BLACKWELL FAMILY GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE ELIZABETH BLACKWELL Massey, C. C. 1889 - 1898 & undated124 Victoria St SW 25 Feby Dear Dr Blackwell Thanks for your letter. The first Eastern terms introduced in my paper might have been better omitted, but you will remember that the paper was to appear as an article in a magazine to nearly all the readers of which those terms are quite familiar. As regards the cult of Oriental philosophy, I thinkit cannot but be of great furtherance to our ideal development, eventually, and that it is already helping many of us better to know what is the real truth of Christianity. The civilisation of the East is in material respects of course very far inferior to our own, but in other respects I think it may compare favorably, and they are just those in which the influence of spiritual thought might be expected most to appear. A Christian civilization which tolerates vivisection, and which has resulted in such horrible social conditions as are prevalent all over the West - besides never having provided effectual motives in restraint of degrading propensities unknown in the East, must not, I think, boast itself too loudly of its ethical or even of its political superiority. My article was very long for a review, and probably could only be squeezed in by the type used - asto the C.T.S. volume, I am going to make another attempt tomorrow, when the contributors meet, to get my paper omitted, as I have no time to revise it now. But I think I am too late Yours very truly C C Massey [different hand] ruffles for velour waist wash brush 1889 57 Margaret St. Cavendish Square London W 8 Aug 89 My dear Madam If I reply at some length to the letter I have just recd from you in answer to my own (and which I had been rather anxiously expecting), it is not with any view of drawing you into a correspondence which might be irksome, on a subject which you justly describe as involving two "immense issues" to be thus dealt with. Mr Swinton kindly sent me your letter to him of July 30; from which Ialready gathered that you did not think the "community" life, in the strictest sense of the term, are yet practicable. And your letter to myself indicates this position more decidedly. But is not this to forbid all hope of a beginning? Most not your "associated neighbourhood" begin with the single household? I look forward to the associated neighbourhood as a development of the communal life. I have read and re-read the leaflet you penned in 1875 (which Mrs. Swinton also sent me) and sympathise with it entirely as far as it goes. But that is not further than a proposal which assumes the existing mode and order of social life and relations, and would make the best of them. And if I understood that to be your final word on the subject, I shd not venture to trouble you further with my own dreams of a more radical reform. What encourages me to do so is your evident sense of the importance of being in earnest with the Christianity of Christ, and your declared sympathy with attempts which go further than your own practical suggestion. I read with delight that sentence in your letter: "But to my mind Christianity, without firm faith in the real living power of the great teacher, is an unjustifiable theft of the word". And yourremark that "we have never not attempted to apply the spiritual teaching of this great prophet of your race" seeming to me to point to the possibility, at least, is your mind of a more practical and thorough going application of the social principles than is apparent in any mere attempt to improve and spiritualise an order of things which He over and over again declared was not for His true disciples. And I submit that the practicability of any social attempt can only be tested by making the attempt, and that foreseeing its difficulties and danger He not deter us, but only put us on our guard. I so not know if you have ever had a beautiful work of 2 Tauler ( the German "mystic" of the 14' century) "The following of Christ" (he has been translated within the last few years, and is sold by Burns & Oates, the Catholic bookseller in Orchard at Oxford St London) It impresses me more than all the modern Socialistic literature I have read, as an exposition of the total meaning [and?] spiritual necessity of Christian "poverty". After reading that book I made some study of the history of early monastic institutions, and came to the conclusion that in this history is to be found the only true history of Christianity itself. Genuine Christian faith (however narrow and defective the collateral conceptions which seemed so essentialand kept these institutions alive in purity and [repose?] for centuries, and reviewed them from time to time in the right spirit in later ages. In them originated the best elements of our civilization – agriculture, the arts, learning, systematic education &c. All these things spring out of religious communism, out of the immense energies developed by that life, unactivated by a simple selfish or individualistic motive! I think Montalambert has successfully shown [that] in his "Monks of the West" that monasticism was (of course in its [caudbitic?] development, and apart from the non-essential rule of celibacy) is the true type of Christian society. And the Women! Did they break up this system! No, they were its most conservative and spiritualizing element; and I do not see why wife or mother in a modern community shd be less justified in this respect than the old nuns. I believe that only pick the best and noblest women and those most spiritually advanced, would join in originating such a community as I suggest, and I shd hope most for their preparedness and harmonizing influence. But I check myself. This letter, after all, is little more than a half-despairing cry; for I see little or no chance of the attempt being a fair [made?] to realize this old ideal in the altered circumstances, material and intellectual, of the [aft?]. And mere political socialismhas nearly ceased to interest me. Thanks for your most encouraging appreciation of that book of du Prel, which I think has an importance not yet recognized by many. At least it has not been a success (the English translation, I mean) from the publisher's point of view! I would come willing to Hastings for a day or two if I thought there was any probability of a practical result – but I fear I may not hope for that. And some urgent literary work forbids my leaving town at present for what I should indeed esteem a privilege — your personal, acquaintance – without the even greater motive which a hope of our agreement would supply . Believe me, yours very truly. C C Massey13th Aug 89 My dear Madam I would gladly run down to Hastings for a day, this week or next, if I could hope at all for any practical result of what wd in any case be a pleasure to me - a conversation with you on the subject of our correspondence. I feel that we are in much more agreement than I at first supposed. For my household was always contemplated by me as merelypreliminary to a communistic association of similar households, and I quite agree with you as to the impracticability and indeed undesirability of including in one household different families. But I should desiderate in the nucleus establishment a more entire union of aim and principle and faith than I fear is yet attainable, even among the half dozen or so whose cooperation wd be necessary for a beginning. The principle of "production for use, not profit" would be of course fundamental, the motive of the association being to substitute that principle for the existing "struggle for existence" consequent on the existing struggle for wealth. But it seemed to me that the type of such a new social life must first be provided [by] on the scale of a single household, and the the experiment must be animated by a spiritual character and faith. For in the first place, the initial difficulties of cultivating a tract of land by a community of whom few could be expected to be already experienced in agriculture would be enormous, unless the aim is merely industrial, so that the community could include farm laborers andothers competent to direct operations of this nature, who sd have no other interest in the experiment than the improvements of their own material condition. Secondly, I believe that selfish individualism is not sufficssible or repressible [without] unless the spiritual consciousness is excited and occupied, and I have therefore no faith in [merely] [secular] communism on a merely secular basis. But now I come to points [individual] concerning my own present position in relation to any undertaking of this kind, my antecedents have not qualified me for the organisation of [an] industrial enterprise, or of a community on an extended scale, 2 and I could therefore not take an initiatory part in such, however disposed I might feel to join it, if already in working order. Nor could I devote to it the requisite capital, though I am ready to give up my income (which is only between £500 and £600 a year) to any community I could join in entire sympathy. (One such point of sympathy wd be the complete elimination of hired service, that we shd all do the work required among ourselves) Moreover, I have to come to a decision almost immediately – that is okay, I must make certain personal arrangements, unless a prospect at once opens ofdevoting myself and my means to this new life, without delay. About 2 years ago, I gave up my rooms in London, consigning my effects and a rather large library of books, many of them bearing on subjects which interest me, to a warehouse. I did this partially from an impulse to go away and cultivate a more spiritual life, and with an impression that some new mode or ordering such a life wd soon open to me. I do not now know that this was altogether a mistake, but the prolonged suspense has become intolerable, and the separation from my books a growing inconvenience. And I have now seen rooms which wd suit me exactly – if I am to return to the old social condition – and I must decide whether to take them or not within a very few weeks –. Pardon me for intruding these personal details, but my object in thus explaining my external position is to ask you to say whether, knowing them, and being much better acquainted by your former efforts than I am with the personalities whose cooperation might be hoped for, [whether] you think a visit to Hastingswd be likely to lead to any practical opening — I mean whether you and I, talking the thing over, wd be likely to come to any immediately practical and practicable conclusion, and to find others with whom we might hopefully communicate. If so, I will come at once, putting up at the Alexandra Hotel for a night or two. But if you advise me differently, I must take my course with a view to private arrangements. Many thanks for enclosed, which I return, as you may perhaps want it – Yours sincerely C C Massey Dr E. Blackwell, MD Hastings124 Victoria St. S.W 29th Oct 89 My dear Dr Blackwell Thanks for yr letter of 24th, which was delayed in transmission, having been addressed to Bath, where I was only staying for a few weeks, 3 months ago – I have now taken rooms for permanent residence here, having given up all immediate hope of the close and household association for which I held myself free for 2 years – my arrangements now have been made at a considerably pecuniary outlay, andwith a view to the retired literary life with which I expected to have to content my aspirations, at least until the movement towards new social organisation shd be more advanced, and some centre of associated life which I could join shd perhaps be started. I felt and feel unequal to initiating such; and am rather trusting now to some imperceptible process of spiritual growth, which may hereafter fit me to receive a more definite impulse or instruction. Meanwhile I have a rather extensive programme of metaphysical and other studies, the conditions of which [are rather] seem to be at variance with those which would accompany any enterprise of a more cooperative character. Nevertheless, if any definite plan of life is formulated by yourself and those others you refer to, I would gratefully hear of it, and shd indeed rejoice if I would see in it the response to the need, the feeling of which, though occasionally (now just at present) dormant, is [never long until sent] more & more recurrent, viz, for a life more in practical accord with a societary ideal, or more tending to that. Your interpretation of the Three Vows will commend itself to many. The first was similarly indicated to me last year by Professor Sidgwick (the President of the SPR), when staying with me at a cottage I had near Cheltenham, and I think was supported by his reading in Scientific Religion! while with me.His own and his wife's ample fortunes are spent, I believe, for the most part on public objects (and doubtless largely in benevolent ways), their own mode of living being simple, though far from ascetic. The substance of his precept was "Take what you want, with a view to your work and simple social requirements, for yourself, and hold yourself [on] the rest of your possessions a trustee for the [objects] public or altruistic objects which [such] commend themselves to your best instructed judgment". And he specially recommended social experimentation. But in this, and also, I think, in your interpretation of the two other vows, the directive is hardly more than a general ethical principle (to which I suppose everyone would formally assent), the application being absent, or as individualistic as ever. And it seems from an immediate consequence of 2 the idea with which you agree, (viz, that of Oliphant, concerning the Inferior inspiration of the 'swap') that the social unit must receive better instruction for the disposition of property -- than the individual unit, and that therefore the institution of 'private' property can be only provisional, a defective arrangement pending the fitness of man for true organic grouping on a divinely governed principle. So of the other two rules. It seems to me that your interpretations are just the re-enunciation of the general divine scheme of life with which all communal enterprises suggested by it start, as the ideal to be realised by conformity to more particular rules of association and conduct. This descent from principles torules is always necessary for the practical application of the former [in]. When such rules fail, we must indeed always revert to this principle, but not, I think, rest in that, because the result of so doing must eventually be to subordinate the principle to the actual circumstances of life — whatever these may be, and however little really consistent they may be with the principle itself. I have no doubt that the true Christian spirit is to overcome circumstances, not to make a compromise with them, or even to attempt to spiritualise what is unspiritual in its conception, history, and conditions. The Church has tried to deal with the "world" in this way, with the very unsatisfactory results that are becoming so apparent. We have to some extent tinctured society with Christian [of] ethics; but to a far greater extent it has become itself tinctured with the profane conception of life, and has lost much more of its own spirituality than it has imparted to the world. And is not this a direct consequence of its having rested in the principle of the Three Vows, and having persuaded itself and taught the world that this principle could be realised without the mediation of more particular and definite societary rules, which would have conflicted with the established secular order of things? The monastic orders, at their best were a splendid conception, and I think have alone represented theessential spirit of well meaning of Christianity, though of course the obligation of celibacy is only adapted to those who have a particular vocation. I have dwelt too long, I fear, for your patience on these points – but my study of Tauler inclined me, I confess, to accept him very literally. Yes – I am & have been from the first a member of the S.P.R. I don't know how my name comes to be absent from the list, as I paid my subscription early in the year. Down to 1886 I was a member of the Council but I left it on a disagreement with the ruling element in the Society as to methods and conclusions. I shall always be glad to hear from you dear Dr Blackwell, believe me. Yours very sincerely C C Massey124. Victoria Street S.W 16 Febr 91 Dear Dr Blackwell Thank you for your letter. I am gratified by your wish that my paper etc be printed, and in fact I read it from type, a revise of the article which will appear in "Lucifer" or the 20 inst I will send you a copy - I only wonder that anyone goes to hear such papers read – I not only cannot follow the reader myself — unless the subject is one already beaten down in my own mind – but find it difficult to keep awake on such occasions, and therefore, although I belong to several societies at which papers are read I seldom attend the meetings – but look to read the most interesting of the papers when they are published – (though often forgetting to do so). And I felt some remorse on Thursday for inflicting all that upon my audience. I hope you may be able to pass a favourable judgment on the line of thought when you get it before you in print; but the whole thing is really nearly comprised in the idea that the sum of our existence is not an accidental one, but is [self] determined by anattatchment which cannot possibly be broken by any such external event as physical death, but only by voluntary renunciation; failing which the enduring attraction will inevitably draw us back- Believe me Your's sincerely C C MasseyWINDHAM CLUB,. ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, S.W. 10 Nov 91 Dear Dr Blackwell I have to thank you for your kind word of 8th, which I got last night — It is very gratifying & encouraging to me to have your sympathetic appreciation of that paper as now printed – I have not yet seen the volume, for which Ishould have liked to revise my own contribution so as to give it a less scrambling & fragmenting form – but I was too much preoccupied. I don't know if the paper or Associated life could be so revised as to make it suitable for our semi- public discussions – It was written with an immediate practical view, to help if possible bring together those who might be inwardly urged to such a life – not at all to recommend the life to others. For most it would be quite unsuitable, and we have merely argument, probably, as the words of life generally best – in which my ideal of an industrial monasticiary would be not sympathetically handled – Moreover I am myself ratherapart from that view or impulse at present. But I will bear your suggestion in mind. Hoping we may meet at the little [?] ([?] meeting all [?] the hotel at 32 Bloomsbury); [?] I remain in haste for work Yours Sincerely C C Massey 124, Victoria Street, S.W. 6 May 98 Dear Dr Blackwell I am indeed gratified by your appreciation of the paper I sent, and still more glad that it has been the humble means of sending you to [Hessel?] through Caird. Let merecommend the latter's Essays in Literature and Philosophy (2 vols. Glasgow Maclehose, 1892) for an admirable survey of metaphysics in the 2d volume. Cairds lucidity and felicity of exposition are very remarkable You are, I believe, quite right in thinking that Hegel may be utilised in [the] opposition to the materialism of biological science, and it consequent abominable methods of 'research' – But as I daresay you know, in Germany Hegelianism has split in two directions; the 'right' giving the spiritual interpretation of the master, the 'left' representing a negative pantheism which is capable of all anti- ethical developments – and is in fact leading to them. Idealism has practicallyspent its force in its native country - but here and in America it is making way- Cordially reciprocating your recognition Believe me Sincerly yours C C Massey