Franklin here, that there are at least six personalities 25 distinctly to be recognized as taking part in that dialogue between John and Thomas.

30 Three Johns.

1. The real John; known only to his Maker.

2. John's ideal John; never the real one, and often very unlike him. 3. Thomas's ideal John; never the real John, nor John's John, but often very unlike either.

1. The real Thomas.

35 Three Thomases. 2. Thomas's ideal Thomas.

3. John's ideal Thomas.

Only one of the Three Johns is taxed; only one can be weighed on a platform balance; but the other two are just as important in the conversation. 40 Let us suppose the real John to be old, dull, and illlooking. But as the Higher Powers have not conferred on men the gift of seeing themselves in the true light, John very possibly conceives himself to be youthful, witty, and fascinating, and talks from 45 the point of view of this ideal. Thomas, again, believes him to be an artful rogue, we will say; therefore, he is, so far as Thomas's attitude in the conversation is concerned, an artful rogue, though really simple and stupid. The same conditions. 50 apply to the three Thomases. It follows that, until a man can be found who knows himself as his Maker

knows him, or who sees himself as others see him, there must be at least six persons engaged in every dialogue between two. Of these, the least important, philosophically speaking, is the one that we have 55 called the real person. No wonder two disputants often get angry, when there are six of them talking and listening all at the same time.

1

2

(A very unphilosophical application of the above remarks was made by a young fellow answering to 60 the name of John, who sits near me at table. A certain basket of peaches, a rare vegetable, little known to boarding houses, was on its way to me via this unlettered Johannes. He appropriated the three that remained in the basket, remarking 65 that there was just one apiece for him. I convinced him that his practical inference was hasty and illogical, but in the meantime he had eaten the peaches.)

QUESTIONS FOR STUDY

What meaning does Dr. Holmes intend us to draw from this conversation?

Which one of the three personalities is the most important for us to understand?

What do we mean by studying "human nature"? When the philosopher said "know thyself," to which of the three personalities did he refer?

1 via, by way of.

2 Johannes, John.

MUSIC POUNDING

This little sketch shows Dr. Holmes in a wildly humorous, almost a clownish mood.

I have been to hear some music pounding. It was a young woman, with as many white muslin flounces round her as the planet Saturn has rings, that did it. She gave the music stool a twirl or two 5 and fluffed down on to it like a whirl of soapsuds in a hand basin. Then she pushed up her cuffs as though she was going to fight for the champion's belt. Then she worked her wrists and her hands, to limber 'em, I suppose, and spread out her fingers 10 till they looked as though they would pretty much

cover the keyboard, from the growling end to the little squeaky one. Then those two hands of hers made a jump at the keys as if they were a couple of tigers coming down on a flock of black and white 15 sheep, and the piano gave a great howl as if its tail had been trod on. Dead stop, Dead stop, so still you could hear your hair growing. Then another jump and another howl, as if the piano had two tails and you had trod on both of 'em at once, and then a grand 20 clatter and scramble and string of jumps, up and down, back and forward, one hand over the other, like a stampede of rats and mice more than anything I call music. I like to hear a woman sing, and I like to hear a fiddle sing, but these noises they

hammer out of their wood and ivory anvils - 25 don't talk to me, I know the difference between a bullfrog and a wood thrush.

QUESTIONS FOR STUDY

Is. this satire or just fun? Did you ever hear piano playing like that described here? Against just what is the author protesting?

OF MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETIES

If I belong to a Society of Mutual Admiration?1 I blush to say that I do not at this present moment. I once did, however. It was the first association to which I ever heard the term applied; a body of scientific young men in a great foreign 5 city who admired their teacher, and to some extent each other. Many of them deserved it; they have become famous since. It amuses me to hear the talk of one of those beings described by Thackeray

"Letters four do form his name "

about a social development which belongs to the very noblest stage of civilization. All generous companies of artists, authors, philanthropists,2 men of science, are, or ought to be, Societies of Mutual

1 Mutual admiration, admiration of each other. Observe that the first question is incomplete, as if continuing a conversation not recorded here.

2 Philanthropists, lovers of men.

10

15 Admiration. A man of genius, or any kind of superiority, is not debarred from admiring the same quality in another, nor the other from returning his admiration. They may even associate together and continue to think highly of each other. And so of 20 a dozen such men, if any one place is fortunate enough to hold so many. The being referred to above assumes several false premises. First, that men of talent necessarily hate each other. Secondly, that intimate knowledge or habitual association 25 destroys our admiration of persons whom we esteemed highly at a distance. Thirdly, that a circle of clever fellows, who meet together to dine and have a good time, have signed a constitutional compact to glorify themselves and to put down him and the fraction 30 of the human race not belonging to their number. Fourthly, that it is an outrage that he is not asked to join them.

Here the company laughed a good deal, and the old gentleman who sits opposite said, "That's it! 35 that's it!"

I continued, for I was in the talking vein. As to clever people's hating each other, I think a little extra talent does sometimes make people jealous. They become irritated by perpetual 2 attempts and 40 failures, and it hurts their tempers and dispositions. Unpretending mediocrity is good, and genius is

1 Premises, conditions.

2 Perpetual, continual. Mediocrity, being ordinary or commonplace.