Appended is an additional list of all the advertised contributors of the Harbinger, during its publication at Brook Farm, not including those already mentioned:—
John Allen, Brook Farm. Jean M. Pallisse, Brook Farm. S. P. Andrews,
New York, N. Y. William Ellery Channing, Concord, Mass. Joseph J.
Cooke, Providence, R. I. Fred. Henry Hedge, Bangor, Me. Mark E.
Lazarus, Wilmington, N. C. E. W. Parkman, Boston, Mass. J. H. Pulte,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Samuel D. Robbins, Chelsea, Mass. Miss E. H. Starr,
Deerfield, Mass. C. Neidhart, Philadelphia, Pa.
The presence of a weekly journal on the farm, with its varieties of current literature, poetry and music, could not but awaken in many of the colaborers most pleasurable emotions. Prose articles and poetry from it were discussed by daylight and by the fireside, by the roadside, in the shops, on the farm—in fact, everywhere. The "Admiral" was wild over Hood's "Bridge of Sighs." It was so quaint; the rhythm was so unique; it was so full of sentiment; it was so tender; it displayed so touchingly the sorrows of a young heart, and was so in harmony with the humanitarian sentiment of our lives, that he and others could but repeat it over and over, and the poet's rhymes kept ringing both in our physical and mental ears. The lines—
"One more unfortunate,
Rashly importunate
Gone to her death.
* * * * *
Take her up tenderly,
Fashioned so slenderly
Young and so fair."
were repeated times without number. Cranch's, Story's and Duganne's poems were favorably criticised, the authors being friendly to the Association, and the verses of our own members touched tender spots.
When Mr. Emerson's poems were published, there was quite a desire to know what his sonnet to our friend William H. Channing was like. The disappointment was great when, instead of a grand, glowing sonnet to a great-souled man, it took up only an exceptional point of feeling in his mind on the Abolition question, on which they were not quite agreed. Quite a little discussion took place between two young persons as to the propriety of the lines,
"What boots thy zeal, O glowing friend,
That would indignant rend
The Northland from the South?"
The one party contended that "boots" was entirely inadmissible in poetic phrase. "What boots? Cowhides or patent leathers?" said he, whilst the other contended that the whole scope of the meaning made the poetry. But still the first stuck to his point, that a grand sentiment needed grand words as well as grand ideas, and "boots" was a homely and inadmissible word with which to express a high sentiment.