On poetic interpretation of natureShairp, John Campbell
Philosophy
On poetic interpretation of nature
Shairp, John Campbell
Nature in literature; Poetry -- History and criticism
With regard to the working of Imagination and other so-called faculties,
Philosophers, I rather think, have cut and carved our mental nature with
too keen a knife. They have “murdered to dissect.” Our books lay it down,
for instance, as an axiom, that a definite act of the pure understanding
must needs precede every movement of the affections, that we must form
a distinct conception of a thing as pleasant before we can desire it,
that we must first judge a character to be noble, before admiration of
it can be awakened. I am not sure that this is the true account of the
matter, am not convinced that the understanding unmixed with feeling, the
pure intelligence untouched by sentiment, must first decide before the
affections can be moved. Is it so clear that in all cases we can separate
knowledge from affection? Is there not a large field of truth—namely,
moral truths, in which we cannot do so—into which the affections must
actively enter before any judgment can be formed? For, as has been
said,[1] “The affections themselves are a kind of understanding; we
cannot understand without them. Affection is a part of insight; it is
required to understand the facts of the case. The moral affections, _e.
g._, are the very instruments by which we intellectually apprehend good
and high human character. All admiration is affection—the admiration of
virtue, the admiration of nature. Affection itself then is a kind of
intelligence, and we cannot separate the feeling in our nature from the
reason. Feeling is necessary for comprehension, and we cannot know what
embrace particular instance of goodness is, we cannot embrace the true
conception of goodness in general, without it.”
If this be true of moral apprehension, if in this intelligence and
affection are so coincident, so interpenetrate each other, that we cannot
say which is first, which last, where the one ends, the other begins,
the same truth holds good in imaginative apprehension. Here, too, there
is not first a cut-and-dry intellectual act, and then a succeeding
emotion. From the first, in every act of the imagination, these two
elements are present simultaneously; though it is true that in time the
emotional element tends to grow stronger than the intellectual, sometimes
even overpowers it. Imagination in its essence seems to be, from the
first, intellect and feeling blended and interpenetrating each other.
Thus it would seem that purely intellectual acts belong to the surface
and outside of our nature,—as you pass onward to the depths, the more
vital places of the soul, the intellectual, the emotional, and the moral
elements are all equally at work,—and this in virtue of their greater
reality, their more essential truth, their nearer contact with the centre
of things. To this region belong all acts of high imagination—the region
intermediate between pure understanding and moral affection, partaking of
both elements, looking equally both ways.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account