CHAPTER XLIII.
THE LAST CONTEST.
I, Lewellyn Drury, had been so absorbed in the fantastic story the oldman read so fluently from the execrably written manuscript, and in themetaphysical argument which followed his account of the vision he hadintroduced so artfully as to lead me to think it was a part of hisnarrative, that I scarcely noted the passage of time. Upon seeing himsuspend his reading, fold the manuscript, and place it in his pocket, Ireverted to material things, and glancing at the clock, perceived thatthe hands pointed to bed-time.
"To-morrow evening," said he, "I will return at nine o'clock. In theinterim, if you still question any part of the story, or wish furtherinformation on any subject connected with my journey, I will be preparedto answer your queries. Since, however, that will be your lastopportunity, I suggest that you make notes of all subjects that you wishto discuss."
Then, in his usual self-possessed, exquisitely polite manner, he bowedhimself out.
I spent the next day reviewing the most questionable features of hishistory, recalling the several statements that had been made.Remembering the humiliation I had experienced in my previous attempts toconfute him, I determined to select such subjects as would appear themost difficult to explain, and to attack the old man with vehemence.
I confess, that notwithstanding my several failures, and his successfuland constant elucidation and minute details in regard to occurrenceswhich he related, and which anticipated many points I had once had inmind to question, misgivings still possessed me concerning thetruthfulness of the story. If these remarkable episodes were true,could there be such a thing as fiction? If not all true, where did factend and fancy begin?
Accordingly I devoted the following day to meditating my plan of attack,for I felt that I had been challenged to a final contest. Late the nextday, I felt confident of my own ability to dispossess him, and in orderfurther to test his power, when night came I doubly locked the door tomy room, first with the key and next with the inside bolt. I haddetermined to force him again to induce inert material to obey hiscommand, as he had done at our first interview. The reader will rememberthat Prof. Chickering had deemed that occurrence an illusion, and Iconfess that time had dimmed the vividness of the scene in my own mind.Hence I proposed to verify the matter. Therefore, at the approach ofnine o'clock, the evening following, I sat with my gaze riveted on thebolt of the door, determined not to answer his knock.
He gave me no chance to neglect a response to his rap. Exactly at thestroke of nine the door swung noiselessly on its hinges, the wizardentered, and the door closed again. The bolt had not moved, the knob didnot turn. The bar passed through the catch and back to its seat,--Isprung from my chair, and excitedly and rudely rushed past my guest. Igrasped the knob, wrenched it with all my might. Vainly; the door waslocked, the bolt was fastened. Then I turned to my visitor. He wasquietly seated in his accustomed place, and apparently failed to noticemy discomposure, although he must have realized that he had withstood myfirst test.
This pronounced defeat, at the very beginning of our proposed contest,produced a depressing effect; nevertheless I made an effort atself-control, and seating myself opposite, looked my antagonist in theface. Calm, dignified, with the brow of a philosopher, and thecountenance of a philanthropist, a perfect type of the exquisitegentleman, and the cultured scholar, my guest, as serene and complacentas though, instead of an intruder, he were an invited participant of thecomforts of my fireside, or even the host himself, laid his hat upon thetable, stroked his silvery, translucent beard, and said:
"Well?"
I accepted the challenge, for the word, as he emphasized it, was achallenge, and hurled at him, in hopes to catch him unprepared, thefollowing abrupt sentence:
"I doubt the possibility of the existence of a great cavern such as youhave described. The superincumbent mass of earth would crush thestrongest metal. No material known to man could withstand a pressure sogreat as would overlie an arch as large as that you depict; materialwould succumb even if the roof were made of steel."
"Do not be so positive," he replied. "By what authority do you make thisassertion?"
"By the authority of common sense as opposed to an unreasonablehypothesis. You should know that there is a limit to the strength of allthings, and that no substance is capable of making an arch of thousandsof miles, which, according to your assertion, must have been thediameter of the roof of your inland sea."
"Ah," he replied, "and so you again crush my facts with your theory.Well, let me ask a question."
"Proceed."
"Did you ever observe a bubble resting on a bubble?"
"Yes."
"Did you ever place a pipe-stem in a partly filled bowl of soap water,and by blowing through it fill the bowl with bubbles?"
"Yes."
"Did you ever calculate the tensile strength of the material from whichyou blew the bubble?"
"No; for soap water has no appreciable strength."
"And yet you know that a bubble made of suds has not only strength, butelasticity. Suppose a bubble of energy floating in space were to becovered to the depth of the thickness of a sheet of tissue paper withthe dust of space, would that surprise you?"
"No."
"Suppose two such globes of energy, covered with dust, were to betelescoped or attached together, would you marvel at the fact?"
"No."
He drew a picture on a piece of paper, in which one line was inclosed byanother, and remarked:
"The pencil mark on this paper is proportionately thicker than the crustof the earth over the earth cavern I have described. Even if it weremade of soap suds, it could revolve through space and maintain itscontour."
"But the earth is a globe," I interjected.
"You do not mean an exact globe?"
"No; it is flattened at the poles."
He took from his pocket two thin rubber balls, one slightly larger thanthe other. With his knife he divided the larger ball, cutting it intohalves. He then placed one of the sections upon the perfect ball, andheld the arrangement between the gas light and the wall.
FIG. 33. A A, telescoped energy spheres.]
"See; is not the shadow flattened, as your earth is, at the poles?"
"Yes; but the earth is not a shadow."
"We will not argue that point now," he replied, and then asked: "Supposesuch a compound shell as this were to revolve through space andcontinuously collect dust, most of it of the earth's temperature,forming a fluid (water), would not that dust be propelled naturally fromthe poles?"
"Yes; according to our theory."
"Perhaps," said he, "the contact edge of the invisible spheres of energywhich compose your earth bubbles, for planets are bubbles, that havebeen covered with water and soil during the time the energy bubble,which is the real bone of the globe, has been revolving through space;perhaps, could you reach the foundation of the earth dust, you wouldfind it not a perfect sphere, but a compound skeleton, as of two bubbleslocked, or rather telescoped together. [See Fig. 34.]
"Are you sure that my guide did not lead me through the space betweenthe bubbles?"
Then he continued:
"Do not be shocked at what I am about to assert, for, as a member ofmaterialistic humanity, you will surely consider me irrational when Isay that matter, materials, ponderous substances, one and all, so far asthe ponderous part is concerned have no strength."
"What! no strength?"
"None whatever."
I grasped the poker.
"Is not this matter?"
"Yes."
"I can not break it."
"No."
"Have not I strength?"
"Confine your argument now to the poker; we will consider you next. Youcan not break it."
"I can break this pencil, though," and I snapped it in his face.
"Yes."
I curled my lip in disdain.
"You carry this argument too far."
"Why?"
"I can break the pen
cil, I can not break the poker; had these materialsnot different strengths there could be no distinction; had I no strengthI could not have broken either."
"Are you ready to listen?" he replied.
"Yes; but do not exasperate me."
"I did not say that the combination you call a poker had no strength,neither did I assert that you could not break a pencil."
"A distinction without a difference; you play upon words."
"I said that matter, the ponderous side of material substances, has nostrength."
"And I say differently."
He thrust the end of the poker into the fire, and soon drew it forthred-hot.
"Is it as strong as before?"
"No."
"Heat it to whiteness and it becomes plastic."
"Yes."
Fig. 34. B B, telescoped energy spheres covered withspace dirt, inclosing space between.]
"Heat it still more and it changes to a liquid."
"Yes."
"Has liquid iron strength?"
"Very little, if any."
"Is it still matter?"
"Yes."
"Is it the material of the iron, or is it the energy called heat thatqualifies the strength of the metal? It seems to me that were I in yourplace I would now argue that absence of heat constitutes strength," hesarcastically continued.
"Go on."
"Cool this red-hot poker by thrusting it into a pail of cold water, andit becomes very hard and brittle."
"Yes."
"Cool it slowly, and it is comparatively soft and plastic."
"Yes."
"The material is the same, is it not?"
"Go on."
"What strength has charcoal?"
"Scarcely any."
"Crystallize it, and the diamond results."
"I did not speak of diamond."
"Ah! and is not the same amount of the same material present in each, agrain of diamond and a grain of charcoal? What is present in a grain ofdiamond that is not present in a grain of charcoal?"
"Go on."
"Answer my question."
"I can not."
"Why does brittle, cold zinc, when heated, become first ductile, andthen, at an increased temperature, become brittle again? In each casethe same material is present."
"I do not know; but this I do know: I am an organized being, and I havestrength of body."
The old man grasped the heavy iron poker with both hands, and suddenlyrising to his full height, swung it about his head, then with a motionso menacing that I shrunk back into my chair and cried out in alarm,seemed about to strike, with full force, my defenseless brow.
"My God," I shouted, "what have I done that you should murder me?"
He lowered the weapon, and calmly asked:
"Suppose that I had crushed your skull--where then would be your vauntedstrength?"
I made no reply, for as yet I had not recovered from the mental shock.
"Could you then have snapped a pencil? Could you have broken a reed?Could you even have blown the down from a thistle bloom?"
"No."
"Would not your material body have been intact?"
"Yes."
"Listen," said he. "Matter has no strength, matter obeys spirit, andspirit dominates all things material. Energy in some form holdsparticles of matter together, and energy in other forms loosens them.'Tis this imponderable force that gives strength to substances, not theponderable side of the material. Granite crushed is still granite, butdestitute of rigidity. Creatures dead are still organic structures, butdevoid of strength or motion. The spirit that pervades all materialthings gives to them form and existence. Take from your earth its vitalspirit, the energy that subjects matter, and your so-called adamantinerocks would disintegrate, and sift as dust into the interstices ofspace. Your so-called rigid globe, a shell of space dust, woulddissolve, collapse, and as the spray of a burst bubble, its ponderousside would vanish in the depths of force."
I sat motionless.
"Listen," he repeated. "You wrong your own common sense when you placedead matter above the spirit of matter. Atoms come and go in theirceaseless transmigrations, worlds move, universes circulate, not becausethey are material bodies, but because as points of matter, in a flood offorce, they obey the spirit that can blot out a sun, or dissolve theearth, as easily as it can unlink two atoms. Matter is an illusion,spirit is the reality."
I felt that he had silenced me against my will, and although I could notgainsay his assertions, I determined to study the subject carefully, atmy leisure.
"As you please," he interjected into my musings; "but since you are sodetermined, you would better study from books that are written byauthors who know whereof they write, and who are not obliged to theorizefrom speculative data concerning the intrastructural earth crust."
"But where can I find such works? I do not know of any."
"Then," said he, "perhaps it would be better to cease doubting the wordof one who has acquired the knowledge to write such a book, and who hasno object in misleading you."
"Still other questions arise," I said.
"Well?"
"I consider the account of the intra-earth fungus intoxicant beyond therealm of fact."
"In what respect?"
"The perfect loss of self that resulted immediately, in an instant,after swallowing the juice of the fungous fruit, so that you could notdistinguish between the real guide at your side and the phantom thatsprung into existence, is incredible. [See p. 234.] An element of timeis a factor in the operation of nerve impressions."[12]
[12] It is well that reference was made to this point. Few readers would probably notice that Chapter XXXVI. begun a narcotic hallucination.--J. U. L.
"Have you investigated all possible anaesthetics?" he asked.
"Of course not."
"Or all possible narcotics?"
"No."
"How long does it require for pure prussic acid to produce itsphysiological action?"
"I do not know."
He ignored my reply, and continued:
"Since there exists a relative difference between the time that isrequired for ether and chloroform to produce insensibility, and betweenthe actions and resultant effects of all known anaesthetics, intoxicants,and narcotics, I think you are hypercritical. Some nerve excitants knownto you act slowly, others quickly; why not others still instantaneously?If you can rest your assertion on any good basis, I will gladly meetyour questions, but I do not accept such evidence as you now introduce,and I do not care to argue for both parties."
Again I was becoming irritated, for I was not satisfied with the mannerin which I upheld my part of the argument, and naturally, as is usuallythe case with the defeated party, became incensed at my invincibleantagonist.
"Well," I said, "I criticise your credulity. The drunkards of thedrunkards' cavern were beyond all credence. I can not conceive of suchabnormal creations, even in illusion. Had I met with your experiences Iwould not have supposed, for an instant, that the fantastic shapes couldhave been aught but a dream, or the result of hallucination, while,without a question, you considered them real."
"You are certainly pressed for subjects about which to complain when youresort to criticising the possibilities in creations of a mind under theinfluence of a more powerful intoxicant than is known to surface earth,"he remarked. "However, I will show you that nature fashions animals informs more fantastic than I saw, and that even these figures were notoverdrawn--"
Without heeding his remark, I interrupted his discourse, determined tohave my say:
"And I furthermore question the uncouth personage you describe as yourguide. Would you have me believe that such a being has an existenceoutside an abnormal thought-creation?"
"Ah," he replied, "you have done well to ask these two questions insuccession, for you permit me to answer both at once. Listen: TheMonkey, of all animals, seems to approach closest to man in figure, theSiamang Gibon of Asia, the Bald-headed Saki of South Americ
a, with itsstub of a tail, being nearest. From these types we have great deviationsas in the Wanderer of India, with its whiskered face, and the BlackMacaque of the Island of Celebes, with its hairy topknot, and hairlessstub of a tail, or the well-known Squirrel Monkey, with its long suppletail, and the Thumbless Spider Monkey, of South America. Between thesetypes we have among monkeys, nearly every conceivable shape of limb andfigure, and in color of their faces and bodies, all the shades of therainbow.
"Some Squirrels jump and then sail through the air. The Sloth can barelymove on the earth. Ant-eaters have no teeth at all, while the GrizzlyBear can crush a gun barrel with its molars.
"The Duck-billed Platypus of South Australia has the body of a mole, thetail of a raccoon, the flat bill of a duck, and the flipper of a seal,combined with the feet of a rat. It lays eggs as birds do, but sucklesits young as do other mammalia. The Opossum has a prehensile tail, ashave some monkeys, and in addition a living bag or pouch in which thefemale carries her tiny young. The young of a kind of tree frog of thegenus Hylodes, breathe through a special organ in their tails; the youngof the Pipa, a great South American toad, burrow into the skin of themother, and still another from Chili, as soon as hatched, creep down thethroat of the father frog, and find below the jaw an opening into afalse membrane covering the entire abdomen, in which they repose insafety. Three species of frogs and toads have no tongue at all, while inall the others the tongue is attached by its tip to the end of themouth, and is free behind. The ordinary Bullfrog has conspicuous greatlegs, while a relative, the Coecilia (and others as well) have a headreminding of the frog, but neither tail nor legs, the body beingelongated as if it were a worm. The long, slender fingers of a Bat areunited by means of a membrane that enables it to fly like a bird, whileas a contrast, the fingers of a Mole, its near cousin, are short andstubby, and massive as compared with its frame. The former flies throughthe air, the latter burrows (almost flies) through the earth. The GreatAnt-eater has a curved head which is drawn out into a slender snout, noteeth, a long, slender tongue, a great bushy tail, and claws thatneither allow the creature to burrow in the earth nor climb into trees,but which are admirably adapted to tear an ant-hill into fragments. Itsclose relatives, the Apar and Armadillo, have a round body covered withbony plates, and a short, horny, curved tail, while another relative,the Long-tailed Pangolin, has a great alligator-like tail which,together with its body, is covered with horny, overlapping scales.
"The Greenland Whale has an enormous head occupying more than one-thirdits length, no teeth, and a throat scarcely larger than that of a suckerfish. The Golden Mole has a body so nearly symmetrical that, were it notfor the snout, it would be difficult to determine the location of thehead without close inspection, and it has legs so short that, were itnot for the powerful claws, they would not be observed at all. TheNarwhal has a straight, twisted tusk, a--"
"Hold, hold," I interrupted; "do you think that I am concerned in thesewell known contrasts in animal structure?"
"Did you not question the possibility of the description I gave of mygrotesque drunkards, and of the form of my subterranean guide?" my guestretorted.
"Yes; but I spoke of men, you describe animals."
"Man is an animal, and between the various species of animals that yousay are well known, greater distinctions can be drawn than between myguide and surface-earth man. Besides, had you allowed me to proceed to adescription of animal life beneath the surface of the earth, I wouldhave shown you that my guide partook of their attributes. Of thecreatures described, one only was of the intra-earth origin--theMole,--and like my guide, it is practically eyeless."
"Go on," I said; "'tis useless for me to resist. And yet--"
"And yet what?"
"And yet I have other subjects to discuss."
"Proceed."
"I do not like the way in which you constantly criticise science,especially in referring thereto the responsibilities of the crazedanatomist.[13] It seems to me that he was a monomaniac, gifted, butcrazed, and that science was unfortunate in being burdened with such anincubus."
[13] This section (see p. 190) was excised, being too painful.--J. U. L.
"True, and yet science advances largely by the work of such apparentlyheartless creatures. Were it not for investigators who overstep thebounds of established methods, and thus criticise their predecessors,science would rust and disintegrate. Besides, why should not science bejudged by the rule she applies to others?"
"What do you mean?"
"Who is more free to criticise religion than the materialistic man ofscience?"
"But a religious man is not cruel."
"Have you not read history? Have you not shuddered at the crimesrecorded in the name of the religions of man?"
"Yes; but these cruelties were committed by misguided men under thecloak of the church, or of false religions, during the dark ages. Do notblame religion, but the men who abused the cause."
"Yes," he added, "you are right; they were fanatics, crazed beings, men;yes, even communities, raving mad. Crazed leaders can infuse the mindsof the people with their fallacies, and thus become leaders of crazednations. Not, as I have depicted in my scientific enthusiast, one manalone in the privacy of his home torturing a single child, but wholenations pillaging, burning, torturing, and destroying. But this isforeign to our subject. Beware, I reiterate, of the science of humanbiology. The man who enters the field can not foresee the end, the manwho studies the science of life, and records his experiments, can notknow the extremes to which a fanatical follower may carry thethought-current of his leader. I have not overdrawn the lesson. Besides,science is now really torturing, burning, maiming, and destroyinghumanity. The act of destruction has been transferred from barbariansand the fanatic in religion to the follower of the devotees of science."
"No; I say, no."
"Who created the steam engine? Who evolves improved machinery? Whocreates improved artillery, and explosives? Scientific men."
He hesitated.
"Go on."
"Accumulate the maimed and destroyed each year; add together themiseries and sorrows that result from the explosions, accidents, andcatastrophes resulting from science improvements, and the dark agesscarcely offer a parallel. Add thereto the fearful destruction thatfollows a war among nations scientific, and it will be seen that thescientific enthusiast of the present has taken the place of themisguided fanatic of the past. Let us be just. Place to the credit ofreligion the good that religion has done, place to the credit of sciencethe good that science is doing, and yet do not mistake, both leave intheir wake an atmosphere saturated with misery, a road whitened withhumanity's bones. Neither the young nor the old are spared, and so faras the sufferer is concerned it matters not whether the person has beenracked by the tortures of an inquisition, or the sword of an infidel, isshrieking in the agony of a scald by super-heated steam, or is mangledby an explosion of nitroglycerin."
Again he hesitated.
"Go on."
"One of science's most serious responsibilities, from which religion hasnearly escaped, is that of supplying thought-food to fanatics, and fromthis science can not escape."
"Explain yourself."
"Who places the infidel in possession of arguments to combat sacredteachings? Who deliberately tortures animals, and suggests thatbiological experimentation in the name of science, before culturedaudiences even, is legitimate, such as making public dissections ofliving creatures?"
"Enough, enough," I cried, thinking of his crazed anatomist, andcovering my face with my hands; "you make my blood creep."
"Yes," he added sarcastically; "you shudder now and criticise mytruthful study, and to-morrow you will forget the lesson, and perhapsfor dinner you will relish your dish of veal, the favorite food ofmothers, the nearest approach to the flesh of babies."
Then his manner changed, and in his usual mild, pleasant way, he said:
"Take what I have said kindly; I wish only to induce your religious partto have more charity
for your scientific self, and the reverse. Bothreligion and science are working towards the good of man, although theirdevotees are human, and by human errors bring privations, sufferings,and sorrows to men. Neither can fill the place of the other; each shouldextend a helping hand, and have charity for the shortcomings of theother; they are not antagonists, but workers in one field; both muststand the criticisms of mutual antagonists, and both have cause to fearthe evils of fanaticism within their own ranks more than the attacks ofopponents from without. Let the religious enthusiast exercise care; hisburning, earnest words may lead a weak-minded father to murder aninnocent family, and yet 'tis not religion that commits the crime. Letthe zealous scientific man hesitate; he piles up fuel by which mindsunbalanced, or dispositions perverted, seek to burn and destroy hopesthat have long served the yearnings of humanity's soul. Neither purereligion nor true science is to blame for the acts of its devotees, andyet each must share the responsibility of its human agents."
"We will discuss the subject no further," I said; "it is not agreeable."
Then I continued:
"The idea of eternity without time is not quite clear to me, although Icatch an imperfect conception of the argument advanced. Do you mean tosay that when a soul leaves the body, the earth life of the individual,dominated by the soul, is thrown off from it as is the snap of awhip-lash, and that into the point between life and death, the hereafterof that mortal may be concentrated?"
"I simply give you the words of my guide," he replied, "but you haveexpressed the idea about as well as your word language will admit. Sucha conception of eternity is more rational to one who, like myself, haslived through an instant that covered, so far as mind is concerned, amillion years of time, than is an attempt to grasp a conception of aneternity, without beginning or end, by basing an argument on conditionsgoverning material substances, as these substances are known to man. Youhave the germ of the idea which may be simply a thought for you toponder over; you can study the problem at your leisure. Do not, however,I warn you, attempt to comprehend the notion of eternity by throwinginto it the conception of time as men accept that term, for the veryword time, as men define it, demands that there be both a beginning andan end. With the sense of time in one's mind, there can be no conceptionof the term eternity."
Then, as I had so often done before, I unwarily gave him an opportunityto enlarge on his theme, to my disadvantage. I had determined not to askany questions concerning his replies to my criticism, for whenever I hadpreviously done so, the result had been disastrous to me. In this case Iunwittingly said:
"Why do you say that our language will not permit of clearer conceptionsthan you give?"
"Because your education does not permit you to think outside of words;you are word-bound."
"You astonish me by making such an arrogant assertion. Do you mean toassert that I can not think without using words?"
"Yes. Every thought you indulge in is circumscribed. You presumablyattempt to throw a thought-line forward, and yet you step backward andspin it in words that have been handed you from the past, and, struggleas you may, you can not liberate yourself from the dead incubus. Attemptto originate an idea, and see if you can escape your word-master?"
"Go on; I am listening."
"Men scientific think in language scientific. Men poetical think inlanguage poetic. All educated men use words in thinking of theirsubjects, words that came to them from the past, and enslave theirintellect. Thus it is that the novelist can not make fiction less realthan is fact; that scientists can not commence at the outside, and builda theory back to phenomena understood. In each case the foundation of athought is a word that in the very beginning carries to the mind ameaning, a something from the past. Each thought ramification is anoffshoot from words that express ideas and govern ideas, yes, createideas, even dominating the mind. Men speak of ideas when they intend torefer to an image in the mind, but in reality they have no ideas outsideof the word sentences they unconsciously reformulate. Define the termidea correctly, and it will be shown that an idea is a sentence, and ifa sentence is made of words already created, there can be no new idea,for every word has a fixed meaning. Hence, when men think, they onlyrearrange words that carry with themselves networks of ideas, and thusplay upon their several established meanings. How can men socircumscribed construct a new idea or teach a new science?"
"New words are being created."
"Language is slowly progressing, but no new word adds itself to alanguage; it is linked to thought-chains that precede. In order tocreate a word, as a rule, roots are used that are as established inphilology as are building materials in architecture. When a new sound isthrust into a language, its intent must be introduced by words alreadyknown, after which it conveys a meaning derived from the past, andbecomes a part of mind sentences already constructed, as it does ofspoken language. Language has thus been painfully and slowly evolved andis still being enlarged, but while new impressions may be felt by aneducated person, the formulated feeling is inseparable, from well-knownsurviving words."
"Some men are dumb."
"Yes; and yet they frame mind-impressions into unspoken words of theirown, otherwise they would be scarcely more than animals. Place anuneducated dumb person in a room with a complicated instrument, andalthough he may comprehend its uses, he can not do so unless he framessense-impressions into, what is to him, a formulated mind-wordsequence."
"But he can think about it."
"No; unless he has already constructed previous impressions intoword-meanings of his own, he can not think about it at all. Words,whether spoken or unspoken, underlie all ideas. Try, if you believe I ammistaken, try to think of any subject outside of words?"
I sat a moment, and mentally attempted the task, and shook my head.
"Then," said the old man, "how can I use words with established meaningsto convey to your senses an entirely new idea? If I use new sounds,strung together, they are not words to you, and convey no meaning; if Iuse words familiar, they reach backward as well as forward. Thus it ispossible to instruct you, by a laborious course of reasoning, concerninga phenomenon that is connected with phenomena already understood by you,for your word-language can be thrust out from the parent stalk, and canthus follow the outreaching branches. However, in the case of phenomenathat exist on other planes, or are separated from any known material, orforce, as is the true conception that envelops the word eternity, therebeing neither connecting materials, forces, nor words to unite theoutside with the inside, the known with the unknown, how can I tell youmore than I have done? You are word-bound."
"Nevertheless, I still believe that I can think outside of words."
"Well, perhaps after you attempt to do so, and fail again and again, youwill appreciate that a truth is a truth, humiliating as it may be toacknowledge the fact."
"A Digger Indian has scarcely a word-language," I asserted, loth torelinquish the argument.
"You can go farther back if you desire, back to primitive man; manwithout language at all, and with ideas as circumscribed as those of thebrutes, and still you have not strengthened your argument concerningcivilized man. But you are tired, I see."
"Yes; tired of endeavoring to combat your assertions. You invariablylead me into the realms of speculation, and then throw me upon thedefensive by asking me to prove my own theories, or with apparentsincerity, you advance an unreasonable hypothesis, and then, before I amaware of your purpose, force me to acquiesce because I can not findfacts to confute you. You very artfully throw the burden of proof on mein all cases, for either by physical comparisons that I can not make, Imust demonstrate the falsity of your metaphysical assertions, or byabstract reasonings disprove statements you assert to be facts."
"You are peevish and exhausted, or you would perceive that I havegenerally allowed you to make the issue, and more than once haveendeavored to dissuade you from doing so. Besides, did I not severaltimes in the past bring experimental proof to dispel your incredulity?Have I not been courteous?"
"
Yes," I petulantly admitted; "yes."
Then I determined to imitate his artful methods, and throw him upon thedefensive as often as he had done with me. I had finally become familiarwith his process of arguing a question, for, instead of comingimmediately to his subject, he invariably led by circuitous route to thematter under discussion. Before reaching the point he would manage tocommit me to his own side of the subject, or place me in a defenselessposition. So with covert aim I began:
"I believe that friction is one method of producing heat."
"Yes."
"I have been told that the North American Indians make fires by rubbingtogether two pieces of dry wood."
"True."
"I have understood that the light of a shooting star results from theheat of friction, producing combustion of its particles."
"Partly," he answered.
"That when the meteoric fragment of space dust strikes the air, thefriction resulting from its velocity heats it to redness, fuses itssurface, or even burns its very substance into ashes."
"Yes."
"I have seen the spindle of a wheel charred by friction."
"Yes."
"I have drawn a wire rapidly through a handkerchief tightly grasped inmy hands, and have warmed the wire considerably in doing so."
"Yes."
I felt that I had him committed to my side of the question, and Iprepared to force him to disprove the possibility of one assertion thathe had made concerning his journey.
"You stated that you rode in a boat on the underground lake."
"Yes."
"With great rapidity?"
"Yes."
"Rapid motion produces friction, I believe?"
"Yes."
"And heat?"
"Yes."
"Why did not your boat become heated even to redness? You rode at therate of nine hundred miles an hour," I cried exultingly.
"For two reasons," he calmly replied; "two natural causes prevented sucha catastrophe."
And again he warned me, as he had done before, by saying:
"While you should not seek for supernatural agencies to account for anyphenomena in life, for all that is is natural, neither should you failto study the differences that varying conditions produce in resultsalready known. A miracle ceases to be a miracle when we understand thescientific cause underlying the wonder; occultism is natural, for ifthere be occult phenomena they must be governed by natural law; mysteryis not mysterious if the veil of ignorance that envelops theinvestigator is lifted. What you have said is true concerning the heatthat results from friction, but--
"First, the attraction of gravitation was inconsiderable where the boat,to which you refer, rested on the water.
"Second, the changing water carried away the heat as fast as it wasproduced. While it is true that a cannon ball becomes heated in itsmotion through the air, its surface is cooled when it strikes a body ofwater, notwithstanding that its great velocity is altogether overcome bythe water. The friction between the water and the iron does not resultin heated iron, but the contrary. The water above the rapids of a riverhas practically the temperature of the water below the rapids,regardless of the friction that ensues between these points. Admit,however, that heat is liberated as the result of the friction of solidswith water, and still it does not follow that this heat will perceptiblyaffect the solid. With a boat each particle of water carries the heataway, each succeeding portion of water takes up the heat liberated bythat preceding it. Thus the great body of water, over which our boatsped, in obedience to the ordinary law, became slightly warmed, but itseffect upon the boat was scarcely perceptible. Your comparison of themotion of a meteor, with that of our boat, was unhappy. We movedrapidly, it is true, in comparison with the motion of vessels such asyou know, but comparison can not be easily drawn between the velocity ofa boat and that of a meteor. While we moved at the rate of many miles aminute, a meteor moves many times faster, perhaps as many miles in asecond. Then you must remember that the force of gravitation was soslight in our position that--"
"Enough," I interrupted. "We will pass the subject. It seems that youdraw upon science for knowledge to support your arguments, howeverirrational they may be, and then you sneer at this same method ofargument when I employ it."
He replied to my peevish complaint with the utmost respect by calling tomy attention the fact that my own forced argument had led to the answer,and that he had simply replied to my attacks. Said he:
"If I am wrong in my philosophy, based on your science thought, I amright in my facts, and science thought is thus in the wrong, for factsoverbalance theory. I ask you only to give me the attention that mystatements merit. I am sincere, and aim to serve your interests. Shouldinvestigation lead you hereafter to infer that I am in error, at ourfinal interview you can have my considerate attention. Be morecharitable, please."
Then he added:
"Is there any other subject you wish to argue?"
"Yes," I answered, and again my combativeness arose; "yes. One of thetruly edifying features of your narrative is that of the intelligentguide," and I emphasized the word intelligent, and curled up my lip in asarcastic manner.
"Proceed."
"He was verily a wonderful being; an eyeless creature, and yet possessedof sight and perception beyond that of mortal man; a creature who hadbeen locked in the earth, and yet was more familiar with its surfacethan a philosopher; a cavern-bred monstrosity, and yet possessed of themind of a sage; he was a scientific expert, a naturalist, a metaphysicalreasoner, a critic of religion, and a prophet. He could see in absolutedarkness as well as in daylight; without a compass he could guide a boatover a trackless sea, and could accomplish feats that throw Gulliver andMunchausen into disrepute."
In perfect composure my aged guest listened to my cynical, and almostinsulting tirade. He made no effort to restrain my impetuous sentences,and when I had finished replied in the polished language of a scholarlygentleman.
"You state truly, construe my words properly, as well as understandcorrectly."
Then he continued musingly, as though speaking to himself:
"I would be at fault and deserve censure did I permit doubts to bethrown upon so clear a subject, or discredit on so magnanimous aperson."
Turning to me he continued:
"Certainly I did not intend to mislead or to be misunderstood, and ampleased to find you so earnest a scholar."
And then in his soft, mild manner, he commenced his detail reply,pouring oil upon the waters of my troubled soul, his sweet, melodiousvoice being so in contrast to my rash harangue. He began with hisexpressive and often repeated word, "listen."
"WE PASSED THROUGH CAVERNS FILLED WITH CREEPINGREPTILES."]
"Listen. You are right, my guide was a being wonderful to mortals. Hewas eyeless, but as I have shown you before, and now swear to the fact,was not sightless; surely," he said, "surely you have not forgottenthat long ago I considered the phenomenal instinct at length. Hepredicted the future by means of his knowledge of the past--there isnothing wonderful in that. Can not a civil engineer continue a line intothe beyond, and predict where the projection of that line will strike;can he not also calculate the effect that a curve will have on hisline's destiny? Why should a being conversant with the lines and curvesof humanity's journey for ages past not be able to indicate the linesthat men must follow in the future? Of course he could guide the boat,in what was to me a trackless waste of water, but you err in assertingthat I had said he did not have a guide, even if it were not a compass.Many details concerning this journey have not been explained to you;indeed, I have acquainted you with but little that I experienced. Nearsurface earth we passed through caverns filled with creeping reptiles;through others we were surrounded by flying creatures, neither beast norbird; we passed through passages of ooze and labyrinths of apparentlyinterminable intra-earth structures; to have disported on such featuresof my journey would have been impracticable. From time to time Iexperienced strains of melody, such as never before had I concei
ved,seemingly choruses of angels were singing in and to my very soul. Fromempty space about me, from out the crevices beyond and behind me, fromthe depths of my spirit within me, came these strains in notes clear anddistinct, but yet indescribable. Did I fancy, or was it real? I will notpretend to say. Flowers and structures beautiful, insects gorgeous andinexplicable were spread before me. Figures and forms I can not attemptto indicate in word descriptions, ever and anon surrounded, accompanied,and passed me by. The canvas conceptions of earth-bred artists bring tomind no forms so strange and weird and yet so beautiful as were thesecompound beings. Restful beyond description was it to drink in theindescribable strains of poetry of motion that I appreciated in themovements of fair creatures I have not mentioned, and it was no lesssoothing to experience the soul relief wrought by the sounds about me,for musicians know no notes so sweet and entrancing.
"There were also, in side caverns to which I was led, combinations ofsounds and scenes in which floating strains and fleeting figures wereinterwoven and interlaced so closely that the senses of both sight andhearing became blended into a single sense, new, weird, strange, andinexpressible. As flavor is the combination of odor and taste, and isneither taste nor odor, so these sounds and scenes combined were neitherscenes nor sounds, but a complex sensation, new, delicious. Sometimes Ibegged to be permitted to stop and live forever 'mid those heavenlycharms, but with as firm a hand as when helping me through the chambersof mire, ooze, and creeping reptiles, my guide drew me onward.
"But to return to the subject. As to my guide being a cavern-bredmonstrosity, I do not remember to have said that he was cavern-bred, andif I have forgotten a fact, I regret my short memory. Did I say that hewas always a cavern being? Did I assert that he had never lived amongmortals of upper earth? If so, I do not remember our conversation onthat subject. He was surely a sage in knowledge, as you have experiencedfrom my feeble efforts in explaining the nature of phenomena that wereto you unknown, and yet have been gained by me largely through hisinstruction. He was a metaphysician, as you assert; you are surelyright; he was a sincere, earnest reasoner and teacher. He was aconscientious student, and did not by any word lead me to feel that hedid not respect all religions, and bow to the Creator of the universe,its sciences, and its religions. His demeanor was most considerate, hismethods faultless, his love of nature deep, his patience inexhaustible,his sincerity unimpeachable. Yes," the old man said; "you are right inyour admiration of this lovely personage, and when you come to meet thisbeing as you are destined yet to do--for know now that you too will someday pass from surface earth, and leave only your name in connection withthis story of myself--you will surely then form a still greater love anda deeper respect for one so gifted, and yet so self-sacrificing."
"Old man," I cried, "you mock me. I spoke facetiously, and you answerliterally. Know that I have no confidence in your sailor-like tales,your Marco Polo history."
"Ah! You discredit Marco Polo? And why do you doubt?"
"Because I have never seen such phenomena, I have never witnessed suchoccurrences. I must see a thing to believe it."
"And so you believe only what you see?" he queried.
"Yes."
"Now answer promptly," he commanded, and his manner changed as by magicto that of a master. "Did you ever see Greenland?"
"No."
"Iceland?"
"No."
"A geyser?"
"No."
"A whale?"
"No."
"England?"
"No."
"France?"
"No."
"A walrus?"
"No."
"Then you do not believe that these conditions, countries, and animalshave an existence?"
"Of course they have."
"Why?"
"Others have seen them."
"Ah," he said; "then you wish to modify your assertion--you only believewhat others have seen?"
"Excepting one person," I retorted.
Then he continued, seemingly not having noticed my personal allusion:
"Have you ever seen your heart?"
I hesitated.
"Answer," he commanded.
"No."
"Your stomach?"
"No."
"Have you seen the stomach of any of your friends?"
"No."
"The back of your head?"
I became irritated, and made no reply.
"Answer," he again commanded.
"I have seen its reflection in a glass."
"I say no," he replied; "you have not."
"You are impudent," I exclaimed.
"Not at all," he said, good humoredly; "how easy it is to make amistake. I venture to say that you have never seen the reflection of theback of your head in a mirror."
"Your presumption astounds me."
"I will leave it to yourself."
He took a hand-glass from the table and held it behind my head.
"Now, do you see the reflection?"
"No; the glass is behind me."
"Ah, yes; and so is the back of your head."
"Look," I said, pointing to the great mirror on the bureau; "look, thereis the reflection of the back of my head."
"No; it is the reflection of the reflection in my hand-glass."
"You have tricked me; you quibble!"
"Well," he said, ignoring my remark; "what do you believe?"
"I believe what others have seen, and what I can do."
"Excluding myself as to what others have seen," he said facetiously.
"Perhaps," I answered, relenting somewhat.
"Has any man of your acquaintance seen the middle of Africa?"
"No."
"The center of the earth?"
"No."
"The opposite side of the moon?"
"No."
"The soul of man?"
"No."
"Heat, light, electricity?"
"No."
"Then you do not believe that Africa has a midland, the earth a center,the moon an opposite side, man a soul, force an existence?"
"You distort my meaning."
"Well, I ask questions in accord with your suggestions, and you defeatyourself. You have now only one point left. You believe only what _you_can do?"
"FLOWERS AND STRUCTURES BEAUTIFUL, INSECTS GORGEOUS."]
"Yes."
"I will rest this case on one statement, then, and you may be thejudge."
"Agreed."
"You can not do what any child in Cincinnati can accomplish. I assertthat any other man, any other woman in the city can do more than youcan. No cripple is so helpless, no invalid so feeble as not, in thisrespect, to be your superior."
"You insult me," I again retorted, almost viciously.
"Do you dispute the assertion seriously?"
"Yes."
"Well, let me see you kiss your elbow."
Involuntarily I twisted my arm so as to bring the elbow towards mymouth, then, as I caught the full force of his meaning, the ridiculousresult of my passionate wager came over me, and I laughed aloud. It wasa change of thought from the sublime to the ludicrous.
The white-haired guest smiled in return, and kindly said:
"It pleases me to find you in good humor at last. I will returnto-morrow evening and resume the reading of my manuscript. In themeantime take good exercise, eat heartily, and become more cheerful."
He rose and bowed himself out.
THE OLD MAN CONTINUES HIS MANUSCRIPT.