New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-28
EuERsoyAYD WALT WHITu4N.
THE REV. JOHN W. CHADWICK REPLIES TO Mr.. W.
ID. O'CONNOR


d. O'CONNOR
TO ne EdftOr Of The Tribune.
SIR: have read with interest and with approval
IN the main Alr. OCoDnors eloquent defence Of
Nj Whituau's poetry. do not wish to enter here
into any discussion of the morality OF taste Of those
sections Of this poetry which have excited the holy
wrath Of Mr. Oliver Stevens. do not believe that
MI Whitman has written a line which Is not pure
and high 10 It's intention, At the same time true art
appears b. lie 10 be carefully seIectye OF Its
themes and phrases than Mr.. Whitman has shown
himself to be- yield 10 few, If any, IL my adnira-
ton of the InaJor part Of all his poems, but
in some particulars l find him SIMPLY nasty and
disgusting. But my opinion has not been asked
upon this head aud l presume to give 1t only by
way of introduction to the real purpose Of my
letter
This is Emerson's birthday, and if on any day In
the year We ought to do him simple justice ought
70 on this. And il seems TO me that Mr. OCOnuOPs
letter does him great deal less than justice 1t IS
am obliged 10 think, diSlngenuOus 10 an astonish
ing degree. | cannot suppose that Mr.. OCOnnor is
not perfectly informed and therefore | cannot es-
cape the feeling lie has consciously and wIlfully
prevented and suppressed the truth, and Mr.. Whit
mans cause is | think, too good to need any such
doubtful measures Of support
The principal object of Mr. OCouDor's letter is to
bring forward Nh Emerson as the unqualified sane
toner of Mr.. Whltman's poetry III general and es-
pecally those parts that have made il liable tolega
Interference. lie quotes Mr.. Emersous letter of
1855, and SAYS that never. to his undying honor
did be retract or qualify it in any way whatso-
ever" Surely Mr.. OConnor has read the later
productions Of his good gray poet" much less
carefully than some OF the rest of us if lie can
make such a statement honestly. Whitman
himself is much more honest In a number of The
Critic published few months ago Mr.. Whitman re-
ports an interview he had with Emerson. | AIN
sorry that have not the paper al my hand TO quote
his exact words. which would be more 10 my pur-
pose than any paraphrase. They walked together
OIL Boston Common, and EmersOn's talk was an ar
ralgnment IN no dubious fashion of all that part Of
"mtman's book entitled Children of ADAM
which contains the greater part of all that with
"mch MI. Ohyer stevens is offended His argu-
uent, says Whitman. was most tboroyobooing and
convincing, and after he had finished | was more
than ever determined 10 90 my own way
I1ls statement Ol MI NAltman's Is absolutely
final, and II l. directly contradictory 10 MI
OConDOTs that he " did not qualify IN any Wv
Whatsoever uls letter Of 1855. He qualified il M
far-Mr Whitman himself witr~ss-.- entireIv
% destroy the force Of Mr. OConnvr, letter and
70 make IL hereafter impossible for anyone who
knows the facts 10 speak OF kmersOn's absolute
Endorsement" Of MT. Whitman's poetry His ad-
uIlTatlOn Of lis average quality was great, and
Justly 50, but hls dIsappT val OF those things
which have got Mr.. htmdn into Trouble wa St
we're and unmlstakabe. 81 much, on EmersOn's
seventy birthday. II IS only far ana decent
for AL Just men 10 allow. Yours truly,
JOSH ". CHADWICK.
Brooklyn, May %, 1882
r. 81 have hunted up The critic of December
s, ISL. containing Mr. Whitman's statement, and
1t Is herewith appended
Up and down this breadth by Beacon-st, be-
twes these same old elms, | walked for two hours
OF a bright sharp February midday twenty-one
years ago, with Emerson, then in bus prime, keen,