children so to do; and in fact such mental recognitions were what
distinguished the nation from all other peoples.
The Egyptian Hermes represented the whole intellectual progress of
man. If one made a discovery it was signed Hermes, and under that name
transmitted to posterity. Hence the forty volumes of Hermetic theology,
philosophy, and so on. Individuals were merged in the God. Hermes was
always the mediator, the peacemaker, and it was in this relation that the
beautiful story was told of the caduceus. Mercury has originally only
the divining-rod which Apollo had given him, but, finding two serpents
fighting one day, he pacified them, and had ever after the right to bear
them embracing on his rod. There was another story, Margaret said, which
she could not understand,—the story of his obtaining the head of the
Ibis from Osiris. Hermes kept the _first_ or outside gates of Heaven, a
significant fact typically considered.
I am sure there is something in Heeren’s researches about the Ibis story,
but Caroline Sturgis said, No.
WILLIAM WHITE asked if the God gave the name to the planet?
MARGARET said, Yes; and it was given because it stood nearest the sun.
E. P. P. said Plutarch had written something about Hermes in his “Morals.”
MARGARET said, Perhaps so, but she didn’t know, as she never _could_ read
them. Plutarch went round and round a story; presented all the corners
of it, told all the pretty bits of gossip he could find, instead of
penetrating to its secret. So she preferred his anecdotes of Heroes to
his Parallels or Essays.
I said, in surprise, how much I liked the “Morals.”
“Yes,” MARGARET said, “even Emerson paid the book the high compliment of
calling it his tuning-key, when he was about to write.”
E. P. P. said Coleridge was _her own_ tuning-key, and asked Margaret if
she had no such friendly instigator.
MARGARET said she could keep up no intimacy with books. She loved a
book dearly for a while; but as soon as she began to look out a nice
Morocco cover for her favorite, she was sure to take a disgust to it,
to outgrow it. She did not mean that she outgrew the author, but that,
having received all from him that he could give her, he tired her. That
had even been the case with Shakespeare! For several years he was her
very life; then she gave him up. About two years ago she had occasion
to look into “Hamlet,” and then wished to refresh her love, but found
it impossible. It was the same with Ovid, whose luxuriant fancy had
delighted her girlhood. She took him up, and read a little with all her
youthful glow; but it would not last. Friends must part, but why need
we part from our books? She regretted her oddity, for she lost a great
solace by it.
She proceeded to contrast the Apollo with Mercury. In Egypt, Hermes was
the experimental Deity, the Brahma.
CAROLINE STURGIS asked what the Hermes on the door-posts of the Athenian
houses meant.
MARGARET thought that he posed there as a messenger, an opener of the
gates merely, and then spoke of several Mercuries by Raphael. One she
knew, so full of beauty and grace that it seemed a single trumpet-tone.
Another all loveliness was handing the cup of life to Psyche. She
wondered that such symbols as Apollo and Mercury did not inspire all
young men with ardor, and make them something better than young men
usually are.
WILLIAM WHITE said Apollo was too far beyond the average man to do this;
but that Mercury, graceful and vivacious, would naturally attract the
attention.
MARGARET asked if he would be an easier model to imitate, and then
repeated her anecdote about the ugly youth who longed to be a Mercury.
WILLIAM said that if his faith had been strong enough, the transformation
might have taken place.
Query—what is meant by strong _enough_?
MARGARET spoke of the Egyptian Osiris in his relation to Hermes, and said
that she did not like _him_ to be confounded with the Apollo. He was in
reality the Egyptian Jove.
This led me to speak of the Orphic Hymn in which Apollo is addressed as
“immortal Jove.”
MARGARET said she had discovered very little about Orpheus. In relation
to the five points of Orphic theology, she had lately read a posthumous
leaf from Goethe’s Journal. The existence of a Dæmon seemed to be a
favorite idea of his. He did not believe with Emerson that all things
were in our own souls, but that they existed in _the original souls_,
(does anybody know what that means?) and we must go out to seek them.
This notion Goethe thought verified by his own experience. Goethe’s
works, Margaret thought, had more variety than anybody’s except
Shakespeare’s. His powers of observation seemed to condense his genius.
WILLIAM WHITE wondered why Goethe showed such tenderness for Byron.
MARGARET said that in every important sense Byron was his very opposite;
but Goethe hardly looked upon him as a responsible being. He was rather
the instrument of a _higher_ power. He was the exponent of his period.
SOPHIA PEABODY had been making a drawing of Crawford’s Orpheus at the
Athenæum. It was here brought down for me to see.
At Sophia’s request, MARGARET repeated a sonnet she had written on it.
She recited it wretchedly, but the sonnet was pleasant.
I spoke of Bode’s Essay on the Orphic Poetry, and sympathized in his view
of the spuriousness of the Hymns. They might have been signed Orpheus,
however, as other things were signed Hermes, simply because they were
exponents of Orphic thought.
MARGARET dilated on this Orphic thought.
I quoted Proclus in his Commentary on Plato’s “Republic” as follows:—
“Mars perpetually discerns and nourishes, and constantly
excites the contrarieties of the Universe, that the world may
exist perfect and entire in all its parts; but requires the
assistance of Venus, that he may bring order and harmony into
things contrary and discordant.
“Vulcan adorns by his art the sensible universe, which he
fills with certain natural impulses, powers, and proportions;
but _he_ requires the assistance of Venus, that he may invest
material effects with beauty, and by this means secure the
comeliness of the world. Venus is the source of all the
harmony and analogy in the Universe, and of the union of form
with matter, connecting and comprehending the powers of the
elements. Although this Goddess ranks among the supermundane
divinities, yet her principal employment consists in
beautifully illuminating the order, harmony, and communion of
all mundane concerns.”
I asked MARGARET if this was not something like her own thought,—this
Venus, for example, was it not better than that we got from Greek art?
She said it was the primal idea, but she did not attach much importance
to chronology. Philosophy must decide the age of a thought.
I gave her as good an abstract of Bode’s theory as I could.
WILLIAM WHITE took the drawing of Orpheus from me, and, while speaking of
its beauty, said it always made him angry to think of the deterioration
of the human figure. He thought it ought to have been prevented, and
that his ancestors had deprived him of his rights.
Upon this, MARGARET entered into a lively disquisition upon masculine
beauty. She said the best specimens of it she had ever seen were a
Southern oddity named Hutchinson and some Cambridge students who came
from Virginia.
We lost a finer talk to-night through the inclemency of the weather.
WHEELER was to have come with a great stock of information. Had he done
so, I need not have quoted Bode or Proclus.
CAROLINE W. HEALEY.
April 23, 1841.
IX.
HERMES AND ORPHEUS.
_April 29, 1841._
We did not have a very bright talk. There were few present, and we had
only the subject of last week. MARGARET did not speak at length. WHEELER
had been ill, and his physician prescribed light diet of both body and
mind.
Somebody spoke of Mercury sweeping the courts of the Gods, but that
suggested nothing to Margaret.
SARAH SHAW had a pin, with a Mercury on it, represented as holding the
head of a goat.
MARGARET had never seen anything that would explain it, and there was
some dispute about it.
E. P. P. said that, according to the Orphic Hymn, Mercury sought the love
of Dryope under the form of a goat. Pan was the fruit of that amour. In
this form also he wooed Diana.
We wandered from our subject a little, to hear MR. MACK talk about the
Gorgons. He thought they stood for the three sides of human nature.
Medusa, the chief care-taker, the body, was the only one not immortal,
and the only one beautiful. Stheno and Euryale, wide-extended force
and wide-extended scope, represented spirit and intellect, essentially
immortal. The changing of Medusa’s curls (or elements of strength) into
serpents represented the fall. It was not the Gorgons who had but one eye
and one tooth between them, but three sister guardians, whom Perseus was
compelled to destroy before he could reach Medusa.
MR. MACK did not tell us why human nature so divided had a certain
petrifying power!
E. P. P. thought the intellect, not the body, was the care-taker.
Mr. Mack tried in vain to explain, owing, I think, to his German
misconception of words. Certainly the five senses are the _providers_,
which was what he must have meant.
MARGARET liked his theory, because there was a place in it for sin! She
disliked failure. Perhaps we all had perceived her attachment to evil!
Not that she wished men to fall into it, but it must be accepted as one
means of final good.
The only copies of Bode belong to Edward Everett and Theodore Parker.
Neither is at this moment to be had. The talk turned on the age of the
Orphic idea.
The Orphic Hymns, WHEELER said, were merely hymns of initiation into
the Orphic mysteries. They were altered by every successive priesthood,
and finally by the Christian Platonists. Those now remaining were
undoubtedly their work. Perhaps the ancient formulas were still hidden
in them. We know the beautiful story of Orpheus. If he indeed represents
many, yet all that has been said of him is also true of one.
MR. MACK declared that Eurydice represented the true faith! She was
killed by an envenomed serpent, which might possibly stand for an enraged
priesthood!
I got a little impatient here, and said I did not care to know about the
Hymns; but the Orphic idea, which made Scaliger speak of the Hymns as the
“Liturgy of Satan,”—how old was that?
MARGARET could not guess why he called them so.
CHARLES WHEELER said that, since they made a heathen worship attractive,
perhaps he fancied them a device of the Evil One!
Too great a compliment to Scaliger, I thought.
MARGARET had no objection to Orpheus as crowning an age; she liked that
multitudes should produce one.
CHARLES WHEELER said that Carlyle had spoken of Orpheus as standing in
such a relation to the Greeks as Odin bore to the Scandinavians.
MARGARET said at this point (I don’t see with what pertinency) that
Carlyle displeased her by making so much of mere men.
JAMES CLARKE quoted Milton, speaking of himself among the revellers of
the Stuart Court, as like Orpheus among the Bacchanals.
I said that Bode placed Homer in the tenth century before Christ, and
Orpheus in the age just preceding, say the thirteenth century before.
MR. MACK thought all that mere conjecture.
I told him it made a good deal of difference to me whether the Orphic
Mythology came before or after that of Homer. Had man grown out of the
noble and into the base idea? Was all our knowledge only memory? Had the
Orphic fancies no beauty till the Platonic Christians shaped them?
MARGARET responded to what I said, that she did not like a mind always
looking back.
E. P. P. said there was a great deal of consolation in it. Memory was
prophecy. She didn’t like such a mind, but since she happened to have it
she wanted support for it.
MR. MACK said all history offered such support.
CHARLES WHEELER didn’t like to believe it, but felt that he must. He
spoke of the Golden Age.
MARGARET said every nation looked back to this; but, after all, it was
only the ideal. The past was a curtain on which they embroidered their
pictures of the present.
WILLIAM WHITE said that all great men looked to the appreciation of the
future. We are too near to the present.
MARGARET agreed.
E. P. P. said, all the science of Europe could not offer anything like
the old Egyptian lore.
MARGARET said the moderns needed the assistance of a despotic government.
CHARLES WHEELER spoke of the monuments in Central America; but before he
could utter what was in his mind, MARGARET interrupted, saying that all
the greatness of the Mexicans only sufficed to show their littleness. We
might have lost in grandeur and piety, but we had gained in a thousand
tag-rag ways.
MRS. FARRAR whispered to me, “Write that down!” and I have done it.
CHARLES WHEELER said that late discoveries proved that there was a
complete knowledge of electricity among the ancients. There were
lightning-rods on the temple at Jerusalem, and they are described by
Josephus, who however does not know what they are.
MARGARET and I clung to the “tag-rag” gain.
CHARLES WHEELER agreed with me in thinking the Orphic Hymns of very late
origin.
MARGARET could not see the use of creating a race of giants to prepare
the earth for pygmies! If these must exist, why not in some other sphere?
She referred to the beautiful Persian fable. The _first_ was God, of
course; since man may always revert to Him, what matter about the giants?
I said that primitive ages were supposed to be innocent rather than great.
MARGARET said the Persian fable bore to the same point as the Vishnu
and Brahma. It was antagonism that produced all things. The universe at
first was one Conscious Being,—“I am;” no word, no darkness, no light.
This Conscious Being needed to know itself, and it passed into darkness
and light and a third being,—the Mediator between the two. This Trinity
produced ideals,—men, animals, things; and after a period of twelve
thousand years all return again into the One, who has gained by the
phenomena only a multiplied consciousness.
“Were they _merged_?” asked CHARLES WHEELER.
MARGARET said, “No! once created, they could not lose identity.”
C. W. HEALEY.
April 30, 1841.
X.
BACCHUS AND THE DEMIGODS.
_May 6, 1841._
Few present. Our last talk, and we were all dull. For my part, Bacchus
does not inspire me, and I was sad because it was the last time that I
should see Margaret. She does not love me; I could not venture to follow
her into her own home, and I love her so much! Her life hangs on a
thread. Her face is full of the marks of pain. Young as I am, I feel old
when I look at her.
MARGARET spoke of Hercules as representing the course of the solar year.
The three apples were the three seasons of four months each into which
the ancients divided it. The twelve labors were the twelve signs.
E. P. P. accepted this, and spoke of Bryant’s book, which Margaret did
not like.
MARGARET said Bryant forced every fact to be a point in a case. Bending
each to his theory, he falsified it. She wished English people would
be content, like the wiser Germans, to amass classified facts on which
original minds could act. She liked to see the Germans so content to
throw their gifts upon the pile to go down to posterity, though the pile
might carry no record of the collectors. She spoke of Kreitzer, whose
book she was now reading, who coolly told his readers that he should not
classify a second edition afresh, for his French translator had done it
well enough, and if readers were not satisfied with his own work, they
must have recourse to the translation. This she thought was as it ought
to be.
JAMES CLARKE said it always vexed him to hear ignorant people speak of
Hercules as if he were a God, and of Apollo and Jupiter as if they might
at some time have been men.
MARGARET said, Yes, the distinction between Gods and Demigods was that
the former were the creations of pure spontaneity, and the latter
actually existent personages, about whose heroic characters and lives all
congenial stories clustered.
J. F. C. did not like the statues of Hercules; the brawny figure was not
to his taste.
MARGARET thought it majestic. She said he belonged properly to Thessaly,
and was identified with its scenery. She told several little stories
about him. That of his sailing round the rock of Prometheus, in a golden
cup borrowed of Jupiter, was the least known. She told the story from
Ovid, the glowing account of his death, of the recognition by delighted
Jove. She said Wordsworth’s “Tour in Greece” gave her great materials for
thought.
Then she turned to Bacchus.
To show in what manner she supposed Bacchus to be the _answer_ or
complement to Apollo, she mentioned the statement of some late critic
upon the relation of Ceres and Persephone to each other.
Persephone was the hidden energy, the vestal fire, vivifying the
universe. Ceres was the productive faculty, external, bounteous. They
were two phases of one thing. It was the same with Apollo and Bacchus.
Apollo was the vivifying power of the sun; its genial glow stirred the
earth, and its noblest product, the grape, responded.
She spoke of the Bacchanalian festivals, of the spiritual character
attributed to them by Euripides, showing that originally they were
something more than gross orgies.
MRS. CLARKE (ANN WILBY) said that they licensed the wildest drunkenness
in Athens.
I said that was at a later time than Euripides undertook to picture. Were
they identical with the Orphic? Did Orpheus really bring them from Egypt?
MARGARET would accept that for a _beginning_.
E. P. P. thought that next winter we might have a talk about Roman
Mythology.
MARGARET liked the idea, and JAMES CLARKE seemed to accept it for the
whole party. He said that he had never felt any interest in the Greek
stories, until Margaret had made them the subject of conversation.
E. P. P. said she had felt excessively ashamed all through that she knew
so little.
MARGARET said no one need to feel so. It was a subject that might exhaust
any preparation. Still, she wished we _would_ study! She had herself
enjoyed great advantages. Nobody’s explanations had ever perplexed her
brain. She had been placed in a garden, with a great pile of books before
her. She began to read Latin before she read English. For a time these
deities were real to her, and she prayed: “O God! if thou art Jupiter!”
etc.
JAMES CLARKE said he remembered her once telling him that she prayed to
Bacchus for a bunch of grapes!
MARGARET smiled, and said that when she was first old enough to think
about Christianity, she cried out for her dear old Greek gods. Its
spirituality seemed nakedness. She could not and would not receive it. It
was a long while before she saw its deeper meaning.
CAROLINE W. HEALEY.
May 7, 1841.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Emerson’s presence at Conversations II. V. and VIII. is noted above,
because in his contribution to Margaret’s “Memoirs” he shows that his
attendance made absolutely no impression on him. He states that there
were but _five_ Conversations, and that he was present only at the second.
[2] Dr. Dana, a celebrated chemist, received a salary from the Merrimac
Manufacturing Co. as consulting chemist. Through his experiments and
practical skill, a radical change was made in the methods of dyeing and
printing calicoes. This was in connection with the use of madder, and
the Company claimed his discovery and allowed him no extra recompense.
It will be perceived that Mr. Ripley got his supposed facts from the
newspapers.