The nature description at the
beginning and natural imagery at the end contribute, in my opinion, to
Coleridge’s idea of a “bloodless fight.” Instead of the act of revolution,
Coleridge wanted to comment and critique through publications against the Democrats
and aristocrats. By contrasting the natural and simplistic condition that the
country should be in with the brutal and complicated description of battle,
Coleridge almost makes the war seem unnatural. I read it as him saying that war
disrupts what is supposed to be. In addition, I think by ending the poem with
the return to nature, Coleridge is predicted the necessity to end war and return
to the natural harmony. Countrymen most come together and embrace “nature’s quietness”
by “indulging love,” not battle. In addition, I think by representing himself peaceful in nature, his audience is more inclined to accept his beliefs. He presents his ideas by including the serene "thoughts that yearn for human kind." By doing so, it seems unnatural to go against him.
You bring up an interesting point here. The suggestion that nature's quietness must be embraced through love, rather than battle, nevertheless does not cede the reality that battle may, eventually bring man into harmony with nature. That is, war might eventually breed enough death to either A) generate a massive depopulation or B) gorge man on bloodlust until he grows tired or making war. While this apocalyptic melodrama may be a bit of a stretch, I do think that Coleridge includes the subtle implication in order to make a return to nature all the more appealing.
ReplyDelete