Walt Whitman, the First Great American Poet

Walt Whitman left a legacy as an American poet that cannot be ignored.  Yet, nearly 120 years after his death, polarization of opinion about his work and his influence is still strong.  It seems that you either love him or you hate him, and in most cases that view depends upon your moral convictions.  There is no doubt that his work was controversial in his day, evidenced by the labels of “obscene” and “pornographic” given by some reviewers.  For those who have seriously studied his work, the general consensus of opinion is that Walt Whitman was a great American poet and in fact, is considered the first great poet of America.  However, to many in this great nation, instead of singing the body electric, Whitman’s poetry demeans and degrades the human spirit.  And while his works may have shocked the sensitivities of some readers in his day, it is tame by today’s standards, giving us an early preview of America as the land of porn.

A Short Biography

Walt Whitman was born in 1819 in New York and died in 1892 in New Jersey at age 72. He was the second of eight surviving children in a poor family struggling to barely subsist, both physically and emotionally. Biographers have surmised that his father was probably an alcoholic.  There was some mental instability in his family among his brothers and sisters. Although his formal education ended at age 11, Whitman was a very successful autodidact, a self-educated man. He worked for a time in the newspaper industry as a journalist, editor and printer. He tried his hand at teaching for a few years but did not enjoy it and quit abruptly, with some speculating that it was due to an unwanted romantic advance toward one of his young male students.

Leaves of Grass

Returning to journalism at age thirty, he began what became his life’s work: Leaves of Grass, a collection of poetry written in a distinctly American style using free verse and a cadence based on the Bible.  He self-published his book in 1855 and published multiple editions in his lifetime. The book was and is powerful, abandoning traditional verse for free verse poetry. It was also deemed by some to be controversial as they found his repeated sexual imagery content to be offensive.  When he presented copies to his family, his own brother said it not worth reading.  Although he did not list himself as the author, he did include a now-famous portrait of himself facing the title page, with an open-neck shirt, jaunty hat and one hand on hip.  In the body of the text he identified himself as, “Walt Whitman, an American, one of the roughs, a kosmos, disorderly, fleshly, and sensual, no sentimentalist…”  He was, in all respects, a natural man.

O Captain, My Captain

Whitman’s sexual orientation is generally assumed to be homosexual or bisexual.  He never married but had several long-term intimate relationships with other men in his lifetime. Whitman achieved international recognition and worked tirelessly to promote his book. He obviously lived during the Civil War and that was a big influence in his life. He travelled to Washington looking for his brother who he had heard had been killed, but was only wounded. He spent time on the battlefields and in hospitals caring for the sick and the wounded. He came to greatly admire Lincoln and was deeply affected by his assassination. His most famous poem, O Captain, My Captain was about Lincoln and he gave many lectures on the president’s life. He suffered serious health problems in his later years, surviving three paralyzing strokes.

America’s National Poet

Walt Whitman answered Emerson’s call for poets to expound the new world of the United States. There is no doubt that he did this powerfully, uniquely and in a highly acclaimed manner. He was considered America’s national poet, at first more by Europeans than by his fellow Americans, at least in his own day. Using free verse, Whitman created a new style of writing that was uniquely American. He used natural voice and diction to imitate the natural flow of thought and feeling. He had a grand vision of speaking for America and explaining what it was all about. He saw and described scenes that leave you feeling like you were also there with him. He was innocent enough to believe that there really was such a job as a national poet.

An Epic to Celebrate America

Whitman was on the forefront of the American literary scene and was well prepared to promote it. His language was uniquely American, not British or European; powerfully American. His language had fewer rules; it was looser, courser, rougher and more promiscuous. He felt he was actively involved in the struggle for democracy with Leaves of Grass. He also said that he hoped his book would heal the nation and even prevent Civil War. He wanted to inspire and stir people with his work.  He viewed his book as a true epic. What would an epic be like?  It would celebrate America, the American self, the “I.”  In fact, he sings of America throughout the book.

The Great Equalizer

Before Leaves of Grass he wrote editorials but he saw that they were mostly ineffective so he created a more profound work through his free-verse writings. He addressed the soul and the psyche of the nation, to create a real sense of community. He threw his book out there with a lot of hope for a nation that would soon divide apart. Whitman wanted his book to be written by the nation and for the nation using his voice. In his preface he says that the poet is the great equalizer and the one who is in balance. He obviously had a great ego and assumed a lot, but believed in his age and his country. He felt that he had a national mission to fulfill because he could see and tell of a world of experience in a way that nobody else could or did. He wanted to preserve the Union, to hold things together and yet maintain our unique identity. The many contradictions and differences of our nation did not bother him.  He wanted us to accept them and him and was truly puzzled by those who could not or would not accept either.

Legacy of Walt Whitman

Leaves of Grass is Walt Whitman’s personal literary journey of national significance. His desire was to sing of the new country with a new voice and he felt the time was ripe. There is no doubt that Whitman’s vision and ego helped him produce his masterwork. His profound vision created a tremendous contribution to American literary history. Numerous poets have tried to place themselves in his wake or have reacted violently to him. There is no getting around him.  He was a celebrity in his day and is celebrated today.  He had disciples that surrounded him in his later years and still has a large following today. But why is he so important?  It is because he stirred up such controversy and got people talking. More importantly, he broke the boundaries of poetic form and elevated common people through his portrayals of American life.

A Religious Skeptic

Leaves of Grass had a major impact on the literary world; His work cannot be ignored. His poetry has been set to music and inspired musicians, both classical and popular. Europeans said that you couldn’t really understand America without Walt Whitman. Some modern poets have said that Whitman is not just America’s poet, but he is America. Whitman considered himself to be a messiah-like figure in poetry; so did his admirers. His vagabond lifestyle was adopted by the beat movement as well as by anti-war poets.  He took what Emerson and Thoreau started with the transcendentalist movement, thoroughly Americanized it and then set it free to enjoy a new life through his free-verse poetry.  His style speaks to many people who think as he did and do not live within the constraints of limitations imposed by moral boundaries of religious America.  Though he was born to a Quaker family, it would be more proper to classify Whitman as a man of spirituality and not a man of religion.  He as deeply influenced by Deism and denied that any one faith was more important than another. Similar to Benjamin Franklin, who was also a religious skeptic, he embraced all religions equally.  And though he accepted all churches, he believed in none.  It is safe to say that Whitman’s religion was like his verse: free and easy.

A Mass of Stupid Filth

But it is his forays into eroticism that elicited such strong responses from his critics.  They said that his poetry was “a mass of stupid filth” and that Whitman was like a pig “rooting among the rotten garbage of licentious thoughts.”  For example, in section 11 of Song of Myself, Whitman warned us that he was going to celebrate himself, get bawdy and lusty and otherwise embrace the passion, pulse and power of life.  The 29th bather is a powerful example of how he makes that happen.  In section 3 of Song of Myself he had already exposed us to the urge of sex, and now he sprays us with a beach orgy. Section 11 is famously known as the 29th bather, a fantasy that starts from a female narrative and ends with a homoerotic shocker.  It caused one reviewer to exclaim that he was guilty of violating “the rules of decorum and propriety prescribed by a Christian civilization.”  Another accused him in Latin of homosexual behavior.

Raw Sexuality

While some biographers are certain in their declarations that there was never any evidence of homosexual activity, what is certain is that he used the imagery of raw sexuality liberally throughout Leaves of Grass. “Urge and urge and urge, always the procreant urge of the world…always sex” are found along with scenes of “hugging and loving bedfellows.  He takes on an all-knowing and condescending spirit that tells us to forget about “creeds and schools,” religion and education, and just listen to what wisdom he is about to belch forth.  With arrogance he states that “what I assume, you shall assume,” as if to say that our views could only possibly be his views. He is going to introduce us to the common laborers of America, the average people who are cheerfully and skillfully working to build the great American dream.

I Celebrate Myself

Throughout his work we will witness numerous vignettes of life in the America of Walt Whitman’s day, not life in halls of congress or places of business, but in homes and gathering places. And through it all, we are to be subjected to the lusty, bawdy, fleshy side of life that Whitman, or his muse, wants us to see, hear and experience.  With Walt, we will hear the delicious singing, the “party of young fellows, robust and friendly, singing with mouths open their strong melodious songs.”  He is positively giddy. “I celebrate myself, and sing myself… undisguised and naked…mad to be in contact with” the sensual nature of this physical and worldly existence.  We will soon be reading biography, sermon and poetic meditation of this muse all lustily embracing the fleshy body as it expresses itself through the life of Whitman.

The 29th Bather

In Leaves of Grass, Walt writes of getting “undisguised and naked,” and sensually urges his readers to “Undrape!  You are not guilty to me,” but “stout as a horse, affectionate, haughty, electrical.” But these words and phrases are nothing compared to the scene that unfolds in the 29th bather.  The young lady lets her imagination take her to the beach to join the crowd of young men, describing the beards of the young men glistening with wet that ran from their long hair, little streams that passed all over their bodies. “An unseen hand also passed over their bodies; it descended tremblingly from their temples and ribs.”  And then the action turns decidedly homoerotic as actions are performed on the young men by whom – the unseen 29th bather or by each other?  If Whitman intended to shock the sensibilities of his readers, he wildly succeeded.  But then, this is nothing compared to sex-soaked erotic content of a more modern classic such as Portnoy’s Complaint, which dwells on the lusty subject of masturbation.

The Good Gray Poet

How this erotic and sexually dissident poet was adopted as America’s national bard and anointed “the Good Gray Poet” is hard to understand.  He never did reach the common people but was celebrated by the intellectuals of the day, especially from other countries.  Did Whitman presage the view of America as the land of porn? If not, then he certainly did contribute a fair share for his day.  The real work in analyzing and appreciating Whitman’s poetry is in looking past the celebration of the natural man and seeing in it the celebration of America, the great land of opportunity and the dream that all can succeed and that anything can be created and promoted.  All it takes is the kind of confidence and belief in oneself that Walt Whitman had in abundance.  In that respect, Walt Whitman was truly an American genius of a rock-star caliber for his day.  If Whitman could successfully promote and sell out every edition of his book each time it went to press, in spite of the moral constraints of his day, just think what we should be able to do today!

Controversy Promotes

Of course I’m not suggesting that we rush out to write a bunch of pornographic prose as he did, but I am saying that, like Whitman, we should celebrate this great nation for the freedoms of expression that we enjoy and that can really be found in no other nation of this world today. And, like Whitman, if we embrace the spirit of controversy and promotion of something unique, as was his free-verse style, then we should be able to reach out to millions of people through the modern leaves of grass – the Internet.  Isn’t that what many of today’s bloggers are hoping to accomplish?  They are the Walt Whitman’s of our day, bypassing the established norms of book publishing for the new media of the Internet.  And they succeed because of their controversial content and endless self-promotion.  If only what they promoted was uplifting to the human spirit.  Controversial content is what drives the readers to the blogs and websites where they want to express their own opinions in the comments.  Walt Whitman knew what would sell and he knew how to sell it.  Just think of what he could have done if he lived in the Internet age!

The Unique Religion of Benjamin Franklin

benjaminfranklinBenjamin Franklin is widely recognized as a great American patriot and founding father of this nation.  He wielded a powerful influence in the shaping of this country because of his intelligent, reasonable, pragmatic and practical approach to life.  But the real power and vigor of his persuasive abilities came from the ideological principles that he embraced.  Because of his tremendous reach and authoritative influence upon our nation, much has been written about the religious views of Benjamin Franklin.  It is clear that he embraced different beliefs from colonial religiosity that preceded him.  By his own account he was a product of the age of enlightenment and considered himself a Deist.  He believed this world was organized by a divine creator.

Some have said that he was not a Christian and others have claimed that he was an atheist, occultist or mystic.  However, a careful reading of Franklin’s writings leads us to conclude that he simply did not believe that the organized religions of his time fully represented the omnipotent power, majesty or wisdom of the great Creator.  There is no doubt that Franklin was a religious man.  His religion just didn’t conform to the orthodox views of his day.  He did not participate in public worship services but endorsed and promoted the churches around him with his influence.  In many ways, his religion was unique to him, formulated early in his life and refined with age and experience.  His emphasis on seeking moral perfection, developing virtues and in doing good to all men constitute the heart and soul of his very practical religion.  Clearly, based on the results of his life, he had a great understanding of how religion should work for a man.

One of the best sources to help us understand the religious views of Benjamin Franklin is his own autobiography, mostly written when he was 65 and added to some 13 years later.  He wrote that he “never was without some religious principles; I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by his providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter” (McQuade et al 215).  That’s quite the creed.  Just one month before his death in 1790, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale University, and offered a similar creed.  “I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this” (Franklin Papers v46 p400).

It is obvious that Benjamin Franklin had a strong faith in God as the source of morality and goodness of man.  He constantly acknowledged the hand of God in the affairs of men and gave God credit for his happiness and success in life (McQuade et al 185).  He was a strong advocate of prayer to God, invoking the blessings of heaven upon his efforts to seek moral perfection.  “And conceiving God to be the Fountain of Wisdom, I thought it right and necessary to solicit his Assistance for obtaining it; to this End I form’d the following little Prayer … for daily Use (McQuade et al 219).  He then recited the prayer for us.  In addition, it is well known that Franklin requested that prayer be a part of the proceedings during a critical impasse of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. “I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” (Franklin Papers v45 p77)  However, his motion for prayer did not carry.

While it is certain that Franklin was no dogmatist, it is just as clear that a driving force in his life was the pursuit of virtue.  He wrote extensively about it in his autobiography.  In a sense, this search for moral perfection was his religion, and one that he readily admitted was elusive. He considered it a “bold and arduous Project” to develop these virtues which he first enumerated when he was still young.  He obviously still felt that it was a worthy enterprise as it wrote about it glowingly in part two of his autobiography, written at age 78.  At one time he had hoped to expand his extensive comments about the “Means and Manner of obtaining virtue” into a book.  He proposed to call it the Art of Virtue, but his intentions were never fulfilled.  However, he left enough thoughts on the subject in his autobiography that many others have used his ideas to better their own lives and some have even written their own books and formulated improvement programs based on his writing.  Almost all of Part Two of his autobiography was dedicated to the explanation of how he pursued virtue, the difficulties he encountered in attempting to dedicate these virtues to habit and his satisfaction of seeing his faults diminish.

As he wrote, “But on the whole, tho’ I never arrived at the Perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell short of it, yet I was by the Endevour a better and happier Man than I otherwise should have been, if I had not attempted it …” (McQuade et al 220).  He shared his list of virtues with his son and encouraged him to also follow their pursuit.  The story he relates of how he added the thirteenth virtue of humility to his list has been endearing to readers through the years.  “I cannot boast of much Success in acquiring the Reality of this Virtue; but I had a good deal with regard to the Appearance of it …” (McQuade et al 222).  Although it has been over 200 years since he wrote these words, we get a sense that Franklin was much more humble than he led us to believe.  It was this character trait that allowed him to be so persuasive in uniting others around him to his causes.  He was not a threat to men and wanted only to unite them in the cause of doing good.

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, after the reading of his impassioned speech in which he used his persuasive powers to urge the delegates to sign the document, he watched in disappointment as some delegates still refused to sign.  While the majority was signing it, he watched and commented that it was always difficult for painters to show the difference between the rising sun and the setting sun. He said that during the convention he had often looked at the painted sun on the back of the President’s chair and wondered “…whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun” (Madison 763).  A lady, identified as a Mrs. Powel, asked Dr. Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” — ‘A republic,’ replied the Doctor, ‘if you can keep it’” (McHenry 618).  Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous.  He is also reported to have said on that occasion that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

The word virtue to Franklin signified so much more than we may ascribe to it today.  He worked his whole life to acquire virtue, as he defined it for us in his autobiography (McQuade et al 216).  He described his list of virtues in terms that could be applicable to an individual of any religion or no religious beliefs at all.  He did, however, in adding the thirteenth virtue, suggest the path to obtain humility was to imitate Jesus and Socrates.  Much is made in modern times of Franklin’s stated opinion of Jesus.  From this quote most people draw the conclusion that he was not a Christian: “I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity” (Franklin Papers v46 p400).  As he wrote this one month before he died, he said that he would soon find out for himself as to the validity of the claims of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

As noted, Franklin considered himself a Deist, although not in the same vein as Thomas Paine who openly mocked Christianity.  Franklin made it clear that he did not believe the true Church of Jesus Christ was to be found on the earth at that time.  He noted the hypocrisy that he found among some who claimed to be religionists as a major reason for his decision to not attend public worship services.  He clearly taught us that true religion means doing good to all men.  Indeed, he retired from his business pursuits at age 42 and devoted the second half of his life to that very purpose.  While he rejected much of the Puritan dogma of salvation and hell, he very much demonstrated the Puritan faith in God as the wellspring of morality and goodness in men.  He believed that part of his purpose in life was to improve himself by hard work, diligence and his own efforts.  In other words, he believed that it was up to him to make something of his own life.  By almost all accounts, he did so admirably.  Benjamin Franklin was by far one of the most admired men at the time of his death as evidenced by the 20,000 people who attended his funeral and all the ministers of the city of Philadelphia who walked arm in arm to his graveside.

By no means should we assume that Franklin perfected his moral character in his mortal life.  It is clear that he was unable to adhere to the list of virtues he espoused by his own efforts.  At one time he advised us to wary of wine, women, food and the cloth (fine clothes), and yet he was known to indulge in all of them.  He drank too much, ate too much (and had gout), flirted and dressed well.  Yet, he gave so much to the founding of this nation and was a statesman extraordinaire.  Without his efforts, this nation might have been a very different place.  He became the powerful and so very influential man that he was not so much by the practice of religious behaviors or religiosity but by the practical application of the virtues that he defined early in his life.  His religion served him well and made him the man that he was.  He was a reasonable man.  He thought things out and let his reasoning powers guide his actions, unhampered by the prevailing religious dogma.

Franklin rejected dogma and much of the religious doctrine of his day.  His was a God of ethics, morality and civic virtue.  Because of his persuasive skills in helping to craft compromise, he was on occasion known as the prophet of tolerance.  His political influence was an extension of his religion, with the intention to do good works and help others to do so.  Later in his life he returned to a belief that organized religion could help to meet those aims of doing good.  His pragmatic view was that without such organized communities, men will not be motivated to do good things on their own (Isaacson 46).  His pragmatic ways also exhibited themselves when he said that he would soon know for himself concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ as he very much believed in an afterlife.  In other words, he expected to be able to ask him directly.  For a man who was not hobbled by the hand-clasping and soul-searching anxiety of some within the Puritan community, it did not seem to me that he rejected Jesus Christ as some have claimed.  He was just waiting for someone to introduce him properly.

It is my view that Franklin’s life was well spent in the service of his fellow man, something that was appreciated during his lifetime and that ensured him a great legacy that lives on today.  He did not worry himself about religious arguments that led to fruitless bickering among those who simply did not know how to live their lives in a manner that Jesus taught – to go about doing good things for others.  I think Franklin was a wise man in his religious views.  He did not offend and encouraged all with his generous contributions to the building of their churches and helping to publish their sermons.  I suspect that Franklin was amply rewarded when he entered the afterlife.  He was certain that God wanted him to be moral and virtuous.  He pursued that life and exhibited it by his actions.  It’s too bad that some today are insistent on proclaiming that our founding fathers were not religious men.  It is obvious to anyone who studies his life that Franklin was very religious, and in a very real way.  We would do well to follow his example and live our religions that way he lived his in service.

Sources:

McQuade, Donald, et al, eds.  The Harper Single Volume American Literature. 3rd ed. New York: Longman, 1999

Franklin Papers.  The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, digital edition, Yale University.
14 April 2010  http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp

Madison, James. Journal of the Federal Convention, ed. E. H. Scott, p. 763, 1893.  Notes at the closing of the Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 17, 1787.

McHenry, Dr. James. The American Historical Review, vol. 11. New York: 1906.

Isaacson, Walter.  Benjamin Franklin – An American Life.  New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003.

Mitt, if you read this, stay in the race

Ken Jennings recently wrote an opinion piece in the New York Daily News. If you’ll recall Ken Jennings is the Latter-day Saint who became somewhat famous after winning over two and a half million dollars on Jeopardy in 2004. He suggests that the only way to get Mormonism out of the race is for Mitt Romney to withdraw. That makes sense but I hope he doesn’t.

Mitt, if you read this, please stay in the race, all the way to the end. Being the smart man that you are, I’m sure you can appreciate how much good you are doing by being in the race. I believe the Church is receiving more attention than it ever has because you are running for the office of the President of the United States. Thank you Mitt Romney.

If Mitt Romney is elected to the office, it will restore my hope in the decency of the people of America. If not, it will only confirm what I have long suspected, that we are on a long slow slide to dissolution as a great nation. Don’t get me wrong. I love America and appreciate the benefits and blessings of living in this great land.

But win or lose, it is amazing to see the number of articles about the church in recent months. Yes, I agree with Ken that a lot of them are negative and full of lies, but hey, we are used to that, aren’t we? Ken points out two specifics that are particularly troubling lately – the sly innuendo by Mike Huckabee about Jesus and the devil being brothers and the tirade by Lawrence O’Donnell.

I wrote about this previously but I loved Ken’s response: “The truth, Huck, is that Mormons believe that God is the Father of us all, which does, I guess, in some sense, make Jesus and Satan brothers. And by the same logic, we also believe that Moses and Orville Redenbacher and Attila the Hun and Neil Diamond are brothers. Happy now?”

The opinion piece made big news in Utah, where a writeup of the column was the most popular news item for a few hours today on the Deseret News Web site. I am glad that Ken is speaking up. He is a high profile Latter-day Saint and is doing a good job of using his celebrity status. Thank you Ken. Well done. Those were good explanations offered.

The race for the office of the President to the United States really is a popularity contest, isn’t it? We vote for the man or woman who we think most represents us or who we feel can best lead the nation today. I’m still convinced that both Mitt represents me well and can do the best job of leading the nation. But will America feel the same way? I wonder.

What do you think? Should Mitt drop out of the race like Ken Jennings suggests? I agree that will probably stop the pundits from saying stupid things about Mormons. Do you feel as I do that no matter what they say, the attention helps bring the church more into the light?