EMERSON.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."1
Sra,—I observe with interest that a courteous writer in your number of August 16th has used my little book, "A Western -Journey with Mr. Emerson," as the text for some remarks on what he calls "The Emersonian Cult." He has in some respects misapprehended the scheme of the book, and has, in ,consequence, fallen into one or two errors ; these have a certain importance, as being made the basis of inference as to the -quality of Mr. Emerson's genius ; and I shall, therefore, be glad if you will allow me the opportunity to say a word or two in your columns.
1. My small brochure is made up of two things,—the account of the "Western Journey," and a quite disconnected short, supplementary paper relating to Mr. Arnold's lecture on Emerson. The first, which is the main part of the book, has no comments on Emerson's characteristics as a writer; it is simply a slight contribution to a knowledge of his personal character- istics and every-day conversation; and his remarks are preserved eimply as being his, and not as being very significant or as being at all" weighty." They are things which I happen to have men- tioned at the time in family letters, written to a relative of Mr. Emerson. I kept, as the book states, no diary, and took no notes. Having made up a club paper some years ago from these letters, I lately conclu led to print it, not without the explanations here re- peated and the express warning that "the pudding was small and the plums few." It will be observed that there was never any set attempt to record what I had heard ; and the book states in various places that there was much which I did not hear and much which I did not record. It may be added, that in preparing the book for publication I purposely refrained from inserting anything which rested merely in my recollection. It will appear then, I think, that the writer in your paper is unfortunate in referring to these casual remarks of Mr. Emerson, thus preserved and thus presented, as illustrating his supposed "thin, transparent mood " ; and in saying that the book was written "on purpose to record the very few remarkable sayings which [the writer] brought away from close intercourse with Emerson" ; and that it is published "for the purpose of
setting the few weighty remarks of Emerson which he happened to remember and can record." Equally mistaken is the suggestion that these remarks of Mr. Emerson, these slight and partly-preserved outgivings of daily intercourse, are supposed to be in any way illustrative of general suggestions, in a wholly disconnected part of the book, upon Emerson's genitia.
2. My allusion to the sense that Mr. Emerson seemed always to have "of a certain great amplitude of time and leisure" is misapprehended by the writer in the Spectator. It has no refer- ence to his quality as a writer ; it relates to the impression made by his personal bearing and manners.
3. As to the main point, of the justice of my remark that "Marcus Aurelius was not a man possessed—Emerson was. There is in Emerson an inflaming religious quality which searches the soul of his reader with singular lower; his morals are not merely morals,—they are morals on fire,"—you will not wish to allow me space to say what I should like to say. But as an old and careful reader of Emerson, I am well persuaded of its accuracy. It is true also, as your article insists, that Emerson was a cool watcher of his own mental processes, a keen, shrewd critic of himself, as well as of all else, sharply observant of all that presented itself as inspiration, as if feeling the shoulders of the alleged heavenly messenger for his wings. But yet through- out the whole body of his thinking and his writing there is felt the presence and the light of a profound religious inspiration. Test the matter by reading a page or two of Marcus Aurelius and then a page or two of Emerson. The difference between them may be indicated by a happy phrase of your own, when you said on February 2nd last :—" What Emerson will always be remembered by is his noble and resonant depth of conviction," ticc. It is this 9'esonance which makes him, and which comes from profound beliefs. He was, as I have said elsewhere, "flooded and full to overflowing all through his life with a sense of the presence, the omnipresence, and the instant operation of what be called the 'over-soul.' His apprehension and acceptance of this was no merely intellectual matter ; it was something that penetrated into the substance of his being and moved him like
[Of course we read carefully all Mr. Thayees explanations ; but after all is it not certain that this little book was published only because Mr. Emerson was of the party, and that there were various fragments of his conversation to record ? As for the word "possessed," reverence is one thing, and " possession " by the divine spirit quite another. We should attribute reverence in at least equal degree to Marcus Aurelius.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
