John Ruskin "The Pathetic Fallacy"
The initial purpose of "The Pathetic Fallacy" seems to be to take on that part of English criticism which has been influenced by German philosophy. What caught my attention about Ruskin were the opening lines of "The Pathetic Fallacy" because they seem to directly refute (or attack anyway) Coleridge's position on the "subjective" and the "objective." He so closely follows Coleridge's discussion of the same issue, it seems specifically directed that way. He says "no words can be more exquisitely and in all points wrong." I'm always interested in oppositions.
What is the pathetic fallacy and how does it work? What kinds of poets are there? Why are the ideas of subjective and objective incorrect?
Ruskin gives a very clear explanation of the previous uses of "objective" and "subjective," more clear and concise than Coleridge's. (See Coleridge above.)
He provides examples of poetry that employs the pathetic fallacy, as well as some that seem to but don't and he explains the difference. He offers a French poem in which the language is more natural, doesn't rely on a lot of the poet's own emotion; he let's the emotion of the character and the situation do the work. Ruskin says that the poet doesn't know and doesn't say what the feelings are; he leaves it to the reader to decide. That creates a tautness that over-emotionalism detracts from.
Ruskin concludes that the previous philosophical uses of the terms subjective and objective have shown "selfishness, shallowness, and impertinence" on the part of their users because the point was to show that things did not entirely exist in and of themselves (completely) unless they were perceived by man.
Ruskin asserts that things have all the attributes naturally present in them all the time, even when they are not being perceived by man. He calls this "power": things always have the power to cause the sensations by which they can be perceived. Example: a blue flower has the power to be blue even when no one is looking at it. He acknowledges that there may be variations between people, but that general agreement of a quality of a thing should cause the person who sees it differently to doubt himself, not everybody else.
Ruskin allows for two orders of poets: 1) the creative--Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, ""the men who feel strongly, think strongly and see truly" and 2) the reflective and perceptive--Wordsworth, Keats, Tennyson, "The men who feel strongly, think weakly, and see untruly" The orders serve to differentiate between the types, not allow for a first rate and a second rate. (Although when he says the "best poets" I believe he is referring to the first order poets.) He wants no poets other than first rate. The second order poet uses the pathetic fallacy, the first order usually does not. There are two additional types of men: those who feel nothing, and therefore see truly" and those who are strong but submit to influences stronger than they are and "see in a sort untruly, because what they see is inconceivably above them" (prophetic inspiration). Apparently these last don't really see at all, they are more like conduits of vision.
There are two kinds of fallacy in poetry: first is "willful fancy" in which we assign attributes to things "with no real expectation that it will be believed" and the kind of fallacy that happens when violent feelings produce a falseness in our impressions of external things. This latter is the pathetic fallacy. There is a difference between using metaphor and simile that involve natural objects and the use of them that assigns human feeling or emotion to them, which is what the pathetic fallacy does. It is also not a commission of the pathetic fallacy if comparisons or characterizations occur in conceits that are meant to conflict with the actual emotions in play. It is the pathetic fallacy when men are too moved or full of emotion to apprehend something in its true state.
The greatness of poets depends on "acuteness of feeling and command of it."
Emotion in poetry fails, or makes the poetry fail, when it's too much for the situation or when they are insincere.
In a way Ruskin seems to be discrediting Wordsworth and Coleridge. Though he trounces Coleridge pretty soundly on the issue of objectivity and subjectivity, he is kinder to Wordsworth, who would simply fall into that second category of poets; those who he "allows" certain expression to, but that he doesn't respect as much as those in the first order. It seems to me he is anticipating some of what the moderns will say about emotion.
Ruskin sounds much like Horace when he suggests that all the young poets who hope to do better next time should burn what they have written and not bother anyone until they have gotten it right. He says there is no place for poor poetry which is actually injurious to the reputation of the good.
Return to Ruskin's Menu Page
Return to the Introduction Page