A History of the New Thought Movement · 1 of 15

Preface

For several years there has been a demand for a history of the liberal wing of the mental-healing movement known as the “New Thought.” This demand is partly due to the fact that the movement is now well organized, with international headquarters in Washington, D. C, hence there is a desire to bring its leading principles together and see them in their unity; and in part to interest in the pioneers out of whose practice the present methods and teachings have grown. The latter interest is particularly promising since the pioneers still have a message for us. Then, too, we are more interested in these days in tracing the connection between the ideas which concern us most and the new age out of which they have sprung. We realize more and more clearly that this is indeed a new age. Hence we are increasingly eager to interpret the tendencies of thought which express the age at its best.

In order to meet this desire for a history of the New Thought, Mr. James A. Edgerton, president of the International New Thought Alliance, decided in 1916 to undertake the work. For it seemed well that some one should write it who has not been identified with any particular phase of the movement, either as teacher or healer. As Mr. Edgerton was not directly acquainted with the early history and the mental-healing pioneers, he asked me to write the chapters about Mr. Quimby and his followers. This I agreed to do. But then came interruptions due to the war, and the work was not begun. It has since seemed advisable that I should undertake the work as a whole, making use of such material as Mr. Edgerton had gathered. I have responded in the spirit in which the work was originally planned. This History is in fact the kind of book I had in mind in preparing and editing the companion volume, The Spirit of the New Thought, New York, 1917, in which were published various representative essays by different writers, with historical notes and a bibliography indicating the successive periods of the movement. The introduction to the latter volume defines the term “New Thought,” and traces its use since it was adopted in 1895 as the name of the liberal wing of the therapeutic movement. The essays give expression to divergent opinions concerning the movement, while also indicating the development of the cardinal principles. In the present volume I have taken the definition for granted, and have assumed that the reader is interested to turn directly to the early history.

Context

Two facts you should know about the author before reading further. Horatio Dresser (1866-1954) was the son of Julius and Annetta Dresser, both of whom were patients of Quimby in 1860-65 and the most loyal preservers of his legacy. Horatio grew up inside the founding generation of New Thought; his Harvard PhD was in philosophy, and he later edited the Quimby Manuscripts (1921) — the primary documents on which much of this book rests. He is not a neutral outside historian. He is the movement’s chief insider chronicler, and the version of New Thought lineage you are about to read is his lineage: Quimby → Evans → the Dressers → Wood → Trine → INTA. Other lineages exist (Eddy’s Christian Science, the Fillmores’ Unity, Hopkins’s whole school of teachers) and Dresser tells those stories from his vantage too. Read with that frame in mind.

This History might disappoint some readers, if they had made up their minds that it is necessary to look into the far past and discover ideas in India, in ancient Greece, in the Middle Ages, which resemble the therapeutic ideas of today. But this venture has been tried by several writers in recent years and has led to merely general results. This interest in the past could be developed endlessly. The objection would be that there is no actual historical connection, no explanation of the modern movement.

Still others have undertaken to explain the New Thought by interpreting it as an expression of the liberalism of the nineteenth century from a point of view so general that all the distinctive characteristics of the movement have been lost in the effort to claim too much for it. The tendency is to attribute to the New Thought far more than can with historical accuracy be claimed for it. The New Thought as matter of fact is only one of many liberalizing tendencies. It may be regarded by itself, just as in other connections one might follow the history of Unitarianism, the philosophy of evolution, or the rise of spiritism. All these studies would be interesting and valuable Prefacevii in their proper place. Only in recent years has the New Thought become distinctively a liberalizing movement, with churches and other organizations devoted to this work. The mental healing movement was purely special at first. It had to be to attract attention to principles and methods which needed to be recognized. The movement grew up with little connection with any other of the special movements of the age.

With no desire to attribute to the mental-healing movement any results which do not belong to it, I am also without desire to place more emphasis on the work of the pioneers than that work deserves in the light of its fruits. But there is certainly no reason to ignore the work of those who patiently and faithfully labored for the good of humanity. The history here narrated may be followed without indulging in controversies. The early history especially is based on a study of the manuscripts, books, and practice with the sick of the leading therapeutists. I have enjoyed the personal acquaintance of those who aided Mr. Quimby in the more important years of his work in Portland, Maine. I was also acquainted with Rev. W. F. Evans, the first writer on the subject, and have known most of the leaders of the movement save the newer teachers and healers. The main facts on which a controversy concerning the origin of the movement might be founded were long ago published in The True History of Mental Science, by Julius A. Dresser, Boston, 1887, and no one has ever been able to dispute the authenticity of these facts. Selections from Mr. Quimby’s manuscripts were incorporated in The Philosophy of P. P. Quimby, by Annetta G. Dresser, Boston, 1895. Therefore, people have had opportunity to judge for themselves concerning the type of thought and the value of the teachings for which Mr. Quimby stood. I have since gathered the more permanent portions of these two books and added other matters of historical interest in Health and the Inner Life, New York, 1906. Accordingly, I have assumed in the present volume that the reader takes the “true history” for granted and is ready to turn to larger things.

The devotee of a special interpretation of the New Thought might still maintain that the historian is of a certain persuasion and that therefore the personal equation should be taken into account. This is true, for every writer has a point of view. I must admit that, after an acquaintance with the movement which dates from the years when it was known as “mental science,” “mind-cure,” and the “Boston craze,” the teachings of the early leaders still seem more profitable. But why should a history ever be written unless we hold that there are ideas of value not yet recognized in their true worth by the world? If there are truths for the new age that surpass some of the later claims put forward in behalf of the New Thought, let us by all means try to grasp and apply these truths. This is all the more important now that mental healing is well known, now that everybody makes some use of suggestion, and is familiar with the psychological principles underlying the movement. What remains to be done is to pass beyond the more popular ideas and estimate the spiritual principles, see in what sense the New Thought is in very truth an expression of the new age. Therefore the point of view of this History is that true history is analysis. It shows us what principles are most important in the light of the tendencies from which they came; it is spiritual interpretation. Those who hold this point of view have no desire to attribute power to men which belongs to God. They take no interest in claims for priority or for special teachings said to be beyond debate as if they came by revelation. What we care for is the truth which finds expression in God’s own time, when it is needed. If we find that this truth became known without much connection with similar teachings long ago recognized in the world, there is no reason why we should not say so. Nothing is gained for a cause by claiming too much for it. The test after all is not history but actual life, utility today. My part is that of the appreciative historian, not that of the ardent advocate or the devotee of a special cause or organization. Consequently, I have not brought forward any views of my own.