Citing Robert Frost and Nature

I have lost count of how many times I've heard a particular line from a Robert Frost poem quoted, but quoted in a way that misrepresents it.  The line is:  "Good fences make good neighbors."  People who quote that line get the words right but usually take it out of context. Taken by itself, the line makes it sound as if Frost is saying it is good to construct some sort of wall between people.  However, in the poem, that line comes not from the lips of the speaker of the poem, but instead from the speaker's neighbor.  And the thoughts of the speaker -- quite opposite to the quoted line -- are:  "Something there is that doesn't love a wall...."  The judgment against the neighbor is reinforced by the speaker's saying that the wall-loving neighbor "moves in darkness."

As with many of Frost's poems, physical objects (in this case, the wall) are symbols for something larger, something about human psychology or interpersonal relationships.  Frost's favorite objects to employ in this way are those from Nature. Birch trees, stars, and tiny bugs all make appearances on Robert Frost's poetic stage.  Despite that symbolic role Nature often plays in Frost's poems, the features of Nature he uses are not just poetic devices.  Although the poet's main concern is humans, he is also interested in a right attitude toward Nature.  There is thus in the poems an actual connection between humans and Nature, not an artificial linking.  In Frost's poems, Nature, when viewed in the right way, is frequently able to be a real guide for human behavior.  Nature can be a true reference point.  It has lessons to teach.

For example, in the poem "Mending Wall" that the frequently quoted line comes from, the speaker cites Nature -- in the form of expanding, frozen ground -- as the cause of the wall's continually falling apart:

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,

That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,..."

The wall made of piled boulders, if it is to be maintained, requires mending every year not because it was poorly built but because it defied Nature.  The neighbor ("in darkness") seems to not be recognizing Nature's teaching that even the relatively solid earth will change.  Nature is not only a source of order but also a source of the undoing of order.

The contemporary Christian John Haught, from a theological perspective, raises a similar question.  Citing Biblical passages such as God saying, "See, I am making all things new," (Rev. 21:5, NRSV), Haught asks:  "Why should we think of God principally as a 'designer?'  Isn't God also the source of novelty?  And doesn't the introduction of novelty inevitably disrupt perfect design?"

The real trick is learning what features of Nature to cite when.  When, as guidance, do I cite the stable features of Nature, and when do I cite the changing ones?  I need to have knowledge not only of the non-human sphere of Nature but also of the human sphere -- understanding how we are both similar and dissimilar to the rest of the natural world.  Knowing how to interpret the world thus calls for growing in wisdom.

~~~

Is there any way you try to be guided by Nature?  Any way you are inspired by it?

(The Haught quote is from Responses to 101 Questions

 on God and Evolution by John F. Haught.  © 2001.  p. 87.)

(The entire Robert Frost poem can be read at this external link:  "Mending Wall.")

A Forgotten Lincoln Quote

In his day, Abraham Lincoln stood out in a crowd because he was unusually tall.  Today, however, Lincoln's birthday gets lost in the crowd of mid-February celebrations.  When the U.S. federal holidays were standardized, a generic "Presidents' Day" was created (partly because only northern states celebrated Lincoln, whereas more states celebrated George Washington). More recently, a growing number of churches, synagogues, and mosques celebrate Evolution Weekend in order to emphasize that the scientific theory of evolution can be compatible with religion.  That Evolution Weekend is placed near Charles Darwin's birthday.  Unfortunately, by sheer coincidence, Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day -- Feb. 12 -- and so Lincoln can also get eclipsed by Darwin.

I suggest we might let Lincoln back into the February conversation, by bringing him in through the back door, so to speak.  Most of our documentaries on Lincoln are about the Civil War, so we miss out on what goodness developed in that man without that national tragedy.  I would propose we begin our recovery of our picture of Lincoln's character with a virtually forgotten statement widely attributed to him:

 "I care not much for a man’s religion
whose dog and cat are not better for it."

That quotation could even be slipped into an Evolution Day sermon.  After all, Evolution Weekend events bring into one world-view religion and the evolutionary web of life.  So also does Lincoln's statement bring together thoughts of religion with thoughts of other forms of life. Specifically, those we encounter most frequently, our pets.  Moreover, because Lincoln is considered a secular figure, not a religious leader, the quotation attributed to him is easily ecumenical:  It could be used by Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other faith-tradition.  It could even be used by those who do not practice any organized religion, but who might think of an individual's "religion" as being that person's deepest values and way of living.

If it seems strange to our ears to hear the test of a person's religion being whether their "dog and cat are... better for it," one reason would be that over the past several centuries, most Christian theology in the West has become narrowed down to the human sphere.  This was not always the case.  The Hebrew Bible (which constitutes the Christian Old Testament) contains examples of how in Biblical times, religion included a number of directives for the considerate treatment of animals.  Although in the culture depicted in the Bible people did not have dogs or cats as pets, they did have domesticated animals.  And the heart of Biblical thought on how such animals should be treated was expressed by the following proverb (in which "righteous" means people who act rightly):

        "The righteous care about their livestock's needs."  (Prov. 12:10a)

Abraham Lincoln is for many people a symbol of strong moral character.  Few people, I dare say, when thinking of Lincoln think of how a person's religion could be revealed in how that person treats their pets.

~~~

What do you think about the Lincoln quote and the Biblical proverb?

(Proverbs 12:10a is given in the translation of the Common English Bible, © 2011.)
(Both illustrations are in the public domain because their copyrights have expired.)

(You can read about Evolution Weekend at this external link:  Evolution Weekend)