第46章

That makes only twelve names from Franklin to Whittier.Others could be included; but they are not so great as these.No one of these could be taken out of our literature without affecting it and, in some degree at least, changing the current of it.This is not to forget Bret Harte nor Samuel L.Clemens.But each is dependent for his survival on a taste for a certainkind of humor, not delicate like Irving's and Holmes's, but strong and sudden and a bit sharp.If we should forget the "Luck of Roaring Camp," "Truthful James," and the "Heathen Chinee," we would also forget Bret Harte.We are not apt to forget Tom Sawyer, nor perhaps The Innocents Abroad, but we are forgetting much else of Mark Twain.Whitman is not named.His claims are familiar, but in spite of his admirers he seems so charged with a sensuous egotism that he is not apt to be a formative influence in literary history.It is still interesting, however, to remember how frequently he reveals his reading of Scripture.

Fortunately, all these writers are so near, and their work is so familiar, that details regarding them are not needed.Two or three general words can be said.In the first place, observe the high moral tone of all these first- grade writers, and, indeed, of the others who may be spoken of as in second rank.There is not a meretricious or humiliating book in the whole collection.There is not one book which has lived in American literature which has the tone of Fielding's Tom Jones.Whether it is that the Puritan strain continues in us or not, it is true that the American literary public has not taken happily to stories that would bring a blush in public reading.Professor Richardson, of Dartmouth, gives some clue to the reason of that.He says that "since 1870 or 1880 in America there has been a marked increase of strength of theistic and spiritual belief and argument among scientific men, students of philosophy, religious 'radicals,' and others." He adds that while much contemporary American literature and thought is outside the accepted orthodox lines, yet "it is not hostile to Christianity; to the principles of its Founder it is for the most part sincerely attached.On the other hand, materialism has scarcely any hold upon it." Then follows a very notable sentence which is sustained by the facts: "Not an American book of the first class has ever been written by an atheist or denier of immortality." That sentence need not offend an admirer of Walt Whitman, for he "accepts both theism and the doctrine of the future life." American thought has remained loyal to the great Trinity, God, Freedom, and Immortality.So it comes about that while there are a number of these writers who could be put under the ban of the strongly orthodox in religion, every one of them shows the effect of early training in religion and in theScripture.[1]

[1] This is fully worked out in Professor Richardson's American Literature, with ample illustration and argument.

Another thing to be said is that America has a unique history among great nations in that it has never been affected by any great religious influence except that which has issued from the Scriptures.No religion has ever been influential in America except Christianity.For many years there have been sporadic and spasmodic efforts to extend the influence of Buddhism or other Indian cults.They have never been successful, because the American spirit is practical, and not meditative.We are not an introspective people.We do not look within ourselves for our religion.Whatever moral and religious influence our literature shows gets back first or last to our Scriptures.The point of view of nature that is taken by our writers like Bryant and Thoreau is that of the Nineteenth Psalm.Moreover, we have been strongly under the English influence.Irving insisted that we ought to be, that we were a young nation, that we ought frankly to follow the leadership of more experienced writers.Longfellow thought we had gone too far that way, and that our poets, at least, ought to be more independent, ought to write in the spirit of America and not of traditional poetry.Whether we ought to have yielded to it or not, it is true that English influence has told very strongly upon us, and the writers who have influenced our writers most have been those whom we have named as being themselves under the Bible influence.

We need not go into detail about these writers, though they are most attractive.Bryant did for us what Wordsworth did for England.He made nature seem vocal."Thanatopsis" is not a Christian poem in the narrow sense of the word, and yet it could hardly have been written except under Christian influence.His own genial, beautiful character was itself a tribute to Christian civilization, and his life, as critic and essayist, has left an impression which we shall not soon lose.Professor Richardson thinks that the three problematical characters in American literature are Emerson, Hawthorne, and Poe.The shrewdest estimate of Poe that has ever been given us is in Lowell's Fable for Critics:

"There comes Poe with his raven like BarnabyRudge,Three-fifths of him genius, and two-fifths sheer fudge, Who has written some things quite the best of their kind, But the heart somehow seems all squeezed out by the mind."That says it exactly.Poe knew many horrible situations, but he did not know the way out; and of all our American writers laying claim to place in the first class Poe shows least influence of the Bible, and apparently needs it most.