they are offered? If they do not save labor, but only increase it, whose fault is it?

To come back to the teaching of the Stoics, there is one thing for which we must assume responsibility, and that is the government of our own minds. A man must be master in his own house. The more he is able to rule himself, the more easily he can do his necessary work in the world. What kind of government should he establish in the interest of his own peace? This will be considered in the next essay.

SUGGESTIONS FOR

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN ONE'S OWN MIND

MR. BRYAN, in the days when he was a progressive politician instead of a perturbed theologian, used to say that the paramount issue in this campaign is, Who shall rule? Mr. Bryan was right. A nation may have among its citizens thousands of honest, intelligent, and refined persons who for all political purposes may be negligible. With all their personal virtues, they may be unable to make their will effective.

The same thing is true in regard to a person who is recommended for a position of responsibility. We ask, "What kind of a mind has he?" But, after all, the more important question is, "How does he govern the mind that he happens to have?" Out of the mob of instincts, aptitudes, motives, talents, and inhibitions, how is anything decided? What is the power which rules? It is only with that dominating and decisive element that we can do business.

The Hebrew sage declared that he that ruleth his own spirit is greater than he that taketh a city. This is literally true. Many persons who have made a great stir in the world have made woeful failures in the government of their own minds. They have never overcome their native anarchy. The difficulty is not so much in original endowment as in the lack of governmental arrangements. While we recognize the enormous. complexity of the world of politics, we conceive of what takes place within us with too great simplicity. We do not keep up with modern progress in the science of government.

The medieval ballad says, "My mind to me a kingdom is." That was taken quite literally. The mind was conceived of as an absolute monarchy, and not as a republic, with a government of laws. One ruling principle was acknowledged, and all that was opposed to that was kept in strictest subjection.

The person with an autocratically governed mind is free from many disturbing doubts. He has only one ruling idea at a time. He decides between This and That; he does not allow This to be moderated by That. Every thought has a certain absoluteness and finality about it.

The working of the autocratic mind is seen in the story of Esther. Haman comes to King Ahasuerus and suggests that it would be a good thing on a certain day to kill all the Jews in Persia. The King is struck favorably by the thought, and without more ado sends messengers on horses and swift dromedaries, with orders for the pogrom. Then Queen Esther comes and pleads the cause of her people. But the theory of absolute autocracy leaves no room for vacillation on the part of the monarch. The decree has been sent out, and the law of the Medes and the Persians cannot be changed. But, of course, the King can issue another decree to another set of people. So he sends out messengers on horses and swift dromedaries to all the Jews in his dominions, urging them to rise and slay their adversaries. When the day of glorious slaughter takes place, the King has the satisfaction of knowing that his will has been obeyed by all parties.

According to the Book of Daniel, King Darius was less fortunate when in the same predicament. Having issued his decree, he longed to change it, but he could not; "then the King was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart

on Daniel to deliver him." But this was impossible under his system of government, and Daniel had to trust to the magnanimity of the lions for his rescue.

We have all known minds of this nature. They cannot change. They are firm, self-assured, and incapable of compromise. No principle is ever surrendered. There is no deviation from the strictest logic. No half-truth is ever admitted as a half-truth. It must always assert its claim to be the whole truth pro tempore. If two halftruths meet each other, they must not combine; that would be a conspiracy for the restraint of clear thinking. One must kill the other. If both should be destroyed, that would be a still greater simplification of thought. That which remains after This and That have been eliminated is Neither. If they had been allowed to exist in the mind together, that which remained would have been Both. That is what the autocratic mind cannot tolerate.

That is a disconcerting moment in the political history of your mind when there comes evidence of insurgency against autocratic rule. ; There is a growing doubt as to whether cocksureness is the test of truth. You discover im