Emerson's Poems

We will discuss two poems. Although was primarily an essayist as we have seen. Thoreau did a
similar thing, they both Emerson and Thoreau for some reason loved the form of the essay
because it suited in the best way their demands for the so-called organic forms. They hated
artificiality and they wanted to escape from thisNeo-Classical formalism. So, they didn't
obviously like toreduce themselves to anyparticular genre. So, they were not inclined to wrote
novels or short stories, but they preferred the form of the essay because the essyis, more or less,
relatively open form. Thoreau did the same thing in writing Walden, is very difficult to pin down
the genre of Walden because it is a mixture of various genres. Something similar was Emersons
type of the essay. However, he then did write poetry. He himself didn't regard himself as a
particularly brilliant poet, there are dozens of his poems of varying quality. But I decided to pick
just Days andRhodora. And there are also of course Brahma, Hamareya. These two taken
together illustrate the best the Eastern, Hinduistic influence but we don't have time for them.

Rhodora
The Rhodora
Whence is the flower.
In May, when sea-winds pierced our solitudes,
I found the fresh Rhodora in the woods,
Spreading its leafless blooms in a damp nook,
To please the desert and the sluggish brook.
The purple petals fallen in the pool
Made the black water with their beauty gay;
Here might the red-bird come his plumes to cool,
And court the flower that cheapens his array.
Rhodora! if the sages ask thee why
This charm is wasted on the earth and sky,
Tell them, dear, that, if eyes were made for seeing,
Then beauty is its own excuse for Being;
Why thou wert there, O rival of the rose!
I never thought to ask; I never knew;
But in my simple ignorance suppose
The self-same power that brought me there, brought you.

Rodora

Ako bi me pitali odakle je cvijet.

U maju, kad su morski vjetrovi rastjerali (odagnali) nau samou,
Pronaao sam svjeu Rodoru u umi,

Kako iri svoje cvjetove u vlanom kutku,

Da bi razgalila pustinju i lijeni potok.
Ljubiaste latice kojesu pale u jezerce (vodu)
I razveselile su tamnu vodu svojom ljepotom;
Da crvenda ovdje rashladi svoje perje,
I da se udvara cvijetu koji je tako lijep da svojom ljepotom zasjenjuje ljepotu ptice (ptijeperje).
O, Rodoro! Ako te mudraci pitaju zato
Troi svoju ljepotu (draest) na zemlji i nebu,
Reci im draga da ako su oi stvorene za gledanje,
Onda je ljepota izgovor za vlastito Postojanje;
Zato sam te zatekao tamo (kakosinastala), O, ruina suparnice!
Nikada se nisam ni pomislio pitati; nikada nisam znao;
Ali u svom prostom neznanju predpostavljam
Da je ist amo (sila) koja je dovela mene, dovela i tebe.

What is Rhodora? What is so specific about it that he chose to write about that flower? It is a
very symbolic poem. On the simplest level you can read it as a poem which glorifies American
nature and American landscapes. He didnt choose to write about the rose. The rose is a flower
which has been throughout the European tradition manifoldly sung, usually in a very
conventional manner. So, he chose to go a different path. This poem is a direct illustration of his
views of necessity of writing about essentially, specifically American themes and topics. So,
Rhodora is a flower which is typical of the American soil. so, the very choice, selection of the
topic is inline with his views about of how American literature should be like in the future.
Rhodora is a very decorative flower with purple peddles which are somehow in the foreground.
In May, when sea-winds pierced our solitudesWhat kind of images does he use? So, the
winter is over and winter is somehow connected with solitude because people tend to isolate
physically. New England winters were extremely harsh, people were snowed-up actually, there
were frequent snow storms. Sometimes you could not go out of the house for days and
sometimes even weeks. So, this was in a very literal way, the imposition of solitude in this harsh,
long, snowy New England winter. Now this winter has come to an end, the spring is coming and,
of course symbolically on another level, he is also talking about the melting and towing up of the
human soul and opening up towards maybe new spiritual influences. Needless to say the spring
in any poem is always the symbol of new life.
I found the fresh Rhodora in the woods, / Spreading its leafless blooms in a damp nook,
He talks about the function or the mission of that flower, he happened accidentally to come
across this typically American flower spreading its leaves and its peddles somewhere in the damp
nook in the very beginning of spring which marks the beginning of a new phase in nature and
also in our individual lives. That flower is the one which enlightens the desert. It makes the
desert be not a desert any longer.
And court the flower that cheapens his array. So, you have the contrasting of the flower
and the bird; something again typical for the American landscape. So, hes constantly using
images from American nature where the redbird would come to court the flower, but the flower
itself is more beautiful than even the birds array; it overshadows, or surpasses in its beauty the
birds array. So this i a more literal part, we could say of the poem, the second part would be

even more symbolic. But what about this first part (On being asked And court the
flower)so far? What are your thoughts or ideas about it? One thing that is obvious here is the
promotion of the American themes with the very title of the poem. At the same time you have
already a certain level of symbolism because the flower, this flower represents the spring with all
its symbolic connotations, the new beginning, the revival of nature, the beginning of new life on
a literal level, but also on the symbolical level. This may have to do also with his
transcendentalist philosophy. Thoreau in Walden will also use the images of spring to talk about
the spiritual growth and also spiritual rebirth. So, its not just a natural rebirth, but obviously a
spiritual rebirth and specifically since this is Rhodora as a specifically American image, this is
obviously American rebirth, potentially rebirth of the American spirit, of American culture
through the uses of specifically American images.
And then the second part:
O rival of the rose! He calls Rhodora, a relatively simple American flower, the rival of the
rose. This is again very symbolic.I never thought to ask; I never
knew;Nikadanisamnipomisliopitati
se
zbogegapostojiruinasuparnice,
zbogegasamtenaaona tom mjestu i nikadanisamniznaozato.The self-same power that
brought me there, brought you.Da je istamo (sila) koja je dovelamene, dovela i tebe. (misli
se dovelanaovajsvijet)
So what about this second part? What about this part: Rhodora! if the sages ask thee why /
This charm is wasted on the earth and sky, / Tell them, dear, that, if eyes were made for
seeing, / Then beauty is its own excuse for Being; What kind of aesthetics is he advocating
here? Who might he have in mind by the sages? He is being potentially ironic here. So, he talks
about the sages who when they see a beautiful flower they immediately ask the question of why
the beauty of that flower is wasted just like that? What kind of approach to beauty is that? And he
is opposing that approach. So, he says if they should ask you such a ridiculous question you
should answer that if the eyes were made for seeing than beauty is its own excuse for being.
What is he saying here? Whose aesthetics is this?
- These sages definitely are not in unity with nature. So, they are observing the flower from far
away. So, they are detached. But he, on the other hand doesnt want to bedetached.
There is another very important thing. Remember that tradition of Emersons forefathers was
Puritan tradition. So, he says that such people when they see beauty the first thing they would
ask is why that beauty is wasted? If the beauty exists just like that, just like a beautiful
flower,.they see it as a sort of waste. Why? Because it cannot be used for anything, you cannot
make money on it.
- He is trying to mock that new-found capitalism.
Hes trying to mock that approach. How do we call that approach? That kind of philosophy that
anything which exists has to be useful. This approach is called UTALITARIAN approach. So,
here he uses this anti-utilitarian approach. That was again a part of whose aesthetics? Part of
whose thinking about the nature and origin of poetry and life in general? This would be later
used by Modernists, again, or by this special school in France later = Symbolists who would also
be influenced by Emerson very much. You have utilitarianism, on the one hand, and a quite
opposed or a contrary view of the function of beauty and with that also of the function or the role
of art. Have you ever heard of this L Art pour L Art approach? In English translation it would be
the Art for the Art's Sake and thats exactly the approach that Emerson here pleads for and

supports. So, he is being ironic, he is being hostile to such utilitarian questions that might arise as
to what is the purpose of the existence of the beautiful flower which represents beauty in general.
So, what is the purpose of theexistence of beauty, a typical Utilitarian would ask, if it cannot be
put to any concrete use? But he put this in a form of a dialogue, direct dialogue with the
flower.So, should such question ridiculous as it is, from his point of view, be raised? He
recommends that the answer should be that the beauty doesnt need any excuse for its existence,
beauty doesnt need any justification, it just is, it just exists and it is fine with Emerson. So the
beauty is just there, to be enjoyed in, to inspire the spectator, to inspire the viewer. If we have
been given eyes by the Spirit it has not been done in vain, thats what he wants to say. Then the
Oversoul, or whatever has given us this ability of sight to see the world around us; remember
what he wrote in Nature. So that we are confronted with the beautiful forms and that we are
exhilarated by this experience of natural beauty to higher ends. So, then comes the next step, the
spiritual growth. So, all of this is connected. So, in confrontation with beauty there is no
utilitarian immediate use and thats just how it should be. And then he says I never even thought,
developing the same thought further, it never occurred to me to ask such a stupid question, I
never even knew the answer, Im just not interested in that sort of questions. So, for him beauty
just is, it just exists, it just is there to inspire the viewers, its there also for people to enjoy. If
there is any use, it cannot strictly be called use, then it is the spiritual use of the kind that he
earlier explained in Nature. Because the nature, the confrontation and the viewing of
beautifulnatural forms may or might inspire us to contemplate the creator of both these natural
forms, the Rhodora, and me, myself because we stem from the same source if thats the use, but
it would be oversimplified to call it use, not certainly the use in this utilitarian sense. So,
Rhodora is just there to be enjoyed in its full beauty. And then again he calls it the rival of the
rose introducing again this American theme where this relatively simple and wild American
flower is to him, in his eyes at least as beautiful as the sung rose in the European tradition. So,
the rose here also has to be taken symbolically, it stands for the entire conventional European
tradition. Rose was famously used in the European literature. So, he is running against the grain
again here and insisting onspecifically American themes and topics. He is pretending to be less
clever than he is because he says: In my simple ignorance. He is diminishing himself
deliberately but he is not quite meaning it (mom prostomneznanju, prostodunom, poto ne
znamnita). So, it a feet?? of Emerson, very ironic one. The trancendentalist conclusion: But in
my simple ignorance suppose (I suppose) / The self-same power that brought me there,
brought you (Rhodora, the flower). - the same power that brought you, brought me... we all
stem from the same source, namely the Spirit.
In various interpretations of this poem you might also find an additional meaning. Namely, that
the Rhodora is the being a specifically American flower might also stand for a new American
poet that Emerson hopes to see in the future, although it might be a little bit far-fetched; but this
can be the potential third layer of meaning there.So that through this poem he maybe even
anticipated the arrival, or the emergence of the first truly great American poet, Walt Whitman,
who might be the rival of the rose, who might rival the poetic skills of famous names of the
European poetry.

Days
Days

Daughters of Time, the hypocritic Days,

Muffled and dumb like barefoot dervishes,
And marching single in an endless file,
Bring diadems and fagots in their hands.
To each they offer gifts after his will,
Bread, kingdom, stars, and sky that holds them all.
I, in my pleached garden, watched the pomp,
Forgot my morning wishes, hastily
Took a few herbs and apples, and the Day
Turned and departed silent. I, too late,
Under her solemn fillet saw the scorn.

Dani

Keri vremena, licemjerni dani,

utljivi i nijemi popu tbosonogih dervia
Mariraju jedan za drugim u beskonanom nizu (passage of time, one by one, day by day,
endlessly)
Donosite dijademe i prue u svojim rukama, (something precious and something ordinary)
Svakome nudite darove po elji onoga kojem dolazite, (you make your own day)
Hljeb, kraljevstvo, zvijezda i nebesa to sve to dre na okupu.
A ja u svomo graenom vrtu sam posmatrao svu tu pompu
I zaboravio jutranje elje, brzo
uze neke biljke i jabuke (common things) i dan se
okrenuo od mene i otiao tiho,
a jasam prekasno ispod njezinog sveanog plata spazio prezir. (giving feminine gender to the
day)
It is little bit more intellectual, typical Emersonian type of poetry. This is one of his best, most
powerful poems, because he tries to perform his intellectual ideas into poetry. He is addressing
the days directly, just like the Rhodora. He imagines the days as the barefoot dervishes who are
muffled and dumb. He imagines the days coming and going, one by one, and they come silent,
mysterious, in the manner of dervishes. He develops the image further. You make your own day.
That is the idea. He is introducing a contrast between himself and his little microcosm of his little
gardening. The thought is spilling over in the next line.
What is the message of this poem? What is Emerson saying here? He is self-ironic. Time passes
constantly and we are not aware of it, and we do not appreciate in a way we should or use it as
much as we could. We do not appreciate the moment. Carpe diem Seize the day. Use the
moment, use the here and now to the full, to the best, because time passes quickly and if you do

not use time properly, you will soon come to regret that you have missed the opportunities, you
have missed the chances. It is actually very philosophical. It is almost a lament over the lost
chances and lost opportunities that life has brought to you. When we go back to the beginning,
why does he call days the hypocritic? Because you never know what the next day will bring to
you. They are muffled and dum. But to each man and woman they do offer gifts to his or her
extent. Is it to be blamed on days themselves? Definitely not. The new day is seen as a new
potential beginning. Each new day practically opens all the possibilities to you. And it is up to
you to choose which gift you want. You should be wise in the selection of the gifts. But it is all
up to you, you can either reach for the diadems or you can reach for the fagots. When you made
the wrong choice, it is not to be blamed on the days, because the day gave you all the
opportunities. It is all up to you and your personal will and your choices, your attitude towards
life. It is up to people, to individuals, how they will use the day. What the will make out of their
day? Here we have echo of Buddhist philosophy: Live in the now, use the now and here, use the
moment, but use it properly. That is how it should be. It depends on the person what she is he is
made for. Possibilities are endless, a typical American optimism embedded here. Possibilities are
endless, sky is the limit and it is only up to you how will you use your time. Every new day is a
possibility of a new beginning. It is always possible to start a new. Here we have again echoes of
the American Dream.
He turns to himself in the second part being a self-ironic. He does not see himself as an
exceptional person as a source of wisdom who preaches that philosophy to other human beings,
but he very humbly includes himself into the general humanity. He wants to say that
unfortunately it seems to be part of the human nature to behave in this wrong way. We all tend
not to use time properly and then at the end of the day when we look back, we have only regrets
for what we have not done. We tend to lament over the missed chances looking back to the past
thinking about the things that we should have done or might have done, but have not or fearing
about the future while so doing we are losing the opportunity to live in the moment and to seize
the day.
He watched file of the days coming and going. This is obviously a poem written by a very young
person, somebody in the middle of life. He says: I forgot my morning wishes. He forgot the
dreams he had for himself when he was young man. He forgot his ideals. Since this is so. How
did he used the day with all of those endless opportunities? He used it in a very humble and
modest day. He did not really make much of it. He just very quickly took a few herbs and apples,
besides the diadems, and kingdoms and stars. He took common things. The consequence of all of
this is that the day turned away from him as if the day offered him the chance which he did not
use. He missed the chance and time passes. Time mocks, scorns the person who does not use it
properly. We all seem to fail, more or less, when it comes to using time properly. Even his own
wishes are too modest. It is again partly connect with transcendentalism. We should all train
ourselves to wish more and to dare to wish more, not to be intimidated by the society, by other
people. In one of the chapters of Walden, Thoreau says: If you have built castles in the air, it
is perfect, it is fine, it is just where the castles should be. Now you just need to lay
foundations under them. That is this typical transcendentalists call or demand on human
being to dare to dream. If you dont dear to dream and to live up to your dream, this is what is
going to happen. It makes me also think of the title of another author, The Remains of the
Day. The old butler did not seize the day, and he looks on his life and realizes that he has been a
complete failure.

Brahma
Ako ubica misli da ubija
Ili ako ubijeni misli da je ubijen
Oni ne poznaju dobro naine
Na koje ja trajem, prolazim, i ponovo djelujem

Daleko i zaboravljeno, meni je blisko

Sjena i suneva svjetlost meni je ista
Iezli bogovi meni se ukazuju
I jedno su za mene sramota I slava

Loe sude oni koji me napuste/ostave

Kada me lete, ja sam krila
Jas sam onaj koji sumnja, a i sama sumnja
Ja sam himna koju pjeva Brahmin

Snani bogovi eljeli bi doi u moj dom

I uzalud ezne tih Sedam svetih
Ali ti, pokorni ljubitelju dobroga
Nai me, i raju lea okreni.

Hamatreya
Bulkeley, Hunt, Willard, Hosmer, Meriam, Flint

Posjedovali su zemlju to nagradi njihov mukotrpan rad,

Sijeno, kukuruz, korijenje, konoplja, lan, jabuke, vuna I drvo
Svaki od ovih posjednika hodao je po svom imanju
Govorei, Ovo je moje, moje djece I mog imena.
Kako draesno uti zapadni vjetar u mom vlastitom drveu!
Kako ljupko se sjene penju po mom brdu!
Volim te iste vode i divlje perunike
Znaj me, kao i moj pas; mi susosjeamo
I ja tvrdim, moja djela zveknu na zemlju

Gdje su ovi ljudi? Zaspali pod svojom zemljom:

I stranci, aavi kao i oni; njihove brazed oru
Zemlja se smije svojim cvjetovima, gledajui svoje hvalisave momke
Ponosni na zemlju koja nije njihova
Koji upravljaju plugom, ali ne znaju svojim stopalima
zaobii neizbjenu smrt
Podalje od groba.

Dodali su greben dolini, potok jezeru

I uzdisali za onim to je graniilo sa njihovim posjedom
Ovo mi odgovara za panjak; to je moj park;
Moramo imati glinu, kre, ljunak, granitne naslage
I maglovitu dolinu gdje emo ii po treset
Zemlja je dobra, lijepo okrenuta ka jugu.
Dobro je, kada proe more I vrati se nazad
Da ustanovi postojane dulume tamo gdje si ih i ostavio.

Ah! Strastveni vlasnik ne uoava Smrt, koja e ga

sjediniti sa njegovim imanjem, I postae jedan grumen vie
Pouj ta Zemlja kae:

Zemljina Pjesma
Moje i tvoje;
Moje, ne tvoje;
Zemlja istrajava
Zvijezde ostaju
Obasjavaju prastara mora
Stare li su te obale;
Ali gdje su starci?
Ja, koja sam vidjela toliko
Takve nikada nisam.

Advokatov spis
Sadravao je
U repu
Njima I njihovim nasljednicima
Koji e naslijediti,
U svakom sluaju,
Zauvijek.

To je zemlja,
Obrasla umom
Sa svojom starom dolinom
Humkom i bujicom
Ali nasljednici?
Nestali poput vodene pjene.
Advokat i zakoni
I kraljevstvo
Poieni odavde.

Zovu me svojom
Koji su mislili da me posjeduju
Ipak svako
Ko je htio ostati je otiao
Kako sam ja njihova

Kada me ne mogu drati

A ja ih sadravam?

Kada sam uo ovu Zemljinu pjesmu

Vie nisam bio drzak
Moja pohlepa ohladi
Poput strasti u hladnoi groba.