King 1

Kevin King

Dr. Fulton

ENG 4380

15 Nov 2010

The Influence and Impact of the Transcendental Movement

The Transcendental movement was complicated. There is no doubt about it. At first

glance, some of its core values boarder hypocrisy. Yet, there is purpose behind the near

contradictions. The aim of this paper will be to show that some of these attributed contradictions

come about only after exaggerations and omissions of terms. Then the importance of

Transcendentalist influence will be explored. This will come from an examination of some

influences on the most important writers from the Transcendental era, Emerson, Hawthorne,

Fuller and Thoreau, and will take examples from their works. This will lead the discussion

towards the effect that Transcendentalism had on later generations. This examination is intended

to lead to an illumination of the Transcendental idea of influence, and the vast range of influence

that the movement experienced.

Transcendentalism could easily be described as a failed movement. For all intensive

purposes, the movement was not far behind in following the original participants to the grave.

The very nature of the movement, which emphatically stressed individualism, to the point of

separatism, foreshadowed a nearly unavoidable outcome. For obvious reasons, the transcendental

movement, with its inherent fear of the dangers of society and groups, was destined from the

beginning to walk a precarious line in drawing new members to the group, while allowing

members to their independence. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that Transcendentalism

simply would not have worked for the common man, who did not have the luxury to avoid

society while remaining fed. The Brook Farm failure does not necessarily prove this theory,

since it was run so poorly that it would have failed regardless of social and religious beliefs. Yet,

the Brook Farm certainly would have had an effect on those considering the merit of

Transcendentalism. However unfairly, Brook Farm may have been seen as proof of the

impracticality of Transcendentalism. Thus, it may symbolize the beginning of the end for the

movement, since it created blight on a movement that would have already had trouble connecting

people.

Transcendentalism seemed like a movement of a group that was vehemently against

group movements. Emerson’s claim that “whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist,” lies

at its very core (Myerson 321). This would appear to create an unsolvable logical paradox for a

movement or group; in any collection of people, there must be some degree of conformity.

Nonetheless, the transcendental movement existed. Again, this very nature of the movement

would have called criticism on the movement as being hypocritical and frivolous. That may have

been its downfall from the onset. But, did the movement violate its own ideals solely by

existing? To answer, another near hypocrisy must be explored.

Emerson is attributed as being the originator of the American Transcendentalists. As

such, it is beneficial that to look at him for clarification of interpretations. Yet, even in his

essays, non-conformity may create still another irony, besides having a group based on it.

Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” called out conformity, as previously noted, and went so far as to say

“that imitation is suicide” (Myerson 319). But, in the same work, isn’t Emerson explaining what

a person should be, or how they should behave? Is he not calling for people to conform to his

beliefs, then? The answer is: yes and no. Emerson is explaining his beliefs on what a person

should be, and his opinion on what is best to do. But, he is not calling for people to conform.

King 3

This is a great example of the dangers of reading a quote out of context. This may be the reason

why Emerson once wrote in his journal “I hate quotation. Tell me what you know” (Garber 669).

In a since, a quote cannot be anything but “out of context” (Garber 669). And Emerson’s quotes

about conformity have the same problem. While it is true, he does not believe people should

conform, Emerson does not believe that conformity is necessary for agreement. Emerson is

simply arguing against blind agreement and submission to others. When Emerson says, “a

foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” he is making it clear that having a strong

character is the key to not being a conformist (Myerson 324). Non-conformity is the ability to

weigh an idea against foundational beliefs, and judging it separately from some majority’s

opinion, or the herd. This allows a person to be in agreement with others, without becoming part

of an unthinking herd.

The recognition that agreement is possible without conformity is crucial. Emerson was by

no means a hypocrite; he did not contradict himself. Emerson hoped for people to recognize an

influence, and be capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to accept it as influential to

them. Emerson was not trying to cause people to conform to his ideas. He put his ideas out there,

and allowed people to choose whether they would be influenced by them. Further, it could be

argued that Emerson believed, in a perfect world, people would be of a similar mind without

conforming to others. “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string” (Myerson 320).

Emerson believed that deep down, in every person’s heart, there something like a kind of tuning

fork. When the person touched upon that part of themselves, it would lead the person to what is

harmonious, with God, society, and his or her self. Emerson believed that if people were able to

decide for themselves, they would decide for mostly the same things. Interestingly, it was

through an influence by Kant that Emerson’s ideas came about. And, fittingly, he tried to use his

words to bring out this idea in others, without forcing them to conform.

Emerson discusses a variety of influences such as Shakespeare, Van Goethe, and Plato

(Brewton). But Emerson was probably most greatly influenced by Immanuel Kant, “who was

Emerson’s Philosophical preceptor” (Hudson 206). Kant was the pioneer of philosophical

Transcendentalism, or going beyond man (Shaw 72-73). Kant’s primary means of going beyond

man a priori knowledge, or knowledge not gained through experience. Kant believed that the

ability to reason would open up this a priori knowledge; such knowledge was necessary because

it was incorruptible, as opposed to knowledge gained through experience, which he felt was

unreliable (Gregor 1-3). “Emerson immediately called these a priori forms or functions

‘intuitions of the mind itself’ and interprets the term ‘transcendental’ as equivalent to ‘intuitive,’

though he realizes that this is a non-technical extension of Kant’s usage” (Wellek 46-47).

Primarily working off of Kant’s moral philosophy, Emerson expanded on Kant’s moral theories

to create the way of life for the Transcendentalists (Wellek 47).

Emerson “agreed with… Kant that ‘He is moral whose aim or motive may become a

universal rule, binding on all intelligent beings…’ He believes that all virtues are perfectly

natural to all souls, when once awakened; that the government of God is not through hierarchies

and religious tyrannies, but simply and grandly does the ‘Divine Nature carry on its

administration by good men,’” (Hudson 207) This is also the reason that Emerson takes a

negative view towards societal groups. Both Kant and Emerson are keenly aware of the dangers

of the outside world, and how easily they can corrupt the individual. Both take the view that,

without prior knowledge, the individual knows right from wrong. They each express that the

danger comes when outside sources impose and corrupt the individual. However, Emerson

King 5

attributes most of this corruption to other people, while Kant attributes it to any experience

outside one’s self. “Emerson assumes this anti-social attitude because he feels that society is

incapable of that development which by divine right belongs to the individual” (Shaw 71). Yet,

this small difference is still just Emerson’s expression of another Kantian ideal, self-governance.

Kant advised people to use his method, called the Categorical Imperative, to guide moral

decisions. In short this method called upon a person to objectively create their own laws to

follow, almost completely based on how he or she would like to be treated, and what would be

best for the humanity in creating a “Kingdom of Ends,” or a kind of utopia (Gregor 24-27).

“Emerson is often characterized as an idealist philosopher and indeed used the term even in

that very simplified explanation of Kant, the effect on Emerson can be seen. Like Kant, Emerson

trusts and puts the responsibility on the individual to be his own moral guide; the knowledge that

the individual needs is already available, and outside sources can corrupt the ability to guide

one’s self. These ideas led Emerson to believe that “’every actual State is corrupt” and that

“good men must not obey the laws too well.’ But, “if all were Emersons, if all men could realize

the beyond, the transcendental within them, there were no need for those interesting institutions

which express themselves in the forms of law and property.” (Shaw 73). In a sense, if all became

perfect Transcendentalists, they would achieve something like Kant’s Kingdome of Ends.

Emerson must have been directly referencing Kant when he said, “’the world is governed too

much,’” nearly saying, “let the State keep its hands off this ‘Kingdom of the me’" (Shaw 81).

Both of them set up this kind of ideal, and while it was probably impossible, both believed that

people should at least strive for that perfection of self.

The most important point for this paper comes through reverting back to Emerson’s idea

that a person must trust himself because “every heart vibrates to that iron string.” This is also a

reference to Kant. Kant speaks repeatedly of harmony in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals. Kant believed that harmony was not just avoiding doing wrong, but it was a person’s

duty to be active in staying harmonious with nature and with humanity, doing good and being

moral, not just staying neutral. “It is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity

in our person as an end in itself; it must also harmonize with it (Gregor 39). When Emerson notes

that every heart vibrates to that iron string, it probably means that, within each person, they have

the same capabilities for good. As Kant believes that all objective self-lawgivers will choose

similar laws, Emerson believes that every person has a similar necessary tune to follow to

achieve harmony.

There is no doubt that Kant was a great influence on Emerson, but Emerson still displays

his strong consistency. As much as Emerson borrows of Kant, Emerson still differs in many

substantial ways. The greatest difference between them is the difference in religion. Kant was a

Christian, and although much of his moral philosophy omits the mention of the Religion, many

of his other works set out to prove points on the subject, such as the existence of God and the

nature of an afterlife. Even Kant’s neglect of religion in his groundwork of Morals may have

been used as a way to guide non-Christians toward similar moral views. Through the use of logic

and reason, rather than biblical commands, Kant was likely attempting to bridge the

philosophical world with the religious.

Obviously, Emerson is not a Christian. Instead, Emerson takes a profound interest in

nature, and believes it to be the key to a relationship with God. As noted earlier, Emerson

focuses his fear of corruption away from empirical experience in nature, and towards empirical

experience with people. “Emerson's "Experience" even contains a little argument, a little more

King 7

explicitly with Kant, about the nature of experience in its relation to, or revelation of, the natural

world” (Cavell 169).

It is through these differences with Kant that Emerson shows what he expects from his

own audience, the capability to allow an influence, without allowing it to take over completely.

There is a fine line between being a being influenced and still being a trail blazer, or being a

conformist, who is has committed a kind of suicide. Emerson’s expectation was at least partially

carried out by another great philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who was influenced by Emerson,

but who definitely did not conform to him.

Although Emerson has influenced other great philosophers, it is his influence on

Nietzsche that best expresses the Transcendentalist ideal of influence (Brewton). “In the works

that Nietzsche edited himself-or intended for publication when he was still in health -there are

only two explicit references to Emerson” (Hummel 63). In publications coming after his death,

more references were made. One of which, comes from “passages in the octavo Nachlass of

1917-1919: ‘Emerson. I have never felt so much at home in a book, so much in my own house

as,-I ought not to praise it; it is too close to me’” (Hummel 65). Further mention comes in “three

letters from Nietzsche to Franz Overbeck: ‘Tell your dear wife that I feel in Emerson a brother

soul (but the mind is badly formed)’" (Hummel 67).

It is easy to see some of the imprint that Emerson left on Nietzsche’s work as well..

“Emerson, and Nietzsche agreed that the good is the strong, the bad the weak; in such ethical

dynamism lies their only justification; we of the age of social weakness need this tonic, this iron

in our anemic veins” (Shaw 69). “Like Nietzsche, Emerson did not believe that great men were

ends in themselves but served particular functions, notably for Emerson their capacity to ‘clear

our eyes of egotism, and enable us to see other people in their works.’ Emerson’s representative

men are ‘great,’ but ‘exist that there may be greater men’” (Brewton ).

Nietzsche takes Emerson’s view of nature as a way to get closer to God, and he

emphasizes the value of nature on morality. However, Nietzsche removes the attempt to get

nearer to God, saying that man must escape the religion/God and its effect of taming humanity

(Ansell-Pearson). Nietzsche believed that mankind must be closer to nature for the purposes of

evolution, the strong would survive. Moreover, he felt that Christianity was evil, because it

reinforced meekness, and weakness in humanity. He even goes so far as to say that Jesus has

become a symbol of this evil and Priests are worst kind of humanity (Ansell-Pearson 18).

Obviously, this is leaving out many points of discussion within the philosophy. But the purpose

of pointing out Nietzsche’s opinions is not to prove them right or wrong, or to show the

reasoning behind it. The meaningful idea here is that Kant influenced Emerson, who influenced

Nietzsche, who strongly disagreed with almost anything of Kant.

In this small chain of influence, there is a swing from the Christian Kant, to respectful

non-Christian Emerson, who called Jesus Christ “a ‘minister of the Pure Reason,’ and speaks

even of prayer as the ‘forcible subjugation of the Understanding to the Reason’” (Wellek 47).

Then, from Emerson’s supportive view of Jesus, comes Nietzsche who believes in the

importance of nature in guiding morality, but has complete disdain of priests, Jesus, Christianity,

and Judaism. Nietzsche even specifically names Kant, and his Catigorical Imperitive, before

dismissing them with contempt. It may not be possible for two philosophers to be in further from

agreement than Nietzsche and Kant. Yet, Kant indirectly, through Emerson, influenced

Nietzsche. There are few similarities left between all three, but there are some that can still be

seen.

King 9

All three saw the dangers of conformity; all three believed in intuitive insights (Wellek

47). And, like Emerson, Kant and Nietzsche also “drew the notion of ‘bildung,’ or development,

calling it the centeral purpose of human existence” (Brewton ). It is doubtful that there is a better

example of what influence is intended to be in Transcendentalism, than the example of these

three men. Nietzsche and Kant were able to accept influence from the person before them,

without absently conforming to the idea. They were able to take in ideas, without allowing those

ideas to change who they were fundamentally as people.

Obviously, Emerson’s influence extended past philosophers. The Transcendental

movement eventually gave way to, and influenced, writers of the Dark Romanticists, and the era

of modern writers from the early 1900s. Countless paths of influenced could be traced, but there

are three writers in particular that knew Emerson, and each other, that are worth investigating.

Even more interesting, all three writers, Thoreau, Fuller and Hawthorne, had very different

styles; their topics and purposes branched off in different directions, and all three became

influential in very different ways. Fuller and Thoreau, both Transcendentalists, were extremely

influential in different sociological movements. Moreover, the two influenced Hawthorne,

probably more than any other Transcendentalists apart from Hawthorne’s wife. However, the

two influenced Hawthorne in much different ways.

Hawthorne, a non-Transcendentalist, moved to the Old Manse with his Transcendentalist wife in

July of 1842 (Jones 1429). At least early in the experience, Hawthorne took on a fairly

Transcendentalist view. "’Oh that I could run wild!’ he exclaims in his notebook: ‘that is, that I

could put myself into a true relation with nature, and be on friendly terms with all congenial

elements.’" There, he “became a close friend” of Henry Thoreau and found Thoreau to be a

bright spot within the movement. Hawthorne “compared his days [at Old Manse, near Emerson

and Thoreau] to Adam's in Paradise and, anticipating Thoreau in his own bean- field, felt a

kinship with the ‘many ancient sages and heroes’ who had likewise cultivated beans” (Milder

165).

Hawthorne’s relationship with Margaret Fuller, on the other hand, is a little more difficult

to put a finger on. Fuller was not a member of Book Farm. Like Emerson, she had wariness for

doing things in groups. But, she did sympathize with the experiment and visited on occasions to

hold some of her Conversations. It was here that she first met Hawthorne, “who seemed eager

enough to befriend her” (Madison 431). Later, Fuller would accompany Emerson to visit

Hawthorne at Old Manse.

However, although he was married to a Transcendentalist, and a friend of one of the

greatest of the movement, Henry Thoreau, Hawthorne was not particularly fond of the majority

of members within the movement, calling them “hobgoblins of flesh and blood” (Jones 1429).

This immediately puts question on Hawthorne’s relationship to Fuller. Did she become

Hawthorne’s friend, or did she become another hobgoblin?

It is commonly accepted that Margaret Fuller is represented as a character in the

Blithedale Romance. That representation is widely considered to be a less than generous

depiction of her. And, it is this depiction that is most interesting with regard to Hawthorne. Like

The Scarlet Letter’s narrator, The Blithedale Romance’s narrator seems to be closely related to

Hawthorne himself. Moreover, the character that represents Fuller, Zenobia, portrayed fairly

respectfully and, at other times, very disparagingly, such as when she is called “the stump-

oratress” (Madison 431). These mixed feelings may be representative of Hawthorne’s feelings

towards Transcendentalism in general. It is something to be kept in mind. But, this paper is

dealing with particular reference to influence. Since Hawthorne’s stories are still widely read

King 11

today, they are still holding an influence within today’s society. But, also, since Hawthorne was

at least involved in the Transcendental social circle, some idea about what influenced the

movement can be garnered from him.

As a matter of fact, Hawthorne’s Romance takes on a great importance for this paper

because of a far older influence that can be seen within it. As mentioned earlier, in depicting

Fuller within Romance, Hawthorne replaces Fuller’s name with Zenobia. Without any more

background, it would be easy to assume that Hawthorne changed the name to cover his tracks for

when he presents her unpleasantly. But, there is background to the name.

Even within the plot of Romance, the name Zenobia is not a real name. It is a symbol. So,

if it is a symbol in the storyline, shouldn’t a reader expect it to be a symbol for Hawthorne? As

such, we must look at the name’s history. The background of Zenobia is deep. The real life

Zenobia lived in the third century. Her written accounts are in Latin and Greek, but there are

many gaps in her history. She was a queen that helped lead a campaign which conquered much

of the Roman Empire. It may have actually been too successful. Her territory extended too far.

She ended up outstretching her supplies and manpower. Insight into the historical background of

the real Zenobia may give cause for Hawthorne’s use of the name. Her domineering nature,

which apparently did not know its limits, gave rise to her later depiction by Boccaccio as

prideful. Finally, and most importantly for this paper’s purpose, the name also shows up in

Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

In Chaucer’s “Monk’s Tale,” there is a story with a queen named Cenobia, it is spelled

with a ‘C’ but in Middle English it is pronounced the same as Hawthorne’s Zenobia (from this

point on, only the ‘Zenobia’ spelling will be used). This similarity cannot be coincidental.

Hawthorne proves that he is familiar with Chaucer when, in The Scarlet Letter, the unnamed

narrator, who is suspiciously similar to Hawthorne, says, “like that of Burns or of Chaucer, each

of whom was a Custom-House officer in his day, as well as I” (Nathanial Hawthorne, The

Scarlet Letter, pg. 24). Within that statement, not only is Hawthorne making it known that he is

conscious of Chaucer, but he is associating his unnamed narrator with the well known Middle

English author. On top of this, there is the possibility that the narrator in The Scarlet Letter

could, in fact, be Hawthorne, who was also a Custom-House officer. This blatant layering of

Custom-House officers can is probably a call for Hawthorne’s reader to make further

connections between them. In fact, this could very well have been Hawthorne’s attempt at

provoking readers to recognize him as a kind of modern day Geoffrey Chaucer.

Perhaps Hawthorne furthered this claim of his Chaucerian parallel by following

Chaucer’s habit of borrowing characters. Chaucer was famous for taking other authors’

characters and molding them for his own use. For instance, Chaucer borrowed Zenobia from

Boccaccio. Boccaccio used Zenobia for the same reason as all of the women in Famous Women,

to help promote virtue and curb vice (in this case pride) for women by giving examples. Chaucer

slightly adjusted Boccaccio’s Zenobia and used her within a series of short poems. All of the

poems, while possibly also hinting at pride, showed the fickle nature of Fortune, the goddess of

luck, as she would turn her wheel knocking down the successful. Zenobia was used specifically

to express that the unfortunate tragic falls of mankind include women. But, again, Chaucer was

probably used her enhanced ego for background.

Keeping Hemingway’s own stated connection to Chaucer in mind, there is the possibility

that he was only following Chaucer’s example when he borrowed the preexisting template for

the character Zenobia. The same way Chaucer used Zenobia to express an idea different than

Boccaccio; Hawthorne takes Zenobia and uses her to express still another thought. The great

King 13

effect of this action is that Hawthorne’s Zenobia may playing off of Chaucer’s character, using

her background, as a symbol for Fuller’s own tragic fall from bad fortune and possibly pride.

This theory is backed up by Hawthorne’s description of Zenobia, which, throughout, mirrors

Chaucer’s own description.

Coverdale’s and, by extension, Hawthorne’s, introduction of Zenobia tells us, “our

Zenobia, however humble looked her new philosophy, had as much native pride as any queen

would have known what to do with” (Hawthorne 11). This is probably an inside joke for

Hawthorne. He is clearly referencing the queenly namesake of Chaucer’s Zenobia. This follows

nicely with the Monk’s and, by extension, Chaucer’s introduction, when it says, “Zenobia, of all

Palmyra queen” (Chaucer, MkT 359.) But, also from Cloverdale’s statement comes the first

statement of Philosophy. He may have also done some research into the historical Zenobia,

because she also apparently surrounded herself with knowledgeable advisors. Or, perhaps he was

just able to pick up on Chaucer’s hint of Zenobia, when Chaucer says, “And eek she lafte noght

for noon huntyng / To have of sondry tonges ful knowyng, / Whan that she leyser hadde; and for

to entende / To lerne bookes was al hire likyng / How she in vertu myghte hir lyf dispende”

(Chaucer, MkT 418-422). Finally, there is Cloverdale’s mention of Zenobia having more pride

than any queen. This an extension of the joke mentioned above. Because, throughout the

Chaucer’s “Monk’s Tale” is an unstated idea that Fortune, or bad luck, is not really the only

cause of great falls. Pride is often involved. Again, this is not stated explicitly. The theme of the

“Monk’s Tale” is supposed to be bad luck. But the Monk’s narrative begins with Satan. Chaucer,

does this to imply that the sixteen mini-characters, including Zenobia, who follow Satan may not

be so innocent in their own downfall.

This leads me to the next similarity of the two Zenobias’ dualistic natures. At some

points, for both Chaucer and Hawthorne, she is a beautiful woman. At others she is dangerously

masculine. Zenobia would “Wrastlen by verray force and verray myght / With any yong man,

were he never so wight; / Ther myghte nothyng in hir armes stonde / any man, however brave in

fight” (Chaucer, MkT 378-380) Here, Chaucer plays on the Queen’s ability to crush men in war,

while alluding to the idea that her strength made it impossible for her to have a loving

relationship. She eventually does marry in the story, but not for love. Chaucer further points to

her hunting and masculine heartiness. By saying that, although she was not the most beautiful

woman, not one of her features needed to be made better (Chaucer 365-366).

Hawthorne gives Zenobia the same kind of near backhand complements. “Her hand,

though very soft, was larger than most women would like to have,” but, he goes on to say, since

it was in proportion, it kind of worked for her (Hawthorne 13). It is this kind of complement that

reinforces Zenobia’s masculine, dominant, conquering nature. This is, oddly enough, a good

thing. It isn’t until she losses this nature, in Hawthorne’s work, that she is depicted distastefully

and has “hir falle To wrecchednesse and to mysaventure” (Chaucer, MkT 461-462).

It is in Hawthorne’s depiction of Zenobia’s fall that we have a final verification that

Chaucer’s Zenobia that has influenced her. Hawthorne continually paints a picture of Zenobia’s

pride, beauty, and self respect as emanating from the flower in her hair. The flower is a symbol

of her relationship with nature, life, and God; it is a symbol of her power. After being so vibrant

and noble at the beginning of the novel, she is gradually conquered and finally crushed by

Hollingsworth. When Zenobia discovered this truth herself, “she took the jewelled flower out of

her hair; and it struck [Coverdale] as the act of a queen, when worsted in a combat, discrowning

herself, as if she found a sort of relief in abasing all her pride” (Hawthorne 173). Again, this can

King 15

be nothing other than a reference of the tragedy of Chaucer’s Zenobia. Who, after having been

been a conquerer of cities, had become a woman of constant sorrow. And in the final couplet,

Chaucer/ the Monk tells us, “And she that bar the ceptre ful of floures / Shal bere a distaf, hir

costes for to quyte” (Chaucer, MkT 485-486). In other words, after being conquered by a man,

Zenobia had been forced to trade in her flower ornamented rod, that was a symbol of her power,

for a tool that symbolized typical woman’s work so that she could simply buy the food to

survive. In a sense, Coverdale is correct when he says, “maybe that flower in her hair is a

talisman. If you were to snatch it away, she would vanish, or be transformed into something

else." (Hawthorne 35) When Zenobia was conquered by Brook Farm, she was converted into just

a woman; when both Zenobia and Fuller were conquered by love, they vanished completely.

There is very little scholarly literature using the background of Chaucer to help explain

the purpose of Zenobia and the connection to Fuller (in fact, I didn’t see any). So, this seems to

be a subject ripe for further study. But, also, because of this, the final meaning behind it all is

very much up for interpretation. Maybe Hawthorne’s Zenobia dies because, like the historical

Zenobia, she refused to live in disgrace after she lost her noble queenly nature (although I

haven’t yet found proof that Hawthorne had that the Zenobia’s actual historical information

available). Perhaps, her queenly nature was doomed from the moment she stepped foot on Brook

Farm, and she merely died as a symbolic nod to Fuller’s tragic death. The answer that I will use

until further notice is that, readers of the Blithedale Romance have misunderstood the character

Zenobia because of the lack of connection to Chaucer. If the narrator, Coverdale, is removed,

Coverdale’s story presents Zenobia as the mostly good heroine who completes a tragedy with her

flaws. But, with this background of Chaucer’s Zenobia, I think Hawthorne may have been more

charitable toward Fuller than people give him credit for. Hawthorne may have been showing

himself as a precursor to the Dark Romanticism movement. The death of Zenobia may not have

been entirely tragic. Instead of forcing Zenobia to live as Chaucer’s did, in a life of toil and

shame, maybe Hawthorne set her free from the toil and shame Hollingsworth had imposed on

her.

Whatever the true meaning behind the depiction of Fuller, it is undeniable that

Hawthorne was influenced by Chaucer. If Chaucer is so directly influencing Hawthorne, from

over four hundred years earlier, the influence of the Transcendental movement also likely

extends to the beginning of English literature. The range of influence from literature and

philosophy in the Transcendentalist past took greater importance in the way the

Transcendentalist’s shaped our own past. Sadly, though, the influence Transcendentalism had on

later social movements, is largely unknown by the average person. To see this, one can just look

back on Margaret Fuller again.

One could argue that the most tragic thing about the tragic Zenobia is the fact that she has

come very near overshadowing Margaret Fuller’s fight for women’s rights. There is no lack of

irony in Hawthorne’s description Zenobia as both masculine and beautiful. “Fuller understood,

intuitively at the beginning, which the emancipation of woman depended on a redefinition of the

terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ and a reevaluation of the bearing that both these terms had on the

culture… Fuller's effort was thus directed toward the recognition of feminine and masculine

principles with boundaries fluid enough to promote … them both. Her concept has certain

affinities with what has evolved in modern discourse as a theory of androgyny, although this was

not her term.” (Robinson 93).

Hawthorne’s near backhanded complements may not have been completely unwarranted.

This idea of Zenobia as encompassing both masculine and feminine features may have been the

King 17

one part of Zenobia that Fuller would have appreciated. “Coverdale describes Zenobia as ‘an

admirable figure of a woman’ with features that were ‘remarkably beautiful, even if some

fastidious persons might pronounce them a little deficient in softness and delicacy’” (Schriber

65). As a woman, Zenobia was able to work, but not cook; she could be an intellectual, as well as

sexual; and she was dominant, but also able to be conquered emotionally. This may be an overly

charitable reading of Hawthorne’s work, but there are feminist traits within the Character. It

cannot be forgotten that, in the end, after Zenobia’s death, it is easy to feel sympathy for her

despite tragic flaws, and to turn a cynical eye toward the remaining characters. However, the

irony remains, that, what could be seen as feminist traits given to Zenobia, are instead more often

interpreted as the greatest proof that Hawthorne is mocking Fuller after her death.

Fuller was the most influential literary feminist in the 1800’s (Showalter 130). Far ahead

of her time, Fuller said that women were just as able to fulfill any position, including those were

considered extremely masculine, such as “sea-captains” (Madison 432). If Hawthorne was aware

of this fact, which he almost had to have been, even Hawthorne’s background of Zenobia as a

warrior queen is a nod to her feminist goals. If Zenobia is Fuller, then Fuller is surely a warrior

for the feminist movement, breaking down the fortified male expectations of women.

A short look at Fuller’s life can help to illuminate how this feminist figure was created.

Margaret Fuller’s father brought her up with the challenging education that he had hoped to give

to the son he didn’t get. When Margaret’s father passed away from Asiatic cholera, her mother

was “unfitted to deal with the outside world, she accepted her new duties as head of the family”

(Madison 425). Yet, it was her uncle, the “nearest male kin,” who was given charge of the estate

(Madison 428). “She had long been fretting at the restrictions laid on women. Brought up by her

father as the equal of any man, conscious of her worth and yet vexed by her lack of pulchritude,

she chafed at the thought of being deprived of certain rights and privileges simply because she

was a woman. (Madison 427-428). It was at this point in her life that she “decided upon a

feminine audience and upon topics of special benefit to it” (Madison 428).

“Although her tragic death cut off her productivity before it reached its mature fruition,

her electric personality had impressed itself indelibly upon her generation” (Madison 438). It was

widely considered that Fuller’s Conversations, guided group discussions, at first, open only to

women, best utilized Fuller’s specific communication skill set, and that her writings paled in

comparison. But, even so, it could be said that she is the prime mover of feminism in literature.

“Woman in the Nineteenth Century, published early in I845, was the first book on feminism in

this country and was both praised and denounced with equal heat. Essentially Margaret urged for

the right of women to develop their talents and predilections in accord with their inherent natures

(Madison 432). It is both interesting and of undeniable historical importance. It is not only an

argument on behalf of women’s rights, but also “a key expression of the values of American

Transcendentalism” (Robinson 84). Greatly influenced by Emerson, Fuller takes the idea of self

reliance and turns it into female self-reliance, which “must take place apart from men” (Adams

58).

Influence is a difficult thing to trace. Would the women’s rights movement have

progressed so far without Fuller? It is possible. But, Fuller definitely quickened its pace. Maybe

it is with her progression in mind that the final notable Transcendentalist made impact felt in a

social context. Fuller once attempted to tap into the interest surrounding abolitionism to further

her feminine view. “As the friend of the negro assumes that one man cannot by right, hold

another in bondage, so should the friend of woman assume that man cannot, by right, lay even

well-meant restrictions on woman" (Robinson 91). Fuller and Thoreau must have spoken on the

King 19

subject, because Fuller’s statement sounds like the completion of a discussion by Thoreau’s

public views on slaves and applying them to women.

Obviously, Henry David Thoreau was influenced by Emerson. Thoreau lived with

Emerson for a period and became one of the most well known transcendentalists. Emerson’s

influence on Thoreau can be seen in works such as Thoreau’s The Maine Woods, where Thoreau

essencially takes Emerson’s Nature and applies it to specific travels. As he moves further into

the woods, and further away from society, he begins to feel a connection with God.

Thoreau also had, as was mentioned earlier, a concurrence with Margaret Fuller. Fuller

was not the only Transcendentalist to take a stance against a major societal issue. Fuller fought

for women’s rights; Thoreau took on slavery laws. Acting even before the passing of the Fugitive

Slave Act of 1950, Thoreau “stopped paying taxes in 1842. He defended his actions, claiming he

would not support an institution that tolerated injustice. ‘I did not pay a tax to, or recognize the

authority of, the state which buys and sells men, women, and children,’ he wrote in Walden”

(Powell 26-27). When Thoreau later combined his feelings on John Brown and Brown’s capture

with this “identification [of] the evil linked to the extension of slavery,” Thoreau’s will would be

forged into iron strong enough to stand against slavery even “in the face of bitter hostility and

threatened violence” (Nelson 59).

It is difficult to say that Thoreau was the man who lit the fuse that erupted into the civil

war. But, if he didn’t do it himself, he helped lead the man who did. Regardless of Thoreau’s

impact in the 1800’s though, his method of attacking the immoral government without violence

carried on after his death in two of the most impactful people in history.

For his cause, Thoreau was calling for active non-cooperation and disruptive non-action.

Figuratively, Thoreau expected people to cause friction by standing still in the way of an

immoral movement. The idea is that the figurative friction would slow down and eventually stop

an immoral movement. This disobedience is based on embracing the community, and all people,

while causing difficulty for the government by breaking a law. The first of immensely impactful

person that Thoreau influenced was Gandhi, whose salt march is a perfect example of not hurting

anyone, but blatantly acting against a law.

The influence of Thoreau could be suggested solely by Gandhi’s actions. But, in 1931, in

the midst of Gandhi’s hard fought non-violent war with the British government, Gandhi was

asked during an interview if he had ever heard of Thoreau. “Gandhi's ‘eyes brightened and he

chuck-led.’ Then Gandhi recounted how he had read Thoreau in South Africa and how it had

been a formative influence for him” (Gordon 345). Gandhi went on to say, “From long reading

of Thoreau I am convinced that his philosophical conceptions emanated largely from Indian

literature” (Gordon 345). In Walden, Thoreau repeatedly mentions the Vedas and other Hindu

literature and once says, “’I...who loved so well the philosophy of India...’ It would seem that

Gandhi received back from America what was fundamentally the philosophy of India after it had

been distilled and crystallized in the mind of Thoreau. This perhaps explains why the Hindu

mentality so readily accepted his ideas (Gordon 345).

Gandhi agreed with Thoreau, “that government is a present necessity but held that

governments by their very nature are prone to err. The best of them are supported by majorities,

indicating a victory of numbers and not necessarily of justice” (Nelson 56). But, as “Thoreau

points out[,] a just minority is irresistible when it acts with its whole weight. The state will not

place or keep all just men in prison. Rather than this, it will abandon its evil practice” (Nelson

57) Thus, the minority can still act as a speed bump on the path to an unjust action. A speed

bump, as small as it is, will draw attention to why the speed bump is there. And if it is there for a

King 21

good reason, people will take notice and react appropriately. This is the way even an individual

person causing friction can be effective. All it takes is one speed bump to cause a moral

realization. As Thoreau said, “I (space) know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if

ten men whom I could name--if ten honest men only--ay, if one HONEST man, … were actually

to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the

abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what

is once well done is done forever.” This is the power of the few, causing friction for a moral

cause. It is the way to combat the majority that is a necessity of the best governments.

It was through this idea that Gandhi led the resistance against the British Empire.

Thoreau’s message of civil disobedience helped put Gandhi on the moral high ground. Gandhi

inspired his own people, observing nations, like the United States of America, and finally the

British government that the Indians must be freed.

Gandhi is a powerful example of the influence of Thoreau’s message. Ironically it was

“by [Gandhi’s] explicit connection to Christ and Thoreau [that] he made some Americans feel

that [his] teachings were not so foreign. Gandhi helped to invigorate the idea of non-violent

resistance in the west and to politicize it as he had done in India” (Gordon 337). Although

Thoreau’s idea had helped free Gandhi’s people, Thoreau’s own country, the United States, was

still experiencing some of the problem Thoreau had initially attempted to fix. Although slavery

had ended, severe racism and segregation remained. Even worse, while there were still people

fighting discrimination, the movement’s progress had slowed to a near halt. “It is only in the

grasping of this total message that Negroes might possibly guarantee the fulfillment of Gandhi's

fateful prophecy, namely, that it might be through them that the unadulterated message of non-

violence would be made available to the world” (Nelson 57). It would take a man that combined

Thoreau’s idea with Gandhi’s determination to get the movement against racial discrimination

moving again at full speed.

It is amazing that Thoreau isn’t even known as the most famous American to practice

civil disobedience, even within the narrowed sense of fighting racism toward African-

Americans. He was the first; he helped to bring about the civil war; he was the primary influence

of the other major non-violent activists. Nonetheless, the most famous American to use

Thoreau’s ideas was not Thoreau, it is a young African-American minister, Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. Dr. King came a century later, and put a face to the civil rights movement. “[Dr.] King

reified the ideas in - Birmingham, Alabama. During my early college days, I read Thoreau's

essay on 'Civil Disobedience' for the first time," King remembered, "I became convinced then

that non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good" (1).

Dr. King went on to read Gandhi as a graduate student; through combining the Thoreau and

Gandhi, Dr. King became the most important activist in American history (Gordon 350).

“Martin Luther King recalls that early in the 1955 bus boycott of Montgomery, Alabama,

he reflected on Thoreau's essay on "Civil Disobedience" and was convinced that in Montgomery

he and his followers were simply making clear, in the spirit of Thoreau, that they could no longer

co-operate with an evil system” (Nelson 56). Later, “King best articulated his convictions in his

‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.’ The 1963 letter supported and expanded the concepts first

presented in Thoreau's essay, injecting nonviolent direct action into the - American tradition of

protest. Although the ideas expressed in ‘Civil Disobedience’ and ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’

are quite similar, the authors were radically different. Henry David Thoreau was a white,

northern, nature loving individualist; Martin Luther King was a black, southern leader of masses.

(Powell 26).

King 23

However, it is not the differences but the similarities that are most important. “Both

believed that individuals had a right and an obligation to oppose injustice and to disobey unjust

laws. The American tradition of protest, strongly influenced by Thoreau's writing on civil

disobedience, includes the notion of nonviolent, direct action” (Powell 26). Each of them

believed that it was the duty of the individual, if he morally correct, to fight the injustice of the

majority (Powell 28).

“Both men expressed the need for immediate action. Thoreau asked, "’shall we be

content to obey [unjust laws], or shall we transgress them at once?’ His answer was obviously

the latter. He argued that people must act on their consciences and bring change through action.

Thoreau set an example by not paying his taxes and by breaking the fugitive slave law. He said

that one is an accomplice to injustice when, in finding fault with the government, a person does

not withdraw his or her support” (Powell 28). Dr. King agreed with this need for immediacy.

"’Human progress never [comes] inevitability,’ he stated, ‘it comes through the tireless efforts of

men.’ He preached that American blacks had suffered for three centuries; thus, the time for

action was upon them” (Powell 28).

For King, practicing civil disobedience entailed breaking an unjust law, yet accepting

community (Powell 28). “Just over a century earlier, Thoreau had written that if governments

imprison a just man, jail is the just man's only ‘true place’” (Powell 28). It is the act of forcing

the state to imprison men, that forces consideration of change.“Civil disobedience requires also

on the part of the resister the willing subjection to the penalty exacted by the law” (Nelson 57). It

is not surprising then that both men found themselves jailed.

“Concord authorities arrested Thoreau and placed him in jail for one night (after six years

of noncompliance). By breaking a law and willingly accepting the punishment, he was the first

American to practice nonviolent civil disobedience” (Powell 27). Dr. King’s imprisonment was a

quite a bit more dramatic. “’In 1963, King took his campaign of civil disobedience and direct

action to "the most thoroughly segregated city in this country,’ Birmingham, Alabama. There, he

organized a massive nonviolent protest, hoping to force the city leaders to desegregate the lunch

counters, fitting rooms, rest rooms, and drinking fountains. He ultimately hoped to attain city-

wide desegregation” (Powel 27). Dr. King was imprisoned (one of the many times) for a month

and placed in solitary confinement (Powell 27).

It is clear that Dr. King paid a much more steep price than Thoreau for his beliefs. The

reason that King is the more famous for using Thoreau’s idea is because he was even more

committed to them. He took them to the farthest logical extent for his cause. “King believed that

blacks, like all Americans, deserved protection under the Constitution, and appealed to the

national government to grant them equal rights. In fighting for equality, King risked, and

eventually gave, his life” (Powell 28).

While this truth helps show why Dr. King unquestionably deserves to be the most famous

American human rights activist, I feel Thoreau should still not be forgotten. Dr. King did give

and do more for the movement than any other American. But without Thoreau and

Transcendentalism, there may have never been a Dr. King, or an “I have a dream.” Because,

where else do dreams come from than that part of us that transcends our world and reality.

As we can see from Thoreau, not all influencers are glorified. From Hawthorn and

Chaucer, we find that they are not even always recognized. While this is understood, it does not

fix the fact that Transcendentalism is undoubtedly the most underappreciated movement in

American history. The influence on and of the Transcendentalism comprises at least 600 years of

the greatest writers and philosophers. It influenced two of the most important social activists in

King 25

history. Through those influenced by Transcendentalism, even people today are constantly

feeling the impact of their thoughts, through various freedoms and philosophical ideas. Yet,

Transcendentalism is a virtual unknown outside of academia.

But maybe that is the way Emerson would have preferred it. It isn’t the speaker quoted

that is important. Emerson once said, “all minds quote…The originals are not original,” such as

the Transcendental movement itself. “We can say nothing but what has been said.... Our poets

steal from Homer,” or in Hawthorne’s case, from Chaucer. “He that comes last is commonly

best,” like the deserving Gandhi and King. “We are as much informed of a writer's genius by

what he selects as by what he originates,” as displayed by the radical changes from the

philosophies of Kant to Nietzsche. “We read the quotation with his eyes, and find a new and

fervent sense’” (Garber 669). The beauty of this kind of influence, without conformity, is that no

two are exactly alike, and each person takes the influence of another direction, combining ideas

in new and powerful ways. Even if Emerson is correct, that there is nothing that hasn’t already

been said, as long as people don’t conform completely, there are nearly an infinite number of

influential combinations to be followed.

Works Cited

Adams, Kimberly V. “Feminine Godhead, Feminist Symbol: The Madonna in George Eliot,

Ludwig Feuerbach, Anna Jameson, and Margaret Fuller.” Journal of Feminist Studies in

Religion 12.1 (Spring, 1996): 41-70. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Ansell-Pearson, Keith, ed. Nietzsche on the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1997.

Brewton, Vince. “Ralph Waldo Emerson,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 11 July 2005.

Web. 17 Nov. 2010. < http://www.iep.utm.edu/emerson>.

Cavell, Stanley. “Thinking of Emerson.” New Literary History 11.1 (Autumn, 1979): 167-176.

Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1987

Garber, Marjorie. “’ ‘ (Quotation Marks). Critical Inquiry 25.4 (Summer, 1999): 653-679. Web.

JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Gordon, Leonard A. “Mahatma Gandhi's Dialogues with Americans.” Economic and Political

Weekly 37.4 (Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2002): 337-352. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Gregor, Mary, ed. Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1997.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Blithedale Romance. Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1964.

Hudson, William Jay. “The Religion of Emerson.” The Sewanee Review 28.2 (Apr., 1920): 203-

212. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Jones, Buford. "’The Hall of Fantasy’ and the Early Hawthorne-Thoreau Relationship.” PMLA:

83. 5 (Oct., 1968): 1429-1438. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Madison, Charles A. “Margaret Fuller: Transcendental Rebel .” The Antioch Review 2.3

(Autumn, 1942): 422-438. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Milder, Robert. “Hawthorne's Winter Dreams.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 54.2 (Sep., 1999):

165-201. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Myerson, Joel, ed. Transcendentalism: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.,

2000.

King 27

Nelson, William Stuart. “Thoreau and American Non-Violent Resistance.” The Massachusetts

Review 4.1 (Autumn, 1962): 56-60. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Powell, Brent. “Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and the American Tradition of

Protest.” OAH Magazine of History 9.2 (Winter, 1995): 26-29. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec.

2010.

Schriber, Mary Suzanne.” Justice to Zenobia.” The New England Quarterly 55.1 (Mar., 1982):

61-78. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.

Showalter, Elaine. “Review: Feminist Foremother.”The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 25.1 (Winter,

2001): 129-131. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010Wellek, Rene. “Emerson and German

Philosophy.” The New England Quarterly 16.1 (Mar., 1943): 41-62. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec.

2010.

Wellek, Rene. “Emerson and German Philosophy.” The New England Quarterly 16.1 (Mar.,

1943): 41-62. Web. JSTOR. 1 Dec. 2010.