"It may be doubted whether Matthew Arnold's critical estimate of Emerson

as a prose writer is well understood by most of those who take it in ill

part. The judgment expressed is that Emerson is the pre-eminent prose

writer of his century, not as being either a great philosopher or great

in his style of workmanship, but for the reason that he is a great

spiritual light, the purest, whitest, serenest, of a century now drawing

toward its close. This taken together is valuable praise, and converted

into disparagement by its denial to Emerson of two special distinctions;

and in respect to both, the denial is taken, I think, to cover much more

ground than it was intended to cover. To keep within the limits, I will

here attend to but one of these, where it must be confessed, Mr. Arnold

is himself to blame for the misconstruction put upon him, since he has

expressed himself in a way to facilitate, if not to invite, such a

mistake. Emerson, it is said, was the most important writer of this

century, yet was not a great writer. How should this be, unless, indeed,

the century as a whole is inferior, and prominence in it is no token of

greatness? In truth, Mr. Arnold has used the term 'writer' in two widely

different senses. In the one use it refers to the content of the

writing, to its intellectual and moral import, its spiritual

significance; in the other use it refers to the writing itself

considered as showing more or less of literary power,--that is, of power

in the ordering and verbal embodiment of thoughts and conceptions.

"Declining to be misled by this ambiguity, let us inquire what is meant,

when it is said that Emerson was not a great writer. To my apprehension

the meaning is simply that his literary execution, taken by and for

itself, was not of the highest order. A cotton fabric may be better

woven than one of silk, a chain of copper be better wrought and linked

than a chain of gold. He that should recognize the better workmanship

where it exists would not thereby set the cheaper material above the

more precious, for he would not institute a comparison to any effect

whatsoever between the two. Nor would he betray a shallow and petty

mind, as making much of things trivial. Mr. Arnold says of Emerson's

writings, the matter is gold, but the workmanship does not evince the

highest skill. Were this last urged as determining the value of the

writer we might indeed say that the critic offends by exalting a

subordinate distinction to the first place. But it is not so urged, nor

is there anything to indicate that Mr. Arnold makes perfection of

literary execution the be-all and end-all of excellence in literature;

indeed one does not see that he at all exaggerates its importance. Those

whom he mentions as great writers were for the most part second-rate

men--second-rate men that is as measured by the standard of the ages;

and it does not appear that he thinks of them otherwise than as such.

Cicero receives the title while it is not given to Marcus Antoninus; but

it is sufficiently apparent that Mr. Arnold sets a higher value upon

Marcus Antoninus than upon Cicero. Voltaire is one of the great writers;

but in the world's literature he is at best but first among the lesser

lights, and there is no sign that Matthew Arnold attributed to him a

higher importance. Or take the case of Swift. The literary talents of

this unhappy man were indeed prodigious: he performed feats to which we

cannot say that any other would have been equal: he is as unique as

Shakespeare,--though, of course, in a vastly lower way. But did he

contribute one great thought or one grand and salutary imagination to

the world's stock? Not to my knowledge. Did he shed light upon any

important province of human interest, upon religion, morals, politics,

art, science, history, education, manners or whatever else? I cannot

report that he did so. Did he lay a noble emphasis upon any great truth

or order of truths and so recommend it effectually to the attention and

consideration of mankind? Or did he even write a single sentence which

one treasures up as an imperishable jewel? In fine, does his work serve

to enlarge the souls, enlighten the minds, direct the wills or quicken

and inspire the better powers of man? Does it so much as breathe upon

them a salubrious air? Alas no! To all such questions the answer, or

mine own at least, will be negative. Yet he was indeed a great writer:

that is, he had a great, a truly wonderful power of conception and

representation. Mr. Arnold, who for aught one can discover to the

contrary, distinguishes the nature of Swift's genius and prizes it only

for what it is worth, does not claim that Emerson was a greater writer

in the same sense, but thinks his deliverance somewhat faulty,

especially as wanting that continuity which belongs to good literary

tissue, as to every other.

"Suppose him quite wrong in this, still the error is not one to be warm

about, since it leaves the Concord essayist in his place of

pre-eminence, and is put forth only by way of determining the kind of

value which shall be attributed to his writings.

"D. A. Wasson."

This was forwarded to Matthew Arnold, who was then at his own home, and

in due time this reply was received from him:

"COBHAM, SURREY,

"Jan. 7th., 1886.

"Dear Sir,

"I have just had, on my return to England, your letter and Mr. Wasson's

paper, and must thank you for them.

"Very much of what Mr. Wasson says is true; yet literary style is more

than he makes it--the mere dressing up of a material which may be

inferior; it is itself in the material and has an extraordinary value.

No great writer is to be disposed of as Mr. Wasson disposes of Addison

and Swift; he says, nothing is to be learned from Swift; why, a sense

for the blatant nonsense and claptrap which constitutes three-fourths of

our public writing and speaking, and which is a greater curse to your

country that even to ours, is to be got from him. Addison has his

valuable criticism of life too; I doubt whether to a Taine, a hundred

years hence, he will not seem of more importance than Emerson, who was

above all things of value in his own day. But I love Emerson.

"Truly yours,

"Matthew Arnold."

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH LETTER FROM MATTHEW ARNOLD.]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH LETTER FROM MATTHEW ARNOLD.]

Taine, who preferred Macaulay to Carlyle, might also prefer Addison to

Emerson; but it is not likely that a future Grimm or another

Sainte-Beuve would do so. In his "Essays in Criticism," Matthew Arnold

enters a general complaint against English prose writers for a lack of

mental flexibility, and against Addison particularly for the

commonplaceness of his ideas. He was a severe and exacting critic.

DAVID A. WASSON.

Bryant, Longfellow, Emerson, Hawthorne and Whittier were all nearly of

the same age, and formed a literary galaxy such as has been rare enough

in any country or period of history. They are distinguished, however, by

one peculiarity--a slight sentimentalism which belonged to the time in

which they grew up, and is most strongly marked in Longfellow and least

so in Hawthorne. Fifteen or twenty years later there appeared, as

usually happens, a number of talented imitators or admirers, and with

them two men of equal genius who may be looked upon as the corrective

and antidote for their predecessors. These were James Russell Lowell and

David Atwood Wasson.

They were as different as Goldsmith and Dr. Johnson. Lowell was a fine

poet, a humorist and man of the world. He wrote easily and lived easily.

He was the companion of wealthy and distinguished men. He acquired

prosperity, as it were, by natural inclination. Next to the King of

Prussia he was the most fortunate man of his time. He knew something of

sorrow, but of hardship and misfortune only by hearsay. He was the child

of summer, and revelled in it; but this continual happiness brought with

it certain limitations. Though he was a veracious man, he was rarely a

serious one. He never became thoroughly in earnest until he was

stimulated by partisan feeling. His best poems were inspired by the

anti-slavery conflict, and the rendition of Mason and Slidell; and it

was just on these occasions that his humor was most brilliant and

pleasant flavored. His productiveness was not great, and his other

writings do not make a strong impression. It is said that he often tried

to write a book, but was never able to concentrate himself on one

subject for a sufficient length of time. He is easily the first of

American humorists. The greatest compliment ever paid Thoreau was that

such a man as Lowell could not understand him.

Wasson must have been born under the constellation of the Little Bear.

As the Germans say, his life was always winter. Every possible obstacle

was placed in his way, and misfortune came to him at one time or another

in almost every shape. The difficulties he encountered in life were too

great for him, and prevented the full fruition of his genius. The wonder

is that they did not crush him altogether. He never acquired the

sufficient public influence nor received the recognition his merit

deserved. He was by nature a thinker--a seeker after truth. There was no

problem,--social, political or philosophical,--which he was not ready to

grapple with. He could plunge into these subjects like a pearl-diver who

means to touch bottom, and would never come out till his last breath was

spent. This mental habit and his continual suffering made him only too

serious, too much in earnest. Jests were not in his line, but he

sometimes wrote poetry of the very highest order. He is the first and

most original of American thinkers.

What these two dissimilar men had in common was good Anglo-Saxon

manliness--which is after all the foundation of common-sense. They

wished to live as other men had lived before them, and not in any new,

unusual, or eccentric manner. They believed that virtue was to be found

in the great world rather than out of it; among human habitations, and

in dealing with all kinds of people rather than by an isolated life at

Brook Farm or in Walden Woods. They sought not after any rare and

Utopian excellencies, but contented themselves with a plain, sensible,

every-day morality. They were neither vegetarians, teetotalers,

non-resistants, nor socialists. They considered it no sin to love a

woman or to fight a man. They may be called anti-sentimentalists.

Neither were they blind followers of custom and tradition. They wished

to be in the vanguard of civilization, and they were conscious that to

do this they must not only accept the results of others, but add

something of their own. They endeavored to become acquainted with the

best that was thought and known in their time, both in literature and in

other matters. They thus became excellent critics, as well as versatile

and many-sided men. They were among the most cultivated men of the

century, and are the most cosmopolitan of American writers. That they

should not have possessed greater influence was largely owing to the

tendencies of their time. The current of the age was too strong for

them, and in their later years they both expressed gloomy forebodings of

the future, both for their own country and the rest of the civilized

world.

Wasson went to Concord in 1859 intending to make it his permanent abode,

but the offer of a philanthropic gentleman who wished to take him into

his own house for a year and care for him, as Mr. Badams of Manchester

entertained Carlyle, induced him to emigrate again. He continued however

in friendly communication with the literary people there, often visited

them, and now lies buried in Sleepy Hollow cemetery, so that he deserves

to be classed among them, rather than with any other group of literary

men.

He was born in Brooksville, Maine, on the fourteenth of May, 1823. He

was named David for his father, and Atwood for Miss Harriet Atwood, a

female preacher and missionary who was at that time his mother's devoted

friend,--and it has been said that Wasson attributed his unusual mental

activity largely to her influence. His mother died while he was still

too young to recollect her, but her place was fortunately supplied by a

kindly and sensible stepmother; not such a rare phenomenon as some

people think. His father belonged to a class of men only to be found on

the coast of Maine, who are at once fishermen, farmers and navigators; a

much more intelligent and cultivated class than the agricultural people

of the interior. It is a beautiful sail among the islands from Rockland

to Mount Desert, and the pleasantest part of it, to me at least, is the

sight of the well kept farms with their handsome cattle and clean-shaven

hay-fields, which line the coast. Our best ship-builders have originated

among these people.

Brooksville is a thinly scattered settlement on the westerly side of a

rocky and even mountainous peninsula. A deep and narrow strait separates

it from Castine, which has to be crossed in a ferry-boat. The house of

David Wasson, Senior, is something more than half-a-mile from the ferry

landing; a large, commodious, two-story house, much better than the

average of farm-houses, with two large barns and numerous out-buildings.

Between it and the street is an orchard, and on one side a latticed

porch or piazza. West of it there is a trout-brook and beyond that a

hemlock grove, and the blue hills of Camden in the distance. On the

south side the sea comes up to the edge of the farm, and the road to

Sedgwick winds about the ridge on the East. It was a fitting birthplace

for a poet or a painter.

He has left us a valuable and quite unique sketch of his early boyhood,

[Footnote: Essays, Religious, Social, Political. D. A. Wasson. Boston:

Lee and Shepard.] in which he confesses to having been a sensitive,

excitable and passionate little fellow such as the more cool-headed and

phlegmatic sort could tease and worry at pleasure. Since he was also

very high-spirited, this resulted inevitably in a good many fights, and

from being naturally peaceable and tender-hearted he became at last the

most noted pugilist in that community. It is said that at seventeen he

could smash a door-panel with his fist. That he disliked work on the

farm is not surprising. Manual labor is injurious to boys physically and

mentally; and they should be saved from it, except perhaps in the haying

or harvesting seasons, as much as possible. Otherwise he was modest,

orderly, truthful, and the finest scholar that had ever been known about

Castine. His father recognized his superior abilities, and made an

effort to send him to Bowdoin College.

There were many obstacles in the way, however, and he did not enter

until 1845. He never told me much about his college life. He was older

than his companions and more serious. The light spirit that makes it a

joyous festival to many was not in him. Of the myrtle and ivy of sweet

two-and-twenty he knew nothing. He distinguished himself in mathematics

(especially in geometry, which is the most logical of studies) and in

the students' debating-societies. He was also an excellent gymnast.

In almost every college class there are a number of over-grown boys who

had better have been sent to the reform-school. On the occasion of a

class supper, or some such celebration, young Wasson saved half-a-dozen

of these roaring blades from disgrace and suspension, by his timely

interference. It was already far into the night, and being fairly

intoxicated, they took it into their minds to return and attend morning

prayers in the college chapel. In order to prevent this catastrophe,

Wasson arranged a bowling match for a fictitious sum of money with the

most sober man he could find, and in that way delayed the party until

the dangerous hour had passed. It was supposed to have been some of the

same set who the following autumn set fire to and consumed the college

wood-pile--a severe loss, and a dangerous precedent. No trace of the

incendiaries could be discovered and the college faculty suspended on

suspicion right and left. Among those whom the lightning struck were

several that Wasson knew or felt sure could have had nothing to do with

it; and he accordingly went to the president and argued the case with

him. This resulted in his being summoned before the next faculty

meeting. When asked whether he knew who the perpetrators of the outrage

were, he declined to answer, not because he had positive knowledge but

because he felt morally certain in regard to them. A few weeks later,

after he had gone into the country to teach school for the winter, he

received word that he had been suspended. Indignant at what he

considered an injustice to his character and scholarship, he left

Bowdoin forever: nor did he perhaps lose much by this. The philosophical

studies of the senior year could be mastered as easily by a mind like

Wasson's without an instructor as with one. He never studied for rank

and cared little or nothing for college honors or degrees.

There is no good art without a sense of delicacy; and this mental

delicacy is usually matched by some kind of physical sensitiveness.

Artists are, according to the vulgar phrase, more thin-skinned than

other people. Both at Bowdoin College, and afterwards while at the

divinity-school, Wasson worked hard in summer and taught school in

winter so as to help in defraying the expense of his education. In this

mode of life he encountered many hardships that were too severe for him.

I notice among my own classmates that very few of those who lived in

this manner reached the age of thirty-five. The food which Wasson

encountered during his winter peregrinations was anything but what human

beings are intended to eat. On one occasion he returned from his school

to dine as usual in a cold room, and found himself provided there with

the skeleton of a chicken, two large beets, a pie made of preserved

barberries, and biscuits which pulled out when separated, like a

telescope. The meat, unless fried, was always cooked too much; bread and

vegetables insufficiently. Like many another young hero he believed in

facing these obstacles, and overcoming them by main force. A strain

which he received in a wrestling match during the celebrated Tippecanoe

campaign may have done him harm; but a more serious injury was incurred

while on a trip to Bangor in one of his father's schooners the summer

after he was suspended from college. The captain of the schooner appears

to have been a sea-faring brute who had a secret grudge, a sort of

town-and-gown feeling, against the scholar, and was ready to do him any

mischief he could. They were to take on a cargo of lumber at Bangor and

the captain requested Wasson, who was not actually under his orders, to

stow it away in the hold while two men on deck handed the boards to him

as fast as possible. Wasson felt that something was wrong and might have

protested against it, but his youthful pride, and perhaps a feeling of

indifference in regard to his fate, prevented him. I believe he finally

fainted from over-exertion and the close air, and was never a well man

again. The trouble was not very bad at first, and might easily have been

cured by suitable treatment, and a quiet, methodical life: but there was

no doctor in that part of Maine who could prescribe properly for him. He

tried some short sea-voyages, but these did him little good. So Prescott

injured his eyesight through the same proud spirit; but it was this

pride which made him afterwards what he was.

His ill-health however did not prevent him from studying and writing.

The following autumn he went into the office of a lawyer and member of

Congress in Castine and read "Blackstone," "Chitty on Bills," and some

other law-books. The study of law is in itself an excellent nerve tonic,

balancing the mind and strengthening the character. Nothing could have

been better for him at this juncture, and it is an unlimited pity that

he did not continue it longer. But the law could never have satisfied

the aspirations of his nature any more than Columbus might have been

satisfied with sailing a packet in the Mediterranean. He liked the study

of it, and once spoke with great respect of "Chitty on Bills" wishing he

could find a work on theology or politics that contains so much good

sense; but he longed for something beyond it. The congressman had a good

opinion of his abilities and held out the prospect of a partnership to

him, but personal ambition was not an ingredient in Wasson's nature. He

was discontented and ready for a change.

One day in June 1849 he was sent to a distant town on what was to his

sensitive moral nature a most disgusting expedition; namely, to help a

lucrative client take the poor debtor's oath, and so avoid a partially

unjust debt. On his return home he stopped at a country store to make a

small purchase, and there at the end of the shelf he saw a cheap dingy

copy of Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus." He purchased it, and read it in his

wagon by the evening light. He had tried to read it before, but failed

to make his way in it. It was the first clear message and sure token of

a spiritual life that had yet reached him. He had lived through the

"everlasting no," and here was the "everlasting yea" set plainly before

him. Years afterward M. D. Conway told Carlyle of walking in the woods

at Groveland with Wasson, and how his face became radiant with internal

light when he spoke of "Sartor Resartus."

This new-birth from above seized upon him like a fever. He now felt that

he had a mission in life; a message to mankind. And in what way could he

deliver this message? How could he make known to others what was in his

full heart, except from the pulpit? For the first time he conceived the

ministry as a high-minded and ennobling profession. He decided

accordingly to go into the church. His family were Calvinists, and

Calvinism was the only mode of faith of which he knew very much. That

such a step should have been inspired by the writings of a heretic like

Carlyle was in itself a contradiction which foreboded an ultimate

collision. Yet no man perhaps ever lived who had a clearer sense of a

Divine Presence in the universe than Thomas Carlyle, and it was this

which Wasson recognized in him. Poets and philosophers are naturally

heretical, because they take the short road of genius which others find

it difficult to follow. But all believers finally arrive at the same

destination.

He entered the theological seminary at Bangor in 1849 and graduated in

1851. It may be he went there with a youthful idea of reforming the

church. At any rate his boldness of thought and free utterance brought

him into suspicion with his fellow students, and at one time reports

were in circulation that he was to be expelled for heresy. With his

customary directness he went to the president, Dr. Pond, and inquired if

there was any truth in this. The doctor, who really liked Wasson,

received him with a kindly, patriarchal manner and said: "Do not be

troubled, my young friend, we all have our seasons of doubt. I have had

mine; but take my word for it that it is all right. For look at those

saints up there in glory. How did they get there?" Such an argument was

not likely to relieve the fermentation in his mind. Walking the streets

of Bangor at this time was Dr. Frederick Henry Hedge, the man of all

others who might have solved Wasson's doubts in a satisfactory manner,

and with whom Wasson afterwards found himself in more complete moral and

intellectual sympathy than with any other of his friends. Wasson saw him

frequently, but had no opportunity of making his acquaintance. So nearly

do we either hit it, or miss it, all through life!

The only person who sympathized with him in his progressive views of

religion was Miss Abbie Smith, the daughter of an apothecary in

Newburyport, Massachusetts. She was visiting at the house of her brother

who was one of the instructors at the Seminary. That he should have

fallen in love with her, and soon become engaged to her is therefore not

surprising. They were married the year after his graduation, and she

continued a faithful, industrious and uncomplaining wife; his mainstay

in ill-health and misfortune till the end. They were not always happy

together; but it is a rare marriage where that is the case. Wasson's

struggle with the world was often reflected in his own family,

disturbing the harmony and comfort of it. His wife once said quite

gravely, that there were others from whom her husband would probably

have made a selection if he had not offered himself to her. He was

always a favorite with the other sex, and equally fond of their society.

As he never troubled himself much as to what people said of him, this

gave rise to a good deal of talk which his opponents took advantage of

to disparage his character. He was once a witness in a divorce case, and

a rather tricky lawyer who had a remarkable faculty for what Bacon calls

"turning the cat in the pan," succeeded in making him appear at a

disadvantage; but Mrs. Wasson told me that he was in the right. If his

wife had no suspicion of him we need have none.

Sketches from Concord and Appledore Concord thirty years ago; Nathaniel Hawthorne; Louisa M. Alcott; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Matthew Arnold; David A. Wasson; Wendell Phillips; Appledore and its visitors; John Greenleaf Whittier · 第 7 / 15 段