These forced collections are not entirely for the benefit of the Queen, but are to be appropriated also to a vast variety of local objects and institutions.
The Outlook of Diogenes.
The ancient philosopher Diogenes, whom even the presence of Alexander could not overawe, is one of the most marked and heroic figures of ancient history. It is said “The Athenians admired his contempt for comfort, and allowed him a wide latitude of comment and rebuke. Practical good was the chief aim of his philosophy; for literature and the fine arts he did not conceal his disdain. He laughed at men of letters for reading the sufferings of Ulysses while neglecting their own; at musicians who spent in stringing their lyres the time which would have been much better employed in making their own discordant natures harmonious; at savants for gazing at the heavenly bodies while sublimely incognizant of earthly ones; at orators who studied how to enforce truth, but not how to practice it. * When asked what business he was proficient in, he answered, ‘to command men.’”
Psychometry brings up these ancient characters as vividly and truthfully as history. Such psychometric descriptions are a continual miracle. How the psychometers, knowing not of whom they are speaking, guided only by a mysterious intuition, should speak of the most ancient characters as familiarly and truly as of our acquaintances to-day, will ever stand as a psychic miracle, to illustrate the Divine Wisdom that established such a power in man. This is the daily experience of Mrs. Buchanan. Her description of Diogenes was as follows:
“I think this is an ancient. There is something quaint about him. He does not seem to follow anything or anybody. He lived a natural life, indifferent to current teachings. He had peculiar original ideas of his own as to life and its purposes, and seems to be a man of philanthropic nature, not æsthetic, but very indifferent as to personal appearance and habits, or as to pleasing people, not at all fastidious. He did not mind people’s opinions in the least. They never disturbed him.
“He had enough combativeness to fight his way through difficulties. He had great self-reliance, and did not mind obstacles. If he had to take part in disturbances, he was ready, and had tact and tactics. He had a peculiar power of governing men, and a peculiar way of gaining confidence and esteem. He did not show off at all, and was not at all condescending. He had a great deal of sagacity. He regarded as trifles things people considered as momentous.
“(To what country did he belong?) He was probably a Greek, but he did not accord with anything of his time. He lived in the future and anticipated great changes. He did not agree with any contemporary religion, politics, fashions or manners, but was very sarcastic upon them. He was a philosopher, devoted to the useful, and cared nothing for the ornamental, either in architecture, fashions or anything else. He might not make war on the religion as he was not rancorous or rebellious, but he had different ideas in himself, and was candid in expressing them. He does not give much attention to modern times, but if he were here he would enjoy modern improvements and benevolence, but would denounce our fashions and our bigotry, and teach a primitive style of living.”
Let us invoke the strong spirit of Diogenes whose sturdy freedom of thought was like that of Walt Whitman, to coöperate in the review of modern life. Such men are greatly needed to review a corrupt civilization; and where is the civilization now, where was there ever a civilization that was not corrupt? The function of Diogenes is not performed either by the pulpit or the press. A few special journals are terribly severe on special evils, but the reformatory words of the press generally are few and far between, in comparison to what is needed. The Journal of Man does not propose to fill the hiatus and make war upon the myriad evils of society, but it must speak out, now and then, like Diogenes, especially when others neglect their duty.
What is the condition of our legislative bodies? Where is there one that does not provoke sharp criticism? The Albany correspondent of the N. Y. Sun, speaking of the legislative adjournment, says; “Mr. William F. Sheehan, leader of the Democratic minority to the Assembly, summed up the work of the Legislature of 1887 when in his address on the floor of the Assembly on the day of final adjournment, he said: ‘Prayer will ascend from thousands of hearts of the citizens of this State at noon to-day for their deliverance from this Legislature. It began its session with the corrupt election of a United States Senator. It lived in bribery, and it dies a farce.’ No one here regrets the adjournment except the gamblers and the lobbyists. Even the lobbyists would be glad for a vacation, as their labors in bidding for the legislative cattle the last month have been most arduous. The people of Albany look on the Legislature as a pestilence to which they must yearly submit, and they welcome its departure as a farmer does the going of a swarm of locusts from his fields.
“Whatever else may be said about the Legislature of 1887, no one ever accused it of being honest, and there is no doubt that it was industrious.”
This corrupt Legislature passed two very discreditable bills which would have been made positively infamous if it had not been for the active opposition of a few friends of liberty. One of these bills was designed to add to the stringency of the present obstructive medical law; the other was designed to assist the labors of Anthony Comstock in interrupting the circulation of popular physiological literature, under pretence of suppressing obscenity.