The symbolic value of Nature in the 19th century

[Ozzma]

I am an undergraduate student and I must write a research paper on this (as what the title says), for my English Literature class. I must analyze the aspect of it by looking at works that discuss the value of nature. Apparently the value of nature was under strain in this century.

Can anyone help me generate some ideas to form a proper thesis on the subject matter? Any works that involve the value of Nature?

Thank you in advance,

[Charles Darnay]

"Apparently the value of nature was under strain in this century."

This is a terrible generalization. The problem is that the outlook of Nature changed radically throughout the century.

What I would do if I was in your position would be to do a comparison between a work from a Romantic poet (say Wordsworth) and a Victorian writer that deal with the "destruction of nature" - there are a couple of those. Or just look at Blake.

[kelby_lake]

Far From The Madding Crowd- Thomas Hardy. Or do Tess.

[G L Wilson]

Thoreau is of interest here. He has proven quite controversial. He went bush but not quite.

[Charles Darnay]

"I will go and live in solitude, far away from the crowds, among Nature.....but not so far that my mom cannot bring me a sandwich every afternoon" - Thoreau

[Trask]

I would recommend reading "Big Two Hearted River" by Ernest Hemingway

[Ozzma]

"Apparently the value of nature was under strain in this century."

This is a terrible generalization. The problem is that the outlook of Nature changed radically throughout the century.

What I would do if I was in your position would be to do a comparison between a work from a Romantic poet (say Wordsworth) and a Victorian writer that deal with the "destruction of nature" - there are a couple of those. Or just look at Blake.


Im sorry for the "terrible" generalization. It is what the prof said in the essay topic. And thank you for your help!

[Charles Darnay]

Im sorry for the "terrible" generalization. It is what the prof said in the essay topic. And thank you for your help!

I figured that was the case. Your prof makes terrible generalizations

[Hildegard52]

The problem is that the outlook of Nature changed radically throughout the century.http://www.datasea.info/avatar2.jpg

[tomingram]

Even among the so called "romantics" the perspective changed.

Compare Wordsworth to Shelley, for example.

Thread starter, there is really only one thing you can do: open your poetry anthology and start reading these poems. The differences will only become increasingly apparent with study.

I mean, we could list a thousand names. Big deal. Start with the poems from the period that you have enjoyed reading, and go from there.

[Ozzma]

Even among the so called "romantics" the perspective changed.

Compare Wordsworth to Shelley, for example.

Thread starter, there is really only one thing you can do: open your poetry anthology and start reading these poems. The differences will only become increasingly apparent with study.

I mean, we could list a thousand names. Big deal. Start with the poems from the period that you have enjoyed reading, and go from there.

Yes, I can see how that really is the only way of formulating my own view on it. However, it does help to know a few names to help narrow things down I guess.

Thanks for your help!

[kelby_lake]

I would recommend reading "Big Two Hearted River" by Ernest Hemingway

What does that have to do with 19th century English literature?

[JBI]

In my opinion, the Wordsworthian English language revolution allowed for a new concept of relationship between nature and the individual, as symbolized by the Aeolian Harp (Coleridge) or the Correspondent Breeze (The Prelude, Wordsworth). This is new, in that the poetic imagination is being moved by a natural world, rather than nature existing as a mathematical exercise, as conceived by Newton influenced persons. Likewise, the actual favor of city over country is reconsidered by Wordsworth, in contrast to earlier writers.

As for the later authors - good luck. They all vary incredibly, you are better off asking the question of specific thinkers.

[Veho]

If I remember correctly, Gaskell's North and South has themes concerning the country (nature) vs the city and farming vs industry.

[cafolini]

In the 19th century, the cultural catalogs fell. When nihilism started, regarding symbolic values, the entire nature of general semantics changed. Symbolism became useful to reveal multiplicity of meanings rather than institute one or two synonyms.

[G L Wilson]

In the 19th century, the cultural catalogs fell. When nihilism started, regarding symbolic values, the entire nature of general semantics changed. Symbolism became useful to reveal multiplicity of meanings rather than institute one or two synonyms.

Sorry, what?

[JBI]

In the 19th century, the cultural catalogs fell. When nihilism started, regarding symbolic values, the entire nature of general semantics changed. Symbolism became useful to reveal multiplicity of meanings rather than institute one or two synonyms.

Seems like a strange misreading of Symons, though I wouldn't call it nihilism, I would call it a challenge to the preconditioned expectations, and a shaking of the preconceived pastoral idealism.

I think St. Lukes could demonstrate it better, since the movement works far better when discussing symbolism, in particular painting, more so than poetics, and more so French than English works.

I think English just developed the opposite - a Museumification of the pastoral through the sincerity of artwork - it is not such a shift to symbolism capturing a shared understanding of a lack of coherence as it is the symbol reflecting a shared communal association of feelings.

Likewise multiple meanings were always there, though the challenge was rather to find symbols that reflected a depper, more nagging meaning, rather than just represented or celebrated through convention.

It is an interesting argument you propose, but I confess myself not convinced that it is a nihilistic duplicity of meaning, and I feel myself suggesting it is the intensification of meaning through symbol.

And for those who are very lost, read the introduction to The Symbolist Movement in Literature by Arthur Symons.

[rootinghog]

Don't heed the Thoreau haters! If you are allowed to discuss American lit, you've got to mention the American Romantics of the 19th Ce -- Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, Melville. Obviously, you're not going to want to read Moby-Dick just for a few quotes, so I'd recommend you read the second chapter of Walden, which you can read here: http://thoreau.eserver.org/walden02.html . Nature was elemental to all of these writers, but for Thoreau in particular it represented (among other things) an alternative to the conventions and desperations of society -- a return to a wilder and more self-sufficient mode of life that provided greater clarity of mind and ethical purpose, a return to some sort of meditative golden age. The American Romantics in general had a very symbolic and idealized take on the natural world, which was philosophically sound but none too realistic. This was balanced out by Melville's darker take on nature as embodied by the irrepressible force of the white whale... but that image is very loaded, and you probably don't want to go into it without reading the whole book.

[Ozzma]

Thank you everyone! I will go over all these suggestions and try to formulate a thesis this week, I will be posting back with what I come up with...I may open a new thread in the proper forum section. I have so much to read and analyse , thank you once again!

[hellsapoppin]

For a discussion about the role of Nature, yes, Thoreau would be an excellent start. He was also a big influence during the 1960s and early 70s. Perhaps you may want to also consider why Nature is not regarded with such great estimation today. I think that it is the return of religious orthodoxy that has caused people to have less regard for Nature but will leave that issue for you to determine.

As for me, my favorite work(s) which deal with Nature are the poem and painting entitled Thanatopsis:

poem ~

http://www.bartleby.com/102/16.html


art ~

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRO8oOJ0xvCQyxgzSUiq_4QPfSNhfqRz 7lbr64rmYPOUyYGuvIhIQ



Explanation:

http://baileys-pphs-blog.blogspot.com/2010/11/thanatopsis-explanation.html

''Bryant wants people to realize that they will die along with everyone else; it is important to be happy while living so that when your day comes they will go in to death happily. ''


Like Thoreau and other Transcendentalists, Bryant believed that you are a special person who is here to make your unique contribution to the betterment of society and to Nature. This is in contrast to orthodox Christian teaching which tells you that you were born to serve some god, pray and endlessly praise him day and night, forgo every manner of good or what is natural to you, and to endlessly sacrifice yourself on behalf of a god who proclaims himself to be ever benevolent in the face of war, slavery, pestilence, and privation of every kind. Orthodox Christianity says that if you have some money or whatever, give it away and deprive yourself so that you can get riches in some nebulous heaven. Thoreau, Bryant, and the other Transcendentalists say if you stumble upon gold, or fish in a lake, or wild berries growing out in the open, go ahead and take it ~ enjoy your life to the fullest as heaven is in the here and now.