A centennial edition of the speech that threw down a gauntlet. |
It
was a fine summer Sunday afternoon
on July 15, 1838 when fewer than 100 people jammed into a small second floor Divinity Hall chapel at Harvard. The occasion was the commencement ceremonies for the latest crop of Harvard Divinity School graduates.
There were seven that year, six of whom were in attendance. That was more than enough young men to meet
the needs of Unitarian congregations
that were clustered mostly in New
England. The class had selected the
main speaker for the day—a youngish former Unitarian minister now making a name
for himself as a lecturer, essayist, and poet.
His heterodox views were well
known, but Harvard authorities probably hoped that he would mute them in deference
to his old alma mater and prevailing Unitarian sensibilities.
That
Ralph Waldo Emerson did not do.
Instead
he read an indictment of Unitarian worship and preaching, which he charged was disconnected
to life and drained of spirituality and went on to a critique of Christianity as practiced. He discounted the miracles of the Bible, and
rejected the divinity of Christ,
mocking the attention to the person of Jesus as a distraction from his
message. He offered novel alternatives
to the authority of the Church—the direct experience of the divine. It was a clarion call for what might be
called post-Christian religion. There would soon be a name for it—a name
Emerson did not particularly like—Transcendentalism.
The
young graduates may have been inspired by the challenge Emerson lay before
them. Their professors, the worthies of
Harvard, the parents of the graduates, the learned clergy of Boston, and both the denominational and public press were united in outrage, especially when Emerson’s Divinity School Address was published. Despite his soaring reputation as America’s
most significant intellectual and
most original philosopher Emerson
would be banned from speaking again at Harvard for more than 30 years.
The
leading Unitarian journal, The Christian Examiner dismissed
Emerson’s comments as, “…so far as they are intelligible, are utterly
distasteful to the instructors of the school, and to Unitarian ministers
generally, by whom they are esteemed to be neither good divinity nor good
sense.”
Andrews Norton, a professor at
Harvard, the recent author of the definitive history of Unitarian thought, and
with William Ellery Channing a
leading figure in the denomination, led the charge against Emerson and his
heresy. The so-called “Unitarian Pope” responded to Emerson in an
address the following year to the alumni of the Divinity School at their
Commencement reunion His lecture, the Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity,
indicted the European philosophers Spinoza,
Schleiermacher, Strauss, and Hegel, on whom
he blamed Transcendental error and refuted Emerson by indirection, without
mentioning him or taking explicit issue with his views.
When
Emerson’s friend and ally George Ripley answered
and refuted Norton in a pamphlet of his own, the controversy erupted on a more
personal note and Norton, a daring liberal thinker in his youth, spent most of
the rest of his life as an orthodox reactionary to the new theological
thinking, and in the process muddied his own reputation.
It
the establishment rallied against Emerson and his new-fangled ideas, he had his
supporters. Along with Ripley other
ministers offered support including Frederic
Henry Hedge, who first convened the meeting of what would become known as
the Transcendentalist Club, and
rising star Theodore Parker who
would rise to fame as the preacher of his own proto-mega church and as a fiery abolitionist who was also shunned by
the closed club of Unitarian ministers.
Channing, who occasionally attended Transcendentalist Club meetings,
while disagreeing with Emerson on some points, refrained from joining the
attack on him.
Emerson
also enjoyed the support of the growing salon of intellectuals he gathered
around him and who became collectively one of the most significant, if not the
most significant, philosophical movement in American history. These included Henry David Thoreau, Bronson Alcott (father of Louisa May), the Peabody
Sisters, Orestes Brownson, James Freeman Clarke, William Henry Channing (not to be
confused with his near-namesake cousin), Nathaniel
Hawthorne, and Margaret Fuller among
others. Together they would amplify
Emerson’s philosophy and imbed it deeply into American culture.
The
young ministers who invited Emerson that day and the generations that followed
them would themselves become, more or less, Transcendentalist. Within a generation they would supplant the
old establishment and bring Unitarianism itself into conformation with the new
ideas. Which is why Emerson later in
life could comfortably return to his old faith home and why Harvard, at long
last, forgave their most illustrious son and not only invited him back to speak
but elected him to the Board of
Overseers.
All is forgiven now at Harvard. The cramped Chapel where Emerson delivered his address is now named for him and the speech is annually celebrated. |
But
if the Divinity School address was simply a revolution in the minor American
sect of Unitarianism, it would be, at best, a footnote to history. But its implications reverberated across
American culture and resonate today. In
fact, they resonate with even more urgency and reflect the values of a growing
generation that has defined itself as “spiritual but not religious.” Emerson sounds almost as if he were speaking
for them.
So
what, exactly did he say? Here are some
samples.
In this
refulgent summer, it has been a luxury to draw the breath of life. The grass
grows, the buds burst, the meadow is spotted with fire and gold in the tint of
flowers. The air is full of birds, and sweet with the breath of the pine, the
balm-of-Gilead, and the new hay. Night brings no gloom to the heart with its
welcome shade. Through the transparent darkness the stars pour their almost
spiritual rays. Man under them seems a young child, and his huge globe a toy.
The cool night bathes the world as with a river, and prepares his eyes again
for the crimson dawn. The mystery of nature was never displayed more happily.
The corn and the wine have been freely dealt to all creatures, and the never-broken
silence with which the old bounty goes forward, has not yielded yet one word of
explanation. One is constrained to respect the perfection of this world, in
which our senses converse. How wide; how rich; what invitation from every
property it gives to every faculty of man! In its fruitful soils; in its
navigable sea; in its mountains of metal and stone; in its forests of all
woods; in its animals; in its chemical ingredients; in the powers and path of
light, heat, attraction, and life, it is well worth the pith and heart of great
men to subdue and enjoy it. The planters, the mechanics, the inventors, the
astronomers, the builders of cities, and the captains, history delights to
honor.
But when the
mind opens, and reveals the laws which traverse the universe, and make things
what they are, then shrinks the great world at once into a mere illustration
and fable of this mind. What am I? and What is? asks the human spirit with a
curiosity new-kindled, but never to be quenched. Behold these outrunning laws,
which our imperfect apprehension can see tend this way and that, but not come
full circle. Behold these infinite relations, so like, so unlike; many, yet
one. I would study, I would know, I would admire forever. These works of
thought have been the entertainments of the human spirit in all ages…
… The perception
of this law of laws awakens in the mind a sentiment which we call the religious
sentiment, and which makes our highest happiness. Wonderful is its power to
charm and to command. It is a mountain air. It is the embalmer of the world. It
is myrrh and storax, and chlorine and rosemary. It makes the sky and the hills
sublime, and the silent song of the stars is it. By it, is the universe made
safe and habitable, not by science or power. Thought may work cold and
intransitive in things, and find no end or unity; but the dawn of the sentiment
of virtue on the heart, gives and is the assurance that Law is sovereign over
all natures; and the worlds, time, space, eternity, do seem to break out into
joy.
This sentiment
is divine and deifying. It is the beatitude of man. It makes him illimitable.
Through it, the soul first knows itself. It corrects the capital mistake of the
infant man, who seeks to be great by following the great, and hopes to derive
advantages from another, — by showing the fountain of all good to be in
himself, and that he, equally with every man, is an inlet into the deeps of
Reason. When he says, “I ought;” when love warms him; when he chooses, warned
from on high, the good and great deed; then, deep melodies wander through his
soul from Supreme Wisdom. Then he can worship, and be enlarged by his worship;
for he can never go behind this sentiment. In the sublimest flights of the
soul, rectitude is never surmounted, love is never outgrown….
… Jesus Christ
belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the
soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it,
and had his being there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of
man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates
himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world.
He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, “I am divine. Through me, God
acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou
also thinkest as I now think.” But what a distortion did his doctrine and
memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages! There is no
doctrine of the Reason which will bear to be taught by the Understanding. The
understanding caught this high chant from the poet's lips, and said, in the
next age, “This was Jehovah come down out of heaven. I will kill you, if you
say he was a man.” The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric,
have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his
principles, but on his tropes. Christianity became a Mythus, as the poetic
teaching of Greece and of Egypt, before. He spoke of miracles; for he felt that
man's life was a miracle, and all that man doth, and he knew that this daily
miracle shines, as the character ascends. But the word Miracle, as pronounced
by Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is Monster. It is not one
with the blowing clover and the falling rain…
… Historical
Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to
communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it
is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the
positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about
the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons. It invites every man to expand
to the full circle of the universe, and will have no preferences but those of
spontaneous love. But by this eastern monarchy of a Christianity, which
indolence and fear have built, the friend of man is made the injurer of man.
The manner in which his name is surrounded with expressions, which were once
sallies of admiration and love, but are now petrified into official titles,
kills all generous sympathy and liking. All who hear me, feel, that the
language that describes Christ to Europe and America, is not the style of
friendship and enthusiasm to a good and noble heart, but is appropriated and
formal, — paints a demigod, as the Orientals or the Greeks would describe
Osiris or Apollo. Accept the injurious impositions of our early catachetical
instruction, and even honesty and self-denial were but splendid sins, if they
did not wear the Christian name. One would rather be “A pagan, suckled in a
creed outworn,” than to be defrauded of his manly right in coming into nature,
and finding not names and places, not land and professions, but even virtue and
truth foreclosed and monopolized. You shall not be a man even. You shall not
own the world; you shall not dare, and live after the infinite Law that is in
you, and in company with the infinite Beauty which heaven and earth reflect to
you in all lovely forms; but you must subordinate your nature to Christ's
nature; you must accept our interpretations; and take his portrait as the
vulgar draw it…
… Whenever the
pulpit is usurped by a formalist, then is the worshipper defrauded and
disconsolate. We shrink as soon as the prayers begin, which do not uplift, but
smite and offend us. We are fain to wrap our cloaks about us, and secure, as
best we can, a solitude that hears not. I once heard a preacher who sorely
tempted me to say, I would go to church no more. Men go, thought I, where they
are wont to go, else had no soul entered the temple in the afternoon. A snow
storm was falling around us. The snow storm was real; the preacher merely
spectral; and the eye felt the sad contrast in looking at him, and then out of
the window behind him, into the beautiful meteor of the snow. He had lived in
vain. He had no one word intimating that he had laughed or wept, was married or
in love, had been commended, or cheated, or chagrined. If he had ever lived and
acted, we were none the wiser for it. The capital secret of his profession,
namely, to convert life into truth, he had not learned. Not one fact in all his
experience, had he yet imported into his doctrine. This man had ploughed, and
planted, and talked, and bought, and sold; he had read books; he had eaten and
drunken; his head aches; his heart throbs; he smiles and suffers; yet was there
not a surmise, a hint, in all the discourse, that he had ever lived at all. Not
a line did he draw out of real history. The true preacher can be known by this,
that he deals out to the people his life, — life passed through the fire of
thought. But of the bad preacher, it could not be told from his sermon, what
age of the world he fell in; whether he had a father or a child; whether he was
a freeholder or a pauper; whether he was a citizen or a countryman; or any
other fact of his biography. It seemed strange that the people should come to
church. It seemed as if their houses were very unentertaining, that they should
prefer this thoughtless clamor. It shows that there is a commanding attraction
in the moral sentiment, that can lend a faint tint of light to dullness and
ignorance, coming in its name and place. The good hearer is sure he has been
touched sometimes; is sure there is somewhat to be reached, and some word that
can reach it. When he listens to these vain words, he comforts himself by their
relation to his remembrance of better hours, and so they clatter and echo
unchallenged…
… Let me admonish
you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those which are
sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or
veil. Friends enough you shall find who will hold up to your emulation Wesleys
and Oberlins, Saints and Prophets. Thank God for these good men, but say, “I
also am a man.” Imitation cannot go above its model. The imitator dooms himself
to hopeless mediocrity. The inventor did it, because it was natural to him, and
so in him it has a charm. In the imitator, something else is natural, and he
bereaves himself of his own beauty, to come short of another man’s.
Yourself a
newborn bard of the Holy Ghost, — cast behind you all conformity, and acquaint
men at first hand with Deity. Look to it first and only, that fashion, custom,
authority, pleasure, and money, are nothing to you, — are not bandages over
your eyes, that you cannot see, — but live with the privilege of the
immeasurable mind. Not too anxious to visit periodically all families and each
family in your parish connection, — when you meet one of these men or women, be
to them a divine man; be to them thought and virtue; let their timid aspirations
find in you a friend; let their trampled instincts be genially tempted out in
your atmosphere; let their doubts know that you have doubted, and their wonder
feel that you have wondered. By trusting your own heart, you shall gain more
confidence in other men. For all our penny-wisdom, for all our soul-destroying
slavery to habit, it is not to be doubted, that all men have sublime thoughts;
that all men value the few real hours of life; they love to be heard; they love
to be caught up into the vision of principles. We mark with light in the memory
the few interviews we have had, in the dreary years of routine and of sin, with
souls that made our souls wiser; that spoke what we thought; that told us what
we knew; that gave us leave to be what we inly were. Discharge to men the
priestly office, and, present or absent, you shall be followed with their love
as by an angel…
… I look for the
hour when that supreme Beauty, which ravished the souls of those eastern men,
and chiefly of those Hebrews, and through their lips spoke oracles to all time,
shall speak in the West also. The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures contain immortal
sentences, that have been bread of life to millions. But they have no epical
integrity; are fragmentary; are not shown in their order to the intellect. I
look for the new Teacher, that shall follow so far those shining laws, that he
shall see them come full circle; shall see their rounding complete grace; shall
see the world to be the mirror of the soul; shall see the identity of the law
of gravitation with purity of heart; and shall show that the Ought, that Duty,
is one thing with Science, with Beauty, and with Joy.
In reflecting on
all of this one lazy Sunday afternoon some years ago, I set down my own
thoughts.
Here’s
to You, Ralph Waldo
You have reached across time
and
found me dozing on an afternoon,
reached
your hand down
and
shaken me by the toe
until I
stir bewildered.
Wake up! you cry,
the
world is waiting to be noticed,
the very
autumn air vibrant with miracles,
the
incessant sun prying into every dark space
for you,
if you will see it,
if you
will be it!
The deadest of white males,
you have
climbed long-limbered
from the
pages of a book
splayed
open on my desk,
swept
your arm wide around the random piles,
half-read volumes,
half-completed
projects,
half-lived
life that is my study
and
demanded I seize my life,
clear my
head of every derivation,
even
that from the dust of your own mouth,
and
speak at last my own revelation.
So, here’s to you Ralph Waldo,
Dreamer,
Darer,
Doer.
—Patrick
Murfin
The Sermon on the Mount was Jesus's first public speaking engagement. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus began with 9 beatitudes. 8 short and 1 long. According to French scholar Emile Puech's reconstruction, Dead Sea scroll 4Q525 originally contained 9 very similar beatitudes (8 short + 1 long.) These original beatitudes were unknown in Hebrew literature until discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Anyone in the Sermon on the Mount audience who had been familiar with the Essene sect's Qumran version would have immediately recognized the reference that Jesus was making by phrasing his beatitudes as the Qumranites phrased theirs. (It's akin to beginning a speech at Hyde Park's “Speaker's Corner” with "five score and eight years ago..." and then talking vaguely about slavery and Lincoln. If you are an American expat in the audience, you get the veiled reference. But if you don't, you don't.)
ReplyDeleteImmediately after the beatitudes, Jesus said "you are the salt of the earth." It is very possible that Qumran was the "salt city" of Flavius Josephus. It is patently obvious that the series of cisterns at Qumran were for evaporating salt water to make salt. It is equally obvious that the large, flat area commonly believed to have been an Essene dining area (Locus 77) was in fact designed as an evaporation floor. That its axis lines up with the summer solstice sunset, and water that had already passed through most of the evaporation cisterns was channelled onto it further supports this theory. Therefore, I contend the salt metaphor in the Sermon on the Mount was the second reference to Qumran. This supports the theory posited that the Qumran sect and Jesus were intertwined. But not as much as the third reference...
After the allusion to salt city, Jesus next offered his assurance that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. This was the third, and most powerful Qumran reference - as he apparently meant he was to fulfill Isaiah 35:5-6, (eyes of the blind opened, lame shall leap, ears of the deaf unstopped), Isaiah 61:1-2 (bring good news to the poor) and scroll 4Q521 (heal the wounded, open the eyes of the blind, raise the dead, and bring good news to the poor). Scroll 4Q521 required two rather tall orders: the messiah would have to both heal the wounded and raise the dead. Neither of these two requirements were included in Isaiah, nor in the Old Testament.
In Matthew 11:4-5, Jesus sent a progress report to John the Baptist who was in prison. He said: "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them."
If neither Jesus or John were familiar with, nor felt obliged to fulfill scroll 4Q521, Jesus would not have included "the dead are raised" in his report. Also, note that Jesus apparently had not - to that point - been successful at healing the wounded.
As irony would have it, Jesus managed to fulfill this law by healing the severed ear of the leader of the mob that came to arrest him. (Note that he said: "Let me at least do this" as he reached out to touch the wounded man's ear. - Luke 22:51)
At that point, his job as messiah was complete. He had fulfilled all of the laws - including the two heavy Qumranite requirements. His role as messiah was established in the moment that he healed the severed ear and thus fulfilled the messianic requirements of the ancient TANAKH, and the Qumranite scroll.
And then the moneychangers (or ancient Catholics, for a more apt description), had him arrested and killed. But it didn't take.