Carol--You may be interested in the letters Emerson wrote to the President about the Indian removal. The best place to look is at www.rwe.org where they have his writing online. I quoted a bit from one in an earlier post; they are quite eloquent.

Also, not that it is pertinent to your research, you may be interested to know that Thoreau had an interesting relationship to Indians. He kind of idealized them which, according to one presentation I heard recently, arguably, inhibited him from being as ardent for their rights as he was about slaves.

On his trips to Maine he met an Indian guide who influenced him deeply.

Zeke wrote: A member of this circle of strong women was an ardent reformer named Lydia Maria Child. She was active not only as an abolitionist, but in the women’s rights and Indian rights movements. I hope to learn more about her in the future.

Thanks Zeke for all the info -- most interesting. I will look at Child's writings. I have (as my grandmother would say) "Indian blood in my veins" and have been documenting our family's oral stories. Thanks.

Thank you.

Patrice wrote: "Sorry, I'm not going anywhere! My class starts this week. I'll be reading Thucydides and Plato for the next several months so I'll have to miss Les Mis."
------------------------------------------------------

That’s too bad (that you will miss Les Mis) because you have such a unique voice. Your class will be lucky to have you!

Sorry, I'm not going anywhere! My class starts this week. I'll be reading Thucydides and Plato for the next several months so I'll have to miss Les Mis.

And I imagine life was similarly hard for those in the peasant and subsistance farmer classes in those centuries, as well as earlier.

Patrice wrote: "Just want to say that this is an incredible group and I'm going to miss you!

Where are you going?

Everyman wrote: "Peregrine wrote: "Everyman, #146: We should read Germinal by Émile Zola. I read that book when I was 18, over 30 years ago, and it has never left me."

If it comes up in ..."

What I meant only was: Here's a book that shows working class the way you describe them in your post.

Just want to say that this is an incredible group and I'm going to miss you!

Zeke, thanks so much for the background information. It's really made me think about what exactly constitutes "class" in society . It's definitely more than money.
In one way is sounds as though Emerson was a real rebel. Perhaps he was defending his way of life in his writings. Wasn't hard work and material gain part of the Protestent Ethic? It sounds as though he was really breaking away.

Jennifer your comments also are so thought provoking. Everyman, too. I find each post so enlightening.

Everyman wrote: "I think Jennifer's point was more that of true laboring class people -- miners, foresters, sailors, carpenters, men (almost always) whose physical labor drained virtually all their resources by the end of the work day, and who were put out to labor early in life rather than having the opportunity for schooling and college."

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

That is exactly what I meant, Everyman, but I do think Zeke shares some valuable information that helps shed some light on Emerson’s and Thoreau’s socioeconomic backgrounds. Neither man is quite the “ivory tower intellectual” that I may have pegged them out to be.

I used the fact that both men attended Harvard in my determination of class background. When I say working class people I mean people who live pay check to pay check and at times go without one or more things that most people consider life essentials, people who don’t generally have a chance to seek higher education.

Peregrine wrote: "Everyman, #146: We should read Germinal by Émile Zola. I read that book when I was 18, over 30 years ago, and it has never left me."

If it comes up in our random selection rotation, we'll certainly have a chance to vote on it. There are so many, many great books we all want to read!

Zeke wrote: "Very valid points Everyman. I was mostly trying to provide some context since I have the benefit of knowing some of the history. I think that Thoreau, especially, was questioning the value of what we call labor; why work to enrich someone else? Better to lessen your own "needs" and live life more fully. And I agree that such a position is easier to take when one's belly is not growling."

And I did enjoy and appreciate the additional background on Emerson and Thoreau. Despite all the reading I have done in 18th and 19th century authors, it's hard for me really to put myself into the lives of the people living there.

A wee bit off topic, but maybe not much, there was a show on PBS a few years back that I think was called "Manor House." It tried to replicate the lives of the masters and servants of a manor house in London in I think the late 19th century (later than Emerson and Thoreau but perhaps not all that different a time for the human condition). The "family" and the servants were all volunteers who were coached in their tasks, using domestic instruction books of the time. There were two points I took from it. One was the vast disparity in lifestyles between the family and the lower servants. The upper servants didn't have it all that bad -- the governess, housekeeper, cook, and butler. But the maids, the scullery maid, the boot boy, etc. had total abysmal lives, working long, long hours at heavy work, making virtually no money, almost no time off, just awful lives. The young woman who played the scullery maid quit because she just couldn't take the hours of backbreaking work. We think today of laborers as workers with minimum wage protections, workplace safety laws, unemployment insurance, prohibitions against employer violence, and all sorts of other protections. There were none of those back then.

Maybe this is more off topic than I had thought, but it struck me that when we think of laboring and working classes, we really have very little idea (and the idealized PBS book adaptations don't help) what life for the laboring classes was really like in the 17th to 19th centuries.

Everyman, #146: We should read Germinal by Émile Zola. I read that book when I was 18, over 30 years ago, and it has never left me.

Very valid points Everyman. I was mostly trying to provide some context since I have the benefit of knowing some of the history. I think that Thoreau, especially, was questioning the value of what we call labor; why work to enrich someone else? Better to lessen your own "needs" and live life more fully. And I agree that such a position is easier to take when one's belly is not growling.

Zeke, thank you for all the interesting background info on Emerson and Thoreau It makes their works that much more interesting for me.

Zeke wrote: "Ralph Waldo Emerson’s childhood and youth were spent quite close to poverty. His minister father died when he was eight years old. The family was too poor for dancing or horseback riding and he never had a sled...Thoreau’s family was not well off at all. His mother took boarders into their Concord home to help make ends meet. The family business was making pencils..."

I see what you're saying, Zeke, but I don't think that answers the primary point that Jennifer was raising. A minister's son might not have much money, but at the same time it's not a laboring life -- presumably his father was educated, and there were probably books in the house and encouragement of reading. And one who owns a business and has a large enough house to take in boarders isn't of the laboring class, either. Thoreau may have held various jobs, but some presumably by choice not necessity, since with a Harvard education even in those days he would have had opportunities open to him.

I think Jennifer's point was more that of true laboring class people -- miners, foresters, sailors, carpenters, men (almost always) whose physical labor drained virtually all their resources by the end of the work day, and who were put out to labor early in life rather than having the opportunity for schooling and college.

Zeke wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "I think it is safe to say that both Emerson and Thoreau come from social class background that would allow the kind of time it takes to not only become fully immersed in philosophi..."

Invigorating and useful, Zeke. Thanks.

Jennifer wrote: "I think it is safe to say that both Emerson and Thoreau come from social class background that would allow the kind of time it takes to not only become fully immersed in philosophical thoughts about what self-reliance and authenticity are but to also have the time to write about it in detail."

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s childhood and youth were spent quite close to poverty. His minister father died when he was eight years old. The family was too poor for dancing or horseback riding and he never had a sled.

He only became “comfortable” after his beloved young wife Ellen died and he won a dispute with her family over the dowry she brought to the short lived marriage. (It is touching that his second wife, Lidian, insisted on naming their daughter Ellen, after Emerson’s lost love.) Despite the nest egg, Emerson still needed the income from his lecture tours. Well into his decline from the early stages of his Alzheimer’s disease, Ellen would travel with him and assist him as he attempted to read his notes.

He was a benefactor not only to Thoreau, but to others of the Concord group. It was Emerson’s money that supported the feckless genius of Bronson Alcott and kept the Alcott family afloat until income from Louisa May’s writing finally made them secure.

Although the atmosphere around the transcendentalists was somewhat detached from the realities of life for most people, they were not “ivory tower” intellectuals. In their day, the Lyceum lectures were avidly attended by the public and the idea of community betterment and education were widely embraced. In my opinion, the transcendentalists were not “speaking down” to anyone; if anything, the public was better equipped to respond to serious intellectual arguments than our entertainment culture is today.

Thoreau’s family was not well off at all. His mother took boarders into their Concord home to help make ends meet. The family business was making pencils. Thanks to Henry’s innovation they developed a way to pour the lead graphite into a pencil mold rather than gluing two pieces of wood together. This brought them some success. The exposure to lead also probably contributed to Henry’s death from Tuberculosis.

For their tenth reunion, the Harvard class of 1837 was asked to share information about their professions. After insisting that he feels little class spirit and has almost forgotten his four years at Harvard, Thoreau continues: “It is not one but legion, I will give you some of the monster’s heads. I am a schoolmaster—a private Tutor, a Surveyor—a Gardener, a Farmer—a Painter, I mean a House Painter, a Carpenter, a Mason, a Day-Laborer, a Pencil Maker, a Glass-paper Maker, a Writer, and sometimes a Poetaster. “

Hardly endeavors that kept him insulated from working men.

His real vocation is to discover what is essential in life. The introductory pages of the first chapter of Walden (“Economy”), before he begins his narrative, are a scathing commentary on the division of labor and consumerism. “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensible, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.”

Later, he admires the labor of a neighbor he observes moving a heavy boulder—until he discovers that the labor was performed in the employ of a wealthy landowner who is using the boulder as a decorative ornament to his lawn.”

He wants to find a way to free himself as much as possible from dependence on things: “Men have become the tools of their tools.” The one thing he wants to hoard is freedom; the freedom, dare I say it, to be Self-Reliant. He says, “…the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.”

I have no quarrel with the assertion that women disproportionately focused on domestic matters, freeing the men to pursue their esoteric philosophizing. While at the extreme, the suffering of his wife during Bronson Alcott’s attempt to create a utopian community at Fruitlands is truly harrowing. It is also devastatingly described in Louisa May’s Transcendental Wild Oats.

One example: Having excluded not only animal products (and animal labor, Alcott (and his partner, Charles Lane) also banned salt, cane sugar, spices, coffee and tea. Of her young girl’s observations of her mother’s futile struggle to feed the group, Louisa later wrote that no beast was sacrificed on the domestic altar but “only a brave woman’s taste, time and temper.”

However, it is important to also note the influence of strong, independent women on Emerson and the movement. His father’s sister Mary Moody Emerson was an outspoken and eccentric character who maintained correspondence with him until her death in 1863. He copied out the best of her communication into indexed notebooks of 870 pages.

The brash feminist Margaret Fuller described herself thus to Emerson: “I now know all the people worth knowing in America, and I find no intellect comparable to my own.” Even in the privacy of his journal he didn’t take issue. He supported her work and when she, her husband and child were killed in a shipwreck off the coast of Long Island, dispatched Thoreau to the site in what proved an unsuccessful effort to recover their bodies or papers.

Another formidable, female intellect in the transcendental circle was Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. She was an educator, publisher and ran the West Street bookstore in Boston which hosted conversations for women that are 19th century precursors to what the Women’s Lib movement of the 1970s called “consciousness raising sessions.”

A member of this circle of strong women was an ardent reformer named Lydia Maria Child. She was active not only as an abolitionist, but in the women’s rights and Indian rights movements. I hope to learn more about her in the future.

A side note, to conclude, on domestic affairs. Touring the Emerson house in Concord, I learned the origin of the phrase, “sleep tight.” It turns out that 19th century mattresses lay atop a lattice of ropes (as opposed to springs). At the foot of the bed was a crank, which was turned to pull the ropes taut. Hence, “sleep tight.”

Peregrine wrote: "Finally, what should perhaps have been first, this is my first reading of Emerson at all. "

That's one of the things I love about this group. It's a great combination of first time readers of these books, and those who may have read them several times (or more, such as Zeke's experience with Emerson and Thoreau). The combination of first and fresh impressions and more experience with the ideas is a really neat combination, and makes for much more vigorous and interesting discussions than would be the case with all new or all multiple-time readers.

Here I am to add my few small stones to the edifice. Speaking to the "footprints" paragraph, the one which begins "And now at last the highest truth on this subject remains unsaid . . .", I believe Emerson is speaking of the moment of creativity, of vision, and not of everyday life. There is that moment when it's just you and the stone and chisel, you and the pen and paper, you and the paints, brush and canvas. What you have learned of your craft from others is in you, for sure, and if you were to make a speech or write a dedication, you would certainly acknowledge that. In the moment of creativity, though, it is all about your own power to make from your own abilities, not to copy someone else. That, I think, is what Emerson means by "from man, not to man." You take what you've learned from others, plus your own abilities, and make something new.

I note how patriarchal Emerson is in his presentation. What he is writing about is available to few women at all, even in the leisure class. I agree with, and have learned from, what others have said about the working class, literacy, etc. I am sure Emerson did not wash diapers, cook meals, or make beds. But then as more people, at least in the West, have more leisure time, I think more people are free to take up ideas such as Emerson's in this essay.

I was discussing this essay with someone who thought that what Emerson was saying about charity (Then again, do not tell me, as a good man did today, of my obligation . . .), was about the industrialisation of charity, of the rise of the idea that one can give a dollar and think no more of poverty. I present this as food for thought, as it certainly is for me.

Finally, what should perhaps have been first, this is my first reading of Emerson at all. I think too, as someone else posted, that other of his work will round out his ideas more. For myself, I find much of this essay stimulating, and even validating of the life of the mind, the internal life, in and for itself. To live a balance between practical demands and the bringing to life of inner realities has long been my concern in my own life.

Patrice wrote: "I must be of a different generation but in my experience men generally do not do much around the house."

My wife makes sure I'm the exception to your experience.

Patrice wrote: "I must be of a different generation but in my experience men generally do not do much around the house.

In general, isn't it the leisure class that writes?
"

This calls to mind a college seminar on Pride and Prejudice where an indignant student pointed out somewhat forcefully that "these people don't have jobs!" After a long pause the seminar leader said with a sigh, "Yes. These people do not have jobs."

Speaking of housework, I have to attend to my weekend chores now. I think I like your generation better, Patrice.

Jennifer wrote: "I think it is safe to say that both Emerson and Thoreau come from social class background that would allow the kind of time it takes to not only become fully immersed in philosophical thoughts about what self-reliance and authenticity are but to also have the time to write about it in detail."

That's a very good point -- which you could add to the point that universal literacy is still a fairly recent development, so not only do many working people not have time for writing, they may not have had much education or even become literate, and they didn't have the leisure time as children to do the reading that is the background for much philosophical thinking. (Milton took several years just to read everything of importance in his time.) And it would have been harder for working people to have the contacts to get their writing published.

Still, I'm sure there were some working class people who also were published writers (the slave narratives of the US are certainly one such example.) Dickens certainly came out of an impoverished background, and Trollope worked all his life (though in a government, not laboring, job) and wrote in odd moments, on trains, in the early morning, etc.

But there have been some p

Jennifer shares two very interesting, thought provoking posts. I am away all day today and part of tomorrow, but I will be thinking about the questions she raises and want to try to share a few thoughts in response.

As for Patrice's comment about men and housekeeping--no comment!!!!! <wink>

I must be of a different generation but in my experience men generally do not do much around the house.

In general, isn't it the leisure class that writes?

Zeke wrote: "I find it interesting that Emerson’s protégé, Henry David Thoreau, has not been mentioned more in this discussion. In many ways he is the exemplar of Emerson’s exhortations in Self-Reliance. This ..."

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

I too was surprised that Thoreau was not mentioned more often in the discussion posts. I read through about the first third of Walden, about a year ago, before some required reading for a class took me away from the book. I was fascinated by his experiment. Would it be safe to say that Emerson provided the inspiration that set Thoreau in the direction of finding his personal identity, but then Emerson (from your historical account of the relationship between the two men) seems to have looked down upon or been disappointed by the direction that Thoreau takes in finding his place in this Universe? It’s strange because I thought Emerson suggests that we follow our intuitions and not use the words of those who have gone before us to determine our thinking. I thought that Thoreau’s decision to deviate from Emerson’s ideas in order to follow his own would not have only been greatly respected by Emerson but that it also would have been following the exact advice that Emerson gives in Self-Reliance, to trust yourself.

I spent about an hour earlier this morning reading through everyone’s wonderful posts…so insightful and thought provoking. I only wish my schedule allowed for me to take the time to read this carefully through the posts on a day to day basis.

I think it is safe to say that both Emerson and Thoreau come from social class background that would allow the kind of time it takes to not only become fully immersed in philosophical thoughts about what self-reliance and authenticity are but to also have the time to write about it in detail. This is not something that most working class people have the time to do, but it doesn’t mean that their ideas would be any less valuable; in fact, their thoughts may be all the more valuable because working people represent a huge portion of the population in Emerson’s time, as well as our own. I wonder, Zeke or anyone, do you have any suggestions for writing that has been published by working Americans regarding the subjects of self-reliance and authenticity during the same time period as Emerson’s work? I think it would be a great experience to see how their ideas compare with Emerson’s.

I keep thinking about Emerson’s wife and children. I want to know if, as a result of Emerson’s dedication to excluding himself from material pursuits, they suffered in any way. In a much earlier post Adelle (Post No. 7) noted that Emerson’s wife did much of the hard household tasks. If he really stuck to ideas about materialistic pursuits, I don’t know that he would have troubled himself to engage in essential, albeit mundane, tasks that are necessary in maintaining a sanitary living environment. Someone has to do the dishes, take out the garbage, wash the laundry etc. Would these have been materialistic pursuits to Emerson? Who would have done those things around his house…his wife, a housekeeper? This all goes back to one of Everyman’s earlier posts (Post No. 65) about others that may have provided the means for Emerson to live his ideal life, ensuring a sort of consistency in the work they did, but at the same time possibly sacrificing their ideal lives.

Patrice wrote: "I'm reading a book about Saudi Arabia written by Carmen Bin Laden, Osama's sister-in-law. ...Emerson is on my shoulder as I read this book"

Whether or not one agrees with Emerson, his point of view has to be considered and dealt with.

I'm reading a book about Saudi Arabia written by Carmen Bin Laden, Osama's sister-in-law. I know I've read a great book when I see everything through the eyes of the author. Emerson is on my shoulder as I read this book. So much of what he said is so much a part of being an American. We take it for granted. When reading about the Saudi mind-set, I hear Emerson's words ringing out, imploring them to set themselves free. Submission, obedience, repression, loyalty to clan, those seem to be the values of Saudis. Although I've heard about this before, to see it through the eyes of an individual who is not allowed to be an individual, is something else. Freedom can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as this kind of slavery.

Zeke wrote: "The relationship between Emerson and Thoreau is actually one of the more complex and intriguing ones in American literary history. "

Impressive and very interesting, Zeke. Thanks so much for taking the time to post this.

Wow ! Excellent post, Zeke.

The relationship between Emerson and Thoreau is actually one of the more complex and intriguing ones in American literary history. Emerson was Henry’s role model, friend, mentor and patron. However, he could also be patronizing and stifling, forcing Henry to assert his independence. The “breach” hurt both of them and, like many a filial misunderstanding, was never fully reconciled.

Scholar Robert Sattelmeyer describes it as, “a long personal struggle between the two men: a struggle to be heard, to be understood, to prevail philosophically, and to realize the high and noble friendship that each aspired to but despaired of ever achieving.”

Thoreau was a senior at Harvard when he was influenced by Emerson’s early essay Nature. They knew each other before that, since Emerson had written to Harvard’s President to recommend a scholarship for Thoreau. Fourteen years older than Thoreau, Emerson was well established and the leader of the transcendentalist circle when he delivered the graduation address (The American Scholar) at Thoreau’s 1837 graduation.

Henry’s journals, which would swell through twenty four years to over two million words, were almost surely prompted by Emerson. The first entry, on Oct. 22, 1837 reads: “‘What are you doing now?’ he asked. Do you keep a journal?’ So I make my first entry today.”

As editor of the transcendentalists’ magazine The Dial, Emerson would champion Henry’s writing, but he unwittingly gave him bad advice by encouraging him to underwrite the cost of publication for his first book, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers. (This led to Thoreau’s quip in his journal in October of 1857, “I have now a library of nearly nine hundred volumes, over seven hundred of which I wrote myself.”)

One of the reasons for going to Walden (he built his cabin on land owned by Emerson) was to work on that book. Previously, he had lived with the Emerson family, exchanging chores, and conversation with Emerson, for his room and board. He would live there again when Emerson traveled in Europe developing a close (though there is no suggestion of sexual) relationship with Emerson’s wife Lidian.

However, the stress in the relationship dates from the forties and the lack of success of A Week. Emerson seems to have been disappointed in Henry’s failure to live up to his high expectations. Noted biographer of both men, Robert Richardson, describes it thus: “Emerson felt and tried to fight what he perceived as Thoreau’s increasing, unreachable, provincial isolation and loneliness.”

For his part, Thoreau wrote: “I had tenderly cherished the flower of our friendship till one day my friend treated it as a weed. It (did not survive the shock but) drooped & withered from that hour.—A Friend avoids the subject of friendship—in conversation.—It is a very sacred relation which is not liable to a vulgar difference.”

Efforts at rapprochement never seem to work when two people do love each other but cannot communicate. How sad that these two eminent men of words could not reach each other. Emerson put one such failure into a disguised anecdote: “ ‘I love Henry,’ said one of his friends, ‘but I cannot like him; and as for taking his arm, I should as soon think of taking the arm of an elm-tree.’ “

In my opinion, like many fathers, he simply could not abide the younger man’s independence or his failure to achieve what was expected of him in the manner it was expected. Even in his eulogy after Thoreau’s death at forty four from Tuberculosis, Emerson cannot restrain himself from derogation.

“ …I so much regret the loss of his rare powers of action, that I cannot help counting it a fault in him that he had no ambition. Wanting this, instead of engineering for all America, he was the captain of a huckleberry party. “

As the rupture evolved, Thoreau was becoming, well, Thoreau. Time would demonstrate that he was developing into precisely what Emerson could never fully credit: a masterful writer, effective social-activist and naturalist. Though there is no evidence for the celebrated exchange between the two on the night Thoreau spent in jail for his civil disobedience, the story does illustrate a deeper truth about the relationship. Supposedly, when Emerson came to the jail and asked Thoreau what he was doing in there, the younger man responded, “What are you doing out there?”

I will transition to a few short comments about Walden by turning this phrase, because I believe many readers also misunderstand what Thoreau was doing “out there.” In my opinion, there are two major ways in which readers misread Walden.

First, some read it as a sacred text. They fall for a myth of a hermit sitting and meditating beside an edenic pond. This leads them to putting passages on posters with little more merit than the sentiments on a Hallmark greeting card.

On the other hand some (and, here, I fear my friend Everyman may be among them) go to the opposite extreme; they chastise Thoreau for insufficiency at doing something he never intended to do. He went to Walden seeking privacy from a crowded household so that he could write a book (The Week on the Concord and Merrimack) and to “conduct an experiment in economic independence.” (Richard Schneider)

Neither of these requires isolation from family or friends. And his understandings of the flaws in a society built on production and consumerism are as relevant today as it was a hundred and fifty years ago.

Adam Smith contends: “Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences and amusements of human life.”

Thoreau concludes from his experiment, “…a man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.”

One need not agree with Thoreau’s conclusions, or one can agree with them and find them impractical, but I think we would be a lot better off today if more people had seriously engaged with the multiple messages in this book.

Another theme of the book is the observation of nature. Thoreau developed into a leading naturalist and in many ways his observations (especially regarding seeds and the manner in which forests develop) mirrored and complemented those of his contemporary Charles Darwin. In this work, of course, he diverged widely from the ambitions of Emerson. Yet it is to this work, in part, that Emerson refers in the moving concluding words of his eulogy:

“The scale on which his studies proceeded was so large as to require longevity, and we were the less prepared for his sudden disappearance. The country knows not yet, or in the least part, how great a son it has lost. It seems an injury that he should leave in the midst of his broken task which none else can finish, a kind of indignity to so noble a soul that he should depart out of Nature before yet he has been really shown to his peers for what he is. But he, at least, is content. His soul was made for the noblest society; he had in a short life exhausted the capabilities of this world; wherever there is knowledge, wherever there is virtue, wherever there is beauty, he will find a home.”

To the end of his life Emerson regarded Thoreau as his best friend—even after Alzheimer’s disease had robbed him of the ability to recall his name.

#127 Zeke: Walden could be a worthy candidate for a future group-book or an essay

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

I enjoyed reading Walden even though as Everyman notes, Thoreau may not have been completely honest about the experience, I think it still is a worthy read for the sentiment it imparts.

I have a beautiful anniversary edition. The pictures are gorgeous and nice to meditate on as you slowly read Walden.

http://www.amazon.com/Walden-Anniversary...

Zeke wrote: "I find it interesting that Emerson’s protégé, Henry David Thoreau, has not been mentioned more in this discussion."

Certainly Thoreau exemplified in many ways the nonconformist thinking that Emerson advocated. But do you know, Zeke, whether Emerson's principles as discussed in his essay were more inspired by Thoreau's example, or whether Thoreau was more inspired by Emerson's principles, or whether the two sort of "egged on" each other pretty much equally? I don't know, and am too lazy to look up when I can just ask you (g) whether they were about the same age and developed their principles sort of in parallel, or whether one was more the protege of the other.

As to Walden, if you want to discuss it, put it up on the bookshelf and we'll see, but personally I think it's a lot of reading for very little discussable material. It's a bit of a fraud, IMO; I've visited Thoreau's cabin site on Walden Pond, as I'm sure you have, and the idea that he was going off into some of wilderness to live simply off the land is very far from the reality. He was in and out of town, dining with his friends, having visitors. Many of the farmers who went further West in Massachusetts, New York, etc. to carve homesteads out of the true wilderness were much better examples of people living off the land in isolation than Thoreau. He just had the smarts to write about it when they didn't.

But that's just me. Others here may be more inclined to read and discuss the book it it comes up for a vote.

I find it interesting that Emerson’s protégé, Henry David Thoreau, has not been mentioned more in this discussion. In many ways he is the exemplar of Emerson’s exhortations in Self-Reliance. This is true not just in his decision to go to Walden: “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” It is also true in his decision to leave: “I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.”

He epitomizes Emerson’s comment in Self-Reliance: “They who made England, Italy, or Greece venerable in the imagination, did so not by rambling round creation as a moth round a lamp, but by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth.”

It is also true in his refusal to pay a poll tax that would support enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law (though Alcott had previously refused without being jailed) and in his ringing the church bell to summon the townspeople to hear his Plea for Captain John Brown when the town officials refused to do so.

Highly important, for me, was his work on the underground railroad, helping fugitive slaves make their way to freedom—sometimes using Emerson’s carriage. This was far more important and impressive than his symbolic night in prison (and his anger at having his tax paid by someone else).

The most important outcome of the civil disobedience episode was his account of it which was originally titled, Resistance to Civil Government, an essay which inspired modern resistors including Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

As a stylist, Thoreau is far superior to Emerson in my opinion, and certainly more accessible to modern readers. He writes vividly and employs good humor and punning. Indeed Everyman, Walden could be a worthy candidate for a future group-book or an essay (possibly Civil Disobedience or Life without Principle, which has been described as Thoreau's “Self Reliance”) for an Interim Read. Walden is one of those books that literate people think they know from high school or college, but which has depths one only appreciates on second (or third, or fourth) reading.

I hope this wasn’t off topic; I tried to confine myself to the self-reliance aspect of Thoreau.

Carol: I've emailed The Amistad Center for Art & Culture (a non profit organization at the museum where I volunteer) to see if they can help them in any way.

That's really cool Carol! Let us know if anything comes of it. If you have ever visited the Old Manse, you know that the site they want to move the house to would be wonderful.

Zeke wrote: "This morning's Boston Globe (9/14) has a story about the last remaining house in Concord, Mass that was built by and housed a freed slave and his descendents.

For nearly a century, three generati..."

Heart-breaking. Although individuals can make donations, they need much more. I've emailed The Amistad Center for Art & Culture (a non profit organization at the museum where I volunteer) to see if they can help them in any way.

This morning's Boston Globe (9/14) has a story about the last remaining house in Concord, Mass that was built by and housed a freed slave and his descendents.

For nearly a century, three generations of black residents descended from a freed slave named Caesar Robbins lived in the house. A veteran of the American Revolution, he was freed in 1780, the year that Massachusetts enacted a Declaration of Rights stating that “all men are born free and equal,’’ said Lou Sideris, chief of planning and communications at Minute Man National Historical Park.

The house is also closely associated with the abolitionist movement, and once hosted a meeting of the local Female Anti-Slavery Society.

Residents are now trying to save it from demolition.

I have visited Concord several times for conferences and to visit historic sites. It is one of those places where palpable history sits side by side with modern wealth. The Globe story captures the tension. The whole story can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/peyoym

Great Alias. All of the greats, they may not be self-protective but what they do is for the greater good.

I was reading the GoodReads quote page and thought these two fit Emerson well.

Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square hole. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
— Apple Computer Inc.


Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
— Mark Twain

1. Laurale quotes C.S. Lewis: But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do."

I agree that this seems to capture the kind of reading Emerson is talking about and, more generally, his thoughts about community. The last sentence is very Emersonian to me. Also, in the quotation Lewis uses the metaphor of the eye. One of Emerson's most famous --and perplexing-- images is his description of himself as becoming a "transparent eyeball."

2. There has been a lot of interesting discussion about conformity and Emerson's apparent call for nonconformity. I wonder how opinions might be different if for nonconformity we substituted the word "authenticity." I believe that is really what Emerson is calling for for himself and others.

The "nonconformists" I see mostly seem to be nonconforming in exactly the same way as a lot of other people.

Emerson seems to be saying that one should ignore the opinions of others. I can't agree with him, but I think one should be careful about whose opinion one pays attention too. I say, seek out people who seem wise, judicious, and careful, and consider carefully their opinions, especially when they disagree with yours.

Carol wrote: "So for him it is easier to go from “one God” to “oneself". Christians who see God as the Trinity, are focused on a loving relationship and see pride as self-centeredness.
"

Very interesting, Carol. I hadn't thought of the religious aspect of this too much, but I looked over the "Last Supper" and it seems to be in line with what he says in Self-Reliance. Emerson has tremendous faith in the ability of individuals to intuit the divine, and he seems to think that the main obstacle to this is the interference of ritual and the "social" structure that supports it. The problem remains the same: the individual conscience versus the collective understanding. Your emphasis on relationships is right on the mark, I think. Emerson wants none of it (at least so far as it interferes with individual conscience.)

#103 Everyman: What if your mind does tell you to be a Columbine killer -- is Emerson saying that's what you should do?
====================

Forgive me one more time for going OT, but since you mentioned Columbine, I wanted to recommend a terrific thought provoking book titled Columbine by Dave Cullen. The author has a GoodReads page and did Q&A there recently. One of the boys who committed the horrible crime, Harris, was diagnosed as a psychopath and on meds . I don't know if such a person is in control to make a clear decision on their actions. So I don't think Emerson would apply in that case. It's a fascinating read.

Speaking of the brain and patterns, I hope this isn't too OT. I read in the book Brain Rules that right now you are hallucinating. You are perceiving parts of this post that do not exist. The author explains that "there is a region in the eye where retinal neurons, carrying visual information, gather together to begin their journey into deep brain tissue. That gathering place is called the optic disk...there are no cells that can perceive sight in the optic disk. It is blind in that region-and so are you. It is called the blind spot. Do you ever see two black holes in your field of view that won't go away? That's what you should see. But your brain plays a trick on you. As the signals are sent to your visual cortex, the brain detects the presence of the holes and then does an extraordinary thing. It examines the visual information 360 degrees and around the spot and calculates what is most likely to be there. Then, like a paint program on a computer, it fills in the spot... It does this based on prior experience with events in your past. It gatherers up numerous assumptions, than offers them up for your perusal." ...It does this all in a blink of an eye."

In some people this goes haywire and they see things that aren't there. It's called Charles Bonnet Syndrome. The people who have it know that the things they are seeing are not really there. "Sufferers, who are mentally healthy people with often significant visual loss, have vivid, complex recurrent visual hallucinations (fictive visual percepts). One characteristic of these hallucinations is that they usually are "lilliput hallucinations" (hallucinations in which the characters or objects are smaller than normal). "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bon...

Here's something I just read. Sounds like he could be answering Emerson.

"Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. There are mass emotions which heal the wound; but they destroy the privilege. In them our separate selves are pooled and we sink back into sub-individuality. But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do." C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism, page 141.

Patrice wrote: "I've been thinking about "divine providence" all day. I suppose since Emerson was immersed in the concept he took it for granted. But what would that mean today? Jim Jones and his followers in J..."

In the 1700’s the states of CT, MA, NH, RI were regarded as dominant in Congregational faith with as many as ½ to ¾ attending. From 1820 to 1850 the following denominations expanded into the 13 colonies: Episcopal, Unitarian, Methodist, Universalist and Mormons.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ance...

Regarding “Divine Providence” aren’t all denominations in Christianity based on divine providence? The purpose of divine providence is to accomplish the will of God. If God was not in control of all things then he is not sovereign, and if he’s not sovereign then he’s not God.

Emerson was trained as a Unitarian minister. The Unitarian church differs from other Christian faiths in that they don’t believe in the trinity of God and instead see Jesus as a prophet.

I think that most Christians believe in the trinity of God. If God had only one personality he could be accused of selfishness and isolation. But since he always existed in 3 personalities, each has always yielded to the others providing a model of love and relationship. God did not create love, he is love. God did not invent relationship; he has always been in relationship. Relationship is his greatest desire and that is why he created man (and woman after he saw that man “alone” was not in his image.)

When I first read Self-Reliance it bothered me that Emerson was so focused on self. In Christianity the first sin is not the Fall of Man but the pride of arch-angel Lucifer. He didn’t want to put God in the center of his life and serve him. He wanted to be the center of his own life and have others serve him.

Emerson saw God as a single deity, and when he became discouraged with the church, he stated in The Lord’s Supper -

I am so much a Unitarian as this: that I believe the human mind cannot admit but one God, and that every effort to pay religious homage to more than one being, goes to take away all right ideas. I appeal, brethren, to your individual experience. In the moment when you make the least petition to God, though it be but a silent wish that he may approve you, or add one moment to your life, — do you not, in the very act, necessarily exclude all other beings from your thought? In that act, the soul stands alone with God, and Jesus is no more present to the mind than your brother or your child.

So for him it is easier to go from “one God” to “oneself". Christians who see God as the Trinity, are focused on a loving relationship and see pride as self-centeredness.

Everyman post #101 wrote: But doesn't even nonconformity have a design? I remember being terribly amused back in the 60s with the hippies who claimed to rebel against all authority and conformity and to be free to be themselves (very Emersonian!), but who would up being very conformist in their nonconformity.."
----------------------------

:) Perhaps, if we do something just for the sake of being non-conformist. That would be a pattern and a goal in itself. But if one was non-conformist in order to be able to think outside the box, than that is different. The goal is different. One has to deliberately fight the impulse that our brain was evidently wired with to seek out patterns, and try to see things differently. Even if we are doing that by design, we will find ourselves on a new and uncharted path.

I just got back from spending the evening with my son, dil and 4 year old grandaughter. After dinner we went to a park and my grandaughter found 4 or 5 other little girls. They started running in circles. My dil is a psychiatrist and I asked her about Emerson. Why is it that these little girls immediately started to do the same thing? It seems to be something in-born. She said that it's adaptive to conform. If a saber toothed tiger is coming at you and someone screams and runs and y ou decide not to follow you will be eaten. It's how kids learn. They model each other, they form schema. Once they've internalized so much, once they've been socialized, then they don't have to think about it. It occurred to me that the odd thing about lemmings is that they do go over cliffs. Other social animals don't. They bond together and conform to the group in order to survive.

I appreciate the kind words and the warm welcome to the group from Everyman and Everyone. I really owe an introduction post, and will try to make one soon. It's just by chance that this interim reading comes from an area of my reading concentration: 19th century American history and culture. I can assure you that when we get into other books --like Les Miserables-- my posts will be shorter and I will probably be seeking lots of guidance rather than pontificating.

No. On second thought. I will probably pontificate even if I don't know what I am talking about!

Thanks again for this group and the welcome. I am about 300 pages into Les Miz and looking forward to the conversation.