Editing Henry David Thoreau (section)

==Critical reception==
Thoreau's work and career received little attention from his contemporaries until 1865, when the ''[[North American Review]]'' published [[James Russell Lowell]]'s review of various papers of Thoreau's that Emerson had collected and edited.<ref>Pattee, ''A History of American Literature Since 1870'', pp. 137–138.</ref> Lowell's essay, ''Letters to Various Persons'',<ref name=NAR>{{Cite journal|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25107873|title=Lowell, James Russell, "Letters to Various Persons", in ''The North American Review'', Vol. CI, No. 209, pp. 597–608 (October 1865).|year=1865|journal=The North American Review|volume=101|issue=209|pages=597–608|jstor=25107873}}</ref> which he republished as a chapter in his book,  ''My Study Windows'',<ref name=Lowell>{{Cite web|url=https://archive.org/details/mystudywindow00loweiala/page/193/mode/1up?view=theater|title=My study windows|first=James Russell|last=Lowell|date=May 6, 1871|publisher=Boston : Houghton, Mifflin|via=Internet Archive}}</ref> derided Thoreau as a humorless [[wikt|poseur]] trafficking in commonplaces, a [[Moral sense theory|sentimentalist]] lacking in imagination, a "[[Diogenes]] in his barrel", resentfully criticizing what he could not attain.<ref name="Pattee, p.138">Pattee, ''A History of American Literature Since 1870'', p. 138.</ref> Lowell's caustic analysis influenced Scottish author [[Robert Louis Stevenson]],<ref name="Pattee, p.138"/> who criticized Thoreau as a "skulker", saying "He did not wish virtue to go out of him among his fellow-men, but slunk into a corner to hoard it for himself."<ref name="RLS">{{Cite web |url=http://thoreau.eserver.org/stevens1.html
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061012063926/http://thoreau.eserver.org/stevens1.html
|archive-date=October 12, 2006
|title=Henry David Thoreau: His Character and Opinions
|author=Stevenson, Robert Louis |work=Cornhill Magazine
|quote=Now Thoreau's content and ecstasy in living was, we may say, like a plant that he had watered and tended with womanish solicitude; for there is apt to be something unmanly, something almost dastardly, in a life that does not move with dash and freedom, and that fears the bracing contact of the world. In one word, Thoreau was a skulker
|date=1880 |access-date=December 3, 2021}}</ref>

[[Nathaniel Hawthorne]] had mixed feelings about Thoreau. He noted that "He is a keen and delicate observer of nature—a genuine observer—which, I suspect, is almost as rare a character as even an original poet; and Nature, in return for his love, seems to adopt him as her especial child, and shows him secrets which few others are allowed to witness."<ref>Nathaniel Hawthorne, ''Passages From the American Note-Books'', entry for September 2, 1842.</ref> On the other hand, he also wrote that Thoreau "repudiated all regular modes of getting a living, and seems inclined to lead a sort of Indian life among civilized men".<ref>Hawthorne, ''The Heart of Hawthorne's Journals'', p. 106.</ref><ref>Borst, Raymond R. ''The Thoreau Log: A Documentary Life of Henry David Thoreau, 1817–1862.'' New York: G.K. Hall, 1992.</ref>

In a similar vein, poet [[John Greenleaf Whittier]] detested what he deemed to be the "wicked" and "heathenish" message of ''Walden'', claiming that Thoreau wanted man to "lower himself to the level of a [[woodchuck]] and walk on four legs".<ref>Wagenknecht, Edward. ''John Greenleaf Whittier: A Portrait in Paradox''. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967: 112.</ref>

In response to such criticisms, the English novelist [[George Eliot]], writing decades later for the ''[[Westminster Review]]'', characterized such critics as uninspired and narrow-minded:
{{blockquote|text=People—very wise in their own eyes—who would have every man's life ordered according to a particular pattern, and who are intolerant of every existence the utility of which is not palpable to them, may pooh-pooh Mr. Thoreau and this episode in his history, as unpractical and dreamy.<ref>''[[The New England Quarterly]]'', Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 1933), pp. 733–746</ref>}}

Thoreau himself also responded to the criticism in a paragraph of his work ''Walden'' by highlighting what he felt was the irrelevance of their inquiries:

{{blockquote|text=I should not obtrude my affairs so much on the notice of my readers if very particular inquiries had not been made by my townsmen concerning my mode of life, which some would call impertinent, though they do not appear to me at all impertinent, but, considering the circumstances, very natural and pertinent. Some have asked what I got to eat; if I did not feel lonesome; if I was not afraid; and the like. Others have been curious to learn what portion of my income I devoted to charitable purposes; and some, who have large families, how many poor children I maintained. ... Unfortunately, I am confined to this theme by the narrowness of my experience. Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men's lives; ... I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service to him whom it fits.<ref>Thoreau ''Walden'' (1854)</ref>}}

Recent criticism has accused Thoreau of hypocrisy, [[misanthropy]], and being [[wikt|sanctimonious]], based on his writings in ''Walden'',<ref name=neworker1>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum |title=Henry David Thoreau, Hypocrite |last1=Schultz |first1=Kathryn |date=October 19, 2015 |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=October 19, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019170355/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum |archive-date=October 19, 2015 }}</ref> although these criticisms have been regarded as highly selective.<ref name=medium1>{{cite web|url=https://medium.com/@TheNewThoreau/why-do-we-love-thoreau-because-he-was-right-175251814c |title=Why do we love Thoreau? Because he was right. |date=October 19, 2015 |publisher=Medium |access-date=October 19, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019170355/https://medium.com/%40TheNewThoreau/why-do-we-love-thoreau-because-he-was-right-175251814c |archive-date=October 19, 2015 }}</ref><ref name=newrepublic>{{cite magazine|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/123151/defense-thoreau |title=Henry David Thoreau's Radical Optimism |first1=Jonathan |last1=Malesic |date=October 19, 2015 |magazine=New Republic |access-date=October 19, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019204535/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123151/defense-thoreau |archive-date=October 19, 2015 }}</ref><ref name=newrepublic2>{{cite magazine|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/123162/everybody-hates-henry-david-thoreau |title=Everybody Hates Henry |first1=Donovan |last1=Hohn |date=October 21, 2015 |magazine=New Republic |access-date=October 21, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151026134755/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123162/everybody-hates-henry-david-thoreau |archive-date=October 26, 2015 }}</ref>