Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:30 am

Workers' Educational Association
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/25/20

Venerable Kapilavaddho and the English Sangha Trust

We pay tribute to a man who founded the English Sangha Trust and who, after an absence of ten years, returned to lead it from the dolorous state into which it had fallen. He had in the course of his lifetime several different names, as will appear but it is fitting to head this tribute with the name and designation that he twice bore with wisdom, courage and dignity. There will be many, to whom the earlier parts of the almost incredible saga of this man are unknown, and it is with such people in mind that the story is told at some length.

William August Purfurst was born at Hanwell, Middlesex, on 2nd June 1906. As the name indicates, his father was of German origin, and he was an only child. His father died when he was quite small, and he was brought up under the care of his mother, to whom he remained devotedly attached until her death in 1957. Young William soon showed himself to be a man of many and brilliant gifts. There is no doubt that he could have made a career for himself either in business or in the academic world. He had a remarkable gift for acquiring a wide variety of experiences and — what is more — profiting from them. At the age of 20 he was living in Bristol as manager of a branch of an internationally know typewriter firm, but the world of business could not satisfy him. He started studying such things as psychology and philosophy, eagerly seeking to find answers to life’s riddle. But his compulsively inquiring mind was not so easily satisfied with the “solutions” proffered by the books he read. Perhaps already at this time he began to suspect that the scholars and philosophers of the West had no monopoly of wisdom. In any case, he felt that the only place for him to pursue his studies further was London. After two years, he gave up his Bristol job and set out for the capital where he had been born, on foot: an action, which was symbolic of his future career. From then on, he stood on his own two feet, and if necessary walked on them to wherever he felt he had to go.

An expert photographer, he soon got himself a job in Fleet Street. He returned each night from the day’s work to his private studies, his private questing. He was ever trying to find out the nature of things, the reason for man’s existence, and was not going to be fobbed off with any easy answers. But as happens, the deeper he probed the further off the solution to his questions appeared. At the same time, the first of his teachers appeared on the scene. This man, perceiving qualities that resided in the young Purfurst, took him under his wing, giving him an intensive course in the philosophy of the East. Starting with the Vedas and the Upanishads, Yoga and Vedanta — all as a preliminary to the real kernel of the course, which was Buddhism. Discipline under his teacher was strict — he had to work each evening at his studies, and also undertake a regime of strict physical training. He stuck it out, mastered the philosophical course and at the same time gained considerable control over his own body and emotions. All this had been undertaken in his spare time, in the evenings after his journalistic work.

When his friend and mentor died, he continued on his own, extending his studies into other fields such as anatomy and chemistry. As a result of these studies, he was able to develop a new colour printing process which in one form or another, is still in use today. This was his life until the outbreak of war in 1939, when he became an official war photographer. However as a man of action, he found life dull in the early days of the war. Nothing seemed to happen, so he trained as a fireman. By the time his training was completed, the picture had changed. The blitz had begun. As an officer of the National Fire Service in London he soon found all the “action” he could ask for, and more.

He had some hair-raising experiences amid burning, crashing buildings, while bombs rained down and the ack-ack guns opened up, amid burst mains and sewers. Crawling among precarious ruins, digging out the living and the dead, going without sleep, food, drink, or even his precious cigarettes, and of course constantly risking his own life for the sake of others. In his case, though he distinguished himself by his fearlessness, such a life was after all not so very exceptional. He was a Londoner born and bred. Although they had not yet met, there was another man in London doing very similar things, whom one would scarcely have expected to meet in such a situation. This was a Burmese bhikkhu, the Venerable U Thittila, who had come to work in London at scholarly pursuits when war overtook him. He was equal to the occasion and, boldly doffing the robe, he joined the ambulance service and worked in blitzed London under similar conditions to William Purfurst.
This experience gave Venerable U Ṭhittila a unique insight into the British character. And it probably also did much to forge the bond of friendship, which eventually grew between the two men.

As D-Day approached, William Purfurst’s wartime activities changed in character. He became a civilian photographer attached to the Royal Air Force, his job being to take pictures of army parachutists who were dropped on enemy territory. In order to equip himself for this task, he himself volunteered for a parachute course took the full training and did a number of drops. He then went as a photographer on a number of missions until the war in Europe finally ended.

Towards the end of the war he also got married, and having left the service he became a WEA (Workers Educational Association) lecturer in philosophy, in which capacity he travelled a great deal up and down the country. It was about this time that he met Venerable U Thittila, whose pupil he promptly became.
The bhikkhu who had been supported by the Buddhist Society resumed the robe somewhat informally (he had to be re-ordained, later, in Burma) and gave many lectures and classes at the Society’s old premises in Great Russell Street, where William Purfurst was also active as a speaker.

-- Honour Thy Fathers: A Tribute to the Venerable Kapilavaddho ... And brief History of the Development of Theravāda Buddhism in the UK, by Terry Shine

The Workers' Educational Association (WEA), founded in 1903, is the UK's largest voluntary sector provider of adult education and one of Britain's biggest charities. The WEA is a democratic and voluntary adult education movement. It delivers learning throughout England and Scotland. There was a related but independent WEA Cymru covering Wales, though it is now known as Adult Learning Wales since a merger in 2015 with YMCA Wales Community College.

The WEA's provision is usually local to its students. In 2015–16 there were over 8,000 courses delivered in over 1,800 community venues and 75% of WEA students travelled less than 2 miles to their class.[1]

The WEA has throughout its history supported the development of similar educational initiatives and associations internationally. It is affiliated to the International Federation of Workers' Education Associations (IFWEA) which has consultative status to UNESCO.

The International Federation of Workers’ Education Associations (IFWEA) is an international organisation of associations, foundations, non-governmental organisations and trade unions involved in adult education for working people. It is based in Cape Town, South Africa, is an observer at the International Labour Organisation and UNESCO and is a member of SOLIDAR. [1]

-- International Federation of Workers' Education Associations, by Wikipedia

The consultative status is a phrase whose use can be traced to the founding of the United Nations and is used within the UN community to refer to "Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council" (see list). Also some international organizations could grant Consultative Status to NGOs (for example - Council of Europe; the rules for Consultative Status for INGOs are appended to the resolution (93)38 "On relations between the Council of Europe and international non-governmental organisations", adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 18 October 1993 at the 500th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies). Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) could grant Consultative Status in the form of "Researcher-in-residence programme" (run by the Prague Office of the OSCE Secretariat): accredited representatives of national and international NGOs are granted access to all records and to numerous topical compilations related to OSCE field activities.

-- Consultative status, by Wikipedia

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of the press, and fair elections. It employs around 3,460 people, mostly in its field operations but also in its secretariat in Vienna, Austria, and its institutions. It has its origins in the 1975 Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) held in Helsinki, Finland.

The OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation. Its 57 participating countries are located in Europe, northern and central Asia, and North America. The participating states cover much of the land area of the Northern Hemisphere. It was created during the Cold War era as an East–West forum.[3]

-- Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, by Wikipedia

Archbishop William Temple was a strong proponent of workers' education.

Albert Mansbridge (10 January 1876 – 22 August 1952) and his wife Frances (née Frances Jane Pringle, 1876–1958) established An Association to promote the Higher Education of Working Men in 1903 (renamed 'Workers Educational Association' in 1905), funded by two shillings and sixpence from the housekeeping money.


The WEA is divided into nine regions in England, a Scottish Association and over 500 local branches. It creates and delivers about 9,000 courses each year in response to local need across England and Scotland, often in partnership with community groups and local charities. These courses provide learning opportunities for around 65,000 people per year, taught by over 2,000 professional tutors (most of whom work for the WEA part-time).

The WEA is supported by the Government through funding from the Skills Funding Agency in England, and in Scotland by the Scottish Executive and Local Authorities. It also receives fees from learners on many of its courses and is often successful in funding bids from government, lottery and other sources for educational projects in local communities around the country.



1908: William Temple
1924: Fred Bramley
1926: Arthur Pugh
1928: R. H. Tawney
1944: Harold Clay
1958: Asa Briggs
1968: Ellen McCullough
1971: Billy Hughes
1981: Bernard Jennings
1990s: Bill Conboy
2008: Colin Barnes
2016: Lynne Smith

General Secretaries

1905: Albert Mansbridge
1916: J. M. MacTavish
1928: John William Muir
1931: Alec Firth
1934: Ernest Green
1951: Harry Nutt
1970: James Jefferies
1982: Robert Lochrie
2003: Richard Bolsin
2012: Ruth Spellman
2020: Simon Parkinson

WEA Scotland

The first Scottish branch of the WEA was in Springburn, Glasgow, although this only lasted until 1909 at that time, the Edinburgh and Leith Branch coming into existence on 25 October 1912 after a meeting held at the Free Gardeners' Hall, 12-14 Picardy Place, Edinburgh. The meeting was chaired by Professor Lodge and addressed by Albert Mansbridge and Dr. Bernard Bosanquet. The meeting was attended by 200 people, including Mr James Munro, M.A. who became Secretary of the newly formed branch.[2][3][4]

WEA Northern Ireland

The Workers' Educational Association NI ceased to function in June 2014, when it ran into a cash flow problem and its bank refused to extend credit. It provided adult education in community and workplace settings. Its title was somewhat misleading as it provided education for all types of people and in particular tried to reach out to those who missed out on learning first time round. It worked mainly with those over 18.[citation needed]

Some background ...

• It was set up in Belfast in 1910 and part of a wider network of WEAs, the first of which started in England in 1903.
• It operated across Northern Ireland and in the Border Counties in the Republic. It has around 6,500 learners in any given year.

Its courses were organized mainly in venues such as community halls, arts centres and training rooms in workplaces.


WEA branches for North and South Wales were established early in the 20th century. An instrumental figure was David Thomas, who taught classes for the WEA in Caernarfonshire from 1928 to 1959, and instigated the founding of Lleufer (Light) as a Welsh-language WEA periodical, which he edited it until 1965. Coleg Harlech was founded in 1925 as a residential college for workers' education, and in 2001 merged with the WEA (North Wales). Further mergers in 2014 unified North and South, then in 2015 WEA Cymru merged with YMCA Community College to form Adult Learning Wales - Addysg Oedolion Cymru.

In Australia, New Zealand and some regions of Canada

Cigarette card featuring coat of arms of Workers' Education Association of Australasia, Sydney 1929

In 1913, the University of Melbourne invited Mansbridge to visit Australia to help set up branches there. The Mansbrige family arrived on 8 July on a 17-week mission aimed at forming branches of the association in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, West Australia and Tasmania and WEAs were initially set up in all states.[5][6][7] As of 2012, the WEA in South Australia claims to be 'Australia's largest non-government adult community education organisation' and the WEAs in New South Wales and Victoria are still operating.[8][9]

During this trip the Mansbridges then made a brief visit to New Zealand where WEA branches were established in 1915.[10][11] Seven branches are still operating along similar lines to those in Australia. Branches Waitakere, Kapiti Coast, Wellington, Canterbury, Te Anau, Gore and Southland provides flexible learning to over 12,000 students each year.[12] The Canterbury branch initially held its classes in a dingy rented room down a back alley; now its homed in the central city villa it purchased in 1957,[13] where it teaches over 130 courses a year.[14] From the 1920s, it took adult education to nearly every nook and cranny of the Canterbury and Westland provinces through a travelling library book scheme.[15]

Early work was patterned on the WEAs in the UK. However, given the different demographic arrangements in Australia, and in the absence of other adult education providers, the WEAs in Australia became general adult education agencies. In the 1980s a range of other training providers started offering adult education thereby changing the role of the WEAs. The WEAs in Australia have many clubs and societies associated with their operation. A typical example is the WEA Film Study Group based in New South Wales. Reorganization in 1994 saw the WEA in New South Wales split into WEA Sydney, WEA Hunter (Newcastle) and WEA Illawarra (Wollongong).[16]

There are also some branches in Canada which have presently and currently opened in March 2014 although however its services has been established since 1917 (98 years old) and is part of the WEA International; it operates mainly in Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax as well as St Johns. it is currently operated under the Canadian government licences and jurisdictions of division branch companies ltd.' (LLC)

See also

• Adult education
• Community college
• Continuing education
• Lifelong learning
• Vocational education


1. "Latest WEA Publications | WEA". Retrieved 14 February 2017.
2. 2003: A Century of Learning 1903 - 2003 Timeline. Workers' Educational Association Scotland. © WEA ScotIand. ISBN 0 902303 511
3. Scotsman newspaper 28 October 1912
4. "Free Gardeners". 2010.
5. Graham Marsh, Mansbridge: A Life; A Biographical Note to Celebrate the Centenary of the WEA, 2002 at (assessed 11/09/12), pp.5.
6. T.W. Price, The Story of the Workers'Educational Association 1903-1924, 1924 The Labour Publication Co. Ltd. London. p.53. ASIN: B00116OMME
7. Bernard Jennings Albert Mansbridge The Life and Work of the Founder of the WEA, 2002 University of Leeds. p.126. ISBN 1 901981 11 8
8. 'About the WEA' at (assessed 11/09/2012).
9. 'Get Involved' at (assessed 15/07/2015).
10. T.W. Price, The Story of the Workers'Educational Association 1903-1924, 1924 The Labour Publication Co. Ltd. London. p.53. ASIN: B00116OMME
11. Bernard Jennings Albert Mansbridge The Life and Work of the Founder of the WEA, 2002 University of Leeds. p.126. ISBN 1 901981 11 8
12. "Federation of WEA - New Zealand". Retrieved 18 July 2019.
13. Dougherty, Ian (2015). The People's University: A Centennial History of the Canterbury Workers' Educational Association 1915-2015. Christchurch City Libraries: Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. ISBN 9781927145593.
14. "History". Retrieved 18 July 2019.
15. Dougherty, Ian (April–May 2016). "The Canterbury WEA Box and Books Scheme" (PDF). NZ Memories magazine.
16. Parry, Naomi (2018). "The Workers' Educational Association in the post-war era". Dictionary of Sydney. Retrieved 28 December 2018.

Further reading


Lawrence Goldman, past President of the former Thames and Solent District WEA, has written:
• Dons and Workers: Oxford and Adult Education Since 1850 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995)
• 'Intellectuals and the English Working Class 1870-1945: The Case of Adult Education', History of Education 29:4 (1999), 281-300
• 'Education as Politics: University Adult Education in England since 1870', Oxford Review of Education 25:1-2 (1999), 89-101
• 2003: A Century of Learning 1903 - 2003 Timeline. Workers' Educational Association Scotland. © WEA ScotIand. ISBN 0 902303 511
Joe England (ed.), 2007 'Changing Lives: Workers' Education in Wales 1907-2007'


• Darryl Dymock (2001). A Special and Distinctive Role in Adult Education. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86508-567-7.
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:52 am

William Temple (bishop)
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/25/20

The Most Reverend and Right Honourable William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury
William Temple
Appointed: 1 April 1942 (nominated)
Installed: 17 April 1942 (confirmed)
Term ended: 26 October 1944
Predecessor: Cosmo Lang
Successor: Geoffrey Fisher
Ordination: 1909 (deacon), 1910 (priest)
Consecration: 25 January 1921
Personal details
Born: 15 October 1881, Exeter, Devon, England
Died: 26 October 1944 (aged 63), Westgate-on-Sea, Kent, England
Buried: Canterbury Cathedral
Nationality: English
Denomination: Church of England
Spouse: Frances Anson
Previous post: Bishop of Manchester, Archbishop of York

William Temple (15 October 1881 – 26 October 1944) was an English Anglican priest, who served as Bishop of Manchester (1921–1929), Archbishop of York (1929–1942) and Archbishop of Canterbury (1942–1944).

The son of an Archbishop of Canterbury, Temple had a traditional education after which he was briefly a lecturer at the University of Oxford before becoming headmaster of Repton School from 1910 to 1914. After serving as a parish priest in London from 1914 to 1917 and as a canon of Westminster Abbey, he was appointed Bishop of Manchester in 1921. He worked for improved social conditions for workers and for closer ties with other Christian Churches. Despite his socialist sympathies he was nominated by the Conservative government for the Archbishopric of York in 1928 and took office the following year. In 1942 he was translated to be Archbishop of Canterbury, and died in post after two and a half years, aged 63.

Temple was admired and respected for his scholarly writing, his inspirational teaching and preaching, for his constant concern for those in need or under persecution, and for his willingness to stand up on their behalf to governments at home and abroad.

Early years

Temple was born on 15 October 1881 in Exeter, Devon, the second son of Frederick Temple and his wife Beatrice, née Lascelles. Frederick Temple was Bishop of Exeter, and later (1896–1902) Archbishop of Canterbury. Despite the considerable age gap – the Bishop was 59 years old when Temple was born (Beatrice Temple was 35) – they had a close relationship.[1] Sixty years later Temple referred to his father as "among men the chief inspiration of my life".[1] In a centenary appraisal Frederick Dillistone wrote:

Both parents came from aristocratic families and William's life, until he was 21, was spent in episcopal palaces. Yet it is clear that this privileged start did not spoil him, for there was no trace of snobbery or class-consciousness in his later years. Rather, there came to be an increasing concern for all who had not shared his circumstances.[2]

After a preparatory school, Colet Court, Temple went to Rugby School (1894–1900), where his godfather, John Percival was headmaster. Temple later wrote a biography of him.[3] At Rugby, Temple began lifelong friendships with the future historian R. H. Tawney and J. L. Stocks, who became a philosopher and academic.[4]

In 1900 Temple went up to Balliol College, Oxford, where he obtained a double first in classics and served as president of the Oxford Union.[4] The master of Balliol was the philosopher Edward Caird; the biographer Adrian Hastings comments that Caird's neo-Hegelian idealism provided the philosophical inspiration for many of Temple's academic writings.[3] Temple learned to search for a synthesis in apparently conflicting theories or ideals, and later wrote of "my habitual tendency to discover that everybody is quite right – but I was brought up by Caird and I can never get out of that habit".[5] In Dillistone's view, Temple did not make "any radical distinction between Christianity and the World, the Church and the State, Theology and Philosophy, Religion and Culture".[2]

While an undergraduate Temple developed a deep concern for social problems, involving himself in the work of the Oxford and Bermonsdey Mission, which brought material and spiritual help to the poor of the East End of London.

The Mission in Bermondsey

After a meeting of two old friends – Henry Gibbon and Edwyn Barclay – from Wycliffe Hall in 1897, John [Stansfeld] received an invitation to found a small medical mission in Bermondsey, then one of the poorest boroughs of London. The so-called Oxford Medical Mission was started in a small house on Abbey Road with the purpose to ’primarily spread Christ’s Kingdom.’

John’s days were packed with activity – he worked for Customs & Excise during the day and ran a medical surgery and boys club in Bermondsey in the evenings. Those who knew him said that they never saw him sleep! However, he managed to find time to marry Janet Marples, a social worker in Bermondsey, in 1902, and in 1903 their first son, John Gordon Stansfeld, was born followed three years later by a daughter, called Phyllis Janet Stansfeld. For the next sixteen years, John and Janet worked side by side rearing their family and trying to help improve the lives of the residents of Bermondsey.

At the turn of the century, John surprised his colleagues at the mission by buying a piece of land in Horndon-on-the-Hill in Essex in order to create a boys summer camp. He wanted to give the deprived children of the parish a haven away from the city -– a place to escape, explore and enjoy. On the site, he built a ’castle’ from the wreckage of an old Bermondsey church. He also built Wycliffe House -– a long, low hut suitable for meals and gatherings. John obviously had great foresight as this was a few years before Baden Powell formed the Scouts, a movement that made camping and outdoor exploration for young boys popular all around the UK. In 1903 he extended the original Bermondsey mission to another site at Dockhead, just east of Tower Bridge, and other outposts followed.

-- The Story of John Stansfeld, The Man Behind Stansfeld Park, by

Another enduring interest that began in this period was his concern to make higher education available to intellectually able students from all social and economic backgrounds.[6]

Oxford and Repton: 1904–1914

After taking his degree in 1904 Temple received numerous job offers – one biographer says as many as 30[5] – and he opted for a fellowship at Queen's College, Oxford, where he went into residence as fellow and lecturer in philosophy in October 1904, remaining there until 1910. According to Hastings his lectures were ostensibly on Plato's Republic but in reality were on his own mix of Greek and Christian themes.[3] His tutorial duties were light, and he had leisure to visit mainland Europe and meet philosophers and theologians such as Rudolf Christoph Eucken, Hans Hinrich Wendt, Adolf von Harnack and Georg Simmel.[5]

For as long as he could remember, Temple had aimed to be ordained, and in January 1906 he approached the Bishop of Oxford, Francis Paget, seeking admission to the diaconate. Paget declined, expressing regret that he could not ordain anyone with such theological views as those of Temple, who was hesitant about accepting the literal truth of the Virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ. After further study, and guidance from the Oxford theologians Henry Scott Holland and Burnett Hillman Streeter, Temple felt ready to try again and in March 1908 he obtained an interview with his father's successor as Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson. After an exchange of letters between Davidson and Paget, the Archbishop made Temple a deacon on 20 December 1908 in Canterbury Cathedral, and ordained him priest on 19 December 1909.[5]

In 1908 Temple became the first president of the newly formed Workers' Educational Association, a charity dedicated to making the best educational opportunities available to all.
[6] In 1910 he published his first book, The Faith and Modern Thought. The Athenaeum took issue with some of his contentions, but considered that writers like him demonstrated that "a fresh presentation of doctrine may be helpful to religion, and not injurious".[7] The Saturday Review enjoyed the book's "vigorous and exuberant healthiness" and predicted, "Matured experience will enable the author to give the world some remarkable work".[8]

In June 1910 Lionel Ford, the headmaster of Repton School, moved to the headship of Harrow, and Temple was appointed to succeed him at Repton.[9] The biographer George Bell quotes a Repton colleague on Temple:

He was not really fitted, either by temperament or by taste, to be a great headmaster, as he probably soon discovered. He was never really interested in the administrative details of an educational institution, and he had too many wider interests in the outside world to settle down to them, but, both in chapel and in the classroom, and most of all perhaps in his familiar intercourse with the senior boys, he was a source of real inspiration to many at Repton. He made a host of life-long friends there, and his Repton years were among the happiest in a fundamentally happy life.[10]

Temple shared his colleague's reservations about his suitability for the post; in late 1910, during his first term at Repton, he wrote "I doubt whether headmastering is really my line".[3] On 1 January 1913 it was announced that he had been appointed vicar of St Margaret's, Westminster, a post that carried with it one of the canonries of the adjacent Westminster Abbey, but it then emerged that the Abbey statutes required all canons to have served at least six years in holy orders.[11] Temple remained at Repton for another 18 months, and then accepted the benefice of St James's, Piccadilly in the West End of London. He was happy to be succeeded as headmaster by Geoffrey Fisher.[11][12]

Piccadilly and Westminster Abbey: 1914–1920

The Piccadilly parish was undemanding, and left Temple free to write and to work on national issues during the early part of the First World War, especially for the National Mission of Repentance and Hope, an initiative designed to renew Christian faith nationwide.[11]


In the autumn of 1916 the Church of England called the nation to a National Mission of Repentance and Hope. The Mission was launched by the Archbishop of Canterbury Randall Davidson and Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of York, as an attempt to repent for our sins as a nation:

‘We are to repent not because we believe that we are guilty of provoking this war, but because we, together with the other nations that profess to be Christian, have failed to learn how to live together as a Christian family, how to set forth Christ to the peoples who do not know Him. We are to repent because, in the light of the war, we are learning to know our sins as a nation. Because it is clear that the spirit of love does not rule our relations with one another at home, any more than it rules the relations between the nations.’

As well as repentance, the National Mission projected a much needed message of hope during the grave time of war. The perils of war lowered public morale and tested the faith of many Christians. The Church believed that a collective national effort is required to combat this bleak sentiment. ‘The war deepened the Church’s sense that society needed its pastoral role.’ The Church had hoped to reconnect with the nation and re-awaken Christian conscience:

‘We look forward to a new England, to a new world. Our repentance will open the way for the Holy Spirit to show us how we can help to make that new England, that new world.’

The message of the National Mission of Repentance and Hope invited the nation on a Mission of Witness, to earnestly reflect on their attitudes, weaknesses, and passions, and to repent in hope of a better world. The Church’s sentiment of hoping for a better world mirrored the reason why many conscripted -- in a hope to fight to save their country and the world. The National Mission was very much a home front initiative but was also a message for the trenches. The war was an opportunity to renew the Christian faith: to learn the lesson taught to us by war through examining ourselves as a nation and taking the lesson to heart. The words of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in his Presidential Address, sum up the fundamental idea behind Anglican Witness: ‘To be a Christian is to believe we are commanded and authorised to say certain things to the world; to say things that will make disciples of all nations.’

3. But our further hope lies in the latent and unconscious Christianity in the nation itself. "Nothing is of any use, but prayer and trust in God; we all feel it out here; war is a great purge," so wrote an Oxford undergraduate from the trenches to me the other day; and this is only a sample of numbers of such letters.

If only anything like the call to reality which has been heard at the Front can be made vocal at home, there is a latent Christianity in the Anglo-Saxon race which will answer to the call; it is not mere sentimentality, but something deeper, which makes a group of soldiers on a Sunday night ready to sing hymns; nor do the crowded churches on a watch night or a harvest festival represent pure superstition. This mission, then, is to be like the coming of the spring; it is to be a drawing-out of sweet influences and powers, inherent but dormant in the Church and nation. Its effect is not to be produced primarily by the beating of big drums, or the oratory of mission preachers; each diocese is to revive itself in its own way, believing that under the breath of the life-giving Spirit even "a desert may rejoice and blossom as the rose."

-- An excerpt of an article from Church Times, March 1916, by the Bishop of London (Arthur-Winnington Ingram) [Davidson 772 f.85]

The organisation of the National Mission was an enormous undertaking. The Bishop of London, Arthur-Winnington Ingram, took the role of Chairman of the Central Council and a panel of Archbishops’ Messengers was set up specifically for the purpose of the National Mission. A large body of literature was provided at [the] national level; posters, postcards, resolution cards, pamphlets, hymn books, children’s books, and study guides. The date of the Mission was to be between October and November 1916 with the clergy preparing first and dioceses following with their own arrangements. Once the arrangements had been made, it was decided that the Mission would go ahead with the help of the newly established general Consultative Committee and five Archbishops’ Committees of Enquiry.

-- The National Mission of Repentance and Hope 1916, by A Monument of Fame: The Lambeth Palace Library Blog, May 13, 2016

Blood shone at me from the red light of the crystal, and when I picked it up to discover its mystery, there lay the horror uncovered before me: in the depths of what is to come lay murder. The blond hero lay slain. The black beetle is the death that is necessary for renewal; and so thereafter, a new sun glowed, the sun of the depths, full of riddles, a sun of the night. And as the rising sun of spring quickens the dead earth, so the sun of the depths quickened the dead, and thus began the terrible struggle between light and darkness. Out of that burst the powerful and ever unvanquished source of blood. This was what was to come, which you now experience in your life, and it is even more than that. (I had this vision on the night of 12 December 1913.)...

In the year 1914 in the month of June, at the beginning and end of the month, and at the beginning of July, I had the same dream three times: I was in a foreign land, and suddenly, overnight and right in the middle of summer, a terrible cold descended from space. All seas and rivers were locked in ice, every green living thing had frozen.

The second dream was thoroughly similar to this. But the third dream at the beginning of July went as follows:

I was in a remote English land. It was necessary that I return to my homeland with a fast ship as speedily as possible. I reached home quickly. In my homeland I found that in the middle of summer a terrible cold had fallen from space, which had turned every living thing into ice. There stood a leaf-bearing but fruitless tree, whose leaves had turned into sweet grapes full of healing juice through the working of the frost. I picked some grapes and gave them to a great waiting throng.

In reality, now, it was so: At the time when the great war broke out between the peoples of Europe, I found myself in Scotland, compelled by the war to choose the fastest ship and the shortest route home. I encountered the colossal cold that froze everything, I met up with the flood, the sea of blood, and found my barren tree whose leaves the frost had transformed into a remedy. And I plucked the ripe fruit and gave it to you and I do not know what I poured out for you, what bitter-sweet intoxicating drink which left on your tongues an aftertaste of blood....

Therefore the spirit foretold to me that the cold of outer space will spread across the earth. With this he showed me in an image that the God will step between men and drive every individual with the whip of icy cold to the warmth of his own monastic hearth.

-- The Red Book: Liber Novus, by C.G. Jung

He served as editor of The Challenge, a non-party Church newspaper, which foundered after two and a half years.[5] He was more successful with the Life and Liberty Movement, a campaign for a measure of independence for the Church of England, which was at that time wholly under the control of Parliament for its laws and rules. In 1916 he married Frances Gertrude Acland Anson (1890–1984). They had no children. The following year Temple gave up the rectorship of St James's to make himself free to tour the country campaigning for Life and Liberty.[13] In the same year he completed his largest philosophical work, Mens Creatrix (The Creative Mind). In 1918 he joined the Labour Party,[14] and remained a member for eight years.[5]

Temple's appointment as a canon of Westminster in June 1919 further raised his public profile. The Abbey was crowded whenever he preached.[5] Hastings writes that it was clear to Archbishop Davidson that so able and influential a man as Temple should be found a suitably important role. Towards the end of 1920, when Temple was 39, the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, offered him the post of Bishop of Manchester.[3]

David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM, PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a British statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1916 and 1922. He was the final Liberal to hold the post.

-- David Lloyd George

[W]e shall generally call the organization the "Rhodes secret society" before 1901 and "the Milner Group" after this date, but it must be understood that both terms refer to the same organization.

This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history. This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda. It plotted the Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of 1899-1902; it set up and controls the Rhodes Trust; it created the Union of South Africa in 1906-1910; it established the South African periodical The State in 1908; it founded the British Empire periodical The Round Table in 1910, and this remains the mouthpiece of the Group; it has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation; it has controlled The Times for more than fifty years, with the exception of the three years 1919-1922, it publicized the idea of and the name "British Commonwealth of Nations" in the period 1908-1918, it was the chief influence in Lloyd George's war administration in 1917-1919 and dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it; it was one of the chief influences on British policy toward Ireland, Palestine, and India in the period 1917-1945; it was a very important influence on the policy of appeasement of Germany during the years 1920-1940; and it controlled and still controls, to a very considerable extent, the sources and the writing of the history of British Imperial and foreign policy since the Boer War....

As High Commissioner, Milner built up a body of assistants known in history as "Milner's Kindergarten." The following list gives the chief members of the Kindergarten, their dates of birth and death (where possible), their undergraduate colleges (with dates), and the dates in which they were Fellows of All Souls....

Of these twenty-three names, eleven were from New College. Seven were members of All Souls, six as Fellows. These six had held their fellowships by 1947 an aggregate of one hundred and sixty-nine years, or an average of over twenty-eight years each. Of the twenty-three, nine were in the group which founded, edited, and wrote The Round Table in the period after 1910, five were in close personal contact with Lloyd George (two in succession as private secretaries) in the period 1916-1922, and seven were in the group which controlled and edited The Times after 1912....

In 1915, Lloyd George sent Hichens and Brand to organize the munitions industry of Canada. They set up the Imperial Munitions Board of Canada, on which Joseph Flavelle (Sir Joseph after 1917) was made chairman, Charles B. Gordon (Sir Charles after 1917) vice-chairman, and Brand a member....

From 1908 on, Kerr [Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian)] was, as we shall see, one of the chief organizers of publicity in favor of the South African Union. He was secretary to the Round Table Group in London and editor of The Round Table from 1910 to 1916, leaving the post to become secretary to Lloyd George (1916-1922), manager of the Daily Chronicle (1921), and secretary to the Rhodes Trust (1925-1939)...

Edward William Mackay Grigg (Sir Edward after 1920, Lord Altrincham since 1945) is one of the most important members of the Milner Group. On graduating from New College, he joined the staff of The Times and remained with it for ten years (1903-1913), except for an interval during which he went to South Africa. In 1913 he became joint editor of The Round Table, but eventually left to fight the war in the Grenadier Guards. In 1919, he went with the Prince of Wales on a tour of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. After replacing Kerr for a year or so as secretary to Lloyd George (1921-1922), he was a Member of Parliament in 1922-1925 and again in 1933-1945....

In the new government formed after the creation of the Union of South Africa, [Jan] Smuts held three out of nine portfolios (Mines, Defense, and Interior). In 1912 he gave up two of these (Mines and Interior) in exchange for the portfolio of Finance, which he held until the outbreak of war. As Minister of Defense (1910-1920) and Prime Minister (1919- 1924), he commanded the British forces in East Africa (1916-1917) and was the South African representative and one of the chief members of the Imperial War Cabinet (1917- 1918). At the Peace Conference at Paris he was a plenipotentiary and played a very important role behind the scenes in cooperation with other members of the Milner Group. In 1921 he went on a secret mission to Ireland and arranged for an armistice and opened negotiations between Lloyd George and the Irish leaders....

William George Stewart Adams
was lecturer in Economics at Chicago and Manchester universities and Superintendent of Statistics and Intelligence in the Department of Agriculture before he was elected to All Souls in 1910. Then he was Gladstone Professor of Political Theory and Institutions (1912-1933), a member of the committee to advise the Irish Cabinet (191 1), in the Ministry of Munitions (1915), Secretary to Lloyd George (1916-1919), editor of the War Cabinet Reports (1917-1918), and a member of the Committee on Civil Service Examinations (1918)...

Brand [Robert Henry Brand (Lord Brand)] was apparently the one who brought [Lord] Astor into the Milner Group in 1917, although there had been a movement in this direction considerably earlier. Astor was a Conservative M.P. from 1910 to 1919, leaving the Lower House to take his father's seat in the House of Lords. His place in Commons has been held since 1919 by his wife, Nancy Astor (1919-1945), and by his son Michael Langhorne Astor (1945- ). In 1918 Astor became parliamentary secretary to Lloyd George; later he held the same position with the Ministry of Food (1918-1919) and the Ministry of Health (1919-1921)....

[Alfred] Milner
himself became the second most important figure in the government (after Lloyd George)[/size][/b], especially while he was Minister without Portfolio. He was chiefly interested in food policy, war trade regulations, and postwar settlements. He was chairman of a committee to increase home production of food (1915) and of a committee on postwar reconstruction (1916). From the former came the food- growing policy adopted in 1917, and from the latter came the Ministry of Health set up in 1919. In 1917 he went with Lloyd George to a meeting of the Allied War Council in Rome and from there on a mission to Russia...Throughout this period Milner's opinion of Lloyd George was on the highest level. Writing twenty years later in The Commonwealth of God, Lionel Curtis recorded two occasions in which Milner praised Lloyd George in the highest terms. On one of these he called him a greater war leader than Chatham.

At this period it was not always possible to distinguish between the Cecil Bloc and the Milner Group, but it is notable that the members of the former who were later clearly members of the latter were generally in the fields in which Milner was most interested. In general, Milner and his Group dominated Lloyd George during the period from 1917 to 1921. As Prime Minister, Lloyd George had three members of the Group as his secretaries (P. H. Kerr, 1916-1922; W. G. S. Adams, 1916-1919; E. W. M. Grigg, 1921- 1922) and Waldorf Astor as his parliamentary secretary (1917-1918). The chief decisions were made by the War Cabinet and Imperial War Cabinet, whose membership merged and fluctuated but in 1917-1918 consisted of Lloyd George, Milner, Curzon, and Smuts — that is, two members of the Milner Group, one of the Cecil Bloc, with the Prime Minister himself.

-- The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, by Carroll Quigley

Bishop of Manchester: 1921–1929

Temple was consecrated bishop at York Minster on 25 January 1921 and enthroned at Manchester Cathedral on 15 February.[15] The Church Times later commented, "None of his friends doubted that if he would stick to his new job, and not be lured into a hundred-and-one other activities, he would make a big success".[16] In the view of the same writer':

Throughout the seven years he ruled the diocese he was a true Father-in-God. Whatever tended to the promotion of the work of the Church had his support. Thus he accepted the presidency of the Anglo-Catholic Congress on the two occasions it was held in Manchester, and remained for years president of its diocesan committee.[16]

Temple came as a sharp contrast with his predecessor, Edmund Knox. Knox had been staunchly evangelical and autocratic. He had refused to countenance the division of his over-large diocese; Temple saw that division was essential and founded the separate Diocese of Blackburn in 1926. Hastings comments that while "showing himself a thoroughly pastoral bishop, for whom parish visiting had a high priority",[3] Temple had wider social and ecumenical agendas. Manchester was a better fit than Piccadilly for his social concerns. It gave him scope for his interest in industrial relations and how Christian philosophy could help improve them.[16] In 1926, after the BBC vetoed Davidson's proposed broadcast to help mediate in the General Strike, Temple took a leading part with other bishops in trying to bridge the gulf between the miners and coal owners.[16] He co-operated with other Christian bodies, and as a member of the Council of Christian Congregations in his diocese he took an active part in promoting measures of social improvement.[16] He pursued a policy of inclusiveness among Christians, and invited several nonconformist ministers to preach in the Manchester diocese, which prompted the anti-ecumenical Bishop Weston of Zanzibar to withdraw in protest from the Lambeth Conference.[17]

As well as social concerns, Temple played a role in humanitarian and religious concerns. He was a leading figure in missionary conferences, led missions to undergraduates at Cambridge, Oxford and Dublin,[18] and revitalised the annual Blackpool sands mission.[16] In retrospect (1944) The Manchester Guardian expressed reservations about Temple as a diocesan bishop: "he was doing too many things outside his diocese … he was not really interested in humdrum details of administration".[19] Nonetheless, The Church Times said, "No aspect of life in his diocese was without his touch, whether it were in college, factory, conference hall or theatre. And all the time the flow of books from his pen continued, most of the work being done in the odd snatches of time between interviews and engagements, which lesser men fritter away with a cigarette".[16]

Archbishop of York: 1929–1942

Portrait by Philip de László, 1942

In 1928 Davidson retired, succeeded at Canterbury by Lang, to whom Temple was widely seen as one of six likely successors.[n 1] He had support from all sections of the Church although there was some concern that the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, a Conservative, would not nominate a prominent Labour supporter. Temple was appointed, and was enthroned at York Minster on 10 January 1929.[20]

Hastings writes that Temple's thirteen years at York were "by far the most important and effective in his life".[3] As Archbishop, Temple was in a position to exercise "the sort of national and international leadership for which he was naturally suited". Hastings gives examples ranging from local and national – preaching, lecturing, presiding in parishes, university missions, ecumenical gatherings and chairing the General Advisory Council of the BBC – to international – lecturing in American universities, speaking at the 1932 disarmament conference in Geneva and becoming the recognised leader of the international ecumenical movement. He was one of the instigators of the World Council of Churches as well as the British Council of Churches.[3]

The British Council of Churches (BCC) was an organization established in England in 1942 for the promotion of common action among the Christian churches of Great Britain. It sought to facilitate common evangelical action among the churches, to promote international friendship, to stimulate a sense of social responsibility, to guide youth work, to assist in the growth of ecumenical consciousness, and to promote Christian unity. Various conferences and groupings of the free churches had previously existed, but the BCC brought together the established churches of England and Scotland and the nonconforming churches. Beginning with William Temple, the first president, the presidency was held by the archbishop of Canterbury. The BCC included the Church of England; the Episcopalians of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; the English Presbyterians; the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; the Methodists; the Congregationalists; the Churches of Christ; the Baptists; the Quakers; the Unitarians; and the Salvation Army. The Greek Orthodox Church became a member in 1965. Associated with the council are also interdenominational societies such as the YMCA, the YWCA, the Student Christian Movement, the Christian Auxiliary Movement, and the Conference of British Missionary Societies.

Roman Catholics were not part of the BCC until 1990, when they were formally admitted. With the inclusion of Roman Catholics, the BCC changed its name to the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland, and in 1999 they adopted the name Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI). In addition to building an ecumenical spirit among the member churches, the CTBI has undertaken the task of helping the churches to collaborate in common projects.

-- British Council of Churches, by

While Archbishop of York, in addition to his pastoral work Temple wrote what Hastings regards as his three most enduringly important books: Nature, Man and God (1934), Readings in St John's Gospel (1939 and 1940), and Christianity and Social Order (1942). The first of these was compiled from his Gifford lectures given in Glasgow between November 1932 and March 1934;[3] The Manchester Guardian called it "a fine example of [Temple's] astonishing vigour and versatility" and quoted Dean Inge's comment, "It would be a great achievement for a university professor; for a ruler of the Church it is astonishing".[19] Christianity and Social Order sought to marry faith and socialism and rapidly sold around 140,000 copies.[21]

Temple's contributions in the social field during his time as Archbishop of York included working with a specialist committee and the Pilgrim Trust to produce a report on unemployment, Men without Work (1938), and convening and chairing the Malvern conference (1941) on church and society. The latter proposed six requisites for a society based on Christianity: every child should find itself a member of a family housed with decency and dignity; every child should have an opportunity for education up to maturity; every citizen should have sufficient income to make a home and bring up his children properly; every worker should have a voice in the conduct of the business or industry in which he works; every citizen should have sufficient leisure – two days' rest in seven and annual holiday with pay; every citizen should be guaranteed freedom of worship, speech, assembly, and association.[22]

The Pilgrim Trust is a national grant-making trust in the United Kingdom. It is based in London and is a registered charity under English law.[1]

It was founded in 1930 with a two million pound grant by Edward Harkness, an American philanthropist. The trust's inaugural board were Stanley Baldwin, Sir James Irvine, Sir Josiah Stamp, John Buchan and Hugh Macmillan;[2] its first secretary was former civil servant, Thomas Jones.[3]

Preamble to Trust Deed

The preamble to the Trust Deed was written by John Buchan, and reads thus:[4]

“ Whereas it is acknowledged by all the Great Britain in the War spent her resources freely in the common cause and in the years which have elapsed since Peace has sustained honourably and without complaint a burden which has gravely increased the difficulties of life for her people; And whereas the Donor feels himself bound by many ties of affection to the land from which he draws his descent and desires to show his admiration for what Great Britain has done by a gift to be used for some of her more urgent needs; And whereas he hopes that such a gift wisely applied may assist not only in tiding over the present time of difficulty but in promoting her future well-being... ”

Recording Britain

In 1940 the Trust funded a scheme "Recording the changing face of Britain" established by the Committee for the Employment of Artists in Wartime, part of the Ministry of Labour and National Service. Led by Sir Kenneth Clark, director of the National Gallery, it employed artists to record the home front in Britain, running until 1943. It was motivated by a desire to record and reflect the landscape, already undergoing a period of rapid change through urbanisation and changes in agriculture and further threatened by bombing and other effects of war. Some of the sixty three artists directly commissioned included John Piper, Sir William Russell Flint, Charles Knight, Malvina Cheek, George Hooper, Clifford Ellis, Raymond Teague Cowern and Rowland Hilder. A further thirty four artists contributed to the final total of over 1500 works. The collection was donated to the Victoria and Albert Museum by the Trust in 1949.[5] Over a hundred works comprising the "Recording Scotland" part of the same scheme are held at the Museum Collections Unit, University of St. Andrews.[6]

The Trust today

Today, the trust makes grants of roughly 2 million pounds each year. Around 60% of these funds are given to preservation projects, particularly those aimed at preserving the fabric of architecturally or historically significant buildings, or those aimed at preserving historically interesting artifacts or documents. The trust has a particular interest in the preservation of historic churches and their contents. The remaining funds are allocated to social welfare causes, particularly projects which assist those misusing alcohol and drugs, and projects in prisons, including those that seek alternatives to custody.[citation needed] The trust is a principal contributor to the collaborative National Cataloguing Grants Scheme operated in conjunction with The National Archives.[7]

-- Pilgrim Trust, by Wikipedia

The Malvern Conference of 1941 brought together leading Anglican social thinkers of the day to explore the Christian basis for involvement in society and Christian responses to pressing social, political and economic issues, some of which influenced thinking behind the post-war welfare state. In 1991, a second Malvern conference was organised to mark the 50th anniversary of William Temple’s original conference, this time with a particular focus on the challenges facing Britain and Europe in the light of the creation of the European Union (EU). In this article, the two Malvern conferences are compared and contrasted for their views on the key challenges of the day, steps towards a more just future and the role of the churches within that process. The article concludes with reflection on the lessons of both conferences for the churches’ engagement in the public square today.

-- Faith in the public square in 1941 and 1991: two Malvern Conferences reviewed, Ian Jones

Archbishop of Canterbury: 1942–1944

Lang retired as Archbishop in March 1942. There had been right-wing political attempts to block Temple's succession;[19][23] he was well aware of this: "some of my recent utterances have not been liked in political circles".[5][n 2] But the overwhelming expectation and desire that Temple should succeed Lang prevailed. His biographer Frederic Iremonger cites Lang's strong recommendation together with Temple's "reputation at home, in the Anglican communion overseas, and in the continental Churches; his prophetic leadership; his wide and massive knowledge … his immense powers of concentration; the personal devotion of his life".[5] The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who was responsible for nominating the new Archbishop, was well aware of Temple's political views, but accepted that he was the outstanding candidate: "the only half a crown article in the sixpenny bazaar".[25][n 3] Temple was enthroned in Canterbury Cathedral on 23 April 1942.[3]

In March 1943, Temple addressed the House of Lords, urging action to be taken on the atrocities being carried out by Nazi Germany.[26] He drew criticism in 1944 from his numerous Quaker connections for writing an introduction to Stephen Hobhouse's book Christ and our Enemies that did not condemn the Allied carpet bombing of Germany; he said that he was "not only non-pacifist but anti-pacifist".[27] He did not deny pacifists' right to refuse to fight, but maintained that they must take responsibility for their renunciation of the use of force. He said that people are responsible not only for what they intend, but for the foreseen results of their activity: if Adolf Hitler remained unopposed and conquered Europe, pacifists had to be willing to accept responsibility for this, in that they had not opposed him.[28]

It may be opportune at this point to say a word about the attitude of a Christian Society towards Pacifism....I cannot but believe that the man who maintains that war is in all circumstances wrong, is in some way repudiating an obligation towards society; and in so far as the society is a Christian society the obligation is so much the more serious. Even if each particular war proves in turn to have been unjustified, yet the idea of a Christian society seems incompatible with the idea of absolute pacifism; for pacifism can only continue to flourish so long as the majority of persons forming a society are not pacifists....The notion of communal responsibility, of the responsibility of every individual for the sins of the society to which he belongs, is one that needs to be more firmly apprehended; and if I share the guilt of my society in time of 'peace', I do not see how I can absolve myself from it in time of war, by abstaining from the common action.

-- The Idea of a Christian Society (1939), by T.S. Eliot

Temple was able to complete the work of [Randall] Davidson [Anglican priest who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1903 to 1928], who had striven unsuccessfully for reform of Britain's fragmented and inadequate primary education systems.[29] Davidson had been impeded by nonconformists' resistance in defence of their own church schools, but by the 1940s the sectarian divide was less rigid, and nonconformist leaders trusted Temple's sense of justice and honesty so that he was able to help negotiate the place of all church schools within the system agreed in the 1944 Education Act.[5]

The Education Act 1944 (7 and 8 Geo 6 c. 31) made numerous major changes in the provision and governance of secondary schools in England and Wales. It is also known as the "Butler Act" after the President of the Board of Education, R. A. Butler. Historians consider it a "triumph for progressive reform," and it became a core element of the post-war consensus supported by all major parties.[1] The Act was repealed in steps with the last parts repealed in 1996.[2]

The basis of the 1944 Education Act was a memorandum entitled Education After the War (commonly referred to as the "Green Book") which was compiled by Board of Education officials and distributed to selected recipients in June 1941.[3] The President of the Board of Education at that time was Butler's predecessor, Herwald Ramsbotham; Butler succeeded him on 20 July 1941. The Green Book formed the basis of the 1943 White Paper, Educational Reconstruction which was itself used to formulate the 1944 Act.[3] The purpose of the Act was to address the country's educational needs amid demands for social reform that had been an issue before the Second World War began. The Act incorporated proposals developed by leading specialists in the 1920s and 1930s such as R. H. Tawney and William Henry Hadow.[4] The text of the Act was drafted by Board of Education officials including Griffiths G. Williams, William Cleary, H. B. Wallis, S. H. Wood, Robert S. Wood, and Maurice Holmes.[5]

There was a desire to keep the churches involved in education but they could not afford to modernise without government help. By negotiation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple (1881-1944), and other religious leaders, a majority of the Anglican church schools became voluntary controlled and were effectively absorbed into the state system in return for funding. The Act also encouraged non-sectarian religious teaching in secular schools. A third of the Anglican church schools became voluntary aided which entitled them to enhanced state subsidies whilst retaining autonomy over admissions, curriculum and teacher appointments; Roman Catholic schools also chose this option.[6]

The legislation was enacted in 1944, but its changes were designed to take effect after the war, thus allowing for additional pressure groups to have their influence.[7][8] Paul Addison argues that in the end, the act was widely praised by Conservatives because it honoured religion and social hierarchy, by Labour because it opened new opportunities for working class children, and by the general public because it ended the fees they had to pay for secondary education.

-- Education Act 1944, by Wikipedia

In the war years Temple travelled continually around England, often speaking several times in a single day. He suffered all his life from gout, which under the burdens of his workload grew steadily worse and early in October 1944 he was taken by ambulance from Canterbury to rest at a hotel in Westgate-on-Sea, where he died of a heart attack on 26 October.[30] His funeral service was held in Canterbury Cathedral on 31 October and was led by Lang, together with Cyril Garbett, Archbishop of York, and Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury. Temple was the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be cremated.[31] His ashes were buried in the cloister at Canterbury Cathedral, next to the grave of his father.[3][32]

Reputation and legacy

Temple's death was followed by tributes not only from within the Church of England but also from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Bernard Griffin, from nonconformist leaders, and from the Chief Rabbi, Joseph Hertz, who said, "Dr Temple was a great power for good far beyond the borders of the national church. Israel has lost a true friend and humanity a valiant champion. We shall all bitterly miss him."[19] President Roosevelt wrote to George VI on Temple's death expressing the sympathy of the American people, saying, "As an ardent advocate of international co-operation based on Christian principles he exerted a profound influence throughout the world".[33] Lang was greatly distressed by his successor's death. He wrote, "I don't like to think of the loss to the Church and Nation... But 'God knows and God reigns'".[34]

In a biographical essay, Bishop George Bell wrote:

William Temple was not only one of the greatest men of his day, but also one of the greatest teachers who have ever filled the Archbishopric of Canterbury. His tenure of the see was for no more than two and a half years, yet his influence on the British people, in the field of social justice, on the Christian Church as a whole, and in international relations, was of a kind to which it would be very difficult to find a parallel in the history of England.[1]

Among several enduring memorials to Temple is the William Temple Foundation (formerly the William Temple College) in Manchester, a research and resource centre for those developing discipleship and ministry in an urban industrial society.[35]


• The Faith and Modern Thought (1910)
• The Nature of Personality (1911)
• The Kingdom of God (1914)
• Studies In The Spirit And Truth Of Christianity: Being University And School Sermons (1914)
• Church and Nation (1915)
• Mens Creatrix (1917)
• Fellowship with God (1920)
• Life of Bishop Percival (1921)
• Plato and Christianity, three lectures (1916)
• Personal Religion and the Life of Fellowship (1926),
• Christus Veritas (1924)
• Christianity and the State (1928)
• Christian Faith and life (1931).
• Nature, Man and God Gifford Lectures (1934)
• Men Without Work (1938)
• Readings in St John's Gospel (1939/1940. Complete edition 1945.)
• Christianity and Social Order (1942)
• The Church Looks Forward (1944).

Notes, references and sources


1. The others were the Bishops of Chelmsford (Guy Warman), Durham (Hensley Henson), Liverpool ( Albert David), Oxford (Thomas Strong) and Winchester (Theodore Woods).[17]
2. The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, allayed his misgivings about Temple by nominating Cyril Garbett for York, as, he hoped, a restraining influence. In fact Garbett was at least as left-wing as Temple, though less outspoken.[24]
3. Iremonger quotes Bernard Shaw: "To a man of my generation an archbishop of Temple's enlightenment was a realized impossibility".[5]


1. Baker and Bell, p. 11
2. Dillistone, F. W. "William Temple: A Centenary Appraisal",Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, June, 1983, pp. 101–112 (subscription required)
3. Hastings, Adrian. "Temple, William (1881–1944), archbishop of Canterbury" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2012. Retrieved 15 December 2019 (subscription or UK public library membership required)
4. Baker and Bell, p. 12
5. Iremonger, F. A. "Temple, William (1881–1944)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Macmillan 1959 and Oxford University Press, 2012. Retrieved 15 December 2019. (subscription or UK public library membership required)
6.Baker and Bell, p. 14
7. "The Faith and Modern Thought Six Lectures by William Temple", The Athenaeum, 23 April 1910, pp. 489–490
8. "The Faith and Modern Thought Six Lectures by William Temple", The Saturday Review, 15 October 1910, p. 492
9. "New Headmaster of Repton", The Times, 2 July 1910, p.13
10. Baker and Bell, p. 15
11. "Obituary" – The Archbishop of Canterbury – A Great Spiritual Leader", The Times, 27 October 1944, p. 8
12. Hein, pp. 7–8
13. "Life And Liberty in the Church", The Times, 31 October 1917, p. 3
14. Baker and Bell, p. 16
15. "Today's Cathedral Ceremony", The Manchester Guardian, 5 January 1921, p. 6; and "Bishop Temple Enthroned", The Times, 16 February 1921, p. 12
16. "William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury", The Church Times 3 November 1944. Retrieved 15 December 2019
17. "Dr. Temple Archbishop of York: Eight Notable Years In Manchester", The Manchester Guardian, 1 August 1929, p. 9
18. Baker and Bell, p. 22
19. "Archbishop Temple", The Manchester Guardian, 27 October 1944, p. 6
20. "Archbishop of York: Enthronement in the Minster", The Times, 11 January 1929, p. 7
21. Kynaston, p. 55
22. Grant, Robert. "A Communication: William Temple (1881–1944)", The Sewanee Review, Spring 1945, pp. 288–290 (subscription required)
23. Baker and Bell, p. 35
24. Calder, p. 485
25. Robbins, p. 223
26. "German Atrocities: Aid for Refugees. (Hansard, 23 March 1943)". Retrieved 3 April2013.
27. W. Temple papers 51, Temple to Hobhouse, 26 March 1944; also Melanie Barber, "Tales of the Unexpected: Glimpses of Friends in the Archives of Lambeth Palace", Journal of the Friends Historical Society, Vol 61, No.2
28. Lammers, p. 76
29. Bell, p. 539
30. "Death of the Primate", The Times, 27 October 1944, p. 4
31. Robbins, Keith (July 1991). "From Dust to Ashes. The replacement of burial by cremation in England 1840–1967". Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 42 (3): 528. doi:10.1017/S0022046900003948.
32. "The Archbishop of Canterbury", The Times, 1 November 1944, p. 4
33. Quoted in Baker and Bell, p. 11
34. Lockhart, pp. 451–454.
35. "William Temple Foundation Archives". John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester. Archived from the original on 28 May 2012. Retrieved 25 February 2013.



• Baker, A. E.; Bell, George (1946). William Temple and his Message. London: Penguin. OCLC 247149905.
• Bell, George (1935). Randall Davidson: Archbishop of Canterbury, Volume I. London: Oxford University Press. OCLC 896112401.
• Calder, Angus (1992). The People's War: Britain 1939-1945. London: Random House. ISBN 978-0-7126-5284-1.
• Hein, David (2008). Geoffrey Fisher: Archbishop of Canterbury. Cambridge: James Clarke. ISBN 978-0-227-17295-7.
• Kynaston, David (2008). Austerity Britain 1945–51. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-7475-9923-4.
• Lockhart, J. G. (1949). Cosmo Gordon Lang. London: Hodder and Stoughton. OCLC 1033753628.
• Robbins, Keith (1993). History, Religion and Identity in Modern Britain. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 978-1-85285-101-9.


• Lammers, Stephen E (Spring 1991). "William Temple and the Bombing of Germany: An Exploration in the Just War Tradition". The Journal of Religious Ethics Spring. 19 (1): 71–92. JSTOR 40015117. (subscription required)

External links

• Works by William Temple at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about William Temple at Internet Archive
• Archives of William Temple at Lambeth Palace Library
• William Temple at Find a Grave
• Newspaper clippings about William Temple in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:46 am

Open Court Publishing Company
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/20/20

Parent company: Carus Publishing Company
Founded: 1887
Founder: Edward Hegeler
Country of origin: United States
Headquarters location: Chicago
Distribution: Publishers Group West
Publication types: Books
Nonfiction topics: philosophy
Official website

The Open Court Publishing Company is a publisher with offices in Chicago and La Salle, Illinois. It is part of the Carus Publishing Company of Peru, Illinois.


Open Court was founded in 1887 by Edward C. Hegeler of the Matthiessen-Hegeler Zinc Company, at one time the largest producer of zinc in the United States. Hegeler intended for the firm to serve the purpose of discussing religious and psychological problems on the principle that the scientific world-conception should be applied to religion.[1] Its first managing editor was Paul Carus, Hegeler's son-in-law.[2] For the first 80 years of its existence, the company had its offices in the Hegeler Carus Mansion.[3]

Hegeler Carus Mansion

Open Court specializes in philosophy, science, and religion. It was one of the first academic presses in the country, as well as one of the first publishers of inexpensive editions of the classics.[2] It also published the journals Open Court and The Monist— the latter is still being published. The Open Court Monthly Magazine's motto was "Devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Idea."[4]

Popular Culture & Philosophy series

One of Open Court Publishing's best-selling series is its semi-annual Popular Culture & Philosophy series, under the editorship of George Reisch. Volumes on the philosophy underpinning such television shows as Star Trek, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer propelled the series into the limelight.

See also

• Open Court Reading


1. Homans, James E., ed. (1918). "Hegeler, Edward C." . The Cyclopædia of American Biography. New York: The Press Association Compilers, Inc.
2. Fields 1992, pg. 138
3. Jeffrey Felshman (May 31, 2001). "Power House". Chicago Reader.
4. The Open Court Magazine September, 1915 front cover motto. ... u_djvu.txt


• Fields, Rick. How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in America (1992) Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0-87773-631-6

External links

• Official site
• Open Court Publishing Company Records, 1886-1953 at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Special Collections Research Center
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:31 am

Part 1 of 5

The Open Court: A Monthly Magazine
Founded by Edward C. Hegeler
September, 1915


$1.00 per Year SEPTEMBER, 1915 Price, 10 Cents
The Open Court
Devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Idea
Founded by Edward C. Hegeler
VOL. XXIX (No. 9) SEPTEMBER, 1915 NO. 712



• Frontispiece. Jikokuten, Guardian of the East.
• Fudo-Myowo (Illustrated). Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki 513
• Carlyle and the War. Marshall Kelly 527
• Hyphenation Justified. Paul Carus 557
• A Chronicle of Unparalleled Infamies. An Open Letter to Dr. Paul Carus (With Editorial Reply) 562
• Miss Farmer and Greenacre 572
• Jikokuten, Guardian of the East (With Illustration) 572
• The Lotus Gospel 574
• Book Reviews and Notes 575

The Fragments of Empedocles

A reconstruction of Empedocles's system of creation. Greek-English text. "There is no real creation or annihilation in the universal round of things. There is only the Everlasting Law." Cloth, $1.00

Aesop and Hyssop

Fables adapted and original, in a variety of verse forms, picturesque, lively, and humorous in phrasing, with a moral, fresh in wisdom and succinct in expression, pleasingly appended to each. Profitable for amusement and doctrine in nursery and study. Cloth, $1.50

The Open Court Publishing: Company
Chicago, Illinois

JIKOKUTEN, GUARDIAN OF THE EAST. From a terra cotta in the Todaji temple at Nara (8th century).


FROM the earliest days of Buddhism in Japan, one of the most popular gods is found to be Fudo, whose Sanskrit name is Achala, the Immovable. His name and his general features and attitude suggest the fierceness of his original character. One might think that such a terrible-looking god could represent only evil, destroying every vestige of goodness in the world. But in fact he is worshiped as one who will grant his devotees all the worldly advantages that they may ask of him. Hence his extreme popularity.

The service, which is done by the priest who represents the saint Padma-sambhava, is here summarized. It is called "The Expelling Oblation of the hidden Fierce Ones"...

Hum! Through the blessing of the blood-drinking Fierce One, let the injuring demons and evil spirits be kept at bay. I pierce their hearts with this hook; I bind their hands with this snare of rope; I bind their body with this powerful chain; I keep them down with this tinkling bell. Now, O! blood-drinking Angry One, take your sublime seat upon them. Vajor-Agu-cha-dsa! vajora-pasha-hum! vajora-spo-da- va! vajora-ghan-dhi-ho!"

Then chant the following for destroying the evil spirits: —

"Salutation to Heruka, the owner of the noble Fierce Ones! The evil spirits have tricked you and have tried to injure Buddha's doctrine, so extinguish them .... Tear out the hearts of the injuring evil spirits and utterly exterminate them."

Then the supposed corpse of the linka should be dipped in Rakta (blood), and the following should be chanted: —

"Hum! O! ye hosts of gods of the magic-circle! Open your mouths as wide as the earth and sky, clench your fangs like rocky mountains, and prepare to eat up the entire bones, blood, and the entrails of all the injuring evil spirits. Ma-ha mam-sa-la kha hi! Ma-ha tsitta-kha hi! maha-rakta kha-hi! maha-go ro-tsa-na-kha-hi! Maha-bah su-ta kha hi! Maha-keng-ni ri ti kha hi!"

Then chant the following for upsetting the evil spirits...

"Bhyo! Bhyo! On the angry enemies! On the injuring demon spirits! On the voracious demons! turn them all to ashes!

"Mah-ra-ya-rbad bhyo! Upset them all! Upset! Upset!...

A burnt sacrifice is now made by the Demon-king. He pours oil into a cauldron, under which a fire is lit, and when the oil is boiling, he ties to the end of a stick which he holds an image of a man made of paper, and he puts into the boiling oil a skull filled with a mixture of arak (rum), poison, and blood, and into this he puts the image; and when the image bursts into flame, he declares that all the injuries have been consumed...

And when the image is abandoned the crowd tear it to pieces and eagerly fight for the fragments, which are treasured as charms...

-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S.

According to the Shingon sect, he is the central figure of the five Vidyarajas (lords of magic1) or Krodharajas (gods of wrath), and is considered a manifestation of Vairochana Buddha himself (Dainichi2). His original vow, that is, his samaya, (every supernatural being is supposed to have made some kind of vow in the beginning of his existence,) was to remove all possible obstacles which lie in the way of Buddhism.

AN IMAGE OF DAINICHI (VAIROCHANA). The Buddha is here attended by Fudo (Achala) and Kwannon (Avalokiteshvara). From the Shimpuku-ji, Kyoto.

In one of the kalpas3 concerning the worship of this god, we are told how to represent him in a picture: "Paint Achala the Messenger4 on good silk,5 put on him a red garment worn across the body, and his skirt too should be red. One braid of his hair hangs down over his left ear. He looks somewhat squintingly with his left eye. A rope is in his left hand, and a sword is held upright in his right. The top of the sword resembles a lotus-flower, and on its handle there is a jeweled decoration.6 He sits on a rock made of precious stones. His eyebrows are lifted, and his eyes expressing anger are such as to frighten all sentient beings. The color of his body is red and yellow. When you have thus painted the god, take the picture to the bank of a river or to the seashore,7 where he should be enshrined according to the established formula."8

This is the way Fudo is generally painted, and in most modern pictures or images of him we see flames enveloping his whole body, which is blue; and the seat on which he sits or stands is not always decorated with gems; it may be merely a huge block of stone, or a sort of tiled pedestal. His forehead has in most cases some wrinkles in the form of waves, which is in accord with the description in the "Vairochana Sutra."

The meaning of all these various symbols is explained as follows in the introductory part of the Trisatnaya-achala-kalpa (the three-volume version): "There is a deep significance in his being one-eyed," for this is the symbol of the utmost ugliness, and compels Achala to think of his own shortcomings and defects which stand in such contrast to the noble, perfect and superior features of the Buddha. Furthermore, this ugliness tends to frighten away evil beings. The seven knots on the top of his head signify the seven branches of bodhi, wisdom. One braid of hair hanging down his left shoulder typifies his merciful heart, which is sensitive to the sufferings of all lowly and much-neglected beings. . . .The sword in his right hand is meant to wage war against evils in the same way as a worldly warrior fights against his enemy. The rope in his left is to bind those devils whose unruly spirits have to be kept under control by the Buddha's restraining hands. The rock on which he sits is the symbol of his character, that is, immovability. Like the mountain pacifying the tumultuous waves of the great ocean, the rock represents the eternal calmness of the mind. It also represents spiritual treasure as the mine conceals in its bosom precious metals and stones. The fire enveloping the deity signifies the burning up of all the impurities that are attached to the human heart."

FUDO IMAGE AT KOYASAN. Koyasan is the sacred place of the Shingon sect.

Another interpretation of Fudo appears in I-Hsing's "Commentary on the Vairochana Sutra" (Vol. V, pp. 46f.): "This god has in a long past attained his Buddhahood upon the lotus pedestal of Vairochana; but owing to his original vow he now manifests himself in his early imperfect form, which he had at the time of the first awakening of his great heart. Becoming the Tathagata's servant and messenger, he is engaged in various menial works. He holds a sharp sword and a rope in his hands in obedience to the Tathagata's wrathful commands to destroy all sentient beings.11 The rope represents the four practical methods of preaching, woven out of the heart of knowledge [bodhichitta]. The rope will ensnare unruly ones and keep them in check. The sharp sword of wisdom is to cut off the interminable life of karma possessed by unruly spirits, in order to let them obtain a great transcendental existence. When karma's seed of life is removed, all idle windy talk will come to a final end. Therefore the god tightly closes his mouth. The reason why he sees with one eye only, is to show that when the Tathagata looks about with his eye of sameness12 there is not a sentient being who is to be forgiven. Therefore, in whatever work this god is concerned, his whole object is to accomplish this. His firm position on the pile of huge stones signifies the immovable spirit with which he works for the confirmation of the pure heart of knowledge."

Fudo in fact is the incarnation of obedience, faithfulness, and loyalty. He becomes the messenger of Vairochana, for he wishes to perform for him the servile duties of transmitting the august orders and messages of his lordship. As he is commanded, he goes among the poor as well as the noble; he makes no discrimination, and his only anxiety is to execute all the offices, whether good or bad, entrusted to him by Vairochana. He therefore symbolizes all the good virtues of a slave. The knots of hair hanging on the left side of his head denote the number of generations of the master whom he has served. The lotus-flower on his head13 is the vehicle on which he will convey his master to the other shore of life eternal, that is, to the Pure Land. In his menial capacity he will most faithfully serve his worshipers who are at the same time his masters. I am told that the reason his left eye looks in a different direction from the right, is because this is a noticeable peculiarity among the servile class.

In the Trisamaya-achala-kalpa (one-volume version), we are adviced to "make an offering to this holy one with a part of our own food and drink. As his original vow is to give himself up to lovingkindness, he is willing to serve all those who hold and recite his mantrams,14 his desire is to enslave himself, as we may see from his one-eyed form. He accepts our left-off food and if we thus remember him at each meal will be sure to protect us against the evil demons including Vinayaka (Ganesha) and will remove for us whatever obstacles or difficulties we may be encountering."

SYMBOLICAL REPRESENTATION OF FUDO. From a figure in the Musee Guimet.  

The following story is told of Fudo in I-Hsing's "Commentary on the Vairochana Sutra" (Vol. IX; Chap. 3, "On the Removal of Obstacles"): When the Tathagata received enlightenment all the sentient beings in the universe came to greet him, except the great lord of the heavens, Maheshvara, who was too proud to come and salute the Buddha. Thereupon, Achala was despatched to summon him to earth. But the lord of the heavens surrounded himself, though quite unbecoming to his dignity, with all sorts of filthy things so that nobody would dare approach him; for, however proficient one may be in magic arts, filth is supposed to be the most efficient means of disenchantment. Achala was not to be disheartened. All the filth was immediately devoured and disposed of. Seven times the lord refused to listen to the protest of Achala, saying that he was the supreme master of the heavens and had no cause to yield to any one's request. But the divine messenger proved to be more than a match for the haughty lord; for he firmly set his left foot upon the half-moon on the forehead of the lord himself, while his right foot was placed on that of the noble consort. Both expired under the pressure, but in the meantime they realized the significance of the holy doctrine as disclosed by the Buddha, and were promised their future attainment of Buddhahood. This explains the meaning of certain pictures of Fudo in which he is depicted as stamping on two figures, male and female. Fudo is commonly found attended by two figures and less frequently by eight; but his attendants are said sometimes to be as many as thirty-six or forty-eight. When there are two attendants, the one standing on his left, a young boy, is called Kinkara, and the other to the right who looks like a malicious demon is Chetaka. According to the "Mystic Rites concerning the Eight Boy-Attendants to the Holy Lord of the Immovable," Kinkara is a boy of about fifteen years and wears a lotus crown. His body is white. His hands are folded together and between the forefingers and the thumbs he holds a vajra15 crosswise. He wears a celestial garment as well as a Buddhist robe. The other boy, Chetaka, is of a red lotus color, and his hair is tied in five knots. In his left hand there is a vajra and in his right a vajra staff. As he cherishes anger and evil thoughts, he does not wear a Buddhist robe but a celestial garment only which hangs about his neck and shoulders. But in most of the popular pictures Kinkara holds a lotus-flower. He embodies wisdom whereas Chetaka means bliss.

Fudo sometimes is represented in the form of a sword around which is entwined a dragon or serpent holding the triangular point of the sword in its mouth. This is known as Kurikara Fudo and is supposed to be the symbolical representation of the god. But there is apparently a confusion here, for Kurikara, who is a king of the Nagas or dragons and who seems to be identical with the Sanskrit Kalika, is one of the eight attendants and is probably to be identified with Anavadapta.

There are many variations of Fudo partly because various legends are connected with his life, and partly because the artist or worshiper is free to have a figure of the god as he has conceived him in vision or otherwise. Still another cause of variation, and a strong one, is his extreme popularity.


This god is associated with the waterfall, and his image is generally carved in a rock near one. The devotee bathes himself in the flowing water as a token of purification, while devoutly offering his prayers to the flame-enveloped deity. In Tokyo there are many Buddhist temples dedicated to Fudo, and one of the most famous is that at Fukagawa on the south side of the river Sumida. In the midst of the cold season, many earnest followers of the god, men and women, can be seen bathing in the waterfalls which have been artificially constructed there for the purpose. Prayers thus offered during the cold season are considered to be especially efficacious. In former days, all these bathers were naked, but the authorities do not permit this now.

Almost all the temples in Japan issue what is known as an ofuda, "an honorable tablet" or slip, or omamori, "an honorable guard," of various kinds. This is generally a piece of paper (or sometimes a wooden board), oblong and varying in size, ordinarily from about 1x3 to about 7x15 inches, on which is printed the image of a Buddha, a Bodhisattva or one of the gods, but frequently merely a Sanskrit character or phrase, or some words of prayer which have been offered on behalf of the devotee. This omamori is supposed to have the power to ward off evil spirits if a man carries it about him or pastes it up on the entrance door of his residence or on the wall. Some omamoris or ofudas will even keep burglars away from one's house; some will protect the silkworm from an epidemic, while others may insure the safe delivery of a child. These are only a few of the things promised by the Buddhist gods or rather by the priest. Some sample Ofudas are reproduced here, they have come from the Fudo temples.

[T]he commonest use of sacred symbols is as talismans to ward off the evils of those malignant planets and demons who cause disease and disaster, as well as for inflicting harm on one's enemy. The symbols here are used in a mystical and magic sense as spells and as fetishes, and usually consist of formulas in corrupt and often unintelligible Sanskrit, extracted from the Mahayana and Tantrik scriptures, and called dharani, as they are believed to "hold" divine powers, and are also used as incantations...

The eating of the paper on which a charm has been written is an ordinary way of curing disease, as indeed it had been in Europe till not so many centuries ago, for the mystic Rx heading our prescriptions is generally admitted to have had its origin in the symbol of Saturn, whom it invoked, and the paper on which the symbol and several other mystic signs were inscribed constituted the medicine, and was itself actually eaten by the patient. The spells which the Lamas use in this way as medicine are shown in the annexed print, and are called "the edible letters" (za-yig).

A still more mystical way of applying these remedies is by the washings of the reflection of the writing in a mirror, a practice not without its parallels in other quarters of the globe. Thus to cure the evil eye as shown by symptoms of mind-wandering and dementia condition — called "byad-'grol" — it is ordered as follows: Write with Chinese ink on a piece of wood the particular letters and smear the writing over with myrobalams and saffron as varnish, and every twenty-nine days reflect this inscribed wood in a mirror, and during reflection wash the face of the mirror with beer, and collect a cupful of such beer and drink it in nine sips.

But most of the charms are worn on the person as amulets. Every individual always wears around the neck one or more of these amulets, which are folded up into little cloth-covered packets, bound with coloured threads in a geometrical pattern. Others are kept in small metallic cases of brass, silver, or gold, set with turquoise stones as amulets, and called "Ga-u." These amulets are fastened to the girdle or sash, and the smaller ones are worn as lockets, and with each are put relics of holy men — a few threads or fragments of cast-off robes of saints or idols, peacock feathers, sacred Kusa grass, and occasionally images and holy pills. Other large charms are affixed overhead in the house or tent to ward off lightning, hail, etc., and for cattle special charms are chanted, or sometimes pasted on the walls of the stalls, etc.

-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S.

The general masses of people nowadays do not understand the full significance of Fudo worship. They go to his temple merely because he is a Buddhist god and as such is naively supposed to grant them anything they may be in need of. For instance, they may pray to him for success in races and games, or good fortune in their commercial enterprises (especially when much risk is involved, or to be free from accidents in travel. But, judging from the general tendency of his character, he seems to be especially efficient in removing all kinds of obstacles which lie in the way of one's undertaking, religious or otherwise. His qualification is more negative than positive. This is natural, for the very fact that a supreme, perfect being had to incarnate himself in this fierce, abnormal, disquieting form proves the extraordinary character of the god. His other title is "the great destroyer of hindrances."

A FUDO OMAMORI. The original was issued by a Fudo temple in Tokyo. The stamp on the top of the picture shows that it has been properly consecrated by the priest.

AN OMAMORI ISSUED BY THE SHINSHO-JI, NARITA. The original is a small piece of wood. The character reads ham, one of the symbolical letters for Fudo. The separate Chinese characters were on the paper cover and signify omamori.  

When the worshiper has thoroughly succeeded in identifying himself with the god, we are told, his fire will consume all the worlds and make them one mass of flame shining like seven suns; his mouth will devour like that of the great horse the multiplicity of things; and not the least chance will be left for any evil spirit to work mischief. Thus, he is to be invoked particularly when there are difficulties or obstructions to overcome; for instance, when an epidemic is to be checked, or a drought to be broken, or a personal enemy to be destroyed, or an opposing army to be annihilated, or a building to be insured against fire, storm, earthquake, etc. For the latter case, however, there is a specific ritual to be performed in which Fudo appears in a somewhat different form from the popular one.



In conclusion I will give here three mantrams used in the invocation of Fudo, the Immovable: the short, medium, and unabridged. The short one is: "Namah samantavajranam"; the medium one: "Namah samantavajranam chanda-maharoshana-svataya hum trat ham mam"; and the longest one: "Namah sarva-tatha-gatebhyo vishvamuphebhyah sarvata trat chanda-maharoshana kam khadi khadi sarvavighnam hum trat ham mam." They have no special meaning.

The one we reproduce is the "medium" form written in the siddham style (Japanese, sittan). The Japanese way of reading it is: Nomaku samanda bazara dan senda makaroshada sabataya un tarata kan mam. The cover reads, "The daily-burning-ceremony tablet, Kyoshin-in, Migawari-san." Fudo is sometimes represented by the characters ham-mam or ham alone. His ofuda is often found to be nothing but this character written in the style known as siddham.



1 Ordinarily, five or eight Vidyarajas are mentioned, though there are some more belonging to this class of gods. The five most commonly grouped are Yamantaka (Dai-itok), Trailokyavijaya (Gosanze), Achala (Fudo), Vajrayaksha (Kongo-yasha), and Kundali (Gundari). They all seem to represent Shiva in his destructive form. Theoretically speaking, every Buddha or Bodhisattva has his Krodhakaya, his angry expression, as well as his female counterpart; but the number of the known gods of wrath is less than that of the Buddhas.

About the end of the sixth century A.D., Tantrism or Sivaic mysticism, with its worship of female energies, spouses of the Hindu god Siva, began to tinge both Buddhism and Hinduism. Consorts were allotted to the several Celestial Bodhisats and most of the other gods and demons, and most of them were given forms wild and terrible, and often monstrous, according to the supposed moods of each divinity at different times. And as these goddesses and fiendesses were bestowers of supernatural power, and were especially malignant, they were especially worshipped...

Such was the distorted form of Buddhism introduced into Tibet about 640 A.D.; and during the three or four succeeding centuries Indian Buddhism became still more debased. Its mysticism became a silly mummery of unmeaning jargon and "magic circles," dignified by the title of Mantrayana or "The Spell-Vehicle".

-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S.

2 Dainichi, the great illuminator of the universe, is, according to the Shingon, the central figure of the world-system. It is through him that all existence is made possible, and that life can be enjoyed in its purity though filled with various defilements. That Fudo came to play such an important role in the pantheon of Buddhism is probably due to the fact of his being an incarnation of this all-powerful godhead, Vairochana. But some sutras consider him a manifestation of another Buddha.

3 Rules of ritual, forming a special class in the body of Buddhist literature. They are known in Japan as Himitsu-Giki, mystic rules of worship.
4 His title is sometimes "messenger," sometimes "lord of magic," but sometimes simply "the honorable." In these may be traced various stages of the historical development of the god.
5 This is not always required. To make the prayer especially efficacious for the suppression of evil doers, the devotee may paint the god with his own blood on cloth taken from a grave. It is sometimes recommended to paint him on any good cloth.
6 In none of his pictures so far I have come across is this observed.
7 Hence his association with waterfalls and springs.
8 This is taken from the book containing the "Mystic Rites of the Dharani of Achala the Messenger." A little further down, however, we have a somewhat different description of the god. He is now to be reddish-yellow, wearing a blue garment across the body, but still with a red skirt. His left-side braid is the color of a black cloud. The features are boyish. A vajra (thunderbolt) is in his right hand and a rope in his left. From both ends of his mouth his tusks are slightly visible. His angry eyes are red. Enveloped in flames he sits on a hill of stone.
In the Trisamaya-achala-kalpa (there are two versions of this book, one in three volumes and the other in one), the god is supposed to wear a skirt of the color of red earth and sits on a lotus-flower. In another place he holds a vajra, not a sword, in his right hand and a sacred staff in his left. The eyes are somewhat reddish, and his whole person is enveloped in flames.
These representations, though differing more or less in detail, are essentially alike. Quite another form of the god is described in the "Book of Rites concerning the Ten Gods of Wrath" as follows: "He has a squinting eye boyish features, six arms and three faces each of which has three eyes, and he wears boyish personal ornaments. The front face is smiling; the right is yellowish, with the tongue sticking out, the color of which is bloody; the left face is white, has an angry expression, uttering the sound "hum." The color of the body is blue; the feet rest on a lotus-flower and on the hill of precious stones. He stands with a dancer's attitude, and has power to keep away all evil ones. The entire person wrapped in flames has a circle of rays about it like the sun. The first right hand has a sword, the second a vajra, the third an arrow. Of the left hands the first holds a rope with the thumb standing, the second the Prajnaparamita Sutra, and the third a bow. The god wears a Buddha crown which is the symbol of Akshobhya Buddha.
There are some other forms of the god, more or less unlike the foregoing ones, but I will not go into details here. Suffice it to state in a general way that he assumes different features according to the different purposes for which his help is invoked. For instance, when he is requested to suppress the enemy, his body is to be painted yellow, with four faces and four arms. Sharp tusks are protruding from the mouth. His expression of anger is most intense, and encircled in burning flames his attitude is such as to make one think that he is going at once to devour an entire army of the enemy.
9 This tallies with the "Rites of the Ten Gods" as well as with Vajrapani's description of the god in his "Sutra on the Baptism of Light."
10 In the foregoing descriptions, squinting; but in some images both eyes look in the same direction.

11 Meaning "every evil tendency to be found in us."
12 In another place this is understood as meaning the uniqueness of the Buddha's spiritual eye-sight which is one, and not two nor three.
13 This lotus-flower is not mentioned anywhere in the kalpas in connection with the worship of this god.
14 Mystical verse.
15 This thunderbolt becomes the magic wand of Tibetan Buddhism.  
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:34 am

Part 2 of 5



IT is loudly asseverated that the British Empire is of one mind in regard to this war against Germany; and by the arithmetical count of heads, it probably is so to an overwhelming extent, as it has long been in other matters. But one wonders how many, or how few, there may be who reflect, with a depth of stable conviction altogether diverse from the popular unanimities, that the British are in this war, as in so very much else, acting in an express defiance of the teaching of the validest Sage and Hero-soul that has lately lived among them. Yea, in a witting defiance of the clearest revelation of indubitable facts, made by the Best of themselves in their midst, vitally connected with this very matter; which it preeminently behoved the British to have learned and laid to heart, as basis and guide for their whole relation to Germany. Few indeed, I fear, are those who know thus, if compared to the millions neglectful; yet possibly more numerous than those denying millions dream of, and certainly, were it unit against the rest of the race, of more weight in the final count. These in their musings on the war, its Causes and its Issues, will have their rock-based Certainties; also their profound Dubieties; their confidence in Eternal's justice, and joy in iniquity's overthrow; their submission to His decree, however terrible the desolation, however complete and hideous-seeming the triumph of Ill. Silent for the most part, and waiting the Event unforeseeable. For the nation does not ask their counsel; spurns it if offered; and follows, as most chosen of the Lord, the Demagogues which at each moment best mouth its own impious will. Moreover, so long as anything like a flaming success shall crown its effort, no contrary word will be listened to. Should adversity befall, it might prove otherwise; and in either, or in any, case we have and shall have our thoughts and our duties both during and after: Thoughts and duties which might perhaps gain a little in clearness if earnestly imparted, deliberated of.

To start with a small Certainty, surely sharable by many complexions: This attempt, of the Newspapers and Parliamentary Leaders, which has been and is all too successful, to work the whole nation up into a state of foam-lipped furor against the Germans, cannot conduce to wisdom in the council or valor in the field. This is not just indignation, and no profit can lie in it for Man. Neither strength to us, nor danger to the German, — save as the human may be sore bested by numberless pack.

Brutal barbarian and modern Hun, ruthless in savage atrocity; Military Autocracy, domineering of temper, bent on self-aggrandisement, destructive of freedom and seeking the tyrannous; most to be dreaded embodiment of Satanic power, whose threatened encroachments all the nations of earth should gather together to stem, fairest of the justice-loving unite with darkest minister to cut down and destroy: — Surely there are men in number, true British indeed, who have an assurance, not to be shaken by any amount of rabid clamor, that such current imagination of the German bears no manner of resemblance to German of fact; men who could fight to some purpose in a cause that was just, unmoved by campaigns of persuasion far removed from all spirit of justice; who, demanded to draw in this quarrel, thrust the blade further home in its sheath with some uttered or mute Videat Altissimus, shamed of their country's deed, appealing to their captain's Captain. Yea, mindful of and worthily obeying their earthly captain also, he, the greatest, noblest, justest of all modern men, Carlyle: Who bore witness of mightily different tenor to the German, his history, military and other organization, and whose witness they know to have been true. Wide and stable testimony by constant brother man, lucent with true heaven's inspiration; somewhat more sufficing than the Devil's Head in phosphorus — drawn, alas, upon no dungeon's walls, but gleaming hideous in souls mendacious walking freely in the daylight, profane in insolent denial of the Seer whom the Almighty sent to them. To us at least, not to them unless penitent; and may we be worthy to say to us.


It is very lamentable and terribly significant how widespread and genuine a persuasion has got abroad, even among the good people, that this Concert of the Powers was a sort of a sacred thing. Colors of the vulpine do often succeed in deceiving as they wittingly propose; and a righteous indignation at the vulpine, when their true motives are disclosed, may be justified. But the concurrent belauding as holy a base policy whereof the motives have been correctly announced augurs a pravity which, if it come to know truth, can have no title to be indignant, must rather confess its own guilt. Yet even here, however stern a man's recognition of the sin, he knows the too commonly irresistible influence of a general concensus in perverting those of a bias truly virtuous. Some sixteen years, or so, ago, one time when reports of Turkish atrocities in Armenia were causing such emotion in England that many were crying for armed intervention, I remember being urged to read a speech of Lord Rosebery's. A judicious wet cloth, of course, but equally of course, since by British Liberal Statesman of this epoch, not a speech astutely contrived to simply dissuade from enterprise inconvenient for Ministry occupied in concerns privately more profitable for its members; on the contrary, the sincere utterance of a man self-sympathizing with the emotion, wishful for the Turks' correction, yet arguing: Husht! Dread sequel if we stir alone; in the Concert solely is there safety and salvation. And, with such unction did he perorate, the Public, in awakened sense, holily restrained its rage for its salvation's sake, — and possibly the Turk's, not quite the Armenian's. I refused at the moment to look at the thing, pained with emotions of another kind; so far as the urger knew, never looked at it; yet did, as you see, afterwards read, in resolute suppression, and for more exact knowledge of its guessed tenor, "You should read that, my son; that is a speech everybody ought to read." About the same time the same woman said to me, upon laying down a book entitled Fire and Szuord in the Soudan, "I suppose he could not help himself, but I cannot feel any respect or sympathy for that man," the author, one Slaten, to wit. Very gently said, but she couldn't; yet thought the Rosebery address delivered in right spirit for the pulpit. How many have met the like! How many have thought the like! Too many that have innocently drunk in a belief this Concert was a sacred thing.

Yet the case of that Turkish instance was, if possible, even grosser than the subsequent Balkan ones. A dark, brutal, wretch, whatever ill he do, let no man hinder, lest his coveted den breed contention. The devil to be kept afoot in some measure; prudently maintained in possession of Eden, because the godly might fall out with one another were so lovely a spot left free to their entry. If a murderous thief have money in his pocket, or in the bank, let every constable be wary; never dare to run him in, unless secure the Judges are agreed on how to share the spoil. In Decorum's name, what is a little outrage in the streets compared to quarrel on the Bench? The results of that are too frightful to contemplate. Hasty zeal would defeat its own end, destroy the very means of bringing offender to judgment; for without a judicious unanimity no lawful verdict were obtainable. Lawful verdicts are frequently unobtainable, sometimes too obtainable; and justice never reached so, yet capable of being done and left for verdict. Methinks, if man might seriously question, Have I real errand to correct this particular and so distant abuse? the question. Shall I wait on Concert with the covetous to do it? would be out of his debate. And yet I honor policy, and know the multiple involute of practical fact. There, however, it is clear, had the dubitating (and dubious) Knight Errant stood wholly out, the covetous neighbors, with or without some brush of comparatively trifling battle, would long since have contrived to share in some tolerable manner; the Balkans in whole have settled themselves the better without the meddling of such a disinterested umpire.

Truly, Prince von Kaunitz Reitberg's text, that Great Courts should understand one another, then the Small would be less troublesome, has found fat mother to breed in, and grown enormously since his day; ever the more pronounced virtuously assured of morality, up to the very moment of catastrophe from the start inevitable for it. For it? Perhaps not. The text may be meet enough for unscrupulous voracious fellow; have a real truthfulness to nature there, be well allowed by heaven, and run on to happy fulfillment so far. Voracity may be perfectly veracious; and I never blame a shark for swallowing small fry with his utmost gusto. The sight of half a dozen sharks gracefully maneuvering in Concert, for the more dexterous satisfaction of several appetites, may also have its own seemliness, the gastric desires of highest mortal confess a certain sympathy. But for creatures that have once guessed themselves made in their Maker's image, to whom a sense of the infinite of right and wrong has announced that the gaining of the whole world could not profit if achieved in treason to that image; — for them to take such text as maxim for International Policy! Why I do not know that they ever did it; only the sharks having heard tell of them, then find it expedient to deliberately cloak greed in show of holiness, and imagine they can work injustice the more securely by professing care of equity; whilst a huge medley of others add their votes, variously persuaded that this is the solution: For whom catastrophe is inevitable; because they build on no truth, neither on appetite or intelligence, but on a lying compound, beast man and god alike disown, which nothing in nature will support.

May not a Small nation have just or unjust cause of quarrel, reasonable or unreasonable claim or pretension, as much as a Great? And what valid title can the Great ever have to step in and say: We will decide your disputes and your claims and in all things you shall do as we bid? O damned canaille, jealous of classes superior, yelping distracted at each hint or suspicion of one law for Rich and another for Poor, sworn all as one man that that shall be the rule in law International! Your skins are precious to you and your corpora stink. In the ideal possibilities, where the Great loved the truth and sought to do justice alone, court of their convening might be a godly tribunal, very blessed to see upon earth; and, whatever security their power gave to its meetings, lent to enforce its judgments, most sure it is that the consideration Great or Little? would weigh pure zero in determining right to a seat on the bench. Is this the thing we have seen? No; nor so much as endeavored toward. But, in clear sight of utterly diverse fact, the beneficence that would attach to this has been pretended for that diverse, — which, also, as shall shortly be referred to, could have had an honest place. Conclave of the Powerful assembled to find how their own mutual jealousies set on edge by debates 'mong the less, — glowering one at another, Take that side, if you dare; by God I'll take this if you do — may reach compromise without wager of battle, the Small be compesced into accepting the awards so arrived at; and is one of the most unblessed things very certainly seen upon earth. Yes, this is the thing we have seen these last thirty years and longer, growing ever the more confident to its inevitable result. Parties there have been in England and elsewhere, very vehement for the justice, or what they thought it, yet even these have all subscribed to the prime need of Concert; admitted it were better that wrong should be done than peace 'tween the Mighty put in danger of rupture. Here, at any rate, no shadow of a plea can be found that these things were done by closeted few, the nations not witting. What the articles agreed upon each time were, what dexterous management was exercised to reach them, may be an esoteric mystery; but what spirit wrought has been broadly visible and universally sanctioned. In England most eminently. Speeches upon speeches in Parliament and out, without respect of party; all the newspapers in leading articles; and table talk in each private household; — the argument has been everywhere the same. I know no instance of National Policy so overwhelmingly endorsed, in full sight of its true essence; up to that last speech at the outbreak, when Sir Edward Grey, — he would not have had the Peace of Europe jeopardized for Servia. Aye, Sir Edward has been very consistent in this, and outspoken; long since and constantly made it evident as could be 'twas fundamentally accepted in his Policy the weak must go to the wall rather than important persons suffer; merely Quixotic to hope otherwise. Of course! And God forbid he'd mammer scrupulous on such a point. Then, if the case of Belgium touch you nearer, step forth pure champion of the Small, in righteous zeal. The soul of man is sick at the sodden hypocrisy; could find the deeds smell sweeter if done in conscious perfidy of the cunning. And the newspapers hope that, when the war is over, the Concert may be reestablished in such firmness any little nation attempting to draw free breath shall instantly be throttled impotent: They must never be allowed to provoke such disasters again. It does not strike you that they have just as good a right to bustle in the world as any of the Big? That, if the Big fall a-quarrelling in sequel, the crime is their own wholly; the true peril in their disposition so to do, and unremovable while that remains?

None worth the name of man but must know beyond all question that the sole thing which can give a nation right to set up for Judge in another's quarrel is the resolution to do justice in it. Court convened to arbitrate on matters in dispute and primarily devoted to the maintenance of peace among the Arbiters! Could there be a thing more impious than this? What amazed execration would greet it, if proposed for settlement of the least sixpenny matter between private litigants! Yet seen International applauded with unction by every man, woman and youth; anathema only for any not zealous for such first aim, the very need for which invalidates for umpire's seat and of necessity turns the Court into one for iniquity's sanction.

Such has too terribly been the fact, and damnable. Yet we said that a fact very diverse from the professed Beneficent Arbitration could have honestly been. It is obvious that parties extraneous to an original dispute may have interests of every degree of gravity affected by that dispute; may confer together for peaceable solution of those interests; if unable to reach it, may each choose mediators; and, if still at a deadlock, an umpire. Likewise that parties extraneous to the original dispute and to the cross interests of the secondaries directly affected may have interests of every degree of gravity affected by division among the secondaries, and so ad infinitum, till there be in reality no party without interest; and conference for peaceable solution the more desirable than ever: In which reckoning, it may be worth remarking that the jumping of a flea is, in logical sequence, at all times competent to set the whole world by the ears; and wisdom, accordingly, somewhat chary how it claims interest affected. Clearly enough, the sole valid basis for those conferences among the Great Powers upon Balkan affairs was adjustment of their own differences arising through interests affected. Every man knows that nothing else ever called them into existence; that they were always in reality convened to, if possible, prevent quarrel among the Great, not for unbiassed decision in equity by them of disputes among the Small; that the pretence of a God's vice-regency by Major in Concert over Minor inclined to division was a pretence palpable, which fear alone ever led any to accredit holy. If those Conferences had been informed wholly by a spirit of greedy cunning, each party diligent for private end, they might have had their dog's day; and noble statesman kept rigorously out. For that is the law: you are not bound to have a finger in every pie; and, if you cannot interfere for good, shall not interfere at all, but leave the coil to its strugglings and such issue as the high o'er-ruling Providence may have for it.  

If honest (and thereby alone truly valid), the Conference must have Justice for its first aim every whit as much as Court of arbitration; and steady refusal to force that on the less which nothing save the jealousies of the Great demands. Noble Briton, entering such Conference, might indeed have prayed heaven to grant him a tactful sagacity, fine delicacy of manipulation and a solid understanding of the doable, much more and primarily to grant him insight into the veritable right and wrong of the matters, well knowing that nothing built on miss of this could have a chance to stand, that completest Concert attained in defiance of this would infallibly prove exceedingly disconcerting. He would have utterly abhorred the accursed doctrine of the Great's right to interfere because Great, and rejected all plans based on such a supposition. Would have known, too, that, if the strong hand can sometimes parcel States, it is forever impotent to create one: That can never be done at external dictation; what nation is to be a nation must spring by nature's generation, spontaneous in a self-vitality, self-fending, self-coherent, being and expanding by its own innate powers. Ah me! This manufacturing of States, autonomous Albanias, what not, Belgium itself for that matter, with their frontiers marked, constitutions supplied, and kings (God save the mark!) all ready chosen for them, according to model pleasing to the grandiose disposers: — it awakens thoughts we must not go into; and, any time, I would rather leave the blindest rages free to their havoc than be one in framing such a mock settlement, fraught with far deadlier havoc.

Yea, noble Briton, unable to do or to obtain justice for the Small, had sooner left them to try their own strengths than been a party to unjust compulsions. If he could not defend them from wrongful aggressions, restrictions, had sorrowfully stood aside, sooner than lent these his sanction. And if he could not have found acceptance as mediator between the Big concerning their interests affected, had similarly left them to fight it out, rather than won the crown as Peacemaker by Concert in sacrifice of the Lesser's rights. In all ways, he had stood for Justice, wrought for it, and, in such resolution, had seen the justice in some measure, as without it never; whether active or passive, had found a manful course. But, with Peace the first aim, all was naturally very different, and honorable action never possible. Man authentically actuated by that aim only is in practical deed a powerless entity. Peace! Peace! For God's sake. Peace! Lest I get involved, might seem contemptible too; — but not to most, when cried by a man very able to fight and adding — at any cost to those little nuisances. Had Sir Edward Grey wished peace for peace's sake he had been a nullity and thing helpless to further the least agreement; had he cared particularly for justice he might have found himself an alien spirit, still more futile to preserve peace this day; but, being heartily desirous to prevent war for reasons highly intelligible to the rest, he often did patch up matters by expedients of the moment, each time worsening the fact and rendering ultimate rupture the more certain. My fleets and armies are in readiness and I can be truculent enow, but, Gentlemen, War for such a casus! Come, hit on some reasonable apportionment of shares, or all forego. And then to some the casus was not so distant, insignificant, as to him. And when did a heaven-blessed Amity result from the like of this?

Concert of Europe, how these latter decades has this been impressed on us! The just of every nation eyeing in silence, with reflections too awful for utterance. Platform and pulpit, every shade of opinion, zealous in sacred insistence, breath bated in fear: O ye nations called Small! God damn you, be quiet, lest the Peace of the Great be disturbed. Was there ever a doubt that the Lord of Eternity, so besought to preserve them from quarrel, would answer the Great by letting loose all their furies to ravin the worse for every stave till the morrow?


It is naturally the custom of a nation's Leaders, when they announce war on its behalf, to make some sort of public statement of the Causes which have determined them to take so grave a step; and the rarer case that the true causes are so much as touched upon in such Ostensible account of them. Very often the reasons given are so totally inadequate (to say naught else) you might marvel how any one could put them forth as explanation to be credited; why the Peoples so addressed do not instantly reply: We will not hazard life or limb for these hiccups. Yet it is not the People's custom to answer so: They usually accept the reasons given as affording convincing grounds for deeds and sacrifices so glaringly disproportioned it looks an inconceivable credulity; by many of the more philosophic, regarded perennially as a sort of bedlam possession. And no doubt it considerably is so; yet far from wholly. Blind stampede and wild unreason of mob, with brute love of war, fascination and glamor of exploit, ever is in it; yet also greatly more. Even the enthusiastic chorus, reiterating the helpless reasons offered as beyond gainsaying, springs not altogether from simpleness, nor readiness to seize excuse, but from an instinct of a vast unspoken behind, at least belief there must be this. Yea, without conviction, persuasion, or imagination of a true infinite at stake, which in the name of manhood commands no cost be weighed, the nations never fall a-battling. Idea of a supreme Duty, whether radiant in clear intelligence, turbid, confused, or diabolically opposite, is always there; and even the cunning who seek to provoke wars for their own ends, cannot do so unless this be in some way excited: Its presence is a necessity; but, if not intelligent, it can be traded on. The very day before war was declared between Great Britain and Germany, newspapers were declaiming it an unthinkable absurdity, monstrous to suggest; and next day were for it in whole heart and so much of soul as they may be supposed to possess. Nor is that phenomenon purely one of the weathercock, the essence of whose utility is well known to be instant amenability to wind however changeful; a better ingredient in the recognition that division, the least word of debate, is perilous in such circumstances, and a loyal trust in the Leaders requisite for nations' being. Would that men knew it equally in peace, for it is equally true then; and reflect on the really awful responsibility they owe for their choice of Leaders. Exceedingly foolish, superficial is the notion too, that wars are ever caused by trifles; the wiser know that the causes are always fully adequate, perfectly proportioned in fact, could mortal trace them. No mortal can trace them, and the proclamation of Ostensible is never blameworthy because that way "inadequate"!

Granting that the Ostensible rarely touch upon the Real, they remain noteworthy, were it only as indications of the degree of intelligence. They may be subterfuges wittingly concocted by wile, or stolidities of inarticulate honesty that cannot speak its meaning. Neither is it to be forgotten that the highest true could as little really name his cause. Cause fully declarable were by the hypothesis, shallow and trivial. For, never is it the thing predicated, but the enormous sequels which hang by it; and comprehension of these intuitive tacit in faith. Nevertheless the Leaders ought to know to some extent, and who has the intuitive perception does; never will the reasons rendered by these be contrary to the fact, however limited in account of it. Well, the British Ostensible Causes are set forth in a certain White Paper familiar to all men, and to which the leaders refer as authorized statement of their "Case." While Sir E. T. Cook has volunteered an elucidated abbreviation fearlessly entitled Why Britain is at War. No man's breath appears to have been taken away; but, for my part, my audacity would not reach to this. How we picked quarrel; or how we closed with the offer of it; or how we were forced into it; these are Madams (if you know your Kingsley) you may hope to scrape some acquaintance with in those pages of My Lords Ambassadors' despatches; but, as to bosoming with My Lady Why, 'tis to be doubted she is not quite so free a wench. Happily there is no question that the paper, so far as it does go, is authentic; and as we say, interesting chiefly as showing degree of veracity. For absence of wile will not make a thing honest; deliberate wile can be truer than a systemic mendaciousness, which, never expressly uttering falsehood, yet speaks and acts habitually from assumptions that are baseless. It is not true, for instance, that you sought peace with your neighbor, if determined on war unless he behaved himself according to a prescription drawn up as suitable to your needs and conveniences merely; no industrial zeal, most passionate pleading to persuade to keep within the bounds set, will prevent your being, in that case, most essentially the Aggressor. And the knave who made the prescriptions purposely to provoke war might readily stand in closer contact with truth than the wight who expected to preserve order by publicly announcing a law of conduct for those wholly without his jurisdiction. If he have only privately registered the rule, too, and, half conscious of its presumptuous absurdity, shrink from declaring it till the last moment compel, his pleading may easily be the more passionate, so that he sit down in tears to cry Pity! God witness I did all I could; but his workings are pitiful, can only prove the more disastrous through "good" intentions less subtle perfide then simply disjoined from fact's realm.

Of the Austro-Servian matter with which this White Paper, so confidently referred to as exhibiting Britain's "Case," commences, we have not much to say; The Justice of the dispute was confessedly no cause of Britain's action; and I, personally, could not hold myself competent to speak a word on it: do not know that at all. This, however, I do know; namely, that, whether the launching of her Ultimatum by Austria was wise or unwise, its wording prudent or imprudent, if the charges made in it were true, then, certainly Austria had valid ground for most drastic action; and nothing save the complete submission of Servia could have given her security against a continuance of the alleged offences. Alleged offences which if true were wholly intolerable, inexcusable, and very great forbearance — godly insufferance or fractious compelled — shown in enduring them so long. And, if one own to something more than scepticism of Austrian political integrity generally, that would only make one the more insist on no hindrance if she had right in a particular instance. Every fair-minded man must have felt that if these charges were true, not necessarily in each detail specified but generically in whole spirit imputed, then Austria had full title to chastise with the armed hand; and would rather have guarded her from interference than been a party to it. Therefore, whosoever in any way challenged her action could only in probity do so if justified in calling the truth of the charges in question. Peculiarly futile was it to run up crying Delay! for God's sake, delay, and moderate your tone, when it was obvious that if the charges were true the time for delay or moderation was long past. If Britain, idle knight-errant with no business of her own to look after, wished to act on that score she should have acted years before. Alas! we all know she had; and added vexation enough, not so Quixotically neither, for the wound, as expediently for far other subjects. Sancho's stomach made one sufficing trial of his master's Balsam, wambled at the mere snuff ever after: Can you wonder then, if Austria at length grew squeamish of Grey Powder for every ill she had a mind to mend?

When Servia, after shuffle and enquiry round, replied to the Ultimatum, our Sir Edward swore he'd never seen a nation make a more prostrate salaam to truculent Bashaw. To which I fear the answer is: It had much of that character, and was a thing of paper; very fit to rank among Ostensibles: And, showing more suppleness in performing a required kowtow than sincerity in penitence, gave properly no assurance of a better loyalty in future deed. Nothing in that nominal submission offered hope of stable working; and, of course it is one way evident that, once things had reached this pass, nothing short of the almost miraculous could. Since, if the charges were untrue the party who made them was bent on mischief and would take no answer; whilst, if true, the party of whom they were true would have needed to do a considerable conversion before becoming able to make reply of such radically different tenor as could have seemed to Man a ground to try anew upon. I think these are facts, and in Sir Edward Grey's despatches there is not the slightest recognition of them: Which, whether he believed the first alternative or the second or the more probable compound of both, there assuredly should have been. Intense pleading these is in those despatches. But it is all prompted by absolutely self-interested motives; flows not from care of Austria's welfare or of Servia's, but of our own skin's solely; owes its fervency to the heart text: Mercy on us! Hold your hand you, bow down t'other, both accept shadow for substance, lest your differences breed a brawl of wider compass wherein we should not 'scape. It was Sir E. Grey's duty to look after our interests; and, if he meddled in this foreign matter, the first law for that was to see the facts of it and conform to them; there could be no hope in resource which flew in the teeth of them. But the dread of cataclysm misled, as fear, even makes men traitors to themselves and all mankind. Moreover, it was no case of a normal integrity erring in one instance, but of a quite habitual attempt to build on the untenable, to safeguard by methods essentially mendacious, howsoever, persuaded of needful expediency or claiming regard of common welfare.

For, for Great Britain, on her own initiative, uninvited, to write any despatch to Austria on her Servian affair was in reality an indefensible proceeding; and every man knows that Britain herself would be the last to suffer the like from another. Had any nation presumed to offer us advice in any of our numerous disputes with little states or big what sort of answer should we have made? You all know it; A peremptory injunction never to repeat the like insolence under penalty. It is, indeed, a flatly impossible position this, that self-fending independent states shall be perpetually prevented from managing their own disputes without consult of neighbors. A thing justly intolerable to the states so checked. (And, on the other side, however prone the big may be to bully, to enchant the arm of power from its natural exercise is sure to prove a cherishing of license.) When done, as here on the plea of You mustn't, lest we others get to loggerheads, reduced to the extremity of impious absurdity. Doubtless the far-seeing, equitable, sagacious Ruler would recognize the existence of such mad notions in his neighbors' heads, and weigh them; but he above all others would know the notions to be baseless delusions, vicious in origin, pernicious in act; would proceed on his own business none the less, whether in wary evasion or open contempt. The more ordinary, so beshouted to stop, would, if he deigned to look over his shoulder at all, merely rejoin: "you will fight with each other, say you? That is surely your affair. I wish you good luck, and may God salve your wits, for they need it more than your wounds will." — Most clearly, to continually prevent the settlement of disputes is to create a danger immeasurably greater than any their fiercest let could have brought about; and if others get to quarrel in sequel the responsibility thereof rests on their own heads. Austria has to answer to God for the justice of her war upon Servia; but not therefore for the European War.

According to the White Paper, Germany's Ostensible attitude toward this Austro-Servian matter was that Austria had the right to manage in it as she herself thought fit, and no other a title to interfere: This was, in fact, the only right attitude
, unless you were constituted Judge of the dispute, or had good grounds and duty to challenge the justice of Austria's action; and if, as one hopes and believes, the Ostensible was so far the Real, there is not a word can be said against it. The one straight forward manful cause there was for third parties not directly concerned. Britain, whatever her thought or resolution for subsequent developments, possible, probable, or certain, ought thus far to have taken the same; and had she done so, there would have been a different tale to tell in the subsequent developments. Simple refusal to be a Busybody. Nor need such passive role, in case liable to grow complicated, be a whit the less simply this because he who takes it is, as he should be, alive to the complexities also, ready for action in them, if they do result. Sir E. T. Cook, seeking the sinister, full of a preconceived belief of it, repeats with exclamation mark, her minister's statement that Germany very well knew what she was about in so "Backing up Austria," said "backing" consisting in what the English call a traitorous refusal to unite with them in forbidding Austria to manage her own concerns. Has it really, then, become a sin to a Briton that a man should know what he is doing? It often almost seems so. The most dangerous crime, at least, and surest mark of nefarious proclivity to say one thing and not mean another; safety and virtue alone in those transparent mendacities — Which, since all men see through them, cannot surely be hypocrisies? — whereby our Faith and Policy are kept secure from ravin and inspiration alike. For my part, I devoutly hope that Germany did know what she was doing, though the sequel have proved beyond mortal forecast. Let her have courage; for, if so, the ultimate issue may likewise prove beyond mortal's hope. But Germany was the only one that took this course; and took it, we will hope, in a courageous simplicity. Quarrel not with the word; or do so to your heart's content. Took it, we will hope, in faithfulness to the fact; and the more awake to and prepared for the probable consequences the greater credit to her. Boundless clamor there at once was and continues to be that she took it in duplicity; clamor originating in presupposition to that effect, and up to the present not, that I know of, supported by a shred of evidence. For the notable thing to me in these despatches is that those of the German bear the impress of veracity; they alone are not condemnable on self-evidence, but cohere together consistently throughout as the words of men that, in spite of limitations, did essentially mean one thing before God and the same thing before men; which is not true of those of any of the others. Of these others so far as we may meetly speak:

The Russian ground was different; had nothing to do with the damned plea of Peace! Lest we quarrel; based itself on claim of weighty interests directly affected, in short, of being a party to the dispute and not an outsider at all. Even without this, and in a total disregard of the justice of the dispute, it could have a certain validity: Two fall ajar; a third says Let them fight it out; a fourth, No, I'll join in: All these might have solid foothold in the wide realms of nature's truth, intelligent or lustful; but he who cries, and in the name of an intelligent humanity cries, Stop! Stop! you over there, lest I and others, leagues distant from you and unconcerned in your debate, should fall out with one another. What ground has he to stand on? Vacuity. A very meddlesome fellow, you would say, and one seeking a currying with a diligence not easily matched. But for the Russian: If his intervention was primarily directed against Austria only, which of us is there can say he had no right to appear on the field and try what he could do there? One does not know. Moreover one allows to the half-barbarous, inarticulate, a sort of brute right to try propensities — no curtailment of another's right to drub him well for trying them and so teach the animal becoming manners — such as, to those who have ever known higher law, one could by no means allow.

But, as far as this Austro-Servian matter went, there it should have stopped. Nothing in it was cause of the spread of the war beyond. That Balkan troubles would issue in war between Austria and Russia was probable, or as good as certain; but, if other nations made alliances which would bring them into conflict in that event, they have themselves alone to thank for it.
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:34 am

Part 3 of 5

The question, therefore, here arises Did Germany's Alliance with Austria necessarily bring her in if Russia came in? If the answer to that be affirmative, Germany smarts for having made such alliance. The answer has been universally concluded affirmative; yet only in those mad assumptions of international compacts whereby, in infallible sequel, every flea's jump was to set the world on fire. Concluded affirmative? Yes, and with equal readiness negative; according to which assumption suited the righteous British arguer's mood at the moment. If the terms of the Triple Alliance made the answer affirmative, how stands Italy out, and unheaped with opprobrium by a Britain so virtuously indignant at treaty breakers? You know very well that the use you make of this is based on the assumption the answer is negative. Sir E. Grey's pleadings, reported in despatch forty-six (see later, page 545), also presuppose the negative, though the Briton there arguing that, by the International Compacts, Germany was not bound to support Austria if attacked by Russia was simultaneously allowing that France was bound to support Russia if attacked by Germany! So far as this question, of Germany's alliance with Austria compelling her support against Russia, is shrouded in doubt, the uncertainty is due to the inextricable interlacements and difficulty of separating one thing from so many others simultaneous. What slender testimony the White Paper offers is against an affirmative: Germany would not mobilize if Russia only mobilized in South, i.e., against Austria alone. And, in truth, there is again no evidence that Germany would have entered if a reasonable assurance existed that the war could lie between Russia and Austria merely; on the contrary, the evidence is that she would not, but knew this too hypothetical a case to dwell on.

Assuming the negative, namely no treaty bond, as the British did when it suited them, Germany were only condemnable for her armed intervention if: (1) She had no title by the complexion of the present case. On which Britain argued: Please don't have any; because France, with confessedly none, must be allowed to have full (See pp. 546-547). (2) If Russia was verily not meditating hostility to her also. And the poverty of these White Paper despatches for throwing any certain light on that point is too palpable; they are here too exclusively Ostensible! We do not however require any despatches to tell us that many and weighty matters existed between Germany and her huge Eastern neighbor, nor that she would in any event be very closely touched by a war between that country and Austria. That her sympathies, apart from all her Alliances, would in general be with Austria rather than Russia, and that her interest would similarly cause her to lean the same way, are likewise foregone conclusions. It may be added also, that such bias was in the main accordant with justice and the true ever-living interests of man, though of this we have more to say under Alliances. In the particular instance, by the evidence before us, such as it is, there is no ground to doubt that Germany sincerely wished peace between Russia and Austria, much more sincerely than we wished peace with her;
nor that her action was in essence defensive against Russian Aggressive; some momentary gleam of a possibility of standing out, if properly guaranteed, swiftly swallowed in the certainty that no guarantee would be given. A passing thought of guarantee from Russia saving spread of war, standing in strong contrast with France's eager prestatement she would take none from Germany! A request for self-security vastly different from the demands which Britain subsequently made of the Germans! Who never said to Russia: You, offering not even the color of violence to me, seeking my friendship rather, shall only engage with your foe on terms of my dictating; whether vanquished or victor shall, in conclusion, go home again with nothing save your labor for your trouble: He has not yet reached these depths of sanctimonious effrontery. Then, leaving the assumption of no bond or predetermination and granting that Germany had made express treaty to support Austria, or from the start of the Servian dispute, was resolved to support Austria if interfered with in that, who is there can say she was wrong? Britain, of all nations on earth, by her own conduct in the further developments here, has the least title to breathe a whisper in criticism of such determination to support a neighbor.

With Germany involved the war could still have remained in the East; nothing save France's action brought it into the West.
But, before proceeding to that, look at these despatches pleading for peace between Austria and Russia, for Germany not to support the former.

For the first: They are all identical in spirit with those pleading for peace between Austria and Servia. The one argument submits that dispute to the Powers' decision. And we have already said enough of that; need not express our pious thankfulness that, whatever followed, this was not again done. Russia would have been willing for it, and it is made guilt in the two Teutonic nations that they were not. The four to whom the decision was to be left were Britain, France, Italy and Germany; Three of those four had already pronounced adversely to the Austrian: Much fairness did the Slav show! Leave it to the Powers again, who have so often happily damped it down before and ever to spring in renewed vigor to-morrow. The Chairman Power glorying in utter contempt of the justice of the quarrel; the minority of one alone having ever expressed the least care for this. It is Germany's steady refusal to be again a party to such godless futility that is the one thing the human mind can dwell on without loathing. Help me to save the peace, said the Briton. With all my heart; and earnestly did her endeavor to further reason among the parties, ownful of unreason in her ally too, yet aware of the iron limits. Britain wished peace by patching up the matter anyhow, lest fire kindled scorch her own pretty complexion: Germany wrought for peace on solid basis, prepared to take the issues if it proved unattainably solid: Which is really the criminal?

For the second: If there be any truly British, in the grand old sense when the word was synonymous with soul of fair play, straightness in dealing, generous frankness to foe as to friend, and, however completely now shut out from smallest voice in their nation's deeds, one cannot but believe there still are such men, these, in their study of our White Paper, must early have been struck with a certain thing, which, as they realized its proportions and significance, might have filled them with amazed horror and indignation, had their knowledge otherwise gained of modern British Statesmanship left room for amazement or special indignation at any trick it played in slippery cunning or course it pursued openly in persuasion of magnanimity devoid of integrity. What I refer to is the proposals made by Russia, France, and Italy that Britain should declare her solidarity with the two former, unite with them three, or two, in menace of Germany; and the way those proposals were listened and replied to by Britain. The proposal is first made strongly in despatch number six and repeatedly after. Pray announce your determination to fight along with us if Germany persist in countenancing Austria; and, in the face of such a threat, she will at once cower out: It will be in the interests of peace that you should do so. Sterling Briton, thus addressed, had, in tone of sleeping thunder half awakened, answered: Silence! sirrahs. And immediately informed the German of the Proposal: There, sir, friend or foe, know by this your neighbors' tempers, what sort of impartial hearing they are prepared to give your Ally's case. And do you suppose the German did not know the proposals had been made; what sort of answer they actually got; find himself enlightened, if further enlightenment he needed, as to British sincerity in sequent suggestions made to him? Pinchbeck Briton, all gold to the eye, did not fall in with the proposals, much less answer as above. He received them in very friendly manner; courteously explained his discreet opinion that the interests of peace would be better served if he continued to enact the role of disinterested party; and — well, continued to enact in such fashion now fully transparent to all eyes friendly or hostile. A behavior thoroughly accordant with decadent English character and solely possible to men steeped to the bone in mendacity, swallowed in the blackest of terrestrial curses, the Apotheosis of Attorneyism; gaining for itself also the unanimous endorsement of the masses (similarly saturate) as perfection in any role does. It is second nature to an attorney to plead with passion, 'real' for the moment by his brief, even in full knowledge of facts contrary; and the Prime Minister, later, for his objects, named some German proposals infamous; yet have I met no Briton who knew these to be so.

And, in fact they were not. In the circumstances, it was nothing perfidious for France and Russia to beg: Unmistakably announce your determination to fight along with us — since you are so determined. No, gentle Allies — Beg pardon! -- No, loving members of an Entente uncommitted, we must maintain the fiction, — Alas! I stumble again. For of course it was no fiction. Of course not, said they. And Husht! Messieurs. Who said I was determined to fight along with you? We see, said they. Who doubts they saw? It were a dolt indeed that did not. Yet naturally persisted, in the firmer confidence accrued, to urge their view; it being merely a difference in opinion as to Ostensibles, the reality understood to mutual satisfaction. So Russia "deplored" the effect upon Germany of a notion that Britain would stand aside; and Grey soothed with a Pooh! Is there not dumb show enough in our fleet? Plenty of dumb show and very easy to read. While France, no wise abashed by the comforting answer, contentedly toed the line set by susceptibilities of British Conscience; and passed on to discuss preparations in common for war — of course only in the hypothetic possibility of your deciding to join us: We will not again press you for any more definite assurance on that head. Most unnecessary that you should. Messieurs. No, the proposals were not infamous. Yet I know of few things better meriting the description than the answers they got.

Among other things that might provoke amazement, but too sorrowfully cannot, is despatch 46 where Sir E. Grey reports his having had the impudence to "Observe" to the German Ambassador "that if Germany assisted Austria against Russia it would be because without any reference to the merits of the dispute (italics ours) Germany could not afford to see Austria crushed." This in face of the clear fact that Germany alone had ever expressed care for the justice of the dispute, and had at the very start plainly stated her belief that Austria had good grounds for her proceedings against Servia, and ought not to be interfered with in them. Sir Edward Grey himself, meanwhile, having ever unblushingly expressed a total indifference to the justice of the dispute; and in another despatch of the same date. Number forty-eight, reiterates that if Austria could satisfy Russia she might do what she liked with Servia. Merit of the dispute! Sop Russia and damn the merit; it is the want of that sop alone that affects me. — I said before, page 541, that this observation of Grey's presupposed belief in no treaty bond of Germany to Austria: It obviously ought, but I would not take oath it did: and if it was that Germany "could not afford to see Austria crushed" how heinous must such a casus belli seem to every Briton now fighting lest France should be!

Britain, enacting the impartial role and rejecting the comparatively straightforward course proposed by France and Russia, that of a united menace, had her own ideas as to how to persuade Germany not to support Austria; of which the last paragraph affords one sample. And, in our inquiry of veracity shown, the results continue shameful to this land of our nativity, forbidden veneration. For it argues that Germany should not support Austria without ever arguing, or, as I should more strictly put it, without ever having argued, that France should not support Russia. This could only pass at all if the treaty between France and Russia was much more definite than that between Germany and Austria: I have met nothing worth regard that builds on this assumption. Allow that Germany acted more by the present case, will Britain call this less reputable than act by pledge to fight regardless of present cases? That Britain which professed free hand and gloried in the right to decide by instant merits in each conjuncture. But the truth is that this has passed with the hasty mob through a fact of sequence which a moment's reflection shows you did not affect the matter in the slightest degree, could never by deliberate statesman have been imagined to do so. France would not enter the field unless Germany did. No, nor Germany unless Russia did. This fact, that France was to be the third stepper, Germany the second does not touch the matter here at issue, namely the integrity or wisdom of either in entering. Britain deliberately besought Germany to leave her Ally undefended if attacked and never the while so much as whispered suggestion to France that she should similarly leave her Ally in the lurch; yet whatsoever applied to the one case applied with equal force to the other. Nay, with much greater force! For Germany was necessarily closely touched by war between Austria and Russia, France not by war between Russia and Germany, far removed from her borders. Moreover there is very strong prima facie evidence that except for her confident assurance of France's support, Russia would never have done aught provocative to Germany, that, had there been no such assurance, the war might have remained between Russia and Austria. Still Britain kept arguing with Germany Don't you, convinced of justice in your Ally's quarrel, support her, yet never said a word of similar import to France; knew fully from the start, as all the world did, for this was public property and known to be without an if, that France was definite to strike in: nothing save that knowledge produced the pleading: As I said before (p. 542) the plea was Forego your title because France must be allowed full tether for hers. A long tether? Ay, and a strong, could haul the whole British Empire in. One sees not what business Britain had to suggest either that Germany should not support Austria or France Russia, but to urge the first without the second was totally indefensible. If we had right to plead so with either, then overwhelmingly the greater right to plead with France; because of the mighty obligations which our statesmen well knew, though the country at large did not, she was under to us; in reality, only daring to act as she did from confidence of British cover. Finally, of this, be it clear that I am not suggesting it was really possible for Britain, in those late hours, to demand of France, to hint to France, that she should not support Russia; but the fact that is was impossible made it perfidy in her to ask the passivity she did from the German.

Proceeding now to the question of French intervention; also of Britain's sincerity of wish that the war should remain in the East: With Germany involved, of which question we have already spoken, it is, of course, palpably undeniable that nothing except a declaration of neutrality by France could have prevented war in the West; and equally undeniable that such declaration would. Here, in the case of war in the Western theatre, it is perfectly certain that the French and the English were the aggressors, that Germany acted as compelled for self-defence. By the circumstances, absolutely no manner of call lay upon France to join in: Word pledged to Russia is the utmost she can plead. I say not that the word pledged should not be sacred, but bid you note that there was absolutely no other ground. If any mortal believe that the word was either given or kept for God's sake, why afflict his innocence? And therewith we will leave France's share to her own conscience.

But, on the no-question of France or Germany the aggressor, add: France, toeing the line to suit susceptibilities of British conscience and bettering instruction, kept ten kilometers from her frontiers after mobilization; and, anticipating demand of neutrality from Germany, as known not aggressive upon her, had many times stated she would never give it. Yet, by these delicacies of manoeuver has persuaded you of her lamblike intentions, Germany's wanton inroad, in character of devouring wolf? — And of the eleventh hour treble Peace still! Both Russia and Austria have consented, so exquisitely set off to an admiring audience by these French trippings on the light fantastic toe, what other word than simply Too late! Germany could not possibly pause then on any plea of further discussion. Delay would have been extremely advantageous to every other, her Ally included; to herself perilous. What sort of sincerity there was in the Austrian consent you have but to read despatch one hundred and forty-one to know; one hundred and thirty-nine for Russia's humor to Germany in her consent, aforesaid very cheap. With such odors regaling her nostrils, Germany would have been a nose of wax indeed to pause. The plea was the old accursed futility of submit the Austro-Servian matter to the Powers for settlement, with certainly no increase of likelihood that a peaceable patch up till to-morrow would be once more arrived at. A ground for suspension which none honorable could then have made to the German; which no German who knew what's what could at that hour do other than totally disregard. That, in a straight courteous manfulness, compliance was explained impossible is creditable, for the suggestion might justly have been altogether ignored.

For England's sincerity of wish that the war should remain in the East:

Alas! it is a sort of mockery to speak of sincerity in her doings here. Yet I grant that, when the inevitable sequel of his acts comes upon a man, he may often wish intensely enough that they could be avoided, and exhibit a spectacle of very strenuous zeal in that direction. England, in a full knowledge that France had engaged herself to Russia, entered into what you call an Entente, with her. Not an Alliance? Oh no! Count Bruhl, a famishing dog in sight of a too dangerous leg of mutton, long comforted himself he had never signed anything; but this did not help him out of Pirna, if considerably into. Maria Theresa, too, with troops ready massed on the border and Allies on march, when demanded Would she attack him (Friedrich) this year or next? Replied vaguely in limbo, swore the Partition Treaty against him non-extant, a thing of his own imagination merely. Whereon, Carlyle comments: Since she would have shuddered at the lie direct, I suppose it was not on paper; but truer in fact no treaty could be. Had England ever honestly wrought that war in the East of Europe should not cause war in the West, she would have used her endeavors to induce France to terminate her Alliance with Russia; for this Alliance was the standing menace, and sole cause why war in the East should provoke war in the West. Had England ever wrought that she herself should not be involved in war through war in the East, she would have absolutely refused to enter into any arrangement with France so long as her alliance with Russia existed; would have made the termination of that alliance an inexorable sine qua non before she put herself under any species of obligation to assist France. These are certain facts, wholly indisputable. But England was possessed with a dread of German Aggression, to the blinding of her eyes and the corruption of her heart: equally by them. And she wrought persistently in favor of mighty Combination which should effectually checkmate German evil intentions. Not wishful of war, If you please so to describe it, passionately desirous to preserve peace. And hoping to do so by raising such a formidable looking barrier all round the Bad Teuton that he would never dare to try breaking it, but die in sight of victuals like goose surrounded by a circle drawn with chalk. For never yet were the counsels of men with such an aim informed by wisdom but always have their plans been shady, and their workings brought upon them the thing they chiefly sought to avoid.

Last, in these Ostensibles, is Britain's Intervention.

Let us look first, though it does not come first in time, at that peculiar offer made by Sir Edward Grey which has been applauded, by Sir. E. T. Cook among others, as a sort of acme in magnanimous generosity, and sealing proof of intents charitable. It is in despatch number one hundred and one where Grey offers thus: "If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavor will be to promote some arrangement to which Germany could be a party, by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued against her or her allies, by France, Russia, and ourselves, jointly or separately. I have desired this and worked for it, as far as I could, through the last Balkan Crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object, our relations sensibly improved. The idea has hitherto been too Utopian, Etc." Of the value of such an offer, in International Politics, from the point of view of its being that of a single individual in the insecure tenure of a British State Secretaryship, it is superfluous to speak. Granting the promise binding on the nation, on the three nations, it would remain sufficiently peculiar. In the first place it admits— Shall we say frankly admits? Helplessly and in spite of itself admits were nearer the mark — that the attitude of the three so promising nations had been and was of a nature to somewhat strongly call for assurance from them that their intents were not hostile or aggressive; and may surely at once pass muster as so far veridical. Whether the German would find it an item of much weight in assuring him of the fact so acknowledged? Hardly, I should think. Alight better find it a sealing proof of the quality of our magnanimity and charitable purpose. But the message did not intend to convey recriminations on the past, nor shed light on it; it was for security in the future. Dear friend, not foe I hope this instant, submit to-day, at our ardent intercession let Austria go to pot, and I for reward, will promise to do my private utmost in the to-morrow to obtain for you an Agreement whereby each of these three now in threatened league against you shall enter into bond that they will never more, either singly or collectively pursue a policy aggressive or hostile to you. Such fact, to drunk sense too Utopian, was all you ever sought, bond for it you never asked. But never again! never again! I swear it on my knees beseeching grace: this shall be a lesson to me all my days remaining. If we can read it quite so without stretch, some breath of personal sympathy for Grey may well be in us. Sir Edward! this turn dropped from my pen as I wrote, without premeditation, and has banished all harsh feeling toward you. For I can believe it may have been thus with you. Yet the leopard does not change his spots. And as for any species of security to Germany in the future having been hereby offered, there is not the shadow of such a thing. Did the remorseful one, really or hypothetically remorseful, himself even contemplate a removal of the fences, not a strengthening of them, if given further time to do it in? Checkmate to be abandoned? Perhaps I should not have gone so far in these ambiguous realms. Perpetual check, check, without a mate, — or for your mate's sake — and your own — is also a known thing; if often pleasing to the checker somewhat liable to grow irritating to the checkee. Then stalemate is surely the fairest draw of all, long reckoned even, and leaving honor to the staled. Chalk line itself can be charitably circumscribed, the confined one grow fat enough; all circumscribers consent they'll not disturb the circle, and the Goose clearly a party to the compact. Happy stay within instead of discontented, and our Policy triumph at last. See! child, we will teach you to build your own ring wall, at least you shall have a hand in building it, then shall you sit blessed in freedom from check, whilst we sweep wide o'er the earth in unburdened cheer. — The offer was peculiar; if you can read a gleam of private grace in it, 'tis happy so far; but to speak of it as magnanimous, to refer to it in any way as of the smallest weight in the issues, betokens strange latitudes.

These things are a little pregnant, reader! Choice of sequence not unadvised would you grapple with the Whole. Turn back, then, to what is called The Infamous German Bid for British Neutrality.

I will say foremost that this British description of Germany's conduct is "amazing," even to me. I have nowhere met the like of it; in sheer sodden mendacity of soul, it surpasses everything of its kind I have heard of, and deserves to be held in permanent record as a non plus ultra in that line. Here is no knave's shuffle, no hypocrite's deliberate suppression of the truth, but an open publicly declared and printed statement of the facts as they were; and then an interpretation instantly concluded of them, for campaign of unctuous eloquence and self-righteous indignation, excuse and cover of most fateful deed, utterly and glaringly in total incompatibility with those facts, for which those facts offered no momentary possibility of a conceivable color to any honest-minded mortal. Such emphatic stricture may not apply to many members of the general public who only heard of the facts through the interpretation, or along with it; but I could not reduce a syllable of this stricture for the men who gave out the interpretation at the same time that they made the facts known. Germany, looking into now almost certain war with Russia and knowing, as you and all the world did, that France would not remain neutral but side with Russia, aware also of certain vain pretensions tenanted in British lodgings too sadly furnished with them, had the candor and forebearance, suppressing all comment on those pretensions, to say thus, through her Chancellor:

"That it was clear, so far as he was able to judge the main principle which governed British policy, that Great Britain would never stand by and allow France to be crushed in any conflict there might be.1 That, however, was not the object at which Germany aimed. Provided that neutrality of Great Britain were certain, every assurance would be given to the British Government that the Imperial Government aimed at no territorial acquisition at the expense of France should they prove victorious in any war that might ensue.

"I (Sir E. Goschen) questioned his Excellency about the French Colonies, and he (the German Chancellor) said that he was unable to give a similar undertaking in that respect. As regards Holland, however, his Excellency said that, so long as Germany's adversaries respected the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands, Germany was ready to give His Majesty's Government an assurance that she would do likewise. It depended on the action of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany." (Despatch number eighty-five.)

What is there either of "bid" or "infamy" in this? What did you expect of Germany? That when engaged in war eastward, she should just shoulder arms along her western border; stand patiently waiting there till the French were ready to attack her; and then, in height of fantastic heroism merely defend the border, resolutely brush back, if she could, (you will allow her that right I suppose?) any French attempt to cross.
Yet never under any provocation herself set foot beyond; and, when the war was over, retire with sage bow and lifted hat, remarking Our deepest thanks to you, Messieurs, for this spiritual exercise, and all good hopes the amusement has proved beneficial to you? It verily seems that little short of this would have contented you. And I know that your rage arose through finding your baseless prescriptions not obeyed and diplomacy turned to water. What shadow of a title had Britain to settle the terms on which Germany should fight France, that Britain which had never done aught to keep France from seizing opportunity to satisfy grudge? Is Britain the God of this lower world? and what just God would lend cover to one side against another, then forbid that other to exact the least penalty if victorious? You call it an infamous bid by Germany, and the fact was an infamous dictation of terms by Britain. Infamous dictation wisely recognized extant, and dealt with in an admirable restraint.

The German, wisely perceiving the existence of certain pretensions in some heads, where, however baseless in fact, their existence can in verity become momentous enough, saw that it could profit nothing to give the least expression to his thought of those pretensions, though we need not doubt he had his thoughts, but in a manful prudence mildly enquired How far do these Olympian ideas extend? Beyond this? And Britain in immovable majesty, disdaining affront, replied from aloft: Of course, far beyond. Not outgone in forbearance at the first blush, merely with the eye suggested Darest propose a limit to our sovereign jurisdiction? Who could treat with you. Gentlemen? Germany may defend her countries, quite large enough for her in our supreme decision, our Almightiness graciously concedes so much; but, by our omnipotence, and world-shaking nod, let her expend what blood and treasure she may, she shall go home again with nothing save her labor for her trouble; no hair of France's head shall be harmed, and she, meanwhile, under our sheltering wing, have free allowance if victorious to keep whate'er she can wrench. O soul of Equity! must not the whole just of the earth rise in sternest wrath to crush the thievish miscreant would not before entering conflict take oath on demand at once and humbly to observe these righteous terms? Truly, I have never met their match, and grow in respect for the German could still restrain and try yet further: Will you, if we promise not to infringe Belgian neutrality — and even, it would seem by speech in Parliament, though it is not in White Paper, forego our right to attack the northern coasts of France — Shall you even on these extreme compliances with your Lordship's arbitrium — and, bravely, without a hint they were compliances and the arbitrium most exsufflicate, — refuse to promise neutrality? Imperious Yes, we will and do refuse. We may perhaps, on those conditions, permit you to enter the war without us for terrible opposite, but will give you no manner of assurance that, once in, we will not fall upon you in time and circumstance convenient for us. 'Tis easy now to see that the second offer was useless; for he who named the first a "bid" and "infamous" could only be confirmed in exalted spurn by an amendment conceding more to folly's vain impious challengings. O British Jove offended! ominously grasping the lightening, I can tell you one way in which Germany's "bid," if then ever made, might have been infamous. The way of own course honorable, when the bare suggestion of your dreaming to lay down a rule whereby she should fight, might well have shocked you with its atrocity.

Along with this claim to dictate the conditions of Germany's combat with France, simultaneous throughout runs the figment of British Free Hand, no binding obligation to bestir on France's behalf but liberty to take any side according to judgment of merits of each particular case that might arise. You pledge yourself to maintain Belgian neutrality (whereon a word further shortly), you stand resolved that you will permit to Germany no territorial acquisitions at the expense of France or her Colonies, in other words, that, if she have war with France, she shall on its conclusion go home again with nothing but her labor for her trouble; what more one knows not; but finally and above all you undertake to protect the northern coasts of France and prevent by force any attack upon them by Germany: And then you say you were not under treaty obligations to fight on France's behalf! Never was more hideous mockery of faith; vilest conspiracy plotting for attack and partition were clean in comparison. Those despatches of Sir Edward Grey's wherein he expounded to France and Russia the delicate and fine distinctions which left Britain no treaty ally but a member of Entente with hand free, were not purposely cunning at all yet did simply point the way. The Russ was thick of comprehension at first but the nimble Celt perceived in a twinkling, and with eyes privately twinkling, though listening to Sir Edwards dissection with all sobriety of countenance. Just so, your Excellency. The British lion owns no harness and the Island Ape which rides him cannot intervene except under certain contingencies. Adieu; till tomorrow; we will not importune you till wanted, and when wanted you have told us. We proceed then alone yet secure of your aid the moment we act thus and thus. Incredible as it may seem to a German, only credible as it is to Man when sadly conversant with the phosphorescences which once noble moralities gone putrid sometimes exhibit, Sir E. Grey did not mean. Act you in such and such a fashion in order that our hands may appear clean to the world; he wrote in sincerity, what is called sincerity, yet no whit the less simply pointed the way.

Instead of open declaration of common cause with France, conclusion of definite alliance offensive and defensive, you gave France secretly the utmost cover it was in your power to give short of such definite bond, and properly it was not for France's sake but for your own. And then, if the German would have conformed to the outrageous conditions imposed on him by that cover, you might perhaps have been content to stand neutral. Great was your magnanimity! noble your rage that the Teuton rejected your conditions. The Prime Minister made a great point in his speech, and inflamed the country with "infamous" German, by exclaiming: Were we to stand by with folded arms and see the northern coast of France bombarded! that coast left undefended through our agreements with France! Most true, by your agreements! How came those coasts to be defenceless? Why was the French fleet concentrated in the Mediterranean? You secretly made compact to defend those coasts so that the French fleet could leave them; and then exclaim as if their defenceless state were one of helpless innocence, calling to humanity for protection, came by no subtilty of yours; and say you had free hand to decide every case on its merits! It is the fearfullest exhibition of shameless sodden mendacity I have come across; no "perfidy" could be worse if this be not perfidious. You wished peace, you say? And, to preserve it, privately made arrangement with one neighbor which gave him the fullest cover you could contrive; for the other had thereby laid down conditions of combat utterly outrageous, devoid of any sort of basis outside your own convenience: Then proclaim yourself Champion of Right unwillingly forced into war by considerations of highest duty because the one made that use of the cover afforded him he was sure to make and the other refused your delirious prescriptions of conduct for him!

On the question of Belgian Neutrality it is not necessary to say more than a word further. One could have well wished it respected by all, but knows not how it could have been so by Germany. One thing is quite certain, it was not Britain that should have been foremost in demanding it, but Belgium herself, in direct friendly interchange with Germany, not through appeal to Britain in preconclusion of hostility and palpable leaning to one side; or, next, by France, equally in the way of direct mutual agreement with Germany; and Britain only if at all, as honestly impartial third. But it is folly to speak of the probities which might have been. Alas! no, which never had a chance of being. For Britain to demand as she did, especially in conjunction with other items in the same despatch, was at once a threat of Beware! or I come in unless you conform to my rules as self-constituted Marshal of these Lists. And thus, to the German, the thing was from the first suspicious and to be rejected as obviously not demanded for equity but in the interests of his adversaries. For Germany to grant it, too, was a much heavier demand than for France. The German said that he had unimpeachable evidence that France meant to attack him in that quarter; and personally, I have little doubt the French assurance was given in the certainty it would never be required of them to fulfil it; that the swifter moving German would be the first to cross the border, and so they could throw the opprobrium upon him without risk to themselves. For the Belgians, it is sure that, however they may have desired to escape damage, they were not neutral of spirit but exceedingly adverse to Germany. It has been said since the war began that, if France had violated Belgian Neutrality, Britain would equally have gone to war: It is sufficiently probable she would — on just the same side she now has. Britain would not have sided with Germany against France for Belgium's sake: All men know that completely, and the saying she would is a deliberate Lie, straightforward enough for once. A thing just safely said after, known without any foundation. A most godless farce is all this pretence of British championship of Belgium. On every ground, care of Belgium's welfare would have counselled: Yield. On that compulsion, yield; grant the Germans the free passage they demand. This alone had been the magnanimous course, and most earnest persuasion of any champion for Belgium. I am not quite saying you were called to do this; but you are emphatically called to admit that, in urging Belgium to resist to the utmost on promises of help you knew could never reach her in time, you were deliberately throwing her under the harrow of war, with possible loss of national independence, for no other object than to gain time for yourselves. Had Belgium then been Ally the urgement to resist had been fair; to a neutral, it had nothing in it "magnanimous," can only pass as natural to self-seekers diligent to use all means within reach to gain their own ends. Neither is there any manner of doubt that Britain solely ever undertook to support Belgian Neutrality by force for her own interests in fear of Germany's power.

In summary of these Ostensible Causes: Except, it is a big exception, Britain's possession by dread of German Aggression, involuntarily made all too apparent, no Real Cause comes to light. And, when you speak of Real Causes, you have to ask, even of that Dread, whence came it? What ground, if any, had it to stand on? Hence no answer whatever is given here to the question — Why are we at war? but only is how we have come to be at war a little told. And the true value of these White Paper Despatches is as documents testifying of the integrity of the several writers, as representing their nations, or at least Governments. In this view, the Servian is cunning, shifty, and wittingly never shows true face. The Austrian and Russian keep their motives hidden, reveal to impertinent curiosity no more than their proud heights to deem suitable. The French are clear, incisive, declare a singleness of purpose, whatever wiliness of method; namely to make the most of the opportunity if it came now, with readiness to wait for a better if need be. In the German a grand resolvedness, weight of meaning, sagacious instead of alert; very determined indeed, yet restrained, forbearant, rising to fateful enterprise unescapable in meditations cloudy profound: their words have everywhere a right sterling ring. In the British, an utter hollowness, most zealous pleading far removed from all contact with the facts. No secrecy of the conscious hypocrite, but that bottomless mendacity which, self-contemplating its own false face truly rendered back in the mirror, cries on the world to witness Saw ye ever a fairer or more blameless!



1 That same Britain that a little before had called it unwarranted for Germany to refuse to stand by and see Austria crushed.
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:38 am

Part 4 of 5


''THERE is much talk to-day about "hyphenated Americans" and the objection to hyphenation is common if not almost universal. The objection is justified, but is there not a side to the question in which hyphenation is quite legitimate?

We all agree that our nation should be one in love of country and unanimous in its ideal of building up a new nation on the western continent, cherishing the ideals of humanity in independence and with strength; but we do not, nor can we, deny that the new nation is the result of many factors and a coalescence of all the nations of the world. The union of all becomes possible only through the faithfulness of all to the common ideal, but the elements of which the whole is wrought hail from different countries of Europe. First there are the Yankees, the Puritans, who came here from England for conscience's sake because they sought liberty for the free exercise of their religion which they could not find in the old country. A different type are the Virginians and further still the Marylanders under Lord Baltimore, many of whom were adherents of the Roman Catholic faith. Quite different again were the Friends, called Quakers, who acquired Pennsylvania, and it was in their territory that the first Germans settled, coming from the Palatinate on the Rhine.

On the basis of these first colonizations the development of the country began, and after a successful war with England the colonies changed into a federation of states inviting immigrants from all quarters of the world. A period of immigration set in and the thirteen states became the refuge of innumerable men and families who for some reason or other sought a new home in the great land of the west because they were dissatisfied with the conditions of their former homes, or because they strongly sympathized with the ideals of liberty and hoped to help in building up a nation of the future where mankind would find happier and nobler and better prospects than in the past.

It is not expected, and has never been deemed necessary, that these immigrants should blot out their past, that they should forget their old homes or acquire a contempt for their forefathers or become hostile to their brothers whom they left behind in Europe. On the contrary, they were welcome here on account of their intellectual inheritance. They were invited to bring along all the treasures of their civilization so as to enrich their new home with the best they had to offer. Only one thing was expected of them, to cut off and forswear all former political allegiance to their princes or governments, for that is indispensable if they would be free citizens of this country and serve its interests faithfully.

It is in this sense that the objection to hyphenated Americans is justified. All those who settle in this country and become naturalized do so by their own free will in becoming Americans. The United States of America owns their allegiance fully and wholly. The governments of their original homes lose every claim, for these new citizens promise solemnly no longer to recognize any other obligations than toward the country of their adoption.

In this sense the objection to the use of hyphenated designations is rigidly justified and there is no question about it. But there is another sense in which the use of a hyphen is perfectly legitimate, and it is entirely suitable to speak of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, French-Americans, Anglo-Americans, Afro-Americans, Greco-Americans, Italo-Americans, Polish-Americans, and of the very small contingent of Indians as the original true Americans. We are different in blood and in tradition. Our mental constitution is not the same although we are all Americans, and I know more about a man if I hear him spoken of as an Afro-American or an Anglo-American or a German-American. In this latter sense the hyphenated designation is perfectly justified and it would be positively foolish to forbid distinctions of this kind.

In the narrow sense of the word there are very few Anglo-Americans in this country. Englishmen who settle in this country as a rule remain British. They would consider that they were surrendering a privilege if they were to give up their connection with Great Britain. The first Englishman I met in this country, when asked whether he was an American, answered with indignation, "I never foreswore my allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen!" And the same spirit of allegiance to their old country is noticeable in most Englishmen living in this country. The patriotism of the English is a commendable trait, but at the same time I must confess that it prevents the subjects of the British empire from making desirable citizens for the United States.

The old Anglo-Americans were very different; they possessed, and many of their descendents still possess, a spirit of independence. They are also broad enough to recognize the good in other nations. They are proud of being able to trace their ancestry back to colonial days and few of them have forgotten that we owe our liberty to a struggle with Old England. They are friendly to England but not submissive. They know very well that the English people look down upon the Americans at best as third-class English. The colonials, the British subjects in the colonies, are second-class English, and when a native Englishman is kindly disposed he ranges Americans directly after these second-class English subjects, as third-class Englishmen.

There is another kind of Anglo-Americans who object to being third-class Englishmen. They are Anglomaniacs. Convinced of many shortcomings — especially in manners — traceable in their countrymen, they become what Professor Patten calls Britonets.1 They ape the English and succumb to a typical disease, Anglo-mania. These people are a dangerous element in this country because they exhibit an ill-concealed tendency of submission to Great Britain and are somewhat ashamed that the thirteen colonies ever broke away from England and asserted their independence again and again. They would not have joined Washington's army and regret that there should have been the war of 1812.

I do not hesitate to regard the German-Americans, by the side of the old Americans of colonial descent and with revolutionary traditions, as the most valuable portion of American citizenship. Their merits in building up the United States have been fully recognized by historians and if they now show a discontent with our administration on account of its Britonet tendencies, exhibiting an unworthy submissiveness to the dictates of Great Britain and a positively unfair treatment of Germany, we are inclined to say that their complaints ought to be heeded. From the start the Germans have made the best and most faithful and enthusiastic citizens, but we cannot expect that they have become Americans for the purpose of assisting the American nation to serve as a catspaw for England. They came here to become citizens of an independent nation and wanted to help in building up the great humanitarian republic of untold future possibilities, but decidedly they did not mean to become either third-class English or Britonets.

We Americans are at present subject to the latter danger and are likely to lose our chances of becoming the great republic of the future, in which the ideals of mankind shall be actualized in a higher degree than ever before.

With very rare exceptions German-Americans are good Americans, inspired by the proper spirit of American ideals, but considering their intellectual inheritance of high-minded ideals, their love of solid education, their respect for law, their insistence on liberty and regard for the rights of others, we deem it wrong to do away with the proper designation of their origin.

The objection to the hyphenated expression is justified only when the double name does not so much refer to the descent of American citizens as to a state of mind in which a man is supposed to serve two masters. Since this is the case only in the rarest possible exceptions, we see in the opposition to hyphenation a sly attempt to weaken the just criticism that at present comes from our German-American fellow citizens.

The German-Americans are right when they denounce the "neutrality" of the United States in furnishing ammunition to the Allies so as to help them kill the German soldiers in their defense of the fatherland. We have no business to support either British supremacy on the seas or the plans of the Czar in extending the muscovite dominion over Europe.

There is no need of leveling all Americans, those of colonial descent, the German-Americans, the Irish-Americans, the Latin-Americans, the Slav-Americans, and the Afro-Americans, to the indiscriminate mass of "Americans," and the suggestion to do so indicates a bad conscience. It is mainly directed against the German-Americans because they have a complaint against our administration which is Britonet (as Professor Patten would say). But the Britonets do not dare to discuss the situation openly with proper arguments, and so, with a sly trick worthy of a British diplomat like Sir Edward Grey, they transfer the issue to a field where they claim the right to silence the warning which comes from German-American quarters. They would mark it as treason if the German-American did not approve of this country's policy of helping the English in reducing Germany to defeat for a proper remuneration in dollars and cents.

Therefore we feel it advisable to declare in all honesty that we are all hyphenated Americans and shall remain so, and we hope that in later centuries America will be proud of being the product of several different elements of European blood mixture. We do not mean to become Anglomaniacs but will build up a new nation in which, though the foundations have been laid by the Anglo-Americans, the German-American element has given to this nation the most important and most valuable addition.

The Germans of the old world have proved to mankind in the present world war that in spite of being more than six times outnumbered by their enemies they hold their own, and there is no chance that they will be crushed or defeated by the allied powers. Their admirable efficiency in their peaceful pursuits is fully equalled by an efficiency in battle, and the time will come when we Americans will deem it advisable, yea indispensable, to imitate their institutions, their methods of civil service, their methods of education, their inventions in industrial spheres, their progress in science, in music and other arts. The proof of German efficiency, of their superiority in almost every respect, is manifest and our fellow citizens of German descent will take pride in calling themselves German-Americans.

In concluding these comments, I will sum up the result of my consideration thus: The existence of hyphenated Americans is an undeniable fact, and the condemnation of the use of hyphenated names takes its origin from a desire to make an important part of our population connive in violating our duties, in submitting to the policy of our country in shirking the duties of neutrality, in legalizing the enslavement of the United States under British rule and in serving British interests — in a word, in changing our republic into a British dependency.



1 See "Becoming American" by S. N. Patten in The Open Court of  July, 1915.




Sir, — Various articles from your pen have appeared in The Open Court defending the action of Germany and the German armies in regard to the inception and conduct of the present war. You have alleged that this terrible conflict was brought about by Great Britain, upon whom lies the guilt; and that the excesses imputed to German troops either were not committed by them, or were grossly exaggerated, or were only such as usually accompany the armed struggles of nations. You have asserted that it was the Belgians who first committed atrocities upon the Germans, and that the severities exercised by the latter were justifiable retaliations for wanton outrages against the gentle and humane invaders of a little country whose integrity they were pledged to maintain.

You have, I presume, by this time received and read the Report of the commission formed by the British Government, and presided over by Lord Bryce, for the purpose of investigating the excesses alleged to have been committed by the troops of your Fatherland. I would particularly call your attention to the Appendix to this Report, in which the carefully sifted evidence of over five hundred witnesses appears in detail.

It is almost inconceivable that any one after reading this Report should continue to believe that on the outbreak of the war an orgy of purposeless crime was begun by the Belgian people. Consider the improbability of such a thing. Before the entry of the Germans into Belgium orders had been given in every town, village and district of that country that all arms were to be delivered up to the authorities. The evidence shows that these orders were faithfully complied with. Even had the civilian population been armed, what could they have done to stem the advance of the great and highly disciplined German forces? Do you suppose the Belgian civilians were not aware of their helplessness, and of the folly of committing outrages which were certain to be promptly avenged? Or do you believe that in the frenzy of despair they actually did commit shocking cruelties? Had they done so, a generous foe would have dealt leniently with them; certainly he would not have avenged himself upon innocent children. In any case the fact of the official order to deliver up arms and the compliance therewith show that no forcible resistance by non-combatants was sanctioned or contemplated. The evidence proves that none took place.

The Report contains many statements that the reckless — or, shall we say, accidental? — firing of shots by drunken German soldiers was sometimes believed to mean that they were being attacked. Had this been the case, the attacks must have been made by Belgian troops, not by civilians, whose assertions that they were unarmed bear every mark of veracity. You consider that these civilian attacks — which do not appear to have taken place — justify the ferocious cruelties committed by the German soldiery upon the non-combatant population. I do not think any one who can weigh evidence will agree with you.

More than this: it is stated in several of the depositions that German soldiers themselves on some occasions fired shots with the obvious and deliberate intention of having an excuse for the massacre of civilians. They are alleged to have gone into empty houses, fired shots, and raised the cry that non-combatants had begun an attack. The accusation of shooting became a stock phrase, repeated on numberless occasions, without a moment's inquiry into its truth, and resulting in the violent death of many persons who were absolutely innocent of the charge.

German soldiers were very frequently seen to throw small discs or other substances into houses which at once burst into flames. Into these burning houses soldiers and civilians, some dead, some still living, were cast; in one instance a man was held in the flames till his head and arms were roasted. I beg you to notice that, as these acts were committed during the first few weeks of the war, such inflammable materials must have been prepared beforehand. The German troops left their own country provided with the means for the deliberate commission of cruel outrages.

Have you formed an opinion of the incident of the child of two years who, while standing in the street at Malines, was transfixed by a brave German soldier with his bayonet and carried off on the weapon, a song on the lips of its murderer? What can you say of the public violation of fifteen women in the square of Liege in the presence of and begun by officers? You will, I trust, disapprove of the appalling savagery deposed to by witnesses a33, d118, d133, and, above all, d86. These incidents are so horrible that it must have needed some resolution to print the accounts; but there are hundreds of others nearly as bad.

As your culture is not exclusively German, you may find it difficult to believe that these horrors actually took place. The evidence goes to show that they give but a faint and blurred impression of the reality.

You will, perhaps, agree with me that cruelty — deliberate, cold-blooded cruelty, unprovoked by the individuals against whom it is manifested — is one of the foulest of all human vices. The alleged cruelty of the Belgians revolts you. Does not the infinitely greater cruelty of your countrymen revolt you? Are you not ashamed of the base and cowardly lies by which they have sought to excuse it? You cannot, I think, approve the implication that massacre by Germans is quite legitimate, but that every retaliation is a monstrous outrage upon them. Throughout the war it has been evident that Germany wants to have things entirely her own way. According to the investigations which have been made the charges brought against the Belgians are false, the charges against the Germans are true. Although a German you will probably be able to appreciate the distinction. You cannot be so little-minded as to think that crimes committed by your friends are for that reason less reprehensible than crimes committed against them.

Apart from the ethical standpoint from which I have tried to consider these outrages, one is deeply impressed by their astounding folly. For the moment they, no doubt, succeeded in terrorizing the civil population of Belgium — that is, they broke the spirit of helpless people who never even tried to resist — but they inspired the Belgian army to fight on with the courage of despair. That army has lost everything but honor. Germany has not lost her honor, because it is doubtful whether she ever had any honor to lose.

The German atrocities have produced the same stiffening effect on France, Great Britain, and the other nations which are painfully rolling back the tide of barbarism. They feel that, if civilization is to go on, this arrogant, bloodthirsty race — a race essentially savage, though with a thick smear of mechanical culture — must be effectually subdued. Should the Germans be victorious, they will have earned the undying scorn of the civilized world. In the event of their being defeated, they will have reason to regret the outrages in which they have so fatuously indulged. They will have rendered themselves liable to the most terrible punishment, the most ghastly reprisals. Their foes may be little inclined to be merciful, and it will be simply a question for the Allies to say how far their magnanimity shall extend.

The German army is a very brave army — when it knows that it is the stronger. Allow me to recall to you one or two instances of German heroism. One section of the Appendix to the Bryce Report is devoted to evidence which proves that the Germans made a practice of using civilians, frequently women and children, as screens to intercept or avert the fire of the enemy. Thirty-six eyewitnesses, nearly half of them British, testify to the facts, and in several cases it is stated that the British or Belgian force retreated for fear of killing the unhappy civilians, thus leaving the Germans with a military advantage which was probably not unnoticed in their official reports. On one occasion the British rapidly swung their guns round and attacked the German flank. "The Germans then bolted, leaving the civilians behind." If you consider that your compatriots have kept within the usages of war, you will, no doubt, be able to produce some authority in military law or practice in justification of this characteristic maneuver: as a former German officer, you must be in a position to appreciate its prudence and ingenuity.

The Appendix contains a score of testimonies (fifteen of them British) to the abuse by German troops of the white flag. This abuse usually took the form of a pretended surrender, followed by a murderous fire, in which many British and Belgians were slain. So frequently was the trick repeated that the touching faith of the British in German "honor" impresses me rather as culpable credulity. That faith has doubtless become weaker by this time. But I would again call your attention to the unmanly cowardice and the unaccountable stupidity of the German proceeding. Having been a Saxon officer yourself (and we deem the Saxons to be honorable foes), you will admit that nothing revolts a soldier more than base and contemptible trickery, nor is anything more calculated to arouse an unholy thirst for vengeance.

I trust you will carefully read the sections of the Appendix relating to massacres by the Germans of wounded enemies, firing on hospitals and stretcher-bearers, and abuses of the Red Cross.
Of these eighty-five examples are given, and after reading them it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the charges are fairly proved. That conclusion is greatly strengthened by the evidence of the Germans themselves. Copies or extracts of half-a-dozen military proclamations, and extracts from thirty-five diaries found on dead or captured German soldiers, show clearly that the treatment of the Belgians by the invaders was excessively and unreasonably severe. In this connection I may add, on the authority of an article by Professor J. H. Morgan in the Nineteenth Century for June, that in the diary of a German non-commissioned officer the writer states his belief that the German officers invented the stories of Belgian and French atrocities in order to prevent their men from surrendering.

You will now, I venture to hope, follow the example of Dr. F. C. Conybeare, on whose mistaken admissions you have relied. For your own sake you should publicly withdraw your charges against the innocent, and transfer them to the guilty. You owe an apology to the Belgian people whom you have slandered. You did not originate the slanders; you have merely shown a strange gullibility in giving them currency. Examine the evidence with care; do not ferret out minor defects in the testimony and ignore its real weight; be man enough to rise above national bias and petty evasions; speak the truth without fear or favor. Yet a sentence in your magazine for May last is not calculated to make one hopeful. One despairs of the mentality of a man who can write so choice an absurdity as this: "God is neutral; but I am convinced that, being impartial, he will stand by Germany in spite of the odds that count against her." Charles T. Gorham.


The present war, so terrible, so sanguinary, so useless and unnecessary, has caused much discussion and disrupted many international friendships. I fully appreciate, therefore, the regret which you express at the difference in our opinions, and I wish sincerely that we might come to an agreement on the war, its causes and the facts of its history. I have honestly and impartially tried to understand its origin and to obtain the most reliable information, and although I have my doubts in many important details, I have arrived at definite convictions in all main points; and considering the tremendous importance of the issues I have deemed it my duty to express my views openly and submit them to public criticism, irrespective of approval or condemnation. And I promise to retract publicly any statement of mine the erroneousness of which can now or in the future be proved.

You are so firmly convinced of the truth of your position regarding the war that you do not understand how I can support such a "chronicle of unparalleled infamies"; but I assure you it is after a careful investigation made in an impartial spirit that I say that this terrible conflict was brought about by Great Britain.

Germany in the past has repeatedly kept peace when bitterly provoked, and once again did she endeavor to do so. She could have no motive for going to war with the formidable combination that is ranged against her. The German government and also the German Emperor personally did their utmost to avoid the war, both with Russia and with England; and it was above all England that cut off every chance of peace and forced Germany to break Belgian neutrality.

You must be very unfair not to concede that the mere possibility of a hostile invasion through Belgium imposed upon Germany the imperative duty of anticipating the attack. The equivocal attitude of Sir Edward Grey would have made the preservation of Belgian neutrality a criminal neglect of self-defense at the most dangerous point and in a most dangerous moment. Germany knew that Belgium was prepared as an ally of France and England, not otherwise; and later events have proved that Germany's suspicion was but too well justified.

Further, I still assert that "the Belgians first committed atrocities upon the Germans and that the severities exercised by the latter were justifiable measures against wanton outrages."

I never spoke of the invaders as "gentle" or "humane"; war is always terrible, and I feel sorry for the people in whose country it has to be waged. War always brings suffering and sorrow in its train. That is the reason why Germany tried to avert a conflict. But once war was inevitable I do not blame the German government for having endeavored to keep invaders out of Germany and not waiting patiently until an Anglo-French army broke into the Rhenish provinces in the rear of the German troops as the latter marched into France through Lorraine.

I felt very sorry for the Belgians, but I cannot help thinking that they had only themselves to blame, provoking, as they did, a German attack. Their government had adopted a mistaken policy, and they reaped what they sowed. If there is any other nation they can reasonably blame, it is Great Britain alone.
Sir Edward Grey could have saved Belgium from the fate she met if he had honestly tried to keep peace with Germany. But he did not mean to. All his acts are inexplicable and stupid except on the principle, which seems to be his one actuating motive, Germania est delenda.

I have read the report of the commission formed by the British government for the purpose of investigating the excesses alleged to have been committed by the Germans, but I deem it a partisan statement cleverly composed to give the impression that the Germans are barbarians who delight in the most atrocious cruelties. The evidence of the witnesses in Lord Bryce's report does not seem to me to have been carefully sifted, and if the alleged atrocities are true how is it possible that a group of American reporters traveled all across Belgium in vain in search of witnesses and failed to discover one iota of proof? — Nothing but the just punishment meted out, after due trial by court martial, for criminal acts committed by the populace! No, I cannot discover a trace of these unparalleled infamies in spite of Lord Bryce's and other reports.

I am impressed with the fact that you rely on fictitious statements. You do not seem to know that, for instance, in Louvaine the armed resistance of the populace had been carefully prepared and instigated, of which fact the German authorities are in possession of unequivocal proof in the form of written orders as to the distribution of arms, and lists of names. The story that the struggle in the streets began through "reckless or accidental firing of shots by drunken German soldiers" is a fairy tale which flatly contradicts even the Belgian descriptions of the fight and has been invented for the benefit of those friends of the Allies in France and England who have no clear conception of the situation, for the purpose of prejudicing them against Germany. Anyone who can weigh evidence will not agree with you.

I hope you will excuse me for not having "formed an opinion on the incident of the child of two years who, while standing in the street at Malines, was transfixed by a brave German soldier with his bayonet and carried off on the weapon, a song on the lips of its murderer." I have formed no opinion on the story except that I regard it as fiction.

Your logic is simple. You come to the conclusion that "the charges brought against the Belgians are false, the charges against the Germans are true." But what do you say of the murder and persecution of Germans in the streets of Paris, Antwerp, Milan, also in London and other British cities, and in Canada? What do you say about the price set upon the heads of Germans in South Africa, to be paid to natives? What do you say about the atrocities of English soldiers? There is a rough element everywhere, but I know that the German army is made up of more humane elements than any other body of soldiers.

I hope that Great Britain will adopt the German military system, for I would expect from it a great improvement in the British military forces and also the spread of a peaceful spirit in English policy. Germany is the best prepared for war, and at the same time the most peaceful in spirit, for the Germans must fight their wars themselves. Every mother must send her own sons into the field.

I would have done anything in my power to prevent the war, and I read with hearty approval the Kaiser's letters to his cousins on the Russian and English thrones. The Kaiser was especially loath to begin a war with the English people to whom he felt so closely bound not only by ties of friendship but also of blood; and I can understand his feeling in the matter. I love the English language, the English literature, the English people; and I hate the thought that the English people have done a grievous wrong. My only comfort consists in the sad consolation that the English people have been betrayed into this stupid attitude toward Germany by a small clique whose leader is Sir Edward Grey.

My sympathy goes out for the English commoners, for the Saxon element of the people, not for the aristocracy nor the men of Norman blood, for I blame the latter for all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations. In the interest of the latter Great Britain is governed, and the latter continue to contrive falsehoods to perpetuate their power and influence. I have always taken offense at Tennyson's wrongly admired estimate of "Norman blood" in the lines

"Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood."

I am convinced that Saxon blood is better than Norman blood, and that the Saxon element of the English people is their better portion and nobler inheritance. I have an antipathy against the crimes, in English history, of those ruling classes who have always, as a matter of course, followed the policy of keeping the great masses of the people in subjection and poverty while they themselves kept the land and appropriated all the power and the sources of wealth.

I fear this war will have to be fought out to the bitter end, and it becomes more and more evident that the English aristocracy will be the losers in the long run. Germany, in her progress in the arts of peace, became a danger to the English ruling classes, and a war seemed to be the only means of getting rid of the inconvenient rival. But I venture to predict that this war will bring about precisely what the English aristocracy, headed by Sir Edward Grey, expected to prevent.

Sir Edward Grey is smart, very smart, and in this war Great Britain has all the odds in her favor. The Triple Entente was a cunning contrivance, and it furnished her with most powerful allies. Yet I predict a final defeat for the allied arms. For too much smartness defeats itself. The British world power is a colossus on clay feet, and these clay feet will crumble when the testing time comes. But out of the misfortunes and chaos of war I look for a regeneration of England, through the noble old Saxondom of her people, the commoners, the true Englishmen. The time will come when this truth will be understood, but at present the outlook is gloomy. Sir Edward Grey has led the people in a course of action which will prove their undoing.

There are a few men in England who take the same view as I, but they are few, very few, and they have no opportunity to make themselves heard. To force them into submission or compel them to retract their statements may prevent reform under present circumstances, but the truth will finally prevail.

We stand before a great crisis in history. England has forced the issue, for she wants to prevent Germany from sharing in the blessings of world power. England would not give up her monopoly of the seas. She wants to preserve the balance of power on the continent so that she may continue her dominion. That is why she misrepresents Germans and calls them Huns and barbarians. She wants to break Germany's power, but it becomes more and more apparent that not Germany's but England's fate lies in the balance, and indications are many that history is pronouncing on England her mene tekel. You do not believe me, but the future will judge between us; the future will reveal the truth.

I love the Germanic peoples. I admire Germany, England and the United States. My ideal has been and still is the establishment of a friendship between these three great nations, and in their alliance I see the hope of mankind, the realization of universal peace among men. But this hope has been well-nigh shattered because of the machinations of a few English diplomats whose policy it is to perpetuate the aristocratic spirit of the British government to the detriment of both Germany and the United States. We want leadership of the most powerful, but freedom for all, and the sine qua non of freedom for all is the freedom of the seas. Misrepresentation plays a considerable role in diplomacy, and the British diplomats have succeeded in making a powerful use of it, above all in misguiding the English people and leading them into this most disastrous war. But misrepresentations will be cleared away like fog in the morning sun, and in the end truth will prevail.

The time will come when the English people will long for truth; I hope they will have enough moral strength left to search for it with honest endeavor, and that they will find it.

Is William the Second to be the liberator of England from the Norman yoke, the one whose task it is to undo the sorry work of William the Conqueror?

War is terrible, and it is the English diplomats that are responsible for the present one. They felt so certain of the outcome but they have made most careless and inexcusable miscalculations. They thought it would be easy to crush Germany, and they still build great hopes upon their misstatements and misrepresentations.

Misrepresentations, if believed in, are often very efficient and do great harm to the misrepresented party, but only for a time. In the long run they are found out and recoil on their inventors. The English people are patient and long-suffering and believe misstatements easily, but they will at last discover that their diplomats have relied on falsehood and have done a grievous wrong in misrepresenting the German cause. The members of the British cabinet, a clique of noblemen, are an incapable and narrow-minded lot, and had not the slightest idea of the terrible task with which they were confronting the English people.

The war is being carried on in a most bungling way by the Allies, especially by the Russians and the English. The best and most worthy among the Allies are, it appears, the French; but even they would be incapable of withstanding the German attack alone.

One thing becomes plainer and plainer: that England will lose her leadership in commerce and world politics, and it is characteristic that in the present war England has once again forced the issue. But it is England herself that is going to be the sufferer; she will lose her place among the nations, and world-leadership will fall to Germany and the United States.

It will take some time before the English people realize this, for they still believe all the reports of German viciousness, of which the alleged atrocities in Belgium are only a minor portion. It will take some time for the English people to wake up, and it seems as if only a serious and terrible defeat in war would open their eyes.

Let us hope that the worst evils carry in them the seeds of some good, of some great good, and that the evils are fraught with blessings beyond what even the most sanguine dreamer expects. The misfortune that brings about the much needed reform and a thorough regeneration of England would be a blessing: it would accomplish more good than evil.



To the Editor of The Open Court:

May I be pardoned if I seek to supplement the article of Mr. Richardson on Bahaism with a few words on Miss Farmer and her life-work, her beloved Greenacre?

No more thrilling chapter in the lives of leaders of thought has ever been written than the facts concerning Miss Farmer and her Greenacre. Her ideal was "a universal platform" upon which with malice toward none, with charity toward all, each might be permitted to voice his own particular creed, to the end that the various religions might learn to compare sympathetically their points of agreement and forget somewhat their points of difference. She believed that if this could be done, religious hatreds and wars would cease.

With a marvelous magnetism, a winning personality and supreme love for all humanity, which drew men and women alike to her side, all eager to assist in the great work for the uplift of the world, Miss Farmer, while health and money lasted, worked with the unfailing ardor of the idealist, giving unstintingly of herself and her means to promote the cause of universality.

Now, her health broken, her little remaining fortune in Maine tied up by distant relatives so that she has to depend absolutely upon the generosity of devoted friends; not daring for fear of personal violence to cross the boundary lines of New Hampshire whose courts having pronounced her sane, she knows that there her last remaining possession, personal liberty, is secure, — she has been compelled to submit to being swept contemptuously aside while her universal platform at Greenacre was seized by a sect known as "Bahaism" and converted into a "Bahai Center."

When the true history of Miss Farmer's work at Greenacre is written, as it must be some day, the history of the untold good to the untold numbers that it has accomplished and still might be accomplishing if that fatal, mentally unbalancing disease, Bahaism, had not crept in, the world will wonder with regret at the magnitude and beauty of that which it permitted to be destroyed.

Yours truly,

A friend of Miss Farmer and Greenacre.




The fierce type of features expressing will power which appears in the god Fudo is not limited to this special deity but can be traced in other Japanese gods, especially in the guardians of the four quarters of the world. One of these is illustrated in our frontispiece which is a reproduction of a Japanese painting of Jikokuten, the guardian of the east. The god of the north is called Tamonten, of the south Zochoten and of the west Komokuten.

Some time ago we published the reproduction of a Japanese painting of Fudo (Sanskrit, Achala) which we repeat in this connection. The artist, Seiso Hashimoto, has endowed this deity with all the traditional features of his character. With a sword in one hand, a chain in the other, and his figure enveloped in fiery flames, he is the artistic embodiment of that indomitable will which in spite of all hindrances and obstacles, in the face of danger and death, leads finally to victory.



[In an article bearing the above title in The Open Court of September, 1914, the Editor reviewed at some length a book by Mrs. A. E. Gordon, of Tokyo, entitled World Healers, or The Lotus Gospel and its Bodhisattvas Compared with Early Christianity, and published by Eugene L. Morice of London. We here publish a letter received from Mrs. Gordon in comment on this review. — Ed.]  

May I criticize your review of my World Healers? You don't seem to have got at the kernel of it! In the first place, you will, on reference to the Royal Asiatic Societys' (Seoul Branch) Transactions for 1914, see my lecture on discoveries in Korea which are wonderfully confirmatory of my theories in the book. In the same number of The Open Court there is a most interesting article on a subject new to me, viz., "Martyrs' Milk," and I would ask you to refer to page 68 of my World Healers for a similar instance in the case of the negro monk Kokuhoshi in Korea.

In your review you say: "The gospel it preaches is a kind of combination of Christianity with Buddhism." Now my book does not "preach a gospel." It simply brings into more light what Dr. Timothy Richard already set forth in his translation of Saddharma Pundarika (known in Japan as the Lotus Gospel); and which several scholars have long since concluded may be an apocryphal Christian Gospel, such as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. To my mind, this is far more worthy of God than the selfish orthodox Christian idea that he only illuminated Europe, and later America, with the light of his glorious gospel. You doubtless know Dr. T. Richard's New Testament of Higher Buddhism in which the above translation appears. Dr. Tyan Takakusu, the highest Sanskrit authority out here and a pupil of Max Muller, pronounced that translation "not only to be most accurate literally, but also to give the very essence of the original." Higher praise could hardly be given.

In the third paragraph of your review you very justly criticize my imperfect methods; so please allow me to explain that Prof. A. H. Sayce, when he was in Japan, kindly went through all my manuscripts most carefully, and on my telling him exactly the points you have criticized, he said: "Never mind that, just put down everything you have found up to date, and then let others from that mass of material weed out and arrange all in proper order." You see that being very delicate, and with eyes troubling me, I must do either one thing or the other. If I stop to sift and criticize accurately, I cannot write down the facts that keep crowding in and which, alas! other people out here (now that Dr. A. Lloyd is dead) take no interest in.  

I believe the historical data are as nearly accurate as possible, for, having studied with my dear friend, Max Muller, I am possessed with the idea of historical data being essential, I have been at infinite pains to take out all I have put down. In many cases such contradictory dates are given that it has been an immense labor to verify them. This is an explanation, not an excuse!

As for the Chinese "ship of salvation" I have found far more wonderful frescoes of it in Korea, at Isudoji and on Diamond Mount.

You have omitted the point about Asukahime (p. 553) which is that the dear children recognized their beloved empress and showed it by offering her two chrysanthemums — the imperial crest! This seems to me a peculiarly touching and delicate offering in proof of the recognition after death which so distracts worthy bereaved Christians in the West, and about which so much is written there! "Shall we know one another again?" Yes! these "heathen" Buddhist-Japanese tell us, without a doubt.

Lastly your (p. 556) paragraph on the Nestorian Stone again misses the point.

a. The picture shows the monks pointing out Buddhist terms on the Nestorian Stone and in particular the title used of Kwannon in heaven "The Ship of Great Mercy," Ts'i-hang. May I refer you to Edkins's Chinese Buddhism, pp. 266, 353, as to this? The scene took place at the dedication of the stone on Koya san.

b. What you say in your last paragraph seems to infer that the photograph was taken of the original stone (of which your pamphlet1 speaks) at Sianfu.

That pamphlet describes the copy of the stone which was taken to the United States from Sienfu. The only other replica is the one I had the privilege of erecting on Koyasan which for 1100 years was the great shrine of Kobo Daishi and Shingon— the "True Word" Buddhism.

The stone is erected in the holiest place on Koyasan, the Okunoin, where myriads of Japanese have laid their ashes beside the sleeping Kobo who there awaits the coming of Miroku, the Buddhist Messiah. (See Eitel's Handbook on Maitreya). So there are only three in the whole world of this priceless monument of the similarity between Mahayana Buddhism and early Christianity, viz., that at Sianfu, and these two replicas in the United States and Japan.

As I write, the 1100th anniversary of Kobo Daishi is being celebrated and one half a million of pilgrims are to be at Koya gathered from all parts of Japan this month and in May. Two hundred and fifty thousand Japanese tracts containing pictures of the Nestorian stone and descriptive matter are being distributed among these pilgrims.



1 The Nestorian Monument, an Ancient Record of Christianity in China. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1909.
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:44 am

Part 5 of 5


To-Morrow's Road. A Booklet of Verses by G. M. H. London: Old Bourne Press, 15 Holborn, E. C. Pp. 40.

G. M, Hort, who may be remembered by our readers as the author of a poem which appeared some time ago in The Open Court under the title "The Tenant," has collected some of his poems into this little paper-bound volume. Most of them have appeared in various well-known publications, such as The Academy, The Outlook, The Nation, etc.

As an interesting sample we quote the following lines from "The Song of a Fool":

"I had a comrade in the days of morning,
High through his youth a fatal wisdom shone.
Still to each task he'd turn with easy scorning,
Know all too soon, and weary to be gone!
But I, who dream from truth could scarcely sever,
Slow at a fact and lagged at a rule
Drank new delight from some old book for ever —
Thanks be to God, who made me such a fool!
"And now, while life is on itself returning.
While from each window slowly shifts the light,
Loud from the dais, speak the men of learning
Who know the nature of the coming night.
But I who watch the door where daylight narrows.
And irk to find myself so late in school.
Seek truant Hope among the Churchyard barrows!
Thanks be to God, who never cured the fool!"

On another page of this issue we are printing in article form as prepared by the author for us the opening chapters of a book entitled Carlyle and the War, which we understand is shortly to be published in New York, and all inquiries concerning which should be addressed to Jean Wick, Aeolian Hall, 42d Street, in that city.

This book has been written by an Englishman of Scotch descent, who believes his country to be in the wrong in this war and whose motives for writing as he has done must be sought in the book itself. He has written primarily to and for his own countrymen in strong appeal to them to realize the terrible mistake their and his country has made, but though we hope this book may reach England we believe there is much in it to interest Americans also.

The author has made his appeal largely in the name of Thomas Carlyle whom he regards a a truly inspired writer and whose History of Frederick the Great especially he considers that every Briton and American ought to study in this crisis. He feels that the significance of the title he has given to his work ought to be instantly felt by those more earnest and thoughtful men of his own country whom he eminently wishes to reach. To us Americans it may perhaps not be so immediately apparent, but it should soon become evident to readers of Mr. Kelly who writes in no academic spirit or for the mere scholar, but for the present hour and for all who are awake to the momentous issues of the present crisis.

Our readers will notice that Mr. Kelly's article is imbued with the style of his master, Carlyle, after whom (as he has said of himself) he takes "as a son takes after his father," among other ways in his use of vigorous expressions where vigorous thoughts are to be expressed.

Readers not acquainted with certain idiosyncrasies will probably find some difficulty in interpreting the sense. In accordance with our author's request we have refrained from making alterations and have rigorously followed his manuscript in all details, including capitalization and punctuation.

Germany's Isolation
An Exposition of the Economic Causes of the War

By Paul Rohrbach
Translated by PAUL H. PHILLIPSON, Ph. D.

It is undeniable that so far, Germany, which has been so bitterly blamed for the great war, has not had equal opportunity with her enemies to state her side of the case.

Paul Rohrbach's book here presented, while not written primarily as a plea for, or in justification of, Germany's part in the war, has such a bearing upon the whys and wherefores of the great struggle, that it must be considered one of the most notable books yet issued. With the exception of the last chapter which was penned recently, the book was written before the war began.

With keen, incisive logic the author shows war to be inevitable, a natural development of the conditions that then obtained. With startling earnestness he pictures Germany surrounded by mighty foes, jealous of her swift rise to the ranks of the world powers, humiliated and affronted by these same foes as occasion offered, and deprived of her legitimate opportunities for colonial expansion; that she would have to fight for her very life and freedom on both frontiers was certain.

In his concluding chapter. Dr. Rohrbach gives the attitude of Germany to her foes as follows:

In spite of the hatred toward Germany, a hatred which the French have been nursing for over forty years, there is no need of reducing the rank of France as a world power. Territorially this would mean that her continental boundaries be left undisturbed and the greater part of her North-African possessions untouched. Financially, however, the indemnity imposed upon her can scarcely be too large.

Russia, with her population of one hundred and seventy millions, must at all hazards be reduced, and her ability to attack Central Europe diminished. It will not be difficult to carry out such a plan as large stretches of western and southern Russia are inhabited by non-Russian peoples who would hail their release from the control of the czar with every show of satisfaction.

But the real enemy of Germany, and not only of Germany but of the culture and civilization of all Europe, the enemy who for the sake of his own commercial profits delivered Germany into the hands of the Muscovite and conspired to rob Germany of her rightfully earned place among the nations of the world, that enemy is — England. Peace with England is impossible until her power to do harm has been broken for ever. It would be premature to discuss the ways and means which lead to that end. Let it suffice to say that those ways and means exist, and that Germany is resolved to use them in due time. Then, and then only, Germany's future will be assured. To display leniency toward England is now but to commit an act of treason against the future of the German Empire.

Price $1.00, postage extra
Mailing weight, 11 ounces
The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.


The American Mathematical Monthly
Is the Only Journal of Collegiate Grade in The Mathematical Field in this Country

This means that its mathematical contributions can be read and understood by those who have not specialised in mathematics beyond the Calculus.

The Historical Papers, which are numerous and of high grade, are based upon original research.

The Questions and Discussions, which are timely and interesting, cover a wide variety of topics.

The Book Reviews embrace the entire field of collegiate and secondary mathematics.

The Curriculum Content in the collegiate field is carefully considered. Good papers in this line have appeared and are now in type awaiting their turn.

The Notes and News cover a wide range of interest and information both in this country and in foreign countries.

The Problems and Solutions hold the attention and activity of a large number of persons who are lovers of mathematics for its own sake.

There are other journals suited to the secondary field, and there are still others of technical scientific character in the University field; but the Monthly is the only journal of collegiate grade in America suited to the needs of the non-specialist in mathematics.

Send for circular showing the articles published in the last two volumes.

 Sample copies and all information may be obtained from the MANAGING EDITOR, H. E. SLAUGHT
5548 Kenwood Ave. Chicago, Ill.


New Books on the War from the German Side

THE EUROPEAN WAR OF 1914, by John William Burgess 1.00
A MONTH'S GERMAN NEWSPAPERS, translated by A. L. Gowans 1.00
THE GERMAN ARMY IN WAR, by A. Hilliard Atteridge .50
THE GERMAN FLEET, by Archibald Hurd Paper .25
GERMANY SINCE 1740, by George Madison Priest 1.25
THE PEACE AND AMERICA, by Hugo Munsterberg 1.00

Any book '" (he above list sent on receipt of price

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 S. Michigan Avenue , CHICAGO


JUST PUBLISHED Mithraism, Its Principles and Ritual

Cloth, Price 40c

This latest volume of the series Religions Ancient and Modern deals with "that last religion of Paganism locked in the supreme struggle with Christianity which was to decide the spiritual hegemony of the Old Western World."

Open Court Publishing Company
122 S. Michigan Boulevard


Competitive Library Purchasing

LIBRARIANS not familiar with our prices will find it to their advantage to secure quotations from us before placing their orders elsewhere. We are not only willing but eager to quote our net prices on any proposed purchase.

The Baker & Taylor Co.
Wholesale Dealers in the
Books of all Publishers
New York
354 Fourth Ave., at Twenty-Sixth St.


A Dramatic Poem

Pp. 72
Boards, Price 50c

In this presentation of the life and teachings of Confucius, we see the Chinese religio-ethico world-conception drawn from the ideals and teachings of the man who has molded and still molds the history of China.

The Open Court Publishing Co.



This work is an attempt to make Socrates a living figure to modern English readers. It is a biographical and psychological study, in which the intellectual struggles, the prophetic role and the moral and religious grandeur of the man are portrayed against the background of the life and movements of his time.

Price, $1.25 net



Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy
Pages X, 245. Cloth, $2.00 (7s. 6d. net).

This book is a compilation of Mr. Bertrand Russell's "Lowell Lectures" of 1914, in which the author attempts to show, by means of examples, the nature, capacity, and limitations of the logico-analytical method in philosophy. They are on "Current Tendencies," "Logic as the Essence of Philosophy," "Our Knowledge of the External World," "The Problem of Infinity Considered Historically," "The Positive Theory of Infinity," and "The Notion of Cause, with Applications to the Free-Will Problem." These lectures are written, as the Mathematical Gazette says, with that clearness, force, and subtle humor that readers of Mr. Russell's other works have learnt to expect; and are the first publication on Mr. Russell's new line of the study of the foundations of physics.

"THE book of the year It is in every sense an epoch-making book." — Cambridge Magazine.

"His method interests by the success with which it approximates philosophy to science.... These able and suggestive lectures will introduce thoughtful readers to a tract of speculative inquiry not yet much opened up, which promises good results to one with philosophic interests and scientific training." — Scotsman.

"This brilliant, lucid, amusing book, which, in spite of a few stiff passages, every one can understand." — The New Statesman.

"In some respects the most important contribution that has been made to philosophy for a long time past. The whole book is of extreme interest, and it abounds in good sayings." — The International Journal of Ethics.

"The author maintains the fresh and brilliant yet easy style which always makes his writings a pleasure to read." — Nature.

"This book, though intentionally somewhat popular in tone, contains most important and interesting contribution to philosophy." — Mind.


Professor John Dewey of Columbia University of New York, in the July Philosophical Review, writes as follows concerning Mr. Bertrand Russell's recent book:

"There are many ways of stating the problem of the existence of an external world. I shall make that of Mr. Bertrand Russell the basis of my examinations, as it is set forth in his recent book, Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. I do this both because his statement is one recently made in a book of commanding importance, and because it seems to me to be a more careful statement than most of those in vogue."

Professor Bernard Bosanquet speaks of the same book as follows:

"This book consists of lectures delivered as "Lowell Lectures" in Boston, in March and April, 1914. It is so attractive in itself, and its author is so well known, that I think by this time it may be 'taken as read,' and I may offer some discussion without a preliminary abstract."

All bookstores or sent on receipt of price

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.


A Rare Treat for Booklovers
De Morgan's Budget of Paradoxes

Edited with full bibliographical notes and index
Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York

Two volumes, pp. 500 each. Cloth, $3.50 per vol.

THE BUDGET OF PARADOXES. As booklovers and those who delight to browse in fields that are quaint and curious know, there appeared in the nineteenth century no work that appealed to the tastes of their guild more powerfully than the delightful BUDGET OF PARADOXES of AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN. Originally written as a series of articles in THE ATHENAEUM, they were collected by Professor DE MORGAN just before his death and were published posthumously by his talented wife. As a piece of delicious satire upon the efforts of circlers of squares, and their kind, there is nothing else in English literature that is quite so good. Nor should it be thought that the work is technical because it speaks of the arrested mental development of the circle-squarers. On the contrary, while it is absolutely scientific in its conclusions, it is written in a popular style which anyone can appreciate and which has charmed many thousands of readers during the past half century.

THE PRESENT EDITION. The BUDGET OF PARADOXES was first written some fifty years ago. Many names which were common property in England at that time were little known abroad, and others have passed into oblivion even in their native land. Incidents which were subjects of general conversation then have long since been forgotten, so that some of the charm of the original edition would be lost on the reader of the present day had the publishers under- taken merely a reprint. The first edition having long since been exhausted but still being in great demand, it was decided to prepare a new one, and to issue it in a form becoming a work of this high rank. Accordingly, it was arranged to leave the original text intact, to introduce such captions and rubrics as should assist the reader in separating the general topics, and to furnish a set of footnotes which should supply him with as complete information as he might need with respect to the names and incidents mentioned in the text. The Publishers feel that the two large, well-printed volumes which they take pleasure in submitting to readers will prove a source of delight to all who peruse the pages of this unique work.

THE EDITOR. In preparing this edition, the Publishers sought for the man whose tastes, experience, and learning would best harmonize with those of Professor DE MORGAN himself. Accordingly they invited Professor DAVID EUGENE SMITH, Ph.D., LL.D., to undertake the work. Dr. SMITH is known for his KARA ARITHMETICA, which completed the early part of the work undertaken by DE MORGAN in his arithmetical books; for his PORTFOLIO OF EMINENT MATHEMATICIANS and for his part in the HISTORY OF JAPANESE MATHEMATICS and the translation of Fink's HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS, issued by the Open Court Publishing Company; and for his extensive writings on the history and teaching of mathematics and his contributions to text-book literature. Dr. Smith has worked in DE MORGAN'S library, is thoroughly familiar with all of DE MORGAN'S writings, and has a type of mind which is sympathetic with that of the author of the BUDGET. The Publishers therefore feel that they have been very fortunate in securing the one man who was best qualified to undertake con amore the preparation of this new edition.

VALUE TO PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Although the original edition of the BUDGET appealed rather to the searcher after the unique and bizarre than to one who wished for information as to men and things, the new edition may properly take its place among the valuable works of reference in our public libraries. The circle-squarers and the angle-trisectors are present everywhere and always, and a popular work that will show them their folly is a thing that every library should welcome. But aside from this, the great care taken by Dr. Smith in his biographical, bibliographical and historical notes renders the work invaluable on a shelf of general reference. His additions have so increased the size of the work that it has been found necessary to issue it in two volumes.

THE SELLING OF THE WORK. When we consider the fact that the work is even better known to general readers than to mathematicians, that it has long been out of print and has had a ready sale among dealers in rare books at prices ranging from $10.00 to $15.00, it will be seen that an edition like .the present one cannot fail to have a large sale, not merely in GREAT BRITAIN and her possessions, and in the UNITED STATES, but also among scholars in other countries as well.

THE READERS. As intimated above, the work appeals to an unusually wide range of readers. Of course every mathematician will wish for a copy, not because the work is on mathematics but because it was written by a curious-minded mathematician who delighted to satirize the pretended science of the circle-squarers. It will be read by the lover of delicious satire, because in this field it has few equals, and it will appeal to the general reader because of its style and the wide range of interests which Professor DE MORGAN showed in this, his best-known work. Such a book is written for all times and for all classes of readers, and it may well be ranked among the classics of our language.

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.


New and Forthcoming: Publications

A Short History o£ Japan. By Ernest Wilson Clement.
X, 190 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra (weight 15 oz.)

Senescence and Rejuvenescence. By Charles Manning Child.
xii, 482 pages, royal 8vo, cloth; $4.00, postage extra (weight 3 lbs.)

The Modern Study of Literature. By Richard Green Moulton.
xii, 532 pages, 12mo, cloth; $2.50, postage extra (weight 1 lb. 13 oz.)

Current Economic Problems, By Walton Hale Hamilton.
Svo, cloth; $2.75, postage extra.

Lives Worth Living. By Emily Clough Peabody.
xiv, 188 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra (weight lib. 4oz.)

University of Chicago Sermons. By Members of the University Faculties.
xii, 348 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.50, postage extra (weight 1 lb. 4 oz.)

Religious Education in the Family. By Henry Frederick Cope.
xii, 296 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.25, postage extra (weight 1 lb. 5 oz.)

First-Year Mathematics for Secondary Schools. Third revised edition. By Ernst R. Breslich.
12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra.

A Review of High School Mathematics. By William D. Reeve and Raleigh Schorling.
x, 70 pages, 12mo, cloth; 40 cents, postage extra (weight 10 oz.)

Methods in Plant Histology. Third revised edition. By Charles Joseph Chamberlain.
xii, 314 pages, Svo, cloth; $2.25, postage extra (weight 3 lbs.)

The School and Society. Second revised edition. By John Dewey.
xvi, 164 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra (weight 15 oz.)



The European War of 1914: Its Causes, Purposes, and Probable Results

Formerly Professor of Constitutional and International Law and Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science in Columbia University, New York City.

Professor Burgess considers the present Anti-German craze altogether unreasonable. He has studied the British White Paper, which gives, as he says, the British point of view, and he finds it a most unconvincing document. Discussing the immediate cause of the war he asserts that Austria had a just cause, and the demands she made upon Servia were not only reasonable, but she could not, as a self-respecting nation, have asked less.

He claims that the only reasonable construction to be placed upon the moves made by Sir Edward Grey preliminary to the outbreak of the war, is that they tended to fan the flame and that that astute minister unquestionably knew this. In support of this he shows by documentary proof that Sir Edward Grey encouraged Servia to resist Austria, and accepted Russia's claim of a protectorate over that Balkan nation.

German success in home development and in foreign markets, he says, brought to her the jealousy and spite of England, and this, he asserts, is really the primary cause of the war.

Compared with what we understand by Constitutional Government he finds the British Government a despotism, and contrasts it with the organization of the German Empire, which he states is not only more efficient but more genuinely democratic, asserting further that the German system is best calculated to give mankind prosperity and peace. The German Emperor, he declares, is a truly great man, exceedingly intelligent and highly cultured.

In relation to American interests in the war, he points out that the much derided German militarism was very useful to us in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and that without it the results might have been different. Against this he sets the fact that Great Britain's attitude toward us has always, during a crisis, been that of an enemy and against us. He claims that every true American interest requires the maintenance of the German Empire in its present organization and power in Middle Europe.

He favors the idea that our next formulation of the Monroe Doctrine will be that there shall be no colonial dependencies in North America of any European power. Canada, as at present constituted, is a danger to us.

Belgian neutrality also receives his attention, and he asserts that Belgium has Great Britain to thank for every drop of blood shed by her people and for all her devastation.


I. The Occasions of the War.
II. The Proximate Causes of the War.
III. The Underlying Causes of the War.
IV. American Interests in the Outcome of the War.
V. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Crime at Sarajevo.
VI. Belgian Neutrality.
VII. The Export of Arms and Munitions to Belligerents.
VIII. The German Emperor.

Price $1.00, postage extra
Mailing weight, 14 ounces

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.


Psychoanalytic Review
Edited by Drs. Wm. A. White and Smith Ely Jelliffe

A QUARTERLY JOURNAL founded in 1913 devoted to the understanding of human conduct, with especial reference to the problems of psychopathology. Human motives, especially in their unconscious manifestations, will receive special attention as they appear in the normal as well as abnormal fields.


Contents of the July Number


Psychoanalysis. C. G. Jung.
Role of Sexual Complex in Dementia Praecox. Jas. C. Hassall.

Psycho-Genetics of Androcratic Evolution. Theo. Schroeder.

Technique of Psychoanalysis. Smith Ely Jelliffe.


Significance of Psychoanalysis for the Mental Sciences. Otto Rank and Hanns Sachs.

Wishfulfillment and Symbolism in Fairy Tales. Franz Riklin.


Book Reviews. Varia.

Orders received at any time at

Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.
64 West 56th Street, New York


The Journal of Philosophy Psychology and Scientific Methods

There is no similar journal in the field of scientific philosophy. It is issued fortnightly and permits the quick publication of short contributions, prompt reviews, and timely discussions. The contents of recent issues include the following:

Psychological Doctrine and Philosophical Teaching. John Dewey.

Time and Pure Activity. Walter B. Pitkin.

The Function and Scope of Social Philosophy. Harry Allen Overstreet.

History versus Value. Morris R. Cohen.

The Pulse of Life. Edgar A. Singer, Jr.

The Vice of Modern Philosophy. W. H. Sheldon.

Philosophic Sanction of Ambition. George Santayana.

Natural Rights and the Theory of the Political Institution. George H. Mead.

The Principle of International Ethics. A. C. Armstrong.

Forthcoming numbers will contain important articles by Professors J. T. Shotwell, Roy Wood Sellars, George H. Sabine, H. B. Alexander, Theodore de Laguna, John Dewey, H. A. Overstreet, James H. Leuba, and Edwin B. Holt.

The Journal of Philosophy Psychology and Scientific Methods
Substation 84, New York City

$3.00 per annum (26 numbers) 15 cents per copy




This remarkable stirring monthly will wake you up and make you think. It is a protest against mediocrity and smug complacency. The foremost writers in the world contribute to this unique publication.

Here are some of the authors who have written for THE INTERNATIONAL:

Rabindranath Tagore
Aleister Crowley
Gerhart Hauptmann
George Bernard Shaw
Arthur Schnitzler
Arthur Symons
Houston Stewart Chamberlain
Benjamin De Casseres
Prof. Aleis Brandl
Hanns Heinz Ewers
Daniel Carson Goodman
T. Everett Harre
Joseph Bernard Rethy
Herman Sudermann
Frank Harris

and many other brilliant writers from all over the world.

Special Offer, $1 for 10 Months
15 Cents a copy — $1.50 a year



Publications of the American Mathematical Society

TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY. The Transactions is devoted to research in pure and applied mathematics and is the official organ of the Society for the publication of important original papers. Published quarterly. Subscription price for the annual volume, $5.00.

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY. Devoted largely to critical reviews of mathematical books, the Bulletin also contains reports of the meetings of the Society and of other mathematical bodies, short original papers, reports on progress in the science, lists of new publications, and notes on current events in the mathematical world. Published monthly, except August and September. Subscription price for the annual volume, $5.00.

THE EVANSTON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. Delivered at the Chicago Congress of Mathematics, 1893, by Felix Klein. Republished by the Society, 1911. Price, 75 cents.

THE BOSTON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. Delivered before the Society, Boston, 1903, by H. S. White, F. S. Woods, and E. B. Van Vleck. Price, $2.00.

THE NEW HAVEN MATHEMATICAL COLLOQUIUM. 1906. By E. H. Moore, E. J. Wilczynski, and Max Mason. $3.00.

THE PRINCETON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. 1909. By. G. A. Bliss and Edward Kasner. $1.50.

THE MADISON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. 1913. By L. E. Dickson and W. F. Osgood. $2.00

Circulars sent on request. Address all orders to

American Mathematical Society
501 West 116th Street, New York City

The American Mathematical Society was organized in 1894 and includes among its 700 members nearly all the mathematicians of the United States. The annual dues are $5.00; admission fee, $5.00. Members receive the Bulletin without further charge, and are entitled to a reduced price on the other publications of the Society. Meetings are held ten times a year in New York, Chicago, and other cities. The Society has a library of over 5000 volumes.



"An exact determination of the laws of heredity will probably work more change in man's outlook on the world, and in his power over nature, than any other advance in natural knowledge that can be clearly foreseen." — William Bateson, late president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

Biologists and mathematicians have united to open this field of knowledge during recent years. The discoveries which they have made find their application not only in the improvement of races of cultivated plants and domesticated animals, but in the interpretation of human society and the racial improvement of Man.

The American Genetic Association, founded in 1903. has led in making known the research in this branch of science. Its publications form the most valuable collection which has appeared in the United States, of genetic literature for the scientist, teacher, publicist, physician, clergyman, student, horticulturist, breeder of live-stock. Five volumes of its proceedings are out of print, but a limited number of the remaining three are now on sale at half the original price.

Vol. VI (1910) contains 465 pages, illustrated. It includes 80 papers on general genetics, plant-breeding, animal-breeding, eugenics, and among the contributors are practically all the leaders in this study in the United States. Send for table of contents. Issued at $2.00, now offered at $1.00.

Vol. VII (1911) and Vol. VIII (1912), bound in one volume of 593 pages, illustrated, and including 73 papers on the most vital and interesting features of genetics. Each paper is written by a specialist, and in most cases describes the result of original work. Issued at $3.00, now offered at $1.50.

Some back numbers of the American Breeders' Magazine and Journal of Heredity are also available.


511 Eleventh Street Northwest, Washington, D. C.


Goethe; With Special Consideration of His Philosophy

This voluminous and richly illustrated work by Dr. Paul Carus describes Goethe the poet, the thinker and the man, and brings to light many interesting features which have hitherto been little heeded. Cloth, $3.00

Friedrich Schiller

"This adequately illustrated and tastefully bound volume by Dr. Paul Carus is an admirable memorial of the recent Schiller Centenary. In addition to a biographical sketch we have two thoughtful essays by Dr. Carus on Schiller as a philosophical poet and on Schiller's poetry. Both have well-chosen selections of considerable ex- tent, and it was a good idea to present these illustrative excerpts in both German and English." — The Outlook.
Boards, 75 cents


Goethe and Schiller's Xenions
Second revised edition.

A collection of satirical epigrams selected and translated by Paul Carus. Goethe and Schiller were great friends, and their "Xenions" were written in a spirit of what they called "poetical deviltry." These pithy aphorisms are household words in Germany and deserve a place of honor in the literature of the world. Cloth, $1.00

Chicago and London



A weekly journal which began publication on January 2, 1915, covering the whole field of education in relation to the problems of American democracy. Its objects are the advancement of education as a science and the adjustment of our lower and higher schools to the needs of modern life. Each number will ordinarily contain articles and addresses of some length, shorter contributions, discussion and correspondence, reviews and abstracts, reports and quotations, proceedings of societies and a department of educational notes and news.
Annual subscription $3.00; single copies 10 cents


A weekly journal, established in 1883, devoted to the advancement of the natural and exact sciences, the official organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. For twenty years Science has been conducted by its present editor, on the lines which will be followed by School and Society, and is now generally regarded as the professional journal of American men of science.
Annual subscription $5.00; single copies 15 cents

An illustrated magazine, established in 1872, devoted to the diffusion of science, publishing articles by leading authorities in all departments of pure and applied science, including the applications of science to education and society.
Annual subscription $3.00; single copies 30 cents

A monthly journal, established in 1867, devoted to the biological sciences with special reference to the factors of organic evolution.
Annual subscription $4.00; single copies 40 cents

A biographical directory, containing the records of about 5,500 scientific men.
Price, $5.00 net

A series of volumes for the promotion of scientific research and educational progress.

Volume I. The Foundations of Science. By H. Poincare. Containing the authorized English translation by George Bruce Halsted of "Science and Hypothesis," "The Value of Science," and "Science and Method." ' Price, $3.00 net

Volume II. Medical Research and Education. By Richard Mills Pearce, William H. Welch, C. S. Minot and other authors. Price, $3.00 net

Volume III. University Control. By J. McKcen Cattell and other authors. Price, $3.00 net

Lancaster, Pa., Sub-Station 84, New York City, Garrison, N. Y.

Lancaster, Pa., and Garrison, N. Y.
Please find enclosed check or money order for _____ in payment for the publications checked above.
Name _____
Address _____
Date _____


Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series

This series, of which twenty-one numbers have appeared, was designed to present to English speaking neurologists and psychiatrists, the leading, moving advances in their respective specialties. A list of the numbers thus far published follows.

No. 1. Outlines of Psychiatry. (Fourth Edition, 1913.) By WM. A. WHITE, M.D., Price $3.00.
A clearly written and concise presentation of psychiatry, especially adapted for use in teaching and in public institutions for mental diseases.

No. 4. Selected Papers on Hysteria and Other Psychoneuroses. (Second Edition, 1912.) By PROF. S. FREUD, M.D., Price $2.50. Tr. by Dr. A. A. Brill.
A selection of some of the more important of Freud's writings.

No. 5. Wassermann Serum Reaction in Psychiatry. By FELIX PLAUT, M.D., Price $2.00. Tr. by Drs. Jelliffe and Casamajor.
A most complete setting forth of the principles of the Wassermann Reaction by one of the original investigators in this field, especially adapted for laboratories and for use in institutions.

No. 7. Three Contributions to Sexual Theory. By PROF. SIGMUND FREUD, Price $2.00. Tr. by Dr. A. A. Brill.
A most important contribution to the psychology of psycho-sexual development.

No. 9. Studies in Psychiatry. By Members of the New York Psychiatrical Society, Price $2.00. (Illustrated.)
A collection of papers on different psychiatric subjects written by Members of the New York Psychiatrical Society.

No. 11. The Theory of Schizophrenic Negativism. By PROF. E. BLEULER, Price $.60. Tr. by Dr. W. A. White.
A short exposition of the author's theory of autistic thinking as applied to the problem of negativism.

No. 12. Cerebellar Functions. By DR. ANDRE-THOMAS, Price $3.00. (Illustrated,) Tr. by Dr. C. Herring.
A complete summary of the anatomy and physiology of the cerebellum and their application to the problems of clinical medicine. The most complete work on the subject in English.

No. 13. History of the Prison Psychoses. By DRS. P. NITSCHE and K. WILMANNS, Price $1.25. Tr. by Drs. Barnes and Glueck.
The only complete exposition in English of the history of the prison psychoses and the present-day concept of this group of mental disturbances.

No. 14. General Paresis. By PROF. E. KRAEPELIN, Price $3.00. (Illustrated.) Tr. by Dr. J. W. Moore.
A masterly presentation of the subject of general paresis by the renowned Munich professor.

No. 15. Dreams and Myths. By DR. KARL ABRAHAM, Price $1.00. Tr. by Dr. W. A. White.
A very lucid presentation of Freud's theory of dreams and the application of the principles of dream interpretation to the understanding of certain myths. A study in comparative mythology from the standpoint of dream psychology.

No. 16. Poliomyelitis. By DR. I. WICKMANN, Price $2.00. (Illustrated.) Tr. by Dr. W. J. Maloney.
A complete exposition of the poliomyelitis situation.

No. 17. Freud's Theories of the Neuroses. By DR. E. HITSCHMANN, Price $2.00. Tr. by Dr. C. H. Payne.
A brief and clear summary of Freud's theories and their application to the problems of the neuroses and the psychoneouroses.

No. 18. The Myth of the Birth of the Hero. By DR. O. RANK, Price $1.00.
A psychological interpretation of mythology. Tr. by Drs. F. Robbins and Smith Ely Jeliffe.

No. 19. The Theory of Psychoanalysis. By DR. C. JUNG, Price $1.50.
A concise statement of the present aspects of the psychoanalytic hypotheses.

Order accompanied by cash, P. O. order, check or Express order should be sent to

Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing: Co.
64 W. 56th St., New York.


Timely Editorial in the Chicago Tribune and a Timely Book for American Citizens

THE constitution of the United States provides specifically that, the power to declare war rests with congress. By evasion the president can create a condition whereby war must follow, or by blundering he may bring war upon us through the initiative of another country. The first course is immoral, the second is inane. We do not believe that President Wilson is either.

If President Wilson contemplates making war or contemplates steps which might lead to war, the only thing for him to do is to call a special session of congress and lay before congress the situation as only he and his confidential advisers know it to be. Certainly it would lead to a nation-wide campaign. Certainly this would show a national division. But if war is contemplated public opinion should be consulted before taking any unredeemable step. Certainly men will be found who will assail the president for political and personal reasons, and even worse. Just as certainly men will be found who will sacrifice politics and personal interest for patriotism.

Finally, this nation has never faced the present international situation as a nation. The larger part of the public expression has been on the part of and spoken in the interests of or at least in sympathy with one or another of the foreign nations.

We have not as a nation considered our interests as a nation. We have never considered what a German victory would bring to us. We have never considered what an allied victory would mean to us. We have never considered the price of war. We have never considered the price of peace. The violent and objectionable agitation which must follow the consideration of these subjects in congress will compel us for once to see our national interest.

Read the following book and reflect on its conclusions


By the Author of "PAN-GERMANISM"

ROLAND G. USHER'S forecast of the inevitable clash between the United States and Europe's victor

DO YOU REALIZE THAT to maintain the Monroe Doctrine will compel us to declare war on Europe's victor?

DO YOU KNOW THAT the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at England and not at Spain?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT it has defended South America in the past?

DO YOU REALIZE THAT the United States may lie at the mercy of Europe's victor?

DO YOU KNOW THAT she may be defended without the firing of a shot by either army or navy?

Price $2.00 Net, Postage 10 Cents

The Open Court Publishing Company
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:59 am

Evelyn Underhill
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/26/20

By the mid-1890s, the Golden Dawn was well established in Great Britain, with over one hundred members from every class of Victorian society. Many celebrities belonged to the Golden Dawn, such as the actress Florence Farr, the Irish revolutionary Maud Gonne, the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, the Welsh author Arthur Machen, and the English authors Evelyn Underhill and Aleister Crowley.

-- Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, by Wikipedia

Evelyn Underhill
Born: 6 December 1875, Wolverhampton, England
Died: 15 June 1941 (aged 65), London, England
Occupation: Novelist, writer, mystic
Genre: Christian mysticism, spirituality
Notable works: Mysticism

Evelyn Underhill (6 December 1875 – 15 June 1941) was an English Anglo-Catholic writer and pacifist known for her numerous works on religion and spiritual practice, in particular Christian mysticism.

In the English-speaking world, she was one of the most widely read writers on such matters in the first half of the 20th century. No other book of its type—until the appearance in 1946 of Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy—met with success to match that of her best-known work, Mysticism, published in 1911.[1]


Underhill was born in Wolverhampton. She was a poet and novelist, as well as a pacifist and mystic. An only child, she described her early mystical insights as "abrupt experiences of the peaceful, undifferentiated plane of reality—like the 'still desert' of the mystic—in which there was no multiplicity nor need of explanation".[2] The meaning of these experiences became a lifelong quest and a source of private angst, provoking her to research and write.

Both her father and her husband were writers (on the law), London barristers, and yachtsmen. She and her husband, Hubert Stuart Moore, grew up together and were married on 3 July 1907. The couple had no children. She travelled regularly within Europe, primarily Switzerland, France and Italy, where she pursued her interests in art and Catholicism, visiting numerous churches and monasteries. Neither her husband (a Protestant) nor her parents shared her interest in spiritual matters.

Underhill was called simply "Mrs Moore" by many of her friends, but was not without her detractors[citation needed]. She was a prolific author and published over 30 books either under her maiden name, Underhill, or under the pseudonym "John Cordelier", as was the case for the 1912 book The Spiral Way. Initially an agnostic, she gradually began to acquire an interest in Neoplatonism and from there was increasingly drawn to Catholicism against the objections of her husband, eventually becoming a prominent Anglo-Catholic. Her spiritual mentor from 1921 to 1924 was Baron Friedrich von Hügel, who was appreciative of her writing yet concerned with her focus on mysticism and who encouraged her to adopt a much more Christocentric view as opposed to the theistic and intellectual one she had previously held. She described him as "the most wonderful personality. saintly, truthful, sane and tolerant" (Cropper, p. 44) and was influenced by him toward more charitable, down-to-earth activities. After his death in 1925, her writings became more focused on the Holy Spirit and she became prominent in the Anglican Church as a lay leader of spiritual retreats, a spiritual director for hundreds of individuals, guest speaker, radio lecturer, and proponent of contemplative prayer.

Underhill came of age in the Edwardian era, at the turn of the 20th century and, like most of her contemporaries, had a decided romantic bent. The enormous excitement in those days was mysteriously compounded of the psychic, the psychological, the occult, the mystical, the medieval, the advance of science, the apotheosis of art, the re-discovery of the feminine, the unashamedly sensuous, and the most ethereally "spiritual" (Armstrong, p. xiii–xiv). Anglicanism seemed to her out-of-key with this, her world. She sought the centre of life as she and many of her generation conceived it, not in the state religion, but in experience and the heart. This age of "the soul" was one of those periods when a sudden easing of social taboos brings on a great sense of personal emancipation and desire for an El Dorado despised by an older, more morose and insensitive generation.[1]

As an only child, she was devoted to her parents and, later, to her husband. She was fully engaged in the life of a barrister's daughter and wife, including the entertainment and charitable work that entailed, and pursued a daily regimen that included writing, research, worship, prayer and meditation. It was a fundamental axiom of hers that all of life was sacred, as that was what "incarnation" was about.

She was a cousin of Francis Underhill, Bishop of Bath and Wells.


Underhill was educated at home, except for three years at a private school in Folkestone, and subsequently read history and botany at King's College London. She was conferred with an honorary Doctorate of Divinity from Aberdeen University and made a fellow of King's College. She was the first woman to lecture to the clergy in the Church of England as well as the first woman officially to conduct spiritual retreats for the Church. She was also the first woman to establish ecumenical links between churches and one of the first woman theologians to lecture in English colleges and universities, which she did frequently. Underhill was an award-winning bookbinder, studying with the most renowned masters of the time. She was schooled in the classics, well read in Western spirituality, well informed (in addition to theology) in the philosophy, psychology, and physics of her day, and was a writer and reviewer for The Spectator.

Early work

Before undertaking many of her better known expository works on mysticism, she first published a small book of satirical poems on legal dilemmas, The Bar-Lamb's Ballad Book, which received a favorable welcome. Underhill then wrote three highly unconventional though profoundly spiritual novels. Like Charles Williams and later, Susan Howatch, Underhill uses her narratives to explore the sacramental intersection of the physical with the spiritual. She then uses that sacramental framework very effectively to illustrate the unfolding of a human drama. Her novels are entitled The Grey World (1904), The Lost Word (1907), and The Column of Dust (1909). In her first novel, The Grey World, described by one reviewer as an extremely interesting psychological study, the hero's mystical journey begins with death, and then moves through reincarnation, beyond the grey world, and into the choice of a simple life devoted to beauty, reflecting Underhill's own serious perspective as a young woman.

It seems so much easier in these days to live morally than to live beautifully. Lots of us manage to exist for years without ever sinning against society, but we sin against loveliness every hour of the day.[3]

The Lost Word and The Column of Dust are also concerned with the problem of living in two worlds and reflect the writer's own spiritual challenges. In the 1909 novel, her heroine encounters a rift in the solid stuff of her universe:

She had seen, abruptly, the insecurity of those defences which protect our illusions and ward off the horrors of truth. She had found a little hole in the wall of appearances; and peeping through, had caught a glimpse of that seething pot of spiritual forces whence, now and then, a bubble rises to the surface of things.[4]

Underhill's novels suggest that perhaps for the mystic, two worlds may be better than one. For her, mystical experience seems inseparable from some kind of enhancement of consciousness or expansion of perceptual and aesthetic horizons—to see things as they are, in their meanness and insignificance when viewed in opposition to the divine reality, but in their luminosity and grandeur when seen bathed in divine radiance. But at this stage the mystic's mind is subject to fear and insecurity, its powers undeveloped. The first novel takes us only to this point. Further stages demand suffering, because mysticism is more than merely vision or cultivating a latent potentiality of the soul in cosy isolation. According to Underhill's view, the subsequent pain and tension, and final loss of the private painful ego-centered life for the sake of regaining one's true self, has little to do with the first beatific vision. Her two later novels are built on the ideal of total self-surrender even to the apparent sacrifice of the vision itself, as necessary for the fullest possible integration of human life. This was for her the equivalent of working out within, the metaphorical intent of the life story of Jesus. One is reunited with the original vision—no longer as mere spectator but as part of it. This dimension of self-loss and resurrection is worked out in The Lost Word, but there is some doubt as to its general inevitability. In The Column of Dust, the heroine's physical death reinforces dramatically the mystical death to which she has already surrendered. Two lives are better than one but only on the condition that a process of painful re-integration intervenes to re-establish unity between Self and Reality.[1]

All her characters derive their interest from the theological meaning and value which they represent, and it is her ingenious handling of so much difficult symbolic material that makes her work psychologically interesting as a forerunner of such 20th-century writers as Susan Howatch, whose successful novels also embody the psychological value of religious metaphor and the traditions of Christian mysticism. Her first novel received critical acclaim, but her last was generally derided. However, her novels give remarkable insight into what we may assume was her decision to avoid what St. Augustine described as the temptation of fuga in solitudinem ("the flight into solitude"), but instead acquiescing to a loving, positive acceptance of this world. Not looking back, by this time she was already working on her magnum opus.

Writings on religion

Mysticism (1911)

Underhill's greatest book, Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness, was published in 1911, and is distinguished by the very qualities which make it ill-suited as a straightforward textbook. The spirit of the book is romantic, engaged, and theoretical rather than historical or scientific. Underhill has little use for theoretical explanations and the traditional religious experience, formal classifications or analysis. She dismisses William James' pioneering study, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), and his "four marks of the mystic state" (ineffability, noetic quality, transience, and passivity). James had admitted that his own constitution shut him off almost entirely from the enjoyment of mystical states, thus his treatment was purely objective. Underhill substituted (1) mysticism is practical, not theoretical, (2) mysticism is an entirely spiritual activity, (3) the business and method of mysticism is love, and (4) mysticism entails a definite psychological experience. Her insistence on the psychological approach was that it was the glamorous science of the pre-war period, offering the potential key to the secrets of human advances in intelligence, creativity, and genius, and already psychological findings were being applied in theology (i.e., William Sanday's Christologies Ancient and Modern).[1]

She divided her subject into two parts: the first, an introduction, and the second, a detailed study of the nature and development of human consciousness. In the first section, in order to free the subject of mysticism from confusion and misapprehension, she approached it from the point of view of the psychologist, the symbolist and the theologian. To separate mysticism from its most dubious connection, she included a chapter on mysticism and magic. At the time, and still today, mysticism is associated with the occult, magic, secret rites, and fanaticism, while she knew the mystics throughout history to be the world's spiritual pioneers.

She divided her map of "the way" into five stages: the first was the "Awakening of Self". She quotes Henry Suso (disciple of Meister Eckhart):

That which the Servitor saw had no form neither any manner of being; yet he had of it a joy such as he might have known in the seeing of shapes and substances of all joyful things. His heart was hungry, yet satisfied, his soul was full of contentment and joy: his prayers and his hopes were fulfilled. (Cropper p. 46)

Underhill tells how Suso's description of how the abstract truth (related to each soul's true nature and purpose), once remembered, contains the power of fulfilment became the starting point of her own path. The second stage she presents as psychological "Purgation of Self", quoting the Theologia Germanica (14th century, anonymous) regarding the transcendence of ego (Underhill's "little self"):

We must cast all things from us and strip ourselves of them and refrain from claiming anything for our own.

The third stage she titles "Illumination" and quotes William Law:

Everything in ...nature, is descended out that which is eternal, and stands as a. ..visible outbirth of it, so when we know how to separate out the grossness, death, and darkness. ..from it, we find. in its eternal state.

The fourth stage she describes as the "Dark Night of the Soul" (which her correspondence leads us to believe she struggled with throughout her life) wherein one is deprived of all that has been valuable to the lower self, and quoting Mechthild of Magdeburg:

...since Thou hast taken from me all that I had of Thee, yet of Thy grace leave me the gift which every dog has by nature: that of being true to Thee in my distress, when I am deprived of all consolation. This I desire more fervently than Thy heavenly Kingdom.

And last she devotes a chapter to the unitive life, the sum of the mystic way:

When love has carried us above all things into the Divine Dark, there we are transformed by the Eternal Word Who is the image of the Father; and as the air is penetrated by the sun, thus we receive in peace the Incomprehensible Light, enfolding us, and penetrating us. (Ruysbroech)

Where Underhill struck new ground was in her insistence that this state of union produced a glorious and fruitful creativeness, so that the mystic who attains this final perfectness is the most active doer – not the reclusive dreaming lover of God.

We are all the kindred of the mystics. ..Strange and far away from us though they seem, they are not cut off from us by some impassable abyss. They belong to us; the giants, the heroes of our race. As the achievement of genius belongs not to itself only but also to the society that brought it forth;...the supernal accomplishment of the mystics is ours also. ..our guarantee of the end to which immanent love, the hidden steersman. moving. on the path toward the Real. They come back to us from an encounter with life's most august secret. ..filled with amazing tidings which they can hardly tell. We, longing for some assurance. ..urge them to pass on their revelation. ..the old demand of the dim-sighted and incredulous. ..But they cannot. ..only fragments of the Symbolic Vision. According to their strength and passion, these lovers of the Absolute. ..have not shrunk from the suffering. ..Beauty and agony have called. ..have awakened a heroic response. For them the winter is over. ..Life new, unquenchable and lovely comes to meet them with the dawn. (Cropper, p. 47)

The book ends with an extremely valuable appendix, a kind of who's who of mysticism, which shows its persistence and interconnection from century to century.

Ruysbroeck (1914)

A work by Evelyn Underhill, on the 14th-century Flemish mystic Jan van Ruusbroec (1293–1381), entitled Ruysbroeck was published in London in 1914.[5] She had discussed him from several different perspectives during the course of her 1911 book on Mysticism.

I. Life. She starts with a biography, drawn mainly from two near-contemporary works on his life, each written by a fellow monastic: Pomerius,[6] and Gerard Naghel.[7]

His childhood was spent in the village of Ruysbroeck. [page 7] At eleven he ran away to Brussels, where he began to live with his uncle, John Hinckaert, a Canon at the Cathedral of St. Gudule, and a younger Canon, Francis van Coudenberg. [10] At twenty-four he was ordained a priest and became a prebend at St. Gudule. [12] At his first mass he envisioned his mother's spirit released from Purgatory and entering Heaven. [15] From age 26 to 50 Ruysbroeck was a cathedral chaplain at St. Gudule. [15] Although he "seemed a nobody to those who did not know him", he was developing a strong spiritual life, "a penetrating intellect, a fearless heart, deep knowledge of human nature, remarkable powers of expression". [17] At one point he wrote strong pamphlets and led a campaign against a heretical group, the Brethren of the Free Spirit led by Bloemardinne, who practiced a self-indulgent "mysticality". [18–20] Later, with the two now elderly Canons, he moved into the countryside at Groenendael ("Green Valley"). [21–22] Pomerius writes that he retired not to hide his light "but that he might tend it better" [22]. Five years later their community became a Priory under the Augustinian Canons. [23]

Many of his works were written during this period, often drawing lessons from nature. [24] He had a favorite tree under which he would sit and write what the 'Spirit' gave to him. [25] He solemnly affirmed that his works were composed under the "domination of an inspiring power", writes Underhill. [26] Pomerius says that Ruysbroeck could enter a state of contemplation in which he appeared surrounded by radiant light. [26–27] Alongside his spiritual ascent, Naghel says, he cultivated the friendship of those around him, enriching their lives. [27–28] He worked in the garden fields of the priory, and sought to help out creatures of the forest. [29–30] He moved from the senses to the transcendent without frontiers or cleavage, Underhill writes, these being for him "but two moods within the mind of God". [30] He counseled many who came to him, including Gerard Groot of the Brothers of the Common Life. [31] His advice would plumb the "purity and direction" of the seeker's will, and the seeker's love. [32] There, at Groenendael, he finally made a "leap to a more abundant life". [34] In The Sparkling Stone Ruysbroeck wrote about coming to know the love "which giveth more than one can take, and asketh more than one can pay". [34]

II. Works. Next, Underhill gives a bibliography of Ruysbroeck's eleven admittedly authentic works, providing details concerning each work's origin, nature, and contents, as well as their place in his writings. 1. The Spiritual Tabernacle; 2. The Twelve Points of True Faith; 3. The Book of the Four Temptations; 4. The Book of the Kingdom of God's Lovers; 5. The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage;[8] 6. The Mirror of Eternal Salvation or Book of the Blessed Sacraments; 7. The Seven Cloisters; 8. The Seven Degrees of the Ladder of Love; 9. The Book of the Sparkling Stone; 10. The Book of the Supreme Truth; 11. The Twelve Béguines. [36–51]

III. Doctrine of God. Several types of mystics are described. The first (e.g., St. Teresa) deals with personal psychological experiences and emotional reactions, leaving the nature of God to existing theology. [page 52] The second (e.g., Plotinus) has passion sprung from the vision of a philosopher; the intellect often is more active than the heart, yet like a poet such a mystic strives to sketch his vision of the Ultimate. [53] The greatest mystics (e.g., St. Augustine) embrace at once "the infinite and the intimate" so that "God is both near and far, and the paradox of transcendent-immanent Reality is a self-evident if an inexpressible truth." Such mystics "give us by turns a subjective and psychological, an objective and metaphysical, reading of spiritual experience." Here is Ruysbroeck. [53–54]

An apostolic mystic [55] represents humanity in its quest to discern the Divine Reality, she writes, being like "the artist extending our universe, the pioneer cutting our path, the hunter winning food for our souls." [56] Yet, although his experience is personal, his language is often drawn from tradition. [57] His words about an ineffable Nature of God, "a dim silence, and a wild desert," may be suggestive, musical, she writes, "which enchant rather than inform the soul". [58] Ruysbroeck goes venturing "to hover over that Abyss which is 'beyond Reason,' stammering and breaking into wild poetry in the desperate attempt to seize the unseizable truth." [55] "[T]he One is 'neither This nor That'." [61]

"God as known by man" is the Absolute One who combines and resolves the contradictory natures of time and eternity, becoming and being; who is both transcendent and immanent, abstract and personal, work and rest, the unmoved mover and movement itself. God is above the storm, yet inspires the flux. [59–60] The "omnipotent and ever-active Creator" who is "perpetually breathing forth His energetic Life in new births of being and new floods of grace." [60] Yet the soul may persist, go beyond this fruitful nature,[9] into the simple essence of God. There we humans would find that "absolute and abiding Reality, which seems to man Eternal Rest, the 'Deep Quiet of the Godhead,' the 'Abyss,' the 'Dim Silence'; and which we can taste indeed but never know. There, 'all lovers lose themselves'." [60]

The Trinity, according to Ruysbroeck, works in living distinctions, "the fruitful nature of the Persons." [61] The Trinity in itself is a Unity, yet a manifestation of the active and creative Divine, a Union of Three Persons, which is the Godhead. [60–61][10] Beyond and within the Trinity, or the Godhead, then, is the "fathomless Abyss" [60] that is the "Simple Being of God" that is "an Eternal Rest of God and of all created things." [61][11]

The Father is the unconditioned Origin, Strength and Power, of all things. [62] The Son is the Eternal Word and Wisdom that shines forth in the world of conditions. [62] The Holy Spirit is Love and Generosity emanating from the mutual contemplation of Father and Son. [62][12] The Three Persons "exist in an eternal distinction [emphasis added] for that world of conditions wherein the human soul is immersed". [63] By the acts of the Three Persons all created things are born; by the incarnation and crucifixion we human souls are adorned with love, and so to be drawn back to our Source. "This is the circling course of the Divine life-process." [63]

But beyond and above this eternal distinction lies "the superessential world, transcending all conditions, inaccessible to thought-- 'the measureless solitude of the Godhead, where God possesses Himself in joy.' This is the ultimate world of the mystic." [63–64] There, she continues, quoting Ruysbroeck:

"[W]e can speak no more of Father, Son and Holy Spirit nor of any creature; but only of one Being, which is the very substance of the Divine Persons. There were we all one before our creation; for this is our superessence... . There the Godhead is, in simple essence, without activity; Eternal Rest, Unconditioned Dark, the Nameless Being, the Superessence of all created things, and the simple and infinite Bliss of God and of all the Saints." [64][13]

"The simple light of this Being... includes and embraces the unity of the Divine Persons and the soul... ." It envelopes and irradiates the ground (movement) of human souls and the fruition of their adherence to God, finding union in the Divine life-process, the Rose. "And this is the union of God and the souls that love Him." [64–65][14]

IV. Doctrine of Humankind. For Ruysbroeck, "God is the 'Living Pattern of Creation' who has impressed His image on each soul, and in every adult spirit the character of that image must be brought from the hiddenness and realized." [66][15] The pattern is trinitarian; there are three properties of the human soul. First, resembling the Father, "the bare, still place to which consciousness retreats in introversion... ." [67] Second, following the Son, "the power of knowing Divine things by intuitive comprehension: man's fragmentary share in the character of the Logos, or Wisdom of God." [67–68] "The third property we call the spark of the soul. It is the inward and natural tendency of the soul towards its Source; and here do we receive the Holy Spirit, the Charity of God." [68].[16] So will God work within the human being; in later spiritual development we may form with God a Union, and eventually a Unity. [70–71][17]

The mighty force of Love is the 'very self-hood of God' in this mysterious communion. [72, 73] "As we lay hold upon the Divine Life, devour and assimilate it, so in that very act the Divine Life devours us, and knits us up into the mystical Body," she writes. "It is the nature of love," says Ruysbroeck, "ever to give and to take, to love and be loved, and these two things meet in whomsoever loves. Thus the love of Christ is both avid and generous... as He devours us, so He would feed us. If He absorbs us utterly into Himself, in return He gives us His very self again." [75–76][18] "Hungry love," "generous love," "stormy love" touches the human soul with its Divine creative energy and, once we become conscious of it, evokes in us an answering storm of love. "The whole of our human growth within the spiritual order is conditioned by the quality of this response; by the will, the industry, the courage, with which [we accept our] part in the Divine give-and-take." [74] As Ruysbroeck puts it:

That measureless Love which is God Himself, dwells in the pure deeps of our spirit, like a burning brazier of coal. And it throws forth brilliant and fiery sparks which stir and enkindle heart and senses, will and desire, and all the powers of the soul, with a fire of love; a storm, a rage, a measureless fury of love. These be the weapons with which we fight against the terrible and immense Love of God, who would consume all loving spirits and swallow them in Himself. Love arms us with its own gifts, and clarifies our reason, and commands, counsels and advises us to oppose Him, to fight against Him, and to maintain against Him our right to love, so long as we may. [74–75][19]

The drama of this giving and receiving Love constitutes a single act, for God is as an "ocean which ebbs and flows" or as an "inbreathing and outbreathing". [75, 76] "Love is a unifying power, manifested in motion itself, 'an outgoing attraction, which drags us out of ourselves and calls us to be melted and naughted in the Unity'; and all his deepest thoughts of it are expressed in terms of movement." [76][20]

Next, the spiritual development of the soul is addressed. [76–88] Ruysbroeck adumbrates how one may progress from the Active life, to the Interior life, to the Superessential life; these correspond to the three natural orders of Becoming, Being, and God, or to the three rôles of the Servant, the Friend, and the "hidden child" of God. [77, 85] The Active life focuses on ethics, on conforming the self's daily life to the Will of God, and takes place in the world of the senses, "by means". [78] The Interior life embraces a vision of spiritual reality, where the self's contacts with the Divine take place "without means". [78] The Superessential life transcends the intellectual plane, whereby the self does not merely behold, but rather has fruition of the Godhead in life and in love, at work and at rest, in union and in bliss. [78, 86, 87][21] The analogy with the traditional threefold way of Purgation, Illumination, and Union, is not exact. The Interior life of Ruysbroeck contains aspects of the traditional Union also, while the Superessential life "takes the soul to heights of fruition which few amongst even the greatest unitive mystics have attained or described." [78–79]

At the end of her chapter IV, she discusses "certain key-words frequent in Ruysbroeck's works," e.g., 'Fruition' [89], 'Simple' [89–90], 'Bareness' or 'Nudity' [90], and "the great pair of opposites, fundamental to his thought, called in the Flemish vernacular Wise and Onwise." [91–93][22] The Wise can be understood by the "normal man [living] within the temporal order" by use of "his ordinary mental furniture". [91] Yet regarding the Onwise he has "escaped alike from the tyrannies and comforts of the world" and made the "ascent into the Nought". [92][23] She comments, "This is the direct, unmediated world of spiritual intuition; where the self touches a Reality that has not been passed through the filters of sense and thought." [92] After a short quote from Jalālu'ddīn, she completes her chapter by presenting eighteen lines from Ruysbroeck's The Twelve Bêguines (cap. viii) which concern Contemplation:

Contemplation is a knowing that is in no wise ...
Never can it sink down into the Reason,
And above it can the Reason never climb. ...
It is not God,
But it is the Light by which we see Him.
Those who walk in the Divine Light of it
Discover in themselves the Unwalled.
That which is in no wise, is above Reason, not without it ...
The contemplative life is without amazement.
That which is in no wise sees, it knows not what;
For it is above all, and is neither This nor That. [93]

V, VI, VII, VIII. In her last four chapters, Underhill continues her discussion of Ruysbroeck, describing the Active Life [94–114], the Interior Life (Illumination and Destitution [115–135], Union and Contemplation [136–163]), and the Superessential Life [164–185].[24]

"The Mysticism of Plotinus" (1919)

An essay originally published in The Quarterly Review (1919),[25] and later collected in The Essentials of Mysticism and other essays (London: J. M. Dent 1920) at pp. 116–140.[26] Underhill here addresses Plotinus (204–270) of Alexandria and later of Rome.

A Neoplatonist as well as a spiritual guide, Plotinus writes regarding both formal philosophy and hands-on, personal, inner experience. Underhill makes the distinction between the geographer who draws maps of the mind, and the seeker who actually travels in the realms of spirit. [page 118] She observes that usually mystics do not follow the mere maps of metaphysicians. [page 117]

In the Enneads Plotinus presents the Divine as an unequal triune, in descending order: (a) the One, perfection, having nothing, seeking nothing, needing nothing, yet it overflows creatively, the source of being; [121] (b) the emitted Nous or Spirit, with intelligence, wisdom, poetic intuition, the "Father and Companion" of the soul; [121–122] and, (c) the emitted Soul or Life, the vital essence of the world, which aspires to communion with the Spirit above, while also directly engaged with the physical world beneath. [123]

People "come forth from God" and will find happiness once re-united, first with the Nous, later with the One. [125] Such might be the merely logical outcome for the metaphysician, yet Plotinus the seeker also presents this return to the Divine as a series of moral purgations and a shedding of irrational delusions, leading eventually to entry into the intuitively beautiful. [126] This intellectual and moral path toward a life aesthetic will progressively disclose an invisible source, the Nous, the forms of Beauty. [127] Love is the prevailing inspiration, although the One is impersonal. [128] The mystic will pass through stages of purification, and of enlightenment, resulting in a shift in the center of our being "from sense to soul, from soul to spirit," in preparation for an ultimate transformation of consciousness. [125, 127] Upon our arrival, we shall know ecstasy and "no longer sing out of tune, but form a divine chorus round the One." [129]

St. Augustine (354–430) criticizes such Neoplatonism as neglecting the needs of struggling and imperfect human beings. The One of Plotinus may act as a magnet for the human soul, but it cannot be said to show mercy, nor to help, or love, or redeem the individual on earth. [130] Other western mystics writing on the Neoplatonists mention this lack of "mutual attraction" between humanity and the unconscious, unknowable One. [130–131] In this regard Julian of Norwich (1342–1416) would write, "Our natural will is to have God, and the good-will of God is to have us." [130]

Plotinus leaves the problem of evil unresolved, but having no place in the blissful life; here, the social, ethical side of religion seems to be shorted. His philosophy does not include qualities comparable to the Gospel's divine "transfiguration of pain" through Jesus. [131] Plotinus "the self-sufficient sage" does not teach us charity, writes St. Augustine. [132]

Nonetheless, Underhill notes, Plotinus and Neoplatonism were very influential among the mystics of Christianity (and Islam). St. Augustine the Church Father was himself deeply affected by Plotinus, and through him the western Church. [133–135, 137] So, too, was Dionysius (5th century, Syria), whose writings would also prove very influential. [133, 135] As well were others, e.g., Erigena [135], Dante [136], Ruysbroeck [136, 138], Eckhart [138], and Boehme [139].

Worship (1936)

In her preface,[27] the author disclaims being "a liturgical expert". Neither is it her purpose to offer criticism of the different approaches to worship as practiced by the various religious bodies. Rather she endeavors to show "the love that has gone to their adornment [and] the shelter they can offer to many different kinds of adoring souls." She begins chapter one by declaring that "Worship, in all its grades and kinds, is the response of the creature to the Eternal: nor need we limit this definition to the human sphere. ...we may think of the whole of the Universe, seen and unseen, conscious and unconscious, as an act of worship."

The chapter headings give an indication of its contents.

Part I: 1. The Nature of Worship, 2. Ritual and Symbol, 3. Sacrament and Sacrifice, 4. The Character of Christian Worship, 5. Principles of Corporate Worship, 6. Liturgical Elements in Worship, 7. The Holy Eucharist: Its Nature, 8. The Holy Eucharist: Its Significance, 9. The Principles of Personal Worship.

Part II: 10. Jewish Worship, 11. The Beginnings of Christian Worship, 12. Catholic Worship: Western and Eastern, 13. Worship in the Reformed Churches, 14. Free Church Worship, 15. The Anglican Tradition. Conclusion.


Underhill's life was greatly affected by her husband's resistance to her joining the Catholic Church to which she was powerfully drawn. At first she believed it to be only a delay in her decision, but it proved to be lifelong. He was, however, a writer himself and was supportive of her writing both before and after their marriage in 1907, though he did not share her spiritual affinities. Her fiction was written in the six years between 1903–1909 and represents her four major interests of that general period: philosophy (neoplatonism), theism/mysticism, the Roman Catholic liturgy, and human love/compassion.[28] In her earlier writings Underhill often wrote using the terms "mysticism" and "mystics" but later began to adopt the terms "spirituality" and "saints" because she felt they were less threatening. She was often criticized for believing that the mystical life should be accessible to the average person.

Her fiction was also influenced by the literary creed expounded by her close friend Arthur Machen, mainly his Hieroglyphics of 1902, summarised by his biographer:

There are certain truths about the universe and its constitution – as distinct from the particular things in it that come before our observation – which cannot be grasped by human reason or expressed in precise words: but they can be apprehended by some people at least, in a semi-mystical experience, called ecstasy, and a work of art is great insofar as this experience is caught and expressed in it. Because, however, the truths concerned transcend a language attuned to the description of material objects, the expression can only be through hieroglyphics, and it is of such hieroglyphics that literature consists.

In Underhill's case the quest for psychological realism is subordinate to larger metaphysical considerations which she shared with Arthur Machen. Incorporating the Holy Grail into their fiction (stimulated perhaps by their association with Arthur Waite and his affiliation with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), for Machen the Holy Grail was perhaps "the" hieroglyph, "the" crystallisation in one sacred emblem of all man's transcendental yearning, "the" gateway to vision and lasting appeasement of his discontents, while for her it was the center of atonement-linked meanings as she pointed out to Margaret Robinson in a letter responding to Robinson's criticism of Underhill's last novel:

Don't marvel at your own temerity in criticising. Why should you? Of course, this thing wasn't written for you – I never write for anyone at all, except in letters of direction! But, I take leave to think the doctrine contained in it is one you'll have to assimilate sooner or later and which won't do you any harm. It's not "mine" you know. You will find it all in Eckhart. ... They all know, as Richard of St Victor said, that the Fire of Love "burns." We have not fulfilled our destiny when we have sat down at a safe distance from it, purring like overfed cats, 'suffering is the ancient law of love' – and its highest pleasure into the bargain, oddly enough. ... A sponge cake and milk religion is neither true to this world nor to the next. As for the Christ being too august a word for our little hardships – I think it is truer that it is "so" august as to give our little hardships a tincture of Royalty once we try them up into it. I don't think a Pattern which was 'meek & lowly' is likely to fail of application to very humble and ordinary things. For most of us don't get a chance "but" the humble and ordinary: and He came that we might all have life more abundantly, according to our measure. There that's all![29]

Two contemporary philosophical writers dominated Underhill's thinking at the time she wrote "Mysticism": Rudolf Eucken and Henri Bergson. While neither displayed an interest in mysticism, both seemed to their disciples to advance a spiritual explanation of the universe. Also, she describes the fashionable creed of the time as "vitalism" and the term adequately sums up the prevailing worship of life in all its exuberance, variety and limitless possibility which pervaded pre-war culture and society. For her, Eucken and Bergson confirmed the deepest intuitions of the mystics. (Armstrong, Evelyn Underhill)

Among the mystics, Ruysbroeck was to her the most influential and satisfying of all the medieval mystics, and she found herself very much at one with him in the years when he was working as an unknown priest in Brussels, for she herself had also a hidden side.

His career which covers the greater part of the fourteenth century, that golden age of Christian Mysticism, seems to exhibit within the circle of a single personality, and carry up to a higher term than ever before, all the best attainments of the Middle Ages in the realm of Eternal life. The central doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, and of the soul's power to become the Son of God, it is this raised to the nth degree of intensity...and demonstrated with the exactitude of the mathematician, and the passion of a poet, which Ruysbroeck gives us...the ninth and tenth chapters of The Sparkling Stone the high water mark of mystical literature. Nowhere else do we find such a combination of soaring vision with the most delicate and intimate psychological analysis. The old Mystic sitting under his tree, seems here to be gazing at and reporting to us the final secrets of that Eternal World... (Cropper, p. 57)

One of her most significant influences and important collaborations was with the Nobel Laureate, Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian mystic, author, and world traveler. They published a major translation of the work of Kabir (100 Poems of Kabir, calling Songs of Kabir) together in 1915, to which she wrote the introduction. He introduced her to the spiritual genius of India which she expressed enthusiastically in a letter:

This is the first time I have had the privilege of being with one who is a Master in the things I care so much about but know so little of as yet: & I understand now something of what your writers mean when they insist on the necessity and value of the personal teacher and the fact that he gives something which the learner cannot get in any other way. It has been like hearing the language of which I barely know the alphabet, spoken perfectly.(Letters)

They did not keep up their correspondence in later years. Both suffered debilitating illnesses in the last year of life and died in the summer of 1941, greatly distressed by the outbreak of World War II.

Evelyn in 1921 was to all outward appearances, in an assured and enviable position. She had been asked by the University of Oxford to give the first of a new series of lectures on religion, and she was the first woman to have such an honour. She was an authority on her own subject of mysticism and respected for her research and scholarship. Her writing was in demand, and she had an interesting and notable set of friends, devoted readers, a happy marriage and affectionate and loyal parents. At the same time she felt that her foundations were insecure and that her zeal for Reality was resting on a basis that was too fragile.

By 1939, she was a member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship, writing a number of important tracts expressing her anti-war sentiment.

After returning to the Anglican Church, and perhaps overwhelmed by her knowledge of the achievements of the mystics and their perilous heights, her ten-year friendship with Catholic philosopher and writer Baron Friedrich von Hügel turned into one of spiritual direction. Charles Williams wrote in his introduction to her Letters: 'The equal swaying level of devotion and scepticism (related to the church) which is, for some souls, as much the Way as continuous simple faith is to others, was a distress to her...She wanted to be "sure." Writing to Von Hügel of the darkness she struggled with:

What ought I to do?...being naturally self-indulgent and at present unfortunately professionally very prosperous and petted, nothing will get done unless I make a Rule. Neither intellectual work nor religion give me any real discipline because I have a strong attachment to both. is useless advising anything people could notice or that would look pious. That is beyond me. In my lucid moments I see only too clearly that the only possible end of this road is complete, unconditional self-consecration, and for this I have not the nerve, the character or the depth. There has been some sort of mistake. My soul is too small for it and yet it is at bottom the only thing that I really want. It feels sometimes as if, whilst still a jumble of conflicting impulses and violent faults I were being pushed from behind towards an edge I dare not jump over."[30]

In a later letter of 12 July the Baron's practical concerns for signs of strain in Evelyn's spiritual state are expressed. His comments give insight into her struggles:

I do not at all like this craving for absolute certainty that this or that experience of yours, is what it seems to yourself. And I am assuredly not going to declare that I am absolutely certain of the final and evidential worth of any of those experiences. They are not articles of faith. .. You are at times tempted to scepticism and so you long to have some, if only one direct personal experience which shall be beyond the reach of all reasonable doubt. But such an escape. ..would ...possibly be a most dangerous one, and would only weaken you, or shrivel you, or puff you up. By all means...believe them, if and when they humble and yet brace you, to be probably from God. But do not build your faith upon them; do not make them an end when they exist only to be a means...I am not sure that God does want a marked preponderance of this or that work or virtue in our life – that would feed still further your natural temperament, already too vehement. (Cropper biography)

Although Underhill continued to struggle to the end, craving certainty that her beatific visions were purposeful, suffering as only a pacifist can from the devastating onslaught of World War II and the Church's powerlessness to affect events, she may well have played a powerful part in the survival of her country through the influence of her words and the impact of her teachings on thousands regarding the power of prayer. Surviving the London Blitz of 1940, her health disintegrated further and she died in the following year. She is buried with her husband in the churchyard extension at St John-at-Hampstead in London.

More than any other person, she was responsible for introducing the forgotten authors of medieval and Catholic spirituality to a largely Protestant audience and the lives of eastern mystics to the English-speaking world. As a frequent guest on radio, her 1936 work The Spiritual Life was especially influential as transcribed from a series of broadcasts given as a sequel to those by Dom Bernard Clements on the subject of prayer. Fellow theologian Charles Williams wrote the introduction to her published Letters in 1943, which reveal much about this prodigious woman. Upon her death, The Times reported that on the subject of theology, she was "unmatched by any of the professional teachers of her day."


Since 2000, the Church of England commemorates Underhill liturgically on 15 June. She is also honoured with a feast day in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (USA) on 15 June.



• The Bar-Lamb's Ballad Book (1902). Online
• Immanence (1916). Online
• Theophanies (1916). Online


• The Grey World (1904). Reprint Kessinger Publishing, 1942: ISBN 0-7661-0158-4. Online
• The Lost Word (1907).
• The Column of Dust (1909). Online

Religion (non-fiction)

• The Miracles of Our Lady Saint Mary: Brought Out of Divers Tongues and Newly Set Forth in English (1906) Online
• Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness (1911). Twelfth edition published by E. P. Dutton in 1930. Republished by Dover Publications in 2002 (ISBN 978-0-486-42238-1). See also online editions at Christian Classics Ethereal Library and at Wikisource.
• The Path of Eternal Wisdom. A mystical commentary on the Way of the Cross (1912).
• "Introduction" to her edition of the anonymous The Cloud of Unknowing (c. 1370) from the British Library manuscript [here entitled A Book of Contemplation the which is called the Cloud of Unknowing, in the which a Soul is oned with God] (London: John M. Walkins 1912); reprinted as Cloud of Unknowing (1998) [her "Introduction" at 5–37]; 2007: ISBN 1-60506-228-6; see her text at Google books.
• The Spiral Way. Being a meditation on the fifteen mysteries of the soul's ascent (1912).
• The Mystic Way. A psychological study of Christian origins (1914). Online
• Practical Mysticism. A Little Book for Normal People (1914); reprint 1942 (ISBN 0-7661-0141-X); reprinted by Vintage Books, New York 2003 [with Abba (1940)]: ISBN 0-375-72570-9; see text at Wikisource.
• Ruysbroeck (London: Bell 1915). Online
• "Introduction" to Songs of Kabir (1915) transl. by Rabindranath Tagore; reprint 1977 Samuel Weiser (ISBN 0-87728-271-4), text at 5–43.
• The Essentials of Mysticism and other essays (1920); reprint 1999 (ISBN 1-85168-195-7).[31]
• The Life of the Spirit and the Life of Today (1920). Online
• The Mystics of the Church (1925).
• Concerning the Inner Life (1927); reprint 1999 (ISBN 1-85168-194-9). Online
• Man and the Supernatural. A study in theism (1927).
• The House of the Soul (1929).
• The Light of Christ (1932).
• The Golden Sequence. A fourfold study of the spiritual life (1933).
• The School of Charity. Meditations on the Christian Creed (1934); reprinted by Longmans, London 1954 [with M.of S. (1938)].
• Worship (1936).
• The Spiritual Life (1936); reprint 1999 (ISBN 1-85168-197-3); see also online edition.
• The Mystery of Sacrifice. A study on the liturgy (1938); reprinted by Longmans, London 1954 [with S.of C. (1934)].
• Abba. A meditation on the Lord's Prayer (1940); reprint 2003 [with Practical Mysticism (1914)].
• The Letters of Evelyn Underhill (1943), as edited by Charles Williams; reprint Christian Classics 1989: ISBN 0-87061-172-0.
• Shrines and Cities of France and Italy (1949), as edited by Lucy Menzies.
• Fragments from an inner life. Notebooks of Evelyn Underhill (1993), as edited by Dana Greene.
• The Mysticism of Plotinus (2005) Kessinger offprint, 48 pages. Taken from The Essentials of Mysticism (1920).


• Fruits of the Spirit (1942) edited by R. L. Roberts; reprint 1982, ISBN 0-8192-1314-4
• Collected Papers of Evelyn Underhill (1946) edited by L. Menzies and introduced by L. Barkway.
• Lent with Evelyn Underhill (1964) edited by G. P. Mellick Belshaw.
• An Anthology of the Love of God. From the writings of Evelyn Underhill (1976) edited by L. Barkway and L. Menzies.
• The Ways of the Spirit (1990) edited by G. A. Brame; reprint 1993, ISBN 0-8245-1232-4
• Evelyn Underhill. Modern guide to the ancient quest for the Holy (1988) edited and introduced by D. Greene.
• Evelyn Underhill. Essential writings (2003) edited by E. Griffin.
• Radiance: A Spiritual Memoir (2004) edited by Bernard Bangley, ISBN 1-55725-355-2

See also

• John of Ruysbroeck
• John of the Cross


1. Armstrong, C.J.R., "Evelyn Underhill: An Introduction to Her Life and Writings", A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1975
2. Williams, Charles, editor, "The Letters of Evelyn Underhill", Longmans Green, pp. 122–23
3. Underhill, E., The Grey World, London: William Heinemann, 1904
4. Underhill, E., The Column of Dust, London: Methuen & Co., 1909
5. By G. Bell & Sons; since reprinted [no date, circa 2003] by Kessinger Publishing.
6. Canon Henricus Pomerius was prior of the monastery where Ruysbroeck resided, but two generations later; he spoke with several of those who had known Ruysbroeck well [pages 5–6] and may have based his history on the work of a contemporary of Ruysbroek.
7. Gerard Naghel was a contemporary and a close friend of Ruysbroeck, as well as being the neighboring prior; he wrote a shorter work about his life [6].
8. Also known as The Spiritual Espousals (e.g., Wiseman's translation in his John Ruusbroec (Paulist Press 1985); it is "the best known" of Ruysbroeck's works. [42].
9. "Fruition is one of the master-words of Ruysbroeck's thought," she observes. [page 59] Later she more fully discusses it, at [89].
10. Here, she comments, Ruysbroeck parallels the Hindu mystics, the Christian Neoplatonists, and Meister Eckhart. [61]
11. She quotes from The Twelve Béguines at cap. xiv.
12. "[F]or these two Persons are always hungry for love," she adds, quoting The Spiritual Marriage, lib. ii at cap. xxxvii.
13. She gives her source as The Seven Degrees of Love at cap. xiv.
14. She quotes from The Kingdom of God's Lovers at cap. xxix.
15. Evelyn Underhill here refers to Julian of Norwich and quotes her phrase on the human soul being "made Trinity, like to the unmade Blessed Trinity." Then our author makes the comparison of Ruysbroeck's uncreated Pattern of humankind to an archetype, and to a Platonic Idea. [68].
16. Here she quotes The Mirror of Eternal Salvation at cap. viii. Cf., [70].
17. She quotes Ruysbroeck, The Book of Truth at cap. xi, "[T]his union is in God, through grace and our homeward-tending love. Yet even here does the creature feel a distinction and otherness between itself and God in its inward ground." [71].
18. Quoting The Mirror of Eternal Salvation at cap. vii. She refers here to St. Francis of Assisi.
19. She again quotes from The Mirror of Eternal Salvation at cap. xvii.
20. Ruysbroeck, The Sparkling Stone at cap. x: quoted.
21. Re the Superessential life, citing The Twelve Béguines at cap. xiii [86]; and, The Seven Degrees of Love at cap. xiv [87].
22. These opposites are variously translated into English, Underhill sometimes favoring "in some wise" and "in no wise" or "conditioned' and "unconditioned" or "somehow" and "nohow". That is, the second opposite Onwise she gives it translated as no wise [93]. Cf., "Superessential" [85 & 86–87; 90–91].
23. Ruysbroeck, The Twelve Bêguines at cap. xii.
24. As mentioned, Underhill earlier addressed how Ruysbroeck distinguishes the Active, Interior, and Superessential at pages 76–88 in her book.
25. QR (1919) at 479–497.
26. Recently offprinted by Kessinger Publishing as The Mysticism of Plotinus (2005), 48 pages.
27. Evelyn Underhill, Worship (New York: Harper and Brothers 1936; reprint Harper Torchbook 1957) pp. vii–x.
28. name="Armstrong, C.J.R."
29. Armstrong, C. J. R., Evelyn Underhill: An Introduction to her Life and Writings, pp. 86–87, A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1975
30. Cropper, Margaret, Life of Evelyn Underhill, Harper & Brothers, 1958
31. This may be two different compilations, rather than a 1999 re-issue of the 1920 original.

Further reading

• A.M. Allchin, Friendship in God - The Encounter of Evelyn Underhill and Sorella Maria of Campello (SLG Press, Fairacres Oxford 2003)
• Margaret Cropper, The Life of Evelyn Underhill (New York 1958).
• Christopher J. R. Armstrong, Evelyn Underhil (1875–1941). An introduction to her life and writings (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1976).
• Michael Ramsey and A. M. Allchin, Evelyn Underhill. Two centenary essays (Oxford 1977).
• Annice Callahan, Evelyn Underhill: Spirituality for daily living (University Press of America 1997).
• Dana Greene, Evelyn Underhill. Artist of the infinite life (University of Notre Dame 1998).

External links

• Quotations related to Evelyn Underhill at Wikiquote
• Works related to Evelyn Underhill at Wikisource
• The Evelyn Underhill Association
• Evelyn Underhill bio and writing at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Evelyn Underhill at Internet Archive
• Works at Open Library
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at University of St. Andrews, [1]
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at King's College, London [2]
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at Virginia Theological Seminary [3]
• Christianity portal
• Biography portal
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

Postby admin » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:26 am

Part 1 of 3

David Lloyd George
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/26/20

The Right Honourable David Lloyd George OM PC (n.b.)
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
In office: 6 December 1916 – 19 October 1922
Monarch: George V
Preceded by: H. H. Asquith
Succeeded by: Bonar Law
Leader of the Liberal Party
In office: 14 October 1926 – 4 November 1931
Preceded by: H. H. Asquith
Succeeded by: Herbert Samuel
Secretary of State for War
In office: 6 July 1916 – 5 December 1916
Prime Minister: H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: The Earl Kitchener
Succeeded by: The Earl of Derby
Minister of Munitions
In office: 25 May 1915 – 9 July 1916
Prime Minister: H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: Office created
Succeeded by: Edwin Montagu
Chancellor of the Exchequer
In office: 12 April 1908 – 25 May 1915
Prime Minister: H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: H. H. Asquith
Succeeded by: Reginald McKenna
President of the Board of Trade
In office: 10 December 1905 – 12 April 1908
Prime Minister: Henry Campbell-Bannerman; H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: The Marquess of Salisbury
Succeeded by: Winston Churchill
Father of the House
In office: 31 May 1929 – 13 February 1945
Preceded by: T. P. O'Connor
Succeeded by: The Earl Winterton
Member of the House of Lord, Lord Temporal
In office: 1 January 1945 – 26 March 1945
Hereditary peerage
Preceded by: Peerage created
Succeeded by: The 2nd Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor
Member of Parliament for Carnarvon Boroughs
In office: 10 April 1890 – 13 February 1945
Preceded by: Edmund Swetenham[1]
Succeeded by: Seaborne Davies
Personal details
Born: 17 January 1863, Manchester, Lancashire, England
Died: 26 March 1945 (aged 82), Tŷ Newydd, Caernarfonshire, Wales
Resting place: Llanystumdwy, Gwynedd, Wales
Nationality: British
Political party: Liberal (1890–19161924–1945); Coalition Liberal (1916–1922); National Liberal (1922–1923)
Spouse(s): Margaret Owen, (m. 1888; died 1941); Frances Stevenson (m. 1943)
Children: 5 (including RichardGwilymMegan)
Occupation: Solicitor politician
n.b. Styled as 'The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor' from 1945.

David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM, PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a British statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1916 and 1922. He was the final Liberal to hold the post.

Lloyd George was born in Manchester to Welsh parents. His father—a schoolmaster—died in 1864 and he was raised in Wales by his mother and her shoemaker brother, whose Liberal politics and Baptist faith strongly influenced Lloyd George; the same uncle helped the boy embark on a career as a solicitor after leaving school. Lloyd George became active in local politics, gaining a reputation as an orator and a proponent of a Welsh blend of radical Liberalism which championed nonconformism and the disestablishment of the Anglican church in Wales, equality for labourers and tenant farmers, and reform of landownership. In 1890 he narrowly won a by-election to become the Member of Parliament for Caernarvon Boroughs, in which seat he remained for fifty-five years. Lloyd George served in Henry Campbell-Bannerman's cabinet from 1905. After H. H. Asquith succeeded to the premiership in 1908 Lloyd George replaced him as Chancellor of the Exchequer. To fund extensive welfare reforms he proposed taxes on land ownership and high incomes in the "People's Budget" (1909), which the Conservative-dominated House of Lords rejected. The resulting constitutional crisis was only resolved after two elections in 1910 and the passage of the Parliament Act 1911. His budget was then enacted alongside the National Insurance Act 1911 which helped to establish the modern welfare state. In 1913 he was embroiled in the Marconi scandal, but he remained in office and promoted the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 suspended its implementation.

As wartime Chancellor Lloyd George strengthened the country's finances and forged agreements with trade unions to maintain production. In 1915 Asquith formed a Liberal-led wartime coalition with the Conservatives and Labour. Lloyd George became Minister of Munitions and rapidly expanded production. In 1916 he was appointed Secretary of State for War but was frustrated by his limited power and clashes with the military establishment over strategy. Amid stalemate on the Western Front, confidence in Asquith's leadership waned. He was forced to resign in December 1916; Lloyd George succeeded him as Prime Minister, supported by the Conservatives and some Liberals. He centralised authority through a smaller war cabinet, a new Cabinet Office and his "Garden Suburb" of advisers. To combat food shortages he implemented the convoy system, established rationing, and stimulated farming. After supporting the disastrous French Nivelle Offensive in 1917, he had to reluctantly approve Field Marshal Haig's plans for the Battle of Passchendaele which resulted in huge casualties with little strategic benefit. Against the views of his commanders, he was finally able to see the Allies brought under one command in March 1918. The war effort turned to their favour that August and was won in November. In the aftermath he and the Conservatives maintained their coalition with popular support following the December 1918 "Coupon" election. His government had extended the franchise to all men and some women earlier in the year.

Lloyd George was a major player in Paris Peace Conference of 1919 but the situation in Ireland worsened that year, erupting into the Irish War of Independence which lasted until Lloyd George negotiated independence for the Irish Free State in 1921. At home he initiated reforms to education and housing but trade union militancy entered record levels, the economy became depressed in 1920 and unemployment rose; spending cuts followed (1921–22) and he was embroiled in a scandal over the sale of honours and the Chanak Crisis in 1922. Bonar Law won backbench support for the Conservatives to contend the next election alone. Lloyd George resigned; with his party split between his and Asquith's supporters, his faction won just over 50 seats in the 1922 election, Asquith's just over 60. The next year the pair reunited to oppose Stanley Baldwin's tariff proposal which he put to the country. The Liberals made gains in 1923 but remained third after the Conservatives and Labour, propping up a Labour minority government; they never regained their status as second party and, when the Labour government fell, went down to just over 40 seats in 1924 under Asquith. Lloyd George led the Liberals from 1926 to 1931, putting forward innovative proposals for public works; this failed to convert into seats in 1929 and from 1931 he was a marginalised and mistrusted figure heading a small rump of breakaway Liberals opposed to the National Government. He declined an offer to serve in Winston Churchill's War Cabinet in 1940 and was raised to the peerage in 1945, shortly before his death.

Upbringing and early life

Lloyd George was born on 17 January 1863 in Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, to Welsh parents, and was brought up as a Welsh-speaker. He is so far the only British Prime Minister to have been Welsh[a] and to have spoken English as a second language.[2]

His father, William George, had been a teacher in both London and Liverpool. He also taught in the Hope Street Sunday Schools, which were administered by the Unitarians, where he met Unitarian minister James Martineau.[3]:1 In March of the same year, on account of his failing health, William George returned with his family to his native Pembrokeshire. He took up farming but died in June 1864 of pneumonia, aged 44. His widow, Elizabeth George (1828–96), sold the farm and moved with her children to her native Llanystumdwy in Caernarfonshire, where she lived in a cottage known as Highgate with her brother Richard Lloyd (1834–1917), who was a shoemaker, a minister (in the Scottish Baptists and then the Church of Christ),[4] and a strong Liberal. Lloyd George was educated at the local Anglican school Llanystumdwy National School and later under tutors. Lloyd George's uncle was a towering influence on him, encouraging him to take up a career in law and enter politics; his uncle remained influential up until his death at age 83 in February 1917, by which time his nephew had become Prime Minister. He added his uncle's surname to become "Lloyd George". His surname is usually given as "Lloyd George" and sometimes as "George". The influence of his childhood showed through in his entire career, as he attempted to aid the common man at the expense of what he liked to call "the Dukes" (that is, the aristocracy); however, biographer John Grigg argued that Lloyd George's childhood was nowhere near as poverty-stricken as he liked to suggest.[5]

Brought up a devout evangelical, as a young man he suddenly lost his religious faith. Biographer Don Cregier says he became "a Deist and perhaps an agnostic, though he remained a chapel-goer and connoisseur of good preaching all his life". He kept quiet about this, and was, according to Frank Owen, for 25 years "one of the foremost fighting leaders of a fanatical Welsh Nonconformity".[6][3]:6[7]

It was also during this period of his life that Lloyd George first became interested in the issue of land ownership. As a young man he read books by Thomas Spence, John Stuart Mill and Henry George, as well as pamphlets written by George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb of the Fabian Society on the issue of land ownership.[8] By the age of twenty-one, he had already read and taken notes on Henry George's Progress and Poverty.[9] This strongly influenced Lloyd George's politics later in life; the People's Budget drew heavily on Georgist tax reform ideas.

Lloyd George circa 1890

Articled to a firm of solicitors in Porthmadog, Lloyd George was admitted in 1884 after taking Honours in his final law examination and set up his own practice in the back parlour of his uncle's house in 1885. The practice flourished, and he established branch offices in surrounding towns, taking his brother William into partnership in 1887. Although many Prime Ministers have been barristers, Lloyd George is to date the only solicitor to have held that office.[10]

By then he was politically active, having campaigned for the Liberal Party in the 1885 election, attracted by Joseph Chamberlain's "unauthorised programme" of reforms.[11]:43 The election resulted firstly in a stalemate with neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives having a majority, the balance of power being held by the Irish Parliamentary Party. William Gladstone's proposal to bring about Irish Home Rule split the party, with Chamberlain eventually leading the breakaway Liberal Unionists. Uncertain of which wing to follow, Lloyd George moved a resolution in support of Chamberlain at a local Liberal Club and travelled to Birmingham to attend the first meeting of Chamberlain's National Radical Union, but he had his dates wrong and arrived a week too early.[11]:53 In 1907 he told Herbert Lewis that he thought Chamberlain's plan for a federal solution correct in 1886 and still thought so, that he preferred the unauthorised programme to the Whig-like platform of the official Liberal Party, and that "If Henry Richmond, Osborne Morgan and the Welsh members had stood by Chamberlain on an agreement as regards the disestablishment, they would have carried Wales with them".[11]:53

He married Margaret Owen, the daughter of a well-to-do local farming family, on 24 January 1888.[3]:15-16 Also in that year, he and other young Welsh Liberals founded a monthly paper Udgorn Rhyddid (Bugle of Freedom). They also won the Llanfrothen burial case, which established the right of Nonconformists to be buried according to their own denominational rites in parish burial grounds, a right given by the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 but which had up to then been ignored by the Anglican clergy. On Lloyd George's advice, a Baptist burial party broke open a gate to a cemetery which had been locked against them by the vicar. The vicar sued them for trespass and the local judge misrecorded the jury's verdict and found in his favour, awakening suspicions of bias by the local Tory landowning class. Lloyd George's clients won on appeal to the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench in London, where Lord Chief Justice Coleridge found in their favour.[12][3]:14-15 This case, which was hailed as a great victory throughout Wales, led to his adoption as the Liberal candidate for Carnarvon Boroughs on 27 December 1888.[13]:46

In 1889 he became an Alderman on Carnarvonshire County Council which had been created by the Local Government Act 1888, and was to remain so for the rest of his life.[3]:15[11]:65-66 For the same county Lloyd George would also become a JP (1910)[14] and chairman of Quarter Sessions (1929–38),[15] and Deputy Lieutenant in 1921.[14]

At that time he appeared to be trying to create a separate Welsh national party modelled on Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party and worked towards a union of the North and South Wales Liberal Federations.

Member of Parliament

Lloyd George was returned as Liberal MP for Carnarvon Boroughs – by a margin of 18 votes – in the by-election on 10 April 1890, following the death of the Conservative member Edmund Swetenham.[16] He sat with an informal grouping of Welsh Liberal members who had a programme of disestablishing and disendowing the Church of England in Wales, temperance reform, and Welsh home rule. He would remain an MP for the same constituency until 1945, 55 years later.[13]:50

As backbench members of the House of Commons were not paid at that time, he supported himself and his growing family by continuing to practise as a solicitor, opening an office in London under the name of 'Lloyd George and Co.' and continuing in partnership with William George in Criccieth. In 1897 he merged his growing London practice with that of Arthur Rhys Roberts (who was to become Official Solicitor) under the name of 'Lloyd George, Roberts and Co.'.[17]

He served as the legal adviser of Theodor Herzl in his negotiations with the British government regarding the Uganda Scheme, proposed as an alternative homeland for the Jews due to Turkish refusal to grant a charter for Jewish settlement in Palestine.[18]


He was soon speaking on Liberal issues (particularly temperance – the "local option" – and national as opposed to denominational education) throughout England as well as Wales. During the next decade Lloyd George campaigned in Parliament largely on Welsh issues and in particular for disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. He wrote extensively for Liberal papers such as the Manchester Guardian. When Gladstone retired in 1894 after the defeat of the second Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Liberal members chose him to serve on a deputation to William Harcourt to press for specific assurances on Welsh issues; when those were not provided, they resolved to take independent action if the government did not bring a bill for disestablishment. When that was not forthcoming, he and three other Welsh Liberals (D. A. Thomas, Herbert Lewis and Frank Edwards) refused the whip on 14 April 1894, but accepted Lord Rosebery's assurance and rejoined the official Liberals on 29 May. Thereafter he devoted much time to setting up branches of Cymru Fydd (Young Wales), which, he said, would in time become a force like the Irish National Party. He abandoned this idea after being criticised in Welsh newspapers for bringing about the defeat of the Liberal Party in the 1895 election and at a meeting in Newport on 16 January 1896 of the South Wales Liberal Federation, led by D. A. Thomas, he was shouted down.[19]

Lloyd George also supported the idea of Pan-Celtic unity and gave a speech at the 1904 Pan-Celtic Congress in Caernarfon.[20]

Opposes Boer War

Lloyd George had been impressed by his journey to Canada in 1899. Although sometimes wrongly supposed – both at the time and subsequently – to be a Little Englander, he was not an opponent of the British Empire per se, but in a speech at Birkenhead (21 November 1901) he stressed that it needed to be based on freedom, including for India, not "racial arrogance".[21]:61 Consequently, he gained national fame by displaying vehement opposition to the Second Boer War.[22]

Following Rosebery's lead he based his attack firstly on what were supposed to be Britain's war aims – remedying the grievances of the Uitlanders and in particular the claim that they were wrongly denied the right to vote, saying "I do not believe the war has any connection with the franchise. It is a question of 45% dividends" and that England (which did not then have universal male suffrage) was more in need of franchise reform than the Boer republics. A second attack came on the cost of the war, which, he argued, prevented overdue social reform in England, such as old age pensions and workmen's cottages. As the fighting continued his attacks moved to its conduct by the generals, who, he said (basing his words on reports by William Burdett-Coutts in The Times), were not providing for the sick or wounded soldiers and were starving Boer women and children in concentration camps. But his major thrusts were reserved for the Chamberlains, accusing them of war profiteering through the family company Kynoch Ltd, of which Chamberlain's brother was Chairman. The firm had won tenders to the War Office though its prices were higher than some of its competitors. After speaking at a meeting in Birmingham Lloyd George had to be smuggled out disguised as a policeman, as his life was in danger from the mob. At this time the Liberal Party was badly split as H. H. Asquith, R. B. Haldane and others were supporters of the war and formed the Liberal Imperial League.[23]

David Lloyd George in 1902

Opposes Education Act of 1902

Lloyd George was the main spokesman for the Nonconformists, and they made a major issue out of the government's Education Act 1902. It provided funding for Church of England schools, paid out of local taxation. The bill passed but opposition to it helped reunite the Liberals. His successful amendment that county councils need only fund those schools where the buildings were in good repair served to make the Act a dead letter in Wales, where the counties were able to show that most Church of England schools were in poor repair. Having already gained national recognition for his anti-Boer War campaigns, his leadership of the attacks on the Education Act gave him a strong parliamentary reputation and marked him as a likely future cabinet member.[24]

The Act served to reunify the Liberals after their divisions over the Boer War, and to increase Nonconformist influence in the party, which then included educational reform as policy in the 1906 election, which resulted in a Liberal landslide.[25]

President of the Board of Trade (1905–1908)

David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill in 1907

Further information: Education Act 1902 § The failed Education Bill of 1906
In 1905 Lloyd George entered the new Liberal Cabinet of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as President of the Board of Trade.[26]:63

The first priority on taking office was repeal of the 1902 Education Act. Lloyd George took the lead along with Augustine Birrell, President of the Board of Education. Lloyd George appears to have been the dominant figure on the committee drawing up the bill in its later stages, and insisted that the bill create a separate education committee for Wales. Birrell complained privately that the bill, introduced in the Commons on 9 April 1906, owed more to Lloyd George and that he himself had had little say in its contents.[27]:74-77 The bill passed the House of Commons greatly amended, but was completely mangled by the House of Lords.[25] For the rest of the year, Lloyd George made numerous public speeches attacking the House of Lords for mutilating the bill with wrecking amendments, in defiance of the Liberals' electoral mandate to reform the 1902 Act. Lloyd George was rebuked by King Edward VII for these speeches: the Prime Minister defended him to the Kings's secretary Francis Knollys, stating that his behaviour in Parliament was more constructive but that in speeches to the public "the combative spirit seems to get the better of him".[27]:74-77 No compromise was possible and the bill was abandoned, allowing the 1902 Act to continue in effect.[25] As a result of Lloyd George's lobbying, a separate department for Wales[ b] was created within the Board of Education.[27]:74-77

Nonconformists were bitterly upset by the failure of the Liberal Party to carry through on its most important promise to them, and over time their support for the Liberal Party slowly fell away.[28]

At the Board of Trade Lloyd George introduced legislation on many topics, from merchant shipping and the Port of London to companies and railway regulation. His main achievement was in stopping a proposed national strike of the railway unions by brokering an agreement between the unions and the railway companies. While almost all the companies refused to recognise the unions, Lloyd George persuaded the companies to recognise elected representatives of the workers who sat with the company representatives on conciliation boards—one for each company. If those boards failed to agree then an arbitrator would be called upon.[27]:69-73

Chancellor of the Exchequer (1908–1915)

See also: David Lloyd George and the suffrage movement, 1907–1912

On Campbell-Bannerman's death he succeeded Asquith, who had become Prime Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1908 to 1915.[27]:81[29]:189-190 While he continued some work from the Board of Trade—for example, legislation to establish the Port of London Authority and to pursue traditional Liberal programmes such as licensing law reforms—his first major trial in this role was over the 1908–1909 Naval Estimates. The Liberal manifesto at the 1906 general election included a commitment to reduce military expenditure. Lloyd George strongly supported this, writing to Reginald McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, "the emphatic pledges given by all of us at the last general election to reduce the gigantic expenditure on armaments built up by the recklessness of our predecessors." He then proposed the programme be reduced from six to four dreadnoughts. This was adopted by the government, but there was a public storm when the Conservatives, with covert support from the First Sea Lord, Admiral Jackie Fisher, campaigned for more with the slogan "We want eight and we won't wait". This resulted in Lloyd George's defeat in Cabinet and the adoption of estimates including provision for eight dreadnoughts.[30] During this period he was also a target of protest by the women's suffrage movement, as he professed support personally but did not move for changes within the Parliament process.[31]

Portrait of Chancellor Lloyd George by Christopher Williams (1911)

People's Budget, 1909

Further information: People's Budget

In 1909 Lloyd George introduced his People's Budget, imposing a 20% tax on the unearned increase in value of land, payable at death of the owner or sale of the land, and ½ d. on undeveloped land and minerals, increased death duties, a rise in income tax, and the introduction of Supertax on income over £3,000.[32] There were taxes also on luxuries, alcohol, and tobacco, so that money could be made available for the new welfare programmes as well as new battleships. The nation's landowners (well represented in the House of Lords) were intensely angry at the new taxes, mostly at the proposed very high tax on land values, but also because the instrumental redistribution of wealth could be used to detract from an argument for protective tariffs.[33][page needed]

The immediate consequences included the end of the Liberal League, and Rosebery breaking friendship with the Liberal Party, which in itself was for Lloyd George a triumph. He had won the case of social reform without losing the debate on Free Trade.[34]:166 Arthur Balfour denounced the budget as "vindictive, inequitable, based on no principles, and injurious to the productive capacity of the country."[34]:167 Roy Jenkins described it as the most reverberating since Gladstone's in 1860.[34]:172

In the House of Commons Lloyd George gave a brilliant account of the budget, which was attacked by the Conservatives. On the stump, notably at his Limehouse speech in 1909, he denounced the Conservatives and the wealthy classes with all his very considerable oratorical power. The budget was defeated by the Conservative majority in the House of Lords. The elections of 1910 narrowly upheld the Liberal government. The 1909 budget was passed on 28 April 1910 by the Lords, and received the Royal Assent on the 29th.[35][36] Subsequently, the Parliament Act 1911 curtailed the veto power of the House of Lords.

Although old-age pensions had already been introduced by Asquith as Chancellor, Lloyd George was largely responsible for the introduction of state financial support for the sick and infirm (known colloquially as "going on the Lloyd George" for decades afterwards)—legislation referred to as the Liberal Reforms. Lloyd George also succeeded in putting through Parliament his National Insurance Act 1911, making provision for sickness and invalidism, and a system of unemployment insurance. He was helped in his endeavours by forty or so backbenchers who regularly pushed for new social measures, often voted with Labour MPs.[37][page needed] These social reforms in Britain were the beginnings of a welfare state and fulfilled the aim of dampening down the demands of the growing working class for rather more radical solutions to their impoverishment.[citation needed]

Under his leadership after 1909 the Liberals extended minimum wages to farm workers.[38]

David Lloyd George circa 1911

Mansion House Speech, 1911

Lloyd George was considered an opponent of war until the Agadir Crisis of 1911, during which he gave a stirring and patriotic speech at Mansion House on 21 July 1911. Grey was aghast and felt that the Chancellor was more qualified to be Foreign Secretary than he was; German opinion recognised that Britain would resist further German aggression.[39] Haldane and Lloyd George were among the minority in the Cabinet who were pro-German, on grounds of a shared religion, philosophy, artistic culture and scientific enquiry. Germany blamed Lloyd George for doing "untold harm both with regard to German public opinion and the negotiations...namely, to the despatch of the German warship to Agadir", and citing Count Metternich "...Mr Lloyd George's speech came upon us like a thunderbolt"[40]

Marconi scandal 1913

In 1913 Lloyd George, along with Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney General, was involved in the Marconi scandal. Accused of speculating in Marconi shares on the inside information that they were about to be awarded a key government contract (which would have caused them to increase in value), he told the House of Commons that he had not speculated in the shares of "that company". He had in fact bought shares in the American Marconi Company.[41]

Welsh Church Act 1914

The Church of England no longer had majority adherence in most parts of Wales in preference to Wales-led Protestantism, in particular Methodism. Lloyd George had long called for disestablishment and was instrumental in introducing the Welsh Church Act 1914 which disestablished the Anglican Church in Wales (though, upon the outbreak of war, the actual coming into force of the Act was postponed by the Suspensory Act 1914 until 1920), removing the opportunity of the six Welsh Bishops in the new Church in Wales to sit in the House of Lords and removing (disendowing) certain pre-1662 property rights.[42][43]

First World War

Lloyd George was as surprised as almost everyone else by the outbreak of the First World War. On 23 July 1914, almost a month after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and on the eve of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, he made a speech advocating "economy" in the House of Commons, saying that Britain's relations with Germany were better than for many years.[44]:325-326 On 27 July he told C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian that Britain would keep out of the impending war.[45] With the Cabinet divided, and most ministers reluctant for Britain to get involved, he struck Asquith as "statesmanlike" at the Cabinet meeting on 1 August, favouring keeping Britain's options open. The next day he seemed likely to resign if Britain intervened, but he held back at Cabinet on Monday 3 August, moved by news that Belgium would resist Germany's demand for passage for her army across her soil. He was seen as a key figure whose stance helped to persuade almost the entire Cabinet to support British intervention.[46][44]:327-329 He was able to give the more pacifist members of the cabinet and the Liberal Party a principle - the rights of small nations - which meant they could support the war and maintain united political and popular support.[47]

Lloyd George remained in office as Chancellor of the Exchequer for the first year of the Great War. The budget of 17 November 1914 had to allow for lower taxation receipts because of the reduction in world trade. The Crimean and Boer Wars had largely been paid for out of taxation; but Lloyd George raised debt financing of £321 million. Large (but deferred) increases in Supertax and income tax rates were accompanied by increases in excise duties, and the budget produced a tax increase of £63 million in a full year.[34]:174-175 His last budget, on 4 May 1915, showed a growing concern for the effects of alcohol on the war effort, with large increases in duties, and a scheme of state control of alcohol sales in specified areas. The excise proposals were opposed by the Irish Nationalists and the Conservatives, and were abandoned.[34]:175-176

Minister of Munitions

David Lloyd George in 1915

See also: Minister of Munitions and Shell Crisis of 1915

Lloyd George gained a heroic reputation with his energetic work as Minister of Munitions, 1915–16, setting the stage for his move up to the height of power. After a long struggle with the War Office, he wrested responsibility for arms production away from the generals, making it a purely industrial department, with considerable expert assistance from Walter Runciman.[48] The two men gained the respect of Liberal cabinet colleagues for improving administrative capabilities, and increasing outputs.[49]

When the Shell Crisis of 1915 dismayed public opinion with the news that the Army was running short of artillery shells, demands rose for a strong leader to take charge of munitions. In the first coalition ministry, formed in May 1915, Lloyd George was made Minister of Munitions, heading a new department.[50] In this position he won great acclaim, which formed the basis for his political ascent. All historians agree that he boosted national morale and focussed attention on the urgent need for greater output, but many also say the increase in munitions output in 1915–16 was due largely to reforms already underway, though not yet effective, before he had even arrived. The Ministry broke through the cumbersome bureaucracy of the War Office, resolved labour problems, rationalised the supply system and dramatically increased production. Within a year it became the largest buyer, seller, and employer in Britain.[48]

Lloyd George, Edward Grey, Herbert Kitchener, Nikola Pašić, Antonio Salandra, Alexander Izvolsky, Aristide Briand, Joseph Joffre at a conference of the Allied Powers on 27–28 March 1916 in Paris

Lloyd George was not at all satisfied with the progress of the war. He wanted to "knock away the props", by attacking Germany's allies – from early in 1915 he argued for the sending of British troops to the Balkans to assist Serbia and bring Greece and other Balkan countries onto the side of the Allies (this was eventually done – the Salonika expedition – although not on the scale that Lloyd George had wanted, and mountain ranges made his suggestions of grand Balkan offensives impractical); in 1916 he wanted to send machine guns to Romania (insufficient amounts were available for this to be feasible). These suggestions began a period of poor relations with the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Robertson, who was "brusque to the point of rudeness" and "barely concealed his contempt for Lloyd George's military opinions", to which he was in the habit of retorting "I've 'eard different".[51]

Lloyd George persuaded Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War, to raise a Welsh Division, and, despite Kitchener's threat of resignation, to recognise nonconformist chaplains in the Army.[52]

Late in 1915 Lloyd George became a strong supporter of general conscription, an issue that divided Liberals, and helped the passage of several conscription acts from January 1916 onwards. In spring 1916 Alfred Milner hoped Lloyd George could be persuaded to bring down the coalition government by resigning, but this did not happen.[53]

Secretary of State for War

Lloyd George in 1916

In June 1916 Lloyd George succeeded Lord Kitchener (who died when his ship was sunk) as Secretary of State for War, although he had little control over strategy, as General Robertson had been given direct right of access to the Cabinet so as to bypass Kitchener. He did succeed in securing the appointment of Sir Eric Geddes to take charge of military railways behind British lines in France, with the honorary rank of major-general.[54] Lloyd George told a journalist, Roy W. Howard, in late September that "the fight must be to a finish – to a knockout", a rejection of President Woodrow Wilson's offer to mediate.[55]

Lloyd George was increasingly frustrated at the limited gains of the Somme Offensive, criticising General Haig to Ferdinand Foch on a visit to the Western Front in September (British casualty ratios were worse than those of the French, who were more experienced and had more artillery), proposing sending Robertson on a mission to Russia (he refused to go), and demanding that more troops be sent to Salonika to help Romania. Robertson eventually threatened to resign.[56]

Much of the press still argued that the professional leadership of Haig and Robertson was preferable to civilian interference which had led to disasters like Gallipoli and Kut. Lord Northcliffe, owner of The Times stormed into Lloyd George's office and, finding him unavailable, told his secretary "You can tell him that I hear he has been interfering with Strategy, and that if he goes on I will break him", and the same day (11 October) Lloyd George also received a warning letter from H. A. Gwynne, editor of the Morning Post. He was obliged to give his "word of honour" to Asquith that he had complete confidence in Haig and Robertson and thought them irreplaceable, but he wrote to Robertson wanting to know how their differences had been leaked to the press (affecting to believe that Robertson had not personally "authorised such a breach of confidence & discipline"). He asserted his right to express his opinions about strategy in November, by which time ministers had taken to holding meetings to which Robertson was not invited.[57]

The weakness of Asquith as a planner and organiser was increasingly apparent to senior officials. After Asquith had refused, then agreed, and then refused again to agree to Lloyd George's demand that he should be allowed to chair a small committee to manage the war, he resigned in December 1916. Grey was among leading Asquithians who had identified Lloyd George's intentions the previous month.[58] Lloyd George became Prime Minister, with the nation demanding he take vigorous charge of the war. A Punch cartoon of the time showed him as "The New Conductor" conducting the orchestra in the "Opening of the 1917 Overture".[59]

Although during the political crisis Robertson had advised Lloyd George to "stick to it" and form a small War Council, Lloyd George had planned if necessary to appeal to the country, his Military Secretary Colonel Arthur Lee having prepared a memo blaming Robertson and the General Staff for the loss of Serbia and Romania. Lloyd George was restricted by his promise to the Unionists to keep Haig as Commander-in-Chief and the press support for the generals, although Milner and Curzon were also sympathetic to campaigns to increase British power in the Middle East.[60] After Germany's offer (12 December 1916) of a negotiated peace Lloyd George rebuffed President Wilson's request for the belligerents to state their war aims by demanding terms tantamount to German defeat.[61]

Prime Minister (1916–1922)

Further information: Lloyd George ministry

War leader (1916–1918)

Forming a government

The fall of Asquith as Prime Minister split the Liberal Party into two factions: those who supported him and those who supported the coalition government. In his War Memoirs, Lloyd George compared himself with Asquith:[62]

There are certain indispensable qualities essential to the Chief Minister of the Crown in a great war. . . . Such a minister must have courage, composure, and judgment. All this Mr. Asquith possessed in a superlative degree. . . . But a war minister must also have vision, imagination and initiative—he must show untiring assiduity, must exercise constant oversight and supervision of every sphere of war activity, must possess driving force to energize this activity, must be in continuous consultation with experts, official and unofficial, as to the best means of utilising the resources of the country in conjunction with the Allies for the achievement of victory. If to this can be added a flair for conducting a great fight, then you have an ideal War Minister.

After December 1916 Lloyd George relied on the support of Conservatives and of the press baron Lord Northcliffe (who owned both The Times and the Daily Mail). Besides the Prime Minister, the five-member War Cabinet contained three Conservatives (Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords Lord Curzon, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons Bonar Law, and Minister without Portfolio Lord Milner) and Arthur Henderson, unofficially representing Labour. Edward Carson was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, as had been widely touted during the intrigues of the previous month, but excluded from the War Cabinet. Amongst the few Liberal frontbenchers to support Lloyd George were Christopher Addison (who had played an important role in drumming up some backbench Liberal support for Lloyd George), H. A. L. Fisher, Lord Rhondda and Sir Albert Stanley. Edwin Montagu and Churchill joined the government in the summer of 1917.[63]

Lloyd George's Secretariat, popularly known as Downing Street's "Garden Suburb", assisted him in discharging his responsibilities within the constraints of the war cabinet system. Its function was to maintain contact with the numerous departments of government, to collect information, and to report on matters of special concern. Its leading members were George Adams and Philip Kerr, and the other secretaries included David Davies, Joseph Davies, Waldorf Astor and, later, Cecil Harmsworth.[64]

Lloyd George wanted to make the destruction of Ottoman Empire a major British war aim, and two days after taking office told Robertson that he wanted a major victory, preferably the capture of Jerusalem, to impress British public opinion.[65]

At the Rome Conference (5–6 January 1917) Lloyd George was discreetly quiet about plans to take Jerusalem, an object which advanced British interests rather than doing much to win the war. Lloyd George proposed sending heavy guns to Italy with a view to defeating Austria-Hungary, possibly to be balanced by a transfer of Italian troops to Salonika, but was unable to obtain the support of the French or Italians, and Robertson talked of resigning.[66]
Site Admin
Posts: 31730
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests