Lydian Jackson Emerson

Letters to Elizabeth Palmer Peabody

From original Manuscripts in the

Houghton Library, Harvard University

bMS Am 1280.222 (597)

[Plymouth, 28 July1835]

Your queries, my dear Miss Peabody, suggest matter for a volume, and make me think with despair of the narrow limit of time and paper—and the slow operation of pen and ink. I wish I could see you, and talk instead of writing on these high matters—quickly and easily you know, the tongues of us "womankind" can talk volumes,—and perhaps no two women extant could more easily than you and myself—and in a shorter time, make a volume in this way.

I have ever and for the last year or two especially thought much and with deepest interest on the subject in its various hearings—upon which you have written to me—and have in every book caught eagerly at all that might throw light upon it—and I sometimes fancy, [not in vain(?)]. But in this, as in all kindred speculations, I catch one ray of light,—find one little rill of truth here or there—in the works of the general race of writers—but in the writings of Swedenborg and his followers—and yet more, in the sayings of Christ and his apostles I seem to have traced the light to its source, the rill to its fountain. Not that I am a Swedenborgian—or expect to become one—yet repeated experiences of this kind, affords, to me at least, a strong presumption . . . of what the N. J. Church Christians assert of their faith. Excuse this long preface. I am unusually dyspeptic this morning—and cannot help "talking prose", though not "without knowing it" It seems clear to me that each individual should consider himself as but a part of a great whole,—as having relation more or less near—more or less complex, to every other being—and also, that each one has some peculiarity of of nature which fits him for his place, and some peculiar sphere of Duty, growing out [sic] indicated by that nature—being, by his very constitution fitted for some particular use, to his neighbor and to the whole, as no other being is fitted. Yet, at the same time that he is that for his fellow—beings which no other in existence may do—he needs equally their influence and aid—that he may himself be and do as his creator designed. This was the truth—politically applied, by which M. Agrippa quelled the rebellion of the Roman populace—and by it Paul too—(quoting I suppose Agrippa's apology, used to reconcile the discontened [sic] members of the church at Corinth, each to his own gifts and sphere. This is that truth Swedenborg teaches, in the apparently strange sayings, that "The Universal Heaven is in the Human form"—"That every society of Heaven is also in perfect correspondence with the human form"—"That every spirit is a Heaven or Hell in its least form. Hard sayings were these to me once—but rightly—spiritually—understood, they express but a great truth—which has been, ever, more or less distinctly, recognised [sic] by all men in all time I suppose the most enlightened minds of the present day, would be at issue with Swedenborg—and upon the point of this correspondence—analogy--being perfect;—and however distinctly to be discerned, were man to use, as he should—his powers of spiritual perception. Perhaps, too, they might dispute his assertion of its great practical.—I fear I have been tedious in this statement of my apprehension of this general truth—I will try to give you, now, my views of its applications to practice—but fear I shall have miserable success—for I fear just now deserted—not only by my "genius"—but by my own proper soul—and yet must I write now or never—

It is a great attainment, and one at which we are long in achieving—to have discovered our own peculiar nature and consequent vocation—to know where lies the strength by which we may help others—where lies the weakness which must look to others for help. A still greater—to feel it our one earnest purpose—to use our powers (in the way appointed) for the good of our own Race—and more especially for that of the social and family circles within which we move. So be willing, also, in a spirit of humility, ever to see and own our deficiencies—and avail ourselves of the aid sent us by Providence in the wisdom of our friends—But the will to see our calling must be attained, before the power to discover it is given. We must become willing to do to work of the Great Task—and then will be shown us the Task to which we are appointed.

The analogy between our social relations and the Human form is perhaps the most perfect, (or at least the most distinctly visible to us—all correspondence being doubtless perfect & thorough—and seem to be so, by perfected Minds)—but those we find in the various kingdoms of Nature—the vegetable in particular—between material things and spiritual truth—are beautiful—delightful—and very instructive. For instance—may not a family be likened to a plant and in this awareness occurs to me that is a similitude very generally recognized—do we not every day hear the expressions—the "parent stem—" —the "branches" the "flower of the family"? "The opening bud"—"the unfolding germ"? Some families too represent the entire plant even to its thorns. But it is said that due culture has made, and will make, thorns or prickles disappear or change to harmless leaves, or even blossoming shoots. Each family circle is perhaps, or was intended to be, a harmonious whole—each member having his own part to perform in it that the harmony may be complete[crossed out] perfect. One cannot be complete without the rest—the peculiarities of one member are balanced—The deficiences [sic] of another are supplied—by counteracting peculiarities by corresponding redundancies in the other members. This will be the case so far as the family is "conformed to the Divine Order"—but this is the happy state of few families in this sinful world—Blessed are those whom Christian wisdom has taught to ascertain their calling within their own family home—and earnestly to seek to be faithful to it. Each parent—child—Husband—wife—mother—sister—should adopt, in spirit and practice the expression of Jesus—"For their sakes I sanctify myself that they may also be sanctified through the truth." Next to our relation to God and Christ—what can be so delightful as this spiritual relation to the dear individuals of our own family? Happy may we be in imparting—still happier in receiving spiritual blessings within the sphere of home. It is a consoling thought, that God has ordained that our very defects & infirmaties should be the means not only of influencing each other's virtue, but of uniting us more strongly in affection—The operation of true Christianity certainly brings out of these evils of human nature a greater good than could be attained without them. Our individual being, it seems to me, is not complete in itself—was not created with chief reference to itself –we must look for the ultimate design of our constitution—at virtues and vices in their relations to those of our near kindred and dear associates;—and also look for, and also cooperate with the divine Providence, in permitting and helping the peculiarities of our friends to do their intended office in perfecting our character.

This doctrine . . . is universally true—Each person or event has its own relation to the universal—to its race at large—to its country—its neighbourhood—its family circle—and yet more, has it I believe, a very peculiar relation—such as it has to no other being—to some one chosen friend perhaps of the same sex but generally of the other—In the latter case it is probably the most perfect. The union between friend & friend—the fraternal tie—but more especially the conjugal union—is strengthened and perfected and made productive of mutual good by the very Christianity of the natures thus joined by the order of Providence. This at first view may seem paradoxical if not untrue—but the more we look at it the more clear and beautiful a truth it will appear. Still it is only when the differing spirits thus joined co-operate with Providence—conform to Divine Order that has—and mutual improvement is the result "Its will or wisdom guides us still" God's "gifts so good may turn out ill". If beings united for the purpose of correcting each other's defects and supplying each others deficiencies will, instead of tolerating and trying in the spirit of love to modify—each others peculiarities—will clash and make discord, out of what were given as the very elements of harmony—it is their own fault not that of . . . their lot. A broken substance if reunited—if put rightly together forms a perfect whole—but were the two parts . . . to refuse to take their proper place . . . indentions remain unfulfilled, and the pieces would not be united—though tied together. This is too often the type which might best illustrate the nature of the union between married couples—"paired not matched"—Is not the saying familiar to you that "people generally marry their opposite"? I believe it is a true saying—and, as a consequence, there is another equally true—that marriage is no halfway condition, but one of great happiness or misery. I think that the most perfect marriage, in which, with peculiar sympathy in some department of their nature—in intellectual tastes for instance—there is as marked contrast in other points;—opposite characteristics—opposite temperaments—in the beings thus united. If these conditions those of true affection and finer principle be added—the union will be strong—happy—more so than if the partners were in all respects similar. May not the same be said of the relation between two sisters or brothers?—That between Mary and her lamented sister—there was such an one, precisely;—and when broken by death—left the survivor, I think, more than widowed in heart. Their affection seemed to partake of the tenderness subsisting between parent and child—husband and wife—as well as that of the common sentiment between friend & friend—sister & sister. Yet in every thing but sense and goodness they were a contrast one to the other.

This doctrine of the universality of individual imperfection and our consequent mutual dependence on the benefits of each other's gifts, is an eminently practical one—as is implied in the very definition of it. It teaches, as you suggest, humility in our estimate of our own powers—respect for the gifts of others. who posess not such as are bestowed upon ourselves Humbleness of mind—charity of disposition—universal toleration of the pecularities of others—would the blessed result of a practical recognition of the truth expressed in the words—"diversities of gifts but the same spirit"—"many members all of one body." Were this doctrine but acted upon—there would be an end of all strife political philosophical theological. —and what were better still—social—family—and personal dissentions would cease—and earth would be heaven. . . .

It seems to me that in the cultivation of our own Nature—it is our duty to respect its peculiarities:—that is we should not attempt to become like any body or any—body else—but only by training and pruning and removing of obstacles to attain to the perfect developement of our individual character. If because our neighbour's apple-tree works well and bears abundantly from its branches having been so trained & grafted as to extend horizontally—shall we bestow a similar discipline upon our poplar or elm, who beauty consists in the perpendicular disposition and graceful motion of its boughs—and which being created rather to elevate the mind by its beauty than nourish the body by its fruit—will do neither the one nor the other if marred by injudicious cultivation? . . .

If I have spoken unwisely in this letter of mine—I ask of you to burn and forget it speedily—and trust to your friendship that no pain to him shall result from it. I pretend not to form an opinion of that which I write—no one is, as I imagine—a competent judge of their own [word illegible]. We cannot possibly know whether we have attained the highest wisdom or the deepest absurdity. Pardon the length at which I have written—He said well—who said (at the close of a long letter) "I have not leisure to be concise." Will you do me the favour to write soon again—and more than once, too—without waiting for an answer—For I ought—and will try to—give my pen a long holiday.

Very truly yours

Your friend

Lydia J

(605) to EPP, Concord, 22 Aug. 1837

[Concord, 22? August 1837]

Dear Elizabeth

I have been obliged to defer naming to you as I promised the time for your visit to Concord—from inability to ascertain when I might look forward to a time of sufficient leisure for the dwellers both of the study and the nursery fully to enjoy your company—I think I may anticipate being quiet and settled in head and household—in the course of a fortnight after Commencement; when I hope to be free to have some good talks with you—and to hear you hold many more with my good husband—I should be sooner disengaged—but from various causes I have had such an unsettled spring & summer that my "female exercises" are much in arrears—besides that I am to be honoured with the opportunity of ministering to the earthly comfort of the whole transcendental coterie (otherwise called Hedge's Club)— the day after Phi Beta [the PBK address at Commencement] and have also from Miss Fuller the promise that last days of her vacation. . . .

BMS Am 1280.222 (606)

[Concord, 4 December 1837]

Dear Elizabeth—

I will not apologize for not having written you sooner—because I believe you do not expect me to be a punctual correspondent. My writing—not my silence—to any but my dearest relatives—is the exception to my general rule. I profess to be a non-letter-writing-lady—but you know one cannot of course be expected to live always up to one's professions. . . .

BMS Am 1280.222 (608)

[Concord? 1837?]

I should feel sad regret my dear Elizabeth at hearing such news of you and yours as your letter tells me—if the "Theosophy" which has more than supported me in griefs of my own—were not equally efficacious in aiding me to look with calmness and trust upon those which afflict my friends—when I am true to my principles—I cannot say of any occasion of distress—I am sorry for it. It would be equivalent to a denial of the God in whom I believe—to regret any thing but sin. In saying "The God in whom I believe" I do not allude to my husband's alleged heresies—but to such doubts of Universal Providence (Universal because Particular) as make life one woe to your excellent friend Mr Mann. I have no more to say of his views (in answer to a part of your letter—and hope I shall have time before the mail goes—but must hasten to say that I hope circumstances will yet permit you to visit us before you begin your Newton school. I should think a week if no more might be spared for it. —You may "perform a valuable use" as we of the New [Neue?] Church say by coming here this spring—for I have a plan of bringing hither at the time you are with us—a beloved pet of mine—a young Plymouth girl—with many gifts both of body and soul to make her interesting to you—that you may aid me in ministering to a spiritual nature which gives promise if rightly nurtured to become a most lovely manifestation of God. She is the sister of Robert Bartlett—of whom you have probably heard—as first scholar of last year's class at Harvard—It seems to me that they are much alike—Rebecca tells me he is less her brother by birth than by sympathy with her inward being—She has had strong conflict and trial within—as you may imagine still suffers—though she is conscious of progress and has more than she once had a spirit of hope—I think you would do much for her perhaps open as it were a new world. Don't think I mean to ask you to give her the time you will want for the lectures—by no means. An hour or two of talk would doubtless be able to give her more— . . .