Ralph Waldo Emerson

From the thread "The Books Around You." DMTripp expressed an interest in discussing Emerson, so I'm giving him his own thread! ...

I've really been getting into Emerson lately. He's much more interesting than I thought he was when I was in the Master's program in college! :-)

I'm really interested in the extent to which Emerson sought awakeness, awareness, enlightenment, and he did so, in my opinion, without getting "weird" (like Fourier). Interesting, too, that he seemed to reject the Greek stoicism regarding tragedy: how suffering brings wisdom. Emerson could not accept that the loss of his wife and son could bring him anything other than sadness, grief.

Oh, the pressure! Where to start? In 1989 I participated in a Summer Institute sponsored by NEH on 19th-century American Individualism. Though the professors anchored the discussion on Hawthorne, Thoreau, Whitman and Twain, I found Emerson's voice constantly blistering the surface, and rumbling somewhere in the foundations beneath them all. I had not taken any interest in him earlier, but I chose then to go back and read "The American Scholar." I was converted. I was saved. I suddenly discovered what I wanted to do as an educator. Since then, I participated in a Summer Seminar by NEH at Oregon State, and then later won a Teacher-Scholar sabbatical leave of absence (again from NEH) to research Friedrich Schleiermacher's theological influence on Emerson's thought (my Ph.D has a New Testament major and Theology minor). The year off was phenomenal, and I read everything published by Emerson, except those massive journals. I even read all the volumes of his sermons. I developed a Humanities class for high school that anchors on Emerson's virtues, and was awarded a Texas Humanities Teacher of the Year award the following year.

O.K.--those are the nuts and bolts. I love Emerson because he was an average student without distinction (like myself) who believed that his thoughts were worth expressing and publishing. He believed that genius was the sound estate of every person, and not reservered for a few favorites--although in most people this genius is still unborn and undiscovered. In the public school (and the urban university where I teach at night, where the lower end of the socio-economic public are educated) I hear Emerson's voice as the voice of salvation, urging all students to pay attention to that light flickering across the conscience, even if it doesn't sound like what everyone else is saying. I love his "transcendentalist" perspective, believing that nature is the prime model for our creative exploits, not other people's creations (which are human extensions of nature). I think that he, above all others, sharpened my awareness of primary and secondary sources. I do love secondary study, and practice it, but yes, the source is nature, and that is in us.

I fear this has been a rambling sort of tirade, but I have a classroom of students getting restless, and I guess it's time to get back to them.

Thank you, Theresa! I would love to talk to anyone and everyone about Emerson and the trajectories he has fired across our culture. What a treasure he is.

Oh, fascinating! You know much more about him than I do, then! Like your educational experience, mine focused more on Whitman and Thoreau. We barely grazed the surface of Emerson. Years ago, a retiring professor gave away all his books, just marked "free" on a big pile of books, and I took The Heart of Emerson's Journals. I never cracked the book open until the other night. I'd been led to Emerson through my renewed interest in Whitman and Dickinson and through a recent excursion into Fourier for a project I'm working on. Last summer on a whim I ordered Emerson, The Mind on Fire on a whim.

The middle to late 19th Century is fascinating, isn't it?

So that is my brief and scanty history with Emerson. I'd love to pick Emerson apart piece by piece.

Yes, I love 19th-century American writers. When I taught English (American Lit) I probably spent too much time there, but I just hated to leave. I've read The Heart of Emerson's Journals. I think the selection is very good--I don't enjoy his multi-volume journals (what, 12 of them?) because they are so sketchy and hard to decipher, unless you study what was going on around him during that particular period in his life. Thoreau, on the other hand--my God! I do own his complete journals, and they are edited like essays--a fine read!

It's hard for me to choose my favorite Emerson piece beyond "American Scholar." I'm quite attached to "Circles." I think he has some real original stuff going on there. Although it is super-popular, and sometimes the discussions of it are too predictable, I do enjoy "Self-Reliance."

This man really broke me free as a teacher, and helped me to believe more in my students. "The secret of the teacher's force is knowing that students are convertible. And they are. They want awakening. Get the sluggard intellect out of his bed, and he will awake a god, with a force to shake the universe." (That's a paraphrase from a journal, I believe April 20, 1836--I'm quoting it loosely from my selective memory).

Thanks so much for talking about this.

I love your attitude about teaching. I find so many of my peers are cynical about teaching and about students. This is sad. I think teachers often exercise too much control over the classroom and students feel stifled. And I do agree that students want awakening but they too often are not getting awakened, and I see them becoming cynical, too. When a student is awakened and excited, you won't have to drill the material into them: they will bring themselves to it like thirsty souls to water.

What Emerson says of beginnings is particularly apt for students of all ages:

"It is excellent advice both in writing and in action to avoid a too great elevation at first. Let one's beginnings be temperate and unpretending, and the more elevated parts will rise from these with a just and full effect. We were not made to breathe oxygen, or to talk poetry, or to be always wise."

For some reason this brings to mind Jimmy Carter, who built houses after leaving the White House, essentially rebuilding himself in the humblest possible way. He built upon that and now is writing and speaking out on politics again. I admire this.

Theresa, your last Emerson post has a quote that tugs at me. He has another (that I cannot locate) that cautions about expecting too much at the beginning of the writing process (hence his journals--I think Mind On Fire tells us he had around 267 volumes of them by the time he died). But he says something about how the pump brings up the muddy, cloudy water at first, but you never get to the clear water until you have pumped your way past the mud. I love that analogy for thinking and writing--that one does not write good stuff with that first draft, or even the first sentence. But eventually something kicks in, and the mud yields to clarity.

When you find that quote, let me know!

That is surely what writing feels like to me.

Glancing through his journals, I see many entries that interest me. But today I keep coming back to one pure, simple, and hearbreaking sentence. The whole entry on a September 14 day reads: "I was married to Lydia Jackson."

There is another entry from his journal that unhinges me--a one sentence entry from January 28, 1842: "Yesterday night, at fifteen minutes after eight, my little Waldo ended his life."

Oh, I know. I remember reading that in Emerson, The Mind on Fire. The boy's death apparently left a stain on Emerson's view of happiness.

And how about this one: "Some books leave us free and some books make us free." (Dec. 22)

I, too, look forward to this discussion. I once tried to interest a UTD professor in teaching a class on Transcendentalism, but he couldn't fit it into his time or schedule: he was busy setting up a Sci-Fi class! I suppose Sci-Fi can have a literary bent with a philosophical point of view, and I think some of it strives for this in its attempts to break free of the chains of genre fiction, and in fact I am currently seeking such in the sci-fi group, but am having little luck in finding it.

Would it be possible to organize a tour of Emerson in such a way those here who are interested in participating can track along by having specific works to read and discuss, rather than just talk about him and his work in the abstract?

I have only read a few of Emerson's essays, but none of his other works or written contributions. Having been something of an autodidact I am not afraid to jump right in, but what I find is many autodidacts, myself included, generally tend to miss a lot because we lack the background to fully appreciate what we are reading. People who make a living in literature can be quite useful in leading the way in this regard.

Welcome aboard, Gene! So far, only Theresa and I have been slapping it back and forth (and I totally enjoy conversing with her). It's great to find a third mind with interest. Incidentally, you and I are neighbors (I from Arlington). I would love to address specific texts in Emerson. My immediate vote goes to "The American Scholar," but I'm glad to go anywhere. "Self-Reliance" is popular. I love "Circles" and "The Transcendentalist." What do you think, Gene and Theresa, and . . . anybody else out there?

As it happens my volume of Emerson has "The American Scholar" so I would be happy to discuss it in a few days, say Monday. That would give me plenty of time to read it, cogitate over it, and be prepared to ask questions/discuss it.

Unfortunately for me in regards to Emerson, my Provincetown residency starts very soon, and my access to e-mail is going to be minimal while I'm there. So I won't be able to go deeply into a discussion of any of Emerson's essays. But hopefully this thread will stay very much alive while I am away.

I was thinking today about Emerson's idea of "becoming." It seems to me that 19th Century American thought would naturally center on "becoming," since America was in a state of becoming during that time (Manifest Destiny). We see this strongly in Walt Whitman's work.

Emerson's idea of "becoming" also extended to his own writing. I couldn't help but think of Whitman again because Leaves of Grass was truly a lifetime project, going through several changes throughout Whitman's lifetime. Whitman also shared Emerson's thoughts on poetry, that it is for the "common man."

I teach Native American literature, and one of the differences I see in Native American thought and American thought has to do with "being" and "becoming."

I'm an idealist and so temperamentally I'm naturally drawn to the notion of "becoming." Yet I sometimes think that American thought tends too much in the direction of "becoming." In other words, we are future thinking but we don't know how to just "be."

Maybe we could talk about these things while the two of you are reading "The American Scholar"? After next week, I probably won't be online much at all.

Theresa, we'll miss you, but will most likely keep this conversation going while you're away. Gene, I've opened American Scholar and will try to give it some attention every day, though my schedule between now and Monday is quite packed. Nevertheless, I can do it. If Monday rolls around too quickly for you, due to stuff happening to get in your way, don't despair. I'm here.

For you and Theresa I offer this--one of my many favorite pieces from this historic address: "Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst. What is the right use? What is the one end which all means go to effect? They are for nothing but to inspire. I had better never see a book than to be warped by its attraction clean out of my own orbit, and made a satellite instead of a system."

I've read up to III, about half. I was blown away by the idea in II that as individuals we all devour a piece of what is around us and spit it back out, altered by what we bring to it. But all of this individual activity, knowledge, wisdom, etc. makes MAN, something we are all a part of, but nothing we can ever be, ourselves. It reminds me of complexity and chaos theory. A very forward thinking man. I'm looking forward to the rest.

Excellent! I'd like to hear more of your complexity and chaos connection. This is an angle I haven't heard before. I love that part where he begins "The theory of books is noble. The scholar of the first age received into him the world around, brooded thereon, . . . etc."

Just a thought: as pleasing as it sounds--individualism--isn't it somewhat a bane of American existence? Most of our heroes are solitary men: Superman, Spiderman, Outlaw Josey Wales, etc. Comparing this to Native American philosophy, which is communal, doesn't American individualism drive us deeply into ourselves and set for us a kind of trap?

I say this as someone who prizes individuality, is somewhat of a hermit, and is very hard-headed in my beliefs.

But when an individual "fails," that failure is felt most deeply, most profoundly.

What does Emerson mean, then, when he says "to be a part of"?

In other words, how would Emerson say that we are to avoid narcissism, as individuals, as a nation? And how do we avoid blaming ourselves for our failures?

The answer seems to be in what Emerson calls the "Over-Soul." There is an ultimate truth, Emerson seems to say, but not ONE truth.

For Emerson, what was valuable was not conformity nor separateness, but respect for one another's differences. At the heart of Emerson's thought is vulnerability. And that is beautiful to me.

Excellent thoughts. I'm not sure I've gone in your direction, and will need some time to compost that.

Frequently I encounter criticisms about radical individualism that could lead to lawlessness or neglect of civic duty, but I try to balance that with the reality that Emerson himself was a model citizen, and what he urged people to do was seek Nature, not just be different. Emerson called for the natural person to emerge as individual. Transcendentalism argued that for every physical fact, there is a corresponding spiritual reality, a higher truth. The facts of this world are hieroglyphics of something much more profound. Emerson believed that institutions were mere copies of the worldly facts and not the spiritual reality (no doubt Platonist hangover here). He argued that corporate institutions drowned out the voice of nature which is the true source of our humanity. Emerson and Thoreau were fascinated with the native American culture, not only because they were communal, but because they were still intimate with Nature, rather than mired in corporate contracts and laws.

I've probably rambled here, but at any rate, it's a shot at the individualism part of Emerson's plea.

#17 Theresa
Yes, we do honor the solitary genius, artist, "Ubermench", but isn't that more in the abstract rather than every day life. In our society, we want people to "fit in" & though we say that the great creators are "great" at the same time people who see things a little differently are often unwelcome. Children are taught to "get along" & be part of the group. Eccentrics are often ridiculed. A new developement is medication, people who don't "fit in" are urged to see a psychiatrist & take a pill.

We pay lip service to non-comformity, but shun the non-conformists in our midst.

#18: What you say about "higher truth": this is what I was rubbing up against when I said "ultimate truth" (as opposed to "one" truth).

The higher (or ultimate) truth can change with time, and that makes one vulnerable (as opposed to someone who believes his truth is the only truth).

What I mean about the truth changing with time is that our thoughts and beliefs adapt according to our experience and learning. I may be secure in my Christian beliefs until I read the teachings of the Buddha, for example. The search for the ultimate truth is a process; I doubt it ever ends.

I like this idea because then we are not bound to a "foolish consistency." We are always open to other ideas.

I agree that Emerson didn't want people to be contrary just for the sake of being different or lawless.

But, like MLK, one should choose not to obey immoral laws.

Of course people will always argue about what is immoral or not. But I feel like if we are seeking an ultimate truth rather than "the one" truth (perpetuated by institutions, states, governments, certain religions), then we will be following a higher calling.

Thanks, Marian, for joining us in this discussion. Nice to add the "Ubermensch" into the thread. Nietzsche, who didn't seem to like too many people, admired Emerson and mourned his death. I agree, society does not like the high maintenance of dealing with someone who is out of step. We would rather that they just suck it up, and try to find a way to fit in quietly. What I find sad is that many individuals also feel threatened by the one who marches to a different beat, as if they themselves are threatened because that one does not echo their perspectives. I know I'm guilty of that myself. I don't always show openness to others, though I expect them to remain open to me.

I like your remarks, Theresa. Long ago, in my theology days, I recall professors distinguishing between propositional truth and personal truth. It sounds like this could be in the ballpark of what you are expressing. I agree with your idea that our "truth" changes as we move through life. Karl Barth once wrote that trying to describe God was like painting a bird in flight. That is how I view "truth" in the Emerson sense.

Somewhere in his writings--"Self-Reliance"? (I'm at school and don't have my Emerson here), Emerson uses a wonderful metaphor of a sailboat tacking as it reaches for its destination. The naysayers who cry "Inconsistent" are noticing the zig-zag pattern, but Emerson said it resolves itself into a straight line over the distance. I love that idea of how we "ratchet" our remarks to adjust to the changing perspectives we endure.

Marian, I agree that we do play lip service to our honoring of "individuals." Our literature is full of accounts of how we fear and often destroy what we don't understand.

And yet the myth runs so very deep. Today, for instance, I see people using individualism in the political realm as an argument, say, against social programs. Our myth of individualism puts undue pressure on the individual to "succeed" and I don't think Emerson would have approved of that.

The outlaw, the pioneer, these are our culture heroes. The culture heroes like Spiderman afford us a way of looking at the darker aspects of self.

Regarding Native Americans. I will use the Cheyenne as an example. The Cheyenne would never say, "I think so." The Cheyenne would say, "We think so." They say, "We are Cheyenne," whereas an American is more likely to say, "I am proud to be an American." Vastly different perspective. I don't think that today we understand this kind of communal thinking. Emerson admired it and studied many examples of the communal lifestyle, including Fourier's, which he deemed too mechanical.

I do think Emerson was on a good track with his thoughts on nature but sometimes with the Transcendentalists I miss the darker side of life.

David, what I meant by complexity and chaos stems from what happens when one sees the forest instead of the trees. Consider the lowly faucet: When the faucet is initially turned on, it spills individual drops which come faster and faster eventually (like a split second) becoming something entirely different, a stream of water. The drops cannot be separated from the stream, while the stream requires the drops for its existence. I think this is what Emerson was heading toward. Seen one way, we are individuals, but we also create another, complex, organic, human life form as a whole. We have two sets of responsibilities: to ourselves and to the community. The question then is where does one draw the line between the sense of responsibility to oneself and one's sense of commitment to the whole. This dichotomy creates within the group norms of behavior moderating both sets of responsibilities so the whole benefits from the individual while the individual trades individuality for the safety of inclusion in the whole. These norms start out as tried and true social responses to current conditions and it is to the benefit of both the whole and the individual that these norms are followed. Over time conditions change and the current norms no longer suffice, in fact most "norms" begin with the seeds of their own obsolescence buried deep inside. As conditions change not all individuals understand or see the need for change, while others are ahead of the norms. Wallah! Conservative vs. progressive politics. Depending on how radical the required change to create new norms for new conditions become this can lead to wars, national destruction, and other man-made communal disasters, while within the community the individuals have not changed. Large scale social movements are the result of this kind of change.

The United States at the time Emerson was thinking was a brand new thing in the world, a communal response to changed conditions (being 2 to 3 months removed from the controlling authority, rather than in the same place) brought about by a perceived change in the relationship between the individual and the whole. It would have been natural for him to think in these terms.

On the Platonism inherent in his thought, he was a Christian minister and Christianity, over time, had codified Platonism as the underlying foundation upon which the entire edifice rests. Perfect heaven, fallen man. This is NOT where Christianity started, but, here we are.

I am glad to see that new approaches (more Aristotelian than Platonic) are being explored in terms of the nature of God and God's creation. Creation is ongoing, humans are co-creator's with God, and God is constantly revealing more about Himself to us.

I take a rather mundane approach to truth. To me, truth amounts to as objectively accurate a description of something as can be arrived at within the limitations of current existence. However, as ongoing creation brings change, our descriptions of "truth" change as the nature of that truth is more fully revealed. Two thousand years ago there were four elements: earth, water, wind, and fire. Now there are well over a hundred, some of them not found in nature. Our expanded understanding of the elements has given us the ability to create elements ourselves.

I have not got to Emerson's discussion of "soul" and "oversoul", but it sounds on the surface pretty Platonic. Plato's worldview requires a static environment to be a "truthful" system. It doesn't deal well with change. This was the root of Aristotle's argument with him.

I am dumbfounded that teacher and student would create the two most successful worldviews one after the other, and the world is still hashing them out.

What doesn't change in all this is the nature of morality. Morality dictates the way individuals relate to one another and this internal relationship (internal - within each drop) informs the morality of the whole. While attitudes toward slavery change, the morality of owning, and thus controlling, the life of another individual involuntarily does not change. It is immoral because you place yourself between an individual and the individual's own relationship with himself. To me, morality protects the individual's relationship with self and God. Moral actions facilitate positive internal growth in other human beings.

As long as change continues in the human sphere there will never be an ultimate truth.

Emerson on the over-soul:


"We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are shining parts, is the soul."

--------------------------

I brought up the points earlier about individualism because I'm sure we all have a different idea of what it is and also a different idea about what Emerson's definition of individualism is.

Regardless of the fact that the American people are prone to conformity, the idea of "the individual" is deeply engrained in our national mythology. In fact, individualism is a foundation on which our mythology stands.

The 19th Century is so fascinating, as Gene says. So much MOVEMENT. So much hope about what America could become. So, yes, Emerson's thoughts stemmed from that great tide: Whitman's, too.

When one considers the requirements for hewing a Western nation from the forests, plains and deserts of North America, individual intelligence, practical skills, and self-reliance were paramount, but as I said, nearly all norms come with their demise built-in. In this case it is just this selection for individual success that causes our current problems in determining the line between individual and social responsibility. Those who would make great colonizers are not so successful in our current world and in fact can be seen as obstacles to forward movement.

Our modern world selects more and more for traits of cooperation and human socialization (empathy) rendering the individualist an outlier.

Gene, I may be misreading you when you said: "Plato's worldview requires a static environment to be a 'truthful' system. It doesn't deal well with change"

Did you mean to say that Emerson's oversoul requires a static environment?

Actually, I see the oversoul differently: I think for Emerson no virtues were eternal. As I said before, there is not "one" truth. I think for Emerson, life was about being awake and aware; it was about discovery. He sought the "brief experience" whereby one encounters a special or profound truth. I suppose a word for it would be epiphany. Emerson sought this "newness" or fresh truth and rejected dogma.

To me Emerson's philosophy is anything but static. He was influenced by Eastern teachings and came to reject much of what Christianity had come to stand for.

But it is his dedication to "newness" that attracts me.

"To me Emerson's philosophy is anything but static. He was influenced by Eastern teachings and came to reject much of what Christianity had come to stand for."

As I said I haven't read Emerson's "Oversoul" yet, but it sounds to me that if he rejected Christianity it was the stagnation inherent in Platonism that drove him from it, but there was not enough mysticism in his understanding of Christianity to carry him over the hump to a radical new vision of God and Christianity incorporating this new dual vision of humanity. I must read much more before I really feel competent to address this.

I don't think he completely rejected Christianity; he just rejected the dogma. He finally had to break away because he was going into a different direction than the beliefs of his church would allow. I think Emerson SAW the mystical nature inherent in Christianity but I don't think his church saw it. I think for Emerson God is alive and not historical. It's been said that Emerson's mysticism helped Whitman to form his poetry. Other people argue that Emerson was more of an intellectual than a mystic. But I think people who say this attach mysticism to the emotions. I personally don't see a contradiction between the intellect and mysticism.

But I need to review this myself...DM Tripp, help!

LORD have mercy! I slip away to finish a watercolor, pull together a slide lecture for tomorrow's Jackson Pollock session, cruise through the Barnes & Noble store to purchase copies of Brautigan and Roethke, take a retired Texas Wesleyan professor to dinner, and then come home late to all this wonderful discussion! You people are incredible. Where to start? Sorry for the cop out, but it's 10:51 my time, my day started at 5:30, and tomorrow starts at 5:30. So, I promise to respond tomorrow probably before noon. I need to re-read all this--I cannot believe how much territory you covered, and I cannot begin to absorb it all and respond this late into the night. Thank you, from the depths! Talk to you tomorrow, from the depths.

#30: Shame on you! Don't you know we come first? :-)

Paint me ashamed! O.K., I'm home from school and a multiplicity of errands. I have a guitar lesson in 90 minutes. I'm up to my elbows in another watercolor, but your discussions have been ringing in my head all day.

I'm not a very systematic thinker (but neither was Emerson), but nevertheless, I'll see if I can put a few more logs on the fire (great--a mixed metaphor, among writers no doubt).

Emerson's Christianity is hard for me to unravel. In reading some of his late lectures to the Boston Masonic Home, I am convinced that he was still Christian in the loose sense. As a Unitarian minister, he was far to the left of American theological discussion of the nineteenth century. Unitarians had a positive anthropology, affirming that human nature was intrinsically good. You, Theresa, have noted that Emerson has no answer for evil.

He left his church, probably over the distractions of his recently deceased wife, juxtaposed with the church's inflexible stands on pulpit prayers and Lord's Supper administrations. To my perspective, the Unitarian Church's God had shrunken to an intolerable smallness. Emerson was on a quest for much more. He found it in Kantian philosophy, distilled through Wordsworth, Coleridge and Carlyle while he sojourned in Europe, and hence Transcendentalism was hatched. There is much in Transcendentalism that squares nicely with Christianity, and Emerson still knew how to use his New Testament, but he was also absorbed with Eastern thought and a variety of other traditions.

I'll confess that I'm in a fog about Emerson's Oversoul. I have never been satisfied with explanations I have read in secondary literature, and I frankly have not worked in Emerson's writings in a way to separate all the strands of Oversoul. In fact, I cannot really think of extended passages where he speaks of this. No doubt a blind spot for me to this day.

My fascination with American Scholar is that Emerson, one year later, is adding several footnotes to his thesis in his 1836 Nature--that America's apprenticeship to Europe has reached its end, and it is time to go directly to Nature for our understanding of truth, rather than looking through the eyes of those who have written before us (Whitman--you shall no longer look through the eyes of the dead, not through mine, but shall listen to all sides and filter them through yourself--loosely paraphrased).

I hope some of this makes sense, and that you two are still "around." Thanks for the new chapters added yesterday--sorry I was out of the house for so many hours! I have dreamed of such discussion as you poured out yesterday. LT has finally given me what I've sought in vain for over a decade.

David, I am relieved to see you admit that you aren't "a very systematic thinker." I'm not, either. My thinking, as well as my writing, is organic. My understanding of Emerson is in its infancy. We all have to start somewhere!

I'm primarily a creative writer, not a scholar. And when I study a writer from the past, I must find a way for that person to be real for me, a human being, not a collection of abstract notions. I like to feel the person beside me and hear him breathing. The last few months, Emerson has become a real person to me. He struggled to understand life, just as I do now. He experienced loss, he had moments of profound connection, he loved, he was conflicted, he was idealistic and level-headed, too. Perhaps there was a struggle within for which would hold sway: his idealism or his Yankee pragmatism.

Once I isolate a human struggle, I feel closer to the person, indeed, I am able to love him. Love is all.

I think the oversoul might be a term for "the creator." I think that for Emerson, the over-soul has to do with the mystery of our connection to "the creator," to wholeness, unity. But I don't think Emerson had a clear idea of what "the creator" is. "The creator" is a mystery. This explanation seems rather facile. Sorry.

Well, Theresa, you certainly struck a chord there. The reason I am a biography addict (by the way Emerson said there is no history, only biography) is because I want to connect with these great minds as people, and not as museum pieces. I like your mention of hearing them breathe beside you. When I read American Scholar, I hear Emerson's voice behind the lectern, and feel the collective gasps of the class of '37 (including Thoreau, if indeed he bothered to attend) as those words echoed through that hall. I recall the line from "Shadowlands"--"We read to remind ourselves that we are not alone."

As I mentioned earlier, Emerson found me, when I cast about as a young educator, looking for something to which to anchor my soul and intellect. He convinced me that I could be more, that I could do this, and that students would convert.

#35--Woo-ha! We've got our work cut out for us, looks like!

Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. OOOPS! That was Whitman. Let's see, Emerson. Oh yes . . . "Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

#36: I always remember what Joseph Campbell said about how we never have to make our journey alone: heroes have come before us and can help point the way. I am always on the look out for literary heroes.

#38: So much of Emerson's "knowing" has to do with intuition, too, which can't be measured or tied down.

What a great quote from Emerson: what is that from?

#38: Knowing takes different forms. I'm reminded, too, of what Roethke said: "We think by feeling, what is there to know?"

So many heroes, so little time in this life. I recall earlier your mentioning your fascination with the early nineteenth century. I have devoted years to Emerson and Thoreau, but have barely scratched the surface with Hawthorne, Melville and Twain (O.K., I guess I like the entire 19th century). I always swore I would read every poem in Leaves of Grass, and every one of Emily Dickinson's poems. And yet at the same time, I sorely want to read well-researched biographies on these souls, and dig into their journals and notebooks as well. And that is just 19th-century America. What a treasure.

Yes, absolutely. I've been having a serious go at Dickenson, too. I've been reading biographies, her letters, her poems, literary criticism, and I still feel I know nothing!And I have a biography on Melville I've only half finished. Sigh!