I really enjoyed the simple language of this poem and its surprising ability to transform a moment in nature into a meditation on society. I believe Wordsworth raises some interesting questions regarding the state of society in comparison to the state of nature. In the poem, nature is a major focus. Wordsworth personifies nature and even attempts to assume nature has sentience and experiences pleasure. Throughout the poem, Wordsworth's belief that state of nature is a state of pleasure sharply contrasts the sad view of human society he expresses.
In the first stanza, the narrator is relaxing a midst nature in a grove. In spite of being surrounded by beautiful scenery, the narrator is unable to escape his troubling thoughts. "In that sweet mood when pleasant thoughts/ bring sad thoughts to the mind"(lines 3-4). The first stanza here suggests a unique relationship between man and nature. Observation of nature creates emotions and thoughts that produce a heightened awareness of reality.
In the second stanza, a sort of Hegel-like moment between the narrator and nature occurs. The narrator experiences a sort of spiritual communion with nature. "To her fair works did nature link/ the human soul that through me ran"(lines 5-6).The narrator is grieved by thoughts of society and human nature as a result of this communion with the natural world. In this stanza Wordsworth raises the question of why if man is a natural being he does not live peacefully like the flowers and birds of nature he observes. Another aspect of these lines is the agency which Wordsworth gives to nature. He claims nature has control over the ability to create "fair works" and "link the human soul." These aspects seem to create almost a religious relationship between man and nature in which nature is the deity.
In the third, fourth, and fifth stanzas, the narrator begins to project sentience onto the flowers and birds, claiming that: "And 'tis my faith that every flower/ enjoys the air it breathes," (lines 11-12) and "it seemed a thrill of pleasure" (line 16) and "And I must think, do all i can,/ that there was pleasure there" (lines 19-20). There is a large emphasis on how nature "[seems] " to think or behave like. Although the narrator believes he is experiencing a spiritual communion with nature he never is able to actually understand what the plants are thinking, if anything at all. All of his grievances about society and "what man has made of man" (line 8) are the product of his observation of nature.
In the final stanza, the narrator emphasizes the overall bittersweet tone of the poem. The perfection of nature around him places him in a sort of mental prison that will not let him escape his thoughts of humanity. The narrator presents a very dark view on human nature. The narrator of the poem suggests a very peaceful representation of nature, that neglects to recognize that there is also violence and competition outside of humanity. His representation of nature in the poem appears to be more of an idealized Utopian view of how he would like society to be.
Questions to consider;
Is Wordsworth advocating for a particular relationship with nature in this poem?
Does Wordsworth's personification of plants appear to be objectifying them more or does it appear to be elevating them to the status of a conscientious being?
Great point about the contrast between nature’s pleasure and the sad state of human affairs. Your point about the Hegel-like relationship between the narrator and nature developed in the second stanza is good: there is an emphatic “link” between soul and nature’s works—at least from the perspective of the human subject. This problem of how much of this link is attributable to human perception is developed further in the 3rd through 5th stanzas, where the speaker emphasizes that it only “seemed” to him that the plants’ motions signaled a thrill of pleasure (16). This suggests his awareness of his projections of vitality and feeling onto nature, bringing the “link” he claimed above into question. What exactly creates the link? The emphasis on his “faith” and “I must think” (11, 19) suggests that human constructs are fundamental to how we see nature, especially when we personify it. He has, as you say, produced a kind of mental prison—“If such be nature’s holy plan (22)—which returns him again to the lament of “what man has made of man.” In this way, we might read nature in this poem as a tool, a *concept* that, by being idealized, allows for reflection on the imperfections of the social world. This might go some way towards answering your questions: can we have a “relationship” with a human construct? Does the poem allow nature any agency outside the confines of human perception? Or is the problem more than human beings cannot possibly grasp nature’s “plan” and therefore the speaker has no choice but to give it meaning through the lens of the human? Either way, the poem signals the difficulty involved in personification: it adds a lens or layer of meaning that distances us from the object personified.
ReplyDelete