An author whose writings are like mosaics must have borrowed from many quarries.  Emerson had read more or less thoroughly through a very wide range of authors.  I shall presently show how extensive was his reading.  No doubt he had studied certain authors diligently, a few, it would seem, thoroughly.  But let no one be frightened away from his pages by the terrible names of Plotinus and Proclus and Porphyry, of Behmen or Spinoza, or of those modern German philosophers with whom it is not pretended that he had any intimate acquaintance.  Mr. George Ripley, a man of erudition, a keen critic, a lover and admirer of Emerson, speaks very plainly of his limitations as a scholar.

“As he confesses in the Essay on ‘Books,’ his learning is second hand; but everything sticks which his mind can appropriate.  He defends the use of translations, and I doubt whether he has ever read ten pages of his great authorities, Plato, Plutarch, Montaigne, or Goethe, in the original.  He is certainly no friend of profound study any more than of philosophical speculation.  Give him a few brilliant and suggestive glimpses, and he is content.”

One correction I must make to this statement.  Emerson says he has “contrived to read” almost every volume of Goethe, and that he has fifty-five of them, but that he has read nothing else in German, and has not looked into him for a long time.  This was in 1840, in a letter to Carlyle.  It was up-hill work, it may be suspected, but he could not well be ignorant of his friend’s great idol, and his references to Goethe are very frequent.

Emerson’s quotations are like the miraculous draught of fishes.  I hardly know his rivals except Burton and Cotton Mather.  But no one would accuse him of pedantry.  Burton quotes to amuse himself and his reader; Mather quotes to show his learning, of which he had a vast conceit; Emerson quotes to illustrate some original thought of his own, or because another writer’s way of thinking falls in with his own,—­never with a trivial purpose.  Reading as he did, he must have unconsciously appropriated a great number of thoughts from others.  But he was profuse in his references to those from whom he borrowed,—­more profuse than many of his readers would believe without taking the pains to count his authorities.  This I thought it worth while to have done, once for all, and I will briefly present the results of the examination.  The named references, chiefly to authors, as given in the table before me, are three thousand three hundred and ninety-three, relating to eight hundred and sixty-eight different individuals.  Of these, four hundred and eleven are mentioned more than once; one hundred and fifty-five, five times or more; sixty-nine, ten times or more; thirty-eight, fifteen times or more; and twenty-seven, twenty times or more.  These twenty-seven names alone, the list of which is here given, furnish no less than one thousand and sixty-five references.