Meantime a letter has arrived which continues this subject. It is to Ashcroft, and is from an accomplished lady who is a professor in one of the great female collegesⒺexplanatory note. That odious form is common, and I submit and use it, though it offends me as much as it would to say female brickbat or female snow-stormⒶtextual note or female geography. I will take a paragraph or two from that part of the letter which treats of “What is Man?” As follows:
[begin page 274] “I know I ought to return that wonderful book of his to you, but I simply cannot, yet; I want to read it again and digest it better. It is so new to me, that philosophy of his, that I rebelled at every page, and really fought my way through it all, but it was so damnably convincing that, by the time the end was reached, I sat dazed, but completely reconciled to his way of thinking, and can only say as your friend did that it is a shame the world does not know what great man wrote that great book. I truly will send it soon and I am mighty grateful to you for lending it to me.”
(Ten days later.)
“I am returning by mail the best book I ever hope to read. I know it now almost by heart, and am mighty grateful to you for putting it into my life, for it has completely won me over. There’s only one point I’d like to talk out with you—take, for example, that thief Mr. Clemens had before him in court not long agoⒺexplanatory note, what right had he or the judge to sentence him when he was simply acting ‘accordingⒶtextual note to his make’Ⓐtextual note and the outside influences of his life-long training which compelled him; yet what would become of law and government, if we did not hold him responsible? Tell me that.”
Reply, dictated by Mr. Clemens; November 4th.
TheⒶtextual note question deals with speculation, thus it moves over the frontier-line, and enters a foreign land, a land with which the book does not concern itself. What might happen if this gospel were adopted by the world is certainly interesting matter for forecasting and speculation, but nothing definite or valuable ever results from guessings and prophecies; the results never in any case come out in accordance with the forecast. We cannot form the slightest idea of what would happen if this gospel were adopted. We only know, by the light of history, that the thing that would happen would be precisely the thing which we had imagined would not happen.
The book answers the question, but that is merely as it happens: the book’s function is to state facts, caring nothing for anything but just that——the truth. Civilization has always claimed that what it wants, and all it wants, and all it values is the truth, and let the results take care of themselves. As usual, civilization is lying; its dearest care from the beginning has been to avoid the truth when it can, and fight it and destroy it when it can’t. And yet the truth is valuable and proves itself so whenever itⒶtextual note gets a chance. It is quite natural to wish to speculate on what would happen if a new gospel be accepted and adopted. The Terra del Fuegans can count only up to 10Ⓐtextual note; when they attempt multiplying, the results of their cipherings are something extraordinary. Now suppose we imagine a Terra del FueganⒶtextual note multiplication table wherein 4 times 1 are 14, 3 times 7 are 96, 9 times 5 are 150, and an educated white man goes there, and by intelligence, industry and persistence succeeds in proving to those people that their multiplication table is all wrong, and is a confusion and a falsity; then by further industry and persistence succeeds in showing them that our multiplication is accurate in all its details, and that it is in verity a fact and a truth. At this point, those savages would unquestionably exhibit apprehension and say:
“All our commerce, all our trade, all our business, have always been and are [begin page 275] to-day still based upon the proposition that 4 times 1 are 14, etc.Ⓐtextual note; will not this new multiplication table upset everything and throw our commerce into disorder?”
What would that intelligent white man answer? He would be obliged to say:
“God only knows; there is no way to find out but to wait and see what the result will be. I am here merely to bring you the truth, not to tell you what will happen if you accept it. My mission is plenty great enough and high enough without adding any extraneous and unrelated matter to it.”
Put it in another form: aⒶtextual note man is afflicted with delusions. A physician proves to him that they are delusions, and proposes to remove them, brush them away and leave him a healthy mind. But the dismayed patient says:
“But they have always been mine, I have believed in them, I have lived by them, what is to become of me if you brush them away?”
The physician would reply:
“I don’t know; you will have to take the chances, then you will find out; I am merely here to give you a healthy mind, not to forecast what you will do with it when you get it.”
The lady’s compliments are strong but not too strong for my appetite. For several days I have been trembling for Prince von BulowⒺexplanatory note, for two days I have been trembling for Mr. TaftⒺexplanatory note. Perhaps it is time for me to begin to tremble for myself now. Ten or eleven years ago, when I knew Prince von Bulow in Vienna—Graf, not yet Prince—he had already risen very high in the political world, and was still rising. He went on climbing and became Prime Minister and Prince. During some years now, the two hemispheres have been full of his great name, full of his praises, and of course he has been envied as being a most happy and fortunate man. And now, at last, he has committed a blunder—merely a blunder not a crime—and instantly he has gone tumbling and rumbling and fumbling and crashing down his mountain to the valley below with a noise that has reached to the uttermost parts of the earth. Another instance of a fact found out ages and ages ago that no man’s glory is safe until he is dead. There is always a chance that some little ghastly accident will happen, unforeseen, unexpected, unpreventable, and turn it to a shame. Three months ago Senator Foraker of Ohio was a great man; a great man, and a useful man; very few of his colleagues in the Senate could show so fine and brave and independent and creditable a record as he; he seemed booked for the Presidency and likely to arrive at that position in due time. Very well, the other day that paragon of virtue and cleanliness, Mr. HearstⒶtextual note, bought some stolen private letters—bought them because he hadn’t a chance to steal them himself—and he published them. Among them were a couple which seemed to show that Senator Foraker had had compromising relations with the Standard Oil Company a few years ago. That was enough, and more than enough. The nation didn’t stop to find out whether Foraker was really guilty or not, it rose against him and he is a crushed man to-dayⒺexplanatory note,Ⓐtextual note and will never rise again. Three months ago not a man in America doubted that at the election for SenatorⒶtextual note in the Ohio legislatureⒶtextual note, an election to be held in this present month, Foraker would succeed himself without opposition. Alas he could not be elected constable of a precinct now. The day before yesterday Mr. Taft was elected President of the United States, to-day both continents [begin page 276] are shouting his praises and pelting him with congratulations by mail, telegraph, telephone, wireless and all the other ways, and his happy soul is swimming in painted sunsets. Very well I am trembling for him, and when I read and re-read and read again those delightful things in that lady professor’s letter, by George I tremble for myself.
an accomplished lady . . . in one of the great female colleges] Unidentified.
that thief Mr. Clemens had before him in court not long ago] This cannot refer to the trial of the Stormfield burglars, which would not take place until 10 November. Clemens had, however, attended the arraignment in the chambers of a Redding judge on 18 September, wearing his white suit and accompanied by Clara and Charles Wark (“Mark Twain Enjoys Being the Goat,” Boston Journal, 19 Sept 1908, 6; Springfield Republican: “Burglars Rob Mark Twain,” 19 Sept 1908, 16; “Mark Twain on Witness Stand,” 11 Nov 1908, 14).
For several days I have been trembling for Prince von Bulow] Bernhard, Prince von Bülow (1849–1929), was Wilhelm II’s foreign minister when Clemens knew him in Vienna in 1897–98. From 1900 to 1909 he was chancellor of Germany and prime minister of Prussia; he became a prince in 1905. His “blunder” was failing to prevent publication of an interview with the emperor that appeared in the London Telegraph on 28 October 1908. In it, Wilhelm intemperately announced that he was friendly to the British, although the majority of Germans were not; that he had proposed the plan that helped the British to win the Second Boer War; and that British apprehensiveness about the growing German navy was “mad” and “unworthy.” Von Bülow had received the manuscript of the interview for vetting, but failed to read it. The “Daily Telegraph Affair” offended not only the British and the Germans but also the French and the Russians, and swiftly led to von Bülow’s resignation (“Britons Ingrates, Kaiser Declares,” Chicago Tribune, 28 Oct 1908, 1; “German Chancellor Offers Resignation,” New York Times, 1 Nov 1908, C3).
for two days I have been trembling for Mr. Taft] Taft had been elected president on 3 November. On that day Lyon noted in her journal, “The King said that if he had a preference it would be Taft, but that he regretted seeing the Republican Party continue in power” (Lyon 1908).
Senator Foraker . . . he is a crushed man to-day] In the fall of 1908 newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst (1863–1951) campaigned on behalf of the Independence Party’s presidential candidate (Thomas L. Hisgen, 1858–1925), accusing both the Democratic and Republican parties of corruption. On 17 September he focused his attack on Senator Joseph B. Foraker of Ohio (1846–1917), revealing the contents of letters written to Foraker by a Standard Oil executive, John D. Archbold. The letters, which had been stolen from the company’s offices, revealed that, during his first senatorial term, Foraker had received large cash payments from Standard Oil in return for opposing legislation unfavorable to the company. In December 1908 Foraker, facing inevitable defeat, withdrew his bid for reelection to the Senate (Page 1908; New York Times: “Roosevelt Hits at Foraker Now,” 22 Sept 1908, 1; “Burton for Senator; Taft, Foraker Out,” 1 Jan 1909, 8; “Foraker Speaks in Own Defense,” San Francisco Chronicle, 26 Sept 1908, 2).
Source document.
TS Typescript, six unnumbered leaves, made from Howden’s notes.TS, which Clemens did not revise, is the unique source for this dictation. The original manuscript for the letter to Ashcroft (274.1–16) does not survive. The first two pages of TS were made on the typewriter equipped with a purple ribbon that was used for the AD of 6 October 1908; the last four pages were made on the typewriter used for most of the other dictations this period, equipped with a black ribbon. The switch in typewriters occurs in the middle of a sentence, so there is no doubt that the transcription was continuous.