Knickerbocker

Knickerbocker, or New-York
Monthly
by Various

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Knickerbocker, or New-York
Monthly
Magazine, March 1844, by Various This eBook is for the use of anyone
anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You
may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org
Title: Knickerbocker, or New-York Monthly Magazine, March 1844
Volume 23, Number 3
Author: Various
Editor: Lewis Gaylord Clark
Release Date: January 25, 2007 [EBook #20444]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
KNICKERBOCKER ***

Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

T H E K N I C K E R B O C K E R.
VOL. XXIII. MARCH, 1844. NO. 3.

WHAT IS TRANSCENDENTALISM?
BY A THINKING MAN.
This question has often been asked but seldom answered satisfactorily.
Newspaper editors and correspondents have frequently attempted a
practical elucidation of the mystery, by quoting from their own brains
the rarest piece of absurdity which they could imagine, and entitling it
'Transcendentalism.' One good hit of this kind may be well enough, by
way of satire upon the fogginess of certain writers who deem
themselves, and are deemed by the multitude, transcendental par
excellence. COLERIDGE however thought that to parody stupidity by
way of ridiculing it, only proves the parodist more stupid than the
original blockhead. Still, one such attempt may be tolerated; but when
imitators of the parodist arise and fill almost every newspaper in the
country with similar witticisms, such efforts become 'flat and
unprofitable;' for nothing is easier than to put words together in a form
which conveys no meaning to the reader. It is a cheap kind of wit,
asinine rather than attic, and can be exercised as well by those who
know nothing of the subject as by those best acquainted with it. Indeed,
it is greatly to be doubted whether one in a hundred of these witty
persons know any thing of the matter; for if they possess sense enough
to make them worthy of being ranked among reasonable men, it could
be proved to them in five minutes that they are themselves
transcendentalists, as all thinking men find themselves compelled to be,
whether they know themselves by that name or not.
'Poh!' said a friend, looking over my shoulder; 'you can't prove me a
transcendentalist; I defy you to do it; I despise the name.'
Why so? Let us know what it is that you despise. Is it the sound of the

word? Is it not sufficiently euphonious? Does it not strike your ear as
smoothly as Puseyite, or Presbyterian?
'Nonsense!' said he; 'you don't suppose I am to be misled by the sound
of a word; it is the meaning to which I object. I despise
transcendentalism; therefore I do not wish to be called
transcendentalist.'
Very well; but we shall never 'get ahead' unless you define
transcendentalism according to your understanding of the word.
'That request is easily made, but not easily complied with. Have you
Carlyle or Emerson at hand?'
Here I took down a volume of each, and read various sentences and
paragraphs therefrom. These passages are full of transcendental ideas;
do you object to them?
'No,' said my friend; 'for aught I can perceive, they might have been
uttered by any one who was not a transcendentalist. Let me see the
books.'
After turning over the leaves a long while, he selected and read aloud a
passage from Carlyle, one of his very worst; abrupt, nervous, jerking,
and at the same time windy, long-drawn-out, and parenthetical; a
period filling a whole page.
'There,' said he, stopping to take breath, 'if that is not enough to disgust
one with transcendentalism, then I know nothing of the matter.'
A very sensible conclusion. Bless your soul, that is Carlyle-ism, not
transcendentalism. You said but now that you were not to be misled by
the sound of a word; and yet you are condemning a principle on
account of the bad style of a writer who is supposed to be governed by
it. Is that right? Would you condemn Christianity because of the
weaknesses and sins of one of its professors?
'Of course not,' replied he; 'I wish to be fair. I cannot express my idea

of the meaning of transcendentalism without tedious circumlocution,
and I begin to despair of proving my position by quotations. It is not on
any particular passage that I rest my case. You have read this work, and
will understand me when I say that it is to its general intent and spirit
that I object, and not merely to the author's style.'
I think I comprehend you. You disregard the