Maybe we have to discriminate between "cultural" and "-centric" (sublimity)
N(n)ature in Romantic poetry. The construction of a value-adding model of
nature arises out of a need to overdefine the personal in nature, because
nature "matters". And it "matters" because it is as threatening as it is
threatened. Celebration comes out of a fear that something will cease to
be, while the evocation of the sublime arises out of a need to qualify the
ego-I (even though this is often disguised). I've always viewed this
through abjection. There's an interwoven fear and desire exchange taking
place between the self and "nature" in poems such as Michael (the subtext
of defining "natural" objects related to personal experience within the
seclusion of the valley/nature re the inevitable breakdown through the son
leaving and dissolving the generational bond to place). Get down, get
filthy. The prospect is disgustingly enticing... The irony is, of course,
that "nature" as classical construct is as cleansing as it is polluting. A
Medieval scholar might have called it discutient.
Best,
JK
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|