Shelburne Essays by Paul Elmer More

First published: 1904-1921

Type of work: Literary criticism

Critical Evaluation:

The eleven volumes of Paul Elmer More’s SHELBURNE ESSAYS, written over a long period of years and for various occasions, grew chiefly out of book reviews. More was an erudite and intelligent critic who has come to be considered a “lesser” critic because he was primarily a moralist and was only secondarily concerned with art. However, he was an extremely careful and perceptive reader. His standards were high, and he gave no undeserved praise; he would praise any deserving part of a writer’s work even though he felt an antipathy for the rest of it. He believed in character, discipline, and responsibility, and he searched for these qualities in literature in addition to aesthetic ones. His style is discursive, but often paragraphs that seem to be rambling come together to make a point with force and clarity. He avoided the distasteful, the sensual, and the weak, and sought a literary standard that was essentially religious. His entire life was a slow but steady submission to religious dogma. He felt that literature divorced from life is an empty pursuit and that an honest search for meaning must inevitably lead one to a simple theistic faith. Because he looked to the classics and tradition for standards, he judged writers according to their relation to the classics and historical trends. Such literary standards, he felt, were enduring and represented man’s total experience. More believed that a critic’s contribution is as great as a creative artist’s, and he quoted Nietzsche to the effect that valuing is creating.

Among his essays on English writers, one of the best is that on Sir Thomas Browne, regarded by More as a truly honest man. Browne had a respect for both religious traditionalism and scientific rationalism. He was by intellect progressive; by temperament reactionary. To him the whole mass of Nature was a mystery and the visible world but a picture of the invisible. More was particularly sympathetic with these ideas. In this essay he also demonstrates his intense interest in language and verbal felicities.

His essay on Christina Rossetti illustrates his insistence on praising that which is worthy and his ideas as to women’s “place.” He found her poetry refined and exquisite but lacking in artistic restraint. She bent under adversity but endured with patience. More compares her with Elizabeth Barrett Browning and finds her superior in that she stayed within women’s realm: earthly love and spiritual love. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, on the other hand, ventured into the sphere of masculine poets: reform, scholarship, and politics. More was interested in the limitations, which he felt sure existed, that distinguish a woman writer from a man. He felt that Mrs. Browning thought of woman not according to a separate standard but according to a common standard for human nature. Christina Rossetti thought of woman according to a separate standard. More points out that the Bible draws an unalterable distinction between the position, duties, and privileges of men and women.

More traced clearly the progress of George Gissing as a writer, from his early years when he felt that art must express misery because misery was the keynote of modern life, to his later ones when he felt that art should express a zest for life. Preferring him in one respect at least to Dickens, More believed that Gissing showed the inner life of his characters which he himself felt, whereas Dickens portrayed his characters with humor but from the outside, failing to identify himself with them. However, More said that in the end Dickens was the greatest artist because he stood above his material while Gissing did not. Gissing was no friend to the people, but put all his reliance on God, an attitude to which More was sympathetic.

Romanticism was abhorrent to More. To him it signified the infinitely craving personality and the complete usurpation of emotion over reason. He compared it to a fever, a disease. He distrusted the unchecked imagination. As a result he found Shelley to be self-centered, morally self-complacent, and indifferent to the fate of those around him. His was the voice of enthusiasm and unreasoned emotion, offering vague hope but no content or understanding. More felt it was doubtful whether or not the same man could admire both Shelley and Milton.

Among the American New England writers More felt particularly at home, the Puritan attitude being more congenial to him than any other. He wrote with clarity and perception of the development of the American literary imagination and of the forces that operated to make it what it was: a fierce struggle with nature, traditional imported superstition, and an intense spiritual vision. These combined to form what More called “character.” He saw the Salem mania and the visions of evil as resulting from the colonists’ confrontation with the forces of nature which in their wildness and savage-filled darkness were far different from the countryside of England. Just as the colonists represented only a part of the English population, they brought with them only a part of the English literary tradition. Their sermons and their poetry were simple but often overwhelming in their sincerity and intensity. More felt that their serenity of spirit gave them a particular kind of beauty and tenderness. It was this “character” that saved Emerson and Thoreau from the romantic excesses of German Transcendentalism and gave such poets as Longfellow and Whittier their simplicity and strength.

Benjamin Franklin was, More said, the typical American. Although he had the most comprehensive mind of the eighteenth century, Franklin’s writing was directed toward practical rather than literary ends. He was completely absorbed in the present, was witty, versatile, and efficient. But his imagination lacked depth, and he skimmed lightly over all religious matters. Why he did so puzzled More; he saw in Franklin’s Deistic views a basic lack in his character.

The poet Philip Freneau was an interesting writer to More, who felt there was a lack of sympathy on the part of the public for this man who spent so much of his time and energy on political writing. Had he had a more sympathetic environment More felt that he would have developed into a fine poet. As it was, he was honored in England, particularly as he anticipated the Romantics.

Among More’s finest essays are those on Hawthorne and Poe. He sees three stages of development in New England. First there was the religious intolerance of Cotton Mather, then the imaginative isolation of Hawthorne, and lastly a nervous impotence. In the first period writers sought to suppress all worldly emotions; in the second they made of the solitude which followed suppression a tragic symbol; and in the third they portrayed people in whom all action has dried up and who are inarticulate. Thus both Hawthorne and Poe’s visions are rooted deep in American history. Their preoccupations with the weird, the unearthly, and the isolated derive from the innermost core of the national consciousness. They both express a stern and indomitable moral character. Freneau began the transition from the terror of superstition to the haunting symbolism of the two later writers, who were constantly concerned with decay and the effects of guilt.

More found that one truth runs like a thread through all the short stories and novels of Hawthorne: the penalty of sin is solitude. In his work there can be found every form of solitude known in human existence. Hawthorne spoke of himself as being locked away from any real human contact, and although he wished desperately to break out, he could not. Thus More wondered why it is that although Hawthorne is not shallow and is constantly concerned with human problems which he himself deeply felt, he moves no one to tears. More concluded that possibly this circumstance is so because the full meaning in Hawthorne’s writing lies too deep for tears.

Poe was not a favorite of More’s because he did not work with ideas but with facts and the dissection of sensation; Also, he was not concerned with moral truth. This, to More, was a serious lack, but he points out that while Poe was morbid emotionally he was never morbid morally. More approved of Poe’s criticism and rhapsodical poetry. In “The Bells,” More felt, Poe had achieved the mathematical finish of Bach or any other master of counterpoint.

The poets Longfellow and Whittier have been underestimated, according to More, though they both operate on a lower plane of the imagination than many other poets. In Whittier he found the charm of the simple, sturdy New Englander. Longfellow’s popularity he attributed to the fact that he required nothing on the part of readers who enjoy rhythm and sentimentality. However, his value as a poet lies in his sonnets, which are largely neglected and are among the best in the English language.

More felt that Thoreau’s distinction lay in the fact that what other people preached, he lived. He excelled in detailed, precise writing and had all his experience to draw on. He was only a shadow of Emerson and had little or no creative imagination such as Hawthorne’s, but he had a tremendous sense of individualism and expectation. More said life and the world were always morning with him.

More thought that Emersonianism was Romanticism rooted in Puritan divinity. He thought Emerson had harmonious principles that worked for him, but no philosophical system that could be useful to the many. For More, Emerson epitomized the purity and serenity of the New England mind and soul.

Paul Elmer More was an austere, often astringent critic. Despite his limitations he must be respected for the vigor of his convictions, his respect for literature as a moral force, and his attempt to trace a native, shaping tradition at work in American writing.