Rediscovering John Dewey: How His

Psychology Transforms Our Education

Rex Li
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/rediscovering-john-dewey-how-his-psychology-transf
orms-our-education-rex-li/
 Rediscovering
John Dewey
How His Psychology
Transforms Our Education
Rex Li
Rediscovering John Dewey
 Rex Li

Rediscovering John
Dewey
How His Psychology Transforms Our Education
Rex Li
G.T. College
Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong

ISBN 978-981-15-7940-0 ISBN 978-981-15-7941-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7941-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
 To my colleagues
at
Dewey Center, Fudan University, Shanghai
and
G.T. College, Hong Kong
 Preface

John Dewey: The Best Known

and The Least Understood
In the widely-acclaimed series of Very Short Introductions by Oxford
University Press, a new title on education was released a few years ago
(Thomas 2013). In it, the name of John Dewey appeared in the first
paragraph of the preface, alongside Einstein, Newton, Darwin and Marx.
While Dewey was hailed as “arguably the greatest thinker about educa-
tion in modern times,” the author conceded that few laypeople are able to
“offer anything at all about Dewey” (preface p.1). Why is there a paradox
that the best known becomes the least understood?
Dewey (1859–1952) started with a Christian faith and was trained
under Hegelian philosophy. However, he ended up as an atheist (by co-
signing the Humanist Manifesto in 1933) and founded a new philos-
ophy—pragmatism. His writings are as diverse as philosophy, psychology,
education, logic and science as well as democracy and local and inter-
national politics. His collected works exceeded 8 million words. He is
considered “the philosopher of American culture”, who defines “the spirit
of America” (Shook and Kurtz 2011: 9). His view on education is such
paradigm-setting that most modern education theories start from him.
However, his obscure writing style, partly due to his Hegelian-dialectic
tradition, deters readers from understanding what he means and says.

vii
viii PREFACE

Dewey viewed philosophy as “a criticism of criticisms” (LW1: 298).

In the way he criticized Cartesian and Hegelian philosophy, Dewey
had been criticized and dismissed in contemporary analytic philosophy,
while his ideas are being simultaneously reconstructed (Tiles 1988; Fair-
field 2009; Fesmire 2015) and rediscovered (Tanner 1997; Boisvert 1998;
Tan and Whalen-Bridge 2008). Whoever studies education and philos-
ophy has something to learn from Dewey, but to evaluate him in light of
the new millennium with a global perspective is a most daunting task.
During his life time, Dewey had served as President of American
Psychological Association (1899), President of American Philosophical
Association (1905), Honorary President of American Progressive Associ-
ation (1928) and Honorary President of National Education Association,
USA (1932). A society to the study of his ideas, John Dewey Society, was
founded in 1935, and he was honored with numerous honorary degrees.
After his death, his face appeared in the Prominent Americans Series on
the American postage stamp in 1968. Today, there are centers devoted
to studying him, in the USA (Center for Dewey Studies, Southern Illi-
nois University at Carbondale), in China (Dewey Center, Fudan Univer-
sity) and in Germany (Dewey Center, University of Cologne). No doubt
Dewey is an intellectual giant that deserves serious study, especially for
philosophers, educators and psychologists.
In the course of my study of John Dewey, I discover that while much
has been written about his philosophy and education, his psychology
has been largely neglected. Although he had made significant contri-
bution to psychology, Dewey was only briefly mentioned in psychology
texts. When I dig deeper in his early life, his ideas in psychology
and nineteenth-century milieu, I discover that his theory of psychology
grows to become his core concepts in education, which transforms our
present-day education practice.
This book aims to unveil a true Dewey, what his psychological and
educational ideas are as well as his impact. It starts from his early years, his
involvement in psychology and philosophy and then his move to educa-
tion. In summarizing his early works to later works in social and intel-
lectual context, I hope to rediscover a true evolving John Dewey, what
 PREFACE ix

he says and what he means. Readers will then be able to examine the
implications of his ideas in the new millennium and global culture.

Rex Li
G.T. College
Hong Kong

References
Boisvert, R. D. (1998). John Dewey: Rethinking Our Time. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Dewey, J. (1882–1953). The Collected Works of John Dewey. The Early Works,
Volume 1–5; The Middle Works, Volume 1–15; The Later Works, Volume 1–17.
Illinois: Southern University Press.
Fairfield, P. (2009). Education After Dewey. London: Continuum.
Fesmire, S. (2015). Dewey. London: Routledge.
Shook, J. R., & Kurtz, P. (Eds.). (2011). Dewey’s Enduring Impact: Essays on
America’s Philosopher. New York: Prometheus Books.
Tan, S. H., & Whalen-Bridge, J. (2008). Democracy as Culture: Deweyan Prag-
matism in a Globalizing World. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Tanner, L. N. (1997). Dewey’s Laboratory School: Lessons for Today. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Tiles, J. E. (1988). Dewey. New York: Routledge.
 Contents

Part I Early Years

1 Boyhood and College Years 3

2 The Lost Years 19

3 Johns Hopkins Years 31

Part II Psychology

4 Young Dewey and Zeitgeist in Psychology 49

5 A Psychological Manifesto and Philosophic Method 75

6 Psychology, Reflex Arc Concept and the Birth

of Functionalism 99

7 Psychological Fallacy, How We Think, and Human

Nature and Conduct 135

xi
xii CONTENTS

Part III Education

8 Chicago Years, My Pedagogic Creed and Resignation 173

9 Educational Writings in Chicago Years 199

10 Educational Writings in Columbia Years 237

Part IV Involvement in Education and Impact

11 Dewey in China 275

12 John Dewey and Progressive Education 309

13 Late Writings on Education 347

References 383

Index 401
 List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Three strands of psychological research before Wundt 56

Fig. 6.1 Dewey’s three aspects of consciousness 113
Fig. 6.2 The child-candle problem (Source James [1890, vol. 1,
p. 25]) 122
Fig. 7.1 A pictorial representation of Dewey’s notion of human
nature 155
Fig. 7.2 The centrality of action in Dewey’s notion of human nature 162
Fig. 8.1 How Dewey’s ideas grew into My Pedagogic Creed (1897) 184
Fig. 9.1 Dewey’s self-expression and interest 204
Fig. 9.2 A graphic presentation of Dewey’s ethics 211

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Dewey’s adolescent crisis and liberation 24

Table 4.1 Summary of key concepts and ideas of early philosophers
on psychology 57
Table 5.1 Comparison of Dewey’s and Hodgson’s ideas
on consciousness 91
Table 6.1 Chronology of Dewey’s major works on psychology 101
Table 6.2 Dewey’s taxonomy of psychology 112
Table 6.3 A Chronology of reflex researches (1600–1900) 126
Table 6.4 Psychological tasks in the child-candle problem 128
Table 8.1 Chronology of Dewey’s resignation from University
of Chicago 190
Table 9.1 Hypotheses in psychology of elementary education 226
Table 9.2 Psychological development and education needs 226
Table 10.1 Dewey vs. Rousseau on education 249
Table 10.2 Dewey vs. Pestalozzi on education 250
Table 10.3 Innovative practices in Schools of Tomorrow 257
Table 10.4 Dewey’s former ideas in education and new ideas
in Democracy and Education 264
Table 11.1 Dewey’s China trip, May–December 1919 285
Table 11.2 Dewey’s China Trip, January–December 1920 287
Table 11.3 Dewey’s China Trip, January–July 1921 289
Table 11.4 Dewey’s lectures and translators (1919) 296
Table 13.1 John Dewey’s network of enterprise (1921–1940) 348

xv
 PART I

Early Years
 CHAPTER 1

Boyhood and College Years

In Search of Significant Episodes and Ideas

This is a book on Dewey’s ideas on psychology and education, not a
biography. When I write about his boyhood and college years, I will
just give a short account and focus on some issues and background that
have had significant impact on the making of John Dewey and his ideas.
His Christian faith and his adolescent crisis are, in my mind, significant
episodes. Of equal importance are the parent–child relationship and the
early influences on his ideas, which include Kant, Hegel, evolution theory
and Christianity. Readers interested in a comprehensive biography may
refer to the further readings section of this chapter.

Family History and Background

As Industrious as a Dewey
In the few hundred years of American history, nearly everyone was an
immigrant descendant, save the few surviving natives. So was John Dewey.
His ancestors were early settlers from Flanders (present-day northern
part of Belgium), who escaped from political and religious persecu-
tion and came to the new world in the seventeenth century. They
settled in Connecticut and Massachusetts and became farmers, traders
and artisans, keeping alive the pioneering spirit. Their Christian faith
was that of Protestantism, who built their own congregational churches.
John Dewey’s great grandfather Parson was said to have fought the

© The Author(s) 2020 3

R. Li, Rediscovering John Dewey,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7941-7_1
4 R. LI

Revolutionary War for American Independence (1776). In the eigh-

teenth and nineteenth centuries, the Deweys spread across Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maryland and Vermont. They were known for the proverb
“as industrious as a Dewey” (Martin 2002, p: 16).

Father
John Dewey’s father, Archibald Sprague (1811–1891), was a farmer in
Vermont who moved from the countryside to Burlington and started
a grocery business there. At the time when John Dewey was born,
Burlington was transforming from a village of a few thousand people into
a small town of 14,000. The second largest lumber depot of the country
and a fishing port, it was growing into the commercial and cultural center
of the State of Vermont. The people there, Vermonters, mostly early New
Englanders or the old Americans, possessed attributes of a regional char-
acter: industrious, shrewd, self-reliant, thrifty, without pretense or show,
independent in their thinking, puritanical in their conduct, and deeply
pious (Dykhuizen 1973: 1).
Though Archibald received little education and stammered in speech,
he read Shakespeare and Milton, and enjoyed the play of words,
such as the following advertisements he composed; “Hams and cigars,
smoked and unsmoked”; cigars as “A good excuse for a bad habit”
(Dewey 1939: 5). His pioneering business motto was telling: “Satisfac-
tion (guaranteed or goods) returned” (Martin 2002: 17). A pragmatic
and successful businessman who ran the only licensed medical liquor store
in town, he later became a director of the American Telephone Company
for Northern New England. However, his generosity warranted his care
for others more than his own finances. As Deweyan scholars would appre-
ciate, Archibald’s contrast of opposites and pragmatic paradox (licensed
liquor in temperance) is not uncommon in John Dewey’s writings.

Mother
In 1855, Archibald Dewey, already aged 44 and well established in busi-
ness, married Lucina Rich, aged only 24, who came from a middle-class
family in Vermont. Lucina’s family was part of the social and intel-
lectual elites living in Burlington. Her grandfather, Charles Rich, was
a congressman in Washington; her father, Davis Rich, was a legislator
with the Vermont General Assembly. With the University of Vermont
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 5

founded in 1791 in Burlington, this small town attracted the rich and
the educated. The ethos of the Burlington “cultivated society” were:
social equality, intelligence, virtue, minimal snobbishness and some good
manners (Dykhuizen 1973: 3).
Lucina was a pious Christian, who stressed religious morality through
personal introspection and social improvement. She was against all
frivolity and “vices”—drinking, playing pool, gambling, playing cards or
dancing (Martin 2002: 21). She taught Sunday school and was deeply
involved in the Church’s mission work and for helping the poor and
the unfortunate. Her life goal was to “make Burlington a temperate and
moral city, a safe, clean place for young men, a city of virtuous and happy
home.”1 As we shall see, Lucina’ evangelical pietism had lasting impact
on her children.

Siblings and Education at Home

The Deweys had four children: John Archibald, Davis Rich, John and
Charles Miner. The first child died of a tragic accident in infancy in
January 1859.2 John was born in October 1859 as the third child. Jay
Martin, Dewey’s twenty-first-century biographer, dug deep in Dewey’s
family history to discover that Dewey was seen as a replacement child,
to replace the deceased first child. Our philosopher is named John as the
first child, but without a middle name “Archibald” taken from the father.
A replaced child as the eldest son in the family, Dewey might have felt
unspoken family demand, emotional or intellectual, on him, even as a
child.
When the father was easy-going and humorous and the mother was
tense and demanding, both parents cared for their children’s education
and their boyhood was surrounded with books: encyclopedia, novels
as well as books from the public library and the nearby University of
Vermont library. That the Deweys afforded more reading opportunity for
their children than other families of their background was a parenting
choice: at that time books were expensive and difficult to access. John

1 Based on her obituary in the Adams Mission Monthly. Quoted from Martin (2002: 22).
2 The tragic accident was that the little boy fell in a pail of hot water. When treated with
sweet oil and cotton, it accidentally caught fire, causing death of the child and injuries of
the rescuers. See Martin (2002: 5–6).
6 R. LI

and his elder brother Davis became bookworms; they were interested in
reading almost everything except their school books! (Dewey 1939: 9).

CHILDHOOD
Replacement Child
That John Dewey was treated as a replacement child was revealed in many
occasions. While he was the third child in the family, he went to the same
school and in the same grade with the second child, Davis, who was a year
older. Thus John was to speed up and accelerate academically. The two
brothers were close to each other throughout their lives, and John even
advised on Davis’ further studies plan after his college education. When
the younger brother, Charles Miner, had difficulty in schoolwork, he
communicated with John, who always gave encouragement and support.
Lucina had an intimate and intense relationship with John than the
other two children, as evidenced in her frequent lengthy correspondences
with John when he was away from home. John was treated as the replaced
eldest child: when his father became old and ill, he came to live with
John in Ann Arbor before his death in 1891. So did his mother (Martin
2002: 62 and 120). It looks like John Dewey shouldered the family
responsibility of the replaced eldest child.

Dewey Goes to School and the Farm

Both John and Davis grew up as happy, healthy and bookish boys. The
three children went to public school in the neighborhood. School was
boredom; they were younger than other boys and took little interest in
games. They had good grades and a demanding mother. According to
Jane Dewey, Dewey’s daughter who wrote and edited Dewey’s biography
in 1939, John was “as a young boy, particularly bashful in the presence
of girls. As he grew older...... this shyness wore off” (Dewey 1939: 9).
In Vermont in the 1870s, life was simple and rural. The children did
housework and helped in the farms. They delivered newspapers and tallied
lumber. In summer, they went camping, had fishing trips in Lake Cham-
plain or visited their grandfather’s farm. They had direct contact with
nature; they learned the skills “to do something, to produce something,
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 7

in the world” (MW1:7), and they enjoyed the creative, productive, inde-
pendent life of farming. Not surprisingly, these became the ultimate ideal
Deweyan life: creative, productive and independent.
Archibald was quite modest and pragmatic: he wished one of the
boys to become a mechanic, but Lucina, whose brother graduated from
college, insisted her sons be the first in the Dewey’s family to go to
college. Dewey’s own interpretation of the poor state of his elementary
education might have affected his theory of education. In Jane Dewey’s
words,

The realization that the most important parts of his own education until
he entered college were obtained outside the school-room played a large
role in his educational work, in which such importance is attached, both
in theory and in practice, to occupational activities as the most effective
approaches to genuine learning and to personal intellectual discipline. His
comments on the stupidity of the ordinary school recitation are undoubt-
edly due in no small measure to the memory of the occasional pleasant class
hours spent with the teachers who wandered a little from the prescribed
curriculum. (Dewey 1939: 9)

Parent–Child Relationship
On the surface, it appears that Dewey’s father was a busy breadwinner,
leaving the child’s education entirely to his wife. The father was distant
and detached while the mother was close and attached. Lucia, then, must
have had more influence on Dewey than Archibald. However, Dewey in
his later life insisted to his second wife, Roberta, that “his father was a
greater influence than his mother.3 ” How are we going to reconcile this?
There is no doubt that John was very close to his mother, who exerted
great influence on him. On the other hand, he longed for the affection
from his father, who, for one reason or another, kept John at a distance.4
It may be related to the tragic accident of the family’s first child that
Archibald found it hard to face. In fact the Deweys moved to a new house
after the tragic accident before John was born. There must be some sense
of guilt (tried to save the baby but the cotton caught fire) unspoken about

3 It was reported Roberta told philosopher George Axtelle about this. See Martin
(2002: 19).
4 This has been confirmed from the correspondences between Dewey and his father.
8 R. LI

the incident. How did the sense of guilt of either or both parents affect
the parent–child relationship we do not know, but it was clear that the
mother was intense and the father looked detached. However, Dewey had
had pleasant memories of his father: “His bringing back to Burlington
sore lotus pods and we used to rattle the seeds in them” (Dykhuizen
1973: 6). The parent–child relationship was reconstructed by Dewey’s
biographer a century later:

……the influence of his mother was very strong, so strong that he had
to learn how to resist it. Although he was influenced by his mother, he
yearned to be affected by his father. He was loved intensely by his mother,
but he hungered for his father’s affections. His father’s attempt to influence
him was as minimal as his mother’s wish to influence him was great. But
while he resisted hers, he would absorb any influence he could get from
his father. Because he remembered what he wished for…… choosing to
identify with his distant father left him, space to become himself. (Martin
2002: 19)

Adolescent Crisis
Dewey’s Christian Faith
Dewey’s parents had different temperaments. The father (Archibald) was
tolerant, easy-going, brash, action-oriented and pragmatic; he took Chris-
tian faith as a Sunday affair; his church going showed little spirit or
drive, but as a successful businessman, he helped his church balance its
budget (Martin 2002: 20). The mother (Lucina) was thoughtful but
strict, intense with missionary zeal; she took charge of the children
and insisted equipping the boys with moral purpose and the pursuit of
responsibility. She was a devoted “partialist” of the First Congregational
Church of Burlington; since the partialist belief was that only part of the
people, not everyone, could be saved, she was deeply concerned about
the souls of her loved ones. Personal piety, moral commitment and social
services were constant themes in the Dewey household. Christianity was
daily life: Sunday for congregational school, Monday for prayer meetings,
and then constant prayers and introspection. “Are you right with Jesus,
John?” were frequent questions Lucina asked that made John feel uneasy
(Fesmire 2015: 12).
At age 11, John was to admit to the communion. Lucina wrote the
declaration and John read,
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 9

I think I love Christ and want to obey Him. I have thought for some
time I should like to unite with the church. Now, I want to more, for it
seems one way to confess Him, and I should like to remember Him at the
Communion. (Dykhuizen 1973: 6 and 329)

Religious Crisis
Dewey summarized the character of his religious training: “I was brought
up in a conventionally evangelical atmosphere of the more ‘liberal’ sort”
(Martin 2002: 25). Evangelicalism is noted with the following character-
istics: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism and activism (Bebbington
2012). The evangelical doctrine stresses the more liberal interpretation
of the bible as God’s revelation of humanity and believes in salvation by
faith in Jesus Christ’s atonement. Conversion is a “born again” experi-
ence of personal revelation and introspection while active sharing of the
bible and social action is common. It is understandable that young John
pushed himself so much in religious introspection and personal revelation
that led to an adolescent crisis. In his late twenties, Dewey wrote with
resentment, in The Place of Religious Emotion:

Religious feeling is unhealthy when it is watched and analyzed to see if it

exists, if it is right, if it is growing. It is as fatal to be forever observing
our own religious moods and experiences, as it is to pull up a seed from
the ground to see if it is growing. (EW1: 91)

Young John was sensitive, introvert, introspective, self-conscious, moral-

istic and religious. He took morality and religious faith so seriously that
he believed truth, virtue and goodness were genuine feelings unveiled
through introspection. This had led to an adolescent crisis, with “an
intense emotional craving” for unification. Recalled Dewey 50 years later,

……a demand for unification that was doubtless an intense emotional

craving, and yet was a hunger that only an intellectualized subject -matter
could satisfy. It is more than difficult, it is impossible, to recover that early
mood. But the sense of divisions and separations that were, I suppose,
borne in upon me as a consequence of a heritage of New England culture,
divisions by way of isolation of self from the world, of soul from body, of
nature from God, brought a painful oppression—or, rather, they were an
inward laceration. (LW5: 153)
10 R. LI

When the crisis was later resolved, the boyhood imprint was such that his
whole intellectual life was devoted to the deepest concern of moral values,
religious issues and social improvement.5

The Emerging Personality

The sociocultural forces manifest in Dewey’s family life all converged
into the making of John Dewey. The characteristics of a “good” student
emerged: his teachers found him courteous, well-mannered, conscien-
tious and likeable; his peers found him quiet, reserved but liked fun
and participative.6 Obviously he was intellectually gifted and thought
deeply about life and religious issues. Embedded in him was the Old
England culture and the values of Burlington cultivated society, inher-
ited through his father and mother. It thus came as no surprise when
his student, Sidney Hook, wrote about his personality in adulthood as
“…… an ingrained democratic bias, …… in his simplicity of manner, his
basic courtesy, freedom from every variety of snobbism and matter-of-
course respect for the rights of everyone in America as a human being
and a citizen” (Hook 1939: 5–6). All through the years, Dewey speaks
for democracy, liberty and citizenship. He is courteous, well-mannered,
but outspoken and pioneering in his intellectual thought.

College Years
The University of Vermont
Dewey accelerated himself and finished the 4-year high school curriculum
in 3 years. He was then 15 and entered a “neighborhood” college—the
University of Vermont, neighborhood in the sense that the Deweys lived
very near it—Prospect Street (Dewey 1939: 5) In fact that was part of his
mother’s plan: Lucina was a Vermont bourgeois, ambitiously committed
to the education of her sons (Fesmire 2015: 11).
Dewey’s distant cousins were sons of the president of the University of
Vermont. When the University of Vermont was founded in 1791, it slowly
transformed Burlington into a college town, with homes for the educated

5 For a critical review of Dewey’s religious craving, see Rockefeller (1998).

6 George Dykhuizen, Dewey’s biographer, had done extensive research and interviews
to gain the above impression (Dykhuizen 1973: 328).
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 11

elite and the wealthy. Most of the professors belonged to the same First
Congregational Church. Thus the Dewey boys were part of the university
community before admission; they all entered the University of Vermont
and Dewey graduated in 1879.

College Curricula
The University of Vermont was a very small college by today’s standard: 8
professors, 100 students, 160,000 books, all-male, no science laboratory.
Dewey always earned good grades and ranked second in his graduating
class of 18 students in 1879.
The curricula of the 4 years were:

Year 1–2: Greek, Latin, ancient history, analytic geometry, calculus;

Year 3: geography, biology, physiology;
Year 4: philosophy, psychology, political economy, international law,
history of civilization and classics: (Plato’s Republic, Bain’s Rhetoric,
Butler’s Analogy).

Dewey’s Reading Interest

Jay Martin gave a tenable account of Dewey’s reading interest by tracing
the books he borrowed from the University of Vermont library year by
year. Dewey was “an omnivorous reader” (Martin 2002: 37) thirst for
new knowledge. During his freshman year, Dewey read many books on
politics, including Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (translated 1844).
In his sophomore year, he read novels as well as academic journals,
showing keen interest in new ideas on the intellectual front. Apparently
he showed less interest in classics and the least in theology. By his junior
and senior year he read Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Psychology (1872
edition), A System of Synthetic Philosophy, as well as books on physiology
and science. As his interest in philosophy grew,

… His library borrowings in his senior year included books by Richard

Hooker, George Berkeley, Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill on William
Hamilton, David Hume, Plato, Schwegler’s Handbook of the History
of Philosophy, and additional volumes of the Journal of Speculative
Philosophy (Martin 2002: 41).
12 R. LI

Inspiration from Huxley and Comte

Dewey’s interest in philosophy started in his junior year, during which he
took a course in physiology, with the text of T. H. Huxley’s Elements of
Physiology but without laboratory work. Young Dewey was excited to see
the organic unity of life in evolution. In his words,

…, I was led to desire a world and a life that would have the same proper-
ties as had the human organism in the picture of it derived from study of
Huxley’s treatment. At all events, I got great stimulation from the study,
more than from anything I had had contact with before; and as no desire
was awakened in me to continue that particular branch of learning, I date
from this time the awakening of a distinctive philosophic interest. (From
Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 148)

Readers will be puzzled to ask: How can evolution theory or physi-

ology awaken Dewey into philosophy instead of science? If Dewey was
interested in evolution theory, why didn’t he study STEM (science, tech-
nology, engineering and maths) instead? My study reveals that Dewey’s
philosophical interest was that of morality, truth and Christianity, all
related to his upbringing and intellectual issues of new Englanders of
his time. In these days, physiology was the precursor and foundation
of psychology, which was considered a branch of philosophy. Had there
been laboratory work in the University of Vermont, Dewey might have
done hands-on scientific research and discovered new neuro-mechanisms
in physiology. But his adolescent pre-occupation with morality and reli-
gious issues propelled him into philosophy, the higher order of knowledge
and humanity. His “great stimulation” was that he found the unity of a
world and a life by the support of a new foundation from science. This
science supports philosophy and philosophy slowly emerged to become
his goal. At a higher level, philosophy is the science of science, a term
suggested by Dewey’s later teacher George Morris.
At the same time, Dewey read the work of Auguste Comte (1794–
1859), the father of modern sociology. Comte’s positive philosophy
posited the disorganization of existing social life and emphasized the
social function of science, which enticed Dewey’s concern of scientific
understanding of social ills and its eradication.
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 13

Philosophical Influences
The Shadow of James Marsh
The University of Vermont was not just a neighborhood college. It was
a reputable university especially for philosophy, rivaling with the early Ivy
Leagues—Harvard, Yale, Brown and Dartmouth. James Marsh (1794–
1842), an eminent American philosopher, was president of the University
of Vermont from 1826 to 1833. He was the first to introduce German
Philosophy—Kant, Schelling and Herder—to America. As president of
the University, Marsh instituted a program of unified study where all
seniors had to take a course in philosophy that sought to create a central-
ized mode of knowledge (Shook 2012). Marsh’s work was edited by
Joseph Torrey, whose nephew H. A. P. Torrey became professor of philos-
ophy at the University of Vermont and taught Dewey in 1875–1879. In
his early days, Dewey read and was inspired by Marsh’s “Memoir and
Remains of James Marsh” and “Aids to Reflection.”
When some of Dewey’s ideas could be traced back to Marsh, the philo-
sophical tradition at the University of Vermont also gave him direction
for his search of identity: Christianity and morality. Dewey paid tribute to
Marsh; when he was 70, in a talk entitled “James Marsh and American
Philosophy” (LW5: 178), he considered Marsh an emancipating spirit to
him and his generation:

They conceived the spirit as a form of life, the essence of life, and they freed
belief in the spiritual energies from the doctrines both of the churches and
of the Enlightenment: spirit and reflection were the traits of free living;
both became intimately associated with actual life and natural being. (LW5:
178)

Building on Marsh
In the American Church history, James Marsh was a philosophical
theologian and evangelical liberal (McGiffert 1969: 437). He studied
in Andover Theological Seminary and was ordained as a congregational
minister in 1824. Marsh was an important figure in American thought
and philosophy in the second quarter of nineteenth century. During
that period, British empiricism under the Lockean tradition and the
Scotch School of realism dominated American philosophy. The empir-
ical notion of truth by experience and the Christian truth of God was
14 R. LI

hard to reconcile. Marsh read Samuel T. Coleridge’s work and studied

German philosophy, especially Kant and Herder. By introducing Kant’s
philosophy onto the American soil, Marsh found ways of anchoring
Christianity by German idealism. He “attempted to develop a philo-
sophical basis for American Christianity”, leading to the “emancipation
of American philosophy from its complete subordination to theology.”
For Marsh, Christianity revealed eternal truths about God, the universe
and humanity; God and truth can be directly reached by revelation and
intuition, not by church establishments or authority. Through introspec-
tion, we could arrive at “rational knowledge of the central and absolute
good of all being.” Integrating faith with reason, Marsh’s liberal inter-
pretation was that “Christian faith is the perfection of human reason.”
Marsh’s works had inspired the development of American transcenden-
talism, a religious and cultural movement in 1830s by American essayist
Ralph Waldo Emerson, among others (Good 2002: v–xvii).
Marsh’s impact on Dewey must not be underestimated. First, Marsh
translated Coleridge’s Aids to Reflection, and Dewey took it as his “first
bible”, “because it showed that one can be both ‘liberal and pious’ at the
same time” (Good 2002: v–xvii). Second, Marsh and Coleridge’s religious
ideas remained in Dewey for the rest of his life. When asked late in his
life about his religious faith, Dewey replied,

My ideas on religion have not changed since then; I still believe that a
religious life is one that takes the continuity of ideal and real, of spirit
and life, seriously, not necessarily piously. Such “common faith” became a
commonplace fact for me. But I soon discovered that nobody had much
interest either in Coleridge or in my idea of religion, and so I kept quiet
about it. (Martin 2002: 43)

Studying Kant Under Torrey

In recapitulating his undergraduate study at the University of Vermont,
Dewey observed,

…, the last year was reserved for an introduction into serious intellectual
topics of wide and deep significance – an introduction into the world of
ideas. … I have always been grateful for that year of my schooling. (From
Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 148)
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 15

In his senior year, Dewey took Torrey’s philosophy class and studied Kant.
According to Dewey, Torrey was an excellent teacher with a genuinely
sensitive and cultivated mind. As we shall see later, Torrey’s support
to Dewey went beyond the University of Vermont. Dewey wrote the
following letter in 1883 to thank Torrey:

… Thanks to my introduction under your auspices to Kant at the begin-

ning of my studies, …I think I have had a much better introduction into
philosophy than could be had any other way. … It certainly introduced a
revolution into all my thoughts, and at the same time gave me a basis for
my other reading and thinking.7

From Christianity to Philosophy

To sum up, Dewey’s intellectual youth was preoccupied with religious
issues—the existence of God, truth and morality—rooted in his mother
and evangelical family background. His thirst for new knowledge, not old
ones, propelled him into a precocious erudite reader; his philosophical
interest was inspired by Huxley and guided by Torrey. The ideas of Kant,
Comte and Spencer all had impact on him. Bounded by the problem
set of Christianity of his time, Dewey found the theological answer from
Marsh, though the two were more than a generation apart. Marsh and
Coleridge’s position on Christianity, or the Marshian belief system and
worldview became the starting point of Dewey. By the time he graduated
from the University of Vermont, he was generally well-versed with the
history of western philosophy and became one of the best outputs of the
University of Vermont’s philosophical tradition.

Further Readings
1. Dalton, T. C. (2002). Becoming John Dewey: Dilemmas of a Philoso-
pher and Naturalist. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Thomas Dalton is a historian of neuropsychology primarily inter-
ested in the development of the field in twentieth-century America.

7 Dykhuizen had traced the correspondence of Dewey to Torrey, November 17, 1883,
from Henry C. Torrey, H. A. P. Torrey’s grandson. See Dykhuizen (1973: 15–16 and
332).
16 R. LI

His research started from Myrtle McGraw (1899–1988), an accom-

plished psychologist who was among Dewey’s circle of friends in
the 1920s. From there Dalton reconstructed Dewey’s relationship
with Myrtle, in which she called him “intellectual godfather”, and
Dewey’s activities and relationships with the Neurological Institute
of New York. This line of research on Dewey’s personal context
threw much new light on his ideas on inquiry, science, mind and
naturalism in his late years.
2. Dewey, J. M. (1939). Biography of John Dewey. In P. A. Schilpp
(Ed), The Philosophy of John Dewey. New York: Tudor Publishing
Company.
To understand a person’s ideas, we must get into his life world
in social and historical context. Below are some of the most notable
titles on John Dewey’s life and works. Each has a unique vista and
focus and they can converge to form the multifaceted colorful life
of John Dewey.
Written by Dewey’s daughter Jane and based on material supplied
by John Dewey himself, this biography can be read as Dewey’s auto-
biography. It was Dewey looking back on himself and outlining what
he deemed important in his youthful years.
3. Dewey, J. (1930). From Absolutism to Experimentalism, (LW5: 147–
160).
This is the most widely cited paper, considered as Dewey’s
intellectual autobiography.
4. Dykhuizen, G. (1973). The Life and Mind of John Dewey. Carbon-
dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
George Dykhuizen (1899–1987) taught philosophy in the
University of Vermont and became acquainted with John Dewey
and his family in the 1940s. He wrote about Dewey’s life and work
as early as 1959 (Journal of the History of Ideas ), which was later
expanded into this indispensible biography for studying Dewey.
5. Fesmire, S. (2015). Dewey. New York: Routledge.
A recent scholarly work on Dewey, Steven Fesmire (1967–)
presented Dewey’s life and works chronologically in one easy-to-
read chapter.
6. Hook, S. (1939). John Dewey: An Intellectual Portrait (Reprinted
1971). New Jersey: Praeger.
Sidney Hook (1902–1989) was Dewey’s doctoral student who
became his close friend since the 1920s. Hook’s intellectual portrait
 1 BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE YEARS 17

on Dewey appeared in 1939, the year when Dewey turned 80, and
it is a convenient time to summarize his lifelong ideas and achieve-
ments. In Chapter 1, Hook gave a chronological account of Dewey’s
life up to his defense for Leon Trotsky in 1937. Naturally Hook had
much first-hand information and impression to offer.
7. Martin, J. (2002). The Education of John Dewey—A Biography. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Jay Martin is an erudite scholar who has written many biogra-
phies. He entered Columbia University in 1952, the year Dewey
died but whose ideas and influences were still much alive. He started
reading and collecting Dewey’s data for nearly 20 years before
working on this biography in summer 2001. It is an admirable pene-
trating book on Dewey’s life experience, engagement and growth.
His library resources and acknowledgments are lengthy.
8. Rockefeller, S. C. (1991). John Dewey: Religious Faith and Demo-
cratic Humanism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rockefeller studied Dewey’s Christian faith and traced its changes
over time. Naturally the New Englander’s evangelicalism has had
significant impact on Dewey’s democratic humanism.
9. Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American Democracy.
New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
A lengthy, well-documented and well-researched biography,
Robert Westbrook put Dewey in the position of a social and political
philosopher, relating his life and ideas to the changing epochs from
organic democracy (Chapter 2) to the politics of war (Chapter 7)
to socialist democracy (Chapter 12). In summary, Dewey kept his
common faith (Chapter 14) in the wilderness and the promised
land (Epiloque). It is a history of American democracy epitomized
in John Dewey’s biography.

References
Bebbington, D. (2012). Victorian Religious Revivals: Culture and Piety in Local
and Global Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1939). Biography of John Dewey. In P. A. Schilp (Ed.), The Philosophy
of John Dewey (p. 10). New York: Tudor Publishing Company.
Dykhuizen, G. (1973). The Life and Mind of John Dewey. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
18 R. LI

Fesmire, S. (2015). Dewey. London: Routledge.

Good, J. (Ed.). (2002). “Introduction”: The Early American Reception of German
Idealism (Vol. 2). Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum.
Hook, S. (1971) [1939]. John Dewey: An Intellectual Portrait. Hackensack, NJ:
Praeger.
Martin, J. (2002). The Education of John Dewey: A Biography. New York:
Columbia University Press.
McGiffert, A. C. (1969). James Marsh (1794–1842): Philosophical Theologian,
Evangelical Liberal 1. Church History, 38(4), 437–458.
Rockefeller, S. C. (1998). Dewey’s Philosophy of Religious Experience. In
Larry A. Hickman (Ed.), Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a Postmodern
Generation (pp. 124–148). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Shook, J. R. (2012). Dictionary of Early American Philosophers. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
 CHAPTER 2

The Lost Years

From Lost Years to Greatness

In modern academic biography, it is not uncommon to see thinkers went
into some kind of a self-discovery journey, or “self-exile,” before they
impart into greatness. The most widely cited is Charles Darwin (1809–
1882), whose “Voyage of the Beagle” (1831–1836) provided data and
inspiration later for his theory of evolution (The Origin of Species, 1859).
So is Edward O. Wilson (1929–), who went on a journey in Papua New
Guinea before settling down into the study of ants and contemplation
of human nature in Harvard (Wilson 1978, 2004). Another example
is Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), a Victorian philosopher-psychologist,
who experienced a bashful of ten years in his youth (Durant 1926). As
for Dewey, his self-exile is one of self-study that had led him, irrevocably,
into philosophy.

The draft of this chapter was presented at the International Conference on

Dewey and Pragmatism, August 2015, Fudan University, Shanghai.

© The Author(s) 2020 19

R. Li, Rediscovering John Dewey,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7941-7_2
20 R. LI

No Job, No Route
When John Dewey graduated from the University of Vermont in 1879,
he was only 19 and had no job, no plan, no path. He excelled academ-
ically and was interested in philosophy. But there was no immediate
job available for the teaching of philosophy: at that time almost all
jobs of philosophy teaching were held by clergymen and theologians.
Apparently the only existing route to teaching philosophy was to enroll
in a seminary and study theology, with some specialization in philos-
ophy. This route had been taken up by his future teachers at Johns
Hopkins University, George S. Morris and G. Stanley Hall. Both were
Vermonters interested in philosophy; both studied in Union Theological
Seminary, New York; both went to Germany for advanced studies, and
both returned to America for a teaching career, one in philosophy and the
other in psychology. In fact, one of Dewey’s close cousins and high school
companions, John Buckham, did take this route and became a theologian,
later teaching at The Theological Seminary in Berkeley (Dewey 1939: 4).
Even Dewey’s elder brother Davis, later to become a renowned professor
of economics with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had contem-
plated of studying for the clergy (Martin 2002: 61). So the perplexing
question is: Why didn’t Dewey take the viable route from theology to
philosophy?
We may find hints from Dewey’s adolescence. As a teenager, he went
to the First Congregational Church and was seriously committed to his
Christian faith. But apparently, he had never experienced revelation that
might have called upon his service to God. He had learned intuitional
philosophy but was not satisfied with it (From Absolutism to Experimen-
talism, LW5: 149). He was thirst for new knowledge but not interested
in old knowledge, the bible or the creed. Skeptical about intuitionalism
whose validity was supposed to lend support for religion, Dewey found it
difficult to take the route of philosophy via theology. In fact he was not
interested in theology: it could not be his cup of tea. He had learned to
be honest and stressed academic honesty all his life (From Absolutism to
Experimentalism, LW5: 151). As such he could not deceive himself and
turned to be a theologian for the expediency of becoming a philosopher.
 2 THE LOST YEARS 21

Teaching in Oil City

In summer, 1879, Dewey became a Bachelor of Arts. His family had
expected him to be independent and self-reliant after graduation. Grad-
uate school was out of the question because of their financial background.
Readers may be interested to compare Dewey with his contemporaries,
such as William James and James Cattell. Both came from rich families
and could afford graduate school: they crossed the Atlantic to Europe for
the new knowledge of the time, a common route for the rich elites.
To take up high school teaching was a common career path for many
of Dewey’s classmates in the University of Vermont. Through his family
network, Dewey tried hard to secure a high school teaching job, but his
strength worked to become his weakness. A precocious youth finishing
college at age 19, he was considered too young to be a high school
teacher for he was no older or more mature than many high school
kids. Then this bookish intellectual was considered too gentle to handle
classroom discipline. The new school year had already begun and only in
late September did Dewey finally receive an offer from his cousin, Affia
Wilson, principal of Oil City High School, Pennsylvania. Dewey hastily
accepted it and started off his teaching journey.
Oil City was located at the mouth of Oil Creek in Allegheny River, a
convenient transportation location for the booming oil industry in Penn-
sylvania which started in the 1850s. Banks and warehouses sprang up,
barges, flatboats and barrels scattered through the river, steamers trans-
ported crude oil to refineries in Pittsburgh, creating the “shanty town” of
Oil City. A service economy began to flourish; restaurants, bars, saloons,
dance halls and theaters came into being. The Oil Exchange Building was
opened in 1878, in the same year when a high school was built, which
Dewey began to teach in fall 1879.
Oil City High School was a new school with only 45 students. Dewey
joined as a teacher and later became the assistant principal. He taught
algebra, science and Latin there for two years. For the first time the 19-
year-old boy was away from home. But life there in Oil City was isolated
and difficult. He did not enjoy his teaching; he could not maintain disci-
pline in class; he had no friends; he tried to “work up a little affair” but
failed. It looked like a dead end for this intellectually gifted youth.
22 R. LI

Adolescent Crisis Resolved

A “Mystic Experience”
But it was exactly in this hopeless state that Dewey discovered himself.
To begin with, life was in fact exciting and pioneering in the burgeoning
Oil City, with new equipment, new workers, new investment and new
lifestyle. There were two brokers living with Dewey in the same boarding
house. They urged Dewey to take advantage of the booming oil industry
and borrowed money to invest in Standard Oil, already a giant oil
company. But Dewey did not bother and withdrew himself into his inner
self. A joke was told: instead Dewey “borrowed books and used the oil in
the lamp” (Dykhuizen 1973: 20).
Recall Dewey’s adolescent crisis of “an intense emotional craving” for
unity, which he saw “as a consequence of a heritage of New England
culture, divisions by way of isolation of self from the world, of soul
from body, or nature from God” (From Absolutism to Experimentalism,
LW5: 153). The crisis had haunted him since childhood with his moth-
er’s constant question: “Are you right with Jesus, John?” (see Chapter 1:
Boyhood and College Years). For years, Dewey was uncertain about his
“spiritual sincerity” when he prayed. This crisis, or question, was finally
resolved in Oil City. One night in 1880, Dewey suddenly experienced a
feeling of harmony with his existence, that his worries of spiritual sincerity
were over. He later told his student Max Eastman about this episode of
somewhat “mystic experience”:

Eastman reported, as “an answer to that question which still worried him:
whether he really meant business when he prayed.” The essence of the
experience was a feeling of oneness with the universe, a conviction that
worries about existence and one’s place in it are foolish and futile. “It was
not a very dramatic mystic experience,” Eastman continued. “There was
no vision, not even a definable emotion - just a supremely blissful feeling
that his worries were over.” Eastman quoted Dewey, “I’ve never had any
doubts since then, nor any beliefs. To me faith means not worrying… I
claim I’ve got religion and that I got it that night in Oil City.”1

1 Both of Dewey’s biographers, George Dykhuizen and Jay Martin, reported this
(Dykhuizen 1973: 20; Martin 2002: 49). The original source appeared much earlier,
in Eastman, M. (1941). John Dewey. Atlantic Monthly, 168(673).
 2 THE LOST YEARS 23

Liberated Thrice
Why is there a sudden realization and a “supremely blissful feeling that
his worries were over”? Apparently it was the culmination of Dewey’s
adolescent crisis and a final liberation. We may summarize the progression
below (Table 2.1):
Dewey’s adolescent crisis was religious and philosophical in nature. It
was not a simple crisis to be resolved by a one-time solution. The crisis
had haunted him as he grew. Both Brastow and Torrey had offered impor-
tant ideas for liberation in two different stages. The inner self of young
Dewey was so much immersed in Christian thought that emancipation
could only come from the liberal interpretation of the bible, the ideas of
Kant, Marsh and Coleridge as much as from an inner feeling. All these
complex ideas found its way in the final stage where Dewey liberated
himself. In fact, Dewey needs a little space and distance from his mother.
He found it in Oil City and resolved his worries and doubts. As biogra-
pher Jay Martin put it, “He was right with Jesus because he was right with
himself” (p. 49). He tried to find God’s revelation for years and finally he
found it in himself! This was an important turning point in Dewey’s life:
he must get over from his worries and doubts before he could embark on
fruitful academic work.

Getting into Philosophy

Self-study and First Article
After the tranquilizing experience and resolution of his adolescent crisis,
Dewey was on his own thinking for his future. He knew he was genuinely
interested in philosophy but he was not sure whether he was suited for
a professional career in philosophy. So he tried his skills and abilities by
writing an article and submitting it to a professional journal of philosophy.
Still teaching at Oil City, he kept reading philosophy and wrote his first
philosophy paper entitled “The Metaphysical Assumptions of Materialism”
and submitted it to The Journal of Speculative Philosophy in mid-1881. It
was published in the April 1882 issue. That proved to be crucial to his
future career. Dewey recalled, 50 years later,
24 R. LI

Table 2.1 Dewey’s adolescent crisis and liberation

Age Key Issue Key Liberating Outcome

(Location) Person

12–15 Religious Faith Pastor Lewis O. Brastow’s “liberal

(Home) Dewey had had Brastow, First evangelicalism”
communion but was Congregational emphasized human
uncertain of his faith Church of intelligence and “a
and church doctrine Burlington broadly rational
estimate of
Christianity,” with
its liberal
interpretation of the
bible and revelation
in religious
experience. Brastow
preached for Christ
and redemption in
spiritual manhood
and perfection
(morality) in
associate (social)
life. He thus helped
to relieve Dewey
from the
conventional church
doctrine
(Dykhuizen 1973:
7–8)
16–19 Craving for Prof. H.A.P. Torrey introduced
(The University of unification Torrey Dewey to the works
Vermont) How can one unify of James Marsh,
soul with body, God which was
with life, ideal with “emancipating
real? spirits to him……
The spirit was
conceived…… as a
form of life, the
essence of life……
spirit and reflection
were the traits of
free living; both
became intimately
associated with
actual life and
natural being……”
(Martin 2002: 43)

(continued)
 2 THE LOST YEARS 25

Table 2.1 (continued)

Age Key Issue Key Liberating Outcome

(Location) Person

20 Spiritual Sincerity Himself He had answered

(Oil City) His worries about his question of
existence, religion and spiritual sincerity.
career. He found sincerity
in his present
existence. He felt
his worries were
over and he had no
more doubts.
“Everything that’s
here is here”
(Eastman 1941)

…In sending an article I asked Dr. Harris for advice as to the possibility of
my successfully prosecuting philosophic studies. His reply was so encour-
aging that it was a distinct factor in deciding me to try philosophy as a
professional career. (From Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 150)

At that time, Dewey had studied Kant but knew little about Hegel. In
his first academic writing, he faced a dilemma. On the one hand, he
was writing with formal, schematic and logical ideas. On the other hand,
he lacked the personal experience and the real world “actual material”
to support his arguments. There are two implications. First, Dewey was
painfully aware of this: he emphasized upon “the concrete, empirical and
‘practical’ in my later writings” (From Absolutism to Experimentalism,
LW5: 151). Second, for Dewey, when it was logical, schematic and
expository, “writing was comparatively easy,” but to take into account
of concrete experiences, that is, to be able to explain and relate the
phenomenon to ones observation and experiences, “thinking and writing
have been hard work” and it requires “a sense intellectual honesty”
(From Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 151). Such is the origin of
pragmatism and intellectual honesty in Dewey’s thoughts.

Major Arguments in First Debut

In his first debut in philosophy, Dewey must have been thinking hard
and writing with sophistication, so that he earned the endorsement of
26 R. LI

W.T. Harris, editor of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy. It takes me a

few readings to decipher what Dewey means.
Dewey starts with what materialism is and how to substantiate it by
considering a few philosophical options: pure subjective idealism, Humian
skepticism, Berkeleian idealism, Spencer’s agnosticism, Kant’s mind and
consciousness (EW1: 4–5). It appears he makes two points to discredit
materialism. First, materialism is an assertion without proof:

……[the] “matter”-molecular-property accounted for and caused the

“mind”-molecular-property, but proof, or suggestion of proof, or sugges-
tion as to method of finding proof, all are equally absent. (EW1:
4)

Second, materialism assumes the possibility of ontological knowledge

(knowledge of being). However, this is self-destructive. In Dewey’s
words,

……that phenomenal knowledge is phenomenal, and that to transcend

phenomena there must be something besides a phenomenon. We find
materialism, then, in this position. To prove that mind is a phenomenon
of matter, it is obliged to assume the possibility of ontological knowledge-
i.e., real knowledge of real being; but in tat real knowledge is necessarily
involved a subject which knows. To prove that mind is a phenomenon, it is
obliged to implicitly assume that it is a substance. Could there be anything
more self-destructive? (EW1: 6)

Some explanation and interpretation may be necessary here. For the first
point, materialism is a working paradigm of “man a machine,” traceable to
Descartes and succinctly advocated by Julien de La Mattrie (1709–1751).
For several hundred years research has continued to find the physiolog-
ical basis of mental phenomena. I would say that more and more proofs
and evidence have accumulated to the favor of materialism. Today few
researchers subscribe to the existence of an immaterial mind. For the
second point, Dewey merely defends the notion of a subjective mind and
the subjective knowing process. His criticism lies in the assumption that
“phenomena cannot go beyond phenomena” (EW1: 5). He believes that
a phenomenon cannot become a substance. But present-day science may
see a phenomenon, light or heat, for example, as a substance and a process
of energy circulation.
 2 THE LOST YEARS 27

It is clear that Dewey’s thinking in philosophy at that time was under

the shadow of Torrey and the influence of Kant. It doesn’t matter whether
the article was substantial or not, so long as it got published. What is
important is this debut earned Dewey the confidence he so desperately
needed to propel himself onto his future academic path.

Private Study Under Torrey

In fact, before Dr. Harris gave Dewey his encouragement, the young
teacher had quit his teaching job in Oil City and returned home in
summer 1881. There he ventured into private study of philosophy under
the mentorship of his former teacher, Prof. Torrey. But it could lead him
to nowhere: no job, no qualification, only ideas. The route to philos-
ophy was audacious and difficult. They had long walks in the woods and
subtle talks on German philosophy. Torrey asked Dewey to read Baruch
Spinoza’s Ethics . He did and turned out another paper in three months,
The Pantheism of Spinoza. Like before, it was accepted by The Journal of
Speculative Philosophy.
Torrey was Dewey’s first mentor. Dewey showed deep gratitude to
Torrey, especially for the private tutorship after he quit the Oil City job.
In Dewey’s words,

I owe to him a double debt, that of turning my thoughts definitely to the

study of philosophy as a life-pursuit, and of a generous gift of time to me
during a year devoted privately under his direction to a reading of classics
in the history of philosophy and learning to read philosophic German.
(From Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 148–149)

During that period, Dewey was so eager to work on philosophy that he

wrote to Harris, offering to help in proofreading, editing or translation
work for the Journal of Speculative Philosophy (Dykhuizen 1973: 24).

Applying for Graduate School

In January 1882, Dewey took up another high school teaching job in
Lake View Seminary in Charlotte, Vermont. The seminary was set up
by the Methodist Church in 1840 and a new building was erected in
1881 after a fire. Dewey was invited to take charge of that high school
with about 30 students during the winter term. The townspeople found
28 R. LI

Dewey too inexperienced and lenient to enforce discipline on the rural

boys and girls. Recalled a pupil, “how terribly the boys behaved, and how
long and fervent was the prayer with which he opened each school day.2 ”
Readers can guess why the prayer was long and fervent: Dewey kept his
strong sense of morality and Christianity.
It was clear that in that period Dewey’s mind was entirely in philos-
ophy. He was writing his third paper Knowledge and the Relativity of
Feeling and doing translation on German philosophy. It was a self-
propelled pursuit but it had no vocational prospect so far. To be a
gentleman-scholar was out of the question: his family had no financial
means and he was trained to be self-reliant. He could only be a daytime
high school teacher and a night-time philosopher.
Then came the news in early 1882 that Johns Hopkins University
was offering twenty graduate fellowships of $500 each. Established in
Baltimore in 1876 as a graduate school that modeled after the German
universities, Johns Hopkins aimed to, in today’s jargon, attract top-caliber
professors and students to become a top-ranking research university at
the frontier of knowledge. Dewey applied for the fellowship with a refer-
ence letter from Torrey. When his application fell through, Dewey applied
again for a $300 Presidential scholarship. When this was again rejected,
he borrowed $500 from his aunt, Sarah Rich, and applied the third time.
He got his last-minute admission offer and started off to Baltimore on
September 4, when the new school term had barely begun.

The Significance of the Lost Years

In the three lost years, Dewey searched for his inner self. This soul-
searching process culminated to a “revelation” feeling of finding himself.
He had finally found his faith and religion in himself by discarding Chris-
tian revelation. It was then followed by a period of intensive study of
German philosophy of Kant, Hegel and that of Spinoza. A confident
young philosopher was born.
These three years was a self-directed searching process. There was no
established path to proceed nor was there any predecessor. The “intense
emotional craving,” his perseverance, diligence, and pioneering spirit,

2 Dykhuizen had followed Dewey’s life and in 1938 interviewed two Dewey’s former
pupils of Lake View, Miss Anna L. Byington and Mr. Charles Root, to gain the above
impressions (Dykhuizen 1973: 25 and 334).
 2 THE LOST YEARS 29

pushed him forward. He was not deterred with failure because he had
discovered himself and his goal. With perseverance and taking risks, finan-
cially and academically, he entered Johns Hopkins. Taking a longer view,
Johns Hopkins is not a necessary condition for his future success; it was
only a supporting condition and stepping-stone, without which Dewey
would still move ahead and make his contribution in philosophy.

Further Readings
There is no special book devoted to Dewey’s Lost Years (1879–1882).
For fragmented information, readers may consult:

1. Dykhuizen, G. (1973). The Life and Mind of John Dewey

(Chapter 2). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dykhuizen had spent considerable time tracking down the infor-
mation of Oil City High School and Lake View Seminary. One most
valuable source was his interview with Lake View graduates in 1938.
See pp. 25 and 334. Dykhuizen had also searched information on
Brastow (p. 330) and Torrey (pp. 25–26, pp. 334–335).
For his research, Dykhuizen had created his own archive papers
on Dewey known as George Dykhuizen Papers and Correspondence,
Special Collections, Guy W. Bailey Library, University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT (Dykhuizen, p. 334).
2. Eastman, M. (1941). John Dewey. Atlantic Monthly, 168(673).
This is the original source on Dewey’s not-so-mystical experience
in Oil City in 1881.
3. Dewey, J. (1930). From Absolutism to Experimentalism. (LW5: 147–
160)
Seen as Dewey’s intellectual autobiography, readers may find that
Dewey did see the Oil City years as his turning point to philosophy.
4. Dewey, J. M. (1939). Biography of John Dewey.
The two pages devoted to Dewey’s years of high school teaching
give a brief account of the period.

References
Dewey, J. (1939). Biography of John Dewey. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The Philosophy
of John Dewey (p. 10). New York: Tudor Publishing Company.
30 R. LI

Durant, W. (1926). The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Dykhuizen, G. (1973). The Life and Mind of John Dewey. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Eastman, H. (1941). John Dewey. Atlantic Monthly, 168(673).
Martin, J. (2002). The Education of John Dewey: A Biography. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1978, 2004). On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
 CHAPTER 3

Johns Hopkins Years

The Exceedingly---Stimulating Atmosphere

John Dewey’s years in Johns Hopkins University were short and instru-
mental: one year and nine months for the purpose of earning a doctorate.
Discounting the summer break of 1883 when he returned home to write
his doctoral thesis, The Psychology of Kant , it was only 15 months. During
this period Dewey kept his “bookish habits” (Dewey 1939: 16) but
made many important friends and acquaintances there: James McKeen
Cattell (1860–1944), later to become a renowned psychologist; Arthur
Kimball, a future physicist, Harry Osborn, a future biologist. He even met
Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924), who later became the 28th president of
the USA. His elder brother Davis also joined Johns Hopkins University
in John’s second year.
Despite Dewey’s short stay, he held high regard of Johns Hopkins
University, calling its opening in 1876 as marking “a new epoch in higher
education in the US” (From Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 151).
Recalled Dewey in his biography,

……President Gilman1 had gathered there a fine band of scholars and

teachers with the intention of enabling graduate students, who had been
going to Germany to prepare for a life of scholarship, to find what they

1 Daniel Coit Gilman (1831–1908) is an American educator and the first president of
Johns Hopkins University.

© The Author(s) 2020 31

R. Li, Rediscovering John Dewey,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7941-7_3
32 R. LI

wanted nearer home. Every emphasis was placed upon the graduate school.
President Gilman constantly urged upon the feasibility and importance of
original research. The very possibility of students’ doing anything new,
anything original, was a novel and exciting idea to most of these young
men …… The atmosphere of the new university was thus exceedingly
stimulating …… Many of the students felt that it was bliss to be alive
and in such surroundings. The seminar was then practically unheard of in
American colleges but was the centre of intellectual life at Hopkins……
(Dewey 1939: 15)

Three Fine Scholars of Philosophy

The three fine scholars in the Hopkins faculty of philosophy were: George
Sylverter Morris, a renowned Helgelian philosopher, Granville Stanley
Hall, a pioneering philosopher-turned-psychologist and Charles Sanders
Peirce, a logician-mathematician. They all had had impact on Dewey’s
intellectual growth. Let us recount them one by one.

George Sylvester Morris (1840–1889)

Academic Background
George Sylvester Morris (1840–1889) studied for the ministry at Union
Theological Seminary, New York, but had a crisis in religious faith. He left
the seminary and went on a study tour in Europe for three years. There
he learned mediational logic from Friedrich A. Trendelenberg and studied
at the University of Halle with Hermann Ulrici. In 1873, Morris estab-
lished his scholarship in American philosophy by translating Uberweg’s
History of Philosophy. In 1870, he began teaching in Michigan University
and when Johns Hopkins University was established, Morris was invited
to teach one semester there so that he kept his position in Michigan.
It appeared Morris read and discovered Hegel in 1880 and saw it
as the culmination of modern philosophy that explained everything—all
ideas, institutions, science, the world, truth, existence—as God, the abso-
lute self-consciousness. According to Dewey, Morris was a “pronounced
idealist” who brought Hegelianism to the American soil. His “substantial
idealism” differed from the traditional “subjective idealism” in that he
emphasized the organic relations between subjects and objects while the
latter took a mechanistic view of the object imprinting “impressions” on
the subject. For ontology, subjective idealism lapsed into skepticism and
 3 JOHNS HOPKINS YEARS 33

agnosticism, but substantial idealism saved it by postulating the existence

of the “universal self”, the Hegelian notion of absolute self-consciousness,
the IDEE (Dykhuizen 1973: 33). As we shall see, this notion of universal
self-consciousness brought Dewey into heated academic debate a few
years later. See my elaboration in Chapter 5.

Dewey and Morris

Dewey studied philosophy with Morris, mostly under the lens of
Hegelianism. The coursework was extensive and intensive. There were
four courses: Morris lectured “History of Philosophy in Great Britain” for
four hours a week, conducted a “Philosophical Seminary” that required
students to study and present on Greek philosophy, offered another
lecture on “German Philosophy” and a seminar on “Spinoza’s Ethics and
Pantheism” (Dykhuizen: 32). Obviously Dewey got what he wanted to
satisfy his hunger for philosophy. In fact he got much more; Morris’s
impact as a person on Dewey was lasting. Recall that Dewey resolved his
adolescent crisis in Oil City where he found his religious sincerity in his
present existence. But how was that existence related to his philosophical
ideas? Morris supplied the answer from German idealism and Hegel: God,
the Absolute, Existence, Ideas are one. They are an integrated whole. This
satisfied Dewey’s intense emotional craving for unity. In Dewey’s words,
reflecting half a century later:

……There was a half-year of lecturing and seminar work given by Professor

George Sylvester Morris, of the University of Michigan; belief in the
“demonstrated” (a favourite word of his) truth of the substance of German
idealism, and of belief in its competency to give direction to a life of
aspiring thought, emotion, and action. I have never known a more single-
hearted and whole-souled man — a man of a single piece all the way
through; while I long since deviated from his philosophic faith, I should
be happy to believe that the influence of the spirit of his teaching has been
an enduring influence.
While it was impossible that a young and impressionable student,
unacquainted with any system of thought that satisfied his head and
heart, should not have been deeply affected, to the point of at least a
temporary conversion, by the enthusiastic and scholarly devotion of Mr.
Morris……(From Absolutism to Experimentalism, LW5: 152).

Morris was more than a mentor to young Dewey. Morris considered

Dewey his star pupil, who was aspiring and well-read in the history of
34 R. LI

philosophy. Morris had helped Dewey three times in his early career. First,
when Morris was away in the spring semester, he asked young John to
substitute and teach the semester on the history of philosophy; suddenly
John became a philosophy professor! Then, Morris helped John to secure
a fellowship in his second year of study, thus reducing John’s financial
burden. Finally, he recommended John, upon earning his doctorate, to
be a faculty at Michigan. The two worked together until Morris’s prema-
tured death caused by pneumonia in 1889 at age 49. Dewey named his
second son Morris in memory of his mentor-teacher.

Granville Stanley Hall (1844–1924)—Psychologist the First

Granville Stanley Hall (1844–1924) is an unusually daring and pioneering
scholar. He is energetic, ambitious and action-oriented. His academic life
is full of firsts, so I label him “psychologist the First.” To quote a historian
of psychology, Hall

was the first to receive a Ph.D. in the philosophy department at Harvard.

He was the first American student, during the first year of its existence,
at the first officially accepted psychological laboratory in the world—at
Leipzig under Wundt. He founded the first psychological laboratory in
America at Johns Hopkins in 1883…… Hall, furthermore launched the
first psychological journal in English, the American Journal of Psychology
in 1887…… He was the first president of Clark University (1888), where
he established a psychological laboratory for advanced research…… he was
the first president of the American Psychological Association, virtually its
organizer, in 1892 (Roback 1964: 171) (bold type by author)

Academic Route
Hall grew up as a farm boy in Massachusetts and was interested in history.
After finishing secondary education and teaching for a year in a private
school, he was admitted in 1863 to Williams College, a renowned liberal
arts college with high academic standing. Hall was interested in evolu-
tion and philosophy and excelled in college, very much like Dewey. His
reading favorites were J. S. Mill (1806–1873) and the British Associa-
tionists (Hall 1923: 157). After graduation, he went to pursue his study
of philosophy in Union Theological Seminary, New York in 1867. There
in his second year of study in the seminary, he met George S. Morris
who had just returned from Germany with a Ph.D. This had inspired
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
kanssa! Hänen tunteensa ovat kuin lähteen kumpuamista, aavistaa,
että noiden ilmausten takana on todellinen suuri tunne. Itse
olemuksellaan, sillä tuskallisen kauniilla runoudella, joka säteilee
hänen persoonallisuudestaan, hän kirkasti koko kappaleen. Tämä
ilta oli huomattavin ja kaunein kaikista hänen näytäntöilloistaan.» —

*****

Alkujaan vuosien 1904—1905 kiertue oli suunniteltu laajemmaksi

kuin miksi se lopullisesti muodostui. Haastattelijoilleen Ida Aalberg
kertoi käyvänsä seurueineen m.m. Wienissä, Budapestissä,
Bukarestissa, ehkäpä Konstantinopolissakin. Matka Wieniin tuntuikin
varsin luonnolliselta; hänen seurueensa oli sieltä ja koko matkan
käytännöllisenä järjestäjänä toimi wieniläinen Ignaz Kugel. Tuosta
suunnitelmasta ei kuitenkaan tullut mitään, mutta sensijaan Ida
Aalberg antoi suuren joukon näytäntöjä Riiassa, Pietarissa ja
Moskovassa. Kiertueen ohjelmiston ytimenä olivat luonnollisesti
Ibsenin kappaleet ja Sudermannin »Koti», Suomessa oli esitetty
myöskin Strindbergin »Rikoksia», toisin paikoin taas Bernard Shaw'n
»Candidaa», »Kotia», »Eno Vanjaa», tai, kiertueen loppuaikoina
Venäjällä, Dumas'n »Kamelianaista» ja Zolan »Thérèse Raquin'ia».

Näytännöt Pietarissa ja Moskovassa menestyivät erinomaisesti.

Ida Aalberg näytteli Pietarissa useimmiten aivan täysille huoneille, ja
arvostelu oli erittäin kiittävää. Siellä hänellä olikin entuudestaan suuri
kannattajajoukko, mutta Moskovassa häntä ei aikaisemmin tunnettu.
Arvosteluista, joista lienee syytä ottaa tähän pari kohtaa, näkee kyllä,
että hänen kykynsä sielläkin saavutti täyttä tunnustusta.

»Ruskija Vjedomosti» kirjoitti hänestä:

 »Rouva Ida Aalberg, joka nykyjään antaa vierailunäytäntöjä
Moskovassa, on suuri ilmiö taiteellisessa maailmassa. Tähän saakka
taiteilija on esiintynyt Moskovan yleisölle kolmessa niin erilaisessa
osassa, että niiden täydellistä suorittamista varten vaaditaan hyvin
monipuolista lahjakkuutta. Sudermannin »Kodin» ja
»Kamelianaisen» esittävät monet näyttämötaiteilijat, mutta Ibsenin
»Rosmersholmiin» puututaan verraten harvoin. Tämä johtuu ehkä
siitä, että kolmesta mainitusta näytelmästä »Rosmersholm» vaatii
katsojalta mitä suurinta ajatuskyvyn, ei tunnekyvyn, jännitystä, ja
senvuoksi asettaa suorittajalleen erittäin vaikeita velvollisuuksia.
Seuratessanne rouva Aalbergin esitystä unohdatte nämä vaikeudet,
ja eteenne avautuu itsestään näytelmän aate. Taiteilijalla oli tässä
osassa suuri menestys. Eilen, »Kamelianaisen» esityksessä,
menestys oli yhtä ansaittu, kuten sen läsnäoleva yleisökin
yksimielisesti jälleen vakuutti. Jo tämän liiaksi näytellyn ja
vanhentuneen kappaleen ensi kohtauksesta katsoja tunsi taiteilijan,
joka osaa antaa elävyyttä ja todennäköisyyttä osan mitä
melodraamallisimmille momenteille. Onnettoman Margueriten
kärsimysten vaihteluun rouva Aalberg sulkee niin paljon vilpitöntä
tunnetta, naisellisuutta ja jotakin erityistä, hänelle ominaista
viehättävyyttä, että vanhaa juttua särjetystä sydämestä kuulee
pakostakin liikutettuna ja mielenkiinnoin. Joka näytöksen lopussa
huudettiin taiteilijatarta äänekkäästi esille.»

Arthur Luther arvosteli »Hedda Gableria» »Moskauer deutsche

Zeitungissa»;

»Kuinka on mahdollista, että niin suuren taiteilijan täytyy esiintyä

niin kurjassa huoneistossa! Tässä salissa [n.s. Romanovin
teatterisalissa], jossa toinen puoli ei kuule mitään, toinen puoli ei näe
mitään! Tällä näyttämöllä, missä dekoratsionit huojuvat, kun niihin
koskee! Vain meidän paras teatterimme olisi Ida Aalbergille kyllin
hyvä. Minä näin hänet eilen ensi kerran, mutta en tule tästä lähtien
laiminlyömään ainoatakaan hänen esiintymistään, sillä varmaankaan
hänen esiintymisensä ei tule supistumaan viiteen ilmoitettuun
vierailunäytäntöön.

Ida Aalberg on kauniin viivan taiteilija (ei kauniin pose'n). Jokaisen

yksityisen momentin tahtoisi saada ikuistetuksi. Tämä Hedda Gabler
todellakin kuolee kauneudessa. Naispaholainen hän kyllä on; hänen
pitää se olla, ja unohtumattomana tulee mielessäni säilymään kuva,
kuinka hän polvistuu uunin eteen ja palavat paperipalaset liekehtivät
hänen päänsä ympärillä. Mutta ei se, mikä on villin-saatanallista,
anna hänelle perussävyä (kuten Dumontille, jonka näimme viime
vuonna), vaan se, mikä on kissamaisen-mephistomaista. Kaunis
Mephistopheles? Niin, miksikäs ei? — kuten eräässä Heinen mitä
laajimmalle piireille tuntemattomassa tanssirunoelmassa. Kohtausta
oikeusneuvoksen kanssa toisessa näytöksessä ja loppua, missä hän
vetää sormiaan läpi alinomaa uurastavan Tean suortuvain, en ole
nähnyt vielä kenenkään niin esittävän. Tosin en tunne Dusea tässä
osassa,[29] mutta jo se, että täytyy mennä niin korkealle, kun yrittää
luonnehtia Ida Aalbergia, osoittaa riittävästi, mitä hän meille on.» —

Saksankielinenkään kritiikki ei Venäjällä ollut Ida Aalbergin

kielenääntämistä kohtaan niin ankara kuin vielä 1903 oli oltu
Berlinissä. Ibsenin runous ei ollut tuntematonta Pietarissa ja
Moskovassa, mutta siellä ei tehty sellaisia huomautuksia
käsitysvirheistä kuin Kööpenhaminassa, missä eräs arvostelija oli
sanonut:

»Vi bilder os dog ind at forstaa os paa Ibsen her hjemme —

kuvittelemme täällä kotonakin sentään ymmärtävämme Ibseniä.»
XVIII.

VIIMMEISIEN VUOSIEN TAITEELLISESTA TOIMINNASTA.

Ida Aalbergin kuolemasta on kulunut siksi lyhyt aika, että varsinkin

hänen elämänsä loppuvaiheista on liian vaikea laatia vähänkään
tyhjentävää ja samalla objektiivista kuvausta. Vuoden 1911 suuret
ristiriitaisuudet saivat aikaan, että hän kulutti kolmatta vuotta melkein
toimettomuudessa ja katkerassa ja tuskallisessa yksinäisyydessä,
mutta kuitenkin on hänen elämänsä viimmeinen vuosikymmen mitä
rikassisältöisin. Toistaiseksi on mahdollista käsitellä vuosien 1905—
1915 välistä aikaa vain perin suppeassa muodossa.

*****

Ida Aalberg oli kerran toisensa jälkeen yrittänyt näytellä vierailla

kielillä, mutta ei ole mikään ihme, että näin saavutetut voitot jäivät
puolinaisiksi ja ettei hän sitä tietä voinut saavuttaa pysyvää
eurooppalaista ja yleismaailmallista mainetta. Ainoa toinen todellinen
näyttelijä-suuruus, joka 1800-luvulla on yrittänyt samaa, näytellyt
vierailla kielillä, lienee Ristori. Ernest Legouvén puolittain
pakottamana italialainen näyttelijätär esiintyi Parisissa ranskan
kielellä, ja tästä kokeesta ei ainakaan hänellä itsellään ole huonoa
muistoa. Mutta kun Ristori myöhemmin mitä tarmokkaimpien
opiskelujen jälkeen näytteli Lady Macbethia englanniksi, havaittiin
hänen kielensä puutteelliseksi, ja kun hän Amerikassa uskalsi
eräässä saksankielisessä teatterissa tulkita englannin kielellä
pääosaa »Maria Stuartissa», onnittelivat yankeet häntä siitä, että
hän osasi niin hyvin saksaa! »Tuo viimeinen ponnistukseni
valtameren toisella puolella on antanut minulle sangen terveellisen
opetuksen taiteellisesta leikittelystä», kirjoitti Ristori, joka sen jälkeen
tyytyi näyttelemään vain italian kielellä.

Vuosien 1904—1905 suuri kiertue ei epäonnistunut taloudellisesti,

mutta ei myöskään siinä suhteessa antanut tulosta, joka olisi
houkutellut jatkamaan.

Kaikkialla, missä Ida Aalberg esiintyi saksan kielellä, hänet

kuitenkin saatiin tietää suomalaiseksi taiteilijaksi. »Suuri
suomalainen näyttelijätär» on hänen ainaisena nimityksenään,
esiintyipä hän missä tahansa ja minkälaisessa ympäristössä
tahansa. Ida Aalberg tunsi itsensä aina syvimmässä mielessä
suomalaiseksi, ja kun häntä monien Suomalaisen teatterin kanssa
sattuneiden ristiriitaisuuksien aikana syytettiin isänmaallisuuden
puutteesta, ei hän milloinkaan tahtonut myöntää tuota syytöstä
oikeutetuksi. Kaarlo Bergbomin teatteri ei hänestä vain ollut ainoa,
jossa suomalaista näyttämötaidetta voitiin palvella.

On joskus sanottu, että Kaarlo Bergbom oli joka kerta, kun Ida
Aalberg tuli Suomalaiseen teatteriin, äärettömän iloinen ja että hän
huokasi helpotuksesta joka kerta, kun näyttelijätär taas lähti pois.
Heidän kirjeenvaihtonsa antaa sangen paljon tukea tämmöiselle
väitteelle. Aina 1880-luvun alusta lähtien Suomalaisen teatterin
johtaja kirjoittaa niin nöyriä ja pyytäviä kirjeitä, että toisinaan tuntuu
melkein pahalta, kun näkee, miten kopeasti ja vaateliaasti Ida
Aalberg niihin vastaa. Kaarlo Bergbomia kohtaan Ida Aalberg esiintyi
loppuun asti kuin hemmoteltu lapsi, joka äksyilee ja niskottelee ja
kokeilee, kuinka pitkälle vanhempien rakkaus ulottuu. Suhde ei tosin
tullut milloinkaan myöhemmin niin huonoksi, kuin se oli ollut 1890-
luvun alkuvuosina, mutta liiankin selvää on, että Ida Aalbergin
käyttäytyminen vanhaa suosijaansa kohtaan myöhemminkin jätti
toivomisen varaa.

Vuonna 1902 Suomalainen teatteri muutti uuteen asumukseen ja

sai nimekseen Suomen Kansallisteatteri. Ida Aalberg oli antamassa
loistoa avajaisjuhlallisuuksille, mutta sai tuosta käynnistään
Helsingissä tyytymättömyydenaiheen Bergbomia vastaan.

Vuoden 1903:n alussa Kaarlo Bergbom kirjoittaa Ida Aalbergille:

»Arvoisa rouva Paroonitar!

Olen kolme viikkoa ollut vuoteen omana, sairastanut pahaa

keuhkokuumetta. Siinä syy, miksi en käynyt luonanne Helsingissä
ollessanne. Mutta hyvälle ystävälle Thérèse Hahlille olitte silloin
sanonut sanan, joka kovin kipeästi koski minuun. Syynä siihen,
ettette esiinny Helsingissä on muka »Bergboms bry sig icke om att
hafva mig» [Bergbomit eivät välitä minun tulostani sinne.]

Jos niin sanotte päästäksenne kysyjästä, jolle ette tahtonut antaa

vastausta, olkoon menneeksi. Mutta jos tosiaan sitä ajattelittekin,
erehdytte suuresti. Sekä minulle että sisarelleni on käyntinne
näyttämöllämme juhla. Tulkaa niin usein kuin tahdotte — aina olette
tervetullut. Meille iloksi, — teatterille kunniaksi. Muutamat
epäkohdat ovat Teitä suututtaneet ja Te laskette ne meidän
niskoillemme muistamatta, että me niistä saamme kärsiä paljon
enemmän kuin Te. Ne ovat Teille vastuksina muutamia viikkoja,
meille vuosien läpi.

Siis — jos tulette Maaliskuulla, tervetullut. Jos mieluummin tulette

Pääsiäisen perästä, tervetullut. Jos lykkäätte käyntinne syksyksi,
tervetullut silloinkin. Mainitkaa missä osissa tahdotte esiintyä, että
saamme valmistaa käännökset hyvän sään aikana. Jos tahdotte
suullisesti keskustella siitä, tulen Pietariin — mutta en nyt kohta,
olen vielä liian heikko. Mutta myöhemmin.

Kunnioittaen

Kaarlo Bergbom.»

Ida Aalberg kirjoitti vastaukseksi:

»Arvoisa Herra Tohtori!

Teidän kirjeenne 18 p:ltä olen vastaanottanut.

Te olette kummastunut kuinka minä olen uskaltanut sanoa

uskovani, ettei minua Kansallisteatterissa tarvita. — Minä olen sen
uskaltanut syystä, että olin saanut sen vakuutuksen ja iloitsen
suuresti nähdessäni, että siis se ei ole niin. Syytä tähän
vakaumukseen on minulle kylliksi teatterin avausjuhla-asiassa
annettu.

Tänä keväänä en enää tule.

Sitäpaitsi sanoitte syksyllä, ettei löydy minulle repertoiria. — Mitä

myöhempään tulee siitä voimme myöhemmin päättää. Iloitsen että
terveytenne on parempi ja toivon sydämellisesti pikaista
voimistumistanne voidaksenne edelleen kehittää ja nostaa
suomalaista taidetta.

Kunnioituksella

Ida Aalberg-Uexküll.»

Vaikka nämä kaksi kirjettä antavat verraten tyypillisen näytteen

heidän kirjeittensä yleisestä sävystä, on kuitenkin varmaa, että Ida
Aalbergin sydämen pohjalla oli mitä suurin hellyys Kaarlo Bergbomia
kohtaan. Kun tohtori kesällä 1903 on sairaana ulkomailla, tiedustelee
Ida Aalberg hätääntyneenä hänen osoitettaan saadakseen lähettää
hänelle sydämellisen osanottonsa ilmauksen. Ja saatuaan kuulla,
että Bergbom alkoi toipua, Ida Aalberg kirjoittaa Augusta af
Heurlinille: »Ole hyvä purista lämpimästi Tohtorin kättä ja sano
hänelle kuinka hartaasti toivon että hän meille takaisin annettaisiin,
suurta työtänsä ainakin suurella hengellänsä ohjaamaan.»

Kerrotaan, että Ida Aalberg itki kokonaisen vuorokauden saatuaan

tiedon Kaarlo Bergbomin kuolemasta. Varmaa on, että hän
jälkeenpäin tohtori Bergbomista puhuessaan ilmaisi mitä syvintä
kunnioitusta ja ihailua. Tämä myöhäinen kiitollisuus ja tunnustus on
vanha tarina hyvästä teatterinjohtajasta ja hyvästä näyttelijästä, Ida
Aalberg ei menetellyt paremmin eikä huonommin kuin hänen
ammattialallaan yleensä menetellään. Jos Ida Aalberg alusta lähtien
olisi mukautunut kaikkiin Kaarlo Bergbomin toivomuksiin, ei ole
lainkaan sanottu, että hän olisi näyttelijänä kasvanut niin suureksi
kuin kasvot. Esiintyessään vain vierailijana hän saattoi valita
mieleisensä ohjelmiston, sai välillä tarpeellisia lepoaikoja, säästyi
yleisön kyllästymiseltä enemmän kuin teatteriin vakinaisesti kuuluvan
näyttelijän on mahdollista. Ida Aalbergin henkilökohtainen suhde
Kaarlo Bergbomiin ei ole kuvaavaa vain yleiselle teatteripsyykelle
vaan sen takaa näkyy — jos nimittäin katsoo vain tämän suhteen
nurjaa puolta — itsesäilytysvaisto, jota ei voi muitta mutkitta tuomita.
Ristiriidat heidän välillään lienevät, niin näkyviä kuin ovatkin,
kuitenkin olleet verraten pinnallisia. On uskottavaa, että
kumpaisenkin suurimpana riemuna oli työskentely yhdessä, vaikka
Ida Aalberg ei ollut sitä aina kovin halukas tunnustamaan.

Kaarlo Bergbomin kuoltua Ida Aalbergista katosi halu

»eurooppalaistua». Tämän jälkeen hän esiintyi vain suomenkielisenä
näyttämötaiteilijana. Lukuunottamatta muutamia
hyväntekeväisyysnäytäntöjä Pietarissa, joissa hän suomenkielellä
tulkitsi Hugo von Hoffmansthalin »Elektraa», ja lyhyttä
suomenkielistä vierailumatkaa Unkariin ja Pietariin vuonna 1907
hänen koko taiteellinen toimintansa tapahtuu kotimaassa. Tuntuu
melkein siltä, että Bergbom vasta kuolemallaan kirkasti Ida
Aalbergille elämäntyönsä arvon.

*****

On joskus sanottu, että onnellisessa avioliitossa on vaikeata

määritellä, mikä osuus kummallakin puolisolla on yhteisessä
saavutuksessa.

Ida Aalbergin ja vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenbandin avioliitossa

tuntuu
erääseen aikaan olleen verraten varmasti määritelty työnjako.
Vapaaherra edusti yhteisessä taiteellisessa työssä teoreettista älyä,
Ida Aalberg oli toimeenpaneva voima.

Ida Aalberg oli erinomaisen henkevä ja älykäs nainen. Vapaaherra

Uexküll-Gyllenbandin suuresta vaatimattomuudesta johtui, että eräät
aikalaiset pitivät Ida Aalbergia perusluonteeltaan älyllisenä.
Tämmöinen erehdys on kyllä ymmärrettävää: on ollut suuri elämys
kuulla tuon henkevän naisen toistavan miehensä teoreettisia oppeja,
jotka koko luonteeltaan olivat erikoisia ja rohkeasti yksilöllisiä.

Ida Aalberg oli älykäs, mutta ei älyllinen. Kaikenlainen

teoretisoiminen oli hänen luonteelleen tuiki vierasta, hän oli nainen ja
hänellä oli — kaiken opiskelun ja lueskelun jälkeenkin — liian vähän
varsinaista älyllistä kouluutusta pystyäkseen ominpäin
muodostamaan teoriaa.

Ida Aalbergilla on kuitenkin ollut oma osuutensa miehensä

teoreettiseen ajatteluun. Hän on määrännyt sen suuntaa. Ida
Aalberg oli ollut aiheena siihen, että vapaaherra Uexküll-
Gyllenbandin filosofia kohdistui 1890-luvun lopulla
näyttämötaiteeseen. Hänellä on täytynyt olla määräävä osuus siinä,
että vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenbandin teoreettisessa kannassa
Kaarlo Bergbomin kuoleman jälkeen tapahtui eräs oleellinen muutos.

Vuonna 1908 julkaistiin »Ajassa» eräs kirjoitus Ida Aalbergin

nimissä. Artikkelin otsikkona oli: »Kansa ja teatteri». Se on pitkä
kirjoitus ja luonteeltaan sangen teoreettinen, vaikka lupaakin alussa
pysyä käytännön kannalla. Se saarnaa kosmopolitismia vastaan
taiteen alalla, se väittää, että hyvän taiteen tulee olla kansallista. Se
puhuu Kaarlo Bergbomin jättämästä perinnöstä, kansallisesta
teatterista, jota olisi kohotettava ja vaalittava.

Vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenband oli perusluonteeltaan

kosmopoliitti. Taide, ei kansallinen ja suomalainen taide, vaan
yleisinhimillinen taide, oli ollut hänen johtotähtenään. Asettuiko siis
Ida Aalberg miestään vastaan tuossa kirjoituksessa? Se ei ole
luultavaa, päinvastoin näyttää siltä, että koko kirjoitus on vapaaherra
Uexküll-Gyllenbandin laatima. Tyyli »Kansa ja teatteri» artikkelissa ei
ole Ida Aalbergin yksinkertaista ja havainnollista, vaan vapaaherra
Uexküll-Gyllenbandin filosofian ja juridiikan kyllästyttämää tyyliä.[30]
Mutta itse perusajatuksen muodostamisessa Ida Aalberg lienee ollut
»primus motor», aloitteen tekijä ja määräävä voima.

Ida Aalberg kirjoitti elämänsä lopulla eräitä erittäin kauniita

tunnelmakuvauksia, semmoisia kuin aikaisemmin mainittu
»Kotiseudun lumous» tai muistelma Oulunkoskien laskusta erään
kiertueen aikana. Kuitenkaan hän ei tunnu kernaasti tarttuneen
kynään, jos oli kysymys julkisuudesta. Esim. vuoden 1908 alussa
Kansallisteatterin »Elinan surman» esityksestä kirjoitettu ja hänen
nimissään julkaistu arvostelu saattaa kyllä sisältää hänen omat
mielipiteensä, mutta on alusta loppuun vapaaherra Uexküll-
Gyllenbandin laatima: on tallella vapaaherran saksalainen konsepti,
jota ei mitenkään voi selittää suomalaisen alkutekstin käännökseksi.

Jalmari Hahlin ollessa Suomen Kansallisteatterin johtajana Ida

Aalberg kevätkaudella 1907 vieraili kahdessa osassa:
tuntemattoman kotimaisen tekijän »Luvatussa maassa» ja Victor
Hugon »Lucrezia Borgiassa». »Valvojassa» Eino Leino merkitsi
edellisen kappaleen perin heikoksi, jälkimmäisen vanhentuneeksi ja
kirjoitti Ida Aalbergin osalle:

»Mitään erikoisen uutta eivät nämä Ida Aalbergin vierailut tällä

kertaa esityksen puolesta tarjonneet. Mutta luonnollisesti on hänen
oma taiteensa aina omiaan aateloimaan Kansallisteatterin
näyttämön siksi tunteiden ja väkevien mielikuvien kentäksi, joka sen
oikeastaan tulisi olla ja joksi ainoastaan Ida Aalberg sen vielä voi
tehdä. Mielestäni on näin ollen arvostelijan tehtävä vain merkitä
omansa ja epäilemättä myös koko teatteriyleisömme syvin
kiitollisuus.» —
 Vuoden 1907:n vierailut Kansallisteatterissa päättyivät kesken,
sillä Ida Aalberg suunnitteli siihen aikaan kiihkeästi vierailuretkeä
Unkariin. Saman vuoden syksyllä hän omine seurueineen esiintyi
sekä Helsingissä että useissa maaseutukaupungeissa näytellen
»Rosmersholmia», »Hedda Gableria», »Elinan surmaa» ja »Kotia».
Kotimaisen arvostelun voi ehkä lyhyimpänä lukea »Vasabladetista»,
joka kirjoitti:

»Ida Aalbergin näytteleminen ei kaipaa monia sanoja. Ei tarvitse

lisätä mitään siihen, minkä jokainen jo tietää, sillä hän on yhä sama
täydellinen näyttelijätär kuin ennenkin. Hänen näyttelemisensä on
viimeistä yksityiskohtaakin myöten viimeisteltyä, siinä on huippuunsa
kehitettyä tekniikkaa, eloa ja suloa kaikissa liikkeissä ja kaiken yllä
sitä sielukkuutta, jonka Ida Aalberg yksin voi luomilleen antaa.
Voimme siis, kuten aina ennenkin, vain tunnustaa, että meidät on
voitettu ja vallattu ja että olemme täynnä ihailua ja ihmettelyä.»

Helsinkiläisessä arvostelussa sentään oli havaittavissa jokunen

soraäänikin. Varsinkin Volter Kilpi suhtautui Ida Aalbergin ja hänen
seurueensa taiteeseen epäillen ja kielteisesti. Pitkän, kotimaassa
tehdyn kiertueen tarkoituksena oli valmistautuminen esiintymistä
varten Unkarissa, missä annettiin muutamia vierailunäytäntöjä
vuoden lopussa. Magyarien kritiikki Ida Aalbergin taiteesta oli
melkein yhtä innostunut ja ritarillinen kuin vuonna 1880. Puhuttiin
»Pohjantähdestä», otettiin vertauskohdiksi Duse ja Bernhardt ja
lisäksi etevä unkarilainen näyttelijätär Emilia Markus. Suomenkielen
sanottiin olevan yhtä kaunista kuin unkarin kieli, jopa joskus
muistuttavan kreikankieltä. »Neues Pester Journalissa» kirjoitettiin:

»Rouva Aalberg on suuri taiteilijatar, lahjakkaisuudessa aivan

kuuluisinten ammattisisartensa vertainen. Ihana, notkea vartalo,
suuret, puhuvat silmät, mieltäkiinnittävät kasvot, joissa kaikki
mielenliikunnot elävästi ja tarkasti kuvastuvat. Hänen koko olentonsa
muistuttaa Dusea, jonka kanssa hänellä on yhteistä tuo melodinen
persoonallisuus, ja Ida Aalberg kuuluu ehdottomasti niihin
näyttelijättäriin, joissa taiteen suuruus ja syvyys yhtyy hempeään
naisellisuuteen ja runolliseen suloon. Hänen puhelunsa, hänen
tapansa esittää inhimillisten tunteiden asteikkoa, on täynnä
intuitsionia ja hienoa taidetta; on yhdentekevää, näytteleekö hän
intohimoisesti liikkeillä vai ilmaiseeko hän mielensä kasvojensa ja
silmiensä ilmeillä.»

Parhaiten menestyi Unkarissa »Elinan surma». Yleisömenestys ei

muodostunut erikoisemmaksi, mutta unkarilaiset ylioppilaat juhlivat
Ida Aalbergia laulamalla hänelle teatterissa, riisumalla hevoset
hänen vaunujensa edestä ja vetämällä hänet loistohotellin eteen,
missä taiteilija Pestissä ollessaan majaili. Vähäinen reservatsioni
siitä, miten Ibseniä oikeastaan olisi näyteltävä, ilmestyi »Pester
Lloyd» lehdessä, mutta ei pahasti himmennä näiden Unkarin
näytäntöjen yleistä tunnelmaa. — Budapestista palattuaan Ida
Aalberg näytteli seurueineen vielä Pietarissa.

Vuonna 1909 Ida Aalberg saavutti huomattavan taiteellisen voiton

esiintymällä Helsingissä »Iphigeneia Tauriissa» draaman
nimiosassa. Hänen lausuntansa ilmehikkyys ja hänen käyttämiensä
asenteiden viivakauneus esiintyi edukseen tässä Goethen
kaihoisassa ja viileässä runoelmassa. Goethen draamassa ei ole
draamallista voimaa, ja Ida Aalberg esiintyi hänkin varsin vieraalla
alalla, mutta kuitenkin oli draaman tulkinta silloisissa oloissa jotakin
varsin poikkeuksellista. Ida Aalbergin oma innostus tarttui muihinkin
näyttelijöihin ja riitti aateloimaan esityksen, joka kuitenkaan ei
saavuttanut suuren yleisön suosiota.
 *****

Jalmari Finne on kertonut sanoneensa kerran Kaarlo Bergbomille:

»Teidän varjonne lyö kumoon viisi seuraavaa Kansallisteatterin
johtajaa.» Näitä sanoja ei oltu sanottu ainoastaan vakaumuksesta ja
todellisesta syvästä ihailusta Kaarlo Bergbomia ja hänen
elämäntyötään kohtaan, vaan myöskin lohdutukseksi Suomalaisen
teatterin perustajalle, joka elämänsä lopulla huokaili suurten
vastuksien ja surujen alla.

Yhtä vähän kuin Aleksanteri Suuri tai Bismarck kasvatti Kaarlo

Bergbom itselleen valtansa perijää ja työnsä jatkajaa. Koko kysymys
tuntuu olleen hänelle vastenmielinen. Aatteen miehenä hänen olisi
pitänyt valita itselleen seuraaja, mutta on hyvin anteeksiannettavaa,
ettei hän sitä tehnyt. Kaarlo Bergbom tiesi persoonallisesta
kokemuksestaan, että teatterinjohtajan vähäinen kunnia maksetaan
nöyryytyksillä ja kieltäymyksillä, joilla on vaikeata yrittää
onnellistuttaa toista ihmistä.

Kaarlo Bergbomin suurimmissa voitoissa oli ollut määräävänä

tekijänä Ida Aalberg. Ei ollut mitään suuruudenhulluutta, jos Ida
Aalberg katsoi itsensä Bergbomin lähimmäksi perijäksi ja Bergbomin
traditsionien suojelijaksi.

Vuonna 1909 Ida Aalberg valittiin Kansallisteatterin taiteelliseen

johtoon.

Jo 1904—1905:n kiertueen aikana Ida Aalberg lienee seisonut

tasavertaisena vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenbandin rinnalla —
vapaaherran itsensäkin mielestä. Ainakin jo sinä vuonna Ida Aalberg
ohjailee, kuten kirjeet osoittavat, saksalaisten näyttelijäin
roolianalyysiä. Tämän jälkeen hän yhä enemmän alkaa puuttua
ohjaukseen, ja esim. Kansallisteatterin ottaessa esitettäväksi
»Iphigeneia Tauriissa» Ida Aalbergin neuvot tuntuvat olleen sekä
määrääviä että hedelmällisiä. Vaikka vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenband
olikin Ida Aalbergin neuvonantajana ja mitä läheisimpänä
työtoverina, sisältyy Ida Aalbergin ohjaajatoimintaan vuosina 1909—
1911 paljon itsenäisyyttä ja omintakeista toimintaa.

Ida Aalberg saapui 1909 Helsinkiin täynnä innostusta ja uskoa ja

harrastusta, joka ei koskenut vain suomalaista näyttämötaidetta,
vaan suomalaista kulttuuria yleensä. Hän tahtoi koota ympärilleen
kansallisen sivistyksen suurimmat edustajat, hän tahtoi perustaa
oman »salongin», hän tahtoi suomalaista näyttämötaidetta
mitattavan vain kaikkein korkeimmilla mitoilla. Nämä optimistiset
toiveet pettyivät täydellisesti: emännän loistavasta seurustelutaidosta
huolimatta »salonki» ei ottanut oikein menestyäkseen, ja taiteellinen
toiminta teatterissa johti mitä surkeimpaan ristiriitaan, Ida Aalbergiin
nähden suorastaan katastroofiin.

*****

Ida Aalberg käsitti itsensä Bergbomin traditsionien suojelijaksi.

Hänen Kansallisteatterin kanssa tekemäänsä sopimukseen kuului,
että hän vuosittain ohjaisi neljä kappaletta, joissa myöskin itse
esiintyisi näyttelijänä.

Kaarlo Bergbomin johdon suurin saavutus lienee siinä, että hän loi
kotimaisen ohjelmiston, vaikutti itseensä draamatuotantoon. Siinä
suhteessa Ida Aalberg koetti olla ehdottomasti uskollinen
traditsioneille. Ottamalla näyttämölle Linnankosken »Ikuisen
taistelun», Maila Talvion »Anna Sarkoilan» ja Eino Leinon
»Alkibiades» näytelmän hän ei noudattanut vain omia mielitekojaan
ja primadonna-vaatimuksiaan, vaan myöskin, ja lähinnä, Kaarlo
Bergbomin traditsioneja. Onni ei kruunannut hänen rohkeita
pyrkimyksiään. Kritiikki ei tosin sivuuttanut hänen innostuneen
työnsä tuloksia kylmästi, vaan tunnusti, että ohjaustoiminnan takana
oli voimakas tahto ja rikas mielikuvitus, mutta sittenkin jäi menestys
puolinaiseksi. Ibsenin »John Gabriel Borkmanin» esityksestä
suomalainen kritiikki sanoi tuomionsanoja ja paljon jyrkemmässä
muodossa kuin aikaisempi ulkomainen kritiikki »Hedda Gablerista»
ja »Rosmersholmista». Vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenband avusti
parhaansa mukaan Ida Aalbergia tässä ohjaustoiminnassa, mutta
hänen »uusi tekniikkansa» tai »psykologinen» suhtautumisensa
tehtäviin ei tullut ainakaan yleiseksi tietoisuudeksi Helsingin
arvostelijain kesken, kun he arvostelivat Ida Aalbergin ohjausta ja
näyttelemistä. »John Gabriel Borkmanin» esitys oli Ibseniin
kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa, sen voi lukea suopeidenkin arvostelujen
rivien välistä, Anna Sarkoilaa Ida Aalberg ainakin toisten mielestä
tulkitsi liiaksi suureen tyyliin.

Suurisuuntaisin ja rohkein teko, minkä Ida Aalberg ohjaajana

suoritti, lienee ollut Linnankosken »Ikuisen taistelun» esittäminen.
Elämänsä lopulla taiteilija, joka niin usein oli näyttämöltä tulkinnut
rikollisia tyyppejä, otti esittääkseen itsensä pahuuden alkuvoiman,
Luciferin. Hän ei kuitenkaan valinnut kappaletta tuon osan vuoksi,
hän selitti nimenomaan, että hänen päätarkoituksensa oli kirjailijan
kannustaminen ja kotimaisen draaman vaaliminen. Ida Aalberg ja
vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenband eivät säästäneet vaivojaan,
ohjauskirjoista näkee, että työtä on tehty hellittämättömällä innolla.
Mutta niin epäitsekäs kuin Ida Aalbergin yritys olikin, »Ikuinen
taistelu» muodostui ehkä pahimmaksi kompastuskiveksi hänen
ohjaajatoiminnassaan. Suuret kustannukset, jotka kappale aiheutti
teatterille, herättivät pahaa verta. Taiteellinen tulos muodostui
mielenkiintoiseksi, mutta ei vakuuttavaksi. Draamaahan ei oltu
tehtykään näyttämön vaatimuksia silmälläpitäen.

V.A. Koskenniemi kirjoitti »Ikuisen taistelun» johdosta m.m.:

‒ ‒ ‒ »Ensimmäinen näytös, Luciferin öinen kokous, on

draamallisesti verraten heikko. Pimeyden ruhtinas on koonnut
ympärilleen oman seurakuntansa, Repokorvat, Vihreäsilmät, Täti
Lierot, Herjakielet, Satasormet j.n.e., ja suunnittelee heidän
kanssaan ihmissuvun viettelemistä Jehovan pelvosta. Taikka
oikeammin: koko näytös on Luciferin varsin epädraamallista
yksinpuhelua, jonka keskeyttävät siellä täällä henkien ulvahdukset
tai muut mielenosoitukset verraten merkityksettömine
vuorosanoineen. Näytelmän heikoimpia puolia on mielestäni se, että
Luciferin kuva kirjailijan ponnistuksista huolimatta jää varsin
vaaleaksi. Byronin Lucifer, Goethen Mefistofeles ja Andrejevinkin
Anatema — kirjallisuuden uusin viettelijätyyppi — ovat kuvatut
samalla kertaa sekä verevämmällä että hienommalla taiteella. Mikä
on Linnankosken Luciferin toiminnan ja tekojen sisin vaikutin? Jos
hän todella tietää alottaneensa »ikuisen taistelun» Jehovaa ja hänen
vaikutustaan vastaan, tuntuu hän tässä ensimmäisessä öisessä
kohtauksessa tuhlailevan yhdellä kertaa liiaksi sydämensä raivoa.
Samalla tekee hän liian kaunopuheliaan vaikutuksen. Hänestä
puuttuu jotain siitä tyynestä sisällisestä auktoriteetista, jonka
mielellään runoilisimme tähän Jehovan väsymättömään, ylpeään
vastustajaan. En tiedä onko runoilija ajatellut tätä tyyppiä luodessaan
paratiisin käärmettä, mutta ainakin tuli se usein Ida Aalbergin
esityksessä mieleen. Joka tapauksessa on »Ikuisen taistelun»
Lucifer mittasuhteiltaan vähäpätöisempi ja inhimillisesti
merkityksettömämpi kuin se ihmislapsi, Kain, johon hän pyrkii
vaikuttamaan. — — —
 *****

Esitys? Siinä pistää kenties ensimmäisenä silmään se ulkonainen

loisto, jolla tämä draama oli asetettu näyttämölle. Dekoratsionien
tyylikäs hienous ja komeus voittaa kaiken, mitä meillä
Kansallisteatterissa on nähty. Jo ensimmäinen kuvaelma idyllisine
maisemineen antoi rikkaan tunnelman. Hauskasti oli keksitty
uneksiva valmurivi rampin luona samoinkuin suuret, koristeelliset
sienet. Toisessa kuvaelmassa oli Luciferin luola niinikään pantu
näyttämölle komealla taiteellisella mielikuvituksella. Aivan yhtä
onnellista vaikutusta eivät tehneet ne henget, jotka tässä luolassa
pitivät kokoustaan. Heidän joukkohuudahduksissaan,
naurunrähäköissään ja koko yleisesityksessä tuntui kyllä huolellinen
ja harkittu johto, mutta koko kuvaelma on itsessään mahdoton
esitettäväksi. Ei voi kernaasti uskoa, että tuo päätön lauma pystyisi
ihmiskuntaa tuhoamaan. Ida Aalbergin komeasti, hillityllä energialla
lausumat vuorosanat antoivat tälle kohtaukselle kuitenkin
eräänlaisen loiston, joka osittain korvasi sen, mitä itse kuvaelmasta
sinänsä puuttuu. Kaiuin näyt toisessa näytöksessä olivat myöskin
huomattavia näyttämöteknillisiä saavutuksia, ehkä kuitenkin
lukuunottamatta muutamia taikalyhtykuvia, jotka olisivat voineet olla
parempia. Uhrikohtauksen stilisoitu maisema sekä viimeisen
kuvaelman syysmetsä olivat harvinaisen tunnelmallisia ja auttoivat
kaiketi osaltaan näytelmää sen taiteelliseen voittoon.

Osien esityksessä kiinnittää mieltä ensi sijassa Ida Aalbergin

Lucifer. On erinomaisen rohkeata naiselle käydä tulkitsemaan
tällaista osaa, jonka luonteeseen kaiken traditsionin mukaan kuuluu
juuri tärkeänä puolena maskuliininen uhma. Kukaan muu kuin Ida
Aalberg olisi tuskin tähän voimankoetteluun antautunut. Hänen
Luciferinsa oli enemmän käärmeellinen kuin uhmaileva, enemmän
raivokas kuin maltillisesti ja tyynesti harkitseva. Se oli eräänlainen
sukupuoleton Mefistofeles, kenties hiukan hermostunut ja
agitatoorinen, mutta monin paikoin, esim. kuiskatessaan Kainille
tämän maatessa maassa tai uhritoimituksen aikana, häikäisevän
demoninen.» — —

Se, että Ida Aalberg sekä ohjaajana että näyttelijänä saavutti

yhden suuren ja ehdottoman menestyksen, nimittäin Ostrovskin
»Ukkosilmassa», ei riittänyt vakiinnuttamaan hänen asemaansa
silloisen johdon silmissä. Ida Aalberg ei, kuten tavallisesti aina
ennen, ollut pystynyt täyttämään taiteensa voimalla katsomoa ja
kassaa, ja senvuoksi Kansallis-teatterin johtokunta kevätkaudella
1911 sanoi hänet irti vakinaisesta toimesta ja toivoi palattavan
entiselle kannalle, t.s. vierailunäytäntöihin, joilla Ida Aalberg
kahdenkymmenen vuoden aikana oli avustanut teatteria.

Sanottakoon Ida Aalbergin ohjausajasta 1909—1911 mitä muuta

tahansa, tämä ainakin on varmaa: hän oli työssään osoittanut niin
valtavaa innostusta ja antaumusta, että tuomio kohtasi häntä
ruhjovalla voimalla. Saamansa ero, jos mikään, muuttui hänelle
tunnekysymykseksi. Hän tunsi ansionsa teatteria kohtaan liian
elävästi kestääkseen näin saamaansa tuomiota, ja oli myöskin liian
vilpitön ja kuumaverinen kyetäkseen suhtautumaan siihen
ylimielisesti ja kylmästi.

Maila Talvio on kertonut, kuinka Ida Aalberg koetti, saatuaan

tiedon erostaan, tulla hänen luokseen. Ida Aalberg pääsi taloon ja
ovesta sisään, mutta lyyhistyi kokoon alimmille sisäportaille, tuijotti
siinä murtunein katsein eteensä ja toisteli raukealla yksitoikkoisella
äänellä: »Niin sitä vaan potkitaan — — pois!»
 Hän oli kuolemaan asti väsynyt, ja koko kohtaus oli kaamea ja
vilpitön kuin kuolema itse. Seuraavina päivinä ennen niin elegantti
Ida Aalberg pakkasi tavaroitaan puku ja tukka epäjärjestyksessä.

1911 Ida Aalberg pani toimeen viimeisen suuren kiertuensa

Suomessa. Lukuunottamatta Hämeenlinnassa sattuneita poliittisia
rettelöitä hän sai osakseen jakamatonta ja lämmintä innostusta.
Kuitenkin täytyy sanoa, että Ida Aalbergin taide alkoi loppuaikoina
olla epäilyksenalaista. Kun hän esitelmöi maaseutukaupungeissa
taiteellisen teatterin tarpeellisuudesta ja kulttuuriarvosta, sai hän
kritiikkejä, jotka olivat vastustavalla kannalla syyttäen Ida Aalbergin
puhuvan toista kuin hän taiteilijana esitti: maaseudullakin uusi aika
alkoi esittää »hillityn suunnan» vaatimuksia täysin tarmoin ja
kiivaasti. Kiivailu »hillityn taiteen» puolesta on naurettavaa, ja
varsinkin muutamassa maaseutulehdessä se esiintyy perin
koomillisessa valossa Ida Aalbergin esitelmämatkan aikana.

Vuosina 1912—1913 Ida Aalberg eli ylpeässä eristyneisyydessä

Viipurissa. Hän ei tahtonut puuttua mihinkään taidetta koskevaan,
hän kieltäytyi näyttelemisestä, lausumisesta, kirjoittamisesta.
Varmaa on, ettei hän tätä kaikkea tehnyt yksin omasta halustaan ja
voimastaan. Vapaaherra Uexküll-Gyllenband sai hänet muistamaan
vuoden 1911:n riitautumista kauemmin kuin hän itse olisi kyennyt
sitä muistamaan. Se oli epätoivon aikaa Ida Aalbergille. Hän
suunnitteli elämäkerran kirjoittamista, hän kävi keittokoulua, hän
lueskeli, hän koetti opiskella venäjän kielen alkeita — mistään ei
tullut vähintäkään tyydytystä.

Tarvittiin vain pieni kirje Juhani Aholta, kun Ida Aalberg unohti
ylpeytensä ja saapui vuoden 1914:n alussa Kansallisteatterin hänen
kunniakseen toimeenpanemiin suuriin juhliin.