EGOISM ^ ^ ^ 'BY J A M E. S I. ^ .mFmJ L K E- Fc Tilffl •^* f^* «^» f^* «^* PLEASE HANDLE WITH CARE University of Connecticut Libraries f^» «^* »^^ *^^ f^» GAYLORD RG ^.CcA^z.^i^t>^ The Philosophy ooo« Of Egoism. — BY — JAMES L. WALKER My nose I've nsed for smelling and I've blown it; But how to prove the right by which I own it? —Schiller, freely translated. KATHARINE WALKER DENVER 1905 63 PREFATORY NOTE. The first chapters of this booklet appeared serially in "Egoism," a little magazine published by Georgia and Henry Replogle, at Oakland, Calif., from 1890 to 1898. It was the intention to run the whole series in the magazine, then publish them in book form ; but pressure upon the au- thor's time interrupted his writing, and finally "Egoism" suspended publication before the articles were completed. Later, time was found to write the concluding chapters, and the Replogles put the whole in type and had matrices made from which to cast the plates, in 1900. But overtaken by adversity and sickness, the matter so lingered that in 1904, when the author, James L, Walker, died, the work had pro- ceeded no further. A few months after Mr. Walker's death, Katharine Walker, his wife, desiring to have this magnificent monu- ment to her adored husband's memory completed without further delay, undertook the task herself by providing the necessary money, leaving the details of the work to the care of the Replogles. However, the continued illness and final death of Georgia Replogle, and the prostrate condition of Henry Replogle which followed, further delayed the work to this date. It was one of the ambitions of the Replogles' lives to bring this booklet to the Progressive World with their own A. hands ; especially was this true of Georgia, who, although lying on the bed from which she never arose, yielded with the greatest reluctance to publication of the inital edition by anyone else. In this connection, Mrs. Walker earnestly, but vainly, begged to furnish the means, and keep her own participation in the matter entirely private. But however kindly meant, this was not just the desired touch; hoping against conditions of palpable despair, Georgia Replogle still hoped in some undefined way to recover her health, and ..^■~ earn by her own hands credit for bringing before the world \o the first print of this Masterpiece of the Master Philosophy. "tj^ The plates of this work are the property of the sur- ^^ vivor of this now broken pair of veteran Radicals, and ^ ^^ iv PREFATORY NOTE. future possible editions will be entirely under his control, as was originally intended of all editions by both of them. So since the fondest hope has been denied by fate, the nearest approximation is maintained by kindlier human effort, in the spirit of Georgia Replogle's most loved passage from the Eubaiyat of Omar Khayyam of Naishapur : Ah LoTe! could you and I with him conspire To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, Would not we shatter it to bits — and then Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire 1 THE PHILOSOPHY OF EGOISM I We seek understanding of facts for guidance in action, for avoidance of mistake and suffering, and even for resignation to the inevitable. This state- ment may cover the chief aims of mankind in intel- lectual discussion, ignoring now that which is merely a scholastic exercise. I am not in favor of argument in the style of the debating school, merely to sharpen the wits. Sincerity is too precious to be tarnished by a practice which easily generates an evil habit, and there are, at least as yet, too many occasions in real life on which every person who loves to tell the truth and expose falsehood must consider time and circumstance lest he impale himself upon implacable prejudices. Consequently if duplicity have its uses there need be no fear that it will not be cultivated without concerted efforts thereto among those who are seeking intellectual light. I have placed resignation last, though it may be first in importance for some individuals. I take it that the life forces are strong enough in most of my readers to exude in promptings to action which shall move things, in the liberal sympathy which would communicate to others any discoverable means to reach conditions of greater harmony. Is it not a fact that there is a considerable amount of well wishing and at the same time an in- tricate series of reciprocal injuries practiced by man- kind, such as is not discoverable in any other species on earth? Then, we may ask, what are the causes of evils in society, can they be generalized, and what is the nature or principle of an efficient remedy? If now the words laissez faire occur to the reader he will easily remember that all animals except man practise according to that principle. Do we hear of fanati- cism among them, of fighting within the species ex- cept in defence of their persons and property or on a matter of rivalry between the males? But what do we read in the history of mankind except woes, wars^ persecutions and catastrophes beggaring description, and all related in some way to the determination of mankind to interfere with each others' actions, 2 LAISSEZ FAIRE. thoughts and feelings for the purpose of making peo- ple think better and behave better as conceived? The theological Liberal is never tired of affirming that the greatest cruelties have been perpetrated by bigots acting sincerely for religious right as they thought they understood it; yet among the theolog- ical Liberals may be found prohibitionists and taxa- tionists manifesting a holy horror of a man or wo- man who simply wants to be let alone while he or she lets others alone, and who refuses to join in any scheme of coercion. They insist that he cannot en- joy such liberty without detriment to society, and their ire rises on thinking that he is insensible to a moral principle, as they view the matter. They are bigots unknowing. But are there such people as I have alluded to, who practise the rule laissez fairel Certainly there are. (These words are French and mean "Let them do," or " Let other people alone as far as you can.") Properly understood and carried out in political sci- ence, as by Proudhon, a rational system of Anarchy is evolved from the motto. Anarchy in its strict and proper philosophical sense means "no tyranny," — the regulation of business altogether by voluntary and mutual contract. With some readers the perception of these rela- tions as regards religious belief and political institu- tions and this comparison of human intolerance with the better habit of other species, to mind their own business, will have suggested the fundamental thought to which 1 am coming. We are digging now for bottom facts; not trying to invent any artifirial rule, but to find the wholesome reality in nature if there be any good there for us, and to find the maii- epring of normal action at all events, leaving for af- ter discussion if advisable whether or not any arti- ficial substitute be possible or commendable. Now it is not my purpose to suggest that men ehould pattern after any other species of animal. We find the other animals acting naturally, seeking their own good, going each his own way ajid letting EGOISM, SEED-BED OP TOLERATION. 3 each other alone except under certain conditions which have caused a momentary conflict of individ- ual interests. We find human life full of artificiality, perversion and misery, much of which can be directly traced to interference, the worst of this interference having no chance of perpetuation except through a certain belief in its social necessity, which belief arises from or is interlaced with beliefs as to details of con- duct, such for example as that the propagation of the human species would not occur in good form un- less officially supervised, and so forth. Drawing such comparisons the conclusion appears that man needs to become natural, not in the sense of abandoning the arts and material comforts of life, but in the treatment of individuals of the species by others and in their collective action. I may here anticipate an objection. Someone will ask wliether I pretend that Egoism means the same as laissez fairs. To this I say no, but the prev- alence of Egoism will reduce interference, even by the ignorant, to the dimensions of their more undeniable interest in others' affairs, eliminating every motive of a fanatical character. Invasive developments of Egoism, no longer reinforced by the strength of the multitude under a spell of personal magnetism, will probably not be very hard to deal with ; then for want of success such developments will be attenuated or abandoned within the species. Thus Egoism is demonstrably the seed-bed of the policy and habit of general tolerance. And if vigilance be the price of liberty, who will deny that the tendency, within Ego- istic limits, to some invasion is the sure creator and sustenance of vigilance? The vaporizing, non-Ego- istic philosophers would place tolerance upon a cloud-bank foundation of sentiment and attempt to recompense with fine words of praise the men who can be persuaded to forego an^^ advantage which they might take of others. Like the preachers who picture the pleasure of sin and urge people to refrain from it, their attempts are inevitably futile. 4: DEFINITION OF EGOISM. n. It is now time to meet the demand for a defini- tion of Egoism. The dictionaries must be resorted to for explanations of the meanin^js of most words, but in any science, art or philosophy there are some leading terms understood in a more precise manner than that general notion or mass of nearly related significations given in the dictionary under one term. The dictionary is like a map of the world, which shows where a country is with relation to all other countries. The definition of the dictionary is simply objective, not closely analytical. Its language is popular, as in the speaking of black and white as colors. All this is well enough. People need infor- mation which will be true to appearances, for practi- cal purposes, and need so wide an extent of this in a moderate compass, that they are glad to get brief explanations or even hints at meanings, prepared by men skilled in classifying linguistic growths. Hence, however, they sometimes find the popular definitions as good but not better than to define cheese as con- densed milk. The so-called synonyms have different shades of meaning, but disputants easily yield to the temptation to assume an identical import in two terms, sometimes for the purpose of blackening one by throwing upon it an evil connotation which ad- heres to the other; and conversely the hearer is usu- ally able to understand immediately whether the speaker, if sincere, is friendly or hostile toward an object, merely by noting the terms chosen in alluding to its existence. We rarely find many sentences to- gether without a moral judgment being conveyed. Such judgments, from an Egoistic point of view, could be illustrated by representing a beggar extol- ling charity. The definition of the specialist, on the other hand, is like a map which shows the boundary be- tween two countries, but does not attempt to show anything else. To the navigator land is that be- neath his vessel which is not water. To the political economist a lake and a bed of coal are equally land. DISPARAGEMENT BY DEFINITION. 5 The two specialists are concerned with two different series of ideas, therefore with different aspects of the object. The best that can be said of Webster's dictionary definitions of Egoism, is that a reader who ah-eady understands the term as it has been used in practical philosophy for more than forty years, may barely recognize the idea as one espies a diamond in a dust- heap. "The habit of .... judging of every- thing; by its relation to one's interests or import- ance," is Webster's nearest approach. In what sense can the individual and his interests be other than all- important to the individual ? Only in the sense that, in order to reject Egoism, his interests are not to be understood as including his intellectual and senti- mental interest in objects, including other persons. But the Egoist will take the liberty to inquire how anyone can be engaged in judging of anything witli- out having taken an interest in it. Let us assume that a new dictionary maker inserts in his work a paragraph like this : Egoism, d. The principle of self; the doctrine of individuality; self-interest; selfishness. Then I shall comment by saying that " the doc- trine of individuality " is a happier expression than the single word individuality, for the latter is com- monly used to convey the idea of distinctive, marked peculiarities of character. Self-interest is usually re- stricted to pecuniary interest and the like, ignoring what is reciprocal in the pleasures of companionship and what affords intellectual satisfaction. Selfish- ness is commonly used to indicate self -gratification ir disregard of the feelings of others. All these words indicate Egoism, but they indicate it with special de- terminations. In the word selfish the termination arrests attention. It is generally disparaging; c>ither connected with bad words or it gives them a con- temptuous shade of meaning, as knavish, thievish, foolish, mawkish, bookish monkish, popish. Hence when a man acts in certain ways causing disgust in other people they declare his action selfish, — not 6 A NEW ANALYSIS OF SELFISHNESS. merely a manifestation of self, but one which they purpose castigating by adding the termination ex- pressive of aversion and contempt. The linguistic instinct appears correct to this extent, however in- correct may be the popular judgment regarding cer- tain actions which are thus stigmatized. For want of this thought some writers have laid the whole pop- ular judgment, expressed in the reproach of selfish- ness, to the account of opposition to the principle of self. There is certainly a great deal of that. It is selfism of course, which protests, and selfishness which protests most against the selfishness of others and against the principle of self in others. Selfishness argues that its pasture will be greener and richer in proportion as others yield in particular desires to the preaching of unselfishness and self-abnegation, which terms, the genius of selfishness cunningly declares to be synonymous whenever its ends are to be served by such a view. Self-abnegMtion, however, in its full sense, is evidently insanity, while unselfishness may be only selfism without any feature which can be cal- culated to arouse the antipathy of other individuals (that is, the unisZiness of the self). This is a new an- alysis and I do not pretend that users of the word unselfish are generally conscious of any force in the termination, to which the privative prefix may apply, but 1 refer to Webster's definitions of selfishness and self-love respectively for support as to the usage. III. Egoism is (1) the theory of will as reartion of the self to a motive; (2) every such reaction in fact. This double definition is in accord with the usual lat- itude due to the imperfection of language, in conse- quence of which an identical term covers theory, indi- vidual fact and mass of facts. I apprehend that in making this fundamental definition I shall have provoked the dissent of some readers well enough grounded in mental philosophy to perceive that on accepting the definition they must speedily consign any claim for an unegoistic philosophy to the realm MEANING OF MOTIVE. 7 of mental vap:aries. They will accuse me of be<:^,2;ing a question in the definition ; but 1 cannot wish to lay down a definition less fundamental than that which will be found sufficiently comprehensive and exact in every relation of rational motive and resulting voli- tion and action. When I shall have done justice to "Altruism " it will be seen that there is here, no beg- ging of any question. The alternatives which the "Altruists" propose may accord with such of their own conceptions as they wish to term " Egoism," with which, however, I have no complicity. By "the self" 1 mean the living person or animal, as recognized by the senses and consciousness, and not any mysterious, intangible entity or supposed entity, — "soul," "mind" or "spirit." By "motive" I mean any influence, — sight, sound, pressure, thought or other energy, — operating upon the self, and thereby causing a change in the self, un- der which process it reacts to seize what contributes to its satisfaction or to repel or escape from what produces or threatens its discomfort or undesired destruction. If my definition be imperfect, the gap is in omit- ting to mention reflex action together with will. I regard reflex action as probably connected with a species of will in the nerve centers (and in other plas- tic matter in the lowest animals). However this may be, reflex actions are not subject to serious dispute in any speculative moral aspect. The omission, there- fore, if any, would concern the exhaustiveness of the definition, not its quality. But the merit of a defini- tion is not in its exhaustiveness ; it is in drawing the line at the right place. As I do not purpose further defining "will," I will just say that reflex action being granted to be in effect self -regarding, all that remains to be done in order to universalize, according to these views, the recognition of the Egoistic theory, is to es- tablish all determinations to voluntary activity as reactions, plus consciousness in the brain, like reflex actions without it. Any controversy against the Egoistic theory will rage along the line of voluntary 8 MEANING OP "the SELF.*' action ; hence that part of the line of Egoism is all that is essential to be put into a definition. But if I have omitted reflex action in (1) the theory, 1 have not ignored it in (2) "such reaction in fact," for "such" refers to the self. Consulting convenience, I have written "the self" whether meaning apparently the whole co-ordinated energies of the self or the attracting and repelling powers of any organ or member thereof. Probably never were the whole energies of any animal exerted at once under the stimulus of any motive or combi- nation of motives; hence the common expression is an exaggeration. A course of reading in history, philosophy and science, especially standard literature on evolution, together with personal observation of animal, includ- ing human life, will gradually convince any intelligent person that all voluntary acts, including a certain class of acts popularly but erroneously called non- voluntary, are caused by motives acting upon the feeling and reason of the Ego, and that the reaction of the Ego to a motive occurs as surely according to the Ego's composition and the motive as does any chemical reaction ; that the only difiiculty for our understanding is in the complexity of motive influ- ences (motives) and composition of the subject acted upon. To avoid this conclusion the dogmatists have spoken of motive as if it were something self-originat- ing in the thoughts. Plainly, motive is any influence which causes movement. There must be a cause for every thought as well as every sensation. That cause must affect the Ego, and the Ego cannot but react if affected, — therefore according to the character of the motive and the manner and degree in which the Ego is affected in any of its parts, otherwise there would be no nature, no continuity of phenomena. In short, man in everything is within the domain of nature ; that is, the regular succession of apparently selJ-correlating phenomena. MOTIVE ROOT. 9 A motive planted in the Ej^o (that is to say in the self) may be compared to a seed planted in the ground. Assuming that it germinates, the commonly observed effect is an upward growth of stalk and fruit, analogous to voluntary action ; but I have defined Egoism by reference to the spring of such action rather than by reference to the action as phenome- non, for a reason which will be understood by follow- ing out the analogy. Beside the upward growth there is a formation of root. The stalk of some plants may be repeatedly cut off, but while the root is alive there is the probability of another upward growth. This is most generally the case with young plants. Though mental analysis should reduce will to a mere abstract term of convenience for an imag- inary link between motive and act, and whether or not volition becomes differentiated to bear a more precise and active sense, it is necessary to have a con- ception correlating renewed activities with former ones, as perceived in repetition or in series, without the planting of new seed. This is found not in the simple and familiar illustration of seed lying with- out germinating for some time, but in the invisible growth beneath the surface, supplying energy and determination to forms which repeatedly appear and then take various directions accordingly as they en- counter obstacles. IV. Beside indi-^lduals we encounter groups variously cemented together by controlling ideas ; such groups are families, tribes, states and churches. The more nearly a group approaches the condition of being held together by the interest of its members without con- straint of one exercised over other members, the more nearly does the group approximate to the character of an Ego, in itself. Observation and reflection show that the group, or collectivity, never yet composed wholly of enlightened individuals joining and adher- ing in the group through individual accord, has al- ways fallen short of the approximation which is con- 10 EGO NATURE OF A CXlIyLECTIVITT. ceivable for the gi^oup to the independent Egoistic character. The family, tribe, state and church are all dominated physically or mentally by some indi- viduals therein. These groups, such a^ they have been known in all history, never could have existed with the disproportionate powers and influence of their members but for prevailing beliefs reducible to ignorance, awe and submission in the mass of the members. With this explanation and corresponding allow- ance, the group may be spoken of as approximatively Egoistic in its character. Even when least swayed by individual members, the family, the nation and the church are thoroughly selfy. These composite indi- vidualities, as it is the fancy of some writers to con- sider them, are appealed to in vain to furnish an ex- ception to the Egoistic principle. When Jack imposes upon the ignorance of Jill or upon habits acquired during mutual aid, and Jill is too trusting to trace the transaction back to fundamental elements and calculations of mutual benefit, the matter is readily laid to Jack's selfishness, which of course lauds its victim's welcome compliance; but when the family demands a heavy sacrifice of each member, attention is mostly drawn by Moralists to the advantage of the family and the need of such sacrifices, never to the phenomenon of a ruthless form of Egoism in the fam- ily, imposing upon its members who have felt some of the advantages and then yielded to pretensions which will not bear analysis, or tracing back in an actual account of loss and gain. Thus it is said to the man that he needs a wife, to the woman that she need a husband, and to the children that they needed pa- rents and will need obedience from their own children by and by. On the strengt.h of these views various sacrifices of the happiness of man, woman and youth may be effected while they do not inquire precisely what they do need individually and how they can get it at least cost of unhappiness. The family, attempting to become an Ego,, tr-eata its members as an Ego naturally treats avaiU^.e or- FALrl^ACY OP "social ENTITY." 11 g^nic or iiiorg:anic matter. The supine become raw material. The person has the power to resign self- care and allow himself to be seized upon and worked up as material by any of the other real or would-be Egos that are in quest of nutriment and of bases of operations. The greater would-be Ego, the ''social organism," reinforces the family demand with persua- sion that hesitates at no fallacy, but first plies the in- dividual with some general logic as to our need of each other, then with flattery, how it will repay him for inconvenience by praise, external and internal, all the while exerting a moral terrorism over every mind weak enough to allow it, and all to subjugate the real Ego to the complex would-be but impossible Ego. For not the good of the family, but of itself, is the object of the state and of the "social organism." The state prates of the sacredness of the family, but treats it with scant courtesy when its own interest conflicts with the family interest. The " social or- ganism" reinforces the family against the individual and the state against the family, this already threat- ening the family, and obviously it will next threaten the state so far as this can be distinguished from the community; that is, the "social organism" will have no permanent use for separate nations. But in speaking thus we should not forget that the group, or collectivity, reflects the will of some master minds, or at the widest the will of a large number under the influence of certain beliefs. Either one or two or three horses may draw a plow, and its motions will be different. The complexity of motion from three horses is certainly a phenomenon to be studied, but the way is not to disregard the elemen- tary motive forces which form the result by their combination ; and so it is with any society. Its phe- nomena will be according to conditions of informa- tion and to circumstances which determine the direc- tion of personal desires. The certainty of desire and aversion as motives, founded in self-preservation, is found in the nature of or^nic as distinguished from inorganic exist-ence. All desires and dislikes, acting 12 THEOLrOGICAL AND MORALrlSTIC PARITY. and counter-acting, make the so-called social will, — a, more convenient than accurate abstraction. To make of it an entity is a metaphysical fancy. Unity of will is the sig;n of individuality. The semblance of a social self, apart from individuals, obviously arises from the general concurrence of wills. They could not do otherwise than run along parallel lines of least resistance, but the intellectual prism separates the blended social rays. The church is an important group, under the the- ological belief. The primitive character of its dom- inant idea finds its complementary expression in the simple and transparent Egoism of its immediate motives. A personal ruler, judge and rewarder exist- ing in belief, commands and threatens. The person sacrifices part of his pleasure to propitiate tliis mas- ter because he fears his power. Habits supervene and the investigating spirit is terrorized both by per. sonal belief and the fear of other fear-stricken believ- , ers, watchful and intolerant. The hope of heaven and fear of punishment are of the simplest Egoism. Morality on the same plane includes the fear of man and hope of benefit from man, complicated with belief in reciprocal enforcement of ecclesiastical duties, and this as a duty. Becoming metaphysical it is doubt- less more difficult of analysis, but this secondary or transition stage of mind is already disposed of as a whole by philosophy, so that the evolutionist pre- dicts the passage of its phenomena and their replace- ment by positive ideas of processes. The metaphys- ical stage will pass away though its formulas be en- tirely neglected by the advancing opposition. In fact, spell-bound and mystified man is freed by cour- age to break off from the chain of phantasies which has succeeded to the chain of theological fear. In this progress example counts suggestively and even demonstratively, and new habits of positive, specific inquiry give the intellect mastery of itself and of the emotions which had enslaved it. To sum up this part of the subject, let those who preach anti-Egoistic doctrines in the name of deity, DEFINITION OP ALTRUISM. 13 society or collective humanity, tell us of a deity who is not an Egroistic autocrat, or who has worshipers who do not bow down to him because they think it wisest to submit; of a family which sacrifices itself to the individuals and not the individuals' hopes and wishes to itself; of a community or political or social state which departs from the rule of self-defence and self-aggrandizement; of any aggregation, pretending to permanence, that is not for itself and against ev- ery individuality that would subtract from its power and influence ; of a collective humanity that is not for itself, the collectivity, though it were necessary to discourage and suppress any individual freedom which the collectivity did not think to be well dis- posed toward the collectivity or at least certain to operate to its ultimate benefit. Self is the thought and aim in all. Selfiness is their common characteris- tic. Without it they would be elemental matter, un- resisting food for other growths. V. Can the altruistic be included in the Egoistic? According to a standard definition, quoted and adopted in Webster's dictionary, from the Eclectic Review, the reply seems to be that it can. That defi- nition reads as follows : Altruistic, a. [from Lat. alter, other.] Regardful of others ; proud of or devoted to others ; opposed to egotistic. If Egoism were the same and as narrow in mean- ing as egotistic, of course the question would have to be differently answered. But egotism bears the same relation to Egoism as the term selfishness, used with purpose in the derogatory syllable, bears to my newly coined term, selfiness ; hence we will set it down that some constructive use for the term altruistic is not of necessity excluded from Egoistic philosophy. But let it be observed that claims made for Altruism, based upon an ignorant or capricious limitation of the meaning of Egoism, and a glorification of the doctrine of devotion to others, intended to produce a habit of self-surrender, are held in our mode of 14 ALTRUISTIC MENTAL SLAVERY. thought to be pernicious, and attributed, in conclu- sions from our analysis, to defective observations and reasoning, and to the subtle workings of selfish- ness. To be regardful of others within reason, is in- telligent Egoism in the first place, but before we go far in this we draw a distinction between such others as are worth regarding and such others as present no title to regard unless a barren and superstitious form of respect obtrudes itself and makes a claim for " others " because they are " others," — makes a vir- tue of sinking self before that which is external to the self. This is the principle of worship, mental slavery, superstition, anti-Egoistic thought. To be proud of othei's, of the right sort for us, is one form of Egoistic rejoicing. When reflection has done its work efficiently the habit of care for others, of the right sort for us, continues until checked by some counter experience ; but let the habit become strong, let the avenues to esteem be unguarded and the sen- timent of worship usurp the place of good sense, then the Ego is undone. He is like the mariner who has set sail and lashed his helm in a fixed position, fallen asleep and drifted into other currents under changing winds. Some Altruistic writers remind me of the ortho- dox theologians. In face of the facts of physical science the theologian admits that everything in this world proceeds according to an invariable order, but he insists upon giving it a magical, ghostly origin. The Altruistic writers likewise admit that the imme- diate choice of action of each individual at each turn in his career is determined by causes with precision, but they plead for an Altruistic education, an Altru- istic impulse now, so that hereafter the reaction of the individual to given causes may be this : that he ^"^ will find his pleasure in the social welfare. 1 say that if he finds his pleasure in it, he Egoistically promotes it ; and if those writers find their pleasure in plan- ning a greater social welfare, their initial efforts in the matter are Egoistic. The reflecting person may perceive that there is room' for mistake as to what is INDIVIDUAL MISJBRIES FROM TRUMPERY BELIEFS. 15 the social welfare. The doctrine which demands that a person shall forego some pleasure without having a deliberate conviction that by so doing he makes a wise individual choice, is responsible for a certain im- mediate lessening of welfare at one point. Beyond that it may be an illusion of ignorance. The beliefs which prevail at one time regarding what is for the social welfare are widely different from those which succeed them. Once it was deemed inju- rious to society to teach a slave to read, and conse- quently injurious to tolerate in a slaveholding com- monwealth the presence of a free person who ven- tured to follow his liberal inclination in this respect toward an intelligent slave of deserving character and conduct. Those who yielded to this social belief which they shared, rather than make an exception by following personal inclination, yielded to what has since been generally pronounced to be a malefic er- ror. At the present day the beliefs pievail that con- jugal rights of person over person are contributory to the social welfare ; that children owe allegiance to their parents, and blood relations peculiar obliga- tions to each other ; that citizens need to feel other bonds than their own interested calculations and spontaneous benevolence; and so I might proceed with an array of phantom claimants exacting duties of the individual believer, prescribing what he shall and shall not do to be a worthy promoter of the so- cial welfare ; whereas on the whole there never has been any social welfare understood or realized, but meanwhile trumpery beliefs prevailing in the past and present have filled the world with individual miseries. ^^ Some of the Altruists contend that their ideal man is wiser than to serve the beliefs of society. He works for his own ideal with his own reason for his guide. Tliey fear that if he were to lose the urging sense of duty to the ideal he would cease to labor for a better condition of things. Now this is on their part, when stated, an insidious even if unconscious challenge to us Egoists to show them that Egoism is 16 EGOISM AS RATIONALISM. a better Altruism than Altruism itself. The matter presents itself thus, that the Altruist wants to in- quire or discuss whether Eo;oism is "right," best for society, and so forth. Perhaps it will break up all the societies that now exist, and constitute new moral worlds, making new ideals possible ; perhaps liberality of mind will prompt to all and more than the most intelligent and enlightened Altruist expects from the sentiment of duty ; but however this may be, we Egoists are not arguing for the right of Ego- ism to be tried. We are trying to explain that Ego- ism is the chief fact of organic existence — its universal characteristic. Let us analyze Altruism with reference to pursuits instead of confining all our attention to persons. A new acquaintance and anew thing are alike objects to the Ego. His aim is to make use of them. The Ego's mental caliber and his predilections, heredity, or hab- its with regard to association, distinguishing him as an individual, are exhibited in the appreciation which he shows for some objects which can be made use of as means to gain, or reduce to use, further objects. The less reflecting man finds grain and consumes it all, finds wood and uses all kinds alike for fuel. The more reasoning man saves some grain for seed, culti- vates it and gets more, saves hard wood for durable uses, makes tools of metal, and studies his future wel- fare by planning means to ends instead of living from hand to mouth. In so far as he, in dealing with either persons or things, keeps in view the rational purpose of becoming better convenienced by any postpone- ment or surrender of immediate pleasure, he is clearly acting with Egoistic judgment. Even when, having tested a series of phenomena, he establishes a rule and allows habits to supervene, saving himself the trouble of constant repetition of verifications, he is still the same Egoist; but if he lose the normal control of his exertions with reference to objects and ends which at first were to him means to other ends, he becomes an idealistic Altruist in the sense in which Altruism is dis- tinguished from Egoism. In other words he becomes DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I:G0IST AND DEVOTEE. 17 irrational, or insane. As some individuals have mind enough to be habitually regardful of others according to their merits, some artisans are habitually careful of their tools and more systematic and steady in their methods of work than others. Does this argue that they are less selfy or does it simply argue that they are more theoretical and, with excellent reason at the foundation, exemplify the law of character by which a process of reasoning having been settled, the interme- diate links in some chains of reasoning, become famil- iar, are passed over without self-consciousness? The selfiness of a farmer who goes out in the cold to save his stock, at the cost to him of some discomfort only, is not less in quantity, but is connected with more in- telligence, than that of one who avoids the cold and lets his stock suffer. But a farmer may become so avaricious that he will get his limbs frozen in his craze to save a yearling for the sake of the few dollars . it is worth to him. The love of money within reason is conspicuously an Egoistic manifestation, but when the passion gets the man, when money becomes his ideal, his god, we must class him as an Altruist. There is the characteristic of " devotion to another," no matter that that other is neither a person nor the social welfare, nothing but the fascinating golden calf or a row of figures. We Egoists draw the line of dis- tinction between the Egoist and the devotee. It is the same logically when a person becomes bewitched with another of the opposite sex so as to lose judg- ment and self-control, though this species of fascina- tion is usually curable by experience, while the miser's insanity cannot be reached. The love-sick man or woman has the illusion dispelled by contact with the particular person that caused it; but in certain cases absence or death prevents the remedy from being ap- plied, and in some of these instances the mental mal- ady is lifelong. " Devotion to others," it will be ob- served, can be made a text for other sermons than those emanating from the amiable Moralists who pride themselves upon the alleged superiority of an unreservedly Altr uistic habit of thought. 18 WHAT CONSTITUTES IDEALISTIC SLAVERY. VI. The man who has fifty or a hundred suits of clothes made for his imagined use, the woman who keeps a colony of cats, the man who fills a private storehouse with all sorts of tools which he can never use, are equally illustrations of the subversion of rea- son and are to be classed as Altruists in the degree in which Altruism supplants a rational Egoism. Let us take up these cases and consider them in detail. To have more than one suit of clothes is mostly a wise provision for the future, hence the aim is Egois- tic, but from the point at which the accumulator loses sight of the end for which his care and trouble are taken, and becomes a slave to the idea of clothes, he ceases to be intellectually his own master ; he falls under the domination of a fixed idea and is in that respect like a fanatic. The difference between him and the fanatic is that his crotchet is merely a waste of time and means, whereas the fanatic's fixed idea is one impelling its slave to some sort of senseless inter- ference with other people's conduct. The fanatic, too, is an idealistic Altruist. If his oppression of others were carried on in pursuance of a selfish calculation, he would not be a fanatic. The woman who keeps an absurd number of cats embodies the exaggeration of the originally rational idea that it is a useful course to have one or two cats about a house to keep the mice down. Care for the useful domestic cat, without reasoning this matter over continually, is just as altruistic and no more so than fair treatment of good neighbors or of neighbors who would probably be dangerous if unfairly treated. The craze for cats is the same kind of Altruism as that which dictates entire self-sacrifice for the imag- ined good of other people. One may need many appliances, but there is a ra- tional limit to the accumulation of tools. It is quite clear that some men pass this limit and make collec- tions of such things a hobby, not for exhibition and instruction, because they will eagerly accumulate a LIMITED ALTRUISTIC EGOIBM. 19 dozen or fifty articles of a kind, and not for commerce. This mild form of insanity cannot well be classed oth- erwise than as a degeneration from rational Egoism, through the altruistic process, to supernal Altruism. I have dwelt upon these examples partly because it is sometimes assumed that professed Egoists should use neither foresight nor prudential self-denial. Crit- ics who presume to argue in this way refer man to the improvident species of animals and forget even the squirrel. It is quite consistent with Egoistic philoso- phy and practice that foresight should be used and specific pleasures relinquished, and that habits of pru- dential self-denial should be formed, subject to search- ing review and ready self-control, especially as we are admonished on any change of surroundings. And now, having traced the degeneration of the limited altruistic phase of Egoism (the rational post- ponement of immediate ends to means of no value in themselves but only to reach Egoistic ends), in other words having viewed Egoism as partly a pursuit of means, and so a rational course, and Egoistically altruistic habits as a further rational economy of time, in place of endless minute examination and cal- culations of consequences, — having explained from the Egoistic point of view how, when the Ego has in some instance purposely dismissed the immediate gratifica- tion of self, he may and does sometimes fail to return to it for want of landmarks, memory and reflection, I would inquire whether there be any better explana- tion of the origin of the insanity of self-abnegation ; I mean in the real, extreme unegoistic sense of the word ; a sacrifice without expectation of compensa- tion to the individual. The limited altruistic phase of Egoism is inevitable for a complex being. It in- volves the peril described. He runs the risk of going into supernal Altruism, much as the sailor, deliber- ately going out of sight of land to reach other land, runs whatever risk there may be of forgetting the ob- ject with which he undertook the voyage or of losing his compass and never getting back; or as an orator, entering upon the flowery path of illustration, may 20 THE ALTRUISTIC INSANITY ACCOUNTED FOR. become captivated with the images of his fancy and utterly forget the logical conclusion which he intended only momentarily to postpone in order to reach it with greater effect. As hobbies, miserly habits, and so forth, do not seem to admit of any other explanation than the one presented, and as fanaticism with its cruel deeds ad- mittedly springs from concern for others, coupled with a belief that certain of their doctrines are errors, and is thus identified despite its deplorable character- istics, as being a pronounced Altruism, and yet in con- sequence of these characteristics it will not be defended by professed Altruists, but will be admitted by them to originate in unreason, I should not expect them to object to this way of accounting for all obviously evil forms of Altruism. But the obviously evil and the silly phases of Altruism are apparently as intense as those phases which are so much praised and expatia- ted upon by professed Altruists, and therefore ])re- sumably require an equal formative energy. Conse- quently until the contrary is shown, we shall be as thoroughly warranted in reason in assuming that if the one set have been accounted for by oar theory of the development of the dominating power of ideas and sentiments, the other can be accounted for in the same way ; precisely as we may say that if the phys- ical development theory be admitted to account for the snake and the hawk, it will be taken to account for the sheep and the deer. And moreover, when a process of development is shown to hold good, the mute challenge of facts is not merely as to whether or not another and radically different sort of explana- tion can be supposed for correlative facts, but the presumption of a general unity of process is very strong. Let any considerable part of the foregoing reasoning be admitted and it is granted to us that the concrete good or seemingly good in Altruism is based in Egoism. Then it can safely be inferred that it must be subject to test by reference to the Egoistic reason for its existence; in each case of a development of altruistic motive the question will be : is it service- A RATIONALLY LIMITED ALTRUISM WISE. 21 able projection, an indirect means of Egoistic attain- ment, or is it an irrational movement, an aberration, to which we have seen there is a constant tendency? Now, the reason why we need to speak with cau- tion of the seeming good in Altruism is not founded in any doubt that rationally limited altruism is wise and a necessary part of human Egoism, but in the circumstance that Altruism appears to have been set up by some writers as a principle separate from and independent of Egoism, as if the latter were a prelim- inary ladder, passing from which they profess to reach their supernal structure, whereupon they would kick the ladder from beneath them. At this point we Ego- ists decide that such Altruism, considered as a princi- ple, is not a thing of parts more or less good, but is posited as a rival or antagonistic claim, and there- fore from the Egoistic point of view, is wholly bad. Here for illustration we may take the analogy of what is called government. If we say that each indi- vidual needs protection from violence nnd combina- tions for violence, that therefore the honest people should combine to secure such protection, this is well; but if upon this basis a governmental power is built which proves to be oppressive, we deny that such gov- ernment is good, whatever good acts it may perform. VII. All the appetites and passions afford subjects for observation and study of the process traced in several of the preceding paragraphs, but it is not my purpose to give an exhaustive review of the various fixed ideas and fascinations, orforms of mental slavery. I would suggest, as a useful exercise to the student of this phi- losophy of the actual, that other forms of subservi- ency to fixed ideas be analyzed as instances present themselves. Sometimes it will be necessary to look beyond the individual experience of the subject. Indeed it is cer- tain that heredity plays an important part in predis- posing the individual to one or other craze, so that he falls into it when the inciting cause arises, or else 22 REVENGE AN ALTRUISTIC TRAIT, in organizinp^ him with well-balanced powers so that be happens to be happily proof against their influence. For example it may be interesting to the reader to take up for himself the passion of revenge, study its origin in the facts of warring species, families and individuals, self-defence and precaution, habits of thought becoming fixed, the destructive propensity developed perhaps beyond the need of the individual in actual circumstances, while the sense of relation between means and ends is blunted or lost ; conse- quently when some hurt is experienced or appre- hended, — or it may be an insult to his " honor " or a bundle of Altruistic beliefs, — the person seeking self- protection or vindication will act as if what has been destroyed were still to be preserved by annihilating the destroyer, or on a menace he will act with the en- ergy of concentrated race experiences, and in sympa- thy with his family, nation or race will generalize an injury to someone as being precisely the same as an injury to another or himself, though in the case it may be really otherwise, as a cool judgment might determine. Thus what is primarily self-defence leads, under the influence of this passion, and perhaps quite as often or oftener than philanthrophy, to the sacri- fice of his own life by the subject. Such action has the mark of that supernal Altruism already abund- antly illustrated and clearly distinguished from a rational altruism consonant with the reign of self- interest. We have now dealt with Altruism as fact, but we have yet to consider it as a preachment of duty. Be- fore entering upon a consideration of the claims of the preachers of "moral duty" and showing what their alleged obligatory Altruism is, — putting ittothe test, whereupon I apprehend that it will be found to be eas- ier for a man to pass through a needle's eye than to enter into the moral kingdom of heaven, — 1 wish to anticipate an objection or criticism which some reader may have raised in his own mind while we were dis- cussing the illustrations of fixed ideas. The miser took pleasure in hoarding gold, but because he was DIVIDING IDEAS INTO "SHEEP" AND "GOATS." 23 under a fixed idea I classified him as in the bad sense Altruistic ; yet for an individual to act under the rule of pleasure is Egoistic. This is the seeming difficulty. It is resolved, of course, by disregarding verbal quib- bles. The mesmerized subject seems to act as an indi- vidual but he is under foreign control. The miser seems likewise to act as an individual but he is intox- icated or mesmerized by the force of the idea which has obtained an ascendency incompatible with the reign of individual reason. A further remark seems appropriate here, and I have brought this case up partly to explain how far the philosophy of Egoism differs from the logomachy of the Moralists, who, not content with dividing men into sheep and goats, would be glad to divide ideas of facts in the same way and on the lines of their own prejudices. With them the facts must be opposites, absolute opposites all the way through, if there be opposition in them in some relation. They have right and wrong, good and evil. Altruism and Egoism in their brains as opposites. Though nothing in fact is simpler to sound reason than the conformity of the crazy man's conduct to the order of the sane man's conduct, barring the substitution of an abnormal motive which practically supplants individual rea- son, the genuine Moralistic theorist does not want an analysis of the facts. He is on the lookout for some peg whereon to hang a charge of inconsistency in ar- gument. Verbiage is his stronghold for such occa- sions. He may be painfully surprised to learn that we Egoists profess to find the Altruistic subject man- ifesting Egoistic modes of operation as nearly as the nature of the craze will allow, and that we find in this an expected corroboration of the central fact of or- ganized, sensitive existence. A little shock or whirl of this kind will prepare the less fossilized among my Moralistic readers for the greater astonishment which they must undergo when they for the first time read of right and wrong as they will be treated in these pages, as conceptions having each a separate and in- dependent origin and not logically requiring the 24 MORALISM THE GHOST OF THEOLOGY. usual forced moralistic treatment as if they were nee. essary and invariable opposites. Just at this point, however, I need only say that modest altruism con- fesses its foundation and haughty Altruism is self- betrayed, as surely as there is method in madness. Altruism is conspicuously selfish to make gains for Altruism. Method is a prime characteristic of san- ity. There may be such madness as shows no me- thod, but it is rare. The Altruism that contains no Egoistic alloy is still more rare if it exists at all. We have yet to look about and see whether it can be found and to examine whether or nob it will appear to be a vain profession of self-deluded men who have never contemplated the sacrifices which it would in- volve if consistently and diligently carried into ac- tion. vm. To plead before a tribunal is generally under- stood to be an acknowledgment of its jurisdiction. The intelligent Egoist does not seek to justify his views or conduct according to rules or principles of Moralism which works by awe, aping theology and religion, of which this Moralism is the ghost. Such words as morals, morality, right and wrong, duty and obligation have not lost their limited Egoistic meanings. The theoretical Egoist may be termed a moralist in so far as he thinks out a course of con- duct in conformity with his observation and reason. If in a genial way he soars above business calcula- tions then he "sings as the bird sings." To him du- ties imply persons who have wants and make the non-satisfaction of those wants a source of discom- fort to him. But supernal Moralism with its abso- lute Duty he apprehends as a claim of an essentially religious character fettering with ghostly terror or enthrallment all who j'^ield to the mystic spell. Persons who have been reared in a religious be- lief find themselves years after they have become dis- believers in the doctrines taught them in childhood still so far under the influence of religious sentiment THE HEREDITY OF PREACHING. 25 that light remarks on the subject give them a shock, and apparently in the same way a generation that does not know God or ecclesiastical authority, a gen- eration that does not know the sacred political State and the sacred authoritative family of its fathers, still retains some portion of the conscience that would fain subjugate Egoistic reason. For thous- ands of years preachers in the service of rulers have been preaching Duty, humility, submission, piety to the people, and Egoism has been their unspeakable horror. In our day the results of criticism applied to religious belief are apparent in general scepticism re- garding the foundation of their authority, of their dogmas. Still the heredity of preaching, exhorting and warning must find its outlet, to say nothing of calculations made by men whose wealth is insured by the system of belief and submission preached, and to say nothing of calculations by ex-preachers of theol- ogy whose prospect of an income seems limited to finding something on which to preach and by which to obtain contributions, and thus the relations of man with man, philanthrophy for equity, sentiment for science, serve to continue the comedy-tragedy of preaching and servility. If Shy lock does not go to church he takes a mag- azine and enables the publisher to pay a few dollars a page for essays on ethics, the purport of which is that Morality, Conscience, Duty reign where God formerly reigned and with much the same restraining effect ; that all honorable men will agree that these forces are indispensable, ineradicable and necessary for the conservation of property, the family, government and social order, hence a proof of Moral Being in man, while self-interest as a principle would be sub- versive of Moral sentiment and ruinous to society ; wherein it is assumed that society is about as it is desirable to keep it. By such process Shylock makes 5000 per cent on his investment in Moralistic litera- ture simply in the economic sphere, as he is protected by the State. He accepts any incidental assistance toward keeping women in a receptive and docile con- 26 REFORM — CONSERVATIVE MEDIOCRITY, dition of mind as being so mucli clear profit, though really if the enterprise had to be sustained for this purpose alone he must be a miser only or else a free lover and not a " proper family man," if he did not see the advisability of paying out the few dollars even with this sole end in view. All reformers who are not intelligent Egoists or endowed with the geuius of Egoism continually ren- der themselves ridiculous hy complaining of monopo- lists and tyrants. Thereby they proclaim their Mor- alistic superstition. Their method is abortive. It can at the best lead people from one form of trustful dependence to another. At the worst and often it causes people to commit acts of ill considered hostil- ity and to indulge in sentimental declarations which enable cool and intelligent masters to incite stronger forces against the reformers. Reform, indeed, is a word for conservative mediocrity. Egoism when un- derstood by the many means nothing less than a complete revolution in the relations of mankind, for it is the exercise of the powers of individuals at their pleasure, and not a plea for their " rights." The Moralists, or Altruists, come with a tale of Duty, or moral obligation. They say that 1 ought to love my neighbor as myself and to put aside my selfy pleasure. It is horrifying to them that I act on consciousness of satisfaction, on genial impulse, on calculation of gain, and not in submission to the Moralistic judgment of " conscience." I understand verv well that it is their ignorant fear of an independ- ent person that is at the bottom of their pleading. Thev are accustomed to think of a man as a danger- ous animal unless controlled by "conscience." Few of them have met one who does not profess to defer to such a ' ' spiritual guide. ' ' I however regard their "con- science" a« identical with the superstition which im- pels Hindoos to throw themselves beneath the wheels of the sacred car and to allow sacred animals and sa- cred men to devour their substance. Are the Altruists, the Moralists, willing to exam- ine the logic of their principle and carry it out to its THE "conscience" SUPERSTITION. 27 consequences? Will they follow where it leads? Then we need not insist upon the prominence of the oppressive idea of Duty and its degradation of the individual, but we may take their own favorite idea of pure, disinterested love expelling self-interest where- ever the two conflict. Of course the intelligent Ego- ist will perceive that I am trying to accommodate the Altruists, to get as near their position as possi- ble, but that nevertheless there is something of false- hood, of contradiction, in the idea that love can be other than a personal interest in the object when love overcomes other interests without a sentiment of sac- rifice arising; and that if the consciousness of sacri- fice be present the motive is Duty, not love. How- ever, I am discussing an alleged possibility, — a life of Altruistic devotion, — and I do not expect in the state- ment of the question to succeed better than the Mor- alists themselves in making the fanciful scheme ap- pear wholly real. Apart from theology with its gross dogmatism about "souls" in men and the animals as "soulless" machines of flesh and blood, the dogma of Moralism, the duty of love to others, obviously bears a direct and essential relation to the capacity of others to en- joy and to suffer, and no radical distinction can be made between a human subject and any other animal. The anti-vivisection Moralists stand up to the logic of their principle in one particular when they insist that pain ought not to be inflicted upon the inferior ani- mals for the advancement of science intended for the benefit of mankind and not for the species or individ- ual animals operated upon. The consistent Moralist will now see what his prin- ciple requires of him. Though the animal, by reason of its inferior intelligence and want of speech and hands, cannot fully express its complaints, assert its "rights," and maintain its liberty, he will neither use his superior ability to enslave it nor permit others to do such wrong if it be within his power to prevent them. The animal's inability to participate as an equal in social affairs is ground for certain exclu- 28 THE ANIMAL KINGDOM COMES IN. eions, but not for usurpation, detention, subjug'a- tion, castration, enforced labor, shearinj^ off the nat- ural coat, robbery of the mother's milk and drivin<>; to the slaughter house. By what right does the Mor- alist shoot deer or crows, cut off the heads of chick- ens and turkeys, and cast his line or his net for fish? If by the authority of God, 1 reply that God is the archetype of personal despotism, — Egoism without the balancing force of approximately equal powers in different individuals; and that there is no such authority. The philosophical Altruist has left that ground. I refuse to recognize the plea. I look to the Altruistic Moralist for a less barbarian answer. And let him remember the incapable of his species, — the idiot, the maniac. Does he exploit them with a good conscience, as he tames and rides a horse? Does he refrain from fattening and killing them only because he thinks they are not good eating? Where and what is his conscience, then, as to other animals? Permit me to suggest that a man is safe in reflect- ing that he will never be a buffalo or a rat, — unless he believes in transmigration, whereupon his unconfessed Egoism crops out, keenly self-regardful. Hence buffa- loes and rats have no rights that a man even though a professed Moralist need respect, except the right of exemption from torture. (Torture is a bad exam- ple. It can be inflicted upon men as well as upon other animals and it does not minister to any de- mand of enlightened self-interest.) But what man may not be accused of feeble-mindedness or suffer some accident which will impair his mental powers? How then can self-concern be silent when one of his species is ill treated ? The other animals — indeed he is never to be one of them : what does it matter to him how^ you use them so that you do not cultivate cruelty in yourself? (The cruel man is dangerous to us and ours.) I call upon the Moralist to vindicate his doctrine by applying it consistently to the treatment of all a n- imals. Confining it to our own species is too Egoistic to be deemed pure Moralism. I shall be very much SHALL PARASITES HAVE A CLAIM? 29 surprised if any such practical response comes as to disprove my new version of scripture, which says that the Moral king:dom of heaven is inaccessible to men of ordinary sanity. Who will rejoice to see the grass- hopper getting his fill, and keep sacrilegious hands out of the hen's nest? Who will feed the lambs and neither feed upon lamb nor wrap in woolen blankets, for conscience sake? One Moralist has one hobby and another has another hobby, but if there be one who proposes to live a life of self-denial for the happiness of all other sentient beings as far as they are capable of experiencing pleasure, to respect their liberty and embryonic offspring as conscientiously as any Moral- ist does those of his own species, I shall regard his appearance upon this scene as the exception which will very strikingly illustrate the rule in individual conduct, and I shall be glad to have an opportunity of learning how he manages to live. IX. If self-renunciation be a virtue, certainly it is the purer when the sacrifice is made for individuals of another and widely different species. In caring for our own species we may obtain a return, and we can cherish the imagination thereof if it seems improba- ble; and so it is in caring for one of any other species between which and ourselves there is some communi- cation of mutual intelligence and mutual sympathy ; but if a man wants to show pure disinterestedness let him sacrifice his pleasure, his comfort and his life for other species that will neither understand nor return the manifestation of benevolence. Such a supernal Altruist will reject cleanliness as a sin, if convinced, as he must be by ordinary observation, that para- sites thrive best on the human body when there is an entire avoidance of soap and water. Such a self-de- nying Moralist will not dress a wound or purify his blood, for these practices mean death to animalcules. Here I am reminded of the story of the devout Hin- doo who was horrified on looking at a drop of water through a powerful microscope. He found to his con- 30 freethinkers' superstitions. Btemation that he could not drink without destroy- ing life. Supernal Moralisni should be viewed sometimes from the point of view of universal animal motives and conduct, excludino- the idea of selflessness. If the survival of the fittest be not an empty phrase, super- nal Moralism is an excessively silly insanity. The " sacredness " of the germs of human life is impressed upon the mind of the devotee of Moralism, and in some cases the result is that a child is born as the off- spring of rape. The simple, pious people may wonder that " God " can assist in giving effect to crime. The supernal Moralist who prides himself on scientific ac- quirements may well feel confused when a hybrid form appears as a practical commentary upon the alleged " sacred ness." Spiritual terror, the strangest, most melancholy phenomenon in human motive, is essentially the same influence, while it lasts, in the man or woman claim- ing to be emancipated from theological dogmas, as in the believer in those dogmas. It usually remains after its generally supposed root is destroyed, in the Agnostic, like an air-plant. This indicates that its foundation is not precisely where some anti-theolog- ical writers suppose. Mere disbelief in Jehovah may leave the agnostic mind subject to fixed ideas of a most irrational character. The belief in Jehovah in the first place occupied an ignorant mind and when that belief is expelled neither ignorance nor fear is al- together banished. There is some improvement in the prospect for positive Egoistic thought and senti- ment to occupy its own. There remain, however, nu- merous fixed ideas of Duty to Society, Duty to the State, Duty to Humanity, and such rubbish, which are fertile of intoxicating and paralyzing influences, and our talking Freethinkers in general still shudder to contemplate a person uncontrolled by such "re- straining influences." They imagine, after all, that he will go to the devil or run amuck without moral "restraint." The triumph of sanity, then, lies not in the expulsion of any one form of insanity, but in MYSTIC "duty." 31 the acquisition of an Egoistic consciousness and self- control. X. Under the head of Religion Webster's dictionary says: "As distinguished from morality, religion de- notes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences." Granted belief in a personal ruler, submission to his will is prudence, and prudence is Egoistic. With this conception the duty spoken of is not mysterious : it is service by a sub- ject, — the slave's submission to the power which he fears. He believes that the sovereign ruler has laid upon him special commands favoring his species and therefore he must treat men better than other ani- mals. If this belief be an error, still there is no line to be drawn between the alleged duty and his inter- est. There is no disinterestedness or generosity in religious duty or moral duty, — or say rather in duty to God or man, for both are ultimately duty to the supposed heavenly' master. But Morahsts, having gained some rational ideas of mutual relations, while unhappily ignoring the fact that these ideas are the proper foundation of willingly assumed mutual duties, fancy that they have discovered the justice of the alleged divine com- mand or will, which is nothing but a reflection of their own thoughts, and thenceforth they fall under the hallucination of mystic Duty, independent of either calculation or pleasure. It is one task of Ego- istic philosophy to analyze this notion of theirs as a confusion of ideas. They go so far in some instances as to dismiss belief in a moral lawgiver of the uni- verse and yet remain under the same fascination to Duty as if they had him, and his will were equitable, and their servility were swallowed up in admiration of his justice. What they lack is the insight to per- ceive that conduct which makes for the good of the species is naturally agreeable to the feeling of each 32 MUTUAL INTERESTS NOT *' DUTY." well developed Individual, hence that the conception of Duty is scepticism as to spontaneity. The fixed idea of Duty unrelated to interest and not reducible to calculation, arises by abstraction and fascination like other aberrations reviewed in preceding pages. It reaches clear insanity in self-sacrifice if this occur in unreasoning ecstacy. Of course one self-inflicted pain of some particular kind or even death is sometimes chosen in .order to terminate anguish which none but the subject can ap- preciate. In such cases the action is Egoistic, though it may be of a terribly ignorant sort, as for example, when the cause of the pain is an imaginary object or such a real relation as is humiliating to the person's feeling only because of irrational notions about it. If uiorality be regarded from the point of view of the social utilitarian, as that course of conduct which promotes the welfare of the species, it is only neces- sary to repeat that the species acts as Egoistically as . it can. It cheerfully sacrifices individuals to its own welfare. It has a subtle economy of means in plant- ing Altruistic conceits in those that are willing to en- tertain them. When intelligence comes to recognize mutual interest this instinctive trickery of social in- fluence will vanish, no longer seeming to be needed. As for the virtues, such as benevolence, every ob- serving person knows that we seek to get rid of pain- ful impressions. Such, usually, are those of suffering in others. Many writers have pointed out how pity is stirred by the sight of wasted bodies and hearing the cry of pain, and how much weaker it is when only an ordinary description is given of the occasion ; also how much more ready the poor are to help other poor people than the rich are. What has perhaps not been so generally observed is the reason for this, viz., that the rich do not feel that they are likely to need alms, while the poor are on the edge of such need. There is quite enough in the difference of circumstances to make it instructive, although at the same time, per- sonal character varying in susceptibility, it is doubt, less true also that those most inclined to benevolence EGOISM AN EPOCH IN MENTAL PROGRESSION. 33 are most likely to be poor in a society like ours, where money is supposed topjrow by lending and profits are consolidated from the results of unpaid labor. XI. The suggestion has been heard that if all acts are Egoistic this term has no distinctive meaning. The same thing has often been said as to "matter" when the Materialist has affirmed that there is no "spirit," — no opposite of matter. Matter then becomes syn- onymcms simply with existence. The Materialist re- plies that he is content with the conclusion that there is no alleged existence unrelated to other and known existence; none exempt from manifestation according to a regular order or subject to the inherent law of its being, to speak according to appearances. There is a regular order of succession of phenomena. The Spiritual theory asserts a break in what is popularly called "the reign of natural law," Materialism denies such assertion and exists as a distinctive ism to deny and disprove it. This statement will indicate in part what is the proper reply when it is charged that Ego- ism is almost meaningless if it embrace all acts. It was believed that men acted disinterestedly. Closer examination finds the motive and the form of their interest. Thus a parallel to the progress made from the time when men believed in miracles to the time when they have learned enough of natural law to ex- pel the former belief. By referring to the definition already given of Egoism it will be seen that it covers a theory as well as facts. If every act of every animal were perfectly Egoistic, nevertheless the demands of intelligence would not be satisfied without understanding the phenomena, which are explained according to nat- ural law as reactions of individual will to motives presented in circumstances. To act Egoistically is universal, but to be in part ignorant of the fact seems to be also nearly universal. The theory of Egoism has its opposite in the theory of Altruism, evidently joined to Spiritualism by ignoring and de- 34 RIGHT MEANS STRAIGHT. nying the necessary sequence in phenomena. (1 make no allusion to modern Spiritualism, which professes to be Materialistic.) But beyond this it can be firmly said that until the Egoistic theory is understood and has had its full influence upon character, those irrational actions will continue which are the fruit of error, illusion, fascina- tion, fixed ideas, rendering the individual practically not an Ego, — not in the possession of his faculties, — hence there will be, as there are, actions not properly Egoistic, but insane, though not generally so under- stood. Thus the Egoistic theory has a practical pur- pose. The half insane, — that is to say all worshipers, religious, political or personal, — are to come to con- sciousness of their individuality and become wholly sane. As to submissive actions performed simply under fear or hope, their Egoistic character is quite clear. XII. The word right has the same fundamental mean- ing as straight. When no obstacle stands or lies be- tween an animal and the object of its desire, the short- est way, which is a straight line, is the way the animal takes to reach the object ; but when approach by a right line is impracticable the nearest known path is chosen, all considerations such a-s safety being weighed according to intelligence. This is then the line of least resistance, — the one most approximating in conveni- ence to a right line. The right hand is so named be- cause usually the stronger and more serviceable. A man's right is his straight way to the satisfaction of his desires, and he takes no other way except under adverse circumstances or hallucination. It will be objected by Moralists that such an ex- position of right reduces it to nothing but might. In this inference they are correct, but their objection does not disturb Egoistic philosophy, which regards their alleged supernal, sacred Right as a superstition. I have a right to what I can take and openly keep, and another has a right to take it from me if he can. RIGHT, " RIGHT " KOR THE INDIVIDUAL. 35 Those, however, who beheve that a superior author- ity has laid down a rule to which they must conform, will take up that rule or law as they understand it, and their idea of right will be that of conformity to the command of the authority. The Moralist is un- der an impression that instead of pursuino: his own pleasure he has to fulfill a purpose which may be at variance with his pleasure. His conception of Right is not an Egoistic conception. He has surrendered himself, and with himself his own right, and has be- gun to serve an abstraction. He is in the way to commit great folly and wrong to himself. To the Morahst Right and Wrong are two fixed ideas, for- ever in opposition in all senses. To the intelligent Egoist they are two words generally perverted from their meaning and used as scarecrows. There is a frequent clash between the right of one and the right of another, and they fight it out. It is settled by the triumph of one and the defeat of the other. Max Stirner in his matchless book, Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (the Individual and his Property), says: 1st es mir recht, so ist es recht (If it suits me, it is right.) The Moralist would say : if it be right for me; thus implying that he is under some mysterious authority. The Egoist would not use the latter prep- osition except when recognizing some law or definite arrangement which prescribes certain rights. When I say : "if it be right for me — ," I admit an authority. Now in fact I must often admit one — , that is a power, — but I admit it simply as a power, not at all as the Moralist admits it. I do not bow down to it in my thought or regard it as anything but an enemy to my freedom, and if it cease to assert its power and to compel me by penalty or the prospect of penalty, I assert my full power to do my own pleasure and noth- ing but my own pleasure. The Moralist consents to serve as his own jailer; not so the Egoist. Assert your right, your power, your pleasure. I claim none of that, I assert my own. I appeal to no Moral law of the world. I recognize none. We shall find our mt;ei'ests coincide or we shall give each other battle 36 WRONG — TO WRING, TO TWIST. Dr we shall steer clear of each other, according' to cir- cumstances. In words jou can assert my right, but when you attempt to do so in deeds you succeed only in assert- ing your own right. I alone can prove my right by deeds. The Moralist pretends to be under an obligation to respect the rights of others and never do them any wrong; but he defines their rights and does not allow them all their rights. He abdicates his own and crip- ples theirs and then flatters himself that the mutila- tion and effacement constitute superior Right. He protests against Egoism because it wrongs his sj's- tem. At times heimagines that the Egoist must talk in the language of Moralism and must mean that in acting with Egoistic right the Egoist would pretend not to do wrong to another; wherein the Moralist becomes absurd, for the Egoist does not pretend that he can always exercise his right without wrong to an- other. It is a matter of expediency with the Egoist what wrong to another he shall do. "Right wrongs no man," exclaims the landlord, and drives the tenant out of a house. The inclement weather beats upon the unsheltered, and their nerves are wrung. The landlord exercises his right, but lies moralistically. The word wrong is a variation upon the past par- ticiple of the verb to wring, to twist. Victor and van- quished are two, and the Moralist simply looks away Erom the facts of life when he preaches a universal nat- ural Right and ignores individuals with their various wants and powers and the probability that what is good to one may entail some ill upon another. But the species? The Moralist, driven from the former position of a divinity ordering all things in harmony in the world, or at least the conceit that his own species is favored at the expense of all below it, and this not by its intelligence but by a divine decree arbitrarily making the spoilation of the world and rule over inferior animals Right, takes refuge in a belief that the welfare of the species may give Moral SAVING THE INDIVIDUAL SAVES THE SPECIES. 37 law to the individual. Hence the dogma that the in- dividual exists for the species. Were it so, the indi- vidual might insist upon existing at any cost, assum- ing that he is what he knows best of the species, and that his stubborn will might probably be a provis- ion for the species. That is Right, says the Moralist, which best serves the species. And what best serves the species? The Moralist will generally reply: "that which is Right," thus completing a little circle in dog- matism. Nature, however, seems to say that species survive by the survival of their indi viduals. The Ego- ist will find in himself certain loves and aversions, and he may think that the species is taking care of it- self just in proportion as he is following those paths which give him satisfaction. The Moralist, becoming more philosophical, sug- gests that the war of interests will cease as men under- stand their similar needs and the possibility of mutual benefit, hence wrongs in the species may become fewer or cease. With all our heart, say the Egoists, only you are not to begin by sacrificing us. If the later Moralism be merely a prophetic dream of a harmony of interests through wisdom, we are not without hope that at last the dreamers will recognize individuality as the condition precedent to the fulfillment of their hopes. The fellow feeling in the species is a certain fact. Let us take it for what we find it to be and not attempt to place it in antagonism to our individuali- ties. As these are developed the necessity will appear for each one to recognize somewhat the individuals of his species, and thus the " claims of the species " will be recognized. xm. Self-interest masks itself and says suavely "we seek the good of the species," instead of saying bluntly, " we gladly pick up all that other individuals let slip from their grasp." Are not we the species as contradistinguished from any individual? When we go so far as to urge sacrifices for the good of the species what are we but beggars and hypocrites? 38 SOME SPENCERTAN SOPHISTRY. Persuasion is mingled freely with flattery adminis- tered to the vanity of the individual, and it is not to be ignored that the Moral philosopher flatters him- self as he proceeds to render what he vainly imagines to be a service to his species. Assuming the point of view that he is spokesman for the species, the dictum that that is good conduct which promotes the inter- ests of the species, is a subtle mendicancy or a veiled terror in the supposed interest of the crowd. But assuming an individual point of view the question is differently shaped. It then becomes: what use can I make of the species, of the crowd? A summary of ethical teachings of Herbert Spen- cer sa3's that postulating the desirability of the pres- ervation and prosperity of the given species, there emerges the general conclusion that " in order of ob- ligation the preservation of the species takes prece- dence of the preservation of the individual." The species he admits, "has no existence save as an ag- gregate of individuals," and hence "the welfare of the species is an end to be subserved only as subserving the welfare of individuals," but, continues the sum- mary, "since disappearance of the species involves absolute failure in achieving the end, whereas disap- pearance of individuals makes fulfillment simply • somewhat more difficult, 'the preservation of the in- dividual must be subordinated to the preservation of the species where the two conflict.' " , There are several featui-es of sophistry in this. Let us. however, note first the admission that "the species" is simply a convenient term. Now, where confusion is possible the safe way is to lay aside the term. When this is done it will be found that in re- stating the foregoing propositions it becomes neces- sary to speak, instead, either of all the individuals concerned except one or of all the individuals con- cerned, without exception. But he has seemingly used the term species in both senses or else, with his "order of obligation," he has affirmed an obligation to sub- ordinate the preservation of one individual to that of another. As this is intelligible for the purpose of the THE le:tter a, answers : " BOSH ! " 39 crowd dealing with individuals but not for the indi- vidual acting" for himself with himself as the victim, the immediate inference at this point is that Spencer is expounding the Egoistic logic of the crowd. If the welfare of others is subserved only as sub- serving my welfare, it can never be true that I must subordinate my preservation to that of others, for this is to divert the general rule, which applies while 1 am one of the crowd, to the exceptional case wherein I am set apart from the crowd. All conditions of benefit impl^^ at least preservation. When I am counted out for non-preservation, for the good of others, it must be the others, not 1, who do the count- ing out. In the first premise Spencer speaks for the individual treating the crowd from his proper motive; but in the conclusion he speaks for the crowd or some of its preserved part contemplating the sacrifice of an individual, yet these shifting points of view are included in a syllogism. The welfare of the crowd a mediate end : that is reasonable to the individual. The preservation of the individual a mediate end to the crowd : that is reasonable from the crowd's point of view ; but anah^sis of the diverse points of view is needed, not an attempt to link the two in a syllogism the conclusion of which is merely the crowd's conclu- sion. Now examine the second premise of the syllogism: "the disappearance of the species involves absolute failure in achieving theend." Why, in fact? Because the disappearance of all others of the species but my- self involves it? Not at all ; but because the term species includes myself. But as far as my existence is concerned it would be the same if 1 alone disappeared. Do you say : the preservation of the alphabet is of no use to A except as A combines with other letters ; but the disappearance of the alphabet wor^ 1 involve the disappearance of A; hence the preservation of one let- ter (A) is less important than the preservation of all the other letters? The letter A answers : " Bosh !" Speaking forthe individual, how does the doctrine of subordination of the preservation of the individual 40 THE GENUS NEVER ENCOURAGES NEW SPECTES. accord with evolutionary theory regarding; the origin of species? Do species originate by individuals tak- ing care of themselves under whatever circumstances, if possible, or by the contrary rule of their benevolence toward the pre-existing species ? The reader can pur- sue this inquiry for himself; but I should like to sug- gest that what has been considered regarding the in- dividual and the species can be paraphrased with ref. erence to the species and the genus under which it is classified, thus : The welfare of the genus is to be subserved only as subserving the welfare of the species, but since the disappearance of the genus involves absolute failure, whereas disappearance of particular species makes fulfillment simply somewhat more difficult, therefore the preservation of the species must be subordinated to the preservation of the genus where the two con- flict. The fallacy of this sort of reasoning may ap- pear without comment, inasmuch as the individual will easily maintain the point of view of the interested species, and will not practically allow himself to slide over to the position of the presuming genus. A sup- plementary remark may be indulged. The genus never licenses or encourages the origination of new species ; but then the verbal sophistry of the genus would not prove to be a preventive. 1 pass by the small occasion of confusion in the use of the word "end," the second time, in the forego- ing statement. Total failure may be assumed to re- fer to failure of the ultimate aim. XIV. Duty is that which is due. I ought is I owe or I owed. Some duties I assume for duties assumed by others toward me. This is reciprocity. Somealleged duties the Moralist tells me that I ought to acknowl- edge and perform from a sense of Duty. If 1 then say that it is a superstition he perhaps severs himself for the moment from the superstitious crowd and claims that it is only a generalization, meaning fitness, sav- ing tiresome repetition of analysis ; it is my interest " DUTY " IS MENTAL SLAVERY. 41 after all. He is somewhat disingenuous here, for if it be only my interest embodied in a thouf^ht-saving generalization, it will bear analysis and always come out as my interest. But he has the " social organ- ism " in mind, to the preservation of which my indi- vidual welfare is to be subordinated, according to his idea. The "social organism " idea has captured him and he is using decoy argument to obtain from me a sacrifice of myself to his idol, his spiritual monster. A man is hired to do certain work, and that is then called his duty ; or exchange of services grows into a mutual understanding; the debt is first on one side and then on the other, and what at any time is expected, to balance the account or turn the scale as usual and create another claim so as to continue the niutually advantageous arrangement or under- standing, is also called one's duty. Where service is compulsory it is likewise called duty. Moralism, when it has gained enlightenment enough to reject slavery to a person, under the subjection of mind overawed by physical force, denies that the slave's duty is Duty. But if the slave has yielded his mind to his master the phenomenon is clearly that of Duty. When the Egoist is conscripted he does not argue that his assigned duty is not Duty. It is servitude con- trary to his interest, and this consideration is enough. The fact that some slaves are governed by a sense of Duty furnishes the plainest evidence that Duty is mental slavery. But the Moralist will claim for Duty that it is not always mental slavery. It is true that he can confuse the issue by using the word Duty to describe all those habitual actions in the doing of which no immediate benefit to self is thought of; but let us keep to the plain sense. Duty is what is due. The domination of a fixed idea begins when one admits something due and yet not due to any person or something due with- out benefit coming to one in return ; and of course when a return benefit is calculated upon the idea is int-erest. 42 DUTY, "ought," legitimate VVOKDte. Wheu interest is sublimated so as to lose si^ht of self it assumes the form of love in the absence of op- pression. Evidently the presence of fear in the causa- tive circumst-ances corrupts the sublimating process and results in the oppressive sense of Duty. It is pos- sible for the Moralist, finding a series of admirable ac- tions which are well-nigh perfect love or gratitude, to call these Duty, on an examination which will show that were the doer to stud^^ his conduct he could find in it the elements which would s6rve to construct a wise scheme of reciprocal duties. If the Moralist talks of Duty when the fact is spontaneity, — whether grati- tude, love, overflowing pride or generosity advanc- ing to aid all that is seen to make for our good, he talks at random. His system of thought has predi- cated that men need to be controlled by a sense of Duty. Let him stick to that or leave it. We deny it. The doctrine of hell-fire was long upheld under the same idea that it was needed to control men. Moral- istic Duty is the hardened dregs of fear. Generosity is the overflowing fullness of a successful, satisfied and hopeful individuality. "I ought" is no stumbling-block to the intelligent Egoist. Two persons are playing at draughts and a bystander says of one: " He ought to have captured the man to the left, not the one to the right." There is no sense of moral obligation conveyed in the re- mark. It is assumed that each player is trying to win, and the words "he ought" introduce a sugges- tion of what was wanting to produce the result. A pirate endeavoring to capture a merchantman and taking the wrong course would say : " I ought to have sailed on the other tack." To whom was the obhgation? To himself. So men speak of their duty to themselves, meaning the attending to supplying what is lacking to their welfare. These words duty and ought are not words to be rejected. They are in constant correct use in every- day life, and it is not the use of the Moralist, but it can be observed that every humbug politician harps on the "sacred duty " of the citizens to do this or CONSCIENCE AND INDOCTRINATION. 43 that,— something that he and his party are inter- ested in and that he cannot readily prove to be to the interest of the citizens addressed, or he would do so instead of trying to get them with him on an ap- peal to "sacred duty." XV. The supposed inward monitor which warns the Moralist against breaking the sacred law of Right, as it admonishes the believer against offending God, is that which "doth make cowards of us all," in the language of the dramatist. That is conscience. One thinks he knows his Duty and with this thought come vague fear and self-reproacli for not having obeyed the Moral law; not simple fear in the Moralist, rather a confused feeling, but a feeling as clearly distinguish- able from the simple fear of consequences asMoralism is distinguishable from a calculation of interest. The dread is as undefined as the Authority or the reach of consequences, or both, are indefinite and dimly ap- prehended. The fgct that the dictates of conscience are the result of so-called "education " (really indoctrina- tion) is established by the strongest proof on every hand. Every religion has its commandments and however absurd they may appear to others than the believers, conscience enforces their observance. Mor- alism continues in a general way the religious terror, making humanity or it may be more broadly animal life the sacred object. Egoism, on the contrary, regards conscience as superstition. It is true that by simple analysis of the word, which yields con, with, and science, knowl- edge, we can have the definition : the sensation, senti- ment or reflection regarding ourselves which accom- panies knowledge of our voluntary action. But as an Egoist has simply either satisfaction or regret and does not judge himself by reference to any standard of Duty, he cannot have a guilty conscience. It is most to the purpose, therefore, of Egoistic philosophy to look into the means of destroying the goperstitious habit, for it is a Dotorious fact that self- 44 SOME CONSCIENCE SAMPLES. condemnation continues somewhat after reason has assured the subject of the error of the doctrine which claimed his allegiance. A silly conscience is to be extinguished, like other inconvenient habits, by resolute action. 1 have known a compositor who seemingly could not place a letter in line without first making an unnecessary motion with it against the side of his composing stick ; a statesman who could not or dared not go to bed without first placing his boots as he wore them ; a youth whose reason rejected the orthodox Christian doctrines in which he had been reared but who had qualms, which surprised him, about studying on Sun- day ; an infidel who had killed a man but had nothing to fear from the law, who nevertheless had the horrors in his dreams, and several persons with freelove ideas but inconsistent in practice in a way that showed the rule of their old conscience. Some of these things will strike everyone as being ridiculous. Of the instances cited only one did not admit of correction by Emer- son's rule of doing the thing you fear to. I firmly believe that if the man who had a life on his con- science had taken the rational method of doing all else which he knew to be sensible, his mind would have been much strengthened to overcome his trouble of blood-guiltiness. The Sunday school young man re- alized that his conscience was awry, or the habit of a superstitious belief, and in a moderate time he over- came it. Others have had similar experiences as to books and conversation of a "blasphemous" charac- ter and breaches of the so-called law of morality in the sexual relation. Reasoning is well in its place, but action is necessary to make a free man or woman when one has been trained to have a conscience in any particular. I mean only action which combines pleas- ure with safety. It is no part of philosophic Egoism to pay more for advancement than it is worth. ORIGIN OF CONSCIENCE. 45 XVI.* The ori^n of the guilty conscieTice may be in mis- haps, such as defeat, capture and slavery. When men from exercisino; mastery and even cruelty, are sub- jected to the rule of the stronger and more warlike, their energies are turned inward in bitterness against themselves. Upon this gnawing of ill humor cotiies the suggestion from religious belief, that these uncom- fortable feelings are sent by the tribal god as a warn- ing. This is readily believed by people who already believe that defeat and misfortune are punishments for some lapse of duty to their deity. The checking of an active career and humbling of the vanquished produce a bilious temper and morbid spirit, ready for ascetic rites on misdirection, because ever ready to attribute misfortunes to something other than their simple natural causes. The guilty conscience precedes the good con- science. The latter is nothing but the consciousness of the guilty conscience removed — by expiation, atonement or however beliefs run. Before the guilty conscience there was the sponta- neity of the free savage. After the guilty and the good conscience there is the serenity of the self-con- scious, sovereign, intelligent Ego. For convenience I will hereafter speak of him simply as the Egoist. While all men are Egoists in so far as they are not visionaries or madmen, nearly all men are in fact partly blinded, ashamed of themselves, not fully pos- sessed of themselves. They do things for conscience sake — Egoistic method in madness ; — they reject reli- gious doctrine, but have a "sense of sin;" they have a horror of certain acts because condemned by a "moral standard," and so forth. They do not even understand that they cannot be " sinners " except by admitting a religious standard of "righteousness;" that they cannot be "immoral," wicked, without thinking as saints and Moralists think of "guilt," " disobedience " in natural acts. They cannot even ■ *The foregoing chapters were published in " Egoism " at San Francisco in 1890 anC 1891. 46 THE REAL EGOIST. call themselves E|2;oists to their satisfaction because the religious world has branded every natural im- pulse as vile and " unsanctified ;" consequently Ego- ism — self-direction — as the sum of all villainy, and they are hampered by accepting their language from the religious world. The real Egoist is not even he who has merely seen through the cheat of Moralism, but he who has outgrown its habitual sway, broken its scepter, dese- crated every shrine of superstition in his heart or else been more happily born and reared than one in ten thousand of those who live today or ever hved. XVII. The Egoist hears voices saying: " Forgive us our sins." His thought takes a humorous turn and he asks : Why do not the idiots think of forgiving them- selves each one his own sins? AVhy cannot they be like the father? If " I and my father are one," I can do the acts of the father and forgive my own sin. He who dare not say : " I do most cheerfully forgive myself all sins and misdeeds I have ever committed or shall ever care to commit," is certainly not an Egoist. Moralists propound the question: "Does the end justify the means?" He who argues on either side of it, shows not the quality of Egoism. It is a question for Moralists, to be answered by reference to their standards of duty. The Egoist will ask whether the game is worth the powder and in this sense he could use the very words quoted in the question ; meaning, however, only a particular application of means to a particular end — a question of expenditure or risk and probability of gain. Every case being decided on the principle of economy or of strategy, the general moral question disay^pears. The Moralist is left to answer his own question as to whether or not he will venture to break a " moral law " in order to accom- plish what he considers a moral good. Another way of putting our criticism is that the question can be parodied : " Does the evidence war- *' END JUSTIFFES MEANS " SOPHISTRY. 47 rant the verdict?" But then, you say. we must know what verdict and what evidence are referred to. Quite so ; and the question : " Does the end justify the means? " is equally void of meaning unless we learn what end is souo;ht and what means are pro- posed. But suppose we become more specific and ask : " Is the killing of a heretic justified by the probability of saving one thousand souls from perdition ? " To this I say it concerns the Moralist, not the Egoist. In order to kill, no justification before the tribunal of conscience is necessary to, say, the Egoistic states- man ; for that is a piece of superstition. In this re- spect " all things are lawful " for him, " but all things are not expedient." The heretic has to thank the thousand other heretics for his immunity from being killed for heresy. A common interest unites them in some measures for self-protection. Their danger is but the greater because fanatics exist who in addi- tion to the brutal instincts of mankind are possessed with the idea of a moral pardoning power encourag- ing men to do violence as a service, not to themselves but to a creed of church or society. The Egoist wastes no breath to persuade the fanatic that the end would not justify the means. He knows that the wish was father to the thought. The doctrine of ex- ceptional justification was the inevitable excuse, like the wolf's brief remarks to the lamb at the stream. That wolf was not a natural wolf, but a mc)ralizing wolf; still, altogether a wolf in fact. The moralizing man is less frank and more cunning than the wolf. He would paralyze his enemies by teaching that not all courses are "justifiable; " then when they spare him and he gets them in his power he does not spare them. The end never justifies the means when a Mor- alist is being hurt : always when a Moralist is getting the best of the fight by unusual artifice and usurpa- tion. 48 INJUSTICE PRECEDES JUSTICE IN IDEATION. XVIII. The idea of injustice precedes that of justice. Dr. Maurice de Fleury in his book, L'Ame du Criminel, says: Assuming the legend of Cain and Abel to be true, the brothers had a quarrel and when Cain struck Abel, the latter struck back. The fight con- tinued for some time. Just when Abel was directing a blow, his arm was struck and fell helpless by his side. The impulse to deliver the blow returned to the brain as consciousness of purpose frustrated and this was the first sense of that want of correspondence which is called injustice. If at such a juncture a tree or rock should happen to fall upon the victor or a lion make him his prey, and the vanquished escape, the latter would thank a supposed providential interference, build an altar and found a worship. Out of a great number of cases of hurts — injustice — the sufferers build such theory of justice as corre- sponds with their idea of the satisfaction of their de- mands. " Just right " is what fits a place or case. Ad- justment and even justification are words used in a mechanical sense. Justice, however, cannot be predi- cated till we come to relations between persons. It is evident that in the notion or sentiment of justice there are present two elements : first, fitness in gen- eral, as in common with accuracy; secondly a recog- nition of something more, which may be the sentient nature of the object. We do not speak of injustice save where there is a possibility of suffering. There are a great many applications of the term justice, but in all of them it has some relation to sen- tient beings and to fitness. The differences appar- ently spring from different standards of authority, rules of privilege, right, immunity, etc. Every up- roar among men is a proof of injustice, in the same way as the creaking or screeching of a machine is an evidence of parts ill adjusted. AUTHORITY-WORSHIP OF "JUSTICE." 49 The loudest advocates of justice complacently overlook the fact that nobody extends justice to the inferior animals. The adjustment of relations between man and man will probably be best where each one is alive to his own interests and convenience. In the absence of this condition justice is the warcry in quixotic cam- paigns, the success of which in any instance serves to destroy some privileo:e and emancipate some ignor- ant, helpless folk to become tools of fanatics and vic- tims of speculators. The free are those who free themselves. These and these only can or will do themselves justice and they are prevented from doing themselves and each other justice most of all by the prevailing belief in justice as a "ruling principle." The motto : " Let justice be done though the heav- ens fall," is a perfect example of fanaticism, equal to insisting on some one performance, though any amount of loss and suffering results. But the very men who harp on justice are the ones who delegate the trial and execution to functionaries chosen hap- hazard, and make a religious duty of submitting to injustice whenever these functionaries are ignorant, corrupt, prejudiced or mistaken in their judgment. The idea that any person might do himself justice, though no doubt existed that the act were justice, is horrifying to the good socialists, because the execu- tioner was not appointed by society. Justice, then, is a prerogative of society, a favor rather than a right, in their view. They become involved in per- plexities. The heavens may fall, but not the dignity of the state. They deny justice to save respect for its mechanism. An unjust law is enforced by the same authority which enforces a just law. It is enforced, all knowing that it is unjust, and because it is unjust, to the end that it may be repealed. Somebody is made a victim of injustice in order that by forcible wrong, thus done by authority, another branch of authority may be induced to alter a decree and issue another decree (which will be certain to accomplish another wrong to somebody). 50 EGOISTIC JUSTICE. Reveng:e is not justice, but simply the impulse to do hurt for hurt. It lacks measure, balance. It is at most a propensity which makes for the extermina- tion or humbling: of aggressors. The Egoist does not worship justice. He recog- nizes the impossibility of its existing as a donation. The ruler or the society which decrees justice is the shepherd who manages his flock, not for the sake of the flock, but for his interest in it. The Egoist aims at the accommodation of interests according to the capacity of the contracting parties. Egoist with Egoist must recognize, and on reflection will rejoice at the prospect of a rule of not trespassing where — he had better not. From this he can arrive at a posi- tion of comfort in having allies of great value to him, through their not being afflicted with any supersti- tion. They multiply his power and he adds to theirs. As to justice in the sense of meting out punish- ment to persons according to their alleged moral de- linquencies, the idea gives place to that of protecting ourselves and serving our convenience. We may sup- press a dangerous madman and a dangerous sane man as a measure of prevention, not having the old Moralistic horror of responsibility in the case of our- selves dealing with the madman, and not having the Moralistic furor against the sane offender. We need not therefore resort to casuistry in case of slight doubt if we are determined that it is unsafe to risk yjerniitting either to live. Thus Egoists wdll not let an offender off on technicalities or scruples if they deem it necessary to expel him or kill him, and thus, too, if one has killed another the inquiry will be as to whether or not the slayer merely anticipated an in- telligent verdict by a jury. Let us beware of the craze for justice. It is the mask of social tyranny. It demands a delegated au- authority and a prerogative in this authority. Thus it builds a citadel of injustice; so that the man who does himself justice is declared by the law to be guilty of a crime against it, the monopoly of administra- tion of iustice. EQUAL LIBERTY VEltttUS DEMOOKACY, 51 , XIX. What of equal liberty? Egoism is interior lib- erty, which of course makes for equal liberty of Ex- ists. But this is on the basis of their common abil- ity, whereas democracy and aristocracy have a com- mon principle in the affirmation of birthright: In de- mocracy liberty is the sacred birthright of every man. In aristocracy liberty and privilege a.re the right of those born or admitted to aristocratic rank. The spirit of democracy is, to fashion each individual on its model, and endow him with political equality in contradistinction to class privileges, but as a mem- ber of the democracy into which his passport is his humanity, not his personal assertion and demonstra- tion of his power and will to command equal liberty. Aristocracy commands its members to maintain their rank. Democracy commands its members to maintain an equal status for all. Egoism awaits the coming of the free, who will recognize each other, but not by virtue of any birthright. Contrasts between men as lions and lambs, eagles and doves, are fanciful and overdrawn. Nature has not endowed them with such extreme and transmis- sible differences of organism. When they shake off old beliefs and indoctrination and realize their pow- ers as individuals, equal liberty follows from the practically equal assertion of similar physical powers in self-conscious Egoism. When each of us has deter- mined to be as free as he can, to yield only to effective force in restraint of the liberty he wills to exercise, there will be more liberty and substantially equal lib- erty for us if we be numerous, even while far from a majority. The idea of liberty for man as Man, as something to be respected for its own sake, though the man be a slavish animal, — the sacrednessof Man, — is a different notion altogether. While I am, mdeed, an example of man in general, I base my claim to consideration at the hands of Egoists on the fact of my being this man who can be known to be neither tyrant whom 52 LIBERTY AS YET WHOLLY DENIED. they must combat nor slave incapable of requiting their aid. I will be a useful ally for certain purposes. I will not spend my strength in contending for equal guardianship, miscalled equal liberty, but I will seek allies like-minded. Not knowing whether I shall find one yonder in a born aristocrat or there in a toiling plebeian, I will put out the sign of equal liberty to ex- ist among allies and of a readiness to take allies for equal liberty as a working rule, not as a religion. Republicans think they abolished the community of plebeians when they abolished aristocratic rank. Far from it. They reduced the aristocrats to the plebeian level before the law and set up an aristocracy of office-holders and of w^ealth, which traffics in the making and administration of the laws. Equal lib- erty remains entirely unknown, because liberty is un- known as an objective reality. There can be no lib- erty of action till it is understood that each of us finds his law in his will and pleasure and that wherein our wills and pleasures agree we make our law, which we enforce on others who come into our domain, because we must or it is our convenience so to do. Thus only, liberty and law are synonymous. Be not unequally yoked together with non-Egoists. They cannot maintain your liberty. Your right and liberty, apart from what you can do for yourself, is that part of your will and pleasure which receives the support of allies lending you the aid of their power, as their right and liberty has the same extension by recognition and aid from you and others. The Egoist does not commit the mistake of battling for emancipation and endowuient with power, misnamed eqnal liberty, of a herd of human cattle. More precious to me than ten thousand of these is one person capable of asserting all attainable hberty. Still, I came from the herd and by this and like signs I know that the herd contains my precious allies in the making. I send, among those who can hear, the word of awakening. Come to me and 1 will recognize in you equal liberty; I will give myself, if you will, a duty toward you, to be per- formed on pain of losing your esteem and support. I WE ARE THE OVERMEN. 53 have already the pleasure of seeking and the hope of finding j'ou. Life is worth less without you than it will be with you. Your precious force is my strength from the moment that you understand that I have no greater hope than in your fullest assertion of your liberty. We will not allow the world to wait for the overman. We are the overmen. Aristocracy has not that fascination for me that it has for F. Nietsche. Whatever pleasure a man may feel in wielding power in association with bold and strong companions, a reflecting man must despise an hereditary system which is subject to the following defects: that in order to transmit power to one of his sons he must consent to place his other sons in an in- ferior position ; that he must aid in maintaining a special prerogative for the degenerate sons of his original colleagues; that he must give his daughters to such inferior scions to be their marital slaves ; that to support the system he must aid in employing those vermin, the priests; that to keep down the plebeians he must slay many a brave and intelligent fellow of plebeian birth. XX. One can feign a selfish motive to obtain opportunity to do an act of personal kindness ; that is, one feigns one self-interested purpose in order to accomplish an- other self-interested purpose — to overcome the pride of independence in another person. A number of the most delightful stories have this point. The gener- osity which thus disguises itself differs fundamentally from abstract philanthrophy or theoretical Altruism. The reader perceives in every such story how thor- oughly the generous heart enjoys its success in aiding particular persons of merit who have attracted its good will. But one never feigns a selfish interest in order to do a disinterested act. On the other hand, how well mankind know that hypocrites profess dis- interestedness while their aims are selfish. In the generous act there is spontaneous, personal motive ; no dread duty ; no bending before a master 54 SOME CRITICISMS ON EGOISM. power. Do you say the master power is there? Well, it comes through the doer's individual organ- ism as a genial impulse, interesting him. and so is Egoistic. Do you complain that thus we make of Egoism what you call selfishness and what you call unselfishness? We show you that there is a common element of genuine personality, even of pleasurable action, in both. Opposite are the acts in which the person yields his will, subjugated by an ideal, the powers of which are awe, dread and lashing duty. I do not care to quarrel about a word with those whose idea is beckoning-duty. If it comes through my sense of what is worthy of me, due to fulfill my honor and dignity, that too is distilled in my con- sciousness or subconsciousness and is of my aliment and flowering and of the fruitage of my sentiment, intellect and will — is Egoistic. XXI. Since the publication of these chapters began, I have seen in libertarian papers several flippant re- marks and attempted refutations. We hear that Egoism is a very old thing, which is true; but that is one cause why the sour critics have missed under- standing it, for they have gone to old books in which they found the idea of Egoism as viewed in the fight of the science, philosophy and politics of past ages ; or they have gathered opinions from superficial writ- ings. Many show absolutely no understanding of Egoism. It is an affair of objective classification of acts, they suppose. Thus if 1 have an apple and eat it, that is Egoism, they suppose. If I give the apple to my friend, that is Altruism, they suppose. How- simple ! Then I, being an Egoist and liking to see some of my friends eat my apples, must not indulge in this pleasure unless I can stand certain persons' charges of inconsistency. Let me give them a point : I select my friends. My apples are not for everybody to help himself. Let me give them another point. The man who eats his own apple, not because he likes it, but because he thinks it is Egoistic to eat it, — not CHRISTIAN martyrs' 1»KLUDED EGOISM. 55 to talk of duty, — is only a deluded Egoist, by which 1 mean that he has missed being an Egoist in the defi- nite sense in which I am using the word in these clos- ing chapters. One correspondent demolishes Egoism thus: that Egoism is Hedonism or Eudemonism, the pursuit of pleasure ; that it is absurd to say that the pleasure of professing Christianity outweighed the pain of be- ing burned at the stake ; that hence it is not true that the pursuit of pleasure is the greatest motive. "The pursuit of pleasure," is an expression which has conveyed to many persons the idea that Egoism consists for all men in satiating certain appetites; but the truth is that philosophically "pleasure" stands for sovereignty — is used in contradistinction to servitude. Egoists do not accept the state of mind of a Chris- tian martyr as being normal. He believed that a crown of glory awaited those faithful to death ; that exclusion from the presence of the Lord awaited the "apostate." Qualified by these beliefs undoubtingly held, how can we deny the martyr's (deluded) Ego- ism ? The apostolic " fishers for men " baited their hooks with promises and threats addressed to self- interest and repeated : " Fear not them that kill the body," etc. Are only those who secure good bar- gains to be credited with the intention to secure them? The critic makes a ludicrously false comparison when he sets the physical pain of burning against the mental pain of apostacy. At the moment when the Christian martyr made choice of constancy to his religion and a crown of glorj^, he had not felt the physical agony of having his flesh consumed by fire. As much as possible he fixed his thought on the promised heaven and thus lessened the anticipation of pain. Whatever pain there was in the expectation of burning it was not the pain of actual burning. We do not know what the final suffering was nor what the final thoughts were. We read of one on the cross, when too late, exclaiming: "My God, my God|! 56 SYMPATHY NO REMEDY. Why hast thou forsaken me? " and we read that the servant shall not be above his lord. Moreover if the Christian martyr could be supposed to fully appreci- ate the pain of the death that awaited him, he must also be supposed to appreciate as fully the hell which awaited the apostate and endless death in the lake of fire. How then must such a terrified believer decide on the Egoistic principle as distorted by his faith? To us there is no more difficulty in his case than there is in the principle of gravitation illustrated by a ball rolling down an inclined plane when that is the nearest approach it can make to perpendicular de- scent. But while we may suppose a martyr possibly log- ical in his course, given his absurd belief, we feel war- ranted in thinking that the majority of those who sought martyrdom were excited beyond the control of reason, as is the case with men acting under the dominion of passion in the commission of certain of- fences. Craziness is essentially an inability to weigh conditions and apprehend consequences. Another thinks that Egoism kills sympathy and thus, he thinks, hinders the care of children. The prevailing opinion that general betterment depends upon increased sj^mpathy is one which I am more and more decided to pronounce a stupendous error. Sympathy diverts energy from one channel to turn it into another. An illustration showing the ruin caused by an irrational excess of grief may cause some to re-examine their opinion. B was married three years ago. Lately his wife died, leaving a child a year old. B was so much affected by the death of his wife that he went to the cemetery day after day and lay down on the ground crying. There he con- tracted an infectious disease and he also died, thus leaving the child an orphan. Another is shocked at Egoism, as it has no rever- ence for anything sacred, not even for Feuerbach's jugglery that " love is divine " and " man is godlike " or can be by thinking himself so. Also that Egoism "good" is only appreciation. 57 puts no premium on " courage" but rather on cow- ardice. It is well to be shocked in default of any other way of gettintr intelligence awakened. Be sure that Egoism has nothing sacred, and therefore accepts no imposture or hallucination and remember that it re- quires courage to be a coward and appear a coward. Where '* courage" is folly, it is Egoistic to be a ''cow- ard." Certainly it is only Egoism that can ridicule sacred things of man as well as of God : I mean ridi- cule in action as well as in word. Peckniff, even if an Atheist in woman's clothes, should be snubbed, and the Egoist will snub him, without regard to his or her sex. xxn. What is good ? What is evil? These words ex- press only appreciations. A good fighter is a "good man," or a " bad man!" both words expressing the same idea of ability, but from different points of view. To the beggar a generous giver is a good man. To the master a servant is good when he cheerfully slaves for the master. A good subject is one obedient to his prince. A good citizen is one who gives no trouble to the state, but contributes to its revenues and stability. Evil is only what we do not find to our good, but what we have to combat. A horse is not good because strong and swift if he be "vicious;" that is, if we find him hard to tame. A breed of dogs is good if readily susceptible of training to hunt all day or watch all night for the benefit of the owner. A wife is "good " if she will not be good to any man but her husband. Why do tJie lion and the eagle enjoy such a repu- tation? The eagle attacks nobody except babes. The lion is a large animal, deliberate in his move- ments and reputed to give a man a chance to get away. There are "worse" animals. In all varieties of Moral ism obedience is the car- dinal virtue, which is wholly on the principle of pro- curing "good" subjects for those who have the ef- frontery to set up as rulers over fools and simple- 58 TRL TH — AGREEMENT OF THOUGHT WITH THING. tons. " Be good and you will be happy." ''Virtue is its own reward." These proverbs are an appeal to self-interest beguiled to accept some current teaching as to what is "good" conduct, "virtue." What if one be happy and healthy and the same believers in these maxims tell him that his happiness is not good ? They show that their idea of goodness is obedience to certain commands or rules. But the Egoist will prove most things and hold fast to that which he iinds to be good for him. That which he finds to L.i "its own reward " he holds to be — virtue enough. The positions are opposites. The Moralist says : " This course is virtue ; believe it and follow in- structions, and you will find happiness in the thought of doing right." The Egoist perceives that such in- struction is a trap for credulity. The experience of mankind is all very well, but most of the time your Moralist deprecates experiment. It is remarkable that in " the most important relation in life " two persons must make a legal contract for permanent union before they have any knowledge of each other in the relation ; then bear it if they dislike it, and this is regarded as virtue. I do not say that all Moral- ists teach such doctrine, but all Moralists have some doctrine which they enforce by sentiment demanding individual sacrifice, absolutely and not merely as in- dividually expedient. XXIII. Truth, the agreement between thinking and thing, — between thought and tha,t, — is as desirable as seeing and hearing without illusion or confusion. Truth, the agreement between thinking and express- ion, is made a duty by Moralists, yet generally with reservations. May a man lie to assassins to save his life, or to robbers to save treasure committed to his care, or to a sick person to conceal news which would be a serious shock ? The gravity with which such questions are argued points to something further, — that Truth, like Bight and Justice, is erected into a deity and men go crazy or pretend to go crazy over HONESTY — TJiUTH IN ACTION. 59 the worship thereof. This is the hypocrite's oppor- tunity. So people bind themselves with an oath and lend a spurious importance to words spoken by men who care only for immunity, but who are shrewd enough not to profess what they think and how inde- pendent they feel. How curious that men generally feel it "right " to cut and hack natural forms, but not to take any liberty with "truth" even in the verbal representa- tion of such forms ! But on the other hand they say : " All's fair in love and war." Now everything that is not love can be viewed as war (and the "love" here spoken of is war too). This maxim is more often used to excuse lying than for any other purpose. Lying is a very common practice and I perceive no reason to expect it>s abatement unless individuals in hirge numbers (1) cease to pretend to exact from others action which is inconvenient, when they cannot or do not really ex- act it; (2) make it to the interest of others to tell them the truth or leave others alone as to telling anything about matters on which they now tell lies. So there might be less "war." To the Egoist truth is an economy, where practi- cable. The chief condition is mutual intelligence. Honesty, — truth in action, — is commonly said to be "the best policy," and perhaps as commonly dis- believed to be unconditionally so. Where honesty is reciprocal, it brings that mutual advantage which attaches to truthfulness, but honest conduct in an individual in dealing with dishonest persons, is too simple. Honesty is a pleasure, often a luxury. XXIV. Moralism reaches its acme in the craze for a sup- posed perfection the opposite way from individuality. Even when philosophy has pronounced that its aim is to lead man to find himself, the spirit of perversion is such that it takes Man, the general idea of the species, as an ideal for the individual and teaches in- dividuals to torture their personal mind in order to 60 OUR PLEASURE IS OUR "PERFECTION." conform to the idea formed about the species. Thus it is said our " mission " is to be true men, more per- fect men, more perfect women. This notion prompts to imitation of what has been exemphfied in others, not to development of that which is most genuinely myself or yourself. If I am to be a conforming man, striving to be something set before me, I cannot be I. As Stirner remarks, "every man who is not deformed is a true or perfect man, but each one is more than this. He is this unique man." What he is that an- other is not, we cannot say in advance of knowing him. Egoism is this: that this man acts out himself. Every woman may be assumed to be a true or perfect woman, and she is cheated if taught to assume other- wise. That is not the aim ; that is the starting point with us Egoists, Be easy about perfection of Man. The individual needs first to be free from any yoke or assigned task, in order to normally possess, enjoy, develop and exhibit himself or herself. I shall de- velop the species, if 1 have nothing more distinctive to develop. A woman will be merely a "true and perfect woman " if she has nothing of her own, only of the species. The very moment, however, that she knows herself to be already a "true and perfect woman," as the zero or horizon of individuality, that moment is the individual energy set free to work out whatever it takes pleasure in,— or as free as conscious reflection can make us while old habits and affections persist in some degree. To come to ourselves, to find ourselves, is to know that what we have of the spe- cies is ours, so far as it suits us to keep it and that we have neither obligation nor mission but what each one may give himself. XXV. A woman is — possibly an Egoist. Apart from this possibility she is — simply a female. If an Egoist, she will determine her actions with precisely that in- terior freedom possessed by the male Egoist. Marriage, whether as pol^'^gamy or monogamy, is an agreement among men in a given state to respect MOnPTVES FOR MARRYING. 61 each other's property in one or more women, accord- ing to the law of the tribe or state. It depends upon deluded Egoism. The supposed happiness of exclu- sive possession as a right to be enforced is resolvable into several factors such as (1) The certain immedi- ate desire for possession ; (2) The notion that the person possessed is passive and a constant quantity ; (3) The seeming accumulation of happiness by mo- nopolizing that which others would use if permitted, the defeating of their desire being supposed to be the securing of one's own. Some men, however, marry because they see that the desired woman will be mar- ried by another and hence lost to them unless they take her on the customary contract. Men flatter themselves that they can perpetuate themselves and not merely the race; a simple error, for if we allow half the effect to each parent, the re- sult is that A's offspring is half A ; his grandchild is one-fourth A ; his great-grandchild is one-eighth A ; the next generation one-sixteenth A, and thus his de- scendants will have nothing more in common with him than any of the individuals of his race. Some learned men argue that while men are nat- urally polygamous, women are naturally monog- amous ; but their discourse soon turns into censure of any woman who does not come up to the mark, as being a perverted creature. Are they blind to the vast amount of fear, reserve and duplicity in women? Can the subjugation of woman through all past time have failed to make her seem and act as though her nature were different from man's? Is not the watch kept upon her a proof that the preachei*s have no deep faith in her nature being different from their own? But what would be the fate of an author who should terrify society by assimilating the nature of the two sexes, while affirming man's polygamous in- stinct ? He would be accused of a tendency to cor- rupt virtuous womanhood. All agree that jealousy is a cruel and tormenting passion. Is it not, then, self-evidently a sign of per- verted Egoism? The temper which is not jealous, 62 THE MOTHER OWNS THE INFANT. which can love and let love, and enjoy the love that is spontaneously g^ven because attracted, is un- doubtedly happier than the jealous disposition. Such a temper will be willing to let the nature of woman display itseK in freedom, and not until more of such a temper is shown is it to be e-ipected that men will be privileged to know from women what women really are. The wife enjoys a status. To forfeit it is to for- feit reputation. The husband is judged differently. It looks as if the modern woman, for the present, were mostly contenting herself with keeping her repu- tation and using the status in which man has placed her, for what there is in it. Liberty is not hers, but some power she can wield. Such power cannot fail to be a curtailing of the husband's resources, liberty or convenience, honesty, growth; and if he is fool enough to presume too far on his prerogative, he is sure in many instances to be deceived, for woman's wit has been forced in the direction of deception as much as to submission. The latter implies the former. With the discovery by men that the perpetuation of their individuality is an illusion, that the expecta- tion of happiness by the exercise of authority over woman is a grozs mistake, that the person possessed is not a constant quantity but a variable one, a good to be elicited by wise treatment and not by rule of thumb. Egoism comes into the relation of the sexes, without delusion. The woman will have her way in the matter of procreation and will have the control of her children till they are wise enough to assert the control of themselves*. What have we *^i\\ the Union of Egoists legislate on the " debt " of grown children to their mother? Our Union will be based simply on our common interests. The interest must be clear to each Unit in or- der to command su])port for any rule. Only a minority can have a pecuniary interest in the above suggested claim. We may first eliminate all the men, as the children belong only to the mothers. We can also leave out all the women who have no children that are under our jurisdiction or likely to come under it, and those mothers who ai*e content with the unrestricted control of their in- LOVE AND EGOISM NOT PARADOXICAL. 63 onlookers to do with the relations of mother and in- fant? Nothing. Those who are in the married state sometimes pretend that if they were single they would remain single. They are not to be believed because they say so. Marriage to very many is a sacred thing in some aspect or the demon of deluded selfishness is stronger than they confess. What if we say to them : Please for a moment regard your marriage as the marriage of a pair of doves or canaries. When so regarded what is there to talk about in the question whether you are married or not, apart from bare legal pow- ers ?t. Related to this is the idea that crimes of jealousy, even outside of marital relations, can be traced to the idea of marital rights. The man and woman who have cohabited have talked or thought of marriage and come to regard their connection as a marriage without the ceremony. Marriage and the possibility of marriage are in this way responsible for those crimes which simulate marital vengeance. Some people contrast love with selfishness. They surely cannot mean sexual love. Te quiero is trans- lated either " I love thee " or " I want thee." By common understanding love that is not selfish enough to break some law in order to satisfy a per- fant children to train and impress them as they will ; content to blame themselves if a child proves ungrateful after ten or fifteen years of such opportunity to form its disposition. To my think- ing the policy of awarding compensation in after years, would im- ply the policy of interfering with the mother's absolute contro' over the child during infancy, for in this control lies the making or Bpoiling of the child's character. I prefer to trust her entirely and leave her to face the results of her training of her child. tYou say certain birds are monogamous and that this argues that man may be so. Accept the assurance that Egoists will be content to see the question resolved by the free play of instinct in the species, as you suggest. But the action of mankind, by legis- lation and social censure on the matter, looks very like a confess- ion that they regard themselves as naturally constituted with an inclination to variety in love and nt^eding a deal of dragooning to make them good monogamists or passable counterfeits thereof. 64 PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS EGOISTIC. Bonal want, is not strong enough to hold a spirited mate. Others find in sex an argument against Egoism. Thej say you cannot be an independent individual, because you are incomplete without one of the oppo- site sex. We may reply that a man is very much sooner done for if deprived of food or water than if unable to meet with an agreeable woman ; conse- quently if there were anything in the above argu- ment it would lead to the conclusion that the having any physical requirements militates against Egoism. But, on the contrary, we find they all afford scope for Egoism. We are likely to find in our surroundings the objects essential to our existence, and this comes out with regard to companionship Just as with re- gard to materials for food, clothing and shelter. Egoism lies entirely in our attitude toward objects, not in our being constituted to have no need of them. We cannot fly, and we are subject to hunger and other appetites. Our needs serve to awaken our powers to activity and give various occasions for converting threatened suffering into enjoyment, if we meet everything in a thoroughly intrepid, Egoistic spirit. Even our need of social conversation is no derogation from Egoism. The man who uses and appropriates to himself the benefit of intercourse with others — of his choosing — is an intelligent Egoist, whereas the shrinking, solitary man is weaker: he attaches too much importance to something and he permits it to drive him from the field of activity and enjoyment. Theoretically and practically the position of a married woman is in all essential respects the oppo- site of that which an Egoist would choose. Still, there is no position in which one may accidentally find oneself (short of actual imprisonment) that can make any difference to the individual comparable in effect to the difference between Egoism (mental lib- erty) and non-Egoism (mental slavery). If a woman had sold herself into chattel slavery which the law forbids, she would feel no hesitation in MORALISTIC ATHEISM. 65 repudiating the bargain. What is the difference in marriage? The difference lies in the social sanction. The victims await emancipation by social opinion. This is not Egoism, but its opposite. XXVI. Reared in Evangelical Christianity I passed, be- tween the ages of 15 and 18, through the stages of Biblical criticism and disbelief in Providence, on the ground of the supremacy of natural law, to Atheism. As my religion had been an undoubting failh in and obedience to an ideal Ego — God — when I un- bound myself from the web of theology, I fell heir to the sovereign attributes, — the liberty and the benevo- lence, — of the God who then became a myth. 1 did not cheat myself a day with Moral commandments without a Moral Lawgiver. Yet 1 felt and foresaw that what was gained by the intellect would not be easily translated into feeling and action for many years to come, such was the Moral susceptibility and force of habits, from early indoctrination. I said to myself as a youth : " I feel that not until I am 40 years of age shall I be able to act in all things as my judgment decides for my own interest." It was even so. Thus in the first half of the sixties I was an Athe- ist and self-conscious Egoist. I associated wath Athe- ists and took part in their propaganda before I was 20 and for years after. But 1 found a false note among the Atheists, that theirs was the religion of Humanity with a Morality not less impressive upon the conscience than that connected with theology, purer because freed from superstition. They chal- lenged comparison as to the Morality of their leaders and members with Christians, — the Christian stand- ard being usually implied as to what constituted Morality. There were among them men impressed with the philosophy of Epicurus, of Hobbes, of D'Holbach and Spinoza, — self-love as the foundation and sum of morals, but the drift of their discourses was that good morals would grow out of self-love, — 66 REPUDIATION OF "CONSCIENCE." and still the morals were Christian morals. When an Atheist ceased to take an interest in the iconoclastic propaganda, he usually settled down into a selfish in- dividual, a nonentity of ordinary morals. His Ego- ism was after the current ideas of rudimentary Ego- ism which orthodox Moralists propagate and his former associates simply regretted that he was no longer militant or contributory to the Atheistic church. From the first of my mental independence, or Atheism, I repudiated conscience and a Moral stand- ard ; and I was equally dissatisfied with the at- tempted limitation of self-love, to grubbing for ad- vantages over other people; certain that it was purely my pleasure or prudence which impelled me to any act, I declared in print, prior to 1870, that when an Atheist acts honestly toward another person it is because it is his pleasure to do so. This aroused a critic who affirmed the "sense of justice" governing Atheists. A pretty term, but when we have arrived at a "sense of justice" why do we inconvenience our- selves for it? I affirm a pleasure, a sentiment of good will and of art. There is no " must " about it with the Egoist. But with my Atheistic critic there was a spice of dictation, as who should say "you must yield to a sense of Duty to Humanity." Hard by lurks bigotry. Feuerbach's inversion of theology, turning "God is love," into "love is divine," did not fascinate me. I saw in it a play on words. In my infancy God was a stern fact and when he became a myth, why, love was — love, not divine ; goodness was what we find to make for our good ; that is to say there was nothing divine ; no such thing as goodness or badness except as relative to our welfare and no better reason why I should not be a cruel man than that I took no pleas- ure in cruelty, found no sense in it. I have always rather pitied those who run pas- sionately after the so-called good things which Chris- tians and Moralists generally suppose must be the Bole aim of Egoists. What fools are the fretful lust- MAX stirner's book. 67 ers after power, men covetous of others' goods, toil- some accumulators of what they cannot enjoy ! De- luded Egoists !* During the period I have mentioned and until the spring of 1872 I had no knowledge of Max Stirner's work, Der Einzige unci sein Eigenthum (The Unit and his Property). But believe me that I devoured it so soon as I got hold of it. There for the first time I saw most plainly stated, my own thought, borne out by illustrations that will test the nerve of every pro- fessed Egoist. Who but Stirner has dared to suggest that the tie of blood is a superstition? Were it not that we have assurance of the speedy appearance of an English translation of his great work, I would here give something of a summary of its contents ; but now, under the pleasing expectation, I may con- fine myself to a mention of one feature of that won- derful book. The author shows us the world divided into three epochs : first, Antiquity, in which men were terrorized by the forces of nature. Second, Christen- dom. Christ introduces the rule of the spirit, which destroys the fear of material things, but establishes the tyranny of the Idea. There is now a spook in every object. Third, the Unit, by the might of his own understanding and will, dismisses the spirits, the spooks ; the rule of Ideas is broken. The Unit, — the Ego, — is not an abstract I. He is you, yourself, just as you are in flesh and blood, become simply sover- eign, disdainful of all rule of Ideas, as Christ was of all rule of material powers. Of the author's character as shown by his actions I will emphasize only one feature. He recognized in the woman the individual, as free as she cares to be, precisely as he did in the man. When we read of an- other German author as Stirner's disciple, who differs from him so radically in this, we may think that au- *A dwarfed, stuuted conception of Egoism finds expression in the remark : " I do not believe in self-interest. I would not take another man's job." Indeed, sir, if you have a determina. tion not to take it I am sure you will not take it — unless soma stronger interest of yours comes into plaj'. We will wait and Bee what you do. Professions are cheap. 68 TYRANNY OF GENERAL IDEAS. thoT somewhat of a plagiarist, perhaps, but certainly not a disciple, as alleged. Others again are springing up to classify the Ego and Egoism in philosophy. The Unit of Stirner is — yourself, if you like. You, as a person of flesh and blood, will not be successfully classified in " philoso- phy," I think, if you grasp the idea and act on it. The old so-called philosophic Egoism was a disquisi- tion on the common charact-eristics of men, a sort of generality. The real living Egoism is the fact of un- trammeled mind in this or that person and the actions resulting, the end of the tyranny of general ideas. BIOGRAPHICAL. To write a just biographical sketch of a man who has com- pleted the execution of life-long plans is hardly possible. To do justice at writing the life of a man who was cut off by death at the moment of attainment from the execution of plans that had been ripening for almost a lifetime, is quite impossible. In the first undertaking when concrete aecomplishment is chronicled there is revealed at least an approximation of the reach and depth of thought exerted; and the failure to depict such a life task may be only in the matter of intensity. While in the second effort the fail- ure must come in the very vital point of inability to reveal even the objects to be accomplished, to say nothing of the breadth reached, depth penetrated, and the infinite detail encompassed by the mind of a brain now numb and forever stilled. The life work of James L. Walker presents this lamentable difficulty. This poinb can perhaps be no more forcefully illus- trated than in the following editorial review of what was known of him and his life, published in the "News," Galveston, Texas, Apr. 19, 1904, upon the receipt of the news of his death: "Through a letter received yesterday by Mr. Edwin Bruce, secretary of the Galveston school board, the News learns of the death of Dr. James L. Walker, which occurred at Lardo, Mexico, April 2, after an illness of sixteen days. Dr. Walker went to Mex- ico about seven years aga and was for a number of years con- nected with a newspaper at Monterey. The News understands that he studied medicine and practiced for some time when he was a young man, and after getting out of the newspaper busi- ness in Mexico he resumed practice as a physician. Mr. Walker was for many years connected with the editorial department of the Galveston-Dallas News. He was a deep thinker and a forcible wri- ter. He had few intellectual equals in the state. He belonged to the old school of solid writers, what the present generation call heavy. Those who knew him best recognized him as an intellect- ual giant. He was pre-eminently a logician and incidentally a fine linguist, versed in dead languages, and a fluent conversationalist in half a dozen modern tongues. "Owing to his quiet mode of life, few knew of him personally. He was a man who had little to say about himself individually. This is demonstrated by the fact that while he was associated for a number of years with men now connected with the News, there is not one of his former associates who could state with definitenesg as to his age or his nationality. Mr. Walker was always ready to discuss any topic of the day or any topic in history with the great- est fluency, but had little to say about his personal affairs. At the same time there was nothing about him to enable one to call him distant or say he was too reserved. "After severing his connection with the News in 1895, he read law, and was admitted to the bar and practiced at Galveston a short time before he went to Mexico. Mr. Walker was a deep 70 BIOGRAPHICAL.. thinker, a ripe scholar and an elegant gentleman. He leaves a wife, who was with him at the time of his death." The writer of this effort is handicapped by the same difficulty as was the editor of the Galveston News ; — more appreciation for the subject than knowledge of his doings. Although there was maintained between Mr. Walker on the one hand, and Georgia Replogle and me on the other, quite a dozen years of cone^pond- ence of such a confidential nature as may readily exist between a fond master and his devoted disciples, and this was supplemented by some months of daily association, nevertheless not a sufficient number of facts concerning his past life were gathered to form even a tolerable biography. He talked, always apparently with- out reserve, about his past when it became incident to the conver- sation, and would doubtless have answered direct questions con- cerning it, but no one even dreamed of biography; he was so hale and hearty, and withal so careful of his health that he seemed eas- ily good for more than a score of years. So the precious oppor- tunity was lost in planning for the future rather than in reviewing the past, which would so much better have served this need. Outside of Mr. Walker's work in the Liberal World, no bio- graphical information has been obtained save this reproduction of another article written by a personal friend of his and pub- lished in the Galveston News the day following the publication of the above-quoted editorial: "The death of Dr. James L. Walker mentioned in today's News, causes sorrow here [Waco, Texas,] where the deceased had many friends. " Dr. Walker was born in June 1845, at Manchester, England, of wealthy parents, who gave him a libei-al education. After grad- uating at institutions of learning in England, France, and Ger- manv, he became connected with the London Times. On reaching the United States he became an associate editor on the Chicago Times. In Texas at various periods he worked editorially on the San Antonia Herald, the San Antonia Express, the Galveston- Dallas News, the Austin Statesman, the State Gazette of Austin, and other papers. He was the author of works on stenography, chemistry, medicine, and civil engineering. He had a reading and speaking acquaintance with ten living languages, and was profi- cient in Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit. In 1865 he w^as wedded to Katharine Smith, of Illinois, who survives him. After his mar- riage he came to Texas with his wife, and before returning to newspaper work he taught in colleges. He traveled all over both hemispheres." Mr. Walker's name was properly, simply James Walker, the initial "L" being adopted in the exigency of his mail matter be- coming confused with that of other James Walkers in some of the various localities in which he lived. But as he was known as James L. Walker to the Liberal World, by whom these chapters BIOGRAPHICAL. 71 will doubtless be first read and most appreciated, the name has been so written in this booklet. It was incidentally learned in conversation with Mr. Walker that his Iconoclastic and Liberalizing work began very early in life, as he published in Chicago a 40-column anti-theological paper and debated and lectured on Sundays besides, for almost two years prior to his marriage and departure for Texas, which is said to have occurred in 1865. The paper was sustained principally by Freethinker merchants of the city; and although it gathered a considerable list of regular subscribers, the cold, damp lake climate affi'cted Mr. Walker's lungs and throat so unfavorably tha.t he abandoned the enterjjrise, and sought the drier air and milder temperature of the Southwest. His next innovating work in the realm of Liberal thought was, as nearly as memory serves, some articles on "Conscience," con- tributed to "Lucifer," at that time published at Valley Falls, Kansas. These articles, if memory again is correct, stirred up very bitter opposition from some of the more emotionalistic read- ers of that journal ; but they also carried off several valuable ad- herents to the ideas presented. Again, in the years 1886-7, Mr. Walker, over the nom de plume "Tak Kak," made his most widely effective effort in the propa- ganda of the new ethics by means of some articles on the "'Duty " idea, in "Liberty," the pioneer organ of Philosophical Anarchism, then published in Boston, Mass. Here, once more, most bitter opposition was aroused, practically dividing the Anarchistic camp; but he firmly established the Egoistic idea, and carried with him almost all the readers of that journal, as well as its editor. Among those who from reading this discussion were led to em- brace the Egoistic philosophy, were the projectors and publishers of the little magazine "Egoism," through which the publication of these chapters was inaugurated. In the above-indicated memorable discussion in "Liberty," Mr. Walker won the distinctive title of "Father of Egoism in America." Although Dr. Caspar Schmidt, a comparatively un- known author, had under the nom de plume " Max Stirner," pre- viously written a masterly and inimitable work in Germany on the philosophy, Mr. Walker had thought out and s^'stemized the same in this country before he heard of Stirner. As a result of this dis- cussion in "Liberty," a distinctive and widely -distributed school of the greatest solidarity has sprung into existence, and includes among its adherents the brightest and ablest ethical polemics of our time. In this discussion or incident to it, Mr. Walker, in pointing out that Anarchism is really only the political branch of Egoism proper, also earned credit for suggesting the genealogical and con- sistently descriptive name. Egoistic Anarchism, for the Anarchism hitherto designated as Philosophical Anarchism, to distinguish 4S4-03 72 BIOGRAPHICAL. its school from that of the physical force revolutionists who also claim to be Anarchists. Mr. Walker's next and last effort in sociological writing was the chapters herein contained. This was to be followed by ati'eat- ise on Liberty; — libertj' to try expedients for bettering our condi- tion. There was then to be one on Money — an exchange medium ; and another on Land — the right to produce a living; and finally, Suggestions on Colonizing He entertained, of course, the same • osmopolitan economic ideas that are held by all of the Anarch- istic school, but he believed that under present conditions of wait- ing for education to soak into the masses, and as an educator itself, colonization was highly desirable. One plan was to colonize in cities, in a given section if convenient, and to strive to achieve economic independence by at first diverting patronage to the members of the colony, and finally thus establishing mutual in- dustrial hold in the community at large. The other plan was to locate on tlie land in large bodif s and to organize industry also on a purely voluntary basis; the main idea being aggregation of people of similar views, thus eliminating as far as possible the au- thoritarian interference of Philistine political polity. Besides these projected sociological works, Mr. Walker had put into manuscript, several years before his death, two educational works. The nature of the one has slipped the memory altogether; the other was a system of Spanish shorthand. But owing to the indifference of Spanish-speaking peoples toward modern methods in producing their literature, its publication was abandoned for the time. Mr. Walker may have had other works on other subjects in con- templation, but these were all that were learned of in the inci- dental manner in which all that is here written was obtained. He was also interested in telepathy, and in hygienic matters, but noth- ing was mentioned of a treatise on either subject. During the years that Mr. Walker was editorially connected with the Galve.ston News, he continuously wrote masterly and powerful articles aiient the various political issues as they passed. These were the dread of all contemporaries, as none could gamsay his arguments, based as they were on the incontrovertible princi- ples of his philosophy. And it may be added that the Galveston News was everywhere the delight and pride of the school he rep- resented, it being the only daily paper in the world enunciating any sound economic and political doctrines. But in time there came an end to all this. Finally someone learned the basis of th<'se impregnable positions and informed contemporary papers, which being unable to answer the arguments, started the mad-dog cry, "Anarchy." So, whatever may have been the inclination of the News management, the result was that Mr. Walker was re- duced to the merely mechanical function of correcting for the com- positors, copy that had been written by others. BIOGEAPHICAL. 73 After continuing in this menial position for three years, in- ducements were held out by certain wealthy Mexicans and resident Americans to come to Monterey, Mex., and establisli a Spanish- English daily newspaper. But by the time Mr. Walker could arrive on the ground, the enthusiasm of these same persons had become so limp that he abandoned the enterprise. Thereupon he started an English weekly paper for the patronage of the Ameri- can colony numbering about 2,000 persons. And, although oper- ating in a country in which every editor is directly responsible to the government for every word by him published, he created a local paper which in its scope and penetration of subjects handled was probably never equaled in any country. This he published for several years, but publications cut no figure with Mexicans, and Americans located in Mexico soon become Mexicanized and equally disinterested. Therefore he dropped publication, and entered upon the practice of medicine, having been licensed to practict* years before in Texas. In the year 1902, Mr. Walker and his wife came to Denver to spend the hot season away from Mexico. It was upon this occa- sion that the writer was favored with the personal acquaintance of this man whom he learned to reverence and love more than any other man he ever met. And, when the annulling blow of life fell, he would have fled to the arms of this fatherly and brotherly master, even as the dismayed child flees to its mother; but alas, fate had carefully destroyed the balm many days before she laid agape the wound. In the latter part of that year Mr. Walker returned to Mexico to dispose of his effects there, then to visit the St. Louis exposi- tion in 1904, and from there to locate somewhei*e in the United States. The disposal of his effects had been accomplished, and he was about to leave Mexico, when he was overtaken by the inevita- ble monster. He had passed through the yellow fever epidemic in Monterey that year, but not without being attacked. How- ever, he succeeded in breaking the fever, and had so far recovered as to be about to return to the United States preparatory to car- rying out his original plans, when he changed his mind, believing it better to travel with his wife in the interior of Mexico, pursuant of some business there until the weather should be warmer at the North. He was still weak from the depletion of the fever when unfortunately he and his wife ran unwarned into epidemic small- pox. They fled immediately to a back town, hoping to escape the contagion, but all in vain; it had already fastened upon the weak- ened man. And although Mr. Walker was himself an Allopathic practitioner, and therefore more or less committed to heroic meth- ods of treatment, he knew so well the ideas and practice of Mexi- can doctors that he feared their medication more than the disease. So the next effort was an attempt to conceal his condition, in or- der to evade the rigorous medication of the authorities. But this also failed, and this precious man was seized by Mexican officials 74 BIOGRAPHICAL. and carried to a native "hospital;" and, of course, doped to his death with the regulation life-extinguisher of the authoritarian State that he had fought with his most powerful ammunition dur- ing most of the best years of his life. He had succeeded in pulling himself through a much more se- vere malady in the instance of the yellow fever attack, when he was in his own home and amid acquaintanceship that allowed him his own medical resources. And, he probably would have suc- ceeded again with this less malignant affiiction if he had not been subjected to the excitement of seizure at a critical stage of the affection and thereafter to the iron-clad usage of a prisoner. His wife was permitted to remain by his side and do all that might be done, but unfortunately this did not include kicking out the Mexican doctor with his regulation decoctions that the deli- cate constitution of the victim could not combat. He suffered great agony and was delirious much of the time; recovering con- sciousness, however, a few hours before his death clearly enough torealizethe situation, for.callinghiswifeto him, he said: "We can't overcome this." And thus she was left to part alone from this immeasurable soul in that barbaric land; — even forced to leave all that was left to her of him, lying in the midst of the wretched beasts whose sloven lives had poisoned away the adored being who meant all to her that existence meant. The grave was protected against the Mexican habit of burying over the same ground again and again, by deeply-laid concrete surmounted by a strong iron enclosure embedded in this concrete. According to Mexican law the remains, after five years burial, may be removed. This will probably be done by the devoted wife. It is said above that Mrs. Walker was left to "part alone," etc. Figuratively, this is true; literally, not. There happened to be one American in a nearby town who, fortunately, was an ac- quaintance, and being summoned at the last, aidijd so far as lay in his power to the end of this calamitous tragedy. Mr. Walker was an ideal Egoist. While he taught the doc- trines of equity wherever the subject was seasonable, (and the humblest novice could be no more ready at all times than he to do a full share in associative effort "with his own kind) ; neverthe- less he permitted the Philistine World to pay him all the homage and tribute it cared to. He sacrificed none of his strength pro- miscuously upon the altar of equality to the unappreciative un- equal,— as is the wont of the evangelistic enthusiast. Toward earnest persons of his own general social ideal, he might "over- flow," as he has so aptly, forcefully, and yet incidentally put in an early chapter, but always with an eye to a rational limit;— one which in his own mind, incurred no obligation on the part of the person thus favored. It was his idea that in co-operative effort, the directors of work, or "bosses," should not generally receive greater compensation than the manual workers in the same line, Bince the opportunities for relaxation would compensate them for BIOGRAPHICAL. 75 the greater value of their services rendered to the body at large. In association Mr. Walker was of the most lovable of men ; calm, courteous, profound, and yet humorous upon occasion, but never light. In conversation, every proposition was an appeal to reason ; there was no cramming of the assumptions of authority down the mental throat. He was as spontaneously in touch with the spirit of the occasion in the hovel, as with that in the drawing- room. He regarded the varying conditions of the rich man and the poor man with that same consideration which unlike neigh- bors might each elicit from him. He made no wry faces at the inconveniences of the poor, nor did he fawn over the luxury of the rich. Neither was there fanatical rebuke manifested against the commander of opulence. He elucidated at as great length and with the same interest to the one as to the other. What he im- parted, or what he gave, was given with the air of a prince. There was none of the awful griping that is evinced by the Moralist when he does one of his "Duty " stunts, which seems to have cost him more than it ever could be worth to any other person. In bearing Mr. Walker was dignified without a suggestion of austerity, or of snobbishness. Tall, and erect in carriage, muscular and athletic, he was sure to attract that attention which melts into admiration. His language, while absolutely correct, flowed without a tinge of the strain of pedagogic discipline so conspicu- ous in the conversation of the majority of "educated" people. All who enjoyed his confidence and won his interest must over re- gret that the pleasant hours of relaxation and conversation are never to be repeated. Never shall I forget the last evening spent with this gen- uinely great unknown. He came out to my bleak little suburban home, where we spent the evening alone, and under the stimulus of the parting occasion and all the final things being felt and said, he seemed more magnificent than ever in his imperial democ- racy and embracing comradeship. It was a balmy night with the clearest of Colorado's clear skies and the brightest of her moonlight, and as we sat in the still open, the homogeneity of the scene;— the great sky, the vast plain, and the great man, fairly assaulted even my usually pre-occupied senses. It was Mr. Walker's purpose to accumulate at least a moder- ately independent fortune, before launching into a considerable effort of sociological and other innovating writings. This part of his program was fairly well accomplished, when the Galveston flood came, obliterating much of his holdings altogether; there being a considerable portion of it at the bottom of the sea when the tidal wave subsided. So he probably would have devoted at least a few more years to repairing so far as possible the breach in his fortune, before uncovering his light to the world of dungeoned mentality. But, alasl !* *This sketch should, fittingly, have been written by Benj. R. Tucker, previously referred to as the editor of "Liberty." Mr. 76 BIOGRAPHICAL. Walker had no warmer friend or greater admirer than Mr. Tucker, who possesses in a.ddition, the advantages of scholarship and lit- erary training, so necessary in comprehensively and lucidly cele- brating so worthy a subject. But Mr. Tucker was abroad, and the date of his probable return unknown. Moreover, the publica- tion of the booklet at this time seemed very urgent, inasmuch as the details of the work were in such a shape that no one besides me could well perform the task. My health, also, was in such a precarious condition that life itself was unusually uncertain. For this reason Mrs. Walker was naturally very anxious to com- plete the work while it was still' ])ussible. So I undertook the sketch myself, hoping to redeem it in a future edition with one written bj^ the proper person. This one has been written between rounds of oiling and inspection, while on duty in the engine-room of a steam plant, and without access to any data save those sup- plied by memory, possibly badly blurred by psychical prostra- tion. The whole was then corrected to approximately the pres- ent shape by the kindly aid of some friends. Henby Reploglb. ll'^l'ill :ii: