and _Heretics_ by G. K. Chesterton--Dodd, Mead and Co.; for
permission to use a passage from Julien Benda’s _The Treason of the
Intellectuals_--William Morrow and Co.; for permission to make brief
quotations from A. N. Whitehead’s _Science and the Modern World_, A.
S. Eddington’s _Science and the Unseen World_, Walter Lippmann’s _A
Preface to Morals_, John Dewey’s _Democracy and Education_, and from
the works of Matthew Arnold and Walter Pater--the Macmillan Co.; for
permission to use passages from Stuart P. Sherman’s _On Contemporary
Literature_--Henry Holt and Co.; for permission to extract matter
from Stuart P. Sherman’s _Shaping Men and Women_, T. S. Eliot’s _For
Lancelot Andrews_, H. G. Wells’s _Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island_,
and Hilaire Belloc’s preface to Ruth Pitter’s _First and Second
Poems_--Doubleday, Doran and Co.; for permission to quote relevant
passages from Margaret Naumburg’s _The Child and the World_ and
Herbert Read’s _The Sense of Glory_--Harcourt, Brace and Co. Similar
courtesies were extended to me by Charles Scribner and Sons in the
case of excerpts from Jacques Maritain’s _Three Reformers_, the Yale
University Press in the case of Robert Shafer’s _Progress and Science_,
the Princeton University Press in the case of L. T. More’s _The Dogma
of Evolution_, the University of North Carolina Press in the case of
Norman Foerster’s _The American Scholar_, Horace Liveright, Inc., in
the case of Charles Fort’s _The Book of the Damned_, and, lastly, the
Viking Press in the case of Sorel’s _Reflections on Violence_. To all I
am grateful.
I may add that the American reader who enjoys following the progress of
a literary controversy as the French appear to enjoy their polemical
outbreaks will find the pages of the _Bookman_ from month to month
alive with the debating points of the New Humanists. For further
information on the Douglas Proposals spoken of rather hopefully in the
chapter on Humanism and economics, see _Unemployment or War_ by Maurice
Colbourne, published by Coward-McCann, Inc.
Finally, I will name a very few books that have been of great service
to me in forming my own point of view as distinct from the humanistic
viewpoint. They are, in metaphysics, _The Three Conventions_ by
Denis Saurat, published by the Dial Press; in psychology, _Beyond
Behaviorism_ by Robert Courtney, brought out by Grant Publications,
Inc.; in literature, _Readers and Writers_ and _The Art of Reading_,
both by A. R. Orage, the former published by Knopf, and the latter by
Farrar and Rinehart, Inc.
G. M.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Born in 1865 at Dayton, Ohio, graduated from Harvard in 1889,
member of the Harvard faculty since 1894.
[2] For a full appreciation of Norton, the reader should see the essay
on Norton in the eleventh series of the _Shelburne Essays_ by P. E.
More.
[3] In view of what Benda goes on to say, read Humanism here for
humanitarianism.
[4] That is, Humanism.
[5] In a very interesting paper written shortly before his death
G. Stanley Hall recounted his experiences among phrenologists,
anthropologists, “character analysts,” psycho-analysts and intelligence
testers for real light on the nature of “I.” The results were so meagre
that at the end of his life he could still say: “I want to strip before
analyzers who can diagnose not only my abilities, but my character,
disposition, merits, and defects, and tell me, even at the eleventh
hour, _who and what I really am_.” (My italics.)
[6] More, I believe, has more intellectualized his conception of the
inner check than has Babbitt. I myself prefer the hints of Babbitt on
this topic to the explanations of More which seem to me to harden the
conception too much. The two men appear also to differ on the will,
Babbitt regarding it in the Oriental way as anterior and superior to
the reason and the flux of personality, whereas More seems to follow
Christian tradition which usually makes the will a mode of activity
belonging to the flux. I follow Babbitt in the discussion of will
later in my chapter. The reader, however, is advised to consult the
_Definitions of Dualism_ which More appended to the Eighth Series
of the _Shelburne Essays_ for full light on these differences and
especially for the most ambitious attempt to put the doctrine and
discipline of Humanism into a precise philosophic-psychological
framework.
[7] It is fair to say that removed from its context this statement
sounds harsher than it really is.
[8] In the special supplement of the _New Republic_ for July 16,
1930, which was devoted to homage to Herbert Croly, the psychological
conclusions Croly reached were touched obliquely, lightly or haltingly
by some of the contributors, totally ignored by the rest.
[9] It may interest some readers to know that this is why consistently
throughout my writing career I have refused to classify myself as a New
Humanist despite my manifestly strong sympathy for the school.