Just as Emerson’s conception of nature differs from the conventional one, the image he depicts of a scholar surprises most readers. Emerson rejects the standard oppositions of thought to action, and of a life of the mind to a life engaged with the world. What about Emerson’s exploration of what it means to be a scholar most surprises you?
Note that Emerson’s essay addresses the American scholar. In part, we may see this merely as recognition of an obvious fact: Emerson is addressing an American audience, specifically the members of the honors society Phi Beta Kappa. But Emerson addresses American intellectuals in ways he would not have spoken to an audience of Europeans. His point here is not just to advocate for a particular understanding of what a scholar should be, but to define what a scholar should be for the United States, a country that had declared its independence only sixty-one years earlier and employed its current system of government for less than a half-century. What aspects of Emerson’s argument hold special relevance or even meaning to an American audience?
Emerson’s view of history, like his view of virtually everything else, is expansive. All of the past — every person in it and every action taken, all of politics, society, art, philosophy, literature — is history. One might justifiably find this overwhelming, but Emerson balances this view of history with his own expansive sense of the self. How does Emerson define the ideal relationship between history and the individual? How should you engage with the history, with the great weight of the past, so that it empowers rather than enfeebles you?
Emerson’s expansiveness is at times so great that it appears to result in self-contradiction. In some ways, one could easily read his essay “History” as an argument against history as it is usually understood. Consider the ways Emerson undercuts some of the rationale for studying history at all, while simultaneously invoking people, events, texts, and artworks from the past in almost every paragraph. Consider any of the contradictory points you find in this essay. Does Emerson reconcile them? Can you? If so, how? If not, how does this affect your understanding and appreciation of the essay?
Consider Emerson as a writer. He
has a gift for images and metaphor that few other essayists possess.
Which
images or metaphors are particularly striking to you? On the other hand, as I have noted, Emerson has been called a superb writer of sentences and a terrible writer of paragraphs. If you agree, what do you think is the reason?