The Romantic Spencerian
    by Marc L. Ratner (Volume 23: Page 204)

At the root of much of Boyesen’s thinking was the theory of evolution, which he and many of his contemporaries associated with progress. J. B. Bury distinguished between these two concepts: "Evolution itself, it must be remembered, does not necessarily mean, applied to society, the movement of a man to a desirable goal. It is a neutral, scientific conception, compatible either with optimism or pessimism." {3} The fact is, though, that Darwin often struck a note of optimism in his writings and this led to an association between progress and evolution. He wrote that "natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being" and leads to "progress towards perfection," and he suggested that further development of his theory would lead to a law of progress. {4} Herbert Spencer, however, became the foremost interpreter of the new theory and developed the concept of progress through his extension of the tenets of Darwinian evolution to the fields of sociology and ethics.

Not all that Spencer drew from evolutionary theory was derived from Darwin, for Spencer was also influenced by the classic economists, Maithus and Ricardo. Making use of the analysis by these thinkers of the effects of severe competition on the economic survival of man, Spencer aimed at joining the ideas of physics and biology and then applying them to man’s situation, individual and social. Out of his speculations, he developed the ideas of the persistence of force which conserves energy and the evolutionary process wherein all forms of matter progress from simple to complex forms. He wrote in First Principles: "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, [206] coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation." In the human and social field, the laws of nature, as everywhere, are inescapable and unrelenting, though demonstrating a beneficent necessity seen by Spencer as "equilibration," a state where evolution can end only in the establishment of the greatest perfection and the most complete happiness. {5}

Spencer’s appeal to the postwar generation was influential in all areas of thought. The writers and thinkers who found support in his philosophy were often the men who were to lead the rebellion against the genteel tradition that had become for them a faded faith. In designing a sociology based on natural development which formed individual man for a social purpose, Spencer attempted to solve the essential problem of the individual in society by having the authoritarian government give way to a free co-operative society based on man’s rationality. But essentially as Parrington believes, the dynamic force of the philosophy lay in its idea of continuous growth, creative purpose, and belief in human perfectibility. {6}

In spite of Boyesen’s later adherence to Spencer’s ideas, his initial romantic views derived from literary and philosophical sources rather than from economics, physics, and biology. His dedication to Goethe was more than that of the German scholar. He felt that Goethe was the model for all intellectuals and "the most complete type of man in modern history." Boyesen wrote in his Goethe and Schiller of Goethe’s devotion to systematized science: "His advocacy of Neptunism in geology, the discovery of the intermaxillary bone, which enabled him to anticipate the doctrine of evolution, and his theory of the typical plant, sufficiently prove that he did not question Nature in vain. He was not satisfied with the shallow traditional solutions of everyday problems, but sought to penetrate to the hidden soul which breathed and labored [207] under commonplace facts. He saw the colossal law which operated in the growth of the tiniest blade of grass." {7}

For Boyesen, as for many intellectuals, the ideas of the romantic evolutionists did not at first radically conflict with the new concepts of Darwinian evolution and, in fact, as Cornmager states: "Evolution outmoded rather than nullified the Enlightenment and Transcendentalism, for though its methods were profoundly different, its conclusions were much the same." {8}

Like Boyesen, Josiah Royce, in his Spirit of Modern Philosophy, credited the German romantics of the post-Napoleonic era such as Goethe with the new concept of history, the unity of human life, and the growth of human institutions. It was this groundwork of the romantic evolutionists in historical and sociological consequences of evolution which made Darwin’s scientific achievement immediately important to society. Royce, who remained a romantic evolutionist, objected to the doctrine of evolution that existed in his own time because its theorists tended to subordinate its original idealism and to concentrate on the scientific, factual, and empirical aspects of the theory. Though he was opposed to much of Spencer’s thinking, he expressed a similar view to Boyesen’s when he wrote: "The doctrine of evolution, I assert, is in heart and essence the child of the romantic movement itself. Can the child, inheriting its mother’s depth and longing for wisdom, defend this inheritance in the vast outer universe of rigid order and absolute law? That is the true problem of the philosophy of evolution. I know many who regret the tendency in our day to apply the doctrine of the transformation of species to humanity, who fear the apparently materialistic results of the discovery that the human mind has grown. For my part there lies in all this discovery of our day the deeply important presupposition that the transition from animal to man is in fact really an evolution, that is, a real history, a process having [208] significance. If this is in truth the real interpretation of nature, then the romantic philosophy has not dreamed in vain, and the outer order of nature will embody once more the life of a divine Self." {9}

Though Boyesen felt that there was "nowhere any evidence of retrogression on a grand scale in human history," he was unhappy with the social conditions of his time. He once wrote that "the tendency of the future will be towards equalization of material conditions, and legislative discrimination against those who now enjoy undue advantages in the struggle for existence." Indeed, ultimately, because Boyesen could see no change in conditions, he altered his perspective from that of a romantic revolutionary optimist who believed in allowing evolution to proceed undirected to that of a reformer who believed that man should direct the evolutionary process. {10}

Boyesen’s expressions on evolution were not limited to his poetry and prose. He was a member of the Nineteenth Century Club, where he occasionally engaged in discussions. This club, founded in 1882 by Courtlandt Palmer, was a popular forum for such speakers as Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington Cable, Moncure Conway, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and many others. Founded as an organization for "free thought," with open debates and intellectual and social tolerance its keynotes, its members wished to be, as Palmer said, a "mirror to reflect the century." The members were mainly New Yorkers with strong leanings toward betterment, opposed to the individualism expressed in the society of the "gilded age," and believing that an "ethical evolution from selfishness to altruism" was the answer to the problems of American society. As to their practical program, Palmer stated that they hoped "to place reform in the hands of the true conservatives of the earth," those who aided and guided social evolution along its natural path. {11} [209]

In tracing the development of Boyesen’s ideas on life and literature, one can see a change taking place in his perspective. He followed a pattern of thinking common in America at the end of the nineteenth century, changing from a conservative point of view toward evolution to a reformist outlook. True to his romantic heritage, Boyesen came to feel that science alone could not answer universal problems.

In his earlier work Boyesen took a conservative approach to social problems in that he was willing to allow natural selection to follow its course without interference from men or artificial agencies. He felt that all would come out well eventually. One can clearly see this optimism in his sonnet series, "Evolution," which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in 1878. In the first of these poems, he envisions the glorious future of man:

Boyesen later tempered this optimistic view of nature’s great plan with the belief that man must act more positively against the evils within the body of society. Social evolution must be aided by the reforming action of man. While never deserting his conviction that natural social progress was inherent, he did lay greater emphasis on the responsibility of men to aid and abet this progress. Boyesen emphasized this idea at the conclusion of his Commentary on the Writings of Henrik Ibsen, published in 1894, in which he stated: "There is a fatal optimism which professes to believe that evils can be cured by ignoring them — professing not to see them. It is the good, nice, religious people who are most prone to this delusion; and it is these, too, who, apropos of Ibsen, declare that no good can come of dragging moral ugliness into the light of day. I confess there was a time when I was myself [210] of that opinion. But an ampler and deeper experience has convinced me that such a view is not only foolish, but exceedingly harmful. It encourages vice by spreading over it a charitable mantle of darkness, like Siegfried’s invisible-making ‘tarnkappe’ in the ‘Nibelungen Lay’; and under this impenetrable mantle the foulest things may be done, without entailing social ostracism or any open penalty." {13}

An explication of Boyesen’s more optimistic poems on evolutionary progress will help to show, I believe, how he reevaluated and ultimately changed his beliefs. The five sonnets entitled "Evolution" were accepted by William Dean Howells and published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1878. Interestingly enough, they also appeared in E. L. Youman’s Popular Science Monthly in June of that same year. From the point of view of Boyesen’s intellectual development, the poems are significant in that they were the first major expression of his sentiments on evolution.

In the first sonnet Boyesen presented the creation of the universe "on pillars sunk in unfathomable deep." The "mighty will" of nature was seen at work as a vast "breath," taking "dizzying aeons" to create a "lichen patch." There was a feeling of world spirit in this sonnet, similar to the concept of the oversoul in Emerson. But Boyesen became more definitely anthropocentric in the second stanza. There he spoke of himself as Man, the culmination, the great result of the evolutionary process. When Boyesen stated that his "lullaby by hoarse Silurian storms was chanted," he likened the earlier forms of life — "plant and bird and beast" — to his infancy as Man and spoke of these developmental forms as part of his own nature. "I grow and blossom as a tree," and again, "and thou, O Sea, stern mother of my soul." This "sacred kinship . . with all that breathes" is further developed in the third sonnet. There Boyesen spoke of the "iron chain that all creation girds" which "forges its bond unceasing from below." The vestiges of his ancestry can be found in the "song-thrush [211] warblings in my brain" and in the pulsations of "water, stone and plant."

In the fourth sonnet, the vastness of creation and time absorbed Boyesen’s thoughts. He was awed by the vestiges of the past seen in fossil life. "A fern-leaf’s airy woof" shorn by tempests or "a reptile’s claw" of some great beast striding through the tepid tide had left its mark on stone. These links with the past became part of Boyesen: "Come, a fraternal grasp, thou hand of stone! / The flesh that once was thine is now mine own."

In these sonnets Boyesen thus presented the evolutionary cycle, and the traces of this cycle in man and nature. The final sonnet completed the series by examining the future pattern of evolution. From its base beginnings, life took on a sublime aspect. The "mean clay" became the "refulgence grand" of man as "peace-robed conquerors." {14}

Boyesen’s scientific approach resembled that of the American philosopher, John Fiske, who wrote that there was "the recognition of the fact that, at the outset, men interpreted the Cosmos in terms of human feeling and volition; while, on the other hand, as the newest result of scientific generalization, we now find them beginning to interpret human feeling and volition in terms obtained from the objective study of the Cosmos." {15} It was in his evolution poems that Boyesen, like Fiske, scrutinized the cosmos; that is, as a true scientist, he viewed the life about him and drew from it his cosmic viewpoint. Thus, rather than examining human feeling and drawing conclusions about the universe, man examines the universe and then sees it in human forms.

Boyesen later sought a primal cause for evolution and through it a religious basis for his belief. The sonnets indicated that Boyesen accepted the Spencerian idea of the unknowable.

The sonnets themselves began with exclamatory phrases which sounded remotely like those in Whitman’s poetry, [212] especially when Boyesen used the first person. But the link is a

closer one than that of style. The connection between the transcendental romanticism of Whitman and Emerson and the evolutionary romanticism of Boyesen was a natural consequence of the interest of all three in German Romantic thought. Boyesen’s theme here was the unity of men and nature. Instead of a world soul or oversoul, of which man’s nature was only part, however, Boyesen held to a more anthropocentric position wherein the soul of man became the final expression of evolutionary development and the world a great man-soul. This was exemplified by Boyesen’s vision of the primal cause in anthropomorphic terms as "some mighty will" or a "breath perchance that whirled the mists apace."

A further comparison of the attitudes of Whitman and Boyesen will show their different approaches. Where Whitman wrote of his own embryo:

he was talking of the evolution of his body. But for Whitman the body was only a temporary identity:

The world soul does not evolve; it is and always was. The individual body is nothing within the world soul. With Boyesen, however, the body and the soul of man, as seen through his generic "I" (like Whitman), had both evolved from lesser forms and would continue to evolve, as the world soul does:

Boyesen ‘s expressions had anthropomorphic connotations that distinguished the primal cause from the Spencerian concept of "force" or "forces" and thus he emphasized that evolution was not sightless or aimless. Clearly, his position was distinct from that of both the romantic and the scientific evolutionists, though his ideas were a fusion of both.

In the sonnets entitled "Sea" and "Air" in his Idyls of Norway, Boyesen expressed similar concepts. The sea became the great nurturing mother of "vast Creation’s tree" and the "teeming swarms of life that swim and creep / But half-aroused from primordial sleep." The currents of the sea became the pulsations of death and birth. The poem "Air" is unfortunately as nebulous as its title would indicate, though here again Boyesen used the term "undulation" to describe the wavelike breathing motion of pulsing nature and its elements. {17}

If Boyesen’s "Evolution" sonnets showed traces of romantic evolutionism, no small influence was due to Bayard Taylor and especially his verse drama, "Prince Deukalion." There can be no doubt that Boyesen was familiar with the poem: "During the last two years while he was engaged in writing Prince Deukalion, he [Taylor] never failed to read me in his splendid sonorous voice the last act he had finished and this naturally furnished material for discussions of many social and religious problems. It must be evident to everyone that in this poem he has attempted to define his social and political creed, and the hopeful and sanguine element of his character has there found its most complete expression. He endeavored above all to avoid dogmatism in his statement of his convictions and to make his imagery so ample and expressive that it should hint at the philosophical truth, as a loose and gracefully flowing garment suggests and by its general outlines reveals the forms of the man within." {18} [214]

Reviewing "Prince Deukalion" in 1879, Boyesen wrote that the theme was "nothing less than the evolution of human thought" from classic times to the future, that it showed that man "no longer blindly obedient to authority" was nearer to nature’s heart than ever before, and that the march of evolution towards the future was less hindered than in the past. Attaching great importance to these words of Taylor, "To find in endless growth all good," Boyesen linked them with his own ideas of progress. Taylor’s poem was based on the principle that because of the perfection of the Creator’s mind he must create ideal creatures. The distance between the ideal man and existent man, however, was enormous; therefore, man must strive for the perfection of the ideal. This was a simplified view of that same romantic concept of transcendental evolutionism that had its root in German idealism. {19}

Boyesen did not, however, accept the romantic belief that perfection existed in the ideal or in a harmony with an all-embracing world soul. He became interested in seeing the evolutionary process function toward a more tangible goal. As time went on, he took a position which laid greater emphasis on the social aspects of evolution, and this change was evident in his "Ode." The poem, whose mood resembles that of Sidney Lanier’s "The Symphony" (1875) at certain points, becomes an essay on the concept of evolution. {20}

A comparison of the two poems will show the difference between Boyesen’s attitude, as he became more interested in the social aspect of evolution, and those of Lanier and Taylor, which were still influenced by romantic concepts of evolution. Lanier’s position was much closer to Bayard Taylor’s than to any scientific view, and it is significant that Lanier devoted seven pages in "The English Novel" to "Prince Deukalion." Lanier’s "The Symphony," which began with the familiar "O Trade! O Trade! would thou were dead," and continued with declamatory lines against commercialism, was paralleled [215] by Boyesen’s "Tis wealth, a curse in blessing’s guise / Wealth, leagued, ambitious, keen, insatiate." In both poems the declamatory style was continued with repetitions of the phrases "‘Tis wealth," and "O Trade," followed by vindictive arguments by the poets against the exploitation of the land and the people. But Lanier shifted to more romantic imagery and dabbled in medievalism, while Boyesen turned to evolution and the future. Despite the evils of wealth, said Boyesen, tile evolutionary pattern went on:

But the distinction goes farther than this. Hoping for an ideal society based on harmony and love, Lanier attacked trade for its destruction of spiritual values. Thus, "Man’s love ascends / To finer and diviner ends" and the symphony of "music is Love in search of a word." On the other hand, Boyesen saw wealth as the "ruthless Juggernaut"; it "saps the deep foundations of the state" and it "hoodwinks senators and drowns debate / With clink of gold." The hope of man lay in the "darkly groping quest" — "the endless progression of thought and deed / [which] Is the crown and glory of men." There was evolutionary optimism in Boyesen’s poem. Despite the partial tone of despair, Boyesen reminded his readers that "evil is a faint and waning moon / Against the strong resist-less dawn of good."

In effect, Boyesen remained optimistic about man’s future, qualifying his thesis only with the admission that wealth and greed could slow man’s progress toward the light.

Possibly Boyesen’s abandonment of poetry was the outcome of his belief that it might very well have become "an [216] obsolescent art," or of the realization that he was a poor poet. Whatever the reason, he stopped writing serious poetry in 1888. His other work in verse consisted mostly of literary ballads, other narrative poems, and love sonnets with little or no speculative material in them. In his prose, however, he developed further toward a social perspective of evolution. For example, The Mammon of Unrighteousness was Boyesen’s major work of fiction and the one most relevant to this matter. In several ways the novel shows the growth of Boyesen’s social and political views on immigration, politics, woman’s position in society, and education — important subjects to Boyesen and his contemporaries.

The philosophical center of The Mammon of Unrighteousness is a conflict between two brothers, both of whom accept the concept of evolution but whose interpretations differ a great deal. Aleck, the idealist, is set against his materialistic brother, Horace. Horace, easily the most articulate person in the novel, glibly argues evolutionist ideas. He scoffs at Aleck’s devotion to principle and self-sacrifice, especially with regard to women, but ultimately succumbs to the very creature he has ridiculed, woman. For, despite his intellectualization about evolutionary forces, he is not immune to the elemental power of the female sex. An excerpt from one of Horace’s dialogues (almost monologues) with some of the other characters reveals his ideas:

"‘Yes,’ said Horace, unflinchingly, ‘success is after all only adaptation to environment. Is it not?’

"‘Certainly.’

"‘Would you say that the pickerel, who eats all the other fishes in his lake, is the most estimable fish?’ the doctor put in. . .

"‘Yes, I would. In the conditions under which he lives he has but a choice between eating or being eaten. I respect him for taking a clear view of his situation.’"

Aleck’s comments on the conversation reveal Boyesen’s own[217] feelings and partial disillusionment with the panaceas of perfectibility through the evolutionary process alone.

"‘It is my brother’s hobby,’ Aleck remarked . . . ‘that Providence has played a trick on us in putting us here with the instincts and passions which we imagine have been given to us for our own personal happiness and gratification; when all the while, they subserve only some general purpose, such as the preservation of the race and the welfare of society.’" {22}

Some of the descriptive passages in the novel indicate Boyesen’s interest in evolution in nature as well as in society. After describing the ravage of time on Drumhead Ravine, near the town in which most of the novel’s action takes place, Boyesen said of the beautiful ferns there: "But like all beautiful things, they perished and in their death became the foundation for new life. The long procession of the ages and their grand alternatives, growth and decay, passed over the face of the rock, froze it and scorched it, stripped it, nay undertook a series of cosmic experiments and its work left it as you see it today." Boyesen’s primary interest, however, was in man’s evolutionary development. He remained more European in his outlook, and for Boyesen the forces of nature were always secondary to the forces of society in influence on man’s growth.

Further examples of Boyesen’s shift in point of view appeared in his critical writings. For instance, his handling of the Baucis and Philemon story in his critical analysis of the second part of Goethe’s Faust illustrates this shift. The story concerns the efforts of Faust to oust an old couple who own and live on a small plot on a hill near the shore. The hill is of great importance to Faust, whom Boyesen sees in this story as a symbol of the progress of the human race. The old couple, Baucis and Philemon, do not wish to move because they are attached to their possessions and their land. They are, in essence, the conservative element in society, skeptical of the current that hurries the world on. They ask only to live [218] obscurely, untouched by time. Faust, who wants a tower built, sends Mephistopheles to do the job, thus relying on evil to accomplish progress. Mephistopheles burns the old people’s cottage and chapel, and they die of fright.

Boyesen treated the whole episode as symbolic, not a reflection on the character of Faust. He considered Philemon and Baucis "victims of progress," and his attitude in Goethe and Schiller was that of the conservative evolutionist. He stated: "This process, cruel though it may be, and superficially considered, unjust to the individual, history is continually repeating. It is the well-established law by which the great body of humanity is steadily renewing itself; all dead and worn-out matter is thrown off and its place is supplied by new and vital tissues. The path of progress . . . is strewn with the corpses of innocent victims who trusted in sentiment rather than in truth, and whose only offense was that they had already long been dead." {23}

Where Faust made his mistake was in handing the assignment to Mephistopheles. Yet Faust, who cursed the violent deed, was responsible for it, said Boyesen, for instead of "trusting in the slow and healthful processes of nature," he resorted to magic and the use of Mephistopheles. What saved Faust from damnation was that "his own life, with all its errors and ‘obscure aspirations,’ had a steady, upward tendency." {24}

Compare this attitude with Boyesen’s later concept of the same incident in Faust, expressed in an article entitled "Victims of Progress." Here Baucis and Philemon are not poor and humble folk who want only to be left alone but instead are presented as members of the "ruling class," while Faust is furthering the progress of "the dumb and toiling masses." Boyesen clearly delineated the changes which he saw destined to occur: "The progress of civilization is properly gauged by its gradual elevation of the average of happiness; and this is effected not so much by the increased splendor of the rich, as [219] by the increased comfort of the poor. A gradual rearrangement of economic forces is taking place, tending in this direction." The Philemons of the world hate to see the disappearance of the feudal past, and Boyesen linked them with the romantic thinkers who were attempting to keep the "genteel tradition" alive in literature as well as keeping selfish individualism alive in society." {25}

In this attempt to show the shift in Boyesen’s thought from the individual view toward one governed by society and its needs, I have tried to point out various influences on his work, and manifestations of his thoughts as expressed in some of his writings. Although he eventually broke with Spencer’s ideas about the manner in which man must interfere in the evolutionary process, the philosopher’s assumptions and his belief in progress provided the philosophic basis for much of Boyesen’s optimistic beliefs and his literary and social criticism.

Alfred Kazin, writing of Boyesen, considered him a unique instance in America of a Victorian realist. {26} For, like many intellectuals in England, Boyesen was as yet recovering from the shock given his romantic faith by the scientific revolution. As I have shown, he attempted wherever possible to assert his new faith in the slow process of this same scientific evolution by referring to Spencerian and Darwinian views. Most American realists were much less concerned with philosophical and scientific processes than with practical solutions to the problems of society. I have indicated that Boyesen himself was aware that the slow evolutionary process needed active participation by individuals, and though he attacked Nietzsche and was wary of Ibsen, his perspective did change over the years. He remained, comparatively speaking, a moderate in his ideas of social change, and while he never completely shook off his romantic mantle, he came to recognize the need for man to give direction and meaning to evolution.

Notes

<1> Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860—1915 (Philadelphia, 1945). On page 22 Hofstadter says, "Herbert Spencer, who of all men made the most ambitious attempt to systematize the implications of evolution ,...was far more popular in the United Slates than he was in his native country."

<2> The outstanding publication on the subject is Clarence A. Glasrnd’s Hjalmar Hjorth Boyesen (Norwegian-American Historical Association, Northfield, 1963).

<3> J. B. Bury, The Idea of Progress, 335 (London, 1920).

<4> Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 305 (New York, 1884).

<5> Herbert Spencer, First Principles, 396, 549 (London, 1884).

<6> Vernon Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, 3: 197—201 (New York, 1927).

<7> Goethe and Schiller; Their Lives and Works, Including a Commentary on Goethe’s Faust, 140, 142 (New York, 1879).

<8> H. S. Commager, The American Mind, 87 (New York, 1952).

<9> Josiah Royce, Spirit of Modern Philosophy, 291 (Boston, 1892).

<10> Literary and Social Silhouettes, 160 (New York, 1894).

<11> Courtlandt Palmer, The Nineteenth Century Club of New York, 5, 6, 34 (London, 1887).

<12> "Evolution," in Atlantic Monthly, 41:565—567 (May, 1878).

<13> A Commentary on the Writings of Henrik Ibsen, 316 (New York, 1894).

<14> The quotations are from "Evolution," in Atlantic Monthly. 41:565—567.

<15> John Fiske, Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, 182 (Boston, 1896).

<16> Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself," and "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry," in Writings of Walt Whitman, 1:98, 195 (New York, 1902); Boyesen, in Atlantic Monthly, 41:565.

<17> Idyls of Norway and Other Poems, 50 (New York, 1882).

<18> "Reminiscences of Bayard Taylor," in Lippincott’s Magazine, 24: 214 (August, 1879).

<19> "Prince Deukalion," in Scribner’s Monthly, 17: 602—605 (February, 1879).

<20> "Ode," in Independent, 35:673 (May 31, 1883); Sidney Lanier, "The Symphony," in Centennial Edition, 1:46 (Baltimore, 1945).

<21> Sidney Lanier, "The English Novel," in Centennial Edition, 4:96—101. Lanier states, page 96, that Taylor’s poem "not only is possessed with modernness, but consciously possessed, so that what was implicit in Shelley — and a great deal more — here becomes explicit and formulated." (He here refers to Shelley’s "Prometheus Unbound" as a poem of romantic evolutionism.) Basically, that is, the romantic view of man liberated from his chains and evolving toward a larger life.

<22> The Mammon of Unrighteousness, 165 (New York, 1891).

<23> Goethe and Schiller, 275.

<24> Goethe and Schiller, 276, 281.

<25> "Victims of Progress," in Independent, 40: 612 (May 17, 1888).

<26> Alfred Kazin, On Native Grounds, 16 (New York, 1942).