Reading Emerson

For my Early American Lit course, we're suppose to write journal entries for each reading assignment. Thought they might make excellent blog material. The journaling can be very informal... do not expect my best writing. Just my jumbled thoughts.

January 5, 2012

Finished the first Emerson readings today. Thought I’d journal early while it’s fresh. Professor Abrams suggested that we would find Emerson a difficult and tedious read, but I found the readings most interesting. Difficult, yes. But not enough to deter me. Just had to slow it down and read carefully. Very carefully.

When starting the first paragraph of “Nature,” I knew that I was going to be quite distracted the elegance of Emerson’s writing. This means that I am so taken by the words used and how they’re put together and how they sound when spoken, that I completely lose their actual meaning. I’ll read an entire paragraph, admiring its appearance, but come away with absolutely no comprehension. I found the first paragraph of “Nature” interesting because I’m also taking a class on Contemporary American Lit with a focus on historical fiction. We’ve been talking about why we look to the past and why we write about the past. But Emerson seems to be saying that people should live in the present. That we shouldn’t look to the past for guidance in “our own works and laws and worship.” When I saw the word “worship” I was immediately taken back to Prof Abrams’s discussion of the religious crisis during Emerson’s time.

On to the selections from “The American Scholar.” The bit about the One Man divided was interesting. The One Man is society as a whole and in the divided state, all the functions of the One Man are parceled out to individuals. These individuals, in order to “possess himself” must return to Man; but this is impossible as the original Man has been divided too many times… so paradox? At least that’s my understanding. Part II was about books. Which made me happy because I like reading about books. Unfortunately I found this part quite confusing. “The theory of books is noble…” Good thing I’m an English major. That entire paragraph (“The theory of books…so long does it sing”) connected with my other American lit class actually. (Must congratulate advisor on advising me to take early and contemporary at the same time.) The difference between non-fictional and fictional. Will take too much time to write about here and besides tis a bit off topic. I think that Emerson is making a distinction between the right kind of reading and the wrong kind of reading. There’s a wrong kind of reading? Emerson focuses on the individual a lot...the active soul. He writes about how it would be better to never see a book than to be completely influenced by a book and become a “satellite instead of a system.”

There was a lot in the Divinity Address: the moral law that’s in every person’s soul (naturally?), religious sentiment, Jesus Christ as man, the two errors of the church (the historical Christianity and that the Moral Nature of the soul is part of the “established teaching in society”), the decaying of the church because of these errors, and possibly how to fix these problems. I wish I could hear the thoughts of some of the students listening to this address. Again, Emerson speaks to the soul and its divinity. Emerson writes about Christ as man and I couldn’t determine whether he believed that Christ as God come down from Heaven or just a prophet… a man who completely recognized God’s ability to act through him and that God is incarnate in man. And that all men can become like this? Was also interested by references to Eastern religions. Can’t wait to unpack this in class. Come to a better understanding. Might reread if I have time. The other passages were short with less material to cover. This one deserves more time.

Hope I’m writing these journal entries correctly. Terribly informal writing.