SEARCHING FOR WHOLENESS, OR DIVINITY
The passage “Do I contradict myself? / Very well, then, I contradict myself. / I am large, I contain multitudes.”, from section 51 of “Song of Myself”, is a true picture of Whitman and the Leaves. For the author as well as the book contain multitudes. “Multitudes” means a great number of things or people, the masses, the populace, hosts, legions, armies, or even multiple points of view, as in the expression “a multitude of reasons”. A reader may be even puzzled by the Leaves for many years, feeling confused by not comprehending its messages, and considering himself unintelligent for not being able to capture the totality of the work or to grasp its open or hidden meanings.
However, when this reader finds words like: “Except for Dickinson (the only American poet comparable to him in magnitude), there is no other nineteenth-century poet as difficult and hermetic as Whitman [...]“, and “Only an elite can read Whitman, despite the poet’s insistence that he wrote for the people [...]“, written by Bloom (1985, p.3), he understands that he needs more than a superficial comprehension of the book to really walk down these leafy roads.
The poet was not easy to be understood; although he was acquainted with people of all ranks, he preferred to be with the common men, as he called himself “one of the roughs”(BLOOM, 1985, p.2), someone who enjoyed being with the common people on ferries and buses, as he truly confesses in this poem, “To the Prevailing Bards”, from “Uncollected Poems”:
—
Comrades! I am the bard of Democracy
Others are more correct and elegant than I, and more at home in the parlors and schools than I,
But I alone advance among the people en-masse, coarse and strong
I am he standing first there, solitary chanting the true America,
I alone of all bards, am suffused as with the common people.
I alone receive them with a perfect reception and love-and they shall receive me. [...] (WHITMAN, 2002, p. 580).
—
The man who treated the common people on equal terms, who had bus conductors as intimate friends, as portrayed by Allen: “This was the real Walt Whitman, undiscriminating, easily stimulated by noise, color, and movement, happy to lose himself in the ceaseless flux of people going and coming.!” (1955, p.78). He was also the man who sang Homer in public places on top of buses. We could say that this is an example of his contradiction. The man who worked for many years as a nurse in public hospitals during the War of Secession had previously been an opera lover, was fond of the classics, used to read Homer, Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare and Dante. The poet of the modern who did not despise the past, the man who used all his earnings to buy pen, paper and food for wounded soldiers also admired the President in the White House. The man who said that the Leaves “owed nothing” to Emerson was the same man who called him “master” (CANBY, 1943, p.156), which is also testified by Harold Bloom in his “Introduction” to Modern Critical Views, a volume of criticisms dedicated to the “major American literary myth”, the “national poet” of the United States.
It is not by chance that Bloom calls him “hermetic”. The poet called himself “Hermes” in “Chanting the Square Deific”. Again, contradiction: “hermetic” means sealed, impervious to outside interference; but it also means “Hermetic”, referring to Hermes Trismegistus (the Thrice-Greatest God), magic and alchemy. However, Hermes Trismegistus is distinct from Hermes, the Greek god/myth, who was the son of Zeus and Maia, the inventor of the lyre and Pan pipe (syrinx), protector of the heroes, travelers (besides accompanying the dead to Hades), god of commerce and flight and Divine Messenger (GRIMAL, 1991). It is worth remembering that Whitman was well acquainted with Egyptology. This position or role of messenger was self-assigned by Whitman, as we can see in part 6 of “Passage to India”: “Finally shall come the Poet, worthy that name; / The true Son of God shall come, singing his songs.”. In this context, he was a blend of both Hermes, a true son of God, bringing His message to this world, and also one who used symbols to do so in a hermetic way.
Whitman’s hermeticism lies on his multiplicity of expression. He did contain multitudes, and this aspect of his personality or soul is what we have learned to admire and respect. Therefore, it is practically impossible for one single person to hold a whole view of the Leaves. From our experience of reading Leaves of Grass and criticisms on it for the past twenty years, we firmly believe that the best one can do to understand the Leaves is, besides reading the book, naturally, to broaden one’s view of the book by reading as many secondary sources of information as possible. The main reason is that the more we read articles, studies and biographies of the poet and the more we enlarge our own comprehension of both poet and book, the more we know that it is absolutely necessary to do so; otherwise our vision of it becomes too limited.
Consequently, no single critic can show us how large and multitudinous this poet and his works are. It is similar to a mosaic, a design that is made up of small and big colored pieces that depicts the spirit of a nation. As the poet himself was so fond of photographs, we could also say that the book is a composite picture of an era, written by a man of exceptional talent and capacity of vision. We need to acknowledge his capacity and ability to convey this vast vision in a multifaceted book, which resembles multiple photographs that overlap one another.
Thus, each criticism, article or biographical study that we read contributes some information to our interpretation of the Leaves, describes to us one of these overlapping photographs. It shows how large and important Whitman was and is for America, not only North-America, but all the Americas. This is why the task of interpreting the works of Whitman can not be assigned to one individual. And many years of study have shown us that the best way is to travel down these different roads, appreciate these pictures offered to us by so many talented critics who have enhanced our comprehension of this vast book and the man, as well as the poet, so that we feel we have grasped something of his works, understood the poet and the man a little. As he sang in “So Long!”, from “Songs of Parting”: “who touches this touches a man”.
Our purpose here is to bring to the reader various viewpoints that have been of invaluable assistance to us in understanding the book, the poet and the man, and have opened our eyes to many wonderful things in them. And our own interpretation and comments on these discoveries as well. We will begin then by our reading of some essays by Emerson and what we have found in the Leaves that we consider as echoes of Emerson in Whitman’s works. We are going to quote Emerson and indicate where we think these ideas appear in the Leaves. In “The American Scholar”, an Oration Delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, at Cambridge, August 31, 1837, Emerson (1909-14, p.1) argues that “Events, actions arise, that must be sung, that will sing themselves. Who can doubt that poetry will revive and lead in a new age [...]“. As soon as we start reading the Preface to the 1855 Edition of the Leaves (WHITMAN, 2005, pp.12-14), we find the poet practically paraphrasing Emerson on the first page, by stating that the “[...] United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.” The poet has no doubt that the “Americans of all nations” are poets themselves, actually they have the “fullest poetical nature”, which naturally includes himself, one of the roughs, though highly intellectual, but one who finds himself to be like one of the “common people” of his nation, because the common people have the “genius” of the United States, more than the “executives or legislatures”, or “ambassadors or authors or colleges or churches or parlors”, or even “newspapers or inventors”. They will lead “in a new age” because the “American poets are to enclose old and new for America is the race of races.” They incarnate “its geography and natural life and rivers and lakes”.
Then, we have the following words by Emerson:
—
It is one of those fables which, out of an unknown antiquity, convey an unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men, that he might be more helpful to himself; just as the hand was divided into fingers, the better to answer its end. The old fable covers a doctrine ever new and sublime; that there is One Man,-present to all particular men only partially, or through one faculty; and that you must take the whole society to find the whole man. Man is not a farmer, or a professor, or an engineer, but he is all. Man is priest, and scholar, and statesman, and producer, and soldier. In the divided or social state these functions are parcelled out to individuals, each of whom aims to do his stint of the joint work, whilst each other performs his. The fable implies that the individual, to possess himself, must sometimes return from his own labor to embrace all the other laborers. But, unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops and cannot be gathered.
—
which, again echo in the first poem of the Leaves, “One’s Self I Sing”, from “Inscriptions”, where the poet sings “A simple, separate Person;/ Yet utter the word Democratic, the word En-masse.” Here is the corresponding dialectic idea in verse: by singing a “simple, separate Person”, that is, the ideal person or “Modern Man”, who is present in everyone, the poet, dialectically, is bringing everybody together, bringing the “multitudes” comprised by one person into his works, which he is going to sing, for example, in his catalogues, and naturally in himself, since he is “large” and contains these “multitudes”. He sings “a Person”, however, this person will be depicted in a wide variety of pictures, in long catalogues, but each depiction, in the end, will be of the “all”, of the “original unit”. He needs to sing each separate person to compose the masses, because, only by portraying each one of them and putting them side by side, can he be able to paint the portrait of this crowd, this collection of thousands or millions of individual, all of them a separate person in themselves, but not separated from the All, the totality, the whole of mankind.
Then, this movement from person to crowd and from crowd to person, or from the part to the whole and from the whole to the part means that the whole can not exist without its every part, otherwise it is not a whole, and the part can not exist apart from the whole, otherwise it will be lost in itself and will have no meaningful life, because nothing can exist from or outside of itself. Nature is everywhere showing us that every form of life is interconnected and dependent upon each other. Then, Whitman’s inclusion of every man in his catalogues is a way of trying to gather again the drops that were spilled in the fable. Weaving everybody back together into one whole, into a unity that had been lost, his song sews all together, bringing all the creation into a complete union, which is the utmost job of a true son of God.
Here Whitman takes this rather pessimistic view of Emerson’s mentioning of a fable of a divided society and turns it into a quite optimistic view, by showing in his poems that it is possible that this once “subdivided” “fountain of power” can be sewed back together into a whole, through the “lifelong love of comrades”, for example, as he sings in the “Calamus” cluster in the poem “For You O Democracy”, in which he promises to “make the continent indissoluble” and cities “inseparable with their arms about each other’s necks”, and that he will do that “by the love of comrades”. As Emerson himself does in the following lines of his essay:
—
What is Nature to him? There is never a beginning, there is never an end, to the inexplicable continuity of this web of God, but always circular power returning into itself. Therein it resembles his own spirit, whose beginning, whose ending, he never can find,-so entire, so boundless. (EMERSON, 1909-14, p.2).
—
Actually, like the old sage of Concord, Whitman takes many steps ahead of the dark idea of a subdivision of the “original unit”, which we could simply call “God”, or even “web of God”, this “circular power” that is “so entire, so boundless” that we can not see its limits, its boundaries, but of which we are a part. We think that we are separated from this “continuity” because we only believe what we see with our own physical eyes. The problem with that is that we only see the visible physical world, the “world of appearances”, we do not see what is unseen by our physical eyes. To see beyond that we need to use our intuition, our sensitiveness, our hearts, not our minds, to be able to feel what can not be seen by our eyes. We must remember to use the mind to understand and the heart to feel. This is so obvious and at the same time so forgotten in our daily lives. Apart from what we learn in books, if we just think for a while of a non-religious concept of God, which would be like a whole, a holos (the Greek word that means total, all, entire), a complete thing, we could call it the universe, a number or a thing which lacks none of its parts, we could say that this holos or God can not deny or refuse any of its parts, due to the simple logical fact that if a whole negates one of its parts it is not complete anymore. And if we think that the whole universe is a holos, and if this holos can be called God, then the body of the universe is the body of God. Now, if we think of our own body as a holos, a microcosm, made up of billions of cells, and each cell has in itself the code to make a new body (DNA), equal to itself, why could we not think that each body in the universe has also the code of the whole universe? If the universe has the code to make stars and planets (coincidentally called celestial bodies!) and bodies of living animals, why not think that the universe inserted this code in each one of its creations, as a child carries in itself the code of its parents. Then we could come to the conclusion that each “separate Person” has in him/herself the code of the whole, each person can possibly be any of the other persons of the whole. This leads to the conclusion that we are not subdivisions of the “original unit”, but products of its expansion, because the universe expands itself by multiplication, as any animal or plant naturally does. We are copies of the original unit, similar to it. We are entire beings, and not subdivisions.
It is not by chance that we are discussing this theme here, for the poet himself was deeply interested in Astronomy and it “[...] was always to be the one branch of science that Whitman knew best, and most accurately.” (ALLEN, 1955, p.124). The study of astronomy fascinated him, and he even became more “philosophical” because of that, which helped him to transcend “time and space and to search intuitively in his poetry for eternal duration.” And if we speak of something “eternal”, we necessarily speak of our souls, our divine souls. For if our physical bodies are mortal, what is eternal in ourselves is surely our souls. And if we consider our souls to be divine, they must be God’s creation. So, we if were created by God, we are His children, and then we are like Him.
Coincidentally, this idea is similar to an idea that exists in the Bible, in the book of Genesis, 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our Image, after our likenesse [sic]“. Thus, God created man in His own Image, “male and female” (verse 27), and He said to them: “Be fruitfull [sic], and multiply, and replenish the earth”. Coincidentally, the first poem of the Leaves sings “The Female equally with the Male [...] under the laws divine, the Modern Man”. Again, Emerson was right there, before Whitman, showing to his pupil that “A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men.” By acknowledging that we were created in the Image of God by Himself, it makes us Divine like Him. We are as celestial as the heavenly bodies that float in space. And if each one is divine, all is divine, then, if one citizen is divine, the whole nation is divine. So there can exist a nation where each individual can be inspired by his/her divine soul. This is one of the reasons why Whitman never denied one single person, even if the person was mean, cruel, or devilish, or low. He believed that it was possible to show this divinity in every one (God’s omnipresence). One proof of that is that he wrote a book to mirror this to all. We hardly ever see the light by ourselves. We always need someone to guide us into it, just like a baby needs the care of the parents to learn how to live in this world, we need someone to show us the path to the light (of God, naturally!). As long as Whitman had many Guides, and one of them was definitely Emerson, he also became a master, a creator, a guide to others.
And one way to do it was by including all persons in his works, both in the book and in himself, because he did not separate the book from the man. Then, here is Whitman again merging all things in himself and his book to create this mirror of the whole for the readers, mixing the old and the new, the past and the present, religion and science, the masses and the individual, the part and the whole (the poet as a mirror of a divine omniscient mind). This is the movement of his contradictions or of his dialectics instead. Section 16 of “Song of Myself”, one of the innumerous catalogues that appear throughout Leaves of Grass, shows both the contradiction and a short example of catalogue:
—
A learner with the simplest, a teacher of the thoughtfullest;
A novice beginning, yet experient of myriads of seasons;
Of every hue and caste am I, of every rank and religion;
A farmer, mechanic, artist, gentleman, sailor, quaker;
A prisoner, fancy-man, rowdy, lawyer, physician, priest.
—
He can be one thing and the other, he is one man and he is all men. He is beyond thesis and antithesis; he is already a synthesis, a “creator”, as he sings in Section 41 of “Song of Myself”, where he is “becoming already a creator”. Emerson would agree with that: “Whatever talents may be, if the man create not, the pure efflux of the Deity is not his” (“The American Scholar”, 1909-14, p.4). This is so because he can be both parts of the equation, interchangeably. This work on synthesis can be traced back to Hegel, whom Whitman used to read, as is testified by one of his biographers:
—
He had been reading Hegel – or more accurately discussions of Hegel – for several years. Traces of Hegelian influence may be seen in Democratic Vistas, in Whitman’s belief that the “dialectic” of conflict and struggle will produce a more perfect society. Or as he re-expressed this idea more poetically in “Song of the Universal” [...]. (ALLEN, 1955, p.460)
—
By being aware of his contradictions and understanding that the case is not of being one thing or the other, that is, he does not have to choose between the thesis or the antithesis. The point is being one thing and the other, the thesis and the antithesis; by doing so he realizes the connection between the two parts of the equation and then unites them into a synthesis. In Section 1 of “Song of Myself”, Whitman sings: “I Celebrate myself, and sing myself, / And what I assume you shall assume, / For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”, which shows his awareness of non separation between individuals, which he applied to bridging the gap between the “me” and the “other”. The same way he did with good and evil, of which he said he was the singer in Section 22: “I am not the poet of goodness only-I do not decline to be the poet of wickedness also.” This entry about Hegel’s definition of dialectic will illustrate the point:
—
dialectic (Gk., dialektik?, the art of conversation or debate) [...] According to the different views of this process, different conceptions of dialectic emerge. [...] In Hegel, dialect refers to the necessary process that makes up progress in both thought and the world. [...] The process is one of overcoming the contradiction between thesis and antithesis, by means of synthesis; the synthesis in turn becomes contradicted, and the process repeats itself until final perfection is reached. (BLACKBURN, 1994, p. 104)
—
That is, by reaching a harmony between two opposing positions, which can be things, people, thoughts or ideas, by seeking to join them, Whitman was trying to achieve synthesis. Which is found by looking for what unites and not what separates. This is what made him fight for a united nation, which is used against him, for example, as charge of anti-abolitionism. The fact is that Whitman was looking for something greater than two opposing factions or fractions; he was searching for a way to unite the opposing sides, which has nothing to do with supporting slavery. He was against slavery, but he was also against fratricide war. This is proven by his hard work in the hospitals during the U.S. Civil War, in which he cared for Southern soldiers as well as Northern ones. As well as for the fact that although he was a journalist and poet, he was there working as a wound-dresser, using his income to bring some relief to soldiers from all the country, which was also a way to know his country well. He did not travel all over the U.S., but he met people from everywhere during the war time (ALLEN, 1995, p.374).
By accomplishing a synthesis of opposites, the poet could be inferior and superior; he could be at the bottom and at the top, because he knew that what is below is similar to what is above, which is the teaching of Hermes Trismegistus. This is why he did not despise the common man, because he himself was also the common man. He was the poet and the carpenter, the intellectual in an office and a nurse in a hospital caring for dying soldiers. He was a journalist and a workman. He is not stuck at one side, he is not “contained between” his “hat and boots” (section 7, “Song of Myself”). He is much more, he is “an acme of things accomplish’d”, he is “an encloser of things to be” (section 44, “Song of Myself”). But above all, one needs to acknowledge that one is contradictory, otherwise no step can be taken on the path to becoming a synthesis, that is, the awareness that we can be one thing and the other, alternatively, and that we will not lose track of ourselves, both mentally and psychologically. This very expression, “one thing and the other”, is an example of Hermes Trismegistus’ teaching: we have three elements in this formula: “one thing”, “and”, “the other”. “And” is the main element, because it is the link between the other two. If we are only “one thing” or “the other”, and we miss the “and”, we might get confused, for at a time we are “one thing”, and at another time we are “the other”. If we keep changing positions without being aware of what we are doing, a psychiatrist might think we have a mental problem, or a friend might think we have a double face. However, if we learn that the most important element in this equation is the “and”, because it is the link between the two sides, we have the solution to the problem, and what was two before becomes one, linked by the “and”. As it is was said by Hermes: “That which is above is like that which is below”, but we must be aware that there must be a connection between “above” and “below”, otherwise it is like table tennis, we go from one side to the other and we never know where we are or what we are doing. Whitman was a northerner as well as a southerner (he actually spent three months in the south), and he did not want the two opposing sides of his country to separate. This made him look for a link to connect them, something greater than party politics or finance. This made him leave professional politics and walk the path of poetry, which proved to be more effective than his political writings. As Canby (1943) said, if Whitman had stopped his career in 1850 or continued only as a journalist, today he might be remembered as a good journalist, and nothing else. And perhaps he would not have moved so many people around his country and the world, and led so many to think about unity, and not separation.
Speaking of a Hermetic equation, Jesus Christ said something two thousand years ago that can be viewed in this context too: “I and the Father are one”; actually, Jesus also said in verse 38, quoted below, that “the Father is in me and I in him.”, which makes him a synthesis of the Son and the Father, because only the Father in him can tell him of His presence and make him aware that the Father is speaking in and through him; and only he as the Son can be conscious of the presence of the Father. Therefore, if both are parts of the same holos, they will occupy each position interchangeably, depending basically on the consciousness of whom is speaking, who will then be aware that he is at one moment the Father and at another the Son! This can be viewed in a logic example: if we consider a man here on earth, a common person, who is a father and at the same time a son. In his relationship with his own father, he will be the son. As well as he is himself a father in relation to his own son. And he has the father and the son in himself. The same occurs to a woman, who can be a daughter in relation to her own mother and a mother in relation to her own daughter. If the person realizes this, the person is accomplishing a synthesis in one’s self! This can be applied to personal roles as well as social ones. This even appears in popular sayings, like: “put yourself in the position of another”, meaning that you have to look through the eyes of the other person to be able to see the situation from their point of view. Then, by doing so, you will know how the other person feels and you will not judge the acts of the other person, but rather think or work together with the other person to find solutions to matters. That is what synthesis means, personally or socially. Only by working the differences or oppositions, can we find the common interest that will unite the people. That is the meaning of the “en masse”, of democracy to Whitman. How could he then despise the common man? The uneducated people, if these people were the ones who were building the nation, who were working to make it great as well as any educated men in the country did. Intellectuals and working people, rich and poor, or social or economic differences can not be a barrier to mutual understanding. Whitman did not even despise the criminals, whom he visited in prisons, as well as he visited sick people in hospitals. He was a guest at high class places, like the Tammany Hall, Libraries, Hotels, and also at low class places, like cheap bars and restaurants.
Many critics at his own time never understood why Whitman could prefer to live among uneducated people, such as bus drivers, workers in general, than with educated ones. But that was not a question of preference, that was a question of being aware of the many aspects of his personality, or of his “contradictions”. He was a man of the people; he mingled with them as one of them. His father was a carpenter, his mother was a housewife, his brother George was a soldier, another brother, Jeff, worked at the Water Works department. He grew up among working class people. He made his way to the journalistic world, but he never forgot his background. He became a poet, but he never forgot his past. Although he gained knowledge and taught himself the classics, and could be among high class people, he did not erase his life with the low class people. He did not use knowledge as a mask to hide himself and his past behind it. This is why he always called himself “one of the roughs”! He was a rough as well as a poet/journalist/intellectual. And for being so, a common person never felt uneasy in his presence. He would be warm and friendly with anyone, with the president as much as with the mechanic.
Let’s look then at another passage by Emerson, from the “The American Scholar” (p.3), which states that “The poet chanting was felt to be a divine man: henceforth the chant is divine also.” Divine is a word that is present all through the Leaves, from the first poem in the volume, “under laws divine”, to section 24 of “Song of Myself”, where the poet sings his own divinity: “Seeing, hearing, feeling, are miracles, and each part and tag of me is a miracle.
Divine am I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am touch’d from,” and in many other passages where he sings “divine man”, “divine wife”, “divine materials”, “divine power”, the famous “divine average” in the “Song at Sunset” (from “Songs of Parting”), etc., until the end of the book, where the heavenly word divine appears in “Good Bye My Fancy” in the title of a poem called “The Rounded Catalogue Divine Complete”. As he sings in “Laws for Creations” (from “Autumn Rivulets”):
—
What do you suppose creation is?
What do you suppose will satisfy the soul, except to walk free and own no superior?
What do you suppose I would intimate to you in a hundred ways, but that man or woman is as good as God?
And that there is no God any more divine than Yourself?
—
What else could the “true son of God” say of his fellowmen, of mankind itself, of the earth and nature? Being himself divine, and considering everybody else and everything else divine, there is no other way of viewing the whole world as that, as “the Divine Ship” (from “Old Age Echoes”), an idea that is conveyed in a poem (quoted below) from this book, which was added to the tenth edition of Leaves of Grass (1897), and which actually echoes that “[...] vast Rondure, swimming in space!” from “Passage to India” (Section 6):
—
One Thought Ever at the Fore
One thought ever at the fore -
That in the Divine Ship, the World, breasting Time and Space,
All Peoples of the globe together sail, sail the same voyage, are bound to the same destination. (WHITMAN, 2002, p.486).
—
Whitman could not separate his destiny from anybody else’s destiny on the face of this planet. He was there, more than a hundred years ago, worried about our common future on the globe, not leaving anybody out of the Divine Plan. For what “destination” would he be talking about? What destination would the “true Son of God”, “the Poet”, be pointing to us all, in justifying all the persons that inhabit this earth? He was necessarily talking about a Divine Destination, a common destiny, a common salvation. For the only deed worthy that name to the “true Son of God” is to take His brothers and sisters and parents and children to His Father, which is what the Son came here to do. As the poet sang in “Think of the Soul” (from “Poems Excluded from Leaves of Grass“): “Recall Christ, brother of rejected persons-brother of slaves, felons, idiots, and of insane and diseas’d persons.”, a mirror reflecting Walt himself, when he looked on his “[...] own crucifixion and bloody crowning.”, and especially during the Civil War, when he worked as a volunteer nurse at hospitals in New York and Washington, dedicating his efforts to help so many diseased and desperate soldiers, and after having been multiplied by the “grave of rock”, he saw “Corpses rise, gashes heal, fastenings roll from [him].“[...] troop forth replenish’d with supreme power, one of an average unending procession;” (Section 38, “Song of Myself”), reviving those lost souls in his poems, trying to save them from forgetfulness, from oblivion, which is a kind of death, in order to help them and himself be reborn, and finally enter heaven.
The point is that only by not being afraid of death, which means one is not afraid of life, can one live a good life. While a person is afraid of dying, this person is afraid of living, and when one is free from this fear, one can lead a fruitful, prosperous life. Prosperous is used here to refer to people who share what they have, no matter how little or how much that is. Because what really matters is that the person has an open heart and mind, ready to give them to others (when we give of ourselves, it is our true will that counts, not how much the gift cost). And to give of oneself to others is to share the love of one’s heart, and to share love is to unite, to bring the other person to heaven, which is similar to “Recall Christ”, who said that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour [sic] [...]“. This is the ultimate task a person can have here on this vale of tears: when one is shown or is conscious of his divinity or deity, one must tell the others about it, one can not omit this to others: his neighbors. And although Whitman ran the risk of being misunderstood in his self-acknowledgement of being a true Son of God, he never gave in to criticism, and undertook his task with all the joy he felt in his broad loving heart. He assumed his position as poet and Son of God, which for him were the same.
Allen (1955, p.121-2) writes of Whitman in his biography of the poet: “And by this time [1855] Whitman had met a learned and distinguished man in New York who was to have a deep and lasting influence on his mind. This was the owner and curator of the Egyptian Museum at 659 Broadway. [...] By 1855 Dr. Abbot had found his Museum such a burden that he was trying desperately to sell it to the city, and to help the cause Whitman wrote an article about it for a magazine called Life Illustrated. This article reveals not only an intimate knowledge of the collection, but also a surprising familiarity with the literature about Egyptology, including books recently published abroad. Undoubtedly Dr. Abbot had called Whitman’s attention to some or all of these publications-perhaps loaned him books in English-and the echoes, allusions, and references to Egyptology in Leaves of Grass are so numerous that one must conclude that Whitman read the works closely and took notes on them. In fact, some of the notes have survived.”
Whitman indicated that in Section 21 of “Song of Myself”, when he sang: “I chant the chant of dilation or pride”.
“That which is above is like that which is below, and that which is below is like that which is above, working the miracles of one. As all things were from one. Its father is the Sun and its mother the Moon.” Available at: <http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/emerald.htm> Accessed on October, 11th, 2006.
Whitman said to Horace Traubel, one of his literary executors, these famous words, which are worth mentioning here, as he was asked by Traubel what he was supposed to do with Whitman’s last pieces of writing: “[...] So far as you may have anything to do with it I place upon you the injunction that whatever may be added to the Leaves shall be supplementary, avowed as such, leaving the book complete as I left it, consecutive to the point I left off, marking always an unmistakable, deep down, unobliteratable division line. In the long run the world will do as it pleases with the book. I am determined to have the world know what I was pleased to do.” (WHITMAN, 2002, p.485).
The Holy Bible: King James Version, 1611 Edition. [A reprint of the edition of 1611.] Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Romans; XIII, 9-10.
King James Version. New York: American Bible Society: 1999; Bartleby.com, 2000. ON-LINE ED.: Published May 2000 by Bartleby.com; © Copyright Bartleby.com, Inc. The Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 10: “Jesus Rejected by the Jews:
22 ¶ And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
I and my Father are one.
¶ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods ?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken;
say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
¶ Therefore they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of their hand,
and went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
And many resorted unto him and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
And many believed on him there.”
Available at: http/www.bartleby.com/108/. Accessed on: March, 13th, 2007.
Related articles by Zemanta
