On poetic interpretation of natureShairp, John Campbell
Philosophy
On poetic interpretation of nature
Shairp, John Campbell
Nature in literature; Poetry -- History and criticism
In answer, it may be said that whether the scientific man shall feel
this spontaneous glow in the presence of the great spectacles of Nature
or not, depends not on his scientific knowledge, but on his natural
temperament, on the amount of soul there is in him, underlying his
attainments. If he be so entirely the man of science, if the intellect
has so entirely absorbed his being that he never gets beyond analyzing,
comparing, and reasoning on the appearances he sees, then he will look
without emotion on the grandest ongoings of Nature; he will see in them
only a subject for investigation—nothing more. But if, as has often been
the case, the physicist be a man not only of wide and accurate knowledge,
but of large soul,—if his knowledge has become a part of him, has melted
into his being, then his heart will be free to kindle and rejoice at the
great things of Nature which he sees, as genuinely as the unreflecting
child, the thoughtful peasant, or the most spontaneous poet.
As genuinely, but with a difference: the eye of the imaginative man of
science will take in all that these others do, and more. His admiration
will be fuller, larger, more instructed. The knowledge that has been
gradually lodged in his mind, and become a part of it, will pass into his
eye, and enable him to see, on whatever side of the Universe he looks,
more complicated marvels, more wonderful correspondences.
“In Wonder,” says Coleridge, “all Philosophy began: in Wonder it ends:
and Admiration fills up the interspace.” The last clause I should change
thus,—and Investigation fills up the interspace. In the first Wonder and
in the last the Philosopher and the Poet are akin to each other. Both
wonder, both admire what they see, but this incipient wonder tends to
different results. The unscientific poet, just like the child and the
thoughtful peasant, wonders at the beauty that is in the face of Nature,
and at its mystery, seeks no physical explanations of it, but reads its
moral and spiritual meaning, and tries to utter it. The man of science
equally begins with wonder at what he sees, but his wonder leads him on
to seek for an explanation, to search for the laws which regulate the
appearances, if haply he may find them.
Then comes the long interspace of toilsome labor, of painful analysis,
of rigorous induction. Experiment, analysis, deductive and inductive
reasoning, by which chiefly Science works, are intellectual acts quite
distinct from imaginative intuition and emotion, and, in some degree,
opposed to them. It cannot be that these distinct processes can be
combined in one intellectual act. They can hardly go on in one mind at
the same time. While a man is immersed in these scientific processes,
they preclude the poetic vision for the time. For many men they scare
away poetry from the world forever.
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