 |
| Not a resting place, as Adler points out. |
OK, so I'm taking another "break" from thinking about planning and logistics for the Archives and the Ethical Culture Institute and how to manage . . . well, I need a break. So it's back to the Adler Study for a little time out.
Bookcase D reveals a number of books on religion, often from followers of some of those religions. Mary Baker Eddy crops up, for example. Joseph Fort Newman's 1926 book---Best Sermons: 1926---seemed sure to be one of those books. Even though it referenced 1926 in the title, there was nothing in the photo of the book that I was working from that told me the date of publication, so I had to dig around a little. Newman's book turned out to be quite popular, and I found it in several repositories.
It took a while to get the publication date, and by that time I had also glanced at the table of contents. I recognized some of the names, e.g., Fosdick, Niebuhr. Imagine my surprise to see Felix Adler among them.
Yes, among the best sermons of 1926, Felix Adler rated with his "An Ethical Attitude toward the Departed."
The source of this lecture is not evident. A keyword search of NYSEC's list of lectures from 1893 to 1933 does not turn it up with either "attitude" or "departed." The lecture was published as a chapter in Adler's Incompatibility in Marriage in 1930, but the only indication of source found there is the prefatory statement: "The addresses in this volume were delivered at considerable intervals and under widely different circumstances" (p. [v]). Perhaps it was given someplace other than NYSEC; perhaps it was given at NYSEC with another title. As work progresses in the NYSEC Archvies, perhaps we will find the original text.
In the meantime, this is another example of what I am calling "reflection." Adler gave a lecture that spread beyond the boundaries of Ethical Culture in quite a positive manner, reflecting Ethical Culture into the larger community. (I emphasize "positive," since there are other examples turning up where the reflection is quite negative, a phenomenon in itself that might merit some further analysis at a later date). In this instance, Adler's lecture was added to a serial publication which seemed largely Christian in its orientation (although Newman, who began as a Baptist in Texas and ended as an Episcopalian in Philadelphia, did have a period of working with "universalist" and "non-sectarian" churches). Given Newman's apparent stature in the early 20th century, I'd say that Adler's inclusion was pretty positive.
Similarly, when the lecture was published as a chapter in Adler's later work, the New York Times gave a positive review (and more reflection), saying:
No one else pleads for the recognition of the ideal, for the luminous and austere but warmly human conception of life's duties and obligations, for the broadly visioned outlook upon human relations with quite the same combination of tolerant acceptance of human frailties and weaknesses and stern insistence on the endeavor of the individual to live up to the best that is in him. (NYT, 3/23/1930) https://nyti.ms/4q49Lgk
The lecture itself (as published by Newman) is a fairly coherent review of the various ways in which we mourn, honor, or forget those who were part of our lives while alive---and then departed. I say "fairly coherent" because one can make a good outline from it and list the various points that Adler makes about how we react to death and then how we should react to death. It will take a bit more study for me to see the cohesion in his concluding paragraphs. The concepts are, at this point, still rather vague to my understanding, although I see striking evidence of Emerson (still) here near the end of Adler's life. It's possible that I am personally more comfortable with his conclusions in "Consolations." It's also possible that I was looking for a more definitive discussion of the "acceptance of human frailties" mentioned by the Times.
Even so, an interesting afternoon with yet another puzzle to solve.
.jpg)
