Ralph Waldo Emerson
Essay V - Gifts
Gifts of one who loved me, —
'T was high time they came;
When he ceased to love me,
Time they stopped for shame.
It is said that the world is in a state of bankruptcy, that the world owes
the world more than the world can pay, and ought to go into chancery, and be sold. I do
not think this general insolvency, which involves in some sort all the population, to be
the reason of the difficulty experienced at Christmas and New Year, and other times, in
bestowing gifts; since it is always so pleasant to be generous, though very vexatious to
pay debts. But the impediment lies in the choosing. If, at any time, it comes into my
head, that a present is due from me to somebody, I am puzzled what to give, until the
opportunity is gone. Flowers and fruits are always fit presents; flowers, because they are
a proud assertion that a ray of beauty outvalues all the utilities of the world. These gay
natures contrast with the somewhat stern countenance of ordinary nature: they are like
music heard out of a work-house. Nature does not cocker us: we are children, not pets: she
is not fond: everything is dealt to us without fear or favor, after severe universal laws.
Yet these delicate flowers look like the frolic and interference of love and beauty. Men
use to tell us that we love flattery, even though we are not deceived by it, because it
shows that we are of importance enough to be courted. Something like that pleasure, the
flowers give us: what am I to whom these sweet hints are addressed? Fruits are acceptable
gifts, because they are the flower of commodities, and admit of fantastic values being
attached to them. If a man should send to me to come a hundred miles to visit him, and
should set before me a basket of fine summerfruit, I should think there was some
proportion between the labor and the reward.
For common gifts, necessity makes pertinences and beauty every day, and
one is glad when an imperative leaves him no option, since if the man at the door have no
shoes, you have not to consider whether you could procure him a paint-box. And as it is
always pleasing to see a man eat bread, or drink water, in the house or out of doors, so
it is always a great satisfaction to supply these first wants. Necessity does everything
well. In our condition of universal dependence, it seems heroic to let the petitioner be
the judge of his necessity, and to give all that is asked, though at great inconvenience.
If it be a fantastic desire, it is better to leave to others the office of punishing him.
I can think of many parts I should prefer playing to that of the Furies. Next to things of
necessity, the rule for a gift, which one of my friends prescribed, is, that we might
convey to some person that which properly belonged to his character, and was easily
associated with him in thought. But our tokens of compliment and love are for the most
part barbarous. Rings and other jewels are not gifts, but apologies for gifts. The only
gift is a portion of thyself. Thou must bleed for me. Therefore the poet brings his poem;
the shepherd, his lamb; the farmer, corn; the miner, a gem; the sailor, coral and shells;
the painter, his picture; the girl, a handkerchief of her own sewing. This is right and
pleasing, for it restores society in so far to its primary basis, when a man's biography
is conveyed in his gift, and every man's wealth is an index of his merit. But it is a
cold, lifeless business when you go to the shops to buy me something, which does not
represent your life and talent, but a goldsmith's. This is fit for kings, and rich men who
represent kings, and a false state of property, to make presents of gold and silver
stuffs, as a kind of symbolical sin-offering, or payment of black-mail.
The law of benefits is a difficult channel, which requires careful
sailing, or rude boats. It is not the office of a man to receive gifts. How dare you give
them? We wish to be self-sustained. We do not quite forgive a giver. The hand that feeds
us is in some danger of being bitten. We can receive anything from love, for that is a way
of receiving it from ourselves; but not from any one who assumes to bestow. We sometimes
hate the meat which we eat, because there seems something of degrading dependence in
living by it.
"Brother, if Jove to thee a present make,
Take heed that from his hands thou nothing take."
We ask the whole. Nothing less will content us. We arraign society, if it
do not give us besides earth, and fire, and water, opportunity, love, reverence, and
objects of veneration.
He is a good man, who can receive a gift well. We are either glad or sorry
at a gift, and both emotions are unbecoming. Some violence, I think, is done, some
degradation borne, when I rejoice or grieve at a gift. I am sorry when my independence is
invaded, or when a gift comes from such as do not know my spirit, and so the act is not
supported; and if the gift pleases me overmuch, then I should be ashamed that the donor
should read my heart, and see that I love his commodity, and not him. The gift, to be
true, must be the flowing of the giver unto me, correspondent to my flowing unto him. When
the waters are at level, then my goods pass to him, and his to me. All his are mine, all
mine his. I say to him, How can you give me this pot of oil, or this flagon of wine, when
all your oil and wine is mine, which belief of mine this gift seems to deny? Hence the
fitness of beautiful, not useful things for gifts. This giving is flat usurpation, and
therefore when the beneficiary is ungrateful, as all beneficiaries hate all Timons, not at
all considering the value of the gift, but looking back to the greater store it was taken
from, I rather sympathize with the beneficiary, than with the anger of my lord Timon. For,
the expectation of gratitude is mean, and is continually punished by the total
insensibility of the obliged person. It is a great happiness to get off without injury and
heart-burning, from one who has had the ill luck to be served by you. It is a very onerous
business, this of being served, and the debtor naturally wishes to give you a slap. A
golden text for these gentlemen is that which I so admire in the Buddhist, who never
thanks, and who says, "Do not flatter your benefactors."
The reason of these discords I conceive to be, that there is no
commensurability between a man and any gift. You cannot give anything to a magnanimous
person. After you have served him, he at once puts you in debt by his magnanimity. The
service a man renders his friend is trivial and selfish, compared with the service he
knows his friend stood in readiness to yield him, alike before he had begun to serve his
friend, and now also. Compared with that good-will I bear my friend, the benefit it is in
my power to render him seems small. Besides, our action on each other, good as well as
evil, is so incidental and at random, that we can seldom hear the acknowledgments of any
person who would thank us for a benefit, without some shame and humiliation. We can rarely
strike a direct stroke, but must be content with an oblique one; we seldom have the
satisfaction of yielding a direct benefit, which is directly received. But rectitude
scatters favors on every side without knowing it, and receives with wonder the thanks of
all people.
I fear to breathe any treason against the majesty of love, which is the
genius and god of gifts, and to whom we must not affect to prescribe. Let him give
kingdoms or flower-leaves indifferently. There are persons, from whom we always expect
fairy tokens; let us not cease to expect them. This is prerogative, and not to be limited
by our municipal rules. For the rest, I like to see that we cannot be bought and sold. The
best of hospitality and of generosity is also not in the will, but in fate. I find that I
am not much to you; you do not need me; you do not feel me; then am I thrust out of doors,
though you proffer me house and lands. No services are of any value, but only likeness.
When I have attempted to join myself to others by services, it proved an intellectual
trick, — no more. They eat your service like apples, and leave you out. But love them,
and they feel you, and delight in you all the time.
1 comment:
Obviously something you agree with.. Wasn't Ralph Waldo Emerson deeply influenced by Hinduism? Wasn't this piece written and driven by his Buddhist beliefs as well??
Uhhhmm..Here's what the Bible says:
Matthew 26:6-10"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment,and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.But when his disciples saw it,they had indignation,saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. When Jesus understood it,he said to them, Why trouble he the woman?For she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Luke 6:38-Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down,and shaken together,and running over,shall men give unto your bosom.For with the same measure that you mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Proverbs 21:26-He covet greedily all the day long: but the righteous gives and spares not.
Also,read-
2nd Corinthians 9:6-7.
Then there are those who will scorn a gift out of selfish motives,or hoard and cheaply give in order to worry about their own problems and debt. They punish the giver and automatically see those who give generously as a "DEBT" and "INCONVINIENCE" that might cause them to give something that "costs" them. How sad...
GOD looks at the heart. Who are we to judge a gift, much less a gift giver?
Post a Comment