FOREWORD

It cannot be said that the Everhard Manuscript is an important historical document.  To the historian it bristles with errors—­not errors of fact, but errors of interpretation.  Looking back across the seven centuries that have lapsed since Avis Everhard completed her manuscript, events, and the bearings of events, that were confused and veiled to her, are clear to us.  She lacked perspective.  She was too close to the events she writes about.  Nay, she was merged in the events she has described.

Nevertheless, as a personal document, the Everhard Manuscript is of inestimable value.  But here again enter error of perspective, and vitiation due to the bias of love.  Yet we smile, indeed, and forgive Avis Everhard for the heroic lines upon which she modelled her husband.  We know to-day that he was not so colossal, and that he loomed among the events of his times less largely than the Manuscript would lead us to believe.

We know that Ernest Everhard was an exceptionally strong man, but not so exceptional as his wife thought him to be.  He was, after all, but one of a large number of heroes who, throughout the world, devoted their lives to the Revolution; though it must be conceded that he did unusual work, especially in his elaboration and interpretation of working-class philosophy.  “Proletarian science” and “proletarian philosophy” were his phrases for it, and therein he shows the provincialism of his mind—­a defect, however, that was due to the times and that none in that day could escape.

But to return to the Manuscript.  Especially valuable is it in communicating to us the feel of those terrible times.  Nowhere do we find more vividly portrayed the psychology of the persons that lived in that turbulent period embraced between the years 1912 and 1932—­their mistakes and ignorance, their doubts and fears and misapprehensions, their ethical delusions, their violent passions, their inconceivable sordidness and selfishness.  These are the things that are so hard for us of this enlightened age to understand.  History tells us that these things were, and biology and psychology tell us why they were; but history and biology and psychology do not make these things alive.  We accept them as facts, but we are left without sympathetic comprehension of them.

This sympathy comes to us, however, as we peruse the Everhard Manuscript.  We enter into the minds of the actors in that long-ago world-drama, and for the time being their mental processes are our mental processes.  Not alone do we understand Avis Everhard’s love for her hero-husband, but we feel, as he felt, in those first days, the vague and terrible loom of the Oligarchy.  The Iron Heel (well named) we feel descending upon and crushing mankind.