Song: From Nathan Leopold to Richard Loeb October 10 1923
Viewed: 55 - Published at: 2 years ago
Artist: Nathan Leopold and Richard
Year: 1923Viewed: 55 - Published at: 2 years ago
October 10, 20th Century Limited, 1:45 P.M.
Dear Dick:
I want to thank you first of all for your kindness in granting my request of yesterday. I was highly gratified to hear from you for two reasons, the first sentimental and the second practical. The first of these is that your prompt reply conclusively proved my previous idea that the whole matter really did mean something to you, and that you respected my wishes, even though we were not very friendly. This is a great satisfaction, but the second is even greater, in that I imply from the general tenor of your letter that there is a good chance of a reconciliation between us, which I ardently desire, and this belief will give me a peace of mind on which I based my request.
But I fear, Dick, that your letter has failed to settle the controversy itself, as two points are still left open. These I will now attack. As I wrote you yesterday, the decision of our relations was in your hands, because it depended entirely on how you wished to treat my refusal to admit that I acted wrongly. This request you did not answer. You imply merely that because of my statement that, "I regret the whole matter" I am in part at least admitting what you desire. I thought twice before putting that phrase in my letter, for fear you might misconstrue it, as in fact you have done.
First, you will note that I said that "I regret the whole matter" (not any single part of it). By this I meant that I regretted the crime you originally committed (your mistake in judgment) from which the whole consequences flow. But I did not mean and do not wish to understood as meaning that once this act had been done, I regret anything subsequent. I do not in fact regret it, because I feel sure, as I felt from the beginning, that should we again become friends, it will be on a basis of better mutual understanding as a result of these unpleasant consequences which I deliberately planned and precipitated.
Furthermore, even if I did not regret those consequences, it would not follow at all that I consider myself to have acted wrongly. I may regret that it is necessary to go downtown to the dentist, and still not feel that I am acting wrongly in so doing. Quite the contrary. So if you insist on my stating that I acted wrongly, as a prerequisite to our renewal of friendship, I feel it duty bound to point out to you that this is not the meaning of what I wrote. In this do not think that I am trying to avoid a renewal of these relations. You know how much I desire a renewal but I still feel that I must point this out to you, as I could not consider re-entering these relations when you were under the misapprehensions that I had conceded to what you demanded. On the basis of this construction of my words, then, Dick, should you base your decision.
Next comes the other point of issue, namely, whether I wish to be a party to a reconciliation, supposing that you wish on the basis of the previous statements to do so. Here the decisions rests, not with you, but with me. Now, as I wrote you yesterday, you obviated my first reason for a refusal by telling me what I wanted to know, but another arose, the question of treachery, and that is not quite settled in my mind. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not use the short term "treachery" as you suggested in your letter, to cover whatever you want to call it. I have no desire to quibble over terms, and am sure we both mean the same thing as treachery. Very well.
The whole question must be divided into two, namely, treachery in act and treachery in intention. On your suggestion, the first was to be settled by phoning Dick, as I did, I apologizing verbally on condition that you were right, and implying the same apology from you in case you were wrong.
You were proved wrong, and I am sure you are a good enough sport to stick by your statement, unless you question whether I did all you suggested in good faith. Hence, you remove any previous charge of treachery in act. If there was such. But the second is not so simple. I stated, and still hold, that if you still held me to have acted treacherously in intent, our friendship must cease. You circumvent that by saying you never could have held this opinion because you believe me to have acted hastily, etc. I did my best in stating I was wholly responsible for all I said and did, since I had planned it all, and if there were malice at all it would be malice afterthought. You refuse to believe me. Now, that is not my fault.
I have done my best to tell you the true facts, (since they were in my disadvantage) and hence have discharged my obligation. I still insist that I have planned all I did. You can believe this or not as you like or come to your own decision, or whether you still think I acted treacherously. If you say you do not, then I shall infer either that you never thought so (although you accuse me of it) or that you have changed your mind (and imply these as an apology for ever thinking so) and continue to be your friend. All I want from you then is a statement; that you do not now think me to have acted treacherously in intent, which I will construe as above. Then it is up to you whether you will forego my statement of wrong action or will on your part break up our friendship.
Please wire me at my expense to the Biltmore Hotel, New York, immediately on receipt, stating, one, whether you wish to "break our friendship or to forego my statement, or, two, whether or not you still think me to have acted treacherously. If you want further discussion on either point merely wire me that you must see me to discuss it before you decide.
Now, that is all that is in point to our controversy but I am going to ask a little more in an effort to explain my system of a Neitzschien philosophy with regard to you.
It may have occurred to you why a mere mistake in judgment on your part should be treated as a crime, when on the part of another it should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman, he is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him exempted from the ordinary laws which govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do. Whereas others would be, except for the crime that it is possible for him to commit -- to make a mistake.
Now, obviously any code which conferred upon an individual or upon a group extraordinary privileges without also putting on him extraordinary responsibility would be unfair and bad. Therefore, an ubermensch is held to have committed a crime every time he errs in judgment, a mistake excusable in others.
But you may say that you have previously made mistakes which I do not treat as crimes. This is true. To cite an example, the other night you expressed the opinion and insisted that Marcus Aurelius Antonius was, "practically the founder of stoicism", and in so doing you committed a crime. But it was a slight crime and I choose to forgive it. Similarly I have and had before this matter reached -- I don't know what the next word is -- forgiven the crime which you committed in committing the error in judgment which caused the whole train of events. I did not and do not wish to charge you with a crime, but I feel justified in using any of the consequences of your crime for which you were held responsible to my advantage. This and only this I did, so you see how careful you must be.
Now, Dick, just one more word to sum up. Supposing you fulfill both conditions necessary for reconciliation. One, waive claim to my statement, and, two, state yourself that you no longer think me to have acted treacherously. We are going to be as good or better friends as before.
I want that to come about very much, but not at the expense of your thinking that I have backed down in any way from my stand, as I am sure of that in my mind and want you to be.
Well, Dick, the best of luck if I do not see you again and thanks in advance for the wire I am sure you will be good enough to send. Hoping you will be able to decide in the way I obviously want,
I am
Babe.
P.S. Excuse scrawl. Train is moving. Your spelling, young man, is abominable, and I for one should advocate that Tomeie-boy be taken away from your instruction in the subject.
Dear Dick:
I want to thank you first of all for your kindness in granting my request of yesterday. I was highly gratified to hear from you for two reasons, the first sentimental and the second practical. The first of these is that your prompt reply conclusively proved my previous idea that the whole matter really did mean something to you, and that you respected my wishes, even though we were not very friendly. This is a great satisfaction, but the second is even greater, in that I imply from the general tenor of your letter that there is a good chance of a reconciliation between us, which I ardently desire, and this belief will give me a peace of mind on which I based my request.
But I fear, Dick, that your letter has failed to settle the controversy itself, as two points are still left open. These I will now attack. As I wrote you yesterday, the decision of our relations was in your hands, because it depended entirely on how you wished to treat my refusal to admit that I acted wrongly. This request you did not answer. You imply merely that because of my statement that, "I regret the whole matter" I am in part at least admitting what you desire. I thought twice before putting that phrase in my letter, for fear you might misconstrue it, as in fact you have done.
First, you will note that I said that "I regret the whole matter" (not any single part of it). By this I meant that I regretted the crime you originally committed (your mistake in judgment) from which the whole consequences flow. But I did not mean and do not wish to understood as meaning that once this act had been done, I regret anything subsequent. I do not in fact regret it, because I feel sure, as I felt from the beginning, that should we again become friends, it will be on a basis of better mutual understanding as a result of these unpleasant consequences which I deliberately planned and precipitated.
Furthermore, even if I did not regret those consequences, it would not follow at all that I consider myself to have acted wrongly. I may regret that it is necessary to go downtown to the dentist, and still not feel that I am acting wrongly in so doing. Quite the contrary. So if you insist on my stating that I acted wrongly, as a prerequisite to our renewal of friendship, I feel it duty bound to point out to you that this is not the meaning of what I wrote. In this do not think that I am trying to avoid a renewal of these relations. You know how much I desire a renewal but I still feel that I must point this out to you, as I could not consider re-entering these relations when you were under the misapprehensions that I had conceded to what you demanded. On the basis of this construction of my words, then, Dick, should you base your decision.
Next comes the other point of issue, namely, whether I wish to be a party to a reconciliation, supposing that you wish on the basis of the previous statements to do so. Here the decisions rests, not with you, but with me. Now, as I wrote you yesterday, you obviated my first reason for a refusal by telling me what I wanted to know, but another arose, the question of treachery, and that is not quite settled in my mind. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not use the short term "treachery" as you suggested in your letter, to cover whatever you want to call it. I have no desire to quibble over terms, and am sure we both mean the same thing as treachery. Very well.
The whole question must be divided into two, namely, treachery in act and treachery in intention. On your suggestion, the first was to be settled by phoning Dick, as I did, I apologizing verbally on condition that you were right, and implying the same apology from you in case you were wrong.
You were proved wrong, and I am sure you are a good enough sport to stick by your statement, unless you question whether I did all you suggested in good faith. Hence, you remove any previous charge of treachery in act. If there was such. But the second is not so simple. I stated, and still hold, that if you still held me to have acted treacherously in intent, our friendship must cease. You circumvent that by saying you never could have held this opinion because you believe me to have acted hastily, etc. I did my best in stating I was wholly responsible for all I said and did, since I had planned it all, and if there were malice at all it would be malice afterthought. You refuse to believe me. Now, that is not my fault.
I have done my best to tell you the true facts, (since they were in my disadvantage) and hence have discharged my obligation. I still insist that I have planned all I did. You can believe this or not as you like or come to your own decision, or whether you still think I acted treacherously. If you say you do not, then I shall infer either that you never thought so (although you accuse me of it) or that you have changed your mind (and imply these as an apology for ever thinking so) and continue to be your friend. All I want from you then is a statement; that you do not now think me to have acted treacherously in intent, which I will construe as above. Then it is up to you whether you will forego my statement of wrong action or will on your part break up our friendship.
Please wire me at my expense to the Biltmore Hotel, New York, immediately on receipt, stating, one, whether you wish to "break our friendship or to forego my statement, or, two, whether or not you still think me to have acted treacherously. If you want further discussion on either point merely wire me that you must see me to discuss it before you decide.
Now, that is all that is in point to our controversy but I am going to ask a little more in an effort to explain my system of a Neitzschien philosophy with regard to you.
It may have occurred to you why a mere mistake in judgment on your part should be treated as a crime, when on the part of another it should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman, he is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him exempted from the ordinary laws which govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do. Whereas others would be, except for the crime that it is possible for him to commit -- to make a mistake.
Now, obviously any code which conferred upon an individual or upon a group extraordinary privileges without also putting on him extraordinary responsibility would be unfair and bad. Therefore, an ubermensch is held to have committed a crime every time he errs in judgment, a mistake excusable in others.
But you may say that you have previously made mistakes which I do not treat as crimes. This is true. To cite an example, the other night you expressed the opinion and insisted that Marcus Aurelius Antonius was, "practically the founder of stoicism", and in so doing you committed a crime. But it was a slight crime and I choose to forgive it. Similarly I have and had before this matter reached -- I don't know what the next word is -- forgiven the crime which you committed in committing the error in judgment which caused the whole train of events. I did not and do not wish to charge you with a crime, but I feel justified in using any of the consequences of your crime for which you were held responsible to my advantage. This and only this I did, so you see how careful you must be.
Now, Dick, just one more word to sum up. Supposing you fulfill both conditions necessary for reconciliation. One, waive claim to my statement, and, two, state yourself that you no longer think me to have acted treacherously. We are going to be as good or better friends as before.
I want that to come about very much, but not at the expense of your thinking that I have backed down in any way from my stand, as I am sure of that in my mind and want you to be.
Well, Dick, the best of luck if I do not see you again and thanks in advance for the wire I am sure you will be good enough to send. Hoping you will be able to decide in the way I obviously want,
I am
Babe.
P.S. Excuse scrawl. Train is moving. Your spelling, young man, is abominable, and I for one should advocate that Tomeie-boy be taken away from your instruction in the subject.
( Nathan Leopold and Richard )
www.ChordsAZ.com