The modern bias
Infatuated by Emerson and Whitman
Continuing the work of re-educating myself after concluding that my degrees in English included massive doses of mideducation, I find myself reading with quite a lot of skepticism the anthology (Elements of Literature, Fifth Course, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2003) Ive been given to teach American Literature.
In the student’s introduction to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, for example, I came across this: . . .his tendency to leave these [Christian] values unexamined led to poetry that often offered easy comfort at the expense of illumination.”
Similar comments are made about the other Fireside Poets--John Greenleaf Whittier, James Russell Lowell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes: Their choice of subject matter--love, patriotism, nature, family, God, and religion--was, for the most part, comforting rather than challenging to their audienceӔ (149). To illustrate the problem,Ӕ the editors refer students, dismissively, to one of Longfellows poems:
A Psalm of Life
Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream! --
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us farther than to-day.
Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.
In the worlds broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!
Trust no Future, however pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God oגerhead!
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;
Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing oer lifeҒs solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.
Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.
IsnҒt that simply awful? Or so the textbook editors invite us to think. Good writing, we have been told, challenges our traditional beliefs.
This, of course, is the modern bias. We are to give up our darkened faith in revealed religion, traditional morality and scriptural authority. We are to follow the new priests of art and of the intellect who will question everything and lead us to the future. Since weve been on that road for well over a hundred years now, it seems appropriate to ask where it has led.
“the Modern Movement was all a ghastly mistake, like Communism, and that, as with Communism, it will take a century or so to clean up the mess. “ John Derbyshire We moderns have cut ourselves off from a visionary tradition that formed many of the world’s most profound poets.
The text is quite clear which writers are better than Longfellow: Emerson and Whitman: ғLimited by their essential literary conservatism, the Fireside Poets were unable to recognize the poetry of the future, which was being written right under their noses. Whittiers response in 1855 to reading the first volume of a certain poetҒs work was to throw the book into the fire. Ralph Waldo Emersons response was much more far-sighted. ґI greet you, Emerson wrote to this maverick poet, Walt Whitman, ґat the beginning of a great career.Ҕ (150)
This, from an introduction not to Emerson or Whitman, but to Whittier and Longfellow. If you were a student encountering them for the first time, would you continue on? Or would you flip ahead to the realӔ writers--Emerson and Whitman?
Lest a student tempted to read these writers on their own terms, we get this from the introduction to William Cullen Bryant: Today BryantӒs poems are not read as the spiritual counsels they were meant to be; instead, they are read as period pieces that authentically reflect their times (169).
So there. This is dead stuff. Only interesting as historical evidence of the dark past.
In a sense, the textbook writers are obliged to say something such. After all, their task is to introduce newcomers to the established literary tradition, and there is little doubt either that the Emerson and Whitman are important figures in todayԒs canon or that Longfellow has been dropped. Its quite true, as a historical matter, that Longfellow and Bryant are no longer taken seriously by the literary establishment.
But what may be more worth thinking about is that the literary establishment is no longer taken seriously by--well, by anyone, except those whose business it is to take it seriously. Longfellow was a vastly popular poet in a way no poet, except possibly Robert Frost, was in the twentieth century.
Continuing the work of re-educating myself after concluding that my degrees in English included massive doses of mideducation, I find myself reading with quite a lot of skepticism the anthology (Elements of Literature, Fifth Course, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2003) I’ve been given to teach American Literature.
In the student’s introduction to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, for example, I came across this: . . .his tendency to leave these [Christian] values unexamined led to poetry that often offered easy comfort at the expense of illumination.Ҕ
Similar comments are made about the other Fireside Poets--John Greenleaf Whittier, James Russell Lowell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes: “Their choice of subject matter--love, patriotism, nature, family, God, and religion--was, for the most part, comforting rather than challenging to their audience” (149). To illustrate the “problem,” the editors refer students, dismissively, to one of Longfellow’s poems:
A Psalm of Life
Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream! --
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us farther than to-day.
Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.
In the worlds broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!
Trust no Future, howeҒer pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God oגerhead!
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;
Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing oer lifeҒs solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.
Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.
The text is quite clear which writers are better than Longfellow: Emerson and Whitman: “Limited by their essential literary conservatism, the Fireside Poets were unable to recognize the poetry of the future, which was being written right under their noses. Whittier’s response in 1855 to reading the first volume of a certain poet’s work was to throw the book into the fire. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s response was much more far-sighted. “I greet you,” Emerson wrote to this maverick poet, Walt Whitman, “at the beginning of a great career.” (150) This, from an introduction not to Emerson or Whitman, but to Whittier and Longfellow. If you were a student encountering them for the first time, would you pay attention?
Lest a student be so tempted, we get this from the introduction to William Cullen Bryant: “Today Bryant’s poems are not read as the spiritual counsels they were meant to be; intead, they are read as period pieces that authentically reflect their times” (169).
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Readings •