After
reading John Updike 's
autobiography, I picked up a book from another New England writing institution and author from Harvard (but I go rather
backwards in time, Updike is fairly contemporary). Ralph Waldo Emerson's
writings hint at an extraordinary lifetime of journal-keeping. You may have
read his witticisms here and there (for
example, “Build a better mouse trap and the world will find a path to your door”), but few
know he inspired an entire thought revolution of his own, called Transcendentalism. To
cut a long story short, his theories will appeal to secularists, idealists,
individualists and to all those who believe in the inherent goodness of human
beings. Emerson opines that souls act (or "transcend the material
world") as vessels of god. Transcendentalists
regard spiritual power as the core content of human capacity. You can summarize
that Transcendentalists are sort of romantics; they mix this romanticism with
ample religious seasonings. Importantly, they are staunch believers in the will
in power of humans which overcomes any incidences of fate, which makes them closer
to the pragmatists.
A
word about his writing style prevalent in the nineteenth century: Emerson
(hereon mentioned as RWE) sounds like a clergyman. He places himself high above
the 'hoi polloi', to justify, sermonize and preach. Indeed the control over his
words is so superior to the mortals that you want to read his sentences twice,
thrice and once more to understand his powerful proclamations. But in all
fairness, RWE is hardly a fan of logical flow; he meanders, often from one
exaggeration to another. You can miss an entire page and leap on to the next
only to find several more of his magnificent wordy-ornamentations extended to
one brilliant sentence.
I
usually do not 'dog - ear' my books, but Emerson is so full of wisdom,
literally entire pages are written magically. In this post, I will share excerpts
from various readings which struck me most. [In square brackets, you will find
my ponderings.] Overall, he is so inspirational that even a born cynic will
question himself/herself after reading RWE.
On
Power of Individuals / Essay “Self Reliance”
The man
must be so much, that he must make all circumstances indifferent.
[Now, he will induce a new line of thought to the
powerful provocation above]
Every true
man is a cause, a country, and an age; requires infinite spaces and numbers and
time fully to accomplish his design; and posterity seem to follow his steps as
a train of clients.
[There
is point after which you stop to question this extreme idealism. To think or
assume anyone will have infinite time and space to accomplish their grand
design? And have you met anyone short of an insane genius who knows their grand
design? But, you will still find several nods in agreement over RWE’s
rhetorical rhyme.]
A man
Caesar is born, and for ages after we have a Roman Empire. Christ is born, and
millions of minds so grow and cleave to his genius, that he is confounded with
virtue and the possible of man. An institution is the lengthened shadow of one
man; as, Monachism, of the Hermit Antony; the Reformation, of Luther;
Quakerism, of Fox; Methodism, of Wesley; Abolition, of Clarkson. Scipio, Milton
called "the height of Rome"; and all history resolves itself very
easily into the biography of a few stout and earnest persons.
[Hence proved! Hail RWE!]
On Permanence and Fluidity / Essay “Circles”
There are
no fixtures in nature. The universe is fluid and volatile.
[Powerful provocation introduced]
Permanence
is but a word of degrees. Our globe seen by God is a transparent law, not a
mass of facts. The law dissolves the fact and holds it fluid.
[He quotes a quasi- religio-scientific factoid to
support his assertion above]
Our culture
is the predominance of an idea which draws after it this train of cities and
institutions. Let us rise into another idea: they will disappear. The Greek
sculpture is all melted away, as if it had been statues of ice; here and there
a solitary figure or fragment remaining, as we see flecks and scraps of snow
left in cold dells and mountain clefts, in June and July.
[Hence proved again, RWE is so beautifully convincing!]
On
Poets and the Rest of ‘Them’ / Essay: “Poets”
[The point where I agree (I find myself bit of
pragmatist than swaying in idealism) with RWE is his sense of classifying
people, and his allergy to superficiality in them. In this essay his major
objective is to glorify poets and sort of make them seem heroic in contrast. I
mean, I agree with him, in my opinion, there is something extraordinarily
under-rated about being a poet: in general, we have no concerts, no applauses, and
no photo shoots…all we maintain is a silent thought in our head of being
“different” and “sensitive” than the rest of the junta. And then there are the
“rest” which seem to us like shallow showoffs, and who obviously do not read
what we write. ]
“Those who
are esteemed umpires of taste are often persons who have acquired some
knowledge of admired pictures or sculptures, and have an inclination for
whatever is elegant; but if you inquire whether they are beautiful souls, and
whether their own acts are like fair pictures, you learn that they are selfish
and sensual. Their cultivation is local, as if you should rub a log of dry wood
in one spot to produce fire, all the rest remaining cold.”
[He contrasts
the “rest” now with poets and great thinkers]
“But the
highest minds of the world have never ceased to explore the double meaning, or
shall I say the quadruple or the centuple or much more manifold meaning, of
every sensuous fact; Orpheus, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Plato, Plutarch, Dante,
Swedenborg, and the masters of sculpture, picture, and poetry.
For we are
not pans and barrows, nor even porters of the fire and torch-bearers, but
children of the fire, made of it and only the same divinity transmuted and at
two or three removes, when we know least about it”
[Poets are children of fire, a portion of divinity! Such
hyperbolic imagery! But then don’t you agree with the fella?]
RWE on Politics/ Essay “Politics”
[You would think that an idealist would desist to provide his
two pence worth on matters like politics. But RWE is no shy idealist. He has an
opinion on all matters material to the ways of the world. That’s where the
pragmatist in me, gulps his essay down with keen interest]
“We live in a very low state of the
world and pay unwilling tribute to governments founded on force”
[How terrible it is that the natures of governments have not
changed since more than two centuries. This
statement could still hold valid. Do I want to fund wars? Do I want to fund
corruption and inefficiency? But I am an unwilling participant in the evils through
the nexus of the governments that force me to participate in the entire
process. On a related note, transcendentalists are noted tax avoiders, look up Thoreau.]
“What satire on government can equal
the severity of censure conveyed in the world “politic”, which is now for ages
have signified cunning, intimating that state is a trick?”
[Again this is so true and accurate for contemporary times! We,
the people, associate politics with savage social interactions meant exclusively
for a few foxes, not knowing that even if we sit on the fence, we are very much
part of the game . So, we are satisfied alluding ourselves, only the trick is
still playing on us!]
[And now moving on to RWE’s recommendations on politics]
“The power of love , the basis for
the State have never been tried”
[Duh!]
Other mentionables:
[RWE has some gurus, Thoreau being the
most revered one. RWE devotes an entire essay on the eccentricities. On his
ideological opponent, Montaigne
he casts a pointed and verbose attack in
an another essay, placing idealism above Montaigne’s preferred skeptical realm.]
“Our America has a bad name for
superficialness. Great men, great nations, have not been boasters and buffoons,
but perceivers of terror of life and have manned themselves to face it”
[A classic take on America, again targeting superficiality
and purposefully romanticizing Sparta, Greece and the classical republics.]
There are several of such gems that gave me food for
thought, and I mulled over this book for the past month. And I must devote two
different posts, one on his essay on “fate”, and one exclusively on his poems.
I must say, to me he is better poet than an essayist. His language style and
ruminating persona echoes well in his poetry. I will cover that in upcoming posts.
