He could understand the idealism of the
Christian view, but he was himself so unaffectedly unhuman
that he did not recognise the human intention and essence of
that teaching. Hence he complained that Christ did not leave
us a rule that was proper and sufficient for this world, not
having conceived the nature of the rule that was laid down;
for things of that character that are sufficiently
unacceptable become positively non-existent to the mind. But
perhaps we shall best appreciate the defect in Thoreau by
seeing it supplied in the case of Whitman. For the one, I
feel confident, is the disciple of the other; it is what
Thoreau clearly whispered that Whitman so uproariously bawls;
it is the same doctrine, but with how immense a difference!
the same argument, but used to what a new conclusion!
Thoreau had plenty of humour until he tutored himself out of
it, and so forfeited that best birthright of a sensible man;
Whitman, in that respect, seems to have been sent into the
world naked and unashamed; and yet by a strange consummation,
it is the theory of the former that is arid, abstract, and
claustral. Of these two philosophies so nearly identical at
bottom, the one pursues Self-improvement - a churlish, mangy
dog; the other is up with the morning, in the best of health,
and following the nymph Happiness, buxom, blithe, and
debonair.
Pages:
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186