The Right Thing in the Right Place – C.L. James 5/11/1900

Republished from our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer, I was considering
not publishing this article but after realizing it had held my attention longer than anything
else that I’ve read today & I thought that was a good enough reason to feature it, enjoy.

One of the rarest and highest marks of a really cultivated intellect is the ability to “keep things in the right boxes,”
as St. Clare (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) proposed. The study of formal logic will never produce it. Rhetorical proficiency
positively hinders its development. I wish I could say scientific pursuits created it; but I remember Prof. Tyndall on
the Irish Church, and refrain. I think, however, that familiarity with mankind, as revealed in contemporary life, in
literature, and in history, has a real tendency to promote it. Let us see if just arranging things “in the right boxes”
will not dispense with the necessity for further controversy about the respective merits of fanaticism and the flesh.
It is evident that those who take the side of the flesh are by no means well agreed among themselves. Lillie D.
White thinks Ingersoll’s life was worth more than his death would have been had he been killed by denying the
regulation number of gods. But according to R. B. Kerr, it was worth very little. He says that Strauss, Renan,
Seeley, Matthew Arnold, Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall have done more to liberalize the world than Bradlaugh,
Foote, and Ingersoll. For my own part, I incline to think that Mr. Kerr is right so far. But why does the work of
Strauss, Renan, et al. count for more in this direction than that of Bradlaugh, Foote, and Ingersoll? Because,
as it seems to me, they were positive scientific thinkers. They perfectly understood that superstitions which
have ruled the world for tens of centuries must have something in them, and they set themselves impartially
to winnow the truth from the falsehood. They made undeniable discoveries and forced their way underneath
the “forts of folly” by dint of irresistible demonstration. The man who can do that may be excused some time
serving (I mean, by “excused,” that we have little reason to complain of him for prolonging his life in that way),
inasmuch as his life is clearly of more value than his death.

But it is widely different with the man who, like Ingersoll, makes no positive discoveries, who can only repeat,
popularize, and on occasion suffer for his ideals. Such a man’s death is often much more useful than his life—
that is, to avoid misunderstanding, it may do much more for his ideals. The life of Jesus, as a magnetic healer,
is not likely to have been much more valuable than that of any other quack; and in his words analysis finds little
but a rehash of Oriental commonplaces. It was his death which “drew all men unto him.” His demonstration that
love of sinners and hate of sin are phases of the same sentiment made worldwide the one striking doctrine of
Christianity about which all Christians, and many not usually reckoned Christians, can agree. More modern
instances are easily found. When John Brown was going to be hanged, he said it was probably the best use
he could be put to. From his point of view it was. John Brown, considered as a general, politician, or social
philosopher, was a very foolish fanatic. In one respect only was he wise: he understood that “utter fealty to
ideals” is a very efficacious way of promoting them. Examples on the other side are found just as easily. Mr.
Kerr disagrees with his fellow apologist of the flesh, as we have just seen; but he also disagrees with himself.
He says in one paragraph that “sweetness and light” (admirably defined as trying how far you can go without
bringing the congregation about your ears) do wonders; in the next, that Abraham (Lincoln) or Moses (Harman)
can do very little. Nothing at all, if they are resolved to think so. The Beechers and H. L. Greens, who make a
specialty of seeing how far they can go without bringing somebody about their ears, do nothing. They are the
garish figure of Minerva which stands at the prow pretending to move the vessel, but in fact is moved by it, as
it is by the invisible wind or the concealed engine. Nay, this is not all. These pilferers of other people’s work
(which they euphemistically call evolution) do harm. The battle of truth against falsehood is always won before
that throat-cutting camp-follower called public opinion comes over to her side.

When he comes, there is nothing left him to do for her cause except dishonor it. An old abolitionist said at the
beginning of the war, “I am afraid I am not telling the truth any more. The stale egg payments do not come in
with the accustomed regularity.” He was very right and very wise. Stale eggs are the coin in which a truth is
always paid. When it has ceased to attract them, it has degenerated into a cant; and a cant is just as good as
a lie. Let us keep things in the right boxes. We may learn how to save our own skins by the example of the
Greens and Beechers, but never how to touch hearts or win souls. Lillie D. White thinks it hard that radicals,
as such, should boycott them. But why? Their company is inconvenient and dangerous. They can be counted
on to run away—nay, to aid the enemy—as often as we are in a scrape into which they helped to get us. Let
us help to keep things in the right boxes. So much for the gospel of saving one’s own skin, when regarded as
an aid to reform. But little reading between the lines is necessary to see that those who would save their own
skins love the skin for its own sake. I can understand that. Let us open another box. There are several smaller
boxes in it—like bomb shells in what they call a “Happy Family.” Box One contains those who, though principally
interested in their own skins, have some real inward sympathy with reform. Now, to all such I would say: “My dear
fellows, you can do nothing for reform unless you are willing to face stale eggs. Yes, there is one thing you can do:
let it alone. Don’t hound its real advocates on, and then back out when they need assistance—as you will. Wait till
it comes ‘like a thief in the night.’ Then you can have the pleasure of blackguarding those who oppose it honestly.
We won’t grudge you that satisfaction. It suits your temper and does not suit ours. Only, don’t claim then to have
effected the reform.

Remember, ‘evolution’ did that while you were skulking. Keep the right things in the right boxes!” Box Two contains the
tender-hearted egoists, who would dissuade us from risking our own skins by reminding us what befell the boy who
stood on the burning deck. Well, let’s see. He died. So will you. He achieved immortal fame. Could he have done it if
he had declined to stand there? Probably not. Do you care for fame? Go and do likewise! You would rather give it to
someone else? Get into Egoistic Box One. You care nothing about it anyway? Get into Egoistic Box Three. Right things
in right boxes! Egoistic Box Three contains those who wish they had been born a hundred years hence (for of honest
conservatives and mere Philistines nothing need be said at present), but to whom their own skins seem so transcendently
important that their progress can be exactly measured by its apparent timeliness. I have observed, first, that these people
generally come to bad ends; and secondly, that their deaths, after all, are generally more honorable than their lives. They
often redeem badly tarnished reputations by dying game—when they can’t help it. Cicero and Cranmer were men of
that sort. I cannot recommend this box on the ground of safety. But some were born to fill it. Encompassing all three is
the larger box of self, which we began by opening. It probably concerns mankind that this box should be full. I can believe
there might be less plowing and hoeing and weaving, and other drudgery done if it were empty, and that, as the world
goes, would be a pity. Such things must be done. I rather doubt if unselfish motives ordinarily make people undertake
them, though I am sure such motives do prompt the improvements which render toil for perishable goods easier and
less necessary. What concerns us to notice at present is that no inmate of any compartment in this box is, as such, any
use to the cause of progress. None can, in his character as egoist, claim any share in that praise people are still foolish
enough to give those who have benefited them for love, or, in the way of progress, at all. And if there should turn out to
be a sphere where these pains and pleasures which Philistia can give or take away become absolutely nothing, will Mr.
Kerr wonder at my fogeyism if I suggest that no inmates of this box, as such, can have laid up much treasure there? “
They have their portion in this life.” It is no wonder egoism and materialism go together. They are a pair well matched.
I should think it preposterous to disturb their good understanding, if I could; and I know I cannot. Let us keep things in
the right boxes. It is equally preposterous in them to pretend that either can do anything for progress but hinder it.

Do you want a witness? Pentecost no sooner got into this box than he concluded that it would not be for his happiness
to do without “the necessaries or luxuries of life.” Do I blame him? Not a bit. He was perfectly logical and consistent.
From his standpoint, at any given time, he always is. But I should have thought him most illogical and inconsistent if he
had said in the same breath that egoism and materialism were the basis of radicalism. Radicalism is hostility to society
as at present organized. It means a struggle against odds which would be utterly hopeless but that the love of man,
the love of truth, and the hope of immortality are irresistible. And therefore, to all of whom they have taken possession,
I would say: keep the right things in the right boxes, and “be not unequally yoked together with the unbeliever.”