the use of it,
rent free, with no conditions. Alcott helped in the carpenter work, and
discussed betimes of the Wherefore, and when it came to the raising, a
couple of neighboring farmers were hailed and pressed into service. The
cabin was twelve by fifteen, and cost--furnished--the sum of
twenty-eight dollars, good money, not counting labor, which Thoreau did
not calculate as worth anything, since he had had the fun of the
thing--something for which men often pay high.

The furniture consisted of a table, a chair, and a bed, all made by the
owner. For bedclothes and dishes the Emerson household was put under
contribution. On the door was a latch, but no lock.

And Thoreau looked upon his work and pronounced it good.

Stripped of the fact that a man of culture and education built the
shanty and lived in it, the incident is scarcely worth noting. Boys
passing through the shanty stage, all build shanties, and forage through
their mothers' pantries for provender, which they carry off to their
robbers' roost. Thoreau was an example of shanty-arrested development.

But as the import of every sentence depends upon who wrote it, and the
worth of advice hinges upon who gave it, so does the value of every act
depend upon who did it. Thus when a man, who was in degree an
inspiration of Emerson, takes to the woods, it is worth our while to
follow him afield and see what he does.

Thoreau set to work to clean up two acres of blackberry brambles for a
garden-patch. He did not work except when he felt like it. His plan was
to go to bed at dusk, with window and door open, and get up at five
o'clock in the morning. After a plunge in the lake he would dress and
prepare his simple breakfast. Then he would work in his garden, or if
the mood struck him, he would sit in the door of his shanty and
meditate, or else write. In the arrangement of his home he followed no
system or rule, merely allowing the passing inclination to lead.

His provisions were gotten of friends in the village, and were paid for
in labor. It was part of Thoreau's philosophy that to accept something
for nothing was theft, and that the giving or acceptance of presents
was immoral. For all he received he conscientiously gave an equivalent
in labor; and as for ideas, he always considered himself a learner; if
he had thoughts they belonged to anybody who could annex them. And that
Emerson and Horace Greeley were alike in their capacity to absorb,
digest and regurgita