Thursday, January 3, 1889.

     I returned W. Greg's pamphlet and letter. Read to-day. I called it "rather weak and stale, though, like The Republic, affirmative." W.: "You are right: undoubtedly it is stale and weak." He listened as I read him some familiar sentences not quoted. "I noticed that, too: it is wonderful like something or other: but then you must excuse him: he addressed an audience—wanted to interest them." Here W. stopped, resuming more seriously: "But when it comes to publishing I know that don't excuse. The least he could do there would be to give credit for his facts." As to Greg's repetition of the idea that twenty to thirty W. read few books aside from Shakespeare and the Bible: "That is funny—very funny: it is often said." "And he apologizes" for the "certain passages" of L. of G. which "out to be dropped," &c-("even dear Emerson suggesting it"). "That is something that is often said even by my friends: I do not appreciate it: I have made my decision—must stick to it. However inclusive the objections may be my own reasons are the only reasons for me." He asked: "What do you know about the Boston Republic? I looked it over some—it struck me as much like Boyle O'Reilly's paper, The Pilot—to stand for much the same thing."

     Discussed permanent cover for complete W. W. I suggested that he have me go on—compare my own ideas with Oldach's—see what would result. He said: "Yes, do it: and would it not be well to take in consultation the man who 'revealed' that other cover? But do as you choose." I reminded him of that man's "peculiarity." W. had sent him fifty cents for cheese and beer. The bookkeeper had said when I gave it to the man: "I don't know about the cheese but he 'll satisfy himself with the beer." W. had me repeat the story. Then: "never mind: it reached the man anyhow—perhaps gave him more pleasure: I must not inquire beyond." Expressed regret over his own procras-

     He stopped at this point. I cried: "I wish you had kept on, Walt!" He said: "Why should I? I have got it all said: sex, sex: always immanent: here with us discredited—not suffered: rejected from our art: yet still sex, sex: the root of roots: the life below the life!" I said: "You grow eloquent on that subject." W. answered: "I have a right to: it is the thing in my work which has been most misunderstood—that has excited the roundest opposition, the sharpest venom, the unintermitted slander, of the people who regard themselves as the custodians of the morals of the world. Horace, you are too young to know the fierceness, the bitterness, the vile quality, of this antagonism—how it threw aside all reserves and simply tore me to pieces metaphorically without giving me half a chance to make my meanings clear. You have only heard the echoes of that uproar: it 's bad enough, still, to be sure—bad enough even in its echoes: but we have to some extent worn the enemy out—have in some part won our contention." "When you debated Children of Adam with Emerson did he show any sympathy whatever with this outcry?" "None whatever: he in fact expressly disclaimed it: he said: 'Always understand, Mr. Whitman, that my idea is not that there is evil in the book: my idea is that by taking certain things out of the book you are likely to be instrumental in removing some evil out of people': that, in about such words: that was what Emerson said." "Was it your impression that Emerson was less physical than yourself?" W. was quiet a minute. Then he said: "Yes, he was less physical: but he did not hesitate to say he regretted that as a defect in himself." "Did he use the word 'defect'?" "Yes-that word: I remember it clearly." "Would you yourself describe it as a defect in Emerson?" "It was surely a defect: and yet, Horace, somehow, I don't think I could honestly describe anything as a defect in Emerson: he seems surely so far beyond defect: is not perfect, either: yet is beyond defect—beyond it."

     W. said: "I 've got a lot of Galaxy letters somewhere: I want you to have them: they appertain to my publisherial history—help to show what I have been at—when, where, how: they belong in your collection. The Galaxy was hospitable to me: you fellows should know it: who set me up, who knocked me down: who opened their doors, who slammed their doors in my face: who saw, who did n't see: you are entitled to know. William was always a world of help in these treaties with editors: he was an intercessory force: knew everybody, everybody knowing him: would say: 'What's the matter with you that you don't invite Walt Whitman in?' Some invited, most did n't: but whether the one thing or the other, William mediated with his customary enthusiasm." I read the one Galaxy letter he had found. Read it to him. His draft of a letter. He had cancelled it this way: "To Messrs Church April 30, '68, proposing Orbic Literature."

To W. C. & F. P. Church.

     I have now just ready an article intended as the third and concluding one to the two already published by you on Democracy and Personalism. This is upon the general subject of a needed American literature in the highest sense, and of our imaginative mental &c growths, home-born, appropriate to and towering high enough for The States, and in the interests of their democratic institutions. I have, of course, treated the subject in my own way,—certain parts strong and earnest,—but there is nothing in it to make the piece at all improper for the magazine—probably indeed may be found more appropriate and serviceable, and more to rouse additional and critical attention, &c., than the already published articles. I propose to you to print it in The Galaxy for July. It will make from eleven to twelve pages in the new form and type. The name is Orbic Literature. The price will be the same as for each of the previous articles, $100. I reserve the right of printing it in future book. I can sent it on immediately. I think it will be best to not

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 455] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

delay too long as the interest in the thing is now up, something like a serial story. This is the conclusion and I should like to have it in the July number.

     I asked W.: "This Personalism piece: was it the one Alcott liked so much?" "Yes." "You found these three things responded to?" "Very largely: by a limited body of people, very largely. You must remember that I was never popular—am not to-day: when I say it was liked I refer to the very very few: they liked it. The world at large has always ignored me—still ignores me: I do not cut a big figure in the professional sphere: I am either not known at all or known for bad. When we were together in Boston I said to Emerson: 'Mr. Alcott tells me that he enjoyed some of my prose papers—that, indeed, he and you would sometimes confer together over them.' Emerson immediately talked straight out. 'That is true: they pleased us greatly: they seemed to us elemental—dove deeper into reasons than anything else we knew this side dealing with your democracy.' I asked him again: 'Is it possible you feel so about them? You surprise me.' Then he was very cordial: 'You need not be surprised: many people, many others, we are not the only ones, look to you to speak the profounder message of our democracy: it peculiarly fits in with your character and your idealism: we would be surprised if it were the other way about—if you failed us at this point.'" I said to W.: "You never told me this before: I must make a note of it: its too fine, too significant, to lose. Would you object if I made a note of it?" He was genial. "Object? Not at all. Only, you must be just—give it just as I say it to you: not commit Emerson too much to me, me too much to him."