148apps.com BestAppEver: “Stanza has redefined how everyone thinks about reading on a mobile device.”
2008 Best Free App

The Education of Henry Adams by Adams, Henry - CHAPTER XV

(download Open eBook Format)

The Education of Henry Adams

CHAPTER XV

DAR­WIN­ISM (1867-1868)

POL­ITICS, diplo­ma­cy, law, art, and his­to­ry had opened no out­let for fu­ture en­er­gy or ef­fort, but a man must do some­thing, even in Port­land Place, when win­ter is dark and win­ter evenings are ex­ceed­ing­ly long. At that mo­ment Dar­win was con­vuls­ing so­ci­ety. The ge­olog­ical cham­pi­on of Dar­win was Sir Charles Lyell, and the Lyells were in­ti­mate at the Lega­tion. Sir Charles con­stant­ly said of Dar­win, what Pal­grave said of Ten­nyson, that the first time he came to town, Adams should be asked to meet him, but nei­ther of them ev­er came to town, or ev­er cared to meet a young Amer­ican, and one could not go to them be­cause they were known to dis­like in­tru­sion. The on­ly Amer­icans who were not al­lowed to in­trude were the half-​dozen in the Lega­tion. Adams was con­tent to read Dar­win, es­pe­cial­ly his “Ori­gin of Species” and his “Voy­age of the Bea­gle.” He was a Dar­win­ist be­fore the let­ter; a pre­des­tined fol­low­er of the tide; but he was hard­ly trained to fol­low Dar­win’s ev­idences. Frag­men­tary the British mind might be, but in those days it was do­ing a great deal of work in a very un-​En­glish way, build­ing up so many and such vast the­ories on such nar­row foun­da­tions as to shock the con­ser­va­tive, and de­light the frivolous. The atom­ic the­ory; the cor­re­la­tion and con­ser­va­tion of en­er­gy; the me­chan­ical the­ory of the uni­verse; the ki­net­ic the­ory of gas­es, and Dar­win’s Law of Nat­ural Se­lec­tion, were ex­am­ples of what a young man had to take on trust. Nei­ther he nor any one else knew enough to ver­ify them; in his ig­no­rance of math­emat­ics, he was par­tic­ular­ly help­less; but this nev­er stood in his way. The ideas were new and seemed to lead some­where — to some great gen­er­al­iza­tion which would fin­ish one’s clam­or to be ed­ucat­ed. That a be­gin­ner should un­der­stand them all, or be­lieve them all, no one could ex­pect, still less ex­act. Hen­ry Adams was Dar­win­ist be­cause it was eas­ier than not, for his ig­no­rance ex­ceed­ed be­lief, and one must know some­thing in or­der to con­tra­dict even such tri­flers as Tyn­dall and Hux­ley.

By rights, he should have been al­so a Marx­ist but some nar­row trait of the New Eng­land na­ture seemed to blight so­cial­ism, and he tried in vain to make him­self a con­vert. He did the next best thing; he be­came a Comteist, with­in the lim­its of evo­lu­tion. He was ready to be­come any­thing but qui­et. As though the world had not been enough up­set in his time, he was ea­ger to see it up­set more. He had his wish, but he lost his hold on the re­sults by try­ing to un­der­stand them.

He nev­er tried to un­der­stand Dar­win; but he still fan­cied he might get the best part of Dar­win­ism from the eas­ier study of ge­ol­ogy; a sci­ence which suit­ed idle minds as well as though it were his­to­ry. Ev­ery cu­rate in Eng­land dab­bled in ge­ol­ogy and hunt­ed for ves­tiges of Cre­ation. Dar­win hunt­ed on­ly for ves­tiges of Nat­ural Se­lec­tion, and Adams fol­lowed him, al­though he cared noth­ing about Se­lec­tion, un­less per­haps for the in­di­rect amuse­ment of up­set­ting cu­rates. He felt, like nine men in ten, an in­stinc­tive be­lief in Evo­lu­tion, but he felt no more con­cern in Nat­ural than in un­nat­ural Se­lec­tion, though he seized with greed­iness the new vol­ume on the “An­tiq­ui­ty of Man” which Sir Charles Lyell pub­lished in 1863 in or­der to sup­port Dar­win by wreck­ing the Gar­den of Eden. Sir Charles next brought out, in 1866, a new edi­tion of his “Prin­ci­ples,” then the high­est text-​book of ge­ol­ogy; but here the Dar­wini­an doc­trine grew in stature. Nat­ural Se­lec­tion led back to Nat­ural Evo­lu­tion, and at last to Nat­ural Uni­for­mi­ty. This was a vast stride. Un­bro­ken Evo­lu­tion un­der uni­form con­di­tions pleased ev­ery one — ex­cept cu­rates and bish­ops; it was the very best sub­sti­tute for re­li­gion; a safe, con­ser­va­tive prac­ti­cal, thor­ough­ly Com­mon-​Law de­ity. Such a work­ing sys­tem for the uni­verse suit­ed a young man who had just helped to waste five or ten thou­sand mil­lion dol­lars and a mil­lion lives, more or less, to en­force uni­ty and uni­for­mi­ty on peo­ple who ob­ject­ed to it; the idea was on­ly too se­duc­tive in its per­fec­tion; it had the charm of art. Uni­ty and Uni­for­mi­ty were the whole mo­tive of phi­los­ophy, and if Dar­win, like a true En­glish­man, pre­ferred to back in­to it — to reach God a pos­te­ri­ori — rather than start from it, like Spinoza, the dif­fer­ence of method taught on­ly the moral that the best way of reach­ing uni­ty was to unite. Any road was good that ar­rived. Life de­pend­ed on it. One had been, from the first, dragged hith­er and thith­er like a French poo­dle on a string, fol­low­ing al­ways the strongest pull, be­tween one form of uni­ty or cen­tral­iza­tion and an­oth­er. The proof that one had act­ed wise­ly be­cause of obey­ing the pri­mor­dial habit of na­ture flat­tered one’s self-​es­teem. Steady, uni­form, un­bro­ken evo­lu­tion from low­er to high­er seemed easy. So, one day when Sir Charles came to the Lega­tion to in­quire about get­ting his “Prin­ci­ples” prop­er­ly no­ticed in Amer­ica, young Adams found noth­ing sim­pler than to sug­gest that he could do it him­self if Sir Charles would tell him what to say. Youth risks such en­coun­ters with the uni­verse be­fore one suc­cumbs to it, yet even he was sur­prised at Sir Charles’s ready as­sent, and still more so at find­ing him­self, af­ter half an hour’s con­ver­sa­tion, sit­ting down to clear the minds of Amer­ican ge­ol­ogists about the prin­ci­ples of their pro­fes­sion. This was get­ting on fast; Arthur Pen­den­nis had nev­er gone so far.

The ge­ol­ogists were a hardy class, not like­ly to be much hurt by Adams’s learn­ing, nor did he throw away much con­cern on their ac­count. He un­der­took the task chiefly to ed­ucate, not them, but him­self, and if Sir Isaac New­ton had, like Sir Charles Lyell, asked him to ex­plain for Amer­icans his last edi­tion of the “Prin­cip­ia,” Adams would have jumped at the chance. Un­for­tu­nate­ly the mere read­ing such works for amuse­ment is quite a dif­fer­ent mat­ter from study­ing them for crit­icism. Ig­no­rance must al­ways be­gin at the be­gin­ning. Adams must in­evitably have be­gun by ask­ing Sir Isaac for an in­tel­li­gi­ble rea­son why the ap­ple fell to the ground. He did not know enough to be sat­is­fied with the fact. The Law of Grav­ita­tion was so-​and-​so, but what was Grav­ita­tion? and he would have been thrown quite off his base if Sir Isaac had an­swered that he did not know.

At the very out­set Adams struck on Sir Charles’s Glacial The­ory or the­ories. He was ig­no­rant enough to think that the glacial epoch looked like a chasm be­tween him and a uni­for­mi­tar­ian world. If the glacial pe­ri­od were uni­for­mi­ty, what was catas­tro­phe? To him the two or three la­bored guess­es that Sir Charles sug­gest­ed or bor­rowed to ex­plain glacia­tion were proof of noth­ing, and were quite un­sol­id as sup­port for so im­mense a su­per­struc­ture as ge­olog­ical uni­for­mi­ty. If one were at lib­er­ty to be as lax in sci­ence as in the­ol­ogy, and to as­sume uni­ty from the start, one might bet­ter say so, as the Church did, and not in­vite at­tack by ap­pear­ing weak in ev­idence. Nat­ural­ly a young man, al­to­geth­er ig­no­rant, could not say this to Sir Charles Lyell or Sir Isaac New­ton; but he was forced to state Sir Charles’s views, which he thought weak as hy­pothe­ses and worth­less as proofs. Sir Charles him­self seemed shy of them. Adams hint­ed his here­sies in vain. At last he re­sort­ed to what he thought the bold ex­per­iment of in­sert­ing a sen­tence in the text, in­tend­ed to pro­voke cor­rec­tion. “The in­tro­duc­tion [by Louis Agas­siz] of this new ge­olog­ical agent seemed at first sight in­con­sis­tent with Sir Charles’s ar­gu­ment, oblig­ing him to al­low that caus­es had in fact ex­ist­ed on the earth ca­pa­ble of pro­duc­ing more vi­olent ge­olog­ical changes than would be pos­si­ble in our own day.” The hint pro­duced no ef­fect. Sir Charles said not a word; he let the para­graph stand; and Adams nev­er knew whether the great Uni­for­mi­tar­ian was strict or lax in his uni­for­mi­tar­ian creed; but he doubt­ed.

Ob­jec­tions fa­tal to one mind are fu­tile to an­oth­er, and as far as con­cerned the ar­ti­cle, the mat­ter end­ed there, al­though the glacial epoch re­mained a misty re­gion in the young man’s Dar­win­ism. Had it been the on­ly one, he would not have fret­ted about it; but uni­for­mi­ty of­ten worked queer­ly and some­times did not work as Nat­ural Se­lec­tion at all. Find­ing him­self at a loss for some sin­gle fig­ure to il­lus­trate the Law of Nat­ural Se­lec­tion, Adams asked Sir Charles for the sim­plest case of uni­for­mi­ty on record. Much to his sur­prise Sir Charles told him that cer­tain forms, like Ter­ebrat­ula, ap­peared to be iden­ti­cal from the be­gin­ning to the end of ge­olog­ical time. Since this was al­to­geth­er too much uni­for­mi­ty and much too lit­tle se­lec­tion, Adams gave up the at­tempt to be­gin at the be­gin­ning, and tried start­ing at the end — him­self. Tak­ing for grant­ed that the ver­te­brates would serve his pur­pose, he asked Sir Charles to in­tro­duce him to the first ver­te­brate. In­finite­ly to his be­wil­der­ment, Sir Charles in­formed him that the first ver­te­brate was a very re­spectable fish, among the ear­li­est of all fos­sils, which had lived, and whose bones were still repos­ing, un­der Adams’s own fa­vorite Abbey on Wen­lock Edge.

By this time, in 1867 Adams had learned to know Shrop­shire fa­mil­iar­ly, and it was the part of his diplo­mat­ic ed­uca­tion which he loved best. Like Cather­ine Ol­ney in “Northang­er Abbey,” he yearned for noth­ing so keen­ly as to feel at home in a thir­teenth-​cen­tu­ry Abbey, un­less it were to haunt a fif­teenth-​cen­tu­ry Pri­or’s House, and both these joys were his at Wen­lock. With com­pan­ions or with­out, he nev­er tired of it. Whether he rode about the Wrekin, or vis­it­ed all the his­tor­ical haunts from Lud­low Cas­tle and Stoke­say to Bosco­bel and Uri­co­ni­um; or fol­lowed the Ro­man road or scratched in the Abbey ru­ins, all was amus­ing and car­ried a fla­vor of its own like that of the Ro­man Cam­pagna; but per­haps he liked best to ram­ble over the Edge on a sum­mer af­ter­noon and look across the March­es to the moun­tains of Wales. The pe­cu­liar fla­vor of the scenery has some­thing to do with ab­sence of evo­lu­tion; it was bet­ter marked in Egypt: it was felt wher­ev­er time-​se­quences be­came in­ter­change­able. One’s in­stinct ab­hors time. As one lay on the slope of the Edge, look­ing sleep­ily through the sum­mer haze to­wards Shrews­bury or Cad­er Idris or Caer Caradoc or Uri­co­ni­um, noth­ing sug­gest­ed se­quence. The Ro­man road was twin to the rail­road; Uri­co­ni­um was well worth Shrews­bury; Wen­lock and Build­was were far su­pe­ri­or to Bridg­north. The shep­herds of Car­ac­ta­cus or Of­fa, or the monks of Build­was, had they ap­proached where he lay in the grass, would have tak­en him on­ly for an­oth­er and tamer va­ri­ety of Welsh thief. They would have seen lit­tle to sur­prise them in the mod­ern land­scape un­less it were the steam of a dis­tant rail­way. One might mix up the terms of time as one liked, or stuff the present any­where in­to the past, mea­sur­ing time by Fal­staff’s Shrews­bury clock, with­out vi­olent sense of wrong, as one could do it on the Pa­cif­ic Ocean; but the tri­umph of all was to look south along the Edge to the abode of one’s ear­li­est an­ces­tor and near­est rel­ative, the ganoid fish, whose name, ac­cord­ing to Pro­fes­sor Hux­ley, was Pteraspis, a cousin of the stur­geon, and whose king­dom, ac­cord­ing to Sir Rod­er­ick Murchi­son, was called Sil­uria. Life be­gan and end­ed there. Be­hind that hori­zon lay on­ly the Cam­bri­an, with­out ver­te­brates or any oth­er or­gan­ism ex­cept a few shell-​fish. On the fur­ther verge of the Cam­bri­an rose the crys­talline rocks from which ev­ery trace of or­gan­ic ex­is­tence had been erased.

That here, on the Wen­lock Edge of time, a young Amer­ican, seek­ing on­ly frivolous amuse­ment, should find a le­git­imate parent­age as mod­ern as though just caught in the Sev­ern be­low, as­ton­ished him as much as though he had found Dar­win him­self. In the scale of evo­lu­tion, one ver­te­brate was as good as an­oth­er. For any­thing he, or any one else, knew, nine hun­dred and nine­ty nine parts of evo­lu­tion out of a thou­sand lay be­hind or be­low the Pteraspis . To an Amer­ican in search of a fa­ther, it mat­tered noth­ing whether the fa­ther breathed through lungs, or walked on fins, or on feet. Evo­lu­tion of mind was al­to­geth­er an­oth­er mat­ter and be­longed to an­oth­er sci­ence, but whether one traced de­scent from the shark or the wolf was im­ma­te­ri­al even in morals. This mat­ter had been dis­cussed for ages with­out sci­en­tif­ic re­sult. La Fontaine and oth­er fab­ulists main­tained that the wolf, even in morals, stood high­er than man; and in view of the late civ­il war, Adams had doubts of his own on the facts of moral evo­lu­tion:–

“Tout bi­en con­sidere, je te sou­tiens en somme, Que scel­er­at pour scel­er­at, Il vaut mieux etre un loup qu’un homme.”

It might well be! At all events, it did not en­ter in­to the prob­lem of Pteraspis, for it was quite cer­tain that no com­plete proof of Nat­ural Se­lec­tion had oc­curred back to the time of Pteraspis, and that be­fore Pteraspis was eter­nal void. No trace of any ver­te­brate had been found there; on­ly starfish, shell-​fish, polyps, or trilo­bites whose kind­ly de­scen­dants he had of­ten bathed with, as a child on the shores of Quin­cy Bay.

That Pteraspis and shark were his cousins, great-​un­cles, or grand­fa­thers, in no way trou­bled him, but that ei­ther or both of them should be old­er than evo­lu­tion it­self seemed to him per­plex­ing; nor could he at all sim­pli­fy the prob­lem by tak­ing the sud­den back-​som­er­sault in­to Quin­cy Bay in search of the fas­ci­nat­ing crea­ture he had called a horse­shoe, whose huge dome of shell and sharp spur of tail had so alarmed him as a child. In Sil­uria, he un­der­stood, Sir Rod­er­ick Murchi­son called the horse­shoe a Limu­lus , which helped noth­ing. Nei­ther in the Limu­lus nor in the Ter­ebrat­ula , nor in the Ces­tra­cion Philip­pi ,any more than in the Pteraspis, could one con­ceive an an­ces­tor, but, if one must, the choice mat­tered lit­tle. Cousin­ship had lim­its but no one knew enough to fix them. When the ver­te­brate van­ished in Sil­uria, it dis­ap­peared in­stant­ly and for­ev­er. Nei­ther ver­te­bra nor scale nor print reap­peared, nor any trace of as­cent or de­scent to a low­er type. The ver­te­brate be­gan in the Lud­low shale, as com­plete as Adams him­self — in some re­spects more so — at the top of the col­umn of or­gan­ic evo­lu­tion: and ge­ol­ogy of­fered no sort of proof that he had ev­er been any­thing else. Pon­der over it as he might, Adams could see noth­ing in the the­ory of Sir Charles but pure in­fer­ence, pre­cise­ly like the in­fer­ence of Pa­ley, that, if one found a watch, one in­ferred a mak­er. He could de­tect no more evo­lu­tion in life since the Pteraspis than he could de­tect it in ar­chi­tec­ture since the Abbey. All he could prove was change. Coal-​pow­er alone as­sert­ed evo­lu­tion — of pow­er — and on­ly by vi­olence could be forced to as­sert se­lec­tion of type.

All this seemed triv­ial to the true Dar­wini­an, and to Sir Charles it was mere de­fect in the ge­olog­ical record. Sir Charles la­bored on­ly to heap up the ev­idences of evo­lu­tion; to cu­mu­late them till the mass be­came ir­re­sistible. With that pur­pose, Adams glad­ly stud­ied and tried to help Sir Charles, but, be­hind the les­son of the day, he was con­scious that, in ge­ol­ogy as in the­ol­ogy, he could prove on­ly Evo­lu­tion that did not evolve; Uni­for­mi­ty that was not uni­form; and Se­lec­tion that did not se­lect. To oth­er Dar­wini­ans — ex­cept Dar­win — Nat­ural Se­lec­tion seemed a dog­ma to be put in the place of the Athanasian creed; it was a form of re­li­gious hope; a promise of ul­ti­mate per­fec­tion. Adams wished no bet­ter; he warm­ly sym­pa­thized in the ob­ject; but when he came to ask him­self what he tru­ly thought, he felt that he had no Faith; that when­ev­er the next new hob­by should be brought out, he should sure­ly drop off from Dar­win­ism like a mon­key from a perch; that the idea of one Form, Law, Or­der, or Se­quence had no more val­ue for him than the idea of none; that what he val­ued most was Mo­tion, and that what at­tract­ed his mind was Change.

Psy­chol­ogy was to him a new study, and a dark cor­ner of ed­uca­tion. As he lay on Wen­lock Edge, with the sheep nib­bling the grass close about him as they or their bet­ters had nib­bled the grass — or what­ev­er there was to nib­ble — in the Sil­uri­an king­dom of Pteraspis, he seemed to have fall­en on an evo­lu­tion far more won­der­ful than that of fish­es. He did not like it; he could not ac­count for it; and he de­ter­mined to stop it. Nev­er since the days of his Limu­lus an­ces­try had any of his as­cen­dants thought thus. Their modes of thought might be many, but their thought was one. Out of his mil­lions of mil­lions of an­ces­tors, back to the Cam­bri­an mol­lusks, ev­ery one had prob­ably lived and died in the il­lu­sion of Truths which did not amuse him, and which had nev­er changed. Hen­ry Adams was the first in an in­fi­nite se­ries to dis­cov­er and ad­mit to him­self that he re­al­ly did not care whether truth was, or was not, true. He did not even care that it should be proved true, un­less the pro­cess were new and amus­ing. He was a Dar­wini­an for fun.

From the be­gin­ning of his­to­ry, this at­ti­tude had been brand­ed as crim­inal — worse than crime — sac­ri­lege! So­ci­ety pun­ished it fe­ro­cious­ly and just­ly, in self-​de­fence. Mr. Adams, the fa­ther, looked on it as moral weak­ness; it an­noyed him; but it did not an­noy him near­ly so much as it an­noyed his son, who had no need to learn from Ham­let the fa­tal ef­fect of the pale cast of thought on en­ter­pris­es great or small. He had no no­tion of let­ting the cur­rents of his ac­tion be turned awry by this form of con­science. To him, the cur­rent of his time was to be his cur­rent, lead where it might. He put psy­chol­ogy un­der lock and key; he in­sist­ed on main­tain­ing his ab­so­lute stan­dards; on aim­ing at ul­ti­mate Uni­ty. The ma­nia for han­dling all the sides of ev­ery ques­tion, look­ing in­to ev­ery win­dow, and open­ing ev­ery door, was, as Blue­beard ju­di­cious­ly point­ed out to his wives, fa­tal to their prac­ti­cal use­ful­ness in so­ci­ety. One could not stop to chase doubts as though they were rab­bits. One had no time to paint and put­ty the sur­face of Law, even though it were cracked and rot­ten. For the young men whose lives were cast in the gen­er­ation be­tween 1867 and 1900, Law should be Evo­lu­tion from low­er to high­er, ag­gre­ga­tion of the atom in the mass, con­cen­tra­tion of mul­ti­plic­ity in uni­ty, com­pul­sion of an­ar­chy in or­der; and he would force him­self to fol­low wher­ev­er it led, though he should sac­ri­fice five thou­sand mil­lions more in mon­ey, and a mil­lion more lives.

As the path ul­ti­mate­ly led, it sac­ri­ficed much more than this; but at the time, he thought the price he named a high one, and he could not fore­see that sci­ence and so­ci­ety would desert him in pay­ing it. He, at least, took his ed­uca­tion as a Dar­wini­an in good faith. The Church was gone, and Du­ty was dim, but Will should take its place, found­ed deeply in in­ter­est and law. This was the re­sult of five or six years in Eng­land; a re­sult so British as to be al­most the equiv­alent of an Ox­ford de­gree.

Quite se­ri­ous about it, he set to work at once. While con­fus­ing his ideas about ge­ol­ogy to the ap­par­ent sat­is­fac­tion of Sir Charles who left him his field-​com­pass in to­ken of it, Adams turned res­olute­ly to busi­ness, and at­tacked the burn­ing ques­tion of specie pay­ments. His prin­ci­ples as­sured him that the hon­est way to re­sume pay­ments was to re­strict cur­ren­cy. He thought he might win a name among fi­nanciers and states­men at home by show­ing how this task had been done by Eng­land, af­ter the clas­si­cal sus­pen­sion of 1797-1821. Set­ting him­self to the study of this per­plexed pe­ri­od, he wad­ed as well as he could through a morass of vol­umes, pam­phlets, and de­bates, un­til he learned to his con­fu­sion that the Bank of Eng­land it­self and all the best British fi­nan­cial writ­ers held that re­stric­tion was a fa­tal mis­take, and that the best treat­ment of a de­based cur­ren­cy was to let it alone, as the Bank had in fact done. Time and pa­tience were the reme­dies.

The shock of this dis­cov­ery to his fi­nan­cial prin­ci­ples was se­ri­ous; much more se­ri­ous than the shock of the Ter­ebrat­ula and Pteraspis to his prin­ci­ples of ge­ol­ogy. A mis­take about Evo­lu­tion was not fa­tal; a mis­take about specie pay­ments would de­stroy for­ev­er the last hope of em­ploy­ment in State Street. Six months of pa­tient la­bor would be thrown away if he did not pub­lish, and with it his whole scheme of mak­ing him­self a po­si­tion as a prac­ti­cal man-​of-​busi­ness. If he did pub­lish, how could he tell vir­tu­ous bankers in State Street that moral and ab­so­lute prin­ci­ples of ab­stract truth, such as theirs, had noth­ing to do with the mat­ter, and that they had bet­ter let it alone? Ge­ol­ogists, nat­ural­ly a hum­ble and help­less class, might not re­venge im­per­ti­nences of­fered to their sci­ence; but cap­ital­ists nev­er for­got or for­gave.

With la­bor and cau­tion he made one long ar­ti­cle on British Fi­nance in 1816, and an­oth­er on the Bank Re­stric­tion of 1797-1821, and, do­ing both up in one pack­age, he sent it to the North Amer­ican for choice. He knew that two heavy, tech­ni­cal, fi­nan­cial stud­ies thus thrown at an ed­itor’s head, would prob­ably re­turn to crush the au­thor; but the au­dac­ity of youth is more sym­pa­thet­ic — when suc­cess­ful — than his ig­no­rance. The ed­itor ac­cept­ed both.

When the post brought his let­ter, Adams looked at it as though he were a debtor who had begged for an ex­ten­sion. He read it with as much re­lief as the debtor, if it had brought him the loan. The let­ter gave the new writ­er lit­er­ary rank. Hence­for­ward he had the free­dom of the press. These ar­ti­cles, fol­low­ing those on Poc­ahon­tas and Lyell, en­rolled him on the per­ma­nent staff of the North Amer­ican Re­view . Pre­cise­ly what this rank was worth, no one could say; but, for fifty years the North Amer­ican Re­view had been the stage coach which car­ried lit­er­ary Bosto­ni­ans to such dis­tinc­tion as they had achieved. Few writ­ers had ideas which war­rant­ed thir­ty pages of de­vel­op­ment, but for such as thought they had, the Re­view alone of­fered space. An ar­ti­cle was a small vol­ume which re­quired at least three months’ work, and was paid, at best, five dol­lars a page. Not many men even in Eng­land or France could write a good thir­ty-​page ar­ti­cle, and prac­ti­cal­ly no one in Amer­ica read them; but a few score of peo­ple, most­ly in search of items to steal, ran over the pages to ex­tract an idea or a fact, which was a sort of wild game — a blue­fish or a teal — worth any­where from fifty cents to five dol­lars. News­pa­per writ­ers had their eye on quar­ter­ly pick­ings. The cir­cu­la­tion of the Re­view had nev­er ex­ceed­ed three or four hun­dred copies, and the Re­view had nev­er paid its rea­son­able ex­pens­es. Yet it stood at the head of Amer­ican lit­er­ary pe­ri­od­icals; it was a source of sug­ges­tion to cheap­er work­ers; it reached far in­to so­ci­eties that nev­er knew its ex­is­tence; it was an or­gan worth play­ing on; and, in the fan­cy of Hen­ry Adams, it led, in some in­dis­tinct fu­ture, to play­ing on a New York dai­ly news­pa­per.

With the ed­itor’s let­ter un­der his eyes, Adams asked him­self what bet­ter he could have done. On the whole, con­sid­er­ing his help­less­ness, he thought he had done as well as his neigh­bors. No one could yet guess which of his con­tem­po­raries was most like­ly to play a part in the great world. A shrewd prophet in Wall Street might per­haps have set a mark on Pier­pont Mor­gan, but hard­ly on the Rock­efellers or William C. Whit­ney or Whitelaw Reid. No one would have picked out William McKin­ley or John Hay or Mark Han­na for great states­men. Boston was ig­no­rant of the ca­reers in store for Alexan­der Agas­siz and Hen­ry Hig­gin­son. Phillips Brooks was un­known; Hen­ry James was un­heard; How­ells was new; Richard­son and La­Farge were strug­gling for a start. Out of any score of names and rep­uta­tions that should reach be­yond the cen­tu­ry, the thir­ty-​years-​old who were start­ing in the year 1867 could show none that was so far in ad­vance as to war­rant odds in its fa­vor. The army men had for the most part fall­en to the ranks. Had Adams fore­seen the fu­ture ex­act­ly as it came, he would have been no wis­er, and could have cho­sen no bet­ter path.

Thus it turned out that the last year in Eng­land was the pleas­an­test. He was al­ready old in so­ci­ety, and be­longed to the Sil­uri­an hori­zon. The Prince of Wales had come. Mr. Dis­raeli, Lord Stan­ley, and the fu­ture Lord Sal­is­bury had thrown in­to the back­ground the mem­ories of Palmer­ston and Rus­sell. Eu­rope was mov­ing rapid­ly, and the con­duct of Eng­land dur­ing the Amer­ican Civ­il War was the last thing that Lon­don liked to re­call. The rev­olu­tion since 1861 was near­ly com­plete, and, for the first time in his­to­ry, the Amer­ican felt him­self al­most as strong as an En­glish­man. He had thir­ty years to wait be­fore he should feel him­self stronger. Mean­while even a pri­vate sec­re­tary could af­ford to be hap­py. His old ed­uca­tion was fin­ished; his new one was not be­gun; he still loi­tered a year, feel­ing him­self near the end of a very long, anx­ious, tem­pes­tu­ous, suc­cess­ful voy­age, with an­oth­er to fol­low, and a sum­mer sea be­tween.

He made what use he could of it. In Febru­ary, 1868, he was back in Rome with his friend Milnes Gaskell. For an­oth­er sea­son he wan­dered on horse­back over the cam­pagna or on foot through the Rome of the mid­dle ages, and sat once more on the steps of Ara Coeli, as had be­come with him al­most a su­per­sti­tion, like the wa­ters of the foun­tain of Tre­vi. Rome was still trag­ic and solemn as ev­er, with its me­di­ae­val so­ci­ety, artis­tic, lit­er­ary, and cler­ical, tak­ing it­self as se­ri­ous­ly as in the days of By­ron and Shel­ley. The long ten years of ac­ci­den­tal ed­uca­tion had changed noth­ing for him there. He knew no more in 1868 than in 1858. He had learned noth­ing what­ev­er that made Rome more in­tel­li­gi­ble to him, or made life eas­ier to han­dle. The case was no bet­ter when he got back to Lon­don and went through his last sea­son. Lon­don had be­come his vice. He loved his haunts, his hous­es, his habits, and even his han­som cabs. He loved growl­ing like an En­glish­man, and go­ing in­to so­ci­ety where he knew not a face, and cared not a straw. He lived deep in­to the lives and loves and dis­ap­point­ments of his friends. When at last he found him­self back again at Liv­er­pool, his heart wrenched by the act of part­ing, he moved me­chan­ical­ly, un­strung, but he had no more ac­quired ed­uca­tion than when he first trod the steps of the Adel­phi Ho­tel in Novem­ber, 1858. He could see on­ly one great change, and this was whol­ly in years. Eaton Hall no longer im­pressed his imag­ina­tion; even the ar­chi­tec­ture of Chester roused but a sleepy in­ter­est; he felt no sen­sa­tion what­ev­er in the at­mo­sphere of the British peer­age, but main­ly an ha­bit­ual dis­like to most of the peo­ple who fre­quent­ed their coun­try hous­es; he had be­come En­glish to the point of shar­ing their pet­ty so­cial di­vi­sions, their dis­likes and prej­udices against each oth­er; he took Eng­land no longer with the awe of Amer­ican youth, but with the habit of an old and rather worn suit of clothes. As far as he knew, this was all that En­glish­men meant by so­cial ed­uca­tion, but in any case it was all the ed­uca­tion he had gained from sev­en years in Lon­don.