1

*This is not perhaps a fair argument

If the Religious part were is not published I shall be absolutely bound to say that it has been omitted – which I should dislike very much – and I do not believe that father would like it.* I have a distinct remembrance of his feeling doubts as to whether he had conceal refrained, in his lifetime, too much from letting his opinions be known. It must be remembered that his letters to two people briefly stating his condition of unbelief, have been published – also the interview with Aveling so

It does not seem worthy of him that his views (on what he certainly felt strongly abt) should only be known through such men as Aveling, and through Haeckel who published the letter illegally and against our wishes. I think if he has felt that his religious views were strictly private and concerned no one

2

but himself he would not have answered the dutch man [Nicolaas Dirk Doedes] or the german student – As to the responsibility of publishing views which may do harm, I think there is a similar responsibility in concealing them.

If fathers the fact that he thought as he did has any weight in changing any one's beliefs, they it may be a great comfort to the many who cannot believe in the old faith and yet feel it wicked to doubt. And if they are to be led by anybody, they may do worse than be led by a great man who writes about it with simple truthfulness and as he says "is content to remain an agnostic". In another way I think it may do as much good as harm that it should be known that a man who led an absolutely pure and honourable

3

life, held the views he did.

If I did not feel sure that he wrote it without thinking that it would be published I should not feel it to be valuable. The responsibility of publicity nests on us; and it would not be like him preaching or dogmatising but as if I remembered his words and published them} This is rather muddled

This kind of feeling prevents my feeling that any presumptuousness can be imputed to him – and we publish it as a wonderful picture of an important bit of his mind and of his life.

As to the idea that he had not thought abt it – I believe that is quite a mistake. He says about 1842 that for two years he "thought much" on religion; and in 1876 he felt his religion so much a part of his life that he wrote a long account of it in his Autobiogry

4

If you remember that the quality of his mind was the power of never losing sight of what interested him & I do not think it can be doubted that he did think about it much. When I get L. Stephen's letter you will see that he does not think it crude, and does think it highly interesting –

As to parents not liking to put such a book before children – I quite respect the feeling – but I think such a book must be written for men and women.

- The only argument I know have heard which has any weight is that it might raise a discussion that might be painful to you. If this were so it would [be] a convincing one.

But I cannot help thinking that the omission would be likely to raise some discussion Tho' I believe neither course would raise a painful discussion – I think is true as

4 5

L. Stephen says that he is certain to be treated with respect.

[5v]

W. E. D & Frank on Religious part of Auto_

About Autobiogry