|
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 131]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
Monday, November
19, 1888
7.45 P. M. W. reading Boston Transcript when I came. Quite cordial though not overly bright.
Yet talked freely. I did not stay long. He motioned me to a seat—questioned me about
my day's work, etc. I had brought him plate proofs of the three new pages of the big book. The
printers had not accented the first o in eidôlons. W. not vexed but determined it
should be done. He had marked it on proof. "I am very particular on that
point: he must do it even if he has to go to some other office to get the o. It is the custom
everywhere to pronounce the word
ei
dolons: I always make it eid
o
lons: this is right, too. I make considerable use of the word." Spoke
of the possibility that John Wanamaker would go into the cabinet. Sneered at it. Then said of
Alger, Quay, Morton, Platt, Wanamaker, who reviewed the Republican jollification parade in
Philadelphia Saturday: "All millionaires? Well—it typifies the
Republican party: nothing more needs to be said of it." Gave me The Bookbuyer. Had he
looked at the portrait of Mrs. Ward again? "Oh yes! for a long, long time
to-day: it is very fine: the engraving itself is a rare piece of
work." Did the face appeal to him? "Thoroughly: the picture is noble
in its negative qualities—the face is sensitive, fine, all that." He pointed out
the grace of the neck: "It is swanlike yet strong."
Called my attention to to-day's Post containing a report of
Clifford's sermon—a column or more of it. Had again read Garland's Transcript
deliverance. I said: "I think it good, Walt—probably among
the best of them so far—though
the
criticism remains yet to
be written." W. said: "I like it, too"—saying
afterward as to Kennedy's probable further discussion of the book: "He
will do it when
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 132]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
the time comes: we must be content to wait." I
referred to Democratic Vistas: am struck again with its evidence of great power. W. said "That is a little changed in later editions: I added a paragraph at the
opening: you will see it: see the new paragraph in the Collect of the prose volume." Then
after pausing briefly: "I have never been able to settle it with myself
whether that change was an improvement or not: often the first instinct is the best
instinct." Mentioned Bucke's and O'Connor's aversion to changes in Leaves of Grass text. "Both object but O'Connor is worse than Bucke: O'Connor gets mad, mad!"
"After all," I suggested: "You have to come
back to your own point of view—to satisfy yourself." Whereupon W.: "That is gospel: there is no truth beyond that: but we can learn from the
criticisms of our friends, too: I have got some of my best ideas that way: I not only welcome,
I invite, that." I asked:"Is n't the best
criticism that of friends? has n't the criticism of an avowed enemy
less weight?"" W. said: "I am confident of it: but I always plant
myself on my own plans in the end."
Mentioned Charles Eldridge. "Charles is very fine—very much
of a help, too. But my book has aroused his suspicions. You know, there is a sense in which I
want to be cosmopolitan: then again a sense in which I make much of patriotism—of
our native stock, the American stock, ancestry, the United States. Charles shakes his head
over that. 'That 's not worthy of us, of
you,' he says."
"That is the same old question—adjusting the individual to
the mass." W. repeated my sentence. "Yes, the big
problem—the only problem: the sum of them all." But he considered that the
advice had its place. "We must be willing to invite, to hear, even if we
must refuse." In the end there could be no recourse but to the self. "Take the last edition of Leaves of Grass: some of the fellows think my changes have not
improved the book: yet it is my final judgment that the book is just right as it is
now—that it should be permitted to stand. One advantage a thing
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 133]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
has if a man disregards the advice of his friends—it is all his
own—an expression purely of his own personality: free of blemishes nothing could be,
but freedom from alien influences: ah! that is necessary." He suddenly commenced to root
among the papers at his feet, finally hauling out a paper which he held up for me to see. "The Critic: do you get it? on this page here"—pointing to a
study of Verestchagin's paintings. "He must be a wonderful man: I have
marked a bit here"—indicating the blue pencillings—"what I wanted you to see: it struck me, without formulating or announcing
them, that them 's my sentiments, my opinions."
"...a vision in which 'Holy Russia' lies revealed before him. The Slavic spirit descends
upon him. At last the problem of the painter's art is solved. The word
narodnost
(nationality) seems written in letters of gold upon these mysterious,
baffling canvases, each of which forms one stone in the kaleidoscopic mosaic of the
exhibition. It is not merely that Verestchagin is a great painter, that he has a technique
that would alone win for him a position in the front rank of art. He makes the careful
concentration and personal egotism of the art of western Europe seem trivial beside the
careless, luxuriant largeness of his creativeness. The Russian
abandon
leads him to despise concentration, and this is where, like all Russians, he
runs the risk of misconstruction. Artistic form, for its own sake, may satisfy the artist
of the boulevards, but it does not content the artist of the steppes. His genius is built
upon larger lines—so large, indeed, that the conventionalities of art galleries
and studios do not exist for him, and he towers above them like the peaks of the Himalayas
above the clouds. Like Gogol, like Tolstoy, like Dostoieffski, his literary counterparts,
Verestchagin works, not for art's sake, but for the sake of humanity—that is,
narodnost
. Modern Russian art, like modern Russian literature, is
founded on
narodnost
—the development of the national idea,
which was born into
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 134]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
literature with Pushkin and nourished by
Gogol, to flower into life with the literary realists of the past thirty years. The
romanticism of Pushkin became the realism of Gogol, and, progressing in the scale of
evolution, resolved itself into the naturalism of the contemporary novelists, which, on its
ethical side, has called forth proletarianism from nationalism. Russian art struck the
national note much later than Russian literature, but when it did strike it, it was on the
proletarian side. Thus to-day, in Russian art as in Russian
literature, the words nationalism and proletarianism have one and the same
significance."
"Who do you suppose wrote it?" he asked: "Is
it original with The Critic?—is it copied from somewhere?" Adding: "It is an unusual piece in such a place." Then he said: "Read the whole piece: I would advise you to give ten or fifteen minutes to
it: you won't regret it." Here he indulged in further remarks anent nature in literature,
bringing in Millet, of course. I insisted upon the likeness between W. and Tolstoy. Both
regarded literature as an instrument not a thing in and for itself, &c. W. said: "I begin to see that much of a likeness myself: there are always great
points in a life like Tolstoy's—so high, so courageous." I repeated to him the
substance of Ivan the Fool. He asked me: "What is the genuine meaning of
anarchism as now being more and more philosophically adopted?" I stopped at the
mantelpiece to look at a strange little Washington-Lincoln photo. It represents Lincoln as
being welcomed into the cloudlands and throwing his arms about Washington, who with a
disengaged hand offers to put a wreath on Lincoln's brow. I spoke of it as "queer." W. laughed: "Everybody seems of the
same mind—everybody but me: I value it: yet I could hardly tell why: probably
because it made a favorable impression on me at the start. When I was in Washington I had it
on my desk: the clerks got much frolic out of it: the chief clerk thought it was a cheap
thing—the cheapest of cheap things. It
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 135]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
is an old idea: a
sort of Tom Paine Voltaire idea—the welcome to the shade."
I asked W. if he wrote easily? "I suppose I can say that I do: I do not
revise much: yet I do make changes: that change I have spoken of in Democratic Vistas is a
good instance." I quoted Salter, who said the religious spirit of the time existed most
characteristically in the ranks of the labor radicals—Socialists, Anarchists,
&c. W. asked: "Can it be true? It sounds true." He repeated
his question. "It is a great subject—a daring one—to
ponder." Has been reading Symonds. Ed reports W. "the same." Rubs
him once a day, when W. goes to bed, using the brush first, then the naked hands, generally
continuing for well upon an hour, till both are in a sweat. It helps W. vastly. Ed says Walt is
"all used up" by a bath. W. asked him today if he could not carry him?
He gives his weight still as two hundred pounds, allowing nothing for his very perceptible
losses. He told me just to-night that he thought Ed could carry him.
I said something in my note to Bucke to-day about the possibility of
W.'s getting out of doors again. "Well," said W., "these are bad days, but they won't all be bad days." Ed has a violin
which he plays round the house. W's favorite piece in Ed's modest repertoire is Rock-a-bye
Baby. Ed says quaintly: "I make it long for him—put in the chorus
two or three times." Talked about the book—pushing it ahead. Everything now
about in shape for the binder.
We got on the subject of the O'Connor letter which W. gave me the last thing last evening. "Williams sends us good news from Russia, that most inaccessible of all
countries. He warms up special for The Post and The Nation: are they worth it? We expect them
to be on the other side—to be always in the respectable opposition: to drag
back—to never be in the van, to never lead. Why should we kick about it, then?"
I quoted William's phrase "moral literary ghosts," which made W. chuckle
and say: "How more than good that is: William can do that sort of
thing
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 136]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
better than any man writing to-day." I referred to Lanier. "Yes," said W., "I noticed what William has to say about him. Lanier was once my
friend—once thought himself on my side: he shied off later—could n't stand the rough road: preferred the prepared ways, like the
paved streets." W. shook his head over William's anti-Garfield argument. "Suppress the piece? Why suppress it? Let it pass: let it be counted up
against me: William is too vehement—goes too far—asks too much." W.
again: "What valuable stuff William unearths and proclaims: that Catholic
Protestant data, for instance: who 'd have thought of diving for it
but William? Of course he 's not the only one of his sort but he
certainly is way the greatest of his sort."
|
|
|