This is the third consecutive excerpt from Letters to the Sage, Volume Two, from the appendix on the literary career and family history of Sarah Stanley Grimké
Personified Unthinkables, published in Detroit in 1884, reflects the influence of Cyrus Bartol and his doctrine of mental pictures. Sarah’s marriage to Archibald Grimké had brought her into the orbit of his Hyde Park relatives, who like Bartol were Unitarians with a sympathetic interest in Christian Science. Another Hyde Park resident adopted mental pictures as a key element in her own belief system. First Lessons in Reality, published two years later, reflects the influence of Mrs. Elizabeth Stuart, who had treated Sarah for heart disease and attributed her organic illness to her despairing husband. The dissolution of her marriage had begun when Personified Unthinkables was published and was complete by the time First Lessons in Reality appeared. Stuart was part of a group resignation from the Christian Scientist Association in 1881, and had formed an independent New Thought organization, named Light, Love, Truth, in the interval between Sarah’s two publications. J.F. Eby, Printer, of Detroit was the publisher of each, implying that these first two sections were self-published. Only in the final portion of Esoteric Lessons, A Tour Through the Zodiac, do we find evidence of association with the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, whose leaders published the collection after Sarah’s death.
The entire record of Elizabeth’s Stuart’s affiliation with Mary Baker Eddy is dated in a single year. In her first letter dated January 25, 1881, Stuart referred to Eddy’s “visit to us and your words of encouragement” and expressed her “earnest desire to heal the sick through the Understanding of Truth” which had already “met with a good share of success” despite the fact that she had been unsuccessful in becoming “free from some old Beliefs.” This was as a result of having had surgery for removal of a fibroid tumor the previous winter, which had left her with residual symptoms that made her fear a recurrence. She asked Eddy for “seven or ten treatments or Lessons, for the unfolding of my spiritual perceptions” and asked the cost.[i]
Two months later, Stuart wrote again following a meeting of the Christian Scientist Association that Eddy had been unable to attend. She alluded to a suggestion by Eddy that Edward Arens was trying to deter her from embracing Christian Science, writing that “I am not easily moved from a firm determination, and I have not the slightest fear of Dr. Arens if my weapons are not stronger than his, then let me go down…we will return Good for Evil and thus disarm all enemies.”[ii] She closed with an expression of desire to take class instruction from Eddy, writing “I will wait with patience the summons to the feast.”[iii] In April, she and Jane L. Straw addressed a formal joint request to Eddy: “Having become mystified, by one Edward Arens, with regard to the Science of Healing, we now come to you, to learn that which, we believe, him incapable of Teaching, namely, Metaphysics.”[iv] Stuart’s next, undated, letter was entirely focused on Eddy’s struggles with Arens over his plagiarism of Science and Health. She advised Eddy to let the matter “die a natural death,” arguing that “it is too low for your name to be associated with him in the Courts….work silently and we will work with you: vanquish him that way.”[v] Stuart and Jane Straw issued an undated statement repudiating Arens: “We studied Mrs Eddy’s system of metaphysical healing of Edward J Arens but he did not teach it and we did not understand it as we have since learned. And we did not learn of him how to heal the sick according to metaphysics.”[vi] In June Stuart and Straw were among 22 signers of an affidavit defending Eddy against criticisms from her former students: The signers testified “that we have studied Mary M.B. Eddy’s system of metaphysics” and “know her to be a highly conscientious pure minded Christian woman.”[vii] The same week, Stuart and others personally appeared before a Justice of the Peace in Essex County, and swore under oath to the truth of the affidavit.[viii]
Although Eddy chose not to prosecute Arens for plagiarism, she did denounce him in a revised third edition of Science and Health, which Stuart had advised against doing.[ix] In a third, undated letter, Stuart addressed Eddy as “My Darling,” and explained that her wish to visit her in Lynn had been thwarted by her own health problems. On Monday October 15, she reported being better, able to go into the city by train to visit her own patients, and confident that “the dawn is breaking the clouds are tipped with roseate hues, and soon very soon our horizon will be cloudless. Their poisoned arrows can no more penetrate the armour of Truth than the worm which crawls at your feet can pluck the Stars from the firmament. Each arrow rebounds with double force upon its owner.”[x] Although Stuart had reported to the other students that Arens would “order his students to ‘take up’ Mrs. Eddy mentally,” she was disinclined to believe this had affected Eddy’s health.[xi] The last letter she wrote to Eddy was an undated note written later in October, which closed with assurance of support in the struggle with Arens, but her methods apparently were so repellent that Eddy never replied: “Mrs. S. – and – myself will fasten our fangs into them and Compel them to Stop, I will not leave you night nor day, but will employ my Thoughts like hot Shells unto their camp. God will help the Right and vanquish the foe.”[xii]
The group resignation from the Christian Scientist Association was dated October 21, only six days later. Stuart and seven others signed a proclamation to the effect that Eddy’s “frequent ebullitions of temper, love of money, and the appearance of hypocrisy” left them no choice but to “most respectfully withdraw our names from the Christian Science Association and Church of Christ (Scientist).”[xiii] Five days later on October 26, with Mrs. Eddy in the Chair, the CSA met at her home and unanimously passed a vote to the effect that “your unchristian communication of Oct. 21, 81, renders you liable to Church disipline” and that “You are hereby notified to appear before the Church of Christ (Scintist) at 8 Broad St. Lynn on Monday Oct 31 At 5 P.M. To answer for unjust proceeding.”[xiv] None of the dissidents attended, but ten days later the remaining members voted to expel Howard, Rice, and Rawson for conduct unbecoming a Christian Scientist.
On November 2, Eddy wrote to William Stuart, objecting to his “highly improper language and false statements” to an unnamed male disciple which revealed how he was influenced “by the silent arguments of those lying in wait to fulfill their threats to ruin my reputation and stop my labors for the uplifting of the race.” Eddy protested that she had refused to accept Mrs. Stuart as a patient but accepted her as a pupil after “ceaseless IMPORTUNITIES.”[xv] Less than week later, on November 8, Eddy wrote to Clara E. Choate blaming James E. Howard and Miranda Rice for swaying the other six to resign “I have learned for a certainty that Howard and Mrs. Rice carried the other five by making you the issue.”[xvi] When Howard, Rice, and others were subsequently expelled on October 31 for conduct unbecoming a Christian Scientist[xvii] Stuart was expelled on the lesser charge of unconstitutional conduct, yet she was singled out for more criticism in subsequent years than any of the others who resigned simultaneously.
The harshest criticism was made in an article that in its final version concealed the name of Elizabeth Stuart and the author of the piece. Edmund G. Hardy’s “Workings of Animal Magnetism,” published in August 1889 in the Christian Science Journal, was published after extensive editing by Calvin Frye. The proofs of Hardy’s original text survive in the Mary Baker Eddy Library and are far more revealing than the final product. Hardy had given a report of his acquaintance with Stuart and Eddy to a recent class instruction and was requested to repeat the information for the Journal. He wrote:
Six years ago I went for healing to Mrs. William Stuart, then claiming to heal by Christian Science in Hyde Park, Mass. After receiving relief, and as I then believed healing, I sought to know the process by which she was enabled to do this work…This search led me to “SCIENCE AND HEALTH,” and then to Mrs. Eddy. Mrs. Eddy very kindly gave me nearly an entire evening, during which I related my experience. She spoke no word denouncing Mrs. Stuart, but did call to my attention the false and the true teaching, and said to me, “I hope, Mr. Hardy, that when you study you will get the truth.” I returned to Mrs. Stuart, joyful in the thought that I had met Mrs. Eddy, but imagine the confusion of mind when I was met by the one whom I believed to have healed me, with the declaration that Mrs. Eddy had departed from the path of Science, into selfishness, mesmerism, &c., and assured me that she had used this power on the very night of my call to make her sick; that she never was so sick in her life as at the very time I was in conversation with Mrs. Eddy.[xviii]
Hardy reveals Stuart in 1883 as intensely antagonistic and competitive towards Eddy, making accusations of mesmerism, just as she was gaining an unhealthy influence over Sarah, according to her husband and his family.
Theodore Weld had been present with his fellow Hyde Park Unitarian William Stuart at a May 25, 1881 meeting of the Christian Scientist Association, where they both were listed as “visiting friends” who participated in remarks about the “good of the order.”[xix] William Stuart was a pall bearer for Theodore Weld in 1895, but for much of the intervening period there was tenstion between the families. Although Weld was an early Mind Cure enthusiast, his only letter to Mrs. Eddy was a denunciation of gossip in which she had engaged with an unidentified “Mrs. S.,” probably Elizabeth Stuart. He wrote on November 21, 1881, complaining that his niece Mrs. Day had heard reports of gossip that she was regarded as “a perfect disgrace to the family” who “dressed herself as she did in order to attract the notice of gentlemen” and that the family “wished she would go back where she came from.” Weld indignantly denied all these charges, writing “To all of this I have only to say- that none of us ever had the least suspicion that Mrs. Day had in her styles…gait in walking & independent manner, expression of countenance, erect attitude & dignified…presence which distinguishes her the least thought of thereby attracting the notice of gentlemen or any others. That air manners &c were born with her & it is a personal idiosyncracy & nothing else. As to a disgraceful family history connected with her none of us ever heard or suspected the existence of any such thing…ever said that she was a disgrace to us—never thought…never known or heard that some one questioned her moral character in the least particular. She has always moved in the most respectable circles of society & has always been well regarded & spoken of…entitled to distinguished consideration.”[xx]
Sarah’s involvement with Elizabeth Stuart would lead to the end of her marriage. At the time of her separation from Archibald, the response of Moses Stanley shows that he was no racist opponent of the marriage, but earnestly hoped to save it. In May 1883 Archie wrote to his father in law after Sarah had announced that she did not intend to return to Boston from a vacation she had taken with their daughter Angelina to Michigan:
She seemed unhappy – she was unwell. I believed that much of her ill health was caused by the inactive & apathetic life she was living – but still I think we might have got from under the cloud but for the happening of one of the most important events in our marriage life. It was Sarah’s treatment by Mrs. Stuart. You know about Mrs. Stuart? Well her theory is that every disease is produced by some fear. Each patient she treats she endeavors to discover the cause of the disease. It is no matter what cause she has fastened on as the pregnant one—if she could make Sarah believe it—it of course will produce some effect proportioned to the current of the belief of the patient. She found the cause and occasion of Sarah’s ailments to be grounded in her relations to me. What Sarah lacked was something positive—some active principle—Mrs. Stuart declared that Sarah’s relations to me had destroyed her will—her individuality—had reduced her to a state of mental and moral subjection. She held me up before Sarah in the character of an oppressor—a selfish & lordly man—mark you however this woman had never seen us together but once & knew nothing of us except what Sarah had told her & what she had added too by the aid of her imagination…. I felt that to be called an oppressor when I had not scrupled to do all the house work—such as washing dishes—emptying chamber pots—sweeping rooms—making beds—taking in the clothes—in short doing without a murmur every thing which women ordinarily were accustomed to do— & all to save my wife—yes sir to be called an oppressor & the author of my wife’s diseases—seemed more than I could or ought to bear. I called Sarah’s attention to the fact that she had been sick before she knew me at all—that Dr. Sofford [Daniel Spofford—ed] who treated her when a student in Boston University had told me that she was diseased + naturally delicate—that before she left home at all her life had been despaired of by her own statement the Drs. At Ann Arbor had pronounced her disease of the heart organic…[xxi]
Moses replied on May 22, 1883, from Mackinac Island, “You are both dear to me and I earnestly wish & desire to do what shall be for your mutual good. I think you are correct as to the cause of all—poor health & the most extremely sensitive organization. She has never been well since she had the scarlet fever in her 4th year. She went to Boston an invalid, & it is ungenerous as it is unjust, for Mrs. Stuart or Sarah or anyone to charge you with her poor health so please stick that arrow in the fire & never let it prick you again. You are conscious of having done what you could to make her happy— let that comfort you.”[xxii]
Archibald Grimké and his old friend and mentor Frances Pillsbury shared an equally negative view of Mrs. Stuart. Pillsbury had been headmaster of the Charleston school in which Archibald and his brothers were enrolled at the end of the Civil War, and was instrumental in arranging for them to study at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. Her husband Gilbert, brother of famed abolitionist Parker Pillsbury, had been the Reconstruction mayor of Charleston for several years. They returned to Massachusetts before Archie went there to study. In an 1873 letter written soon after his arrival at Harvard, Frances exulted in his good fortune to be embraced by his Grimké aunts and Theodore Weld, and recalled the last time she had seen him, sailing away from South Carolina:
Ah! Archie, when I think of you a halo of light and happiness seems to surround you, & a great happiness lightens my thoughts. That you are really at Cambridge drinking from the very fountain you desire, that you are so perfect yourself, winning love & respect from all—that you are beloved & cared for by the noblest and tenderest of families your uncle and aunt Weld is more than a satisfaction…Thank heaven for the flowery harbor into which the storms have driven you!”[xxiii]
Frances Pillsbury became Archie’s closest confidante after Sarah left, judging from his extant correspondence, and she shared his sense of outrage at the role of Elizabeth Stuart in inciting Sarah to end the marriage. The flowery harbor of life in Boston was to become stormy, and Archie blamed the Welds’ friends and neighbors the Stuarts more than he blamed Sarah. In an undated letter from 1883, Archie wrote to Moses Stanley blaming Elizabeth Stuart not just for instigating Sarah’s original departure, but also for undermining Stanley’s attempt to reconcile them. “I wrote Sarah in the terrible agony of my grief to have mercy on me- I prayed her forgiveness- I besought her save me with her love- the appeal touched her her love & tenderness & loyalty reasserted themselves for a moment—Mrs. Stuart hearing that Sarah was irresolute whether to go or return wrote her a pack of falsehoods—about what I had said to my uncle about her. And this the second opportunity slipped by me & was lost.”[xxiv]
In his first letter to Sarah after she announced that she would not return from Michigan, Archie made very clear that he considered the Stuarts to blame:
You are in no condition at present to view this matter dispassionately & fairly. You can only see your side – & your side as it has appeared to your friend Mrs. Stuart. I do verily believe that you are entirely under her control, & cannot think your own thoughts or do your own will if she interferes…Well then dear the morning that you intended to leave- you will remember that I asked you whether you intended to return & I then said that if you stayed in Mass. I would take Nana away from you- & Mrs. S? I had an indefinite apprehension that you & others were plotting against me- that your action for two months or six weeks was the result of some secret understanding between you & others, I felt that the Stuarts were in this – that morning when I said I would take Nana away from you it was because I somehow felt that you might go to live with the Stuarts & take Nana there & defy me to take her or to have any thing to do with her. [xxv]
Evidently Sarah had complained that Archie had induced the Welds to consider her insane, and Stuart had been the bearer of this message, as he continued:
Do not say that I have destroyed or shaken the trust of the Welds in your word or sanity—For Uncle Theodore discovered the above discrepancy between the statement which you made to Mrs. Stuart & the one which you afterwards made to him – & this my dear he volunteered to tell me. And as to the matter of your sanity- he said that he discovered something in your countenance which suggested possibilities in the direction of insanity long before he ever spoke to me about you.[xxvi]
Frances Pillsbury began to serve as a go-between, or informant, as soon as the bad news arrived. On May 24, she wrote to Archie that she had received a letter from Sarah in Ann Arbor, in which “She said in the letter that I should be surprised to hear from her out West and also should be shocked if you “had written me any particulars,” as he obviously had done.[xxvii] On June 27 she followed up with a report that she had written Sarah as Archie had desired: “Have written six pages—all about the farm & flowers & carriage house. I told her the carriage was newly painted and covered to be ready to carry Nana & Sarah to ride when they returned! I said not a syllable that would show that I knew anything about affairs.”[xxviii] Her next letter, written October 8, blames Moses Stanley for harboring Sarah rather than sending her home to Archie: “For it is in his power to send your wife & child back to you, if he chooses—Sarah would never stay away in this manner if her relatives showed her the wrong of it. Now Archie I have thought of one way to open the Reverend clergyman’s eyes. This is to write him an anonymous letter giving him an account of Mrs. Stewart’s witchcraft- of her ascribing demonic powers & acts to you – of her outrageous money making & promising patients to nine other weak women in the same village &c &c—I think that kind of ointment for Mr. Stanley’s eyes—would be equal to the clay that Jesus used in the blind man—it would cause him to SEE.”[xxix] It is unclear whether or not she did so, but in November she reported having gotten another letter from Sarah. The reply in question was enclosed and was a terse communication that opened a period of great stress over Angelina’s custody. “Thanks for your kind letter, enclosing one from Archie. In reply I have only to say that I do not intend to ever return to live with Archie….P/S/ I should be glad to know explicitly Archie’s wishes, or intentions in regard to the child, since she is legally his. S.S.G.”[xxx] Although there is no known connection between Gilbert and Frances Pillsbury and Christian Science, Parker was later to write very cordially to Eddy, whose sister had married a Pillsbury cousin in New Hampshire decades earlier.[xxxi] An April 3, 1891 letter from Eddy to Laura E. Sargent ends with a PS asking “How do you like Parker Pillsbury’s pamphlet? [xxxii] A note in the files of J.C. Tomlinson’s 1907 reminiscences indicates some pride in the association with “the well known Pillsbury family the members of which have attained wide celebrity in business and in Reform movements”.[xxxiii]
Sarah sent Archie a mixed message about Angelina’s support on September 22, 1884, writing “I wish to be assured that you fully relinquish your claim to her person, and freely entrust her care and education in my hands. And, further, I wish to know whether in so doing you would still consider it a pleasure as well as a duty to assist in her maintenance.”[xxxiv] She also asked Archie how much he would be willing and able to contribute monthly or annually. His reply was dated September 26, and he assured her “that I consider your claim to Nana’s person higher than my own, that your wishes and interests in regard to her person and education to take precedence over mine in all respects when yours and mine are in non agreement” and also “that had I the moral right to decide as to her custody & education I know of no one to whom I would more fully & freely commit the dear little girl than to your mother love & dutiful care.” While considering it a duty and pleasure to provide financial support, he was unclear about Sarah’s remark about relinquishing his claims, asking if “in case of your death before me, I am not then to claim my child?” and concluding by asking for a suggested amount needed for Angelina’s support. Although his investments had failed and his income was meagre, he saw prospects for financial improvement in the “public position & reputation” he had recently attained. In a postscript he reminded Sarah of a life insurance policy of two thousand dollars which would be due to her in the event of his death.[xxxv] Four days later she wrote a reply, thanking him for his letter and the enclosed check and proposing two hundred dollars per year as a fair amount for child support. She assured him that “in case of my death before yours, no one will dispute your claim to your child. I only wish to be equally certain that I am not liable to have her taken from me at any moment- even if I should do so unlikely a thing as to visit Massachusetts again.”[xxxvi]
This arrangement was only to last three months, as on January 11, 1885 Sarah changed her mind and wrote to Archie that she had “come to realize that it is not for the best good & happiness of our little girl to be brought up under divided claims. As matters now stand, she is legally yours, and while you support her, you have claims, and also, she is yours in case of my death. But she ought to be either wholly yours or wholly mine. I therefore wish to assume, at once, her entire support & education, & in case of my death I wish her left free to choose between you & my people.” Thanking him for his past services, she concluded with an ominous remark that seems directed at his friendship with the Pillsburys: “And allow me, now, to most solemnly warn you that the one you call your good fairy is your evil genius, in that she prompts you to seek fame & power instead of Peace & Good-will. The Earthly, instead of the Celestial.”[xxxvii] On January 18 he replied that he was greatly surprised by her change of heart, having considered the recent agreement a final conclusion to discussion of competing claims. While he could not understand what motivated this sudden decision, he felt that he “must trust that you understand fully what you wish & that it is indeed for the best good & happiness of our little girl” but left the door open to further reconsideration on her part. Sarah’s change of heart seems to have coincided with a change in Elizabeth Stuart’s status, as she had decided to create her own independent Mind Cure group which would use Sarah’s lessons as part of its curriculum. In December 1884, Sarah H. Crosse wrote a letter to the Christian Science Journal addressed “To Whom it May Concern” warning that “An aggressive outside element of which the public should be informed is this: Many are assuming the name `Christian Scientist’ who never belonged to the Christian Scientist Association; some even who have been expelled from it. This mixes things. Long before the people in Hyde Park heard of metaphysical healing, or Mrs. Elizabeth Stuart was taught it by Mrs. Eddy in 1881, the name was given by Mrs. Eddy to this organization, and none but its members have any right to it.”[xxxviii] This implies that Stuart was seen by Christian Scientists as an unscrupulous usurper, but she seems to have abandoned use of the term “Christian Science” the following year.
In May 1885 Elizabeth Stuart taught a class in Hartford, Connecticut, which was followed in December by her student Leander Edmund Whipple becoming a mental healer there. This ultimately led to Hartford becoming the center for her group’s work, which had already been organized in Massachusetts and New York under the name “Light, Love, Truth.” The triangular symbol adopted by the group was interpreted to mean “Life cannot be manifested apart from Love and Truth. Love cannot be separated from Life and Truth. Without Truth there can be neither Life nor Love.”[xxxix] In August 1885, Sarah announced a correspondence class entitled “First Lessons in Reality, OR The Psychical Basis of Physical Health.” Pupils were directed to write to her at 31 Milwaukee Avenue, Detroit, her parents’ address. The method of instruction was explained: “Each member will receive a list of questions, together with a copy of the lesson to be studied. Answers are to be prepared by the student and forwarded for correction, explanation, etc., after which the MS. Of the student will be returned, and a second lesson and list of questions received for study.” The course consisted of thirteen lessons, with a tuition fee of $10.00, “students paying their own postage.”[xl]
At the beginning of 1886, Archie made one final effort to reconcile with Sarah, writing to her that “after two persons are married they should, where it is at all possible, endeavor to live together” and in light of Angelina’s welfare, “I therefore Sarah earnestly write you to return home so that together we may take up life’s duties until death do us part” which he signed “your husband.”[xli] Her reply does not survive and perhaps never was made directly, but that summer she wrote to their former landlady in Hyde Park, Mrs. Leverett. This letter apparently expressed another change of heart about Angelina in light of Archie’s next letter to her, dated July 12. He wrote: “Mrs. Leverett showed me your letter on Saturday morning in answer I desire to say to you that I would be very happy to take our dear little Nana & devote my life to her—You might then remain where you now are or if otherwise inclined return with the dear little one to the home which has had its door open to receive you every day & hour since you left it more than three years ago. My means do not allow me to discharge my duties to Nana by any other arrangement. Tell Nana that her dear Papa wants very much to see her tho.”[xlii]
During the first years of the group Light, Love, Truth, Sarah appears to have been the sole published author of lessons. Neither Mrs. Stuart nor her close colleague Emma Austin Tolles of Hartford became published authors, but the Grimké correspondence affords several clues to her role as amanuensis for their group. Most of her letters to Angelina from the period are undated and lack return addresses, but internal evidence shows their sequence. References to Elizabeth Stuart and Emma Tolles are abundant. In summer 1887 Sarah wrote to Angelina, “My dear little Girl; Your good letters have reached me safely with Mrs. Tolles letters” asking later “Have you been away any where with Mrs. Stuart.”[xliii] Angelina was evidently in the company of both Tolles and Stuart during her years at school in Hyde Park, where the Weld family had apparently reconciled with the Stuarts. Sarah’s initial move to California might have been influenced by the presence in San Francisco of Miranda R. Rice, a former colleague of Mrs. Eddy who had seceded from Christian Science ranks the same day as her sister Dorcas Rawson and Elizabeth Stuart. Sarah did not remain in the Bay Area; although First Lessons in Reality was published in Detroit, its foreword was signed Los Angeles, California, June 1886. Weeks earlier, on April 3, Sarah had signed her pledge in Los Angeles as a member of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor. While in California, Sarah wrote to her daughter indicating that her friend Mrs. Rice had seen Angelina at Mrs. Stuart’s: “I have just had a letter from Mrs. Rice and she tells me she saw you one day at Mrs. Stuarts.”[xliv] Emma Austin Tolles evidently was concerned that Angelina have proper clothing, as shown by another 1887 letter from Sarah: “If you like the things Mrs. Tolles sent I wish you would write and thank her. She tells me she has some new shoes for you and some other things almost ready to send – you know her address –“[xlv] following up in her next letter:
I most sincerely hope that you can go and see Mrs. Tolles some time in Hartford. She has been a very good friend to you in the past, and will be in the future. You can depend on it…Your good letter made mamma very happy. I want you to improve in your writing as fast as you can, so as to write lessons and books when you get older, just as mamma does. Then, you know, you can go to California, or Detroit, or any where in the world you wish. I am glad the things from Mrs. Tolles reached you all right. Has she sent you shoes yet? I am glad you have such jolly times at Mrs. Stuart’s, with Mr. Stuart, and with Maggie…Mamma is very much better now, and has already gone to writing on the lessons again and hopes to finish them this time. I hope my little girl is both good and happy in Hyde Park.[xlvi]
[i] Elizabeth G. Stuart to Eddy, January 25, 1881, IC 507.
[ii] Elizabeth G. Stuart to Eddy, March 24, 1881, IC 507.
[iv] Elizabeth G. Stuart and Jane L. Straw to Eddy, April 16, 1881, SF-Arens.
[v] Elizabeth G. Stuart to Eddy, undated, IC 507.
[vi] Elizabeth G. Stuart and Jane L Straw to Eddy, undated, SF-Arens.
[vii] James C. Howard to Eddy, June 6, 1881, Accession L09059.
[viii] Ibid, Accession L09059.
[ix] Robert Peel, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Trial (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971), 87.
[x] Elizabeth G. Stuart to Eddy, October 15, 1881, IC 507.
[xi] Peel, Years of Trial, 93.
[xii] Elizabeth G. Stuart to Eddy, undated, IC 507.
[xiii] James Henry Snowden, The Truth About Christian Science (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1920), 179.
[xiv] Author A.A. Draper, Hanover P. Smith/Mary Baker Eddy, October 26, 1881, Accession L09677.
[xv] Eddy to William Stuart, November 2, 1881, V0071.
[xvi] Eddy to Clara Choate, November 8, 1881, Accession L02492.
[xvii] Early Organizational Records, EOR 10.3.
[xviii] “Workings of Animal Magnetism,” undated corrected proof, Accession A10422.001.
[xix] Early Organizational Records, EOR 10.01.
[xx] Theodore Weld to Eddy, November 21, 1881; IC 722a, Mary Baker Eddy Library.
[xxi] Ibid., Series C, Box 3, Folder 82.
[xxii] Ibid., Series C, Box 3, Folder 74.
[xxiii] Ibid., Series D, Box 5, Folder 101, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxiv] Ibid., Series C, Box 3, Folder 74.
[xxv] Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 81, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxvii] Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series 5, Box 5, Folder 101, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxxi] On March 14, 1893, he wrote from Concord a friendly message about a recent magazine article, concluding “With sentiments of sincere respect and esteem, I am My dear friend, Faithfully & fraternally yours” adding as a postscript “your work on Science and Health is indeed a treasure.” Parker Pillsbury to Eddy, March 14, 1893, Item 111.22.003.
[xxxii] Eddy to Laura Sargent, April 3, 1891. Accession L0598.
[xxxiii] J.C. Tomlinson Reminiscences, note dated April 29, 1907, accession #A11876.
[xxxiv]Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 78, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxxv]Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 81, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxxvi] Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 78, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxxvii]Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 78, Manuscript Division, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.
[xxxviii] Sarah H. Crosse, “To Whom it May Concern,” Christian Science Journal, December 1884.
[xxxix] Ibid, 139.
[xl] Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 79.
[xli] Archibald H. Grimké papers, Series C, Box 3, Folder 81.
[xliii]Angelina Weld Grimké papers, Box 5, Folder 92, Manuscript Division, Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University.