April 10, 2024 • 44 mins
----more----On July 4, 1863, Nathaniel Hawthorne was celebrating his 59th Birthday when he received a call from the future…
In this episode, Hawthorne will explain why his stories often leave you with more questions than answers. He’ll talk about the role he played in getting his good friend elected as the fourteenth president. And he’ll talk about his dark family history that inspired some of his most popular novels.
Start the episode now to join the conversation.
-----
Since 2018, Paul Riopelle has been portraying Nathaniel Hawthorne at The House of the Seven Gables in Salem, Massachusetts. He has also regularly appeared as the author at other historical Hawthorne sites, including The Old Manse and The Wayside in Concord. You can catch Paul in-person as Hawthorne in his one-man show, Haunted Fables at the Gables, presented each October at The House of the Seven Gables in Salem.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:28):
I'm Tony Dean.
And today we'll be calling historyto speak with Nathaniel Hawthorne.
He'll be answering our call on his59th birthday on July 4th, 1863.
On this day, America has just foughtone of the bloodiest battles of the
civil war in Gettysburg, despitehaving a reputation for writing
on the darker aspects of humanity,like sin and guilt and hypocrisy.
(00:51):
The death toll and the destructionof the civil war didn't cause
productive reflection thatwould inspire him to write.
Instead it paralyzed the creativitythat made Hawthorne unique.
Stories like the Scarlet letter in thehouse of the seven Gables were thought
provoking stories that explored thereasons people do what they do and
how they might react under intensepressure of guilt or the social
(01:15):
consequences of not following the crowd.
It was no wonder that he wasable to tap into this darkness,
considering that his distant relativewas one of the chief magistrates.
At the Salem witch trials.
But my favorite part of speaking withNathaniel Hawthorne is that he doesn't
tell us the ending of his stories.
Instead he presents thecharacters and their thoughts.
(01:36):
And then lets the reader judgea number of possible endings.
As he said it doesn't matter what youthink, what matters is that you think.
In his prime Hawthorne was surroundedby a community of brilliant writers
like Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo,Emerson, louisa may Alcott and Herman
Melville we should all be so luckyto be surrounded by such brilliance.
(01:58):
Yet, as of this recording, he istired and worn by a country divided.
And the magnitude of the deathas this country fights itself.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellow history,lovers, and dark romantics everywhere.
I give you Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Hello, is that you, Mr.
Hawthorne?
Yes.
(02:19):
Sir, I have been looking forward to this
conversation all day.
My name is Tony Dean, and I'm talking toyou from the future in the 21st century.
The device that you're holding is calleda smartphone, and it allows us to speak
as if we were Sitting next to each
other on the porch at wayside.
It also allows me to share a record of ourconversation with people around the world.
(02:41):
And I was hoping I canask you some questions
today, but before I do, I understand
this is a strange introduction.
Can I answer any questionsthat you might have first?
Well, I don't have any specific
questions for you, sir.
I hope that you'll forgive me if I'm
more than a bit skeptical about
Your claims of,
Calling from the future and so forth.
(03:02):
It sounds like something that Poemight write traveling through time,
this sort of thing , I hope you'llunderstand if I'm skeptical of this
Most definitely, but one thing is forsure with the kind of imagination that you
have based on the stories that
You've put on paper and
all these different themes
that that you've tackled,I suppose that when we
(03:22):
finish this call, you'llprobably look at this and not be
surprised something likethis could happen at all
because your imagination Ithink is greater than most.
The first question that Iwanted to ask you is that a lot
of people, when they think of yourstories, when they think of the
Scarlet Letter and they think ofthe House of Seven Gables , they
kind of, put some of your
(03:43):
writing in a category of,
they see gloom and they see, mortalityand they see, guilt and sin and the
supernatural aspects.
And yet, as
you look at all of the writing thatyou've done, your writing is all over the
place.
and.
One thing that comes to mind when I saythat is there was something that you wrote
called 20 days with Julian and
(04:05):
little bunny.
I mean, that's quite a bit
different than the Scarlet letter.
Can you tell me about that?
Well, that was actually an excerpt from a
personal family diary we keep a familydiary at all times that At any point
during the day, any family member Cango to the diary and make entries about
(04:26):
any of the most commonplace things thatmight have happened during the day.
Generally, it's Sophia andI, but sometimes the children
do make an entry or two.
Well, this particular journal was
the story that you'rereferring to was actually
never meant to
be published at all
It's from a
personal journal that waskept when my son Julian
(04:49):
was about five years of age, andmy my youngest child Rose, had just
been born, and Sophia wanted to take
Rose, the baby and her elder sisterUna to visit her relatives near Boston.
And so she left tomyself and my son alone.
We were living in Lennox, Massachusettsat the time in a little red
(05:13):
farmhouse rather isolated area.
And I don't believe I'd ever
been,
A single parent
before, as it were, I was at a bit of a
loss,
how
to deal with
This half cherub half imp
child by
myself.
And so, we had about three weeks
(05:33):
almost that Sophia and the girls were goneand it was just a record, a daily record I
kept of
our
adventures with the young.
Boy, and
we did all sorts of
things.
We would go gather the
milk every day and we wouldwalk into town and get the mail.
And Julian would have these ratherfantastical sword fights with the weeds
(05:59):
and we would sail newspaper boats on the
mill pond And
It was quite a bonding
experience
for a young father and
His child and
As you might imagine,
was a great deal of exasperation expressed
in those
pages as well.
So it reads rather comically but you'requite right in your assessment that
(06:19):
I've written many different kinds ofstories clearly best known for the
romance novels that I've written.
Scarlet Letter, House of the Seven Gables.
And those do, as you say, have avery gloomy atmospheres to them.
But I've written all sorts of children'sstories humorous sketches satirical
(06:44):
articles, and lots of stories aswell about our colonial history.
And so, I do appreciate the.
Acknowledgement of those differenttones in some of my other work.
Well, it does seem like
that once you get
good at something that peoplejust put you into a category and
they say, that's who you are.
I had this conversation with Poe
(07:06):
not too long ago, whichwas Very interesting.
And I found out that he wason the swim team in school.
And I mean, who in our time,
nobody would know
something like that.
Because when you see Poe, you seehim in a dark room with a candle
that is flickering for some odd knownreason with Ravens flying around and
(07:26):
everything's black.
And here's this guy having fun,hanging out with his crew on the swim
team.
And it's just a shame to seesomebody , like him and like
you get put into one category.
When you've done so much.
, that, makes me think of when you
wrote the, autobiography
of president Pierce,
wasn't it?
The biography, Yes.
This is a political piece.
(07:47):
This couldn't be more different than thisbook with Julian and the bunny and you
doing the Scarlet letter.
I mean,
what is your range?
What's next?
Are you going to be writing a book onbotany and astronomy and chemistry?
Is
that what's
next?
You know, It's very interesting,
More recent
years with the with the war raging now,
I've had a difficult
time
(08:07):
with my writing.
I'm rather disturbed and preoccupied
with what's happening
in our country.
and
I've started several
different new
romances at least threedifferent ones that
I'm sort of.
trying to work on
and I just can't seem
To make much progress on any of them.
(08:29):
I suppose I'm a little bit preoccupiedwith what's going on in the nation.
also I'm a very private person.
I don't care to speak too muchabout my personal health, but I
have had some health issues as wellthat have been a bit debilitating
. Things are always a little bit
different from when weare in our 50s compared to
(08:49):
when we're in our 20s, right?
You've, uh, you've saidseveral things there
that I'd like to address.
I want to go back.
First of all, you've mentioned theword romance and as I was reading and
learning about you, this came to mind.
Concept of writing
romance came up many times.
And then also,
Describing your work as a darkromance And when I think of romance, I
(09:13):
think of Jack andJill walking through The
forest, holding hands fallingin love and getting married.
And then I
saw the word dark romanceand I'm not a hundred
percent sure what that
means.
Can you explain what that, means to
you?
Indeed.
word romance in the way that I am
trying to employ it is not, as yousay, The sense of the word as being an
(09:40):
amorous affair between a man and a woman.
the Word romance is just a re imagination
of the word novel.
the Word novel has been used in what Iwould call the British style of writing,
which is mostly associated
with the events
of a story the events of a narrative.
(10:01):
The British writers, the Englishwriters many of whom I admire
greatly Sir Walter Scott among them.
You think about a novel like Ivanhoe and.
All of the chivalric events that take
place.
While those are very interesting Andworthwhile pieces of literature, as I
(10:22):
have approached my work, and certainly Mr.
Poe, shortly after we started workingon that, I think Melville was perhaps
influenced by some of our style.
I wanted to
make a
departure from the emphasis on the events.
, I was far more interestedin examining the motivations.
(10:47):
of my characters through theirpsychology, through their passions.
What was going on internallywith those characters.
And so, because it was a morepsychological approach to my
stories, I wanted to find a
different
term, that might suggest a little more
(11:09):
imagination , a little more of the
fantastical involved than just the events.
The word romance seems to me aperfect term because it suggests
both the actual events that aregoing on, but also a romantic or
(11:30):
fantastical
element to the work as well.
And so I use the term romance not tomean an amorous story, but rather to
telegraph to my readers that it's not justgoing to be about the external events.
It's going to also be, and largelybe about the internal motivations and
(11:55):
thoughts and feelings of the characters.
I believe that that was an innovation that
has been.
Somewhat credited to Mr.
Poe And myself
And
later
Mr.
Melville as a newinnovation in literature.
So when you are
writing about Hester Prynneand the Scarlet Letter,
(12:15):
You could say, womancheats on her husband hides
it, and then everybody eventuallyfinds out, but what you're
saying is you're writing
all
the thoughts and all the feelingsand the motivations, the intent,
you're writing the story of
everything that happened.
Behind the story.
You're like trying to spendall your time in the subtext.
(12:36):
Is that what
you're
saying?
it's true.
Certainly in, in any
of the novels written by anyof the great authors English Or
American you will find the occasionalreference to he thought this or
they felt that But I think inmuch of my work, and certainly Mr.
Pose who writes in the firstperson even more than I
(12:59):
do you will find that certainly in theScarlet Letter, We are constantly hearing
about what Hester is feeling , from onemoment to another what she is thinking,
how she is in her mind how she isinterpreting what is happening to her.
(13:19):
So it's not just what is saidand done, but what is felt.
And , I find that to befar more fascinating.
. Did
, the works that you
wrote in first person, do better
than the works that youdidn't write in that format?
Well, most of my
most of my work is
written in
rather an omniscient,
(13:39):
Voice.
So it would be third person, mostly.
I enjoy the other format.
But I I think because it's sort of like a
theatrical
director.
If
you're on the outside, , you havea wide scope of vision and you
can talk about how all of thecharacters feel from the inside.
(14:00):
When you're speaking from the firstperson, you can only observe What that
single person is thinking and feeling.
And so, I generally write in arather omniscient third person voice.
Although there are several of my short
stories to be sure that are written
from a sort of unnamed narrator's
(14:24):
point of view.
Generally people.
realize it's a very thinly veiledinterpretation of my own thoughts.
, You've mentioned Mr.
Post several times, and he
certainly spent some of his time
writing critiques of other
people's work.
Have you spent time doing that as well?
I'm far more
interested in my own writing
(14:46):
And the critics I have mixedfeelings about the critics , I will
tell you a funny story about Mr.
Poe, you know, he's an odd bird,
that
Poe.
He
actually
wrote a review of
of one
of my works.
He wrote a review of my first collectionof short stories called twice told tales.
(15:09):
And I'm sorry to say I never
met
Mr.
Poe, never got to shake his hand.
But people often ask
if we were associates or friendsbecause our writing is very
similar in style and nature.
I did write Mr.
Poe a letter
or two expressing my admiration of his
craft.
(15:29):
But this
review he wrote was a veryinteresting piece of criticism.
He started off
Sort of praising my work and being
very complimentary, and
then he sort of
digressed
into intimations that I mighthave plagiarized a tale or two,
and that
(15:50):
My subjects were not varied
enough that I was, if you can believe this
coming from Poe, that I was too
melancholy in my tone.
He was, he's a total
contradiction,
that man, but it's impossible not toread his work and be entirely impressed.
(16:10):
I mean, he is quite a genius in his craft.
I suppose you could
say that it's an honor tobe just critiqued by him.
It's an interesting experience,
To be sure.
Okay.
When you had said that he's acontradiction, a lot of people say that
about your stories sometimesthey'll get to the end.
And it appears you as the
(16:31):
author are trying
to
make a point, but it might be both
points, or maybe you'rejust trying to leave it
up to the audience.
Is this something that you were
intentionally
It's true.
One of my favorite
tools to use as a writer is ambiguityor leaving the reader uncertain.
I often say what fun is givingyou one ending when I can
(16:53):
give you two possible options or more.
, To me, in the end, it doesn't really matter
what
you think.
It only matters that
you think.
And so, yes, I think it's
great
fun to leave the audience to
make up their own
minds about the meaningor the interpretation of
an ending.
(17:14):
or even of a whole tale.
One of my
more famous short stories is atale called the minister's black
veil.
And it's about this
Puritan minister who wearsthis black veil over his face.
Through his entire lifetime, andit's confuses his congregation.
(17:38):
And several people plead with him tolet us know the meaning behind this.
Why are you
wearing this Why won't youallow us to see your face?
And at least tell uswhat your reasoning is.
And he never Reveals his reason forthis black veil and on his deathbed.
(18:02):
One of his associates goes toreveal it saying, With your dying
breath, at least tell us what it is.
And he catches his friend's hand, andhe refuses to let him remove the veil.
And you never learn in the game.
In the tale, what the reasonis for for him wearing it.
(18:24):
And so I leave it up to my readers toread into the rest of the story and make
their own conclusions about why might thisman who is trying to lead a noble life,
a holy life to be a supportiveshepherd of his flock.
Why would he wear thisthroughout his life.
(18:46):
And I just find it veryinteresting the diverse reasons
that people might come up with.
It resonates
with different people in different ways.
And so if I can offer questionsfor my readers, I don't necessarily
need to give them the answers.
They can provide theanswers for themselves.
(19:08):
After speaking with somany writers and I, write a
little bit
myself, one thing that appears to
be consistent is that
oftentimes when a writer is writing
their character will dosomething and the writer
will sit back and say,
well, I didn't know he was going to
do that.
I'm sure, I imagine
you probably
relate to what I'm talking about.
And so that raises thequestion in this instance
(19:30):
of the,
minister's black veil,
do you know why
he didn't
raise the veil?
Well, the, it has been speculated that thetale was based upon a real life minister
who wore somethingsimilar throughout much of
(19:50):
His life.
Before his
congregation, And I have never admitted
to basing the story onthat real life incident.
Nor will I admit to
that here.
He was suspected of having, thisreal life minister was suspected
of having killed a friend,
(20:13):
in a quarrel
early in his youth.
And,
this was his penance for that act.
And so again, I leave it to my readers to
examine
in their own
lives, what it is that they may be
ashamed of, what they may berepentant for in their lives,
(20:39):
Why they might do the same
thing?
indeed.
So a writer,
my opinion, writes what they know.
And
as I
look at you seeing both
sides of maybe seeing many
sides of a story like this,I'm wondering if that's how
you feel about
a lot of the
(20:59):
things that you're dealing with.
So, I mean, right now, if my timing isright, you're right in the middle of war
in the United States, and there's the
issue
of slavery that is still being dealt with.
Do you find on a lot of these
difficult issues that youfind yourself on both sides?
It's
a very fair question, and,
As I have said earlier, I have
(21:20):
been very
disturbed by this war between our states
and how it's tearing thefabric of our country apart.
I find it very regrettable and yet I
I have
sympathies on both sides.
I am a fairly devout JacksonianDemocrat by which I mean,
(21:42):
That I believe very
strongly in things like theexpansion of the country manifest
destiny and particularly states'
rights the right of the states to.
Decide issues of their own personaleconomy and traditions and their
local lifestyles for themselves,because I, as a northerner, and
(22:05):
particularly as a New Englander havea, completely different lifestyle
than someone in the middlestates or certainly in
the
southern states at thatsame time That's not
to intimate that I'm somehow pro slavery?
I
recognize that it
is a a deeply immoral issue.
(22:26):
But I also consider national unityat least as important an issue.
And I think a majority of NorthernersHere may feel the same way now, I
know that I certainly have a number ofassociates who are staunch abolitionists
(22:46):
Thoreau to be sure we've discovered thatwe cannot speak on the topic of abolition
be because Oh, the man
Will never stop and he certainly tries
to convert me every time we broachthe subject but I now avoid
it.
Just last year I published
(23:06):
an
article
about the war calledchiefly about war matters.
And it was chiefly about.
War matters.
It's a perfect
I, I wanted to I wanted tosee the effects of the war
for myself sort of a little more
closely.
And so I, traveled to Washington DC.
(23:27):
I met with some of the
generals of our union army.
And ultimately I, I also met withpresident Lincoln and I suppose that's
They thought, and most of my northernfriends thought, and certainly my
publisher thought, that I might write anarticle that was very pro Union and pro
(23:50):
Lincoln.
And and it was not that.
I did not write that.
I wrote what I felt.
Which was I decried.
The war in general, which is not sucha popular opinion here in the north.
It's in fact, it's a rare
opinion in the north.
And I expressed some sympathyfor the southern states.
(24:17):
And in particular I wrote someless than flattering descriptions
of
president Lincoln.
I found him to be
an affable man,
Very amiable uh, certain wisdom to him.
But he was also extremely homelyman very rustic in his manners,
(24:38):
a total lack of refinement.
And
a sort of backwoods characterto the man that was disarming
for someone who is the leader
of our nation.
I certainly think that the man has
a, there's a slyness
to him.
(24:58):
There is a, a sort of whatWhat I would call a cunning.
To Lincoln?
That I,
cunning.
sir.
No, sir.
Not at all.
I would say a man who has wisdom,but in a disarming way because of
his rustic.
manner.
One would not assume that the manis very intelligent, and yet behind
(25:24):
those sort of deep set eyes is a, there'sa slyness, there's a wisdom there.
He's the kind of leader who,
would not make a full
bull run frontal assault on an enemy.
He would be
much more clever than that.
He would
sneak around to the flank and attackfrom the sides or behind them.
(25:49):
This is what I mean by that.
And this is not the kind ofthing that you would expect
from the man when youmeet him who tells endless
stories and anecdotes and,
I don't know.
Is,
Completely without refinement.
Forgive me, but he is.
. As you're describing him, The word that was in
(26:10):
my head, I just kept hearing the word sly.
And then eventually you
did say that word describing him.
So as
you're
talking about Lincoln, I'msurprised that you didn't
write something flattering because myunderstanding of Lincoln is that he is
not the guy that doesthe full frontal assault.
As you've said, he's more of theguy that tries to find a way.
(26:32):
To get something done creativelyusing cunning, as you've said, but
also it seems that Lincoln was, as youwere, about unity being his primary
goal above anything else To keep the
nation together, which seems like
that is something thatwas important to you.
So you've got a leader thatis honest and wise and cunning
(26:57):
and about the unity of the
country.
Thank you.
I guess
what I'm wondering, what elsewould you be looking for?
It sounds like that's
exactly what you'd be
looking
Well, I take exception
to the fact that you said that I
didn't write somethingflattering about him.
My editor,
Asked
me
To
edit
out some of my descriptions
of the president.
When I
(27:17):
felt that
the descriptions that I made wereamong the most honest and well
crafted parts of, my article.
I did in fact
give Lincoln A great deal ofcredit and wound up at the
very end of my description.
Summarizing the fact that I hada good deal of fondness for Mr.
(27:37):
Lincoln and respect forhim and found him to be
As good a man in the job as any thatcould have been chosen for the job.
It's simply the more physical attributesand the sort of rustic descriptions
(27:57):
that I made of the president thatseemed to jar , both my editors
and upset some of my Northern readers
I see.
So if you had been walking along
and Lincoln wasn't thepresident and you saw
him shoveling manure
just based on his demeanor, that
wouldn't have surprised you, hewould have fit there just as well
(28:20):
as anywhere
else.
And I think Mr.
Lincoln would,
might be the first
person to agree with that as well.
Okay.
So,
About the war I, find it
interesting when youwere talking about states
rights and it makes a lot of
sense.
Where.
The rules for
the North, which are not reliant ongrowing things as much as they are in the
(28:42):
South,
it really doesn't make a lot of sense for
the rules to be the same in
the South and the North.
and, yet, you have this
complex issue of
slavery.
You also don't
want to make human beings property.
And so it certainly is a complex issue.
But I guess what I'mwondering is that you're
saying that you're against the
war.
At least I
think that's
what you're
saying.
(29:02):
What is the other option if the two
sides don't agree?
Is the option
For the union to split?
Well, I think you have,
In our Congress and in our union
Just prior to the secession you have Anation full of the brightest minds and
(29:22):
no one seemed to be able to come up witha more efficient answer than secession.
There was
the Missouri Compromise , I don'tknow if your listeners know much
about that old statute, but itwas it was a law on the books that
Limited slavery in the new U.
(29:45):
S.
territories as we expanded west andSlavery was not allowed in most of
the parts of the Louisiana Purchase.
Well, when My dear friend, FranklinPierce, who is also a Jacksonian
Democrat and also believes verystrongly in states rights went
(30:06):
into office and became president.
He repealed the Missouri Compromise and
he signed a law called the
Kansas Nebraska Act, whichallowed slavery to be determined
by the popular sovereignty orthe local vote of each state.
He also did allow renewedenforcement of the
(30:29):
Fugitive Slave Act for thosestates that did have slavery as
an institution in their states.
And these policies I'm sure in someeffect did sort of bring our country
a little further down the road of war
Do you think that
(30:49):
Pierce was a good president?
I believe that Pierce
is a good man
And I believe that hewas the man for the job
At the time.
That is the argument that I made in my
campaign biography of him.
I believe that he is a good man with a
good heart.
(31:09):
I, obviously, I agree
with most of his political philosophies.
And
I believe what he believed,
which is that
the institution of slavery,while very regrettable,
is
not an institution thatwas able to be remedied by
(31:32):
what I call human contrivances.
That
As you said earlier, it Is
not an easy
question to be answered.
and so
both the Democrats and the Whigs fora great long period of time, sort of
tacitly agreed that slavery was notan ideological issue that should be
(31:54):
tackled.
That somehow it would workitself out and it would simply.
no longer be an issue eventually.
And this was the policy that wastaken both by the Democrats and the
Whigs for a great deal of time.
And I believe
that when Pierce came into office
(32:15):
his intention was to keep that policygoing, which is to allow states
to choose for themselves what wasbest for their particular needs.
State, their particular locality, andnot to have the federal government make
(32:36):
a blanket policy, one way or the other.
, some have said that the
biography that you wrote of
About him played a
large role in him beingelected, but then have also
said
that you being his friend, I understandgoing to college with him that you
left out some important detailsthat the people needed to know, like
he was an alcoholic and lacked
(32:59):
courage.
What would you say about
that?
Well, who is to judge who is an alcoholic?
Certainly Pierce likes his
drink and I,
I do not judge my friends based
upon their own particularhabits or weaknesses.
He has been accused of having adrinking problem, and I simply
(33:21):
chose not to address that?
at all.
Because I don't feel that it hasclouded his political integrity at all.
And that is what the book wasabout his fitness to be president.
My brother
in law, Horace Mann, who is astaunch abolitionist as well.
(33:42):
He was furious at the campaignbiography I wrote and said, how can
you write this about this man whois pro slavery and that he is the
right man for the job and so forth.
And I had other friends say, if youtry to make this Pierce out to be a
(34:03):
great man it'll be a ridiculous thing.
Well, I never say
in the biography that,
he's a great man.
I say that he
is.
The man
for the job.
And I do believe
that?
So, you and
president Pierce
went to college together and didn't you go
(34:23):
to college with some
other people that would become big name
writers?
Certainly Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow was
in my class, yes.
And also Horatio Bridgewas in our class as well.
So yes, there were several men whobecame luminaries in their fields.
Do you think that it
(34:44):
was just
luck that somebody like you would,
Grow up?
Whether we're talking about incollege or we're talking about
when you were living near Emerson andThoreau, , You were around so many of
these
brilliant people of
(35:04):
this time.
I think you even spent
some time near
Louisa Alcott.
Is that her
name?
Louise May Alcott, yes, andher father Bronson sold us the
wayside, sold us the house.
We live next door to them.
Did you benefit from thesepeople being around you?
Did You
benefit from being around them?
, who was the big influence of this
circle?
I think , certainly Emerson was the one
(35:27):
who everyone seemed to worship.
I have my own
opinions about
Emerson.
We became sort of friendlyrivals as opposed to friends.
I was certainly much closer andmore comfortable with Thoreau.
But I think there was, as you say,
there
was
a
community of writers.
Margaret
(35:47):
Fuller was,
Was with us as well.
And I
think that there was a spirit
among all of us to sort of talk aboutliterature and talk about the great
lofty ideas and often have debates.
As I say,
Thoreau and I we,
(36:07):
had a few debates aboutslavery and abolitionism
And we found we couldn't speak about that
anymore, but I think the community
and the spirit of Concord was.
one that
Was very
symbiotic for the authors.
We supported each other'spursuits whether we had the
(36:27):
same ideals or
not, it's very interesting.
People sometimes wish to group me in withthe transcendentalists, and I understand
a part of that because I did verybriefly take part in a transcendentalist
commune experiment called Brook Farm.
(36:49):
It was actually the experiences I hadat Brook Farm actually were the basis of
my third novel, The Blythe Dale Romance.
But it was very short
lived and I
found,
The sort of blind
optimism of the Transcendentalists tonot suit my own character or viewpoints.
(37:10):
And that
is when I broke off and began
to write in my own , touse your term, a darker
way focusing on moregloomy elements of the
human psyche.
as you say, the sin and
guilt and judgment and evil.
All the things that if we'rebeing honest, people find
(37:31):
interesting
I,
as with the issue of slaveryor anything else, I see sides
the light and the dark.
I certainly admire both
sides.
The gifts of Emersonand Thoreau but I find
The shadow side of our natureto be more interesting, at least
(37:53):
in terms of my own writing.
, why do
you write?
Why do I write?
Well, it's interesting.
I, I've often Said that becauseof my private nature, it's
one of the reasons that I was
likely drawn to writing, as a career.
It's a very solitary profession.
Perhaps the most solitaryprofession that there is.
(38:15):
You don't have to deal with anybody,but your own thoughts and imagination
and the characters in your mind.
I'm a terribly private person, reclusive.
I've been called misanthropic.
And I would likely agreewith all of those adjectives.
Painfully shy as a
(38:37):
child and even into adulthood.
And I think
one of the reasons why I was drawn towriting was that it was a way to be
with people that I was comfortable with
that I created in my own head anddid not have to interact with other.
(38:58):
say, real personalities.
Also, I think that as a child,
I was rather smothered and sequesteredby my mother and my sisters.
My father,
Nathaniel senior was,
A ship captain and
, Unfortunately he died of yellow fever.
(39:18):
In the West Indies when Iwas four years of age, he was
on a voyage and I, I never knew him.
And so, being the only boy inmy family, I had two sisters.
My mother and my sisters were very
protective of me and
it was a rather sheltered childhood.
(39:39):
I was certainly not particularly athletic.
I was injured in a In a bat andball accident when I was very
young and,
Sort of injured my leg ratherbadly and stayed for most of the
next five or six years in my room.
In this house
(40:00):
that I referred to asCastle Dismal in Salem.
You just disappeared?
You just decided you're not going to go.
outside anymore?
You got, you have an injured
leg?
Was it
broken?
Was there, did the doctors
do something
about
, after it healed they could notfind anything further wrong with
me, although I think I justretreated I retreated after that
(40:23):
accident.
And certainly probably even before I was
not a very Gregarious child, whichis one of the things that I liked
so much about Pierce was he was a, anextremely outgoing, gregarious, charming
man, and I think he helped to bring thatside out in me when I did eventually
(40:44):
leave Salem and attend college in Maine.
But yes for all of those years nearly, Adecade in total I was largely sequestered
away and and I preferred it that way.
And so I suppose writing was my way toemploy my imagination with all sorts
(41:04):
of fantasy characters of my own making.
So I want to go back for a minute.
You
had mentioned Brook Farm, this
commune, this seems like astrange place for you to end up.
And did you invest some money in this?
, what did it look like?
What were you doing there?
What were you expectingand what actually happened?
(41:24):
I, did in fact invest some money.
I invested a thousand dollars,
which was no small investment
at the time.
and it was not because as I mentionedbefore I never, I truly agreed
with all of the philosophies ofthe Transcendentalist movement.
In fact, Sophia was much more attractedto the philosophies than I was.
(41:50):
But saw it as an
opportunity to earn a lot of money in ashort period of time so that I could marry
Sophia.
It was actually a,
money making venture.
And out on the farm,everybody was assigned
certain duties.
At first , in my enthusiasm forthe new surroundings, I enjoyed the
(42:14):
manual
work.
That did
not last very long.
That enthusiasm died fairly quickly.
When I was assigned
to be the shoveler of
manure in a large
pile, a
large area that
they
referred to as the gold mine.
(42:35):
And
it, did
not take long
for me to weary of that . and realizethat between the philosophy itself, which
I had not ever truly espoused myselfand the rather grueling manual labor I
left in November of that same year.
I
(42:57):
the gold mine I, to me, thatsounds like good writing.
Because
what people accuse you of doing for
Franklin Pierce is what they
did to make shoveling manuresound like it was a good job.
take a bit of exception aboutwhat you say about Pierce, but I
appreciate the analogy.
, So,
how many months did you actually stay
there?
(43:17):
It was March
to March or April to November.
So six or seven months,
Oh, I see.
And then you just, it just
wasn't your thing.
So what's the year right now and the day?
Today is actually the 4th of July.
It's 1863.
Today is happens to be my birthday.
(43:37):
And Yes.
We are squarely in the thick of the.
Nathaniel Hawthorne's connectionto the Salem witch trials, almost
guaranteed that his most popular workswould take place during that time.
And yet he was not all doom and gloom.
He wrote children's stories, satire, andeven wrote the biography that might've
(43:57):
elected a president Despite being able towrite nearly anything in the next episode,
he'll talk about the current state ofevents that have stifled his creativity.
He'll also talk about hisrelationship with the writer
of Moby Dick Herman Melville.
And the inspiration forsome of his darkest stories.
I'm glad you're enjoying this podcast.
If you haven't yet subscribed now,and we'll see you at the next episode
(44:21):
of the calling history podcast withpart two of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I'm Tony Dean.
And today we'll be calling historyto speak with Nathaniel Hawthorne.
He'll be answering our call on his59th birthday on July 4th, 1863.
On this day, America has just foughtone of the bloodiest battles of the
civil war in Gettysburg, despitehaving a reputation for writing
on the darker aspects of humanity,like sin and guilt and hypocrisy.
(00:51):
The death toll and the destructionof the civil war didn't cause
productive reflection thatwould inspire him to write.
Instead it paralyzed the creativitythat made Hawthorne unique.
Stories like the Scarlet letter in thehouse of the seven Gables were thought
provoking stories that explored thereasons people do what they do and
how they might react under intensepressure of guilt or the social
(01:15):
consequences of not following the crowd.
It was no wonder that he wasable to tap into this darkness,
considering that his distant relativewas one of the chief magistrates.
At the Salem witch trials.
But my favorite part of speaking withNathaniel Hawthorne is that he doesn't
tell us the ending of his stories.
Instead he presents thecharacters and their thoughts.
(01:36):
And then lets the reader judgea number of possible endings.
As he said it doesn't matter what youthink, what matters is that you think.
In his prime Hawthorne was surroundedby a community of brilliant writers
like Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo,Emerson, louisa may Alcott and Herman
Melville we should all be so luckyto be surrounded by such brilliance.
(01:58):
Yet, as of this recording, he istired and worn by a country divided.
And the magnitude of the deathas this country fights itself.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellow history,lovers, and dark romantics everywhere.
I give you Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Hello, is that you, Mr.
Hawthorne?
Yes.
(02:19):
Sir, I have been looking forward to this
conversation all day.
My name is Tony Dean, and I'm talking toyou from the future in the 21st century.
The device that you're holding is calleda smartphone, and it allows us to speak
as if we were Sitting next to each
other on the porch at wayside.
It also allows me to share a record of ourconversation with people around the world.
(02:41):
And I was hoping I canask you some questions
today, but before I do, I understand
this is a strange introduction.
Can I answer any questionsthat you might have first?
Well, I don't have any specific
questions for you, sir.
I hope that you'll forgive me if I'm
more than a bit skeptical about
Your claims of,
Calling from the future and so forth.
(03:02):
It sounds like something that Poemight write traveling through time,
this sort of thing , I hope you'llunderstand if I'm skeptical of this
Most definitely, but one thing is forsure with the kind of imagination that you
have based on the stories that
You've put on paper and
all these different themes
that that you've tackled,I suppose that when we
(03:22):
finish this call, you'llprobably look at this and not be
surprised something likethis could happen at all
because your imagination Ithink is greater than most.
The first question that Iwanted to ask you is that a lot
of people, when they think of yourstories, when they think of the
Scarlet Letter and they think ofthe House of Seven Gables , they
kind of, put some of your
(03:43):
writing in a category of,
they see gloom and they see, mortalityand they see, guilt and sin and the
supernatural aspects.
And yet, as
you look at all of the writing thatyou've done, your writing is all over the
place.
and.
One thing that comes to mind when I saythat is there was something that you wrote
called 20 days with Julian and
(04:05):
little bunny.
I mean, that's quite a bit
different than the Scarlet letter.
Can you tell me about that?
Well, that was actually an excerpt from a
personal family diary we keep a familydiary at all times that At any point
during the day, any family member Cango to the diary and make entries about
(04:26):
any of the most commonplace things thatmight have happened during the day.
Generally, it's Sophia andI, but sometimes the children
do make an entry or two.
Well, this particular journal was
the story that you'rereferring to was actually
never meant to
be published at all
It's from a
personal journal that waskept when my son Julian
(04:49):
was about five years of age, andmy my youngest child Rose, had just
been born, and Sophia wanted to take
Rose, the baby and her elder sisterUna to visit her relatives near Boston.
And so she left tomyself and my son alone.
We were living in Lennox, Massachusettsat the time in a little red
(05:13):
farmhouse rather isolated area.
And I don't believe I'd ever
been,
A single parent
before, as it were, I was at a bit of a
loss,
how
to deal with
This half cherub half imp
child by
myself.
And so, we had about three weeks
(05:33):
almost that Sophia and the girls were goneand it was just a record, a daily record I
kept of
our
adventures with the young.
Boy, and
we did all sorts of
things.
We would go gather the
milk every day and we wouldwalk into town and get the mail.
And Julian would have these ratherfantastical sword fights with the weeds
(05:59):
and we would sail newspaper boats on the
mill pond And
It was quite a bonding
experience
for a young father and
His child and
As you might imagine,
was a great deal of exasperation expressed
in those
pages as well.
So it reads rather comically but you'requite right in your assessment that
(06:19):
I've written many different kinds ofstories clearly best known for the
romance novels that I've written.
Scarlet Letter, House of the Seven Gables.
And those do, as you say, have avery gloomy atmospheres to them.
But I've written all sorts of children'sstories humorous sketches satirical
(06:44):
articles, and lots of stories aswell about our colonial history.
And so, I do appreciate the.
Acknowledgement of those differenttones in some of my other work.
Well, it does seem like
that once you get
good at something that peoplejust put you into a category and
they say, that's who you are.
I had this conversation with Poe
(07:06):
not too long ago, whichwas Very interesting.
And I found out that he wason the swim team in school.
And I mean, who in our time,
nobody would know
something like that.
Because when you see Poe, you seehim in a dark room with a candle
that is flickering for some odd knownreason with Ravens flying around and
(07:26):
everything's black.
And here's this guy having fun,hanging out with his crew on the swim
team.
And it's just a shame to seesomebody , like him and like
you get put into one category.
When you've done so much.
, that, makes me think of when you
wrote the, autobiography
of president Pierce,
wasn't it?
The biography, Yes.
This is a political piece.
(07:47):
This couldn't be more different than thisbook with Julian and the bunny and you
doing the Scarlet letter.
I mean,
what is your range?
What's next?
Are you going to be writing a book onbotany and astronomy and chemistry?
Is
that what's
next?
You know, It's very interesting,
More recent
years with the with the war raging now,
I've had a difficult
time
(08:07):
with my writing.
I'm rather disturbed and preoccupied
with what's happening
in our country.
and
I've started several
different new
romances at least threedifferent ones that
I'm sort of.
trying to work on
and I just can't seem
To make much progress on any of them.
(08:29):
I suppose I'm a little bit preoccupiedwith what's going on in the nation.
also I'm a very private person.
I don't care to speak too muchabout my personal health, but I
have had some health issues as wellthat have been a bit debilitating
. Things are always a little bit
different from when weare in our 50s compared to
(08:49):
when we're in our 20s, right?
You've, uh, you've saidseveral things there
that I'd like to address.
I want to go back.
First of all, you've mentioned theword romance and as I was reading and
learning about you, this came to mind.
Concept of writing
romance came up many times.
And then also,
Describing your work as a darkromance And when I think of romance, I
(09:13):
think of Jack andJill walking through The
forest, holding hands fallingin love and getting married.
And then I
saw the word dark romanceand I'm not a hundred
percent sure what that
means.
Can you explain what that, means to
you?
Indeed.
word romance in the way that I am
trying to employ it is not, as yousay, The sense of the word as being an
(09:40):
amorous affair between a man and a woman.
the Word romance is just a re imagination
of the word novel.
the Word novel has been used in what Iwould call the British style of writing,
which is mostly associated
with the events
of a story the events of a narrative.
(10:01):
The British writers, the Englishwriters many of whom I admire
greatly Sir Walter Scott among them.
You think about a novel like Ivanhoe and.
All of the chivalric events that take
place.
While those are very interesting Andworthwhile pieces of literature, as I
(10:22):
have approached my work, and certainly Mr.
Poe, shortly after we started workingon that, I think Melville was perhaps
influenced by some of our style.
I wanted to
make a
departure from the emphasis on the events.
, I was far more interestedin examining the motivations.
(10:47):
of my characters through theirpsychology, through their passions.
What was going on internallywith those characters.
And so, because it was a morepsychological approach to my
stories, I wanted to find a
different
term, that might suggest a little more
(11:09):
imagination , a little more of the
fantastical involved than just the events.
The word romance seems to me aperfect term because it suggests
both the actual events that aregoing on, but also a romantic or
(11:30):
fantastical
element to the work as well.
And so I use the term romance not tomean an amorous story, but rather to
telegraph to my readers that it's not justgoing to be about the external events.
It's going to also be, and largelybe about the internal motivations and
(11:55):
thoughts and feelings of the characters.
I believe that that was an innovation that
has been.
Somewhat credited to Mr.
Poe And myself
And
later
Mr.
Melville as a newinnovation in literature.
So when you are
writing about Hester Prynneand the Scarlet Letter,
(12:15):
You could say, womancheats on her husband hides
it, and then everybody eventuallyfinds out, but what you're
saying is you're writing
all
the thoughts and all the feelingsand the motivations, the intent,
you're writing the story of
everything that happened.
Behind the story.
You're like trying to spendall your time in the subtext.
(12:36):
Is that what
you're
saying?
it's true.
Certainly in, in any
of the novels written by anyof the great authors English Or
American you will find the occasionalreference to he thought this or
they felt that But I think inmuch of my work, and certainly Mr.
Pose who writes in the firstperson even more than I
(12:59):
do you will find that certainly in theScarlet Letter, We are constantly hearing
about what Hester is feeling , from onemoment to another what she is thinking,
how she is in her mind how she isinterpreting what is happening to her.
(13:19):
So it's not just what is saidand done, but what is felt.
And , I find that to befar more fascinating.
. Did
, the works that you
wrote in first person, do better
than the works that youdidn't write in that format?
Well, most of my
most of my work is
written in
rather an omniscient,
(13:39):
Voice.
So it would be third person, mostly.
I enjoy the other format.
But I I think because it's sort of like a
theatrical
director.
If
you're on the outside, , you havea wide scope of vision and you
can talk about how all of thecharacters feel from the inside.
(14:00):
When you're speaking from the firstperson, you can only observe What that
single person is thinking and feeling.
And so, I generally write in arather omniscient third person voice.
Although there are several of my short
stories to be sure that are written
from a sort of unnamed narrator's
(14:24):
point of view.
Generally people.
realize it's a very thinly veiledinterpretation of my own thoughts.
, You've mentioned Mr.
Post several times, and he
certainly spent some of his time
writing critiques of other
people's work.
Have you spent time doing that as well?
I'm far more
interested in my own writing
(14:46):
And the critics I have mixedfeelings about the critics , I will
tell you a funny story about Mr.
Poe, you know, he's an odd bird,
that
Poe.
He
actually
wrote a review of
of one
of my works.
He wrote a review of my first collectionof short stories called twice told tales.
(15:09):
And I'm sorry to say I never
met
Mr.
Poe, never got to shake his hand.
But people often ask
if we were associates or friendsbecause our writing is very
similar in style and nature.
I did write Mr.
Poe a letter
or two expressing my admiration of his
craft.
(15:29):
But this
review he wrote was a veryinteresting piece of criticism.
He started off
Sort of praising my work and being
very complimentary, and
then he sort of
digressed
into intimations that I mighthave plagiarized a tale or two,
and that
(15:50):
My subjects were not varied
enough that I was, if you can believe this
coming from Poe, that I was too
melancholy in my tone.
He was, he's a total
contradiction,
that man, but it's impossible not toread his work and be entirely impressed.
(16:10):
I mean, he is quite a genius in his craft.
I suppose you could
say that it's an honor tobe just critiqued by him.
It's an interesting experience,
To be sure.
Okay.
When you had said that he's acontradiction, a lot of people say that
about your stories sometimesthey'll get to the end.
And it appears you as the
(16:31):
author are trying
to
make a point, but it might be both
points, or maybe you'rejust trying to leave it
up to the audience.
Is this something that you were
intentionally
It's true.
One of my favorite
tools to use as a writer is ambiguityor leaving the reader uncertain.
I often say what fun is givingyou one ending when I can
(16:53):
give you two possible options or more.
, To me, in the end, it doesn't really matter
what
you think.
It only matters that
you think.
And so, yes, I think it's
great
fun to leave the audience to
make up their own
minds about the meaningor the interpretation of
an ending.
(17:14):
or even of a whole tale.
One of my
more famous short stories is atale called the minister's black
veil.
And it's about this
Puritan minister who wearsthis black veil over his face.
Through his entire lifetime, andit's confuses his congregation.
(17:38):
And several people plead with him tolet us know the meaning behind this.
Why are you
wearing this Why won't youallow us to see your face?
And at least tell uswhat your reasoning is.
And he never Reveals his reason forthis black veil and on his deathbed.
(18:02):
One of his associates goes toreveal it saying, With your dying
breath, at least tell us what it is.
And he catches his friend's hand, andhe refuses to let him remove the veil.
And you never learn in the game.
In the tale, what the reasonis for for him wearing it.
(18:24):
And so I leave it up to my readers toread into the rest of the story and make
their own conclusions about why might thisman who is trying to lead a noble life,
a holy life to be a supportiveshepherd of his flock.
Why would he wear thisthroughout his life.
(18:46):
And I just find it veryinteresting the diverse reasons
that people might come up with.
It resonates
with different people in different ways.
And so if I can offer questionsfor my readers, I don't necessarily
need to give them the answers.
They can provide theanswers for themselves.
(19:08):
After speaking with somany writers and I, write a
little bit
myself, one thing that appears to
be consistent is that
oftentimes when a writer is writing
their character will dosomething and the writer
will sit back and say,
well, I didn't know he was going to
do that.
I'm sure, I imagine
you probably
relate to what I'm talking about.
And so that raises thequestion in this instance
(19:30):
of the,
minister's black veil,
do you know why
he didn't
raise the veil?
Well, the, it has been speculated that thetale was based upon a real life minister
who wore somethingsimilar throughout much of
(19:50):
His life.
Before his
congregation, And I have never admitted
to basing the story onthat real life incident.
Nor will I admit to
that here.
He was suspected of having, thisreal life minister was suspected
of having killed a friend,
(20:13):
in a quarrel
early in his youth.
And,
this was his penance for that act.
And so again, I leave it to my readers to
examine
in their own
lives, what it is that they may be
ashamed of, what they may berepentant for in their lives,
(20:39):
Why they might do the same
thing?
indeed.
So a writer,
my opinion, writes what they know.
And
as I
look at you seeing both
sides of maybe seeing many
sides of a story like this,I'm wondering if that's how
you feel about
a lot of the
(20:59):
things that you're dealing with.
So, I mean, right now, if my timing isright, you're right in the middle of war
in the United States, and there's the
issue
of slavery that is still being dealt with.
Do you find on a lot of these
difficult issues that youfind yourself on both sides?
It's
a very fair question, and,
As I have said earlier, I have
(21:20):
been very
disturbed by this war between our states
and how it's tearing thefabric of our country apart.
I find it very regrettable and yet I
I have
sympathies on both sides.
I am a fairly devout JacksonianDemocrat by which I mean,
(21:42):
That I believe very
strongly in things like theexpansion of the country manifest
destiny and particularly states'
rights the right of the states to.
Decide issues of their own personaleconomy and traditions and their
local lifestyles for themselves,because I, as a northerner, and
(22:05):
particularly as a New Englander havea, completely different lifestyle
than someone in the middlestates or certainly in
the
southern states at thatsame time That's not
to intimate that I'm somehow pro slavery?
I
recognize that it
is a a deeply immoral issue.
(22:26):
But I also consider national unityat least as important an issue.
And I think a majority of NorthernersHere may feel the same way now, I
know that I certainly have a number ofassociates who are staunch abolitionists
(22:46):
Thoreau to be sure we've discovered thatwe cannot speak on the topic of abolition
be because Oh, the man
Will never stop and he certainly tries
to convert me every time we broachthe subject but I now avoid
it.
Just last year I published
(23:06):
an
article
about the war calledchiefly about war matters.
And it was chiefly about.
War matters.
It's a perfect
I, I wanted to I wanted tosee the effects of the war
for myself sort of a little more
closely.
And so I, traveled to Washington DC.
(23:27):
I met with some of the
generals of our union army.
And ultimately I, I also met withpresident Lincoln and I suppose that's
They thought, and most of my northernfriends thought, and certainly my
publisher thought, that I might write anarticle that was very pro Union and pro
(23:50):
Lincoln.
And and it was not that.
I did not write that.
I wrote what I felt.
Which was I decried.
The war in general, which is not sucha popular opinion here in the north.
It's in fact, it's a rare
opinion in the north.
And I expressed some sympathyfor the southern states.
(24:17):
And in particular I wrote someless than flattering descriptions
of
president Lincoln.
I found him to be
an affable man,
Very amiable uh, certain wisdom to him.
But he was also extremely homelyman very rustic in his manners,
(24:38):
a total lack of refinement.
And
a sort of backwoods characterto the man that was disarming
for someone who is the leader
of our nation.
I certainly think that the man has
a, there's a slyness
to him.
(24:58):
There is a, a sort of whatWhat I would call a cunning.
To Lincoln?
That I,
cunning.
sir.
No, sir.
Not at all.
I would say a man who has wisdom,but in a disarming way because of
his rustic.
manner.
One would not assume that the manis very intelligent, and yet behind
(25:24):
those sort of deep set eyes is a, there'sa slyness, there's a wisdom there.
He's the kind of leader who,
would not make a full
bull run frontal assault on an enemy.
He would be
much more clever than that.
He would
sneak around to the flank and attackfrom the sides or behind them.
(25:49):
This is what I mean by that.
And this is not the kind ofthing that you would expect
from the man when youmeet him who tells endless
stories and anecdotes and,
I don't know.
Is,
Completely without refinement.
Forgive me, but he is.
. As you're describing him, The word that was in
(26:10):
my head, I just kept hearing the word sly.
And then eventually you
did say that word describing him.
So as
you're
talking about Lincoln, I'msurprised that you didn't
write something flattering because myunderstanding of Lincoln is that he is
not the guy that doesthe full frontal assault.
As you've said, he's more of theguy that tries to find a way.
(26:32):
To get something done creativelyusing cunning, as you've said, but
also it seems that Lincoln was, as youwere, about unity being his primary
goal above anything else To keep the
nation together, which seems like
that is something thatwas important to you.
So you've got a leader thatis honest and wise and cunning
(26:57):
and about the unity of the
country.
Thank you.
I guess
what I'm wondering, what elsewould you be looking for?
It sounds like that's
exactly what you'd be
looking
Well, I take exception
to the fact that you said that I
didn't write somethingflattering about him.
My editor,
Asked
me
To
edit
out some of my descriptions
of the president.
When I
(27:17):
felt that
the descriptions that I made wereamong the most honest and well
crafted parts of, my article.
I did in fact
give Lincoln A great deal ofcredit and wound up at the
very end of my description.
Summarizing the fact that I hada good deal of fondness for Mr.
(27:37):
Lincoln and respect forhim and found him to be
As good a man in the job as any thatcould have been chosen for the job.
It's simply the more physical attributesand the sort of rustic descriptions
(27:57):
that I made of the president thatseemed to jar , both my editors
and upset some of my Northern readers
I see.
So if you had been walking along
and Lincoln wasn't thepresident and you saw
him shoveling manure
just based on his demeanor, that
wouldn't have surprised you, hewould have fit there just as well
(28:20):
as anywhere
else.
And I think Mr.
Lincoln would,
might be the first
person to agree with that as well.
Okay.
So,
About the war I, find it
interesting when youwere talking about states
rights and it makes a lot of
sense.
Where.
The rules for
the North, which are not reliant ongrowing things as much as they are in the
(28:42):
South,
it really doesn't make a lot of sense for
the rules to be the same in
the South and the North.
and, yet, you have this
complex issue of
slavery.
You also don't
want to make human beings property.
And so it certainly is a complex issue.
But I guess what I'mwondering is that you're
saying that you're against the
war.
At least I
think that's
what you're
saying.
(29:02):
What is the other option if the two
sides don't agree?
Is the option
For the union to split?
Well, I think you have,
In our Congress and in our union
Just prior to the secession you have Anation full of the brightest minds and
(29:22):
no one seemed to be able to come up witha more efficient answer than secession.
There was
the Missouri Compromise , I don'tknow if your listeners know much
about that old statute, but itwas it was a law on the books that
Limited slavery in the new U.
(29:45):
S.
territories as we expanded west andSlavery was not allowed in most of
the parts of the Louisiana Purchase.
Well, when My dear friend, FranklinPierce, who is also a Jacksonian
Democrat and also believes verystrongly in states rights went
(30:06):
into office and became president.
He repealed the Missouri Compromise and
he signed a law called the
Kansas Nebraska Act, whichallowed slavery to be determined
by the popular sovereignty orthe local vote of each state.
He also did allow renewedenforcement of the
(30:29):
Fugitive Slave Act for thosestates that did have slavery as
an institution in their states.
And these policies I'm sure in someeffect did sort of bring our country
a little further down the road of war
Do you think that
(30:49):
Pierce was a good president?
I believe that Pierce
is a good man
And I believe that hewas the man for the job
At the time.
That is the argument that I made in my
campaign biography of him.
I believe that he is a good man with a
good heart.
(31:09):
I, obviously, I agree
with most of his political philosophies.
And
I believe what he believed,
which is that
the institution of slavery,while very regrettable,
is
not an institution thatwas able to be remedied by
(31:32):
what I call human contrivances.
That
As you said earlier, it Is
not an easy
question to be answered.
and so
both the Democrats and the Whigs fora great long period of time, sort of
tacitly agreed that slavery was notan ideological issue that should be
(31:54):
tackled.
That somehow it would workitself out and it would simply.
no longer be an issue eventually.
And this was the policy that wastaken both by the Democrats and the
Whigs for a great deal of time.
And I believe
that when Pierce came into office
(32:15):
his intention was to keep that policygoing, which is to allow states
to choose for themselves what wasbest for their particular needs.
State, their particular locality, andnot to have the federal government make
(32:36):
a blanket policy, one way or the other.
, some have said that the
biography that you wrote of
About him played a
large role in him beingelected, but then have also
said
that you being his friend, I understandgoing to college with him that you
left out some important detailsthat the people needed to know, like
he was an alcoholic and lacked
(32:59):
courage.
What would you say about
that?
Well, who is to judge who is an alcoholic?
Certainly Pierce likes his
drink and I,
I do not judge my friends based
upon their own particularhabits or weaknesses.
He has been accused of having adrinking problem, and I simply
(33:21):
chose not to address that?
at all.
Because I don't feel that it hasclouded his political integrity at all.
And that is what the book wasabout his fitness to be president.
My brother
in law, Horace Mann, who is astaunch abolitionist as well.
(33:42):
He was furious at the campaignbiography I wrote and said, how can
you write this about this man whois pro slavery and that he is the
right man for the job and so forth.
And I had other friends say, if youtry to make this Pierce out to be a
(34:03):
great man it'll be a ridiculous thing.
Well, I never say
in the biography that,
he's a great man.
I say that he
is.
The man
for the job.
And I do believe
that?
So, you and
president Pierce
went to college together and didn't you go
(34:23):
to college with some
other people that would become big name
writers?
Certainly Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow was
in my class, yes.
And also Horatio Bridgewas in our class as well.
So yes, there were several men whobecame luminaries in their fields.
Do you think that it
(34:44):
was just
luck that somebody like you would,
Grow up?
Whether we're talking about incollege or we're talking about
when you were living near Emerson andThoreau, , You were around so many of
these
brilliant people of
(35:04):
this time.
I think you even spent
some time near
Louisa Alcott.
Is that her
name?
Louise May Alcott, yes, andher father Bronson sold us the
wayside, sold us the house.
We live next door to them.
Did you benefit from thesepeople being around you?
Did You
benefit from being around them?
, who was the big influence of this
circle?
I think , certainly Emerson was the one
(35:27):
who everyone seemed to worship.
I have my own
opinions about
Emerson.
We became sort of friendlyrivals as opposed to friends.
I was certainly much closer andmore comfortable with Thoreau.
But I think there was, as you say,
there
was
a
community of writers.
Margaret
(35:47):
Fuller was,
Was with us as well.
And I
think that there was a spirit
among all of us to sort of talk aboutliterature and talk about the great
lofty ideas and often have debates.
As I say,
Thoreau and I we,
(36:07):
had a few debates aboutslavery and abolitionism
And we found we couldn't speak about that
anymore, but I think the community
and the spirit of Concord was.
one that
Was very
symbiotic for the authors.
We supported each other'spursuits whether we had the
(36:27):
same ideals or
not, it's very interesting.
People sometimes wish to group me in withthe transcendentalists, and I understand
a part of that because I did verybriefly take part in a transcendentalist
commune experiment called Brook Farm.
(36:49):
It was actually the experiences I hadat Brook Farm actually were the basis of
my third novel, The Blythe Dale Romance.
But it was very short
lived and I
found,
The sort of blind
optimism of the Transcendentalists tonot suit my own character or viewpoints.
(37:10):
And that
is when I broke off and began
to write in my own , touse your term, a darker
way focusing on moregloomy elements of the
human psyche.
as you say, the sin and
guilt and judgment and evil.
All the things that if we'rebeing honest, people find
(37:31):
interesting
I,
as with the issue of slaveryor anything else, I see sides
the light and the dark.
I certainly admire both
sides.
The gifts of Emersonand Thoreau but I find
The shadow side of our natureto be more interesting, at least
(37:53):
in terms of my own writing.
, why do
you write?
Why do I write?
Well, it's interesting.
I, I've often Said that becauseof my private nature, it's
one of the reasons that I was
likely drawn to writing, as a career.
It's a very solitary profession.
Perhaps the most solitaryprofession that there is.
(38:15):
You don't have to deal with anybody,but your own thoughts and imagination
and the characters in your mind.
I'm a terribly private person, reclusive.
I've been called misanthropic.
And I would likely agreewith all of those adjectives.
Painfully shy as a
(38:37):
child and even into adulthood.
And I think
one of the reasons why I was drawn towriting was that it was a way to be
with people that I was comfortable with
that I created in my own head anddid not have to interact with other.
(38:58):
say, real personalities.
Also, I think that as a child,
I was rather smothered and sequesteredby my mother and my sisters.
My father,
Nathaniel senior was,
A ship captain and
, Unfortunately he died of yellow fever.
(39:18):
In the West Indies when Iwas four years of age, he was
on a voyage and I, I never knew him.
And so, being the only boy inmy family, I had two sisters.
My mother and my sisters were very
protective of me and
it was a rather sheltered childhood.
(39:39):
I was certainly not particularly athletic.
I was injured in a In a bat andball accident when I was very
young and,
Sort of injured my leg ratherbadly and stayed for most of the
next five or six years in my room.
In this house
(40:00):
that I referred to asCastle Dismal in Salem.
You just disappeared?
You just decided you're not going to go.
outside anymore?
You got, you have an injured
leg?
Was it
broken?
Was there, did the doctors
do something
about
, after it healed they could notfind anything further wrong with
me, although I think I justretreated I retreated after that
(40:23):
accident.
And certainly probably even before I was
not a very Gregarious child, whichis one of the things that I liked
so much about Pierce was he was a, anextremely outgoing, gregarious, charming
man, and I think he helped to bring thatside out in me when I did eventually
(40:44):
leave Salem and attend college in Maine.
But yes for all of those years nearly, Adecade in total I was largely sequestered
away and and I preferred it that way.
And so I suppose writing was my way toemploy my imagination with all sorts
(41:04):
of fantasy characters of my own making.
So I want to go back for a minute.
You
had mentioned Brook Farm, this
commune, this seems like astrange place for you to end up.
And did you invest some money in this?
, what did it look like?
What were you doing there?
What were you expectingand what actually happened?
(41:24):
I, did in fact invest some money.
I invested a thousand dollars,
which was no small investment
at the time.
and it was not because as I mentionedbefore I never, I truly agreed
with all of the philosophies ofthe Transcendentalist movement.
In fact, Sophia was much more attractedto the philosophies than I was.
(41:50):
But saw it as an
opportunity to earn a lot of money in ashort period of time so that I could marry
Sophia.
It was actually a,
money making venture.
And out on the farm,everybody was assigned
certain duties.
At first , in my enthusiasm forthe new surroundings, I enjoyed the
(42:14):
manual
work.
That did
not last very long.
That enthusiasm died fairly quickly.
When I was assigned
to be the shoveler of
manure in a large
pile, a
large area that
they
referred to as the gold mine.
(42:35):
And
it, did
not take long
for me to weary of that . and realizethat between the philosophy itself, which
I had not ever truly espoused myselfand the rather grueling manual labor I
left in November of that same year.
I
(42:57):
the gold mine I, to me, thatsounds like good writing.
Because
what people accuse you of doing for
Franklin Pierce is what they
did to make shoveling manuresound like it was a good job.
take a bit of exception aboutwhat you say about Pierce, but I
appreciate the analogy.
, So,
how many months did you actually stay
there?
(43:17):
It was March
to March or April to November.
So six or seven months,
Oh, I see.
And then you just, it just
wasn't your thing.
So what's the year right now and the day?
Today is actually the 4th of July.
It's 1863.
Today is happens to be my birthday.
(43:37):
And Yes.
We are squarely in the thick of the.
Nathaniel Hawthorne's connectionto the Salem witch trials, almost
guaranteed that his most popular workswould take place during that time.
And yet he was not all doom and gloom.
He wrote children's stories, satire, andeven wrote the biography that might've
(43:57):
elected a president Despite being able towrite nearly anything in the next episode,
he'll talk about the current state ofevents that have stifled his creativity.
He'll also talk about hisrelationship with the writer
of Moby Dick Herman Melville.
And the inspiration forsome of his darkest stories.
I'm glad you're enjoying this podcast.
If you haven't yet subscribed now,and we'll see you at the next episode
(44:21):
of the calling history podcast withpart two of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.