II

Men who write Journals are usually men of certain marked traits--they

are idealists, they love solitude rather than society, they are

self-conscious, and they love to write. At least this seems to be true

of the men of the past century who left Journals of permanent literary

worth--Amiel, Emerson, and Thoreau. Amiel's Journal has more the

character of a diary than has Emerson's or Thoreau's, though it is

also a record of thoughts as well as of days. Emerson left more

unprinted matter than he chose to publish during his lifetime.

The Journals of Emerson and Thoreau are largely made up of left-overs

from their published works, and hence as literary material, when

compared with their other volumes, are of secondary importance. You

could not make another "Walden" out of Thoreau's Journals, nor build

up another chapter on "Self-Reliance," or on "Character," or on the

"Over-Soul," from Emerson's, though there are fragments here and there

in both that are on a level with their best work.

Emerson records in 1835 that his brother Charles wondered that he did

not become sick at the stomach over his poor Journal: "Yet is obdurate

habit callous even to contempt. I must scribble on...." Charles

evidently was not a born scribbler like his brother. He was clearly

more fond of real life and of the society of his fellows. He was an

orator and could not do himself justice with the pen. Men who write

Journals, as I have said, are usually men of solitary habits, and

their Journal largely takes the place of social converse. Amiel,

Emerson, and Thoreau were lonely souls, lacking in social gifts, and

seeking relief in the society of their own thoughts. Such men go to

their Journals as other men go to their clubs. They love to be alone

with themselves, and dread to be benumbed or drained of their mental

force by uncongenial persons. To such a man his Journal becomes his

duplicate self and he says to it what he could not say to his nearest

friend. It becomes both an altar and a confessional. Especially is

this true of deeply religious souls such as the men I have named. They

commune, through their Journals, with the demons that attend them.

Amiel begins his Journal with the sentence, "There is but one thing

needful--to possess God," and Emerson's Journal in its most

characteristic pages is always a search after God, or the highest

truth.

"After a day of humiliation and stripes," he writes, "if I can write

it down, I am straightway relieved and can sleep well. After a day of

joy, the beating heart is calmed again by the diary. If grace is given

me by all angels and I pray, if then I can catch one ejaculation of

humility or hope and set it down in syllables, devotion is at an end."

"I write my journal, I deliver my lecture with joy," but "at the name

of society all my repulsions play, all my quills rise and sharpen."

He clearly had no genius for social intercourse. At the age of thirty

he said he had "no skill to live with men; that is, such men as the

world is made of; and such as I delight in I seldom find." Again he

says, aged thirty-two, "I study the art of solitude; I yield me as

gracefully as I can to destiny," and adds that it is "from eternity a

settled thing" that he and society shall be "nothing to each other."

He takes to his Journal instead. It is his house of refuge.

Yet he constantly laments how isolated he is, mainly by reason of the

poverty of his nature, his want of social talent, of animal heat, and

of sympathy with the commonplace and the humdrum. "I have no animal

spirits, therefore when surprised by company and kept in a chair for

many hours, my heart sinks, my brow is clouded, and I think I will run

for Acton woods and live with the squirrels henceforth." But he does

not run away; he often takes it out in hoeing in his garden: "My good

hoe as it bites the ground revenges my wrongs, and I have less lust to

bite my enemies." "In smoothing the rough hillocks I smooth my temper.

In a short time I can hear the bobolinks sing and see the blessed

deluge of light and color that rolls around me." Somewhere he has said

that the writer should not dig, and yet again and again we find him

resorting to hoe or spade to help him sleep, as well as to smooth his

temper: "Yesterday afternoon, I stirred the earth about my shrubs and

trees and quarrelled with the pipergrass, and now I have slept, and no

longer am morose nor feel twitchings in the muscles of my face when a

visitor is by." We welcome these and many another bit of

self-analysis: "I was born with a seeing eye and not a helping hand. I

can only comfort my friends by thought, and not by love or aid." "I

was made a hermit and am content with my lot. I pluck golden fruit

from rare meetings with wise men." Margaret Fuller told him he seemed

always on stilts: "It is even so. Most of the persons whom I see in my

own house I see across a gulf. I cannot go to them nor they come to

me. Nothing can exceed the frigidity and labor of my speech with

such. You might turn a yoke of oxen between every pair of words; and

the behavior is as awkward and proud."

* * * * *

"I would have my book read as I have read my favorite books, not with

explosion and astonishment, a marvel and a rocket, but a friendly and

agreeable influence stealing like a scent of a flower, or the sight of

a new landscape on a traveller. I neither wish to be hated and defied

by such as I startle, nor to be kissed and hugged by the young whose

thoughts I stimulate."

Here Emerson did center in himself and never apologized. His gospel of

self-reliance came natural to him. He was emphatically self, without a

trace of selfishness. He went abroad to study himself more than other

people--to note the effect of Europe on himself. He says, "I believe

it's sound philosophy that wherever we go, whatever we do, self is the

sole object we study and learn. Montaigne said himself was all he

knew. Myself is much more than I know, and yet I know nothing else."

In Paris he wrote to his brother William, "A lecture at the Sorbonne

is far less useful to me than a lecture that I write myself"; and as

for the literary society in Paris, though he thought longingly of it,

yet he said, "Probably in years it would avail me nothing."

The Journals are mainly a record of his thoughts and not of his days,

except so far as the days brought him ideas. Here and there the

personal element creeps in--some journey, some bit of experience, some

visitor, or walks with Channing, Hawthorne, Thoreau, Jones Very, and

others; some lecturing experience, his class meetings, his travels

abroad and chance meetings with distinguished men. But all the more

purely personal element makes up but a small portion of the ten thick

volumes of his Journal. Most readers, I fancy, will wish that the

proportion of these things were greater. We all have thoughts and

speculations of our own, but we can never hear too much about a man's

real life.

Emerson stands apart from the other poets and essayists of New

England, and of English literature generally, as of another order. He

is a reversion to an earlier type, the type of the bard, the skald,

the poet-seer. He is the poet and prophet of the moral ideal. His main

significance is religious, though nothing could be farther from him

than creeds and doctrines, and the whole ecclesiastical formalism.

There is an atmosphere of sanctity about him that we do not feel about

any other poet and essayist of his time. His poems are the fruit of

Oriental mysticism and bardic fervor grafted upon the shrewd,

parsimonious, New England puritanic stock. The stress and wild,

uncertain melody of his poetry is like that of the wind-harp. No

writing surpasses his in the extent to which it takes hold of the

concrete, the real, the familiar, and none surpasses his in its

elusive, mystical suggestiveness, and its cryptic character. It is

Yankee wit and shrewdness on one side, and Oriental devoutness,

pantheism, and symbolism on the other. Its cheerful and sunny light of

the common day enhances instead of obscures the light that falls from

the highest heaven of the spirit. Saadi or Hafiz or Omar might have

fathered him, but only a New England mother could have borne him.

Probably more than half his poetry escapes the average reader; his

longer poems, like "Initial, Dæmonic, and Celestial Love," "Monadnoc,"

"Merlin," "The Sphinx," "The World-Soul," set the mind groping for the

invisible rays of the spectrum of human thought and knowledge, but

many of the shorter poems, such as "The Problem," "Each and All,"

"Sea-Shore," "The Snow-Storm," "Musketaquid," "Days," "Song of

Nature," "My Garden," "Boston Hymn," "Concord Hymn," and others, are

among the most precious things in our literature.

As Emerson was a bard among poets, a seer among philosophers, a

prophet among essayists, an oracle among ethical teachers, so, as I

have said, was he a solitary among men. He walked alone. He somewhere

refers to his "porcupine impossibility of contact with men." His very

thoughts are not social among themselves, they separate. Each stands

alone; often they hardly have a bowing acquaintance; over and over

their juxtaposition is mechanical and not vital. The redeeming feature

is that they can afford to stand alone, like shafts of marble or

granite.

The force and worth of his page is not in its logical texture, but in

the beauty and truth of its isolated sentences and paragraphs. There

is little inductive or deductive reasoning in his books, but a series

of affirmations whose premises and logical connection the reader does

not always see.

He records that his hearers found his lectures fine and poetical but a

little puzzling. "One thought them as good as a kaleidoscope." The

solid men of business said that they did not understand them but their

daughters did.

The lecture committee in Illinois in 1856 told him that the people

wanted a hearty laugh. "The stout Illinoian," not finding the laugh,

"after a short trial walks out of the hall." I think even his best

Eastern audiences were always a good deal puzzled. The lecturer never

tried to meet them halfway. He says himself of one of his lectures, "I

found when I had finished my new lecture that it was a very good

house, only the architect had unfortunately omitted the stairs." The

absence of the stairs in his house--of an easy entrance into the

heart of the subject, and of a few consecutive and leading

ideas--will, in a measure, account for the bewilderment of his

hearers. When I heard Emerson in 1871 before audiences in Baltimore

and Washington, I could see and feel this uncertainty and bewilderment

in his auditors.

His lectures could not be briefly summarized. They had no central

thought. You could give a sample sentence, but not the one sentence

that commanded all the others. Whatever he called it, his theme, as he

himself confesses, was always fundamentally the same: "In all my

lectures I have taught one doctrine, namely, the infinitude of the

private man. This the people accept readily enough and even with loud

commendations as long as I call the lecture Art or Politics, or

Literature, or the Household, but the moment I call it Religion they

are shocked, though it be only the application of the same truth which

they receive everywhere else to a new class of facts."

Emerson's supreme test of a man, after all other points had been

considered, was the religious test: Was he truly religious? Was his

pole star the moral law? Was the sense of the Infinite ever with him?

But few contemporary authors met his requirements in this respect.

After his first visit abroad, when he saw Carlyle, Landor, Coleridge,

Wordsworth, and others, he said they were all second-or third-rate men

because of their want of the religious sense. They all looked

backward to a religion of other ages, and had no faith in a present

revelation.

His conception of the divine will as _the eternal tendency to the good

of the whole, active in every atom, every moment_, is one of the

thoughts in which religion and science meet and join hands.