The Unromantic Nature in “Crusoe in England”

黃琳

Originated in the second half of the 18th century in Western Europe， Romanticism is seen as an influential literary trend. Romantic poetry， part of the Romantic Movement， emphasizes intuition over reason and the pastoral over the urban. As nature is thought to be the source of strength and knowledge， it is greatly admired by Romantic poets who escape into imaginative worlds and worship the nature. Nevertheless the poet of “Crusoe in England” tries to break the logocentrism of Romanticism and deploys the unromantic nature from the perspective of deconstruction. This paper will focus on the poets deconstructive attempt of mirroring humble nature and characters.

Nature is humble. In the first verse paragraph， an island discovered by binoculars was “caught on the horizon like a fly” （Verse paragraph1 line7）. Nature is not so powerful as Romanticism expresses. The island embodying nature is found by modern machine. Nature is neither beautiful nor magnificent because the island looks like “a fly” （para.1 l.7）. In the third verse paragraph， Crusoes island is described as “a sort of cloud-dump” （para.3 l.2）. Instead of being admired， nature is just a place where “all the hemispheres left-over clouds arrived” （para.3 l.2-3）. The island smells of “goat and guano” （para.7 l.1）. The sounds of goats and gulls， “Baa， baa， baa and shriek， shriek， shriek” （para.7 l.5） are hurting， reflecting the unpleasant nature. When the local museum asks Crusoe to leave everything to them， he wonders “how can anyone want such things” （para.12 l.10）. All those considered as precious artifacts by the museum are just scraps in Crusoes eyes. What nature leaves him is not beauty but ugliness.

Nature gives no spiritual comfort. In “Ode to a Nightingale”， the great Romantic poet John Keats worships “a draught of vintage” as “[f]lora and the country green， Dance， and Provencal song， and sunburnt mirth”（Ⅱl.3-4）. It is “full of truth， the blushful Hippocrene”（Ⅱ l.6）. Nevertheless Crusoe considers the drink as “the awful fizzy， stinging stuff” （para.5 l.15-16）. Besides Keats represents the sweetness of melodies in his “Ode on a Grecian Urn” while Crusoe thinks his flute have “the weirdest scale on earth” （para.5 l.19）. Furthermore the books are “full of blanks” （para.6 l.4） in Crusoes eyes. In “I Wondered Lonely as a Cloud”， William Wordsworth admires the beauty of daffodils and he compares the daffodils as “the bliss of solitude”（Ⅳ l.4）. When Crusoe tries to recite the verses， he questions himself “which is the bliss…the bliss of what” （para.6 l.8）. Therefore the role of nature as a spiritual strength in Romanticism is denied. Later Crusoes christening one volcano as “Mont dEspoir or Mount Despair” （para.7 l.19） suggests nature bestows no hope. Religion is of no use either as “sacerdotal beings of glass” （para.3 l.24） looks like flexible and attenuated glass chimneys. Crusoes knife reeks of meaning， “like a crucifix” （para.11 l.9）. The “crucifix” here is merely an object rather than a holy article which can serve as a mental support. The futility of nature is thus implied.

Nature possesses no romance. Dreams are always sweet and romantic whereas Crusoe see “[d]reams were the worst” （para.8 l.1）. He has nightmares， “like slitting a babys throat， mistaking it for a baby goat” （para.8 l.4-5） or dreams that islands spawn islands， “like frogs eggs turning into polliwogs” （para.8 l.9）. These represent a terrible scene brought by nature. Nature does not always feature goodliness and romanticism， instead it can be awful. On the other hand， Romantic literature often boasts romantic love stories between male and female protagonists. Nevertheless it is Friday， an uncivilized man， who accompanies Crusoe in the island. They can not develop an intimate relationship； neither can they have a romantic story. Crusoe wishes “[i]f only he had been a woman” （para.9 l.6） but his fancy goes by contraries. Thereby the romance is disillusioned by nature.

With the attempt of unfolding the unromantic nature， the poet writes the poem in a counter-Romanticism way. Nature described in the poem is not beautiful， powerful or holy； religion is not sacred； and characters are not romantic. In this way， the skill of deconstruction can be seen in the poets endeavor to break the logocentrism of Romanticism. The poet does not attach great importance to the significance of nature. Contrarily the poet argues that nature is nature. It can not purify our souls； it can not comfort or inspire us； it can not bring us peace or joy. Nature is humble and should not be apotheosized.

References：

[1]Bishop，Elizabeth.The Complete Poems，1927-1979：Chatto and Windus，1983.

[2]Frankenberg，Lloyd，Pleasure Dome：On Reading Modern Poetry，Houghton Mifflin（Boston，MA），1949.

[3]Jarrell，Randall，Third Book of Criticism，Farrar，Straus（New York，NY），1969.

[4]Wylie，Diana E.，Elizabeth Bishop and Howard Nemerov：A Reference Guide，G.K.Hall（Boston，MA），1983.