To Miss Jane Norton.

Sunday morning [November or December, 1867].

I am not so sure as you seem to be that -----’s “house must fall,” especially if the “overwhelming agents” are as scrupulous as you think becoming in the “perfected philosopher.”

I am not one of those who believe that truth will prevail by its own inherent force, — that is, the weight of evidence. The force by which truth will prevail, if it ever does, is the force of flat contradiction, undermining and beating down inveterate prejudice. Unless the floods and the winds beat upon that house, it is just as secure on the sand as on the rock. The temptation there is for assaulting a reputation like ----’s is the obvious one that such personal reputations are the strongest props of the prejudices we oppose. Almost all false dogmas gain currency through the reputation for wisdom of their authors and promulgators; and, as prejudice is more than error, so it must be met by a force more soul-compelling than evidence. A just indignation is not inconsistent with such a “balance of abstract wisdom and justice” as can be maintained in the presence of concrete folly and wrong. Simple truth will outweigh mere error (else it would not be truth); but it requires the strains and blows of passion to overcome the resistance's and tenacities of prejudice, and, if the passion be subject to justice, compassion for the enemy is weakness.

But passionate opposition is no more likely to be just than is tenacious prejudice to be true; and any appearance of such feeling is likely to lessen the effect of just criticism. Consequently, I am greatly indebted to you for your suggestions touching certain words and phrases in my article, which you have promised to note for me.

Forgive the aphorismatic emphasis of these remarks.