Yours of 20th recd—At this present writing I don't think the Tribune will print your letter at all2—if it dont appear next Sunday, I doubt if it appears at all—the course of the T[ribune] towards me I think has been left to Wm Winter, who I have no doubt writes the squib in T. of 24th May—& also wrote (may be in conjunction with R H Stoddard,)3 the notice of L of G in T. four or five months ago—After Stedman's Scribner article a year or two ago the T. extracted half a column of his condemnatory views & opinions on my treatment of amativeness in L of G.4—a few days afterward, an extract, offering third of a column from Mrs Gilchrists Woman's Estimate was sent Reid, but he refused to print it5—I think, at present at any rate, that indicates their stand—(expediency, popular current &c)—carrying out the old enmity of Bayard Taylor,6 &c &c—
Have you seen Dr Bucke's letter in Springfield Republican of May 23—and the vigorous editorial same number?7 The Boston Herald May 24 (Supplement) takes the same ground8—both editorials would satisfy you perfectly—Shouldnt at all wonder if your guess about Rev T W Higginson9 hits the nail—one nail—exactly on the head.
Your line about the Emerson talk on the Common10 &c is very opportune—it was as you say—the essential matter, at the spine or abysm of all, such as the Bible often presents & in all primal poetry & attempt at returning to Creation's birth-innocence—let alone my attempt at the same result, based on modern science, biology & physiology—was not touched upon at all by Emerson—but it was a splendid & most sincere unfolding of the technical esthetic & conventional & technical literary points applicable—But you know, dear friend, my plan (hobby) is never to shirk the enemys fullest tactics but to state them over again if possible better than ever—I shall mind your admonition though—
As things are, I don't feel any resentment at all toward Osgood & Co. A sharp friend here suggests that they themselves (O & Co) had some hand in the Marston-Stevens proceeding & rather egged it on—that they were losing, paying me 25 cts royalty, &c &c—But I havn't the least idea of any such thing—I only mention it because I shouldn't wonder if it came up that way & you will hear it broached—
Dr Bucke is absent in Ottawa, Canada—from there he goes to Cincinnati—John Burroughs I suppose is in England—(he went off in a depress'd humor—blue as indigo)—
As I write—Thursday forenoon—it is raining again, with east wind & the heavens all lead-colored—but I am feeling well as usual & in good spirits—Sometimes I feel to welcome any whack that breaks the stupid monotony even of life's prosperous evenness—& as to this last & in some sense most marked buffeting in the fortunes of Leaves of Grass—why—if it cant stand it & throw it off & go on better than ever, why let it go under—of which I havn't the slightest idea though—but I feel sure the book will gather added, perhaps a main part, interest, from what it has gone through, from association—& I shall too—I tickle myself with the thought how it may be said years hence that at any rate no book on earth ever had such a history—
I shall keep you advised if I hear any thing—
Walt Whitman later Thursday—afternoon May 25I have just had the Tribune of to-day, in which I find the letter—I don't know but Charles Eldridge was right11—Being so much interested perhaps I am not a fair judge—but if ever Jupiter went into the press hurling the lightnings (& yet a sort of Jovian continence) this letter has got him in—It is apparently printed with wonderful correctness—don't need a single alteration—it will live in literature at least as long as Junius—God bless you12—