To wonder is to wander. To not only tolerate uncertainty in the Keatsian sense of ânegative capability,â but also welcome it as a gateway to new possibilities. To not stay put. Even a poet like John Clare, who is celebrated for his rootedness in place, knew this. His Northborough sonnet about âNovemberâ explores the relationship between wandering in the dark and wondering at the world, drawing an extraordinary conclusion about how such experiences shape our experiences of place:
The shepherds almost wonder where they dwell
& the old dog for his night journey stares
The path leads somewhere but they cannot tell
& neighbour meets with neighbour unawares
The maiden passes close beside her cow
& wonders on & think her far awayâŠ
The maidens shout & wonder where they go
So dull & dark are the november days
The lazy mist high up the evening curled
& now the morn quite hides in smokey haze
The place we occupy seems all the world (page 67)
On a literal level, sensory deprivation provokes both wandering and wondering here, captured in comic figures such a âmaidenâ who âpasses closeâ by her cow in the gloom but does not see it, instead âwonder[ing] onâ because she believes her charge is âfar away.â In âKeeping Nature at Bay: John Clareâs Poetry of Wonder,â Erica McAlpine notes the strange slippage between wondering and wandering at work in the notion that a maid might âwonderâ through the dark, rather than âwanderingâ without a compass. Rather than chalking this up to Clareâs unconventional spelling as a self-educated, working-class poet, McAlpine suggests that the conflation is a deliberate one for an artist âwhose very sense of seeing is defined by the wonderment of that actâ (98). In McAlpineâs account, Clare is âa primarily visual poet who usually keeps subjectivity out of his poems,â relying instead on âhis wandering eye to describe and reorient nature.â In order to âwonderâ (find an outlet to express his curiosity about nature), McAlpine asserts that Clare âmust wander (and vice versa).â As the title of her essay suggests, McAlpine claims that Clareâs wonder is something that establishes a certain
distance between his subjective identity and natural phenomena he describes with objective fidelity, representing a âcompromise between knowingâ nature and a state of âtotal separationâ (97) from it. Hence, she reads the remarkable concluding line of Clareâs November poem as a âmelancholyâ recognition of the way that languageâspecifically the
oikos of the poem in a Heideggerian senseâbecomes a substitute for the pathless disorientation of earthly places:
It would hardly do justice to the searching melancholy of this poem if âthe worldâ âŠ
simply refers to nature itself. Rather, âthe worldâ must be one in which nature has been
wondered at, wandered through, reoriented, replaced. Clare locates his own experience
⊠within lyric bounds: the poem, rather than nature, is the place we occupyâit
becomes the world. (98)
In suggesting that Clareâs linguistic turn is the natural outcome of his wondering/wandering, McAlpine rehearses a narrative normally associated with the romantic sublime: the tormented artist escapes from the terrible uncertainty of material/historical existence by establishing an idealized âdwelling placeâ in the domain of poesy. This story has been told many times in romantic studies, whether the escape is lauded (as in Geoffrey Hartmanâs work on transcendent imagination) or critiqued (as in Jerome McGannâs characterization of sublimity as a flight from history). Indeed, for McAlpine, Clareâs disorienting wonder and tendency to create compensatory textual âheterocosmsâ significantly qualifies his critical reception as an âecopoetâ keenly attuned to the material specificities of place.
But is McAlpineâs account of wonderâs destination, the âplaceâ where poets like Clare arrive when they wander in the openness of uncertainty, really as necessary (or natural) as it seems? Might it not be argued that Clareâs wonderâlike the wonder expressed by other romantic writersâis precisely one of
the most ecologically significant dimensions of his work? Arguably, it is Clareâs uncertainty, his poetryâs capacity to suspend received notions of what it means to dwell in specific places at specific times, which opens up the question of what we mean when we speak about âplaceâ as an ecologically relevant experience. Timothy Mortonâs âClareâs Dark Ecologyâ asserts that the poetâs âdoubtâ functions in precisely this way. Morton explores how Clareâs verse often dramatizes encounters with natural phenomena that fail to conform to his expectations (sometimes in disturbing ways), causing the poet to doubt his own subjectivity as well as the stability/reality of the place he inhabits, something that often leaves the poet depressed. But Morton argues that this doubting/depression does not compel Clare to escape from earthly things into idealized aesthetic realms. Rather, uncertainty
connects the poet to such things because it reflects an ability to engage with non-human otherness in all of its strangeness, a refusal to reduce such phenomena to the comforting familiarity of place with all of its potentially sentimental trappings. Mortonâs target in this âdarkâ reading of Clare is clearly ecocriticism which has celebrated the poet as a supreme example of place-based consciousness, a rural bard whose work illustrates the virtues of ecological embeddedness in contrast to modernityâs cosmopolitan homelessness. Such criticism, most clearly represented by Jonathan Bateâs reading of Clare in
The Song of the Earth and other scholarship, implies that âplaceâ is a feeling of being at home in a (necessarily) natural environment, an experience which is rendered with empirical fidelity in texts that celebrate the details of rural life while implicitly critiquing the evils of urban modernity. In such accounts, place is a sense of familiarity with nature so deep that it never needs to be questioned, and is (therefore) the primary mark of ecological intimacy. Mortonâs reading of Clare turns this sense of place on its head, asserting that it is the poetâs doubtânot his security regarding natureâthat âgives us the feeling of environment as open mindâ:
This is incredibly good news for ecocriticism. Even here, at the limits of subjectivity,
we find closeness to the earth. It is quite the opposite of what we might expect: that
environment as theory, as wonder, as doubt, does not achieve escape velocity from the
earth, but, in fact, is a sinking down into it further than any wishful thinking, any naĂŻve
concept of interconnectedness could push us. (192â193)
For Morton, Clareâs uncertainty about the more-than-human world and his place in it is âgood newsâ because it inaugurates a questioning attitude toward the environment that may avoid the pitfalls of romantic ecocriticism, such as a rural/urban dualism which implies that an overwhelming majority of the worldâs urban population today would be incapable of experiencing âplaceâ authentically.
What is at stake in competing interpretations of Clare is the larger question of ecocriticismâs subject matter and methodology. First-wave ecocritics tend to assume that the fieldâs proper object of study is a ânatureâ whose empirical reality precedes (and should shape) cultural constructions, a view reflected in Karl Kroeberâs assertion that ecocriticism âseeks to enhance widespread appreciation of how literary art may connect cultural experiences to natural factsâ (Ecological Literary Criticism 1). The ecocriticâs role is to excavate historical examples of âliterary artâ which faithfully mirror so-called natural facts. The more empirically detailed and geographically specific such texts are, the more they are said to reflect an âecologicalâ or âproto-ecologicalâ (Kroeberâs term) consciousnessâhence, the importance of recovering a poet like Clare. Moreover, first-wave ecocriticism declares that its empiricism is a necessary antidote to socially irresponsible literary criticism that focuses upon âtheoryâ; or, as Kroeber puts it, ecocriticism âtakes a form distinct from the âphilosophicâ essay currently popular with critics, tending toward narrative structures more responsive to the singularity of historical phenomenaâ (2). As more recent ecological scholarship demonstrates, however, there are potential problems with defining ecocriticismâs focus and methodology this way. For example, the assumption that ânatureâsâ reality is located âout thereâ in a material world that precedes linguistic mediation often produces a blindness to natureâs ideological meanings in first-wave ecocriticism, ways in which properly political ideas have (historically) been naturalized in order to support problematic (even reactionary) ways of thinking. Kroeberâs criticism of Napoleon as a leader âdiscordant with the elemental rhythms by which humans adapt to natureâs beneficenceâ (11) and admiration of Malthus as a thinker who âargued against social utopianists ⊠so far as they tried to contravene fundamental laws of natureâ (13) are revealing in this regard. Should human societies model themselves upon ânatural facts,â and are social practices that do not obey natureâs âfundamental lawsâ aberrant and/or unnatural? Such views have an unsettling affinity with forms of biological determinism that have (historically) been associated with forms of political oppression, including Social Darwinism and Nazism. While I do not claim that first-wave ecocriticism overtly aligns itself with far-right politics, critics such as Kroeber often overlook potential pitfalls within the political naturalism they evoke. Arguably, what critics such as Kroeber and Bate want is for ânatureâ to function as a rock of certainty in modernityâs tumultuous seas, a reliable âgroundâ for a politics relieved of the burden of doubt. The same could be said of the quest to valorize place-based, empirically detailed consciousness as an antidote to modernityâs dis-placements. A related problem with this way of defining ecocriticism is that its anti-theoretical stance and investment in representationalism avoid the issue of linguistic instability (the gap between sign and meaning, word and world) and the question of how aesthetic communication about the more-than-human world differs significantly from scientific or âobjectiveâ description. This is why my book focuses upon wonderâs aesthetic and philosophical significance as a set of ideas with important ecological ramifications. Readers seeking scholarship modeled upon the critical investments of first-wave ecocriticism, which I have sketched here, will not find it in this book. Although I do not deny the importance of work that examines specific historicalâmaterial practices relevant to âgreenâ issues, my work does not begin and end there. While I discuss instances of such practices (including how applied science in the nineteenth century is shaped by the technological sublime and large-scale contemporary pollution in the worldâs oceans), my book seeks to open up the field of ecocritical inquiry by exploring ways in which wonder constitutes an anti-foundational, yet nevertheless ecologically vital, aesthetic.
By the same token, my study of wonder is not limited to its deconstructive dimensions. On an emotional level, wonder also has a constructive side that is overlooked by critics such as McAlpine and Morton. It is striking that both McAlpine and Morton associate wonder primarily with dark emotional states such as fear, defensiveness, and depression, when a survey of wonder in occidental thought reveals that it is more commonly associated with positive forms of affect, including awe, excitement, and pleasurable de-centering. McAlpine and Mortonâs emphasis on negative affect is no doubt shaped by the biographical specificities of Clareâs chronic depression and psychiatric confinement. Yet archetypically, the subject who experiences wonder is âsurprised by joyâ in a Wordsworthian sense, happy to be drawn out of themselves by phenomena which do not conform to their habitual experiences of the world. Such affective engagement is not merely a form of intellectual curiosity easily exhausted by a greater knowledge of things. Rather, this âfirst passion of the soulâ (in Descartesâs famous formulation) can signal an inexhaustible, celebratory welcoming of the âothernessâ of things in their very otherness. There is no reason why the strangeness of earthly things has to be coded with dread. Indeed, as I will argue, defensive responses to otherness such as fear and melancholy have more in common with an aesthetic of sublimity than they do with wonder. In âA Philosophy of Wonder,â Howard L. Parsons sums up wonderâs deconstructive and reconstructive dimensions quite effectively. On the one hand, Parsons notes how the word âwonderâ is derived from the Old English word wundor and may have etymological affinities with the German word Wunde or âwoundâ (85). Parsons goes on to assert that although wonder may be associated with the shock of the new (experienced as a âwound-likeâ puncturing of what we took to be certain and therefore as something potentially traumatic), as wound it is also an opening up of new possibilities, prompting creativity in âa number of meaning-molding activities (art, science, etc.).â As we shall see, wonderâs creative potential is of paramount importance to Romantic artists and is associated with renewal both in the ways we perceive ânatureâ and with political dynamism.
From this reconstructive vantage point, we can read Clareâs wonder at the qualitative uniqueness of flora and fauna in areas such as Helpston and Northborough as a celebratory welcoming of more-than-human otherness, not merely as a reflection of his own defensiveness or depression. Moreover, this welcoming takes on a political valence when we consider how the poet links a capacity to respond to the surprising âcallâ of natural things with a state of freedom (or wildness)
1 that is threatened by sociohistorical practices such as enclosure. Consider, for example, the poetâs celebration of bird flight as rapturous transport in his
Northborough Sonnets:
The wild duck startles like a sudden thought
& heron slow as if it might be caught
The flopping crows on weary wing go bye
& grey beard jackdaws noising as they flye
The crowds of starnels wiz & hurry bye
& darken like a cloud the evening sky
The larks like thunder rise & suthy round
Then drop & nestle in the stubble ground (69)
Here, as in poems about birdsâ nests admired by Bate for their capacity to evoke âchild-like wonderâ (
Song 158), there is a sense of Clareâs pleasurable excitement in being âstartledâ by the âsuddenâ appearance of his avian neighbors. But in this text, the poetâs wonder is allied to the birdsâ freedomâtheir surprising line of flight (to borrow Deleuze and Guattariâs formulation)ârather than their capacity to roost or to create what Bate characterizes as the nestâs fragile shelter in the face of existential âvulnerability.â The âwildâ duckâs sudden departure is mirrored by that of a heron, whose graceful gait, though âslow,â equally flees the prospect of being âcaughtâ (trapped, contained)âeven as its impressive form captures the speakerâs attention. Likewise, crows and starnels are depicted as flying âbye,â punning both their spatial distance from the speaker and the way in which their flight represents a âstatementâ of departure. Collectively, the birdsâ wild flight creates both wonder and a feeling of sensory dissonance in the speaker (both sonic and visual) as he struggles to gather his perceptions into meaningful form. The jackdawsâ ânoisingâ and larksâ âthunderâ are sonic analogues to the visually obscuring effect of starnels that âdarkenâ the âevening sky.â Despite the birdsâ capacity to disorientate the speaker in these ways, there is little evidence he finds such displacement disturbing. On the contrary, the cumulative effect of the poemâs precise, yet unpredictable, tracing of the varieties of bird flight is exhilarating and liberating. Here is a landscape so crowded with biodiversity that it continually surprises the speaker in novel ways.
Clareâs depiction of enclosureâs effects upon rural landscapes in
The Village Minstrel reflects how this practice dramatically reduces such diversity and imperils the freedom of movement he associates with wondrous ecology. In a representative stanza, Clare depicts the rustic poet Lubin (an alter-ego of himself) responding with horror to efforts to âimproveâ the land by hemming it in, portioning it out to large landowners for commercial profit, and displacing its working-class and avian residents alike:
There once were days, the woodsman knows it well,
When shades eâen echoed with the singing thrush;
There once were hours, the ploughmanâs tale can tell,
Where morningâs beauty wore its earliest blush;
How woodlarks carolâd from each stumpy bush;
Lubin himself has markâd them soar and sing:
The thorns are gone, the woodlarkâs song is hush,
Spring more resembles winter now than spring,
The shades are banishâd allâthe birds have took to wing. (49)
Enclosure here marks not only what John Barrell characterizes as the imposition of a linear grid onto the parishâs âcircularâ topography,
2 but also a fundamental restriction and emptying of what was once âopenâ in biologically diverse common lands. Ironically, it is the clearing of âshadedâ habitats within the landscape (dark âwoodsâ and âthornyâ brambles) that reduces this openness in the name of âimprovement.â As in Clareâs âNovemberâ sonnet, this text associates âshadedâ obscurity with the freedom to wander and wonder. The former (wandering) is an activity enjoyed not only by the speaker, but also by non-human inhabitants of âshadedâ places. In stark contrast to the wild cacophony which accompanies the wondrous appearance of birds in Clareâs âwild...