WE were not deceived by the professions of the private adventurer — the louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons;* but we appeal to the sanctified preamble of the messages and proclamations of the public sinner, as the proof of sincerity. It must be that they who pay this homage have said to themselves, On the whole, we don’t know about this that you call honesty; a bird in the hand is better.*
Even well-disposed, good sort of people are touched with the same infidelity, and for brave, straightforward action, use half-measures and compromises. Forgetful that a little measure is a great error, forgetful that a wise mechanic uses a sharp tool, they go on choosing the dead men of routine. But the official men can in nowise help you in any question of to-day, they deriving entirely from the old dead things. Only those can help in counsel or conduct who did not make a party pledge to defend this or that, but who were appointed by God Almighty, before they came into the world, to stand for this which they uphold.
* Emerson may be referring to remark of Samuel Johnson’s, recorded by his friend James Boswell on July 14th, 1763: “If he really does think that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons”. Emerson’s well-turned phrase is much-quoted.
* Emerson is borrowing from the old proverb, ‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’; that is to say, don’t risk what you have the sake of getting more. See also the Indian fable of The King, the Monkey and the Pea. Emerson’s point is that we turn a blind eye to the rogue in public office because we are just glad to get our man in, and don’t want to lose out by high-mindedly trying to replace him with someone who actually deserves to be there.