EMERSON

B=Bosco in Historical Guide

C=Carpenter
P=Packer
IEP = Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
=ilson! E"erson#s Metaleptic Style
$=$anella
%HEMES
& indi'idualis"&$(
& )elief in de"ocracy&$(
& support of the ordinary&$(
& opti"is" * $(
& reliance on spontaneous! intuiti'e insi+ht&$,,
& ulti"ates- truth! )eauty! +oodness&$,,
& intuiti'e insi+ht superior to pedestrian lo+ic&$,,
& opposition to rituals of or+ani.ed reli+ion&$,,
& opp to Cal'inistic e"ph on innate depracity and predestination&$,,
& opp to neoclassical for"alis"&$,,
& faith in pro+ress&$,/
& faith in di'inity of "an and potential for his +enius to flourish&$,/
& focus on the ri+hts and prero+ati'es of each person&$,/
& di+nity! 0orth! responsi)ility! authority of each sin+le! separate person&$,/
&distrust of philanthropy&$,1
&+ro0in+ co""it"ent to a)olitionis"! esp )y "id ,234s&$,3
&opposed "any Recon policies5 ada"antly supported ri+hts of freed sla'es&$,6
&"oral authority of indi'idual intellect and conscience o'er institutions&B,/
&authority of indi'idual e'en o'er the Bi)le&B,/
&li)eration fro" inherited past offered )y hu"an in'enti'eness and pol freedo"&B,/
&spiritual truth deri'ed fro" nature! not fro" "iraculous! supernatural re'elations&B//
&e'erythin+ can )e disco'ered fro" the close study of nature! )roadly construed&B//&/7
&influences- Plato! neo&Platonic! eastern! natural history&B/1
&transparent eye&)all in 0ho" all e+otis" has 'anished5 uni'ersal )ein+ circulates&B/1
&)reak 0ith dependence on i"itation of classical! Eur "odels&B/3
&accused of producin+ unclear! pantheistic +i))erish&B/3
&e'erythin+ in uni'erse stands in funda"ental rel to e'erythin+ else&B/(
&all is unified )y thou+ht or "ind&B/(
&infinitude of the pri'ate "an&B/(
&nature#s or+anicis"&/(
&indi'idual is part of a uni'erse strun+ to+ether )y "ultiple relational threads&B/(
&essays /
nd
- idealis" yields to realis" and fatalis"8&B/2&/9
&nature! idealis"! rels 0ith friends and fa" no0 struck E" as cold and e"pty&B/9
&death of son affected tone of second 'olu"e&B/9
&re:ected creatin+ disciples&B77
&Rep Men- not heroes! )ut "en of unco""on a)ility )ut 0ith fla0s&B7(
&Rep Men- struck conte"ps as reflectin+ concession of ideal to real&B72
&;look for the per"anent in the "uta)le and fleetin+<&B79
&;)ear the disappearance =of re'ered thin+s> 0ithout losin+ ? re'erence<&B79
&nature#s! culture#s! indi'idual#s persistent e'olution to0ard perfection&B19
&0riter as prophet and priest&B34
&"aterial pro+ress alone neither ar)iter nor "easure of culture#s 'alue@sA&B34
&re'ered force and ener+y5 results fro" his instincti'e faith in hi+her cause&B34
&essential dualis"- finite and infinite5 real and ideal&B3,
&a)uses! fla0s transitory! not per"anent5 pro+ressi'e e'olution&B3/
S%$BE CND %ECHNIEFES
& his style operates )est at le'el of indi'idual sentence *IEP
&essays )ound to+ether neither )y stated the"e nor pro+ression of ar+u"ent * IEP
&essays )ound to+ether )y syste"atic coherence of his thou+ht alone * IEP
& titles of essays do not li"it su):ect "atter * IEP
& eGplores contrary poles of particular idea5 si" to poetic antithesis * IEP
& hi+hly fi+urati'e style * IEP
& hi+hly Huota)le style *IEP
&clear in sentences! o)scure in para+raphs&NNDB
&sporadic o)ser'er 0ho sa0 )y flashes&NNDB
&coherence of his 0ritin+ lies in his personality&NNDB
&states his opti"is" "oderately&NNDB
&ha)it of close o)ser'ation&Outline of C"Bit
&influenced )y the aphoristic +enius of Montai+ne&OCB
&essays a++lutinati'e rathan or+anic&HIMIJones
&strikin+ thou+hts recorded in :ournals! then used in essays&HMJones
&his style less a piece of architecture than a pile of )locks&HMJones
&the 'er)al "otion is circular! not for0ard&HMJones
&the accuracy and pun+ency of his diction are )eyond praise&HMJones
&ai"s not at persuasion )ut transport&
&0anted a hi+hly char+ed 0ritin+ style&
&0anted his 0ords to )e as dyna"ic as nature&
&co"pression! density! contraction&
&"etalepsis- one trope or fi+ure added to another 0ith eGtre"e co"pression&
&se'eral fi+ures! tropes! allusions fused&
&use of allusion5 echo of past lit teGts&
&co"pleG! co"pressed style reflects co"pleG! interrelated nature of Nature&
&crosses nature and scripture! 0ords and thin+s! "ind and "atter5 chias"us&
&anaphora- s0ift succession of )lo0 on )lo0&
&intoGicated lan+ua+e&
&epi+ra""atic
&)rief utterances of poetic prose&$/2
&a)sence of linear! lo+ical pro+ression&$/9
&his 0illin+ness to eGperi"ent and re:ect con'entional rhet&$74
&personal e"ph&$
&nothin+ tentati'e5 tone of certainty5 e"phatic5 declarati'e5 eGhortatory * rce
& anthropo"orphis" * rce
& little effort at proof or ar+u"ent5 "ainly assertions&rce
&concrete i"a+ery! si"plicity of sy")ols and 0ords! for" follo0s function *StIJa"es
&spontaneous or or+anic&C
&so"e think he a)andoned all "ethod or for" in later essays&C
&E constantly conde"ned his o0n 0ritin+ for its for"lessness&C
&Carlyle co"pared E#s essays to can'as )a+s of )uckshot&C
&his philosophy of intuition and indi'idualis" :ustified this ato"ic literary "ethod&C
&isolated flash on insi+ht is all i"portant&C
&yet so"e 0orks are "ethodically or+ani.ed! 0ith nu")ered parts&C
&Matthiessen- his "ethod 0as an a)straction instanced )y indefinite K of e")odi"ents&C
&defines an idea and then illustrates it in 'arious 0ays&C
&descri)es or illustrates an idea fro" t0o or "ore POLsMrealistic and idealistic&C
&considered e'ery idea fro" POL of God and "an&C
&thus his essays or+ani.ed as pole"ic state"ent and counterstate"ent&C
&so"eti"es de'eloped an idea )y eGpandin+ it in "ore and "ore +eneral ter"s&C
&so"eti"es "o'es fro" specific to +eneral&C
&the essays do lack ;art!< in the sense of aesthetic for"&C
&hi+hly personal and infor"al style&C
&so"e critics ha'e decried eGcessi'e use of ;I<&C
&colloHuial5 'itality of the spoken 0ord5 spoken rathan 0ritten&C
&so"eti"es sounds a )it preachy! rhetorical&C
&feelin+ for the natural rhyth"s and e"phases of co""on speech&C
&feelin+ for the natural "eanin+ of indi'idual 0ords&C
&so"eti"es pro'er)ial5 so"eti"es epi+ra""atic&C
&aspired to )e intense! or+anic * to "ultiply si+nificance and treats 0ords as thin+s&C
&Bandor praised E for ;the "erit of not eGplainin+<&P
&E- ;C little +uessin+ does =the reader> no har"5 I ? assist hi" 0ith no connections<&P
&a)andoned stock properties of colle+e rhet for pun+encies of ,(c prose "asters&P
&atte"pted to rein'i+orate lan+ )y returnin+ it to its nati'e roots&P
&su++ests rather than tells5 refuses to defend5 co")ines eGcess 0ith reticence&P
&refusal to "odify or eGplain his "ore shockin+ assertions&P
&accused of 0itless opti"is"&P
&o)scurities! eni+"as! lacunae test reader#s intelli+ence and +enerosity&P
&a ;deep< teGt is one that challen+es the reader to intellectual acti'ity&P
&a")i+uities! paradoGes! understate"ents&P
&deli)erately re:ected careful intros! +raceful transitions5 )e+innin+s! trans a)rupt&P
&indeter"inacy of tone also "akes his prose difficult&P
&his sentences can usually )e read in "ore than one 0ay&P
&his essays )elon+ to the oral! not 0ritten! trad&P
&adopts the stance of the sa+e 0ho can +i'e ad'ice in li'in+&P
&
NC%FRE
&archetypal state"ent of transcendentalis" * StIJa"es
& reflects Col#s distinction )et0 reason and understandin+5 reason=intuition&SJ
&one of the "ost carefully or+ani.ed of his 0orks&SJ
&doesn#t decide 0hether nature eGists outside the "ind&SJ
&strikin+ epi+ra"s and startlin+ "etaphors to +oad readers into thinkin+&SJ
&its infl on 0riters has )een out of proportion to its popularity&C
&in it he tried to eGpress a ne0 phil of life all at once5 not surprisin+ that he failed&C
&)ut he su++ested or outlined all his "a:or ideas&C
&0rote in a poetic )ut concentrated style that challen+ed attn e'en if e'adin+ definition&C
&Hol"es called it a reflecti'e prose&poe"5 )eco"in+ "ore and "ore rhapsodic&C
&a )ook of opti"is" and youthful enthusias"5 increasin+ly critici.ed )y "oderns&C
&its popularity has tended to decline "uch "ore rapidly than less rhapsodic 0orks @SRA&C
&a ;crack< occurs )et0 the chaps on discipline and idealis"&C
&failed to sol'e phil pro)le" of "ind and "atter5 "erely :u"ps to ideal&C
&fla0 is that he +i'es the i"pression of ha'in+ sol'ed the pro)le"&C
&o'ere"phs the ;analo+y that "arries "atter and "ind<5 too si"plistic&C
&"akes "any eGtre"e! eGa+ state"ents5 also su++ests "any uniHue! se" ideas&C
&style 0as fresh and challen+in+
&diffs )et0 first and later eds5 "otto of second i"plies e'olution&C
&second ed less transcendental! "ore realistic than first&C
& =,> Cn essay )y NIRO RCBPH CBDO EMERSON NPIRO on 0hich he )e+an 0orkin+
in ,277I Pu)lished anony"ously in ,276! it 0as E"ersonQs first "a:or 0orkI E"erson
sees nature as RCo""odityR in its practical functions! as RBeautyR in the deli+ht it
arouses! as RBan+ua+eR in its sy")olical si+nificance! and as RDisciplineR in the
education it +i'es the Fnderstandin+ and the ReasonI hen "an is in co""union 0ith
nature he says to hi"self! RI )eco"e a transparent eye)all5 I a" nothin+5 I see all5 the
currents of the Fni'ersal Bein+ circulate throu+h "e5 I a" part or parcel of GodIR
=BENE%>
&e"ph on pro+ress&CliffsNotes
&each person "ust de'elop personal understandin+ of uni'erse&CN
&re:ection of recei'ed 0isdo"&CN
&unity of God! "an! nature&CN
SEBS&REBICNCE
&E#s +reatest essay5 )rilliant lan+5 uni'ersal applica)ility of ideas&C
&appeal has al0ays )een to the youn+ in spirit&C
&o'er&states its case5 only at the end does it Hualify its radicalis"&C
&essays takes for +ranted that indi'id is schooled and relies on conscience! God&C
&
CMERICCN SCHOBCR
&E#s "ost fa"ous speech&C
&alon+ 0ith SR! his "ost pop piece of prose&C
&enor"ously influential&C
&Hol"es called it ;our intellectual Declaration of Independence<&C
&not chau'inistic )ut independent&C
&the ideas of the piece 0ere not ne0&C
REPRESEN%C%ILE MEN