These returns to that first year or two at Newport contribute meanwhile
to filling out as nothing in the present pages has yet done for me that
vision of our father's unsurpassable patience and independence, in the
interest of the convictions he cherished and the expression of them, as
richly emphatic as it was scantly heeded, to which he daily gave
himself. We took his "writing" infinitely for granted—we had always so
taken it, and the sense of him, each long morning, at his study table
either with bent considering brow or with a half-spent and checked
intensity, a lapse backward in his chair and a musing lift of perhaps
troubled and baffled eyes, seems to me the most constant fact, the most
closely interwoven and underlying, among all our breaks and variations.
He applied himself there with a regularity and a piety as little subject
to sighing abatements or betrayed fears as if he had been working under
pressure for his bread and ours and the question were too urgent for his
daring to doubt. This play of his remarkable genius brought him in fact
throughout the long years no ghost of a reward in the form of pence, and
could proceed to publicity, as it repeatedly did, not only by the
copious and resigned sacrifice of such calculations, but by his meeting
in every single case all the expenses of the process. The untired
impulse to this devotion figured for us, comprehensively and familiarly,
as "Father's Ideas," of the force and truth of which in his own view we
were always so respectfully, even though at times so bewilderedly and
confoundedly persuaded, that we felt there was nothing in his exhibition
of life that they didn't or couldn't account for. They pervaded and
supported his existence, and very considerably our own; but what comes
back to me, to the production of a tenderness and an admiration scarce
to be expressed, is the fact that though we thus easily and naturally
lived with them and indeed, as to their more general effects, the colour
and savour they gave to his talk, breathed them in and enjoyed both
their quickening and their embarrassing presence, to say nothing of
their almost never less than amusing, we were left as free and
unattacked by them as if they had been so many droppings of gold and
silver coin on tables and chimney-pieces, to be "taken" or not according
to our sense and delicacy, that is our felt need and felt honour. The
combination in him of his different vivacities, his living interest in
his philosophy, his living interest in us and his living superiority to
all greed of authority, all overreaching or overemphasising "success",
at least in the heated short run, gave his character a magnanimity by
which it was impossible to us not to profit in all sorts of responsive
and in fact quite luxurious ways. It was a luxury, I to-day see, to have
all the benefit of his intellectual and spiritual, his religious, his
philosophic and his social passion, without ever feeling the pressure of
it to our direct irritation or discomfort. It would perhaps more truly
figure the relation in which he left us to these things to have likened
our opportunities rather to so many scattered glasses of the liquor of
faith, poured-out cups stood about for our either sipping or draining
down or leaving alone, in the measure of our thirst, our curiosity or
our strength of head and heart. If there was much leaving alone in
us—and I freely confess that, so far as the taking any of it all
"straight" went, my lips rarely adventured—this was doubtless because
we drank so largely at the source itself, the personally overflowing and
irrigating. What it then comes to, for my present vision, was that he
treated us most of all on the whole, as he in fact treated everything,
by his saving imagination—which set us, and the more as we were
naturally so inclined, the example of living as much as we might in some
such light of our own. If we had been asked in our younger time for
instance what were our father's ideas, or to give an example of one
of them, I think we should promptly have answered (I should myself have
hastened to do so) that the principal was a devoted attachment to the
writings of Swedenborg; as to whom we were to remember betimes, with
intimate appreciation, that in reply to somebody's plea of not finding
him credible our parent had pronounced him, on the contrary, fairly
"insipid with veracity." We liked that partly, I think, because it
disposed in a manner, that is in favour of our detachment, of the great
Emanuel, but when I remember the part played, so close beside us, by
this latter's copious revelation, I feel almost ashamed for my own
incurious conduct. The part played consisted to a large extent in the
vast, even though incomplete, array of Swedenborg's works, the old faded
covers of which, anciently red, actually apt to be loose, and backed
with labels of impressive, though to my sense somewhat sinister London
imprint, Arcana Coelestia, Heaven and Hell and other such matters—they
all had, as from other days, a sort of black emphasis of dignity—ranged
themselves before us wherever, and however briefly, we disposed
ourselves, forming even for short journeys the base of our father's
travelling library and perhaps at some seasons therewith the accepted
strain on our mother's patience. I recall them as inveterately part of
our very luggage, requiring proportionate receptacles; I recall them as,
in a number considerable even when reduced, part of their proprietor's
own most particular dependence on his leaving home, during our more
agitated years, for those speculative visits to possible better places
(than whatever place of the moment) from which, as I have elsewhere
mentioned, he was apt to return under premature, under passionate
nostalgic, reaction. The Swedenborgs were promptly out again on their
customary shelves or sometimes more improvised perches, and it was
somehow not till we had assured ourselves of this that we felt that
incident closed.
Nothing could have exceeded at the same time our general sense—unless I
all discreetly again confine myself to the spare record of my own—for
our good fortune in never having been, even when most helpless, dragged
by any approach to a faint jerk over the threshold of the inhabited
temple. It stood there in the centre of our family life, into which its
doors of fine austere bronze opened straight; we passed and repassed
them when we didn't more consciously go round and behind; we took for
granted vague grand things within, but we never paused to peer or
penetrate, and none the less never had the so natural and wistful,
perhaps even the so properly resentful, "Oh I say, do look in a moment
for manners if for nothing else!" called after us as we went. Our
admirable mother sat on the steps at least and caught reverberations of
the inward mystic choir; but there were positive contemporary moments
when I well-nigh became aware, I think, of something graceless,
something not to the credit of my aspiring "intellectual life," or of
whatever small pretensions to seriousness I might have begun to nourish,
in the anything but heroic impunity of my inattention. William, later
on, made up for this not a little, redeeming so, to a large extent, as
he grew older, our filial honour in the matter of a decent sympathy, if
not of a noble curiosity: distinct to me even are certain echoes of
passages between our father and his eldest son that I assisted at, more
or less indirectly and wonderingly, as at intellectual "scenes,"
gathering from them portents of my brother's independent range of
speculation, agitations of thought and announcements of difference,
which could but have represented, far beyond anything I should ever have
to show, a gained and to a considerable degree an enjoyed, confessedly
an interested, acquaintance with the paternal philosophic penetralia.
That particular impression refers indeed to hours which at the point I
have reached had not yet struck; but I am touched even now, after all
the years, with something exquisite in my half-grasped premonitory
vision of their belonging, these belated discussions that were but the
flowering of the first germs of such other, doubtless already such
opposed, perceptions and conclusions, to that order of thin consolations
and broken rewards which long figured as the most and the best of what
was to have been waited for on our companion's part without the escape
of a plaint. Yet I feel I may claim that our awareness of all that was
so serenely dispensed with—to call it missed would have been quite to
falsify the story and reflect meanly on the spirit—never in the least
brutally lapsed from admiration, however unuttered the sentiment itself,
after the fashion of raw youth; it is in fact quite distinct to me that,
had there been danger of this, there came to us from our mother's lips
at intervals long enough to emphasise the final sincerity and beauty a
fairly sacred reminder of that strain of almost solely self-nourished
equanimity, or in other words insuperable gaiety, in her life's comrade,
which she had never seen give way. This was the very gaiety that kept
through the years coming out for us—to the point of inviting free jokes
and other light familiarities from us at its expense. The happiest
household pleasantry invested our legend of our mother's fond habit of
address, "Your father's ideas, you know—!" which was always the
signal for our embracing her with the last responsive finality (and, for
the full pleasure of it, in his presence). Nothing indeed so much as his
presence encouraged the licence, as I may truly call it, of the
legend—that is of our treatment en famille of any reference to the
attested public weight of his labours; which, I hasten to add, was much
too esoteric a ground of geniality, a dear old family joke, not to be
kept, for its value, to ourselves. But there comes back to me the
impression of his appearing on occasion quite moved to the exuberance of
cheer—as a form of refreshment he could draw on for a stronger and
brighter spurt, I mean—by such an apology for resonance of reputation
as our harmless, our of course utterly edgeless, profanity represented.
It might have been for him, by a happy stretch, a sign that the world
did know—taking us for the moment, in our selfish young babble, as a
part of the noise of the world. Nothing, at the same time, could alter
the truth of his case, or can at least alter it to me now: he had,
intellectually, convictionally, passionally speaking, a selfless
detachment, a lack of what is called the eye for effect—always I mean
of the elated and interested order—which I can but marvel at in the
light of the rare aptitude of his means to his end, and in that of the
beauty of both, though the stamp was doubtless most vivid, for so
differing, so gropingly "esthetic" a mind as my own, in his unfailingly
personal and admirable style. We knew he had thoroughly his own
"unconventional" form, which, by the unspeakable law of youth, we
managed to feel the distinction of as not platitudinous even while we a
bit sneakingly felt it as quotable, on possible occasions, against our
presence of mind; the great thing was at all events that we couldn't
live with him without the sense that if his books resembled his talk and
his character—as we moreover felt they couldn't help almost violently
doing—they might want for this, that or the other which kept the
conventional true to its type, but could as little fail to flush with
the strong colour, colour so remarkably given and not taken, projected
and not reflected, colour of thought and faith and moral and
expressional atmosphere, as they could leave us without that felt
side-wind of their strong composition which made after all so much of
the air we breathed and was in the last resort the gage of something
perpetually fine going on.
It is not too much to say, I think, that our religious education, so far
as we had any, consisted wholly in that loose yet enlightening
impression: I say so far as we had any in spite of my very definitely
holding that it would absolutely not have been possible to us, in the
measure of our sensibility, to breathe more the air of that reference to
an order of goodness and power greater than any this world by itself can
show which we understand as the religious spirit. Wondrous to me, as I
consider again, that my father's possession of this spirit, in a degree
that made it more deeply one with his life than I can conceive another
or a different case of its being, should have been unaccompanied with a
single one of the outward or formal, the theological, devotional,
ritual, or even implicitly pietistic signs by which we usually know it.
The fact of course was that his religion was nothing if not a
philosophy, extraordinarily complex and worked out and original,
intensely personal as an exposition, yet not only susceptible of
application, but clamorous for it, to the whole field of consciousness,
nature and society, history, knowledge, all human relations and
questions, every pulse of the process of our destiny. Of this vast and
interesting conception, as striking an expression of the religious
spirit surely as ever was put forth, his eldest son has given an
account[6]—so far as this was possible at once with brevity and with
full comprehension—that I should have been unable even to dream of
aspiring to, and in the masterly clearness and justice of which the
opportunity of the son blends with that of the critic, each character
acting in perfect felicity, after a fashion of which I know elsewhere no
such fine example. It conveys the whole sense of our father's
philosophic passion, which was theologic, by my direct impression of it,
to a degree fairly outdistancing all theologies; representing its
weight, reproducing its utterance, placing it in the eye of the world,
and making for it the strong and single claim it suggests, in a manner
that leaves nothing to be added to the subject. I am not concerned with
the intrinsic meaning of these things here, and should not be even had
they touched me more directly, or more converted me from what I can best
call, to my doubtless scant honour, a total otherness of contemplation,
during the years when my privilege was greatest and my situation for
inquiry and response amplest; but the active, not to say the obvious,
moral of them, in all our younger time, was that a life of the most
richly consequent flowed straight out of them, that in this life, the
most abundantly, and above all naturally, communicated as life that it
was possible to imagine, we had an absolutely equal share, and that in
fine I was to live to go back with wonder and admiration to the quantity
of secreted thought in our daily medium, the quality of intellectual
passion, the force of cogitation and aspiration, as to the explanation
both of a thousand surface incoherences and a thousand felt felicities.
A religion that was so systematically a philosophy, a philosophy that
was so sweepingly a religion, being together, by their necessity, as I
have said, an intensity of relation to the actual, the consciousness so
determined was furnished forth in a way that met by itself the whole
question of the attitude of "worship" for instance; as I have attempted
a little to show that it met, with a beautiful good faith and the
easiest sufficiency, every other when such came up: those of education,
acquisition, material vindication, what is called success generally. In
the beauty of the whole thing, again, I lose myself—by which I mean in
the fact that we were all the while partaking, to our most intimate
benefit, of an influence of direction and enlargement attended with
scarce a single consecrated form and which would have made many of
these, had we been exposed to intrusion from them, absurdly irrelevant.
My father liked in our quite younger period to read us chapters from the
New Testament and the Old, and I hope we liked to listen to them—though
I recall their seeming dreary from their association with school
practice; but that was the sole approach to a challenge of our complete
freedom of inward, not less than our natural ingenuity of outward,
experience. No other explicit address to us in the name of the Divine
could, I see, have been made with any congruity—in face of the fact
that invitations issued in all the vividest social terms, terms of
living appreciation, of spiritual perception, of "human fellowship," to
use the expression that was perhaps oftenest on his lips and his pen
alike, were the very substance of the food supplied in the parental
nest.
The freedom from pressure that we enjoyed in every direction, all those
immunities and exemptions that had been, in protracted childhood,
positively embarrassing to us, as I have already noted, before the
framework, ecclesiastical and mercantile, squared at us as with
reprobation from other households, where it seemed so to conduce to
their range of resource—these things consorted with our yet being
yearned over or prescribed for, by every implication, after a fashion
that was to make the social organisation of such invidious homes, under
my subsequent observation of life, affect me as so much bleak penury or
domestic desert where these things of the spirit, these genialities of
faith were concerned. Well do I remember, none the less, how I was
troubled all along just by this particular crookedness of our being so
extremely religious without having, as it were, anything in the least
classified or striking to show for it; so that the measure of
other-worldliness pervading our premises was rather a waste, though at
the same time oddly enough a congestion—projecting outwardly as it did
no single one of those usual symptoms of propriety any of which,
gathered at a venture from the general prospect, might by my sense have
served: I shouldn't have been particular, I thought, as to the
selection. Religion was a matter, by this imagination, to be worked off
much more than to be worked in, and I fear my real vague sentiment to
have been but that life would under the common equipment be somehow more
amusing; and this even though, as I don't forget, there was not an item
of the detail of devotional practice that we had been so much as allowed
to divine. I scarce know why I should have wanted anything more amusing,
as most of our coevals would have regarded it, than that we had from as
far back as I could remember indulged in no shade of an approach to
"keeping Sunday"; which is one of the reasons why to speak as if piety
could have borne for us any sense but the tender human, or to speak at
all of devotion, unction, initiation, even of the vaguest, into the
exercises or professions, as among our attributes, would falsify
altogether our mere fortune of a general liberty of living, of making
ourselves as brightly at home as might be, in that "spiritual world"
which we were in the habit of hearing as freely alluded to as we heard
the prospect of dinner or the call of the postman. The oddity of my own
case, as I make it out so far as it involved a confused criticism, was
that my small uneasy mind, bulging and tightening in the wrong, or at
least in unnatural and unexpected, places, like a little jacket ill cut
or ill sewn, attached its gaping view, as I have already more than
enough noted, to things and persons, objects and aspects, frivolities
all, I dare say I was willing to grant, compared with whatever
manifestations of the serious, these being by need, apparently, the
abstract; and that in fine I should have been thankful for a state of
faith, a conviction of the Divine, an interpretation of the
universe—anything one might have made bold to call it—which would have
supplied more features or appearances. Feeling myself "after" persons so
much more than after anything else—to recur to that side of my earliest
and most constant consciousness which might have been judged most
deplorable—I take it that I found the sphere of our more nobly
supposititious habitation too imperceptibly peopled; whereas the
religious life of every other family that could boast of any such (and
what family didn't boast?) affected my fancy as with a social and
material crowdedness. That faculty alone was affected—this I hasten to
add; no directness of experience ever stirred for me; it being the case
in the first place that I scarce remember, as to all our young time, the
crossing of our threshold by any faint shade of an ecclesiastical
presence, or the lightest encounter with any such elsewhere, and equally
of the essence, over and above, that the clerical race, the
pre-eminently restrictive tribe, as I apprehended them, couldn't very
well have agreed less with the general colour of my fondest vision: if
it be not indeed more correct to say that I was reduced to supposing
they couldn't. We knew in truth nothing whatever about them, a fact
that, as I recover it, also flushes for me with its fine
awkwardness—the social scene in general handsomely bristling with them
to the rueful view I sketch, and they yet remaining for us, or at any
rate for myself, such creatures of pure hearsay that when late in my
teens, and in particular after my twentieth year, I began to see them
portrayed by George Eliot and Anthony Trollope the effect was a
disclosure of a new and romantic species. Strange beyond my present
power to account for it this anomaly that amid a civilisation replete
with "ministers"—for we at least knew the word—actively,
competitively, indeed as would often appear quite violently,
ministering, so little sense of a brush against approved examples was
ever to attend me that I had finally to draw my nearest sufficiency of
a true image from pictures of a social order largely alien to our own.
All of which, at the same time, I allow myself to add, didn't mitigate
the simple fact of my felt—my indeed so luxuriously
permitted—detachment of sensibility from everything, everything, that
is, in the way of great relations, as to which our father's emphasis was
richest. There was the dim dissociation, there my comparative poverty,
or call it even frivolity, of instinct: I gaped imaginatively, as it
were, to such a different set of relations. I couldn't have framed
stories that would have succeeded in involving the least of the
relations that seemed most present to him; while those most present to
myself, that is more complementary to whatever it was I thought of as
humanly most interesting, attaching, inviting, were the ones his schemes
of importances seemed virtually to do without. Didn't I discern in this
from the first a kind of implied snub to the significance of mine?—so
that, in the blest absence of "pressure" which I just sought here
passingly to celebrate, I could brood to my heart's content on the so
conceivable alternative of a field of exposure crammed with those
objective appearances that my faculty seemed alone fitted to grasp. In
which there was ever the small torment of the fact—though I don't quite
see to-day why it should not have been of a purely pleasant
irritation—that what our parent most overflowed with was just the brave
contradiction or opposition between all his parts, a thing which made
for perfect variety, which he carried ever so easily and brightly, and
which would have put one no less in the wrong had one accused him of
knowing only the abstract (as I was so complacently and invidiously
disposed to name it) than if one had foolishly remarked on his living
and concluding without it. But I have already made clear his great mixed
range—which of course couldn't not have been the sign of a mind
conceiving our very own breathing humanity in its every fibre the
absolute expression of a resident Divinity. No element of character, no
spontaneity of life, but instantly seized his attention and incurred his
greeting and his comment; which things could never possibly have been so
genially alert and expert—as I have, again, before this,
superabundantly recorded—if it had not fairly fed on active observation
and contact. He could answer one with the radiant when one challenged
him with the obscure, just as he could respond with the general when one
pulled at the particular; and I needn't repeat that this made for us,
during all our time, anything but a starved actuality.
None the less, however, I remember it as savouring of loss to me—which
is my present point—that our so thoroughly informal scene of
susceptibility seemed to result from a positive excess of familiarity,
in his earlier past, with such types of the shepherd and the flock, to
say nothing of such forms of the pasture, as might have met in some
degree my appetite for the illustrational. This was one of the things
that made me often wish, as I remember, that I might have caught him
sooner or younger, less developed, as who should say; the matters that
appeared, however confusedly, to have started his development being by
this measure stranger and livelier than most of those that finally
crowned it, marked with their own colour as many of these doubtless
were. Three or four strongest pages in the fragment of autobiography
gathered by his eldest son into the sheaf of his Literary Remains
describe the state of soul undergone by him in England, in '44, just
previous to the hour at which Mrs. Chichester, a gentle lady of his
acquaintance there, brought to his knowledge, by a wondrous chance, the
possibility that the great Swedenborg, from whom she had drawn much
light, might have something to say to his case; so that under the
impression of his talk with her he posted at once up to London from the
neighbourhood of Windsor, where he was staying, possessed himself of
certain volumes of the writings of the eminent mystic (so-called I
mean, for to my father this description of him was grotesque), and
passed rapidly into that grateful infinitude of recognition and
application which he was to inhabit for the rest of his days. I saw him
move about there after the fashion of the oldest and easiest native, and
this had on some sides its own considerable effect, tinged even on
occasion with romance; yet I felt how the real right thing for me
would have been the hurrying drama of the original rush, the interview
with the admirable Mrs. Chichester, the sweet legend of his and my
mother's charmed impression of whom had lingered with us—I admired her
very name, there seeming none other among us at all like it; and then
the return with the tokens of light, the splendid agitation as the light
deepened, and the laying in of that majestic array of volumes which were
to form afterward the purplest rim of his library's horizon and which I
was thus capable, for my poor part, of finding valuable, in default of
other values, as coloured properties in a fine fifth act. It was all a
play I hadn't "been to," consciously at least—that was the trouble; the
curtain had fallen while I was still tucked in my crib, and I assisted
but on a comparatively flat home scene at the echo of a great success. I
could still have done, for the worst, with a consciousness of Swedenborg
that should have been graced at least with Swedenborgians—aware as I
was of the existence of such enrolled disciples, ornaments of a church
of their own, yet known to us only as persons rather acidly mystified by
the inconvenience, as we even fancied them to feel it, of our father's
frankly independent and disturbingly irregular (all the more for its
being so expressive) connection with their inspirer. In the light or the
dusk of all this it was surely impossible to make out that he professed
any faint shade of that clerical character as to his having incurred
which we were, "in the world," to our bewilderment, not infrequently
questioned. Those of the enrolled order, in the matter of his and their
subject of study, might in their way too have raised to my regard a
fretted vault or opened a long-drawn aisle, but they were never at all,
in the language of a later day, to materialise to me; we neither on a
single occasion sat in their circle, nor did one of them, to the best of
my belief, ever stray, remonstrantly or invitingly, into ours; where
Swedenborg was read not in the least as the Bible scarce more than just
escaped being, but even as Shakespeare or Dickens or Macaulay was
content to be—which was without our arranging or subscribing for it. I
seem to distinguish that if a fugitive or a shy straggler from the
pitched camp did turn up it was under cover of night or of curiosity and
with much panting and putting off of the mantle, much nervous laughter
above all—this safe, however, to become on the shortest order amusement
easy and intimate. That figured something in a slight way—as at least
I suppose I may infer from the faint adumbration I retain; but nothing
none the less much attenuated what I suppose I should have denounced as
the falsity of our position (meaning thereby of mine) had I been
constitutionally at all voluble for such flights. Constructionally we
had all the fun of licence, while the truth seemed really to be that fun
in the religious connection closely depended on bondage. The fun was of
course that I wanted in this line of diversion something of the coarser
strain; which came home to me in especial, to cut the matter short, when
I was present, as I yielded first and last to many an occasion for
being, at my father's reading out to my mother with an appreciation of
that modest grasp of somebody's attention, the brief illusion of
publicity, which has now for me the exquisite grace of the touching,
some series of pages from among his "papers" that were to show her how
he had this time at last done it. No touch of the beautiful or the
sacred in the disinterested life can have been absent from such
scenes—I find every such ideally there; and my memory rejoices above
all in their presentation of our mother at her very perfectest of
soundless and yet absolutely all-saving service and trust. To have
attempted any projection of our father's aspect without an immediate
reference to her sovereign care for him and for all of us as the so
widely open, yet so softly enclosing, lap of all his liberties and all
our securities, all our variety and withal our harmony, the harmony that
was for nine-tenths of it our sense of her gathered life in us, and of
her having no other—to have so proceeded has been but to defer by
instinct and by scruple to the kind of truth and of beauty before which
the direct report breaks down. I may well have stopped short with what
there would be to say, and yet what account of us all can pretend to
have gone the least bit deep without coming to our mother at every
penetration? We simply lived by her, in proportion as we lived
spontaneously, with an equanimity of confidence, an independence of
something that I should now find myself think of as decent compunction
if I didn't try to call it instead morbid delicacy, which left us free
for detachments of thought and flights of mind, experiments, so to
speak, on the assumption of our genius and our intrinsic interest, that
I look back upon as to a luxury of the unworried that is scarce of this
world. This was a support on which my father rested with the absolute
whole of his weight, and it was when I felt her listen with the whole of
her usefulness, which needed no other force, being as it was the whole
of her tenderness and amply sufficing by itself, that I understood most
what it was so to rest and so to act. When in the fulness of the years
she was to die, and he then to give us time, a few months, as with a
beatific depth of design, to marvel at the manner of his acceptance of
the stroke, a shown triumph of his philosophy, he simply one day
consciously ceased, quietly declined to continue, as an offered measure
of his loss of interest. Nothing—he had enabled himself to make
perfectly sure—was in the least worth while without her; this attested,
he passed away or went out, with entire simplicity, promptness and ease,
for the definite reason that his support had failed. His philosophy had
been not his support but his suspension, and he had never, I am sure,
felt so lifted as at that hour, which splendidly crowned his faith. It
showed us more intimately still what, in this world of cleft components,
one human being can yet be for another, and how a form of vital aid may
have operated for years with such perfection as fairly to have made
recognition seem at the time a sort of excess of reaction, an
interference or a pedantry. All which is imaged for me while I see our
mother listen, at her work, to the full music of the "papers." She could
do that by the mere force of her complete availability, and could do it
with a smoothness of surrender that was like an array of all the
perceptions. The only thing that I might well have questioned on these
occasions was the possibility on the part of a selflessness so
consistently and unabatedly active of its having anything ever left
acutely to offer; to abide so unbrokenly in such inaptness for the
personal claim might have seemed to render difficult such a special show
of it as any particular pointedness of hospitality would propose to
represent. I dare say it was our sense of this that so often made us
all, when the explicit or the categoric, the impulse of acclamation,
flowered out in her, find our happiest play of filial humour in just
embracing her for the sound of it; than which I can imagine no more
expressive tribute to our constant depths of indebtedness. She lived in
ourselves so exclusively, with such a want of use for anything in her
consciousness that was not about us and for us, that I think we almost
contested her being separate enough to be proud of us—it was too like
our being proud of ourselves. We were delightedly derisive with her even
about pride in our father—it was the most domestic of our pastimes; for
what really could exceed the tenderness of our fastening on her that she
was he, was each of us, was our pride and our humility, our
possibility of any relation, and the very canvas itself on which we
were floridly embroidered? How can I better express what she seemed to
do for her second son in especial than by saying that even with her
deepest delicacy of attention present I could still feel, while my
father read, why it was that I most of all seemed to wish we might have
been either much less religious or much more so? Was not the reason at
bottom that I so suffered, I might almost have put it, under the
impression of his style, which affected me as somehow too philosophic
for life, and at the same time too living, as I made out, for
thought?—since I must weirdly have opined that by so much as you were
individual, which meant personal, which meant monotonous, which meant
limitedly allusive and verbally repetitive, by so much you were not
literary or, so to speak, largely figurative. My father had terms,
evidently strong, but in which I presumed to feel, with a shade of
irritation, a certain narrowness of exclusion as to images
otherwise—and oh, since it was a question of the pen, so
multitudinously!—entertainable. Variety, variety—that sweet ideal,
that straight contradiction of any dialectic, hummed for me all the
while as a direct, if perverse and most unedified, effect of the
parental concentration, with some of its consequent, though heedless,
dissociations. I heard it, felt it, saw it, both shamefully enjoyed and
shamefully denied it as form, though as form only; and I owed thus
supremely to my mother that I could, in whatever obscure levity, muddle
out some sense of my own preoccupation under the singular softness of
the connection that she kept for me, by the outward graces, with that
other and truly much intenser which I was so little framed to share.
If meanwhile my father's tone, so far as that went, was to remain the
same, save for a natural growth of assurance, and thereby of amplitude,
all his life, I find it already, and his very voice as we were to know
them, in a letter to R. W. Emerson of 1842, without more specific date,
after the loose fashion of those days, but from 2 Washington Place, New
York, the second house in the row between the University building and
Broadway, as he was next to note to his correspondent in expressing the
hope of a visit from him. (It was the house in which, the following
year, his second son was born.)
I came home to-night from my lecture a little disposed to think,
from the smart reduction of my audience, that I had about as well
not have prepared my course, especially as I get no tidings of
having interested one of the sort (the religious) for whom they are
wholly designed. When I next see you I want a half-hour's support
from you under this discouragement, and the purpose of this letter
is to secure it. When I am with you I get no help from you—of
the sort you can give me, I feel sure; though you must know what I
want before I listen to you next. Usually the temper you show, of
perfect repose and candour, free from all sickening partisanship
and full of magnanimous tenderness for every creature, makes me
forget my wants in your lavish plenty. But I know you have the same
as I have, deep down in your breast, and it is by these I would
fain know you. I am led, quite without any conscious wilfulness
either, to seek the laws of these appearances that swim round us
in God's great museum, to get hold of some central facts which may
make all other facts properly circumferential and orderly; and you
continually dishearten me by your apparent indifference to such law
and such facts, by the dishonour you seem to cast on our
intelligence as if it were what stands in our way. Now my
conviction is that my intelligence is the necessary digestive
apparatus for my life; that there is nihil in vita—worth anything,
that is—quod non prius in intellectu. Now is it not so in truth
with you? Can you not report your life to me by some intellectual
symbol which my intellect appreciates? Do you not know your
activity? But fudge—I cannot say what I want to say, what aches to
say itself in me, and so I'll hold up till I see you, and try once
more to get some better furtherance by my own effort. Here I am
these thirty-one years in life, ignorant in all outward science,
but having patient habits of meditation which never know disgust or
weariness, and feeling a force of impulsive love toward all
humanity which will not let me rest wholly mute, a force which
grows against all resistance that I can muster against it. What
shall I do? Shall I get me a little nook in the country and
communicate with my living kind—not my talking kind—by life
only; a word perhaps of that communication, a fit word once a
year? Or shall I follow some commoner method—learn science and
bring myself first into man's respect, that I may thus the better
speak to him? I confess this last theory seems rank with
earthliness—to belong to days forever past.
His appeal to Emerson at this hour was, as he elsewhere then puts it, to
the "invisible" man in the matter, who affected him as somewhere behind
the more or less immediately visible, the beautifully but mystifyingly
audible, the Emerson of honeyed lectures and addresses, suggestive and
inspiring as that one might be, and who might, as we say to-day, have
something, something more at least, for him. "I will tell him that I do
not value his substantive discoveries, whatever they may be, perhaps
half so largely as he values them, but that I chiefly cherish that erect
attitude of mind in him which in God's universe undauntedly seeks the
worthiest tidings of God, and calmly defies every mumbling phantom which
would challenge its freedom. Should his zeal for realities and contempt
of vulgar shows abide the ordeal I have thus contrived for them I shall
gladly await his visit to me. So much at least is what I have been
saying to myself. Now that I have told it to you also you have become a
sort of confidant between me and myself, and so bound to promote harmony
there." The correspondence expands, however, beyond my space for
reporting of it; I but pick out a few passages.
I am cheered by the coming of Carlyle's new book, which Greeley
announces, and shall hasten off for it as soon as I have
leisure.[7] The title is provokingly enigmatical, but thought
enough there will be in it no doubt, whatever the name; thought
heaped up to topheaviness and inevitable lopsidedness, but more
interesting to me than comes from any other quarter of
Europe—interesting for the man's sake whom it shows. According to
my notion he is the very best interpreter of a spiritual philosophy
that could be devised for this age, the age of transition and
conflict; and what renders him so is his natural
birth-and-education-place. Just to think of a Scotchman with a
heart widened to German spiritualities! To have overcome his
educational bigotries far enough to listen to the new ideas, this
by itself was wonderful; and then to give all his native shrewdness
and humour to the service of making them tell to the minds of his
people—what more fortunate thing for the time could there be? You
don't look upon Calvinism as a fact at all; wherein you are to my
mind philosophically infirm—impaired in your universality. I can
see in Carlyle the advantage his familiarity with it gives him over
you with a general audience. What is highest in him is built upon
that lowest. At least so I read; I believe Jonathan Edwards
redivivus in true blue would, after an honest study of the
philosophy that has grown up since his day, make the best possible
reconciler and critic of this philosophy—far better than Schelling
redivivus.
In the autumn of 1843 the "nook in the country" above alluded to had
become a question renounced, so far at least as the American country
was concerned, and never again afterwards flushed into life. "I think it
probable I shall winter in some mild English climate, Devonshire
perhaps, and go on with my studies as at home. I shall miss the stimulus
of your candid and generous society, and I confess we don't like the
aspect of the journey; but one's destiny puts on many garments as it
goes shaping itself in secret—so let us not cling to any particular
fashion." Very marked, and above all very characteristic of my father,
in this interesting relation, which I may but so imperfectly illustrate,
his constant appeal to his so inspired, yet so uninflamed, so
irreducible and, as it were, inapplicable, friend for intellectual and,
as he would have said, spiritual help of the immediate and adjustable,
the more concretely vital, kind, the kind translatable into terms of the
real, the particular human terms of action and passion. "Oh you man
without a handle! Shall one never be able to help himself out of you,
according to his needs, and be dependent only upon your fitful
tippings-up?"—a remarkably felicitous expression, as it strikes me, of
that difficulty often felt by the passionately-living of the earlier
time, as they may be called, to draw down their noble philosopher's
great overhanging heaven of universal and ethereal answers to the plane
of their comparatively terrestrial and personal questions; the note of
the answers and their great anticipatory spirit being somehow that they
seemed to anticipate everything but the unaccommodating individual case.
My father, on his side, bristled with "handles"—there could scarce be a
better general account of him—and tipped himself up for you almost
before you could take hold of one; of which truth, for that matter, this
same letter happens to give, even if just trivially, the hint. "Can I do
anything for you in the way of taking parcels, no matter how large or
expensive?—or for any of your friends? If you see Margaret Fuller ask
her to give me some service to render her abroad, the dear noble woman:
it seems a real hardship to be leaving the country now that I have just
come to talk with her." Emerson, I should add, did offer personally so
solid a handle that my father appears to have taken from him two
introductions to be made use of in London, one to Carlyle and the other
to John Sterling, the result of which shortly afterwards was as vivid
and as deeply appropriated an impression of each eminent character as it
was probably to be given either of them ever to have made. The
impression of Carlyle was recorded but long subsequently, I note, and is
included in William's gathering-in of our father's Literary Remains
(1885); and of the acquaintance with Sterling no reflection remains but
a passage in a letter, under date of Ventnor and of the winter of 1843,
from the latter to his biographer to be; Carlyle having already
mentioned in the Life that "Two American gentlemen, acquaintances also
of mine, had been recommended to him, by Emerson most likely"; and that
"one morning Sterling appeared here with a strenuous proposal that we
should come to Knightsbridge and dine with him and them.... And
accordingly we went," it goes on. "I remember it as one of the saddest
dinners; though Sterling talked copiously, and our friends, Theodore
Parker one of them, were pleasant and distinguished men." My father,
with Theodore Parker his friend and the date fitting, would quite seem
to have been one of the pair were it not that "our conversation was
waste and logical, I forget quite on what, not joyful and harmoniously
effusive." It is that that doesn't fit with any real participation of
his—nothing could well do less so; unless the occasion had but too
closely conformed to the biographer's darkly and richly prophetic view
of it as tragic and ominous, "sad as if one had been dining in a ruin,
in the crypt of a mausoleum"—all this "painfully apparent through the
bright mask (Sterling) had bound himself to wear." The end of his life
was then, to Carlyle's view, in sight; but his own note, in the Isle of
Wight, on "Mr. James, your New-England friend," was genial enough—"I
saw him several times and liked him. They went on the 24th of last month
back to London—or so purposed," he adds, "because there is no pavement
here for him to walk on. I want to know where he is, and thought I
should be able to learn from you. I gave him a note for Mill, who may
perhaps have seen him."
My main interest in which is, I confess, for the far-off germ of the odd
legend, destined much to grow later on, that—already the nucleus of a
household—we were New England products; which I think my parents could
then have even so much as seemed only to eyes naturally unaware of our
American "sectional" differences. My father, when considerably past his
thirtieth year, if I am not mistaken, had travelled "East," within our
borders, but once in his life—on the occasion of his spending two or
three months in Boston as a very young man; there connecting itself with
this for me a reminiscence so bedimmed at once and so suggestive as now
almost to torment me. It must have been in '67 or '68 that, giving him
my arm, of a slippery Boston day, up or down one of the steep streets
that used to mount, from behind, and as slightly sullen with the effort,
to Beacon Hill, and between which my now relaxed memory rather fails to
discriminate, I was arrested by his pointing out to me opposite us a
house in which he had for a while had rooms, long before and quite in
his early time. I but recall that we were more or less skirting the base
of an ancient town-reservoir, the seat of the water-supply as then
constituted, a monument rugged and dark, massively granitic, perched all
perversely, as it seemed to look, on the precipitous slope, and
which—at least as I see it through the years—struck quite handsomely
the Babylonian note. I at any rate mix up with this frowning object—it
had somehow a sinister presence and suggestion—my companion's mention
there in front of it that he had anciently taken refuge under its shadow
from certain effects of a misunderstanding, if indeed not of a sharp
rupture, for the time, with a highly generous but also on occasion
strongly protesting parent at Albany, a parent displeased with some
course he had taken or had declined to take (there was a tradition among
us that he had been for a period quite definitely "wild"), and relief
from further discussion with whom he had sought, and had more or less
found, on that spot. It was an age in which a flight from Albany to
Boston—there being then no Boston and Albany Railroad—counted as a far
flight; though it wasn't to occur to me either then or afterwards that
the ground of this manœuvre had been any plotted wildness in the
Puritan air. What was clear at the moment, and what he remarked upon,
was that the street-scene about us showed for all the lapse of time no
scrap of change, and I remember well for myself how my first impression
of Boston gave it to me under certain aspects as more expressive than I
had supposed an American city could be of a seated and rooted social
order, an order not complex but sensibly fixed—gathered in or folded
back to intensity upon itself; and this, again and again, when the
compass of the posture, its narrow field, might almost have made the
fold excruciating. It had given however no sign of excruciation—that
itself had been part of the Puritan stoicism; which perhaps was exactly
why the local look, recognised to the point I speak of by the visitor,
was so contained and yet comparatively so full: full, very nearly, I
originally fancied, after the appraisable fashion of some composed
town-face in one of Balzac's villes de province. All of which, I
grant, is much to say for the occasion of that dropped confidence, on
the sloshy hillside, to which I allude—and part of the action of which
was that it had never been dropped before; this circumstance somehow a
peculiar source of interest, an interest I the more regret to have lost
my grasp of as it must have been sharp, or in other words founded, to
account for the long reverberation here noted. I had still—as I was
indeed to keep having through life—the good fortune that elements of
interest easily sprang, to my incurable sense, from any ghost of a drama
at all presented; though I of course can't in the least pretend to
generalise on what may or may not have constituted living presentation.
This felicity occurred, I make out, quite incalculably, just as it could
or would; the effect depended on some particular touch of the spring,
which was set in motion the instant the touch happened to be right. My
father's was always right, to my receptive mind; as receptive, that is,
of any scrap of enacted story or evoked picture as it was closed to the
dry or the abstract proposition; so that I blush the deeper at not being
able, in honour of his reference, to make the latter more vividly
flower—I still so feel that I quite thrilled with it and with the
standing background at the moment lighted by it. There were things in
it, and other persons, old actualities, old meanings and furnishings of
the other old Boston, as I by that time couldn't but appraise it; and
the really archaic, the overhung and sombre and secret-keeping street,
"socially" disconnected, socially mysterious—as I like at any rate to
remember it—was there to testify (testify to the ancient time of
tension, expansion, sore meditation or whatever) by its positively
conscious gloom.
The moral of this, I fear, amounts to little more than that, putting
aside the substance of his anecdote, my father had not set foot in New
England till toward his thirty-fifth year, and my mother was not to do
so till later still; circumstances not in the least preventing the birth
of what I have called the falsifying legend. The allusion to the walking
at Ventnor touches his inability to deal with rural roads and paths,
then rougher things than now; by reason of an accident received in early
youth and which had so lamed him for life that he could circulate to any
convenience but on even surfaces and was indeed mainly reduced to
driving—it had made him for all his earlier time an excellent whip. His
constitution had been happily of the strongest, but as I look back I see
his grave disability, which it took a strong constitution to carry,
mainly in the light of a consistency of patience that we were never to
have heard broken. The two acceptances melt together for me—that of the
limits of his material action, his doing and enjoying, set so narrowly,
and that of his scant allowance of "public recognition," or of the
support and encouragement that spring, and spring so naturally and
rightly, when the relation of effect to cause is close and straight,
from any at all attested and glad understanding of a formula, as we say
nowadays a message, richly and sincerely urged. Too many such
reflections, however, beset me here by the way. My letters jump
meanwhile to the summer of 1849, when I find in another of them,
addressed to Emerson, a passage as characteristic as possible of one of
the writer's liveliest and, as I confess it was ever to seem to me, most
genially perverse idiosyncrasies, his distinctly low opinion of "mere"
literary men. This note his letters in general again and again
strike—not a little to the diversion of those who were to have observed
and remembered his constant charmed subjection, in the matter of
practice, to the masters, even quite the lighter, in the depreciated
group. His sensibility to their spell was in fact so marked that it
became from an early time a household game with us to detect him in
evasive tears over their pages, when these were either real or romantic
enough, and to publish without mercy that he had so been caught. There
was a period in particular during which this pastime enjoyed, indeed
quite revelled in, the form of our dragging to the light, with every
circumstance of derision, the fact of his clandestine and deeply moved
perusal of G. P. R. James, our nominal congener, at that time ceasing to
be prescribed. It was his plea, in the "'fifties," that this romancer
had been his idol in the 'forties and the 'thirties, and that under
renewed, even if but experimental, surrender the associations of youth
flocked back to life—so that we, profane about the unduly displaced
master, were deplorably the poorer. He loved the novel in fine, he
followed its constant course in the Revue with a beautiful
inconsequence, and the more it was literature loved it the better, which
was just how he loved, as well, criticism and journalism; the particular
instance, with him, once he was in relation with it, quite sufficiently
taking care of the invidiously-viewed type—as this was indeed viewed
but a priori and at its most general—and making him ever so
cheerfully forget to be consistent. Work was verily cut out for the
particular instance, as against the type, in an air and at a time
favouring so, again and again, and up and down the "literary world," a
dire mediocrity. It was the distillers of that thinness, the "mere"
ones, that must have been present to him when he wrote to Emerson in
1849: "There is nothing I dread so much as literary men, especially
our literary men; catch them out of the range of mere personal gossip
about authors and books and ask them for honest sympathy in your
sentiment, or for an honest repugnancy of it, and you will find the
company of stage-drivers sweeter and more comforting to your soul. In
truth the questions which are beginning to fill the best books, and will
fill the best for a long time to come, are not related to what we have
called literature, and are as well judged—I think better—by those
whom books have at all events not belittled. When a man lives, that is
lives enough, he can scarcely write. He cannot read, I apprehend, at
all. All his writing will be algebraicised, put into the form of sonnets
and proverbs, and the community will feel itself insulted to be offered
a big bunch of pages, as though it were stupid and wanted tedious
drilling like a child." When I begin to quote my father, however, I hang
over him perhaps even too historically; for his expression leads me on
and on so by its force and felicity that I scarce know where to stop.
"The fact is that I am afraid I am in a very bad way, for I cannot
heartily engage in any topic in which I shall appear to advantage"—the
question having been, de part et d'autre, of possible courses of
lectures for which the appetite of New York and Boston already announced
itself as of the largest. And it still more beguiles me that "my wife
and I are obliged—so numerous has waxed our family—to enlarge our
house in town and get a country house for the summer." Here came in that
earnest dream of the solutional "Europe" with which I have elsewhere
noted that my very youngest sensibility was fed. "These things look
expensive and temporary to us, besides being an additional care; and so,
considering with much pity our four stout boys, who have no play-room
within doors and import shocking bad manners from the street, we gravely
ponder whether it wouldn't be better to go abroad for a few years with
them, allowing them to absorb French and German and get such a sensuous
education as they can't get here."
In 1850, however, we had still not departed for Europe—as we were not
to do for several years yet; one advantage of which was that my father
remained for the time in intercourse by letter with his English friend
Dr. J. J. Garth Wilkinson, first known during my parents' considerable
stay in London of several years before, 1843-44; and whose admirable
style of expression, in its way as personal and as vivid as Henry
James's own, with an added and doubtless more perceptibly full-blooded
massiveness, is so attested by his earlier writings,[8] to say nothing
of the rich collection of his letters (1845-55) lately before
me—notably by The Human Body and its Connection with Man, dedicated in
1851 to my father—that I wonder at the absence of such a master, in
more than one happy specimen, from the common educational exhibitions of
English prose. Dr. Wilkinson was a friend of Emerson's as well, which
leads the latter's New York correspondent to cite to him in February
1850 a highly characteristic passage from one of the London
communications.
Carlyle came up here (presumably to Hampstead) on Monday to see
Neuberg, and spoke much of you with very kind recollections. He
remembered your metaphysics also and asked with terrible solicitude
whether they yet persevered. I couldn't absolutely say that they
did not, though I did my best to stammer out something about the
great social movement. He was suffering dreadfully from malaise
and indigestion and gave with his usual force his usual putrid
theory of the universe. All great men were most miserable; the day
on which any man could say he was not miserable, that day he was a
scoundrel; God was a Divine Sorrow; to no moment could he, Carlyle,
ever say Linger, but only Goodbye and never let me see your face
again. And all this interpolated with convulsive laughter, showing
that joy would come into him were it even by the path of hysteria
and disease. To me he is an unprofitable man, and though he gave me
the most kind invitation I have too much respect for my stomach to
go much into his company. Where hope is feeble genius and the human
voice are on the way to die. By the next boat I will endeavour to
send you over my thoughts on his recent pamphlet, the first of a
series of Latter-Day-Tracts. He is very rapidly falling out with
all his present admirers, for which I like them all the better; and
indeed is driving fast toward social views—only his is to be a
compulsory, not an attractive, socialism.
After quoting which my father comments: "Never was anything more false
than this worship of sorrow by Carlyle; he has picked it up out of past
history and spouts it for mere display, as a virtuoso delights in the
style of his grandfather. It is the merest babble in him, as everyone
who has ever talked an hour with him will acquit him of the least grain
of humility. A man who has once uttered a cry of despair should ever
after clothe himself in sackcloth and ashes."
The writer was to have meanwhile, before our migration of 1855, a
considerable lecturing activity. A confused, yet perfectly recoverable
recollection, on my own part, of these years, connects itself with our
knowledge that our father engaged in that practice and that he went
forth for the purpose, with my mother always in earnest and confident
even though slightly fluttered attendance, at about the hour of our
upward procession to bed; which fact lent to the proceeding—that is to
his—a strange air of unnatural riot, quite as of torch-lighted and
wind-blown dissipation. We went to plays and to ballets, and they had
comparatively speaking no mystery; but at no lecture had we ever been
present, and these put on for my fancy at least a richer light and
shade, very much as if we ourselves had been on the performing side of
the curtain, or the wonder of admiring (in our mother's person) and of
being admired (in our father's) had been rolled for us into a single
glory. This glory moreover was not menaced, but only made more of a
thrill by the prime admirer's anxiety, always displayed at the last, as
to whether they were not starting without the feature of features, the
corpus delicti or manuscript itself; which it was legendary with us
that the admired had been known to drive back for in an abashed flurry
at the moment we were launched in dreams of him as in full, though
mysterious, operation. I can see him now, from the parlour window, at
the door of the carriage and under the gusty street-lamp, produce it
from a coat-tail pocket and shake it, for her ideal comfort, in the
face of his companion. The following, to Emerson, I surmise, is of some
early date in the autumn of '52.
I give three lectures in Boston at the Masonic Temple; the first
and second on Nov. 5th and 8th respectively. I should be greatly
appalled in some respects, but still charmed, to have you for an
auditor, seeing thus a hundred empty seats obliterated; but, I beg
of you, don't let any engagement suffer by such kindness to me.
Looking over the lectures again they horrify me with their
loud-mouthed imbecility!—but I hope they may fall upon less
hardened ears in some cases. I am sure that the thought which is in
them, or rather seems to me to struggle to be in them, is worthy of
all men's rapturous homage, and I will trust that a glimpse of it
may somehow befall my patient auditory. The fact is that a vital
truth can never be transferred from one mind to another, because
life alone appreciates it. The most one can do for another is to
plant some rude formula of such truths in his memory, leaving his
own spiritual chemistry to set free the germ whenever the demands
of his life exact it. The reason why the gods seem so powerless to
the sensuous understanding, and suffer themselves to be so long
defamed by our crazy theologies, is that they are life, and can
consequently be revealed only to life. But life is simply the
passage of idea into action; and our crazy theologies forbid ideas
to come into action any further than our existing institutions
warrant. Hence man leads a mere limping life, and the poor gods who
are dependent upon his manliness for their true revelation and for
their real knowledge, are doomed to remain forever unknown, and
even denied by such solemn pedants as Mr. Atkinson and Miss
Martineau. However, I shall try to convert myself at least into
an army of Goths and Huns, to overcome and destroy our existing
sanctities, that the supernal splendours may at length become
credible and even visible. Good-bye till we meet in Boston, and
cultivate your goodnature according to my extensive needs.
I bridge the interval before our migration of 1855 exactly for the sake
of certain further passages addressed to the same correspondent, from
London, in the following year. The letter is a long one and highly
significant of the writer's familiar frankness, but I must keep down my
examples—the first of which glances at his general sense of the men he
mainly met.
They are all of them depressed or embittered by the public
embarrassments that beset them; deflected, distorted, somehow
despoiled of their rich individual manliness by the necessity of
providing for these imbecile old inheritances of church and state.
Carlyle is the same old sausage, fizzing and sputtering in his own
grease, only infinitely more unreconciled to the blest Providence
which guides human affairs. He names God frequently and alludes to
the highest things as if they were realities, but all only as for a
picturesque effect, so completely does he seem to regard them as
habitually circumvented and set at naught by the politicians. I
took our friend M. to see him, and he came away greatly distressed
and désillusionné, Carlyle having taken the utmost pains to deny
and descry and deride the idea of his having done the least good to
anybody, and to profess indeed the utmost contempt for everybody
who thought he had, and poor M. being intent on giving him a
plenary assurance of this fact in his own case.... Arthur Helps
seems an amiable kindly little man with friendly offers, but I told
him I had no intention to bore him, and would at most apply to him
when I might want a good hatter or bootmaker. He fancied a
little—at least I thought this was the case—that I was going to
make a book, and might be indiscreet enough to put him in!.... ——
disappoints me, he is so eaten up with the "spirits" and all that.
His imagination is so vast as to dwarf all the higher faculties,
and his sympathy as narrow as Dr. Cheever's or Brownson's. No
reasonable man, it is true, likes the clergy or the philosophers,
but ——'s dislike of them seems as envenomed as that between rival
tradesmen or rival beauties. One can't endure the nonsense they
talk, to be sure, but when one considers the dear human meaning and
effort struggling at the bottom of it all one can feel still less
any personal separation from the men themselves. ——'s sarcasm is
of the fiercest, and on the whole he is only now at last sowing his
intellectual wild oats—he will grow more genial in good time. This
is it: I think he is but now finding his youth! That which we on
our side of the water find so early and exhaust so prodigally he
has found thus much later—I mean an emancipation from the shackles
of custom; and the kicking up of his heels consequently is
proportionate to his greater maturity of muscle. Mrs. —— is a
dear little goose of a thing, who fancies the divine providence in
closer league with herself than with others, giving her intimations
of events about to happen and endowing her with peculiar
perspicacity in the intuition of remedies for disease; and ——,
the great brawny fellow, sits by and says never a word in abatement
of this enormous domestic inflation, though the visitor feels
himself crowded by it into the most inconsiderable of corners. A
sweet, loving, innocent woman like Mrs. —— oughtn't to grow
egotistical in the company of a truly wise man, and this
accordingly is another quarrel I have with ——. In short I am
getting to the time of life when one values one's friends for what
they are more than for what they do. I am just as much impressed as
ever by his enormous power, but the goodness out of which it is
born and the wisdom by which it is nurtured and bred are things I
don't so much see.
The correspondence grew more interspaced, and with the year 1861 and the
following, when we were at home again, became a matter of the occasional
note. I have before me a series of beautiful examples of Emerson's share
in it—during the earlier time copious enough; but these belong
essentially to another case. I am all but limited, for any further show
of the interesting relation than I have already given, to reproducing a
few lines from Emerson's Diary, passages unpublished at the moment I
write, and the first of them of April 1850. "I have made no note of
these long weary absences at New York and Philadelphia. I am a bad
traveller, and the hotels are mortifications to all sense of well-being
in me. The people who fill them oppress me with their excessive
virility, and would soon become intolerable if it were not for a few
friends who, like women, tempered the acrid mass. Henry James was true
comfort—wise, gentle, polished, with heroic manners and a serenity like
the sun." The hotels of those days may well have been an
ordeal—distinct to me still, from no few childish glimpses of their
bareness of ease and rudeness of acceuil; yet that our justly
fastidious friend was not wholly left to their mercy seems signified by
my not less vivid remembrance of his staying with us on occasion in New
York; some occasion, or occasions, I infer, of his coming on to lecture
there. Do I roll several occasions into one, or amplify one beyond
reason?—this last being ever, I allow, the waiting pitfall of a
chronicler too memory-ridden. I "visualise" at any rate the winter
firelight of our back-parlour at dusk and the great Emerson—I knew he
was great, greater than any of our friends—sitting in it between my
parents, before the lamps had been lighted, as a visitor consentingly
housed only could have done, and affecting me the more as an apparition
sinuously and, I held, elegantly slim, benevolently aquiline, and
commanding a tone alien, beautifully alien, to any we heard roundabout,
that he bent this benignity upon me by an invitation to draw nearer to
him, off the hearth-rug, and know myself as never yet, as I was not
indeed to know myself again for years, in touch with the wonder of
Boston. The wonder of Boston was above all just then and there for me
in the sweetness of the voice and the finish of the speech—this latter
through a sort of attenuated emphasis which at the same time made sounds
more important, more interesting in themselves, than by any revelation
yet vouchsafed us. Was not this my first glimmer of a sense that the
human tone could, in that independent and original way, be
interesting? and didn't it for a long time keep me going, however
unwittingly, in that faith, carrying me in fact more or less on to my
day of recognising that it took much more than simply not being of New
York to produce the music I had listened to. The point was that, however
that might be, I had had given me there in the firelight an absolutely
abiding measure. If I didn't know from that hour forth quite all it was
to not utter sounds worth mentioning, I make out that I had at least
the opposite knowledge. And all by the operation of those signal
moments—the truth of which I find somehow reflected in the fact of my
afterwards knowing one of our household rooms for the time—it must have
been our only guest-chamber—as "Mr. Emerson's room." The evening
firelight played so long for me upon the door—that is to the length
probably of three days, the length of a child's impression. But I must
not let this carry me beyond the second note of the Diary, this time of
May 1852. "'I do not wish this or that thing my fortune will procure, I
wish the great fortune,' said Henry James, and said it in the noblest
sense." The report has a beauty to me without my quite understanding it;
the union of the two voices in it signifies quite enough. The last very
relevant echo of my father's by itself, in the connection, I hasten now
to find in a communication that must have been of the summer of 1869,
when Dr. Wilkinson paid his only visit to America—this apparently of
the briefest. The letter to Emerson from Cambridge notes that his
appearance there had been delayed.
He may come to-morrow possibly: if in the morning I will telegraph
you; if in the evening I shall try to keep him over Monday that you
may meet him here at dinner on that day. But I fear this bothersome
Sabbath and its motionless cars may play us a trick. I shall hope
for a generous Monday all the same, and if that hope is baulked
shall owe Sunday a black-eye—and will pay my debt on the first
suitable occasion, I warrant you. What an awkward story (the letter
continues) The Nation to-day tells of Charles Sumner! Charles's
burly voice has always had for me a dreadfully hollow sound, as if
it came from a great copper vat, and I have loved him but with fear
and trembling accordingly. Is he really, like all American
politicians, tricky, or is The Nation—so careful about facts
ordinarily—only slanderous?... Carlyle nowadays is a palpable
nuisance. If he holds to his present mouthing ways to the end he
will find no showman là-bas to match him, for I hold Barnum a much
more innocent personage. I shouldn't wonder if Barnum grew
regenerate in some far off day by mere force of his democracy. But
Carlyle's intellectual pride is so stupid that one can hardly
imagine anything able to cope with it.
The following, in so different a key, is of some seven years earlier
date—apparently '62; but I have let it stand over, for reasons, that it
may figure here as the last of the communications addressed to Emerson
that I shall cite. Written at an hotel, the Tremont House, in Boston, it
marks his having come up from Newport for attendance at some meeting of
a dining-club, highly distinguished in composition, as it still happily
remains, of which he was a member—though but so occasionally present
that this circumstance perhaps explains a little the even more than
usual vivacity of his impression. Not indeed, I may add, that mustered
reasons or apologies were ever much called for in any case of the play
of that really prime note of his spontaneity.
I go to Concord in the morning, but shall have barely time to see
you there, even if I do as much as that; so that I can't forbear to
say to you now the word I wanted as to my impression of yesterday
about Hawthorne and Ellery Channing. Hawthorne isn't to me a
prepossessing figure, nor apparently at all an enjoying person in
any way: he has all the while the look—or would have to the
unknowing—of a rogue who suddenly finds himself in a company of
detectives. But in spite of his rusticity I felt a sympathy for
him fairly amounting to anguish, and couldn't take my eyes off him
all dinner, nor my rapt attention: as that indecisive little Dr.
Hedge[9] found, I am afraid, to his cost, for I hardly heard a word
of what he kept on saying to me, and resented his maliciously
putting his artificial person between me and the profitable object
of study. (It isn't however that I now feel any ill-will to him—I
could recommend anyone but myself to go and hear him preach. The
thing was that Hawthorne seemed to me to possess human substance
and not to have dissipated it all away like that culturally
debauched ——, or even like good inoffensive comforting
Longfellow.) John Forbes and you kept up the human balance at the
other end of the table, but my region was a desert with H. for its
only oasis. It was so pathetic to see him, contented sprawling
Concord owl that he was and always has been, brought blindfold into
that brilliant daylight and expected to wink and be lively, like
some dapper Tommy Titmouse. I felt him bury his eyes in his plate
and eat with such voracity that no one should dare to speak to him.
My heart broke for him as his attenuated left-hand neighbour kept
putting forth his long antennae to stroke his face and try
whether his eyes were open. It was heavenly to see him persist in
ignoring the spectral smiles—in eating his dinner and doing
nothing but that, and then go home to his Concord den to fall upon
his knees and ask his heavenly Father why it was that an owl
couldn't remain an owl and not be forced into the diversions of a
canary. I have no doubt that all the tenderest angels saw to his
case that night and poured oil into his wounds more soothing than
gentlemen ever know. W. Ellery Channing too seemed so human and
good—sweet as summer and fragrant as pinewoods. He is more
sophisticated than Hawthorne of course, but still he was kin; and I
felt the world richer by two men, who had not yet lost themselves
in mere members of society. This is what I suspect—that we are
fast getting so fearful one to another, we "members of society"
that we shall ere long begin to kill one another in self-defence
and give place in that way at last to a more veracious state of
things. The old world is breaking up on all hands: the glimpse of
the everlasting granite I caught in H. and W. E. shows me that
there is stock enough left for fifty better. Let the old impostors
go, bag and baggage, for a very real and substantial one is aching
to come in, in which the churl shall not be exalted to a place of
dignity, in which innocence shall never be tarnished nor trafficked
in, in which every man's freedom shall be respected down to its
feeblest filament as the radiant altar of God. To the angels, says
Swedenborg, death means resurrection to life; by that necessary
rule of inversion which keeps them separate from us and us from
them, and so prevents our being mutual nuisances. Let us then
accept political and all other distraction that chooses to come;
because what is disorder and wrath and contention on the surface is
sure to be the greatest peace at the centre, working its way thus
to a surface that shall never be disorderly.
But it is in the postscript that the mixture and the transition strike
me as most inevitable.
Weren't you shocked at ——'s engagement? To think of that prim old
snuffers imposing himself on that pure young flame! What a world,
what a world! But once we get rid of Slavery the new heavens and
new earth will swim into reality.
No better example could there be, I think, of my father's remarkable and
constant belief, proof against all confusion, in the imminence of a
transformation-scene in human affairs—"spiritually" speaking of course
always—which was to be enacted somehow without gross or vulgar
visibility, or at least violence, as I have said, but was none the less
straining to the front, and all by reason of the world's being, deep
within and at heart, as he conceived, so achingly anxious for it. He had
the happiness—though not so untroubled, all the while, doubtless, as
some of his declarations would appear to represent—of being able to see
his own period and environment as the field of the sensible change, and
thereby as a great historic hour; that is, I at once subjoin, I more or
less suppose he had. His measure of the imminent and immediate, of the
socially and historically visible and sensible was not a thing easy to
answer for, and when treated to any one of the loud vaticinations or
particular revolutionary messages and promises our age was to have so
much abounded in, all his sense of proportion and of the whole, of the
real and the ridiculous, asserted itself with the last emphasis. In that
mixture in him of faith and humour, criticism and conviction, that mark
of a love of his kind which fed on discriminations and was never so
moved to a certain extravagance as by an exhibited, above all by a
cultivated or in the least sententious vagueness in respect to these,
dwelt largely the original charm, the peculiarly social and living
challenge (in that it was so straight and bright a reflection of life)
of his talk and temper. Almost all of my father shines for me at any
rate in the above passages, and in another that follows, with their so
easy glide from discrimination, as I have called it, that is from
analytic play, in the outward sphere, to serenity of synthesis and
confidence and high joy in the inward. It was as if he might have liked
so to see his fellow-humans, fellow-diners, fellow-celebrities or
whatever, in that acuity of individual salience, in order to proceed
thence to some enormous final doubt or dry renouncement—instead of
concluding, on the contrary, and on the same free and familiar note, to
the eminently "worth while" character of life, or its susceptibility to
vast and happy conversions. With which too, more than I can say, have I
the sense here of his so finely contentious or genially perverse impulse
to carry his wares of observation to the market in which they would on
the whole bring least rather than most—where his offering them at all
would produce rather a flurry (there might have been markets in which it
had been known to produce almost a scandal), and where he would in fact
give them away for nothing if thereby he might show that such produce
grew. Never was there more of a case of the direct friendliness to
startling growths—if so they might be held—of the very soil that lies
under our windows. I don't think he liked to scandalise—certainly he
didn't in the least for scandal's sake; but nothing inspired him more to
the act and the pleasure of appreciation for appropriation, as it might
be termed, than the deprecating attitude of others on such ground—that
degree of shyness of appropriation on their part which practically left
appreciation vague. It was true that the appreciation for a human use,
as it might be called—that is for the high optimistic transition—could
here carry the writer far.