|
Earth First: The Romantic
Vision
Author;
Michael Colebrook
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In his discussion of Wordsworth’s poems A N Whitehead1 points out that the Excursion, which is described as A philosophical poem containing views of Man, Nature, and Society opens with a line about nature: Twas summer, and the sun had mounted high and for the best part of thirty lines we are treated to a detailed description of the landscape; only then does the poet meet the friend he sought. In the same vein, Emerson2 opened an address to the senior divinity class of Harvard University in July 1838 with a eulogy on the natural world. The grass grows, the buds burst, the meadow is spotted with fire and gold in the tint of flowers. The air is full of birds, and sweet with the breath of the pine, the balm-of-Gilead, and the new hay. Night brings no gloom to the heart with its welcome shade. . . Coleridge3 opens an ode titled France, written in 1798, with a complete stanza about nature: Ye clouds, that far above me float and pause, Only in the
second stanza does he begin
on the subject of his poem:When France in wrath her giant
limbs upreared,And with that
oath which smote earth, air, and sea,Stamped her
strong foot and said she would be free,it
is a
feature of much of Romantic writing that nature comes first; people
and their thoughts and activities come second, having been firmly
placed in the
context of the natural world, in a particular place or landscape or
season. This
is no mere literary artifice, it represents a significant
transformation in the
view of the relationship between humanity and the rest of the natural
world. The
natural world is no mere mechanical stage on which the human drama is
enacted.
It is not a vale of darkness and suffering in which we have been placed
in order
to struggle for the salvation of our immortal souls, neither is it an
opponent
that has to be challenged, dominated and moulded to suit human needs
and
aspirations. The Romantic view of nature is as the source and context
of human
existence and as such it deserves, and is frequently given, pride of
place in
any consideration of human endeavour.From
the implied challenge in the
opening words of Rousseau’s Emile4, Everything
is good as it leaves the hands of the author of things, everything
degenerates in the hands of man, to Emerson’s plea5,
why
should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight [into
nature] and
not of tradition, Romanticism recognised that humanity should
acknowledge
the natural world as a source of revelation; of knowledge and wisdom
that could
be gained through direct experience, letting nature teach her lessons
in her own
way and in her own time. This is not always easy: Shelley’s
poem Mont
Blanc6 contains lines that epitomise
the problem:
The wilderness has a
mysterious tongueWhich teaches awful doubt, or faith so mild, So solemn, so serene, that man may be But for such faith with nature reconciled Thou hast a voice, great mountain, to repeal Large codes of fraud and woe - not understood By all, but which the wise, and great, and good Interpret, or make felt, or deeply feel. Thoreau7
experienced the awful doubt on Mount Ktaadin, Think of
our life in nature, - daily to be shown matter, to come in contact with
it, -
rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks! the solid earth! the actual world!
the common
sense! Contact! Contact! Who are we? where are we? The faith
so mild is
expressed beautifully by John Muir8 when he
found the rare orchid Calypso
borealis, ‘I sat down beside it and fairly
cried for joy… How long I
sat beside Calypso I don't know. Hunger and
weariness vanished, and only
after the sun was low in the west I plashed on through the swamp,
strong and
exhilarated as if never more to feel any mortal care.’
These passages
express what seems to be a fundamental ambiguity within the mysterious
tongue of
the wilderness. Wordsworth reflects on both aspects. Rowing a boat on
Ulswater9
he speaks of:
…a dim and undetermined sense Of unknown modes of being. In my thoughts There was a darkness - call it solitude Or blank desertion; no familiar shapes Of hourly objects, images of trees, Of sea or sky, no colours of green fields, But huge and mighty forms that do not live Like living men moved slowly through my mind By day, and were the trouble of my dreams. While, on the banks of the River Wye10 he writes: And I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air, And the blue sky, and in the mind of man: A motion and a spirit, that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought, And rolls through all things. What these poets and writers sensed was The spirit of divinest liberty; that nature makes claims to freedom, and, albeit with some difficulty, they acknowledged the paradox that while human freedom appears to be constrained by huge and mighty forms that do not live/ Like living men, it is not complete without the freedom of the natural world. Several of the Romantics went further, through encounters with the natural world they sought liberation from the constraints and failures of human society. Wordsworth opens his Prelude9 with a statement of profound gratitude to nature: Oh welcome messenger, oh welcome friend! A captive greets thee, coming from a house Of bondage, from yon city's walls set free, A prison where he hath been long immured. Now I am free, enfranchised and at large, May fix my habitation where I will. What dwelling shall receive me? In what vale Shall be my harbour. Underneath what grove Shall I take up my home, and what sweet stream Shall with its murmurs lull me to my rest? The earth is all before me: with a heart Joyous, nor scared at its own liberty, I look about and should the guide I choose Be nothing better than a wandering cloud, I cannot miss my way. I breathe again; Nature, on all scales, from the vastness of a mountain landscape to the myriads of creatures in a single drop of water, presents us with breathtaking beauty, magnificent intricacy and images of peace and harmony. At the same time there is the extreme violence of flood, fire, tempest and earthquake, and in living things almost every conceivable form of eating and being eaten, of death and decay as well as birth and growth. We now recognise that the freedom of Nature is at the heart of all evolutionary processes. Throughout the natural world there is the possibility of becoming different and of testing this difference against the constraints of necessity. This is true for galaxies, stars, planets, rocks and living organisms. According to a modern Romantic, Annie Dillard11: In nature, improbabilities are the one stock in trade. The whole creation is one lunatic fringe… Intricacy is that which is given from the beginning, the birthright, and in intricacy is the hardiness of complexity that ensures against the failure of all life. This is our heritage, the piebald landscape of time. We walk around; we see a shred of the infinite possible combinations of an infinite variety of forms. Anything can happen; any pattern of speckles may appear in a world ceaselessly bawling with newness... Beauty itself is the fruit of the creator's exuberance that grew such a tangle, and the grotesques and horrors bloom from that same free growth, that intricate scramble and twine up and down the conditions of time. Shelley’s lessons of awful doubt and faith so mild are not alternatives, they are simply different faces of the same teaching, one cannot exist without the other. The Romantics were not the first people to be aware of the problem, but they were among the first to be able to come to grips with it in the context of an evolving world, as Emerson12 realised, We knew nothing rightly, for want of perspective. They were among the first to appreciate that the world is unfinished, as John Muir13 put it, the world, though made, is yet being made; that this is still the morning of creation.The Romantic view of the natural world developed as a reaction against the rationalism of main stream philosophy and the deterministic view of nature which was a pronounced feature of the science of the time. Whitehead1 claims that, Wordsworth in his whole being expresses a conscious reaction against the mentality of the eighteenth century. This mentality means nothing else than the acceptance of the scientific ideas at their full face value. Wordsworth was not bothered by any intellectual antagonism. What moved him was a moral repulsion. He felt that something had been left out, and that what had been left out comprised everything that was most important. Much has happened since Wordsworth’s time, but we have still not fully succeeded in putting back into the natural world everything that is important. There is still much that we can learn from the high Romantic period.References
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||