Bohemianism; English literature -- 19th century -- History and criticism
Professor William James—who certainly holds no brief for the mystic—makes
the interesting suggestion that “these mystical flights are inroads from
the subconscious life of the cerebral activity, correlative to which we
as yet know nothing.” {153a}
“As a rule,” he says elsewhere, “mystical states merely add a
super-sensuous meaning to the ordinary outward data of consciousness.
They are excitements like the emotions of love or ambition, gifts to
our spirit by means of which facts already objectively before us fall
into a new expressiveness, and make a new connection with our active
life. They do not contradict these facts as such, or deny anything
that our senses have immediately seized.”
The connection between mysticism and hysteria, and the psychological
importance of hysteria, merits the fullest consideration in dealing with
the writings of these literary Vagabonds. Stevenson’s mysticism is more
speculative than that of Jefferies; the intellectual life played a
greater share in his case, but it is none the less marked; and quite
apart from, perhaps even transcending, their literary interest is the
psychological significance of stories like _Markheim_ and _The Strange
Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_.
A medical friend of Jefferies, Dr. Samuel Jones, {153b} has said, when
speaking of his “ecstasies”: “His is not the baneful, sensuous De Quincey
opium-deliriation; he felt a purer delight than that which inspired the
visions of Kubla Khan; he saw ‘no damsel with a dulcimer,’ but thrilled
with yearning unspeakable for the ‘fuller soul,’ and felt in every
trembling fibre of his frame the consciousness of incarnate immortality.”
This attempt to exalt Jefferies at the expense of De Quincey and
Coleridge seems to me unfortunate. Enough has been said already in the
remarks on De Quincey to show that the dreams of De Quincey were no mere
opium dreams. De Quincey was a born dreamer, and from his earliest days
had visions and ecstatic moods. The opium which he took (primarily at
any rate to relieve pain, not, as Dr. Jones suggests, to excite sensuous
imagery) undoubtedly intensified the dream faculty, but it did not
produce it.
I confess that I do not know quite what the Doctor means by preferring
the “purer delight” of the Jefferies exaltation to the vision that
produced _Kubla Khan_. If he implies that opium provoked the one and
that “the pure breath of Nature” (to use his own phrase) inspired the
other, and that the latter consequently is the purer delight, then I
cannot follow his reasoning.
A vision is not the less “pure” because it has been occasioned by a drug.
One of the sublimest spiritual experiences that ever happened to a man
came to John Addington Symonds after a dose of chloroform. Nitrous
oxide, ether, Indian hemp, opium, these things have been the means of
arousing the most wonderful states of ecstatic feeling.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account