"Hebraism and Hellenism" in Culture and Anarchy

                   Assignment Topic:

           Hebraism and Hellenism in

                 Culture and Anarchy

Name: Jinal B. Parmar

M.A.  Semester: 2

Roll no.: 13

Paper no.: 6 The Victorian Literature

Subject:  Essay of Matthew Arnold on Culture and Anarchy

Year: 2013 – 2014

Submitted to: Department of English

Maharaja Krishna kumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Introduction: Matthew Arnold

             Matthew Arnold was one of the great critic of Victorian age. He was a British Poet and Cultural Critic who worked as an inspector of schools. Arnold has been characterized as a Saga writer, a type of a writer who chastises and instructs the reader on contemporary social issues.  Arnold is a one the literary figure of Victorian age, and He comes next to Browning and Tennyson. He has the experience of twenty – four years as the inspector of schools and so it provided him so much time to meet the different classes and society and he examine their behaviors and their habits. His comparative experiences at the home and abroad yielded such essays as, The Popular Education of France, with Notices of That of Holland and Switzerland, A French Eton, or Middle-Class Education and the State, and Schools and Universities on the Continent, all of which influenced the ideas which found expression in Culture and Anarchy.

           Matthew Arnold has wrote one essay on culture and social issues titled “Culture and Anarchy”. This essay considered as his one of the masterpiece of social criticism. Arnold mostly known for his this essay in which he has criticizes the culture and society and gave clear vision of Victorian issues of his time.

Culture and Anarchy:

            Culture and Anarchy is the major work of criticism. According to Arnold culture is “the study of perfection”. Culture and Anarchy is a long essay on social issues and culture. Much more than a mere treatise on the state of education in England, Culture and Anarchy is, in the words of J. Dover Wilson, “ at once a masterpiece of vivacious prose, a great poet’s great defence of poetry, a profoundly religious book, and the finest apology for education in the English Language.” Culture and Anarchy is a series of periodical essay, first published in Cornhill Magazine 1867 – 68 and collected as a book in 1869.  This essay contains six chapters and these chapters gave us view of Arnold about Political and Social issues.

          The first chapter of the work was originally entitled: “Culture and its Enemies” The essay spurred a number of responses, and soon, Arnold's attempts to respond to these responses grew into a sequence of essays in Cornhill published between January to August 1868. These essays would later form the collection, Culture and Anarchy.

           This essay written in six parts here the summarizes of Arnold’s aspects of culture that will bring human society to greater perfection and the aspects of modern life that bring human society towards anarchy:

TOWARDS CULTURE

TOWARDS ANARCHY

Ø  -Sweetness and Light (Beauty and Intelligence) Ø  -Hellenising: a more holistic, internal, intellectual transformation to see things “as they truly are” Ø  -Idea of eternal process, progress, vital movement of thought Ø  -Making reason and will of God prevail Ø  -“best self” (collectively, everyone will agree over values if everyone is cultivating their best selves) Ø  -need for ideas before action Ø  -“right reason” Ø  -ensuring “light” is not actually darkness Ø  -allowing “consciousness to play freely and simply” to cultivate disinterested views of things and to avoid blind orthodoxies Ø  -Critique as actionable and pragmatic Ø  -State authority needed to reign in anarchy; should not be afraid of State as long as it expresses collective “best self”

Ø  -Fire and Strength Ø  -Philistinism Ø  -Hebraising: tendency towards action, fire, strict adherence to rules Ø  -“Machinery” Ø  -Newspaper orthodoxies Ø  -Middle class liberalism Ø  -cultivating natural taste for “bathos” Ø  -“Ordinary self” Ø  -Random action, or fixed rules for action without ideas behind them Ø  -“Doing as one likes” as the middle class, liberal doctrine Ø  -“One thing needful” Ø  -Fetishizing the production of wealth and manufactures Ø  -Mindless partisanship – rule bound “liberals” and “conservatives” Ø  -Fanaticism: nonconformists are perhaps as rule-bound and counter to individual thought as the Established Church Ø  -“Clap-trap”

The names of these six chapters of the essay:

1.    Chapter – 1 “Sweetness and Light”

2.    Chapter – 2 “Doing as One Likes”

3.    Chapter – 3 “Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace”

4.    Chapter – 4 “Hebraism and Hellenism”

5.    Chapter – 5 “Porro Unum est Necessarium”

6.    Chapter – 6 “Our Liberal Practitioners”

Hebraism and Hellenism:

Hebraism:

          “Hebraism is the identification of a usage, trait, or characteristic of the Hebrew language. By successive extension it is often applied to the Jewish people, their faith, national ideology, or culture.”

           The word “Hebraism” describes a quality, character, nature or method of thought, or system of religion attributed to the Hebrew people. It is in this sense that Matthew Arnold contrasts Hebraism with Hellenism.

Hellenism:

          “The word “Hellenism” derived from the Greek word “Ellinismos”. In Greek, Ellinismos has been used to describe the people of Greek lineage and also to describe a set of values for living that were invented by the ancient Greeks.”

           Hellenism, generally used by historians to refer to the period from the death of Alexander the Great to the death of Cleopatra and the incorporation of Egypt in the Roman Empire in 30 B.C.E. Egypt was the last important survivor of the political system which had developed as a consequence both of the victories of Alexander and of his premature death. The word Hellenism is also used to indicate more generically the cultural tradition of the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire between Augustus and Justinian and/or the influence of Greek civilization on Rome, Carthage, India, and other regions which were never part of the empire of Alexander.

            In this essay he has discussed Hebraism and Hellenism. Arnold defines this chapter and presents his ideas about Hebraism and Hellenism. He has quoted from Bishop Wilson, “First, never go against the best light you have; secondly, take care that your light be not darkness. "These two forces we may regard as in some sense rivals,--rivals not by the necessity of their own nature,   but as exhibited in man and his history,--and rivals dividing the empire of the world between them.  And to give these forces names from the two races of men who have supplied the most signal and splendid manifestations of them,  we may call them respectively the forces of Hebraism and Hellenism.

           Hebraism and Hellenism are religious disciplines that incorporate similar language in their teaching. Arnold argues that these are the two prime driving forces in the world with each interacting strongly with the others. Some time they both are in harmony, at that time one may have a stronger effect than the opposing force. Hellenism is a Greek teaching and focuses on seeing the world and reality as it really is and spontaneity. As we seen above Hebraism is obviously Hebrew, and put stress upon have personal obedience and strictness of the conscience. While there are many differences in both of these teachings, they each emphasize the fact that desire is a very human characteristic as well as the need for the love of God.

            In the beginning of this topic, Arnold discusses about doing and thinking. His general view about human being is that they prefer to act rather than think. He rejects it because mankind is to error and he cannot always think right, but it comes seldom in the process of reasoning and meditation, or he is not rightly guided by the light of true reason. The nation which follows the voice of its conscience and its best light, but it is not the light of true reason except darkness. Arnold gave his opinion that, the nation is energy or the capacity of doing but it is not intelligence or capacity of thinking rightly. Such energy that has the sense of obligation and duty must be related to the best light.

            Arnold said that Hellenism and Hebraism they should be in harmony by the light of reason, and talks about the great idea to know and the great energy to act. He considered both these forces very powerful and insists on the balance of the both thought and action. The final aim of these Hellenism and Hebraism is the same as man’s salvation and perfection.  Even when their language indicates by variation, — sometimes a broad variation, often a but slight and subtle variation, — the different courses of thought which are uppermost in each discipline, even then the unity of the final end and aim is still apparent. To employ the actual words of that discipline with which we ourselves are all of us most familiar, and the words of which, therefore, come most home to us, that final end and aim is "that we might be partakers of the divine nature"

           Arnold also discusses further thing that the supreme idea with Hellenism or the Greek Spirit is to see things as they really are, and the supreme idea of Hebraism or the spirit of Bible is conduct and obedience. If Hebraism means only the knowledge of the Bible and the word of God, then Arnold has come to the defence of culture and says: “No man, who knows nothing else, knows even his Bible”!  Essential to Hellenism, on the other hand, is the impulse to the development of the whole man.

           Arnold points out that the Greek philosophy considered that the body and its desires are an obstacle to right action. The root idea of the both is the desire for reason and the will of God, and the desire of love of God. Hebraism studies the universal order and observes the magnificence of God apparent in the order, whereas Hellenism follows with flexible activity. Thus, Hellenism acquires spontaneity of consciousness with a clearness of mind, and Hebraism achieves a strictness of conscience with its clarity of thought. Hellenism has more earnestness of free play of the intellect or a Plato says, “for ever through all the universe tends towards that which is lovely”.  In brief, Hebraism shows stress on doing rather than knowing, and follows the will of God. Its primary idea is absolute obedience to the will of God.  

            Both these Hebraism and Hellenism are directly connected to the life of human beings. Hebraism fastens its faith in doing, where as Hellenism put stress on knowing or knowledge. The final aim of both is the partaking of divine life with knowledge and action. Arnold describes that the Bible reveals the truth which awards the peace of God and liberty. The easy and simple idea of Hellenism is to get rid of ignorance, to see things as they are, and to search beauty from them. Socrates, as Hellenic, states that the best man is he who tries to make himself perfect, and the happiest man is he who feels that he is perfecting himself.

          In this treatise, Arnold says that there is enough of Hellenism in the English nation, and Arnold emphasizes on Hebraism, because it is based on conduct and self – control and admit that the age is incapable of governing itself in the pursuit of perfection, and the bright promise of Greek ideal is faded. The Obedience  or submission must be to the rules of conduct as expressed by the Holy Scripture. Hellenism lays its main stress on clear intelligence. Whereas Hebraism keeps main stress on firm obedience, moral power and character. Arnold explain and turns to Sin that spoils the efforts to achieve Hellenism. He gave his opinion that sin is an obstacle to perfection because it brings hurdles in knowing ourselves, it prevent man’s passage to perfection. He calls it is a mysterious power that is hostile to man. The discipline of the Holy Scripture teaches that how to avoid and stop the sin.  Hebraism speaks of becoming conscious of the sin and keeping away from it, Whereas Hellenism speaks of thinking clearly and seeing the things in their essence and beauty.

          In this chapter Arnold also talked about Christianity and also talked about the idea of immorality as illustrated by the St. Paul, the Christian saint and Plato the Greek Philosopher and Thinker, but both have left something unexplained. So, its create a problem the problem of human spirit is still unsolved in both Hebraism and Hellenism. In all this writer finds triumph of the great movement of Christianity on the man’s moral impulses. Arnold Accepts that Renaissance re established Hellenism and man’s intellectual impulses in Europe and Puritanism embraced the blessing of both Hellenism and Hebraism. In time of Reformation, there was the more influence of Hebraism than the Hellenism, there was a grave return to the Bible and to doing the will of God from the heart.

          There was superiority of Puritanism over Catholicism and it was moral, it has the result of its greater sincerity and greater earnestness. Arnold then says that the attitude of mind of Puritanism towards the Bible differs from the attitude of mind of Catholism toward the church. In the sixteenth century, therefore, Hellenism re-entered the world, and again stood in presence of Hebraism, — a Hebraism renewed and purged, but Hellenism of Renaissance lost its moral character. Arnold viewed on thing most that, Hellenism is of Indo-European growth, Hebraism is of Semitic growth; and we English, a nation of Indo- European stock, seem to belong naturally to the movement of Hellenism.

The greatness of the difference is well measured by the difference in force, beauty, significance and usefulness, between primitive Christianity and Protestantism. Eighteen hundred years ago it was altogether the hour of Hebraism; primitive Christianity was legitimately and truly the ascendant force in the world at that time, and the way of mankind's progress lay through its full development. In 16^th century there was a reaction of Hebraism against Hellenism. If Hellenism was defeated by Hebraism, it shows that Hellenism was imperfect.

            There was the defeat of Hellenism by early Christianity and the defeat of Hellenism by Puritanism was the result of Renaissance stress on the progress of humanism and science. And incline that the man to knowing himself and the world to seeing the thing as the spontaneity of consciousness.  

            Arnold defines how Hebraism and Hellenism have the same ends - so that "we may be partakers in divine nature" and thus they should be balanced in our society. Hebraism's close relationship with sin tends to make it too much about conduct and obedience, and not enough about seeing this as they really are. In history, there have been waves of Hebraism and Hellenism (Renaissance - Hellenistic; Reformation - Hubristic). Arnold values the "tenacity" of Hebraism but suggests that Hellenism is needed to make sure the "light" which this tenacity follows is not "darkness."

            At the end we can say that Arnold’s argument is about the idea of Hebraism versus Hellenism. Hebraism represents the actions of people who are either ignorant or resistant to the idea of culture. Hebraists subscribe to a strict, narrow-minded method of moral conduct and self control which does not allow them to visualize a utopian future of belonging to an enlightened community. Hellenism signifies the open-minded, spontaneous exploration of classical ideas and their application to contemporary society.

          At the end of this part of this essay “Hebraism and Hellenism”  we can say that it must be added that the rule of life should be based on these theory of Hebraism and Hellenism because both has final aim that is man’s perfection or salvation. As in this part Arnold has defined very well concept about Hebraism and Hellenism on the other side he has also defined the things which are related to the politics, society, culture and other thing also comes in other chapters of the essay. This essay “Culture and Anarchy” ended with then Arnold idea and his thought that he how he gave different view about culture.

P. B. Shelley's view of nature and law he differs from Wordsworth and Keat

Assignment Topic:

Percy Bysshe Shelley‘s views of Nature and law and how he differs from William Wordsworth and John Keats

Name: Jinal B.Parmar

Roll no. : 13

M A. Semester: 2

Paper no.: 5 The Romantic Literature

Year: 2013 – 2014

Submitted to: Department of English

Smt. S. B. Gardi

Maharaja Krishna kumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Introduction: -- Percy Bysshe Shelley

           P. B. Shelley was born on 4 August 1792 in Sussex. P.B. Shelley was one of the major English Romantic poet. He is regarded by critics as amongst the finest Lyric poets in English language. Shelley mostly known for his classic poems like, Ozymandias,  Ode to the West Wind,  To a Skylark, Music when soft voice dies , The cloud and The Mosque of Anarchy. His other major works include long, visionary poems such as Queen Mab , Alastor, The Revolt of Islam, Adonaïs, the unfinished work The Triumph of Life; and the visionary verse dramas The Cenci (1819) and Prometheus Unbound (1820).

            Shelley’s ultimate goal is to stress the beneficial impact of poetry. To this end he feels it is necessary to define the nature of poetry. To do this, he feels he must first address the nature of the poet, to which end, he must first address the nature of man.

His notable works: --

·         Queen Mab

·         The Cloud

·         To Skylark

·         Ode to the West wind

·         To the Moon

·         A Dream of the unknown

“Only nature knows how to justly proportion to the fault the punishment it deserves”

Introduction: -- William Wordsworth

            William Wordsworth was born on 7 April, 1770 in Cockermouth into a lawyer’s family. . Wordsworth was a major English Romantic poet. Wordsworth is considered the pioneer of the Romanticism.  He is the most representative poet of English Literature Wordsworth has written a series of poem collaboration of Coleridge entitled “Preface to the Lyrical Ballad”.

           Wordsworth was a worshipper of nature from his childhood. He frequently visited places of beautiful scenery. A walking tour of the sunrise Alps heightened his addiction to nature. Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy has served as Wordsworth’s confident and inspires as Wordsworth put it in his poem. Wordsworth is neurotic to nature and always respect to the nature in his every work.

His notable works:

·         Preface to Lyrical Ballad               

·         The prelude

·         An Evening walk

·         The Excursion, etc…

“For I have learned to look on nature, not as in the hour of thoughtless youth, but hearing oftentimes the still, sad music of humanity”

“Come forth into the light of things, let nature be your teacher”

“The world is too much with us; late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers: Little we see in nature that is ours”

Introduction: -- John Keats

          John Keats was born on 31 October 1795, in London. Keats was an English Romantic poet. He was one of the main figure of the second generation of Romantic poets along with Lord Byron and P. B. Shelley despite his work having been in publication for only four years before his death.  The poetry of Keats is characterised by sensual imagery, most notably in the series of odes. Today his poems and letters are some of the most popular and most analyzed in English literature.

           Keats has wrote some of the Odes in which he has described art and beauty of the Odes. But paradox is one of the theme of Keats’s poem like paradox of words, paradox of image he uses in his Odes. He wrote the finest letters. “Writing to his brother George, Keats explored the idea of the world as "the vale of Soul-making", anticipating the great odes that he would write some months later. In the letters, Keats coined ideas such as the Mansion of Many Apartments and the Chameleon Poet, concepts that came to gain common currency and capture the public imagination, despite only making single appearances as phrases in his correspondence.

His notable works: --

·         On first looking into Chapman’s Homer

·         Sleep and Poetry

·         Hyperion

·         Isabella, or The Pot of Basil

·         The greate odes – To a Nightingale, On a Grecian Urn, To Psyche, On Melancholy, and To Autumn

“If poetry comes not naturally as leaves to a tree it had better not come at all”

“There is an electric fire in human nature tending to purity – so that among these human creatures there is continually some birth of new heroism. The pity is that we must wonder at it, as we should at finding a pearl in rubbish”

“Scenery is fine – but human nature is finer”

P. B. Shelley’s view on nature:

            Shelley is one the best poet. Shelley comes in the age of Romanticism and also there is one of the feature of this age is that Treatment to Nature. Shelley write a poem and in that he links nature with love. Love for Nature is one of the key – notes of his poetry. Shelley in his poem nature is love for him. The finest of Shelley’s poems, are his lyrics, ‘The Skylark’, and ‘The Cloud’ are among the most unique and dazzling of all the outbursts of poetic genius. ‘On Love’ Shelley reflects colorful Nature imagery and glorification of nature. He shows fruition and fulfillment in his poem and we find his poem related with Nature in which we find a profusion of Nature.

            Shelly in his poetry, appears as a Pantheist also. Shelley loved the indefinite and the changeful in Nature. He presents the changing and indefinite moods of Nature in his poetry, like Clouds, Wind, Lightening, etc,.  ‘Adonals’ reflects the most striking examples of Shelley’s pantheist. At an occasion, he thinks that Keats is made one with Nature for the power, morning in Nature. Nature’s spirit is eternal . The one remains , many change and pass: He argues that there is some intelligence controlling Nature. In fact, he fuses the Platonic Philosophy of love with pantheism.

           In this Shelley uses the West Wind to symbolize the power of nature and of the imagination inspired by nature. However the west wind is active and dynamic in poems. Such as “Ode to the West wind”.  Even as it destroys, the wind encourages new life on earth and social progress among humanity.

           Shelley finds Nature alive, capable of feeling and thinking like a human organism. In “Ode to the Westwind”, he hopes for the best and is confident that “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” His nature treatment is multidimensional; scientific, philosophic, intellectual, mythical and of course human. This poem “Ode to the Westwind”  reflects this particular trend of Shelley, in this poem he shows that the west wind driving the dead leaves, scattering the living seeds, awakening the Mediterranean and making the sea-plants feel its force. . His poetry lacks pictorial definiteness and, often, his Nature description is clothed in mist.

           As we seen that Shelley was pantheistic towards nature, he conceive every object of Nature as possessing a distinct  individuality of its own, too, though he believes that the spirit of love unites the whole universe, including Nature, yet he treats all the natural objects as distinguishable entities. The sun, the moon, the stars, the rainbow – all have been treated as separate beings of nature . This capacity of individualizing the separate forces for Nature is termed as Shelley’s myth making power which is best illustrated in “Ode to the Westwind”. He gives the West Wind, the ocean an independent life and personalities. He presents the Mediterranean sleeping and then being awakened by the West Wind, just like a human body.

          Shelley refers to this unifying natural force in many of the poems, describing it as the “Spirit of Beauty” in “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty” and identifying it with Mont Blanc and the Arve River in “Mont Blanc”. This force is the cause of all human joy, faith, Goodness and pleasure, and it is also the source of poetic inspiration and divine truth. So all this natural forces inspired to poet to write the poem.

William Worsworth’s view on Nature:

            Wordsworth is one of the great poet of the Romanticism. He is considered as the poet who loves nature and brings in his poem. Wordsworth is the priest of Nature who worshipping the Nature. In his work Nature come first then the other things. He has wrote many poems in which there we can find only the Nature. Wordsworth was inspired to write poems from his sister Dorothy. She helped Wordsworth turn his eyes to “the face of nature” and “preserved the poet in him”.

“She gave me eyes, she gave me ears;

And humble cares, and delicate fears;

A heart, the fountain of sweet tears;

And love, and thought, and joy”

           A majority of Wordsworth’s poem expressed his obsession with nature. Three poems in which express this obsession is “Composition upon Westminster Bridge”, My heart leaps up when I behold”, and the most famous “I wandered as a lonely cloud”.

          Wordsworth has wrote many poems in which Nature is only the topic in his poem. In his poem “I wandered lonely as a cloud” in this poem he includes all nature elements like, cloud, daffodils, flowers, etc,. This is simple poem to understand easily, one of the loveliest and most famous in the Wordsworth canon, revisited the familiar subject of nature and memory, this time with a particularly spare, musical eloquence.

           Wordsworth and Coleridge both have written series of poem collaboratively “Preface to the Lyrical Ballad” in Wordsworth always uses the simple language and related with nature whereas Coleridge wrote in different way uses the supernatural elements. In Wordsworth’s another poem “Composition upon Westminster Bridge”  he is consumed by the beauty of the scenery. The poem is a recollection of his travel on the Westminster Bridge in London on one early morning. Wordsworth seems to be drawn into the scenery for it is the early morning and all are still asleep and calm. While reading the poem his details and words can allow a reader to almost smell the morning mist and dew in the air.

          Wordsworth says, “Ne’er saw I, never felt, calm so deep!” For him this scenery from the bridge was simple calmness which made him feel comfortable and safe. The scenery of the buildings and sleeping houses were just as fascinating and pure as trees in forestry. It’s as if Wordsworth is more overwhelmed and shocked by the beauty given off by landscape which is not just trees and hills. The way that everything was laid out from the houses to the to the buildings to the sun’s glow over it all just seemed to fit together perfectly as if the town being overlooked by Westminster Bridge was a completed puzzle. This view may not be the typical natural scene but it’s not unnatural.

John Keats view on Nature:--

           Keats has wrote an Ode in which he present art and beauty but his other poems are connected with nature.  As we know that the age of Romanticism in that there is one of the feature is treatment to Nature in which Keats also admire to the Nature. Keats’s observation of Nature is very keen and nothing escape it. In most of his poems we have Nature-discription for its own sake, “expressive of nothing but a keen delight and genuine joy in Nature”.

           In his one of the “Ode to autumn” he described about only autumn. This poems helps support Keats love for nature and how he incorporates it into his poems. In “Ode to autumn,” Keats explains autumns relationship with the sun. Keats also explains how autumn brings flowers, and fruits, and the beautiful songs that autumn produces. I believe that “Ode to Autumn,” helps support the idea that Keats attitude toward nature is a good one. In this poem is explains a lot of beautiful sights, feelings, and sounds, which makes me believe that Keats loves nature. Keats uses senses so that readers can relate to the scene and somewhat feel apart of it all.

            In the Ode to a Nightingale we have a couple of remarkable Nature-pictures owing Keats’s delight in the purely sensuous appeal of Nature. One is the picture of the moon shining in the sky while there is darkness on the grassy floor of the forest:

And happy the Queen-Moon is on her throne,

Cluster’d around by her starry fays; etc., etc.

             Keats found in nature endless sources of poetic inspiration, and he described the natural world with precision and care. In “Ode to a Nightingale”, hearing the bird’s song cause the speaker to ruminate on the immortality of art and the mortality of humans. The speaker of “Ode on Meancholy” compares about of depression to a “weeping cloud”, then goes on to list specific flowers that are linked to the sadness. He finds in nature apt images for his psychological state. In “Ode to psyche” the speaker mines that the night sky to find ways to worship the Roman goddess psyches as a muse: a star becomes an “amorous glow-worm”, and the moon rests amid a background of dark blue. Keats uses nature in his poems and trying to make very easy to the readers.

P. B. Shelley differs from Wordsworth and Keats:

              These three poets comes in the age of Romanticism they wrote poems which are connected to the Nature but they are actually differs from each other where we can find many changes of their poems. They have different view of Nature. ‘N’ature which is the first thing for the people who belong to the age of Romanticism. Nature is the first role of the poems of these poets which gave them pleasure.

             For Wordsworth, Nature is worshipping who known as the priest of Nature. He was educated by Nature, from his childhood he was inspired by the Nature. As William Wordsworth grew, his relationship with nature became more complex and mature because of the events that were taking place in his life and according to the growth of his own mind. When Wordsworth returned from his trip to France, after having seen all the horrors committed after the French Revolution, he automatically began to relate nature to the behavior of society.

              Wordsworth has a very different view of nature compared to many poets. He sees nature as something that is very innocent and pure. Most of Wordsworth's poems speak on a time when nature has spoken to him. His view of nature is open-ended and there is not just one answer to sum up how he feels about nature. Most of his poetry reflects this same feeling after interpreting it. Wordsworth has a deep view of nature, it can't be summarized in one sentence, or even two. For him, the world is an innocent place without humans. But when you ass humans in, it becomes "too much." As he states in the above poem. Man and nature become one in Wordsworth poetry, and this can be seen in almost any Wordsworth poem.

Shelley wrote poem in something in different way he links Nature with love. For Shelley Nature is love and for Wordsworth Nature is worship. Like Wordsworth, Shelley believes that Nature exercises a healing influence on man’s personality. He finds solace and comfort in Nature and feels its soothing influence on his heart. The contrast, here hinted at, between Shelley's view of Nature and that of Wordsworth, is extreme and entirely characteristic; the same is true, also, when we compare Shelley and Byron. Shelley's excitable sensuousness produces in him in the presence of Nature a very different attitude from that of Wordsworth's philosophic Christian-mysticism. Keats’s sentiment of Nature is simpler than that of the other romantics. He remains absolutely uninfluenced by the Pantheism of Wordsworth and Shelley, and loves Nature not because of any spiritual significance in her or any divine meaning in her but chiefly because of her external charm and, beauty.

               So, these are the poets who are connected with Nature and express their pure love towards the Nature in their poem. Through their poems we can understand their feeling towards Nature. As a readers we can see their deep faith and love for Nature. Through literature one can easily express and interpret their idea and feeling about something through their work in literature, as we have seen these three poets who are neurotic to Nature.