New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-01-11
eThe Children of the 11i.a.'


The MaeGreror of the Children of the Mist,
com pels US briefly dafne or Posiilen-or ralner'
to yindicate it, since the other side 'H taik' nov"
ever we may remain silent, Ii our respected
friend meant oay that our published writings lack
clearaess and point We must submit TO the rod that
chas,ens Us but we believe such IS not his mean
ing Neither can he well intend TO say that we
hold the views embodied in Mr. Bascrofs's Lee
| TIRE on " Genius the Expression OF the Spirit OF
! the Age for nothing, surely, could be farther
from our own IDEAS and iaculcations. lie cannot
have been SO widely mistaken such an assertion
would argue. We must presume, then, that ne
means TO accuse US Of chefishing kindly feeling
for the general scope OF thought and teaching so
ably, wlttily and unfortunately assai'cd by . An
Old School Transcendental;s,," and this, we con
clude, is the soft irnpeachmcnt wsich &c wishes
| US to own Very well; we have had four
columns and half of vehement, sarcastic denuncia-
ion, and not word of defence: will our Old
School friends bear with us while we devote
fourth of the space hating apology for The so
much condemned but unaaswcring Children of the
! Mist?'
| Let us be clearly understood. We bow with
| Difference to AN Old-School Transcendentalist's
superior learning and wisdom; we have read his
essay repeatedly with great satisfaction; we agree
heartily with very much of it so far az it legti-
uately relates to Mr. Baacroft's efiiorcscent Lee
turc. We have no more faith in The Spirit OF
the Age as such, than he has. True, we do no;
perceive the Theological bugbcars in that Lecture
| which he has conjured up, but We rcady yield to
him the palm of superior acutencss OF vision
What we object to is, in the first place, his inds-
crimnate sweeping classification and condemna-
ton of Charming, Bancroft, Bryant, Emerson, and
whoever else he dislikes as Ihc Children OF the
Mist Now well known to differ as wide
ly from Mr.. Bryant most conlroverled topics as
two men well can; yet we really cannot detect
want OF pcrspcuity in his writings, Philosophic
or Political; in Prose or Verse. On the contrary,
we think lie puts very mistaken theories OF Gov.
erlment and Political Economy in about the best
is their simplicity, purity and nervous directness.
What his approval of the 'Cbepachet heroism
has to do with the matter, except to prove him
wrong headed politician, we cannot conceive. So,
TOO, Of Ralph Waldo Emerson: be may have faults
of style or cccentrcites Of thought; but they
not such as ally:hm to to Bancroft or Bryant His
Philosophy, his views of Man, his Politics, have
little affinity with theirs. Yet our Old-School'
critics apply the same censure to them all.
A word, now, the general argument for the
Old as opposed to the New, which our correspond
cn,s have vexcd, and in demurring to which (wc
School and H.. yOa very free, plain words
On this topic allow as to talk frankly then, and
take no offence. Your exaggerated, blind defer
ring to the Past appears to US tainted with two
yices Idolatry and Cant. You eulogize and de-
Ugh, iu the ancient masters of thought, forgetting
that they were iunoyators in their day, and every
| way obnoxious to the same Changes which yen now
bring against the New Men Of our time. AS
correspondent (whom we thank, though we cannot
find for lis essay very per,inen,ly observes,
socrates was imprisoned and put 10 death by the
| Old School men of his day on charges almost
| precisely the same as those now brought against
| the tacmory of Channug-viz: intoxicating heresy
| and sceptcisn toward the Gods. and cnrruptine
! the morals of The Youth. The parallel runs on
all fours. Doubtless the more popular philoso-
piers of his time had their standard of orthodoxy
| whereby to convict him of heresy, Aighliness an.
| dangerous tendences-of unmoorins the popular
faith, dissipating tho popular reverence for esab'
ished authority and sowing the seeds of universal
anarchy aud irreligion. So has it been in all time.
| The Old School Transcenden,allsls overflow with
blind admiration for the sages whom thsir ancestca'
| vehemently pronoasced dangerous, here,ical, In
sane or h, least utterly unintelligible they
! out their knees around the tombs Of the Prophets
whom their fathers put 10 death Let any
arise who dares utter boldly new thong hi, and they
| insist that it attacks, undermines, cndangcrs all
| Philosophy, Morality, Religion; it ixplcs pre-
| posterous assumption OF superior wisdom aud in.
sight the part The utterer. Art Aoa greater
| than ear father Jacob, who gave Us this well and
drank thereol?" is their ct-down interrog
Thus the ancient Pharisees eternally boasled Of
their hdelityto and reverence for Moses forgetting
chat their fathers liked better the golden calf, and
the good, old, substantial tlesh-pots of Egypt
none of your new.fangled, airy, mystical, transceR
dental whp-syllabub. So will II be to the end OF
| time.
We do think it time the aiec,ation of calling
such writers CLEANSING, Bryant, Bancroft, En-
erson, unin,eligible or uumeaning were given up.
If any man do no, understand them, il is because
he does not care or try 10; if he fad no neaRins
in them, it must be because he does not wish 10
and any. Emerson has some peeuiati,ies OF
thought aud diction, but they are not such as 70
| render him unintelligble save TO those who have
ears, bu, hear not; Bancroft is ford and stately,
but NOT obscure; while If Chanaius ana Bryant do
nor ,r-:.., GOOD nlnsn English ,re arc irnnran. OF