WOMAN'S PLACE IN INDIA_x000d_ ___________x000d_ _x000d_ DR. JANES CONSIDERS HER SOCIAL _x000d_ AND LEGAL STATUS_x000d_ ___________x000d_ _x000d_ He Says that All Things Are Not So _x000d_ Black as They Have Been Painted. _x000d_ A Defense of Swami Vivekananda

The article beneath this heading was long indeed, occupying two and a half columns of the Eagle's pages, and as far as the social and legal status of Hindu women was concerned, if left no point of the controversy unanswered; nor did Dr. Janes neglect to defend the Hindu people in general and Swamiji in particular against their persistent maligners. In short, he gave Mrs. McKeen a full and conclusive reply and left not a leg for the opposition to stand on. This article (or letter, for Janes put his reply in the form of a letter to the editor) has been given in full in Appendix D.

APPENDIX D_x000d_ _x000d_ Dr. Lewis G. Janes's Reply to Mrs. James McKeen _x000d_ (See Chapter Thirteen)_x000d_ _x000d_ The following is Dr. Janes's full reply to Mrs. James McKeen, leader of the Brooklyn Ramabai Circle, as it appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of April 15, 1895 :

To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:_x000d_ The social and legal status of woman in India is a question of larger interest than that arising out of the friendly interchange of views between the leader of the Ramabai circle and myself: The actual facts should be known to the lawyer and sociologists and to those interested in missionary labor as well as to the practical philanthropist. There is probably no living European who knows more of the Hindu people, their sacred literature and legal codes than Professor Max Muller. In his interesting little book, "India: What Can It Teach Us?" originally a course of lectures delivered at Cambridge University before the candidates for the Indian Civil Service, there is a significant chapter on "The Truthful Character of the Hindus," in which he speaks in terms of eulogy so high that any nation might well be proud to wear such laurels of honest commendation. Quoting many travelers and students in India he adds: "I could go on quoting from book after book and again and again we should see how it was love of truth that struck all the people who came in contact with India as the prominent feature in the national character of its inhabitants. No one ever accused them of falsehood: ' "No doubt," he adds at the close of the chapter, "there is a moral depravity in India, and where is there not moral depravity in this world? But appeal to national statistics would be, I believe, a dangerous game. . . . In judging others, whether in public or private life, let us not forget that a kindly spirit will never do any harm." Of this truthful people and of a revered order of religious teachers, the Sanyasi monks, of whom there are more than one hundred thousand in India, the Swami Vivekananda is a representative. He was educated as a lawyer -not as an actor-and took high honors at the University of Calcutta. He was thoroughly trained not only in Manu and the later codes of Hindu law, but also in comparative law. The people interested in the present controversy, if such it must be considered, may rest assured that he knows what he is talking about and has given the unquestionable facts as to the property rights of Hindu women. The interview with the respected manager of the Ramabai circle in last Saturday's Eagle is interesting and shows a commendable effort, by study, to ascertain the facts as [to] the status of the Hindu widow. I fear, however, the good lady has taken her facts at second hand rather than from original authorities, or she would hardly have made some of the statements credited to her in this interview. First, let me dispose, with a word, of the story that the Swami Vivekananda was formerly an actor. If it were true it would not necessarily be to his discredit. There are honorable and worthy men and women in the theatrical profession who are entitled to the admiration and respect of all broadminded people. The covert insinuation that because he was once an actor, therefore he is in some way discredited as a philosopher or religious teacher savors more of prejudice and narrowness of vision than of logical argument. The most potent form of hypnotism or suggestion is that which proceeds from religious and social prejudice. But it is not true that the Swami Vivekananda ever was, in the accepted sense of the word, an actor. The facts are these: Some years ago Keshab Chunder Sen, the revered founder of [the] Brahmo Samaj, wrote a sort of sacred drama to express and illustrate his central idea of the unity of religion, that the deepest truths in all the great religions of the world arc essentially the same. This drama, the "Nava-Vrindavan," was recited on the stage as a religious exercise, himself, Protap Chunder Mozoomdar and other distinguished representatives of the Brahmo Samaj taking part in its presentation. At a certain juncture the drama required the rhythmic intoning of a benediction, a selected passage from the Vedas. Swami Vivekananda, then a very young man, with a fine voice and presence, and interested in the teaching of Chunder Sen, was selected to come upon the stage and intone this Vedic benediction. This is the only way in which he ever was an actor or connected with theatrical representation. This is the way in which he was known on the stage of the Nava-Vrindavan theater. If he was an actor, Keshab Chunder Sen and Protap Chunder Mozoomdar were also, and in a much greater degree, actors. The whole story arises from a reference, not intended to be unkind [?], to Swami Vivekananda in the organ of the Brahmo Samaj. Before the Swami Vivekananda came to this country he had never been known as a public speaker. The ordinary labors of the Sanyasi monks are not upon the rostrum, but in the humble homes of the people, or in conversation with little circles of their disciples under the spreading trees of Hindustan. The Swami's friends were naturally surprised at the profound interest excited in America by his platform addresses and philosophical expositions. The learning and truthfulness of these presentations of the Vedanta philosophy have since been recognized by the most eminent scholars and most learned pundits in India, professors in the leading colleges, judges in the high courts of the empire, representatives of different sects, orthodox and heterodox. The names of these gentlemen and the reports of the immense public meetings in the largest cities of India in recognition of the work of the Swami Vivekananda are in my possession, but would occupy too much of your space if quoted at length. That there are some carping critics also may be true, but the quotation from Unity and the Minister in the interview with Mrs. McKeen is evidently not in point. Nor, I think, will the words of Devendra Nath Das, quoted from the Nineteenth Century Magazine [see chapter thirteen, p. 305-6], have much weight with thinking people against the testimony of the most eminent scholars and students of India and its literature, and of the code of Manu itself, which I am prepared to produce. Mr, Das, if I am rightly informed, was a very youthful gentleman who accompanied Pundita Ramabai in her visit to England some years since. His article was written for the English market, and with an obvious ulterior motive. It is precisely this kind of advocacy, by distorted and one-sided statements and over-statements of the actual condition of the existing laws and customs in India to which the Swami Vivekananda objects. In view of the actual facts and plain teaching of the code of Manu [Mrs. McKeen's] assertion that "as to their (the widows') property rights, the proof is abundant on every side that they have no inheritance at all," is a very surprising one. Over and over again in the code of Manu, the separate property rights of Hindu women, including widows, are expressly recognized, those of widows being protected by especially explicit provisions. In illustration I shall quote from the code itself, in the authorized English translation to Max Muller's "Sacred Books of the East," not from any secondhand source or authority. First, however, per¬mit me a few quotations from authorities recognized the world over as the highest and most reliable on the Hindu character and the general attitude of the Hindu law toward women. We must remember that the code of Manu dates from about 500 B.C., and is the product of oriental thought. We must not look to it for nineteenth century, European and American ideas of woman. Nor must we expect to find in it always the exact statement of present Hindu law and custom. Subsequent decisions and commentators have modified its original provisions and adapted them to later social conditions. Compared with any early code even the Hebrew or early Christian-however, Manu is very advanced in its provisions for the protection of women and in recognition of her property rights. As to the general character of the Hindus, Sir John Malcolm says: "They are brave, generous, humane, and their truth is as remarkable as their courage."

Professor Wilson says: "Frankness is one of the most uni¬versal features of the Indian character." Colonel Sleeman says: "You could not frighten or bribe them into a deliberate false¬hood." Bishop Heber says: "The Hindus are brave, courteous, intelligent, most eager for knowledge and improvement; sober, industrious, dutiful to parents, affectionate to their children, uniformly gentle and patient." Elphinstone, the historian of India, says: "No set of people among the Hindus are so depraved as the dregs of our own great towns. The villagers are everywhere amiable, affectionate to their families, kind to their neighbors." Sir Thomas Murro says: "If the general practice of charity and hospitality among each other and, above all, a treatment of the female sex, full of confidence, respect and delicacy, are among the signs which denote a civilized people, then the Hindus are not inferior to the nations of Europe." In the great epic poem, the Mahabharata, the death of one of its heroes, Bhishma, is due to his vow never to hurt a woman. He is killed by Sikhandin, whom he takes to be a woman. Samuel Johnson, author of "Oriental Religions," one of the most careful students on this subject declares: "Notwithstanding certain precepts, the Hindu law has practically allowed women a larger share in the management of property than the statutes of most Christian nations, and they have shown attendant shrewdness and tact in trade." . . . Tenient, another recognized authority declares with equal explicitness: "As the law in Ceylon recognizes the absolute control of the lady over the property conveyed to her use, the custom of large marriage portions has thrown an extraordinary extent of the landed property into the hands of females, and invested them with corresponding proportion of authority in its management." The law in India differs but little from that in Ceylon. The wife has an absolute control of her own property, and if she become a widow, retains her own inheritance, inherits her husband's personalty and a life use of his realty. Prichard, author of Administration of India," declares: "In the family circle and daily rounds of domestic duties, interests and enjoyments, the Hindu woman has a field for her sympathies which puts her quite on a level with her sisters of the West." "Christian legislation," says Johnson, "has been in many points more unjust to women than Manu." . . . The law of England, he reminds us, still vests parental rights to the father alone, to the entire exclusion of the mother. The principle of the `feme covert' is modified to a much greater degree by the code of Manu than it is by the existing laws of Great Britain. "Many of the legal disqualifications of woman," says Johnson, "which have descended from feudalism, make her perpetual wardship among the heathen appear almost respectable in comparison."

Turning now to Manu, we find that the last quotation in the interview with Mrs. McKeen has, on the face of it, no bearing whatever on the question of property rights. It is merely the expression of the general oriental view that a woman must recognize some man as her legal protector. In another section we find the same idea stated thus: "Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth and her sons protect her in old age; a woman is never prepared for independence" (Manu, ix. 3). That this has no reference what¬ever to property rights appears from the fact that those rights are explicitly and repeatedly recognized in the same section of the code. Nor does it even imply the amount of supervision over her person common in Mohammedan countries; for in another clause we read: "No man can completely guard a woman by force; but they can be guarded by the following expedients: Let the husband employ his wife in the collection and expendi¬ture of his wealth, in keeping everything clean, in the fulfillment of religious duties, in the preparation of his food and in looking after the household utensils. Women confined in the house under trustworthy servants are not well guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves are well guarded" (Manu, ix. 10, 11,12). The unity of the husband and wife in the family relation is also taught: "He only is a perfect man who consists of three persons united, his wife, himself and his offspring; thus says the Veda; and learned Brahmanas pro¬pound this maxim likewise: `The husband is declared to be one with the wife"' (Manu ix. [?]). Manu ix. [?] provides that every man who goes abroad on business must provide a main¬tenance for his wife while he is away. As to property rights and inheritance, we find these provisions: "After death of the father and of the mother, the brothers being assembled may divide among themselves in equal shares the paternal and the maternal estate; for they have no power over it while the parents live" (Manu ix. 104). The fact thus illustrated, that the estate cannot be divided until both parents are deceased, is evidence that the property rights inhere in the widow after the death of her husband. In reality, she has full possession and control of his personalty and a life use of his realty. The code further provides that "to the maiden sisters the brothers shall severally give portions, each out of his share one fourth part; those who refuse to give it will become outcaste." And further: "But whatever may be the separate property of the mother, that is the share of the unmarried daughter alone; and the son of an appointed daughter shall take the whole estate of his maternal grandfather who has no son" (Manu ix. 137). "But when the mother has died, all the uterine brothers and the uterine sisters shall equally divide the mother's estate" (Manu ix. 192). "Even to the daughters of those daughters something should be given as is seemly out of the estate of their maternal grandmother, on the score of affection" (Manu, ix. 193). "What was given before the nuptial fire, what was given on the bridal procession, what was given in token of love and what was received from her brother, mother or father, that is called the six-fold property of a woman." "Such property, as well as a gift subsequent, and what was given to her by her affectionate husband, shall go to her offspring, even if she dies in the lifetime of her husband" (Manu, ix. 194, 195).

From this it appears not only that the wife inherits absolutely her husband's personalty and the use of his real estate during her lifetime, but that her own independent property, if she has offspring, goes to her children instead of to her husband. In case she has no offspring, another section makes her husband her heir; or, when the marriage is irregular, her mother and father inherit her estate instead of her husband.

Still another section makes it the duty of the king to protect the inherited and other property "of wives and widows faithful to their lords" against all aggressors. "A righteous king must punish like thieves those relatives who appropriate the property of such females during their lifetime" (Manu, viii. 27, 28, 29). And against male relatives who would live on the separate property of females, this malediction is also hurled: "But those male relatives who, in their folly, live on the separate property of women, e.g., appropriate the beasts of burden, carriages and clothes of women, commit sin and will sink into hell" (Manu iii. 52). Thus, not only legal, but religious sanctions of the strongest kind protect the separate estates of Hindu women, be they single, wives or widows. By a curious and happy coin-cidence, I have very recently come in possession of illustrative evidence of the fact that these provisions of the Code of Manu, sustained, as Johnson shows, by the later commentators and judicial decisions, at this moment constitute the living law enforced in India. A few months ago Babu Protapa Chandra Roy, the publisher of the Mahabharata, the great epic poem of India, an honorary corresponding member of the Brooklyn Ethical association, died in Calcutta. I have received from his widow and business associate an official notice of his death, from which it appears that he left his widow only the possession of his house in Calcutta, all his other property having been absorbed in his publication business. But the widow also states that she is possessed of a small property in her own right which she voluntarily proposes to devote to the completion of his great work. Thus I am not only able to quote from the original code, in the authorized translation, the law substantially as stated by Swami Vivekananda, but also to substantiate his statement further by evidence that the law is not a dead letter, but is actually enforced at the present time in India. I submit that the evidence is complete, conclusive and cumulative, and that henceforth no question can be raised as to the veracity of our guest or the accuracy of his information upon this subject. I regret also to see the reference in the interview with the leader of the Ramabai Circle to "Babu Norendra Nath Dutt (alias Vivekananda)," this phraseology being usually found in police court records to designate those who assume names not their own for purposes of deceit. It should he well known to all that the custom among the Hindu monks is precisely similar to that which prevails among the Catholics and some Protestant orders. A new name is taken to symbolize the complete devotion of the religious teacher to his work and his entire separation from the secular life and family connections.

A beautiful letter from the mother of the Swami Vivek¬ananda in her own handwriting, the original of which I have seen, and a translation of which I have been permitted to read, shows that notwithstanding the separation implied by his vows, and thousands of miles of space, she still clings to him with a mother's love and pride, and is humbly grateful for the good work he is doing and the friends he is making in this distant land. No more noble, tender and motherly epistle has ever fallen within the range of my vision. As to the questions personal to myself raised in the interview with the leader of the Ramabai circle, I am content to leave them with the briefest rejoinder. With regard to the position of Babu Sasipada Banerjee, I was already fully informed. He is not, however, a Christian convert, like Pundita Ramabai, though he has rejected the sacred thread and thrown off the bondage of caste. The public may not generally know that the Sanyasi monk also rises above the limitations of caste, not by a violent rupture of the Hindu tradition, but by what may be termed a process of growth into a higher religious estate in which caste is no longer a limitation. As to the supposed inconsistency of the contribution to the work of Babu Sasipada Banerjee by the Ethical association, I am content, if need be, to appear inconsistent in a good cause. Emerson has said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I think, however, the appearance of inconsistency will mostly disappear when we reflect that our association is expressly and avowedly non-sectarian in its character and that Babu Sasipada Banerjee is himself a member of our association. Nor is it true, as intimated, that the endur¬ance of hardships is exclusively enjoined on widows by the code of Manu. This discipline is also enjoined on men, and in almost the exact phraseology applied to widows. Among the rules for the twice-born snataka we find the following: "Let him be industrious in privately reciting the Veda. Let him be patient in hardships. Or he may constantly subsist on flowers, roots and fruits which have been ripened by time and have fallen spontaneously following the rules of Vikhanas. Making no effort to procure things that give pleasure, chaste, sleeping on the bare ground, not caring For any shelter, dwelling at the roots of trees." Here is an asceticism indeed that we may deem, irrational, but it is not exclusively prescribed for women, or for widows. The dress and mode of life of the Hindu widow is sub-stantially that of the student class, plain, simple, devoid of ornament, withheld from extravagances and enervating pleas¬ures. That women, and especially widows, who are debarred from marriage by the custom of the country, thereby suffer privations, and are compelled to a life which we should regard as monotonous and in many ways unjustly restricted, I do not question. Education, which will prepare them for more active duties in life, is therefore a great desideratum. All wise efforts in that direction have my heartfelt commendation and approval. That child marriage is sometimes followed by abuses meriting the most indignant condemnation I know to be the fact. But these results are by no means universal. A recent medical report on this subject shows that fifty-five practicing physicians in British India altogether had had only thirteen cases of such abuse come under their personal observation. What if our physicians should be called upon to render like testimony? Would the comparison be in our favor? Child marriage finds no sanction in the Vedas. Its abuses find no sanction in the code of Manu. It grew out of the passionate demand of the Hindus for chastity as an inviolable rule for young and old. For a candid account of child marriage in India, from the point of view of a liberal Hindu, persons interested would do well to read an article on this subject in the North American Review of October, 1888, by Babu Raj Coomar Roy, a cousin of Keshab Chunder Sen, and honorary corresponding member of the Brooklyn Ethical association. . . . Would our civilization or English civilization of this time bear comparison with theirs in the entire field of sex relationships? Recent revelations in our own vicarage bid us pause before we cast stones at the con¬venient sinners on the other side of the world. There seems to be a fruitful and abundant field for missionary enterprise and ethical culture nearer home.

LEWIS G. JANES_x000d_ President Brooklyn Ethical Association, _x000d_ Brooklyn, April 12, 1895._x000d_ __________

We might add to Dr. Janes's powerful and scholarly letter the observation that if Mrs. James McKeen had been genuinely interested in India's traditional attitude toward its women, she could have found with a little research not only those verses from Manu that Dr. Janes quoted but the following as well: "Women must be honored and adorned by their fathers, husbands, brothers, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare." "Where women are honored, there the gods are pleased; but where they are dishonored, no sacred rites yield rewards." "Where female relatives live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers." "In like manner, care must be taken of barren women, of those who have no sons, of those whose family is extinct, of wives and widows faithful to their lords, and of women afflicted with diseases." Such laws as these were so much a part of a Hindu's heritage that to transgress them was akin to sacrilege.

Dr. Janes's well-documented and irrefutable article was an essential piece of work, without which the controversy with Mts.' McKeen and the Ramabai Circle would have been inconclusive and, to say the least, confusing. But sufficient as it was as a reply to Mrs. McKeen and her friends, we can add a little to it here for the interest of the present reader, for Dr. Janes had not made one point clear, without a knowledge of which one could not really understand or pass judgment upon the life of Hindu widows. The fact was that their life was one of extreme religious asceticism, that is to say, of poverty and self denial. It is the confirmed and not unjustifiable belief of the Hindu that without self-mortification moral and spiritual values cannot be acquired. The widow's life is, by custom, one in which spiritual and moral values are held to be supreme, and therefore it is, by custom, austere. To an outsider, unaware of this fact or without sympathetic understanding of it, such a life would appear to be incontrovertible evidence of the Hindus' cruelty to and mistreatment of their women. But to those who understood it the widows' life would appear as something entirely different from that portrayed by Ramabai.

Reading this letter-both what is written and what lies between those meticulously penned lines--one tends to think with Mrs. Bull that the problem was indeed Landsberg himself. Although his hypersensitive temperament did not in the least conceal from Swamiji a sincerely generous, affection ¬starved, and deeply devout soul, it seems in those early New York days to have antagonized almost everyone else. To quote further from his long letter to Mrs. Bull is perhaps the best way to relate what took place during his stay with Swamiji; we have, in fact, no other account of it._x000d_ _x000d_ It is not my rule to excuse my conduct before the world [he began]. I act to the best of my knowledge of what is right, and the praise or blame of men leaves me entirely indifferent. It is my fate to be misjudged. However good, noble, and unselfish my motives I know that they will be interpreted as bad, mean and selfish, and so I have learned to be satisfied with the verdict of my own conscience

If, now, I attempt to set myself aright in your opinion it is because you are the only woman, nay, the only person I have met with in my life for which I have felt the greatest respect and admiration on account of your nobility of soul and the purity and unselfishness of all your motives…

I stand alone in the world. Father and mother are long dead. No wife or child that make life worth living and spurs us to restless action! Money, name, and fame, no more entice and snare my soul with vain visions. Ambition wherewith the mind deludes itself has vanished with the realization of the vanity of its objects. . . . But it is in our nature to love something, and so, when I met the Swami . . he became to me the object of divine worship. My whole being was absorbed in his personality and work: no thought but for his happiness, no aspiration but for his grandeur, no effort but for his cause. . . .

This devotion to my master should not be in vain. You know how the organization started with great flourish of trumpets for the propagation of the Swami's teachings proved a miserable failure. President, Vice President, Secretary and all the rat's tail of trustees and committees did not draw one soul into the camp of the holy cause. Then the Swami and I went to work. Our only reliance was the Lord, our only means to work with our strong and inflexible will to make New York a center for the propagation of His truth. And-needless to tell you the result, since you yourself have attended the large classes that had sprung up within a few weeks.

I do not write you all this in order to boast with the success that accompanied my efforts but to simply state the fact that my association with the Swami was not detrimental to our cause, . . . that all the later reproaches made as to my being unfit for this work are not based upon fact but excuses to hide- uncharitableness.

But the happy state of my mind resulting from the progress of our work should not last long. To my surprise I found that I had made many enemies, enemies of the very people whom I myself had first initiated into the Swami's teachings. There did not pass a day when the Swami did not report to me, "Mrs. so and so does not like you, Mr. so and so hates you, Miss so and so has become your enemy." In vain did I try to find out the cause of this enmity springing up against me on all sides? I was not aware of having willfully wronged or hurt any one of all those who though assuring me of their eternal friendship nevertheless nourished such bad feelings against me. First I did not care what the Swami said people spoke about me, For knowing my pure motives I came only to realize the truth of the words in Luke: "Blessed are those who make enemies"; but finally it occurred to me that my presence might prevent some prejudiced people of learning of the Swami's glad tidings. Should I stand in the way of a soul that wanted to approach the Lord? God forbid! Rather would I suffer a hundred hells. . . . And so I made up my mind to withdraw from the movement. But the Swami would not listen to my thousand and one arguments in favor of my withdrawal, and besides he was so helpless that I had not the heart to leave him. And so I stayed, resolving to keep afar from all those persons to whom my presence might give offense. . . .

But now arose a new trouble, .a trouble caused by our very friends and those who were sincerely interested in the Swami's work. You will find that most of our troubles are caused by our friends. After the Swami and I, single ¬handed, had succeeded in awakening here a wide spread interest in the Yoga philosophy, there came the advisers with their schemes how to improve things. They could not accuse me of insincerity, a lack of devotion, or neglect in the performance of my duties, but-but-and with _x000d_ these "buts" they poisoned his mind and made his life unbearable. On the one hand he was loth of offending his friends by refusing to listen to their advice, on the other hand it pained him to wound the feelings of his disciple whom he loved and whose sincerity he had tested. He became nervous, and not knowing how to get out the dilemma, he threw the whole work overboard. On Saturday morning [April 13] he left. He intended to go to Mr. Legget's, but then he told me he would go to Chicago. Where he has gone and how long he will stay away I know not. He left without telling me even good bye. He left no instructions about his letters, his classes. May be he will write to you about his plans for the future.

As to myself I have now determined to break once for all my relations to him. Not that I bear any grudge to him, but in the interest of the peace of our souls, in the interest of the cause it is necessary that I keep away from him. Though loving him, I shall flee his presence as if he were my greatest enemy. From today I am non-existent for him or his friends. I shall sink back into the oblivion from which he has dragged me; no more enemies, abuses and humiliations, again I shall stand in the world alone! In my solitary life I shall always remember you with gratitude. You have been so kind to me-God bless you! You alone were able to discover under the crudeness of my appearance a soul worthy of your sympathy and friendship. You have made a good karma.

The country estate that Mr. Leggett named Ridgely had been purchased by him in 1895 as a place of recreation for himself and his friends. Although the property already had a number of houses on it, he had built not only the spacious and hospitable "Manor," but the "Casino " a large playhouse equipped with bowling alleys, space ,for gymnastics, and adjacent tennis courts. The landscaping of Ridgely was still in embryo in 1895; many of the trees that would later be tall and spreading were mere saplings and the shrubs and flower beds hardly visible. The house had the bare look of newness; but the countryside was wooded, old, and lovely, and to the north in the not-too-far distance were the rolling Catskill Mountains.

This was Swamiji's first visit to Ridgely; the second would take place at Christmas of the same year, when Miss MacLeod . And the children would be away is Europe; and the third, longest, and most memorable, in the late summer of 1895, when he would spend there ten golden weeks.* Of this first stay very little is definitely known; Swamiji wrote no letters to New York or Cambridge (and left no address). Through the grapevine, however, word reached Miss Hamlen of his exact whereabouts and his state of health. On April 16 Jehanghir Cola, returning to New York from, presumably, Ridgely, reported to Miss Mary Phillips that Swamiji "had been really ill" during his first days in the country. A few days after relaying this information to Mrs. Bull, Miss Hamlen wrote " to her, "I saw Mrs. Guernsey Saturday [April 20] . . . And they had a letter from Mr. Francis H. Leggett (who is a patient of Dr Guernsey) expressing his pleasure to have with him among other guests, the Swami Vivekananda, and that the ! Swami was enjoying himself since he had recovered from his illness and prostration. I think the letter was written on Friday. _x000d_ * For a detailed account of Swamiji’s stay at Ridgely in 1899, see Burke, Swami Vivekananda, His Second Visit to the West, chapter three.

The first (of which there are two versions) concerns some lively acrobatics performed by Swamiji and his host, who were, clearly, getting along famously. One day Miss MacLeod opened the door of Mr. Leggett's study (which she thought unoccupied) and had a fleeting vision of Francis Leggett flying (literally, she thought) through the sir and landing with a crash on the floor and of Swamiji lying on his back, his feet aloft, trouser legs fallen to his knees. Then with a bound Swamiji jumped up, straightened his clothes, and in a severe tone rebuked the female intruder. "This is a man's drawing room! Why did you not knock?" Then, after a pause, during which Miss MacLeod ad nothing to say, he laughed. "Come, Joe," he said, "let us pick up what is left of Francis." Swamiji had, of course, been balancing Mr. Leggett on his feet, and because his trouser legs had fallen back to the knees and because this was the prim 1890s, he had instantly sent his host flying and jumped up, all in one motion, at the unexpected appearance of a woman."

In the other version of the same incident (or might it have been another incident altogether?) Miss MacLeod and her sister came upon Swamiji and Mr. Leggett in the "Casino" engaged in acrobatics, no doubt in their shirt sleeves, trousers rolled up. The women, caught watching, were sent away by the outraged men. "They were making peacocks of themselves," Miss MacLeod disdainfully remarked years later.

The second story was about Swamiji's first spectacular try at golf, which almost certainly took place during thin Easter vacation (rather than during the summer of 1899, when he would also play golf at Ridgeley). One day he went for a walk with Hollister on Mr. Leggett's private and well-kept nine hole golf course. Seeing a small flag at a distance, Swamiji, not knowing the game, asked, "Why that flag flutters there?" Hollister explained the procedure and went to get a club and ball in order to demonstrate it. Returning, he told Swamiji that par for that particular hole was four, and seven or eight for beginners. Swamiji smiled. "I will make you a bet," he said. "I shall put the ball in the hole with one stroke." Hollister produced fifty cents, Swamiji took a dollar from his pocket. At this point Mr. Leggett appeared and asked what these two were plotting. Being told, he informed Swamiji that what he proposed was impossibility even for good players. "What is your bet?" Swamiji said. Mr. Leggett took a ten dollar bill from his wallet, and the bet was made. Swamiji told Hollister to stand by the hole-not too close. Hollister took his position; Swamiji pulled up the sleeves of his robe, looked intently at the Hag, and swung at the ball. It entered the hole.

When Mr. Leggett was able to speak, he said, "Has your yoga got something to do with it, Swami?"_x000d_ _x000d_ "I don't use yoga for so trifling a thing," Swamiji replied. "What I did I will tell you in two sentences? First, I measured the distance by sight, and I know the strength of my biceps. Second, I told my mind that I would be richer by ten dollars and a half. And then I swung.

And there was the time at Ridgely-an incident not related by Miss MacLeod, but by Hollister-when the young boy walked by Swamiji's closed bedroom door and heard peals of laughter coming from the room. When Swamiji emerged later, Hollister asked, "Whom were you talking to?" "I was alone in meditation," Swamiji said. "But what was all that laughter about?" Hollister persisted. And after a pause to recall his laughter in meditation, Swamiji replied, "Oh, God is so funny!

After witnessing at an impressionable age a Variety of such incidents taking place casually every day, indeed after knowing Swamiji at all, one would ever afterward believe in him-and in God. Hollister would never be much given to metaphysical thinking, but years later when he was asked by his young son what he thought about certain philosophical questions, he replied, "I've never thought about them, really, but I know there is a God because Swamiji told me so.

The young Hollister, of whom Swamiji was later to say, “I never saw a sweeter boy, had been entranced and perhaps awed by this monk who shot a hold in one and laughed with God. The businessman, Mr. Leggett, was equally impressed, but in a different way. “Vivekananda is the greatest man I ever saw,” he remarked shortly after this Ester Vacation, and when someone asked him why, he replied, “He has more common sense than anyone I’ve ever known. In a man-to-man gesture, he sent Swamiji a box of cigars “a thousand cigars,” Miss Hamlen heard, though one thinks she took the word thousand too literally. On May 4 Swamiji, who’s six weeks of nonsmoking were well up, wrote a note of thanks from New York:

Dear Friend,_x000d_ Many thanks for your kind present. The cigars are indeed delicious and a hundred times so as coming from you._x000d_ With everlasting love and regards,_x000d_ I remain yours truly,_x000d_ Vivekananda

In reply, Landsberg wrote on April 14 a many-paged letter in a fine Spencerian hand, pouring out his heart, recounting his grievances, and justifying the action he was about to take. One difficulty had been the matter of eating at home._x000d_ _x000d_ As to the little "family brawls" we had with regard to the cooking [he wrote], I lost my patience not on account of the work which I had to perform, but because I regarded it as unworthy of men of spiritual aspirations to waste the greatest part of their time with thinking and speaking of eating, preparing and cooking the food, and washing dishes, while the frugal meals required by a Yogi could be had quicker and cheaper in any restaurant. We need not look far for the cause of my nervousness; I only wonder that this "doing our own cooking" suggested by some evil demon, did not land me in the lunatic asylum.

Swamiji bore his disciple's outbursts with equanimity. "The one with whom he lived had a violent temper," Sister Christine was to write in her Memoirs (and one cannot think who this could have been if not Landsberg). " `Why do you live with him?' someone asked. `Ah,' he replied, `I bless him. He gives me the opportunity to practice self-control. The cooking problem was the least of Landsberg's grievances. "This trouble, too, past [sic] by," he continued in his letter of April 14, "not, however, without aggravating the already strained relations between me and the Swami."

Swamiji was surely relieved to get away from the noisy and soot-filled city into the country, green and blossoming with spring. His host, Mr. Leggett, was a prosperous New York businessman, president of a high-quality wholesale grocery firm, which he and an elder brother had founded in their youth in 1861. Ordinarily totally absorbed in his business, he had at the time of our story a second interest—the beautiful, recently widowed Besse MacLeod Sturges, whom he was courting, and it was through her that he had met Swamiji.

I am going to quote from a letter just received, which will interest you as it comes from a man of fine mind and character, and whose friendship and commendation are of value. He is President of the Ethical Society of Brooklyn Dr. Janes and he says: "It is a great gratification to me that the Swami has been with us in Brooklyn and the final outcome of his lectures and the little controversy with our Ramabai friends is sure to bring broader and juster view of the religions, philosophy and social life of the Hindus. . . . I have prepared a full reply to the Eagle with ample quotations from the code of Manu and the reliable authorities, which ought completely to dispose of the legal questions raised by the Brooklyn critics. My article is rather long and I am not sure that the Eagle will print it, but I shall try in some way to bring it before our Brooklyn public.

As for Landsberg, he moved to a lodging house at 228 West Thirty-ninth Street on Friday, April 19. "I would have removed sooner," he wrote to Mrs. Bull, "but my weeks rent was paid in advance, and I could not well afford to pay rent twice. He was instantly happy. "Again I am alone," he wrote, "and after the moral tempest that shook my soul to its very foundation, I am regaining the calm and peace which had fled me for such a long time. Again I feel myself carried by a spiritual wave, again after a long period of spiritual death; my soul is reborn to a higher life. . . . Yes, I shall preach and teach the Lord.