The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1905-09-28
Emerson as an Essavist.

and limited in comprehension by that
kind of insuperable provincialism
which is born of merely mental training
and nourished on poison imbibed from
classical readings. AS result his was
an Unbalanced nature wherein the re-
Elective and the imaginative more than
counterbalanced the perceptive. To
his mental vision all was hazy and in
distinct; his thoughts were phantom
like his writings fatally defective in
perspicuity and laconism; he never
seems quite able to explain himself;
he rarely manages to utter definite
opinion of men and of matter; he seldom
succeeds in formulating a reasoned
philosophy of religion or of life. One
cannot doubt that Emerson was an
emotional mystic-albeit an intellect
ual one-who played with the incon-
ceivable, and, as a consequence, the
reader feels constantly as if he was
being waited into misty mid-region
where blind currents of air beat hither
and thither, until he longs for some
anchor to reality. To my mind among
the errors of style which mark Emer-
sons essays the one most conspfcuously
visible is that of subjectivity, and ap-
parently Mr.. Emerson considered it
sufficient if he himself knew what he
meant, and wanted to say, without
taking any thought for the reader, who
is left to fath0m it as best he can;
there is always subtle, lurking, some
thing still unexpressed, which some
thing-the real essence of the matter
the readers penetration Is expected to
divine.
So pronounced is this characteristic
that one can scarcely take issue with
one of Emerson's contemporaries who
said of him: eff you see the truth
as he does you will recognize him as a
gifted teacher; if not, there is little
or nothing to be said" Mr.. Emerson
himself was evidently not unaware OF
this subjective quality in his work, fol
it is recorded of him that on one oc.
casion he said, in reply to the protests
of certain DR.. Ware: "Icould not give
an account of myself if challenged.
could not possibly give you one Of
the arguments you covertly hint at, or
which any doctrine of mine stands; fol
do not know what arguments are ir
reference to any expression of thought
I delight in telling what think but II
you ask me how dare say so, or why
it is SO, I am the most helpless of men.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his biog
raphy of Emerson, which, by the way
is written in spirit of hero worship
and is too continuously laudatory tt
constitute literature-says of Emerson'
literary style that it is "epigrammatic
incisive, authoritative, sometime
quaint, never obscure. excep
when he is handling nebulous sub
4 jects. His paragraphs are full O
brittle sentences that break apart, ant
are Independent units, like the frag
ments of a coral colony"
Now, using language soberly, AM
with rigid regard for its meaning,
should say that the reversal of DI
Holmes statement would conform t
the fact. Mere assertion, however,
/ not proof; and, since we can judge bu
} poorly of anything whilst we measur
it by no other standard than itself, th
seeker after truth will be both intel
ested and instructed if he will con
pare Emerson's style with that q
Macaulay, or the style Of either wit
! that of Schopenhauer, who was stylil
{ In the truest sense of the word an
:, who, quite apart from his philosophi,
al pretentions, claims recognition as
G great writer, the greatest, indeed, {
Q the very few really excellent prot
? writers of whom Germany can boas
q and the only one whose work wi
Q Withstand translation without losin
8 any Of its pristine qualities.
g The Intelligent reader of Schopel
: hauer will observe that here one has
L do, not with mere maker Of bool
d but with man who thinks for himsel
= 9 postmaster of style who strings b
d thoughts together ia the most logic
ts.ss 2+ts1 tst53 cd 81 dE15 csegT4ss ~