|
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 317]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
Monday, December
17, 1888.
Stopped at W.'s in the early morning. All well there. Then to Philiadelphia. Letters from
Bucke Friday and Saturday. B. not "confident" W. will last long. Who
is? Is afraid we won't be able to give him (Bucke) much notice when the end comes. Down to W.
again in the evening. Talk with Ed. Walsh had been in. Had little to say. Only: "Whitman is better." George Whitman stopped in. Ed says W. talked considerably with him
after we left last evening. Sat up more to-day than yesterday. Ate
well: chicken broth, wine and milk, mutton broth: more than for several days past. Did not
touch a book, however, or write. When I got there W. was fast asleep. I stayed in Ed's room
till I heard W. stirring—probably half an hour. Then I passed in and had a short talk
with him. Light down, room all closed, perceptible odor of burning wood. W. sitting on the edge
of the bed for a few minutes, then lying down again. Had this been a better day? "I don't know; I think rather not: only mostly like other days." And he
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 318]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
added: "I am a bad mess anyway." Had done
little "though I was up some."
"But I had a letter from the Doctor: the books had
n't come yet—it was Saturday forenoon: he expected them in the afternoon: and
I wrote him, too—sent him a bundle of papers—one of them the Revue
Indépendant (Paris)—discussing me, the book." Pointed out Literary
World to me on the table. "I am done with it now: it is a pleasing
notice—hedgey, a little—is pulled up short here and there—but
agreeable, friendly: from them it is significant." I said: "You
always forgive the unforgiveable fellows." He said gently: "I always
remember that I am to be forgiven."
"After all," I asked: "don't the literary
men do just what they must do? most men are not dynamic—they are static: they would
rather some one else did the revolutionary things." W. said: "That 's true: but will it always be so?"
"Not maybe if the environment is more generous—more
hospitable."
"That 's what I mean: these fellows would let
loose a lot if they did n't have to make a living." I quoted
W.'s own line: "It was the body that dragged me in."
"Oh," he said, "that
's mine!" Then: "But that 's no
reason why it should not be true. That 's the troube with the
scribbling fellows" they are dragged in: they would do something different if doing this was
not so damned much easier."
"But why should they damn you for doing what they would do if they
could?"
"That 's just the point—why should
they? That 's the thing to explain. It can't be jealousy: why should
any one be jealous of me? Or do they regard me as an accusation? God knows I don't want to
accuse anybody: I do the work—I let the consequences take care of themselves. I
recall that in one of my talks with Emerson he said: 'You have a
great pack howling at your heels always, Mr. Whitman: I hope you show them all a proper
contempt: they deserve no more than your heels.' Emerson could be severe, too, in his own
way. Thoreau, in Brooklyn, that first time he came to see me, referred to my critics as 'reprobates.' I asked him: 'Would you apply so severe a word
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 319]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
to them?' He was surprised: 'Do you regard that
as a severe word? reprobates? what they really deserve is something infinitely stronger, more
caustic: I thought I was letting them off easy.'"
W. said he had "not felt well enough" to "do
the books"to-day. "I had a Critic in the morning's mail:
sent it to the Doctor: it contained several references to me—to the books: Doctor
will want them, of course." Had also sent B. some Italian papers (Palermo). Proposed to
take a bath to-day but when the time came his zest had flown. Read
Press and Record this forenoon: also the local papers—Post, Courier. Harned not in
to-day. Makes no move towards the discussion of a cover for the
complete W. or the cover for the book to go on the market. For the present everything is
suspended. To be resumed? He himself asks: "Who can see a way out of
this? who?" Yet hopes—expresses hope: refuses absolute despair, though he is
more easily depressed than formerly. "This is one peg more, or many: it
even looks like many." Bucke writes: "It is
wonderful how clear his writing is." Bucke congratulates Harned on getting the will into a
secure place. W. has said nothing about it. Has not missed it. We talked of the Rossetti
letters. W. wished it. Not at great length. I had some questions to ask W. Was very vehement
about the expurgations. "Of course I see now as clearly as I did then how
big and fine Rossetti was about it all—how thoroughly he realized me: much more so
and more promptly than Conway, as you must have noticed. But I now feel somehow as if none of
the changes should have been made: that I should have said, take me as I am: my bad and my
good, my everything—just as I am: to hell with all cuts, all excisions, all
moralistic abridgements. I never regret that I gave Rossetti options in the matter, but I
doubt if I would do the thing over again that way. Rossetti himself used his margin with great
tact, consideration, delicacy: was miracu-
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 320]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
lously circumspect. But
an expurgation means a lot more always than it looks as if it meant—has far-reaching
consequences: like one move on the chessboard that moves so much else with
it—imposes other moves: so we must look out—must not compromise unless
it 's a life and death issue, as it was not in this case. If any
mistake was made in this incident it was mine—my mistake: Rossetti was altogether
beautiful—genial, loving, open-handed: he was full of resources—always
seemed to know which way to turn next."
I asked: "Did you feel any active dynamic impulse to push the book
forward in that way in England?"
"No—none at all: I was rather passive as towards it
all—would personally have been as well satisfied if the game had been declared off
at any stage of the play."
"And about redistributing the poems—giving them new titles:
did n't that play hob with your scheme?"
"Did it? yes indeed: mixed me all up—made Leaves of Grass over
from a sequential product to a poetic scrap-heap." Did W. agree with Conway as to the
advantage of having an introduction by an Englishman instead of by an American? "Yes—surely: for the purposes of that edition that was the best
thing to do: yet we lost heaps in losing William out of that book. There was another regret
from which I have always suffered: I always wished William to figure in some edition of the
Leaves in an Introduction of some sort, either abroad or here—wanted him in the book
as a part of its blood and sinew: at first I thought the Rossetti book might be the occaision
I hoped, looked for: then the objections arose: they were good objections." W. said again:
"Conway could never understand my stony attitude towards expurgations:
he at once flew to the conclusion that I was as willing to expurgate a complete Leaves as a
volume of extracts. But the two things are quite unlike: even the extracts should have been
used word for word, but I yielded on that—said yes with my lips when my heart said
no: I wished to let Rossetti alone as much as possible—not to stand in his
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 321]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
way." W. laughed gently: "How people reel
when I say father-stuff and mother-stuff and onanist and bare legs and belly! O God! you might
suppose I was citing some diabolical obscenity. Will the world ever get over its own
idecencies and stop attributing them to God?"
"Then on the whole you resent expurgations? Asked to-day you would not submit to them under any circumstances?"
"I may say that: yes: I would never permit the text to be tampered
with—not for any edition, not for ten thousand editions: it
's a mistake: it 's like going back: why, that 's what Emerson asked me to do—expurgate: he did
n't call it expurgate, but that 's what he meant: give the
book a chance to be heard: cut the dangerous things out: they won't hurt near as much out as
in: excise them—throw them away: but what do you think Leaves of Grass would come to
with Children of Adam thrown out? What? what?" W. stopped. Then: "To
a cipher: that 's all: what does a man come to with his virility
gone? Emerson did n't say anything in the Leaves was bad: no: he
only said people would insist on thinking some things bad. Well, those affairs are all past
now: we can review them historically now: look back: I am not of the feeling that anybody has
committed any crime in the matter: I made one mistake: Emerson—well, Emerson had his
rights, too, but in his argument failed to realize the orbic character of the Leaves,
supposing that an important piece could be taken out without injury on the whole: Rossetti was
altogether logical—logical, asking for permission to do and doing what he did:
logical—and loving, too. Oh well: that is now all gone: I
've talked freely with you because I wanted you to know just how the affair looks to me
looked back upon from to-day."
W. said: "I 've got a curio for you." What
was it? He held a smallish white unstamped envelope up before me. "This:
look at it." I took it from his hand. Opened it and read it. It was addressed to "Walt Whitman Esq., Attorney General's Office,
Washington.
| |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 322]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| |
14 Milborne, West Brompton, London, Nov. 7.
My dear Walt:
I introduce to you Mr. John Morley, Editor of the
Fortnightly Review, in whose acquaintance you will find much pleasure as he will in yours.
Cordially yours,
M. D. Conway
I asked W.: "What year was that?" He closed his
eyes—was still. Then: "I can't just say: is there no year on
the letter?" Further: "Morley was not the famous man then that he is
now: he has been gradually going ahead ahead ahead until now he is one of the big sized men
over there: not quite my type—not the letting-it-go kind: rather too judicial: still
quite a man."
|
|
|