Several times in this Autobiography I have spoken of an unpublished philosophy of mine entitled “WhatⒶtextual note is Man?”Ⓐtextual note About three years ago I copyrighted the book in Mr.Ⓐtextual note Bosworth’s name and got a few copies printed and bound—Ⓐtextual notefour hundred. F. N. Doubleday attended to it for me. Bosworth is superintendent of a great printing-houseⒶtextual note in New York. He transferred the copyright to Doubleday,Ⓐtextual note and Doubleday transferred it to me. In this way the authorship has been kept secret. I have disclosed the authorship to half a dozenⒶtextual note special friends, safe people and trustworthy. Doubleday has possessed my secret ten or eleven years; I read a part of the manuscript to him in Vienna in ’97 or ’98Ⓔexplanatory note. My idea in privately printing the four hundred copies was, to distribute them among thinking men, concealingⒶtextual note the authorship, and in this way to get at their opinion of the book unmodified by prejudice. I felt entirely sure that no highly sane and intelligent person could read it understandingly and not accept its positions. But it turned out that I had a couple of serious difficulties to contend with. They were these: a sane man of high intelligence is sure to be a busy man, and is about equally sure to waste-basketⒶtextual note a philosophy which comes to him untagged with a name commanding attention; the other was, that no man, howsoever sane and intelligent can read a new philosophy understandingly. His vision will be blurred by age-long preconceptions due to training and environment, and until somebody shall brush these away he will misinterpret the book, and misunderstand it. Doubleday sent a copy to Kipling’s father, a very intelligent manⒺexplanatory note, and his verdict was very amusing;Ⓐtextual note alsoⒶtextual note quite necessarily and quite naturally grotesque. For the book had not been explained to him;Ⓐtextual note whereforeⒶtextual note he saw it through spectacles falsely focussed by ancient and foolish preconceptions and superstitions. With Andrew Carnegie the result was the sameⒺexplanatory note. The same with Bernard Shaw’s biographerⒺexplanatory note, who wildly imagined a lot of resemblances between Shaw’s philosophy and mine. It eventually becameⒶtextual note plain to me that to get intelligent verdicts [begin page 272] from sane and intelligent men who had not been taught how to read the book, was an impossibility and I gave it up. But I found that whenever I read the small book myself to a person of good intelligence,Ⓐtextual note of whatsoever age or sex, I always captured a disciple. Generally against the disciple’s will, still the disciple was made,Ⓐtextual note andⒶtextual note remained my possession. Remained my possession, and presently became reconciled; later, had the wit to realize that I had set him free, and was properly glad and grateful for this service I had rendered him.
Ashcroft is a disciple. Some time ago he converted a Canadian friend of his, and that friend has been privately passing the book from hand to hand, and teaching people how to read it, with the result that he has added several converts to the list. He knows the authorship himself but conceals it from his clients.
Mr. Norris is on the right track. By his missionary methods he has accomplished in a few monthsⒶtextual note about as much in the matter of acquiring disciplesⒶtextual note as I have accomplished in ten years. My gospel will get a good start yet. That is all it needs, then it will thrive and spread. I shall not live to see it, but that is no matter.
The following letters reached me this morning from Mr. NorrisⒺexplanatory note.
TorontoⒶtextual note
October, 30th, 1908.
Dear Mr. Clemens:—
I enclose herewith carbon copy of letter today to David Grayson, which explains itself. You may know him as the author of the delightful articles appearing from time to time in “The American” Magazine, for 1907–8, under headingⒶtextual note of “Adventures in Contentment” and “The Open Road,”Ⓔexplanatory note which indicate him a man of rare insight.
I have had made four typewritten copies of “What is Man” and expect to keep these and the original constantly in circulation. They are all out now.Ⓐtextual note
It occurs to me you might have a copy available that you would want to loan Mr. Grayson. If so Mr. Ashcroft could mail it to him as indicated, care of The American Magazine. In one way IⒶtextual note would like him to read my copy, because of my great regard for the spirit he expresses, but am more interested in obtaining results with the book, than in a matter of sentiment. I could then request him to return the book to Mr. Ashcroft. If, however, it coincides with your wishes better, not to do this, my copy cannot be doing better service.
Elbert Hubbard also writes me that he wants to see this book; that he will be in Toronto early in December, when I will hand it to him. I did not mention the title of the book in writing, yet I note a title of one of Hubbard’s lectures, curiously, is “What is Man.” Frankly, Mr. Hubbard’s personality in some ways is not very pleasing to me. He seems too pronounced an egotist; but IⒶtextual note cannot help admiring his candid plea of guiltyⒺexplanatory note; and no one can gainsay his independence and power.
I have also written, among others, Edward Carpenter, the English philosopher, whom you may know as the author of “Towards Democracy” (paternedⒶtextual note after “Leaves of Grass,”Ⓔexplanatory note)Ⓐtextual note and other books, and Count Leo Tolstoy. I thought perhaps you might wish to reveal yourselfⒺexplanatory note to Tolstoy before he readsⒶtextual note the book. I haveⒶtextual note hardly had time to hear from these two as yet.
[begin page 273] I believe it will not be necessary to explain that, in all this, my principle desire is service, and that every thing else with me must be subservient to oneⒶtextual note thing; and that is,Ⓐtextual note to “content my spirit.”*
Yours sincerely,
C. G. NorrisⒶtextual note
*The primary law of human action, as proclaimed by the book. S.L.C.Ⓐtextual note
TorontoⒶtextual note
October, 30th, 1908.
Dear David Grayson:—
Your short note of the 26th, reached me yesterday. The book, which is entitled “What is Man,” had been mailed to Dr. Isaac K. Funk of New York City, who has also expressed a desire to see it, a few hours before. You probably know him as the author of that, to me, remarkable little spiritual-philosophical book “The Next Step in Evolution” and as managing editor of the “Standard Dictionary.”Ⓐtextual note Ⓔexplanatory note Will request him to forward it to your publishers as soon as finished unless a New York friend of mine can spare his copy immediately.
Presenting the naked truth as the author has done, unadorned, not even with the garments of religion, how can the reader with any degree of spiritual intelligence fail to see the point?
I realize there is but one Spirit, one Power, one Life. I know it is not I that doeth anything, but this Spirit, this Master mentioned in the book, that worketh in me, whether I will or no. I know that, while my consciousness may choose or decide which is best (expressing free-choice as the author indicates), something in me, that is not I, doeth as It wills, not as I will. I believe the time is rapidly approaching when the will of this Master will be mine, if it is not so already.
Nothing, I find, contents my spirit—really satisfies me—except to do This Will. Moreover, I know that even then there is and could be only one motive for anything I do—to please myself.
If convenient, shall be glad if you can get at the book immediately as I may have another request for it and shall wish to respond as soon as you have examined it to your satisfaction. Needless to say I shall receive yourⒶtextual note verdict with veryⒶtextual note great interest; and, if favorable, I shall want permission to forward it to the author.
Sincerely yours,
C. G. NorrisⒶtextual note
an unpublished philosophy of mine . . . in Vienna in ’97 or ’98] See the Autobiographical Dictation of 4 September 1907, notes at 127.31–33 and 127.41. In that dictation Clemens correctly recalls the number of copies printed (two hundred and fifty). Here he again mangles the name of the general manager of the De Vinne Press, J. W. Bothwell.
Doubleday sent a copy to Kipling’s father, a very intelligent man] Doubleday had become acquainted with Kipling’s father, J. Lockwood Kipling, on a transatlantic voyage in 1899. The elder Kipling (1837–1911) was an artist, teacher, and author who worked in India for nearly thirty years. According to Edward Bok, who was also aboard, he was an “encyclopaedia of knowledge” and a “rare conversationalist.” Today he is best known as the illustrator of his son’s works (Bok 1922, 309–12; see also AutoMT2 , 644 n. 446.16). His opinion of What Is Man? has not been discovered.
With Andrew Carnegie the result was the same] Carnegie’s reaction to What Is Man? (evidently presented to him without authorship information) was forwarded to Clemens by Doubleday: “Thanks for the volume. It will startle the ordinary man, but I don’t see that it goes much deeper than we were before. . . . What comes of us we fortunately know not, nor why we feel or do as we do; but this remains: ‘All is well since all grows better.’ Our only duty is to obey the Judge within” (Doubleday to SLC, 17 or 18 Dec 1906, CU-MARK).
The same with Bernard Shaw’s biographer] Clemens inserted Archibald Henderson’s letter about What Is Man? in the Autobiographical Dictation of 4 September 1907 (see also AD, 25 July 1907, note at 73.16–17).
a Canadian friend of his . . . The following letters reached me this morning from Mr. Norris] Little is known about Ashcroft’s friend, Charles G. Norris of Toronto. He carried on a brief correspondence with Clemens, writing him at least four letters between September and December 1908, one of which is inserted in this dictation. In another letter, sent on 9 October 1908, he enclosed an essay in which he mentions that his father was a Congregational clergyman. Norris’s essay expounds his personal philosophy, which embodies the tenets of Freemasonry and holds that “Truth is the only authority” (CU-MARK). Clemens wrote at least two letters to Norris, only one of which survives. On 17 September 1908 he replied to a letter from Norris that is now lost:
What I have desired, & what I still desire is, to have What is Man examined by unpreoccupied (& capable) minds. Examined—not glanced at. To accomplish this, the authorship must be concealed—for the present. To publish the book with my name to it would defeat this. I want a backing of several hundred capable men before I come out of hiding—men who have read unprejudiced, & have approved. Then they are committed, & will stand to their guns; & will persuade others.
I marvel that you have found several persons who were able to put their training aside sufficiently to enable them to understand the book. I have placed it (clandestinely) before 5 or 6 competent persons—with deliciously sad results! I have read it—with comments & explanations—to six persons; three understood, three didn’t. Since I finished this house & moved into it on the 18th of June, we have had about three dozen guests—all educated, all intelligent—but I have not brought the matter before one of them. They would not have understood.
I got my first lesson 23 years ago, when I threw out a feeler among 12 men of very superior intellect. Not one of them could understand & accept the proposition that personal merit is an impossible thing.
Yes, typewrite as many copies as you please, adding “copyright by J. W. Bothwell.” I hope your printed copy will get worn out by & by; then Ashcroft will send you another. (NN-BGC)
David Grayson . . . “Adventures in Contentment” and “The Open Road,”] David Grayson was the pseudonym of Ray Stannard Baker (1870–1946), a journalist and author who was also coeditor and part owner of the American Magazine. “Adventures in Contentment,” his series of essays on country life, appeared there from November 1906 to November 1907, followed by a sequel, “The Open Road,” in January and March 1908.
Elbert Hubbard . . . his candid plea of guilty] Hubbard (1856–1915) was a printer, journalist, and moralist. Inspired by William Morris, in 1895 he established the Roycroft Press; the community of Roycroft artisans, based near Buffalo, New York, exemplified the American Arts and Crafts movement. Hubbard expressed his social and political views—a mixture of radicalism and conservatism—in the pages of The Philistine, cofounded (and finally entirely written) by himself. An 1899 editorial of his, reprinted as “A Message to Garcia,” brought him national fame. His lecture “What Is Man” (titled, like Clemens’s book, from Psalms 8:4) was advertised in The Philistine in 1908. Norris’s remark about “guilt” refers to Hubbard’s adulterous relationship with Alice Moore, who bore him a daughter in 1894. His 1907 tribute to Alice, White Hyacinths, praises her character in extravagant terms and admits, but does not apologize for, their relationship (“Elbert Hubbard Lectures,” Philistine 27 [Sept 1908]: unnumbered advertisement; “ ‘Greatest of Women,’ Elbert Hubbard’s Remarkable Tribute to His Wife,” Washington Post, 10 July 1907, 2).
Edward Carpenter, the English philosopher . . . “Leaves of Grass,”] Carpenter (1844–1929) was an English social theorist, author, and early champion of gay rights. After reading Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass in 1868 he became a socialist, and later made an extensive study of Eastern religions; his personal philosophy combines these interests. His best-known writing is his Whitmanesque poetry collection Towards Democracy (1883). He lived a quiet life with his partner at his country home near Sheffield, which became a mecca for his admirers. His numerous writings on socialism, pacifism, and homosexuality influenced writers such as E. M. Forster and D. H. Lawrence (Dawson 2013).
Count Leo Tolstoy . . . might wish to reveal yourself] In her journal entry of 2 November, Lyon described the circumstances of this dictation:
This morning a letter from Mr. Norris telling of his sending What is Man to David Grayson & Tolstoy has inspired the King to dictation. He came into my room in his red silk gown, & seated by the window said that his head was bursting with fancies that he had no physical ability to give birth to. Oh why couldn’t he live until the time when a man’s thoughts could be taken down by the wonderful the simple machine that is to be invented—perhaps is invented, & all you have to do is to turn the crank of it, & the grey cloud of thought will come back to you visualized, verbalized as it existed in the brain before the machine delivered it. There he sat, with eyes flashing, & deploring the fact that the Great Giant within him would be strangled at birth, & its force expended in disrupted temper.
The King regrets so that Tolstoy is a Christian—“a Hell of a Christian.” (Lyon 1908)
No indication has been found that Tolstoy received or read a copy of What Is Man?
Dr. Isaac K. Funk . . . “Standard Dictionary.”] Funk (1839–1912) was a Lutheran minister and lexicographer who cofounded the Funk and Wagnalls Company in 1877. Best known as the editor of A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, he also wrote on psychic and spiritual phenomena. The Next Step in Evolution (1902) considered the “probability, significance, and character of a second coming of Christ” (“New Books,” Washington Post, 2 Feb 1903, 7; “Dr. Isaac K. Funk, Publisher, Is Dead,” New York Times, 5 Apr 1912, 13).
Source documents.
Norris to SLC Typed letter, Charles G. Norris to SLC, 30 October 1908: ‘Toronto . . . Norris’ (272.17–273.5).Norris to Grayson Typed letter (carbon copy, inscribed ‘Copy’ by Lyon in ink), Charles G. Norris to David Grayson, 30 October 1908: ‘Toronto . . . Norris’ (273.6–33).
TS Typescript carbon (the ribbon copy is lost), five unnumbered leaves, made from Howden’s notes, Norris to SLC, and Norris to Grayson and revised.
For Norris’s two letters we follow the originals, incorporating Clemens’s penciled corrections and revisions (on them and on TS). Clemens also evidently supplied Norris’s signature on the copy of the letter to Grayson. Several inked corrections on the letters, attributed to Norris, have not been reported, nor have the trivial errors introduced by Howden in her TS.