Expanding upon Devon’s comment, Wordsworth (WW) seems to not only find comfort in nature, but also physical and moral fuel. WW describes Tintern Abbey as catalyzing a feeling “in the blood, and…along the heart, / And passing even into my purer mind / With tranquil restoration.” Moreover, the scenery is the “anchor of [Wordsworth’s] purest thoughts, the nurse, / The guide, the guardian of [his] heart, and soul / Of all my moral being.” Such a relationship seems purely symbiotic where WW obtains “life and food / For future years” through an osmosis-like absorption of Tintern Abbey. It is WW’s connection between man’s corporeality and the intangibility of nature that suggests such a powerful symbiotic connection. The revitalization the earth provides is, seemingly, essential for WW’s health. Such an association further supports our in class discussions surrounding the equality of man and nature as opposed to its objectification or manipulation. What makes this poem stand apart, however, is the direct acknowledgement that natural world is the stimulus for both his body and mind. This thus illustrates nature’s singularity in comparison to man’s duality (mind and body) and therefore its simplicity vs. the human complexities. Such simplicity is what WW and Coleridge have found beautiful and overall most significant about the natural world.
Nicely said--it is indeed moral fuel. This phrase made me wonder: is using nature as fuel just as exploitative as treating it as an object? This question links to Bate's discussion of Marianne: she takes restorative nourishment from nature, whereas Edward sees nature as something to be worked on and transformed--but is her relationship to nature any more ecological than his? Put another way: is Wordsworth's moral fuel a form of equality between humanity and nature, or another form of human domination, the violence acted upon nature by art?
ReplyDeleteStemming from the question -- is her relationship to nature any more ecological than his -- I wondered is Marianne more moral than Edward? Is conservative utilitarianism (a break from the traditional interpretation of the word) better than an economical use? While I don't have an answer, I think a lot is said merely through the question such that it levels the moral playing field. The oil and gas industry are traditionally the enemies in comparison to conservationists, but through this lens, are they the same? An interesting question that, perhaps most importantly, points the spot light at conservationists and asks for an explanation as to their rationale.
ReplyDelete