|
20 December 1848, Wednesday; 7:30 p.m.
Gloucester, Massachusetts; Town Hall
"Economy—Illustrated by the Life of a Student"
[Back to Calendar of Lectures]
NARRATIVE OF EVENT: The circumstances of
Thoreau’s invitation to lecture in, and resulting visit to, Gloucester are not known;
however, the success of his nearby Salem lecture a month before probably was the catalyst.
The records of the Gloucester Lyceum show that Thoreau’s 20 December 1848 lecture was
the third in a course of ten that included presentations by Emerson, Charles Sumner, and
William H. Channing.1 Interestingly, Thoreau,
Emerson, and Arthur S. Train each received fifteen dollars for their lectures, while the
seven other speakers were given twelve dollars each.2
ADVERTISEMENTS, REVIEWS, AND
RESPONSES: The Gloucester News and Semi-Weekly Messenger reported on 20
December 1848, "Mr. Thoreau lectures before the Lyceum this evening. This lecturer is
one of the eccentric characters of the age, of whom Ralph W. Emerson predicted a few years
since, that ‘He would be heard from.’ From the notices we have seen of Mr.
Thoreau, we think an original and highly entertaining lecture may be expected."
Notwithstanding the high expectations, two
full reviews in local papers suggest that the lecture that had played so well in Salem was
less well received in Gloucester. The 23 December Gloucester Telegraph took umbrage
at Thoreau’s suggestion that "there were probably many present who were in debt
for some of their dinners and clothes, and were then and there cheating their creditors
out of an hour of borrowed time" by noting that "If such was the case, we can
only regret that any patrons of the Gloucester Lyceum are of that complexion."
Thoreau’s remarks about Concord were greeted with equal skepticism by this
extraordinarily literal-minded reviewer: "The lecturer gave a very strange account of
the state of affairs at Concord. In the shops and offices were large numbers of human
beings suffering tortures to which those of the Bramins are mere pastimes. We cannot say
whether this was in jest or in earnest. If a joke, it was a most excruciating one—if
true, the attention of the Home Missionary Society should be directed to that quarter
forthwith." Other excerpts from this review suggest that the lecture, despite a few
high spots, was generally perceived as a failure for its suspect philosophy:
The lecturer spoke at considerable
length of society, men, manners, travelling, clothing, etc., often ‘bringing down the
house’ by his quaint remarks. Now and then there was a hard hit at the vices and
follies of mankind, which ‘told’ with considerable effect. There were hits, too,
not remarkably hard. . . .
From the details which he gave of indoor
life, we should suppose that his housekeeping was in rather a primitive style. Compared
with this, Robinson Crusoe must have fared sumptuously every day. We know of no benefit
likely to accrue to society from it, other than that yeast is a superfluous article.
The experience of the lecturer had taught
him that a man may live very comfortably by six weeks labor per annum. Probably this is no
new thing to many, for there is a good deal of living with less labor than that, though
perhaps questionable independence.
He concluded with some remarks about the
benevolent and reforming spirit of the day, of which he seemed to entertain a very poor
opinion. Much of it was described as a moral simoon from whose approach he should flee for
dear life. No immediate diminution to the numbers of our benevolent societies need be
apprehended. Neither may a material alteration in their character be anticipated from an
infusion of the ideal reforming spirit described.
We believe that concerning this lecture
there are various opinions in the community. With all deference to the sagacity of those
who can see a great deal where there is little to be seen—hear much where there is
hardly anything to be heard—perceive a wonderful depth of meaning where in fact
nothing is really meant, we would take the liberty of expressing the opinion that a
certain ingredient to a good lecture was, in some instances, wanting.
A review in the Gloucester News,
also published on 23 December 1848, praised the entertainment value of the lecture but
pronounced it educationally worthless; the reviewer also expressed irritation with
Thoreau’s presumedly intentional aping of Emerson’s manner. Because almost all
of this review constitutes an appraisal of the lecture rather than just a summary, the
entire article is quoted here:
Lyceum.
The lecture on Wednesday evening was
delivered by Henry S. Thoreau of Concord, as he announced, on the subject of economy. We
conceived his object to be an attempt to prove that there is no necessity for mankind to
labor but a small portion of their time, to earn the necessaries of life; and to show how
their moral, intellectual and physical condition may be improved. In his introduction,
which was somewhat long, he attacked with keen but good natured sarcasm, the customs and
fashions of the present age, and ridiculed with much force the folly of men, who
voluntarily undertake labors more than Herculean, and absolutely interminable, in pursuit
of an object that can be attained with comparatively little cost and exertion.
To illustrate his theory, he gave a
humorous account of his doings, during a period of more than two years, spent in
seclusion, on the shores of a pond in Concord. This sketch of a hermit’s life was
highly entertaining, being interspersed with beautiful descriptions of natural scenery,
well told anecdotes, many philosophical digressions, and quaint sentiments[.] He proved by
his experiment that a man can build a house with his own hands, in a few months, that will
afford him all the shelter, warmth and comfort a mortal actually needs, at an expense of
only about twenty-five or thirty dollars; that good, wholesome food, sufficient for one
hermit can be procured for four cents a week; that to pay all the needful expenses of such
a life, it is necessary to labor only six weeks in a year. The remainder of his time may
be devoted to reading, and the development of his moral and intellectual nature.
We would not object to live on Mr.
Thoreau’s plan a year or two, but in the present state of society, its general
adoption would be rather impracticable, had men a taste for it; but only the ardent
devoted lover of nature could endure it three weeks. Mr. Thoreau and a few other
men in the world, can despise the pleasures of society, worship God out doors in old
clothes, can hear his voice in the whistling or gently sighing wind, and read eloquent
sermons from the springing flowers; but the great mass of men do, and, will
always laugh at such pursuits.
The lecturer’s remarks on the actual
cost of living, were not at all startling,—there are, we have been often told,
families of eight or ten souls in this town, who live a year on one hundred and fifty
dollars, which falls considerably within Mr. T.’s estimate. We were pleased with his
observations on philanthropy; doing good, he said, does not agree with his constitution;
and if he should see a man coming towards his house with such intentions towards himself,
he would run for his life.— There are many people in this world whose spiritual
constitutions seem to lack all the elements of good, and when they undertake to be
philanthropic, if they do not burn buildings in heaven and make deserts on earth, or
commit any other havoc, ascribed to Phaethon by Mr. Thoreau, and not mentioned in
Ovid,—they scorch the souls of the hapless victims of their charity, and exert an
influence fatal as the Sirce, on whatever they approach.
Mr. Thoreau’s lecture certainly
lacked system, and some of his flights were rather too lofty for the audience; but in
originality of thought, force of expression, and flow of genuine humor, he has few equals.
His frequent and apposite classical allusions allowed that he is well versed in ancient
lore, and possesses a retentive memory. His style and enunciation—alternately
dwelling on, and jerking out his words—are decidedly Emersonian, and it is evident
that in this respect, he is an imitator; a consideration which always detracts much from
the force of genius: the affectation of another’s style creates in the mind feelings
akin to those which arise on beholding an ambitious urchin dressed in his father’s
coat and boots. We guess Mr. Thoreau often relieved the "tedium" of his
secluded life by frequent intercourse with his neighbor, Mr. Emerson. Some of the
lecturer’s Latin Antitheses, and quaint puns, we fear, were not exactly appreciated;
and many local allusions might have been omitted, having no interest for a Gloucester
audience.
On the whole, though the lecture was
entertaining and original, it was not calculated to do much good, and we think may be
considered rather a literary curiosity, than a practical dissertation on economy.
In a letter to his cousin George
Thatcher, penned apparently on 26 December 1848, Thoreau remarked on his Gloucester
notoriety, "I hear that the Gloucester paper has me in print again, and the
Republican—whatever they may say is not to the purpose only as it serves as an
advertisement of me. There are very few whose opinion I value" (C, p. 234).
The Salem Observer marked
Thoreau’s neighboring lecture with this observation on 23 December 1848: "H. S.
Thoreau lectured in Gloucester on Wednesday evening."
DESCRIPTION OF TOPIC: See
lecture 15 above.
Notes
1. Manuscript notebook,
Records of the Glouster Lyceum, MGl. [Back
to Text]
2. Manuscript notebook,
Records of the Glouster Lyceum, MGl. [Back
to Text] |