Our shifting senses on nature

Our shifting senses on nature

The summit of Mount Brandon • Photo © Jodi Raymo

Originally published 3 September 2002

COUNTY KERRY, IRELAND — Climbed Mount Bran­don the oth­er day. Ire­land’s sec­ond-high­est moun­tain. Named after Saint Bren­dan who had a her­mitage on the sum­mit in the 6th cen­tu­ry. It was from a cove at the foot of the moun­tain that the saint set sail in an oxskin boat on a voy­age that sup­pos­ed­ly took him to Florida.

Well, no won­der. If you lived in the west of Ire­land, you’d want to reach Flori­da, too, espe­cial­ly after forty days and nights of soli­tude on the cloud­i­est peak in Christendom.

Any­way, I climbed up there the oth­er day for maybe the hun­dredth time. Up through a mist-filled defile and rain-slicked head­wall. Reached the sum­mit in a blow­ing gale. Joined a clique of oth­er climbers hud­dled against the wind. All of us pleased as punch to be there.

Why? What plea­sure in climb­ing a moun­tain in cold mist, huff­ing and puff­ing, legs quiv­er­ing like bow strings?

Why? Because it’s there, that’s why. Because even in wind and rain, the moun­tain is majes­tic. Maybe the moun­tain is espe­cial­ly majes­tic in wind and rain.

Some years ago, the lit­er­ary crit­ic Mar­jorie Hope Nichol­son wrote a book called Moun­tain Gloom and Moun­tain Glo­ry show­ing how our atti­tude towards moun­tains changed in the 18th cen­tu­ry, as reflect­ed in Eng­lish literature.

Writ­ers of the pre­ced­ing cen­turies spoke of moun­tains as “tumors” and “blis­ters” on the land­scape, fear­ful places to stay away from. The idea that one might go to the moun­tains for aes­thet­ic or spir­i­tu­al rea­sons was sim­ply not entertained.

In fact, many medieval Chris­t­ian writ­ers believed that moun­tains were not a part of the orig­i­nal cre­ation at all, but were a con­se­quence of Adam’s sin, or of Cain’s trans­gres­sion, or (since moun­tains are not men­tioned in the Bible before the sto­ry of Noah) part of God’s plan to pun­ish the Earth by flood.

Then, accord­ing to Nichol­son, with­in a few gen­er­a­tions near the end of the 17th cen­tu­ry, “moun­tain gloom” gave way to “moun­tain glo­ry.” Poets and philoso­phers began cel­e­brat­ing moun­tains as places of grandeur. Climbers attempt­ed sum­mits in search of the sublime.

Moun­tains were no longer sources of fear, but instead inspired rev­er­ence and exhil­a­ra­tion. Sum­mit­ing a peak evoked feel­ings of pride and sat­is­fac­tion. Moun­taineer­ing became a sport and pas­time. William Wordsworth walked the high ridges of the Lake Dis­trict “awed, delight­ed, and amazed.”

What hap­pened, says Nichol­son, was the Enlight­en­ment, and the begin­nings of geol­o­gy as a sci­ence. Expe­ri­en­tial know­ing replaced scrip­tures and tra­di­tion as sources of truth about nature. There was a shift of focus from the super­nat­ur­al to the nat­ur­al, from mir­a­cle to law, from unfound­ed fear to insa­tiable curiosity.

And nature, for the first time since antiq­ui­ty, was seen as good, or at least not as intrin­si­cal­ly evil.

When Adam and Eve were cast out of the gar­den, they were in a sense cast out of nature itself. “Cursed is the ground for thy sake,” pro­nounced an angry deity in Gen­e­sis, and this is the the­ol­o­gy of cor­rupt­ed nature that John Mil­ton describes in Par­adise Lost. When Eve bit into the apple:

Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat,
Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe.

The Enlight­en­ment changed all that. Begin­ning with the artists of the Ital­ian Renais­sance, con­tin­u­ing through the Sci­en­tif­ic Rev­o­lu­tion, and com­ing to ful­fill­ment in the Enlight­en­ment, nature was res­cued from its pre­sumed fall­en state and restored to glo­ry. The moun­tains became again, in the poet Lord Byron’s words, “palaces of Nature.” He wrote:

Are not the mountains, waves, and skies, a part
Of me and of my soul, as I of them?
Is not the love of these deep in my heart
With a pure passion?

Per­haps Saint Bren­dan, as he ascend­ed to his her­mitage, exult­ed, as we do, in the grandeur of the moun­tain. Schol­ars of ear­ly Irish Chris­tian­i­ty tell us that a the­ol­o­gy of cor­rupt­ed nature had not yet tak­en hold on the west­ern fringe of Europe when Bren­dan was about. The God of the ear­ly Irish saints, like the gods of their Celtic ances­tors, was imma­nent in every fea­ture of the nat­ur­al land­scape. If so, then the moun­tains might have been for Bren­dan both glo­ri­ous and holy.

Glo­ri­ous and holy, too, for the 19th-cen­tu­ry geol­o­gists who rec­og­nized in the steep-sided val­leys on Mount Bran­don’s flanks the first evi­dence of ice ages in North­ern Europe. They tramped these ridges and glens unde­terred by gloom, exam­in­ing every glacial scratch, map­ping every fault and fold­ed stra­tum. We know from their jour­nals that they thought the moun­tains beautiful.

Glo­ri­ous and holy, too, for us mod­ern pil­grims to Bran­don’s sum­mit, with our Vibram soles, fleece jack­ets, car­bon-fiber hik­ing sticks, and pop-top plas­tic water bot­tles. Let the gales rage! Even the almost cer­ti­tude of inclement weath­er is part of the appeal.

Share this Musing: