Considering the history of literature, the conception of Nature seems to be a quite complex question. 'Nature' is not a concept that can be grasped easily and it often requires discussing some great philosophical conceptions like 'Pantheism' or 'Deism'. However, my paper will not deal in detail with such vast enquiries. I rather want to focus more accurately on how 'Nature' is used by Pope and Coleridge, respectively. With other words, I would like to analyse the function of the concept of 'Nature'. The fact is, that even if these poets do not exhaustively characterise ‘Nature' itself, they employ it in a lot of different analogies and metaphors to articulate and embody for example ideas about 'morality' (Pope) or the intimate 'self' (Coleridge). My argument would be to show that in both cases, nature has a sort of epistemological function. The apprehension of nature, its perception or its examination leads to knowledge of something that is not directly obvious; one can name it God or the divine. Thus, to mention of nature is a kind of disclosure that guides us to be aware of some reality that is meta-physical.
As a matter of fact, the ways Nature is described by Pope and by Coleridge are very different: Pope uses a sort of analogical technique, whereas Coleridge exploits the more suggestive power of metaphors. That point shows that, even though Nature has the same overall function, that is reveal something that is beyond the mere material world, the way it can and should be perceived is not the same. I would like to argue that Coleridge considers a sort of intuitive faculty, whereas Pope thinks that a reasonable examination of Nature unveils the divine order of the universe.
The present analysis will spotlight Pope's Essay On Man and Coleridge's Rime of an Ancient Mariner. First, I want to show that Coleridge and Pope advocate a pantheistic and a deistic conception of Nature, respectively. This should be the general framework through which I...
No comments:
Post a Comment