Category: Uncategorized

Loading Likes...

I absolutely love reading Emerson, and reading this particular essay in the midst of a campus glistening with fresh snow has been fitting. As he mentions, there is something special about winter and its beauty that is often taken for granted, or looked past, by those waiting for the warmth and lushness of summertime.

I appreciated what Emerson says about nature being an independent entity- something that acts on its own accords, its essences unchanged or undefined by man. The divine quality of nature, and the kind of reverence it awakens and begs for in its beholders is something that he speaks of as constant and timeless; though not itself human, a part of the human experience that is so moving and powerful. Nature can bring back a sense of youthful wonder for those who allow themselves to be affected by it, those “whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other”. Emerson’s ever so poetic language makes this easy a beautiful read, however I do feel like there are certain lines such as “nature wears the colors of the spirit” that are ambiguous enough to welcome various interpretations (I wonder if he welcomes this intentionally).

On the topic of nature giving, and giving, and humans not seeming to reciprocate its generosity, I was reminded of literature I have read about Native American/Indigenous spirituality and relationship to the earth. Our species is greedy; we take and take from the earth and it gives to us, but to Emerson’s point, we are often so distracted by the superficial demands of our human world to fully understand or appreciate this gift. Some of the latter chapters beg the question, What is matter? Being a philosophy major, my mind went to Kantian philosophy and theories of idealism, which state that matter is a phenomenon, “the form of experience is mind-dependent” rather than simply a substance. Emerson seems to think it is of utmost importance for us to be able to explain nature in ways that aren’t purely physical. It has this divine spirit and emphasis on ways humans and human minds perceive it may be distancing us from it or removing sympathy for and with it. 

Loading Likes... In our first class we discussed how many living in the United States in the early 1800s continued to rely on pirated British literature for inspiration due to the elevated reputation that English writers possessed. I can see how The American Scholar is a particularly revolutionary piece as it advocates for the young men in The United States to develop their own ideologies by going beyond the tendency to rely on ideas by renowned writers such as Locke and Shakespeare. It not only goes directly against the established notion that British literature should be used as defining our thinking, but it questions whether books should be our first source of inspiration and if a formal education, in the way that it existed at the time, is the best way of learning. He advocates against the notion that an education is simply learning from literature but suggests we learn best from life itself. When reading, Emerson argues one must be an inventor when reading: taking what you read and applying it to be significant to your life. He promotes the idea that man can be both a scholar and involved in public labor where they are engaging and learning directly with nature. He argues, “life lies behind us as the quarry from whence we get tiles and copperstone for the masonry of to-day” (Emerson, 217). The American Scholar pushes the American man to be more educated through working with nature, reading creatively, and consistently writing literature relevant for each succeeding generation and thus establishing itself from Europe.

Loading Likes...

Although Emerson’s writing is very formal and philosophical, I found myself agreeing and diving deep into the ideas that he was presenting. I believe that the idea of the relationship between humans and nature is very delicate and it is something that is constantly talked about. This can be from how humans have destroyed the environment around them to how many elements of the natural world have healing properties. It is very much a give a take relationship and at least now, humans tend to take much more than they give.

What struck me the most about Emerson’s writing, was his take on beauty. To him, he feels that “there is no object so foul that intense light will not make beautiful” (186). This is a very bold statement, but one must not take it too literally. To Emerson, nature represents some kind of spiritual being. In a lot of spiritual beliefs, light represents a higher power of a God of some sort. Emerson is referring to the belief that the God in nature has the ability to touch all things and turn them into something beautiful. At the same time, the light shining down on a sunny day can truly transform a space into something magnificent.

I agreed with Emerson in his idea that beauty is not concrete. He explained how some people may think a country landscape is only beautiful in the summer because it is blossoming and green and warm. However, Emerson believes that it is also beautiful in the winter – it is beautiful in a different way. In the winter, the snow glitters on the ground and ice hangs from tree branches. This is something that I try to incorporate into my life. I try to look for the beauty in everything. This might not be easy. I will have to look more closely at things and notice the small details that are beautiful. This is a way of being an optimist. 

Loading Likes...

At Hamilton I am an environmental studies and literature double major and found that Emerson’s work grasped my attention and appealed to both sides of my interests. Emerson discusses nature in a very intimate way in his writing, and on page 203 states “I only wish to indicate the true position of nature in regard to man. Emerson discusses nature in a very intimate way in his writing and mentions “the connection between nature and the affections of the soul,” on page 222. In addition in the work, he says that nature theory should be approached in a somewhat progressive way, and for the time that this essay was written, I think that he demonstrates a progressive view of nature. 

When reading the essay, I took Emerson as an Earth centered person, meaning a point of view in which nature and people are interconnected. The quote that truly represents his Earth centered approach is on page 205, reading, “nature is so pervaded with human life, that there is something of humanity in all…” On this same page he also states, “the world proceeds from the same spirit of the body of man.” These two quotes from his work represent his view of the interconnectedness of nature and man as her says they proceed from the same spirit. He also stated on page 199, “in their view, man and nature are indissolubly joined,” this is representation of a progressive view and also connects to the other views of nature that Emerson shared. He says that humans are learning from nature, and that we learn more than we can communicate, but I think in this work he is doing a great job of communicating the ways that he is personally learning and being shaped by nature. He says that he is a, “lover of uncontained and immortal beauty,” (183) which is an example of his unconditional love for nature that he describes, whether out right or in between the lines of his writing. The work that he did was interesting because I haven’t engaged with 19th century thoughts on nature, but his writing was an ode to his appreciation for nature and its beauty. 

Loading Likes... I found myself very moved by Emerson’s chapter on Beauty. I really enjoy the idea that one would spend their intellectual effort and time to write about something so simple and inherent in human life, simply because it is loved so much. I found that his message was not a novel or unique idea to me, but it was quite the opposite; I found his writing so compelling because what he is saying felt so true. He writes about the human connection to beauty as something as intrinsic as our need to breathe or for food. Of the delight of beauty, he writes that a working man, or someone who is disconnected from nature, “sees the sky and the woods, and is a man again. In their eternal calm, he finds himself” (186). I found this to be so poignant because I have found myself that way, too, and never can quite express why a warm summer day or a walk in a snowstorm can feel like waking up, and bring you back to yourself.
I also appreciated his passage about beauty being all-encompassing, year round. Nature experiencing itself through growth and decay is beauty that is always there when we want to look for it. He ties this to divinity and implies that beauty from nature is the higher power of the universe, which teaches and fills us as humans. Though I definitely did not appreciate his depiction of colonization, I took his writing to mean that beauty is what guides us and is, in a way, it’s own divine power. I think of spirituality in terms of Buddhist thought, which teaches that the higher power that exists is the inherent connection between all living things, which I see echoed here in his exploration of beauty.

Loading Likes...

I found myself becoming increasingly surprised at the way that Emerson describes the ideal relationship between Man and Nature because it seems to reflect Christian ideologies of how a relationship should look between Man and God. This reflection surprised me because in his life, he found himself disillusioned with the Church’s teachings, and yet, it clearly informed the way he viewed and described parts of the world he found beautiful but did not fully understand. I almost wonder if Nature began to fill a vacuum in his life created by his departure from the Church: he still felt the urge to preach on something beyond our reach. Or part of me thinks he spent so long writing in the style of a pastor that he is simply using the vocabulary and knowledge base that he is familiar with. 

Particularly, I think Emerson ascribes a level of distance that is necessary to create reverence from Man of Nature in the same way that I think historically the Church has cultivated a certain level of distance and inaccessibility between Man and God. In particular, Emerson describes that “stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are always inaccessible” (182). This description immediately made me think of God as “always present” and yet “always inaccessible” in a tangible way. He also continues to use religious language to describe nature such as “plantations of God” (183) and “nature, in its ministry to man” (185).

Emerson later argues that a presence of a “spiritual element” (187) is necessary to the beauty of nature which made me wonder if he was experimenting with other lenses of spirituality not specifically attributed to God.

Loading Likes...

Despite the density of the texts, I found myself engrossed in the artful, meaningfully layered sentences of Emerson’s “Nature” and “The American Scholar.” Perhaps his language — undoubtedly intended to exemplify the pure, naturally allegorical poetry of which Emerson speaks — was enough to draw me in. I suppose my admiration and hungry acceptance of Emerson’s every word serves as evidence of his claim to channeling a “divine Spirit” through natural language. In fact, I doubt it was any mistake to preface the denser, more abstract philosophical theories with a sort of subtle instruction as how to read it — artfully grooming his reader to approach what superficially presents as any other intellectual philosophical text with fresh eyes and the power of their own creativity; the image of some Spirit lurking beneath the words also lurking in the readers’ own minds. 

In addressing the significance of books, Emerson suggests that we accord them so much authority and wisdom because we, ourselves, delight in reading our own thoughts in a voice recorded hundreds of years earlier. I admit I myself fell prey to such a phenomenon in reading this very text. However, certainly I emerged with a few qualms: Beyond the obvious social conditions of his time period, I find peculiar Emerson’s interspersed racist references to Indigenous peoples; for, these “savages” of which he speaks sort of seem to embody that lifestyle, that perspective to which he aspires! Unfortunately for the writer, such contradictions might limit Emerson’s authority in representing the independent “Man Thinking.” Here, within Emerson’s own pages, lies evidence of society’s corruption of man’s vocabulary and, therefore, thought and action against which he so fervently cautions. 

I also have trouble reconciling the entirety of “Nature” and the first ten pages of “The American Scholar” with Emerson’s engagement in American politics and apparent promotion of the patriotic “individualism” which, if you ask me, has nothing to do with the sort of individualism of which Emerson speaks. He lost me on the last page. 

Loading Likes...

When I made my first post comparing Last of the Mohicans to a Shakespearean Comedy, I was wary of using the label until I read the ending. I can now confidently say that it is not a Shakespearean Comedy, because it lacks a definitive characteristic of such a work: a happy ending. As a reader, I was rooting for Uncas and Cora to end up together (and not in the dead sense). They’re my two favorite characters due to their skill, intellect, and courage, and they seemed an even and great match. Recoiling from their violent deaths, I tried to parse out what Cooper was trying to accomplish in killing off two characters who are so likable, and doing so in such a violent manner. 

The manner of Uncas and Cora’s death is easy to understand because they both died in a noble, brave, and resistive way, becoming of characters in a frontier adventure novel. However, I think beyond their deaths for the sake of plot, Cooper is continuing his racist commentary. In Cooper’s world, Uncas and Cora cannot end up together alive and he is perhaps using their deaths as a cautionary tale against interracial romances. While Hawkeye understands when the Delawares are discussing the romance of Cora and Uncas during the funeral, the narrator points out that it is best that Munro, Heyward, and Alice don’t understand. Additionally, it is of note that Alice, whose blood “bears no cross,” will live and presumably have children, unlike Cora whose bloodline will end with her. This fits into the narrative that Cooper paints of the inevitable death of the indigenous people in a way that is in no way caused by white settlers; afterall, Uncas and Cora both die at the hands of Hurons, despite the attempt of Gamut (representative of Christianity) to save them.

Loading Likes...

In the final chapters of his novel, Cooper attempts to tie up loose ends not only of plot, but also of messages sent by Cooper himself through his characters and, presumably, to his readers. 

While the author naturally transmits his ideas and motifs through his characters and their various interactions, I could not help but draw a chief connection between Cooper and his, arguably, principal character: Hawkeye assumes the role of narrator in describing the landscapes at length and consistently “setting the scene” for his companions, as well as to the reader on an implicit level. Hawkeye appears to realize Cooper’s perception of himself as the author of this novel: A white man bridging the divide between the “civilized,” ignorant white Americans of his time and the mysterious, “savage” indigenous peoples. Cooper presumably views himself as a sort of intermediary, a “double agent” nobly giving voice to that misunderstood and overlooked “other” while maintaining his own authority and rapport with his fellow Americans by virtue of his own “pure white blood.” 

Of course, Hawkeye’s purpose evaporates in the absence of Cora, Magua, and Uncas. Cooper mobilizes these three characters as instruments for the forceful delivery and appeal of his ultimate attitudes regarding interracial interactions: Cora, as a mixed race woman, quite literally symbolizes the phenomenon in itself. Further, Cora, Magua, and Uncas’ fates seem to suggest the danger that lies inherently, according to Cooper, in the “mixing” of races — as well as the book’s broader conviction in the inevitability of Indigenous peoples’ extinction following their interactions with white people. Naturally, this notion proves nuanced in Cora’s strong character and mysterious, yet undeniable, beauty: While Cooper certainly determines the consequences of interracial procreation as destructive and “inevitably” fatal — as demonstrated by the tragic deaths of Cora and the two Indigenous men who dare engage with their attractions to her — one can only guess at the meaning of Cooper’s characterization of its very representation (Cora) as powerfully desirable. Perhaps the notion — in all of its perceived dangerous novelty and erotic — terrifies and fascinates him so that he cannot fathom its endurance in a world of his own limited awareness. 

Loading Likes...

In chapter XXIV of Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, the audience is presented with a slightly more intimate insight into Cooper’s understanding of Native American culture as Heyward, in a way, infiltrates a Native American camp by falsely claiming to be a medicine man. It is in this camp that we witness a father disown his executed son and tearfully exit, while Cooper notes that “the Indians, who believe in the hereditary transmission of virtues and defects in character, suffered him to depart in silence.” (Cooper, 280)

This claim is presented as though it is a belief unique to Native Americans, or, at the very least, unique to the Hurons. But much of the novel is dependent on the fact that the central (white) characters also hold to that logic. Perhaps less in terms of personal missteps and sins, although white Christianity has its own history with that concept, but certainly when it comes to the nature of someone’s parents making them more or lesser. Hawkeye holds himself up as a “man without a cross” because the “purity” of his breeding is important to his strength of character: to add color to his blood would be to change him. European racism both in and outside of the book is built on the bones of believing that non-white races are inherently defective and that they are separate from white people on a deeply biological level. The scientific influence of phrenology in the early half of the 19th century speaks to the idea’s popularity. Cooper’s own racist depictions of Native Americans falls in line with that thinking perfectly.

The notion of the father’s sins reflecting in the child are dissociated from the common white American/European idea of inherent racial qualities. The “hereditary transmission of virtues and defects” stands separate and becomes a Native American creation.

Loading Likes...

Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans is a book full of juxtapositions. Two of the biggest points of contrast in this book are his blatant sexism and racism his depictions of Cora and Chingachgook. 

Despite making frequent statements painting the girls as frail, delicate, and helpless, Cooper gave Cora a strong personality and made her a leader. This is acknowledged on page 61 when Heyward informs Cora that her father told him that it is she who leads their group. Although Duncan is the protector, and Cora seems to be always hiding during the more violent scenes, she is shown to be brave and a force to be reckoned with. Cora’s characterization becomes even more interesting when it is revealed to the reader that her mother was a part of a race that was looked down upon. Cora is in many ways the star of this novel, and the most likeable character, despite her racial identity.

Similarly, the Native Americans are frequently villainized by Cooper, but Chingachgook is presented as a respectable, stoic hero, who is loyal and honest, the antithesis of who Cooper was painting the Native People to be. He and Uncas are noble and glorified in his writing.  Cooper’s work is heavily influenced by his theories of race and gender, but he includes characters who are marked exceptions to his beliefs.

Loading Likes... I find Alice and Cora’s identities and relationship fascinating in this book. Cooper seems to be both satisfying the sexist romance stereotypes of the time while also breaking them with these characters. In chapter 25, after Hawkeye tells Heyward where to find Alice, the romantic vignette Cooper writes of their interaction plays into conventional feminine stereotypes to almost a comical degree. Alice is described as “sought, pale, anxious, and terrified,” but of course, always “lovely,” while Heyward comes to her rescue and dotes on her trembling, weak existence. This convention of relationships having a strong, brave man and a weak and beautiful woman who relies on him entirely is disappointing, if not incredibly predictable. However, Cooper doesn’t just leave it there, because we have her sister, Cora, and her romantic escapades as a starkly contrasting situation. Cora is the opposite of being girlish and weak, and in fact she comes across as one of the most dependable and strong people in the novel. Her character seems to exist to defy the conventions that Cooper so blatantly conforms to in other places. This all is fascinating in reference to the ending, where Cora and Uncas die (somewhat heroically) together, seemingly immortalizing their unique relationship and leaving a lot to think about in terms of the race and gender themes in the book.

Loading Likes... In Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, the Native American characters, particularly those allied with a tribe that opposed the British Settlers were ruthlessly described as savages and constantly characterized by their foolish and violent acts without accounting for the role of retribution against the devastation of white colonization. However, Cooper also offers these characters brief moments of redemption through the thread of music which brought true feeling and retribution to these characters. The initial singer is a white man, David Gamut, who is seen to be foolish for singing, but who then protects Alice and Cora by singing them a lullaby during a massacre. While the scenario is unlikely it offers value to the godly, healing power of music in Cooper’s work.

This positive characterization is attributed to Native Americans in various scenes throughout the book. For example, Cooper writes, “It is impossible to describe the music of their language, while thus engaged in laughter and endearments in such a way as to render it intelligible to those whose ears have never listened to its melody” (200). Despite his constantly racist descriptions of Native Americans, he still acknowledges the indescribable beauty and musicality of their language. He still can not totally withhold their humanness from them.

Loading Likes...

Of the many characters that Cooper deftly creates, David is the most puzzling to me. I can’t tell if Cooper intends for him to provide comic relief or not. His lack of awareness, and any sense of self-preservation, is highlighted by his actions that lead to his being shot in Chapter 7 and consequently his losing consciousness. When David is in this state, Hawkeye notes that “[t]he longer his [David’s] nap lasts the better it will be for him…” (63). His lack of any common sense makes David amusing, as I can’t help but wonder how someone could be so oblivious. 

While at this point I don’t know how The Last of the Mohicans ends, and so I can only speculate, in many ways it reminds me (in a loose sense) of a Shakespearean comedy. Specifically, Cooper’s novel makes me think of Shakespeare’s As You Like It. The snarling Adirondack landscape is to some degree romanticized as country-living would be in a pastoral comedy, although there is certainly much more danger in the woods. The strongest parallel to me is between the cunning Rosalind and her gentler cousin Celia in As You Like It and sisters Cora and Alice in The Last of the Mohicans. I am curious if Cooper was just an admirer of Shakespeare (as the epigraphs in The Last of the Mohicans suggest) or if he intentionally used Shakespeare (and other British authors) as an attempt to appeal to the sense of British intellectualism that we discussed in class.