| Thoreau Home
Research Paper
Biography
Works
Historical Setting
Chronology
Quotations
Contact Me
Bibliography and Related Links
Veni vidi vici
Robert Frost Home
Ayn Rand Home
Future Poet's Home
|
|
As both a man and philosopher, Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was chronically misunderstood. His life, taken out of context of his own narration, is commonly judged and written off as condescendingly hermitic. His work, read in Cliff’s Notes form by an outsider, are misleading from his actual motives. What follows is an address of that misunderstanding and an assessment regarding to what degree it has eroded popular opinion of his legacy.
TO THE QUESTION OF WHY HE IS MISCONCEIVED, Oscar Wilde gives the answer: “Communication does not take place in a vacuum.†Interpretation depends on what assumptions are made and in what frame of reference one is introduced. Essentially, the decision throwing modern interpretation to either direction is whether one believes we live in this sort of society because men are the way they are, or whether men are the way they are because of the society in which we live. Is it possible to alter society by altering the men who comprise it? “Thoreau assumed,†writes Joseph Krutch, “merely as a moralist rather than necessarily as a mystic, that ultimately it is men who make institutions rather than institutions which make men . . . his whole approach to the question what men can do to better their condition was fundamentally different from that of those who assume . . . .that institutions make men.â€
Centrally, Thoreau was different from the mindless masses surrounding him. He was genuine to a fault and likewise honest, steadfast in moral and intellectual fiber. Thus did his neighbors perceive him as a sort of Admetus of Concord, a standoffish aberration. Because of the assumption that all people desire to belong to a club or institution, many select the only society with which Thoreau was ever affiliated as his characterizing institution. The Transcendentalists were not, however, his crowd. Though a Transcendentalist in philosophy, he never signed on with them and wasn’t committed to any group or activities. In fact, Thoreau’s family and small, unentangled group of friends, amounted to perhaps a dozen persons to whom he pledged allegiance. He swore integrity to himself first, not out of egotism, but because few surrounding narcissists were docile enough to give Thoreau a chance. It is ever easier to maintain evil ways in good company than it is to be changed by an isolationist.
One must also consider the historical time in which Thoreau was inserted. Times were changing. In a surge of immigration, Irish workers brought a rougher form of democracy to America, Harrison and Tyler campaigned post-Tippecanoe, and the Victorian age was in full swing. People were consumed by etiquette and appearances, among the first eras of “keeping up with the Joneses.†There were large-scale efforts to convert American Indians to Christianity, and this is a probably cause for Thoreau’s disapproval of religion. His endeared tribe of Wannalancet indians were dropping their traditions, one by one, because of economic and social coercion by white men. Nature and the natural state of being was being hindered in favor of an institution. Finally, the Mexican War made headlines while the Civil War approached from the horizon. Conflicting actions of his countrymen were catalysts to Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.†In his opinion, they who made much of abolition were swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat by supporting white slavery at home.
Thoreau himself did not escape the effects of his environment. Thought patterns of Puritanism permeate his work: he insists on the necessity of choices; he does not, as Eastern religions do, accept the All, but accepts the Good and rejects the Bad; he believes in an inward light, and therefore no need for an intermediary between man and God; he even circumscribes the issue of salvation, with his empathy labeling him what the Puritans would call the elect.
These ideas hindered communication because of the common propensity to assume rejection of an institution (religion) implies rejection of all its ideas. Thoreau had more in common than people believed or continue to believe, causing him to be misrepresented. Despite these common beliefs, he was “to [the people of Concord] only a somewhat irresponsible eccentric who had never stuck at anything long enough to be a success.â€
Finally, part of the impression Thoreau gave was his own indications, intentional or otherwise, that contradicted his prior actions and sayings. He cared not what sort of images the name “Thoreau†conjured in his neighbors’ minds. In fact, one could easily argue that he took action to confound and confuse his fellow men, taking pleasure on purpose from a anomaly that occurred at first by accident. To this end, he writes: “In what concerns you much, do not think that you have companions; know that you are alone in the world.†The first problem he had that led to contradiction was the basic need of personal survival in an alien environment. There is no question that Thoreau did not fit in. Rather than seek pity for being a sort of earthly Tantalus by environmental dictation, he developed a sense of humor cognizant of his own eccentricities. And it is not as if the man was an android, though; he was of good humor and high spirits. He danced vigorously and well, and no one, says Ellery Channing, laughed more or better. What is more, people were not outside his range of interest (evidenced by myriad character sketches in his journal) they were simply not his bliss. He was different from other similar thinkers of the time, who often criticized the falseness of society, because where others would speak, Thoreau would act; where they delivered sermons, Thoreau worked first to ensure against being a perpetrator of the crimes he denounced, then recorded on an introspective level what his findings were. Though he may have held disdain for society, he would not take it upon himself to change it, he was just more stubborn than the rest who were willing to see but not act.
Thoreau is often criticized for being selfish on this account. Knowledge, it is presumed, ought to be shared, for the general welfare. Critics ask what would become of society if everyone selected a pond and a forest to reside in. Simply because not everyone abandons society to go live by a pond doesn’t mean one isn’t entitled to pursue happiness as he will. Thoreau never suggested the world should do as he did, only that they do what is best for each of them, and, since he published knowing his ideas would be for the most part rejected, Thoreau needed take no precautions to tighten anarchy’s manacles. Thoreau had “a wonderful fitness of body and mind†and could find paths in the woods at night, measure trees and estimate distances. He therefore selected the wilderness. Each man is capable of finding his own. Additionally, Walden was not so much an adventure as a gesture and symbol. Thoreau remarked that Walden, “[A]s a whole is not . . . a treatise or an exhortation but . . . merely the personal account of an adventure not recommended to others.†Meanwhile, unheeding, historians complain “He likes to say that four and four makes nine, in order to assert his independence of the contemptible trammels of the world’s arithmetic.†It is not out of contempt but a different mindset these independencies are declared. Though he’s been called selfish, his response is under the heading of “Philanthropy†in Walden. There, he provides, “amplest defenses against this charge, for those who can appreciate them.â€
On one hand, then, “It has been said that if we all lived like Thoreau, we would return to barbarism. By obeying our loftiest instincts, there would indeed be less splendor in our houses, less luxury and richness, etc., but how does this compare to the grandeur and beauty that would appear in the souls of men?†On the other, the thinker is called an overappreciated eccentric, in love with himself, disagreeable, bellicose in nature, and said to be frowned upon with good reason. There is no sorting fact from fiction in these opinions, but it appears those seeking true understanding will search for the familiar lens Thoreau left by his books, while other squint first into the sun and then at the page.
Another point of contrition is the apparent contradiction Thoreau creates with simplicity. He frowns upon technology because of the need to return to one’s roots, which he believes are in nature. It would seem, though, that most elements of technology are designed with this in mind; the sewing machine simplifies the seamstress’s life and industrial machines demand fewer man-hours. However, those who point out this contradiction do not heed Thoreau’s distinction between what is not worth having and what is not worth the price of acquiring. Industrialization may be worthwhile for the company, but its effects negate that worth. Unemployment, pollution, and so forth are all degrading to the value of advancements. One must therefore use care to understand which facet Thoreau describes, else he will be misunderstood.
Lastly, in proof of Thoreau’s authenticity and in defense of his apparent contradictions, his deathbed is called to the stand. The last days of a rebel are always of interest because they may confirm his character or prove it false. A priest would offer a heretic a crucifix in his last days. If the heretic accepts, his actions are true only as much as they are convenient. Similarly, if Thoreau failed to be true to the end, the world could ignore his paradoxes and comments; as if he didn’t mean them. However, as “Thoreau’s lifework was the writing of a spiritual biography,†so were his last days an appropriate end. When asked if he had made peace with God, he answered “I wasn’t aware we’d ever quarrelled.†And on his gravestone, he asked for the words “There Rises,†rather than, “Here Lies,†that his death may be compared to the rising of a star. In his last hours, witnesses describe neither regret nor sadness about death, as he said himself “When I was a very little boy I learned that I must die, and I set that down, so of course I am not disappointed now. Death is as near to you as it is to me.â€
HAVING ADDRESSED WHY THOREAU IS MISUNDERSTOOD, A DESCRIPTION OF THE WAYS in which he is misunderstood would logically follow. First of all, his frustration with his own writing and lectures leads some to believe he found himself unsuccessful. However, he would have been surprised to have succeeded; he didn’t expect to, at least by common standards and terms.
He seemed to oscillate between pantheist and humanist, intuition and observation. Therefore, it is impossible to take many of his comments at face value out of context. Everything must be considered for precisely what he means, and even then, for what degree of truth he strove. Absolutes are nearly nonexistent in his work. Unchanging, though, is the pursuit of moments of communion and empathy. Epiphanies are lived in the moment and more important than the interpretation. Since this contradicts man’s tendency to find out how and why the sky is blue, Thoreau was misinterpreted to be simply lazy in not wishing to analyze. To him, the sky was blue, and that was enough. Illustrative of this is a comment by Clifton Fadiman, “Thoreau could get more out of ten minutes with a chickadee than most men could get out of a night with Cleopatra.†His source of knowledge was nature and therefore abundant.
Finally, if Thoreau cared less for analysis than for the epiphany itself, common practice may be to question what business he had studying nature so intently and seeking out little allegories. Perhaps this is best explained by biographer Joseph Krutch, “In his case, there was no, ‘I think, therefore I am,’ but rather an ‘I am, and, therefore sooner or later I must think.†He appreciated observation, but found no use in the psychological blather people tend to couple it with. Why not learn from people, instead of chickadees? As he said himself, “I walked through New York yesterday . . . and met no real and living person.†Nature was genuine and a better substitute.
Radicals and nonconformists are ever indicted for dissatisfaction and pessimism. Quite to the contrary, Thoreau, who was more an individual than a radical per se, was self-described as “blissfully happy.†“I love my fate to the very core and rind and could swallow it without paring it, I think,†quoth he. And as for public response to this unorthodox attitude, “If you wish to know how I think, you must endeavor to put yourself in my place. If you wish me to speak as if I were you, that is another affair.†Society heard of his jubilance, read of his frowning upon civilization, and responded with the assumption he was just one of them gone awry. Then, as now, the thought that minds may be inherently different, was a whale to swallow.
Simultaneous with his devotion to solitude and individual meditation, Thoreau offered advice in his work, addressing the general population with sometimes chiding, sometimes fatherly remarks for improvement. One expects much of this is directed to posterity that may be similarly oriented as he, and finds themselves alone in a different wilderness. “Yes, roam far,†he says, “grasp life and conquer it, learn much and live. Your fetters are knocked off; you are really free. Stay till late in the night; be unwise and daring.†As far as self-evaluation goes, and many deemed him an egotist, “The true harvest of my daily life is somewhat as intangible and indescribable as the fruits of morning or evening. It is a little star-dust caught. It is a segment of the rainbow I have clutched . . . I waxed and grew in these intervals . . . Follow your genius closely enough, and it will not fail to show you a fresh prospect every hour.†Nothing is more timeless than a quote all may relate to, and all kindred may exclaim over.
Regarded as an authority on Transcendentalism, many question how his appraisal of the world without clear mention of the Oversoul and tenets of Transcendentalism jibes with that philosophy. Those who do are forgetting that he never subscribed to that particular philosophy. Once again, he may or may not contradict himself and may or may not be crystal clear as to opinion, but the opinion mattered less than the degree of contentment with it, to him at least. He was content analyzing on occasion and accepting on others. To us, it may seem contorted, but to him, he approached all opportunities with a kind of hedonist’s scale. “The fact is, I am a mystic, a Transcendentalist, and a natural philosopher to boot,†he says.
As proof that he discarded the title of high priest of Transcendentalism, Thoreau was at odds with several of their qualities. Despite conclusions derived from nature, for instance, he was free of the naïve transcendentalist assumption that nature’s lessons are merely little allegories. He interprets the withdrawing, mystical aspects of transcendentalism as a failure of nerve, much as psychologists are criticized today for indulging emotion. Since truth was at the core of Transcendentalism, he even addressed the difference between direct historical truths and higher poetic truths. By contrast, Emerson would cite facts over illusion, but proceed to analyze in a fog of smoke and mirrors. Thoreau wasn’t the only one engaged in contradiction. Often, he would hear the music of a thought but would not be as concerned with understanding it. Alcott would stay up nights in reflection, analysis, and meditation, regardless of the profundity of a particular thought. In fact, it could be argued that Thoreau possessed existentialist tendencies because of his disregard for answers and solid conclusions. The process was worth more than the end.
It was his journal that brought Thoreau to the Emersonian circle. “Everything that boy says makes merry with society, though nothing can be graver than its meaning,†quoted Emerson after one of their first rendez-vous. Despite a lengthy and intimate relationship with Emerson, though, he questioned the man for being too comfortable and patronizing. Thoreau was ever improving and struggling with life (and enjoying it) while Emerson adopted a passive answer-seeking method of avoiding discomfort. “Thoreau’s task was to maximize the minimum,†quips Channing but Emerson would ever be complicating what was already there.
THE EFFECTS OF THE CHRONIC MISUNDERSTANDING of H. D. Thoreau are manifold. One can only guess how much his message changed between conception and reception, for better or for worse. For example: was the idea of quiet desperation as paramount as analysts have made it? Surely a statement lacking truth would be largely disregarded, and “if it is no longer true that ‘the masses of men lead lives of quiet desperation,’ that is only because the desperation of so many has become unquiet instead.†Thoreau’s ideas are as relevant today as ever, and truly his impact cannot be overestimated. Martin Luther King, Jr. is just one of many to take his words to heart, and we can only marvel at where that one instance took us. His ideas were resurrected for events like the British labor movement invoked in resistance to Hitler. In the U.S. alone, Emma Goldman, Upton Sinclair, and Norman Thomas were all arrested for reading from “Civil Disobedience†on the public platform. As disciples developed in categories: nature lovers, solitaires and political proteges, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. became all-around aficionados. Senator Joseph McCarthy had “Civil Disobedience†removed from U.S. libraries, an act Thoreau would have considered an honor, and F.D.R. paraphrased Thoreau in one of his most famous statements. The former President: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.†Thoreau: “Nothing is so much to be feared as fear.†Roosevelt is known to have been reading Thoreau at the time, so the connection is highly probable.
It is interesting to note that his contemporaries evaluated more his verbose style than his ideas, whereas posthumous judges concentrate on the latter. Perhaps his stoicism came off as cynicism in his time, but ours somehow clarifies the point.
Thoreau is probably most widely misunderstood on the philosophical frontier. Clearly influenced by Carlyle, Thoreau wished to demonstrate that he, too, is among the prophets. It would follow that he seeks to bring new knowledge to the world and share it. Yet he states that it is not his duty to improve the world, but only to live in it. He retreats to the fortress of absolute individualism, even while proclaiming interconnectedness among all living things. Thus does he become an unintentional agnostic, believing that man cannot comprehend, or was not made to comprehend whatever metaphysical gears and pulleys are set up. Part of what causes confusion regarding his beliefs is the unacknowledged transformation that occurred within him. At first, he was zealous and blissful in nature, then he becomes systematic as an observer and the happy insight is less frequent, though he never declares disappointment. (See his earlier journals as contrasted with his later ones for this.) He eventually moves away from the view that intuition answers all, and favors observation. But he never resolves the essential principles: whether nature teaches or reflects man, whether man is at the center of the universal scheme of things or if he is belittled. Thoreau is often guilty of conflict of statement, but this is one of the times he is guilty of conflict of thought.
Marx and Freud portray man as a product of his times, a victim and unresponsible for himself. Thoreau also saw men as victims but argued that they did not need to be. Some of his so-called antagonism toward Christianity stems from this idea of liberation from the suffering syndrome. When Thoreau practically calls himself Buddhist and refers to “my Buddha†in contrast to “their Christ†he concludes, “The love is the main thing, and I like him [Christ], too.â€
It is likely his appeal will never fade, because his major premises are so universal will appeal to reformers and other fundamentalists for ever because his major premises are so universal. Unjust laws will always exist, the laws of the universe will forever confuse mankind, and there will be more wisdom in the way a bluebird carries the sky on his back than the way the world is carried on various others/minds, but there will only ever have been one Henry David Thoreau. “The country knows not yet, or in the least part, how great a son it has lost.†Emerson’s comments at Thoreau’s funeral are as true today as they were then.
It is difficult to assess what exactly sets Thoreau apart from all the rest: be it his originality, his integrity, creativity, or audacity to challenge the norm. At any rate, it is assured that through a life reduced to lowest terms, Thoreau has provided the world with solutions to pivotal problems. It is out of fear of his veracity that he is misunderstood. It wouldn’t have mattered to him, though: “His soul was made for the noblest society; he had in a short life exhausted the capabilities of this world; wherever there is knowledge, wherever there is virtue, wherever there is beauty, he will find a home.†–Ralph Waldo Emerson
Bibliography
Bloom, Harold, ed. Modern Critical Views: Henry David Thoreau. Chelsea House Publishers.
NY, NY. 1987. (276 pages) As a collection of essays of different authors.
Bode, Carl, ed. The Best of Thoreau’s Journals. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale,
Ill., 1967. (323 pages)
Glick, Wendell, ed. The Recognition of Henry David Thoreau. University of Michigan, 1969.
Ann Arbor, Mich. (381 pages)
Harding, Walter. The Days of Henry Thoreau. Dover Publications, Inc. 1962, New York, New
York. (497 pages)
Krutch, Joseph Wood. Henry David Thoreau. William Sloane Associates, Inc. New York, New
York, 1948.
Schneider, Richard J. Henry David Thoreau. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Twayne Publishers, Boston, Mass. 1987. (177 pages)
Stern, Philip Van Doren. Henry David Thoreau Writer and Rebel. Thomas Y. Crowell Co. New
York, New York. 1972. (183 pages)
Thoreau, Henry David. A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers. Ticknor and Fields,
Boston, Mass. 1967.
--------------------------- Thoreau, Henry David. The Journal of Henry David Thoreau. (Bradford
Torrey, Francis H. Allen, ed.) Dover Publications, Inc. New York, New York, 1962.
--------------------------. Walden; or Life in the Woods. The New English Library, Ltd. London,
England, 1960.
Wagenknecht, Edward. Henry David Thoreau: What Manner of Man? University of
Massachusetts Press. Amherst, 1981. (209 pages)
**For pictures, chronology, and more information, please visit: http://henrydavid.iwarp.com**
|
|
|
Links to Other Sites
My Links |
|
|
