In 1899, Edwin Arlington Robinson read Thoreau’s Walking, a work based on an 1851 lecture published posthumously in 1862. Robinson was not impressed by his fellow New Englander. He condemned Thoreau’s “glorified world-cowardice” in a letter to his friend Daniel Gregory Mason:
“For God’s sake says the
sage, let me get away into the wilderness where I shall not have a single human
responsibility or the first symptom of social discipline. Let me be a pickerel
or a skunk cabbage or anything that will not have to meet the realities of
civilization. There is a wholesomeness about some people that is positively
unhealthy, and I find it in this essay.”
Starting as a teenager I
idolized Thoreau. I read Walden many times and almost everything else he
wrote, including the two oversized volumes of his Journals as published
by Dover. I still think he sometimes wrote excellent prose (the poetry is refried
Emerson, often unreadable) but his hippie ethos mingled with snobbery cooled my
enthusiasm, beginning about fifteen years ago. His temperament was chilly. I
suspect Thoreau is best read when we’re young and don’t yet understand our civil
obligations. In 1844, when he accidentally started a forest fire and burned
some three-hundred acres of woods in Concord, Thoreau expressed no remorse and
never apologized to his townsmen. In his Journal in 1850 he wrote about
the incident:
“Presently I heard the
sound of the distant bell giving the alarm, and I knew that the town was on its
way to the scene. Hitherto I had felt like a guilty person — nothing but shame
and regret. But now I settled the matter with myself shortly. I said to myself,
‘Who are these men who are said to be the owners of these woods, and how am I
related to them? I have set fire to the forest, but I have done no wrong
therein, and now it is as if the lightning had done it. These flames are but
consuming their natural food.’”
An impressive act of stiff-necked
rationalization. “It has never troubled me,” he goes on, “from that day to this
more than if the lightning had done it.” Scott Donaldson in Edwin Arlington
Robinson: A Poet’s Life (2007) contrasts Thoreau with Robinson:
“Robinson required a
commanding and fortified purpose to guide him in the real world. For him, there
could be no worthy calling that did not help others. As a poet, he might not
serve as overtly as a pastor comforting parishioners or a college professor
mentoring students. Nonetheless he wanted desperately to believe that by
writing poetry he would do some good in the world. . . .Time and again, as he
was shaping his career, Robinson explicitly made the link between a life of
poetry and a life of service.”
Trying to be a decent
human being is a fulltime occupation that starts with our personal relations –
family, friends, neighbors, coworkers. Grandiose schemes of improvement are
delusional. In an April, 2, 1897 letter to his correspondent Edith Brower,
Robinson writes:
“I am doing what I can for myself and a little for others; and I am very glad to know that I have been to some slight service to them. There are two or three fellows whom I have really helped. I know it; they have told me so; and their actions prove the truth of what they say. And now you—a total stranger—tell me that I have helped you. What more can I ask?”
1 comment:
I like and agree with this essay, but would frame it differently: We read Thoreau not to inform our relations with other humans, but our relation to nature. "We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander." https://raleighnature.com/
Post a Comment