Emerson's "The Poet"

I approached this Literary Criticism class in which I am reading Emerson's work with much trepidation and nervousness, much to Dr. Powers delight, I'm sure. But then after reading Emerson's extremely eloquent and also long-winded essay on Art and Beauty as our first assignment, I realize that this class may not be so bad. I've found out, through this reading, that I am in fact a very critical person. Let's hope I do flourish in this class.

Seeing that I am a tride and true procrastinationist, I feel it may be excessive to write about what we have already discussed in class on Tuesday, so I'll start with my thoughts on Emerson as relating to William Bartram. Emerson writes that there is some "phlegm in our constitution" which prevents us from articulating the beauty of nature. He writes, "Too feeble fall the impressions of nature on us to make us artists. Every touch should thrill. Every man should be so much an artist that he could report in conversation what had befallen him." He goes on to claim that men do not have the speech to report such beauty. Now when I read the part about how every touch should thrill, I immediately thought of Bartram's extensive and precise catalogue of his travels through America in Travels of William Bartram. Each page is coated with praises of specific vegetation, each delicately crafted sentence is puncuated by an exclamation mark to the point of excessiveness. Can the man really not grow tired of the grammatical mark? Yet as I read Bartram's piece, I have to appreciate how much he knows of nature and I do have to appreciate his grandiose, lofty style in writing of it. The man really loves nature. Now I know-- at least, I think Emerson and Bartram were contemporaries, so I wonder what Emerson thought of Bartram. I gather from "The Poet" that Emerson still believes there is no suitable Poet for the time period in which he writes, but did he think Bartram was close to accurately and successfully writing of nature and beauty for the masses? Truly, Bartram wasnt writing for himself when he wrote his extended piece. He was writing for everyone back in England who would come to this foreign land called America. He was basically the man everyone relied on to tell them what America looked like, if it had a history, what the Indians were like, and if they could thrive and prosper there apart from their mother country. It seems Bartram was kind of the voice for the masses like the Poet is supposed to be. I know Bartram was just as much influenced by romanticism as Emerson was, with a strict belief in the importance and beauty in nature, but maybe Emerson wouldnt believe Bartram could be the Poet because Bartram's writing wasnt divine.

Emerson suggests in numerous places in his text that writing about art and beauty is something divine. On page 726, he claims that all poetry was written before time and that actual words and deeds-- supposedly the words and deeds of the poet-- are "indifferent modes of the divine energy. On page 738, Emerson says again that speech and song are "ejaculated as Logos or Word." To me, this seems to suggest that the words of the Poet are God-breathed. They are not own's one. They could essentially be regarded as holy and suitable for some kind of poetry bible. But then I wonder, how are we going to know our words arent our own. How will the Poet know? How does the Poet know he is the Poet? What if the Poet is female? Who's going to decide? I think this essay is very much a piece of its time and quite clearly and obviously, an Emersonian piece. Can we read this essay today and take it to heart for our own present time period? Surely, Emerson was wondering who this Poet could be for his time period only, not really for all of time in the present and future. He guesses that a poet could have arose in the past, but he says that "Milton was too literary, and Homer too literal." Emerson is then looking for a poet who is male, a romantic, an intellectual, and one who is knowledgeable of the social and political issues of that current time. He is looking for a poet who speaks and writes as he does, with such lofty sentence structure and diction. As I read the essay, I kept wondering if every contemporary of Emerson's really thought and spoke like him. Did anyone agree with his argument or was he some sappy recluse alone with his thoughts? If Emerson lived today, would we revere (sp?) him and agree with his thoughts, or is he just a product of his time? How then, I wonder, should I really read this essay and then apply what Ive read?