PAB Entry #7: “Reason for a Renaissance: The Rhetoric of Reformation and Rebirth in the Age of Transcendentalism”

Fulton, Joe B. “Reason for Renaissance: The Rhetoric of Reformation and Rebirth in the Age of     Transcendentalism.” The New England Quarterly 80.3 (2007): 383-407. JSTOR. Web. 21 October 2016.

Although recent essays from class have warned against the dangers of applying specific definitions to fields of study like technical writing and technical communication, there are many areas in literary studies where seemingly insignificant definitions are vital.  Fulton’s essay thoroughly examines the term RENAISSANCE, focusing on how the word and its definition have been applied to AMERICAN TRANSCENDENTALISM since and during the New England movement that arose in the 1830s. According to Fulton, many critics attribute the coining of the idiom American renaissance to F.O. Matthiessen, and while Matthiessen actually only adopted the transcendentalists’ term, he ended up redefining it, thus “distorting its original meaning” (383-84).  Essentially, Matthiessen described the transcendental era, “Not as a re-birth of values that had existed previously in America, but as America’s way of producing a renaissance, by coming to its first maturity and affirming its rightful heritage in the whole expanse of art and culture” (Fulton 384).  Matthiessen’s wording ended up sparking a debate about whether the transcendentalists’ renaissance was original, borrowed from other cultures and countries, or borrowed from colonial America.

The methodology deployed by most scholars to investigate and articulate the true meaning of renaissance, as it relates to American Transcendentalism, blatantly disregards Matthiessen’s definition and perspective.  Some critics, such as Barrett Wendell, are apt to say that the philosophical thinkers from New England clearly descended from the Puritans, people who also wished to integrate new religious principles (Fulton 386).  Likewise, Osgood notes that transcendentalism sparked a “Renaissance,” a “new Puritan life,” and “a revival of culture in New England” that stirred the old theocracy into new life (Fulton 392).  On the surface, it may seem like the American Puritan and American Transcendentalist connection is minimal; after all, as Miller articulates, “Puritans were Dissenters who could not tolerate dissent,” and they felt that it was sinful to “engage in debates with the unorthodox because the truth is not open to question (28-29).  Whereas the Puritans were relatively closed-minded religious individuals, the American Transcendentalists engaged in the unorthodox in an attempt to evaluate and identify a possible truth.

Some literary critics have identified a variety of connections between the Puritans and the Transcendentalists. This book, found on Amazon.com, identifies similar rhetorical and literary aspects between the two time periods of American literary history.
Some literary critics have identified a variety of connections between the Puritans and the Transcendentalists. This book, found on Amazon.com, identifies similar rhetorical and literary aspects between the two time periods of American literary history.

However, despite the different philosophies, Puritans and American Transcendentalists did share initial concepts of breaking away from the past.  While this American renaissance version is promoted by some scholars, others look toward earlier periods of rebirth such as the English Renaissance and Reformation.  As Fulton notes, “American transcendentalists hearkened back to a time in which the conceptual pair Reformation—Renaissance imagined a ‘new age’ in the past.  In this sense, then, the American renaissance might more accurately be termed the re-Renaissance or the American re-Reformation” (391).  No matter what definition is attached to America’s renaissance from the 1830s-1860s, the basis for Fulton’s argument is that Matthiessen’s use of the term was inaccurate.  Most scholars agree that a renaissance was not produced in America, for a renaissance is a rebirth; therefore, is must reflect some level of replication.  As Fulton concludes, “For the transcendentalists, however, their age was not a birth, not a naissance, but a rebirth—a renaissance… Looking toward that previous age, they took inspiration from it, set their mission by it, and used its rhetoric to publish their beliefs to the wider world” (407.

Additional Sources:

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the             Postmoderns.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.

*To view the full text version of Fulton’s essay, click the link below (ODU login will be necessary):

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/stable/pdf/20474554.pdf

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *