“I hope they were not such warnings as most warnings are,” said the stranger; “warnings which do not forewarn, but in mockery come after the fact. And yet something in you bids me think now, that whatever latent design your impostor friend might have had upon you, it as yet remains unaccomplished. You read his label.”
“And what did it say? ‘This is a genial soul,’ So you see you must either give up your doctrine of labels, or else your prejudice against my friend. But tell me,” with renewed earnestness, “what do you take him for? What is he?”
“What are you? What am I? Nobody knows who anybody is. The data which life furnishes, towards forming a true estimate of any being, are as insufficient to that end as in geometry one side given would be to determine the triangle.”
“But is not this doctrine of triangles someway inconsistent with your doctrine of labels?”
“Yes; but what of that? I seldom care to be consistent. In a philosophical view, consistency is a certain level at all times, maintained in all the thoughts of one’s mind. But, since nature is nearly all hill and dale, how can one keep naturally advancing in knowledge without submitting to the natural inequalities in the progress? Advance into knowledge is just like advance upon the grand Erie canal, where, from the character of the country, change of level is inevitable; you are locked up and locked down with perpetual inconsistencies, and yet all the time you get on; while the dullest part of the whole route is what the boatmen call the ‘long level’—a consistently-flat surface of sixty miles through stagnant swamps.”
“In one particular,” rejoined the cosmopolitan, “your simile is, perhaps, unfortunate. For, after all these weary lockings-up and lockings-down, upon how much of a higher plain do you finally stand? Enough to make it an object? Having from youth been taught reverence for knowledge, you must pardon me if, on but this one account, I reject your analogy. But really you someway bewitch me with your tempting discourse, so that I keep straying from my point unawares. You tell me you cannot certainly know who or what my friend is; pray, what do you conjecture him to be?”
“I conjecture him to be what, among the ancient Egyptians, was called a ——” using some unknown word.
“A ——! And what is that?”
“A —— is what Proclus, in a little note to his third book on the theology of Plato, defines as —— ——” coming out with a sentence of Greek.
Holding up his glass, and steadily looking through its transparency, the cosmopolitan rejoined: “That, in so defining the thing, Proclus set it to modern understandings in the most crystal light it was susceptible of, I will not rashly deny; still, if you could put the definition in words suited to perceptions like mine, I should take it for a favor.