his hand at the spiritual training of children. With what discrimination she viewed the whole affair — how well she saw defects on the practical side as well as moral excellence, is shown clearly in this letter, addressed to one of her most cultivated friends.
“Why is it that I hear you are writing a piece to ‘cut up’ Mr. Alcott. I do not believe you are going to cut up Mr. Alcott. There are plenty of fish in the net created solely for markets, etc.;—-no need to try your knife on a dolphin like him. I should be charmed if I thought you were writing a long, beautiful, wise-like article, showing the elevated air, and at the same time the practical defects of his system. You would do a great service to him as well as to the public, and I know no one so well qualified as yourself to act as a mediator between the two, and set both sides of the question in a proper light. But the phrase ‘cutting up’ alarms me. If you were here I am sure that you would feel as I do, and that your wit would never lend its patronage to the ugly blinking owls, who are now hooting from their snug tenements, overgrown rather with nettles than with ivy, at this star of purest ray serene. But you are not here, more’s the pity, and perhaps do not know exactly what you are doing; do write to me and reassure me.”[1]
But whether the newspapers were right or wrong, their criticisms killed the school. Mr. Alcott’s receipts, which during the previous year had been $1,895, sank to $549 during the year
- ↑ MS.
