strange to the popular understanding, and hence has arisen the
complaint of his obscurity. Moreover, he apprehended and expressed
these ideas as a poet, in figurative and emotional language, and not as
a metaphysician, in a formulated statement. His own position in
relation to systematic philosophers is described in what he says of
Plato, in his series of sketches entitled _Representative Men_, 1850:
"He has not a system. The dearest disciples and defenders are at
fault. He attempted a theory of the universe, and his theory is not
complete or self-evident. One man thinks he means this, and another
that; he has said one thing in one place, and the reverse of it in
another place." It happens, therefore, that, to many students of more
formal philosophies, Emerson's meaning seems elusive, and he appears to
write from temporary moods and to contradict himself. Had he attempted
a reasoned exposition of the transcendental philosophy, instead of
writing essays and poems, he might have added one more to the number of
system-mongers; but he would not have taken that significant place
which he occupies in the general literature of the time, nor exerted
that wide influence upon younger writers which has been one of the
stimulating forces in American thought. It was because Emerson was a
poet that he is our Emerson. And yet it would be impossible to
disentangle his peculiar philosophical ideas from the body of his
writings and to leave the latter to stand upon their merits as
literature merely. He is the poet of certain high abstractions, and
his religion is central to all his work--excepting, perhaps, his
_English Traits_, 1856, an acute study of national characteristics; and
a few of his essays and verses, which are independent of any particular
philosophical stand-point.

When Emerson resigned his parish in 1832, he made a short trip to
Europe, where he visited Carlyle at Craigenputtock, and Landor at