The Shammbhala Library is the most eclectic publishing library ever concocted. Because of that, I can't well imagine that this particular collection of Emerson's writings will find its way into many American's homes, though it is very well done. That's rather beside the point, anyway, since just about any collection of Emerson will include the writings found here: "The Sphinx," "The Poet," "Bacchalus," "Circles," "Nature," "Self-Reliance," "The Divinity School Address," and a few others. Not every collection will intersperse poetry with the essays, so as far as collections go this is very good as a full representation of Emerson. The only problem with this collection, as with many collections of Emerson, is that it ignores Emerson's later writings claiming that they are not representative of Emerson. Better to say that the later writings are not representative of our perception of Emerson. I find that it is nice to follow a writer through changes in life and thought rather than pigeon-holing them. Oh well.
Since first reading Emerson in my early college days alongside Thoreau I have thought that the two Concordians (Hawthorne being just as great) were the best American products of the 19th century, and perhaps of the last two centuries combined. Reading Emerson this time around, only a few years after college, I find that I can no longer praise him as I once did. No matter what we conclude about Emerson I think we as Americans must appreciate him. For one thing, he has no doubt framed and influenced American thought and literature from the time of his birth. Emerson is also clearly insightful and provocative and writes artistically. But his homage to Plato and the ancient Greeks is a bit much.
Indeed, almost all of what Emerson has to say can be traced back, if he doesn't do so explicitly for you as he often does, to Plato's philosophy. More specifically to Neo-Platonism which adds the concept of The One to Plato's theory of the Forms and Ideas. Certainly there is nothing wrong with subscribing to this philosophy and I do not begrudge Emerson his passion. Yet I am quite frankly disappointed to discover that, a) I can no longer agree all that much with Emerson, and b) Emerson is not as original as I thought he was. If we grant, as we should, that Emerson's genius consisted in translating Platonism into a young Americanism, which included tidbits of Christianity, then we still cannot speak of originality. Oh well.
And when it comes to Emerson, you basically have to talk about his ideas. Though an artistic and articulate writer, Emerson's style does not admit smooth transitions or an easy flow. As a reader or as a listener the experience is much like being pelted with ideas over and over again. You cannot enjoy reading an Emerson essay unless you enjoy being in discussion with his ideas.
As for his poetry, well, no matter what any editor might say I think there's a reason why Emerson is not today well-known for his poetry. Unfortunately his poems are startlingly similar to his essays: all about the idea. I do not think there's much in terms of aesthetic quality here. Personally, too, I cannot appreciate the ubiquity of passive verbs in his poems. Even if Emerson used the passive tense on purpose, as I think he does to emphasize Nature's predominance in our life, rather than as a means to rhyme well, I'd still argue that his poetry is boring for that very reason. Don't get me wrong, however. Poetry should never be about the idea/s, but Emerson, as a naturally artistic writer, at least gets you to the point where you can appreciate whatever idea presents itself in the poem.
In sum, not as good as I once thought. And certainly I'd never recommend the majority of his philosophy to anyone--other than the striving for the greatness we can all attain. Regardless, Emerson should be read because he is a highlight of American literature, and as such I am proud that he is in my literary tradition.