The Saturday Club

 

 

 

 

Martin Duberman, James Russell Lowell (1966)

 

이 책에서 흥미롭게 읽은 것들 중 하나는

James Russell Lowell 이 회원이었던 Saturday Club 이야기다.

 

(John Wesley 의 'The Holy Club' 을 모델로 했던,

대학 2학년 때의 우리(다섯 명의?) 클럽이 생각난다. L 은

이번 한국 방문에서 만났을 때도 '홀리 클럽' 얘기를 꺼냈었다)

 

"The Saturday Club had an informal, almost accidental

beginning. To the extent that it had a founding father,

the credit probably goes to Emerson ...

 

"It was decided to dine together the last Saturday in

every month at the Parker House; there would be no written

rules and no records, a unanimous vote would be required to

elect a new member, the expense of each dinner would be

assessed on those present and guests would be

permitted -- each man paying for his own guests.

 

"In any case, the spectrum of views in the Saturday Club

was considerable. Though Lowell, Howe, Emerson, Longfellow

and Dana, for example, were all strongly antislavery, they

differed widely as to methods and timetables, ranging

from Longfellow's apolitical stance.

 

"The range of temperament was also considerable: Hawthorne,

silent, ... Longfellow, gentle, modest, sweet-tempered, remarkably

free of jealousy and spite, ... Homes, that miniature Voltaire,

ebullient, taut, youthfully egotistical, thrusting from his

tiny frame the large intellect and wit.

 

"Though conversation was almost always good-

natured, full of anecdote, sally, word play, there would be

disagreements of opinion and jostling of personality. Whipple

maintained that the club's very success was due to its being

'a society based on mutual repulsion ... it was ingeniously

supposed that persons  who looked on all questions of

science, theology, and literature from different points

of view would be the very person who would most

enjoy one another's company once a month ...'

... Agassiz [the most famous scientist of his day] and

Emerson would contest the merits of Darwin, the scientist

upholding man's special creation, and the transcendentalist

accepting man's common origin with the ape.

 

"Though the distinction of its membership is sufficient to

account for the club's brilliance, something more is needed

to explain its congeniality.... These men were one in

their assumption that there was an obligation at such

affairs to be not only interesting, but pleasant.

What might be lost in absolute honesty

was gained in geniality....

To reveal private intimacies cheapened the intimacies even

while embarrassing the listeners; to engage in tenacious debate

on public questions ruined what possibilities the occasion

offered for relaxation. In short, casual society should

be neither a confessional nor an arena.

 

"Social 'artificialities,' however, did not preclude

straightforwardness with intimates, nor even,

sometimes, in public print.

 

"The separation these men made between the private

and the social helps to explain why they kept

their socializing to a minimum."