Nature

Nature is undoubtedly an important part of Pope's Essay on Criticism. In line 68 NATURE is even capitalized. This is what first brought my attention to it, and then it was emphasized many more times. When this was brought up in class, we never really discussed in detail the purpose nature serves in this particular essay. Br Tom did mention that entire books have been written about what Pope means by nature. I think this is interesting. Is this idea something he uses in all of his works, or is it just an intriguing part of this essay? Why do you think he capitalized NATURE (and RULES in line 99) in this essay? It seems to serve a different purpose at so many points in this essay. Even before the stanza in which it is capitalized, nature is discussed in different ways. Does anyone have a plausible explanation for this? 1204152021

I think that, as kec stated, nature plays a big role in the formation of Pope's ideas on who should criticise and how it should be done. Also, any other argument would seemingly tear down the legs it stands on. For example, if he said that he knows how people should criticise and who should criticise just because he is a good poet or a good critic would tear down his entire argument. He claims to have had a sort of divine inspiration or heavenly gifts which allow him to write and criticise well, and using nature as his "source" of reason behind his argument gives him a sort of infallibility. He has learned what he knows from carefully studying natural law and applying it to criticism, a solid argument that will essentially lend credibility to some harsh statements he made previously. Whenever one wants to lend credibility to what they are saying, use the laws of nature (see Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King). user:PSp-c

Nature is the first principle that Pope brings up. (KEc, I think the capitalized words throughout the essay are the principles he's suggesting). One of his points is that nature does not make mistakes. He calls nature "unerring." Therefore, nature is the model for all art. He tells us to "first follow nature." Also, "Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd by the same laws which first herself ordain'd" (90-91). Nature has remained constant over the years--it has not changed. Nature is restrained. In class I think we connected this idea of a restraint to that of rhyme. Rhyme is a restraint for the poet. KEc, I think nature is discussed in so many different ways because it can be looked at in so many different ways. //Everything// is nature. If it exists, it is nature. But nature is the first principle Pope talks about because it is the starting point for poets (according to Pope). Pope is saying to use nature as the example, but nature is unerring! Can poetry or criticism be unerring? 1204158656

Before I delve into the questions addressed, I want to clarify something KGa wrote that "Nature has remained constant over the years--it has not changed." This is not quite true, just take a look at what happened to the dinosaurs and general evolution. The only constant about nature is that it does change and that certain rules will still apply -- survival of the fittest. Nature thus is restrained by these laws, restrained by this constant change. Nature's changeability offers poets and critics to adapt their writing styles, to invent new forms as long as these advances in the art follow these same basic guidelines. This I feel is what Pope is referring to in his essay. On the importance of nature as as a topic for poets, I agree with KGa in that everything is nature, thus everything we write somehow refers to it. Man himself is a creature unlike any other, besides his ability to articulate his thoughts and reason. Man is a derivative of nature, all he is stems from that very foundation, which is why he is unerring drawn back to it time and time again in his work to try and understand the nature of man and the universe. 1204159695

Nature is bolded because it one of the many concepts that Pope feels should be followed. Later in the essay there are other bolded words because those are different concepts. In response to KGa's question on whether poetry or criticism can be unerring, I do not think anything human made can be perfect, but we can still use nature as a framework. We can try to imitate and duplicate nature, but it can never be the exact same thing, but it is a going base to jump from. The reason why I think Pope places so much emphasis on the importance of using Nature is because everything that is from Mother Nature has a purpose and reason and is perfectly suited for it is for, and Pope feels that everything in poetry and criticism needs a valid base, argument, and purpose otherwise it is just foolish. Fools are at the bottom rung of the ladder because what they do is nonsensical and serves no real purpose and is simply frivolous.1204167695

Look at the time period in which Pope was living: the 1700s. During this time, the Enlightenment was in full swing. One of the arguments of Enlightened philosophes was that everything we create should be based off of nature, for it is perfect, exact, and reasonable, but still beautiful. Pope obviously was englightened, and I agree with his stance. Look at nature. As Matt said above, everything is perfectly suited for its purpose. But nature is not utilitarian. It is beauty. In nature's rationality, we find beauty. That is how Pope wants poems to be: perfect and reasonable, but able to evoke emotion. Nature, and therefore reason, perfection and precision, is art because of this. If only poets and artists who throw a bunch of haphazard scribbles on canvas saw this wisdom.1204168477

I believe aha's survival of the fittest argument is off base. Such a Darwinistic approach really only applies to animals and plants and nonhuman life. Poetry is not necessarily survival of the fittest. Darwin's theory cannot account for unique human qualities such as morality, intelligence...and the long lost art of hard work. All animals essentially work equally hard...this is not true in humans and thus in poets. Though some uniquely gifted poets can crank out brillian pieces of work effortlessly, most good poems come from the hardest working poets, the ones who refine, shape and mold their craft so as to surpass those who are more fit to produce poetry. Pope refers to natural law, and since he is human, he does not suggest survival of the fittest. The divinely inspired comment he makes is to simply weed out those who have no poetic talent and are thus incapable of producing good poetry. Like some people are incapable of swimming or kicking a soccer ball well or running fast, some people cannot possibly produce good poetry. This is not survival of the fittest; nowhere did I or Pope suggest that those who are more naturally gifted swimmers, runners, etc. will perform the best. Natural law, and thus the word nature is used as the source of his justification in making the points that he is. Also, I do not completely agree with jhe when he says that Pope was Enlightened. The situation that he brought up is true, Pope agreed with some of the Enlightenment ideas that nature is perfect, good, and reasonable. Conversely, the anti-religious aspect of the Enlightenment is certainly not represented in his assertion that he has recieved divine inspiration.user:PSp-c

whoa, Peter. The Enlightenment was anti-RELIGION, but definitely not anti-God. The philosophes were what we call deists, that is, they believed in a higher authority, but since according to them he was reasonable and rational, we could understand him by ourselves and we didn't need people like priests. Obviously, this angered a lot a people then and now, including pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics such as myself. Therefore, Pope could deny that he was part of any religion. But he still could, according to the deist argument, believe in God and be inspired by him.1204387020

You are right to say that the philosophers were deists, and the fact that he was inspired by God to write poetry would fall in line with that, as you say. But you cannot account for his disapproval the one man (I forget his name) leaving the priesthood in part 3. At least from my reading of it, he strongly was against this man's actions, though he may have liked other things about him. As you know, deists thought priests were unnecessary, which probably proves Pope was not a deist. By extension, you could not say that Pope was an Enlightened philosopher as many others were. Although he may have agreed with some of what they were saying about nature, but so would most Catholics. Although Pope could still say that he wasn't an active member of a particular religion, since I have no knowledge as to the nature of his spirituality, it is unlikely that he was an Enlightened deist. (I realize you may not have read part 3 at the time of your last comment.) user:PSp-c