History Summary & Analysis

Emerson begins the essay by arguing that every individual has access to the “universal mind”—a collective consciousness of thoughts, feelings, and experiences that are intrinsic to all human beings. The universal mind is how the individual can understand “all that is or can be done.”

Emerson defines history as the record of this universal mind, arguing that man can only be understood in the full context of human history. He believes that distinct historical entities—peoples, nations, governments—are simply the result of individuals with the same universal mind experiencing different external circumstances.

Expanding on the notion that the universal mind writes history, Emerson argues that it must also read history. Since all experiences are universal, individuals can make sense of history through the perspective of their own lives. Emerson suggests that “the hours of our life” in the present and “centuries of time” in the past can be used to mutually explain one another, and that individual experiences are as universal as they are private. He emphasizes that a reader must become the historical figures he reads about in order to understand humanity. For example, studying flawed historical figures such as Solomon, Alcibiades, and Catiline (ancient leaders who sinned or committed crimes), allows the individual to make sense of the same vices and virtues that exist within themselves. Emerson believes that by contextualizing history personally rather than distantly, men can see their own realities reflected in others and therefore come to recognize the “universal nature” of all things.

This universal nature, Emerson argues, is what “gives worth to particular men and things.” Similar to his idea of the universal mind, the universal nature is an omnipresent spirit or soul that unites all people and things as one. Emerson believes that “this supreme, illimitable essence” is what motivates all human endeavors and is ultimately what gives life its meaning. Since the same universal nature lives within all individuals, significant historical moments happened as much “for us” in the present as they did for people in the past.

According to Emerson, the universal nature allows humanity to aspire to a collective ideal, which he likens to the literary archetype of the wise man. There are divine morals and values that are intrinsic to the universal human spirit, and individuals therefore admire and seek to embody the same character of the “unattained but attainable self.” Emerson believes that, throughout history, human expression and art has served as a form of high praise for the wise man ideal.

Having outlined his argument that history is an ongoing record of the universal human mind and nature, Emerson implores the individual to “read history actively and not passively” by viewing their own life as the source material and historical texts as commentary. In doing so, individuals will realize that their lives are just as meaningful and important as those of well-known historical figures.

Emerson believes that since history encompasses the universal mind, the individual can relate any historical event to some aspect of their personal life. He urges men not to feel intimidated by the grandiosity of kingdoms, empires, or nations, since mankind’s creations derive from the same human spirit that all individuals possess. “Poetry and annals are alike,” says Emerson, meaning that history is open to personal interpretation beyond objective facts.

Building on the idea that historical facts are subjective, Emerson believes that all history is essentially biography. He suggests that each individual is living their own personal representation of the same timeless human experience, and that it is up to the individual to deem a piece of history as fact only once they have lived their version of it.

Emerson argues that all laws are based on the universal nature of human beings, and that individuals must come to understand historical events (the French Reign of Terror or the Salem Witch Trials, for example) as participants rather than observers. He believes individuals naturally sense that they are united in spirit with all other human beings, and therefore tend to intellectually and emotionally empathize with the experiences of others.

Emerson goes on to explore the motivations behind studying history and excavating ancient ruins such as the Egyptian Pyramids or Stonehenge. He argues that curiosity toward history is generally rooted in man’s desire to separate himself from the mistakes, ignorance, and violence of the past. History, Emerson suggests, is a personal “problem” that each individual seeks to solve by distancing themselves from the “There or Then” and rooting themselves in the “Here and the Now.”

But the individual, argues Emerson, also cannot help but see himself in history. In Emerson’s view, a Gothic cathedral represents the paradox of historical creations—they are both “done by us, and not done by us.” The individual will find it difficult to see themselves in the beauty and grandiosity of the church but is able to identify with its builder and therefore with intricate historical progression that led up to its construction. The universal nature of all people and things makes it inevitable that man will see himself in all of history.

Hearkening back to his reference of the archetypical wise man, Emerson states that the wisest and most intelligent men—poets, philosophers, saints—are able see the sacred universal nature of all people and things which negates any superficial variations. Though people tend to use circumstantial differences to draw distinctions between past and present, there is an undeniable common thread that unites everyone and everything across time.

Emerson shifts his focus to nature, asking: why should people concern themselves with hard facts and figures when true meaning is to be found in natural beauty? He believes that genius is not a mastery of the hard sciences, but rather a spiritual acuity in recognizing the eternity and divinity of life that is evident at all levels of the nature. Emerson argues that although the natural world is perpetually changing, the “eternal unity” remains constant in all things.

Emerson again emphasizes that history is a reflection of the universal mind and universal nature that all human beings share. The distinct civil history, literature, architecture, and art of any given culture will inevitably reflect the same archetypical characters and experiences.

This universality is rooted in nature’s tendency to repeat the same patterns on different levels and is evident in the way that people react to art and literature. For example, Emerson draws a parallel between “the furrows of the brow” in a man and “the strata of the rock” in nature. Emerson points out that the individual’s tendency to conjure their own associations of natural beauty when viewing art is a testament to the sacred unity contained in nature.

Emerson goes on to marvel at the sublime and beautiful similarities between different elements of nature, and between life and art. He notes that there are men today who resemble ancient Greek sculptures. Just an individual can only make sense of themselves by “becoming” history, an artist must “become” an element of nature (such as a tree or a rock) in order to capture its essence. And just as history reflects the universal human mind, art reflects universal nature of all things.

Emerson believes that civil and natural history (that of art and literature) must be explained by individual history. Grand works of architecture such as the Santa Croce, the Dome of St. Peter’s, and the Strasburg Cathedral are merely physical depictions of the divinity that exists in the human soul. Artists, argues Emerson, are therefore indistinguishable from their work on a spiritual level.

According to Emerson, seemingly “trivial” everyday happenings are actually gateways to the timeless essence of humanity. Ordinary individuals often bear witness to the sublime beauty and power of nature in their daily lives. For example, Emerson compares a man who watches the moon rise from the midnight clouds to an archangel presiding over the universe’s creation. He also recalls seeing lightning in the sky and likening it to Jove’s lightning bolt in ancient Greek mythology. Drawing on these instances, Emerson believes that each private experience is an archetype of a universal experience common to all human beings throughout history.

Emerson again cites the example of a Gothic cathedral, this time using it to illustrate the man’s tendency to portray the natural world through art, architecture, and other cultural artifacts. He observes how art imitates nature and vice versa, pointing out the visual similarities between a pine grove and a Saxon archway or a winter sunset and a cathedral’s stained-glass window. Emerson views the Gothic church as a symbolic union of nature and man.

Deepening his ongoing argument that history must be personalized, Emerson asserts that an individual’s private biography must be likewise be generalized and applied to all of humanity. He illustrates this notion by exemplifying how an archetypical human struggle—freedom versus security—has manifested in different regions, among different peoples, and even figuratively within individuals. Early Asians and Africans were simultaneously nomadic and agricultural by geographic necessity. Americans and Europeans face an ongoing cultural dilemma between progress and nationalistic tradition. And, finally, man has dual tendencies toward adventure and repose depending on his environment.

Reiterating his belief that the universal mind authors history, Emerson notes that everything the individual observes in the external world will correspond to a deep, intrinsic truth within themselves. Conversely, the individual can seek within themselves to make sense of history.

Emerson believes that man’s interest in history (ancient Greek literature, art, and poetry, for example) reflects the intrinsic unity of the individual and the universal. He argues that any given historical era is paralleled by a corresponding period in the individual’s personal development. Greek antiquity, for example, revered the unity of body and spirit, and embodied principles of man’s universal nature such as courage, justice, and strength.

The appeal of history, says Emerson, is not an empty admiration of the ancient, but rather a recognition of what is natural and perfect in human beings. For example, the present-day individual who read Greek mythology are able to sense the “eternity of man” through an enduring love of nature and feel a kinship with their fellow man, past and present. Studying history allows the individual to incorporate the thoughts of others into their own being, erasing the boundaries of time altogether. Emerson questions why we should preoccupy ourselves with historical data such as geography or dates when the true significance of history lies in the timeless unity of all human minds and souls.

Emerson reiterates his belief that the individual experiences a historical age through a parallel “age” in their own life. An ancient prophet, for example, can ignite a personal renaissance period in the individual awaken in them what is already ingrained in their soul. Emerson argues that the reason people worship certain religious and intellectual figures is because, like the Gothic cathedral, they are both of man and not of man. Holy figures such as Jesus or Moses bridge the gap between the earthly and the divine, inspiring awareness in the individual of the eternal unity between themselves and others.

Emerson suggests that our private experiences are merely iterations of the universal experiences of human beings, using the example of a man who was strictly raised to be obedient. As an adult, the man will draw on the experience of his repressive childhood to understand that history is comprised of universal patterns that repeat infinitely—the tyrannized child becomes the oppressor who tyrannizes children, and thus perpetuates the cycle of history. When the individual recognizes the underlying universal principles in his own experiences, they are able to understand and sympathize with how those same principles manifested in the events of the past.

Emerson further emphasizes his point that the individual’s actions are merely personal manifestations of the universal mind. History is a perpetual record of individuals progressing through the same cycles and discovering the same wisdom, time and time again. There have been many Martin Luthers, argues Emerson, in the history of the world; men throughout the ages have manifested the same spirit and displayed the same convictions in their own personal lives.

Transitioning to the topic of literature, Emerson discusses how the individual who studies works of the past will recognize the universal mind shared by all human beings. He believes that the individual will find their own biographical truths reflected in the writings of revered authors such as Homer (who wrote the oldest works of Western literature) and Chaucer (considered the father of English poetry). Like historical facts, a literary work becomes canonical wisdom only when the individual resonates with the narrative’s underlying archetypical truths.

Emerson argues that the reason certain works of literature are considered great is because they express universal truths and are therefore consistently and timelessly relevant. Ancient Greek fables, for example, went on to influence the entire Western tradition of language, literature, and religion. He believes that the individual is not truly separate from other people, nor from God, and that the soul transmigrates fluidly from one being to another. Emerson declares that people should refuse to live strictly by facts, and instead embrace the universal “spark of light” that unites everyone and everything.

Expanding on this notion of honoring spiritual truths over empirical facts, Emerson states that the most abstract and emotional forms of literature are the most valuable. Poetry, for example, has the unique ability to transcend reality and inspire limitless creativity in the reader. Whether something factually exists in the material world does not matter, argues Emerson, as even fictional characters are “eternal figures” that originate from the universal mind and nature of human beings.

Emerson believes that although people often fail to understand the uniting spirit of all things, that universal nature speaks through human beings in the form of art, literature, religion, and other cultural facets. As a result, the individual is able to capture and articulate truths that they do not fully comprehend. For example, human beings conceived the idea of magic as an attempt to explain the scientific forces that they perceived but could not understand. Literary characters, then, often serve as allegorical representations of complex concepts such as temptation, poverty, or honesty.

Emerson points out that the history of the external world exists alongside the civil and metaphysical histories of human beings. Man is not, however, any less integrated with the history of nature than with other facets of the past. Emerson likens the human heart to the expansive roads and trade routes of ancient Rome, as it branches out to unite the individual with all of nature. He once again emphasizes that a universal nature unites everyone and everything on a metaphysical level.

Human history, argues Emerson, would not have been possible without a corresponding natural history. Man’s intrinsic connection to nature has facilitated every historical event. For example, Columbus could not have charted his course without a planet to explore, and Newton could not have made his scientific discoveries without the great stretches of time that brought the celestial body into being. Emerson also mentions the individual’s inherent connection to other people, stating his belief that no amount of time would allow the mind of one man could to produce the wisdom that love brings about. 

Emerson restates his central argument—that a singular unifying consciousness and spirit unites the individual with all other people and things, and that history is the record of this universal soul. History is not a dead collection of facts in a book, rather it is a collection of innate truths and universal experiences that cycle through time and manifest in each individual.

Emerson believes that human beings can ultimately know very little about objective facts because man’s true faculties lie in matters of the soul. He argues that historical annals should pay proper homage to the universal mind of the human race—their spiritual wisdom, innate truths, and divine connections. Emerson concludes the essay with a call to action: people must reform their perspective when writing history to be broader and deeper. Only then, says Emerson, can the selfishness of the individual be overcome and the unity of all things, past and present, be understood.