apart from his writings; and we may safely conclude that we are masters of it, not needing to extend our researches, when we thoroughly understand him. Representing this individualism as he does, and carrying it to the point of self-worship under the lead of pantheism, I shall fulfil the task of the present lecture, if I give a faithful account of his philosophy, considered both in its substance and its practical development. And that the account may be faithful, with the least possible chance of misrepresentation by me, I shall, as in the case of Carlyle, allow less space to my own comments than to the words of the author himself. What I give, let me also say, must not be regarded as a full and complete estimate of Emerson. It is in a single relation only that I propose now to examine his writings. He have many merits which the present inquiry does not especially contemplate, though I shall hope to recognize them all as they incidentally occur. My main object will be gained, if I make clear his philosophical views and their bearings, with a regard to the logical connections and progress of the thought, such as his own pages do not deign to give.

may

Method of treatment.

Contrasted

with Carlyle.

It is with feelings of relief that I turn from the works of Carlyle to those of Emerson, for I cannot help the impression that the latter is much the greater man of the two: not a reader of so many books perhaps, nor so accurate and exhaustive a student of history; but higher toned, of a serener spirit, with less in his writings that is ephemeral; central in his thought, and balanced in expression, so as to speak not for a day or generation, but for all time. While the peculiar

phase of thinking which he represents is in the world, he will be recognized as one of its major prophets; as having at times, I think, surpassed any other writer in uttering the spirit of a subjective and ideal pantheism. Should the present age of materialism pass away, and there be another revival of the a-priori philosophy, as will no doubt be the case, I predict that Emerson will be read, while Carlyle is comparatively forgotten. That energy which Carlyle lets off in stormy passion, Emerson carefully husbands, and puts into the very substance of his thinking. He never raves, like his friend across the sea, but is always self-contained, measured in his statements, wellpoised and calm. The poet Lowell is hardly less just than witty where he says, speaking of the two men,

"To compare him with Plato would be vastly fairer;
Carlyle's the more burly, but E. is the rarer:

His excel

He sees fewer objects, but clearlier, trulier;

If C.'s an original, E.'s more peculiar :
That he's more of a man you might say of one,
Of the other, he's more of an Emerson;
C.'s the Titan, as shaggy of mind as of limb,
E. the clear-eyed Olympian, rapid and slim."1

lent temper.

It is easy to see, while reading Emerson, that he is a person of very great sensitiveness; that he has felt keenly the sharp antagonism of early friends. But though this longing for the love of good men, and pain at the absence of it, appear in many places, I have looked in vain for any weak word of complaint. There is but little that looks like recrimination anywhere in his writings. Few authors, so roughly criticised as he,

1 Fable for the Critics.

show so little vindictiveness. Even those who ignorantly and stupidly abuse him, he treats with good-natured condescension rather than hard contempt. So free are his pages from the spirit of controversy, that as you read on the comment you make is, "This man does not seem to know how severely the views he is here stating have been denounced." It is a fact, I believe, that he has never formally replied to any of his critics. Certainly a man so without enmities, and whom any one may assail feeling that he will not retaliate, should be resisted only in the interest of truth, and with a spirit more generous, if possible, than his own. In all that I am now about to offer I shall not speak against him, nor affect to speak for him; but, as just intimated, shall the rather permit him to speak for himself. I have already shown what pantheism, in its last analysis, is; and if he is in full sympathy with that doctrine, both he and his friends ought to desire that his readers should know the fact.

Of purer tone than Goethe.

Having compared Emerson with Carlyle, to the disadvantage of the latter in some respects, I wish also to say that, to my view, he stands on a higher plane than Goethe even. By this I do not mean that his intellectual range is broader than Goethe's. He has no such knowledge of natural science as Goethe had; is not, like him, at home in all the literatures of the world; but he more uniformly speaks to what is noblest and best in us. There is far less in his pages to offend our conscience and self-respect. One feels, all along, that he is reading a man whose thoughts and life are pure. However dangerous the underlying theory, yet, by a charming inconsistency, the immediate appeal is to our

honor, our love of the good, our sense of right. Being less true than Goethe to his main speculation, he is more true to the moral convictions of mankind. I quote with pleasure his own judgment against Goethe, as showing, however his theory may tally with the German poet's, that his New England blood will not let him indorse that theory, when it is practically carried out to all the results. Emerson says, "I dare not say that Goethe has ascended to the highest grounds from which genius has spoken. He has not worshipped the highest unity. of self-surrender to the moral sentiment. strains in poetry than any he has sounded.

He is incapable There are nobler

There are

writers poorer in talent, whose tone is purer, and more touches the heart. Goethe can never be dear to men. His is not even the devotion to pure truth; but to truth for the sake of culture."

In one respect it is not so hard to enucleate the pantheism of Emerson as that of Goethe and Carlyle. He rarely loses sight of his major premise. His writings, whatever the occasion or immediate purpose, seem always to be instinct with the spirit of Spinozism. That is the string on which they are all strung together; their one logical connection, if they have no other. I am con

Monotony.

fident that any one, assuming this to be the clew to his writings, would find but little difficulty in tracing their harmony, nay, even their monotony. I shall follow this thread only a little way, omitting much that is strictly pertinent, and keeping to his more elaborate essays, in the present inquiry. It is true that we

1 Representative Men (Boston, Phillips, Sampson, & Co., 1850), pr. 278, 279.

shall not find, even in these essays, frequent allusions to
Spinoza, or to his doctrine under its proper designation.
Emerson is shy of names; and though he has a confession
of faith, he is careful not to give it to his readers in any
formulated shape. Nor is it necessary to say, as some of
his critics have, that he thus avoids the well-known and
abhorred phraseology because he wishes to deceive his
readers, imbuing them with the principles of pantheism
while they are off their guard. He is no such zealot. He
cares little for the reception his doctrine gets in other
minds. It is not to any taint of Jesuitism, but to the
purely literary bent of his genius, that this impatience of
technical terms is due. We need not be misled, however,
though failing to find the usual superscription on the coin;
the ring of the metal tells us, more clearly than
any image could, what is its nature. Very
often where Emerson uses the words " soul,"
"spirit," "mind," "intellect," we shall find, when we un-
derstand him, that he does not refer to anything individ-
ual or personal, but to an all-surrounding, all-filling sub-
stance, which he calls divine, and regards as constituting
the whole of reality. Soul," or "the soul," seems to be
his favorite designation of this essence, which Spinoza
calls substance, Schelling the subject-object, and Hegel
the absolute idea; as where he says, "the universe is the
externization of the soul." But he uses other terms,
such as "life," "light," "God," "the Holy Ghost," "Pan,"
"Fortune," "Minerva," "Proteus." He has added one
term to the vocabulary of pantheism, which merits partic-
ular notice. "All the universe over," says he, "there is

Nomencla-
ture.

1 Essays (Boston, Phillips, Sampson, & Co., 1858), Vol. II., p. 19.