the life and writings of emerson owe their chief claim on our attention to the fact that they represent with singular force a line of thought and belief—if belief it can be called—which an immense number of the young, intelligent, and sincere of the past and present generation have been endeavouring to follow, though as yet without any remarkable or satisfactory results. “every man is potentially a man of genius,” is the one dogma of emerson’s religion—though it is nowhere put thus plainly by him; and its one commandment is “be a man of genius.” absolute nonconformity with everything, we are taught, is the first condition of personal and social well-being; and we are enjoined to look upon our individual insight as our one infallible guide, though it may bid us go one way to-day and the opposite to-morrow. at the time when emerson was debating with him{126}self as to whether he should throw up his office as unitarian preacher he seems to have had some searchings of heart as to the validity of the new doctrine. “how,” he writes, in his journal, “shall the droning world get on if all its beaux esprits recalcitrate upon its approved forms and accepted constitutions and quit them in order to be single-minded? the double-refiners would produce at the other end the double-damned.” this is perhaps the wisest thing ever said by emerson; but he nevertheless chose his part definitively with the “double refiners.” “i hate preaching,” he writes in a subsequent page of his journal. “preaching is a pledge, and i wish to say what i feel and think to-day, with the proviso that to-morrow perhaps i shall contradict it all.” in the free use of his proviso he accordingly, for the remainder of his life, followed and taught others to follow what he called “intuition,” even though it should not wait for “to-morrow” to contradict itself. for example, in the last page but one of the essay on “character” we are instructed to reject the doctrine of the divinity of christ because “the mind requires a victory to the senses, a force of character which will convert judge, jury, soldier, and king and on the following page we are told that, “when that love which is all-suffering, {127}all-abstaining, all-aspiring ... comes into our streets and houses, only the pure and aspiring can know its face.”
emerson’s life, journals, and letters considerably modify the impression which his published essays and lectures are calculated to leave—namely, that he was a mere stringer-together of lively thoughts, images, and poetical epigrams. he seems to have made the best of his own humanity, and to have always done the right according to his judgment, though the doing of it sometimes involved serious pecuniary inconvenience, and, as in the case of his opposition to the fugitive slave law, violent popular disapprobation. he was kindly and moral in his family and social relationships, and was conscientious even to a fault in avoiding those venial sins of language to which the most of us are perhaps too indifferent. his american admirers sometimes spoke of him as an “angel.” at any rate, he was a sort of sylph. he noted of his compatriots generally that “they have no passions, only appetites.” he seems to have had neither passion nor appetite; and there was an utter absence of “nonsense” about him which made it almost impossible to be intimate with him. margaret fuller, his closest friend, and even his wife, whom he loved in his own serene way, seem to have chafed under the impossibility of getting within the adamantine sphere of self-consciousness{128} which surrounded him. he not only could not forget himself, but he could not forget his grammar; and when he talked he seemed rather to be “composing” his thoughts than thinking them. his friend and admirer, mr. henry james the elder, complains that for this reason his conversation was without charm. “for nothing ever came but epigrams, sometimes clever, sometimes not.” his manners and discourse were, however, invariably kind and amiable. he never seems to have uttered a personal sarcasm, and only once in his life to have been seriously angry. this was on occasion of the famous fugitive slave law, which he indignantly declared would be disobeyed, if need be, by himself and every honest man.
dr. w. h. furness writes of emerson: “we were babies and schoolfellows together. i don’t think he ever engaged in boys’ plays.... i can as little remember when he was not literary in his pursuits as when i first made his acquaintance.” indeed, “orating” was in emerson’s blood. nearly all his known ancestors and relatives seem to have been “ministers” of some denomination or other. his school-days—though he never became a scholar in any department of learning—began before he was three years old. his father complains of the baby of two years and odd months—“ralph does not read very well yet”; and during{129} all the rest of his youth dr. furness says that he grew up under “the pressure of i know not how many literary atmospheres.” add to this the fact that his father and mother and his aunt—who was the chief guide of his nonage—were persons who seemed to think that love could only be manifested by severe duty, and rarely showed him any signs of the weaknesses of “affection,” and we have as bad a bringing-up for a moral, philosophical, and religious teacher as could well have been devised. “the natural first, and afterwards the spiritual.” where innocent joy and personal affection have not been main factors of early experience the whole life wants the key to christianity; and a rejection of all faith—except that in “genius,” “over-soul,” “a somewhat which makes for righteousness,” or some other such impotent abstraction—is, in our day, almost inevitable in a mind of constitutional sincerity like emerson’s, especially when such sincerity is unaccompanied, as it was in him, by a warm and passionate nature and its intellectual correlative, a vigorous conscience. emerson, though a good man—that is, one who lived up to his lights—had little or no conscience. he admired good, but did not love it; he denounced evil, but did not hate it, and did not even maintain that it was hateful, but only greatly inexpedient.{130}
though emerson could not see that a religion of which there is nothing left but an “over-soul” is much the same thing as a man of whom there is nothing left but his hat, the religious bodies to which he was for many years more or less attached were less devoid of humour, and the joke of a faith without a dogma became, in time, too much for their seriousness. consequently they agreed amicably to part, and emerson pursued his course; that which had hitherto been called “preaching” becoming thenceforward lecturing and “orating.”
there can be no greater misfortune for a sincere and truthful mind like emerson’s than to have to get a living by “orating.” this was his predicament, however; and there can be no doubt that his mind and his writings were the worse for this necessity. his philosophy afforded him only a very narrow range of subject. in all his essays and lectures he is but ringing the changes upon three or four ideas—which are really commonplace, though his sprightly wit and imagination give them freshness; and it is impossible to read any single essay, much less several in succession, without feeling that the licence of tautology is used to its extremest limits. in a few essays—for example, “the poet,” “character,” and “love”—the writer’s heart is so much in the matter that these endless variations of one idea have the effect of{131} music which delights us to the end with the reiteration of an exceedingly simple theme; but in many other pieces it is impossible not to detect that weariness of the task of having to coin dollars out of transcendental sentiments to which emerson’s letters and journals often bear witness. but, whether delighted with or weary of his labour, there is no progress in his thought, which resembles the spinning of a cockchafer on a pin rather than the flight of a bird on its way from one continent to another.
emerson’s was a sweet and uniformly sunny spirit; but the sunshine was that of the long polar day, which enlightens but does not fructify. it never even melted the icy barrier which separated his soul from others; and men and women were nothing to him, because he never got near enough to understand them. hence his journals and letters about his visits to europe, and especially to england, are curiously superficial in observation. he made many acute and witty remarks, such as, “every englishman is a house of commons, and expects that you will not end your speech without proposing a measure;” but, on the whole, he quite misunderstood the better class of our countrymen, of whom, in his second visit to england, he had the opportunity of seeing a good deal. although there was much constitutional{132} reserve, there was no real reticence in him. his ethereal, unimpassioned ideas had, indeed, nothing in them that, for him, commanded reticence; and he concluded that the best sort of englishmen were without any motives that “transcend” sense, because he did not feel, as all such englishmen do, that though that which transcends sense may be infinitely dearer than all else, and even because it is so dear, it is better not to talk of things which can scarcely be spoken of without inadequacy and even an approach to nonsense. many an englishman would turn aside with a jest from any attempt to lead him into “transcendental” talk, not because he was less, but because he was more “serious” than his interlocutor; and also because the very recognition of certain kinds of knowledge involves the recognition of obligations, to confess directly or indirectly the fulfilment or neglect of which implies either self-praise or self-blame, which, in ordinary circumstances, are alike indecent. in fact, emerson was totally deficient in the religious sense, which is very strong in the hearts of a vast number of englishmen who own to no fixed creed, but who would be revolted by the profound and unconscious irreverence with which emerson was in the habit of speaking and writing of the most sacred things and names. the name of “jesus” frequently occurs in such sentences as this: “nor{133} jesus, nor pericles, nor c?sar, nor angelo, nor washington,” etc.
if we put aside emerson’s unconscious malpractices in this sort, the attitude of his mind with regard to the serious beliefs of the world were too childish for resentment or exposure. it is as if one should be angry with a young lady who should simper, “oh, my religion is the religion of the sermon on the mount!” in answer to an attempt to talk with her about bossuet or hooker.
