I always knew that Emerson had a bit of a falling out with Carlyle at one point in their relationship but I never really knew what it was about. All I recall ever reading about it was that Emerson had disagreed with the direction Carlyle’s philosophy went . Well now in their letters I know what at least some of the disagreement was about: slavery.
Emerson was a staunch abolitionist, writing essays and making speeches, and he even took part in the underground railroad from time to time. He didn’t necessarily believe the slaves were equal to whites in terms of intelligence, but he believed that they should be free and until slavery was abolished in the United States it would be a stain on the thoughts and actions of the country and its people.
Carlyle believed in slavery. He actually thought some people were better off as slaves. During the famine in Irleland when so many people were starving, all Carlyle saw was a bunch of shiftless do-nothings. He suggested to Emerson in a letter that the lazy Irish should be rounded up and sold in Brazil as slaves because that was the only way anyone would ever get any work out of them.
In 1850 Carlyle wrote a book called Latter-Day Pamphlets that caused quite a stir in England and abroad. At one point in the book he vindicates slavery. And when the public made an outcry about his book and especially this point in the book, Carlyle seems to take a certain delight in it. Emerson politely and gently criticizes, never saying anything directly about the point of slavery but making it clear enough. Here is Carlyle’s response to Emerson’s criticism:
You are bountiful abundantly in your reception of those _Latter Day Pamphlets;_ and right in all you say of them;–and yet withal you are not right, my Friend, but I am!
Whereupon, Emerson ceases to write to Carlyle on any sort of regular basis for a couple of years. Emerson writes a few letters often pleading that he is only respecting Carlyle’s creed of silence, but Carlyle knows better and finally resorts to writing several letters pleading to Emerson to re-establish their friendship. In one letter Carlyle writes
remorse is mixed with the other sorrow,–as if I could have helped growing to be, by aid of time and destiny, the grim Ishmaelite I am, and so shocking your serenity by my ferocities! I admit you were like an angel to me, and absorbed in the beautifulest manner all thunder-clouds into the depths of your immeasurable aether;–and it is indubitable I love you very well, and have long done, and mean to do. And on the whole you will have to rally yourself into some kind of Correspondence with me again; I believe you will find that also to be a commanded duty by and by!
Emerson does begin a regular correspondence again but it is not quite as exuberant as it was before. He is still all solicitousness, generous and kind, but there has grown up a certain distance from Emerson’s side. Emerson’s letters are even in tone and lacking in much emotion. Even the death of his mother to whom he was close and who lived in his house for many years does not merit more than a few flat sentences.
In comparison Carlyle’s letters are wild and range from argumentative and grumpy to a sort of near frantic garrulousness. Carlyle’s mother died around the same time as Emerson’s and compared to Emerson’s few sentences, Carlyle goes on and on weeping and wailing for almost the entire letter. Carlyle’s letters had always been a bit exuberant and Emerson’s always had a certain Yankee stoicism, but suddenly after their falling out, the differences become even more pronounced. It is almost as if Carlyle feels like he has to make up for the diminishment of emotion from Emerson. Really fascinating.
I’m a little over halfway through volume two of the letters. We shall see how this correspondence ends up
Interesting that their natural tendencies become more exaggerated after their disagreement. If Carlyle hoped to evoke more of a response from Emerson, he must have been disappointed to find him even less forthcoming. I love following relationships through letters. Thanks for sharing.
Carlyle’s explicit support for slavery is implicit in Past and Present and Hero-Worship. I suspect Emerson was also engaging in a bit of penance here, for not seeing that.
I saw it, ain’t I clever, but of course I knew where Carlyle was going. Emerson did not.
From your account, it feels very familiar… Like a couple after a big falling out, where one’s anxiety to gap bridges puts more and more pressure on the other, instead of letting them grow naturally back into the relationship.
I’m curious whether this relationship could ever really be repaired, let us know!
I have actually experienced a similar rift in an almost life-long friendship. The love still exists, but the principal upon which the break is seated is just too fundamental to be ignored or resolved – at least for now. Although communication is not altogether dead, it is profoundly different and strained. A shame, really. There are few things in life that are worth shattering a friendship over – but there are some nevertheless.
Well Emerson was right, wasn’t he? One only wishes that Carlyle might have known what a chump he would look. But interesting that his temperament is wild and self-oriented, whereas Emerson’s is moderate and cautious and serene. I think that’s rather telling. Gosh and only halfway through – I wonder whatever will happen next?
I’m curious about where this correspondence will go too! Good for Emerson for taking the stance he did, and he shows he takes the issue very seriously. That’s a big enough issue to end a friendship over — or if not end it, cool it down.
It’s a wonder there aren’t more stories about the difficulties of friendship. We’ve all been there, haven’t we?
And Carlyle can kiss my lazy (1/4) Irish behind.
Carlyle wasn’t the English ‘gentleman’ to have that idea. Cartoons in the popular mainstream magazines of the time generally compared Irish people (no matter how starved or indigent) to gorillas.
Oliver Cromwell was one noted antecedent and did in fact send quite a number of Irish folk off to become indentured servants, ie slaves. That’s one reason why Cromwell is so very very unpopular in Ireland, in spite of our natural anti-monarchism!
Pingback: Emerson and Carlyle Grow Old and Die « So Many Books