his own spiritual revelations and insights as the source of truth for himself, exactly as Emerson instructs. Though the doctrine of the "divine-average" in Democratic Vistas is somewhat unEmersonian, the attendant doctrine of "personalism" seems a glorification of all Emerson desired. As for the idea of the high excellence of death-particularly dear to Whitman,—death the "bitter hug of mortality," 28 "the low and delicious word death,"29 as for that, though it bulks much larger in Whitman, it is also in Emerson, in his master-poem Threnody (where death is a welcome pouring of "finite into infinite") and in his essay Immortality.30 And lastly, the attitude toward nature, perhaps, is more fundamental in Emerson, though Whitman wrote in Song of Myself: I swear I will never again mention love or death inside a house, Whitman, in his last period of decreptitude, evinced a practical dependence upon nature (out of doors) quite equal to that of Thoreau or Emerson.31 Even in his days of partial denial of Emerson, in his days of most indubitably original thinking, Whitman (perhaps unconsciously) retained Emerson as his master in the only sense in which Emerson cared to be master of any man.32 The complexity of the study of Whitman's attitudes toward Emerson is increased by the examination of Traubel's record of daily talks with Whitman from March 28, 1888 to January 20, 1889. There are two things to bear in mind when dealing with this extremely minute record (one thousand, six hundred, and fourteen pages!) of the talk of ten months: the master knew that 28 Song of Myself. 29 Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking. so Immortality, Boston, 1877. 1 The second part (after civil-war sketches) of Specimen Days is scarcely paralleled for its intimacy with nature by any American book except Thoreau's. 32 It may be worth noting that the three pairs of literary friends among English and American transcendentalists were very unusual in their friendships. Coleridge was master of Wordsworth, Emerson of Thoreau, Carlyle of Ruskin-only in the transcendental sense. The pupil in each case preserves and develops his own personality through the stimulation of the master who never tries to dominate. he was being written-up-a master who, magnificent poet though he was, was sometimes disingenuous, even something of a poseur; the recorder was an acknowledged devotee or disciple, confessedly taking notes on the final pronouncements of the great man, Whitman being then in his seventieth year. The atmosphere of the book is probably a little superheated; yet Whitman was as always more often patently frank than otherwise. His comments on Emerson are very frequent, no other writer being nearly so present to him as Emerson; and the comments are almost perfectly consistent in tone. In consequence, the reader is compelled to believe in Whitman's last words about Emerson.33 There seems to be a spontaneity in Whitman's ardent tributes to Emerson that is not to be felt in many other items of his daily conversation. Significantly, the first paragraph on the first page is a record of Whitman's devotion to Emerson, even the senile Emerson. The senile Emerson is the old Emerson in all that goes to make Emerson notable; this shadow is a part of him-a necessary feature of his nearly rounded life: it gives him statuesqueness-throws him, so it seems to me, impressively as a definite figure in a background of mist.34 As Traubel reports, Whitman, during that period of less than one year, reverted to the subject of Emerson two hundred times! The main body of Whitman's comment was, however, not greatly varied and can be adequately represented by less than a dozen quotations. The emphasis is now (as in the excerpt above) almost continually upon Emerson's personality rather than upon his literary production; and one comes to feel that it was really through personal relations at fairly long intervals that Emerson maintained, without other effort, Whitman's final allegiance.35 Emerson's essays and poems could never have held Whitman by themselves. Two episodes out of the past evidently still bothered Whitman. 33 Emerson had been dead for six years; Whitman was no longer a neglected poet. Any motive for anything but honesty on the subject of Emerson is hard to discover. 34 Traubel's With Walt Whitman in Camden, vol. I, p. 1. 35 Ibid., vol. III, p. 575. Whitman's last reference to Emerson reinforces this point: “It was so with the Emersonian manner: now a piece of it, then a piece of it, finally coming to Emerson himself-there the whole genuine beautiful efflux, of which you had only caught scents, glints, glimpses, before." He never tires of expatiating upon them. The first is that matter of Emerson's letter of high praise in 1855,36 and of the protracted silence which followed it. Whitman was eager to know whether Emerson uttered no more such praises because he had changed his mind or because he didn't care to enter into controversy with the New England literati who were outraged by Leaves of Grass. The other episode was concerned with the physiological, sex-poems, Children of Adam. Emerson had, on a certain occasion, tried to persuade Whitman to omit such poems from his later editions. Whitman (true pupil of such a master) had followed his own inner light and retained them. Whitman shows himself in his old age extraordinarily solicitous that these episodes shall be made clear. In fact, there remains even yet an impression among some admirers of Emerson that he repudiated Whitman—an impression with no true foundation. There is no doubt whatever that Emerson always felt the personal attraction of Whitman and that they continued friendly to the end of Emerson's life. But Emerson did not apparently retain all his early enthusiasm for Leaves of Grass. Emerson recorded in his Journal almost invariably his literary and other most vital thoughts; yet we consult that Journal in vain for any sustained interest in Whitman as a writer.3 Whitman did not feel certain of Emerson's attitude and he tried to persuade himself that Emerson valued Leaves of Grass as highly as ever. There is no escaping the conviction that Whitman longed more for the approbation of Emerson than for that of any other man. Two quotations will illustrate. 37 He (Emerson) was wrestled with, fought with, argued with, by the whole claque of them-the Boston second, third, raters at him: of that there can be no doubt: the circumstances do not show a surrender-even a yielding or show of yielding.38 This from Whitman on the question of whether or not Emerson retracted early praises of Leaves of Grass. 36 See p. 77, above. " Cf. Emerson's Journals, vol. ix, pp. 401, 540; vol. x, p. 147. These three references are brief and colorless. When a poet had a permanent interest for Emerson, he freely recorded the fact in his Journals. Year after year, for example, he makes entries about Wordsworth's poems. 38 Whitman in Camden, III, pp. 125-6. Cf. on same subject: I, p. 313; П, pp. 196-7; ш, p. 266. why, that's what Emerson asked me to do-expurgate: he didn't call it expurgate, but that's what he meant: give the book a chance to be heard: cut the dangerous things out: they won't hurt as much out as in: excise them-throw them away: but what do you think Leaves of Grass would come to with Children of Adam thrown out? What? what? . . . To a cipher: that's all: what does a man come to with his virility gone? Emerson didn't say anything in the Leaves was bad: no: he only said people would insist on thinking some things bad. 39 So much for the second episode that seems to have haunted Whitman. He will have us know that Emerson did not disapprove, but that he merely advised as to the best method of making Leaves of Grass palatable to the public. 41 Always Whitman evinces a touching delight in telling over meetings and talks with Emerson. He describes a meal with Emerson; 40 what Emerson said to him during certain walks; "1 how Emerson appreciated his prose on Democracy.12 He takes satisfaction in linking his name with Emerson's. The world does not know what our relations really were they think of our friendship as a literary friendship: it was a bit that but it was mostly something else it was certainly more than that-for I loved Emerson for his personality and I always felt that he loved me for something I brought him from the rush of the big cities and the mass of men."" On an occasion after Whitman had been talking with a Russian rebel, he reflects: I think Emerson was sweeter with such men than I am-was more patient, was more willing to wait their talk out." He deliberately places himself with his favorites, Emerson and Lincoln. There was Emerson-they never could hold him: no province, no clique, no church: and there was Lincoln, who did his duty, went his way untrammelled: but there are few others. I slipped out, avoided the beaten paths, tried a way of my own-that was my experiment." No doubt Whitman, in these talks with Traubel was mindful of initiating something of a Whitmanian legend. How significant, 39 Ibid., III, p. 321. Cf. III, p. 439 for an even fuller account. 40 Ibid., II, 505. 41 Ibid., III, 388. 42 Ibid., p. 455. 43 * Ibid., 1, 61. 44 Ibid., p. 65. then, that Emerson should be given the most exalted position. Four or five examples of unflawed encomium will serve, perhaps, to establish Whitman's ultimate allegiance to Emerson-to Emerson more than to any other whatever. But after every hearsay I go back to Emerson.40 Read all the Emerson you can-it is the best preparatory soil. Emerson is not conclusive on all points, but no man more helps to a conclusion.47 I often say of Emerson, that the personality of the man-the wonderful heart and soul of the man, present in all he writes, thinks, does, hopesgoes far towards justifying the whole literary business-the whole raft good and bad, the entire system.48 When you looked at Emerson it never occurred to you that there could be any villainies in the world." That most of those who wrote agreed upon Emerson should occasion neither surprise nor disappointment: that seems as it should be: Emerson is great-oh! very great: I have not attempted to decide how great, how vast, how subtle: but very, very: he was a far-reaching force: a star of the first, the very first, magnitude maybe: without a doubt that." If the writer of these excerpts is not tendering his allegiance to Emerson as to his great man, that is, his Master, in the transcendental sense, I may leave any reader to decide what he is doing. It need not interfere with such a conclusion that Whitman himself was transgressing one of the first rules of Emerson which would. forbid a man-not merely to rely upon another man imitatively— to allow any other to rely upon him. (Whitman was encouraging discipleship to himself, inconsistently, at the very moment he was praising Emerson for refusing to impose upon the self-reliant integrity of others by taking them as disciples.) Certain it is that Whitman felt a yearning to express his affection and admiration for Emerson in such a way that the world should be apprised of it. University of Michigan. 4. Ibid., p. 56. 47 Ibid., p. 256. 49 Ibid., II, p. 106. 50 Ibid., III, p. 185. 48 Ibid., p. 466. |