resemblance to Christianity as does thenEthical Culture Society to Judaism. InnEmerson’s embrace of Unitarian principles,nhe rejected Christianity asnopenly as he dared. His DivinitynSchool Address in 1838 did this sontransparently that Harvard was barrednto him for a generation. (For a fullndiscussion of Emerson’s heresy, seenMarion Montgomery’s recent essay innModern Age.)nEmerson himself didn’t bother tonattend even Unitarian services. Afternhe no longer found the ministry necessarynas a livelihood, he stoppednusing its pulpits. He walked in thenwoods on Sunday, which better suitednhis Pantheism.n”Emerson’s youth was virtuous, his manhoodnproductive, his old age serene. Henwas faithful to his wife, affectionate to hisnchildren and generous to his friends.”nThe New York Times Book ReviewnHis career of apostasy was assisted,nbefore the Civil War, by the contrastnbetween his unvarying civility and thenhorrid ranting of a wide variety ofnreligious cranks who broke away fromntraditional Christian churches andnfaiths to embark on weird “crusades.”nThese campaigns—against coffee andntea, against dancing, against sports,nagainst tobacco, and against even thenmildest liquors—fit today’s stereotypenabout Calvinists more precisely thannthey do the real article at any time.nThe self-righteous methods of then”crusaders” disrupted churches, offendednolder members of congregations,nand provided material for anti-nChristians. The tracts and attitudes,narguments and disturbances of thenearly 19th-century cranks established anstereotype that was later fastened onn17th-century Puritans.nNineteenth-century apostates havenbeen held aloft as exemplars of Americanntolerance, and those whom theynattacked have been characterized asnspecimens of all that is bigoted, wrong,nand harmful in religion. The apostatesncould not have achieved this statusnfrom their own arguments or behavior,nof course. That gilding was done bynsuccessive waves of secularizing scholars,noperating from colleges and universitiesnthat were originally establishednand funded by Christiann12/CHH0NICLES OF CULTUREnecclesiastics. That the stereotypingnsucceeded as well as it has is simplynanother illustration of how victors rewritenhistory.nMcAleer’s hagiography is no exception.nTo McAleer, Emerson was ansaint. Professor McAleer softensnEmerson at every hard point. His approachnreminds me of the way Hollywoodnphotographed Marlene Dietrichn—through gauze. That comparisonncomes to mind because the professor,nbeing of our day and time, seems tontake a PBS documentary approach tonhis subject.nIn this approach, the reader isnshown Emerson under pink lights. Anseries of set pieces describe Emerson innrelation to each of his friends separately.nWe see Our Hero arrive in Scotlandnto be greeted by the Carlyles, whonare charmed. We are trotted throughnall their later contacts and told of thencoolness that developed. Carlyle’s debtnto Emerson is exaggerated, distortingnthe reality of their relationship. Carlyle,nsays Dr. McAleer, is in eclipsentoday. Perhaps he is—among the ignorant.nBut he will never fade fromnthe attention of the intellectual world.nHe was too honest and far too originalnin style for that. It is Emerson who hasnbecome a totem mummified bynschoolteachers and is no longer widelynread.nThe professor shuffles Emerson’snfriends like a deck of cards and dealsnthem out one by one. Each time thenreader has to go backward in the chronologynand struggle forward again.nThis repeated back-and-forth destroysncontinuity and creates a work thatnreads like a social calendar. This sparesnthe author the necessity of commentingnupon large events: the approachnrestricts the scene.nTherefore, the way in which thenNew England cranks combined in thenAbolitionist movement is an off-stagennonevent. Dr. McAleer describes, in ancarefully offhand manner, Emerson’snenthusiasm for the terrorist JohnnBrown. But he muffles its significance.nIt was Emerson’s change of faith thatnled him, by inexorable stages, intonsuch strange associations. His circlencame to believe that all is permitted inna good cause.nThe Committee of Six, known tonAmerican historians as the Secret Six,nare not mentioned in the text. There­nnnfore, the uninformed reader has nonway of knowing, from this work, hownclosely Emerson and Thoreau werenassociated with extremists. Thenteacher of the Emerson children,nFranklin Benjamin Sanborn, was annardent supporter of John Brown thenterrorist, and a member of the Six.nThomas Wentworth Higginson, anothernfallen minister, well-known innthe Emerson circle, was all out forn”dis-Union” and was a member of thenSix. The Rev. Theodore Parker, closento Emerson, funded and encouragednBrown and was a member of the Six.nThoreau’s part in the conversation andnreception Emerson gave John Brown isnunmentioned. That Thoreau put.nFrancis Merriam, one of Brown’snmen, on a train to Canada to assist hisnescape from the authorities after thenraid on Harper’s Ferry (in whichnMerriam participated) is omitted.nOf course, Emerson may not havenlost his faith: he may never havenhad any to begin with. Certainly thenease with which he stepped out of thenpulpit, once his inheritance from hisntubercular young bride was assured,nwould seem to indicate that. But it isnimportant, historically and culturally,nto note that the man who abandonedntraditional beliefs and their restraints,nwho spoke of the “Over-Soul” in termsnthat led directly to his admirer Nietzsche’snLJbermensch; the hero whonwould “transcend” old barriers endednup admiring a terrorist. Emerson’s hubrisnled him to accept the conceptninherent in the Hindu god Shiva, whoncombines both Good and Evil. Christianitynopposes Evil, but a Shiva worshiperncan achieve holiness throughneither Evil or Good. These are notnminor matters. Emerson and Transcendentalismnled to Nietzsche andnBeyond Good and Evil. In Emerson’snown time, his ideas led to terrorism atnHarper’s Ferry and the catalysis of angreat war. ccn