Search

Focusing on the conceptions of imagination in both the analytic prose and poetry of S.T. Coleridge, C.S. Lewis, and Wendell Berry, the argument of my thesis is for two related elements. First, I argue that Lewis and Berry stand within a Coleridgean heritage regarding their conceptions of imagination and, second, that both embody the imagination's ecotheological quality possible in the heritage itself, though there is a progression in ecotheological explicitness from Lewis to Berry. In my Preface, I specify my methodology, set out definitions, and justify and outline the thesis itself. In an effort to ground my work and shed light on the Coleridgean heritage, in Chapter One, I argue from Coleridge's analytic prose that there are ecotheological possibilities within the theory of the imagination embodied therein. Furthermore, I demonstrate that in Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner these possibilities reach a full, ecotheological expression in ecological, ethical action, establishing the heritage in which Lewis and Berry stand. In Chapters Two and Three, I explore how Lewis stands within a Coleridgean heritage regarding his conception of imagination and embodies the imagination's ecotheological quality, the foundations of which can be discerned through an expositional analysis of his analytic prose but the fullness of which can be uncovered with more clarity through an exploration of his poetry. In Chapters Four and Five, I explore how Berry stands within a Coleridgean heritage regarding his conception of imagination and embodies the imagination's ecotheological quality in both his analytic prose-and more explicitly than Lewis does-and his poetry. Finally, in my Conclusion, and in addition to summarizing the terrain explored, I briefly offer a theologically constructive critique of the Coleridgean heritage, as well as note the larger implications of my project both for Christian, theological conceptions of imagination and the arts and Christian endeavours in ecotheology.

Scholars and storytellers alike have deemed George MacDonald a great mythopoeic writer, an exemplar of the art. Examination of this accolade by those who first applied it to him proves it profoundly theological: for them a mythopoeic tale was a relational medium through which transformation might occur, transcending boundaries of time and space. The implications challenge much contemporary critical study of MacDonald, for they demand that his literary life and his theological life cannot be divorced if either is to be adequately assessed. Yet they prove consistent with the critical methodology MacDonald himself models and promotes. Utilizing MacDonald’s relational methodology evinces his intentional facilitating of Mythopoesis. It also reveals how oversights have impeded critical readings both of MacDonald’s writing and of his character. It evokes a redressing of MacDonald’s relationship with his Scottish cultural, theological, and familial environment – of how his writing is a response that rises out of these, rather than, as has so often been asserted, a mere reaction against them. Consequently it becomes evident that key relationships, both literary and personal, have been neglected in MacDonald scholarship – relationships that confirm MacDonald’s convictions and inform his writing, and the examination of which restores his identity as a literature scholar. Of particular relational import in this reassessment is A.J. Scott, a Scottish visionary intentionally chosen by MacDonald to mentor him in a holistic Weltanschauung. Little has been written on Scott, yet not only was he MacDonald’s prime influence in adulthood, but he forged the literary vocation that became MacDonald’s own. Previously unexamined personal and textual engagement with John Ruskin enables entirely new readings of standard MacDonald texts, as does the textual engagement with Matthew Arnold and F.D. Maurice. These close readings, informed by the established context, demonstrate MacDonald’s emergence, practice, and intent as a mythopoeic writer.