University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Religious Language Of Thomas Traherne'S 'Centuries'

(USC Thesis Other)

The Religious Language Of Thomas Traherne'S 'Centuries'

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received 68*1181
AMES, Kenneth John, 1925-
THE RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE OF THOMAS TRAHERNE'S
CENTURIES.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1967
Language and Literature, modem
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
C opyright (^) by
KENNETH JOHN AMES
1968
THE RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
OF THOMAS TRAHERNE'S
CENTURIES
by
Kenneth John A m es
A D isse rta tio n P re se n te d to the
FACU LTY OF TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P a r tia l F u lfillm en t of the
R eq u irem en ts for the D egree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(English)
S eptem ber 1967
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOB ANOELE8, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, w ritten by
..........................
under the direction of h\S. Dissertation Com
m ittee, and approved by all its members, has
' As
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Dtan
Date .S ep tem b er J.9.6..7.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
P R E F A C E
Since the d isc o v e ry of the Dobell m a n u sc rip t (Bodleian MS.
Eng. th. e. 50) by W. T. B rooke on a London s tr e e t b o o k stall in the
w in ter of 1896-7, T r a h e r n e 's C en tu ries have excited the attention of
both g e n e ra l re a d e r and sc h o la r. M uch valuable w ork has been done
on b io g ra p h ical and b ib lio g rap h ical lines of r e s e a r c h (p a rtic u la rly by
that e a rly p io n eer Gladys I. W ade1). E d ito ria l w ork has been u n d e r
taken by H. M. M argoliouth in the valuable definitive edition of the
2
C e n tu rie s , P o e m s and T h an k sg iv in g s. Studies of "influence" have
been c a r r ie d out by s c h o la rs , one of the m o st re c e n t and valuable be-
3
ing Louis L. M a rtz 's The P a r a d is e W ithin in w hich is brought to
light T r a h e r n e 's evident debts to A ugustine, P ico , B onaventure, and
4
o th e rs. L ittle, how ever, has been done on the language of T ra h e rn e
1 T hom as T ra h e rn e . W ith a S elected B ibliography by R o b ert
A llerto n P a r k e r , by Gladys J. Wade (P rin ceto n , 1944).
2
O xford, 1958, in two vols. This edition of the C en tu ries
is the one u sed throughout this study.
3
New H aven and London: Yale .U niversity P r e s s , 1964.
4
C a ro l L. M a rk s' valuable a r tic le , " T r a h e r n e 's C h u rch 's
Y ear Book" (PBSA, F i r s t Q u a rte r 1966, 31-72) re v e a ls T ra h e rn e 's
p ra c tic e of v ery extensive borrow ing (and " a ssim ila tin g to his own
m an n er and thought the sty le and ideas of o th er w rite rs " ).
in the C e n tu rie s . The p re se n t study of relig io u s language in the
C e n tu rie s is an a tte m p t a t a c r itic a l a n a ly sis of T r a h e r n e 's m a in s tra t
egies in his co m m u n icatio n , the end r e s u lt of w hich w as the v ib ra n tly
e c sta tic vision of fe lic ity that has delighted and in sp ire d so m an y
r e a d e r s during this c e n tu ry . It is b e c a u se this com m unication entails
the u se of language in a unique an d s p e c ia l way to convey c e rta in r e l i
gious insights th at I have desig n ated the study sp e c ific a lly one of
T r a h e r n e 's relig io u s language.
It is hoped that th is p re s e n t study w ill help to explore a little
f a rth e r into the re la tiv e ly new t e r r i t o r y of relig io u s language (inwhicl%
how ever, th e re is a grow ing in te re s t by theologians and p h ilo so p h ers)
as w ell as providing new insights into T r a h e r n e 's m ethods. I se le c te d
the C e n tu rie s fo r study ra th e r th an p e rh a p s C h ristia n E thics b ec a u se
of p e rs o n a l p re fe re n c e and also b e c a u s e the la tte r is som ew hat m o re
"p ro fe ssio n a lly " theological. T h e language of th eo lo g ical sta te m e n t
is in a r e a lm of d iffe re n t qualifications and lim ita tio n s fro m th a t of
re lig io u s language p u re and sim p le w hich is the b a sis of the p re s e n t
study.
The opening ch a p te r u n d e rta k e s a p re lim in a ry su rv e y of the
fundam ental p ro b le m s connected w ith re lig io u s language. By such an
5
W ith the except io n --to m y k n o w led g e--o f two a r tic le s : (1)
R onald W. H epburn, "T hom as T r a h e r n e : The N atu re and D ignity of
Im a g in a tio n ," C am b rid g e J o u rn a l, VI (S ep tem b er 1953), 725-734; and
(2) R o sa lie L. C olie, "T hom as T r a h e r n e and the Infinite: The E th ical
C o m p ro m is e ," HL.Q, XXI (N ovem ber 1957), 69-82. M iss C o lie 's r e
cen t book, P a ra d o x ia E pidem ica (P rin ceto n , 1966) in c o rp o ra te s the
m a te r ia l of this a r tic le and adds little to it.
iii
exam ination, though brief, an attem p t can be m ade to re la te som e of
the m ain developm ents in this new field of study to an an aly tical study
of T ra h e rn e 's religious language in the C e n tu rie s.
TA BLE O F CONTENTS
P ag e
P R E F A C E ............................................................................................................... i
C hapter
I. RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND TH E CENTURIES
OF T R A H E R N E ........................................................................ 1
II. TH E BASIC STRUCTURE OF TRAHERNE'S
RELIGIOUS L A N G U A G E .................................................... 17
III. TRAHERNE'S USE OF PARADOX IN THE
C E N T U R IE S .............................................................................. 51
IV. PARADIGMS OF " F E L I C I T Y " .............................................. 73
V. SUMMARY. PER C E PT IO N AND ARTICULATION:
MODELS OF REALITY .................................................... 95
A PPEN D IX ........................................................................................................... 104
B IB L IO G R A P H Y .................................................................................................. 108
v
CH APTER I
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND THE
CENTURIES OF TRAHERNE
A b asic dilem m a that m an encounters in trying to com e to
te rm s with "re a lity , " to re c o n cile h im self w ith the "o th e rn e ss" of the
w orld, re sid e s in the lim itations of his m odes of ex p ressio n . F o r a
synthesis of his knowledge and experience, for the prom ulgation of his
p riv a te "vision" and its subsequent artic u la tio n , he n e v e rth e le ss m u st
re ly for ex p ressio n upon available m odes, the tools of language with
which he is fa m ilia r, and, fu rth e r, upon the s tru c tu re s of thought and
sym bol that a r e known to him. In a se n se he is the p ris o n e r of his
own language.
A t the sam e tim e, if the self is to attain any m a tu rity , it m u st
try to b re a k out of this p riso n and grap p le with the p ro b le m of its r e
lationship w ith the w orld. A p ro c e ss of o rien tatio n is im pelled. The
poet, the a r tis t, the m y stic, would se e m to have a ssu m e d the ro le s of
sco u ts, p io n e e rs, in the ta sk of artic u la tin g th eir sen se of the " m e a n
ing" of life a n d --e sp e c ia lly in the case of the relig io u s w r ite r- -o f
*As John A. H utchison points out in his valuable study, L an
guage and F aith: Studies in Sign, Symbol, and M eaning (Philadelphia,
1963), p. 82: "Indeed, if F re u d 's view of the ego is c o rre c t, the self
o r ego je ju st this way of dealing or coping w ith the w orld.
1
2
a ssistin g in the o rientation p ro c e ss of the individual and in articu late
m an. T ra h e rn e , in his C en tu ries certa in ly a ssu m e s such a role; he is
both an a rtic u la te a r tis t in the ex p ressio n of his own synthesis of r e a l
ity and a guide for his r e a d e r 's orientation.
The a rtic u la tio n of "m eaning" and the endeavor to guide o th ers
along the way does m uch to counter the ch arg e that has so m etim es
been m ade that the religious m y stic com m unes w ith God ra th e r than
com m unicates w ith his liste n e r. How does one a s s e s s w hether an
a rtis tic synthesis is indeed a valid com m unication and w hether it is
m e re ly the e x p ressio n of a p riv a te vision, o r even of a p riv a te m a d
n e ss? Of co u rse , in answ er to both questions it m u st be allowed that,
before a com m unication can be effected by an a r tis t or s e e r, the v i
sion m u st f ir s t be experienced on the m ountain-top of sp iritu a l d is
cern m en t. The subsequent artic u la tio n and com m unication of this v i
sion, if not effected with p re c isio n , can so m etim es b rin g the en tire
sp h e re of relig io u s language into som e d isrep u te. Among the chief
opponents of relig io u s and theological language in this cen tu ry have
been the L ogical P o sitiv ists, num bering such philosophers as A. J.
A yer and Rudolf C arnap who arg u ed that "the e th e re a l language of the-
2
ology was lite ra lly m ean in g less. " The Logical P o sitiv ists affirm ed
the n e c e ssity for a valid re fe re n t to each philosophic te rm . Under
^T im e , July 10, 1964, p. 64.
th e ir attack s such te rm s as Being, Substance, Soul, and so on, w ere
3
red u ced to the lev el of cloudy speculation.
The e sse n tia l d ilem m a of the w rite r of re lig io u s language has
been w ell stated by John A. H utchison:
Hum an speech has its orig in and its p rim a ry function in d is
tinguishing sp ecific ele m e n ts w ithin the to tality of com m on
ex p erien ce, b u t c le a rly the to tality of things is a re fe re n t fa r
beyond such com m on objects of ex p erien ce. The difficulty is
how speech m a y be u sed for a p u rp o se so d ifferen t fro m that
w hich is the p r im a r y function of language. Seeing th is p r e d ic a
m ent, one m ay un d erstan d the attitude of those who a s s e r t that
in such a situation th e silen ce of a g n o stic ism is the only w ise
c o u rse . Any a tte m p t to sp e a k in th is situation co n stitu tes, they
a rg u e , a violent m isu se of language. 4
T h is, then, se e m s to be the c ru x for the relig io u s w rite r. F a c e d w ith
the difficulties of valid ex p re ssio n , he m ust choose betw een "th e s i
len ce of ag n o sticism " and the in n er com pulsion to attain a unified r e
latio n sh ip with the w orld, in w hich confrontation, as we have seen
above, m ay c o n sist the v e ry ex iste n c e of the self. In o th er w o rd s, our
confrontation w ith the " o th e rn e s s " of the w orld c rie s out for an a rtic u -
5
late resp o n se . If this b asic need for a unified relatio n sh ip is denied
in "the silence of ag n o sticism " then a situation of sp iritu a l fru s tra tio n
m ay re su lt.
3
F o r a capable and read ab le tre a tm e n t of L ogical P o sitiv ism
I a m indebted to P h ilo so p h ical A n aly sis: Its D evelopm ent Betw een the
Two W orld W a rs , by J. O. U rm so n (Oxford, 1956).
4
Language and F a ith , p. 221.
5
See H utchison, p. 81: "T he idea of re s is ta n c e offered to the
self a p p e a rs to be a b a sic elem en t in the idea of re a lity ; the r e a l is
that w hich r e s is ts the self. "
T h e re has been som ething of a re tra c tio n by the L ogical P o s i
tiv ists :
M any p h ilo so p h e rs--in c lu d in g A yer h im s e lf--h a v e now backed
aw ay fro m th at dogm atic view , thanks in la rg e p a r t to the in flu
ence of an e c c e n tric A u s tria n -b o rn C am b rid g e don n am ed Ludwig
W ittg en stein , who died in 1951. W ittg en stein , p e rh a p s the c e n
tu ry 's m o st im p o rta n t p h ilo so p h er, b eliev ed that th e re w as a
w ide v a rie ty of d is c o u r s e -- ra n g in g fro m jokes to the "G o d -talk "
of th e o lo g ia n s--th a t could not be e m p iric a lly v erified , but n e v e r
th e le s s w as u sefu l and in so m e w ays m eaningful to m an. Instead
of d is m is s in g th is n o n e m p iric a l d is c o u rs e as n o n sen se, P h ilo so
phy should tr e a t it as a "language gam e" an d --w ith o u t p a ssin g on
its v a lu e - -c la r ify the ru le s and m ak e it m o re in tellig ib le. °
A grow ing in te r e s t in lin g u isitic a n a ly s is , th e re fo re , on the
p a r t of th eo lo g ian s, has a s s is te d in re s to rin g so m e of the validity to
7
re lig io u s language. A cogent and p io n e er exponent in this m ovem ent
g
is P r o f e s s o r Ian T. R a m se y who e m p h a siz e s the p e c u lia r n atu re of
re lig io u s language w ithin the re lig io u s context. The fe a tu re s w hich
P r o f e s s o r R a m se y iso la te s for exam ination a r e : (1) relig io u s language
as the language of a p e rs o n to tally co m m itte d to the b elie fs of which
he sp eak s; (2) a s a c o ro lla ry to th is, re lig io u s language a s the expres-t
sion of a p a r tic u la r d isc e rn m e n t; (3) re lig io u s language a s , usually,
language u sed in an "odd" w ay (by w hich is m ea n t a new u s e , o r even
d isto rtio n , of language th at is n o rm a lly u se d in a m o re "conventional"
w ay in o rd e r to re v e a l the " d isc e rn m e n t" of the re lig io u sly -c o m m itte d
^T im e , Ju ly 10, 1964, p. 64.
7
See, fo r ex am p le, P a u l Van B u re n 's The S ecu lar M eaning of
the G o sp els (New Y ork, 1964).
g
In R eligious Language: An E m p iric a l P lacin g of T heological
P h r a s e s (London, 1957).
m an). T his "odd d isc e rn m e n t" R a m se y likens to the m om ent o£ r e v e
lation known colloquially as when "the penny d ro p s, " i. e. , the m ind
a
suddenly ach iev es a w a re n e ss and d isc e rn m en t.
T r a h e r n e 's C e n tu rie s is a r ic h subject for an aly sis in te r m s of
relig io u s language, and the c h a ra c te ris tic fe a tu re s m entioned by R a m
sey c o r re la te w ell w ith T r a h e r n e 's e sse n tia l a ttitu d es. The total
"c o m m itm e n t," for exam ple, of T ra h e rn e is re a d ily a p p are n t a fte r a
fa irly s h o rt reading of the C e n tu rie s . His attitu d es and language a r e
c le a rly the e x p re ssio n of a p a rtic u la r "d isc e rn m e n t. " M o reo v er, the
language s tra te g ie s he u s e s , such a s m etap h o r and parad o x , a r e in
stan c es of w hat R am sey would ca ll language u sed in an "odd" way.
That is to say, as we sh all se e upon fu rth e r exam ination, T ra h e rn e
su ccessfu lly u ses the d ev ices of m e tap h o r, parad o x , and rep etitio n to
m ake m o re explicit a p riv a te rev elatio n .
The claim s of the lin g u istic an aly sts as to the re la tiv e im m u n
ity of relig io u s language f ro m any re fe re n ts --w h e n c o n sid e red within
th e ir hypothesis of "language g a m e s " - - is a c ru c ia l one and m e rits
som e co n sid eratio n . As we saw e a r lie r (p. 1), the v e ry foundation of
the language w hich we em ploy to d e a l with c o sm ic m a tte rs is the la n
guage of "ev ery d ay speech. " As H utchison says:
we m u st o b se rv e . . . th a t the ra w m a te ria l [of relig io u s d is
c o u rse ] se e m s in v aria b ly to com e fro m the definite, lim ited
9
R am sey , pp. 18-25, and p a s s im .
6
ex p erien ce of a m o rta l self and its finite re la tio n to re a lity . The
m o rta l foundation and so u rce of its v aried and infinite life is
this v ery lim ited b ase of one m a n 's experience of n atu re and
society.
Using this b asic m a te ria l as its vehicle, the m ind can then (by
the p ro c e s s that H utchison calls "im agination’1 ) c re a te a m en tal sy n
th esis betw een the " o th e rn e ss" of the w orld and the self, and su b se
quently a rtic u la te this sy n th esis. "O bjective im agination, then, in a
w ord, i£ the hum an m ind in its active encounter with the w orld that
lies beyond its own fro n tie rs" (p. 85). In an attem p t to com e to te rm s
with a relig io u s experience that m ay be difficult to delineate in " n o r
m al" te r m s , the stra te g y of ap p ro ach is that of the ’’ stretched,! m etaphor
(p. 92). H utchison defines the function of m etap h o r "not sim ply as a
fa m ilia r figure of speech but as a b asic stra te g y of hum an m ind and
tongue in laying hold upon the w orld in its m anifold aspects"(p. 91).
Yet as we sh a ll be led to see, beyond silen ce it is p o ssib le to
take e x p re ssiv e m etap h o rs, and by stretch in g them , u se them
to point beyond ex p erien ce to these tra n scen d en t re fe re n ts. So
it is that the language of philosophy and relig io n m ay be c h a r a c
te riz e d as esse n tia lly one of stre tc h e d m etap h o rs o r analogies.
(p. 92)
The b asic m a te ria l of relig io u s language, then, no m a tte r how
m uch it is stre tc h e d , d isto rted , or o th erw ise em ployed, is still,
how ever, fundam entally the available tools of language. It is in s tr u c
tive to exam ine ju st how fa r the s tru c tu re s of thought and language
available to the w rite r do, in fact, condition the m odes of apprehen.-
sion that the w rite r w ishes to e x p re ss. It is a c ru c ia l m a tte r for
^ H u tch iso n , p. 86.
exam ination, because in it one m ay becom e aw are of ju st how far th e
a r tis t or s e e r is articu latin g his orig in al vision by a conscious and
d elib era te use of p a rtic u la r stra te g ie s, and how fa r, indeed, he is
him self lim ited and conditioned by the stru c tu re s of thought and s y m
bol that a re available to him. It is read ily apparent, that the form in
which an a r tis t chooses to work, either a sonnet, for exam ple, or a
block of m a rb le , is going to influence and condition his final a r tic u la
tion. Indeed, m any tim es the fo rm used w ill ultim ately condition th e
end product, and so m etim es even deflect the a r t is t fro m his o rig in al
purpose.
F r e d e ric k J. Streng, in an a rtic le entitled, "The P ro b lem of
Symbolic S tru c tu re s in Religious A pprehension,"** sta tes w ith c la rity
the e sse n tia l relatio n sh ip betw een the religious rev elatio n and the
s tru c tu re s of apprehension available to the one experiencing the
revelation:
The n o rm for m a n 's apprehending divine re a lity is connected
both to the self-affirm in g n o rm given in a relig io u s p erspective
and to the n o rm s of m eaning in human stru c tu re s of apprehension.
When the in tern al n o rm of a religious p e rsp e ctiv e and a p e rso n 's
n o rm ativ e " s tru c tu re of m eaning" co alesce, the knowledge
acq u ired is known as "re v elatio n , " "enlightenm ent, " or "re lig io u s
in sig h t." (pp. 126-127)
Streng p ro ceed s to exam ine v arious exam ples of relig io u s language
fro m the U panisads and the B rahm anas. In the c o u rse of his ex am in a
tion of v ario u s sym bolic s tru c tu re s in th ese religious w ritin g s, S tren g
a r riv e s at an in terestin g form ulation of th re e different " stru c tu re s of
**H istory of R elig io n s, IV (Sum m er 1964), 126-153.
a p p re h e n sio n " w hich he lab els (1) " in tu itiv e ," (2) "m y th ic a l" (i. e. ,
s a c ra m e n ta l, m a g ica l), and (3) " d ia le c tic a l. " We w ill re tu rn to a
fu rth e r c o n s id e ra tio n of S tre n g 's th re e c a te g o rie s , w h ich fo rm an
e x c e lle n t c la s sific a tio n of types of re lig io u s language u sag e. F o r the
m o m en t, le t us n o te his b a s ic p o s tu la tio n --w h ic h is e s s e n tia lly the
s a m e as H u tc h iso n 's d e d u c tio n --th a t re lig io u s a w a re n e s s and its s u b
seq u en t a rtic u la tio n is in e x tric a b ly co n n ected w ith the context of e x
p re s s io n : "T h ro u g h o u t h is to ry m a n 's re lig io u s know ledge is c h a r a c
te r iz e d b y the re c o g n itio n that it can n o t be re d u c e d to hum an thought
s tr u c tu r e s , and y e t m u st be e x p re s s e d th ro u g h th em " (p. 126).
T he language av a ila b le to T r a h e r n e a s m a te r ia l for his C e n
tu rie s w ould a p p e a r on p r e lim in a r y in sp ec tio n to be the language of
the B ib le, and, p a r tic u la rly , of the P s a lm s . T h is is not to deny by
any m e a n s the undoubted influence upon T r a h e r n e of A u g u stin e, P la to ,
12
F ic in o , A ris to tle , and m an y a u th o rs of the p a s t. T r a h e r n e w as a
profound and d ilig en t student, a s re v e a le d for in sta n c e b y his C o m
m o n p lace Book. N e v e rth e le s s , his M editations, w hich a r e in th e m
s e lv e s a su sta in e d song of thanksgiving to God fo r His c re a tio n a t th e
s a m e tim e as th ey in c u lc a te p r a is e for God by the r e a d e r , e n te r into
the s p ir it of the P s a lm s a s m u ch as th e y often echo the cad en ces of
th e ir o rig in a l. It m ight b e w o n d ered , indeed, w h e th e r the language
of the Old T e s ta m e n t is not only a v eh icle for T r a h e r n e 's thought but
12
See note 4 (P re fa c e , p. ii). In addition to th e B ible, T r a
h e rn e a lso owes obvious debts to the A n g lican P r a y e r Book w hich he
w ould u s e daily; f o r this influence, s e e C h a p te r II, p. 32.
a lso an a rtis tic a lly -c o n tro llin g m edium .
The language of the Old T e sta m e n t itse lf p ro v id es an in te r e s t
ing exam ple of the way in w hich relig io u s language is m olded s o m e
w hat by en v iro n m e n ta l conditions. In an illum inating study, Life and
13
L anguage in the Old T e sta m e n t, M ary E llen C hase tra c e s the p a r
tic u la r en v iro n m e n ta l fa c to rs which helped to p ro m o te the H ebrew
m odes of thought and feeling. In connection w ith the H ebrew idea of
T im e, for exam ple, M iss C hase points out that the H ebrew language
has no w ord for hour (p. 33). She fu rth e r points out th at h isto ric a l
events w ere in no se n se dated by the H ebrew s but ex isted "fo re v e r in
th e ir c o n sc io u sn e ss, co n stan tly in th e ir h e a rts and b e fo re th e ir eyes,
in th e ir p r e s e n t a s w ell as in th e ir re m o te p a s t" (p. 34). S im ila rly ,
it can be seen fro m even a c u rs o ry read in g of T r a h e r n e 's C en tu ries
that he too enjoys, and in cu lcates, a deep s e n se of the c o n te m p o ra
neity of p a s t events. In M editation 55 fro m the F ir s t C entury, for
exam ple, T ra h e rn e w rite s: The C ontem plation of E te rn ity m aketh the
14
Soul Im m o rta l. " F r o m this opening sta te m e n t, T r a h e r n e 's thought
m oves to the a s s e rtio n th at "when m y Soul is in Eden [ i. e. , when his
f
thought is re tu rn e d to its p rim e v a l innocency and p erfectio n ]" he can
"visit N oah in his A rt, " " s e e M oses w ith his Rod, " " v isit Solomon in
his G lory, " "can se e into all A ges" (I. 55).
T he H ebrew notion of P la c e is also in v estig ated in M iss
^ N e w Y ork, 1955.
14
C e n tu rie s , ed. M argoliouth, p. 28.
C h a se 's book. She re v e a ls th at a m a rk e d fe a tu re of Old T e sta m e n t
style is its lack of d e sc rip tio n (p. 41). At the s a m e tim e, the H ebrew
m ind had a deeply felt s e n se of the sig n ifican ce of a p la c e and an
a w a re n e s s of its a tm o sp h e re . An illu stra tio n M iss C h ase u se s is
taken f r o m G e n e sis, ch ap ter 28, w hen Jaco b , fleeing fro m E s a u 's
w rath , ta k e s refu g e in a " c e r ta in p la c e , " and, on aw akening, sa y s:
"S u rely the L ord is in this p lace; and I knew it not. How dreadful is
this p la c e ! This is none o th e r but the house of God, and th is is the
gate of heaven" (p. 42).
T h e Old T e sta m e n t w r ite r s a r e som ew hat n ig g ard ly in th e ir
u s e of a d jec tiv e s to d e s c rib e p lace, and a r e p ro n e to re p e titio n of the
sam e d e s c rip tiv e te r m s su ch as d a r k , o r d r y , high, s o lita r y , o r h oly,
ro u g h , and c ro o k e d , goodly and p le a s a n t, d re a d fu l, th i r s t y , or
d e so la te (p. 43). T h e se a d jectiv es u se d in connection w ith p la c e e v i
dently p o s s e s s e d profound evocative pow er fo r the H ebrew h e a r e r , in
m uch the sa m e w ay a s the device of the kenning evoked its own kind of
sto ck re s p o n s e fo r the au d ien ce of the A nglo-Saxon sco p . In his s e n se
of place, no le ss than of tim e, T r a h e r n e has so m e com m on p e rc e p tu a l
elem en ts w ith the Old T e sta m e n t w r ite r s . His se ttin g s, w hile vividly
conceived, tend to be so m ew h at g e n e ra l. A gain, in the s p a r s e n e s s of
his v o cab u lary (and this fa c to r has b e en p a r tic u la rly c ritic iz e d in his
p o em s), T ra h e rn e can be c o m p a re d to the H ebrew w r ite r s . It m ay
w ell be th a t som e of the ric h n e s s and ev ocative q u a litie s of T ra h e rn e
a r e due in no s m a ll m e a s u re to the re p e titio n of a r e la tiv e ly s m a ll
v e rb a l s y s te m w ith, n e v e rth e le s s , a c o n sid e ra b le r ic h n e s s of conno-
11
tative and evocative pow er. This is p erh ap s the key to the su c c ess of
T ra h e rn e 's religious language, and will be exam ined la te r in this
study.
A question that r a is e s itself at this tim e is: if both the
P s a lm is t and T ra h e rn e a re engaged in w riting a language of p ra is e for
th eir C re a to r, what is th e re in the language of T ra h e rn e -th a t m akes
it w orthy of an independent study? How does T ra h e rn e em ploy the
language available to him to re v e al his own unique insights, that blend
of exhilarating joy and infectious happiness that is his p a rtic u la r h a ll
m ark ? Is he, in fact, bound som ew hat to the linguistic stru c tu re s
which he utilizes or does he, by m eans of v arious s tra te g ie s , ra is e
him self out of them to a unique se lf-e x p re ssio n ? What a r e the s t r a t
egies he em ploys?
One of the b asic stra te g ie s of the relig io u s and m y stic w rite r,
and one m uch utilized by T ra h e rn e in his C e n tu rie s , is that of p a r a
dox. This stra te g y is b a sic ally that of O xym oron, w here seem ingly
opposite qualities or a ttrib u te s a r e united to re v e a l a re su lta n t which
m ight o th erw ise be in ex p ressib le. Streng d e sc rib e s one of the b asic
m odes of religious apprehension and its a rtic u la tio n as "the logic of
co n v erg e n c e ," w here seem ingly opposing fa c to rs a re draw n together
15
in o rd e r to re v e a l the underlying " re a l. " Drawing fro m the Upani-
sads, Streng gives exam ples of this "intuitive stru c tu re . " One ex am
ple he gives is tat tvam a s i ("you a re that [u ltim a te re a lity ]" ; another
^ S tr e n g , pp. 131-132.
12
is "th at the B rahm an and A tm an (the individual soul, or self) a r e
one. ' The e sse n c e of th is tech n iq u e--"th e logic of co n v erg en ce"--
re q u ire s that the te rm s u se d --"o p p o site s by d efin itio n --b e placed in
juxtaposition.
T ra h e rn e 's strateg y of paradox p atte rn s S tren g 's "intuitive
s tru c tu re " p re c ise ly in his "logic of convergence. " He w ill place
seem ingly u n related and often se lf-c o n tra d ic to ry te rm s in juxtaposition'
in o rd e r to achieve an aw aren ess in the re a d e r of a "truth" that is
otherw ise in ex p ressib le. In M editation 42 of the F i r s t C entury, for
exam ple, T ra h e rn e w rites: "This is v ery stran g e that GOD should ;
Want, for in H im is the F u ln e s of a ll B lessed n e ss: He overflow eth
18
E ternaly. His W ants are as G lorious as Infinit. " H ere the notion of
a God who is self-com plete and lacking nothing is p o rtra y e d p a ra d o x i
cally as a Being with "w ants. " The seem ing contradiction is explained
and logically developed by T ra h e rn e in the sentences that follow. If
God had had no need then He would not have c re a te d the W orld nor
would He have c re a te d Man.
P a r t of T ra h e rn e 's stra te g y in his u se of the paradox is a
d elib erate confrontation of opposites so that the re a d e r is com pelled
to choose the via m e d ia , the way T ra h e rn e is stee rin g him in his
thinking. P a rtly his stra te g y of parad o x exists sim ply b ecau se the
^ S tr e n g , p. 132. N ote also: in the C h ristian tradition th ere
is, of co u rse, the fam iliar exam ple, "I and m y F a th e r a r e one. "
* ^Streng, p. 133. ^ C e n tu rie s , p. 21.
13
re lig io u s affirm atio n cannot be m ade in v e rb a l te rm s in any w ay o th er
than paradox. A s S treng points out: "T he m en tal activ ity w hich u se s
concepts and sym bols is re g a rd e d a s p r e p a ra to ry to the re a l m ode of
19
knowing the Unconditioned: in tu itio n . " R egarding the sym bolic f o r
m u latio n of this a w a re n e s s, w e find that (1) the te rm s used to d escrib e
u ltim a te re a lity a r e s e lf-c o n tra d ic to ry , and (2) no p a rtic u la r w ords
have an ex clu siv ely valid quality for ex p re ssin g re a lity . In other
w o rd s, it is not so m uch the sp ecific w ord re latin g to a specific r e f e r
ent w hich is going to define a m ode of relig io u s ap p reh en sio n a d e
quately, but a d e lib e ra te m anipulation of w ords e ith er fo r the p u rp o se
of rev ealin g a hidden tru th , o r for m aking the re a d e r aw are of the
u tte r futility of ex p re ssin g su ch an ap p reh en sio n in v e rb a l te rm s .
Both e n d -re s u lts s te m fro m th e b a sic p arad o x e x p re sse d . In the f ir s t
c a s e , the use of p arad o x can b e c o m p a re d to m e c h an ical lines of fo rc e
w hich, brought to b e a r upon an object, produce a re su lta n t fo rc e which
p ro p e ls the object in a c e rta in d ire c tio n a t a c e rta in speed, but in a
d ifferen t d ire ctio n and a t a d ifferen t speed fro m the o rig in al lines of
fo rc e . The second e n d - re s u lt--in tu itio n --o c c u rs when, a fter p r e
sen tatio n of the p arad o x , the r e a d e r , unable to cope w ith the p r e s s u r e
of su ch a m en tal d ilem m a, " le ts go of" the whole p ro b le m and " se e s"
the "tru th " in a n o n -v erb al, "in tu itiv e" way. In the w ords of R am sey ,
20
"th e penny dro p s. " In the w ords of H utchison, th e re is a "divine-
19
S treng, p. 132; m y ita lic s. ^ R a m s e y , p. 24.
14
21
human encounter. "
R eturning now to S tren g 's form ulation of s tru c tu re s of a p p re
hension, the second p ro c e ss he lists is what he calls the "m y th ica l,"
m ag ical, or sa c ra m e n ta l s tru c tu re of apprehension. S treng explains
the m ain featu res of this stru c tu re of apprehension in the following
te rm s : (1) the sym bol u sed itself " s tru c tu re s or fo rm s the ultim ate
re a lity in existence, " and (2) it b ridges
the levels of the " sa c re d " and the "profane" . . . by an exclusive
u se of a p a rtic u la r sym bol, for exam ple, through the "im itation
of a c e le stia l arch ety p e" or rep etitio n of the acts of the gods. ^
In other w ords, the "m ythical" s tru c tu re of apprehension co n sists of
the rep etitio n of arch ety p al sym bols in o rd e r to bring a se t of c irc u m
stan ces into being. This is v ariously known as a m ag ical activity or
a s a c ra m e n ta l act. D raw ing larg ely fro m the & atapatha-B rahm apa,
Streng illu stra te s the use of the m ythical stru c tu re in ritu a l sacrifice
w hereby "re a lity is produced in hum an existence through the re p e ti
tion of previous divine action" (p. 139).
S treng continues in his a rtic le to delineate a th ird stru c tu re
w hich he calls the "d ialectical" s tru c tu re . This need not concern us
too m uch in our study inasm uch as Streng u ses it with d ire c t re fe re n c e
to the Buddhist philosopher N agarjuna, and re fe rs to N ag arju n a's af
firm a tio n that all things a r e "em pty" (p. 142). The m eaning of words
is not linked with objective re fe re n ts but is derived fro m the relatio n -
21
Hutchison, p. 271. See also: E m il B runner. The Divine-
Human Encounter (Philadelphia, 1943).
^ S tr e n g , p. 138,
15
ship that th ese w ords have with o th er w ords. That is to say, m eaning
is larg ely contextual and, in this connection, the d iale c tic al approach
of N agarjuna would b e in acc o rd with the "language g am e" idea of
W ittgenstein (p. 144).
S tre n g 's division of the m odes of religious apprehension into
the intuitive and m ythical o r sa c ra m e n ta l m odes (if we exclude the
third, o r "d ialectical" category) m ak es a convenient categ o rical
fram ew o rk within which to te s t the p ra c tic e of T ra h e rn e in his r e l i
gious language. We have noted his u se of the device of paradox, or
S tren g 's "logic of convergence. " With re g a rd to S tre n g 's second
c a te g o ry --th e m ythical, m ag ical, o r s a c ra m e n ta l- -it is possible in
this connection to co n sid er T ra h e rn e 's u se of rep etitio n and a ffirm a
tion as a conscious s tra te g y in the evocation of the state of felicity.
To T ra h e rn e , the p ro c e ss of m editation is designed to bring felicity
into actu al existence: "W hat is m o re E asy and Sweet than M edita
tio n ?" (M editation 8, F ir s t Century), The task set b efo re us is one
of conscious control, a d elib erate m en tal disciplining: "To hav a
Mind com posed of Divine Thoughts, and set in fra m e , to be Like H im
within. To Conceiv arig h t and to enjoy the w orld, is to Conceiv the
Holy G host, and to se e His Lov; Which is the Mind of the F ath er"
(M editation 10, F ir s t Century). Such m editation helps to bring into
existence the felicity to be d erived fro m an a w are n e ss (that can be
cultivated) of the boundless goodness of God. In his approach of r e
collection, re h e rs a l, and affirm atio n , the "setting in fra m e " of o n e's
thoughts, the constant rep etitio n of " re fra in s " of g ratitu d e
16
and felicity, T ra h e rn e would see m to ad h ere to the m ythical or s a c r a
m en tal s tru c tu re of apprehension in S tren g 's categ o ries.
The s tru c tu re s of religious apprehension delineated by Streng,
while a little a rb itra ry , do provide a fram ew o rk for exam ining T r a
h e rn e 's u se of religious language in his C en tu ries. As a p re lim in a ry ,
a study w ill be m ade of T ra h e rn e 's b asic language stru c tu re and of
how far it tra n scen d s the linguistic vehicle available to him . Then
an attem p t w ill be m ade to exam ine T ra h e rn e 's use of paradox to
re la te the w ork to S tren g 's firs t category of "intuition" (the "logic of
convergence"). Finally, the "m ythical" or "sa c ra m e n ta l" approach
w ill be applied to the C en tu ries in the light of T ra h e rn e 's use of
c e rta in "p arad ig m s" of reality , dynam ic m odes of m editation for the
achieving of felicity.
C H A PTER II
THE BASIC STRUCTURE O F TRAHERNE'S
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
The aim of this ch ap ter is to exam ine the language s tru c tu re
of T ra h e rn e 's C en tu ries in the light of S tren g 's postulation that " v e r
bal sym bols a r e an in trin sic p a rt of the apprehension of ultim ate
truth, in o th er w ords, that religious aw aren ess and its subsequent
artic u la tio n a r e inextricably connected with the context of ex p ressio n .
P re c is e ly what constitutes this context of e x p ressio n for T ra h e rn e 's
C en tu ries will be the concern of the investigation in this ch ap ter.
What "v e rb a l sym b o ls" a re param o u n t in T ra h e rn e , and how far do
they govern his "ap prehension" and articu latio n ? The investigation
has a double interest: it should help to illum inate the sp ecial sp h ere
of religious language, indicating m o re p re c ise ly the governing
facto rs in relig io u s apprehension and its articu latio n ; it should also
throw light on the b asic language sy ste m of T ra h e rn e , revealing the
m odes of p erception and artic u la tio n that a re fundam ental in his w ork.
S tre n g 's postulation is, in e ssen c e, alm o st the sa m e as that
known as the "W horfian" hypothesis, although W horf was not concerned
^Streng, p. 153.
17
18
p rim a rily with relig io u s language. Benjam in Lee W horf, a pioneer
linguist in Hopi Indian language, M iddle A m erican , and g e n era l lin
g u istics, postulated that the s tru c tu re of language affects not only our
thought p ro c e s s e s , but also our percep tio n of the w orld. F r o m his
ex cu rsio n s into the linguistic study of Hopi Indian, for exam ple, W horf
a rriv e d at the conclusion that the w orld of the Hopi Indian is a d iffe r
ently p erceiv ed w orld fro m that of o u r own. The Hopi language, he
found, for exam ple, contains no w ords or ex p ressio n s to convey what
2
we ca ll " tim e ," eith er p ast, p re se n t, or future. N either is sp ace for
the Hopi Indian "the hom ogeneous and instantaneous tim e le ss space of
our supposed intuition o r of c la s s ic a l Newtonian m ech an ics" (p. 58).
Instead, the w o rld -v iew or m etap h y sics of the Hopi Indian is e x p r e s
sed in his language in te rm s of "M ANIFESTED AND MANIFESTING"
(p. 59).
In an e ssay , "Language, Mind, and R eality, " W horf e x p re sse s
his th eo ry succinctly: "the fo rm s of a p e rso n 's thoughts a r e con
tro lle d by inexorable laws of p a tte rn of which he is unconscious. T hese
p a tte rn s a re the unperceived in tric a te sy stem atizatio n s of his own
language" (p. 252). The questions we shall co n sid er a r e (1) by what
"inexorable law s of p a tte rn " w as T ra h e rn e "co n tro lled "; w ere they
"inexorable" for him and, indeed, w as he "co n tro lled " by them ? (2)
how fa r was T ra h e rn e 's language his "own language, " and how m uch
of it w as derived?
2
B enjam in Lee W horf, Language, Thought, and R ea lity , ed.
John B. C a rro ll (M assach u setts, 1956), p. 57.
19
A second, r a th e r m ore tra n sc e n d e n ta l, co n clu sio n that W horf
a r r iv e d at, and w hich is g e rm a n e to our investigation, w as that, w hile
th e re a r e p a tte rn s of language w h ich o p e ra te f r o m the le v e l of a s o r t
of co llectiv e u n co n scio u sn ess, o r r a c ia l "m ind, " governing and d i c
tating the co m m u n icatio n p a tte rn s of the individual, o cca sio n a lly the
in sp ire d m an o r a r t is t m a y ris e above th e level of th e se " tra c k s of
p a tte r n ." By a " stillin g of this a c tiv ity " the s e e r , or th e a r tis t, m ay
ach iev e "a tre m en d o u s expansion, brightening and clarify in g of c o n
sc io u s n e s s, in w hich the in te lle c t functions w ith u n d re a m e d -o f r a
pidity and s u re n e s s " (p. 268-269).
W ith this second co n clu sio n of W h o rf's in m ind, then, and
exam ining T r a h e r n e 's language in the lig h t of b o th S tre n g 's and Whorf's
p o stu latio n s, it m ay be p o ssib le to a s c e rta in w h eth er T ra h e rn e d o es,
in fact, tra n sc e n d the linguistic v eh icle w ithin w hich he is o p eratin g ,
achieving the illu m in atio n c h a r a c te r is tic of the s u c c e s s fu l w rite r by
a "b rig h ten in g and clarify in g of c o n sc io u sn e ss. "
One m ight, fa irly leg itim ately , b e led to suppose that an a r t i s
tic a lly con tro llin g fa c to r in the language of the C e n tu rie s would b e the
Bible. T ra h e rn e h im se lf speaks of the im p o rta n c e of the Bible to
h im - - " a Book fro m H eaven" (III. 2 7 )--in his p o em , "On N ew s" (III. 26),
w hich gave h im in fo rm atio n on " th e W ays of felicity " w hich he had
thought "to be known only among the Holy A ngels" (III. 27). This jo y
ous " d isc o v e ry " of the B ible and its good news c a m e a f te r a p e rio d of
d isillu sio n m e n t w ith the "T in sild W are" (III. 9) of the w orld:
And by that Book I found that th e r e w a s an e te rn a l GOD, who
loved m e infinitly, that I was h is Son, that I w as to o v e rc o m
20
D eath, and to liv for ev er, that He C re a te d the W orld for m e,
th a t I w as to R eign in His T h ro n e and to In h erit all Things.
(III. 29)
To a g re a t extent, as T ra h e rn e te lls us, the im p o rtan ce of his
d isc o v e ry of the "good new s" s e rv e d as co n firm atio n of his instinctive
and e a rly childhood b elief in the ra d ia n t, unblem ished, p e rfectio n of
the w orld:
T h en cefo rth I thought the Light of H eaven w as in this W orld:
I saw it P o ss ib le , and v e ry P ro b a b le , that I was infinitly Beloved
of A lm ighty God, the D elights of P a ra d ic e w ere round about m e,
H eaven and E a rth w ere open to m e, a ll R iches w e re little Things,
this one P le a s u r e being so G re a t that it exceeded a ll the Joys of
Eden. (III. 35)
A p a rt fro m th ese indications by T ra h e rn e of the B ib le's im
p o rta n c e to him , any a p rio ri a ssu m p tio n that the B ible w as an a r t i s
tic a lly and lin g u istically controlling m ed iu m m u st be offset by the
following fa c ts:
1. T ra h e rn e w as a c lerg y m an , but this does not m ean that he
w as n e c e s s a rily confined in his knowledge and in te re s t to one book
(d esp ite the h isto ria n G re e n 's a s s e r tio n that England b ecam e "the
people of one Book").
2. T ra h e rn e would be in co n stan t use of the P r a y e r Book, not
only on Sunday, but also daily.
3. H is education was wide and his so u rc e s nu m b er F icino,
P ico , A ugustine, H e rm e s T ris m e g is tu s , Bishop A n d rew es, to nam e
but a fra c tio n of his volum inous read in g . T r a h e r n e 's C om m onplace
Book (MS. Eng. poet. c. 42) a lso in d icates wide read in g and carefu l
n ote-taking.
4. As a cle rg y m an he w as m o st c e rta in ly influenced by
21
p rev ailin g p reach in g " fa sh io n s" --d u rin g his chaplaincy to S ir Orlando
B ridgem an fro m 1669 to 1674 he was resid in g in and n e ar London, and
th e re fo re exposed to "fashionable" life. W hile the C en tu rie s is in the
g en re of devotional and m ed itatio n al lite ra tu re th e re a re , nevertheless,
m any m om ents when the lilting cadences of the p r e a c h e r -- p a rtic u la r ly
the H erefo rd (and, thus, a lm o st W elsh) p r e a c h e r - - c a n be h eard . It
is a fine line w hich d istin g u ish ed th em fro m the serm o n .
D ire c t influence of the Bible upon the C en tu ries is not so wide-
3
sp read as one m ight suppose. Unlike Bunyan who, although w riting
som e sixty y e a rs after the publication of the A uthorized V ersio n , was
com pletely dom inated in his style by the Bible, T ra h e rn e was a m an of
co n sid erab le education. Evidence of B iblical influence upon the la n
guage of the C en tu ries can be c la ssifie d in the following w ays: (1)
d ire c t lifting or p a ra p h ra s e of the S c rip tu re s (p a rtic u la rly the Psalm s)
(2) the u se of ran d o m p h ra s e s fro m the Bible which one m ight c a ll the
v e rb a l coinage of the P r e a c h e r - - a s o rt of M grab-bagf'of sto ck p h ra se s
such as the A nglo-Saxon scop had at hand, providing him w ith an ex
p o sito ry sh o rt-h a n d or m nem onic device; (3) evidence of T ra h e rn e 's
u se of p a r a lle lis m which, it m u st be re m e m b e re d , w as a governing
th o u g h t-stru c tu re to the H ebrew w rite r ra th e r m o re than a poetic de
vice; (4) s im ila ritie s in T ra h e rn e 's u se of diction to that of Old
3
D espite the a s s e rtio n of Siegel that the Bible " la rg e ly d e te r
m ined both his p ro s e -rh y th m s and his technique of re ite ra tin g his
ideas in v aried fo rm s" (in a d isse rta tio n : "E le m en ts of the Old T e s ta
m en t in E a rly Seventeenth C entury E nglish P o e try " [U n iv e rsity of
Southern C alifo rn ia, 1956], p. 256).
22
T e sta m e n t w r ite r s , in his attitude tow ard P la c e and T im e, as w ell as
a c e rta in tendency tow ard g en eralizatio n .
It w ill be noted fro m the above lis t th at (1) and (2) tend to in
d icate a se le c tiv ity on the p a r t of T ra h e rn e , w hile (3) and (4) could
p o ssib ly be u se d to show that the Bible did indeed e x e rt a controlling
influence upon his m odes of thought and ex p re ssio n . L et us exam ine
th ese evidences of Bible influence point by point:
1. A sectio n of the C e n tu rie s w h ere th e re is m o re or le ss
d ire c t lifting o r P a r a p h ra s e of the P s a lm s is fro m III. 70 to III. 93.
H ere it is in te re stin g to note th at T ra h e rn e u se s the P sa lm s a lm o st as
c o rro b o ra tio n for his own view s of the w orld, and, in his p ra is e s for
the C reatio n , identifies h im se lf w ith David, w hom he ap o stro p h ise s
in his poem , "In S alem dw elt a G lorious King" (III. 69): "I w as d e
lighted, " says T ra h e rn e (III. 70), "to se e so G lo rio u s a P e rs o n , so
G re a t a P rin c e . . . rejoycing in the sa m e things. "
M argoliouth, in his n o tes, has adequately identified the P sa lm s
w hich c o rre sp o n d w ith the re lev a n t sectio n s of the C e n tu rie s . The
P s a lm s a r e re p ro d u c e d a lm o st v e rb a tim ; it is, as M argoliouth c o m
m e n ts, as though T ra h e rn e w orked w ith his B ible open b efo re him.
O ccasionally one se n se s that he is quoting fro m m e m o ry and, on o c
casio n , the P r a y e r Book v e rsio n of a P s a lm w ill take o ver. An e x
am p le fro m III. 51 is given below with the co rresp o n d in g P s a lm 8 for
c o m p a riso n , in both the A. V. and P r a y e r Book v e rsio n s :
23
C e n tu rie s
III. 71.7-10
A. V.
Thou has m ade him
a little low er then
the A ngels, and h a st an g els, and h a st
P s a lm 8 . 5 - 6
F o r thou has m ade him
a little low er than the
crow ned him w ith
G lo ry and H onor.
Thou has given him
D om inion over the
W orks of thy Hands,
Thou has put a ll
things in Subjection
u n d er his feet.
crow ned him with
g lo ry and honour.
Thou m a d e st him to
have dom inion over
the w o rk s of thy
hands; thou h a st put
a ll things un d er his
feet.
Book of
C om m on P r a y e r
P s a lm 8 . 5 - 6
Thou m a d e s t him
lo w er than the an g els:
to crow n h im with
g lo ry and w o rsh ip .
Thou m a k e st him to
have dom inion of the
w o rk s of thy hands:
and thou h a s t put a ll
things in su b jectio n
un d er his feet.
In his f ir s t se n te n c e , T ra h e rn e m o re c lo se ly follow s the w ording of
the A. V. ; in th e second, he follow s the Book- of C om m on P r a y e r w hen
he fa v o rs "in su b jec tio n un d er his feet" o v er the A. V. "thou h ast put
a ll things u nder his feet. "
A fa c to r, incidentally, that M argoliouth does not m ention in his
r e m a r k s that T r a h e r n e w orked w ith the Bible open b e fo re h im is th at
he a lso , quite obviously, w orked through the P s a lte r in sy ste m a tic
p ro g re s s io n for this sectio n of the C e n tu r ie s , e .g . , fo r Sections 71
th ro u g h 92, the c o rre sp o n d in g P s a lm s a r e in th is o r d e r: 8, 19, 22,
24, 28, 33, 35, 36, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 58, 59, 63, 65, 6 6 ,
74, 84, 8 6, 107.
2. T hroughout the C e n tu rie s , T ra h e rn e exhibits a fa c ility (not
u n u su al in a p re a c h e r) in re c a llin g B iblical p h r a s e s , w hich he u se s as
a v a ila b le c u rre n c y for his own exposition. T h e se include p h ra s e s
such a s the follow ing, w hich a r e chosen as r e p re s e n ta tiv e s and a r e
by no m ean s in clu siv e:
24
Sons of Men (IV. 43. 22); Son of God (IV. 70. 1); T h ro n e of God
(IV. 71. 1); H eir of the W orld (I. 3. 5); The fe llo w sh ip of the
M y ste ry (I. 5. 1); T he God of a ll G ra c e (I. 5. 5); R ic h e s of D a rk
n e ss (I. 33. 1); a T r e a s u r e in H eaven (I. 41. 6); T r e e of Life
(1.43. 4); Im age of H is Lov (I. 67. 18); H osts of H eaven (I. 67. 11);
K ingdom s of the E a rth (I. 67. 11); Im age of His G lo ry (II. 84. 17).
It is in te re stin g to note, in connection with T r a h e r n e 's u se of the
above p h r a s e s , that o c c a s io n a lly --p e rh a p s b e c a u se he fo rg o t the o r ig
inal p h r a s e - - h e will tra n s m u te the B ib lical w ords to those of his own.
F o r exam ple, in r e g a rd to T r a h e r n e 's p h ra s e , "H e ir of the W o rld ,"
the u su al B ib lical p h rasin g is "H eir of God" (Gal. 4. 7), or " h e ir of a ll
th in g s" (H ebr. 1.2); T r a h e r n e 's p h ra s e , "H e ir of the W o rld ," then, is
e ith er a c c id e n ta l or a d e lib e ra te tra n sm u ta tio n of th e A. V. o rig in al.
S im ila rly , T r a h e r n e 's "R ich es of D a rk n e ss " is p ro b ab ly a tr a n s m u ta
tion of " T r e a s u r e s of d a rk n e s s " (Isaiah 45. 3). T r a h e r n e 's "Im ag e of
H is Lov" is d eriv ed evidently fro m su c h g e n e ric te r m s as "m an in his
own im ag e" (Gen. 1. 26). "H o sts of heaven" is found in the sin g u la r in
the A. V. (J e r. 33. 22), w hile the p lu ra l "h o sts" is found in "D.4rd of
h o sts" (Je r. 20.12; J e r . 23.36; M ai. 2.16); T r a h e r n e 's "H osts of
H eaven, " then, seem s to b£ a co m p o site of his own. T h e se a d a p ta
tions tend to co n firm a se le c tiv ity on T r a h e r n e 's p a r t in his u se of
av a ilab le p h ra sin g , a flexible and c re a tiv e u s e of m a te r ia ls that w e re ,
n e v e rth e le s s , av ailab le to him a s re a d y -m a d e and p r e -f a b r ic a te d tools
fo r his u se.
3. In connection w ith tra d e s of p a ra lle lis m in the C e n tu r ie s ,
it should be rep e a ted th at such a d ev ice, if found, w ould be m o re
lik ely to in dicate the e x ertio n of a co n tro llin g influence on T r a h e r n e 's
25
m odes of thought and e x p re ss io n in asm u ch as the device of p a r a lle lis m
w as m o re a governing th o u g h t-s tru c tu re in H ebrew thought than p r i
m a rily a poetic device.
One of the m o st s c h o la rly tre a tm e n ts of p a r a lle lis m is found in
4
H a s tin g s 1 D ictio n ary of the B ib le . H astings re c o rd s that p a r a lle lis m w as
f ir s t reco g n ized by Bishop Low th in De s a c r a p o e si H e b ra e o ru m (1753):
p a r a lle lis m u s m e m b ro ru m - not . . . a fo rm a l c o n triv a n ce like
rh y m e , a sso n a n c e , a llite ra tio n , . . . but w ith a connexion by
m ean s of the se n se, w hich finds its full e x p re ss io n only in
p a ra lle lis m , and, a t the sa m e tim e , in p a r a lle lis m s e p a ra te s
itse lf fro m w hat p re c e d e s and w hat follow s.
The key w o rd s to L ow th's "definition" a r e "a connexion by m ean s of
the s e n se ," w hich he c a re fu lly d istin g u ish es fro m tech n ical dev ices
such a s rh y m e , a sso n a n c e , and a llite ra tio n . Lowth d istin g u ish e s
th re e kinds of p a ra lle lis m : synonym ous, a n tith etic, and synthetic.
The f ir s t kind, synonym ous, is w hen the w o rd s of the second h alf of
the p a r a lle l s tr u c tu r e e x p re ss p r e c is e ly the m eaning of the f ir s t half
of the s tr u c tu r e w ith a slig h t su b stitu tio n o f w o rd s. The second kind of
p a ra lle lis m , a n tith etic, c o n sists of a p r im a r y a s s e r tio n in the f ir s t half of
the s tr u c tu r e , followed by an an tith etic re sp o n s e in the second half of
the s tr u c tu r e . The th ird kind of p a r a lle lis m w hich Low th d is c e rn s ,
sy n th etic, is s im ila r to the f ir s t, synonym ous, except that the second
half of the p a r a lle lis m c o n trib u tes to the m ean in g of the f ir s t h alf by
a m odulation of the s e n se and w ords in the in itial thought: it d iffers
fro m synonym ous p a r a lle lis m in that the m eaning of the f ir s t and s e c
ond p a r ts of the s tr u c tu r e is not p r e c is e ly the s a m e , but the second
4
Ed. J a m e s H astings (Edinburgh, 1923), IV, 4.
p a rt co n trib u tes and adds to the firs t; it d iffers fro m antithetic p a r a l
le lis m in that th e re is no elab o ratio n of the thought e x p re sse d in the
f ir s t p a rt by m eans of an antithetic sta te m e n t in the second. E xam ples
w ill help to m ake c le a r the th re e c a te g o rie s. The f ir s t kind of p a r a l
le lism , synonym ous, is shown in the following p a ssa g e s:
H ear m y p ra y e r, O Lord, give e a r to m y supplications.
T h e re fo re is m y s p irit o v erw helm ed within m e; m y h e a rt within
m e is d eso la te . (P salm 143:1,4)
A ntithetic p a r a lle lis m is shown in the following exam ples:
A thousand sh all fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy rig h t
hand; but it sh a ll not com e nigh thee. (P sa lm 91:7)
And though a fte r m y skin w o rm s d e stro y this body, yet in m y
fle sh sh all 1 se e God. (Job 19:26)
L a stly , the th ird kind of p a ra lle lis m , synthetic, is seen in the follow
ing:
They sh a ll lie down alike in the d u st, and the w o rm s sh all co v er
them . (Job 21:26)
They slay the widow and the s tra n g e r, and m u rd e r the fa th e rle s s.
(P sa lm 94:6)
The righteous sh a ll flo u rish like the p alm tre e : he sh all grow
like a ced ar in Lebanon. (P sa lm 92:12)
The p a tte rn of thought known a s p a r a lle lis m w hich is so firm ly e m
bedded in the H ebrew w r ite rs ' a p p ro ac h is also found in the C e n tu rie s .
It can be seen that the rhythm s of the p a ra lle l s tru c tu re s in the A. V. ,
by T r a h e r n e 's constant exposure to th em , influenced his style; m o r e
o v er, p a r a lle lis m as a m ode of thought, b e c u a se of T r a h e r n e 's long
exposure to its e x p ressio n , b ec a m e ingrained in his own rh e to ric .
T ra h e rn e 's u s e of an tith etic p a r a lle lis m can be c le a rly seen
27
in the following p a ssa g e s fro m the C e n tu rie s :
They a r e Deep Instructions that a re taken out of H ell, and
H eavenly D ocum ents that a r e taken fro m abov. (1:50)
He thought within h im self that this W orld was fa r b e tte r then
P a ra d ic e had m en Eys to se e its G lory, and th eir A dvantages,
for the v e ry M ise rie s and sin s and offences that a re in it, a re the
M ate rials of his Joy and T riu m p h and G lory. (IV:21)
They that would not upon E a rth see th eir Wants fro m all E ternity,
sh all in H ell see th e ir T r e a s u re s to all E ternity. (1:48)
T ra h e rn e 's u se of synthetic p a ra lle lis m can be seen in the
following exam ples:
we m u st d isro b e our selvs of all fals C o lo rs, and unclothe our
Souls of evil Habits (111:5)
Who m o re P r iz e th our Naked Lov then T em ples full of Gold:
W hose Naked Lov is m o re Delightful to us then all w orlds.
( 11: 60)
that E a rth w as b e tte r then Gold, and that W ater w as, every
D rop of it, a P re c io u s Jew el. (111:8)
Exam ples of synonym ous p a ra lle lis m a r e difficult to find in the C en
tu rie s . The c lo se st T ra h e rn e com es to this type of p a ra lle lis m is in
the following instances:
E tern ity is a M ysterious A bsence of T im es and A ges: an Endless
Length of Ages alw ays p re se n t, and for ever P e rfe c t. (V:7)
Our B rid eg ro o m and our King being evry w here, our Lover and
D efender w atchfully governing a ll W orlds. (V:10)
You never Enjoy the w orld arig h t, till the Sea it self flow eth in
your V eins, till you a re Clothed w ith the H eavens, and Crowned
with the S ta rs. (1:29)
4. Turning now to the fo u rth categ o ry of B iblical influence
upon the language of the C e n tu rie s , it can be seen that, ju st as T r a
herne echoes som ew hat the H ebrew habit of thought known as p a ra le l-
ism , so also th e re a r e s im ila ritie s to other H ebrew m odes of thought.
28
A m ong th ese a r e T r a h e r n e 's attitu d e to w ard s P la c e and T im e , a te n
dency tow ard g e n e ra liz a tio n , and, above a ll, his sim p le and d ire c t u s e
of diction.
M ary E llen C h ase, in her L ife and Language in the Old T e s ta
m e n t, defines the chief c h a r a c te r is tic s of Old T e sta m e n t language
(particularly in the e a rly p e rio d of its developm ent, c. 1000 B .C . to
586 or 536 B. C. - - th e " C la s s ic a l" p erio d ) as one of su p re m e sim p li
city. The language, acco rd in g to M iss C h ase,
w as p r im a r ily a language of the se n se s and the em o tio n s, one
w hich w as seem in g ly m ad e to a ro u s e and s ta rtle . . . . T hese
sim p le , vivid, hom ely w o rd s re s e m b le the A nglo-Saxon w ords
in our own language w ith th eir c o n c re te n e s s , th e ir stre n g th ,
and th eir em o tio n al appeal; and this s im ila rity b ecam e of im
m e n se im p o rta n c e and value to th e E n g lish tra n s la to r s of the
Old T e sta m e n t. In fact, in itself it accounts for m uch of the
a c c u ra c y and of the tone and s p ir it of the King J a m e s V ersio n .
(p. 143)
The s im p lic ity of th is language, M iss C h ase ex p lain s, is due
to s e v e ra l fa c to rs : the u se of sim p le c o n c re te nouns, or pronouns
and v e rb s, w hich " fo rm the sh arp , c le a r p a tte rn s of sen te n ce after
sen te n ce in the e a rly n a rra tiv e s " (p. 151); the "sim p lic ity and d ir e c t
n e ss a r e en fo rced and heightened by the device of re p e titio n ," (p. 152)
known as p a ra lle lis m ; "ad jec tiv e s a r e u sed . . . sp a rin g ly and, for
the m o st p a rt, singly. The sam e is tru e in the c a s e of a d v e rb s"
(p. 152); fig u re s of sp eech w e re draw n fro m " fa m ilia r im ag es and
ob jects . . . w ithin th e ir h o m es, o r fro m the daily occupations in
towns o r v illa g e s, o r fro m fa m ilia r b e a s ts and b ird s : ovens o r cakes
of b read , etc. " (p. 157).
29
The d ire c tn e ss and sim p licity w hich M iss C hase re c o rd s as
being c h a ra c te ris tic of Old T e stam en t w rite rs a r e also identifying
tra its in T r a h e r n e 's language. In fact, his sim p licity has so m etim es
been c ritic iz e d as alm o st banal; his poetic im ag ery has been c ritic iz e d
as lacking ric h n e ss and v ariety . It does seem that T ra h e rn e stands on
the side of Jo h n so n 's Im lac, w hose dictum was that the poet "does not
num ber the stre a k s of the tulip, o r d esc rib e the different shades in the
verdure of the fo re st. " T ra h e rn e does, indeed, deal in the m o re " g e n
e ra l p ro p e rtie s and larg e a p p earan ces" of things: he speaks frequently
for in stan ce, of "jew els" and " ric h e s" in both his p o etry and p ro se ,
without elaborating with the ric h n e ss of a Keats on the beauty and b r i l
liance of the individual gem . But T ra h e rn e is not alone in such g e n
eralizing: H e rb e rt, who is g en erally c o n sid e red the b etter poet, also
uses the g en eric "jew ell" in his poem , "M arie M agdalene":
When b le sse d M arie w ip'd h er Saviours feet
(Whose p re c e p ts she had tra m p led on before)
And w o re them for a jew ell on her head.
One sch o la r who com es to T r a h e rn e 's defense for his sim plicity of
diction is D r. Hugh K enner who, in an introduction to an anthology s e
lection of T r a h e r n e 's poetry, a ffirm s that T ra h e rn e is, in fact, "ten -
5
uously linked to H e rb e rt by an u n clu ttere d felicity of diction. "
T ra h e rn e 's d ire ct and sim p le m an n er of approach, and his sim p lic -
5
Seventeenth C entury P o etry : The Schools of Donne and
Jo n so n , ed. Hugh K enner. (New York, 1964), p. 272.
30
ity - - a lm o s t s ta rk n e s s - -of diction, can be seen c le a rly in the follow
ing p a s sa g e fro m the F i r s t C entury, Section 46, w h ere he is i m p r e s
sing upon his r e a d e r the need for a w a re n e s s of and g ra titu d e for things
w hich we often take for granted:
It w as His W isdom m ade you N eed the Sun. It w as His G oodness
m ad e you need the sea . Be se n sib le of w hat you need, o r Enjoy
n e ith e r. C o n sid er how m uch you need them . F o r thence they
D eriv e th e ir V alue. Suppose the Sun w ere Extinguished: o r the
Sea w e re D rie. T h e re would be no Light, no Beauty, no W arm th,
no F r u its , no F lo w e rs , no P le a sa n t G a rd e n s, F e a s ts o r P r o s
p e c ts. No wine no Oyl no B read , no Life, no M otion. Would you
not give a ll the Gold and S ilv er in the Indies for such a T r e a s u re ?
P r iz e it now you have it, a t that R ate, and you sh a ll be a G ratefu l
C re a tu re : Nay you sh a ll be a Divine and H eavenly P e rso n . F o r
they in H eaven do P r iz e B lessin g s when they hav th em . They
in E a rth when they hav them P r iz e th e m not, They in H ell P r iz e
them , when they have th em not.
It can re a d ily be seen that the " fa m ilia r im ages and objects
. . . fro m the d aily occupations in towns or v illag es, " m entioned by
M iss C h ase as c h a r a c te r is tic of Old T e sta m e n t language, a r e also
c h a r a c te r is tic of that of T ra h e rn e . His cataloging of "no W arm th, no
F r u its , no F lo w e rs , no P le a s a n t G ard en s . . . No w ine no Oyl no
B read , " fulfills p r e c is e ly the c r ite r ia M iss C h ase defines as typical
of the H ebrew attitu d e s. Nothing is too sm a ll, nothing too b a se for
T r a h e r n e , to w hom "a Sand E xhibiteth the W isdom and P o w er of God,"
(I. 27); he co n stan tly ex h o rts his r e a d e r to e x p re ss g ra titu d e for even
the s m a lle s t of c re a te d things w hich a r e b e tte r than " a ll the Gold and
It m u st be s tr e s s e d that th e re a r e o th e r facets of T r a h e r n e 's
sty le and a p p ro a c h w hich a r e by no m ean s sim p le; this w ill b eco m e
c le a r as the ex am ination of his b a s ic language s tr u c tu r e p ro c e e d s.
A t this point, T r a h e r n e 's kinship w ith the sim p licity and d ire c tn e s s of
Old T e sta m e n t language is being s tr e s s e d .
31
S ilver in the Indies. " It is a lm o st as though his hum ility in becom ing
"a s a little c h ild ," and stooping to p erceiv e the neglected m in u tiae of
ex isten ce, extends also to his u s e of w o rd s: he chooses and accepts
th em in th e ir u n em b ro id e red sim p licity and ric h n e ss of connotation.
T h e re is , n e v e rth e le ss, a kind of p rim itiv e stre n g th in his d ire c t list-
»
ing of "no L ig h t,‘no Beauty, no W arm th, no F r u its ," w hich is r h e to r i
cally effective, m o re so p erh ap s b ecu ase of th e m a rk e d absence of a d
jectiv es and adverbs (a featu re which, it w ill be re m e m b e re d , M iss C hase
d e sc rib e s as c h a ra c te ris tic of Old T e sta m e n t sentence s tru c tu re s ).
It can thus be seen fro m o u r exam ination of four c a te g o rie s of
B iblical "influence" upon T r a h e r n e - - d ir e c t "lifting" o r p a ra p h ra s e ,
u se of B iblical p h ra se s a s a s h o rt-c u t for his own exposition, u se of
the rh e to ric a l device of p a ra lle lis m , and a sim p licity of diction and a
d ire c tn e ss of approach re m in isc e n t of Old T e sta m e n t w r ite r s - - th a t
the s tru c tu re s of thought m ade available to T ra h e rn e in the m edium of
the Bible did, in fact, e x e rt a c e rta in controlling influence upon his
own content, style, and a ttitu d es. The firs t two c a te g o rie s, as noted
e a r lie r, indicate a g re a te r sele ctiv ity on the p a rt of T ra h e rn e , w h ere
as the la tte r categ o ries of p a ra lle lis m and sim p lic ity in ap p ro ach and
diction would s e e m to indicate a m o re total su b m erg en ce of T ra h e rn e
7
in the language and th o u g h t-stru c tu re of the H ebrew w r ite rs .
7
In speaking of the influence of the th o u g h t-stru c tu re s of the
B ible upon the language of T ra h e rn e , it is m o st im p o rtan t to d e te r
m ine to w hat extent the o rig in a l H ebraic th o u g h t-p attern s surv iv ed
in the A uthorized V ersio n tra n sla tio n and w hat elem ents of sev en
teenth cen tu ry sty listic fashion intrude. The question is co n sid ered
in the Appendix.
32
W hile it is p o ssib le , then, to d e m o n stra te how T ra h e rn e w as,
to a c e rta in extent, influenced by the m odes of thought and language of
the A. V. , it m u st be s tr e s s e d , as w as m entioned e a r lie r in this c h a p
te r , that one m u st not m ake any a p r io r i assu m p tio n that the Bible w as
the one and only controlling fa c to r, a rtis tic a lly and lin g u istically , for
T ra h e rn e . As a c le rg y m a n he undoubtedly m ade co n stan t u se of the
P r a y e r Book of the C hurch of England. M ention has a lre a d y been
m ade above (p. 23) of T r a h e r n e 's o ccasio n al p re fe re n c e for the P ra y e r
Book w ording in the choice of so m e of his p h ra s e s o v er that of the A.V.
O ther in stan ce s of the P r a y e r B ook's influence can b e seen in the fol-
Q
lowing co m p a riso n s betw een th e C en tu rie s and the P r a y e r Book.
The following p a ssa g e fro m the F i r s t C entury, for exam ple:
A ll the K ingdom s of the W orld and the G lory of th em a r e continualy
in his Ey: The P a tr ia r c h s P ro p h ets and A postles a r e alw ays b e
fo re Him . The C ounsels and the fa th e rs , the B ishops and the
D o cto rs m in is te r unto H im . (I. 54)
is stro n g ly re m in is c e n t in content, if not in s tru c tu re , of a p assag e
fro m the F o r m of the O rd erin g of P r ie s t s - - c e r t a i n l y a fa m ilia r one to
an o rd ain ed p r i e s t - -
[ J e s u s C h rist] sente ab ro d e into the w orld his A p o stles, P ro p h e ts,
E u a n g e lis te s , D o cto u rs, and P a s to u r s , by w hose lab o u re and
m in iste ry e he g ath ered to g eth er a g re a te flocke in al the p a rte s
of the w orlde, to s e tte fu rth the e te rn a ll p ra y se of thy holy
nam e. °
F o r th e se co m p ariso n s the ex am p les w ere taken fro m the
Second P r a y e r Book of E dw ard V I - - The Boke of Com m on P r a y e r and
A d m in istrac io n of the S a c ra m e n te s, and o th er R ites and C erem o n ies
in the C hurche of E ngland, London, E dw ard W hytchurche, 1552,
re p rin te d E v e ry m a n L ib ra ry , [ n .d . J .
o
P r a y e r Book, p. 457.
33
T h e b asic ten o r of the C en tu ries - -th a t the e sse n tia l p u rp o se for which
th e w orld and its inhabitants w e re c re a te d is to re tu rn p ra is e s to God
- - i s also the c e n tra l them e of the Te D eum , a daily a c t of w o rsh ip
fa m ilia r to T ra h e rn e and a ll A nglicans in the O rd e r of M orning Prayer.
T h e Te D eum beginning its p r a is e on a g en eral note w ith the opening
v e r s e , "O a ll ye w o rk es of the L ord, b le s s e ye the L o rd e: p ra y s e
h ym , and m agnifye hym for e u er, " continues w ith the specific c a te
g o rie s of c re a te d things, the A ngels, the "w a ters that b e aboue the
f ir m a m e n t," the Sun, the Moon, the se a so n s, Ice and Snow, the Seas,
b ird s , b e a s ts and c a ttle , "c h ild ren of m e n ," and so on, with the in
junction to each to b le s s and m agnify God. T r a h e r n e ’s them e th ro u g h
out the C en tu rie s is s im ila rly b ased on the need for su ch p ra is e and
w o rsh ip , for such p r a is e s u rp a s s e s in im p o rtan ce even the c re a tio n
itself:
A re not P r a is e s the v ery End for w hich the W orld w as c re a te d ?
Do they not co n sist as it w e re of Knowledg, C om placency, and
Thanksgiving? A re they not B etter then a ll the fowls and fish es
in the W orld? W hat a re the C attel upon a thousand H ils but C a r-
c a is e s , without C re a tu re s that can rejo y ce in GOD, and enjoy
them ? It is evident that P r a is e s a r e infinitly m o re ex cellen t
then a ll the c re a tu re s becaus they p ro c e ed fro m M en and
A n g e ls. (III. 82)
It should be em p h asiz ed at this point th a t this exam ination of
the C e n tu rie s to d isc o v e r the b a sic language s tru c tu re of T ra h e rn e is
not s s o u rc e study. U sing the hypotheses of S treng and Whorf a s u s e
ful c r ite r ia for the exam ination, the a im is to d elin eate as far as p o s
sib le w hat a r e the " v e rb a l sym b o ls" that a re , fo r T ra h e rn e in the
C e n tu r ie s , "an in trin sic p a rt of the ap p reh en sio n and a rtic u la tio n of
34
u ltim ate truth" (S treng's c rite ria ), and to a s c e rta in how far these
sym bols fo rm (in W horf's te rm s ) "in ex o rab le law s of p a tte rn . " It has
been seen that while c e rta in language p a tte rn s and thought s tru c tu re s
p e cu lia r to the Bible had an undoubted controlling effect on T ra h e rn e 's
thought and a rtic u la tio n it cannot be assu m ed on the a p r io r i grounds
of his subject m a tte r and vocation that the Bible was the sole q u a rry
for his language. The A nglican P r a y e r Book, as we have seen,
form ed a daily p a tte rn in his ex perience. M o reover, T ra h e rn e 's
education was extensive. As we saw e a r lie r his C om m onplace Book
, . : 4 \
v •
indicates wide reading and carefu l note-taking. Of the C h u rch 's Y ear-
Book (Bodl. Ms. Eng. th. e. 51), a book of devotions for the p rin c ip a l
days of the C hurch C alendar. M iss C a ro l L . M arks sta te s that about
half is taken fro m other w rite rs . ^ A fact of in te re st to our study is
M iss M ark 's statem en t:
thanks m ainly to T ra h e rn e 's p ersiste n t, if m addening, habit of
assim ilia tin g [ s ic ] to his own m an n er and thought the style
and ideas of o th er w r ite r s - - th e Y ear-B o o k escap es being a m e re
p o tp o u rri.^ D e sp ite the m anifold debts, it b e a r s the stam p of
his mind.
This a ssim ila tio n of au th o rs, continues M iss M ark s, w as of those
"congenial to his own orthodox A nglicanism , and at le a s t a ssim ila b le ,
if the p ro b lem should a r is e , to his m o re individual exaltation of hu
m an dignity. "
H ere we have an indication, by a T ra h e rn e sch o la r, that the
^ T r a h e r n e 's C h u rch 's Y ear B ook," PBSA, F ir s t Q u arter
1966, 31-72.
**M arks, p. 31.
35
th o u g h t-stru c tu res and linguistic p a tte rn s available to T ra h e rn e and
used by him w ere not "inexorable" (in W horf's ph rase), but that he did
a s sim ila te those congenial to him. This view su b stan tiates som ew hat
the p ic tu re that em erg es of T ra h e rn e 's use of the Bible in the C entu
r i e s , which ap p ears to be m o stly for the p u rp o se of c o rro b o ra tin g his
own view s of the w orld, as when, in his p r a is e s for the C reatio n , he
identifies him self with David whom he ap o stro p h ises in his poem ,
"In S alem dwelt a G lorious King. "
The tendency tow ard a "p o tp o u rri" that M iss M ark s m entions
in re g a rd to the C hurch's Y ear-B ook is also constant in the C e n tu rie s .
B esides obvious lifting and p a ra p h ra s e fro m the Bible, th ere a r e
other p a ssa g e s lifted fro m the body of T ra h e rn e 's eru d ite reading.
Sections 75 through 77 of the F o u rth C entury a r e from P ico ("an O ra-
12
tion m ade b efo re a m o st learn ed A ssem b ly in a famous u n iv ersity ").
T ra h e rn e 's debts to A ugustine and to B onaventure's Itin e ra riu m also
13
have been pointed out by Louis L. M artz in The P a ra d ise W ithin.
But what is im p o rtan t in our study is to s e p a ra te carefu lly what m ight
be c la sse d as the influence of ideas on the one hand and, on the other,
the influence of sty listic p attern s of language upon T ra h e rn e , the la t
te r being m o re germ an e to W horf's "law s of pattern" and S tren g 's
"v e rb a l sym bols" which a r e the object of our pursuit.
S tylistically, exam ination re v e a ls that T ra h e rn e , in his
12
O ratio de D ignitate H om inis.
^ (N e w Haven, 1964), pp. 35-102.
36
C e n tu rie s , w as c e rta in ly influenced by p rev ailin g p re a c h in g "fa sh io n s 1 .1
A lthough the w ork has been given the lab el of "M editations, " and a l
though it se e m s that T ra h e rn e w as not w ritin g with publication in
14
m ind, th e re is n e v e rth e le ss the co n sta n t sen se of an audience being
a d d re s s e d (even if it is only an audience of one). It is not s u rp ris in g ,
then, that so m e of the feeling of the spoken se rm o n should com e
through, e sp ec ia lly when one b e a rs in m ind the avowed co n cern of
T ra h e rn e to com m unicate and m in is te r to his r e a d e r 's sp iritu a l needs.
In the opening sectio n of the w ork, for exam ple, he w rite s:
sin ce Love m ade you put it into m y Hands I w ill fill it with those
T ru th s you Love, w ithout Knowing them : and w ith those Things
w hich, if it be P o ssib le , sh all shew m y Lov; To you, in C o m
m unicating m o st E nriching T ru th s: to T ru th , in E xalting H er
B eauties in such a Soul. " (1. 1)
It should not be s u rp ris in g to u s, eith e r, that T ra h e rn e would
adopt som e of the m a n n e rism s of c o n te m p o ra ry preach in g ; as Chaplain
to Sir O rlando B ridgem an fro m 1669 to 1674 he w as in the m id st of
fashionable life. M o reo v er, his r e s e a r c h e s , probably at the Bodleian,
for Rom an F o r g e r i e s , would have exposed him not only to p rin te d s e r
m ons, but also to so m e of the co n v ersatio n s and s e rm o n s of the O x
fo rd divines.
F r o m the reig n of J a m e s I on, one of the m o st popular
"sch o o ls" of the se rm o n w as the "w itty" or "m etap h y sical" one,
14
The ab ru p t change of tone fro m the f ir s t p e rso n sin g u lar to
the m o re fo rm a l "He" at the beginning of Book IV su g g e sts, how ever,
that T ra h e rn e m ay by this tim e have been con sid erin g the p o ssib ility
of publication.
37
15
centering on the serm o n s of Lancelot A ndrew es. The "w it" involved
was le ss v erb al than that of the E lizabethans; it was m o re intellectual
and co ncerned with "discovering resem b lan ces between the m o st d is
p a ra te things, esp ecially w here one of th ese happened to be of a r e l i
gious c h a ra c te r" (p. 6). The sim ila rity betw een "m etaphysical"
p reach in g and the p o etry of Donne and the M etaphysicals can re a d ily b e
seen. The application of learning to the m etap h y sical figure of speech
is also an identifying attrib u te:
When, th e re fo re , we speak of preaching as "m etap h y sical" we
m ean that it is quaint and fan tastic, not b ecau se it em ploys u n
u su al or w him sical ex p ressio n s or im ag es, but that when it does
em ploy such it d eriv es them fro m a background of rem o te
learning, (p. 7)
No elem ent of the m a te ria l included by the p re a c h e r was co n sid ered
too fa r-fe tc h e d or incredible, for he re g a rd e d
all things sub specie a e te r n ita tis ; fro m this viewpoint nothing
em ployed could be co n sid ered m e re ly ridiculous, for the ju x ta
position that invited laughter incidentally rev ealed the highest
truth, and the im possible itself becam e the cred ib le, being, as
T e rtu llia n a ssu re d m en, to be believed, quia im possibile est.
(p. 7)
An adjunct in the p resen tatio n of such juxtapositions was the r h e to r i
cal device of a n tith esis, often resu ltin g in a "jerk y , g rap h -lik e p r o
g r e s s i o n " ; ^ a c e rta in lack of lite ra ry g ra c e is noticeable not only in
A ndrew es but also in his m any im itato rs (p. 163). T hese c h a r a c te r
istics of an tith esis and "je rk y , g rap h -lik e p ro g re ssio n " a r e also to be
15
See F . F r a s e r M itchell: E nglish P ulpit O rato ry fro m A n-
d rew es to T illotson (London, 1932), p. 6, and p a s s im .
149. T hese juxtapositions or p aradoxes a re , incidentally,
an in teg ra l p a rt of the s tra te g y of religious language and a r e d iscu ssed
in C hapter III.
38
seen a t tim es in the C e n tu rie s of T ra h e rn e , as in the following e x a m
ple:
How Happy we a r e that we m ay liv in a ll, as-w ell as one; and
how All sufficient Lov is, we m a y see by this: The M ore we
liv e in all the m o re we liv in one. F o r w hile He se e th us to live
in a ll, we a r e a m o re G re a t and G lorious O bject unto Him; the
m o r e we a r e Beloved by a ll, the m o re w e a r e A d m ire d by Him;
T he m o re we a r e the Joy of all, the m o re B le sse d we a r e to
H im . (11.61)
But th e swift, ra th e r jerk y sequence or rh e to ric a l questions in the
following p a ssa g e lead s inexorably to the culm inating final statem en t:
C an you be Holy w ith A ccom plishing the End for w hich you
a r e C re a te d ? Can you be Divine u n le ss you be Holy? Can you
A cco m p lish the End for w hich you w e re C re a ted , u n less you be
R ighteous? Can you then b e R ighteous, u n less you be Ju st in
re n d e rin g to Things th eir Due E ste e m ? All Things w e re m ad e to
be yours. (I. 12)
The u se of im a g e ry w hich d isc o v e re d " re se m b la n c e s betw een
the m o s t d isp a ra te things" led to m any wild e x tre m e s in the hands of
le s s e r im ita to rs of A ndrew es. F ig u ra dictionis n ev er su cceed ed in
becom ing fig u ra se n te n tia e ; "the in n er m eaning w as too often lo st
sight of, or w as e n tire ly lacking" (p. 154). In A ndrew es one finds r e
c u rre n t im ages of outlandish exuberance; one of his m o st daring is his
use of the im age of conduits, or fountains, to depict the E u c h a rist:
the Conduit pipes of His G ra c e . . . G ra c e and T ru th (now) p r o
ceeding, not fro m the W ord alone, but even fro m the flesh
th e re to united; the fountaine of the W ord flowing into the c is te rn e
of H is f le s h , and fro m thence d eriv in g downe, to u s, this G rac e
and T ru th , to th e m that p a rta k e H im arig h t. ^
This "p e c u lia r type of ex eg esis" M itc h e ll in te re stin g ly notes w as one
17
XXVI S erm o n s, V lthN ativity serm o n , quoted in M itchell,
p. 155.
39
p ra c tic e d by A ugustine, and "w as due to a d e s ire to lose no p o ssib le
18
m o ra l to be d eriv ed fro m the S c rip tu re s. " The show of b rillia n c e ,
how ever, in no way d e tra c te d fro m the su c ce ss of the p re a c h e r: "the
p e ac o c k 's fe a th e rs w ith w hich he im ped his d a rt in no way p rev en ted
the lodgm ent of the b a rb " (p. 162).
T r a h e r n e 's im ag ery also enjoys its s h a re of "p eaco ck 's fe a
th e r s , " and som e of it is no le ss outlandish than th at found in A n
d rew es. He c o m p ares the su fferin g s of C h rist, which w ere designed
to a ttra c t a ll m en to Him , to a cad av er devoured by v u ltu res: "W here
the C a rc a s e is th ith er w ill the E agles be G ath ered together" (I. 56).
T r a h e r n e 's ap p ro ach to the love of w om en, who, he say s, should be
loved le ss for th e ir p h y sical ap p ea ra n c e than for th e ir being the c h il
d ren of God, is a som ew hat com ic p arody and r e v e r s a l of the P e t r a r
chan ideal:
Suppose a C urious and fa ir W oman. Som e have seen the B eauties
of H eaven in such a P e rs o n . It is a vain Thing to say they loved
too m uch. 1 d a re say th e re a re 10000 B eauties in that C re a tu re
w hich they hav not seen. They loved it not too m uch but upon fals
c a u se s. N or so m uch upon fals ones, as only upon so m little
ones. They lov a C re a tu re for Sparkling Eys and C urled H air,
L illie B re s ts and Ruddy C heeks; w hich they should love m o re o v er
fo r being GODs Im age, Queen of the U n iv ers, Beloved by A ngels,
R ed eem ed by J e su s C h rist, an H e ire s of Heaven, and T em ple of
the H. G host; A M ine and fountain of a ll V ertu e s, a T r e a s u rie
of G ra c e s, and a Child of GOD. (II. 68)
A m o re typical exam ple of the "m eta p h y sic a l im age" is, p e rh a p s,
T r a h e r n e 's c o m p ariso n of the w orld to a po m eg ran ate:
^ M itc h e ll, p. 162.
40
The W orld is a P o m g ra n a t indeed, w hich GOD hath put into
m ans H eart, a s Solomon o b se rv e th in the E c c le s ia s te s , b ecaus
it containeth the Seeds of G rac e and the Seeds of G lory. A ll
V irtu es lie in the W orld, a s Seeds in a P o m granate: I m ean in
the fru itio n of it. out of w hich when it is sown in M ans H eart
they N a tu ra ly a r is e . (II. 96)
A final illu stra tio n shows T ra h e rn e stre tc h in g m etap h o r to the ex-
tr e m e s t point in o r d e r to convey his vision of the boundless n a tu re of
the soul:
And th e Soul is a M iracu lo u s A byss of infinit A b y sse s, an
U ndrainable O cean, an inexhausted fountain of E ndles
O ceans, when it w ill e x e rt it self to fill and fathom them .
(II. 83)
H ere the fountain im age, ex p re ssin g the flow of g ra c e fro m God to
m an, is f a r le ss lab o rio u s than A n d rew es' conduit im age (adm itted
th at conduits a re m o re u tilita ria n and "m ean " in connotation), and is
invested w ith a new freed o m and ex p an siv en ess. Indeed, T ra h e rn e is
h e re in com plete m a s te r y of his linguistic m edium . He has s u r
m ounted the m ech an ics of the "m e ta p h y sic al" m ethod to e x p re ss his
vision of M an's u ltim a te n atu re.
* # *
F r o m a v a rie ty of "influences, " read in g , and " s o u rc e s , " then,
T ra h e rn e ach iev ed an e la b o ra te sym bolic s y ste m of re c u rr in g im ag es.
T his sym bolic s y ste m is as co m p reh en siv e and com plex as that, say,
of Y eats. It d e riv e s in p a r t fro m the language of the Bible and the
P r a y e r Book; m uch of it f ilte r s down fro m P lato n ic and N eo -P lato n ic
so u rc e s. T r a h e r n e 's sym bolic sy ste m , n e v e rth e le ss , he had m ade
his own, and it b e ca m e an efficient vehicle for his own p a rtic u la r
41
19
W eltanschauung: The relig io u s and philosophic fra m e w o rk w hich
b a se s T r a h e r n e 's unique vision is in se p a ra b ly w elded to his s y ste m
of im ag es, and can be su m m a riz e d b rie fly as follow s:
1. M an, in his o rig in al, enduring, and su stain ed n atu re , is
the im age of God.
2. Man re fle c ts the beauty and bounty of God as a m i r r o r r e
flects the p e rso n looking into it.
3. G od's c re a tio n of the w orld and M an's re tu rn of p r a is e to
God co n stitu te a tw o-w ay p ro c e s s of com m unication. Man su sta in s
the w o rld in his thought. The p r a is e of M an and the m e n ta l d u p lica
tion of the u n iv e rse in his thought is m o re p leasin g to God than the
actu al c re a te d u n iv e rse , w hich is dead and in ert.
4. C onstant p ra is e and g ratitu d e b rin g s down m o re b le ssin g s
to M an, hence m o re g ratitu d e , and the consequent ach iev em en t of
"felicity . "
The "felicity " w hich w as T r a h e r n e 's , and w hich he feels is his m i s
sion to im p a rt to his r e a d e r, depends la rg e ly on o n e's recognition
of his n a tu re , quite lite ra lly , as the im age of God, th e h eir of the
W orld, endowed by his C re a to r w ith illim itab le ric h e s of beauty,
h ap p in ess, and goodness. A p re lim in a ry re q u isite to the individual's
reco g n itio n of his tru e n a tu re is an a ct of s p iritu a l d isc e rn m e n t:
" T h e se Things sh all n ev er be seen with your Bodily Eys. but in a
m o re p e rfe c t m a n e r" (II. 76). The n e c e s sity for tru e vision
19
Thus achieving the "trem en d o u s expansion" of the " s e e r " - -
see p. 19, above.
42
and percep tio n is s tr e s s e d constantly by T ra h e rn e in his re c u rrin g
Eye im age. As God sees the w orld to be p e rfe c t in His eyes, so m u st
Man cultivate the sam e unblem ished vision. Two exam ples of this
Eye im age a re in C entury II. 84:
the W orld s e rv s you in Beautifying and filling it w ith A m iable
Ideas; for the P erfectin g of its S tature in the Ey of GOD.
for He is all Ey and a ll E a r. Being th e rfo re P e rfe c t, and
the M irro r of a ll P erfectio n .
Having achieved, or reg ain ed , the c le a r sight of this sp iritu al
vision, Man beholds h im self and his fellow m en in the tru e focus
w hich re v e a ls him , as it would in a tru e optical focus, as the im age
of God. This idea of Man in his tru e n ature a s the unfallen im age of
God r e c u rs constantly in T ra h e rn e 's sym bolic sy stem :
The Im age of God is the m o st P e rfe c t C re a tu re . Since th ere
cannot be two GODs the u tm o st Endeavor of A lm ighty P ow er
is the Im age of GOD. It is no B lasphem y to say that GOD
cannot m ake a GOD: the G re a te st Thing th at He can m ake
is His Im age: (III. 61)
Since M an is m ade in G od's sim ilitu d e, by analogy T ra h e rn e a ffirm s
that Man is, th e re fo re , in his capacity as "im age"
A m o st P e rfe c t C re a tu re , to enjoy the m o st p e rfe c t T r e a s u re s ,
in the m o st p e rfe c t M aner, A C re a tu re endued w ith the m o st
Divine and p e rfe c t P o w e rs, for M easu re Kind N um ber D u ra
tion E xcellency is the m ost P e rfe c t C re atu re: A ble to see a ll
E te rn ity w ith a ll its O bjects, and as a M irro r to Contain all
it seeth: Able to Lov all it contains, and as a Sun to shine
upon its loves. (III. 61)
Endowed with divine "P o w e rs, " this "m o st P e rfe c t C r e a tu r e ," Man,
is th ereb y able to enjoy the w orld w ith a G od-like enjoym ent:
The Im age of God im planted in u s, guided m e to the m an n er
w herein we w ere to Enjoy. for since we w ere m ade in
the sim ilitu d of God, we w e re m ade to Enjoy after his
Sim ilitude. (HI. 59)
43
H ere we see e x p re sse d the R en aissan ce ideal of M an's unbounded and
godlike c a p a c itie s, the u n tra m m e le d exuberance of a T am b u rlain e,
but w ith the d ifferen ce that T ra h e rn e 's M an is G o d -cen tered , moving
in G od's orbit, and not in a self-w illed, independent o rb it of his own.
Man, being m ade in the im age of God, is boundlessly fre e , but only to
do good: "But Man is m ade in the Image of GOD, and th e re fo re is a
M irro r and R ep resen tativ of Him " (II. 23).
B ecause he is G od's "R ep resen tativ " and im age, to love is as
n a tu ral for him as it is for the sun to shine. The sun, in T ra h e rn e 's
i
sy stem , is a n a tu ra l sym bol for G od's outgoing,effortlessly stre a m in g
love, and Man, in G od's im age, also n atu rally loves:
You a r e as prone to lov, as the Sun is to shine. It being the
m o st D elightfull and N atu ral Em ploym ent of the Soul of Man:
without w hich you a r e D ark and M iserab le. (II. 65)
for as the sun would be unseen, did it not s c a tte r, and sp read
abroad its Beams; by which alone it becom eth G lorious: so the
Soul w ithout Extending, and living in its O bject, is Dead within
it self, an Idle Chaos of Blind and confused P o w e rs. (II. 56)
F o r as God loves Man c e a s e le ss ly and infinitely, so he expects and
p riz e s the re tu rn of M an's love:
By this we m ay D iscern w hat Strange P o w er GOD hath given to
us by loving us infinitly. Who m o re P r iz e th our Naked Lov
then T em p les full of Gold: W hose Naked Lov is m o re D elightfull
to us then a ll W orlds. (U. 60)
The idea that the Soul loves by reflecting the love of God is
e x p re sse d by T ra h e rn e in the m a jo r, re c u rr e n t, and dom inant im age
of the M irro r. By the im age of the M irro r, T ra h e rn e m anages to
convey the inherent nothingness of the Soul as a c re a te d object, but
the lim itle s s pow ers p o s se s se d by the Soul as a m i r r o r to re fle c t
44
G od's n atu re, q u alities, and c a p a c itie s. The idea is e x p re sse d in a
p a ssa g e w hich is som ew hat lengthy, but n e v e rth e less w orth quoting in
£ull as it is in trin sic to an understanding of T r a h e r n e 's sy stem :
If God loveth in the Soul it is the m o re p re cio u s, if the Soul
Loveth it is the m o re M arvellous. If you a sk how a Soul th at
w as m ade of Nothing can re tu rn so m any flam es of Lov? W here
it should Lov th em o r out of w hat O cean it should com m unicat
them , it is im p o ssib le to d e c la re , (for it can r e tu rn those flam es
upon a ll E tern ity , and upon a ll the C re a tu re s and O bjects in it. )
U nless we say, as a M irro r re tu rn e th the v e ry s e lf-s a m e B eam s
it re c e iv e th fro m the Sun, so the Soul re tu rn e th those B eam s of
Lov that shine upon it fro m God. F o r as a looking G lass is
nothing in C o m p ariso n of the W orld, yet containeth a ll the W orld
in it, and se e m s a r e a l fountain of those B eam s w hich flow fro m
it so the Soul is Nothing in re s p e c t of God, yet a ll E tern ity is
contained in it, and it is the r e a l fountain of that Lov that p ro c e e d -
eth fro m it. They a r e the Sun B eam s which the G lass re tu rn e th :
yet they flow fro m the G lass and fro m the Sun w ithin it. The
M irro r is the W ell-Spring of them , b ecaus they Shine fro m the
Sun within the M ir r o r, W hich is as deep within the G lass a s it
is high within the H eavens. (IV. 84)
The inherent n e c e ssity of God for Man, and of Man fo r God, is e x p re s
sed in another p assa g e containing the M irro r im age; a m ir r o r without
light is a dead and u nperceived thing, while ra y s of light without an ob
je c t a r e "in vain":
The Rays of the Sun c a r r y Light in them as they P a s s through
the A ir, but go on in vain till they m e e t an Object; and th e re
they a r e E x p re sst. They illum inat a M irro r, and a r e Illum inated
by it. F o r a looking glass w ithout th em would be in the D ark,
and they without the G lass u n p erceiv ed . (II. 78)
As a ll m en a re individual " m ir r o r s " of God, then our "felicity " is in
c re a s e d when we p e rc e iv e around us so m any re flec tio n s, each one
individual, of God: "And as in m any M irro rs we a r e so m any other
Selvs, so a re we S p iritu aly M ultiplied when we m eet our selvs m o re
Sweetly, and liv again in other P e rs o n s " (II. 70). Indeed, like Man,
45
the w orld itse lf is "a M irro r of infinit Beauty, yet no Man se e s it"
(I. 31). Man does not see it, b e cau se he is not p erceiv in g the w orld
through "the m o re p e rfe c t m a n e r" of sp iritu a l percep tio n . F o r T r a
h ern e th e re is a p e rfe c t m erg in g of fig u rativ e "vision" and the lite ra l
seeing of the p h y sical eye.
A c o ro lla ry of the M irro r im age in the C en tu ries is that of the
F ountain, again a re c u rrin g one. The Soul, T ra h e rn e a ffirm s, can
love of itself; it does not love sim ply, by reflectio n , b e c a u se God
loves:
It [the Soul] can lov w hile GOD fo rb e are th . It can lov a
W icked M an, W ickedly, and in his W ickedness. T his shew s
plainly that it can lov re g u la rly , w ith a Lov that is not m e e rly
the Reflexion of Gods, fo r w hich caus it is not called a
M irro r, but este em ed m o re , a re a l fountain. (IV. 85)
F o r the fre e d o m which Man possesses fro m God by reflectio n enables
him to love independently. Yet, with a m y stic a l fe rv o r re m in isc e n t
of Rolle o r St. John of the C ro s s , T ra h e rn e expands the Fountain
im age to re v e a l the unified n a tu re of a ll love; w hether flowing fro m
God to M an, Man to God, or Man to the r e s t of the cre a tio n , it finds
its so u rce and u ltim ate end in the Love which is God:
Lov in the F ountain, and Lov in the S tre a m a r e both the sam e.
And th e re fo re a re they both Equal in T im e and G lory. F o r
Lov co m m u n icateth it self: And th e rfo re Lov in the fountain is
the v e ry Lov com m unicated to its O bject. Lov in the fountain
is Lov in the S trea m , and Lov in the S tre a m Equaly G lorious w ith
lov in the F ountain. Tho it S tre a m e th to its O bject it abideth in
the L o v e r, and is the Lov of the L over. (II. 41)
C losely akin to the im age of the F ountain of Lov e n d lessly
pouring fo rth fro m and retu rn in g to God is the idea, in trin sic to T r a
h e rn e 's a ttitu d es, of the o m n ip resen ce of God. This o m n ip re se n c e
46
e n su re s the "felicity" of His beloved im age, Man, for He "is wholly
Busied in all P a r ts and places of his Dominion, perfecting and com -
pleating our B liss and H appiness" (V. 10):
His O m nipresence is . . . a T ra n sp a re n t Tem ple of infinit
L u stre .
an infinit Ocean by m eans w hereof evry Action, W ord and Thought,
is im m ediatly diffused like a D rop of Wine in a P a il of W ater,
and evry w here p re se n t evry w here seen and Known . . . .
(V.9)
The "infinit O cean" which is God is p a ra lle le d by the infinite re a c h of
the Soul; the Soul is itself te rm e d an "ab y ss" or "o c e a n ," both r e c u r
re n t im ages in the C e n tu rie s .
The "im age" of God, the " m ir r o r " of His love, an individual
"fountain" of love and action, b le sse d by G od's o m n ip resen ce, how can
Man fail to achieve "felicity "? R eadily at hand, and constantly a v a il
able to him , a re G od's tr e a s u r e s , the so u rce of tru e "felicity. "
T re a s u re s and Jew els a re , indeed, integral, re c u rrin g , and dom inant
sym bols in the sy stem by which T ra h e rn e a rtic u la te s his vision. It is
im portant, then, in the sy stem , to distinguish betw een tru e and false
tre a s u r e s and jew els: "T hat any thing m ay be found to be an infinit
T re a s u re , its P lac e m u st be found in E tern ity , and in Gods E steem "
(III. 55):
F o r the T r e a s u re s of GOD a r e the m o st P e rfe c t T r e a s u re s and
the M aner of God is the m o st p e rfe c t M aner. To Enjoy th e rfo re
the T r e a s u re s of God a fter the sim ilitu d of God is to Enjoy the
m o st p e rfe c t T re a s u re s in the m o st P e rfe c t M aner. (III. 59)
It soon b eco m es evident in reading the C enturies that the true t r e a
su re s a re w hat m ight be te rm e d "n atu ra l, " i. e. , things com m only
found around us in the w orld of n atu re, while things com m only con-
47
sid e re d p recio u s, "jew els" a re in re a lity valueless:
F o r thus I thought within m y self: GOD being, as we generaly
b eliev, infinit in G oodness, it is m o st Consonant and A greeable
w ith His n atu re, that the B est Things should be m o st Common,
for nothing is m o re N atu rall to infinit G oodness, then to m ake
the B est Things m o st frequent; and only Things W orthless,
S ca rc e . Then I began to E nquire what Things w ere m o st C om
m on: A ir, Light, Heaven and E a rth , W ater, the Sun, T re e s ,
M en and W omen, Cities T em ples &c. T hese I found Common
and Obvious to all: Rubies P e a rls Diamonds Gold and Silver,
th e se I found s c a rc e , and to the m o st denied . . . And in
C onclusion, I saw clearly , that th e re was a R eal V aluableness
in a ll the Com m on things; in the S c a rc e , a feigned. (III. 53)
It a p p e a rs, fro m the b rie f autobiographical hints contained in the
T hird C entury, that T ra h e rn e was h im self tem pted by the values of
the w orld, but
. . . I chose ra th e r to live upon 10 pounds a y e er, and to go in
L e th e r C lothes, and feed upon B read and W ater, so that I m ight
have all m y tim e c le a rly to m y self: then to keep m any thousands
p e r Annums in an E state of Life w here my T im e would be D e
voured in C are and Labor. And GOD was so p leased to accept
of that D e sire , that fro m that tim e to this I hav had all things
plentifully provided for m e, without any C a re at all, m y v ery
Study of F e lic ity m aking m e m o re to P ro s p e r, then all the C a re
in the Whole W orld. (III. 46)
The tru e T r e a s u re s a re often unperceived, they lie so close to us. As
T ra h e rn e w rite s in the fourth stanza of "On N ew s":
But little did the Infant D ream
T h at all the T re a s u re s of the W orld w ere by:
And that H im self was so the C re a m
And Crown of all, which round about did lie. (III. 26)
At tim e s, T r a h e r n e 's rejectio n of the values of civilized society, the
"T in sild W are" of "Gold Silver H ouses Lands Clothes &c" (III. 9),
seem s to leap ahead in tim e to the la te r notion of the Noble Savage
(although we do find a s im ila r idea ex p re ssed in M ontaigne "On C an
nibals").
48
They that go Naked and D rink W ater and liv upon Roots a re like
A dam , or Angels in C o m p ariso n of us. But they indeed that
c a ll Beads and G lass Buttons Jew els, and D re ss them selvs with
fe ath er, and buy pieces of B ra ss and bro k en hafts of Knives of
our M erchants a re so m what like us. But we P a s s them in B a r
b aro u s Opinions, and M onstrous A pprehensions: which we Nick
N am e C ivility, and the Mode, am ongst us. I am su re , those
B a rb aro u s People that go naked, com n e a re r to Adam God, and
A ngels in the Sim plicity of th eir W ealth, tho not in Knowledg.
(III. 12)
The tru e ric h e s for which Man m u st seek in o rd e r to attain felicity,
then, a re not of this w orld, but " c e le stia l. " F o r this c e le stia l t r e a
su re , says T ra h e rn e , "I would hav given all the Gold and S ilver in all
W orlds to hav purchased. But it was the Gift of GOD and could not be
bought with Mony" (III. 6). T h ese tru e ric h e s, T ra h e rn e found, w ere
the neglected, unprized things of the n a tu ra l w orld:
the Sun w as m ine and that Men w ere m ine, and that C ities and
Kingdoms w ere m ine also : that E a rth was b e tte r then Gold, and
th at W ater w as, ev ery D rop of it, a P re c io u s Jew el. And that
th e se w e re G re a t and Living T r e a s u re s : and that a ll R iches
w h atso ev er els was D ro ss in C om parison. (III. 8)
In the light of this new and cultivated p ercep tio n not only is the w orld
itself tra n sfo rm e d to new beauty, but also our fellow m en. In a w ell-
known, m uch anthologized p a ssa g e, T ra h e rn e w rite s at his m o st
e cstatic :
. . . The Dust and Stones of the S tre e t w ere as P re c io u s as
GOLD. . . . And yong Men G litterin g and Sparkling Angels
and M aids strange S erap h ick P ie c e s of Life and Beauty!
Boys and G irle s Tum bling in the S treet, and Playing, w ere
m oving Jew els. (III. 3)
P o s s e s s e d of such felicity and endowed with such a p leth o ra of
goodness and beauty, M an's chief function is to send up p ra is e s to
God. The w orld in itse lf is v alu eless; it was c re a te d solely for M an's
p le a s u re and support: "T h e Sun and S tars P le a s m e in M in isterin g to
49
you" (II. 69). The c reated w orld, co m p ared to the soul of Man, is
insignificant:
One Soul in the Im m ensity of its Intelligence, is G re a te r and m o re
E xcellent then the whole W orld. The O cean is b u t the D rop of
a Bucket to it, the H eavens but a C entre, the Sun O bscurity,
and all Ages but as one Day. (II. 70)
T im e and again T ra h e rn e d riv es hom e this point: "T he Whole W orld
m in iste rs to you as the T h e atre of your Lov. It su stain s you and all
O bjects that you m ay continue to lov them " (II. 65). Beyond all the
beauty of the c re a te d u n iv erse:
We m ight spend Ages in Contem plating the N atu re of the Sun,
and en tertain our selvs m any y e e rs with the Beauty of the s ta rs and
S erv ices of the Sea: but the Soul of Man is above all th ese , it
com prehendeth all Ages in a Moment; and unless it p e rc e iv s o m e
thing m o re E xcellent, is v e ry Desolat. A ll W orlds being but a
Silent W ild ern ess, without so m living Thing, m o re Sweet and
B lessed after which it A sp ireth . (II. 62)
F o r, m o re p recio u s to God than all w orlds, is the adoration, p ra ise ,
and love which He y earn s to re c e iv e from H is children. Only in a
tw o-w ay com m unication betw een God and M an, a constant interchange
of b lessin g s and g ratitu d e, can tru e felicity be achieved.
T ra h e rn e in the C e n tu rie s , then, em ploys a highly developed
sym bolic sy stem , with such re c u rrin g sym bols as Man as Im age, the
reflecting M irro r, the F ountain and the A b y ss, T re a s u re s and Jew els.
T hese sym bols a r e derived, as we have se e n , m ainly fro m C h ristian
theology, but a r e not controlled by it. T rah e rn e , by a unique power
of tran sm u tatio n , m anages to m a s te r the sym bols he uses, and m a n i
pulates them su ccessfu lly in o rd e r to com m unicate his p a rtic u la r
vision. In this se n se he sh a re s the capacity of a p o e t to ab so rb and
tra n sm u te d isp a ra te elem ents. M oreover, he d em o n stra te s ad e
50
quately that a religious w rite r can com m unicate and does not m e re ly
com m une with an inner re a lity . T ra h e rn e can ce rta in ly be said to
tra n sc e n d and co n tro l the "law s of p a tte rn " which w e re the o rig in al
linguistic so u rce of his w riting. In W horf's p h ra se , he can be said to
have achieved that "trem en d o u s expansion, brightening and clarifying
of co n scio u sn ess, in which the intellect functions w ith u n d ream ed -o f
rap id ity and s u re n e s s" (Whorf, p. 269). Not only did he becom e the
m a s te r of the "law s of p a tte rn , " but also he b ecam e a s tra te g is t in the
u se of language to com m unicate what m ight have been an incom m uni
cable vision. One of such s tra te g ie s , b asic to the relig io u s w rite r as
w ell as to the poet, is paradox, and this w ill be co n sid ered in the next
chapter.
CHAPTER III
TR A H ER N E'S USE O F PARADOX
IN TH E CEN TU RIES
It s e e m s in ev itab le and, at th e s a m e tim e , s u rp ris in g , th at
T r a h e r n e should em p lo y p a ra d o x in w ritin g his C e n tu r ie s . It s e e m s
s u rp r is in g b e c a u s e o£ the tra n s p a r e n t sim p lic ity of m o st of T r a h e r n e 's
p r o s e , as w ell as his a p p a re n t s in c e rity of s ta te m e n t, and d ire c tn e s s
of a p p ro ach ; it w as in ev itab le, n e v e r th e le s s , th a t he should u se p a r a
dox, fo r so m e of the things he had to sa y to his r e a d e r , b e c a u se of
the lim ita tio n s of language, could only be ap p ro a c h e d in te r m s of p ara-
dox. T h a t T r a h e r n e w as c le a r ly a w a re of p a ra d o x is a p p a re n t not only
in his u s e of it in his exposition, but a lso fro m h is o c c a sio n a l m e n
tion of the device by n am e. Speaking, for ex am p le, of th e C h ristia n
ru le of loving o n e 's n eig h b o r, T r a h e r n e r e f e r s to "a s tra n g e P a ra d o x "
- - " th e W o rse th ey a r e the m o re they w e re to be b elo v ed " (IV. 26).
The b a s ic tru th s of re lig io n can often be p re s e n te d only in te r m s of
p ara d o x . T h at T r a h e r n e w as a w a re of the p a ra d o x in h e re n t in r e l i
gious a w a re n e s s and its co n co m itan t e x p re ss io n in the language of
p a ra d o x is re v e a le d in a n o th e r of h is in freq u en t r e f e r e n c e s to the
te r m . In the C e n tu rie s (IV. 45), speaking of the C h ris tia n d ictu m that
it is m o r e b le s s e d to give than to re c e iv e , T ra h e rn e w r ite s : "It is a
51
52
kind of P a ra d o x in our S avior, and not (as we re a d of) re v e a le d upon
e a rth , but to St. P a u l fro m heaven, It is m o re B le sse d to Giv then to
r e c e iv . It is a B le sse d n e ss too high to be u n d e rsto o d ." In the final
p h ra s e , T ra h e rn e re v e a ls his a w a re n e ss that the inadequacy of hum an
co m p reh en sio n itse lf n e c e s sita te s the u se of paradox.
Two sc h o la rs have re c e n tly d ire c te d so m e attention to T r a
h e r n e ’s u se of paradox. In an a r tic le on "T hom as T ra h e rn e and C a m
b rid g e P la to n is m ,” C aro l L. M arks com m ents on T r a h e r n e 's u se of
the device:
he delighted in c o n trad ictio n s, enjoying the sp ec ta c le of "a stran g e
P a ra d o x " w hich n o n eth eless in infinitely tru e . . . One of the
keys to his p h ilo so p h y --an d a key w hich fits no other P la to n ist
d o o r--w a s the p arad o x ical contention that e v ery p e rso n is "the
Sole H eir of the w hole W orld"; and yet it belongs to all, a ll a r e
" e v ry one Sole H e irs, a s w ell as you." (C. I. 29)
M iss M ark s o ffers a valuable opinion on the v e ry b a sic position of the
p arad o x in T r a h e r n e 's w riting: "T h e se im ag es and p arad o x es c a r r y
m uch of the w eight of T r a h e r n e 's thought; in his devotion to such m odes
of e x p re ssio n , r a th e r than to the d is c u rs iv e reaso n in g of the R e s to r a
tion, he re c a lls the e a rlie r p a r t of the cen tu ry " (p. 533). A second
T ra h e rn e s c h o la r, R o salie L. Colie, in an a r tic le on "T hom as T r a
h ern e and the Infinite, " also em p h asiz es T r a h e r n e 's dependence upon
paradox: " T ra h e rn e w as am ong the la s t se rio u s th in k ers to value p a ra
dox and to re ly on it, in fact, to fo rc e the fu lc ru m of his thought to
2
r e s t upon its d e licate balan ce. "
1PM LA , LXXXI (D ecem ber, 1966), 533.
2H LQ , XXI (1957), 77.
53
3
We saw in C hapter II th at T ra h e rn e was able to tra n sc e n d
som ew hat the lin g u istic v eh icle that w as available to him and w as able
to m ak e of it a unique sym bolic s y ste m of his own, capable of convey
ing his p a rtic u la r vision of re a lity . This ability to tra n sc e n d his m e
dium re s u lte d in, as B enjam in L ee W horf d em o n strated , "a tre m e n -
4
dous expansion, b rig h ten in g and clarifying of c o n sc io u sn e s s." A
c o ro lla ry and extension of this ab ility to tra n sc en d his linguistic v e
hicle is his even g re a te r ab ility to m anipulate language in the fo rm of
p arad o x . At this point we m ove into the sp h ere of w hat P ro fe s s o r
S treng calls the f ir s t, o r " in tu itiv e ," s tr u c tu r e of relig io u s ap p reh en -
5
sion. In this " s tr u c tu r e ," o r a p p ro a ch to ap p reh en sio n , "the r e l i
gious m eaning a r is e s fro m the convergence of two te rm s w hich by
th em se lv e s have opposite m ean in g s" (Streng, p. 132). The p arad o x
im p licit in this "intuitive" s tru c tu re is caused, says Streng, "through
the 'c o n v erg e n c e ' of two (or m o re ) q u a lifie rs, and it is in the re la tio n
ship itse lf that the m eaning is fo rm u lated " (Streng, p. 132).
The inadequacy of hum an thought to com prehend G o d --th e A b
solute P a r a d o x -- is poignantly com m ented upon by K ierk eg aard in his
J o u r n a ls : "p ara d o x is re a lly the pathos of in tellectu al life --a n d . . .
p arad o x es . . . a r e only g ra n d io se thoughts in em bryo. The cen -
^See p. 40. ^W horf, p. 269.
5
See C hapter I (pp. 7-8): S tre n g 's th re e s tru c tu re s of a p p re
hension a r e (1) " in tu itiv e ," (2) m y th ical" (i.e . , sa c ra m e n ta l, m a g i
cal), and (3) " d ia le c tic a l."
J o u rn a ls , 206, quoted in J. Heywood T hom as: Subjectivity
and P a ra d o x (Oxford: B lackw ell, 1957), p. 104.
54
tra lity of the p ara d o x in profound thought, no m a tte r w hether it m a n i
fest its e lf to th e th in k er as the a b su rd ity in h eren t in ex isten c e itse lf,
or s im p ly as the inadequacy of the hum an in tellect, is a lso sta te d by
K ie rg a a rd : " th e p ara d o x is the so u rc e of the th in k e r's p a ssio n , and
. . . th e th in k er w ithout a p arad o x is like a lover w ithout feeling, a
7
p a ltry m e d io crity . "
The "in tu itiv e" m ode of a p p reh en sio n as d elin eated by S treng
is, in fact, c lo se ly r e la te d to the r h e to r ic a l device of O xym oron. To
m ake a fu rth e r analogy, the "w ise fool" of S h a k e sp e a re , fo r ex am p le,
is an ex cellen t ca se in point of w isd o m contained in a p p a re n t folly.
S treng illu s tra te s the "in tu itiv e" s tr u c tu r e of ap p re h e n sio n fro m the
U panisads: " ta t tv am a s i " ("you a r e th at [u ltim a te re a lity ]" ), and
"the B ra h m a n and A tm an (the individual soul, o r self) a r e one"
(Streng, p. 132). F r o m C h ristia n ity , the "in tu itiv e" m ode of a p p r e
hension can be illu s tra te d in such an e x p re ssio n a s "I and m y F a th e r
are o n e. " T he con v erg en ce of the r h e to ric a l fig u re of p ara d o x w ith an
a ttitu d e of m in d that can re so lv e a p p a re n tly irre c o n c ila b le elem en ts
into a new sy n th e sis is an a ttitu d e p e c u lia rly a p p ro p ria te to the se v e n
teenth cen tu ry m ind, w hich could happily engage its e lf in the new
B aconian a p p ro a c h to scie n ce w hile a lso believing in, and burning,
w itch es.
F o r the w r ite r s of the sev en teen th cen tu ry , p ara d o x w as not
only a v ery p o p u lar rh e to ric a l device but also a m o d e of thought, a
7
F r a g m e n ts , quoted in T h o m as, p. 108.
55
m ean s of apprehending tru th . As a rh e to ric a l fo rm , m ade popular by
L ando's P a r ados s i (1543), it w as designed to show "a display of d ia
le c tic a l ingenuity and rh e to ric a l wit in the proof of any th e sis, however
g
c o n tra ry to re a so n or convention," Thus, Donne, for exam ple, in
his B iathanatos (1646), attem p ts to justify the paradox "that Selfe-
9
hom icide is not so N atu rally Sinne, that it m ay never be otherw ise. "
N or was the paradox confined to the exploration of highly serio u s
m o ra l and sp iritu a l questions: it could, and did, deal w ith the light,
the frivolous, and the sc u rrilo u s. D onne's P arad o x es and P ro b le m e s
(1633) w ere of such a s c u rrilo u s n atu re that they could not be published
during his lifetim e, and even then the Bishop of London called upon
Sir H enry H e rb e rt who has signed the Im p rim a tu r in 1632 to explain
b efo re the B oard of Star C ham ber "why hee w a rre n te d the booke of D.
Duns parad o x es to be prin ted !’^ Of p a rtic u la r offence to the C ourt,
ap parently, was the p ro b le m , "Why have B a sta rd s b e st F o rtu n e ? " ;
som e of the other e ssa y s, again, a re sparkling exam ples of D onne's
cynical w it--" T h a t W omen ought to paint"; "Why die none for Love
now ?"; "Why does the P oxe so m uch affect to underm ine the N o se ? "
Even M ilton, too, as a young m an, engaged in the fasionable r h e to r i
cal e x e rc ise of paradox in his P ro lu s io n s .
g
Douglas Bush: E nglish L ite ra tu re in the E a rlie r Seventeenth
C entury: 1600-1600. (Oxford, 1945), p. 188.
9
(New York: F a c s im ile Text Society, 1930), p. ix.
*^John Donne, P a rad o x es and P ro b le m e s (Soho: The N onesuch
P r e s s ) , p. v.
56
Douglas Bush calls the paradox "a c o u n te rp a rt in p ro se to the
overw orked s a tire and ep ig ram " (Bush, p. 189). What m u st be e m
phasized is the e ssen tially rh e to ric a l n atu re of the paradox. N e v e r
th e le ss, by extension, the sam e ingenious attitude of thought which
Donne applied to prove that suicide was not sinful could be adapted to
grapple w ith other p ro b lem s of religious apprehension. And, it m u st
be re m e m b e re d , the seventeenth century m ind did not effect so s tr i n
gent a sep aratio n betw een the religious and the se c u la r as does the
tw entieth cen tu ry mind; both sp h e re s w ere contiguous, indeed s u p e r
im posed, and a leap fro m one m en tal attitude to the o th er was easily
effected.
A m an in whom such c o n tra rie tie s of viewpoint a r e felicitously
m ingled is Sir Thom as Browne. In Browne we find a faith that could
not find enough "wingy M y sterie s in Divinity, " nor "im p o ssib ilities
enough in Religion. " It w as this faith, founded upon the paradoxical
b asis of religious thought, that allow ed him to accept "the O bjections
o f . . . m y reb ellio u s re a so n with that odd reso lu tio n I learn ed of T e r-
tu llian , C ertu m est quia im p o ssib ile est" (Religio M edici, Sec. 9).
The inability of re a so n to g rasp t r u t h totally is stated by
Browne with c h a ra c te ris tic hum ility: "M any things a r e tru e in D ivin
ity, w hich a re n eith er inducible by reaso n , nor confirm able by sense?'
(Sec. 48). This faith could lead him to accep t the certa in ty "th at our
estran g ed and divided ash es shall unite a g a in " (Sec. 48). This faith,
this acceptance, is for Browne b a se d upon a resig n atio n of re a so n , a
57
re a liz a tio n of the in ability of the m ind to g rap p le w ith c e rta in p a r a
doxes of belief. The laying a sid e of re a s o n w hich ensues w hen con
fro n ted w ith the agony of p ara d o x leads him to a cc ep tan ce and faith.
In S ection 10 of R eligio M ed ic i, Brow ne quotes the s ta te m e n t of H e r
m e s , S p h aera cujus c e n tru m u b iq u e, c irc u m fe r entia nullibi, adding
that this " a lle g o ric a l d e sc rip tio n " p le a s e s h im "beyond a ll the M e ta
p h y sica l definitions of D ivines. " "W here I cannot sa tis fie m y re a so n ,"
he w r ite s , "I love to hum our m y fancy" (Sec. 10). T his "fancy" is the
p ara d o x of re lig io u s sta te m e n t. F o r "w h e re th e re is an o b s c u rity too
deep fo r our R easo n , " B row ne continues in the sam e sectio n ,
'tis good to sit down w ith a d e sc rip tio n , p e r ip h r a s is , o r a d u m
b ra tio n ; for by acquainting our R easo n how unable it is to d isp lay
the v isib le and obvious effects of n a tu re , it b eco m es m o re hum ble
and su b m issiv e unto the su b tle tie s of F a ith ; and thus I te a c h m y
h ag g ard and u n re c la im e d re a s o n to stoop unto the lu re of F aith .
Like T ra h e rn e , and m any s c h o la rs in the se v en teen th cen tu ry ,
B row ne acknow ledges his debt to H e rm e s T r is m e g is tu s , a s we have
a lre a d y seen above. T hat he holds a s im ila r P lato n ic view point to
that of T ra h e rn e is re v e a le d in a p a s sa g e fro m Section 12 of R eligio
M ed ic i; "T he s e v e re Schools sh a ll n ev er laugh m e out of the P h ilo s o
phy of H e rm e s , that this v isib le W orld is but a P ic tu re of the invisible,
w h e re in as in a P o u r tr a ic t, things a r e not tru e ly , but in equivocal
sh ap es, and as they co u n te rfeit so m e m o re r e a l su b stan ce in that in
v isib le F a b ric k . " T his " P ic tu re of the in v isib le" c lo se ly re s e m b le s
T r a h e r n e 's idea of c re a tio n , "w h ere we se e H im in His G ifts, and
A dore his G lory" (C e n tu rie s , I. 18). The c re a te d w o rld to B row ne, as
to T ra h e rn e , w as an em b lem atic re p re s e n ta tio n of divine p u rp o se and
58
bounty:
for in this M ass of N ature th e re is a set of things that c a r r y in
th eir F ro n t, though not in C apital L e tte rs , yet in Stenography
and s h o rt C h a ra c te rs, som ething of D ivinity, which to w iser
R easons se rv e as L u m in aries in the A byss of Knowledge.
(Religio M ed ic i, Sec. 12)
The w o rd s "A byss of Knowledge, " em p h asize the fath o m less n atu re,
as w ell as the blind incapacity of hum an knowledge and re a so n , and
the inability of m an to attain com p reh en sio n without the aid of such
" L u m in a rie s ." T h ese " L u m in a rie s ," for both Browne and T ra h e rn e ,
a re , f ir s t, the rev elatio n s of G od's bounty and goodness in c re a te d
things, in the n a tu ra l w orld, and, second, the relig io u s p arad o x es
which confront re a so n , overw helm ing the m ind w ith a s e n se of its own
p o w e rle ssn e ss, so that it gladly relin q u ish es the burden of the p arad o x
and g lim p ses the underlying "tru th . "
O ur b rie f d iscu ssio n of B ro w n e's attitude tow ard relig io u s
faith is intended to help place T ra h e rn e 's u se of parad o x in C en tu ries
of M editations not only in line w ith the w orld-w ide and "u n iv e rsal"
m ode of relig io u s apprehension as delineated by P r o fe s s o r Streng,
but also firm ly alongside s im ila r attitudes in his own cen tu ry , and with
the rh e to ric a l p ra c tic e s of Donne and M ilton, to m ention only those
we have b rie fly d iscu ssed .
T r a h e r n e 's u se of parad o x is, f ir s t of all, a conscious r h e t o r
ical technique, a d elib e ra te , stra te g ic m anipulation of language; that
is, a rtis tic a lly , an extension of his ability w hich we noted in C hapter
II, to fashion for h im self, out of the linguistic s tru c tu re s av ailab le to
him, a unique sym bolic sy ste m of his own, P arad o x , in T ra h e rn e ,
to view the question fro m a second asp ect, is a total attitude, a c o s
m ic a w aren ess of m u lti-faceted tru th s, a d isc e rn m e n t of the co n v erg
ing and diverging fo rc es underlying a dynam ic u n iv erse. It is this
I
se n se of exuberant tu rm o il, v ery re m in isc e n t of Hopkins' p o etry , that
accounts for the overflow ing joy to be found in T r a h e rn e 's C e n tu rie s.
His total attitude, his sen se of the cosm ic paradox, is of co u rse co ro l
la ry to his u se of rh e to ric a l paradox; som etim es the rh e to ric a l figure
w ill be used to achieve a conscious v e rb al m anipulation, a s o rt of
sleig h t-o f-h an d , to re v e a l a thought o th erw ise in ex p ressib le ; so m e
tim es a potent exam ple of a co sm ic parad o x w ill be concealed behind
an a r tle s s sim p licity of statem ent.
This sim p licity of statem en t w hich is n e v e rth e le ss able to r e
veal paradox is v ery close to the lite ra r y device of irony, such as that
which u n d erlies Sw ift's ap p aren tly calm statem en t: "I saw a Woman
flay 'd the other day, and you have no idea what a change it m ade in her
p erso n . " U nderneath Sw ift's su rface c a lm th e re is a ten se indigna
tion. S im ilarly , when T ra h e rn e w rite s in the C en tu ries (I. 46), "It
was His W isdom m ade you Need the Sun, It was His G oodness m ade
you need the s e a ," the su rface calm n ess of the statem en t conceals a
fe rv o r of adm onishm ent. U nderneath the se re n e cadences of the state
m ent lie c e rta in assu m p tio n s, and deriving fro m the assu m p tio n s, is
a pointed injunction. Our b a sic calm is m eant to be sh a tte re d by the
re a liz a tio n that we need the sun and the sea. Taking them for granted,
we do not bother to im agine what the w orld would be without them;
hence, T ra h e rn e , un d ern eath the calm statem en t, alm o st sh rie k s his
60
dem and for g ratitude. A nother exam ple of im plicit irony and latent
paradox is in C en tu ries I. 21, w here T ra h e rn e is giving p ra is e for the
a ir , e a rth 's a tm o sp h ere (and, incidentally, one m u st note T ra h e rn e 's
ro b u st delight in the physical f ra m e - -h is was no w orld-condem ning
a sc e tic ism ): "Is not that a m arv ello u s Body to B reath in? To v isit
»
the Lungs: re p a ir the S p irits: rev iv e the Sences: Cool the Blood. "
Again, beneath the su rface level of u n d erstatem en t, T ra h e rn e aim s to
shock his re a d e r into a w aren ess of what he had perhaps taken for
granted. In this he m ay be com pared to W ordsw orth who rev ealed the
beauty beneath the ap p aren tly banal, and w h o --a s C leanth Brooks
points ou t--em p lo y ed sta rtlin g paradox beneath the seem ingly sim ple
p o etry of statem en t in such a sonnet as "C om posed upon W estm in ster
11 ’
B ridge. " A pioneer c ritic in the field of paradox in poetry, Cleanth
B rooks, in analyzing W ord sw o rth 's sonnet, com m ents on "the R o m an
tic preoccupation w ith w o n d e r--th e s u rp rise , the rev elatio n w hichputs
the tarn ish ed fa m ilia r w orld in a new light. This m ay w ell be the
ra iso n d 'e tr e of m o st Rom antic parad o x es" (B rooks, p. 5). C ole
rid g e 's r e m a rk s on W ordsw orth, quoted by P ro fe s s o r Brooks (p. 7),
c e rtain ly apply equally w ell to T rah ern e:
M r. W ordsw orth . . . w as to p ropose to him self as his object,
to give the c h a rm of novelty to things of ev ery day, and to excite
a feeling analagous to the su p ern atu ral, by awakening the m in d 's
attention fro m the leth arg y of custom , and directing it to the
loveliness and the w onder of the w orld b efo re us . . . .
**See "The Language of P a ra d o x ," in C leanth B rooks, The
W ell W rought U rn (New York, 1947), p. 5.
61
Indeed, it can be a ffirm e d w ith tru th that a c o n sta n t p a ra d o x to T r a
h e rn e is the b lin d n ess of m en to the b eau ty and bounty aro u n d them .
T his w as "the M y ste rie of F e lic ity , " acco rd in g to T ra h e rn e (C e n tu rie a
III. 55). We should not be d eceiv ed by the g u ile le ss a ir of T r a h e r n e 's
p ro se : when w e tend to be lulled by the fe licity of his p h ra se -m a k in g
a s , for in sta n c e , in his co n stan t re m in d e r to us that e ach one is in
dividually "H eir of the W orld, " we need to be a w a re of the iro n y of the
s ta te m e n t, the re sp o n s ib ilitie s and im p licatio n s in h e re n t in it, and,
above a ll, the e s s e n tia l p arad o x that e ach m an is equally, "H eir of the
W orld. "
A g ain st this fla t, iro n ic , p ro s e of sim p le sta te m e n t, c o n c e a l
ing n e v erth e le ss p a ra d o x e s of a c o sm ic o r d e r, T ra h e rn e a lso em ploys
the r h e to ric a l fig u re of parad o x , that is a conscious v e rb a l m a n ip u la
tion to re v e a l an o th e rw ise in e x p re ss ib le thought. When he does th is,
T ra h e rn e is m o re c le a rly in line with the rh e to ric a l p ra c tic e of his
day as seen, for exam ple, in the w itty p a ra d o x e s of Donne. T ra h e rn e
does, indeed, exhibit a m a rk e d d e g re e of w it in his playful juggling
w ith language and in his ze stfu l p u rs u it of the o u tra g eo u s p arad o x . In
so m e w ays he is re m in is c e n t of the je stin g clow ns of S h ak e sp e are ; in
o th er w ays, his p ro s e often em bodies the playful rh y th m s of E uphu
ism .
The opinion of M o rris W illiam C ro ll in his In tro d u ctio n to
E uphues, that E u p h u ism is b a s ic a lly a re v iv a l of the s c h e m a ta of m e -
d iev al L atin, p o se s an in te re stin g p ro b le m in re g a rd to this p h en o m e
62
12
non in T ra h e rn e . As C aro l L. M arks notes o£ T ra h e rn e 's style in
her a rtic le (see p. 52), " ra th e r than . . . the d isc u rsiv e reasoning of
the R esto ra tio n , he re c a lls the e a rlie r p a rt of the century. " It is d e
batable w hether the fig u res re m in isc e n t of E uphuism in T ra h e rn e 's
sty le a re deriv ed fro m a p red ilectio n for the m o re o rn ate fo rm s of
Euphuism , or fro m his c e rta in study of ancient rh e to ric ia n s, and
knowledge of rh e to ric a l fo rm s. The in te re stin g fact re m a in s that
th ere a r e in the C en tu ries m any instances of euphuistic style. The
following p a ssa g e , for exam ple, in its balanced construction, in its
heaping up of illu stra tio n s, and in its u se of an im al n a tu ra l history,
enjoys som e of the chief c h a ra c te ris tic s of Euphuism :
As E agles a r e Drawn by the Sent of a C a rc a is, As C hildren
a re D raw n together by the Sight of a Lion, As People
flock to a C oronation, and as a Man is Drawn to his beloved
Object, so ought we. (I. 57)
A m o re obvious exam ple of the "w itty" paradox and also of E uphuistic-
type p ro se is the following fro m 1.41:
As P ic tu re s a r e m ade C urious by Lights and Shades, which w ith
out Shades, could not be: so is F e lic itie com posed of Wants
and Supplies, without which M ixture th e re could be no F elicity .
W ere th e re no N eeds, W ants would be Wanting th em selv s: And
Supplies Superfluous. Want being the P a re n t of C elestial
T re a s u re . It is v e ry Strange, W ant itself is a T re a s u re in
Heaven:
H ere indeed is m anifested, in Douglas B u sh 's w o rd s, "a display of
d ialectical ingenuity and rh e to ric a l wit in the proof of any th e sis, how
ever c o n tra ry to re a so n or convention" (Bush, p. 188). H ere one
can sen se the ab so rb ed delight in the play of wit itself, in the out-
12
John Lyly, Euphues: The A natom y of W it/E uphues & His
England, ed. by M o rris W illiam C ro ll and H a rry Clem ons (New York,
19l6), pp. xv-lxiv.
63
rageous concept (that Want is a " T r e a s u re in H eaven") and in the sh eer
v e rb a l p la y --"W an ts would be W anting th e m se lv s ."
At tim e s, in his witty juggling with id eas, T r a h e r n e 's rh e to ric
is re m in isc e n t of the co m ed ia n 's p a tte r, and e sp e c ia lly of the S hake
s p e a re a n clow ns. The following p a ssa g e , fo r exam ple, in w hich T r a
h ern e expands his argum ent o n the n e c e s sity of W ants in a u n iv e rse of
G od's ev er-flo w in g beneficen ce (1.51) m ight a lm o st be p a rt of the se -
13
rio c o m ic p a tte r of F e s te , th e m ock-logic of the clown:
W ants a r e the Bands and C em en ts betw een God and us. Had we
not W anted, w e could never hav b e e n Obliged. W heras now we
a re infinitly O bliged, b ecau s we W ant infinitly. F r o m E te rn ity
it w as re q u isit that we should want. We could n ev er els have
Enjoyed any Thing: Our own Wants a re T r e a s u r e s . And if W ant
be a T r e a s u r e , s u re evry Thing is so. W ants a re the L ig a tu re s
betw een God and u s. The Sinews th a t convey Sences fro m him
into u s: w herby we liv in H im , and feel his E njoym ents. F o r
had we not been Obliged by having o u r W ants Satisfied, we should
not have been c re a te d to lo v Him. and had we not be C reated to
lov H im , we could never h av e Enjoyed his E te rn a l B le sse d n e ss.
One fe e ls, in reading such a p a s sa g e , that T r a h e r n e 's logic is a lm o st
reductio ad a b su rd u m , that he is strain in g to the u tm o st to a r r iv e at
the ingenious and w itty concept he is out to p ro v e , the d ialec tic al tour
de fo rc e , the p arad o x o u tre .
T his w itty side of T ra h e rn e is an a sp e c t that has not been d is
cu sse d by sc h o la rs to .my knowledge. It is a fa c e t that is c e rta in ly not
out of place e ith er in m ed iev al relig io u s thought or in the attitu d es of
the seventeenth cen tu ry when, a s we re m a rk e d above, th e re w as not
the divergence betw een sa cre d and s e c u la r th at th e re is today. T hat
13
F ar exam ple in Tw elfth N ight, I. v, 30-52.
64
T ra h e rn e should play G od's F ool to teach his re a d e rs fe lic ity is again
not su rp risin g , for in both e a s te rn and w e ste rn relig io u s thought th ere
is the tra d itio n a l notion of the W ise Fool. R osalind, in As You Like It,
for ex am p le, com m en ts of T ouchstone, "Thou sp e a k s't w is e r than thou
a r t w a re of" (As You Like It, II. iv. 57). J u s t as T ouchstone could be
14
"a w ise and thoroughly w itty fool, " so T ra h e rn e could u se the m a sk
of w itty r a ille r y to veil a co sm ic paradox.
R o b e rt H illis G oldsm ith, in his W ise F ools in S h a k e sp e a re ,
r e f e r s to "the taboo that se t a p a rt the divine m ad m an or the fool as a
kind of s e e r" (p. 6). It is p re c is e ly through the ap p aren t ab su rd ity of
the d ia le c tic a l w ord play in the following p a ssa g e on Wants that T r a
h ern e is able to convey the b asic parad o x , the b reath tak in g ly daring
concept that God H im self, the all-c o n ta in e d , se lf-su ffic ie n t C re a to r,
should H im self want:
T his is v e ry stra n g e that GOD should Want, for in H im is the
F u ln e ss of a ll B le sse d n e ss: He overflow eth E tern aly . His
W ants a r e as G lorious as Infinit. P e rfe c tiv needs that a r e in
His N atu re, and ev er B lessed , b ecaus alw ays Satisfied. He is
fro m E te rn ity full of Want: O r els He would not be full of
T r e a s u re . Infinit W ant is the v e ry G round and Caus of infinit
T r e a s u re . It is In crid ib le, y et v e ry P lain: W ant is the Fountain
of a ll His F u ln e ss. Want in GOD is a T r e a s u re to us. F o r had
th e re been no N eed He would not have C re a te d the W orld, nor
M ade u s, nor M anifested his W isdom , nor E x e rc ise d his P o w er,
nor B eautified E tern ity , nor p re p a re d the Jo y s of H eaven. But
He W anted A ngels and M en, Im a g es, C om panions. And these
He had fro m a ll E te rn itie . (I. 42)
The p h ra s e "Infinit W ant" is in itself p arad o x ical, an O xym o
ron. S im ila rly , the rh e to ric a lly antithetic sen ten ce, "W ant is the
14
R o b e rt H illis G oldsm ith, W ise F ools in S h ak esp eare (M ich
igan, 1955), p. 51.
65
F ountain o£ a ll His F u ln e s s , " b rin g s together elem ents of ap p aren t con
trad ictio n . This again is p u re Cbcymoron.
T r a h e r n e 's b asic rh e to ric a l m ethod in a s s e rtin g such co sm ic
p arad o x es c o n sists not in the choice of p a rtic u la r w ords or fig u res of
speech, but in his com bination of w ords. T hat is to say, in this p a r
tic u la r in stan ce, for exam ple, th e re is nothing e x tra o rd in a ry in e ith er
the w ord "E te rn ity , " or in the w ord "W ant" but, in the fusion of the
two in the sen te n ce, "He is fro m E tern ity full of Want, " a d ra m a tic
and dynam ic tra n sfo rm a tio n has taken place. By a kind of.poetic
tra n sm u ta tio n a new disposition of existing elem en ts has taken p lace,
a new concept has been a rtic u la te d . This m ethod is com m on both to
the m ode of relig io u s language and to poetry. Its u se in religious
language is indicated by P ro fe s s o r Streng:
The d ifferen ces in relig io u s ap p reh en sio n , we suggest, do not r e
su lt sim p ly fro m choosing c e rta in "id e o g ra m s, " that is, m e ta
p h o rs o r analogies, in p re fe re n c e to o th ers; it is r a th e r the
way w ords function in ex p ressin g relig io u s tru th that d e te rm in e s
m o re im ]tortant d ifferences than the choice of t e r m s .
The "d isc e rn m e n t" w hich ensues in relig io u s ap p reh en sio n is what
R a m se y c a lls, "the penny dro p s, " "the ice b re a k s , " "situ atio n s w hich
com e alive.
A usefu l account of the s im ila r p ro c e ss in p o e try is given by
L a u ren ce P e r r in e in -" P o e try Begins With W ords":
The poet, as T .S . Eliot has said, " d islo c a te s" language into
m eaning. He puts w ords together that haven't been put together
b efo re, but w hich n e v e rth e le ss w o rk together . . . W ilfrid Owen
^ S tren g , p. 129. ^ R a m s e y , p. 23.
66
d escrib in g a gas attack on the W estern front in W orld W ar 1,
w rite s about the fumbling haste of the so ld ie rs to put on th eir
gas m ask s when the a la rm is given:
G as! GAS! Quick, boys! - An ecstacy of fumbling,
Fitting the clum sy h elm ets ju st in tim e.
"An ecstacy of fumbling"! W hat an unlikely p a ir, one would have
thought. But Owen has joined the two w ords to g eth er in holy m a
trim o n y , and the union has been b le sse d now for alm o st half a
century.
In p re c ise ly the sam e way, T ra h e rn e "d islo c a te s" language
into m eaning when he speaks of the God who "overflow eth E tern aly " as
being "full of Want. " This is the com m on c h e m istry of both p o etry
and religious language. When, for exam ple, Donne, w rite s (Holy
S onnets, xiv), "T h at I m ay r is e and stand, o 'e rth ro w m e and bend/
Your force to b re a k , blow, burn, and m ake m e n ew ," he is ex p ressin g
a relig io u s tru th in te rm s of paradox; that in o rd e r to " r is e and stand"
(i. e . , to achieve sp iritu al v icto ry and salvation) he m u st firs t be van
quished by God, purified of his sins and m ade "new. " H ere again we
se e w ords used in a p a rtic u la r way in o rd e r to achieve religious d is
cern m en t; as Streng say s, the im p o rtan t thing is "the wav w ords func
tion in ex p ressin g religious tr u t h ," and this " d e te rm in es m o re im -
p o rtan t d ifferen ces than the choice of te rm s " (Streng, p. 129).
The significance of this "d islocation" of m eaning and of "the
w ay w ords function" in conveying " m e a n in g ," is c o rro b o ra te d to a
g re a t extent by m o d ern c ritic s w riting on paradox. A llen T ate, for
instance, s tr e s s e s the im p o rtan ce of what he calls "tension" in p o e
try : "A poetic w ork has d istin ct quality as the u ltim ate effect of the
1 7
Quoted fro m T. J. K ailsen and D .E . McCoy, R hetoric and
Reading: O rd e r and Idea (New Y ork, 1963), p. 411.
67
18
whole, and that whole is the 'r e s u lt' of a configuration of m eaning. "
C leanth B rooks a s s e r ts that paradox is "the language a p p ro p ria te and
inevitable to p o etry , " in c o n tra st to the language of the sc ie n tist
19
"w hose tru th r e q u ire s a language purged of ev ery tra c e of parad o x ."
O ther m o d ern c r itic s , such as I. A. R ichards, have s tr e s s e d the im p o r
tan ce of irony in p o etry , irony, as we have seen above, being clo sely
re la te d to paradox. R ich ard s defines irony as "the bringing in of the
opposite, the co m p lem en tary im p u lses. T .S . Eliot in his Selected
E ssa y s say s th at " w it" -- a h ard w ord to define as Eliot h im self adm its
- - a s found in the p o etry of M arvell, for exam ple, has an "in te rn a l
21
equilibrium . " T r a h e r n e 's u se of irony, wit and paradox a r e s im i
la rly an a ttem p t to bring in " th e o p p o s ite " --to u se R ic h a rd s' p h r a s e - -
and to ach iev e, in E lio t's w o rd s, an "in te rn a l e q u ilib riu m ." By his
u se of p arad o x he shows the dynam ic s tre n g th underlying a u n iv e rse of
ap p are n tly d iv e rse elem ents; by m ean s of p arad o x he is able to g ra sp
the to tality of a u n iv e rse of seem ing co n trad ictio n s; by an a d ro it place
m en t of "o p p o sites" he ach iev es an "in te rn a l equilibrium . " This
"eq u ilib riu m " for T ra h e rn e is "felicity. "
In an a r tic le on P a ra d o x in the Encyclopedia of R eligion and
18
"T en sio n in P o e try ," quoted fro m C h arles N orm an C o llie r,
ed. , P o ets on P o e try (New York, 1962), p. 349.
^ The W ell W rought U rn (New York, 1947), p. 3.
20
P rin c ip le s of L ite ra ry C ritic is m (London; 1926), p. 250.
^ ( N e w York, 1932), p. 263.
68
22
E th ic s , S, H. M ellone quotes H obbes' definition of a p a ra d o x a s "an
23
opinion not yet g e n e ra lly rec e iv e d , " It is not g e n e rally re c eiv ed ,
sa y s M ellone, b e ca u se it is often c o n tra ry to "g e n e ra lly re c e iv e d
b elief" on the su b ject in question. "T h e h isto ry of s c ie n c e ," M ellone
co n tin u es, "is p a rtly the h isto ry of p a rad o x es becom ing c o m m o n
p laces - - e . g. , the m otion of the e a rth , the p o ssib ility of the antipodes,
the p r e s s u r e of the a tm o sp h e re (as a g ain st the dogm a, 'N a tu re ab h o rs
a v acu u m '), the c irc u la tio n of the blood, the facts of hypnotism , the
e le c tr ic a l phenom ena p ro d u ced by G alv an i's e x p e rim e n ts. " M ellone
would c e rta in ly concur with K ie rk e g a a rd 's s ta te m e n t th at "th e p arad o x
24
is the so u rc e of the th in k e r's p a s s io n ," for p arad o x is, in a se n se ,
n e c e s s a r y for to tal c o m p reh en sio n . " R e a s o n ," M ellone w rite s,
a s p ir e s to unity, and seek s to,unify the obvious m u ltip lic ity and
v a rie ty of the facts of e x p erien c e, w hich none the le s s p e r s is t in
th eir m u tu al d ifferen ces and oppositions. The s a tisfa c tio n of
this speculcftiye im p u lse r e q u ire s m o re than an a ly sis of the given
facts; it re q u ire s th e ir c o -o rd in a tio n u n d er a type of h ig h er unity
given by p u re re a s o n . . . . T hose who e m b ra c e both sid e s of
the apparent co n trad ictio n a r e so m e tim e s n earer, the w hole tru th
than those who s a c rific e c o m p re h e n siv e n e ss to a o n e -sid e d co n
sisten cy .
Thus p ara d o x is n e c e s s a r y also to T r a h e r n e 's to ta l sy n th esis;
his endeavor is to re c o n c ile a m u ltip lic ity of elem en ts into a unity of
d iv in ely -b esto w ed "fe licity , " to re v e a l the dynam ic to ta lity underlying
the w orld of a p p e a ra n c e s . N e v e rth e le ss , th e re is a d an g er in p ara d o x
22(New Y ork, 1917), IX, 632.
23
F r o m L ib erty , N e c e ssity , and C hance (E n g lish W o rk s,
ed. W. M o lesw o rth [ London, 1839-45] f V. 304.
24See p. 54 above.
69
which M ellone points out: "th e re is a p resu m p tio n ag ain st anything
'p arad o x ical. ' The burden of proof lies with him who m aintains it; an
unsupported paradox can claim no attention. "
Ronald W. H epburn, in an a rtic le , "T hom as T ra h e rn e : the
25
N ature and Dignity of Im agination," accu ses T ra h e rn e of being a
"c o n ju ro r" in his in sisten ce on the unbounded n atu re of the im ag in a
tion. By postulating the absence of infinity, H epburn says:
T ra h e rn e p ersu ad es us for the m om ent that the w orld m ight have
been d ifferent in such a way as to c irc u m sc rib e the im agination
" . . . w e re th ere no such infinity; th e re would be no ro o m for
th e ir im aginations; th e ir d e s ire s and affections would be cooped
up, and th e ir souls im p riso n ed . " Having p re se n te d this b e
w ildering possibility, and m ade us feel like p ris o n e rs in a dun
geon, T ra h e rn e g racio u sly in fo rm s us that our fe a rs a re after
a ll groundless - that the w orld is_in fact boundless - for which
m e rc y "w e .a re infinitely indebted. " We a re re le a se d , and our
m y stic a l ex hilaration ife boosted once again. This is a curious
exam ple of a not uncom m on device: by p resen tin g the im possible
as p o ssib le and then rev ealin g its falsity in fact, we a re m ade
to experience gratitude for the statu s quo.
The accu satio n is not a triv ia l one, and it is im p o rtan t to defend T r a
h e rn e 's p arad o x es against the charge that they m ay be m e re sleight-
of-hands, im possible postulations set up d elib erately so that they m ay
be knocked down again. A dm ittedly, one of T ra h e rn e 's aim s is to
elicit gratitude in his re a d e r for the beauty and bounty of creation.
To this end, he often em ploys, as we saw e a r lie r, a flat irony of
statem en t. In the a s se rtio n , "It was His W isdom m ade you Need the
Sun. It w as His Goodness m ade you need the sea" (I. 46), w hich we
25
C am bridge Jo u rn al, VI (Septem ber 1953), 725-734.
26H epburn, pp. 731-732.
exam ined above (p. 59), the postulation is s e t up im p licitly : "Im agine
a w orld w ithout the sun; im agine a w orld without the sea. " In this
se n se T ra h e rn e em ploys an ap p ro ach w hich is clo se to that of w hich
H epburn a c c u se s him . H ere, T r a h e r n e 's a r tle s s sim p licity of s ta te
m en t is an exam ple of d e lib e ra te irony to elicit "g ra titu d e for the s t a
tus quo, " in H epburn's w ords. In his la r g e r approach, how ever, T r a
h e rn e 's u se of rh e to ric a l p arad o x to re v e a l p arad o x of a co sm ic n a
tu re , is a valid one. In the idea that God should w a n t--to co n sid er
again T ra h e rn e 's m o st s ta rtlin g p a ra d o x --h e is c e rta in ly not se ttin g u p
an in tellectu al skittle for the p u rp o se of dem olishing it. If he had ap
p ro ach ed the question fro m the angle of hypothesis, and p o stu lated a
w orld w h ere God w ithheld His b le ssin g s, this would have been in a c
cord with H epburn's a rg u m en t for a m ethod of eliciting our g ratitu d e.
To com bine, how ever, the notion of an om nipotent, o m n iscien t and
se lf-c o m p le te D eity w ith the notion of Want (incom pleteness) is new,
sta rtlin g , and re v e la to ry of an a sp e c t of tru th that w as not p re v io u sly
apprehended. F o r T r a h e r n e 's m issio n w as not m e re ly to a ro u se s u r
p r is e and delight in the p rev io u sly banal, in the accep ted , co m m o n
p lace "fact, " and th e re b y to elicit g ratitu d e for "th e b e st of all p o s
sible w o rld s. " If his a im had been confined m e re ly to achieving such
a goal, then he could in tru th be d e sc rib e d as the in tellectu al f o r e
ru n n e r of e ig h teen th -cen tu ry com placency and m e c h a n istic deism .
T r a h e r n e 's aim is c le a rly Btated in the opening sectio n s of the
C e n tu rie s :
71
An Em pty Book is like an Infant's Soul, in w hich any Thing m ay
be W ritten. It is Capable of all Things, but containeth Nothing.
I hav a Mind to fill this w ith P ro fitab le W onders. And since Love
m ade you put it into m y Hands I w ill fill it w ith those T ru th s you
Love, without Knowing them . (I. 1)
T ra h e rn e c le a rly e x p re sse s his intention to d isclo se new and hidden
tru th s --c e rta in ly not m e re ly to rem in d his lis te n e rs of fa m ilia r b le s -
s in g s - -a s w ell as the incum bent n e c e ssity for him to u se figures and
p arad o x es: "I w ill open m y Mouth in P a ra b le s: I w ill u tte r Things
that have been Kept S e cret fro m the foundation of the W orld" (I. 31).
A nother strong indication that T ra h e rn e 's d e s ire w as to inculcate new
and thought-provoking concepts is in II. 77, when his w ords c le a rly
negate any notion of contentm ent w ith o n e's little niche in the w orld:
"W ere a ll your R iches h e re in som little p lace: a ll other P la c e s
would be E m p ty ." It is his intent to s ta rtle the m ind out of a c c e p t
ance of the status quo, to s tre tc h it to the percep tio n of infinite p o s s i
b ilitie s: "T he Heavens and the E a rth s e rv you, not only in shewing
unto you your fath ers G lory, as a ll Things w ithout you a r e your Riches
and E njoym ents. But as w ithin you also , they Magnify, and Beautify
and Illum inat your Soul" (II. 78).
T ra h e rn e p re se n ts us with the sta rtlin g paradox, not, as H ep
b u rn a s s e r ts , to te r rif y us w ith hypothetical bogym en and then in cu l
cate g ratitu d e in us by banishing the bogym en, but to aw aken the soul
to the apprehension of sp iritu a l tru th s not p e rcep tib le o th erw ise than
by the e x e rc ise of paradox:
By this m ay you know that you a re infinitly Beloved: GOD hath m ade
your S p irit a C en tre in E te rn ity C om prehending all: and filled
all about you in an E ndless m a n e r w ith infihit R iches: Which
shine before you and su rro u n d you w ith Divine and
72
H eavenly Enjoym ents. (II. 80)
Having s ta rtle d and opened the m ind by m ean s of paradox, and filled
it w ith "P ro fitab le W onders" (I. 1), T ra h e rn e 's next step, which w ill be
d isc u ssed in the next ch ap ter, w as to show his re a d e r how to achieve
and m aintain this aw aren ess of being "infinitly B elo v ed ," "a C entre
in E tern ity Com prehending a ll," by the e x e rc ise of ce rta in d elib erately
designed m editative acts. The initial step had been to awaken his
re a d e r to the sp iritu a l w orld aw aiting h im --a n d yet all the tim e n ear
to h im --a n d one of the chief keys to this awakening w as the technique
com m on to both the poet and the religious s e e r--P a ra d o x .
CHAPTER IV
PARADIGMS OF "F E L IC IT Y "
" F e lic ity is a Thing coveted of a ll," T ra h e rn e w rite s (II. 100),
but " T h e re was n ev er a T utor that did p ro fe s se ly T each F e lic ity "
(I. 37). It was T r a h e r n e 's aim , in the C e n tu rie s , to be this " T u to r ,"
to show his re a d e r not only what " F e lic ity " is, but also how to achieve
and m ain tain this state. We saw (in C hapter II) how T ra h e rn e was
ab le to m ake a unique sym bolic s y s te m of his own w hich w as ably
g eared to convey his p a rtic u la r w eltanschauung; we saw (in C hapter
III) how, by the language of P a ra d o x , T ra h e rn e w as able to awaken his
re a d e r to the p erc ep tio n of " tru th s" at a point of the co n v erg en ce of
ap p are n tly a n tith etical sta te m e n ts; T ra h e rn e w as also to show his
r e a d e r, by a d e lib e ra te and unique u se of language, how the sta te of
felicity could be achieved, enjoyed, and m aintained. "T he M aner is
in ev ry thing of g re a te s t C oncernm ent, " he w ro te of this endeavor
(III. 28), for "W hatever Good thing we do, n eith e r can we p le a s God,
u n less we do it W ell. " The m a n n e r of achieving F e lic ity , according
to T ra h e rn e , r e s t s upon, firs t, a p ro p e r d isc e rn m e n t o r a tru e " s e e
ing" and, second, a conscious effo rt to uphold this " tru e vision" in
c o n sc io u sn e ss. The la tte r activ ity is, n e c e s s a rily , a c o ro lla ry of the
p re lim in a ry vision and is a dynam ic activ ity w h erein the soul, in
73
74
effect, p a rtic ip a te s as an active c re a to r w ith God. This activity re s ts
upon a sy ste m of v erb al and m ental rep etitio n s, alm o st form ulaic in
c h a ra c te r, that a r e designed to b rin g into conscious existence states
of "re a lity . "
In this notion of M an's active and dynam ic creatio n , T ra h e rn e
is clo sely allied to the W horfian hypothesis about language (see C hap
te r II above), which p ostulates that the s tru c tu re s of language a v a il
able to us affect our perception of the w orld. It is an easy step fro m
such an hypothesis to T ra h e rn e 's standpdTKL, -that by a rep etitio n of,
and a m editation upon, the " c o rre c t" view of re a lity we shall thereby
bring this " c o rre c t" view of re a lity into m an ifest and palpable e x is
tence.
At this point of our study of T ra h e rn e 's religious language in
the C e n tu rie s . we a re moving into the second " stru c tu re of ap p reh en
sion" postulated by F re d e ric k J. Streng in his a rtic le , "The P ro b le m
of Sym bolic S tru ctu res in Religious A pprehension. This second
" stru c tu re " S treng calls the "m y th ical stru c tu re of apprehension. "
This s tru c tu re "gives a specific sym bol unique validity for expressing
relig io u s truth, " and
the sym bol itself s tru c tu re s or fo rm s the ultim ate re a lity in e x is
tence, . . . gaining its creativ e force through bridging the levels
of the " sa c re d " and the " p ro fa n e ," . . . by an exclusive u se of
a p a rtic u la r sym bol, for exam ple, through "the im itation of a c e
le s tia l archetype" or rep etitio n of the a c ts of the gods. (p. 138)
See above: C hapter I, p. 8. Streng labels his f ir s t s tru c tu re
"in tu itiv e ," the activity w hereby the mind achieves a w a re n ess, or
"d isc e rn m e n t, " by its confrontation with ap p aren tly s e lf-c o n tra d ic
to ry elem ents (Paradox),
75
S treng illu s tra te s the o p eratio n of this s tru c tu re in ritu a l
s a c rific e w h ere a com bination of p h y sica l appointm ents co n stitu tes a
p a ra d ig m w hereby " re a lity is produced in hum an ex isten ce through the
rep etitio n of previous divine action" (p. 139). Of g re a t im p o rtan ce
a r e the w ords and sounds of the p r ie s ts (the 6ru ti in the ^ a ta p a th a -
B ra h a m a p a ) w hich m u st be a rtic u la te d w ith g re a t p rec isio n :
T he p a rtic u la r w ords th e m se lv e s have a pow er to c re a te ,
for by "nam ing" a p a rtic u la r thing o r rep eatin g a m yth (i. e. ,
the m e m o ry of divine acts) a p a rtic u la r thing is distinguished
fro m a ll other things o r an event is re la te d to the fundam ental
o rd e r of existence. The p re c isio n w ith w hich everything m u st
b e done is freq u en tly a tte ste d to, for any o m issio n would w ork
havoc. Indeed, e v e ry w ord u tte re d during the s a c rific e has
ontological im plication; thus, the B rah m an as go into d etail a c
counting for ev ery w ord, e v e ry sy llab le and the num ber of
sy llab les in a w ord. (p. 142)
It m ay s e e m a fa r c ry fro m the B rah m an as to the relig io u s
u tte ra n c e s of a se v e n te e n th -c e n tu ry H e re fo rd sh ire clerg y m an , but the
link is th e re , and the m ethod d e sc rib e d by T ra h e rn e asto n ish in g ly
s im ila r. An im m ed iate link to S tre n g 's "m y th ical" o r m ag ica l s tr u c
tu re can be d isc e rn e d in the C h ristia n M ass, w h ere, it is affirm ed ,
the S a c rific e of C h rist is constantly re -o ffe re d and the r e a l p re se n c e
of the Body and Blood of C h rist is in siste d upon as a concom itant of
the litu rg ic a l p a ra d ig m which co n stitu tes the M ass. O ther illu m in a t
ing connections can b e m ad e w ith the m y th ic al s tru c tu re of relig io u s
language evinced in o rie n ta l w ritin g s (as outlined, for in stan ce , by
S treng) and the C h ristia n lite ra tu r e of m editation, p a rtic u la rly the
Ignatian e x e rc is e s . The p a ra lle l of the S p iritu al E x e rc is e s with T r a
h e r n e 's m ethods w ill b e exam ined la te r. F o r the m om ent, le t us
76
exam ine the C en tu ries of M editations for T r a h e r n e 's initial d ire ctio n s
on achieving felicity .
F u n d am en tal to T ra h e rn e 's sym bolic sy ste m , as we saw e a r-
2
lie r , is the concept of Man as the "im ag e" of God, and this is a p r e
re q u isite for the full enjoym ent of G od's c re a tio n , fo r, if we a r e c r e
ated in G od's im age, we p o s s e s s , by reflectio n , the whole of creatio n :
In D isco v erin g the M atter o r O bjects to be Enjoyed, I w as g re atly
aided by re m e m b e rin g that we w e re m ade in Gods Im age. F o r
thereupon it m u st of N e c e ssity follow that GODs T r e a s u re s be
our T r e a s u r e s , and His Joys our Jo y s. So that by enquiring w hat
w e re GODs, I found the O bjects of our felicity Gods T r e a s u re s
being o u rs, for we w e re m ad e in his Im age that w e m ight liv in
His sim ilitu d . (III. 58)
The d isc e rn m e n t of the bounty of God in the d iv e rsity of created
things (which T ra h e rn e in cu lcates w ith the ex u b eran ce of G e ra rd M an
ley Hopkins) leads n a tu ra lly to love of God through the love of the
C re a tu re s :
But to Study th at w hich w ill Oblige us to lov Him, and F e e d
us w ith N obility and G oodness tow ard M en, that is B lessed . And
so is it to Study that, w hich w ill lead us to the T em ple of W isdom ,
and Seat us in the T hrone of G lory. (HI. 40)
F o r tru e g ratitu d e is an e s se n tia l f ir s t step in the jo u rn ey tow ard
felicity: "Should he m ak e you in his Im age, and em ploy a ll his W is
dom and P o w er to fill E te rn ity w ith T r e a s u r e s , and you d esp ise them
it would b e in vain" (IV. 48). It is in this p r io r sp iritu a l p re p a ra tio n ,
this g ratefu l d isc e rn m e n t of G od's p ro v isio n s for M an, that P ro fe s s o r
L ouis L. M a rtz links T ra h e rn e w ith B o n av en tu re's Itin e ra riu m M entis
^Chapter II, p. 42.
77
3
in Deum . B onaventure, the m edieval follow er of A ugustine, w rote
that we a re led to God by his v e s tig ia , the footprints of God in c re a te d
th in g s.
But g ra titu d e alone is not enough, and an explication of the
C en tu ries as m e r e ly the acq u ire m e n t of felic ity through g ratitu d e
would be to in te rp r e t as m e re effusive thanksgiving, ro m a n tic e x u b e r
an ce, what is ac tu a lly the d edicated C h ristia n involvem ent in G od's
w orld that T ra h e rn e enjoins.
P a rtic ip a tio n and activ e involvem ent can only be achieved by
d iscern in g ex actly w hat Man is tru ly involved in, that is to say, by a
new and c o r re c t act of seeing. M ost of u s, T ra h e rn e se e m s to say,
a r e blind to th e re a l n atu re of the w orld to w hich we a re h e irs by di-
• V
vine right:
You n e v e r Enjoy the W orld a rig h t, till you see a ll things in
it so p e rfe c tly y o u rs, th at you cannot d e s ire th em any other V y:
and till you a r e Convinced that all Things s e rv you B est in th eir
P ro p e r P la c e s . F o r can you d e s ire to Enjoy any thing a B etter
Way then in Gods Im age? (I. 38)
T his ability to see things "in th eir P ro p e r P la c e s " is an ab ility to see
beyond the c lu tte re d am biguities of the te m p o ra l w orld to the p e rfe c t
w orld of the unfallen " P a ra d is e W ithin": we m u st have, in T ra h e rn e 's
w ords " a c le a r Eye able to see a fa r off" (I. 38).
The w o rd s " s e e , " " P e rc e p tio n , " and " d isce rn , " a r e c e n tra l to
T ra h e rn e 's ap p ro ach ; they con stitu te alm o st a them atic r e - ite r a tio n of
3
The P a r a d is e W ithin (New Haven and London, 1964), p. 68.
A ll students of T ra h e rn e 's C e n tu rie s m u st be g re a tly indebted to Dr.
M a rtz 's study.
78
rep eated injunctions, as can be seen in the following p assag e:
C ontentm ent and R est a r is e th fro m a full P e rcep tio n of infinit
T re a s u re s , so that w hosoever w ill P ro fit in the M ystery of F e li
city, m u st see the O bjects of His H appiness, and the M aner how
they a re to be Enjoyed, and d isc e rn also the P o w ers of His Soul
by which He is to enjoy them . 4 (II. 100)
T ra h e rn e fo rg es a curious link betw een the optical ap p aratu s of the
ph y sical eye and the m y stical, poetic, d isc e rn m e n t of the "in n er" eye.
The two p ro c e ss e s a r e for him m y ste rio u sly one and the sam e thing.
The p h y sical eye m u st be train ed so that it sees in n atu re the p ristin e
p a ra d ise of unfallen Man. To this end the unblem ished vision of the
child is p a rtic u la rly ch erish ed by T ra h e rn e , not only in the m uch-
quoted "anthology" piece fro m C enturies III. 3, but throughout the
work:
Our Saviors M eaning, when He said, He m u st be B orn again,
and becom a little Child that w ill enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven: is D eeper far then is g en eraly believed. It is not only
in a C a re le s s R eliance upon Divine P rovidence, that we a re to
becom L ittle C hildren, or in the feebleness and sh o rtn ess of our
A nger and S im plicity of our P a ssio n s: but in the P eace and
P u rity of a ll our Soul. (III. 5)
To achieve this "P e a c e " and "P u rity , " the c o ro lla rie s of tru e seeing,
"we m u st d isro b e our selvs of all fals C o lo rs, and unclothe our Souls
of evil H abits; all our Thoughts m u st be Infant-like and C lear" (III. 5).
The act of percep tio n , then, is conjoined with a type of purification.
This m ode of seeing that T ra h e rn e advocates is not an e so te ric a c tiv
ity lim ited to the m y stic: we all have eyes to see, T rah e rn e say s, but
they a re la rg e ly u ntrained to see the objects in view in th eir full
4
My italics.
beauty and significance, and the significance of the objects is re a liz e d
by c o rre c tly attributing th em to th eir divine source and author: "A ll
m en se e the sam e O bjects, but do not equaly u n d erstan d them . In tel
ligence is the Tongue that d isc e rn s and T a ste s them , Knowledg is the
Light of Heaver!1 (III. 68). When this divine intelligence, this " L ig h t,"
is throw n upon o b jects, then it b eco m es m an ife st th at "All O bjects a r e
in God E te rn al: w hich we by perfecting our faculties a re m ad e to E n
joy" (III. 68). When our eyes a re opened to the beauty and divine
so u rc e of creatio n around u s, then inevitably our p r a is e s w ill resound
to the C re a to r, for "M ens Lips a r e clo sed , becaus th e ir E ys a re
Blinded: T h e ir Tongues a r e Dumb b ecau s th eir E a rs a re Deaf: and
th e re is no Life in th e ir M ouths, b ecaus D eath is in th e ir H e a rts"
(II. 94). With the ap p reh en sio n of God in his v estig ia (to u s e Bonaven-
tu re 's w ord), we can re tu rn p r a is e s to God, the p r a is e s being the r e
flection of G od's love tow ard u s, which w e, like m i r r o r s , b e a m back
tow ard its so u rce:
F o r P r a is e s a r e T ra n sfo rm e d and retu rn in g B enefits. And
th e rfo re doth GOD so G reatly d e s ire the Knowledg of H im , becaus
GOD when He is Known is all Lov: and the P r a is e s which He
d e s ir e s , a r e the R eflexion of His B eam s: which w ill not re tu rn
till they a r e A pprehended. (II. 94)
The divine fe rv o r w hich co n stitu tes felicity , then, is a thank-offering
on the "A ltar" of the w orld, the W orld a lso being not only the "A ltar"
and "T em p le of these P r a is e s , " but "the fuel also th a t Enkindles them ,
and the v ery M atter that com poseth them " (II. 94).
A fu rth e r aid to the attain m en t of felicity, and a c o ro lla ry of
the a r t of tru e seeing is a d e lib e ra te a ct of p lacem en t, a conscious
80
m editative act which helps to estab lish the student on a f ir m plane of
" re a lity " : "If you d e s ire D irections how to enjoy it, " T ra h e rn e w rites,
" P la c e y o u rself in it [the w orld] as if no one w ere C re a te d b esid es
your self. And consider all the s e rv ic e s it doth, even to you alone"
(II. 2). This act of p lacem en t is of param o u n t im p o rtan ce to T raherne,
for the act of discern in g the tru e significance of Man and c re a te d ob
jects is c o ro lla ry to a m en tal affirm atio n of th eir place and sig n ifi
cance:
That any thing m ay be found to be an infinit T r e a s u re , its
P la c e m u st be found in E tern ity , and in Gods E steem . F o r as
th e re is a T im e, so th e re is a P lace for all Things. E v ry thing
in its P la c e is A d m irab le Deep and G lorious: out of its P lace
like a W andering B ird, is D esolat and Good for Nothing. (III. 55)
This d elib e ra te act of placing which T ra h e rn e in stru c ts his
re a d e r to adopt is strik in g ly sim ila r to the Ignatian "com position of
place" outlined in the S piritual E x e rc is e s. This is one of the "m e th
ods" of "contem plation" outlined by St. Ignatius, and co n sists of the
intense contem plation of the m y s te rie s of C h ris t's life and death. It
m u st be re m e m b e re d that this m ethod was an adjunct and a p ro p er
m ethod for b eg in n ers, as com pared to the p erfect, sim ple, and u n a l
loyed "contem plation of the divine M ajesty and that of the heavenly
5
c o u rt," fo r, in the w ords of St. B e rn a rd , "He who cannot contem -
5
A ttributed to Bonaventure in the M editations de la vie du
C h r is t. The quotation is fro m A lexandre Brou, S. J. Ignatian M eth
ods of P r a y e r , tra n sla te d fro m the F re n c h by W illiam J. Young,
S. J. (Milwaukee, 1949), p. 130. I am g reatly indebted to F a th e r
B ro u 's w ork for m y knowledge of the Ignatian e x e rc ise s , and also to
the Introduction to The M editative P o em by Louis L. M artz (New
York, 1963).
The "com position of place" is but one of four points outlined
81
plate things purely divine, should contem plate at le a st the things o£
heaven. He who cannot ascend that £ar, should lose him sel£ in the
m editation of Je su s and of Je su s crucified.
A fter the p ro p e r sp iritu a l p rep aratio n , the placing oneself in
G od's p re se n c e , accom panied by a g e stu re of adoration such as k n eel
ing, p ro stra tin g , kissing the ground, a p re p a ra to ry p ra y e r is m ade to
a sk Our Lord for g race. Then follows the p ra c tic e of the com position
of place: the p re se n c e of Je su s in p erso n m ay be the subject of prayer,
and one m ay choose to contem plate vividly m om ents in His L ife--H is
N ativity, His C rucifixion, His teachings and m ira c le s:
To m ake a page of the G ospel actual, one m ay eith er t r a n s
p o rt oneself into the p ast, or bring this p ast down to the p resen t.
In eith er event we shall find our place among the a d o re rs at the
c rib , or among the M a s te r's h e a r e rs , or the w itn esses of the
crucifixion.
It w ill not be m e re ly a place in which we behold o u rselv es
in s p irit, it w ill be the re-e n ac tin g of an e n tire scene. We w ill
follow Jesu s as He tra v e ls through G alilee preaching and healing.
We w ill be in the m id st of the crow d and h ear His appeal (King
dom ). We will look upon Him as He sits hum ble, fa ir and winning,
w ith His d isc ip les, and we w ill th e re gather in His teachings.
(p. 101)
by St. Ignatius in applicatio sensuum . (1) is to see the p e rso n s with
the eyes of the im agination: (2) is to hear what they a r e saying, or
m ight say; (3) to sm e ll and ta ste ("the h e art of the e x e r c is e " - - Brou);
(4) to feel w ith the touch: O sculetur m e oscula o ris sui (St. B ernard).
A ll th ese four steps lead up to the se n tir of affective p ra y e r.
^Ignatian Methods of P r a y e r , p. 131.
82
7
P ro fe s s o r M artz points out that m any sev en teen th -cen tu ry
poem s, including w orks by T ra h e rn e , Southwell, Donne, H erb ert, and
C rashaw depend for th eir su c ce ss upon "the sp e a k e r's m a s te ry of the
introspective a r t of m editation" (p. xvii). M ilton's "H ym n On the
M orning of C h ris t's N ativity, " is an obvious exam ple of the co m p o si
tion of place em ployed poetically w ith a baro q u e treatm e n t.
T ra h e rn e m u st certa in ly have been fa m ilia r w ith the Ignatian
m ethod if only through the p a ra p h ra se by Edw ard Dawson, "T he P r a c
tical M ethode of M editation" (1614), and p o ssib ly through the two L atin
tran slatio n s of Ignatius of 1548. T ra h e rn e 's d irectio n s to his re a d e r
on the intense visualization of s p iritu a l re a litie s by an a c t of the im a g
ination (and h e re we tra n scen d the p h y sical ocular acknow ledgm ent of
God's creatio n ) a re , in essen ce, Ignatian:
T hese Things shall never be seen w ith your Bodily Eys.
but in a m o re p e rfe c t m a n e r. You sh all be p re se n t with them in
your U nderstanding. You sh all be In th em to the v e ry c e n tre and
they in you. As Light is in a P iece of C h ry sta l, so sh all you be
with ev ery P a r t and E xcellency of them . An A ct of the U n d er
standing is the p re se n c e of the Soul. (II. 76)
F o r T ra h e rn e , this "A ct of the U nderstanding" enables the individual
to "be p re s e n t now w ith all the C re a tu re s am ong which you live" (11.76),
By the im aginative a ct which tra n sp o rts the soul to d ifferen t ages and
clim es the e te rn a l n atu re of the soul is proved. And th is is the v ital
factor which distinguishes T ra h e rn e 's type of "com position of place"
- - a tra n sc en d e n ta l elem ent which ra is e s the soul to a level of infinite
com prehension and pow er: "T he C ontem plation of E tern ity m aketh the
7
The Meditative Poem , xxiii.
83
Soul Im m o rta l'1 (I. 55).
T r a h e r n e 's re m a rk s on this faculty of the im agination which
enables the soul to be c o -p re s e n t w ith the p a tria rc h s clo sely p a ra lle ls
the Ignatian m ethod:
When m y Soul is in Eden w ith our f ir s t P a re n ts , I m y self
am th e re in a B le sse d M aner. When I w alk with Enoch, and see
his T ra n sla tio n , I a m T ra n s p o rte d with Him. The p re se n t Age
is too little to contain it: I can v isit Noah in His A rk , and sw im
upon the W aters of the Deluge. I can see M oses w ith his Rod,
and the c h ild re n of I s ra e l p assin g thorow the sea. I can E nter
into A aro n s T a b e rn a c le , and A d m ire the M y ste rie s of the Holy
P la ce . I can T ra v a il o ver the Land of Canaan, and see it o v e r
flowing w ith M ilk and Honey; I can v isit Solomon in his G lory,
and go into his T em ple, and view the sitting of His se rv a n ts ,
and a d m ire the M agnificence and G lory of his Kingdom. No C r e a
tu re but one like unto the Holy A ngels can se e into all A ges. (I. 55)
A c ru c ia l elem en t in this p a ssa g e , and one w hich helps to exem plify
T r a h e r n e 's unique attitude, is his equating in the la st sentence of
M an's cap ac itie s w ith those of the "Holy A n g e ls " --th is is T ra h e rn e 's
audacious c laim for M an in G od's "im age. "
A p a ssa g e in the F i r s t C en tu ry m o re "typical" of the Ignatian
com position of place is one w h ere T ra h e rn e m ed itates upon the Wounds
of C h r is t- - a m o re conventional type of m editation, exem plifying the
im aginative and p athetic (and often m au d lin !) elem en ts c h a ra c te ris tic
o
of m any im aginative m ed itatio n s:
T h e se Wounds a r e in th em selv s O rific es too s m a ll to le t in
m y Sight, to the v ast C om prehensions of thine E te rn a l Lov.
T h ese Wounds E ngraven in thy Hands but Shady Im p ressio n s;
u n less I see the G lory of thy Soul, in w hich the fulness of the
GOD-HEAD D w elleth Bodily. T h ese Bloody C h a ra c te rs a r e too
Dim to le t m e re a d it, in its L u s tre and P erfectio n . T ill I see
g
F o r an account of th e se elem en ts, see Ignatian M ethods of
P r a y e r , pp. 133-137.
84
thy P e rso n : and know thy W ays ! O Thou that H angest upon this
C ro ss b efo re m ine Eys, W hose face is Bleeding, and coverd
over with T e a rs and filth and Blows ! A ngels A dore the GLORY
of Thy GODHEAD in the H ighest H eav en s! Who in evry Thought,
and in e v ry W ork didst G lorious Things for m e fro m E v erlastin g .
(I. 64)
N ev e rth e le ss, despite the conventional elem ents a sso c ia te d with the
C ru cifix io n --th e blood and the te a rs and the b lo w s --it can be seen how
T ra h e rn e in sists upon transcending the conventional level and its e m
p h asis on the c o rp o re a l J e s u s , to an acknow ledgm ent of the infinite
and overw helm ing n a tu re of the Godhead. "T h e se W ounds," he say s,
" a r e too s m a ll . . . to the v ast C om prehension of thine E te rn a l Lov.
T h ese Wounds . . . but Shady Im p re s s io n s ." T ra h e rn e 's m ethod h ere
is that of an tith e sis: he contem plates the sufferings of C h rist with all
the co ncentrated fe rv o r of the Ignatian m ethod, but with the aim of
showing, by d ire c t c o n tra st, how despite the im m anence of God in the
crucified J e s u s , God is still "in the H ighest H eav en s." T h e re is a
m o st in tere stin g and abrupt tra n sitio n tow ard the end of the passag e.
Im m ediately juxtaposed to the p assa g e of m editation upon the " T e a rs
and filth and Blows " is the triu m p h an t exclam ation, "A ngels A dore the
GLORY of T hy GODHEAD in the H ighest H eavens. " This is in strong
and ironic c o n tra st to the im m ed iately preceding v isual im age: in this
bleeding, wounded m an can be seen the in c arn ate God of all w orlds.
The passage is esp ecially in te re stin g in showing T ra h e rn e 's tra sc e n d -
ence over the trad itio n al com ponents of the "com position of place. "
T ra h e rn e 's in sisten ce upon c o rre c t seeing, together with con
stan t affirm ation of the tru e "place" of Man and c re a te d objects "in
85
E tern ity , and in Gods E steem " (III. 55) is, then, in clo se c o rre la tio n
w ith the Ignatian in sisten ce upon intensity of v isualization, and can be
seen both in a g e n eral way in T ra h e rn e 's constant and u rg en t d ir e c
tions for us to see, to acknow ledge, and w ell as in a m o re specific and
conventional ad herence to the Ignatian com position of place as seen in
the passag e exam ined above (I. 64).
The h e a rt of T ra h e rn e 's m ethod is, indeed, an in siste n t a f fir
m ation of sp iritu a l "facts, " a dynam ic fo ra y of the s p irit to c laim and
lay hold upon a sp iritu a l state of felicity which Man once had, has a p
p aren tly , but not in " re a lity ," lost, and w hich he can reg ain b ecau se it
is rightfully his, as "H eir of the W orld. " This dynam ic, positive a p
pro ach is som ew hat lo st sight of in P ro fe s s o r M a rtz 's tre a tm e n t of the
9
subject in The P a ra d ise W ithin.
D r. M a rtz 's th esis is that the C en tu ries follows clo sely the
p a tte rn of developm ent of St. A ugustine's C onfessions and his De T r i -
nitate (p. 43) in re g a rd to A ugustine's "d o ctrin e of the in te rio r light"
(p. 84). The p a tte rn of developm ent in the C e n tu rie s, according to
M artz is one of repetition: "to re v iv e the knowledge once found; to
re s to r e , by a continual effort of m editation, those tru th s that have
been r e s to re d in the m ind a hundred or thousand tim es b efore" (p. 51).
The p ro c e ss depends upon the th eo ry of p re -e x is te n c e and p re -c o g n i
tion w hereby the child in its innocent infancy is c lo se r to perfection
than the disillusioned adult. The theory would se e m to fit as n eatly for
9
See footnote 3 on p. 77 above.
86
T ra h e rn e with his celeb rated p a ssa g e s on idyllic childhood m e m o rie s
as it does for Blake and W ordsw orth: one has m e re ly , by a delib erate
act of m e m o ry to re c a ll the lo st state of p ristin e innocence: "One
m u st re tu rn by m e m o ry to Eden, becom e like the unfallen A dam in
im agination, as T ra h e rn e finds the Bible urging in R evelation 2:5:
"R em em b er fro m when thou a r t fain, and Repent" (M artz, p. 69).
In an alm o st Jungian sta te m e n t on the im portance of m em o ry to T r a
h e rn e 's m ethod, M artz w rite s:
the m e m o ry "has the lik en ess of etern ity w hose indivisible
p re se n t extends to all tim e s" [quoting fro m B onaventure's
Itin e ra riu m M entis in D eu m ], It has within itse lf c e rta in " s i m
ple fo rm s" which have not en tered "through the door of the se n se s."
Above all, the m em o ry "has an undying light p re s e n t to itself in
w hich it re m e m b e rs unchangeable tru th s. " "And thus, through
the operations 'of the m em o ry , it a p p ea rs that the soul itself is
the im age of God and His lik en ess, so p re se n t to it self and having
Him p re se n t that it re c e iv e s H im in actuality and is susceptible
of receiving H im in potency, and that it can also p a rtic ip a te in
H im ." (p. 79)
The key words, for M artz a re "through the operations of the m em o ry ,"
and th is, for him , is the key to T ra h e rn e 's m ethod in attaining felicity
--o n e of conscious and d elib erate re c a ll. M artz tends to ignore the
dynam ism im p licit in Bona v e n tu re 's w ords (which he quotes), " r e
ceives Him in actuality, " and "re ceiv in g H im in potency, " which a re
actually m o re akin to the intent and tenor of T ra h e rn e 's m ethod.
M a rtz 's em phasis on the function of m e m o ry in regaining felicity is
about as tru e to the dynam ic n atu re of T ra h e rn e 's view of felicity as
the shadowy fo rm s of the seance ro o m a r e to the positive actu ality of
the ris e n C h rist.
87
M artz s u m m a riz e s T r a h e r n e 's ach iev em en t as follows:
Thus the intuitive, E d en -lik e vision of his infancy has been
"C o llected again, by the H ighest R e a so n ," illum inated by a
faith th at leads to hope and c h a rity . . . . He has found the
inw ard P a ra d is e : the S im ilitude and P re s e n c e of God in the
whole C reatio n . (p. 93)
T his su m m atio n illu s tra te s M a rtz 's w atered -d o w n v e rsio n of T r a
h e rn e 's e s se n tia l dynam ism ; the w o rd s 'to lle c te d a g a in ," for exam ple,
sug g ests a frag m en ted re a lity r a th e r than the triu m p h an t, unified
blend of God and Man that T ra h e rn e in cu lcates and r e a liz e s .
T r a h e r n e 's idea of the p a r t the m ind plays in achieving f e li
city is c e rta in ly not one of re co lle c tio n and r e c a ll only but of in trin sic
and im p licit p o ten tial in each individual. "You a r e as P ro n e to lo v ,"
he w rite s , "as the Sun is to shine. It being the m o s t D elightfull and
N atu ral E m ploym ent of the Soul of Man" (II. 65).
The p ro c e ss is one of p ositive action, a dynam ic thing, not
m e re ly the r a th e r negative p ro c e s s of reco llectio n : "B y Loving a Soul
does P ro p a g a t and beget it self, b ecau s b efo re it loved it lived only in
it self: a fte r it loved, and w hile it loveth it liveth in its O bject" (II. 56).
Indeed, ju s t as the sun itse lf would be u nseen, "did it not S c a tte r, and
sp re a d a b ro ad its B eam s . . . so the Soul w ithout Extending, and liv
ing in its O bject, is Dead w ithin it self" (II. 56). The thought is r e
peated in a p a ssa g e s e v e ra l m ed itatio n s fu rth e r on when T ra h e rn e
again e m p h asiz es the need for an outgoing, dynam ic love, by which,
indeed, the soul a c q u ire s its id en tify --an d without w hich outpouring it
would have no identity:
88
Even so your Soul in its R ays and P o w e rs is unknown: and
no m an would b eliev it p re s e n t e v ry w h ere, w e re th e re no O bjects
th e re to be D iscern ed . Your Thoughts and Inclinations p ass on
and a r e u n p erceiv ed . But by th e ir O bjects a r e d isc e rn e d to be
p re se n t: being illu m in ated by them , for they a r e P r e s e n t with
th e m and A ctiv about them . (II. 78)
The a c tiv ity and p o ten tial of the soul a r e given fo rc e by T r a h e r n e 's
u s e of the w ord " P o w e rs" in connection w ith soul, "illu m in ated " in
connection w ith the function of the "R ay s and P o w e rs" of the soul, and
"A ctiv" a s an identifying a ttrib u te of the soul. The illum ination by the
" ra y s " of the soul has a du al function; like the light ra y s fro m the sun
th ey not only illu m in ate the object, but also give id en tity to (and fulfill)
the s o u rc e of the lig h t (the su n /th e soul). By a d ev elo p m en t of this
analogy, as the light ra y s b rin g into conscious view and ex isten ce the
o b ject view ed, so in a m y ste rio u s alc h e m y "is the Soul T ra n s fo rm e d
into the Being of its O bject" (II. 78). The obvious link w ith K e a ts' d o c
trin e of N egative C ap ab ility need not be lab o red . The outgoing e m p a
thy of the poet for the phenom enal w o rld th at m ak es the p o et one w ith
the s p a rro w is p r e c is e ly the sam e function, or activ ity , of the soul
th at T ra h e rn e in cu lcates h e re . It is a dynam ic ac tiv ity th a t not only
r e s u lts in the fu lfillm en t of the individual by re a liz in g his full p o te n
tia l ("its R ays and P o w e rs" ) but a lso tra n sc e n d s and, to a c e rta in ex
tent, lo se s the individuality of the soul in a new re la tio n sh ip ( " T r a n s
fo rm e d "); even a to ta l m e rg in g with his environm ent.
The activ e, dynam ic pow er of the soul is em p h asiz ed even
m o re in a p a ssa g e w h ere T ra h e rn e a s s e r t s the ab ility of the soul to
g e n e ra te a love of its own. H ere T ra h e rn e m ak es a g re a t leap beyond
the platonic idea of the so u l's love as a reflectio n of God's love, a no
tion dear to him and e x p resse d in one of his fav o rite im ag es, the
M irro r; the step beyond reflectio n is to one of individual loving; "it
can lov re g u la rly , with a Lov that is not m e e rly the Reflexion of Gods,
for which caus it is not called a M irro r, but esteem ed m o re , a re a l
fountain" (IV. 85). "T h at the Soul shineth of it s e lf ," T ra h e rn e w rite s
in the sam e m editation, "is equaly m an ifest, for it can lov with a lov
d istin ct fro m GODs. It can lov irre g u la rly , . . . It can lov while
GOD fo rb eareth . "
The idea T ra h e rn e e x p re sse s here of the individual cre a tiv ity
of the s o u l--" a r e a l fountain" ra th e r than a M irro r--c a p a b le of g en
eratin g a love of its own, is a vital tran sitio n al link in the developm ent
of his thought fro m the low er level of an awakened gratitude to the
beauties of creatio n (B onaventure's v estig ia), to the higher, m o re a u
dacious, concept, that the soul p a rtic ip a te s in the cre a tiv e a ct itself.
H ere T ra h e rn e m oves without a doubt to the plane of S tren g 's second
" s tru c tu re " of religious a p p re h e n sio n --th e "m ythical s tr u c tu r e ,"
w h ere "the sym bol itself s tru c tu re s or fo rm s the u ltim ate re a lity in
existence" (p. 138). It w ill be re m e m b e re d th at S treng fu rth e r d e
scrib e d the p ro c e ss of this second s tru c tu re as "the im itation of a c e
le s tia l archetype" or rep etitio n of the acts of the gods" (p. 138). It
can b e seen in T ra h e rn e 's sy ste m for attaining felicity that he in cu l
cates such a repetition in o rd e r to " s tru c tu re " " re a lity in [to ] e x is t
ence; it can be seen, fu rth e r, that he advocates "the im itation of a
c e le stia l arch ety p e. " By th ese twin approaches T ra h e rn e aim s at
90
re sto rin g the lost P a ra d ise to the in itia te --a far c ry fro m the p ro c e ss
of m e m o ry and re c a ll that P ro fe s s o r M artz sees in the C e n tu rie s.
In o rd e r to un d erstan d m o re fully T ra h e rn e 's approach, the
developm ent of his thought m u st be tra c e d fro m this b asic standpoint
of the dynam ic n atu re of the soul, that is, the ability of the soul to
achieve "a lov d istin ct fro m GODs" (IV. 85). F ro m this foot-hold in
the m en tal lad d er, T ra h e rn e m oves onw ard to the notion that the con
cept of the w orld within the h eart of Man is of m o re value, and m o re
este em ed by God, than the actu al C reation itself:
As m uch th e rfo re as the End is b etter then the M eans, the
Thought of the W orld w herby it is Enjoyed is B etter then the
W orld. So is the Idea of it in the Soul of Man, b e tte r then the
W orld in the E ste e m of GOD: It being the End of the W orld,
w ithout which Heaven and E a rth would be in vain. (II. 90)
T ra h e rn e b ases this assum ption on two p re m ise s: (1) "that A p p re
hensions within a r e b e tte r then th eir O b je c ts," and (2) that this c la im
ing the w orld for oneself is a n e c e s sa ry p ro c e ss in the individual con
scio u sn ess , and is accom panies by a p ro c e ss of in terio rizin g : "He
that Thinks the Heavens' and the E a rth not his, can hardly u se them "
(IV. 15). Such a cherish in g of the w orld in thought, a kind of m en tal
claim ing, leads to a positive a ssu ra n c e beyond m e re faith and belief
--" th e full A ssu ra n c e of U nderstanding to the Acknowledgm ent of the
M y stery of God" (IV. 6). The ta sk is not difficult: "GOD hath m ade
it E a sy to convert our Soul into a Thought containing Heaven and
E a rth , not that it should be Contem ptible becaus it is Easy: but don,
becaus it is Divine" (II. 87).
91
The m ind having estab lish ed an "Idea" of the w orld within i t
self, it follows that a m en tal duty and an evidence of the so u l's love
for God is the constant nou rish m en t, cherish in g and upholding of this
"Idea" in the m ind: "We likew ise ought to Shew our infinit Lov by U p
holding Heaven and E arth , T im e and E tern ity , GOD and a ll Things in
our Souls, without W avering or In te rm issio n " (II. 87). It can read ily
be seen , at this point, how T ra h e rn e follows p re c is e ly S tre n g 's p a t
tern h e re , for the "m ythical s tru c tu re of ap p reh en sio n "- -"th e im ita
tion of a c e le stia l archetype, " or "rep etitio n of the acts of the gods, "
is, in this c a s e , nothing le ss than the upholding of c re a tio n with G od--
a daring concept if ever th e re w as one!
As am ong Divines it is said, That evry M om ents P r e s e r v a
tion is a New C reation: and th e rfo re B lessings continued m u st not
be D espised, but be m o re and m o re esteem ed : becaus evry
M om ents P re se rv a tio n is another Obligation: even so in the
Continual S erie s of Thoughts w herby we continue to uphold the
F r a m e of Heaven and E a rth in the Soul tow ards God, evry
Thought is another W orld to the Diety as A cceptable as the
f ir s t. Yea the Continuance puts an infinit W orth and L u stre on
them . F o r to be D esultory and Inconstant is the p a rt of a fickle
and c a re le s s Soul: and m ake the Im agination of it W orthless and
D espised. But to continu Serious in Upholding th ese Thoughts
for GODs sake, is the P a r t of a F aithfull and Loving Soul. (II. 91)
The ab ility of the m ind to s tru c tu re re a lity into existence (to p a r a
p h ra se Streng) is em phasized even m o re so by T ra h e rn e 's re m a rk s
that the m ind has not only co n stru ctiv e ability, but also d estru ctiv e
. potential in this re g a rd : "So that tho you can build or dem olish such
W orlds as often as you p leas; yet it infinitly concerneth you faithfully
to continue them : and W isely to R ep air them " (II. 92).
The g re a t d esid e ra tu m for T ra h e rn e and for his re a d e r is that
92
the potential of the soul m ay be re a liz e d in dynam ic action, for as God
is "One infinit Act of KNOWLEDG and W isdom " (II, 84), as "He is a ll
Ey and all E a r. Being th e rfo re P e rfe c t . . . He hath Com m anded us
to be p e rfe c t as He is P e rfe c t" (II. 84). As God is one infinite, p e r
fect, and dynamic Act, so we in our full potential, a r e also " A c t " : ^
We a r e to be Conform ed to the Im age of His Glory: till
we becom the R esem blance of His G reat E x e m p lar. W hich we
then a re , when our P ow er is C onverted into Act, and covered
w ith it we being an A ct of KNOWLEDG and W isdom as He is.
(II. 84)
T his activity is perhaps the g re a te s t joy of the soul; "b esid es C ontem -
plativ th e re is an A ctiv H appiness; which co n siste th in B lessed O p e ra
tions" (IV. 1). M o reover, in this activity, the " tru e self" is re a liz e d
and achieved by the fulfillm ent of potential: "And this Lov is your tru
Self when you a r e in Act what you a re in P o w er, the G reat Daemon of
the W orld, the End of a ll Things, the D e sire of A ngels and of all
N ations" (IV. 67).
The P a ra d ise that is reg ain ed by this p ro c e ss is c e rta in ly not
one of sta tic , se re n e , idyllic p erfection, but one of controlled power
and dynam ic action. One having achieved this sp iritu a l sta te , the soul
has m oved fro m positions outworn:
This Spectacle once seen, w ill never be forgotten. It is a
G re a t P a r t of the B eatifick V ision. A S’ght of H appiness is
H appiness. It tra n sfo rm s the Soul and m akes it H eavenly, it
*®In his conception of "A ct" T ra h e rn e follows A risto tle . See
The P h y s ic s , ed. Philip H. W icksteed and F ra n c is M. C ornford
(London, 1957), p. lxxii: " . . . the p erfect and the actualized is
p re -su p p o se d in the potential and the undeveloped and at once d ire c ts
and explains its co u rse. "
93
pow erfully ca lls us to Com m union with God, and weans us fro m
the C ustom s of this W orld. (II. 60)
But, ju st as the p rie s tly activity, designed to b rid g e "the lev els of
the 's a c r e d ' and the 'p ro fa n e '" (Streng, p. 138), n e c e s s ita te s a p a r a
digm w hereby " re a lity is produced in hum an existence through the r e
petition of p re v io u s, divine action" (p. 139), b o the neophyte also m u st
constantly re p e a t th ese actions by m ed itatio n and affirm atio n : .
Having once studied th ese P rin c ip le s you a re E te rn aly to P ra c tic e
them . You a re to w a rm your self at th e s e f ir e s , and to have
re c o u rs to th em e v ry Day. When you th in k not of these Things
you a r e in the D ark. And if you would w alk in th e Light of them ,
you m u st freq u en tly M editat. (IV. 94)
The rep etitio n of these actio n s in m ed itatio n and the C h ristia n
life b rin g s into being the re a lity of felicity w here G od and M an a r e r e
joined in a union of joyous activ ity and of love; the individual "fountain"
of M an's c re a tiv e love and endeavor b eco m es m e rg e d in p u rp o se and
fulfillm ent w ith the endless s tre a m in g of G o d 's love:
Lov in the F ountain, and Lov in the S tre a m a r e both the
sam e. And th e rfo re a re they both Equal in T im e and G lory. F o r
Lov co m m unicateth it self: And th e rfo re Lov in the fountain is
the v ery Lov co m m unicated to its O bject. Lov in the fountain is
Lov in the S tre a m , and Lov in the S tre a m Equaly G lorious with
lov in the F ountain. Tho it S tream e th to its O bject it abideth in
the L o v er, and is the Lov of the Lover. (11.41)
T h is, then, is the u ltim a te ach iev em en t of M an's en d eav o rs.
By the u s e of a p a ra d ig m of C h ristia n m ed itatio n s, by the conscious
affirm atio n and upholding of known tru th s , b y the im ita tio n of divine
a rc h e ty p e s, by the rep etitio n of divine a c ts (w hereby he b eco m es "the
G re a t Daemon of the W orld"), Man s tru c tu re s into re a lity a heavenly
h arm ony that w as ap p aren tly lo st. This h arm o n y and union clo se ly
approxim ates the m y stic al union d e sc rib e d by S treng fro m the U pani-
sad s, " ta tt v a m a s i 1 1 ["You a re that u ltim ate reality "] (Streng, p. 132)
W here Lov is the L over, Lov stre a m in g fro m the L over, is
the Lover; the Lover strea m in g fro m H im self: and Existing in
another P e rso n . (II. 42)
CH APTER V
SUMMARY. P E R C E PT IO N AND ARTICULATION:
MODELS OF REALITY
One of S ak i's m em o rab ly w itty lin e s --" N e v e r be a p io n eer.
It's the E a rly C h ristian that gets the fa tte st lio n "--w o u ld s e e m to a p
ply w ell at this stage in our study. F o r the tim e has com e to b rin g
together to an evaluative conclusion what we have le a rn e d about r e l i
gious language and T ra h e rn e 's su c c e ss in using it. Have w e, indeed,
s a tis fa c to rily cap tu red , netted, and identified this r a r a avis of our
s e a rc h , relig io u s language? Has it been d e cisiv e ly a s c e rta in e d that
T ra h e rn e u sed a sp ecial language in the C en tu ries for the p u rp o se of
com m unicating his vision of "felicity "?
It se e m s fa irly c le a r that our exam ination has brought to us
the doors of p ercep tio n (alarm in g ly sounding as th is m ay be), fo r, as
we saw in the p reced in g c h ap ter, ju st as o n e 's m ode of p erceiv in g
re a lity d e te rm in e s his artic u la tio n , so a lso o n e's a rtic u la tio n (to e m
ploy the W horfian hypothesis) to so m e extent d e te rm in e s his m ode of
percep tio n . R eligious language h a s, then, a tw o-w ay relatio n sh ip ,
with m odes of p ercep tio n a t the one pole, and m odes of a rtic u la tio n at
the o th er. It stands at the focal point, as it w ere, of a v e ry sp e c ia l
kind of p ercep tio n (or " d isc ern m en t" to u se R a m s e y 's p h ra se ) and a
unique a rtic u la tio n . The p erce p tio n of relig io u s tru th s involves a
95
p a rtic u la r " d is c e rn m e n t,1 1 and the subsequent a rtic u la tio n of th ese
tru th s re q u ire s a carefu l and unique u se of av ailab le language. Indeed,
the relig io u s w rite r is not unlike the hapless Is ra e lite s who had to
fashion b ric k s without straw . The w o rk e r in relig io u s language m u st
be alm o st a m agician; the language available to h im --th e c u rre n c y of
everyday life --m u s t be u sed in an "odd" way to e x p re ss what is often
in the re a lm of the in ex p ressib le . It has to be stre tc h e d and tw isted,
using fig u res such as P arad o x to produce what S treng calls a "logic
of co n v erg en ce," or what R a m se y would call the illum ination of the
m om ent when "the penny d ro p s ." R eligious language can also be em
ployed, m o re o v e r, above and beyond its function of ex p ressin g d is
cern ed tru th s, for the pu rp o se of bringing into being sta te s of " r e a l
ity. " This is the " m y th ic a l," " s a c ra m e n ta l," o r "m ag ical" a sp ect of
relig io u s language.
In attem pting a fo rm ulation of what relig io u s language is , it
has becom e c le a r, I think, that its som ew hat elusive n a tu re and,
hence, the difficulty one encounters in defining it, ste m s fro m the
fact that it is b a sic a lly a m ethod, an approach, a stra teg y . It b e
com es in creasin g ly c le a r, also , that relig io u s language has a g reat
d eal in com m on w ith the language of the poet. Both the poet and the
w rite r of relig io u s language a r e in te rp re te rs of re a lity as they d is
c e rn it. S im ilar p ro b le m s engage the attention of both the poet and
the relig io u s w rite r; the poetic p ro c e ss , like relig io u s language, is a
b in ary one, w ith twin a sp ects of a r a th e r sp ecial d isc e rn m e n t and the
artic u la tio n of this d iscern m en t.
The sp e c ia l " d isc e rn m e n t" o£ relig io u s language is clo sely a l
lied to the p e rc e p tio n of the poet. The concept of the poet as a p e rso n
of m o re than a v e ra g e sen sitiv ity is an old one; it is a com m onplace of
ro m a n tic c ritic is m , as can be seen in W o rd sw o rth 's definition of a
poet in the P re fa c e to the Second Edition of L y ric a l B a lla d s, 1800:
". . . a m an, it is tru e , endowed w ith m o re lively sen sib ility , m o re
en th u siasm and te n d e rn e ss , who has a g re a te r knowledge of human
n a tu re , and a m o re co m p reh en siv e soul, than a r e supposed to be c o m
m on am ong m ankind. " T his idea of the poet as a m an endowed w ith a
m o re acute sen sib ility than the a v e ra g e m an is often yoked to the idea
of the poet as in te rp r e te r , or spokesm an, for his le ss a rtic u la te fel-
lo w m e n --a s in P o p e 's notion of "W hat oft w as thought, but n e 'e r so
w ell e x p re sse d " (h ere, of co u rse , the sen sib ility of o th er m en is p r e
sum ably equated w ith th a t of the poet, thus exhibiting in m a rk e d co n
t r a s t the g re a t leveling effect of the A ugustan m ind with the ro m a n tic
elevation of individual "genius"). C o rre la te d w ith the acute p e rc e p
tion, o r " d is c e rn m e n t," of the poet is his capacity to see beyond the
"o b v io u s," d a y -to -d a y vision of things, attaining a se n se of new ness,
a c le a r and p ris tin e view of the w orld as if it w e re newly cre a te d .
E m e rso n , fo r exam ple, speaks of the " u lte rio r in tellectu al perception"
of the poet in an e s sa y on "T h e P o et, " fro m E ssa y s: Second S e r ie s ,
1844: "As the eyes of Lyncaeus w e re said to see through the e a rth , so
the poet tu rn s the w orld to g la ss, and shows us a ll things in th eir
rig h t s e rie s and p r o c e s s io n ." This a ttrib u te of the poet is c le a rly
sh a re d by T ra h e rn e a lso , in his constant exhortations to his re a d e r to
im agine that he is the only p e rso n in existence, a s o rt of new A dam
98
for w hom the whole w orld in a ll its ric h n e ss and beauty has been
c re a te d ; he is, in T ra h e rn e 's p h ra se , "H eir of the W o rld ."
Beyond this fre sh n e ss of vision in the poet is a pow er to see a
m u ltip licity of relatio n sh ip s betw een both things and events which the
"a v e ra g e " p e rso n does not p o s se s s. This idea is a com m on elem ent
both to the m o d ern c r ite ria for a high I. Q. , and to the seventeenth
cen tu ry notion of " w it" -- a d isc e rn m e n t of relatio n sh ip s that a re im
plicit in o th erw ise d isp a ra te objects; it is the b a sis not only for poetic
fig u res of co m p ariso n but a lso , v e ry often, for speculative r e s e a r c h in
the a r ts and scie n ces. The p o et's d isc e rn m e n t is thus acu te (i. e. ,
m o re intensely observant) and im aginative both. The la tte r quality of
im agination, w hereby the poet can se e relatio n sh ip s betw een sy n ch ro
nous and d isso ciated m en tal planes is also an e sse n tia l a sp ect of his
artic u la tio n , w hich not only defines in w ords his unique m ode of p e r
ception, but also th ereb y b rin g s into being a new re a lity --th e poem
and the experience of the poem ; that is to say, the im aginative c o r r e
lation of d isp a ra te relatio n sh ip s is the fo rce which seeks out and co l
lects the m a te ria l for the linguistic v e h ic le --im a g e s, fig u re s, syntax,
and so o n --o f the poem as an a rtifa c t.
The Rom an te r m s , vates and poeta illu stra te this dual function
w ell. Sir P hilip Sidney, in his An Apology fo r P o e try , points to the
distinction betw een V a te s- - " a diviner, f o r e - s e e r , o r p ro p h e t"--a n d
P o et fro m the G reek "P o iein , w hich is , to m ake: w h erein I know not
w hether by luck or w isdom , we Englishm en have m et with the G reek s,
in calling him a m a k e r. " Sidney d isc u sse s the la tte r quality of a poet
99
at som e length:
N either let it be deem ed too saucy a co m p ariso n to balance the
highest point of m a n 's wit with the efficacy of N ature: but ra th e r
give rig h t honor to the heavenly M aker of that m a k e r: who having
m ade m an to his own lik en ess, se t him beyond and over all the
w orks of that second n atu re , w hich in nothing he showeth so
m uch as in poetry: when w ith the fo rce of a divine b reath , he
b rin g e th things fo rth fa r su rp assin g her doings;
F o r the poet as "m a k e r" is m an the sy n th e siz e r, the c re a to r of o rd e r
out of "this old chaos of the sun" (to u se W allace S tevens' p h rase). In
this a rtis tic sy n th esis, the poet fulfills p re c is e ly T ra h e rn e 's dictum :
As m uch th e rfo re as the End is b e tte r then the M eans, the Thought
of the W orld w herby it is Enjoyed is B etter then the W orld. So
is the Idea of it in the Soul of Man, b e tte r then the W orld in the
E ste e m of GOD: It being the End of the W orld, without which
Heaven and E a rth would be in vain. (II. 90)
C oleridge, too, d isc e rn e d the c re a tiv e synthesis im p licit in the poetic
a ct:" The poet, d e sc rib e d in id eal p erfection, b rin g s the whole soul of
m an into activity . . . " (B iographia L ite r a r ia , Ch. XIV). This " a c
tivity, " for T ra h e rn e and Sidney both, involves the creatio n of "things
. . . fa r su rp a ssin g her [N a tu re 's ] d o in g s."
The twin a ctiv ities of the poet, then, d isc e rn m e n t and a r tic u
lation, p a ra lle l in function and esp e c ial p ro b lem s the ta sk of the
w rite r of relig io u s language. It has been seen in our study of the la n
guage of the C en tu ries that T ra h e rn e both p o s se s se s and inculcates a
unique m ode of seeing, or "tru e " d iscern m en t: "You n ev er Enjoy the
W orld a rig h t," he say s, " till you see a ll things in it so p e rfec tly yours,
that you cannot d e s ire them any other way:" (I. 38); in the artic u la tio n
of this d isc e rn m e n t he w as influenced som ew hat by the linguistic m a
te ria ls that w e re available to him , but we also saw that he was able to
100
tra n sc e n d this linguistic vehicle to a c e rta in extent, achieving the
"trem en d o u s expansion, brightening and clarifying of co n scio u sn ess"
of W horf's definition. * We saw a lso that ju st a s the poet em ploys c e r
tain s tra te g ie s of language, such as P arad o x , to e x p re ss the ten sio n s
in h eren t in the fabric of a poem , so also T ra h e rn e as a relig io u s
w rite r u se s the s tra te g y of P a ra d o x to achieve sp iritu a l illum ination.
F in ally , as the poet s tru c tu re s into re a lity the entity w hich is a poem
and the ex p erien ce of a poem , so T ra h e rn e achieves and inculcates
the s tru c tu rin g of fe lic ity by a m ed itativ e and affirm ativ e u se of n o r
m ativ e p a tte rn s , or p a ra d ig m s, of "felicity. "
The tw o-w ay relatio n sh ip betw een p ercep tio n and artic u la tio n
is not outlandish, and it can be se e n in sp h e re s and a ctiv ities c o m
fo rtab ly rem o v ed fro m relig io n and poetry. By W horf's c r ite r ia , the
language sy ste m s av ailab le to us do influence our views of re a lity .
The p la c e and function of m odels is w ell esta b lish e d in the h isto ry of
scie n ce. The C o p ern ican m odel of the w orld re p la ce d in m e n 's m inds
the P to le m a ic one, but this does not p reclu d e the p o ssib ility of fu rth e r
re p la c e m e n t b y other m o d els. T h e a to m istic th e o ry in phy sics has
been re p la c e d by m odels of dynam ic energy. The concept of light
o c c u rrin g in "w aves" is a m odel th a t has been re p la c e d by the new
m odel of light in p a rtic le s . Even the e m p iric a l m ethod a s su m e s an
a p r io r i hypothesis for o b serv atio n al techniques; the hum an ap p ara tu s
itself is a fallib le one in object re p o rtin g . In m ed icin e, NASA
*See p. 19 above.
101
e x p erim en ts on the p hysiological re sp o n se of a stro n a u ts to p h y sical
and n o n -p h y sical s tr e s s have shown the n e c e s sity for the revaluation
of n o rm s fo r blood p r e s s u r e and p u lse r a te . P re v io u sly , c e rta in high
and low ceilings of blood p r e s s u r e and p u lse r a te w e re co n sid e red
dangerous by p h y sician s; e x p erim en ts have shown that, un d er c e rta in
conditions, for c e rta in people, n o rm s for th ese functions m ay differ
ra d ic a lly . In p sy c h ia try , endeavors a r e m ad e to r e - s t r u c t u r e the
p e rc e p tio n of a p atien t onto m o re " n o r m a l," "healthy" lin es. The a p
plicatio n of sem a n tic p rin c ip le s in d e n tis try has helped to r e - s tr u c tu r e
the a p p ro a ch of the fe arfu l child by rep lacin g in his thinking for w ords
connoting p ain and d isco m fo rt those connoting h ealth and p h y sica l im
p ro v em en t. The esta b lish m e n t of re lig io u s m odels in thought is no
le ss valid, and no m o re a r b itr a r y a p ro c e s s , than existing m odels of
p e rce p tio n s e t up by evolutional c u ltu re , so cia l m o re s , education,
fashion, and scien tific r e s e a r c h . T ra h e rn e w as w ell a w a re of the u se
and value of m odels of felicity , as is a p p a re n t throughout the C entu
r i e s , and the r e s u lt of cultivating th ese m o d els he tells us is as fo l
lows:
Upon the Infinit Extent of the U nderstanding and A ffection of the
Soul, s tra n g e and W onderfull Things w ill follow. 1. A m a n i
festatio n of GODs infinit Lov. 2. The P o ss e s sio n of infinit T r e a
s u re s . 3. a R e tu rn of infinit T hanksgivings. 4. A F u ln es of
Joy w hich nothing can exceed. 5. an infinit B eauty and G re a tn e ss
in the Soul. 6. An infinit B eauty in GODs Kingdom. 7. an Infinit
Union betw een GOD and the soul, (as w ell in Extent, as f e r v o r . )
8. An E xact fitn e ss betw een the P o w e rs of the Soul and its O bjects.
N either being D eso lat, b ecau s n e ith er E xceedeth the o th er.
9. An Infinit G lory in the Com m union of S aints, E v e ry one
being a T r e a s u r e to a ll the R esid u e and Enjoying the R esidue,
and in the R esidue a ll the G lo ry of a ll W orlds. 10. A P e rfe c t
102
Indw elling of the Soul in GOD, and GOD in the Soul. So th at as the
fu ln ess of the GODHEAD dw elleth in our S av io r, it sh a ll dw ell
in u s; and the C h u rch sh a ll be the fu ln ess of Him th at fille th a ll
in all: GOD being m a n ife ste d th e rb y to b e a king infinitly G reater,
b e c a u se Reigning o ver infinit Subjects. T o W hom be a ll G lo ry and
D om inion, for ev er and e v e r. A m en. (IV. 100)
The c o rre la tio n betw een the activ ity of the po et in stru c tu rin g
r e a lity and the im aginative activ ity of m en in the fa b ric a tio n of a r e
ligious co sm o s is com m en ted on by W allace Stevens in Two or T h ree
Id e a s : "It co m es to th is that w e u se the s a m e facu ltie s w hen w e w rite
p o e try th at w e u se w hen we c r e a te gods or w hen we fix the b e a rin g of
2
m en in re a lity . " Stevens evidently d is c e rn e d the tw o-w ay re la tio n
ship b etw een p e rc e p tio n and a rtic u la tio n w hen he sta te d , la te r in his
e ssa y , "th e sty le of m a n is m a n h im s e lf." O r, as Y eats w ro te with
su b lim e u n d erstan d in g , in "Am ong School C h ild ren , " "How can we
know the d a n c e r fro m the d a n c e ? "
2
Quoted in P o e ts on P o e tr y , edited b y C h a rle s N o rm an (New
Y ork, 1962), p. 374.
A P P E N D I X
TO WHAT D EG R E E IS TH E BIBLE A WORK OF
SEV EN TEEN TH CENTURY STY LE?
103
APPEN DIX
TO WHAT D EG REE IS THE BIBLE A WORK OF
SEV EN TEEN TH CENTURY STY LE?
A question w hich could c e rta in ly be ra is e d a propos of the in
fluence of the Bible upon T ra h e rn e is: to what d e g ree is the Bible i t
self a w ork of seventeenth cen tu ry style? The re la tiv e freed o m of
E lizabethan tr a n s la to r s in th e ir p ra c tic e is w ell known. T ra n sla tio n s
w e re re a lly adaptations: C hapm an's H om er expands and e lab o rates
H om er to su it E lizabethan ta ste . Can we be re aso n ab ly su re that
T r a h e r n e 's thought and tone d e riv e fro m H ebrew p a tte rn s and not fro m
those c u rre n t in his day, for T ra h e rn e w as also e sse n tia lly a m an of
his cen tu ry and au fait w ith the lite r a r y fashions of his day.
C h a rle s C. B u tterw o rth , w ritin g of the language of the King
Ja m e s Bible, * re v e a ls that "the Bible was alre a d y a little o ld -fa s h
ioned by 1611":
At f ir s t sight we m ight suppose that the King Ja m e s Bible
would have been w ritte n in the language c u rre n t in 1611, but we
m u st re c o lle c t that this v e rsio n w as based on those tra n sla te d
e a r lie r , m o re p a rtic u la rly on those published fro m 1525 to 1560.
A co m p ariso n of the Bible w ith o th er w orks w ritte n during King
J a m e s 's re ig n d isc lo se s th at the Bible w as a lre a d y a little old-
fashioned by 1611. Some dozen y e a rs la te r, in his se rm o n s ,
John Donne was no longer using -e th on the end of his v erb s
*In The L ite r a r y Lineage of the King J a m e s Bible 1340-1611
(P hiladelphia, 1941), pp. 12-20.
104
105
as a g en eral ru le,' but in stead the m o re m odern fo rm in ib; "a
r o s e blows in your garden" he w rite s, "but it calls you not to
s m e ll it. " (p. 12)
B utterw orth s tr e s s e s that th e re was a fine line of distinction p re se n t
in the m inds of the T ra n s la to rs , dating fro m even e a r lie r tim e s, b e
tween "the language of relig io u s things and that of se c u la r things"
(p. 13). He illu stra te s this by an in tere stin g and strik in g exam ination
of the language of the p reface of the King Ja m e s Bible, entitled "The
T ra n s la to rs to the R ead er. " In this p re fa c e , B utterw orth detects
exam ples both of the "biblical style of w riting" and "the u su al lite ra r y
style of 1611. "
T hus, when the T ra n s la to rs a re m indful of the s c rip tu ra l style,
they a d d re ss the R eader in lines like th ese , n e a r the close of
the preface:
It is a fearefu ll thing to fall into the hands of the liuing
God; but a b le sse d thing it is, and w ill bring vs to e u e r-
lasting b le sse d n e ss in the end, when God speaketh vnto vs,
to hearken; when he se tte th his w ord before vs, to re a d e it;
when hee stre tc h eth out his hand and calleth to an sw ere,
H ere a m I; h e re we a r e to doe thy w ill, O God.
But when they fall into the vein of com position that w as then in
vogue, they w rite concerning the v irtu e s of Holy W rit after
this fashion:
It is not onely an a rm o u r, but also a whole a r m o rie of
w eapons, both offensiue, and defensiue; w hereby we m ay
saue our selu es and put the enem ie to flight. It is not an
h erb e, but a tre e , or ra th e r a whole p a ra d ise of tre e s of
life, w hich bring foorth fru it eu ery m oneth, and the fru it
th ereo f if for m eate, and the leaues for m edicine. " etc.
- rep lete w ith biblical te rm s ; but it is h ard ly in the sty le of
p ro s e that c h a ra c te riz e s the S c rip tu re s, (p. 18)
B u tterw o rth 's conclusion is th a t "the King Ja m e s tra n s la to r s w e re not
aloof fro m the lite ra r y fashions of th e ir tim e" (p. 19). The "E p istle
D edicatory" to the King is cited as fu rth e r proof of this. M oreover,
the se rm o n s of Bishop A n d rew es--o n e of the m o st fam ous of the
T r a n s la to r s - - a r e w ritten in the fashionable "m etap h y sical" preaching
106
style of the day. " N e v e rth e le s s ," B u tterw o rth a s s e r ts , "when they
undertook the tra n sla tio n of the S c rip tu re s, they w isely p r e fe r r e d to
re ta in the tra d itio n a l sty le of Bible language. "
B u tterw o rth co n cu rs w ith M iss C h a se 's conclusions in som e of
his re m a rk s on the types of fig u res of speech and diction which s u r
vived in th eir E nglish tra n slatio n :
To the H ebrew tongue our Bible owes m uch of its d ire c tn e ss and
fo rc e , esp ecially as they find e x p ressio n in the hom ely c o m p a ri
sons and v e ry telling fig u res of sp eech with w hich the O. T.
abounds. A lso, in the poetical books, we owe to the H ebrew the
effective device of p a ra lle l s tru c tu re w ith its se n se of balance
and c o n tra st, as we have noted before, (p. 20)
The device of p a r a lle lis m is p erh ap s the su p re m e exam ple of the s u r
vival in tra n sla tio n of H ebrew language and thought s tru c tu re s and, at
the sam e tim e, of the c a re of the T ra n s la to rs not to obtrude th e ir own
idiom or to m ake an adaptation of the o rig in al into the popular language
m odes of the day. That som e of the p h ra se s b ecam e everyday ones is
due larg ely to the dom inance of the Bible in the ensuing decades of the
century; it is not, co n v ersely , that the T ra n s la to rs chose everyday
ex p ressio n s to convey the tenor of the S c rip tu re s.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
107
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A risto tle. The P h y s ic s , with an E nglish tra n sla tio n by P h ilip H.
W icksteed and F ra n c is M. C ornford. 2 vols. London, 1957.
A yer, A. J. Language, T ru th and L o g ic. London, 1947.
The Boke of Com m on P ra y e r and A d m in istracio u n of the S a c ra m e n te s ,
and other R ites and C erem o n ies in the C hurche of England.
London, E dw ard W hytchurche, 1552. R ep rin ted E verym an
L ib ra ry , n. d.
B o ttrall, M a rg a re t. " T ra h e rn e 's P r a is e of the C reatio n , " C ritic al
Q u a rte rly , I (Sum m er 1959), 126-133.
B rooks, Cleanth. The Well W rought U rn . New Y ork, 1947.
Brou, A lexandre, S. J. Ignatian M ethods of P r a y e r . T ra n sla te d
fro m the F re n c h by W illiam J. Young, S. J. M ilwaukee, 1949.
Brow ne, Sir T hom as. Religio M edici. With an Introduction by R u s
se ll K irk. New York, 1956.
B runner, E m il. The D ivine-H um an E n c o u n te r. P hladelphia, 1943.
Bush, Douglas. E nglish L ite ra tu re in the E a rlie r Seventeenth C en
tury: 1600-1660. Oxford, 1945.
B utterw orth, C h arles C. The L ite ra ry Lineage of the King Ja m e s
Bible 1340-1611. P hiladelphia, 1941.
C hase, M ary E llen. Life and Language in the Old T e stam en t. New
Y ork, 1955.
Colie, R osalie L. P arad o x ia E pidem ica: The R en a issa n c e T radition
of P arad o x . P rin ceto n , 1966.
_________ . "T hom as T ra h e rn e and the Infinite: The E th ical C o m p ro
m ise , " HLQ, XXI (N ovem ber 1957), 69-82.
D ictionary of the B ib le, ed. Ja m e s H asting. 5 vols. Edinburgh, 1923.
Donne, John. B iath an ato s. New York: F a c s im ile Text Society, 1930.
_________ . P a rad o x es and P ro b le m s. London: N onesuch, n. d.
108
109
E liot, T h o m as S te a rn s. S elected E s s a y s . New Y ork, 1932.
G oldsm ith, R o b e rt H illis. W ise F o o ls in S h a k e sp e a re . M ichigan,
1955.
H epburn, R onald W. "T h o m a s T ra h e rn e : The N atu re and D ignity of
Im ag in atio n , " C am b rid g e Jo u rn a l, VI (S eptem ber 1953),
725-734.
H utchison, John A. Language and F a ith : S tudies in Sign, S y m b o l,
and M ean in g . P h ila d elp h ia , 1963.
Lyly, John A. E uphues: The A natom y of W it/E u p h u es His E n gland,
ed. M o rr is W illiam C ro ll and H a rry C lem en s. New Y ork,
1916.
M a rk s, C a ro l L. "T h o m as T r a h e r n e and C a m b rid g e P la to n is m ,"
P M L A , LXXXI (D e c e m b e r 1966), 521-534.
" T r a h e r n e 's C h u rc h 's Y e a r Book, " PBSA ( F ir s t Q u a rte r
1966), 31-72.
M a rtz , L ouis L. The M ed itativ e P o e m . N ew Y ork, 1963.
_________ . The P a r a d is e W ithin: Studies in V aughan, T ra h e rn e , and
MiltorT New H aven and London, 1964.
M ellone, S. H. " P a ra d o x , " in E ncyclopedia of R elig io n and E th ic s ,
IX (New Y ork, 1917).
M itchell, F . F r a s e r . E n g lish P u lp it O r a to ry fro m A n d rew es to
T illo ts o n . London, 1932.
N o rm an , C h a rle s , ed. P o e ts on P o e tr y . New Y ork, 1962.
P e r r in e , L a u re n c e . " P o e tr y B egins W ith W o rd s ." In T. J. K ails en
and D. E. McCoy, R h e to ric and R eading: O rd e r and Id e a .
N ew Y ork, 1963.
R am sey , Ian T. C h ris tia n D is c o u rs e : Som e L o g ical E x p lo ra tio n s .
London, 1965.
_________ . R elig io u s L anguage: An E m p iric a l P la c in g of T h eo lo g ical
P h r a s e s . London, 1957.
R ic h a rd s , I. A. P rin c ip le s of L ite r a r y C ritic is m . London, 1926.
R ickaby, Jo se p h , S. J. The S p iritu a l E x e rc is e s of St. Ignatius Loyola:
S panish and E n g lish w ith a C ontinuous C o m m e n ta ry ! London,
1915.
110
Siegel, Ben. "E lem en ts of the Old T e sta m e n t in E a rly Seventeenth
C entury E n g lish P o e try . " U npublished d o c to r's d isse rta tio n .
U n iv ersity of Southern C alifornia, 1956.
S tevens, W allace. The N e c e s s a ry Angel: E ss a y s on R eality and the
Im agination. New Y ork, 1965.
S treng, F r e d e r ic k J. "T he P ro b le m of Sym bolic S tru c tu re s in R e li
gious A p p re h e n sio n ," H isto ry of R eligions, IV (Sum m er 1964),
126-153.
T a n n er, L aw ren ce M elvin. "T hom as T r a h e r n e 's C e n tu rie s of M edi
ta tio n s : A C ritic a l Introduction with A nnotations fo r the
F i r s t and Second C e n tu rie s. " U npublished d o c to r's d i s s e r
tation. New Y ork U n iv ersity , 1959.
T hom as, J. Heywood. Subjectivity and P a ra d o x . Oxford, 1943.
T ra h e rn e , T hom as. C e n tu rie s, P o e m s and T hanksgivings, ed.
H. M. M argoliouth. 2 vols. Oxford, 1958.
U rm so n , J. O. P h ilo so p h ical A n aly sis: Its D evelopm ent Betw een the
Two W orld W a rs . O xford, 1956.
Van B uren, Paul. " The S ecular M eaning of the G ospels. New York,
1964.
W ade, Gladys J. T hom as T ra h e rn e . W ith a S elected B ibliography
by R o b ert A lle rto n P a r k e r . P rin c e to n , 1944.
W allace, John M alcolm . "T hom as T ra h e rn e and the S tru c tu re of
M ed itatio n ," E L H , XXV (June 1958), 79-89.
W horf, B enjam in L ee. Language, Thought, and R eality, ed. John B.
C a rro ll. M a s s a c h u s e tts , 1956.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

'Evan Harrington': An Analysis Of George Meredith'S Revisions

PDF

'Disorderly Order' In The Garden Literature Of Browne, Marvell, And Milton

PDF

Censorship And The Victorian Drama

PDF

Joyce-Bergson Correspondences In The Theory And Time Structure Of 'Dubliners,' 'A Portrait,' And 'Ulysses'

PDF

Moral Ambiguity In John Updike'S Short Stories

PDF

The Novels Of Joyce Cary In Relation To His Critical Writings

PDF

A Structural Analysis Of Shakespeare'S Early Comedies

PDF

George Henry Lewes' Evolutionism In The Fiction Of George Eliot

PDF

William Faulkner: From Past To Self-Discovery; A Study Of His Life And Work Through 'Sartoris' (1929)

PDF

The Evolution Of The Humours Character In Seventeenth-Century English Comedy

PDF

A Critical Edition Of Thomas Heywood'S 'The Wise Woman Of Hogsdon' With Introduction And Notes

PDF

The Dramatic Function Of Comic Elements In Three Shakespearean Love Tragedies

PDF

George Orwell'S Utopian Vision

PDF

An Investigation Of The Forms And Defenses Of Teleological Ethical Theories, With Emphasis On The Ethical Theory Of Brand Blanshard

PDF

The Poetic Dramas Of Robinson Jeffers

PDF

William Faulkner'S "Absalom, Absalom!": An Exercise In Affirmation

PDF

The Artful Artificer, Bertolt Brecht: A Study Of Six 'Bearbeitungen.'

PDF

Mexico, Modern Literature, And The Search For Soul

PDF

Law In The Old Stoa And Its Antecedents

PDF

The Theme Of Communication In The "Essais" Of Montaigne

Asset Metadata

Creator Ames, Kenneth John (author)

Core Title The Religious Language Of Thomas Traherne'S 'Centuries'

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program English

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Literature, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Arnold, Aerol (committee chair), O'Dea, Richard J. (committee member), Robb, J. Wesley (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-581106

Unique identifier UC11360768

Identifier 6801181.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-581106 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6801181.pdf

Dmrecord 581106

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ames, Kenneth John

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA