly accurate replica of the spoken....
The impression often prevails that those who hesitate to commit themselves to the enticements of the Spelling Board do so merely because the new spellings "look so queer." Of course this very statement is a clumsy and unpenetrating way of expressing the fact that the whole language psychology of a reading generation is disturbed by the efforts in question.
(II) From a lady:
This unspeakable spelling is history-destroying, tradition-annihilating, and puts the veriest hind on a semblance of equality with a person of elegance.
As Nietsche says: "Let us be free from moralic acid"!!
Possibly to some tastes, a neck without a goitre would be more "elegant" than a neck with one—or tho than though.
(III) From a well-known author:
The tendency of our English speech is constantly to "reform" its Orthography! Witness the betterment between the spelling of Chaucer and that of Shakespeare, and between that of Shakespeare and that of the days of Queen Anne! Well then, granting it to be the irresistible tendency of our Orthography to better itself, why not permit it to go on in peace bettering itself? Why assist Fate? Are our awful Spelling Reformers, like the impatient young gentleman in Mr. Stockton's story, appointed to the task of Assisting Fate?
(IV) From a talented author and critic—a lady:
You must allow me, as an old friend of yours and a new friend of the Review's, to protest against the introduction of "reformed spelling" into a literary journal of a high class, which is what we all consider the new venture. To many of us who respect the English language as an inheritance, and are content to leave its simplification to the slow erosion of time, pages like those at the end of the Review give positive pain.
It would indeed be a hardened reformer who would not feel the force of the foregoing objections.
To "Why assist Fate?" and "the slow erosion of time" the answer is that the doctrine of laissez faire has had its day, and can hardly be regarded as open for discussion.
On the other side, we have received many letters favoring the reform from the highest philological authorities:
(I) From a Johns Hopkins Professor:
Serious study of the problem becomes the duty of every thoughtful person.
(II) From a Harvard Professor:
A discussion of orthographic possibilities can hardly fail to be enlightening. I do not much like the scheme you tentatively advocate, but anything that reveals existing absurdities and opens up new vistas is useful at this stage.
(III) On the other hand, the Superintendent of Education in one of the Canadian provinces, whose sympathies are naturally British, writes:
"Your simplified spelling appeals to me in preference to that of the S. S. S. of London."
The main differences are illustrated in (the S. S. B. coming first) tiem and tiim for time, doer and door for door, tiping and tipping for tipping.
(IV) A Nova Scotian, president of an important educational institution, writes:
Your article on simplified spelling is a very courageous one—for an American! Probably it has alredy brought upon you the whips and scorns of the conventional journalist. In the Old Country, scholars are accustomd to stand up against professional journalists. Do you think you can do so with your new scheme? I hope so, for it seems to me simple in principle, and, on the whole, a good working basis. One is tempted, of course, to ask why such inconsistencies as:
Allwaiz—Becauz.
Oonly—Molar.
We accept the aw sound for a before ll, but probably awl is better than all; and in becauz it should undoubtedly be aw.
As to molar, we propose that a single vowel should always, as generally now, be long at the end of a syllable.
The same correspondent continues:
Again, if long vowels are to be indicated by the doubling of the letter, is there any need of doubling the consonant after a short vowel?
(V) Another correspondent joins in the same charge:
It hardly seems logical to double a vowel to indicate its lengthening and at the same time to double a consonant to indicate the closing of a preceding vowel. It strikes me as rather a clumsy artifice at best, and leads to some very cumbrous forms, of which "annuthther," as you point out, is an extreme instance.
But, as just said, it is not proposed that always "long vowels are to be indicated by doubling of the letter," but only when the syllable is closed by a consonant. See also the second paragraph of the following letter answering a correspondent, which shows some aspects of the question that may be worth presenting to other readers as well:
Thanks for your letter.... I wish all that I get on the subject were equally sensible. At the same time, there are two or three things that call for rejoinder.
When a consonant beginning a second syllable, is repeated at the end of the preceding syllable, to prevent the vowel being counted as long, the consonant is by no means "doubled" in the sense that a vowel is doubled to make it count as long, or as the terminal consonant is doubled in fall, call, etc.
In English spelling probably there cannot be carried out any principle that won't land us somewhere into awkwardnesses almost as great as "annuthther." That particular one, I have no doubt, if ever adopted, would work into smaller dimensions, which of course would have some elements of inconsistency. There is no reason, however, why we should not use the methods which lead to absurdities in that word, in hosts of other words where they don't.
I shall never take any part in an attempt to add characters to the English language. The only thing in that line it has done since it began taking shape, is to get rid of two very useful ones; and I don't believe it will ever move in the opposite direction. My humble efforts will be concentrated on doing the best practicable with those we have, though I wish Godspeed to everybody who works for consistency and reasonableness, even if he thinks he can introduce a new alphabet.
It is never going to simplify our language to introduce diacritical marks. My little experience with French satisfies me on that subject.
I am glad you agree with me as to dropping the u after q.
I am not sure about using x without a vowel preceding it (e. g. xpense). Theoretically no consonant carries a vowel, but x is pronounced as if there were a short e before it, though, like any other consonant, it will take the color of any vowel.
I don't believe that I am going to be any farther reformed in regard to vowels than oo in door, ee in feel, aa as suggested by the British Society in "faather," uu in "suun" as also suggested by them; and ii in "tiim," as suggested by me and probably by others whom I don't know of. I only wish you would leave your diacritics and new letters, and fight with me for these vowels. There seems to be some hope in such a fight, as the English Society is for all but the ii, and consistent people will naturally work for their accepting ii; and as nobody that I am aware of, in the direction of either body, is with you for new letters and diacritics.
To the same correspondent:
Your letter of the 5th is very suggestive.
I think one trouble between us is that you think it worth while to strive for ideal perfection in spelling. If we attained it, it would not stay put.
You say: "It seems to me simple arithmetic admonishes us that we have to have new characters for the vowel sounds." There are two reasons why we don't. One is that (me judice) there is no use in seeking absolute perfection. Another is that we can do with existing letters as much of the work as we need to.
It may be "important" to "develop an alphabet in which each character stands for a precise sound" but I haven't the slightest idea that the English-speaking people will ever do it.
Of course all existing languages have come because "peoples ... drift so far apart in pronunciation as sooner or later to become almost unintelligible to each other," but printing and facilities of communication are probably obstructing farther movements in that direction, and I should not be surprised if the present tendency were toward unity.
I am sorry you are one of the reformers who "believe that we should go the whole way, or let things stay as they are." It is not often that any reform goes the whole way, and I suspect that we would be a good deal farther along if people of reforming disposition would be content to go only so far as practicable.
On one side, then, we have habit and sensitive associations, and on the other side the facts which cannot be denied by anyone who is thoughtful and educated (not always synonymous terms) that the anomalies of English spelling not only breed lawlessness in the juvenile mind, increase the difficulties of education, and waste much labor and expense in writing and printing, but also seriously obstruct commerce, diplomacy, and the peace of the world.
No wonder these opposing conditions produce the frame of mind expressed to us by a leading city Superintendent of Schools: "I abominate simplified spelling, but I am in favor of it."
Now between this Scylla and this Charybdis, what is the reasonable course?
We must regard two considerations too often ignored by reformers, though they were insisted on by as great an authority as Spencer. The first is that feeling, more than reason, determines conduct; the other is that everything is so inextricably connected with other things, that raising one is like raising a strand of a net, which involves raising many other strands with it. With this reform are tangled up not only the feelings and habits illustrated in the foregoing quotations, but all existing English literature, including many thousand tons of it in electrotype plates. All these obstruct a sudden reform. Must then the reform be as gradual as that from Chaucer's spelling to ours? Prophecy is dangerous, but we are inclined to think not.
We favor simplified spellings, but we don't want our attention diverted by them from anything that we value more, and we don't want to interfere with anybody's Shakspere or Tennyson, any more than we want anybody to interfere with ours. We are glad, however, when we see the sign of a "Fotografer," or an announcement of a "thru" train. We have no doubt that a large and increasing number of people share both these sets of feelings, and they seem to indicate the way out of the dilemma.
Now there's no question of intrinsic beauty between the new forms and the old. Preference for the latter is simply a matter of habit, but habit is stronger than intelligence; and here, with the student, intelligence balks at habit in a paradoxical way. In reading an impassioned passage, he encounters a "thru"; his thoughts are not only diverted to the spelling, but to the years of association he may have with the problems concerning it. For ourselves, the more we study it, if we meet it in literature the more we "abominate" it, with the superintendent already quoted; but the more we see it in advertisements and other indifferent places, the more we are "in favor of it"; and this we think is apt to be the experience of those who really bring their intellects to the problem. Nay, we even think that, in time, the younger portion of the thinking people whose habits favor the old forms, may perhaps come around to the new: for, after writing the most radical of the new forms, as in the last number of the Review, we have been surprised at the way they linger in the memory and seem for a while more habitual than the old forms. This experience makes it seem probable that if, for our children's sake, and for the sake of the great causes already indicated, we were to condemn ourselves for a few weeks, or possibly even a few days, to the better forms, they would become more natural than the worse.
Press of T. Morey & Son, Greenfield, Mass.
INDEX
THE UNPOPULAR REVIEW
Vol. I
[Titles of Articles are printed in heavier type. The names of authors of articles are printed in italics.]
Abbot, Miss Edith, [313], [319], [329].
[Addams], Jane, [48]-[50], [54], [319].
[Alcohol], [213].
Alcohol, Our: Its Use, [163]
—use of the word intemperance, [163]
—American drinking habits contrasted with English, [163]-[174]
—social value of drinking, [164]
—American public bars, [165]
—improving the saloon, [165]-[166]
—English public-houses, [166]-[174]
—influence of women, [169]
—the average English bar-maids, [169]-[170]
—drinking in Scotland, [170]-[171]
—effect of bar-maids in America, [171]
—sense of home, [172]-[173]
—Eileen, [173]-[174].
American Magazines, [261].
Anonymity of writers for this Review, [43].
Arbitration, [10], [20].
Aristocracy, Natural, [272]
—the one great question of to-day, [272]
—Plato and his ideal republic, [273]-[277]
—the natural growth of tyranny out of democracy, [275]-[276]
—the method of escape which Plato saw, [276]-[277]
—the political wisdom of Burke's Reflections, [277]
—the need of leaders, [277]-[279]
—Burke's definition of a true natural aristocracy, [278]-[279]
—his ideas of prejudice, privilege, time and subordination, [279]-[281]
—the part of imagination in Burke's ideas of government, [281]-[282]
—Tom Paine's charge, [281]-[282]
—picture of the demagogue, [285]-[288]
—initiative and referendum; amending constitutions, [286]
—attack on courts, [287]
—Burke's portrait of men of light and leading, [288]
—the demagoguery of an institution like the public press, [289]
—the cure of democracy not more but better democracy, [290]
—our need is to provide for a natural aristocracy, [290]
—the cant of humanitarianism; the need of a class consciousness among the advanced, [292]-[295]
—the real strength of socialistic doctrine and the real danger, [293]-[294]
—duty of our higher institutions of learning to train the imagination, [295]-[296].
Athens, [1].
Atlantic, [264].
"Aunt Kate," as spirit control, [74]-[76].
Automatic writing. See [Heteromatic].
[Baby and the Bee], [333].
[Barbarian Invasion, The], [389]
—higher education is in the hands of barbarians, [389]
—college education and college professors to-day, [389]-[390]
—democratic education a process of measuring down, [390]-[391]
—new sciences, [391]
—academic managers and their policies, [391]-[392]
—appeals for money and advertising features, [392]
—the cant of a university's obligation to the community, [392]-[393]
—inter-collegiate athletics a key to the meaning of social obligations, [393]
—amateur sport a business enterprise of college authorities, [393]-[396]
—football, [394]
—the argument for athletics as opposed to study, [395]
—rich barbarian alumni, [396]
—teachers' colleges, their character and relation to the college proper, [397]-[398]
—graduate schools, [398]
—material for college professors, [399]
—illiteracy, [399]
—average quality, [400]
—the Ph.D. and his "contribution to knowledge," [401]
—the scientific theory of academic organization, [402]
—college presidents, [403]
—the "educator," [403]
—the howling wilderness of academic halls, [404]
—money and publicity, [404]
—need of an aristocratic institution of learning, [405]
—and of culture and finer manhood in colleges and universities, [405].
Bee. See '[Baby and the Bee.]'
Bergson, Henri, as president of Society for Psychical Research, [63], [106]-[107]
—on psychic phenomena, [107]-[111].
Boss rule, [138].
Bourne, Senator, [32]-[33].
Bradford, Mary C., [321], [330].
Breckinridge, Prof. Sophonisba P., [313], [319], [329].
Bronson, Miss Minnie, [313], [318], [329].
Brougham, H. B., 'A Needed Unpopular Reform,' [133]
—'The Machinery for Peace,' [200]
—'How Woman Suffrage Has Worked,' [307].
Bryan, W. J., [3], [4], [5], [124]-[129].
Burke, Edmund, his political ideas and their present applicability, [272]-[273], [277]-[284].
Burrows, Charles W., 'Our Government Subvention to Literature,' [415].
Burton, Dr., on tobacco, [145], [162].
Butler, Samuel, [123].
Cabinet, The Unfermented, [124]
—composition of Pres. Wilson's cabinet and experience of its members, [124]-[125]
—public observation and expectations, [126]
—Bryan, [126]-[129]
—his Chautauqua lectures, [128]
—the cabinet's confidence in the president, [129]-[130]
—its unity, [130]
—Wilson's power, [131]-[132].
Capitalism, The Soul of, [227]
—capitalism compared to feudalism, [227]-[228]
—capitalism a predominant and significant fact in modern life, [228]-[229]
—the paradoxical conception of a soul in capitalism, [229]
—commercialization; "business" vs. "sentiment," [230]
—capitalism a respecter of the liberties of men, [231]
—personal prejudices out of business hours still rule, [232]
—discrimination in business exceptional; Mr. Henry Ford, [232]
—toleration necessitated by business tends to break down national, racial and religious prejudices, [233]
—this toleration is interested and not ethical, [234]
—yet liberty based on capitalistic toleration is broad and substantial, [234]
—precapitalistic liberty, [235]
—class liberty, [235]
—the laborer's great gains in personal liberty, [236]
—capitalism the real source and cause of the fraternity of labor, [237]-[238]
—the natural race antagonisms among laborers, [238]
—moral gain of labor disputes, [239]
—solidarity in American and in foreign laborers, [239]
—anti-militarism in the laboring class, [239]
—the soul of capitalism begins to emerge as toleration, liberty and fraternity, [240]
—Socialism, [241]
—Karl Marx cited, [241]
—the initial ugliness of capitalism, [241]-[242]
—the struggle of good and evil in the non-economic field and its outcome, [243]
—Holberg, [244]
—a broader and more liberal humanity the evolving soul of capitalism, [244].
Cattell, Prof., [399].
Charles II, [122].
Chesterton, G. K., unconscious testimony against tobacco, [156].
Child labor, facts and misrepresentation as to extent, [259]-[260].
Classification. See [Pigeon-Holes].
Climbers, Some Deserving, [439].
[Colleges], What is the Matter with the American? [214].
See also '[Barbarian Invasion, The]'; [Schooling].
Consumers' League, [261]-[262].
Cost of living, [12], [261]-[262].
Criticism, A Model of Divinatory, [435].
Crookes, Sir Wm., [64], [68], [69].
Cross-Correspondence, [104].
[Decency] and the Stage, [214].
DeForest, Mrs. Nora Blatch, [330], [331].
Delaisi, Francis, [187].
Delineator, The, [256], [258].
Demagogues, [4]-[5]
—Roosevelt as an example, [285]-[288].
Democracy, [34]
—what it has done for higher education, [389].
Democrat Reflects, The, [34]
—disillusionment, [34], [35]
—questionings as to real nature of democracy, [36], [37]
—plutocracy, [37]
—democracy in education, [38]
—in religion and art, [39], [40]
—in manners and dress, [40], [41]
—in the home, [41]
—Plato on democracy, [42]
—ridiculous side of the idea, [42]
—mediocrity, [43], [44]
—democracy as a machine, [44], [45]
—character the Supreme end, [46].
"Doctor Foster went to Gloucester," [435].
Dog, in Rich's sitting, [79].
Dorr, George, with Myers control, [103].
Dowsing, [67].
Drama. See [Decency].
Dramatic power of mediums, [82].
Dreams, [65]-[66], [109].
Drink. See [Alcohol].
Education. See [Schooling]; [Colleges]; '[Barbarian Invasion, The].'
En Casserole, [212], [431].
Farnam, Henry W., 'Our Tobacco: its Cost,' [145].
Feminism, abundant results of woman's influence in legislation, [332].
Fires resulting from smoking tobacco, [147]-[152].
Fite, Warner, 'The Barbarian Invasion,' [389].
Football, [394].
Ford, Henry, [232].
Foster, the medium, [68].
Franklin, Fabian, 'The Majority Juggernaut,' [22]
—Social Untruth and the Social Unrest,' [252].
Freedom. See [Liberty].
George, Henry, [27]-[28].
George, Mrs. A. J., [310], [328].
Germany, peace policy, [200];
trust legislation, [406].
Ghost stories, [65].
Glynn, Governor, [142].
Government management, [16].
Greeks, The, on Religion and Morals, [358]
—relation of religion and morals, [358]-[359]
—the Greek attitude toward reason, [359]-[360]
—its psychological development, [360]
—the eleusinian mysteries; Dionysus, [361]
—hypnosis, ecstasy, enthusiasm, [362]
—orphism and immortality, [362]-[364]
—Aristotle on the Eleusinia, [364]
—Oriental cults: Unthraism, [365]
—origin of the Christian sacraments and the theology of St. Paul to be found in these mysteries, [365]-[366]
—the doctrine of the early church modified by Greek ideas; the Nicene Creed, [366]-[367]
—"faith," [367]
—Hippolytus and Plato, [368]
—the influence of Greece on dogma, [368]-[369]
—Christian exegesis also of Greek origin, [369]
—its principle, [370]
—Plato's exegesis, [371]
—the ethics of Christianity as related to Stoicism and Cynicism, [371]-[373]
—religion and morals among the Greeks differentiated, [372]
—Plato's Republic, [373]
—religion and morality have suffered from too close a union, [374].
Gurney, Edmund, as control, [80].
Hamilton, Clayton, 'Our Alcohol: its Use,' [163].
Hancock, John, [122].
[Heteromatic] writing, [69]-[70], [99]-[104].
Hodgson, Dr. Richard, [64]
—first Piper report, [71]-[79]
—second Piper report, [83]-[90]
—argument for spiritism, [87]-[88]
—as control, [93]-[103].
Holberg, [244].
Holland, Mrs., heteromatic writing, [99]-[103]
—with Hodgson control, [100].
Holt, Henry, 'The New Irrepressible Conflict,' [1]
—'Prof. Bergson and the Society for Psychical Research,' [63]
—'Tobacco and Alcohol,' [212]
—'Answering Big Questions,' [214]
—'Decency and the Stage,' [214]
—'Simplified Spelling,' [218], [440]
—'Special to our Readers,' [431]
—'A Specimen of Uplift Legislation,' [434]
—'Some Deserving Climbers,' [439].
Home, the medium, [67], [68].
Hours of labor, [13].
"Howard" family and G. P., [84]-[87].
Hull House. See [Addams, Jane].
Humanitarianism, current cant deprecated, [292].
"Humans," [439].
Hypnotism, [65], [109].
Immortality, faith in, possible justification for, [106].
Imperator, [70], [90], [91]
—inconsistent names, [105].
Infant mortality, [266].
Intemperance, strict sense of the word, [163].
See also [Alcohol].
Interstate Commissions, Commerce and Trade, [408], [413]-[414].
Irrepressible Conflict, The New, [1]
—minority vs. majority, [1]
—Seward's Irrepressible Conflict and others, [1]-[2]
—class legislation, [2], [5]
—value of the superior man, [2]
—growing disturbances from the man behind, [2]-[3]
—greenbacks start a crazy cycle, [3]
—Bryan and Silver, [3]-[4]
—ideals of the average man, [4]
—Jack Cade, Bryan and Roosevelt, [4]
—two greatest demagogues in history, [5]
—rightful owners of wealth, [5]
—Marshall's "Economics of History," [5]-[6]
—Francis A. Walker on profits of employers, [6]-[7]
—source of wealth, [7]-[8]
—Socialism, [8]
—taxes mainly for the benefit of the non-taxpayers, [9]
—arbitration, [10], [20]
—progress of the average man, [11]-[15]
—Karl Marx and his "increasing misery" theory, [11]
—rising wages, [12]-[15]
—cost of living, [12]
—decreasing hours of labor, [13]
—government management, [15]-[16]
—the way to peace, [15]-[21]
—improvement in human nature, [18]
—mutual help, [18]-[19]
—trade unions, [20], [21]
—education and individual improvement, [19]-[20].
James, Prof. Wm., [64]
—finds Mrs. Piper, [71]
—with "Aunt Kate," [74]-[76]
—with G. P., [84]
—argument on spiritism, [89], [91]-[92], [93], [94]-[98]
—with Hodgson control, [97]-[98].
Jerry, uncle of Sir Oliver Lodge, [81].
Jesus Christ, [121].
Johnson, Alvin S., 'The Soul of Capitalism,' [227].
Jordan, David Starr, 'The Standing Incentives to War,' [185].
Journalism, American, [216].
Kakuzo, Okakura, [117].
Kellogg, Vernon L., 'What is the Matter with the American Colleges?' [214]
—'The Baby and the Bee,' [333].
Knickerbocker Press, [259].
Labor, antagonisms, [238]
—gain of disputes, [239].
LaFarge, John, [117], [119].
Language, some new words, [439].
Larned, J. N., on the newspaper, [424].
Legislation, specimen, [434].
Letters as posthumous evidence of spiritism, [104]-[106].
[Liberty], breadth and strength of that which comes from capitalism, [234]
—Puritan and precapitalistic, [235].
Lieber, Francis, [204].
Lincoln, A., anecdote, [124]
—tactfulness, [122]
—war rules, [204].
Lindsey, Judge Ben. B., [58]
—on woman suffrage in Colorado, [330].
[Literature], Our Government Subvention to, [415]
—book production in the United States compared with that of other countries, [415]-[417]
—decrease of book sellers, [418]
—growth of periodicals, [419]
—as the effect of a low rate of postage, [419]-[421]
—increase of bulk and circulation in periodicals and newspapers, [420]-[421]
—disproportionate postage rates, [422]-[423]
—number of periodicals, [423]
—quality of newspapers, [424]
—great disproportion between bad and good literature, [424]
—picture of the pabulum in the popular magazine, [425]
—injustice of postal rates further illustrated, [426]
—profits of a publisher, [427]
—facts kept from the public, [427]
—lobby, [427]
—the Home University Library, [429]
—why not carry books cheaply? [430].
Lodge, Sir Oliver, [64], [73], [93];
sitting with Mrs. Piper, [79]-[81].
MacCunn, Prof. John, [272], [273].
McNamara dynamitings, [268].
Majority Juggernaut, The, [22]
—initiative and referendum, [22]-[23]
—cause of existing impatience with governmental methods, [23]-[24]
—direct rule of the people, [24]-[25]
—need of resistance to the immediate desire of the majority in settling certain momentous questions, [25]-[31]
—Henry George and the single tax, [27]-[28]
—difference between representative rule and direct rule, [29]-[30]
—mob rule, [31]-[32]
—Senator Bourne's position, [32]-[33]
—inherent error of the direct-rule propaganda, [32]-[33].
Martin, E. S., 'The Unfermented Cabinet,' [124].
Marx, Karl, [11], [235], [241].
Materialization, [67].
Mather, F. J., Jr., 'Two Neglected Virtues,' [112]
—'Wanted: Proportionate News,' [216]
—'The Right to be Amused,' [297].
Microbophobiac, The Story of a, [175].
Morality, Greek, [358].
Morality, The New, [47]
—Miss Jane Addams as its exponent, [48]
—her works, [48]-[50], [54]
—revolution from mediæval religion to humanitarianism, [49]-[52]
—lessened sense of personal responsibility, [52]
—modern social sympathy, [53]-[59]
—change of view in the church, [56]
—results of humanitarianism, [56], [57]
—confusion of moral standards and relaxation of morals, [58], [59]
—remedy, [60]
—permanent worth of character and its relation to social justice, [61], [62].
More, Paul Elmer, 'The New Morality,' [47]
—'Natural Aristocracy,' [272].
Moses, Rev. W. Stainton, [68], [69]-[71]
—in Newbold sittings, [90].
Mott, Lucretia, [307], [318], [332].
Murphy, Chas. F., [134], [135], [142].
Myers, F. W. H., [64], [65], [66], [68], [69], [99]
—as control with Dorr, [103]
—with Mrs. Holland, [103]-[104]
—posthumous letter, [105].
"Near," [440].
New Jersey reform, [139]-[143].
New York City, causes of fires, [150]
—numerous elective offices, [136].
Newbold, Prof. J. R., sittings with Mrs. Piper, [90].
Newell, in Rich's Piper Sitting, [78].
News, Wanted: Proportionate, [216].
Newspapers, [421], [424].
Nys, Ernest, [209].
Page, Walter H., [415].
Paine, Tom, on Burke, [281], [282].
Palladino, Eusapia, [67].
Patterson, Wm. B., [259].
Peace, present phase of movement, [197].
Peace, The Machinery for, [200]
—peaceful policy of Germany and Great Britain, [200]
—the work of the First Hague Conference, [200], [202], [203]
—arbitration and American arbitral proceedings previous to the Hague Conferences, [201]-[202]
—Roosevelt's objection, [202]
—work of the Second Hague Conference, [200], [202], [203]-[206]
—Francis Lieber, President Lincoln, and the Brussels Conference of 1874, [204]
—naval war, [204]
—International Prize Court, [204], [208]
—Declaration of London, [204]
—machinery for pacific settlement of international disputes, [205]
—international commissions, [205]
—Hague Court of Arbitration, composition, [205]-[206]
—work of the Third Hague Conference in 1915, [206]-[209]
—Casablanca case, [207]
—tendency to compromise, [207]-[208]
—Supreme Court of Arbitral Justice, [208]-[209]
—Ernest Nys, [209]
—arguments for war, [209]-[211]
—industrial and scientific substitutes for war, [210]-[211]
—Prof. Soddy cited, [211].
"Pelham," George, [83]-[90], [92], [97], [99]
—Mrs. Piper recognizes portrait, [86].
Periodicals. See [Literature].
Perris, Geo. H., [187].
Personality, secondary, [76].
Peter Ibbetson, [80].
Phinuit, Dr., [71]
—his French, [73]-[77].
Pigeon-Holes, The Case for, [343]
—method, [343]
—classification of ideas, [343]-[344]
—value to civilization, [345]-[346]
—method and efficiency, [346]
—the machine age, [346]-[347]
—value of system in scholarship and religion, [347]-[348]
—the other side of the case: limitations to the use of system and classifications, [349]-[354]
—men and truths not easily classified, [349]
—the multitudinous differences in things, [350]
—different points of view, [351]
—mutations of the human spirit, [351]
—wholeness of truth, [352]
—system a violence to nature, [352]
—its injustice and tyranny, [353]
—an obstacle to progress, [354]
—the judicial view of the case, [355]-[357]
—limitations and qualifications in the employment of method, [355]
—an art after all, [356]
—the Golden Mean and human quality, [356]-[357].
Piper, Mrs., [67]
—sittings with Hodgson, [74]-[75]
—with Rich, [76]-[79]
—with Lodge, [79]-[81]
—Hodgson second report, [83]
—George "Pelham," [83]-[90].
Plato, character of his Republic, [371], [373]
—picture of the change from license to tyranny, [275]-[276].
Podmore, Frank, [64]
—conversion, [99].
Postal rates on periodicals, [419].
Psychical Research, Prof. Bergson and the Society for, [63]
—formation of the society, early members, publications, [64]
—thought-transference, [64]-[65]
—"Phantasms of the Living," [65]
—zoömagnetism and telekinesis, [66]
—Home, the medium, [67], [68]
—Eusapia Palladino, [67]
—U. S. Moses, [68], [69]-[71]
—Myers on Moses, [69]
—Sir Wm. Crookes, [68], [69]
—American S. P. R., Hodgson, James, and Mrs. Piper, [71]
—Phinuit, etc., [71]-[73]
—reports of sittings, [74]-[76]
—T. Rogers Rich; telepathy or what? [76]-[79]
—Piper English sittings; Sir O. Lodge, [79]-[80]
—Gurney sittings, [80]-[81]
—telepathy and teloteropathy insufficient to explain Piper phenomena, [82]
—George "Pelham" sittings, [83]-[85]
—Hodgson and spirit hypothesis, [85]-[89]
—Wm. James's reluctant admissions, [89]-[98]
—W. R. Newbold, [90]
—Imperator and followers, [90]-[91]
—death of Hodgson, [93]
—Hodgson as control, [93]-[99]
—spirits very human, [96]
—character of future world, [96]
—Prof. James, [97]-[98]
—conversion of Frank Podmore, [99]
—heteromatic writing of Mrs. Verrall and Mrs. Holland, [99]-[102]
—Mrs. Verrall's heteromatic writing, [99]
—Mrs. Holland's cipher writing, [100]
—automatic verse, [101]-[102]
—letter and its strong evidence, [102]
—on death of Myers, [102]-[103]
—his appearances, [103]
—notorious stanza, [104]
—happiness of controls, [104]
—Cross-Correspondence, [104]
—two strongest points against spiritism, [104]-[105]
—failure in regard to sealed letters and Moses inconsistencies, [105]
—indication of phenomena, [106]
—Prof. Bergson's estimate of the Society, [106]-[107]
—on indifference of learned world, [107]
—on parallelism, [107]-[108]
—on hypnosis and dreams, [109]
—on survival of individuality, [109]-[110]
—on telepathy, [110]-[111].
Putnam, Emily J., 'The Greeks on Religion and Morals,' [358].
"Q," Hodgson's friend, as control, [74].
Questions, Answering Big, [214].
Raisin, Jacob S., [259].
Rector, "Spirit" control, [70], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [97].
Reform, A Needed Unpopular, [133]
—secret oligarchies in chief cities and states of the United States, [133]-[138]
—Tammany, [133]-[135]
—too many offices under direct control of the people, [135]-[137]
—the town meeting of New England, [137]
—politicians and bosses as plunderers, [137]-[138]
—moral awakening, [138]
—reform in New Jersey, [139]-[143]
—Ex-Senator James Smith, [139]-[140]
—Woodrow Wilson as Governor of New Jersey, [139]-[140]
—conduct of elections and the short ballot, [140]
—the direct primary principle, [141]
—the problem of cumbersome political machinery, [142]-[144]
—executive responsibility, [142]-[143]
—commission government in cities, [143]-[144]
—judiciary appointments, [143].
Religion, Greek, [358].
Rich, T. Rogers, with Mrs. Piper, [76]-[79].
Right to be Amused, The, [297]
—new doctrine of human rights, [297]
—its reaction on women, [298]
—the right to be amused distinguished from the ordinary pursuit of pleasure, [298]-[299]
—the hungry defiant faces of modern women, [299]-[300]
—the American woman in the nineteenth century, [300]-[301]
—the peculiar right of the good looking American woman, [302]
—the modern girl's detachment from responsibilities, [302]-[303]
—little done for right education of girls, [303]
—American writers of fiction who picture woman as a mere ornament, [304]
—the fault of the American man that she is so, [304]-[305]
—the effect of the projection of women into business and social reforms, [305]
—woman's need of companionship; true marriage, [305]-[306].
Roosevelt, T., [4], [5], [118], [119]
—demagoguery, [285]-[288]
—misleading talk compared with previous conduct, [269]
—opposition to arbitration, [202].
Ross, Prof. E. A., [264].
St. Paul, [122].
Saloon. See [Alcohol].
[Schooling], Our Sublime Faith in, [375]
—demands made on our schools, [375]
—criticisms, [376]
—putting everything on the schools, [377]
—the main purpose of popular education, [377]-[378]
—public welfare, [378]
—religion, morality and knowledge as subjects for teaching, [379]
—the knowledge desirable, [379]-[380]
—morality, character-building, and the development of the social conscience, [380]-[381]
—religion and the difficulty of teaching it, [381]-[383]
—the present development of the spirit of lawlessness, [383]-[386]
—diminishing respect for law among the better class; capitalists, [384]-[385]
—its evil effect, [385]
—time to take thought, [385]
—what the schools can do, [386]
—the social conscience, the social instinct, and the good of the whole, [386]-[388]
—prevention, [388]
—social-minded character, [388].
Seager, H. R., 'Trust-Busting as a National Pastime,' [406].
Seward's phrase "The Irrepressible conflict," [1].
Shaw, Dr. Anna, [310].
Showerman, Grant, 'The Democrat Reflects,' [34]
—'The Story of a Microbophobiac,' [175]
—'The Case for Pigeon-Holes,' [343].
Simplified Spelling, [218], [440].
Smith, James, in New Jersey, [139]-[140].
Smith, Munroe, on publishers privileges, [427].
Socialism, [8]
—future of, [244]
—real strength, [293].
Social justice, [54]-[62].
Social Untruth and the Social Unrest, [252]
—legitimate and illegitimate portrayal of existing social evils, [252]-[253]
—nature of present social problems, [253]
—danger of deceiving the public, [254]
—how well-meaning reformers play into the hands of the Socialists, [254]-[255]
—illustrations of well-meant exaggeration, distortion and misleading presentation of present evils, [256]-[269]
—instance of rubbishy story, [256]-[258]
—exaggerated statements cited about extent of child labor, [259]-[261]
—case of misrepresentation on the part of the Consumers' League as to the rising price of food in restaurants, [261]-[263]
—reformers' indifference to facts, [262]-[264]
—further illustrations, [264]-[269]
—Prof. E. S. Ross's misleading article in the Atlantic on the suppression by the press of important news, [264]-[265]
—misrepresentation as to infant mortality, [266]-[267]
—Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace's inability to weigh facts in his zeal for reform, [267]-[268]
—loose thinking consequent on the McNamara dynamitings, [268]
—Mr. Roosevelt's misleading talk compared with his previous conduct, [269]
—the dangerous unrest consequent upon all this distortion and deception, [269]-[271].
Society for Psychical Research (S. P. R.), [63]-[111].
Sociological Nightmare, [245].
Soddy, Prof., [211].
Speer, Dr. Stanhope, [69].
Spiritism, Hodgson's argument for, [87]-[88], [104]-[106]
—James on, [89], [91]-[92], [93], [94]-[98], [104].
Stage. See [Decency].
Steel industry, [410], [412].
Sumner, Dr. Helen M., [320].
Tammany, [133]-[135].
Taxation, [9], [27]-[28].
Telekinesis, [66]-[67].
[Telepathy], [64]-[65], [82]
—Bergson on, [110].
Thomas, Calvin, 'Our Sublime Faith in Schooling,' [375]
—'A Model of Divinatory Criticism,' [435].
"Thon," [440].
Thought-transference. See [Telepathy].
Tobacco, [212].
Tobacco, Our: Its Cost, [145]
—value of factory product, [145]
—annual amount spent for tobacco, [146]
—comparisons, [146]-[147], [161]
—loss of life and property through fires caused by smokers, [147]-[152]
—forest fires thus caused, [151]-[152]
—land required for tobacco culture, [152]-[153]
—cost to railroads, [153]
—cost of cleanliness, [153]-[154]
—effects on physical health, [154]-[155]
—effect on mental development, [155]
—loss of time, [156]
—weakening of the social sense, [156]-[157]
—effect on efficiency and the will power, [157]
—credit side of the account, [158]-[159]
—taxes and duties, [158]
—euphoria, [158]-[159]
—habit, [159]
—the social balance sheet, [159]-[160]
—further considerations and conclusion, [161]-[162]
—Dr. Burton cited, [145], [162].
Toleration, [234], [240].
Townsend, Mrs. Geo. W., [312].
Trent, W. P., 'A Sociological Nightmare,' [245].
Trust-Busting as a National Pastime, [406]
—trust legislation in Germany, [406]
—in America, [406]-[407]
—dangerous bills proposed, [407]
—inconsistent railroad policy, [408]
—Interstate Commerce Commission and rate fixing, [408]
—prohibiting combinations, [408]
—advantage of combination, [409]-[412]
—Union Pacific-Southern Pacific separation, [408]
—telephone and telegraph separation, [409]
—the steel industry and advantages of combination, [410]-[412]
—regulated competition and regulated monopoly, [412]-[413]
—merits of an Interstate Trade Commission, [413]-[414].
Universities, duty of, [295];
See also [Colleges].
Uplift Legislation, A Specimen of, [434].
Virtues, Two Neglected, [112]
—reticence and tact out of fashion, [112]-[113]
—face value of talkativeness, [114]
—unpopularity of reticence and tact due to their being "head" virtues, [115]-[116]
—increasing value in complicated society, [116]
—taciturnity, [116]-[117]
—Okakura Kakuzo, [117]
—John LaFarge, [117], [119]
—American garrulity, [118]
—one merit of Pragmatism, [118]
—Roosevelt, [118]-[119]
—incompatibility of free talk and tactfulness, [119]
—the gentle arts of tact, [119]-[120]
—feminine and masculine tact, [120]
—shy people, [121]
—tact of Jesus, [121]
—of St. Paul, John Hancock, Lincoln, Charles II, [122]
—tactlessness of Dr. John Rubens, [122]-[123]
—relativity of tact, [122]-[123]
—Samuel Butler quoted, [123].
Verrall, Mrs., heteromatic writing, [99].
Visions, [65].
Wages, [12]-[15].
Walker, Francis A., [6]-[7].
Wallace, Alfred Russel, [267].
Walsh, Mrs., Kate, as spirit control, [74]-[76].
War, The Standing Incentives to, [185]
—modern war system of "peace by preponderance," [185]-[186]
—its elements and advocates, [186]-[187]
—war traders and war trusts, [187]-[188]
—papers by G. H. Perris and Francis Delaisi, [187]-[188]
—British, French and German companies interested in war, [187]-[190]
—war scares, [189]
—war-syndicates in the United States, [191]
—money-lenders, [191]
—exploiting companies, [191]-[192]
—hereditary aristocracy, [192]
—false education, [192]
—the responsibility of the individual citizen, [193]
—national debts, [194]
—hollowness of the system, [194]
—repudiation, [194]
—causes of national decline, [195]
—disease and vandalism, [196]
—our proper line of attack on the war system, [197]
—present phase of the peace movement, [197]
—arbitration and conciliation, [198]
—America's position, [198]-[199].
Wealth, [7].
Wilde, Miss, posthumous letters, [104]-[106].
Williams, Talcott, [421].
Wilson, Woodrow, character of his cabinet and administration, [124]
—Governor of New Jersey, [139]-[140].
Wofsmiths, [377].
Woman Suffrage, How [it] has Worked, [307]
—the indictment against man by the suffragists of 1848 in their "Declaration of Sentiments," [307]-[308]
—woman's emancipation has come about chiefly without the ballot, [308]-[309]
—married woman's position at present in New York State, [308]-[309]
—other States and the industrial position of women, [309]-[310]
—educational privileges that have been gained by woman without the ballot, [310]
—her rights and privileges in Protestant churches, [310]
—so many results achieved without the ballot indicate that it is not needed, [311]
—suffragists contend that much remains to be done, [311]-[313]
—joint guardianship laws, [311]-[312]
—method by which the New York law was obtained, [312]
—strife of "antis" and "pros," [313]
—contentions and replies in parallel columns regarding various state laws for the protection of wage-earning women, [313]-[318]
—Miss Bronson vs. Miss Abbott and Prof. Breckinridge, [313], [318]-[319], [329]
—statements on both sides of the controversy show amelioration not due to exercise of ballot, [318]-[319]
—nevertheless it is still contended that the ballot is the quickest and surest way, [319]
—Dr. Helen M. Sumner on the pay of women in Colorado, [320]
—hours of work in Massachusetts and in Utah, [320]
—laws of Colorado (a woman suffrage State) and of Pennsylvania (a male-suffrage State) in regard to the protection of women and children compared in parallel columns, [321]-[326]
—the minimum wage question, [327]
—the real argument of the American Woman Suffrage Association itself appears to be against suffrage extension, [327]-[328]
—statistics showing small percentage of women who go to the polls, [328]-[329]
—women generally show less interest in registering and in voting than men, [329]
—the bearing of this fact on law enforcement, [329]-[330]
—Judge Lindsey's testimony, [330]
—more persons have laws beneficial to women and children under male suffrage than under equal suffrage, [331]
—no distinctive results of woman suffrage in the Union where it has been granted in part or in whole, [332]
—results from the indirect influence of women, [332].
Zoömagnetism, [66]-[67].