On poetic interpretation of natureShairp, John Campbell
Philosophy
On poetic interpretation of nature
Shairp, John Campbell
Nature in literature; Poetry -- History and criticism
All delight we know on earth arises, as the wise Bishop Butler has told
us, “from a faculty having its proper object,” and the perfection of
happiness would consist “in all the faculties having found their full
and adequate object.” If then those partial objects, those shadows of
perfection, which are the highest objects vouchsafed to us here, awaken
in us a keen responsive thrill of emotion, whose fittest utterance is
song, what shall it be for a human soul to be admitted to the vision of
Him “who alone is an object, an infinitely more than adequate object to
our most exalted faculties—an adequate supply to all the capacities of
our souls, a subject to the understanding, an object to the affections.”
In the contemplation of this truth long pondered, the deep heart of the
philosophic Bishop breaks forth into a strain of meditation in which the
conflict between intense feeling and his habitual self-restraint seems
almost to overpower him. And what a view does this give of the essential
permanence of Poetry, how in the essence it must be eternal as the soul
of man! It seems to open a glimpse into the meaning of the mysterious
imagery of the Apocalypse, and to hint how it will be that the joy of the
Redeemed before the Throne can utter itself only in that new song which
none can learn but they.
* * * * *
Thus far I have spoken only of the feeling or emotion which generates
Poetry. Little or nothing has been said of that other side—the expression
of the feeling in words. The mathematician of whom I have spoken was
not, for all his joy, a poet. Why? Because though he had the material of
poetry within him in the intense joy, he had not the power of putting
it forth, of making it audible. He kept all the delight to himself, and
could not by utterance impart it to others. He was at best but a dumb
poet—a poet “in posse,” not a poet “in esse,” as the Schoolmen speak.
And the question arises, Is not a dumb Poet a contradiction in terms? is
it not of the very essence of a poet that he should be vocal? Is it not
in this, his power of voicing his emotion, rather than in his power of
feeling it, that he is distinguished from common men? Here we come on a
great controversy on which I shall not venture to dogmatize. Wordsworth,
we all remember, held that
“Many are the poets that are sown
By Nature; men endowed with highest gifts,
The vision and the faculty divine;
Yet wanting the accomplishment of verse.”
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