On Wednesday, our group focused on these two sections, though we spent a lot more time talking about 124. Tennyson says “I found Him not in world or sun,” (5), which suggests that he has realised that looking for God in nature was unsuccessful. At first we thought this was because “A warmth within the breast would melt / The freezing reason’s colder part,” (13-14), that he has accepted that the warmth of faith exists without reason and his searching earlier in the poem, where he set God and Nature in opposition because of his own more scientific observations, was bound to be fruitless. However, we later realised that “No, like a child” (17) is Tennyson stepping back and saying no, God cannot be found in nature, but he cannot just be found in the heart either, leaving us uncertain where the new resolve in his faith was coming from.
Our main problem was with the last stanza of section 124, where the hands “reach thro’ nature, moulding men.” (24). This seems to contradict the idea that God cannot be found in nature, expressed just a few stanzas earlier within the same section, and I’m not sure we completely resolved what this stanza is meant to suggest. However, we did think it might mean not so much God being in nature or behind nature, but God and nature working together. This would fit more with what we did discuss in section 130, that “Tho’ mixed with God and Nature” (11) suggests a complete bringing together of those elements that were formerly portrayed as at war.
I agree with your final conclusion of this analysis. Yes, it becomes clear after reading this segment that God does not inhabit Nature (according to Tennyson). However, he does suggest that God and Nature are working together. However, I would like to take it a step further and state that God actually uses Nature to do His work. Instead of having a mutual relationship, God works through Nature as though He is the puppet master and Nature is the puppet. So, though it is a one-sided relationship, both elements are, in a sense, working together.
ReplyDeleteI was in this group. I can confirm that those last few lines of 124 gave us a bit of trouble. my (i'll only speak for myself here, i don't know what the rest of my group thought about after class) thoughts directly after class lingered on these lines, and i came to the conclusion that the early part of 124 devon touched on represented false modes of knowing god, or thinking one knows god. it doesn't necessarily preclude the existence or evidence of god in nature, man just utilizes incorrect perceptive avenues.
ReplyDeleteAnd to warren's comment, could you elaborate on the "puppet master" - "puppet" relationship between god and nature? i see the origin of the metaphor, in the lines at the end of 124 with the hands reaching through nature, but i'm not entirely sure this implies some sort of unequal power structure-- or even necessarily distinct entities. perhaps i'm mistaken though.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Nicholas's previous comment in that the relationship b/t God and nature does not seem as hierarchical -- reaching through nature to mold man. Instead, I would argue the line indicates, as has been previously discussed, the interconnectivity of man and nature. Through nature, man is impacted. The location of God is, however, in question. Perhaps that is intentional and plays off Nicholas's first comment; man uses incorrect senses to characterize God.
ReplyDelete