Banned in Boston ": Moral Reform Politics and the New England Society for the Suppression of Vi^
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Church History 78:4 (December 2009), 814-846. © American Society of Church History, 2009 doi: 10.1017/S0009640709990539 "Banned in Boston ": Moral Reform Politics and the New England Society for the Suppression of Vi^ P. C. KEMENY FTER laboring on the outside margins of polite literary circles for his entire career, Walt Whitman traveled to Boston in August 1881 to oversee the Apublication of his Leaves of Grass. The poet was on the verge of enjoying the national reputation that had eluded him for so long. He viewed the publication of the seventh and definitive edition of Leaves of Grass by a leading Boston publisher, James R. Osgood and Company, as a vindication of his lifelong labor. Now Whitman was about to be ranked with other notable Osgood authors, including Henry James, William Dean Howells, and Mark Twain.^ To be sure, some of New England's most famous authors had admired Whitman's poetry. Perhaps the most distinguished author of the day to applaud Whitman's work was Ralph Waldo Emerson. After reading the first edition of Leaves of Grass in 1855, Emerson privately wrote that he found the twelve poems to be "the most extraordinary piece of wit and wisdom that America has yet contributed." Yet it was not only, as Charles Eliot Norton protested in an unsigned review in 1855, Whitman's "self-conceit," lack of rhyme, and "scorn for the wonted usages of good writing" that hindered his reputation. Whitman also celebrated sexuality, openly "singing of the phallus" and glorifying the "hymen!"-' According to Norton, Whitman mixed "Yankee transcendentalism and New York rowdyism."'* Other early critics ' I would like to thank my student assistants, Katherine Conley, Joel Musser, and Ben Wetzel, for their assistance and to express my gratitude to Gillis J. Harp, Jeanne H. Kilde, Bruce Kuklick, H. Collin Messer, Eric Potter, Gary Scott Smith, and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful criticisms of earlier drafts of this work. ^"Literary Notes," Boston Commonwealth, September 3, 1881, 3; Sylvester Baxter, "Walt Whitman in Boston," New England Magazine 6 (1892): 714-21. ^Walt Whitman, Leaves of Crass: Comprehensive Reader's Edition, ed. Harold W. Blogett and Sculley Bradley (New York: New York University Press, 1965), 91, 108. ''[Charles Eliot Norton], "Leaves of Grass," Putnam s Monthly 6 ( 1855): 321. While Norton wrote that he admired the "original perception of nature," "manly brawn," and "epic directness" of Whitman, P. C. Kemeny is Professor of Religion and Humanities at Grove City College. 814 BANNED IN BOSTON 815 were even less charitable. One reviewer dismissed Whitman's work as "a mass of stupid filth," and Charies Greenleaf Whittier reportedly tossed his copy of Leaves of Grass in his fireplace.^ Even Emerson had deep misgivings about the sexuality of some of Whitman's poems. When Whitman visited Boston in 1860 on the eve of the publication of the third edition oí Leaves of Grass, which included the grouping of twelve poems on sexuality entitled "Enfans d'Adam," Emerson spent two hours trying to convince him to exclude these poems. Emerson, Whitman later recalled, "did not see that if I had cut sex out I might just as well have cut everything out."'' When Emerson received a new edition oí Leaves of Grass in 1867 that still contained these poems, he asked a mutual friend to "tell Walt I am not satisfied."^ After that date Emerson's enthusiasm for Whitman cooled. Other poets of the genteel tradition, including Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, James Russell Lowell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, simply ignored Whitman.* Given Whitman's rather tepid reception from America's leading literary figures, having a distinguished Boston publisher issue the definitive edition oí Leaves of Grass was for him a personal and professional triumph. In his negotiations. Whitman was adamant that the "Children of Adam" cluster must be included. "Fair warning on one point," he wrote the publisher, "the old pieces, the sexuality ones, ... must go in the same as ever."' Upon completion, he threw a grand party for three hundred people. Whitman finally felt vindicated. As he told the Boston Daily Advertiser, he "could not wish for a more beautiful and comforting two months.""^ in a letter to James Russell Lowell he privately confessed, "One cannot leave it about for chance readers." He added that he "would be sorry to know that any woman had looked into it past the title-page. I have got a copy for you, for there are things in it you will admire." Charles Eliot Norton to James Russell Lowell, 23 September 1855, Letters of Charles Eliot Norton, 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1913), 1: 135. "'No, no,' Lowell replied, 'the kind ofthing you described won't do.'" James Russell Lowell to Charles Eliot Norton, 12 October 1855, Letters of James Russell Lowell, ed. Charles Eliot Norton, 3 vols. (1904; repn. New York: AJVIS 1966), 1:242. ^Rufiis M. Griswold, New York Criterion, November 10, 1855, in Walt Whitman, the Critical Heritage, ed. Milton Hindus (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971), 31; Horace Träubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden, 4 vols. (1905-1906; repn. New York: Rowman and Littlefield 1961), 1:127. •^Träubel, With Walt Whitman, 1:51. On the relationship between Whitman and Emerson, see David S. Reynolds, Walt Whitman's America: A Cultural Biography (New York: Knopf, 1995), 194. 'John Burroughs Diary, December 1871, quoted in Clara Barrus, Whitman and Burroughs: Comrades (1931; repr. Fort Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1968), 64. *Gay Wilson Allen, The Solitary Singer: A Critical Biography of Walt Whitman (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 174; F. Lannon Smith, "The American Reception oí Leaves of Grass- 1855- 1882," Walt Whitman Review 22 (1979): 153. 'Walt Whitman to James R. Osgood, 8 May 1881, The Correspondence of Walt Whitman, ed. Edwin Haviland Miller, 6 vols. (New York: New York University Press, 1961-1977), 3:224. '""Walt Whitman. A Poet's Supper to his Printers and Proof Readers." [Camden Post], [18 October 1881], Walt Whitman—A Series of Twenty-Three Newspaper Items with Notes by the 816 CHURCH HISTORY Whitman's long hoped for triumph, however, soon evoked controversy. "Our attention," Suffolk County (Boston) district attorney Oliver Stevens wrote James Osgood in March 1882, "has been officially directed to a certain book entitled Leaves of Grass: Walt Whitman published by you. We are of the opinion that this book is such a book as brings it within the provisions of the Public Statutes respecting obscene literature, and suggests the propriety of withdrawing the same from circulation and suppressing the editions thereof" Otherwise, Stevens threatened, the charge that the work violated the state's obscenity law "will have to be entertained."" The complaint originated with Frederick B. Allen, assistant rector at Phillips Brooks's Trinity Church and the secretary of the New England Society for the Suppression of Vice, a local affiliate of Anthony Comstock's New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. Whitman initially agreed to excise a few words from certain poems so long as it was done so "silently." But when he leamed that Osgood, at the district attomey's prompting, insisted that he expunge several entire poems, mostly from the "Children of Adam" cluster, he refused. Osgood, fearing prosecution, negotiated a settlement with Whitman. He withdrew the book from publication and gave Whitman one hundred dollars, the remaining 225 copies of the book, and the stereotype plates.'^ A bitteriy disappointed Whitman vowed to gain revenge. Besides unleashing his own coterie of militant devotees against the censorship activities of Stevens, Comstock, and the New England Society for the Suppression of Vice, Whitman found ready allies in Boston free thinker George Chainey and free love activists Benjamin R. Tucker and Ezra Heywood. Chainey proclaimed that the "Russian Czar was never guilty of greater wrong, nor Spanish Inquisitor of baser injustice."''' Tucker advertised Whitman's work in his periodical. Liberty, and brazenly challenged Stevens to prosecute him.''* Heywood also taunted the district attomey and Comstock Post. Excerpts from the Trent Collection of Whitmaniana located in the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library Duke University. "Oliver Stevens to James Osgood, 1 March 1882, The Complete Writings of Walt Whitman, ed. Richard Maurice Bucke, Thomas B. Hamed, and Horace L. Träubel, 10 vols. (1902; repr.. Brosse Pointe, MI: Scholarly Press, 1968), 8:289-90. 'Ajames Osgood to Walt Whitman, 4 March 1882, Complete Writings, 8:289; Walt Whitman to James Osgood, 7 March 1882, Complete Writings, 8:290; James Osgood to Walt Whitman, 21 March 1882, Complete Writings, 8:293-94; Walt Whitman to James Osgood, [23] March 1882, Complete Writings, 8:294; James Osgood to Walt Whitman, [29 March] 1881, Complete Writings, 8:295; Walt Whitman to James Osgood, March 1882, Complete Writings, 8:294; James Osgood to Walt Whitman, [10 April] 1882, Complete Writings, 8:296; Walt Whitman to James Osgood, 12 April 1882, Complete Writings, 8:296-97. '^George Chainey, "Keep Off the Grass," This Worid, June 17, 1882, 8, Container 22, Reel 13, Walt Whitman Papers in the Charles E. Feinberg Collection, Library of Congress. '"Advertisement, "Republished! The Suppressed Book!" Liberty, 22 July 1882, 2. BANNED IN BOSTON 817 in an "Open Letter to Walt Whitman" and published two of his banned poems. 15 When Heywood and Chainey were threatened with censorship, Whitman, ironically, declined to speak out publicly on their behalf. 1. PROTESTANT MORAL REFORMERS Late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century moral reformers have been the subject of several different historical interpretations. Most historians, as Alison M. Parker contends in her study of the censorship activity of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, view moral reformers as deluded and antiquated remnants of "Victorian prudery."'^ Historians have interpreted these moral reformers as the unenlightened opponents of free speech, a manifestation of status anxiety amid a rapidly changing culture, a movement of cultural elites anxiously defending their social status (and their sons) against immigrants, a backlash against growing women's rights, or a harbinger of feminist values.'^ William R.