Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay History is a metaphysical and philosophical analysis of the ideas that would later be explored by Jung and others in depth. Namely, it's about the idea of the shared human experience and unconscious.
Emerson goes right into the essay by talking about the role history plays for the human race. "Man is explicable by nothing less than all his history," he says. This is true; history gives us an understanding of what we are, the choices we make, and how we deal with different situations we get ourselves into.
He talks a lot about this idea, before moving to a more individual note, where he introduces the concept of the Mind. Emerson argues that every man is an instance, an incarnation, of the universal mind. Like Plato's forms casting shadows into the material world, the Emerson's universal mind is the basis for all humans, and connects us deeply. Every thought that one can think, according to Emerson, has its origin in the Mind, and therefore can be thought by any person. The ideas of shared experiences are core to this, that no matter how different two people are, they can always connect on having both experienced some core event in their life.
Emerson details how this shared Mind allows us to relate to vastly different people. He describes how a young, impoverished boy can read Shakespeare's stories of great kings and see himself in the pages. It's a very interesting idea that the reason we can make this connection is because of the shared human mind. To expand on Emerson's thoughts, we can relate to any human because of certain experiences and emotions people all share, regardless of background, caste, or creed. Everyone experiences grief, laughter, love and rejection, the burden of responsibility, of living up to someone's expectations. These are human experiences, and they define the Mind.
Circling back to the title of this essay, Emerson leads into the idea that not only can we relate our lives to that of other individuals, but to all of human history. He says that if history is the record of the Mind, then it is the record of our own life too, and we must see it as such, and history books a commentary on our own individual lives. Much easier said than done; Emerson uses the example of the fascination most people have at some point with Greece, saying that it is because we pass through a "Grecian Period" in our own lives. He defines it as a perfection of the physical and natural, of acute senses, and of the values of courage, strength, justice, "a loud voice and a broad chest."
Personally, I feel that this idea and framing is a bit lacking. What really defines a Grecian period in someone's life? How do you move on from it? I'd expand on this by adding in what limits different civilizations. One of the issues I have with Emerson's explanation is that the Greeks of his description seem too perfect. Most of Western civilization is based on Greek values, so it's hard to see them as anything but the pinnacle, which weakens the idea that it's a phase a life goes through. So what were the weaknesses of Greek culture, which we grow out of in our lives? I would say that there is one big one that is applicable to an individual: how scattered and divided Greece was, with constant infighting, wars between states, and generational rivalries. A person in a Grecian period might struggle to unite their thoughts and beliefs, or perhaps fails in collaboration with others and harbors grudges. It's a difficult question to answer. While this is the backbone of Emerson's argument, I feel that he presents other ideas about the Mind and its effects much more interestingly and convincingly.
My single favorite idea he puts forward is how pure concepts exist in the mind. Again much like Plato's theory of Forms; however while Plato claims that all objects in the material realm are imperfect reflections of a Form, Emerson wanders further from the metaphysical, confining his scope to things created by humans, which he argues are all drawn from perfect concepts in the Mind, and are the attempts of individuals to bring them to reality through imperfect tools. He says that the greatest cathedrals and artworks are lame copies of a divine model, the model being within the shared thoughts of mankind. "The true poem is the poet’s mind; the true ship is the shipbuilder." We are taken through a plethora of examples and scenarios showing how everything humans have created, physical and abstract, are desperate attempts to create what exists within us. Heraldry and knightly culture, he says, are just reflections of the intrinsic respect all humans are owed. We honor the rich because they have the freedom and grace which we know all of humanity can possess, which money and power can only imitate.
There are a few more scattered ideas throughout the essay I'd like to discuss. One that is crucial in the modern day is what Emerson describes as "intellectual nomadism". Our thoughts are so scattered, pulled around and spent on pointless things, that it bankrupts our mind. To use the metaphor of history, civilization could only develop once we settled down, began to grow our own food, and could put effort into growing and evolving. A similar process must occur within our minds; we must settle them, stop letting them get torn apart, and continue to challenge ourselves and evolve forward as individuals. In the 21st century this is so apparent. Our attention spans have been crushed by instant short form content, 24/7 news barely give us enough time to process any one event, and the average person is very much stuck in a wandering of thoughts.
Another idea is that history was at one time just the present. We must never think of history as any bigger or any different than right now, because we are living it just as they did. Emerson said that one can never properly understand history or themselves if they think "that what was done in a remote age, by men whose names have resounded far, has any deeper sense than what he is doing today." Emerson himself is a good example of this. He was at the head of one of the first youth-led cultural movements in America. He was cemented in history for his actions, but he would hate the idea of being called a "historical figure" in so far as that implies that he was a different species, something greater than a regular person. The past doesn't exist, it's just a memory of what was once the present, and we need to hold the present in the same esteem we hold history.
Emerson ends the essay with a fascinating passage that I read over and over. He discusses the issue with history as it is recorded, namely that it is purely a collection of isolated facts. It's nothing but local gossip, without the deeper picture of the human condition. He asks us what use does the political events of Rome have to do with the daily life of a person? History, according to Emerson, should tell us more. It should help us to understand the mysteries of death, not just the fact that someone died. Instead of just who won a war, we should be taught the spiritual evolution of our race. History must be written with an understanding of the connections of humanity to each other and all of nature, and it must look at events as symbols representing thoughts in the Mind, rather than plain facts. This is such a fascinating and original concept, and he's absolutely right. Our civilization is built on the idea of history as being a record of facts and events, but the actual soul of it is so often forgotten. A better history might include the thoughts, motivations, emotions and experiences of the time. Focusing on humanity at large rather than the government, focusing as much on ideas as events. Not just the toppling of the Bastille, but the conversations in coffeehouses the days before; that is the history Emerson longs for.
He ends it with a call to action. Emerson asks us to broaden and deepen how we write history. He also takes a stance, saying that those furthest from education, the impoverished, young children, those outside the academy life, are the ones closest to nature and closer to the Mind than the entire academic institution. I disagree on this point; while Emerson is absolutely right that the way academia views history is flawed, I don't think running away from intellectualism is the right idea either. Getting in touch with our own nature is crucial, so is understanding how the Mind has evolved and being able to think through it. Temperance is the answer here, a balance of instinct and intellect to push us forward.