1.
    Mary Moody Emerson
    Letters to a Future Transcendentalist
    (1817--51)    
    Mary Moody Emerson (1774-1863) was Ralph Waldo Emerson's aunt and   first mentor. She was a striking figure in her own right. She   impressed all who came into contact with her--which included most of   the Transcendentalist circle--with her unsystematic brilliance, her   spiritual intensity, her biting wit, and her eccentric force. The   younger sister of Emerson's father, she became the family matriarch   after his early death. She had high hopes that Ralph Waldo would   distinguish himself in the ministerial career that the men in his   family had pursued for six unbroken generations back to colonial   times. She wound up driving him toward Transcendentalism even as she   tried to warn him away.
    The many letters she sent him over more than forty years display her   unique talents. They led Emerson, astonishingly, to praise her as one   of the great prose stylists of her day, although she wrote almost   nothing for publication. Both of them relished their correspondence.   Many of Mary Emerson's turns of thought and even her turns of phrase   resurface in his own later essays. They took a similar delight in the   natural world, in ranging widely through Asian as well as western   thought and literature, in moral and spiritual inquiry, and in a   headlong free-associative style of thought and expression.
    Here are a dozen passages from Mary's letters to her nephew, starting   with a comically extravagant letter of congratulation upon the start   of his freshman year at Harvard at the tender but then typical age of   fourteen. Often she responds pointedly to his own letters and   compositions, from a juvenile proposal for "reform" of drama through   high-minded literary criticism (item 4) to major work like his 1838   Divinity School Address (item 11), which took her aback, as it did   most of his elders. Mary's oblique reflection on the controversy, her   fable of Urah, may have suggested Emerson's poem "Uriel" (see Section   V-B below).
    Too conservative to approve of Waldo's Transcendental turn, Mary   Emerson nonetheless helped set him--and the movement--on the way. But   no matter how famous he became, she never ceased to admonish him when   she thought he deserved it. Her charge that wealth was a topic   unworthy of him (item 12) is a prime example.
    SOURCE: The Selected Letters of Mary Moody Emerson, ed. Nancy Craig   Simmons. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993. Spelling as well   as punctuation of these letters have been partially normalized for   the sake of readability.
    (1)
    What dull Prosaic Muse would venture from the humble dell of an   unlettered district, to address a son of Harvard? . . . In that great   Assembly, where human nature is purified from its native dross &   ignorance, may the name of my dear Waldo be inrolled.
    [NOVEMBER 4, 1817]
    (2)
    The spirits of inspiration are abroad tonight. I have rode only to go   out & see the wonderous aspect of nature. . . . We love nature--to   individuate ourselves in her wildest moods; to partake of her   extension, & glow with her colors & fly on her winds; but we better   love to cast her off and rely on that only which is imperishable.   Shakespeare has admirably described the universal influence of the   infinite Spirit by that of the sun, whose light & warmth brings to   maturity the healthiest plant & the most poisonous--corrupts the   corruptible, & nourishes the splendid tribe of flora with the same   beam. What an illustration--and of what a truth! . . . Right and   wrong have had claims prior to all rites--immutable & eternal in   their nature . . .  [JANUARY 18, 1821]
    (3)
    I have been fortunate this week to find a Visitor here from India,   well versed in its literature & theology. He showed us some fine   representations of the incarnation of Vishnoo. They are much akin to   Grecian fable--and from his representation I believe the incarnations   to be much like the doctrine of transmigration. At bottom of the   histories of the incarnations is often the doctrine of the universal   presence & agency of One God. . . .
    As to books, I've been only where you have, sometimes in Merlin's   cave and Homer's shades, sometimes. Was delighted with the speech   made by Ulysses to the shade of his mother. [Alexander] Pope's--is it   better in original? Have been surprised to find in the 10th book of   [the Roman poet] Juvenal some lines very like to the concluding ones   of [Samuel] Johnson's "Vanity of Human Wishes." Could Johnson have   borrowed from the heathen?  [MAY 24, 1822]
    (4)
    . . . As to words & languages being so important--I will have nothing   of it. The images, the sweet immortal images are within us--born   there, our native right, and sometimes one kind of sounding word or   syllable wakens the instrument of our souls and sometimes another.   But we are not slaves to sense any more than to political usurpers,   but by fashion & imbecility. Aye, if I understand you, so you think.
    In the zeal of writing I began with the last sentence of your letter,   & have just read backwards till I am now for the first time in cool   possession of the whole letter--Glad to hear you complain of fine   splendid expressions without proportionate fine thoughts. But not   that in order to judge you must read all the pieces or rather that   you intend a reform which will oblige you to go thro' such bogs &   fens & sloughs of passion & crime. . . . And to me who am, if   possible, more ignorant on the history & character of the Drama than   any other subject, it seems a less usefull exercise as it respects   the reformer than any scientific or literary pursuit.  [JUNE 26, 1822]
    (5)
    . . . Would to God thou wert ambitious--respected thyself more & the   world less. Thou wouldst not to Cambridge [to enroll at Harvard   Divinity School.] . . . It is but a garnished sepulchre where may be   found some relics of the body of Jesus--some grosser parts which he   took not at his ascent . . .  [NOVEMBER 7, 1824]
    (6)
    It is worse than idle to ridicule the fall--unless you can account   for the origin of evil. . . . The apple may be allegorical--but if it   were real it answered for a sign, an arbitrary one, be sure, of a   government disciplinary & perspective. The principle of obedience is   the first in education--and the more trifling the object the more   important the danger of defection. . . . Evil must have a beginning.   If it were eternal--! What should we infer--that eternal right was   coeval with--& implied in its opposite? . . . Well, one & all have   the subject in the dark where God intended. And I never talk of the   fall nor think of it--for the difficulties are too great.  [JULY 8,   1827]
    (7)
    Would I could die today that this aching sense of immortality might   be satisfied or cease to ache. The difficulty remains the same when I   struggle with the extension of never never never--just as I repeated   the exercise in childhood: cant form an idea, cant stretch myself to   that which has no end. It may be owing to the limits of childhood   repeating the idea & wishing to come at an end in vain. . . . It is   this impossibility of losing oneself, tho' ages pass over the change,   that argues immortality.  [SEPTEMBER 9, 1827]
    (8)
    My thanks for the sensibility you express at my being hurt to be   thought by you distraught. But after all I do appear so to other   folks, when under the influence of the indifference I feel to society   (or somthing worse) with the extreme pleasure of wittnessing their   fine things. The fears which I read in the countenance of my family   lead me to act more independently than I should, if I were coaxed   with their confidence. . . . You have borne with my outre manners and   protected them better than any youth. Only forgive me greater &   worser defects of character--and these which pass away with the   discordant humours of the body are of no import.  [MAY 2, 1828]
    (9)
    Let us not complain of calvinism--its most terrible points are better   than nothing. If the bible is a fable I would cherish it now in age   with undying zeal--It may have a truth of infinite weight like other   fables which have a little. But it is not a fable I know. It answers   to the living consciousness of God's impress on the soul. It develops   the divinity within. Not the poetic gospelless divinity of German   idealism--whose baseless fabrick will vanish into thin air.  [AUGUST   (?) 1829]
    (10)
    You most beloved of ministers, who seemed formed by face, manner &   pen to copy & illustrate the noblest of all institutions, are you at   war with that angelic office? . . . And I may ask what you mean by   speaking of "a great truth whose authority you would feel as its   own"? In the letter of Dec 25 you [write] "whether the heart were not   the Creator." Now if this withering Lucifer doctrine of pantheism be   true, what moral truth can you preach or by what authority should you   feel it? Without a personal God you are on an ocean mast unrigged for   any port or object. Then why not continue to preach--& pray too?   Where is the truth, so infinitely weighty with the true theist,   injured? Some body must keep up these idle institutions & they may   keep men from jail and gallows. What better scope for the   intellectual reservoir? And such has been your integrity, whenever I   have been indulged with hearing or reading, what St Paul, who had the   fullest convictions of Jesus being the only medium of communication   with the Incomprehensible, would not tax your sincerity, tho' he   would regret the different character you assigned. Pardon me if I   declaim with the garrulity of age.
    [FEBRUARY 1832]
    (11)
    I love to gaze after the illuminati. . . . Yet believe with Burke   that no improvement can be expected in the great truths &   institutions of morality and religion. And I lost my inquiries in   thinking of the fabled Urah, who belonging to the coterie of Plato,   was sent down by that high person . . . to reform a certain district   and give it some utopian ornaments--so dully progressive so sober &   stale that in his disgust he breathed a fire which consumed every old   land mark--tore up the moss-covered mounds; and the very altars which   had been the refuge of the poor & sinfull & decrepit instead of being   bettered were almost demolished--and in the destruction it is said   that the wings of the spiritual vehicle were so scorched that he was   forced to ask aid of a disciple of the old reforming Patriarch who   was buried on some old loved spot, and he, tho' looked on as a very   plodder, constructed a chariot of clouds which conveyed the messenger   home to new fledge his wings. And the story goes, that when they were   in action again he visited the same place & found it overrun with   barbarism & governed by an ugly Radicale.  [SEPTEMBER 1838?]
    (12)
    Wealth my dear Waldo: how could you--you gifted to rouse the interior   to make even Christians think & feel at certain high sentiments--how,   under what illusion, could you lecture to Concord of its advantages?   You sap the foundations of all that is great & independant. Oh send   the young to Brothels & intemperance. . . . You who have steadily   stood for the rights of the slave are riveting his chains & pursuing   the fugitive with increasing the rage the mania for wealth. Were you   poor (and the papers speak of your high taxes) what a beautifull   vision you might have drawn of its baseless fabrick while you   awakened charity in its depths and glory. Forgive me if I offend, &   send me the lecture.
    [FEBRUARY 1851]    
    2.
    Samuel Taylor Coleridge
    Reason Versus Understanding
    (1825, 1829)    
    Coleridge (1772-1834) was a leading British Romantic poet and one of   the most inventive critical thinkers of his age. Along with Thomas   Carlyle, he was more influential in interpreting German thought for   American audiences than any other early-nineteenth-century British   writer. A prime example is Coleridge's restatement of the Kantian   distinction between "Reason" and "Understanding," in the face of the   prevailing Anglo-American view, which rested on John Locke's   contention that all knowledge is derived empirically, from sense   experience. In Locke's view, reason and understanding were   synonymous. Coleridge prepared the way for the Transcendentalist   conception of Reason as a power of mind or soul that enables a person   to grasp divine or Transcendent truth intuitively. (Ironically, Kant   himself had explicitly denied the human mind such power. Such are the   vagaries of intellectual history.) Coleridge's distinction reached   most Transcendentalists through the American edition of his Aids to   Reflection (1829), edited by Vermont Calvinist James Marsh   (1794-1842). This indeed was "the decisive event in establishing   respect" for Coleridge "as a thinker," as the authoritative modern   scholarly edition of Aids declares. Marsh's prefatory remarks   chastised Locke and seconded the importance of the   Reason-Understanding distinction in ways that prompted both foes and   friends to lump Marsh with the Transcendentalists--to his acute   irritation.
    SOURCE: Aids to Reflection, ed. James Marsh. Burlington, Vermont:   Chauncey Goodrich, 1829. Reprinted from the original English edition   of 1825.
    Reason is the Power of universal and necessary Convictions, the   Source and Substance of Truths above Sense, and having their evidence   in themselves. . . . Contemplated distinctively in reference to   formal (or abstract) truth, it is the speculative Reason; but in   reference to actual (or moral) truth, as the fountain of ideas and   the Light of the Conscience, we name it the Practical Reason.   Whenever by self-subjection to this universal Light, the Will of the   Individual, the particular Will, has become a Will of Reason, the man   is regenerate: and Reason is then the Spirit of the regenerated man,   whereby the Person is capable of a quickening inter-communication   with the Divine Spirit. . . .
    On the other hand, the Judgments of the Understanding are binding   only in relation to the objects of our Senses, which we reflect under   the forms of the Understanding. . . .
    To apply these remarks for our present purpose, we have only to   describe Understanding and Reason, each by its characteristic   qualities. The comparison will show the difference.
    UNDERSTANDINGREASON
    1.Understanding is discursive.1.Reason is fixed.
    2.The Understanding in all its 2.The Reason in all its decisions
    judgments refers to some other appeals to itself as the ground
    faculty as its ultimate authority.and substance   of their truth.
    3.Understanding is the faculty 3.Reason of Contemplation. . . .
    of Reflection.-Reason is a direct Aspect of Truth,   an inward Beholding, having a similar relation to the Intelligible or   Spiritual, as Sense has to the Material or Phenomenal.								
									 Copyright © 2006 by Lawrence Buell. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.